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.

 Marmatag wrote:
Vehicles are easy to destroy, because of the damage table, and also extra rules that just make them so much easier to destroy.

A vehicle with 50,000 hull points, and AV15, can be 1-shotted by a melta gun.

8 strength. extra D6. base D6. Roll an 8 or higher and you're rolling on the pen table with melta rules. Suddenly that vehicle has a very good chance to flat out explode. 1 melta shot is capable of doing all 50,000 hull points worth of damage.

1. most vehicles should probably have their cost slightly reduced.
2. Monstrous creatures should have their costs increased.

Do those vehicles exist?
No. No they do not.

In fact, I can't think of any vehicles with more than 5 Hull Points that can be one-shotted.



In regards to the D weapon discussion above... Most Psykers have access to a D weapon via powers, meaning that a 65pt Librarian or a 55pt ML1 Inquisitor could potentially one-shot a Wraithknight.

Waaaghpower wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Vehicles are easy to destroy, because of the damage table, and also extra rules that just make them so much easier to destroy.

A vehicle with 50,000 hull points, and AV15, can be 1-shotted by a melta gun.

8 strength. extra D6. base D6. Roll an 8 or higher and you're rolling on the pen table with melta rules. Suddenly that vehicle has a very good chance to flat out explode. 1 melta shot is capable of doing all 50,000 hull points worth of damage.

1. most vehicles should probably have their cost slightly reduced.
2. Monstrous creatures should have their costs increased.

Do those vehicles exist?
No. No they do not.

In fact, I can't think of any vehicles with more than 5 Hull Points that can be one-shotted.



In regards to the D weapon discussion above... Most Psykers have access to a D weapon via powers, meaning that a 65pt Librarian or a 55pt ML1 Inquisitor could potentially one-shot a Wraithknight.

So, are you prepared to argue that it's as easy to 1 shot a monstrous creature as it is to 1 shot a vehicle? Do you know how much better dreadnoughts would be, for instance, if they were toughness/wound/save based?

And comparing psychic powers - which not all armies have easy access to - to a special weapon - is disingenuous.

I'm not calling for the rules to be totally re-written here, but if you made vehicles toughness/wound/save based, and changed melta rules so that they could potentially one shot ANYTHING, that would be interesting wouldn't it? Suddenly that land raider is a T10, 3W juggernaut with a 3+ save. Not worthless.

 Marmatag wrote:

Waaaghpower wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Vehicles are easy to destroy, because of the damage table, and also extra rules that just make them so much easier to destroy.

A vehicle with 50,000 hull points, and AV15, can be 1-shotted by a melta gun.

8 strength. extra D6. base D6. Roll an 8 or higher and you're rolling on the pen table with melta rules. Suddenly that vehicle has a very good chance to flat out explode. 1 melta shot is capable of doing all 50,000 hull points worth of damage.

1. most vehicles should probably have their cost slightly reduced.
2. Monstrous creatures should have their costs increased.

Do those vehicles exist?
No. No they do not.

In fact, I can't think of any vehicles with more than 5 Hull Points that can be one-shotted.



In regards to the D weapon discussion above... Most Psykers have access to a D weapon via powers, meaning that a 65pt Librarian or a 55pt ML1 Inquisitor could potentially one-shot a Wraithknight.

So, are you prepared to argue that it's as easy to 1 shot a monstrous creature as it is to 1 shot a vehicle? Do you know how much better dreadnoughts would be, for instance, if they were toughness/wound/save based?

And comparing psychic powers - which not all armies have easy access to - to a special weapon - is disingenuous.

I'm not calling for the rules to be totally re-written here, but if you made vehicles toughness/wound/save based, and changed melta rules so that they could potentially one shot ANYTHING, that would be interesting wouldn't it? Suddenly that land raider is a T10, 3W juggernaut with a 3+ save. Not worthless.

When did I say that? Go back in the thread and point out where I said that a MC was as easy to kill as a vehicle.

