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.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

Chaospling wrote:
I've been reading the thread (I'm at page 52) but I was wondering how big a problem space for your troops is. Let's say that the points cost were lowered for squads and tanks alike so you better could get the feeling of huge numbers of infantry and tanks, would the size of the 4' x 6' be against you?

If yes, what do you think of the idea of getting some squads (maybe also tanks) to arrive later (turn 3 or 4) and also that these unit were cheaper as they'd spend less turns on the table?

I think it's doable, but then I prefer 1500, not 2000, on my 4x6 boards...

I had previously suggested BOGO formations, whereby the first unit must start on the table, and the "free" unit must start in Reserves, which is basically codifying what you wrote.

Yes, I like your idea. How many normal Infantry squads do you roughly bring in a 1500 points army and what is your estimate of a maximum number of squads which would still give you room to maneuver? Is 15 Infantry squads too many? Not counting any Special weapon and Heavy weapon squads.

 master of ordinance wrote:
The problem with the Guard is not our numbers, its our power level. I can already flood the board with several hundred Infantry and a few tanks in an average game but the problem is that these will A) die rapidly and B) usually fail to do anything. Sure, I have a hell of a lot of shots but at S3 AP- they struggle to take down most things in the current game. Yes I have hundred of bodies, but each of these is T3 and has a 5+ save, they die to just about every weapon out there and they die in droves.
Its the same with the tanks. Marine players see a Leman Russ and go "OMG AP3 pieplate instakillz ma dudes on AV14 for 150 iz OP broken cheeze!!!111!!!!!111" but in fact the Russ is really lacklustre. The pieplate often scatters miles and can be negated by spreading your troops out or using cover (a concept I know most SM players struggle with but it is there) whilst the vehicle can be outrun by basic Infantry (6" move and cannot boost) but at the same time its secondary weapons automatically snapshoot if the main gun fires.

So, TLDR numbers are not the iissue, Guard armies are big enough as it is. The problem lies in the pathetic powerlevel we are forced to cope with.

I have to comment on the usage of cover with meqs. Many metas have shifted to mass wound spam instead of low ap. Against this approach, cover is useless. Furthmore, marines are often desperately trying to get into assault. Cover slows down movement, which is at odds with wanting to assault.

Again, meqs are incredibly weak in 7th ed Guardsmen in cover are more durable and provide more dakka against most opponents. Marines are fearsome in spite of being an meq army, not because of it. BA being substantially inferior to ig is goog evidence of this. BA suck because we have to rely on meqs.

 master of ordinance wrote:
AP1 is just no enough though. Not for THE tankhunter of 40K. Give it a massive boost on the damage chart - +4 at least - so that it can KO a tank in one hit.

The reason that it works against MC's is because an MC is not a soft target. An MC is a massive feth off monster with a thick hide or chitin plates. It is essentially a walking tank. Or in the case of the Tau/Eldar dickery a Walker masquerading as an MC/GMC for the buff. It is essentially a walking hard target, hence why AP shells should butcher them. Besides, if an AP shell hits something the sheer impact of a high velocity larger calibre slug is going to do masses of damae anyway. Ever seen a .50 round hit someone? Now scale that up to a 75mm or 105mm shell.

1st part, yeah I did include AP1 by itself was not enough. It should take at least 2 HP in my personal opinion.

The main difference being that when you get to tank round size the 50. cal argument falls apart (also the normal instant death if double S compared to T rule still applies). The reason the US reduced round size, as did the Russian rejecting the 57mm gun was the fact the rounds would punch straight through targets without doing much damage (and the russian example was vs other tanks). The other difference with the Vanquisher rounds is very little explosive in comparison to normal rounds. Now I understand it's a special round, but I fail to see why a dedicated tank hunter, should also be a MC killer.

Giving a vanquisher a free beast hunter shell makes it an auto include for all the wrong reasons. You now have a unit that can knock too much out, can auto kill too many different units, Armourbane, plus blast so can damage more than one model. Now say it was a free upgrade as you suggested and they removed the blast, while not 100% convinced on it not being OP, I would say it makes the gun less useful. Possibly also make it only instant death vs MC's?

