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.

Make them monstrous creatures with the "technological" usr.

Technological: This model ignores the poison and fleshbane special rules. Any weapon with the haywire rule wounds it on a 2+. Whenever this model is wounded by a weapon with the melta rule, it loses 2 wounds instead. When its last wound is removed, roll a d6. On a 1-3, the model becomes terrain. On a 4+, vehicle-explosion-rule-goes-here.

Then give the rule to appropriate MC's, give walkers an appropriate MC stat line, wounds, and saves, and season to taste.

Orks would love walkers to become MCs, we might see more kanz, dreads and nauts on the field.

Give all vehicles an additional hull point. It makes them tougher against being glanced to death, and makes high strength like/low ap weapons a little more desirable

An additional hull point wouldn't make them tougher against being glanced to death. The whole reason that they're getting glanced to death right now is that there are enough weapons with high Strength and high AP that have a high ROF which can at least glance the vehicles.

If there were ONE THING that I would do to make walker types more in line with Monstrous Creatures?

"Weapons of S5 or lower cannot affect vehicles unless they have the Haywire special rule."
or
"Weapons of AP4 or higher cannot affect vehicles unless they have the Haywire special rule."

Either way it makes it so that weapons which are currently shredding vehicles with high ROF and an AP that will never get bonuses for Penetrating Hits cannot affect the vehicles otherwise.

I still think they should just make Vehicles into MCs. I can even do the translation in my head:

For almost every weapon category, toughness = AV - 4.
Initiative = average of the army
Attacks = 1 without reasonable bonuses (like having hands)
Leadership = average of the army (without reasonable bonuses like Tank Commanders)
Weapon Skill = 1 (for most vehicles)
Strength = AV/2 rounded up (why not XD)
Armor save = (16-AV)+

 r_squared wrote:
Orks would love walkers to become MCs, we might see more kanz, dreads and nauts on the field.

That was my point. I want to field my dreadmob dammit lol.

I think the Contemptor and other FW SM dreadnoughts work well in 40k... I think it's the addition of their invulnerable saves that make them work.

 Kanluwen wrote:
An additional hull point wouldn't make them tougher against being glanced to death

I'm a little confused by this logic. Yes it would still be just as easy to glance them, but you require more glances to strip the hull points off of them.

MonumentOfRibs wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
An additional hull point wouldn't make them tougher against being glanced to death

I'm a little confused by this logic. Yes it would still be just as easy to glance them, but you require more glances to strip the hull points off of them.

Except there are factions that are really good at glancing things to death. Needing more glances to kill doesn't matter when its already easy to glance something.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 aka_mythos wrote:
I think the Contemptor and other FW SM dreadnoughts work well in 40k... I think it's the addition of their invulnerable saves that make them work.

Yeah, a saving throw goes a long way. Hence my vehicle plating save idea.

Nothing. I would change MCs to make them more like walkers (with scaling damage a la AoS) and maybe add facing rules, instead of making walkers more ripped.

MonumentOfRibs wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
An additional hull point wouldn't make them tougher against being glanced to death

I'm a little confused by this logic. Yes it would still be just as easy to glance them, but you require more glances to strip the hull points off of them.

The problem is that if you've used walkers/vehicles, the real problem armies would have no issue glancing an additional hull point off.

Unless you're multiplying the base HPs by two or three, it's going to be an issue since glancing vehicles to death is predicated upon weight of fire to begin with.

I suppose you guys are on the money. In fairness I only play with one buddy, and our lists are casual. Vehicles in our games tend to be quite survivable, so my viewpoint may be slightly biased

The issue of balance requires us to consider the fundamental game mechanics. Against a MC game play looks like this:Roll to hit, Roll to wound, Roll to Save, Roll FnP (when applicable). Against Walkers: Roll to hit, Roll for Penetration, Roll for Effect

With monstrous creatures you can have two extra steps that diminish the number of damaging attacks. With Vehicles you have an opportunity to see damage amplify.

