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.

So I don't so much have an answer to this problem, it's more of I have no idea. It comes with the addition of Magnus, who is a monstrous creature, and that makes sense as he's a big demon. But with all the MC in the game, with walkers and superheavy walkers, how do we differentiate the two rules wise? It doesn't make much sense that a dreadnought is a walker but a riptide is an MC. I've heard pros and cons for each but would it make sense to get rid of walkers entirely and just make everything that is not a tank a MC? Is there a way to fix the rules where it makes sense to have two separate descriptions for big walking creatures? I wanna know what Dakka thinks, should we keep both walkers and MC in the game rules wise, or should we axe one of them?

Make mcs actually pay for their capabilities.

Normally I'm all for having AV but in the case of walkers if a shipping container can have toughness and an armor save then a Dreadnought can have toughness + armor save as well. Just make a rule for them called "mechanical" or something where its immune to poison, snipers, force and grav wounds on 6s but melta and armorbane does D3 wounds while EMP wounds on a 2+.

pretty sure magnus is the answer.

 Vankraken wrote:
Normally I'm all for having AV but in the case of walkers if a shipping container can have toughness and an armor save then a Dreadnought can have toughness + armor save as well. Just make a rule for them called "mechanical" or something where its immune to poison, snipers, force and grav wounds on 6s but melta and armorbane does D3 wounds while EMP wounds on a 2+.

The Armoured Containers have a Toughness value because they're Battlefield Debris.
Why that happens? I don't know.

Realistically though, Walkers can't be fixed until Vehicles and Glancing Hits are.

 Vankraken wrote:
Normally I'm all for having AV but in the case of walkers if a shipping container can have toughness and an armor save then a Dreadnought can have toughness + armor save as well. Just make a rule for them called "mechanical" or something where its immune to poison, snipers, force and grav wounds on 6s but melta and armorbane does D3 wounds while EMP wounds on a 2+.

A container is new, what about Quad Guns? They've had Toughness and Armor Saves for forever.

In my experience, there are a few things that give walkers an edge over MCs. Granted, most of my experience come from playing a lot of skitarii.

Pointwise, I can't think of any cheap MCs. Not saying you don't get what you pay for, but they're an noticeable investment and can hurt a lot more if you lose one. A dragoon is 45 points. So with a full squadron of 6 (or 2 of 3, etc.) 270 points total. And that's pocket change for what you get.

From there we can move into squadrons. Up to 6 dragoons in a unit is huge. Warwalkers can get 3 for 180 and scatterlasers for free I believe. And with their psychic nonsense, I've seen first hand (repeatedly) how much doom, prescience, and misfortune just wreck things.

And lastly, tarpitting. I've locked a unit of over a dozen gaunts for an entire game repeatedly with a single dragoon. Once, even had a tyranofex locked for a few turns as well as some gaunts with just one 45 point walker. I had an AA onager with his weapon destroyed. Got close enough to charge a demon prince and locked it up for 3 turns with that good old av12.

Don't get me wrong, MCs can be very powerful. I still have yet to run a list that is effective against multiple flyrants. Those things just laugh at my armies ha. And any MC with T7 or greater can be really tough to deal with unless you have the right tools like auto wounding, poison, etc.

As for SHWs and GMCs, I only ever run a bare bones gallant if I bring a knight. Otherwise I've always just felt like I've wasted a ton of points in a meta that eats knights. Spending another 90 points on a gatling gun and missile pod only to have it wrecked turn 2 has made me appreciate the giant wrecking ball D blast the gallant is. As for GMC's, wraithknights and heirodules are all I've faced. Neither one being a massive problem. But again, I run a lot of skitarii, so auto wound saturation is a big tool that has helped to mitigate their terror. I've never killed a wraithknight with my gallant or any knight for that matter. But I've droppped 2 with just my vanguard in a single round of shooting.. And in the MC vs Walker debate, 30 double auto wounding shots at S3 don't do much against AV10.

Truth be told though, the 30k mechanicum FMC that just got released will be added to my collection. There will also be fantasizing about it getting 40k rules...

To fix the issue, you need one set of rules to govern them all.

Instead of having MCs treated as entirely different type of unit from Walkers (and by extension, vehicles in general), you have one set of rules governing all large models. Now the problem is much easier to solve as abilities and costs are easily translated and compared between two previously different units.

