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.

I don't care that the WK is a GMC. I care that it is way, way too cheap.

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Swampmist wrote:
Both daemons and Tyranids have artillery, and can utilize it effectively.

Erm, what? Nids sure, they have some long range guys like Biovores, the hell that is Flyrants, Dakkafexes, and the Zoanthropes because of Warp Lance.

What do Daemons have? The FMCs that can throw Psychic powers most notably Kairos, the unreliable Lash of Despair on a winged DP, the Skullcannon, and the unreliable Soul Grinders. Oh, and lots of S5 flicker fire with a chance to give people FNP.

Where is this artillery you speak of? Sure, I have some shooty psychic powers, but guess what? Most Daemons are BS3. I'd rather spend my turn Summoning/Casting Cursed Earth and just run up and punch you than bother to shoot you.

Even Orks are better at shooting than Daemons.

Most 'elephants' or MCs in those armies are either small arms, airplanes, or artillery (psychic, or otherwise). The fact that some of them aren't appropriately costed is a problem, yes, like the Exocrine, but that doesn't change the fact that some of them, such as the Tyrannofex, have shooting that rivals a main battle tank's direct-fire artillery role, and yet are tougher. I would take a Tyrannofex against a hammerhead rather than a Russ any day of the week.

 mrhappyface wrote:

pm713 wrote:
I think GMC's are ok just in Apocalypse. Where they belong.

So the rule isn't the problem but rather the models which are allowed to use them i.e. wraithknights.

the problem isnt something that can be equated. GMC's and superheavy walkers shoved out the previous top end units. why have a wraithlord when theres the wraithknight, why have the gorkanaut when you have the stompa, what purpose is there to terminators when you can have a warhound or a sicarian. so many units got shoved out of the game because now theres something on top of them.

i am of the opinion that apocalypse needs to come back and gmc's and superheavies are exclusive to that format. you cant take them below that point without being unbound.

this solves a lot of issues at the top end, and while it wont solve everything it gives those top end units breathing room

Ask a Tyranid player if MC rules are overpowered.... By that logic, Tyranid codex should be waaaay more competitive then it is.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Swampmist wrote:
Both daemons and Tyranids have artillery, and can utilize it effectively.

Erm, what? Nids sure, they have some long range guys like Biovores, the hell that is Flyrants, Dakkafexes, and the Zoanthropes because of Warp Lance.

What do Daemons have? The FMCs that can throw Psychic powers most notably Kairos, the unreliable Lash of Despair on a winged DP, the Skullcannon, and the unreliable Soul Grinders. Oh, and lots of S5 flicker fire with a chance to give people FNP.

Where is this artillery you speak of? Sure, I have some shooty psychic powers, but guess what? Most Daemons are BS3. I'd rather spend my turn Summoning/Casting Cursed Earth and just run up and punch you than bother to shoot you.

Even Orks are better at shooting than Daemons.

Most 'elephants' or MCs in those armies are either small arms, airplanes, or artillery (psychic, or otherwise). The fact that some of them aren't appropriately costed is a problem, yes, like the Exocrine, but that doesn't change the fact that some of them, such as the Tyrannofex, have shooting that rivals a main battle tank's direct-fire artillery role, and yet are tougher. I would take a Tyrannofex against a hammerhead rather than a Russ any day of the week.

I'm not arguing that, I'm arguing his point that Daemons have shooting and utilize it effectively.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xerics wrote:
Does anyone even read the lore for the Wraithknight? Yes there is a pilot but the entire structure is also the same as a Wraitlord just on a much larger scale. The added pilot is to give the wraith construct improved agility. Its not mechanical. Its a semi living being.

Fine. Keep it a GMC, tone it the feth down or bump it's cost.

 ionusx wrote:

 mrhappyface wrote:

pm713 wrote:
I think GMC's are ok just in Apocalypse. Where they belong.

So the rule isn't the problem but rather the models which are allowed to use them i.e. wraithknights.

the problem isnt something that can be equated. GMC's and superheavy walkers shoved out the previous top end units. why have a wraithlord when theres the wraithknight, why have the gorkanaut when you have the stompa, what purpose is there to terminators when you can have a warhound or a sicarian. so many units got shoved out of the game because now theres something on top of them.

