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.

one buff I think MC deserve is a longer movement to represent their larger stride. if a GMC moves 12 then make a MC move 9 to represent this. it would mostly effect some of the less competitive models and really help out Tyranids who could use the boost (I don't play tyranids but the couple of people at my shop who play them have proven they need better movement,

 Sidstyler wrote:

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.

Tau vehicles aren't shielded though? At least not that I can recall.

Tau have no shields at all.

 _ghost_ wrote:
Tau have no shields at all.

The Shield Generator wargear, Shield Drone, and Shielded Missile Drone would all like to have a word with you.

Not as long as we talk about VEHICLES

 _ghost_ wrote:
Not as long as we talk about VEHICLES

Then maybe you should have said "Tau have no shields at all when talking about vehicles"

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

MC defenders always bring up these points, but in actuality the likelihood of a MC losing even a single wound to smallarms fire or to poisoned weapons is so infinitesimal it's not ever worth mentioning. It certainly isn't anywhere near enough of a drawback to balance off against the insane amount of extra durability MCs get over vehicles.

 Jackal wrote:
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?

The little brown bat is one of the most common bats in North America. An adult weighs 0.2 - 0.5 oz (5-14 grams). It can turn fast because it hardly weighs anything, not because an organism is inherently more maneuverable than an aircraft.

The flipside is that the highest speed reached by a bird in level flight is just above 100mph (169 kph) - the white-throated needletail if you're really interested. Modern fixed-wing combat aircraft, on the other hand, can reasonably be expected to reach speeds of Mach 2 - 1534mph/2470kph. Even the A10 Warthog can reach speeds of up to 460mph/740kph. So, there is absolutely no justification for FMCs to have the same Hard to Hit rule as Flyers, because they are not flying anywhere near as fast, nor are they apt to have enough maneuverability to compensate for the lack of speed.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 _ghost_ wrote:
Not as long as we talk about VEHICLES

Then maybe you should have said "Tau have no shields at all when talking about vehicles"

Well i assumed that you don't lose the focus on the topic. witch was vehicles. ... tau vehicles and that the have no shields... im sorry

so, judging by the poll: if we made actual creatures MCs, and things like walkers..... walkers all would be better now if only we got a buff to walkers (or vehicles in general, maybe something like and armour or invuln save?)

 Brennonjw wrote:
so, judging by the poll: if we made actual creatures MCs, and things like walkers..... walkers all would be better now if only we got a buff to walkers (or vehicles in general, maybe something like and armour or invuln save?)

I wouldn't take the poll seriously. It's an awful poll.

MC rule as such is not overpowered, it is how it's implemented. I mean, there is nothing in the rules to stop having an Infantry unit with S10, T10, 10 wounds, armed with Railgun and so on - other than restraint from the designers.

In the past there was set of informal tradeoffs in place between monstrous creatures and vehicles. MC's were vulnerable to Small arms fire and poison, they tended to be slow and generally had little or at best, mediocre firepower compared to vehicles. You could put heavy weapons on Carnifex but they were inferior to most tank guns and limited its other abilities. If you had a jump MC it tended to have limitations in its firepower or durability.

But nowadays there are units like Riptide. It has
2+ armour save, making it nearly invulnerable to Small arms fire or Poison
5 wounds, meaning it can't be killed quickly with most weapons which work on other units
5+ Inv save, meaning that single-shot high-powered weapons are limited effectiveness.
Jump mobility, giving it equal or better mobility than Tanks
Huge big gun which is superior to most Tank guns

When you think about what a tank actually is, it's an armoured shell which surrounds large amount of combustible or unstable material which give it its firepower and mobility. Weak guns do nothing against a tank but If you penetrate its hard shell, you might ignite its power source or ammunition supply, resulting to a catastrophic kill. Even if you don't, you can always achieve a hit on its heavy weapons which are exposed, or snap a track or "grav field projector" resulting to mobility kill. Current vehicle rules in 40k model this very well.

