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.

Give MCs and GMCs reasonable rules and costs, and you can have as many as you like.

Another approach is to make all walkers and vehicles MCs with the subtype mechanical.

It's easy to hate Eldar when their netlists table you with no effort and even their suboptimal units can thrash your best stuff soundly.

 Vaktathi wrote:
How is a Riptide not a walking tank? Its a piloted vehicle with a big gun sporting legs instead of treads, and absolutely should be able to be disabled in the same way as other vehicles.

None of those things describe what a vehicle (walker or otherwise) is in the game though.

In the game, a walker is a vehicle with legs. It defends itself by means of its armour primarily and the legs are its motive system. It has weapons fixed in a forward position and can only fore within a 45 degree angle ahead of it (unless it has a turret somehow). Its enhanced mobility allows it to to move around in combat enough to avoid a lethal hit in its most vulnerable parts (represented by all melee hits resolving against front armour) but can't turn around or react fast enough to keep from being hit from behind (can it even overwatch outside that arc? I can't remember)

This does not describe the riptide, which is described as being limber and agile despite its size, aiming and shooting at targets other than what is directly ahead and wielding its primary armament on its arm instead of fixed on its body.

 Desubot wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
How is a Riptide not a walking tank? Its a piloted vehicle with a big gun sporting legs instead of treads, and absolutely should be able to be disabled in the same way as other vehicles.

Same way terminators are described as walking tanks

Terminator armor is actual armor though, it is worn, a Riptide is piloted from a cockpit.

 Happyjew wrote:
As an Eldar player, Wraithguard/blades and Wraithlords should not be vehicles - there are no pilots. Wraithknights are a combination pilot and MC and could theoretically be re-classed as a Super Heavy Walker. Dreadknights, which are exactly the same as Penitent Engines should be Walkers, as well as Riptides, Stormsurges, and that other big Tau thing.

Keep in mind the Wraithlord *was* a vehicle, it used to specifically be called an Eldar Dreadnought. It's a mechanical construct, not coherent biological entity the way say, a Carnifex is. A Defiler has no pilot either, and in fact if anything has an even greater soul/construct meld, but its still not an MC.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Captain Joystick wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
How is a Riptide not a walking tank? Its a piloted vehicle with a big gun sporting legs instead of treads, and absolutely should be able to be disabled in the same way as other vehicles.

None of those things describe what a vehicle (walker or otherwise) is in the game though.

In the game, a walker is a vehicle with legs. It defends itself by means of its armour primarily and the legs are its motive system. It has weapons fixed in a forward position and can only fore within a 45 degree angle ahead of it (unless it has a turret somehow). Its enhanced mobility allows it to to move around in combat enough to avoid a lethal hit in its most vulnerable parts (represented by all melee hits resolving against front armour) but can't turn around or react fast enough to keep from being hit from behind (can it even overwatch outside that arc? I can't remember)

This does not describe the riptide, which is described as being limber and agile despite its size, aiming and shooting at targets other than what is directly ahead and wielding its primary armament on its arm instead of fixed on its body.

This is a somewhat complex description that only works within a narrowly defined context, if you look at say, a Soul Grinder or Maulerfiend, this paradigm breaks down.

Anything Dreadnought sized and upwards that's not a living creature (so Tyranids and to and Daemons) I would class as walkers. Yes, the walker rules need a bit of a fix, but I think it would be smart to re-draw the line nice and clearly.

I remember back when Tau were first introduced there was a wonderful "how we came up with this race" issue of White Dwarf that talked about how they experimented with Crisis Suits being AV 11/11/10 (and then 11/10/10) walkers, but they found that immunity to S3 at all ranges and immunity to S4 in melee was too powerful when spammed in large numbers. By giving Crisis Suits T4 and a few wounds, they were hard to kill with basic weapons, but not invulnerable. Based on that reasoning, I would keep Crisis Suits, Wraithguard etc as models with a T value.

 Vaktathi wrote:

This is a somewhat complex description that only works within a narrowly defined context, if you look at say, a Soul Grinder or Maulerfiend, this paradigm breaks down.

Mainly because I ramble, but you're right.

The point I'm trying to make is that the unit designation 'walker' describes a vehicle that behaves a certain way, it does not necessarily encompass everything that could be described by people as 'a vehicle that can walk'.

In the same way, you could have a tyranid monster that is better represented by walker rules than by monstrous creature rules, you won't because the walker rules are garbage, but you could do it.