I was specifically arguing against the statement that a Wraithknight was impossible to one-shot. That statement is patently false.
I get sick of people throwing out completely untrue ultimatums and absolutes to try and make a point, and then moving the goalposts whenever somebody points out that they're wrong.

Most vehicles at least can't be killed by small arms fire, unless you shoot in the rear armor.

Also you can one-shot MCs which have Toughness 5 (Daemon Princes, Hive Crones and Ghostkeels) by S10 weapons.

You could have a T4 MC with 50000 wounds and 2+ save one-shot by a meltagun, or a lascannon on 2+.

Also MC has easier access to cover and or invuln saves than vehicles. They can just be near a tree or behind some infantry for instant 5+, whereas vehicles have to be 25% to get the same benefits.

 HANZERtank wrote:
Also MC has easier access to cover and or invuln saves than vehicles. They can just be near a tree or behind some infantry for instant 5+, whereas vehicles have to be 25% to get the same benefits.

As per the FAQ, MCs need 25% as well now. Small victories.

I've said it before, and being slightly vulnerable to small arms is actually a benefit, as it encourages your opponent to be dumb. 27 BS 4 bolter shots to clear a single wound vs T6 3+? Go for it!

Sonic Keyboard wrote:
Most vehicles at least can't be killed by small arms fire, unless you shoot in the rear armor.

Also you can one-shot MCs which have Toughness 5 (Daemon Princes, Hive Crones and Ghostkeels) by S10 weapons.

You could have a T4 MC with 50000 wounds and 2+ save one-shot by a meltagun, or a lascannon on 2+.

You can 1 shot MCs with toughness 5, with strength 10, that's true.

Although STR10 is going to happen in melee. STR10 against any vehicle in melee is auto-win, because vehicles can't fight back, and you auto-hit.

We're getting bogged down in specific examples though - at the end of the day - vehicles, relative to MCs - are too easy to kill. And the only reason that comparison has weight is because of relative points cost. If vehicles cost 5 points no one would argue they were too easy to kill, in fact they'd be arguing they're too hard to kill.

People might not complain about MC's at all if vehicles didn't exist, too, because there'd be no frame of reference.

 Marmatag wrote:

Sonic Keyboard wrote:
Most vehicles at least can't be killed by small arms fire, unless you shoot in the rear armor.

Also you can one-shot MCs which have Toughness 5 (Daemon Princes, Hive Crones and Ghostkeels) by S10 weapons.

You could have a T4 MC with 50000 wounds and 2+ save one-shot by a meltagun, or a lascannon on 2+.

You can 1 shot MCs with toughness 5, with strength 10, that's true.

Although STR10 is going to happen in melee. STR10 against any vehicle in melee is auto-win, because vehicles can't fight back, and you auto-hit.

We're getting bogged down in specific examples though - at the end of the day - vehicles, relative to MCs - are too easy to kill. And the only reason that comparison has weight is because of relative points cost. If vehicles cost 5 points no one would argue they were too easy to kill, in fact they'd be arguing they're too hard to kill.

People might not complain about MC's at all if vehicles didn't exist, too, because there'd be no frame of reference.

You can also one-shot an MC with Frost weapons, which strike at range.

Waaaghpower wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

Sonic Keyboard wrote:
Most vehicles at least can't be killed by small arms fire, unless you shoot in the rear armor.

Also you can one-shot MCs which have Toughness 5 (Daemon Princes, Hive Crones and Ghostkeels) by S10 weapons.

You could have a T4 MC with 50000 wounds and 2+ save one-shot by a meltagun, or a lascannon on 2+.

You can 1 shot MCs with toughness 5, with strength 10, that's true.

Although STR10 is going to happen in melee. STR10 against any vehicle in melee is auto-win, because vehicles can't fight back, and you auto-hit.

We're getting bogged down in specific examples though - at the end of the day - vehicles, relative to MCs - are too easy to kill. And the only reason that comparison has weight is because of relative points cost. If vehicles cost 5 points no one would argue they were too easy to kill, in fact they'd be arguing they're too hard to kill.