But with a Monstrous creature, none of that applies. Which kinda makes sense on some level - there is nothing inside an elephant which could blow up violently if you shoot it with a howitzer. And if you blow up one leg it still might drag itself forward with only three. But when you strap a big gun on elephants back, then its ammo supply SHOULD possibly blow up. And again we're in Riptide: somehow, same features which exist to justify damage rules on Hammerhead do not apply on Riptide. Its gun cannot be harmed. You can't shoot off its leg or jet pack. Even if you shoot through its armour with your most powerful gun, its ammo supply or power reactor never blows up.

But maybe those rules are just to represent much higher level of technology? No, that can't be it: there are both types of units within a same faction like Riptide and Hammerhead, Dreadnought and Dreadknight etc. Why don't Tau make ALL their vehicles with same uber-technology they apply on Riptide? There is of course always Wraithlord, which is argued a product of superior Eldar wraithbone technology. But Wraithlord represents the old paradigm where MC's and vehicles had respectable tradeoffs. Wraithlord is kinda like a Walker which is immune to certain additional effects. It has high T, only 3 wounds and no Inv save. It is immune to most Small arms, doesn't blow up but just as easy to kill with heavy weapons as an equivalent Walker.

From purely gaming perspective, I find it very tedious to play against tough Monstrous creatures. When I shoot at a tank, I might always get lucky, it might blow up, or at least lose a gun or its mobility, leaving opponent an unit with reduced usefulness but something I still can't ignore. But when I shoot at Monstrous creature, the best result I can expect is that it loses a wound. There are no other effects, it will continue its rampage on 100% combat effectiveness regardless of how powerful gun I shot it at. I have to grind it down wound by wound, and when it finally dies, it just disappears into thin air. It doesn't blow up and doesn't leave a wreck. It is so BORING.

 Brennonjw wrote:
so, judging by the poll: if we made actual creatures MCs, and things like walkers..... walkers all would be better now if only we got a buff to walkers (or vehicles in general, maybe something like and armour or invuln save?)

again, the poll is functionally useless due to the lack of options. Confirmation bias.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 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.

Yes, a more appropriate cost usually does make things better, but the thing is that point cost is not a magic cureall for making something useful. FOC slots is also an inherent cost, and an equal points in infantry is almost always better. We have a good case study with this already with Nobs and Tyranid Warriors, who are a lot of points to go up in flames if someone decided to take krak missiles (or equivalent) that day and aren't really any tougher to small arms. Unless they have a way to boost up their toughness that keeps them way from (biker nobs/mega armor), you're better off using the more spamable version. And MC would be to multi wound infantry what multi wound infantry is to normal infantry: a massive point sink into a single model. At least with multiwound infantry it's a waste to fire something like a vanquisher, hammhead railgun, or lascan pred at one because of the inefficiency to do so. where as a mc, even with a massive discount, would still be no reason to not shoot at it and short of having a inv, flying, a cover save (and I assume you'd also want to remove MC getting a cover save from area terrain) being able to outrange you, they will die.

If anything, such a system would encourage taking ripsides, flyrants, and wraith knights.

it's almost like it's the exact same problem when people nerf assault to make deathstars weaker and just make the deathstars better by comparison! But that's it's own topic

Both

 Grand.Master.Raziel wrote:


MC defenders always bring up these points, but in actuality the likelihood of a MC losing even a single wound to smallarms fire or to poisoned weapons is so infinitesimal it's not ever worth mentioning /quote]

What? Lasgun vs. Carnifex is 1/6 x 1/3 = 1/18. 10 Guardsmen with FRFSRF in RF range has a pretty good chance of getting that.

Splinter rifle vs. Carnifex is 1/2 x 1/3 = 1/6!

Alcibiades wrote:

 Grand.Master.Raziel wrote:


MC defenders always bring up these points, but in actuality the likelihood of a MC losing even a single wound to smallarms fire or to poisoned weapons is so infinitesimal it's not ever worth mentioning /quote]

What? Lasgun vs. Carnifex is 1/6 x 1/3 = 1/18. 10 Guardsmen with FRFSRF in RF range has a pretty good chance of getting that.