 Xerics wrote:
Careful Happyjew. This thread is full of Tau and Eldar hate. You can try and reason with them all you want but the hate is strong with these ones.

Xerics your the only one who thinks this is hatred. It is people wanting fair rules across the board. If my Killa Kan is a walker, why aren't crisis suits? If a SM's dreadnought is a Walker why aren't riptides?

Wraithknights are utter garbage when it comes to rules. It is such a blatant attempt to create an easy mode army.

Again though, please continue to respond with your sarcasm without realizing that your army is broken. Just gives more fuel to the crowd who want to ban eldar from events (BTW I am not one of those people, though I would never play you for obvious reasons)

 Captain Joystick wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

This is a somewhat complex description that only works within a narrowly defined context, if you look at say, a Soul Grinder or Maulerfiend, this paradigm breaks down.

Mainly because I ramble, but you're right.

The point I'm trying to make is that the unit designation 'walker' describes a vehicle that behaves a certain way, it does not necessarily encompass everything that could be described by people as 'a vehicle that can walk'.

In the same way, you could have a tyranid monster that is better represented by walker rules than by monstrous creature rules, you won't because the walker rules are garbage, but you could do it.

I get the point your driving at, its just that the rules themselves have historically separated along mechanical vs biological lines, not on intended functionity, and, like everything with GW, the "new paradigm" is more implied than explicit is painfully inconsistent, and theres a huge capability gap in unit types to boot, with weird results like Riptides being vulnerable to poison attacks and Daemon Engines with as much flesh as steel being completely immune

 Vaktathi wrote:
I get the point your driving at, its just that the rules themselves have historically separated along mechanical vs biological lines, not on intended functionity, and, like everything with GW, the "new paradigm" is more implied than explicit is painfully inconsistent, and theres a huge capability gap in unit types to boot, with weird results like Riptides being vulnerable to poison attacks and Daemon Engines with as much flesh as steel being completely immune

That same poison works on necron warriors (also infantry ), because it isn't actually necessarily poison, it's just a nebulously defined - something- that has a specific effect on the target, possibly one of a set of different substances the shooters pick from depending on that target, the poison rule is there for our benefit, so we don't have six extra rules for all the different types of sternguard ammunition.

SemperMortis wrote:

 Xerics wrote:
Careful Happyjew. This thread is full of Tau and Eldar hate. You can try and reason with them all you want but the hate is strong with these ones.

Xerics your the only one who thinks this is hatred. It is people wanting fair rules across the board. If my Killa Kan is a walker, why aren't crisis suits? If a SM's dreadnought is a Walker why aren't riptides?

No a lot of it IS hatred. Some of it is just pure bitter hatred and fairness doesn't come into it. There's no point pretending otherwise.

It's hard to deconvolute that when eldar are consistently the most unfair army. I sure don't see many dark angel haters or csm haters.

 Quickjager wrote:
Lol you are pointless to talk to.

Good counter-argument with clear and well-defined paradigms about what differentiates a vehicle from an MC.

Really a joy to read. We should use this plan in future editions of 40k.

kambien wrote:
Here is my criteria between walkers/MC

1. MC don't have the pilot use controls , they are the controls.Fox example a battle suit the pilot is the control mechanism as apposed to a sentinels where the IG is using controls to control the construct. Dreadnoughts would also fall into this category, the pilot is the control portion as well. Dread knights also fall into this because they just need move as they normally would and the construct mimics it .

2. The construct offers full range of motion.In example battle suits have all the normal joints/fingers that the pilot has normally They have full range of motion.Walkers do not , they have a very basic range in the motions they can perform.

I vehemently reject these criteria. On your criteria, if a dreadnought or a laindrader were guided solely by AI, they should be monstrous creatures, which is, of course, utterly silly.

What you're doing is trying to determine whether it's an MC or a vehicle based on efficient causality, i.e., on the source of the thing's motion.

I reject this. We have to determine whether it's an MC or a vehicle based on formal causality (i.e., WHAT it is) and material causality (what it's made of).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Just to throw a wrench into the works:

1) The Mechanicum Ordinatus macro-engines have machine-spirits, and the crew that run them aid the machine spirits and hardwired brains, and are arguably hardwired themselves.

2) Mechanicum Ordinatus macro-engines' machine spirits are powerful enough to repair them over time - this means that if left alone long enough a damaged but not-yet-destroyed Macro-Engine will fully 'heal'. Mechanic not required.

3) Ordinatus engines have no chance of exploding from a single lascannon shot.


