<![CDATA[Latest posts for the thread "Monstrous Creatures vs. Vehicles"]]>

<![CDATA[Latest posts for the thread "Monstrous Creatures vs. Vehicles"]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/16.page JForum - http://www.jforum.net Monstrous Creatures vs. Vehicles MCs and Vehicles, and how MCs are obviously better. And of course, there are a ton of instances that just don't make sense, for example how a Melta explodes a vehicle in one shot, but does a single wound to an MC. So, I was thinking of a couple things that could fix this.

My first thought would be to make any weapon that has 2+ higher strength than the MCs toughness does D3 wounds per unsaved wound. For example, a melta would deal D3 wounds to a Carnifex or Riptide, whereas only a Railgun would deal D3 to a Wraithknight. Also, vehicles have a flat 4+ armor save and MCs need to be obscured just like vehicles to benefit from cover.

My second thought is to just have a table for wounds inflicted upon MCs. For every unsaved wound taken that has a higher strength than the toughness of the MC, you roll on this chart. AP2 and AP1 still give their benefits as normal.

1-3: Shaken - The MC is taken aback by the damage it just suffered, causing it to Snap Fire during it's next turn.
4: Stunned - The MC is stunned and cannot move during it's next turn. It is also forced to Snap Fire.
5: Weapon Destroyed - Randomly determine one weapon (can be either melee or ranged) and the MC loses all benefits of carrying that weapon.
6: Grievous Wound - Immediately roll a D6. On a 5+, the MC suffers 1 additional wound with no saves of any kind allowed.
7+: The MC is devastated by the received damage is immediately slain.

This is just an idea I had, figured I would share it with you guys. What do you think?]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8289345.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8289345.page GMT Monstrous Creatures vs. Vehicles
Resilient: Glancing hits against a vehicle with this rule are resolved with an AP value 1 point worse than usual (to a minimum of AP -). Penetrating hits function as usual.

My reasoning is that autocannons and Tau missile pods can put out enough shots at AP4 to still easily wreck most light vehicles, but a 3+ would be slightly too likely to ignore each individual hit.

It's mean on AV13, but AV13 Jinking skimmers already exist, and they're not overpowered. Nasty in large numbers, but that's true of tanks in general, so what else is new?

For example, given that, I'd pretty much never have a Raider Jink against bolters, gauss flayers, etc, but gauss blasters and heavy bolters (dur, pulse rifles are AP5!) might still give me some cause for concern. I'd have a Falcon Jink against a full volley by Missilesides, say, but probably not against a lone autocannon on a Chimera. Krak missiles, though, still manage to scare Hammerheads and Ghost Arks - they're AP4 even if they only glance. (And Land Raiders aren't shrugging off the fishing-for-sixes glance, either)]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8289687.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8289687.page GMT Monstrous Creatures vs. Vehicles
Walkers vs MC in CC, another joke right there.
]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8289700.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8289700.page GMT Re:Monstrous Creatures vs. Vehicles ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8289704.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8289704.page GMT Monstrous Creatures vs. Vehicles MCs or vehicles should have a damage table or neither should.

I think that bonus wounds on MCs based on strength would be a good idea, but maybe a bit hard to balance. Maybe D2 wounds, not D3. The idea of, say, power klaws and rokkits doing D3 wounds on a carnifex sounds a little OP, but I like the idea in concept.

I also like the idea of vehicles getting saves - maybe based on the AP of the weapon? Like vehicles get no 'armor' save V AP1, a 6+ from AP2, 5+ from AP3, etc, etc? ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8289708.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8289708.page GMT Monstrous Creatures vs. Vehicles

Kap'n Krump wrote:
I also think that both MCs or vehicles should have a damage table or neither should.

I think that bonus wounds on MCs based on strength would be a good idea, but maybe a bit hard to balance. Maybe D2 wounds, not D3. The idea of, say, power klaws and rokkits doing D3 wounds on a carnifex sounds a little OP, but I like the idea in concept.

I also like the idea of vehicles getting saves - maybe based on the AP of the weapon? Like vehicles get no 'armor' save V AP1, a 6+ from AP2, 5+ from AP3, etc, etc?

True, the Powerclawz would destroy MCs. But then again, they also wreck vehicles with ease, so....