I personally feel a player should be punished for using too many AT vehicles vs an infantry heavy force. Especially seeing how the Vanquisher is cheaper than a standard russ.

The reason I suggested a +4 is because the Vanquisher should be killing tanks in one hit, not just crippling them. +4 turns it from a 'Well, it might hurt my tank' grade threat to a 'OH £*^%, VANQUISHER' grade threat.
Once again, Fleshbane is because we are not shooting this thing at soft targets, we are shooting it at what are essentially walking tanks (carnifex, Battlesuits, Riptides, Wraithknights, Hive Tyrants, etc). These things have as much, if not more, protection as a tank.

Chaospling wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

Chaospling wrote:
would the size of the 4' x 6' be against you?

I think it's doable, but then I prefer 1500, not 2000, on my 4x6 boards...

I had previously suggested BOGO formations, whereby the first unit must start on the table, and the "free" unit must start in Reserves, which is basically codifying what you wrote.

Yes, I like your idea. How many normal Infantry squads do you roughly bring in a 1500 points army and what is your estimate of a maximum number of squads which would still give you room to maneuver? Is 15 Infantry squads too many? Not counting any Special weapon and Heavy weapon squads.

For 1,500 pts, I'd sink roughly half into men and half into armor (I like my tanks), so that'd work out to 10-ish infantry units, of which 5 would be ordinary Platoon infantry, the rest being CCS, PCS, HWS / SWS. Space wouldn't be an issue, especially if I were to Mech a portion of it.

If it's more Apoc-like, I'll field a Warhound, a Tank or two, a Platoon and some Mechvets. No problem deploying into my 3 feet of the board edge.

I believe most of you when you say that somehow Astra Militarum is underpowered but please look at these numbers:

It takes 89,2857 points of Guardsmen (1 Lasgun shot per Guardsman) to kill one Space Marine.

It takes 31,5 points of Space Marines (1 Boltgun shot per Space Marine) to kill one Guardsman.

The ratio is 31,5/89,2857 = 0,3528.

We can look at their points cost ratio and multiply with this to see how close we are to 1 (the closer the more balanced) or we can look at the inverted points cost ratio to directly compare the ratios (I prefer this one):

5/14 = 0,3571.

Those ratios are actually very close to each other. So it seems that the damage output of lasguns isn't a problem, at least compared to a Space Marine's boltgun. What are your thoughts about this?

Isn't it an advantage to have the same amount of damage out in fewer models, both in terms of movement but also when comparing how fast damage output is reduced when numbers are easy reduced? Think about a perfectly balanced titan (damage output-wise) only gets it's damage output reduced when it's destroyed.

Edit: Grammar.

 master of ordinance wrote:
The reason I suggested a +4 is because the Vanquisher should be killing tanks in one hit, not just crippling them. +4 turns it from a 'Well, it might hurt my tank' grade threat to a 'OH £*^%, VANQUISHER' grade threat.
Once again, Fleshbane is because we are not shooting this thing at soft targets, we are shooting it at what are essentially walking tanks (carnifex, Battlesuits, Riptides, Wraithknights, Hive Tyrants, etc). These things have as much, if not more, protection as a tank.

haha again with the first part I'm not disagreeing with you

Second point, there is a rather massive (if non intentional) realistic difference between MC's and vehicles. Spalling. A tank/vehicle will experience a rather large amount of spalling when penetrated. Also due to very little internal room, the spalling and shell/filler will fill most of the fighting compartment with very sharp and/or hot projectiles.

A MC, being a mech suit or organic will lack theses effect for a variety of reasons. A mech MC has the pilot in a very small and contained fighting compartment, unless the compartment is hit dead on (most likely killing the pilot anyway), spalling in say the chest or leg will not kill the crew akin to spalling in a tank, which will hit the crew dues to the much larger (in comparison) fighting compartment that most penetrating shots will enter. Also concerning organic creatures, especially with Chintin or hide, spalling would not occur at all, also any fragments would hit the organic material around the entry point. Seeing the organic MC have evolved to deal with extreme damage with very few/unprotected vital organs, again direct hits would be required to specific body parts. The only reason beast hunter shells work is not due to blowing a MC to bits, it works because of a bioacid. I personally think MC's should be dealt with by other units (which in of themselves may need improvements).