What other criteria are being thrown around again? Because it looks to me like the Ordinatus engines should be MCs. *giggles*

The engines fail the first criteria of the flow chart: they are not alive; they are not animals.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Unit1126PLL wrote:Organic [adj.] = carbon-based

The problem with this definition is that this definition is solely in terms of material causality (i.e., what something is made of).

The other problem is that many things are carbon based which are not organic. The gasoline in my car, for example, is clearly not an organism.

Or, with the other definition of organic:

"Made or derived from organic matter."

In addition to the above problem (defining solely through material causality), the definition is circular: it places the term to be defined in the definition.

For "organic," the Greek term organon comes to mind, which means instrument. A body is organic if and only if it has a plurality of parts which act as its "instruments" for the various operations of life. Note that this holds true even in single-celled organisms.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
It's hard to deconvolute that when eldar are consistently the most unfair army. I sure don't see many dark angel haters or csm haters.

I think that the dark angel ravenwing formation is patently unfair. Between 2+ rerollable jink saves and overwatch shenanigans, I refuse to play Dark Angels, just as I refuse to play Tau.

I mean historically unfair. Can you name me one OP thing from the 2nd ed DA codex? I can name you a dozen from the Eldar codex.

Traditio wrote:

kambien wrote:
Here is my criteria between walkers/MC

1. MC don't have the pilot use controls , they are the controls.Fox example a battle suit the pilot is the control mechanism as apposed to a sentinels where the IG is using controls to control the construct. Dreadnoughts would also fall into this category, the pilot is the control portion as well. Dread knights also fall into this because they just need move as they normally would and the construct mimics it .

2. The construct offers full range of motion.In example battle suits have all the normal joints/fingers that the pilot has normally They have full range of motion.Walkers do not , they have a very basic range in the motions they can perform.

I vehemently reject these criteria. On your criteria, if a dreadnought or a laindrader were guided solely by AI, they should be monstrous creatures, which is, of course, utterly silly.

What you're doing is trying to determine whether it's an MC or a vehicle based on efficient causality, i.e., on the source of the thing's motion.

I reject this. We have to determine whether it's an MC or a vehicle based on formal causality (i.e., WHAT it is) and material causality (what it's made of).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Just to throw a wrench into the works:

1) The Mechanicum Ordinatus macro-engines have machine-spirits, and the crew that run them aid the machine spirits and hardwired brains, and are arguably hardwired themselves.

2) Mechanicum Ordinatus macro-engines' machine spirits are powerful enough to repair them over time - this means that if left alone long enough a damaged but not-yet-destroyed Macro-Engine will fully 'heal'. Mechanic not required.

3) Ordinatus engines have no chance of exploding from a single lascannon shot.


What other criteria are being thrown around again? Because it looks to me like the Ordinatus engines should be MCs. *giggles*

The engines fail the first criteria of the flow chart: they are not alive; they are not animals.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Unit1126PLL wrote:Organic [adj.] = carbon-based

The problem with this definition is that this definition is solely in terms of material causality (i.e., what something is made of).

The other problem is that many things are carbon based which are not organic. The gasoline in my car, for example, is clearly not an organism.

Or, with the other definition of organic:

"Made or derived from organic matter."

In addition to the above problem (defining solely through material causality), the definition is circular: it places the term to be defined in the definition.

For "organic," the Greek term organon comes to mind, which means instrument. A body is organic if and only if it has a plurality of parts which act as its "instruments" for the various operations of life. Note that this holds true even in single-celled organisms.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
It's hard to deconvolute that when eldar are consistently the most unfair army. I sure don't see many dark angel haters or csm haters.

I think that the dark angel ravenwing formation is patently unfair. Between 2+ rerollable jink saves and overwatch shenanigans, I refuse to play Dark Angels, just as I refuse to play Tau.

Wraithknights, Riptides, Dreadknights, and Crisis Suits are not animals either. Clearly that isn't a criterion.

As for your instruments thing, you don't consider the secondary weapons on an Ordinatus to be "instruments" through which its machine spirit acts, since they're not controlled by the crew? Or the treads to be the 'instruments' by which it traverses the ground, much like human feet would be for humans?

Martel732 wrote:
It's hard to deconvolute that when eldar are consistently the most unfair army. I sure don't see many dark angel haters or csm haters.