People might not complain about MC's at all if vehicles didn't exist, too, because there'd be no frame of reference.

You can also one-shot an MC with Frost weapons, which strike at range.

Hellfrost one-shotting is highly unlikely from a probability standpoint and is only available to what, space wolves?

 Marmatag wrote:

Waaaghpower wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

Sonic Keyboard wrote:
Most vehicles at least can't be killed by small arms fire, unless you shoot in the rear armor.

Also you can one-shot MCs which have Toughness 5 (Daemon Princes, Hive Crones and Ghostkeels) by S10 weapons.

You could have a T4 MC with 50000 wounds and 2+ save one-shot by a meltagun, or a lascannon on 2+.

You can 1 shot MCs with toughness 5, with strength 10, that's true.

Although STR10 is going to happen in melee. STR10 against any vehicle in melee is auto-win, because vehicles can't fight back, and you auto-hit.

We're getting bogged down in specific examples though - at the end of the day - vehicles, relative to MCs - are too easy to kill. And the only reason that comparison has weight is because of relative points cost. If vehicles cost 5 points no one would argue they were too easy to kill, in fact they'd be arguing they're too hard to kill.

People might not complain about MC's at all if vehicles didn't exist, too, because there'd be no frame of reference.

You can also one-shot an MC with Frost weapons, which strike at range.

Hellfrost one-shotting is highly unlikely from a probability standpoint and is only available to what, space wolves?

Sure. It's a 6+ if you get a wound, instead of a 5+ if you get a penetrating hit. But these kinds of 'One-hit-kill' rules aren't bound only to Space Wolves, Space Wolves just happen to have one that I can easily remember the name of.

Martel732 wrote:

 HANZERtank wrote:
Also MC has easier access to cover and or invuln saves than vehicles. They can just be near a tree or behind some infantry for instant 5+, whereas vehicles have to be 25% to get the same benefits.

As per the FAQ, MCs need 25% as well now. Small victories.

I've said it before, and being slightly vulnerable to small arms is actually a benefit, as it encourages your opponent to be dumb. 27 BS 4 bolter shots to clear a single wound vs T6 3+? Go for it!

I thought it was only for GMC the 25% was changed for. But that might just be the draft one im remembering.

Waaaghpower wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

Waaaghpower wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

Sonic Keyboard wrote:
Most vehicles at least can't be killed by small arms fire, unless you shoot in the rear armor.

Also you can one-shot MCs which have Toughness 5 (Daemon Princes, Hive Crones and Ghostkeels) by S10 weapons.

You could have a T4 MC with 50000 wounds and 2+ save one-shot by a meltagun, or a lascannon on 2+.

You can 1 shot MCs with toughness 5, with strength 10, that's true.

Although STR10 is going to happen in melee. STR10 against any vehicle in melee is auto-win, because vehicles can't fight back, and you auto-hit.

We're getting bogged down in specific examples though - at the end of the day - vehicles, relative to MCs - are too easy to kill. And the only reason that comparison has weight is because of relative points cost. If vehicles cost 5 points no one would argue they were too easy to kill, in fact they'd be arguing they're too hard to kill.

People might not complain about MC's at all if vehicles didn't exist, too, because there'd be no frame of reference.

You can also one-shot an MC with Frost weapons, which strike at range.

Hellfrost one-shotting is highly unlikely from a probability standpoint and is only available to what, space wolves?

Sure. It's a 6+ if you get a wound, instead of a 5+ if you get a penetrating hit. But these kinds of 'One-hit-kill' rules aren't bound only to Space Wolves, Space Wolves just happen to have one that I can easily remember the name of.

Special rules shouldn't be the only rock to MC's scissors, or MC's should be costed appropriately relative to vehicles.

It's hard to be sympathetic to that argument when people want that same unrockness for their vehicles, ontop of the special rules they're already getting

 Luke_Prowler wrote:
It's hard to be sympathetic to that argument when people want that same unrockness for their vehicles, ontop of the special rules they're already getting

What special rules do vehicles have, really?