Now I don't deny the Beast hunter shell should be given to "normal" vanquishers, just the call for it to be a universal or free upgrade. The Beast Hunter should be akin to APCR in WW2, rare, expensive and used in desperate situations. A normal vanquisher should pay for it and limit it to one or two shots. And that is "only" if Vanquishers and the Beast Hunter rounds stay how they currently are.

I personally have been turned to thinking the vast majority of the codex's issues, as with the vanquisher, be mostly sorted by an almost universal point cut and accuracy buffs to units that use heavy weapons.

Ah, sorry, I see where you are coming from. Personally I am in the 'just give us something that can handle these damn MC/GMC's' so in all honesty I do not care what it is, just so long as it does the job
However, walkers may not have these compartments but they have vulnerable systems, just as MC/GMC's have vital organs. a great big hole in these would be.... disatrous

I am not so keen on more price cuts myself, whilst many things are overpriced and in desperate need of a cut too many cuts will just mean that we are deploying even more useless units and the Guard are feeling bloated as things are right now. There is a limit as to how man units you can cram on to the board sadly.

Here's the problem:
Armourbane weapons are given that rule to represent the fact that they don't cause spalling or internal damage.
They're given that rule to represent the sheer penetrative force of the round. If they're doing that to a tank, then they should be doing the same amount of damage to an organic creature.

I've been advocating for awhile to have Armourbane weapons given some kind of secondary effect against MCs/GMCs. Fleshbane sounds about right.

 Baldeagle91 wrote:
Second point, there is a rather massive (if non intentional) realistic difference between MC's and vehicles. Spalling. A tank/vehicle will experience a rather large amount of spalling when penetrated. Also due to very little internal room, the spalling and shell/filler will fill most of the fighting compartment with very sharp and/or hot projectiles.

That is completely untrue. If you watch Girls Und Panzer, there is zero spalling even in an old WW2-era tank. Hell, there isn't even an issue with riveted hulls. That's why they're totally OK, even wearing their regular civilian school clothes.

(supposedly, there is an aramid spall liner that you never see...)

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Baldeagle91 wrote:
Second point, there is a rather massive (if non intentional) realistic difference between MC's and vehicles. Spalling. A tank/vehicle will experience a rather large amount of spalling when penetrated. Also due to very little internal room, the spalling and shell/filler will fill most of the fighting compartment with very sharp and/or hot projectiles.

That is completely untrue. If you watch Girls Und Panzer, there is zero spalling even in an old WW2-era tank. Hell, there isn't even an issue with riveted hulls. That's why they're totally OK, even wearing their regular civilian school clothes.

(supposedly, there is an aramid spall liner that you never see...)

A fellow GUP fan - its great to meet you

The reason for the lack of spalling there is two fold:
A) as you mentioned there is a special lining within the tank which helps prevent excessively powerful shells from harming the crew but....
B).... The shells that the tanks fire are not actual AP shells. They are specially modified to throw up a blast and look flashy. When they hit a special chip within the shell tells a Black Box within the tank it hit its location, the type of shell used and its travelled distance. The Black Box then decides whether or not the tank is knocked out.
If the tank suffers incapacitating damage - IE it is flipped or the engine burns out then the Black Box also KO's the tank.

TBH, I just watch GUP for the tank pr0n.

 master of ordinance wrote:
A fellow GUP fan - its great to meet you

Dakka, vor!

(Oh, and remember that the film is coming out on the 21st!)

I really don't like the fact that weapons such as the autocannons can fight off dreads and killer kans, yet becomes far less effective when the metal walker is (seemingly) arbitrarily given the status of "monstrous creature" and a 3+ save. Even missile launchers become useless when the target is a Riptide. I think the whole walker / monstrous creature divide is utterly senseless, and so until it's fixed I'm naturally going to be biased towards anything that helps a tank-killer take out "monstrous creatures".