Most people would prefer the Gorkanaut or Morkanaut to a Stompa, if they're gonna be honest and not running the broken Mek Stompa that somehow ended up being cheaper than a regular Stompa pointswise.

Terminators have not had a purpose for at least two or three editions now. Their slot wasn't usurped by a Warhound Titan or a Sicarian Battle Tank. Their slot was usurped by literally anything being better than them.

 FoxPhoenix135 wrote:
Ask a Tyranid player if MC rules are overpowered.... By that logic, Tyranid codex should be waaaay more competitive then it is.

The exact nature of MCs vary a great deal. However, if you changed Tyranid MCs for vehicles, the list would be much, much worse. Hell, marine vehicles are only truly competitive when they are FREE.

I don't think MCs or GMCs are OP, by default, really. I just think that when compared to walkers, which are the closest equivalent unit, they are vastly superior. And this is more of a problem with walkers than MCs, really.

The only real issue I have is with flying MCs - I think when swooping, they should have a firing arc, like flyers.

Because it's a little broken for something to fly over a vehicle and hit its rear armor, and to be able to fly anywhere on the table and fire in any direction.

It takes all possible tactical positioning that should come with using flyers out of the equation, and you have a unit that effectively can't be engaged that suffers no limitations whatsoever.

Also, MC characters issuing challenges needs some work. Because any half-assed character MC will curbstomp just about any other non-MC character in a challenge, outside of Lord of wars, which is pretty unfair.

Yet, letting specially armed characters (like nob w/ PK) hit MCs without penalty is a little unfair toward the MC, too.

Maybe, if a non MC character refuses a challenge issued by a MC character, it is treated as WS1, instead of being unable to attack at all?

You can't sum up G/MC's in a single category.

They vary far too much from stupidly useless to pretty OP.
As I primarily play nids, I see this as somewhat funny.

We have the toxicrene sat at the bottom of the scale as useless, with the flyrant at the top end.

Generalising really doesn't work.
Yes, MC's do get a ton of extra rules.
They are however able to fall prey to small arms fire, poisoned weapons and test based weapons/powers.
Vehicles are immune to those things.

So it's not as if they have all the extra rules and 0 drawbacks.


While I agree an AoS style of reduced effectiveness on losing wounds is a good idea.
I doubt GW will throw that in.
Granted it adds some realism (and a great mechanic from AoS)
But it also adds extra rules which they are trying to cut down on.


All in all, I see this entire thread being pointed at wraith knights, storm surge, supremacy and the tide.






Edit:

Krump: why would a living organism function like an aircraft?
They move in a completely different manner.
They are able to turn quickly, take off vertically etc.
So flying over a vehicle and shooting rear armour is possible.

Look at how a bat can move as it flies.
How many aircrafts are that manoeuvrable?

"They are however able to fall prey to small arms fire,"

You will never kill your average T6 3+ MC with small arms before it has stomped all over you.

Martel732 wrote:
You will never kill your average T6 3+ MC with small arms before it has stomped all over you.

MCs cannot stomp.

Why would you try to kill a MC purely with small arms?
You use it for putting a few wounds on or finishing it off.

You don't rely solely on small arms.


However, what will those small arms do to something like a dreadnought?

 carldooley wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
You will never kill your average T6 3+ MC with small arms before it has stomped all over you.

MCs cannot stomp.

Figuratively, not literally. They still ignore all armor.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jackal wrote:
Why would you try to kill a MC purely with small arms?
You use it for putting a few wounds on or finishing it off.

You don't rely solely on small arms.


However, what will those small arms do to something like a dreadnought?

Shoot at their intended target instead of falling into a trap choice and trying to clear wounds against T6 3+ with a S3 or S4 weapon. Besides, the dreadnought died three turns earlier to being glanced out by S7, and so they never get within small arms range.

Martel732 wrote:

 carldooley wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
You will never kill your average T6 3+ MC with small arms before it has stomped all over you.

MCs cannot stomp.