Yes, they can only be 'wounded' by weapons with a certain Strength value.
How is that different from MCs?
Read the Strength v Toughness table sometime. There comes a certain point where you can no longer inflict a Wound, barring some of the wonky stuff like Radium weapons.

"MCs can lose their Armor Save if something is the right AP"
So what? Most vehicles(Skimmers and Flyers can Jink) can't get a save without special wargear or being 25% obscured.
And that doesn't take into account that a "Glancing Hit"(read: what would be essentially a passed save for a MC/GMC) can still destroy a vehicle.

The ability to walk out of assault, faster movement speed, fire more than 2 weapons, generally better selection of weapons, immunity to morale/anything to do with leadership, immunity to small fire, access to Fast and Skimmer rules. And before you say "but those aren't very good right now", I'm saying that people want to take the best of both for vehicles and leave MC with jack all. How many times have I seen suggestions to give vehicles AV AND armor saves? Or make common anti-tank weapons also cause multi wounds, even though that would make it actually easier to kill MC than it does to the equivalent vehicle?

People want vehicles and MC to be more equivilant? Fine, but unless vehicles get an equivilant price jump I have no reason to believe balance was ever a concern

 HANZERtank wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 HANZERtank wrote:
Also MC has easier access to cover and or invuln saves than vehicles. They can just be near a tree or behind some infantry for instant 5+, whereas vehicles have to be 25% to get the same benefits.

As per the FAQ, MCs need 25% as well now. Small victories.

I've said it before, and being slightly vulnerable to small arms is actually a benefit, as it encourages your opponent to be dumb. 27 BS 4 bolter shots to clear a single wound vs T6 3+? Go for it!

I thought it was only for GMC the 25% was changed for. But that might just be the draft one im remembering.

The final version mentions both.

Waaaghpower wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

How many wounds is a Wraithknight?

I mean if you want to pretend that rolling a 6 with a D weapon is somehow "balance", we can play that game too.

A Wraithknight is 6 wounds. So any roll of '6' with a D weapon will obliterate it.

And yeah, D weapons have balance issues of their own, but when people start throwing out ultimatums that fly in the face of the actual rules of the game, I have to wonder if their complaints are legitimate, or if they just don't understand how to play the game they're complaining about, or if they just like complaining.

And if you ARE using house rules, why exactly are you complaining about GW's balance?

Doesn't matter realistically whether it's house rules or forgetting about D weapons having a 6+D6 wounds. It's the simple fact that there is no guaranteed way to remove a GMC because they have a protection that removes the most effective stuff against MCs(Poison).

Throw Haywire at a SHV and see what happens though.

No guaranteed way... Because poison doesn't work? Sure, that's a problem if you're Deathwatch, Dark Eldar, or maybe certain Nurgle builds, but most of the armies in the game don't even HAVE very much poisoned. And yeah, the Wraithknight is really tough, but it's only got 6 wounds with a 3+ save, which is not that hard to get through. (It MIGHT have a 5+ invuln, but that's a very large 'Might'.) Yeah, it's undercosted, but you're acting like it's totally unstoppable, which - for many armies - it absolutely isn't.

The Wraithknight is W6 3+/optional 5++ which you are taking/5+++. Forgot about that last bit didn't ya?

 Luke_Prowler wrote:
The ability to walk out of assault, faster movement speed, fire more than 2 weapons, generally better selection of weapons, immunity to morale/anything to do with leadership, immunity to small fire, access to Fast and Skimmer rules. And before you say "but those aren't very good right now", I'm saying that people want to take the best of both for vehicles and leave MC with jack all. How many times have I seen suggestions to give vehicles AV AND armor saves? Or make common anti-tank weapons also cause multi wounds, even though that would make it actually easier to kill MC than it does to the equivalent vehicle?

People want vehicles and MC to be more equivilant? Fine, but unless vehicles get an equivilant price jump I have no reason to believe balance was ever a concern

Yeah vehicles walk out of combat as a smouldering pile of rubble, they can't defend themselves. Everyone and their mother wants to get in melee with a vehicle lol.