Of course, a lot of the stuff makes me a little nuts. Like when they went up against Schwarzwald, and the schoolgirl crew was repairing thrown tracks & road wheels...

That completely broke my suspension of disbelief. A few 100-lb girls are NOT pulling a track back on, or rolling a road wheel. Hell, a 200-lb man would have trouble with that (I think a Panther road wheel is something like 150 lbs).

Even opening some of the roof hatches...

But the tanks are so cool!
____

A Dread is just a big Terminator, so it shouldn't be that hard to kill. And a Kan is mild steel, so even weaker.

I still stand that the riptide shouldn't exist at all, (not only not supported by the fluff up until then, but actually against it) but maybe that's just me.

Maybe instead of a shell for both MCs and vehicles, a speicifc monster hunter shell? A direct fire AP2 shell with fleshbane, but middling strength (like 7 or so)? So you get the normal battle-cannon shells basic and may purchase either the tank hunter shell or the monster hunter shell for 5 points (after a price decrease on the base). That would mean that it isn't a one click solution to everything, while at the same time being flexible and useful.

This is GW, so anti-MC shells should have the same overcost premium as Skyfire.

What do you mean by that?

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
TBH, I just watch GUP for the tank pr0n.

i don't think anyone watches it for it's quality as an anime... it's all about the tanks! lol

 Kanluwen wrote:
Here's the problem:
Armourbane weapons are given that rule to represent the fact that they don't cause spalling or internal damage.
They're given that rule to represent the sheer penetrative force of the round. If they're doing that to a tank, then they should be doing the same amount of damage to an organic creature.

I've been advocating for awhile to have Armourbane weapons given some kind of secondary effect against MCs/GMCs. Fleshbane sounds about right.

Well good thing I wasn't talking about armourbane To be honest I don't really think wounding MC's is the issue, more causing enough of those wounds. Problem with giving the Beast Hunter to average Vanquishers is it makes a dedicated AT vehicle no longer dedicated for very little points (still cheaper than a normal russ).

I simply think another tank/unit should be a anti MC than the vanquisher. Also what is peoples main issues with mech suits as Walkers? Is it wound count? If so it would be more an issue with the opponents profile more than the fact it's a MC. Or is it the fact AT bonuses don't apply against them?

The Anti-Monster shell should be part of the standard loadout in a Vanquisher. In the same way that Skyfire flak missiles should standard kit in any ML.

Yet GW charges a huge points premium for this, because, reasons. If we're talking a GW Codex, they'll give the option, but make it in-game cost prohibitive in order to protect the sales of GC & MC kits, in the same way that overpriced Skyfire protected the sales of Flyers.


I really think the unsaid question is whether the Vanquisher should be a Destroyer-1 weapon.

How come none of you guys has the balls to ask for the IG to field multiple squadrons of long range Destroyer guns?

Doesn't S(D-1) fix everything that's wrong with the Vanquisher?

5 points is hardly cost prohibitive... It's the same as railgun sub-munitions.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
The Anti-Monster shell should be part of the standard loadout in a Vanquisher. In the same way that Skyfire flak missiles should standard kit in any ML.

Yet GW charges a huge points premium for this, because, reasons. If we're talking a GW Codex, they'll give the option, but make it in-game cost prohibitive in order to protect the sales of GC & MC kits, in the same way that overpriced Skyfire protected the sales of Flyers.


I really think the unsaid question is whether the Vanquisher should be a Destroyer-1 weapon.

How come none of you guys has the balls to ask for the IG to field multiple squadrons of long range Destroyer guns?

Doesn't S(D-1) fix everything that's wrong with the Vanquisher?

Well of course there should be a premium to make MLO skyfire.... So you would have something that is only -1 S & AP than a lascannon, has a decent blast round for hordes that also has a S7 skyfire round for 5 less points? Jog on!

The problem is more the heavy weapon squad, not the weapon cost imo. Normal Guardmen are 5ppm, while the heavy weapon squad is 7.5ppm if you think of them as two guardmen per base. The only downside being a single shot S6 weapon can kill them both instead of just one model..... Realistically they need to be reduced to 30 points and/or return to either their old rules (being two seperate models, one of which can still fire his lasgun) or give it a rule it cant be insta-killed, maybe give it minus 1 bs for models with one wound to represent the team being less efficient or something?