With monstrous creatures the threshold for true lethality is a weapon with double strength, while with Vehicles its less. Currently there is a limit to how much stronger weapons can get; as the number of higher strength weapons have become more available the impact on vehicles is that much harsher than against MC's.

If you imagine hits exceeding a MC's toughness couldn't be saved against, that would be statistically equivalent to what Walkers deal with.

That is one of the many fundamental problems between walkers and MCs.

The others being:
Walkers have to pay for a CC weapon to be AP2.
Walkers do not have Move through Cover
When a walker is in cover, it does not automatically get a cover save as a MC does - it must be 25% obscured.
Walkers lack the ability to Smash against hard targets.
Walkers have to worry about facings for different armour values.

I would say make it so that Glancing hits no longer took off a HP automatically, but have "lose a hullpoint" as the 6 result on a Glancing Chart.

And Walkers specifically should be able to shrug off Crew Shaken and Crew stunned results on an Initiative test or something (Walkers should be more dextrious than normal vehicle crews since they're usually wired in, so it stands to reason they can probably shrug off a stunning easier).

First step would be to convert all bipedal robots into walker vehicles.

Second step would be to collect the flood of Tau tears.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
That is one of the many fundamental problems between walkers and MCs.

The others being:
Walkers have to pay for a CC weapon to be AP2.
Walkers do not have Move through Cover
When a walker is in cover, it does not automatically get a cover save as a MC does - it must be 25% obscured.
Walkers lack the ability to Smash against hard targets.
Walkers have to worry about facings for different armour values.

Yeah, walkers should be able to smash and get AP2. Its a big thing made of metal; even getting kicked by a sentinel is going to hurt.

MCs getting cover saves automatically is also pretty silly. I vaguely remember it being sometime ago that MCs only get cover in area terrain or if they are obscured.
I think it was in 4th, but that was a while ago. That's how it should be, anyway. Its a big thing, why can't I shoot the exposed bits on the big thing?

The armor value thing isn't so bad. If they had a saving throw, or if it weren't so easy to remove hull points by simply scratching them, then it wouldn't be as much of a problem.
I remember vehicles being quite hardy in 5th. In 4th not so much, as there was a chance of a glance blowing up the vehicle, but it was still better than the current system.

The problem with Walkers in 40k is the same problem that all Vehicles have in 40k, Grav weaponry. GW has painted themselves into a corner with a weapon that not only strips a hull point but also immobalizes a vehicle if you roll a 6. Roll 2 6's and you do 3 hull points of damage which is enough to wreck most vehicles in the game.

Normal old school MC's are fine.

What irks people is "Mech" MC's, that no matter what you do until their last Wound, they are full force, while your Walker can be damaged from the first turn, you have a CC oreinted walker that got immobilized?, too bad, 130+pts wasted for nothng.

A MC that is good in CC and can shoot 2 weapons per turn get shoot at?, doesn't fething care.

My opinion is not to change Walkers, but add a new unit type to MC's, "Mechanized MC's", follow the ruls for MC's as usual, but use the AoS large monsters mecanic=the more Wounds it loose, the less it can fight properly.

Or simply a damage chart proper to MC's that you roll once its Wounds goes below a certain threshold.

-between 1 and two Wounds lost; roll D3;
1) -1 WS,
2) -1BS
3) -2" on all its movements( move, sprint, assault)

-Between 3 and 4 lost Wounds; roll D3.
1) -1 Attack and Init.
2) Cannot use ONE of its weapons for the remainder of the game, determined randomly wich weapon is affected.
3) Move half its normal speed.

In my opinion vehicles should get an armour save, usually 2+ or 3+. That way weapon intended for anti-armour (melta-weapons, krak missiles, lascannons and the like) would still be effective as they'd ignore the save altogether, whereas weapons like autocannons, scatter lasers and deffguns would still have a chance to damage vehicles but would have to get through the armour save first.