That's because their units are . . . well not balanced, that's for sure. Maybe we should just say that DA and CSM don't have nearly as many undercosted/broken/overpowered/however-the-hell-else-you-want-to-say-it units

Unit1126PLL wrote:Wraithknights, Riptides, Dreadknights, and Crisis Suits are not animals either. Clearly that isn't a criterion.

No. They aren't. Therefore, they are not monstrous creatures: they should be walkers.

QED.

As for your instruments thing, you don't consider the secondary weapons on an Ordinatus to be "instruments" through which its machine spirit acts, since they're not controlled by the crew? Or the treads to be the 'instruments' by which it traverses the ground, much like human feet would be for humans?

No. In order for something to be organic, it has to be alive. An organism is organic because its parts are instruments for the operations of life. My heart is an instrument that keeps me alive by pumping blood.

 Captain Joystick wrote:


But the unit designation isn't strictly a case of what the unit is in the fluff, but what category best represents its behaviour, in much the same way that poison rounds work against necrons not because they're actually poison.

A dreadnought and a crisis suit represent different design philosophies, forcing them to occupy the same category implies there's a common denominator in how their performance works which does not exist. A crisis suit is as survivable as it is for reasons other than armour, a dreadnought can not be reasonably expected to turn around fast enough to shoot at a drop pod that landed behind him.

Walker vehicles are awful, and that's a problem. Pushing for the suits to be recategorized because you hate Tau so much they should be relegated to that trash heap is shortsighted and cruel: foisting a pile of bad rules onto the army just because they proved those rules are bad.

Dreadnoughts are awesome, and walker vehicles need a buff. But even if they were buffed to the point where dreadnoughts and killa kanz with their current statline could measure up as well as GW thinks they do, or even if they got buffed up out into the stratosphere, it still wouldn't make sense for crisis suits or riptides to be in that category, they are not walking tanks.

... Except the stormsurge, once again, that sucker is a walking tank

What in my comment gave you the notion that I have any disposition whatsoever towards Tau? I want consistent rules, that's all.

I stated that Crisis, Broadsise and Wraithguard should retain an infantry profile for my aforementioned reasons. But taking some of the other units, consider this:

Agility and design philisophy notwithstanding, tanks, aircraft, walkers and mecha all have propulsion and weapon systems. In tanks, aircraft and walkers, these can be destroyed, and the crew can be stunned. In Riptides Dreadknights and Wraithlords, they cannot. The vehicle suffers no deterioration in performance until it is destroyed outright. This makes no sense to me. If I can blow the gun off a predator or dread, then I should be able to blow the gun off a riptide.

Give them a suitaby good walker profile. If the rules for walkers are too bad to allow for that, then those rules need to be changed. I just don't think models that are clearly vehicles should be treated otherwise.

Traditio wrote:

Unit1126PLL wrote:Wraithknights, Riptides, Dreadknights, and Crisis Suits are not animals either. Clearly that isn't a criterion.

No. They aren't. Therefore, they are not monstrous creatures: they should be walkers.

QED.

As for your instruments thing, you don't consider the secondary weapons on an Ordinatus to be "instruments" through which its machine spirit acts, since they're not controlled by the crew? Or the treads to be the 'instruments' by which it traverses the ground, much like human feet would be for humans?

No. In order for something to be organic, it has to be alive. An organism is organic because its parts are instruments for the operations of life. My heart is an instrument that keeps me alive by pumping blood.

Your first part I agree with, but the second part I don't understand.

When you have artificial intelligence and growing metal, what does it mean to be alive? Is not that AI's processor core and memory module akin to the instrument of a 'brain?' Is the coolant pump so different from a heart? Is the armour so distinguishable from skin?

SemperMortis wrote:
But it doesn't matter because no matter what Tau/Eldar will never admit their units should be Vehicles unless vehicles get a HUGE buff and MC"s get a huge nerf.

If that ever did happen, and GW made all these units vehicles to appease you, only to hand vehicles a huge buff and nerf the gak out of MCs/GMCs with the update to the next edition, then people like you would be right back here on Dakka starting threads called "Should these models be MCs/GMCs?", and making the same argument us guys are making now.

"It makes no sense for crisis suits to be vehicles anymore! I mean yeah, they're obviously mechanical, but the pilot is hardwired into the suit and moves with the same kind of agility that a living creature would! The pilot is the suit! They should all be nerfed into pansy-ass infantry again!"

 Xerics wrote:
Lol who wants their army nerfed? *looks around for any hands up but of course there are none* That's what I thought.

Yeah, no gak.