Making the Vanquisher a D weapon would make it more how it was intended, especially seeing it's the only titan killing weapon that fails to do so.... D-1 however would make it do nothing 1/3 of the time vs targets it normally would do much more.... maybe a special rule that is uses the normal table but count a 6 as a 5? I think D3 wounds would be much better than insta-death via beasthunter shells.

Eh, the less D the better, IMO. Although you could give it a "super-heavy-hunter" type rule or something.

 Baldeagle91 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Here's the problem:
Armourbane weapons are given that rule to represent the fact that they don't cause spalling or internal damage.
They're given that rule to represent the sheer penetrative force of the round. If they're doing that to a tank, then they should be doing the same amount of damage to an organic creature.

I've been advocating for awhile to have Armourbane weapons given some kind of secondary effect against MCs/GMCs. Fleshbane sounds about right.

Well good thing I wasn't talking about armourbane To be honest I don't really think wounding MC's is the issue, more causing enough of those wounds. Problem with giving the Beast Hunter to average Vanquishers is it makes a dedicated AT vehicle no longer dedicated for very little points (still cheaper than a normal russ).

The problem is that the "dedicated AT vehicle" isn't. It fires a single shot with Armourbane--which, on paper, sounds great!

But it isn't. If it hits anything, it's very likely to strip Hull Points(even rolling snake eyes you're glancing AV10) on it. But who cares about that for the points expenditure you're putting out? Things with Armourbane are dramatically overpriced and usually aren't exceedingly high AP, meaning that while you might pen often against Vehicles you're not guaranteed to get that "Explodes!" result that such a weapon SHOULD be guaranteeing since it is, after all, a "tank killer".
Look at the Transauranic Arquebus in the Skitarii book. TWENTY FIVE POINTS for a single Armourbane shot that is S4 AP2 with a 60" range and the "Sniper" special rule.
It costs 20 points for a Lascannon in any other Imperial book. 5 points cheaper nets you a weapon that is 12" shorter range, loses Armourbane, AP2, and 5 points higher Strength.

Add to it that the "Armourbane" ability is useless against an entire army(Tyranids), the points outlay for a Vanquisher versus a Battle Tank or Demolisher or something of that nature becomes a joke.

Armourbane, as a rule, was poorly thought-out. It was likely meant to be coupled with Lance or Melta weapons, but it rarely ever is.

I simply think another tank/unit should be a anti MC than the vanquisher.

Yeah, well I think that you need to recognize that a Monstrous Creature is nothing more than a tank with Wounds. Usually a decent amount more of them than most vehicles have Hull Points.

Also what is peoples main issues with mech suits as Walkers?

You're misunderstanding the issue at play. It's the fact that it is so wildly inconsistent as to what is a Walker versus what is a Monstrous Creature.

Is it wound count? If so it would be more an issue with the opponents profile more than the fact it's a MC. Or is it the fact AT bonuses don't apply against them?

It's the fact that a Monstrous Creature gains a significant advantage versus anything labeled a vehicle.

Why? Because Monstrous Creatures come with saves as standard. Vehicles that aren't Skimmers or with special rules granting saves can only ever claim Cover Saves.
Additionally, once you get into Gargantuan Monstrous Creatures? They get an automatic buff against their banes(Poisoned and Sniper weapons can only ever Wound on 6s, unless the Poisoned weapon has a high enough Strength to Wound on a lower number) just for being classified as such. Imagine if a Superheavy could ignore the effects of Lance, Armourbane, or Melta weapons.

Additionally, if a Superheavy Vehicle gets killed? It can potentially take out a huge swathe of YOUR army.
What happens if a GMC gets killed? Nothing!

 Baldeagle91 wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
The Anti-Monster shell should be part of the standard loadout in a Vanquisher. In the same way that Skyfire flak missiles should standard kit in any ML.

