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.

The Imperial Guardsman should be a GC

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 the Signless wrote:
Besides super heavy walkers, when was the last time GW released a walker?

Morkanaut/Gorkanaut.

Of course your all forgiven for completely forgetting these two walkers because you never see them on the table because they SUCK that bad.

PS: That was 7th edition

Onager, which is quite good.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Bobthehero wrote:
The Imperial Guardsman should be a GC

Can get behind this.

"Sir, the Tyranids are coming and we have no ammo!"
"Stomp! Stomp I say, Stomp!"

It would be interesting, I doubt a T3 1W GC would really OP, even in great numbers, but then you add all the priestly buffs... eh.

// Solution in the current rule system//

-Multi wound infantry sized models -> Infantry
-Heavy armoured infantry (Mega nobz, Terminators, marines, Centurions, Tau battle suits) -> Infantry
-Infantry sized constructs (Necrons, servitors,wraith guard) -> Infantry

If it is clearly to big to be infantry

-monsters wearing armour (Ghazkull, deamon prince, pain engines) -> Monsters
-large machines piloted by infantry sized models (Penitent Engines, killa kans, dreads, dread knights, tau riptide sized and larger suits) -> Vehicles
-Constructs that are monstrous sized-> (Wraith constructs, Necron tomb stalker, daemon forged constructs) -> Vehicles

//Ideally I would like the following additional rules changes //

-Dmg tables for all multi wound models when you exceed the to wound with x. Like the vehicle dmg table for vehicles now, you would still be able to wound kill a monster. I would really like it if we could blow off a leg with a melta bomb or hack off an arm with a power sword and do some other cinematic dmg to it.
-Constructs should have an other dmg table then vehicles or monsters. There could even be codex specific dmg tables, to represent the difference between ork scrap and dark eldar craftsmanship, deamon constructs and eldar constructs or human commissars and tyranid monsters.
-Cover rules should be fixed. There should be no difference in cover of same sized monsters or walkers, and huge monsters should not be able to claim cover if they can only hide their toe in it. Ideally cover should be a cover modifier.
-Shooting to hit rules should be fixed. Bring back the fantasy to hit system for shooting including large target and 7+ to hit rules.
-Close combat to hit should be more like the to wound table, the current 3+ 5+ to hit range is ridicules. Penal legionaires should never hit 1/3 of their blows against the best dark eldar sword fighter nor should khorne bloodthirsters miss ws2 squiggoths 1/3th of the time.

Veering off topic a little, but one thing I really despise is this weird idea that when a unit reaches a certain size, it's movement suddenly doubles (so, GC, Super-heavies and many big MCs have 12" moves or JSJ just... because).

Frankly, I'd like to see big things move more slowly than standard infantry and such. To emphasize that being the size of a three-story house might diminish one's acceleration a little.

But no, massive things can accelerate from a standing start to full speed, and then come to a complete stop with no difficulty whatsoever. I guess many are helped by being 3-story bipeds, easily the most configuration. Oh wait.

oldzoggy wrote:
// Solution in the current rule system//

-Multi wound infantry sized models -> Infantry
-Heavy armoured infantry (Mega nobz, Terminators, marines, Centurions, Tau battle suits) -> Infantry
-Infantry sized constructs (Necrons, servitors,wraith guard) -> Infantry

If it is clearly to big to be infantry

-monsters wearing armour (Ghazkull, deamon prince, pain engines) -> Monsters
-large machines piloted by infantry sized models (Penitent Engines, killa kans, dreads, dread knights, tau riptide sized and larger suits) -> Vehicles
-Constructs that are monstrous sized-> (Wraith constructs, Necron tomb stalker, daemon forged constructs) -> Vehicles