This also helps work out all the heavy and special weapons in the game as they'd be re-tooled to better reflect the lack of dramatic differences between MCs and vehicles.

It'd be a lot of work, but it would fix a lot of big problem areas in the core rules and among codex balance. It has the added benefit of being a much simpler and cleaner set of rules for all gamers.

Grav is the problem. There have always been walkers and MCs with different rules, but with the introduction of Grav, which auto-immobilizes on a 6, only walkers are now considered unplayable.

Grav needs changed / tweaked. It's just too useful in too many situations...also...too many shots with easy access to rerolls. Bleh...grav is often the answer to current 40k balance issues.

Vehicles and non-vehicles having completely different rules is my biggest pet peeve about 40K rules. It is not even about balance or anything like that, it is just clumsy and inelegant.

Give the vehicles toughness and armour save. If you wan't you can even have different saves on different sides so you can keep that aspect. And if we want to keep it more complicated, we can even have a damage chart to roll on whenever the vehicle gets wounded. But please, for love of Khaine make the basic mechanics consistent!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Voidwraith wrote:
Grav is the problem. There have always been walkers and MCs with different rules, but with the introduction of Grav, which auto-immobilizes on a 6, only walkers are now considered unplayable.

Grav needs changed / tweaked. It's just too useful in too many situations...also...too many shots with easy access to rerolls. Bleh...grav is often the answer to current 40k balance issues.

Well yes, grav has terrible mechanics. It is insanely effective against vehicles, rendering actual anti-vehicle weapons obsolete. And against non-vehicles it doesn't merely negate the armour save, it makes it a liability. Think about that, your armour, a thing you pay points for in order to not get hurt makes it more likely that you get hurt!

 Crimson wrote:

 Voidwraith wrote:
Grav is the problem. There have always been walkers and MCs with different rules, but with the introduction of Grav, which auto-immobilizes on a 6, only walkers are now considered unplayable.

Grav needs changed / tweaked. It's just too useful in too many situations...also...too many shots with easy access to rerolls. Bleh...grav is often the answer to current 40k balance issues.

Well yes, grav has terrible mechanics. It is insanely effective against vehicles, rendering actual anti-vehicle weapons obsolete. And against non-vehicles it doesn't merely negate the armour save, it makes it a liability. Think about that, your armour, a thing you pay points for in order to not get hurt makes it more likely that you get hurt!

Sadly, I agree with this. I went up a buddy's Black Templars with a FW Land Raider with ceramite plating. Melta was useless, so instead I grav'd it down in one turn.

That's why land raiders are 150 pt models now.

GIve all Vehicles armour saves, simplify the damage chart to 4 results on D3 and make MCs have to roll on said chart as well. Then give Walkers Smash

Now MCs and Walkers are as close as they can be without a huge overhaul of the rules.

 Galef wrote:
GIve all Vehicles armour saves, simplify the damage chart to 4 results on D3 and make MCs have to roll on said chart as well. Then give Walkers Smash

Now MCs and Walkers are as close as they can be without a huge overhaul of the rules.

I really don't understand why vehicles don't have armour saves! I totally agree with your suggestions.

The answer for me is to just make vehicles into MCs. Having separate rules for vehicles is fine in a smaller game, but 40k is getting to complicated for it, and seriously needs some streamlining.

On the other hand, a vehicle with a save is often times flat out tougher than most MC, and still cheaper. For only about 5 points more a venerable dreadnought is way better than a carnifex if it had a save. I understand the treadheads like their vehicles, but MC still need to be viable too, otherwise you're just turning the time back to 5th edition

While we're at it, give MCs some form of damage table. No reason why a riptide cant have it's IA wielding arm scythed off by a lascannon round just like a dreadnought. Maybe reword an explodes result to headshot or something

 insaniak wrote:
The answer for me is to just make vehicles into MCs. Having separate rules for vehicles is fine in a smaller game, but 40k is getting to complicated for it, and seriously needs some streamlining.

