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.

If it should explode like a burning car, it is a vehicle walker.

Wraith Lords and Knights do not run on fuel. It runs on some sort of safe eldar psychic gem power. Even the riptide has a safe plasma generator. It only gets hot when they overcharge it. And in an event when it may explode they have so many fail safe systems to prevent a melt down and explosion.

a Soul grinder uses demonic enegergies to power the legs.

Dreds, Killer cans, sentinels, dune crawlers, fiends, etc, although has people or biomass inside, are vehicles because it can explode when destroyed.

If it can blow up then it is a vehicle or a walker that has a combustible engine.

Apparently despite being robots themselves and used in an army where everything has plasma that gets hot, the Kastalans are immune to blowing up.

 Filch wrote:
If it should explode like a burning car, it is a vehicle walker.
If it can blow up then it is a vehicle or a walker that has a combustible engine.

You know, cars don't usually explode even when burning. In fact you'll have to rig them with explosives if you want them to blow up. Gasoline and diesel just don't carry the energy to make a car explode like they do in the movies. So combustion engines don't make something explode.

A tank that explodes has suffered from a catastrophic ammo cook-off. For some reason MCs with ammo dependent weapons seem to have better ammo storage - what safer place than having the ammo hanging on your arm, right? That armored compartment in a tank that's hard to hit and also made to vent the explosion away from the crew and important systems is just BS compared to having your ammo in a plastic bag.

The real criterion for whether something is an MC or a vehicle is whether or not the designers want it to be governed with specific rules such as haywire, the vehicle damage explosion table, poison, and so forth.

If you wanted to be really simulationist, BTW, Haywire would affect marines (because it shuts down their power armo[u]r). and artillery.

Kastellans make more sense than most recent MCs. There's no pilot, it's just a computer doing it's thing.

Much better than the megadiaperknight or Storm "the pilots are RIGHT THERE" Surge.

The criteria is how much money GW invested in designing the new kit. If they spent a ton of money and need it to sell well, they make it a MC and let you take 12 in a battle forged army. If it's a model that's been around forever, it stays a vehicle and they get their sales boost elsewhere (space marines inside bigger space marines that have OP new weapons).

 Toofast wrote:
The criteria is how much money GW invested in designing the new kit. If they spent a ton of money and need it to sell well, they make it a MC and let you take 12 in a battle forged army. If it's a model that's been around forever, it stays a vehicle and they get their sales boost elsewhere (space marines inside bigger space marines that have OP new weapons).

Imperial Knights prove your hypothesis wrong.

SJ

Spetulhu wrote:

 Filch wrote:
If it should explode like a burning car, it is a vehicle walker.
If it can blow up then it is a vehicle or a walker that has a combustible engine.

You know, cars don't usually explode even when burning. In fact you'll have to rig them with explosives if you want them to blow up. Gasoline and diesel just don't carry the energy to make a car explode like they do in the movies. So combustion engines don't make something explode.

A tank that explodes has suffered from a catastrophic ammo cook-off. For some reason MCs with ammo dependent weapons seem to have better ammo storage - what safer place than having the ammo hanging on your arm, right? That armored compartment in a tank that's hard to hit and also made to vent the explosion away from the crew and important systems is just BS compared to having your ammo in a plastic bag.

One of the many disparities between an MC and a vehicle.
Another is the apparent invulnerability of MC's vital organs, you know, the heart, brain/CPU, etc. Apparently these are never hit, ever.

 master of ordinance wrote:

Spetulhu wrote:

 Filch wrote:
If it should explode like a burning car, it is a vehicle walker.
If it can blow up then it is a vehicle or a walker that has a combustible engine.

You know, cars don't usually explode even when burning. In fact you'll have to rig them with explosives if you want them to blow up. Gasoline and diesel just don't carry the energy to make a car explode like they do in the movies. So combustion engines don't make something explode.

A tank that explodes has suffered from a catastrophic ammo cook-off. For some reason MCs with ammo dependent weapons seem to have better ammo storage - what safer place than having the ammo hanging on your arm, right? That armored compartment in a tank that's hard to hit and also made to vent the explosion away from the crew and important systems is just BS compared to having your ammo in a plastic bag.

One of the many disparities between an MC and a vehicle.
Another is the apparent invulnerability of MC's vital organs, you know, the heart, brain/CPU, etc. Apparently these are never hit, ever.

Well. Unless your weapon is instant death. Then they are every single time.