//Ideally I would like the following additional rules changes //

-Dmg tables for all multi wound models when you exceed the to wound with x. Like the vehicle dmg table for vehicles now, you would still be able to wound kill a monster. I would really like it if we could blow off a leg with a melta bomb or hack off an arm with a power sword and do some other cinematic dmg to it.
-Constructs should have an other dmg table then vehicles or monsters. There could even be codex specific dmg tables, to represent the difference between ork scrap and dark eldar craftsmanship, deamon constructs and eldar constructs or human commissars and tyranid monsters.
-Cover rules should be fixed. There should be no difference in cover of same sized monsters or walkers, and huge monsters should not be able to claim cover if they can only hide their toe in it. Ideally cover should be a cover modifier.
-Shooting to hit rules should be fixed. Bring back the fantasy to hit system for shooting including large target and 7+ to hit rules.
-Close combat to hit should be more like the to wound table, the current 3+ 5+ to hit range is ridicules. Penal legionaires should never hit 1/3 of their blows against the best dark eldar sword fighter nor should khorne bloodthirsters miss ws2 squiggoths 1/3th of the time.

The Age of Sigmar rules for monsters are a pretty good starting off point. Very similar to your ideas.
The biggest issues with MCs is they remain effective till they die, while walkers suffer extra outside of hull points.
Make wounds losr effect number of attacks or modify the to hits of a GMC or MC sounds decent as a jumping off point.

die toten hosen wrote:
The Age of Sigmar rules for monsters are a pretty good starting off point. Very similar to your ideas.

I don't like those rules at all, and they are quite different.

-Age of sigmar monsters drop efficiency as soon as they get wounded and all wounds affect it just as much. And there is no toughness to shield them. This would probbaly mean that a wounded blood thirtster would lose a lot off attacks and str before it even got a chance to hit you just from lasgun fire. I would not like that at all.
-I would like them to be more like vehicles, wounds will just wound them with no loss of stats.
While serious wounds might do some things like lose a weapon, drop to I 1 for a turn or be killed if you roll high enough and have modifiers such as high str or force weapons.

I'm not sure why the AoS MC system is a bad idea. Makes sense that something becomes less effective after sustaining wounds in battle... and no different from a vehicle losing weapon systems after taking damage.

The reason I don't like the monsters get weaker when they get hurt by normal guns is that I don't like my 200+ model to running at 1/2 capacity most of the time just because it got hit by some random shots that hurted it on a 5+ or 6+. I know it would be more realistic but it feels really unsatisfactory to me while I'm perfectly fine by it being hurt by lass cannons.

So... would you prefer having a penetrating hits table for monsters?

Jup I would love that, on all multi wound models or at least on characters multi wound characters and monsters.

It would make challenges so much more fun. I would love to rip off limps from the other character or monster with a powerklaw.

I think oldzoggy's problem is the AoS wounding system, which makes it so weapons wound everything on a fixed role. Keeping the current 40K wounding system and introducing the AoS MC system would allow them to be tough against small arms, but slowly lose effectiveness as chunks get blown out of them.

So if GW is willing to admit that some of their models are walkers and are able to make good walkers.This makes less sense the more I try and think about it.

Why are Kastelan robots MC? They are robots. It says so in their name.

MC should diminish in power output as they take more damage. Why should MC fire at full power when they have been critically wounded, such as having a massive slug blow off their arm?

I think it's also dubious that you can blow a gun/arm off a walker, but not off a MC, Super-Heavy or Gargantuan Creature,

Anyone trying to claim that they made the Riptide an MC because they knew MC rules were superior and wanted it to sell are either being willfully obtuse or have very short memories.

When the Ork codex was re-released, the big new kit being promoted was the Gorka/Morkanaught. It's a walker - why (assuming GW wanted to sell the kit and lots of it) wouldn't GW have made it a Monstrous Creature to sell better? This is just following your logic.

The clear reason some things are MCs and some things aren't is pretty clear: design continuity.

Back when the Tau were first being released, the design team had an article in WD describing their development process. Part of this article detailed their plans for the Crisis and Broadside battlesuits.

They originally planned on both being walkers, but they couldn't make either unit work the way they wanted under the walker/vehicle rules at the time, so they gave them wounds and a decent armour save instead.