Tell me Semper, would you and the others be this "passionate" about nerfing stuff if it were your own army on top, or would we have pages and pages of arguing about how it all makes perfect sense for things to be as they are, with reams of badly-written Imperial fluff posted to try and back it up? Because I'm not at all convinced it would be any different.

And for the record, I was all for fixing units that were obviously broken, like the riptide, etc. I didn't start to push back until you guys went gunning for gak that wasn't. Give someone an inch they'll ask for a mile.

And if MCs were weaker than walkers the Tau/Eldar players would be arguing about how Wraithknights are mechs with pilots rather than living beings. It's kind of how these things go.

The distinction between MCs and Walkers are completely arbitrary anyway.

..its either have robots as Infantry/MC/GMC or have all robots as vehicles not some here and some there ...Straight forward and simple.

Unit1126PLL wrote:]When you have artificial intelligence and growing metal, what does it mean to be alive? Is not that AI's processor core and memory module akin to the instrument of a 'brain?' Is the coolant pump so different from a heart? Is the armour so distinguishable from skin?

It's sophistical even to ask these questions. It should be perceptually obvious. A mechanical dog with very advanced AI is not a dog. Dogs are dogs.

An android with very advanced AI that looks and acts like Socrates is not Socrates. Socrates is Socrates.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sidstyler wrote:If that ever did happen, and GW made all these units vehicles to appease you, only to hand vehicles a huge buff and nerf the gak out of MCs/GMCs with the update to the next edition, then people like you would be right back here on Dakka starting threads called "Should these models be MCs/GMCs?", and making the same argument us guys are making now.

I would not. You are conflating two very different things:

1. Correct classification
2. Balance.

Even if a riptide were substantially nerfed and had its points increased (and so were properly balanced), it would still be incorrectly classified. As you yourself note:

they're obviously mechanical

Personally, I love the fact that my sternguard wound dreadknights on 2s with hellfire rounds.

It doesn't make a whole lot of sense, though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

TheCustomLime wrote:The distinction between MCs and Walkers are completely arbitrary anyway.

It really shouldn't be. It's the distinction between "is an animal" and "is not an animal."

Traditio wrote:

Unit1126PLL wrote:]When you have artificial intelligence and growing metal, what does it mean to be alive? Is not that AI's processor core and memory module akin to the instrument of a 'brain?' Is the coolant pump so different from a heart? Is the armour so distinguishable from skin?

It's sophistical even to ask these questions. It should be perceptually obvious. A mechanical dog with very advanced AI is not a dog. Dogs are dogs.

An android with very advanced AI that looks and acts like Socrates is not Socrates. Socrates is Socrates.

Nice strawman you have there, mind if I have a go?

I never said AIs were replacements - I never claimed that a robot dog was a dog. I merely said it might be alive. Call it a mog or a pog or a tog - it certainly isn't a dog, but that does not stop it from being alive.

Similarly, you could call such an AI Mockrates. I never said I was -replacing- life, or trying to build an exact copy. I was asking why, fundamentally, such a construct isn't alive even if it isn't identical to the person upon which it is based.

I am not identical to you, yet we are both alive. See the question now? Proving that I am not identical to you in no way means that I am not alive. Proving that an AI construct that is mechanical is not a dog does not prove that it is not alive.

Unit:

If you want to say that it's corporeal and alive, then I'll tell you that all embodied living things are either:

1. Plants (or roughly equivalent; e.g., bacteria)

or

2. Animals

Is it a plant or an animal?

Traditio wrote:
Unit:

If you want to say that it's alive, then I'll tell you that all living things are either:

1. Plants (or roughly equivalent; e.g., bacteria)

or

2. Animals.

Is it a plant or an animal?

Animal, according to google's definition: "a living organism which feeds on organic matter, typically having specialized sense organs and nervous system and able to respond rapidly to stimuli."

One might rephrase it "a mechanical device which feeds on organic matter, typically having specialized sensor apparatuses and computerized system able to respond rapidly to stimuli." But the rephrase is, of course, unnecessary.

Unit1126PLL wrote:Animal, according to google's definition: "a living organism which feeds on organic matter, typically having specialized sense organs and nervous system and able to respond rapidly to stimuli."

One might rephrase it "a mechanical device which feeds on organic matter, typically having specialized sensor apparatuses and computerized system able to respond rapidly to stimuli." But the rephrase is, of course, unnecessary.

I understand an animal as a sensate living thing. I understand living as the highest difference in bodies, i.e., living vs. non-living bodies. In animals, there is the further subdivision of rational vs. non-rational. (Porphry's tree comes to mind.)