The Everything Is a Great GW Plot theory actually contradicts the GW Doesn't Know Anything about Game Design theory. Anyway.

Hmmm. Maybe the actual criterion is whether or not something is suspectable to things like Psychic Shriek?

 Filch wrote:
If it should explode like a burning car, it is a vehicle walker.

Wraith Lords and Knights do not run on fuel. It runs on some sort of safe eldar psychic gem power. Even the riptide has a safe plasma generator. It only gets hot when they overcharge it. And in an event when it may explode they have so many fail safe systems to prevent a melt down and explosion.

a Soul grinder uses demonic enegergies to power the legs.

Dreds, Killer cans, sentinels, dune crawlers, fiends, etc, although has people or biomass inside, are vehicles because it can explode when destroyed.

If it can blow up then it is a vehicle or a walker that has a combustible engine.

How do you explain the dreadknight then? I fail to see how it's really that different from a penetant engine, but 1 is a walker, the other is a monsterous creature.

What about the Kastellan robots from Ad Mech. It says it right there in the name, they're ROBOTS, but nope, monsterous creature stats.

Why is a necron tomb spider a monsterous creature when the triach stalker isn't?

Honestly I think the criteria is whether the crew can be affected/hindered by attacks (by "GW logic")

Dreadnoughts should probably be MCs, but hail from a time before MCs had separate rules, they're probably exempt.

But most MCs are either a complete entity (it's a creature with a "brain" or it's a suit so integrated that the pilot is basically acting as its body and can't be "shaken around" in there.

The smaller tau infantry suits are still considered infantry, but they're wearing the same tech that for instance the riptide uses. Makes "sense" (GW sense) that the riptide is just a really big infantry model then. The Kastellans, Eldar wraith constructs, DE pain Engines are a separate creature with it's own brain.

And it's not like GW is using MC rules as a sales tactic-if you think that how do you explain the two walkers released at EXACTLY THE SAME TIME as the Kastellan you're putting forward as "proof" of your big GW conspiracy?

The only reason the wraithknight is an MC is because Wraithlords have always been MCs. The only reason the riptide is an MC is because broadsides have always been MCs (or infantry I don't remember tbh). If you ever wonder "why does GW do x thing y way?" The answer is usually "because it's always been that way and GWs model isn't "if it ain't broke don't fix it" it's "don't fix it".

Actually the pilot can be shaken around or an APHE/SABOT shell can pierce hull and hit the myomers/munitions/control circuits/pilot/etc ad knock it out in one go. Except special snowflake Tau.

 Drasius wrote:

 Filch wrote:
If it should explode like a burning car, it is a vehicle walker.

Wraith Lords and Knights do not run on fuel. It runs on some sort of safe eldar psychic gem power. Even the riptide has a safe plasma generator. It only gets hot when they overcharge it. And in an event when it may explode they have so many fail safe systems to prevent a melt down and explosion.

a Soul grinder uses demonic enegergies to power the legs.

Dreds, Killer cans, sentinels, dune crawlers, fiends, etc, although has people or biomass inside, are vehicles because it can explode when destroyed.

If it can blow up then it is a vehicle or a walker that has a combustible engine.

How do you explain the dreadknight then? I fail to see how it's really that different from a penetant engine, but 1 is a walker, the other is a monsterous creature.

What about the Kastellan robots from Ad Mech. It says it right there in the name, they're ROBOTS, but nope, monsterous creature stats.

Why is a necron tomb spider a monsterous creature when the triach stalker isn't?

Should the Dread Knight explode?

Look, the difference is that a walker is something like an ATRT from starwars that just has two legs and a chassis. A monstrous creature that's a robot is far more like a monstrous creature that is also a robot. This means having a head, arms, and legs.

Ask yourself if something is like a giant monster, but made out of metal. If it's not, then it's a walker.

Jaxler wrote:
Look, the difference is that a walker is something like an ATRT from starwars that just has two legs and a chassis. A monstrous creature that's a robot is far more like a monstrous creature that is also a robot. This means having a head, arms, and legs.

Ask yourself if something is like a giant monster, but made out of metal. If it's not, then it's a walker.

Look at a Dreadknight.

Then look at a penitent engine.

Then look back at the Dreadknight.

Then look back at the penitent engine.

 Toofast wrote:
The criteria is how much money GW invested in designing the new kit. If they spent a ton of money and need it to sell well, they make it a MC and let you take 12 in a battle forged army. If it's a model that's been around forever, it stays a vehicle and they get their sales boost elsewhere (space marines inside bigger space marines that have OP new weapons).