All the pros and cons of vehicles don't matter when you can deepstrike 1 shot any vehicle with melta weapons.

I mean seriously, if vehicles weren't bad compared to MCs, there would be a genuine debate between which is better, land raider or wraithknight.

I feel like I'm communicating with a parallel universe that was way more satisfied with 5th edition than mine was... I see way more dreadnoughts now than I did back then...

Anyway, greetings bizzaro-dakka, I'm speaking to you from Universe A.

Prior to April 2011 the distinction between a monstrous creature and a walker was generally clear. With exceptions MCs were an alternative to walkers, ones that would logically still try to move around even after breaking a leg. Even at the time people bemoaned the balance difference between them but we at least understood the line, monstrous creatures were creatures, walking armatures were walkers.

All that changed when the Grey Knights codex dropped, and with it the Dreadknight.

After that, the rationale for what constituted an MC vs a Walker split. Now there are those insist the unit type still describes what a unit is in the fluff sense and that vehicles like the dreadknight, wraithknight, riptide, or even crisis suits are mislabeled for the sake of unit performance in game; and those like myself who would argue the unit type represents how the unit behaves in a relative sense.

It makes sense to me that a Riptide would be evenly armored and nimble enough to turn and fire in such a way that firing arcs and armour facing wouldn't be relevant- because that's the way the Tau would design it and they wouldn't be mass producing it if it couldn't do that. It makes sense to others that GW would not have sold as many Riptide models if it could immobilize itself after doing a jump-move out of terrain, or explode after one very unlikely shooting attack. Both are valid arguments, neither really apply seamlessly to things like the dreadknight or stormsurge.

I honestly don't see a solution that still involves MCs and Walkers being distinct things anymore. While I've heard the arguments for reclassifying the gundams into walkers the dreadknight is so frequently omitted from the list it just comes across as grousing over the filthy Xenos players having better toys. I'd rather see vehicles brought in line to what monstrous creatures are and reinvent how they want to make them distinctly mechanical in nature.

 Luke_Prowler wrote:
How many times have I seen suggestions to give vehicles AV AND armor saves? Or make common anti-tank weapons also cause multi wounds, even though that would make it actually easier to kill MC than it does to the equivalent vehicle?

What exactly is your problem with either of these suggestions?

Against MC: I roll to hit, then wound, then it gets saves. 3 gateways before any damage is done. Doesn't even include ubiquitous FnP rolls on all the serial offenders.
Against Vehicle: I roll to hit, then to penetrate, then we see how much damage I did, or even if it's still on the table. 2 gateways with the potential to instant kill

Heavy weapons would need to do D6 wounds before it has the same chance (1/6) of one-shotting a Wraithknight as they currently have of one-shotting a vehicle.

 MarsNZ wrote:

 Luke_Prowler wrote:
How many times have I seen suggestions to give vehicles AV AND armor saves? Or make common anti-tank weapons also cause multi wounds, even though that would make it actually easier to kill MC than it does to the equivalent vehicle?

What exactly is your problem with either of these suggestions?

Against MC: I roll to hit, then wound, then it gets saves. 3 gateways before any damage is done. Doesn't even include ubiquitous FnP rolls on all the serial offenders.
Against Vehicle: I roll to hit, then to penetrate, then we see how much damage I did, or even if it's still on the table. 2 gateways with the potential to instant kill

Heavy weapons would need to do D6 wounds before it has the same chance (1/6) of one-shotting a Wraithknight as they currently have of one-shotting a vehicle.

AP 3 or less Heavy Weapons have a 0% chance of one shotting a vehicles, and the vast majority of monstrous creatures have 4 wounds (which is, last I checked, is a 50% chance). Dishonestly is not a good argument for anything.

My problem with the suggestions is that it takes the best from both systems. AV 11 is equivalent to T7 (requires 4+ from a str 7 weapon to wound) except it's also immune to str 4 or less), meaning that a basic rhino with a 3+ save is TOUGHER than a carnifex or daemon prince, despite being a third of the cost of either.