Yet GW charges a huge points premium for this, because, reasons. If we're talking a GW Codex, they'll give the option, but make it in-game cost prohibitive in order to protect the sales of GC & MC kits, in the same way that overpriced Skyfire protected the sales of Flyers.


I really think the unsaid question is whether the Vanquisher should be a Destroyer-1 weapon.

How come none of you guys has the balls to ask for the IG to field multiple squadrons of long range Destroyer guns?

Doesn't S(D-1) fix everything that's wrong with the Vanquisher?

Well of course there should be a premium to make MLO skyfire.... So you would have something that is only -1 S & AP than a lascannon, has a decent blast round for hordes that also has a S7 skyfire round for 5 less points? Jog on!

The problem is more the heavy weapon squad, not the weapon cost imo. Normal Guardmen are 5ppm, while the heavy weapon squad is 7.5ppm if you think of them as two guardmen per base. The only downside being a single shot S6 weapon can kill them both instead of just one model..... Realistically they need to be reduced to 30 points and/or return to either their old rules (being two seperate models, one of which can still fire his lasgun) or give it a rule it cant be insta-killed, maybe give it minus 1 bs for models with one wound to represent the team being less efficient or something?

Making the Vanquisher a D weapon would make it more how it was intended, especially seeing it's the only titan killing weapon that fails to do so.... D-1 however would make it do nothing 1/3 of the time vs targets it normally would do much more.... maybe a special rule that is uses the normal table but count a 6 as a 5? I think D3 wounds would be much better than insta-death via beasthunter shells.

Yes, I would. I see nothing wrong with that.

The W2 Heavy Team is stupid. "One model per squad may be upgraded to take a Heavy Weapon." Simple squad fix, as nobody cares who the loader / spotter is - he's just for looks. Then the HWS simply has 3 models upgraded to take a Heavy Weapon. Kill 4 to knock off the first Heavy, and they're worth it.

Oh, the Vanquisher isn't a Titan Killer (that's the Shadowsword's job) - it's supposed to kill Tanks, not Titans, so D-1 rather than full D.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Baldeagle91 wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
The Anti-Monster shell should be part of the standard loadout in a Vanquisher. In the same way that Skyfire flak missiles should standard kit in any ML.

Yet GW charges a huge points premium for this, because, reasons. If we're talking a GW Codex, they'll give the option, but make it in-game cost prohibitive in order to protect the sales of GC & MC kits, in the same way that overpriced Skyfire protected the sales of Flyers.


I really think the unsaid question is whether the Vanquisher should be a Destroyer-1 weapon.

How come none of you guys has the balls to ask for the IG to field multiple squadrons of long range Destroyer guns?

Doesn't S(D-1) fix everything that's wrong with the Vanquisher?

Well of course there should be a premium to make MLO skyfire.... So you would have something that is only -1 S & AP than a lascannon, has a decent blast round for hordes that also has a S7 skyfire round for 5 less points? Jog on!

The problem is more the heavy weapon squad, not the weapon cost imo. Normal Guardmen are 5ppm, while the heavy weapon squad is 7.5ppm if you think of them as two guardmen per base. The only downside being a single shot S6 weapon can kill them both instead of just one model..... Realistically they need to be reduced to 30 points and/or return to either their old rules (being two seperate models, one of which can still fire his lasgun) or give it a rule it cant be insta-killed, maybe give it minus 1 bs for models with one wound to represent the team being less efficient or something?

Making the Vanquisher a D weapon would make it more how it was intended, especially seeing it's the only titan killing weapon that fails to do so.... D-1 however would make it do nothing 1/3 of the time vs targets it normally would do much more.... maybe a special rule that is uses the normal table but count a 6 as a 5? I think D3 wounds would be much better than insta-death via beasthunter shells.

Yes, I would. I see nothing wrong with that.

The W2 Heavy Team is stupid. "One model per squad may be upgraded to take a Heavy Weapon." Simple squad fix, as nobody cares who the loader / spotter is - he's just for looks. Then the HWS simply has 3 models upgraded to take a Heavy Weapon. Kill 4 to knock off the first Heavy, and they're worth it.