I'd remove the vehicle damage chart if I had one change.

They need more than one though.

 niv-mizzet wrote:
Make them monstrous creatures with the "technological" usr.

Technological: This model ignores the poison and fleshbane special rules. Any weapon with the haywire rule wounds it on a 2+. Whenever this model is wounded by a weapon with the melta rule, it loses 2 wounds instead. When its last wound is removed, roll a d6. On a 1-3, the model becomes terrain. On a 4+, vehicle-explosion-rule-goes-here.

Then give the rule to appropriate MC's, give walkers an appropriate MC stat line, wounds, and saves, and season to taste.

You've hit the nail on the head.

Just a note, not to derail the discussion, but Tau battle suits are not neural linked to the pilot, they are in fact drones wrapped around their supervisor. Tau AI technology makes their drones affectively living creatures, which is why up-scaling the the humaniod versions has them as MCs and GMCs.

The same can be said for current Eldar Wraith constructs, even though in RT they were neural linked to the pilot, currently they are sentient plastic dolls that move and react like living creatures.

As to the other walkers, they are still machines, able to be dismantled piece by piece while relying on hits bouncing off instead of punching through. They do not act like living things, even when the pilot is neurally linked.

A better solution is to change glance so it no longer removes a hull point, and make penetrating hits the only way to harm a vehicle. A glance by definition is a hit that does no damage, after all.

SJ

All vehicles should have an invulnerable save that is based on AV. The value is 16-AV, maximum +2. So AV 10 has a 6++, AV 11 has a 5++, AV 12 has a 4++ and so forth. Vehicles with existing Invulnerables gain a +1 to the higher invulnerable, to a maximum of 2+. Melta ignores this save.

I would also make a Creature Damage Chart similar to the Vehicle Damage Chart.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Just a note, not to derail the discussion, but Tau battle suits are not neural linked to the pilot, they are in fact drones wrapped around their supervisor. Tau AI technology makes their drones affectively living creatures, which is why up-scaling the the humaniod versions has them as MCs and GMCs.

The same can be said for current Eldar Wraith constructs, even though in RT they were neural linked to the pilot, currently they are sentient plastic dolls that move and react like living creatures.

As to the other walkers, they are still machines, able to be dismantled piece by piece while relying on hits bouncing off instead of punching through. They do not act like living things, even when the pilot is neurally linked.

A better solution is to change glance so it no longer removes a hull point, and make penetrating hits the only way to harm a vehicle. A glance by definition is a hit that does no damage, after all.

SJ

Why does how a machine -act- define how it can be dismantled? I could pull out the motive components of a Roomba, car, or ostritch equally even though each acts completely differently.

(And ostriches aren't even machines!)

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Just a note, not to derail the discussion, but Tau battle suits are not neural linked to the pilot, they are in fact drones wrapped around their supervisor. Tau AI technology makes their drones affectively living creatures, which is why up-scaling the the humaniod versions has them as MCs and GMCs.

The same can be said for current Eldar Wraith constructs, even though in RT they were neural linked to the pilot, currently they are sentient plastic dolls that move and react like living creatures.

As to the other walkers, they are still machines, able to be dismantled piece by piece while relying on hits bouncing off instead of punching through. They do not act like living things, even when the pilot is neurally linked.

A better solution is to change glance so it no longer removes a hull point, and make penetrating hits the only way to harm a vehicle. A glance by definition is a hit that does no damage, after all.

SJ

Why does how a machine -act- define how it can be dismantled? I could pull out the motive components of a Roomba, car, or ostritch equally even though each acts completely differently.

(And ostriches aren't even machines!)

Can you rephrase that?

I think you meant to ask how a creature can keep going when you remove parts while a vehicle can't? I stated the opposite.

We see: a MC loses an arm, its dead. Loses a leg, its dead. Punch a hole through it, its dead. Bounce some bullets off it, its fine.