I like the idea of vehicles having a form of save based on the AP. I think that makes sense, and wouldn't be too difficult to implement.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8289727.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8289727.page GMT Re:Monstrous Creatures vs. Vehicles http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8290726.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8290726.page GMT Monstrous Creatures vs. Vehicles http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8290751.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8290751.page GMT Monstrous Creatures vs. Vehicles wh40k, that all MC's are ueber durable wrecking machines. Truth is most die to plasma even easier than vehicles. This is due to the fact that T6 is the rough equivalent of AV9. Vehicles have melta, that has a good chance to ruin it in a single volley. Most MC's have grav, which has a good chance to ruin it in a single turn (non-Thirster daemon MC's being the exception there.)
I lose enough fexes/walkrants/trygons to krak missiles and plasma as it is. that EACH krak missile would now or be psuedo-StrD, lances would kill it in 2 shots, and every imperial army would spam lascannons even more to delete my MC's. No thanks.. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8290821.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8290821.page GMT Monstrous Creatures vs. Vehicles
Do like your table. I advocate anything that nerfs MC, despite Tyranids being one of my main armies. Would change last line to 'has the Instant Death special rule' for clarification purposes. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8291115.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8291115.page GMT Monstrous Creatures vs. Vehicles

StarHunter25 wrote:
I understand most people seem to think that just because the riptide is stupidly durable and is literally the reason grav exists in wh40k, that all MC's are ueber durable wrecking machines. Truth is most die to plasma even easier than vehicles. This is due to the fact that T6 is the rough equivalent of AV9. Vehicles have melta, that has a good chance to ruin it in a single volley. Most MC's have grav, which has a good chance to ruin it in a single turn (non-Thirster daemon MC's being the exception there.)
I lose enough fexes/walkrants/trygons to krak missiles and plasma as it is. that EACH krak missile would now or be psuedo-StrD, lances would kill it in 2 shots, and every imperial army would spam lascannons even more to delete my MC's. No thanks..

Well, if you're losing that many TMCs, you're not using cover effectively. Or your dice hate you. That's part of the problem. MCs can stick a toe in cover and bam, cover save. Vehicles cannot. I can glance the crap out of a Land Raider, but a Wraithknight gets a 3+ save and then FNP (That of which vehicles have no equivalent).

Also, if Dark Lances suddenly became good at something and Imperials used more Lascannons instead of Grav, I would certainly not complain about those changes.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frozocrone wrote:
Do like your table. I advocate anything that nerfs MC, despite Tyranids being one of my main armies. Would change last line to 'has the Instant Death special rule' for clarification purposes.

Ah, yeah, that would be simpler. Derp.

]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8291453.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8291453.page GMT Monstrous Creatures vs. Vehicles

Mcs ARE super durable wrecking machines compared to vehicles. Even tyranid mcs. Everything you complained about is twice as bad with vehicles.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8291480.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8291480.page GMT Monstrous Creatures vs. Vehicles MCs. Now I'd personally prefer to convert all vehicles to a toughness/wounds system instead of AV/HP, where they'd work more or less like infantry and MCs, but with Melta, Armourbane, Haywire etc adjusted to fit.

But if we're not doing that, something is probably needed to bring the two into parity. I'm not convinced that dumping hull points is the right solution, either - doesn't make Venoms and Raiders much harder to kill, does make things like Land Raiders pretty much unstoppable (with the current chart). Or at least, once all the meltas have been killed, it does - you're fishing for a 6 on the damage chart with a lascannon, which only has a 16% chance to punch in the first place...

All in all, some normalization is needed.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8291697.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8291697.page GMT Monstrous Creatures vs. Vehicles

Lost cause man. These people see MC and think of Riptides pounding their models to dust while it laughs with its "overpowered" 5+ cover save.

Scary Carnifex is going to start Smashing their models start of turn 4 and its impossible to kill the thing walking slowly across the map because the terrain is entirely made up of cover!. /s

The vehicle armor save seems to not really help against anything, Autocannons/Missiles/Meltas slice through it.

Save against Twin Linked Devourerers with Brainleech Worms I guess? Haywire?

Everything else is just a knee jerk nerf to all MCs for one or two problem children.

I'd say let vehicles fire all weapons at full BS even if they move 6", but vehicles can have 2-4 secondary weapons all shooting in addition to the S6+ main cannon they normally get. While MCs are hard set at 2 weapons.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8291955.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8291955.page GMT Monstrous Creatures vs. Vehicles
Tbh when we now play 40k we did the opposite:

So vehicles ignore all results on the damage table except "explode" and can overwatch - MC / GC play unchanged.

Seems to work well. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8291962.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8291962.page GMT Re:Monstrous Creatures vs. Vehicles HP) and an incremental damage mechanic (damage table). The HP was added on because of Warhammer40,000 Parking Lot (5e) because throwing 10 meltaguns at a chimera only to manage crew stunned results with every penetrating hit was awful. Then GW hamfisted in the HP mechanic. This made vechicles not quasi-immortal metal bawxes for all armies without to envy. Instead it made them high toughness psuedo-infantry with extra punishment for being hit. This suddenly threw the competitive pendulum through the opposing wall. 5e, you used vehicles because they were annoyingly difficult to kill, as evident by the popular lists of the day of Razorspam and Psydread spam. Doing the same thing to MC's will put them into the same boat. We'll then be playing "infantry and LoW" edition. On that, I think the real kicker is the heavy removal of the ID usr from things. I can think of 3 things that cause ID offhand, those are force weapons, beast hunter shells on ABG russes, and daemon warlords who rolled the correct WLT.