The other suggestion, assuming that weapons need to be at least +2 str, means that a carifex will lose two wounds from krak missiles, at +2 chance to wound. vs a vehicle only ever losing 1 against the same weapon, because you'd need to roll a 7 on a six sided die a with anything other than plasma or meltaguns

On the subject of rationalizing things like Wraithknights and Riptides as MCs, the way I have always thought of it is the pilot is part of the machine. Wraithknights are piloted by the souls of dead Eldar, and Riptides are piloted by Tau who are hard-wired into battlesuits with little difference between the machine and the pilot.

I know this does nothing from a rules perspective, but it's different from a Dreadnought, for instance, where there's a sarcophogus plugged in. The separation from pilot and machine is what differentiates the kind of damage it takes.

I have a recent game that shows a large difference between GMCs and SHVs. I recently fought a warhound titan with tempestus scions. 4 melta shots later and it was dead.... A wraithknight is much cheaper and wouldn't even be potentially dead. The whole S10 combat argument against MCs would be more valid if the MC didn't normally strike first and at ap2 to ignore saves. Another example is the gork/morkanaut. They cost almost as much as a wraithknight but are much worse especially since they can be one shotted. There is a lot more durability that comes from having a T value and an armor save. For the most part the tyranid MCs aren't bad and I personally think the only MCs should be with the tyranids, DE, and the poor squiggoths.

 techsoldaten wrote:
I know this does nothing from a rules perspective, but it's different from a Dreadnought, for instance, where there's a sarcophogus plugged in. The separation from pilot and machine is what differentiates the kind of damage it takes.

But that's exactly how a Riptide works. The marine in a dread isn't driving it like a vehicle, they're wired into it and controlling it by thought.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Waaaghpower wrote:

No guaranteed way... Because poison doesn't work? Sure, that's a problem if you're Deathwatch, Dark Eldar, or maybe certain Nurgle builds, but most of the armies in the game don't even HAVE very much poisoned. And yeah, the Wraithknight is really tough, but it's only got 6 wounds with a 3+ save, which is not that hard to get through. (It MIGHT have a 5+ invuln, but that's a very large 'Might'.) Yeah, it's undercosted, but you're acting like it's totally unstoppable, which - for many armies - it absolutely isn't.

The Wraithknight is W6 3+/optional 5++ which you are taking/5+++. Forgot about that last bit didn't ya?

Uh, no? I didn't? Because I mention that the Wraithknight might have a 5++? And no, I didn't explicitly mention the FNP, but that's because I was specifically listing its weaknesses, not generalities about GMCs. The Wraithknight has low wounds for a GMC and a mediocre armor save, with an equally mediocre invuln. That was my point.

 cranect wrote:
I have a recent game that shows a large difference between GMCs and SHVs. I recently fought a warhound titan with tempestus scions. 4 melta shots later and it was dead.... A wraithknight is much cheaper and wouldn't even be potentially dead. The whole S10 combat argument against MCs would be more valid if the MC didn't normally strike first and at ap2 to ignore saves. Another example is the gork/morkanaut. They cost almost as much as a wraithknight but are much worse especially since they can be one shotted. There is a lot more durability that comes from having a T value and an armor save. For the most part the tyranid MCs aren't bad and I personally think the only MCs should be with the tyranids, DE, and the poor squiggoths.

Don't Chaos Daemons count?

Waaaghpower wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Waaaghpower wrote:

No guaranteed way... Because poison doesn't work? Sure, that's a problem if you're Deathwatch, Dark Eldar, or maybe certain Nurgle builds, but most of the armies in the game don't even HAVE very much poisoned. And yeah, the Wraithknight is really tough, but it's only got 6 wounds with a 3+ save, which is not that hard to get through. (It MIGHT have a 5+ invuln, but that's a very large 'Might'.) Yeah, it's undercosted, but you're acting like it's totally unstoppable, which - for many armies - it absolutely isn't.

The Wraithknight is W6 3+/optional 5++ which you are taking/5+++. Forgot about that last bit didn't ya?