Splinter rifle vs. Carnifex is 1/2 x 1/3 = 1/6!

They also invariably ignore attacks such as haywire which only target vechicles

Yeah that Kroot monstrous creature is waaaaaaay OP man, its definitely the MC rule as a whole.

Out of interest, what becomes of Tyranids if the one thing keeping them playable gets nerfed? At a time when strong armies are getting mad buffs. Yeah, no.

 _ghost_ wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 _ghost_ wrote:
Not as long as we talk about VEHICLES

Then maybe you should have said "Tau have no shields at all when talking about vehicles"

Well i assumed that you don't lose the focus on the topic. witch was vehicles. ... tau vehicles and that the have no shields... im sorry

The stormsurge does. The whole point was that the stormsurge should be a vehicle (because it is one), and since the stormsurge has access to a shield generator, it is (or would be) the first Tau vehicle with a shield.

So there you go.

As for having weaker armor, my reasoning is just because the Imperial walkers are all big, heavy, lumbering brutes (like most Imperial war machines) and I feel like that means they should have thicker armor for some reason. Admittedly I don't have a very good reason from a scientific or engineering standpoint, the Knight just looks a little more "hardy" than the stormsurge to me. In any case I thought Dantes_Baals suggestion to give the stormsurge AV14 and IWND was too much, and thought it would be better to give it weaker AV ratings but give it a better shield to compensate (which could translate to a re-roll or something or just a better save, I dunno).

Personally I think hammerheads should be able to take shield generators, though. No real reason, I just really want to.

Giant mechanical suits are by definition NOT creatures. If Wraith Knights and Riptides were walkers, no one would complain about them.

Meanwhile instead of making SM Dreads monstrous creatures they just give them 4 attacks and call it good. They can still be destroyed with one dice roll.

 SickSix wrote:
Giant mechanical suits are by definition NOT creatures. If Wraith Knights and Riptides were walkers, no one would complain about them.

Meanwhile instead of making SM Dreads monstrous creatures they just give them 4 attacks and call it good. They can still be destroyed with one dice roll.

The wraithknight is not mechanical. Please read the fluff before you call it a walker. It's a giant wraithlord with an eldar in it to help enhance its agility. Its made of wraithbone and has dead eldar souls in it just like the wraithguard and the wraithlord.

 Sidstyler wrote:
The stormsurge. . .

you know what, I'd be fine with that. Make its stats identical to a Knight's (without the ion shield), with the shield generator an optional upgrade (one we wouldn't need to choose a facing for). Bam, done. No more arguing over how many weapons it can fire, and where or what it can target. Of course, I would be slightly sad, as the beta strike that I have been using would go out the window (Drone Net + EWOs).

Now if only the Knight's Battle Cannon Heavy Stubber and the avenger's heavy flamer were coaxial.

Hey guys !

The MC rule is definitely not OP. I feel that Tyranid and Daemons MCs are usually pretty interesting to play against.

It's just that some units are criminally undercosted for what they do. Would you rather have a Riptide or 5 shootyTerminators ? Yep, thought so :p

I don't think it's down to stupid rules development teams, but deliberate meta changes to force people to keep buying new type of units to up their game or counter the new flavour of the month in order to continuously enjoy the game without losing 20-0 all the time.

That's also a reason why GW's sales figures have dropped 10% per year (except last where they had 0% growth despite the release of AOS and B@C ), because players aren't as dumb as the marketing team thinks they are :p

 _ghost_ wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 _ghost_ wrote:
Not as long as we talk about VEHICLES

Then maybe you should have said "Tau have no shields at all when talking about vehicles"

Well i assumed that you don't lose the focus on the topic. witch was vehicles. ... tau vehicles and that the have no shields... im sorry

Not quite true, however, the manta has a shield, as do tau star-ships. Besides, if they can make a generator that can protect a riptide, I see no fluff reason why a similar one can't be made for the tanks.