We see: a walker loses an arm, its has another. Loses a leg, it can still shoot. Punch a hole through it, it explodes or smulders. Bounce bullets off it, it dies.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Just a note, not to derail the discussion, but Tau battle suits are not neural linked to the pilot, they are in fact drones wrapped around their supervisor. Tau AI technology makes their drones affectively living creatures, which is why up-scaling the the humaniod versions has them as MCs and GMCs.

The same can be said for current Eldar Wraith constructs, even though in RT they were neural linked to the pilot, currently they are sentient plastic dolls that move and react like living creatures.

As to the other walkers, they are still machines, able to be dismantled piece by piece while relying on hits bouncing off instead of punching through. They do not act like living things, even when the pilot is neurally linked.

A better solution is to change glance so it no longer removes a hull point, and make penetrating hits the only way to harm a vehicle. A glance by definition is a hit that does no damage, after all.

SJ

Why does how a machine -act- define how it can be dismantled? I could pull out the motive components of a Roomba, car, or ostritch equally even though each acts completely differently.

(And ostriches aren't even machines!)

Can you rephrase that?

I think you meant to ask how a creature can keep going when you remove parts while a vehicle can't? I stated the opposite.

We see: a MC loses an arm, its dead. Loses a leg, its dead. Punch a hole through it, its dead. Bounce some bullets off it, its fine.

We see: a walker loses an arm, its has another. Loses a leg, it can still shoot. Punch a hole through it, it explodes or smulders. Bounce bullets off it, it dies.

SJ

Right but what happens when an AI controlled robot loses an arm? Should be like the walker, right? And punching a hole in it should cause it to wreck. The Tau Suits should be AV 8 or 9 walkers to keep the logic consistent.

They are machines.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Just a note, not to derail the discussion, but Tau battle suits are not neural linked to the pilot, they are in fact drones wrapped around their supervisor. Tau AI technology makes their drones affectively living creatures, which is why up-scaling the the humaniod versions has them as MCs and GMCs.

The same can be said for current Eldar Wraith constructs, even though in RT they were neural linked to the pilot, currently they are sentient plastic dolls that move and react like living creatures.

As to the other walkers, they are still machines, able to be dismantled piece by piece while relying on hits bouncing off instead of punching through. They do not act like living things, even when the pilot is neurally linked.

A better solution is to change glance so it no longer removes a hull point, and make penetrating hits the only way to harm a vehicle. A glance by definition is a hit that does no damage, after all.

SJ

Why does how a machine -act- define how it can be dismantled? I could pull out the motive components of a Roomba, car, or ostritch equally even though each acts completely differently.

(And ostriches aren't even machines!)

Can you rephrase that?

I think you meant to ask how a creature can keep going when you remove parts while a vehicle can't? I stated the opposite.

We see: a MC loses an arm, its dead. Loses a leg, its dead. Punch a hole through it, its dead. Bounce some bullets off it, its fine.

We see: a walker loses an arm, its has another. Loses a leg, it can still shoot. Punch a hole through it, it explodes or smulders. Bounce bullets off it, it dies.

SJ

Right but what happens when an AI controlled robot loses an arm? Should be like the walker, right? And punching a hole in it should cause it to wreck. The Tau Suits should be AV 8 or 9 walkers to keep the logic consistent.

They are machines.

And it does. People confuse losing wounds with taking damage, but wounds represent the ability to shrug off damage and just keep going. Hull points are supposed to do the same thing, but are easier to lose than wounds. A drone that takes a hit is out of the game. A monstrous "drone" that loses an arm is out of the game, it just takes a lot of effort to lose that arm.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Just a note, not to derail the discussion, but Tau battle suits are not neural linked to the pilot, they are in fact drones wrapped around their supervisor. Tau AI technology makes their drones affectively living creatures, which is why up-scaling the the humaniod versions has them as MCs and GMCs.

The same can be said for current Eldar Wraith constructs, even though in RT they were neural linked to the pilot, currently they are sentient plastic dolls that move and react like living creatures.