You're focusing on the question of whether the machine is alive because of its alleged cognitive faculties. I'd prefer to look at the more basic instance of life (i.e., that plants), and note that animal life ultimately builds upon what's already present in plants.

A dog is alive in a sense analogous to that in which a rose bush is.

AI Socrates is not.

Traditio wrote:

kambien wrote:
Here is my criteria between walkers/MC

1. MC don't have the pilot use controls , they are the controls.Fox example a battle suit the pilot is the control mechanism as apposed to a sentinels where the IG is using controls to control the construct. Dreadnoughts would also fall into this category, the pilot is the control portion as well. Dread knights also fall into this because they just need move as they normally would and the construct mimics it .

2. The construct offers full range of motion.In example battle suits have all the normal joints/fingers that the pilot has normally They have full range of motion.Walkers do not , they have a very basic range in the motions they can perform.

I vehemently reject these criteria. On your criteria, if a dreadnought or a laindrader were guided solely by AI, they should be monstrous creatures, which is, of course, utterly silly.

How are you misreading this so easily . There are only 2 criteria , and neither a landraider or a dreadnought fulfills the 2nd.
If you put the pilot of what ever controls the construct in , shrunk it down and put it on the basketball court , would you perform just as well or better ? No ? So they don't have a full range of motion and can't perform simple tasks.

Traditio wrote:
What you're doing is trying to determine whether it's an MC or a vehicle based on efficient causality, i.e., on the source of the thing's motion.

How do you ignore criteria 2 in the previous statement , then ignore criteria 1 with this statement ? Its not just abut the motions it performs , see criteria 1

Traditio wrote:
I reject this. We have to determine whether it's an MC or a vehicle based on formal causality (i.e., WHAT it is) and material causality (what it's made of).

I reject your rejection. It doesn't matter what its made of , or did you forget you in the a sci-fi universe set 38,000 years in the future where they have all sorta of things that can't even be classified.

Traditio wrote:

Unit1126PLL wrote:Animal, according to google's definition: "a living organism which feeds on organic matter, typically having specialized sense organs and nervous system and able to respond rapidly to stimuli."

One might rephrase it "a mechanical device which feeds on organic matter, typically having specialized sensor apparatuses and computerized system able to respond rapidly to stimuli." But the rephrase is, of course, unnecessary.

I understand an animal as a sensate living thing. I understand living as the highest difference in bodies, i.e., living vs. non-living bodies. In animals, there is the further subdivision of rational vs. non-rational. (Porphry's tree comes to mind.)

You're focusing on the question of whether the machine is alive because of its alleged cognitive faculties. I'd prefer to look at the more basic instance of life (i.e., that plants), and note that animal life ultimately builds upon what's already present in plants.

A dog is alive in a sense analogous to that in which a rose bush is.

AI Socrates is not.

You don't understand my argument, I don't think.

I'm arguing that a sufficiently advanced machine can be indistinguishable from a living thing.

What would be the difference between an AI Socrates with a stomach chemical reactor that can process human food, an evolved brain and CNS electrical computer and sensor system, synthfibre muscles motive bits, a hydraulic system that uses a heart pump to send blood fluid around its body form, self-repairing skin armour, the ability to grow improve upon its physical capabilities, and a living thing?

Obviously when GW classified the units in question as monstrous creatures, that was purely a rules-based classification. They're not trying to impart to us that a riptide is in fact an actual creature! In real life terms, the classification is fairly simple: If it's mechanical / not organic, it's not a creature. If it's partially organic and partially mechanical its a cyborg. If it's fully organic its a creature. There's not much grounds for arguement there really.

Tau suits should all be walkers. If you can't determine a facing based on the model give them the same AV on all sides - same thing. All their weapons should be considered turret to reflect their agility. Except the Stormsurge. That thing's got less arms than Abaddon.

Wraithguard and wraithlord can be infanty and monstrous creature with GMC-type immunity to poison. Wraithknight should be SHW.

Centurions should be walkers.

Dreadknight should be walker chariot (that's a chariot that walks). Karamazov too. Soulgrinder should be walker chariot and the rider is a monstrous creature.

No more bikes. Bikes should be chariots. Hate to break it to you, but bikes only make you look tougher. Until you crash. Then you don't look so tough anymore. Go ahead, put my bolter shots on your AV10 bike and see what happens...

Obviously pt costs would need to be adjusted.