Slightly more OT. If we're implementing a "MC's lose ability when taking wounds" mechanic, there needs to be a glancing hit equivilant. If you roll the minimum "to wound" no further harm than the lost wound. A railgun can still glance AV11. Furthermore, a blanket increase in toughness should be applied, and/or directional toughness to MC's to compensate for there new fragility. like, say, the lowest available toughness to be 7 on any MC, and let T11&12 be a thing, as AV15 now happens, and there needs to be a T value that Str10 only pens on 6's against. Extra addendum to this; I find multi-wound characters to be far to durable. Lets just apply this chart to any multiwound model. Suddenly every TWC, necron wraith, grey knight paladin and eldar exarch needs to worry about getting shot.

Will MC heavy armies have some sort of techmarine equivalent added to their faction to allow for severed limbs and wounds to be fixed?
How will EW interact with this chart?
Will over-strength weapons have a d3 HP effect VS vehicles?
Why are there two points of "you take more wounds because" on the MC damage chart?
Will there be another effect similar to haywire to balance against MC's vulnerability to sniper, poison, and fleshbane? How about something like "Metalophagic". Weapons with that rule auto-penetrate on a 2+ against anything with an AV.

And from a serious tactical perspective, your chart would allow a pair of meltaguns to basically 1 shot any t6 MC in the game, guaranteed. Lets put an IG veteran squad with 3 meltas against a carnifex and a dreadnought, assuming all 3 meltas are at 5" away, and that the firer is tactically smart enough to have the shots come from a no-cover angle.

3 melta shots, 2 hit. Meltaguns are Str8+2d6 vs AV12, so that is more than likely 2 pens. dread takes minimum 2 HP, with a 1/3 chance of being exploded per hit, potentially harming the aggressors. Has a slight chance of surviving
3 melta shots. 2 hit. Meltaguns are str 8 vs t6, so thats 2d3 wounds. Carnifex is likely dead from the on average 4 wounds. If it does survive somehow, further 50% chance of taking further wounds or being slain outright. Almost no chance of surviving.
I'm no pro at math-hammer, but a dreadnought seems to VASTLY outclass the fex. In CQC it's even more of a joke, as the dread will (even moreso than now) kill the fex before it swings, 4 attacks, hitting on 3+, causing d3 wounds each. Any space marine with a powerfist will eat t6 MC's for breakfast.

Then we get to Str-D. A single str-D shot will cause minimum 2d3 wounds vs any MC t8 or less, as Str-d is actually str10 with a wonky extra table.
Oh yeah, FMC are a thing. A failed grounding test will cause 1+d3 wounds to nearly every FMC in the game, as the only one I know of with access to more than t7 is a daemon prince that rolled iron arm.

All this change will do is to make CWE even more the master race of wh40k, as they are the only ones with access to baseline t8 MC, a plethora of s8+ and strD weapons, and have sniper, haywire, and melta out the

. Tau will barely notice it, as the real kicker of riptides is their extreme range coupled with high mobility and high inv/armor save. So the pleb MC's of the game (Tyranids, Daemons, Dark Eldar) will all be sitting next to all the pre-7e space marine dreadnoughts.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8292046.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8292046.page GMT Monstrous Creatures vs. Vehicles
I've seen a couple of variants, but I'd go with this: make it exactly equal to the Ghostkeel's cyclic ion raker (which is powerful but not overpowered), but add a Nova-charged profile as follows:

24" S10 AP2 Ordnance 1 Large Blast, Gets Hot, Nova-Charge

Then remove Gets Hot from the nova-charged profile of the Heavy Burst Cannon and possibly bump it up to Heavy 12 base and Heavy 16 Nova'd - S6 AP4 isn't that terrifying without Rending. Admittedly, 16 shots with Rending is scary, and 36" range can be nasty, but I think most armies can either survive that (Necrons, Space Marines, Tyranids sometimes) or make the Riptide pay for being dumb enough to get that close (Orks, Tyranids, Dark Eldar, etc).