As to the other walkers, they are still machines, able to be dismantled piece by piece while relying on hits bouncing off instead of punching through. They do not act like living things, even when the pilot is neurally linked.

A better solution is to change glance so it no longer removes a hull point, and make penetrating hits the only way to harm a vehicle. A glance by definition is a hit that does no damage, after all.

SJ

Why does how a machine -act- define how it can be dismantled? I could pull out the motive components of a Roomba, car, or ostritch equally even though each acts completely differently.

(And ostriches aren't even machines!)

Can you rephrase that?

I think you meant to ask how a creature can keep going when you remove parts while a vehicle can't? I stated the opposite.

We see: a MC loses an arm, its dead. Loses a leg, its dead. Punch a hole through it, its dead. Bounce some bullets off it, its fine.

We see: a walker loses an arm, its has another. Loses a leg, it can still shoot. Punch a hole through it, it explodes or smulders. Bounce bullets off it, it dies.

SJ

Right but what happens when an AI controlled robot loses an arm? Should be like the walker, right? And punching a hole in it should cause it to wreck. The Tau Suits should be AV 8 or 9 walkers to keep the logic consistent.

They are machines.

And it does. People confuse losing wounds with taking damage, but wounds represent the ability to shrug off damage and just keep going. Hull points are supposed to do the same thing, but are easier to lose than wounds. A drone that takes a hit is out of the game. A monstrous "drone" that loses an arm is out of the game, it just takes a lot of effort to lose that arm.

SJ

Why is it more effort to blow the arm off of a drone than to blow the turret off of a main battle tank?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And also, why is a drone out of the game when it loses am arm but a neural link walker isn't?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Just a note, not to derail the discussion, but Tau battle suits are not neural linked to the pilot, they are in fact drones wrapped around their supervisor. Tau AI technology makes their drones affectively living creatures, which is why up-scaling the the humaniod versions has them as MCs and GMCs.

The same can be said for current Eldar Wraith constructs, even though in RT they were neural linked to the pilot, currently they are sentient plastic dolls that move and react like living creatures.

As to the other walkers, they are still machines, able to be dismantled piece by piece while relying on hits bouncing off instead of punching through. They do not act like living things, even when the pilot is neurally linked.

A better solution is to change glance so it no longer removes a hull point, and make penetrating hits the only way to harm a vehicle. A glance by definition is a hit that does no damage, after all.

SJ

Why does how a machine -act- define how it can be dismantled? I could pull out the motive components of a Roomba, car, or ostritch equally even though each acts completely differently.

(And ostriches aren't even machines!)

Can you rephrase that?

I think you meant to ask how a creature can keep going when you remove parts while a vehicle can't? I stated the opposite.

We see: a MC loses an arm, its dead. Loses a leg, its dead. Punch a hole through it, its dead. Bounce some bullets off it, its fine.

We see: a walker loses an arm, its has another. Loses a leg, it can still shoot. Punch a hole through it, it explodes or smulders. Bounce bullets off it, it dies.

SJ

Right but what happens when an AI controlled robot loses an arm? Should be like the walker, right? And punching a hole in it should cause it to wreck. The Tau Suits should be AV 8 or 9 walkers to keep the logic consistent.

They are machines.

And it does. People confuse losing wounds with taking damage, but wounds represent the ability to shrug off damage and just keep going. Hull points are supposed to do the same thing, but are easier to lose than wounds. A drone that takes a hit is out of the game. A monstrous "drone" that loses an arm is out of the game, it just takes a lot of effort to lose that arm.

SJ

Why is it more effort to blow the arm off of a drone than to blow the turret off of a main battle tank?

Because the vehicle rules are bad? Pretty sure that's the subject of the thread. My point was that vehicles in 40k are supposed keep running even as they lose systems, while monstrous creatures are supposed to ignore damage until they either bleed out or get overkilled. The issue is the GW made vehicles too fragile in comparison to MCs and GMCs.

SJ