Although power constants my become an issue. Something like a 6++ or 5++ that can be increased to a 4++ at a whim, but it can't fire it's gun until the next as it needs to recharge it's capacitors for the railgun/ion cannon would be pretty cool thematically, and balanced if it's priced correctly. Although perhaps make it so you can't get the D-pod as well, by making a "shield" hard-point. That would make the d-pod a cheaper (although don't necisarilydecrease it's price) but situational choice.

 Sidstyler wrote:

 _ghost_ wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 _ghost_ wrote:
Not as long as we talk about VEHICLES

Then maybe you should have said "Tau have no shields at all when talking about vehicles"

Well i assumed that you don't lose the focus on the topic. witch was vehicles. ... tau vehicles and that the have no shields... im sorry

The stormsurge does. The whole point was that the stormsurge should be a vehicle (because it is one), and since the stormsurge has access to a shield generator, it is (or would be) the first Tau vehicle with a shield.

So there you go.

As for having weaker armor, my reasoning is just because the Imperial walkers are all big, heavy, lumbering brutes (like most Imperial war machines) and I feel like that means they should have thicker armor for some reason. Admittedly I don't have a very good reason from a scientific or engineering standpoint, the Knight just looks a little more "hardy" than the stormsurge to me. In any case I thought Dantes_Baals suggestion to give the stormsurge AV14 and IWND was too much, and thought it would be better to give it weaker AV ratings but give it a better shield to compensate (which could translate to a re-roll or something or just a better save, I dunno).

Personally I think hammerheads should be able to take shield generators, though. No real reason, I just really want to.

I'm definitely good with the shield option. In my mind I can just see the larger, more agile Tau suits being better able to take a hit than say, a dread. Anyhow, as I said they were suggestions. The important thing is that we're on the same page about what changes need to be made.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xerics wrote:

 SickSix wrote:
Giant mechanical suits are by definition NOT creatures. If Wraith Knights and Riptides were walkers, no one would complain about them.

Meanwhile instead of making SM Dreads monstrous creatures they just give them 4 attacks and call it good. They can still be destroyed with one dice roll.

The wraithknight is not mechanical. Please read the fluff before you call it a walker. It's a giant wraithlord with an eldar in it to help enhance its agility. Its made of wraithbone and has dead eldar souls in it just like the wraithguard and the wraithlord.

There is a little dude inside a bigger dude that controls it? Sounds like a walker if something that is literally half demon or half sarcophagus is a walker.

Dantes_Baals wrote:

 Sidstyler wrote:

 _ghost_ wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 _ghost_ wrote:
Not as long as we talk about VEHICLES

Then maybe you should have said "Tau have no shields at all when talking about vehicles"

Well i assumed that you don't lose the focus on the topic. witch was vehicles. ... tau vehicles and that the have no shields... im sorry

The stormsurge does. The whole point was that the stormsurge should be a vehicle (because it is one), and since the stormsurge has access to a shield generator, it is (or would be) the first Tau vehicle with a shield.

So there you go.

As for having weaker armor, my reasoning is just because the Imperial walkers are all big, heavy, lumbering brutes (like most Imperial war machines) and I feel like that means they should have thicker armor for some reason. Admittedly I don't have a very good reason from a scientific or engineering standpoint, the Knight just looks a little more "hardy" than the stormsurge to me. In any case I thought Dantes_Baals suggestion to give the stormsurge AV14 and IWND was too much, and thought it would be better to give it weaker AV ratings but give it a better shield to compensate (which could translate to a re-roll or something or just a better save, I dunno).

Personally I think hammerheads should be able to take shield generators, though. No real reason, I just really want to.

I'm definitely good with the shield option. In my mind I can just see the larger, more agile Tau suits being better able to take a hit than say, a dread. Anyhow, as I said they were suggestions. The important thing is that we're on the same page about what changes need to be made.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xerics wrote:

 SickSix wrote:
Giant mechanical suits are by definition NOT creatures. If Wraith Knights and Riptides were walkers, no one would complain about them.