And i suspect it's pretty much this. ^


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jaxler wrote:
Look, the difference is that a walker is something like an ATRT from starwars that just has two legs and a chassis. A monstrous creature that's a robot is far more like a monstrous creature that is also a robot. This means having a head, arms, and legs.

Ask yourself if something is like a giant monster, but made out of metal. If it's not, then it's a walker.

That doesn't seem to fit what they have going. Marine dreadnoughts have their pilots neurally linked into their suits, much like riptides. Yet one is a walker, the other is a mc.

Jaxler wrote:
Look, the difference is that a walker is something like an ATRT from starwars that just has two legs and a chassis. A monstrous creature that's a robot is far more like a monstrous creature that is also a robot. This means having a head, arms, and legs.

Ask yourself if something is like a giant monster, but made out of metal. If it's not, then it's a walker.

All giant monsters. 3 are mostly metal, the other only has metal legs.
All are Walkers.

Thanks GeeDubs

There is absolutely no logic to it at all.

It's silly. But hey, after two crappy editions at least they finally have Dreads a little love. (4A base)

I understand the difference between them. One is way better

@SickSix - maybe in a couple more editions terminators will be as good as the models are cool.

Jaxler wrote:
Look, the difference is that a walker is something like an ATRT from starwars that just has two legs and a chassis. A monstrous creature that's a robot is far more like a monstrous creature that is also a robot. This means having a head, arms, and legs.

Ask yourself if something is like a giant monster, but made out of metal. If it's not, then it's a walker.

The Brass Scorpion looks very much like a monstrous creature and has six legs. It still is a walker vehicle.

The Kytan Daemon Engine looks very much like a monstrous creature because it has a head, arms, legs, and is just made of metal. It's still a walker vehicle while for some reason the Dreadknight isn't, even though the Kytan looks more like a metal monster and the Dreadknight looks more like a robot.

Spetulhu wrote:

You know, cars don't usually explode even when burning. In fact you'll have to rig them with explosives if you want them to blow up. Gasoline and diesel just don't carry the energy to make a car explode like they do in the movies.

You know, GW's basing rules on movies.

Spetulhu wrote:
Gasoline and diesel just don't carry the energy to make a car explode like they do in the movies.

Slight correction here: gas has plenty of energy. In fact, gasoline has about ten times the energy density (energy per unit of mass) of TNT. The reason cars don't explode is that having an explosion instead of a fire requires a very specific fuel to air ratio and ignition source that is unlikely to occur in the context of a car crash. But if you get the right conditions it can and will explode.

 Peregrine wrote:

Spetulhu wrote:
Gasoline and diesel just don't carry the energy to make a car explode like they do in the movies.

Slight correction here: gas has plenty of energy. In fact, gasoline has about ten times the energy density (energy per unit of mass) of TNT. The reason cars don't explode is that having an explosion instead of a fire requires a very specific fuel to air ratio and ignition source that is unlikely to occur in the context of a car crash. But if you get the right conditions it can and will explode.

OK, you got me there and I stand corrected. The correct statement would be that liquid fuel isn't really well suited to explode instantly. It generally has to turn into a gaseous state first. Though some tanks do burn quite well, possibly killing the crew. The M4 Sherman was called "Ronson" by the brits that used it (after a cigarrette lighter advertisement) but that too was more often the ammo going up first.

I'm pretty sure the intention at the beginning was to adapt the original walker rules to the newer 3rd Ed vehicle rules. This allowed walkers to have the survivability of tanks while retaining the mechanic of losing weapons due to accumulative battle damage. However, this didn't fit the feel of Eldar Dreadnoughts, so the writers turned them into Monstrous Creatures which was closer to how walkers worked in 1st and 2nd. Thus, the began the schism between vehicle walkers and monstrous walkers. GW further equated upsized powered armor as monsters (Tau battlesuits), while leaving clunky robots as vehicles (Penitent Engines), before finally adding Superheavy Walkers that were vehicles that behaive like monsters (because reasons). This all goes to illustrate that GW has followed this design philosophy to its inevitable concussion, and 8th really needs to revamp the vehicle rules to better fit the current game.

From a fluff stand point, vehicle walkers can be dismantled during combat, while monstrous walkers cannot, and SHW straddle the line between the two as perhaps the prototype of what may occur in a future edition to resolve the problem.

SJ