Figuratively, not literally. They still ignore all armor.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jackal wrote:
Why would you try to kill a MC purely with small arms?
You use it for putting a few wounds on or finishing it off.

You don't rely solely on small arms.


However, what will those small arms do to something like a dreadnought?

Shoot at their intended target instead of falling into a trap choice and trying to clear wounds against T6 3+ with a S3 or S4 weapon. Besides, the dreadnought died three turns earlier to being glanced out by S7, and so they never get within small arms range.

GW just needs to admit that they messed up on hull points for vehicles and just double all hull points on all vehicles.

But that just makes high ROF weapons even MORE desirable.

And low ROF anti-tank would still be bad vs MCs.

Low ROF anti-tank weapons can't generate enough wounds OR explodes results to ever be worth it under the current system.

 Sidstyler wrote:

Yeah, probably where 40k is going, too. They'll balance out MCs by reducing their effectiveness as they take wounds, but then do away with points and structure altogether so you can just take an entire army of elephants or howitzers anyway and completely destroy any semblance of balance.

Did someone just mention the dwarves? 3-4 dragons, a few slayers, and as many cannons as you can muster to shoot into melee....sounds like fun to me. If 40K goes the AOS way I truly will be done with the game.

SemperMortis wrote:

Someone a few posts ago said make all Tau/Eldar MC/GMC shenanigans into Walkers and Super Heavies, that is a good idea and I agree with it 100%, but because Eldar and Tau are considered OP Cheese he then went ahead and gave them all AV14 or at the very least AV13 and a bunch of other bonuses that are extremely rare for most armies IE IWND and invulnerable saves.

Honestly at this point I am so jaded by GW's rules that I wouldn't be surprised if they finally did this but they gave Tau or Eldar or both special rules that specifically stated that they aren't affected by crew stunned/shaken results, can self repair (IWND)

I was trying to be realistic about how I could see GW handling the change. In my suggestion(s) the Tide would literally have the same stats as a soul grinder but with one extra hullpoint. Considering the fluf, and comparing that to what it is now I think is a huge step in the right direction. The Tau superheavies (IMO should be tougher than the IKs at least in regards to armor, hence the AV14 front and IWND.) Even the IK has the shield and much better rear armor despite it being a steampunked creation in the 41st milennium. The WK I gave stats to reflect the fluff. A 5+ save for being made of the hardest substance in the 40k universe seemed appropriate (I mean it's no better than a demon save) as did front and side AV 14. They would still be tougher than IoM and ork walkers because of the despairity in technology and GWS reasons, but they wouldn't be nearly as stupidly resilient and hard to kill as they are now.

I mean we both agree after all that even if GW pulled it's head out of its ass and made them walkers, that's about as much as they would realistically be willing to compromise (because Tau is Tau and Kelly won't let Eldar be anything but the stinker gorgon zola in the room), eh? I'm pretty sure we're on the same page, but the design team is in a different book.

I don't have a problem with monstrous creatures. I have a problem with a giant tau robot and a giant eldar robot being anything but a grot-darn vehicle! WHY? Theres absolutely no reason for those to be gigantic monstrous creatures when gigantic walkers are already a unit type!!!

*cries in a corner holding my morkanaut*

The Tau MCs are getting hit from the balance-minded people and the fluff people. Interesting.

 Don Savik wrote:
I don't have a problem with monstrous creatures. I have a problem with a giant tau robot and a giant eldar robot being anything but a grot-darn vehicle! WHY? Theres absolutely no reason for those to be gigantic monstrous creatures when gigantic walkers are already a unit type!!!

*cries in a corner holding my morkanaut*

You can at least try to justify the Wraithknight being a MC.

pm713 wrote:

 Don Savik wrote:
I don't have a problem with monstrous creatures. I have a problem with a giant tau robot and a giant eldar robot being anything but a grot-darn vehicle! WHY? Theres absolutely no reason for those to be gigantic monstrous creatures when gigantic walkers are already a unit type!!!

*cries in a corner holding my morkanaut*

You can at least try to justify the Wraithknight being a MC.

