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.

Classic example is SM Dreadnought and the elder Wraithlord...there surly both the same!!!!!
Why is this?

I'm pretty sure SM Dreadnoughts are Walkers.

 jasper76 wrote:
I'm pretty sure SM Dreadnoughts are Walkers.

Which are type of vehicles. Not completely separate thing.

and as for OP: Cause GW decided so.

Yeah, don't expect consistency from GW. In the Tyranids codex, Spore Mine Clusters only move 3", and halve their runs and charges, yet they're listed as Fast Attack options! Go figure...

licclerich wrote:
Classic example is SM Dreadnought and the elder Wraithlord...there surly both the same!!!!!
Why is this?

That's actually not the best example, as the wraithlords are made of wraithbone, and not metal with electrical circuits.
The big tau battlesuits are however walking machines with a pilot inside, and should really be walkers from a logical point of view.
But GW is not known for its consistency when writing rules.

Course, some of us remember when Wraithlords were indeed vehicles/walkers just like dreadnoughts... GW decided to change it for whatever reason and it has stayed changed ever since.

fresus wrote:

That's actually not the best example, as the wraithlords are made of wraithbone, and not metal with electrical circuits.

Most Eldar vehicles and structures are made out of wraithbone. The falcon is built from wraithbone - it's still a vehicle.

What something is made out of shouldn't determine whether it is a vehicle or not.

You want to take your strange theory further?

Daemon Engines are daemonically possessed machines - as such their hulls twist and warp and they develop flesh, horns and other organic growths and structures (such as the soulgrinder) - they're still vehicles.

I'd just as soon they got rid of "Vehicle Type: Walker" and make everything MC's.

Vehicles are piloted by people. There's no people in a Wraithlord, so that's a bad example.

You want to use Tau vehicles that have people stat lines as your example.

While Wraithlords aren't piloted by "people", they are still piloted by spirits of people who would sooner wander off the battlefield without a care in the world than fight. They are commanded by others constantly to keep fighting. They are dead already, they have no cares in the world unless constantly reminded to do something.

Also if you were to make a lot of tau mechs into vehicles, you would end up ramping the power up of a few different types. The crisis suits and drones are all infantry. Vehicles and such are already stronger than plain old infantry.

Cause GW wanted to sell big expensive mecha kits and the rules for walkers were too weak to push sales. So instead of fixing walkers/vehicles they have just been making them monstrous creatures.

Robots are MCs in the current rule set. The closer a unit is to moving and behaving like a living thing, the more likely it will be infantry or am MC.

Conversely, Dreadnoughts are vehicles in the current rule set. The further away from moving and behaving like a living thing thing, the more likely it will be a vehicle.

Imperial Knights and other Superheavy Walkers cross the line between the two, in that they are vehicles (walking tanks) that move and act like a living thing (due to the pilot-machine interface). All fluff, but represented in the rules.

WraithKnights are upsized WraithLords with a passenger that guides the Wraith. Vehicle? Definitely. Living creature? Technically. We treat it in the rules as a living creature because of how it moves and acts.

Dreadnoughts are walking tanks much like Imperial Knights, but no where near as life like despite having an event more intement relationship with the machine. And that is obviously because Dreadnoughts move and act like tanks on two stubby legs.

Another consideration is that vehicles are supposed to remain operational while being dismantled hit by hit. They represent have a crew that can be thrown around, stunned, and every killed (weapon hit, repaired weapon is a new crew member taking over the weapon).

Tau are an interested example. Drones are infantry. Battlesuits are both power armor equivalent and piloted drones. Bigger suits are still piloted drones. The biggest suits are still piloted drones. So, it's infantry to MC to GMC. Complain all you want, the logic chain makes sense.

SJ

 kronk wrote:
I'd just as soon they got rid of "Vehicle Type: Walker" and make everything MC's.

I'd take this one step further and make a new unique unit type that both Walkers and MCs could fit into. Make this new unit type have armour saves like MCs, but also roll on a damage chart like vehicles. Or better, yet, take a note from AoS and reduce is power somehow for every wound/HP lost.
For Example, the first wound/HP lost causes the model to snap-fire in their next turn.
The next wound/HP suffered could reduce both WS & BS of the model by -1 for the rest of the battle.

Basically ditch the chart altogether, yet the new unit type reduces in effectiveness as the game goes on.

 Galef wrote:

 kronk wrote:
I'd just as soon they got rid of "Vehicle Type: Walker" and make everything MC's.

I'd take this one step further and make a new unique unit type that both Walkers and MCs could fit into. Make this new unit type have armour saves like MCs, but also roll on a damage chart like vehicles. Or better, yet, take a note from AoS and reduce is power somehow for every wound/HP lost.
For Example, the first wound/HP lost causes the model to snap-fire in their next turn.
The next wound/HP suffered could reduce both WS & BS of the model by -1 for the rest of the battle.