When the Riptide came about, the Design Team had a choice - either make it a vehicle(walker), of which the Tau army had none, or make it a monstrous creature - and demonstrate a clear continuity and progression from the small Crisis/Broadside suits and the Riptide suit.

Crisis suits have wounds -> Broadsides have wounds -> Riptide has wounds -> Stormsurge will (most likely) have wounds -> Supremacy has wounds. Do you see the clear progression?


Eldar can be seen in much the same way:

Wraithguard have wounds -> Wraithlords have wounds -> Wraithknights have wounds.


To interrupt either progression with the sudden introduction of vehicles would be jarring to say the least, even if it might represent the fluff of the model better.

In contrast, Orks never had any monstrous creatures outside of the squiggoth, and the Gorka/Morkanaught clearly shares more design features with deff dreads than with a squiggoth, so it becomes a vehicle (walker).

In a broader sense, Imperial Knights as members of the Imperium need to follow a similar pattern. Imperial armies (Space Marines, Imperial Guard, etc) don't really have monstrous creatures, they have vehicles. To have a single Gargantuan Creature amongst a sea of vehicles and walkers would also be jarring.

That's why some things are vehicles and some things aren't. Nothing to do with rules or sales or any of that gak - GW have proven time and again they don't know what balance is, thus deliberately making a new unit powerful to sell more kits is surely beyond them.

 Frozocrone wrote:
MC should diminish in power output as they take more damage. Why should MC fire at full power when they have been critically wounded, such as having a massive slug blow off their arm?

Because that would mean that this would be killable:

http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/resources/PDF/Datasheets/Tau-Kx139-Ta%E2%80%99unar.pdf

 the Signless wrote:
I think oldzoggy's problem is the AoS wounding system.

The wounding system of AoS is just plain stupid, but I also am no fan of the all dmg is equall and hp / wounds = effectiveness of the monster table of age of sigmar.
I like the penetration vehcilce damage rules but I don't like my monster vehicle losing attacks, str and special abilities linear to the dmg it In the way they do in AoS.

To put it in verry simple words that can not be mistaken

Head shoting or paralysing a monster on a 6+ with lots of ap low str high modifiers I like.
Slowly draining powers from a monster so that 50% of the time its a crappy excuse of of a monster, whatever shot at it I don't like.

While this AoS discussion is fascinating, let's get this thread back on track please...

 Selym wrote:

 Frozocrone wrote:
MC should diminish in power output as they take more damage. Why should MC fire at full power when they have been critically wounded, such as having a massive slug blow off their arm?

Because that would mean that this would be killable:

http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/resources/PDF/Datasheets/Tau-Kx139-Ta%E2%80%99unar.pdf

Oh right, yeah, forgot that thing needed to sell

 Dr. Delorean wrote:

Spoiler:

Anyone trying to claim that they made the Riptide an MC because they knew MC rules were superior and wanted it to sell are either being willfully obtuse or have very short memories.

When the Ork codex was re-released, the big new kit being promoted was the Gorka/Morkanaught. It's a walker - why (assuming GW wanted to sell the kit and lots of it) wouldn't GW have made it a Monstrous Creature to sell better? This is just following your logic.

The clear reason some things are MCs and some things aren't is pretty clear: design continuity.

Back when the Tau were first being released, the design team had an article in WD describing their development process. Part of this article detailed their plans for the Crisis and Broadside battlesuits.

They originally planned on both being walkers, but they couldn't make either unit work the way they wanted under the walker/vehicle rules at the time, so they gave them wounds and a decent armour save instead.

When the Riptide came about, the Design Team had a choice - either make it a vehicle(walker), of which the Tau army had none, or make it a monstrous creature - and demonstrate a clear continuity and progression from the small Crisis/Broadside suits and the Riptide suit.

Crisis suits have wounds -> Broadsides have wounds -> Riptide has wounds -> Stormsurge will (most likely) have wounds -> Supremacy has wounds. Do you see the clear progression?


Eldar can be seen in much the same way:

Wraithguard have wounds -> Wraithlords have wounds -> Wraithknights have wounds.