Oh, the Vanquisher isn't a Titan Killer (that's the Shadowsword's job) - it's supposed to kill Tanks, not Titans, so D-1 rather than full D.

Sorry but a 15 point launcer with skyfire rounds only being 15 points, while a lascannon is 20? That's just idiotic. You now have a half decent AT weapon, and anti horde weapon and a AA weapon for only 15 points.... think a lot of opponents would have an issue with that. Although I wouldn't be too opposed to something like a 7-10 point skyfire only launcher.

Yeah they're inherently broken.

Well fluff wise groups of vanquishers are well known for their ability to destroy and cripple titans. Problem with D-1 actually means 1/3 of the time it will do absolutely nothing vs vehicle or infantry, even those it can normally kill at much better odds. So in reality while you're making it easier to destroy vehicles in one hit, it now less reliable in a fair few situations. Now that I think about it maybe it should get a unique penetration result table?

making it a D weapon or D-1 is too much.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Yeah, well I think that you need to recognize that a Monstrous Creature is nothing more than a tank with Wounds. Usually a decent amount more of them than most vehicles have Hull Points.

You're misunderstanding the issue at play. It's the fact that it is so wildly inconsistent as to what is a Walker versus what is a Monstrous Creature.

It's the fact that a Monstrous Creature gains a significant advantage versus anything labeled a vehicle.

Why? Because Monstrous Creatures come with saves as standard. Vehicles that aren't Skimmers or with special rules granting saves can only ever claim Cover Saves.
Additionally, once you get into Gargantuan Monstrous Creatures? They get an automatic buff against their banes(Poisoned and Sniper weapons can only ever Wound on 6s, unless the Poisoned weapon has a high enough Strength to Wound on a lower number) just for being classified as such. Imagine if a Superheavy could ignore the effects of Lance, Armourbane, or Melta weapons.

Additionally, if a Superheavy Vehicle gets killed? It can potentially take out a huge swathe of YOUR army.
What happens if a GMC gets killed? Nothing!

Well realistically most MC's I've seen such as those that are Nid and Tau are nothing like Tanks with wounds. The mechanics of how they are damaged and what knocks them out is completely different. Now I agree walkers is a different issue, but take a sentinel or dreadnought for example, they're much more akin to a tank that walks, seeing the main body/cockpit is so large it's actually akin area wise to the fighting compartment in a tank. Shooting a Mech MC in the chest for example, isn't going to do the same amount or type of damage as it would a tank, which is why I think many mechs are represented as such.

Also you have an issue with GMC getting buffs against snipers and poison? You know weapons designed against man size to MC sized animals. Imagine how silly it would be if a full unit of ratlings used their normal sniper rules against a GMC? Now GMC's point cost shopuld reflect they don't have apoc explosions (or any at all) and one thing I do think is many MC's have far too many wounds. But then again that is an issue with their respective profiles imo.

 Baldeagle91 wrote:

Well realistically most MC's I've seen such as those that are Nid and Tau are nothing like Tanks with wounds. The mechanics of how they are damaged and what knocks them out is completely different. Now I agree walkers is a different issue, but take a sentinel or dreadnought for example, they're much more akin to a tank that walks, seeing the main body/cockpit is so large it's actually akin area wise to the fighting compartment in a tank. Shooting a Mech MC in the chest for example, isn't going to do the same amount or type of damage as it would a tank, which is why I think many mechs are represented as such.

It's going to do exactly the same amount and type of damage shooting a Tau Crisis/Broadside/Riptide/whatever suit in the chest as it would be shooting a Sentinel's cockpit or a Dreadnought's stupidly heavily armored sarcophagus. The pilot for the Crisis suit is in the chest and it's not like they're somehow treated against explosives.

In the end, Crisis Suits got labeled the way they were because of rules concerns when they were first introduced. When they came out, vehicles were actually powerful and thus an army which could take a huge amount of Walkers was seen as potentially overpowered by the design team.

Also you have an issue with GMC getting buffs against snipers and poison? You know weapons designed against man size to MC sized animals.