Basically ditch the chart altogether, yet the new unit type reduces in effectiveness as the game goes on.

Monstrous Creature: Walker, like regular MC and FMC. Just a sub-type. I'd be fine with some form of this. Perhaps they should be immune to poison.

 Galef wrote:

 kronk wrote:
I'd just as soon they got rid of "Vehicle Type: Walker" and make everything MC's.

I'd take this one step further and make a new unique unit type that both Walkers and MCs could fit into. Make this new unit type have armour saves like MCs, but also roll on a damage chart like vehicles. Or better, yet, take a note from AoS and reduce is power somehow for every wound/HP lost.
For Example, the first wound/HP lost causes the model to snap-fire in their next turn.
The next wound/HP suffered could reduce both WS & BS of the model by -1 for the rest of the battle.

Basically ditch the chart altogether, yet the new unit type reduces in effectiveness as the game goes on.

I like the chart idea, but in AoS it's every 2-3 wounds, in AoS they have more wounds and a worse save and no toughness value, so its a bit different, but I don't like the idea of a WS BS 2 tervigon or TMC.

I always assumed when GW or any game maker did this it was to meld rules with reality or as we know the difference to be called, "Game Mechanics".

If they had certain things set as MCs, their rules may make it too over or under powered.

Tagging something MC, Walker, Infantry or vehicle seems to always play into game mechanics.

 don_mondo wrote:
Course, some of us remember when Wraithlords were indeed vehicles/walkers just like dreadnoughts... GW decided to change it for whatever reason and it has stayed changed ever since.

Yep, the Wraithlord was called "Eldar Dreadnought" at that time too.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Robots are MCs in the current rule set. The closer a unit is to moving and behaving like a living thing, the more likely it will be infantry or am MC.

Conversely, Dreadnoughts are vehicles in the current rule set. The further away from moving and behaving like a living thing thing, the more likely it will be a vehicle.

Imperial Knights and other Superheavy Walkers cross the line between the two, in that they are vehicles (walking tanks) that move and act like a living thing (due to the pilot-machine interface). All fluff, but represented in the rules.

WraithKnights are upsized WraithLords with a passenger that guides the Wraith. Vehicle? Definitely. Living creature? Technically. We treat it in the rules as a living creature because of how it moves and acts.

Dreadnoughts are walking tanks much like Imperial Knights, but no where near as life like despite having an event more intement relationship with the machine. And that is obviously because Dreadnoughts move and act like tanks on two stubby legs.

Another consideration is that vehicles are supposed to remain operational while being dismantled hit by hit. They represent have a crew that can be thrown around, stunned, and every killed (weapon hit, repaired weapon is a new crew member taking over the weapon).

Tau are an interested example. Drones are infantry. Battlesuits are both power armor equivalent and piloted drones. Bigger suits are still piloted drones. The biggest suits are still piloted drones. So, it's infantry to MC to GMC. Complain all you want, the logic chain makes sense.

SJ

I'm pretty much in agreement with this (surprise surprise, being a Tau player), with the caveat that this results in some odd absurdities when it comes to Special Rules that interact differently with Infantry and Vehicles, like Armorbane, Fleshbane, Melta, Haywire, Poison, etc.

IF we keep Vehicles and Infantry as separate types (rather than merging them somehow, per Galef's suggestion), I would like to see subtypes that reduce or eliminate the above absurdities.

Infantry with the Mecha subtype, which would include the likes of Tau Drones & Battle Suits, Eldar Wraith models, Most Necrons, and the like (shoutout to Lythrandire's Proposed Rules post for the name) would be immune to the likes of Poison and Fleshbane (because poison and things anathema to flesh wouldn't be terribly potent against mostly- and entirely-mechanical entities) but would become vulnerable to the likes of Haywire (wounding on 2's), Ordnance (functions like Shred), Melta/Armorbane (increases the to-wound roll), etc.

Meanwhile, Vehicles who have come fleshier would have something of the opposite effect (immune to Haywire/Ordnance/Melta/Armorbane, vulnerable to Poison/Fleshbane).

But my biggest preference would be to eliminate the difference between Vehicle and Infantry types all-together, and replace them with a single unit type as per Galef's suggestion, with the addition of a Mecha subtype that works essentially like how I've outlined above.

 DarknessEternal wrote:
Vehicles are piloted by people. There's no people in a Wraithlord, so that's a bad example.

You want to use Tau vehicles that have people stat lines as your example.

Tell me where the 'people' are in a Maulerfiend or a Helldrake. Or a Blight Drone.

Go on.

A spirit piloting a construct is exactly the same thing as a daemon piloting a construct so the 'there's no people piloting a Wraithlord' is a flimsy argument for why it should be a MC instead of a vehicle.

My best guess is player power curve allocation. Eldar and Tau are likely build for those who like units more if they are under costed and have the reliable monster rules.
While orks, CSM, Skitarri and IG etc. are for those who like fluffy rules more than they like to win.