To interrupt either progression with the sudden introduction of vehicles would be jarring to say the least, even if it might represent the fluff of the model better.

In contrast, Orks never had any monstrous creatures outside of the squiggoth, and the Gorka/Morkanaught clearly shares more design features with deff dreads than with a squiggoth, so it becomes a vehicle (walker).

In a broader sense, Imperial Knights as members of the Imperium need to follow a similar pattern. Imperial armies (Space Marines, Imperial Guard, etc) don't really have monstrous creatures, they have vehicles. To have a single Gargantuan Creature amongst a sea of vehicles and walkers would also be jarring.

That's why some things are vehicles and some things aren't. Nothing to do with rules or sales or any of that gak - GW have proven time and again they don't know what balance is, thus deliberately making a new unit powerful to sell more kits is surely beyond them.

While design continuity should be taken into consideration, there comes a point when you have to accept that these things should be classified differently. GW has shown that they are willing to mix MCs and walkers into a codex (Kastellan robots and Onagers in AdMech).These robots have surpassed the "it's a pilot in a suit" argument and become full blown titan robots with giant gears and exhaust ports. If GW feels that they should still be consistent with suits after they become walkers, maybe they should revisit the fundamental design of a suit, making them into walker squadrons which independent character walkers can join.

Finally, I did not forget the orkanaughts, I am purposefully ignoring them in the hope that they will turn out to be a bizarre fever dream the next time I open my codex.

 Dr. Delorean wrote:
When the Riptide came about, the Design Team had a choice - either make it a vehicle(walker), of which the Tau army had none, or make it a monstrous creature - and demonstrate a clear continuity and progression from the small Crisis/Broadside suits and the Riptide suit.

Sorry, but your logic is just nonsensical. Why is that a clear progression in any way?

You could just as easily write:

"When the Riptide came about, the Design Team had a choice - either make it a Monstrous Creature, of which the Tau army had none, or make it a vehicle(walker) - and demonstrate a clear continuity and progression from the small Crisis/Broadside suits and the Riptide suit." It makes exactly as much sense. Probably more, in fact.

Also, by that logic, the Triarch Stalker should clearly be a MC because Necrons have only had MCs in the past, not vehicles.

Whether or not an army has had walkers or MCs in the past should not relate in any way to the classification of future units.

The Riptide is a bloody machine. Same goes for the Dredknight. Both of them have pilots for crying out loud. How much more evidence do you need that they're vehicles, not creatures?

I still feel like penitent engines should be monstrous creatures rather than walkers, but meh.

 Melissia wrote:
I still feel like penitent engines should be monstrous creatures rather than walkers, but meh.

Out of interest, do you think you'd still feel that way if the Dreadknight was a Walker?

How many of the people "certain" that their (almost always) OP war machine should remain a Monsterous Creature would argue the same if it had different rules or suffered from the same degredation as it was damaged or ability to be one shoted as vehicles...... I think we all the know the answer.

 vipoid wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
I still feel like penitent engines should be monstrous creatures rather than walkers, but meh.

Out of interest, do you think you'd still feel that way if the Dreadknight was a Walker?

Doesn't really make a difference to me. The Penitent Engine is not piloted by the person strapped to it.

It's still a machine though.

 Melissia wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
I still feel like penitent engines should be monstrous creatures rather than walkers, but meh.

Out of interest, do you think you'd still feel that way if the Dreadknight was a Walker?

Doesn't really make a difference to me. The Penitent Engine is not piloted by the person strapped to it.

Yay, now it's a robot.

Much simpler to work out: Walker time

If I had first comment.

"Your Mother would be classified as a Monsterous Creature!"

 Filch wrote:
If I had first comment.

"Your Mother would be classified as a Monsterous Creature!"

Oooooohhh buuuuurrrrnnn!!

What would really be best is to change all vehicles to use the Toughness/Armor Save system instead of the Armor Value system. Give vehicles different toughness values and armor saves depending on the arc you are in.