Uh, no? I didn't? Because I mention that the Wraithknight might have a 5++? And no, I didn't explicitly mention the FNP, but that's because I was specifically listing its weaknesses, not generalities about GMCs. The Wraithknight has low wounds for a GMC and a mediocre armor save, with an equally mediocre invuln. That was my point.

It absolutely is not low wounds for being T8 and being immune to Poison for all intents and purposes on top of the FNP. You know how many Space Marine Lascannons it takes to kill it? 21 shots. You want to include the 5++ it is going to have? 27.

That is including Grav shots too because they're wounding it on the same number.

 Peregrine wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:
I know this does nothing from a rules perspective, but it's different from a Dreadnought, for instance, where there's a sarcophogus plugged in. The separation from pilot and machine is what differentiates the kind of damage it takes.

But that's exactly how a Riptide works. The marine in a dread isn't driving it like a vehicle, they're wired into it and controlling it by thought.

Controlling a huge, lumbering metal box with pistons and gears, which is designed for siege more than mobility. Sure, no one is pulling levers or pushing buttons, but it's not like the thing was built for hairtrigger responses.

 techsoldaten wrote:
Controlling a huge, lumbering metal box with pistons and gears, which is designed for siege more than mobility. Sure, no one is pulling levers or pushing buttons, but it's not like the thing was built for hairtrigger responses.

And this thing is built for hair-trigger responses and agility?

https://www.games-workshop.com/resources/catalog/product/600x620/99120113036_StormSurge1360.jpg

 Luke_Prowler wrote:
The ability to walk out of assault

Only if they don't have a WS. That also implies they survive the assault being hit on rear armor in 85% of cases (meaning AV10 in 95% of those) on never worse than a 3+ with only 2 or 3 "wounds" in most cases and no saves.

, faster movement speed

Depends on the vehicle & MC type, but most vehicles also don't get assault moves either.

fire more than 2 weapons,

Which is minimally valuable as almost no MC's have more than 2 weapons anyway and very few vehicles have more than 2 (especially more than 2 "real" guns, not just the odd Stormbolter) and half of those that do still have a main armament that precludes the effective use of the others or can only actually bring all those weapons to bear at certain specific and narrow angles while MC's don't have to worry about it.

generally better selection of weapons,

That's...debatable.

immunity to morale/anything to do with leadership

Ok, we'll grant this.

immunity to small fire

Depends on the vehicle and angle.

access to Fast and Skimmer rules

And there aren't Jump, Jet, and Flying MC's and MC's with other fast movement modes?

. And before you say "but those aren't very good right now", I'm saying that people want to take the best of both for vehicles and leave MC with jack all.

MC's don't have to deal with a damage chart or degrading functionality.

MC's don't have to worry about armor angle facings.

MC's don't have to worry about weapons arcs and LoS through their own body.

MC's don't risk immobilization and the loss of a wound every time they touch terrain.

MC's can actually fight in close combat unlike the overwhelmingly vast majority of vehicles which are effectively auto-killed if anything with even just a little bit of oomph (like a hidden powerfist and a krak grenade) makes it into base contact.

Lots of MC's have not only armor but Invul saves which are exceedingly rare on vehicles.

MC's can get cover with just a toe, vehicles have to rely on weird TloS percentage coverage. (unless they fixed that in the FAQ, I may have missed that if they did).

MC's can overwatch unlike most vehicles.

MC's still have lots of advantages even if you fix vehicle resiliency by doing something like returning to an older system or giving them saves to go with HP's.

How many times have I seen suggestions to give vehicles AV AND armor saves?

Given that they have wounds and what effectively is Toughness, and fewer "wounds" than most MC's have (most vehicles have 2 or 3 HP's, most MC's have 4-6), that would make perfect sense given that their only source of resiliency is a relatively high average Toughness. There's a reason that the only armies that run vehicle heavy that do particularly well are armies that either get their vehicles for free and spam lots of light vehicles, or vehicles that have or can get decent saves (Knights & Jinking Skimmers).