That is pretty much the solution Bolt Action uses which I am a fan of.
Just up the toughness to a tier where small arms fire does not hurt them and heavy weapons do.
http://www.warlordgames.com/guide-to-bolt-action-for-40k-players/
http://www.warlordgames.com/downloads/pdf/bolt_action_reference.pdf
The Reference Sheet pretty much gives you an idea of the rules in a nutshell.
A "super heavy tank" their version of a Land-raider needs an "11" and a bazooka is a D6+5 (Biggest gun is a Super-Heavy AT gun 84" one shot +8).
Makes for a fast game when shots blast through infantry like the paper they are and moral largely determines the effectiveness of the troops/vehicles rather than when they finally run.

 Vector Strike wrote:

 Galef wrote:
GIve all Vehicles armour saves, simplify the damage chart to 4 results on D3 and make MCs have to roll on said chart as well. Then give Walkers Smash

Now MCs and Walkers are as close as they can be without a huge overhaul of the rules.

I really don't understand why vehicles don't have armour saves! I totally agree with your suggestions.

The purpose and consequent result is a distinguishing mechanic more than anything, I'd argue.

Even the lightest of vehicles in the game have an AV of no less than 10, and most vehicles are higher than that (depending on faction). The Toughness equivalent to AV 10 would be 6, and the vast majority of MC are either at or below that T value.

An AV of 14 is nothing less than the equivalent of a T value of 10. Most GMC don't even have that.

Vehicles also have a supercharged version of Fearless and blanket immunity to leadership-effecting abilities - they don't run, and they can't be mind-exploded.

Vehicles also tend to have fewer "wounds" (hullpoints), though that isn't a necessary element to their design, more a design trend.

But with that exceptional comparative toughness (and consequent fewer wounds) and leadership immunity/benefit come multiple "balancing" mechanics, arguably more than would be required to truly balance the types:

1. No Armor Save. Most MC end up with at least a 4+ save, but the only things Vehicles can do to negate successful "wounds" is through cover (difficult to get) or invulnerable saves (rare).

2. Different T values based on facing. MCs tend to have the same T value all the way around, while Vehicles end up with different "T values" depending on where you attack from. Sure, a Leman Russ is going to have a T value equivalent of 10 from the front, but it isn't any "tougher" than a Dreadknight if attacked from behind (and unlike the Dreadknight, it won't get an armor save or Invuln save against most incoming attacks).

3. AP-based Instant Death, rather than Strength- or Special Rule-based Instant Death. In exchange for immunity from the latter, a Vehicle becomes vulnerable to the former... and unlike the latter, there is no Special Rule that negates the former (like Eternal Warrior does for the latter). The former is also much more common - quite a few anti-vehicle rules have AP 2 and 1, and some vehicles have vulnerabilities that make ANY weapon capable of more than glancing it to cause ID.

4. Damage Chart. Unlike MC, almost all attacks capable of more than glancing a vehicle have the possibility of causing temporary and permanent penalties, like immobilization, destroyed weapons, and forced Snap Shots.

5. Facing. Unlike MC, Vehicles can only fire in certain arcs, thus severely limiting their ability to put their firepower where it needs to be (especially given their vulnerability to temporary and permanent immobilization).

6. Greater potential firepower at the cost of movement- and chart-based limits/restrictions (i.e. Snap-firing). Sure, a vehicle could fire more weapons than an MC... if they have the weapons, if they're allowed to fire (i.e. template/blast weapons when forced to Snap Shot), and with potentially reduced accuracy.



Like I said, I don't think the benefits of the Vehicle type outweigh the penalties... But if you're looking to convert Vehicles to MC, you're going to need to do a fair amount of work to make them appropriately balanced. How do you make a vehicle with 3+ weapons work within the MC type? How does the sudden lack of vulnerability to forced Snap-fire and immobilization modify that? How and when would an Instant Death vulnerability be applied? What would be an appropriate armor save without overbalancing in the other direction? How do you reflect the faster speeds of vehicles in general? What T value do you choose, or do you start to introduce facing and T values to MC? Do you change the vehicle-specific USRs to reflections of the T value-based USRs (Armorbane? Tank Hunter? Melta? Haywire?)... do you use a "Vehicle" type modifier to distinguish vulnerabilities to USRs?

There's a lot of work that goes into converting one type to the other, and it isn't simple - it would require a serious revamp of a lot of values, rules, types and USRs.