What do Sniper weapons do?
Aim for vulnerable points on their targets(represented by the roll of a "6" to Wound being AP2; the sniper round found an extremely vulnerable point in the armor/protection of their target). Nothing about simply becoming a GMC removes that. Limbs are still vulnerable points, you just can't make a killshot. You can't do that to a GMC anyways.

You'd have a case for Poisoned Weapons, seeing as how a GMC is so large that it would take longer for poisons to affect them--but if that's the case, then MCs should be given the same thing since they're so much bigger than your "average"

Imagine how silly it would be if a full unit of ratlings used their normal sniper rules against a GMC?

Okay, and?
It's Ratlings. They need something to finally justify their points.

Now GMC's point cost should reflect they don't have apoc explosions (or any at all) and one thing I do think is many MC's have far too many wounds. But then again that is an issue with their respective profiles imo.

GMC point costs need to be elevated upwards, significantly, or vehicles need to be elevated upwards beyond MCs/GMCs to justify the bloated points cost that most vehicles pay.

 Kanluwen wrote:

It's going to do exactly the same amount and type of damage shooting a Tau Crisis/Broadside/Riptide/whatever suit in the chest as it would be shooting a Sentinel's cockpit or a Dreadnought's stupidly heavily armored sarcophagus. The pilot for the Crisis suit is in the chest and it's not like they're somehow treated against explosives.

Not really, think about it. Sentinal cockpit gets hit, spalling etc hurts the target, now MC's are generally bigger. Concerning the riptide only 1/4 of the entire main trunk of the suit is the cockpit. Not only that but that compartment is also seperated from the rest of the vehicle. Including Limbs, it's only around 1/8th to 1/10th of it's mass, compared to a sentinel that it's about 1/2 the mass and the dreadnought that is around 1/3-1/4 (ignoring it's also acts as life support). Comparing it to a leman russ make it even worse, pretty much anywhere the russ is penetrated will result in shrapnel filling the fighting compartment, harming the crew and potentially causing ammo to ignite. Most MC's have enclose fighting compartments, akin to a real life fighter, of which many will survive being hit by ridiculous amounts of rounds that have not hit something critical or the pilot directly.

It's actually one of the main bonuses to having separate fighting compartments IRL.

In the end, Crisis Suits got labeled the way they were because of rules concerns when they were first introduced. When they came out, vehicles were actually powerful and thus an army which could take a huge amount of Walkers was seen as potentially overpowered by the design team.

Well aren't normal crisis suits simply infantry? Main reason being the suit mimics the users movements much better and more enhances the pilot akin to terminator and centurion armour?

What do Sniper weapons do?
Aim for vulnerable points on their targets(represented by the roll of a "6" to Wound being AP2; the sniper round found an extremely vulnerable point in the armor/protection of their target). Nothing about simply becoming a GMC removes that. Limbs are still vulnerable points, you just can't make a killshot. You can't do that to a GMC anyways.

You'd have a case for Poisoned Weapons, seeing as how a GMC is so large that it would take longer for poisons to affect them--but if that's the case, then MCs should be given the same thing since they're so much bigger than your "average"

Snipers to creatures those size would be like using a 9mm to take on a tank.... sure you can fit a scope to it and aim for the rear armour, but it will not do anything. It may be a weak point, but if your weapon isn't big enough it's not going to do anything.

Okay, and?
It's Ratlings. They need something to finally justify their points.

Haha they're only 30 points..... they're actually one of the only decent elite options, especially if you run a bar minimum squad or two.

GMC point costs need to be elevated upwards, significantly, or vehicles need to be elevated upwards beyond MCs/GMCs to justify the bloated points cost that most vehicles pay.

In all honesty I do agree, I think MC's are very underpriced. How much is it for a riptide? 180 points + upgrades... I think it's around 240points for a fully upgraded one, that's only slightly more than a pask vehicle... which arguably is not 'quite' as good

Ratlings? At 30 PPM? Good sir, perchance are you Total_Wardian returned?

 master of ordinance wrote:
Ratlings? At 30 PPM?

Ratling squads start as 30 points for a squad of 3. Baldeagle wasn't saying that it was 30 points each model.

[/quibble]