Its kinda 50/50. It is a wraithbone structure but it still has a living pilot. The whole thing feels like GW knew that vehicles were garbage so they trolled us with the new models. I don't play orks to win, but there are only so many rugs you can pull out from under me.

@Swampmist: I wasn't saying they didn't (although I agree more with jreilly on this. "artillery" for those two armies is very limited and even then is mostly anti-infantry.), however what I want to avoid a system that the "nerf all MC!" often suggest because they are often designed such that weapons that MIGHT weaken or oneshot a vehicle is guaranteed to do so to a MC. For example:

Most 'elephants' or MCs in those armies are either small arms, airplanes, or artillery (psychic, or otherwise). The fact that some of them aren't appropriately costed is a problem, yes, like the Exocrine, but that doesn't change the fact that some of them, such as the Tyrannofex, have shooting that rivals a main battle tank's direct-fire artillery role, and yet are tougher. I would take a Tyrannofex against a hammerhead rather than a Russ any day of the week.

If we're talking about the Tyrannofex specifically, the version with the rupture cannon is 55 point more than your bog standard Russ and a whopping 70 compared to the Vanquisher. I would expect some kind of additional toughness from that, considering that a Russ is already tougher in some cases and the rupture cannon, while it is good at tank hunting with two str 10 shots, with AP 4 make it impossible to one shot vehicles and very weak against non-vehicle targets.

" I would expect some kind of additional toughness from that,"

It gets way too much, though. The rupture cannon is not that amazing, I'll agree.

 Luke_Prowler wrote:
@Swampmist: I wasn't saying they didn't (although I agree more with jreilly on this. "artillery" for those two armies is very limited and even then is mostly anti-infantry.), however what I want to avoid a system that the "nerf all MC!" often suggest because they are often designed such that weapons that MIGHT weaken or oneshot a vehicle is guaranteed to do so to a MC. For example:

Most 'elephants' or MCs in those armies are either small arms, airplanes, or artillery (psychic, or otherwise). The fact that some of them aren't appropriately costed is a problem, yes, like the Exocrine, but that doesn't change the fact that some of them, such as the Tyrannofex, have shooting that rivals a main battle tank's direct-fire artillery role, and yet are tougher. I would take a Tyrannofex against a hammerhead rather than a Russ any day of the week.

If we're talking about the Tyrannofex specifically, the version with the rupture cannon is 55 point more than your bog standard Russ and a whopping 70 compared to the Vanquisher. I would expect some kind of additional toughness from that, considering that a Russ is already tougher in some cases and the rupture cannon, while it is good at tank hunting with two str 10 shots, with AP 4 make it impossible to one shot vehicles and very weak against non-vehicle targets.

I also said that some are not appropriately costed. The points costs are not up for debate - hell, drop it to below the toughness of the Russ and make it 70 points cheaper (literally half the price). It'd be more realistic and more tyranid-y as a spammable high-firepower unit that suffers massive casualties but is easily replaced.

pretty one sided poll here, no MC are fine as it is period option. so you say are mc overpowered? yes, or yes but only some... no option to select no?

I think all of th MC out right now are either points cost appropriately or are over costed for what they do.

This poll is worthless because of lacking choices... what isf someone thinks the MC rules are fine? so neigther point one or point two of this poll?
The way this poll is set up its worthless bs. try better next time. biased polls won't give you any answer thats worth something

 Don Savik wrote:
The whole thing feels like GW knew that vehicles were garbage so they trolled us with the new models. I don't play orks to win, but there are only so many rugs you can pull out from under me.

You have to wonder where Charlie Brown is in the GW design team. . .

Where's the poll option for 'MC aren't OP'?

Its not the rules for MC that are OP.

Vehicle and especially Walkr rules are crap.

And GMC rules are OP

thats it.

Dantes_Baals wrote:
Considering the fluf, and comparing that to what it is now I think is a huge step in the right direction. The Tau superheavies (IMO should be tougher than the IKs at least in regards to armor, hence the AV14 front and IWND.) Even the IK has the shield and much better rear armor despite it being a steampunked creation in the 41st milennium.

Personally I always felt it should be the other way around, with Tau vehicles having slightly weaker armor than Imperial equivalents but better shielding to compensate for it.