Make the points appropriate instead of treating GMCs and SHW as if they're a 1:1 worth about the same.

 hippyjr wrote:
While we're at it, give MCs some form of damage table. No reason why a riptide cant have it's IA wielding arm scythed off by a lascannon round just like a dreadnought. Maybe reword an explodes result to headshot or something

I have an idea: have such a damage table effect all models. After all, who doesn't like the idea of shooting a conversion beamer off a techmarine, a captain off his bike, or a pistol out of a character's hand?

I was going to suggest just for multiwound models, but such a change would give a viable reason to have FNP: the effect still happens, you just don't lose a wound.

A damage table for all models would only work in a kill team size game, and even then would be better left to RPGs for that level of detail.

It would be a terrible idea for normal 40k.

 Blacksails wrote:
A damage table for all models would only work in a kill team size game, and even then would be better left to RPGs for that level of detail.

It would be a terrible idea for normal 40k.

Would such an inclusion that would promote smaller games be such a bad thing?

And I would like to see an apothecary HQ for SM. . .

okay, I have to ask, what army currently has army wide FNP on 1 wound models?

It wouldn't promote smaller games, the same way casualties from the front or look out sir didn't promote smaller games.

It's just useless bloat at the scale 40k us typically played at.

 carldooley wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
A damage table for all models would only work in a kill team size game, and even then would be better left to RPGs for that level of detail.

It would be a terrible idea for normal 40k.

Would such an inclusion that would promote smaller games be such a bad thing?

And I would like to see an apothecary HQ for SM. . .

okay, I have to ask, what army currently has army wide FNP on 1 wound models?

Iron hands marines, skitarii, dark eldar, necrons (very close equivalent,) and any list that throws in a medic/apothecary into a squad such as any marine chapter's command squad, BA priest IC's, sisters' medics, guard iirc, chaos has zombies and plague marines, salamanders get it against flamers...I'm sure the list goes on.

On the topic. Take smash away from MC's and make them operate like walkers in that regard. If they want ap2, they need to take a cc weapon, not get ap2 "free" even when they're just slapping you with the nozzle of a twin-linked devourer or ion accelerator, while shooty dreads and the like hit with ap -. That's not everything I'd change, but it's a start.

 niv-mizzet wrote:
On the topic. Take smash away from MC's and make them operate like walkers in that regard. If they want ap2, they need to take a cc weapon, not get ap2 "free" even when they're just slapping you with the nozzle of a twin-linked devourer or ion accelerator,

I actually fully agree here. Or not actually a CC weapon, but a 'ministomp' for FMCs, or a bite attack for things like the dakkafex?

Whenever one of these discussions come up I always kindly remind people that most of the issues brought up generally only apply to one or two badly balanced MCs (Riptide and, due to GMCs being an extension of MCs, Wraithknights).

Otherwise if MCs in general really are this imbalanced, then the Tyranid Army would be top tier since 50% of it's list is MCs, and it has a MC for literally every single slot.

A Haruspex is barely useful as it is, take away it's Smash and even the pyrovore will pity it's uselessness.

 carldooley wrote:

 niv-mizzet wrote:
On the topic. Take smash away from MC's and make them operate like walkers in that regard. If they want ap2, they need to take a cc weapon, not get ap2 "free" even when they're just slapping you with the nozzle of a twin-linked devourer or ion accelerator,

I actually fully agree here. Or not actually a CC weapon, but a 'ministomp' for FMCs, or a bite attack for things like the dakkafex?

It shouldn't be taken away completely. At the very least give them AP4 attacks.
And give walkers the same.

Then the MCs without Melee weapons should get them (as upgrades at the very least), otherwise DPs, KoS & GUO (& probably some Nid MCs too) that are meant to be combat monsters might as well be Ogryns, and we all know how great Ogryns are in melee...

AP 3 is fine for MC attacks. Just not AP 2. Most 2+ units are horribly overpriced in the 7th ed meta and this is one reason why. Maybe AP 3 with rending.

 insaniak wrote:
The answer for me is to just make vehicles into MCs. Having separate rules for vehicles is fine in a smaller game, but 40k is getting to complicated for it, and seriously needs some streamlining.

this should and will almost certainly happen next year.