Meanwhile instead of making SM Dreads monstrous creatures they just give them 4 attacks and call it good. They can still be destroyed with one dice roll.

The wraithknight is not mechanical. Please read the fluff before you call it a walker. It's a giant wraithlord with an eldar in it to help enhance its agility. Its made of wraithbone and has dead eldar souls in it just like the wraithguard and the wraithlord.

There is a little dude inside a bigger dude that controls it? Sounds like a walker if something that is literally half demon or half sarcophagus is a walker.

Agreed lol.

If a dread is a walker, as it has a pilot, a war hound, sentinel etc. All have little fellas inside piloting them, then the Wraithknight is a walker, not saying it should have an AV, Eldar are the ONLY ones that should get walkers with a toughness, no one else, tau, imperial etc. Except maybe deamon engines.

I honestly wouldn't mind an additional rule to the basic MC rule that reduced an MC to only shooting with 1 weapon/turn and losing -D3 attacks (to a minimum of 1) once it's down to under 50% of it's total wounds. (so a 4 wound MC like a Daemon Prince only suffers the penalty once it's down to a single remaining wound for example)
At least it would represent MC's becoming less effective as they sustain near-fatal levels of punishment, and be akin to them having limbs blown off, giant holes punched through them, and/or vital organs being ruptured & bleeding half to death.

Also, reduce the Smash rule to MC's melee attacks always strike at ap3, or else can forgo making regular attacks to preform a special smash attack that gives D3/ap2 attacks.

I mean, you look at a Riptide and sure, it looks big and heavy enough that if it starts kicking/punching power armoured dudes, it's going to easily break bones. But Terminator armour is supposed to be legendary for it's ability to shrug off even an angry Carnifex! (or else survive getting accidently stepped on by a titan if you're a Space Puppy...)
It also adds some utility to those MC's who have natural access to ap2 weaponry and sets them apart as true melee specialists, over either generalist MC's (like the Dreadknight) and dedicated shooting MC's (like the Riptide)


And as a shameless wish listy rule: When a Monstrous Creature loses it's last wound, any unit(s) locked in close combat with the creature, or within 3", each sustain D6 S4/ap5 hits, as they end up covered in acidic blood/daemonic ichor/scalding bio fluids/etc...

 SickSix wrote:
If Wraith Knights and Riptides were walkers, no one would complain about them.

I think people would complain just as much as they do now. People will never stop complaining about Tau until GW Squats them.

Good rules, bad rules, never fething mattered, never will.

Dantes_Baals wrote:
I'm definitely good with the shield option. In my mind I can just see the larger, more agile Tau suits being better able to take a hit than say, a dread. Anyhow, as I said they were suggestions. The important thing is that we're on the same page about what changes need to be made.

Yeah, but my logic is that if you know your robots are slow and derpy, you're going to armor them up so they can take a hit. Because obviously they'll have to.

Some push for Walkers to make them bevaving closer like a MC.

Adding a rule that makes MS's less hard/ effective/ whatever when they lost 50% Lp

And voila... everything is fine.

The issue really isn't MC but how bad walker rules are. Players are getting upset that their favorite walkers have gakky outdated rules and then complain that other armies have rules that work. I don't think GW should give units gakky rules so we can all suffer. What I think GW should do is create a mechanical creature unit type that has it's own positives and negatives, but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for an update on MC.

The problem isn't just walkers, though. It's all vehicles - like the Riptide vs the Leman Russ.

Both are heavy support gun platforms, but the riptide for 100 points gets:

MC durability. Jet pack mobility. Not having to snapfire if it fires ordnance. The ability to fight back in close combat. Two different kinds of saves. Immunity to the damage chart.

Either the Russ is way overpriced or the Riptide is undercosted (relative to the Russ) or MCs are ridiculous compared to vehicles in general, not just walkers.