Now that highly durable beastie has to get up close where it's subject to all kinds of abuse - including things like Tank Shock. (Everyone at my local shop remembers the Great Invincible Hellhound Incident...)]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8292115.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8292115.page GMT Monstrous Creatures vs. Vehicles IA change (since thats basically what ive been saying needs to happen, not change prices on anything) the change to the HBC is ...no lol. 16 S6 AP4 Rending w/o Gets Hot? Thats just insane, considering even 12 Rending shots is scary enough as it is.
People take the IA over the HBC not because the IA is overall stronger, but because its more reliable due to Blast and AP2 static and zero Nova test risks. HBC when it actually PASSES the nova, is way stronger - but if it doesnt pass, it kinda sucks balls.

Ive always said it makes no sense for a tank dedicated to bringing its main cannon would have a weaker cannon than the giant mecha suit. Same strength value, but less ap. IA should be AP4 like every other damn Ion we have outside the Cannon, with the Nova being AP2 like you said so then it forces the Nova damage risk vs reward.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8292363.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8292363.page GMT Monstrous Creatures vs. Vehicles
It seems like the risk is very small, (2+ armor plus maybe FNP) but I've killed myself with that more than once, not counting all the times I've killed myself with the nova reactor.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8292392.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8292392.page GMT Re:Monstrous Creatures vs. Vehicles mc or gmc should have a 2+ save. We can start there in the balancing.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8292441.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8292441.page GMT Monstrous Creatures vs. Vehicles MC's" is fals logic, especially when most MC's die to massed infantry fire pretty easily in my experience (and not just to my DE's massed poison fire). I agree that vehicles need a better armour set up and an actual save but making something else weak when it's not overpowered is not a good answer. Though GMC rules do need a nerf, or at least make it much harder points wise to field the damn things..]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8292568.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8292568.page GMT Monstrous Creatures vs. Vehicles

Imateria wrote:
"Vehicles are weak so we should nerf MC's" is fals logic, especially when most MC's die to massed infantry fire pretty easily in my experience (and not just to my DE's massed poison fire). I agree that vehicles need a better armour set up and an actual save but making something else weak when it's not overpowered is not a good answer. Though GMC rules do need a nerf, or at least make it much harder points wise to field the damn things..

Most MCs do NOT die to mass infantry fire easily. Do the math. It's absurd. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8292799.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8292799.page GMT Monstrous Creatures vs. Vehicles
Vehicles need a severe buff. MCs as a whole are fine, WK/Riptide need tweaks but thats specific not general.

I've always gone with the suggestion that vehicle HP needs to be doubled. Vehicles are immune to infantry guns (for the most part) but the problem comes in with Autocannon or Missilepod level of firepower - they glance to death too quickly since they have no save against it and its too reliable.
Doubling the HP makes glancing to death significantly harder to pull off, but still possible - making the 1shot weapons more favorable because of the Explode chances.

I also feel vehicles should have a minor save against non AP1 or AP2 weapons. Nothing huge since they have the AV backing it up, but even something like a 5+ would be awesome across the board. Skimmers already have a 4+ jink if we chose to use it, so leave that alone, and make the vehicles with 5++ a 4++. Vehicles that already have a 4++ get nothing, as i feel having more than a 4++ that doesnt impose snapfire on an AV model is a bit overkill. (Yes my hammerheads have a 3+ save, but i REALLY dont want to do that because then i basically waste my next shot)]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8293048.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8293048.page GMT Monstrous Creatures vs. Vehicles

Martel732 wrote:

Imateria wrote:
"Vehicles are weak so we should nerf MC's" is fals logic, especially when most MC's die to massed infantry fire pretty easily in my experience (and not just to my DE's massed poison fire). I agree that vehicles need a better armour set up and an actual save but making something else weak when it's not overpowered is not a good answer. Though GMC rules do need a nerf, or at least make it much harder points wise to field the damn things..

Most MCs do NOT die to mass infantry fire easily. Do the math. It's absurd.

If most MCs were Riptides or DKs then sure.

Most, however, are T5/6 3+/4+ Sv models with 3/4 wounds.

You can't say an MC doesn't die to massed fire then also claim that Space Marines are bad because they do.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8293076.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8293076.page GMT Re:Monstrous Creatures vs. Vehicles

Martel732 wrote:
No mc or gmc should have a 2+ save. We can start there in the balancing.

QFT.

Personally I'd make various things (dreadknights, riptides) have a USR called "mechanical" or some such nonsense:

-Immune to poison and fleshbane
-Haywire wounds on a 2+ and gains Rending
-Meltaguns and weapons with Armorbane deal an additional wound with no saves of any kind allowed on a to wound roll of 6.

Also, remove the ability for these units to take a built in FNP (Stim Injectors).

As for 'Nid MC's, most of them need a price drop, better movement, and better rules for Synapse. 'Nids should be the only ones who should get FNP thrown around on MCs (besides Daemons).]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8293192.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8293192.page GMT Monstrous Creatures vs. Vehicles AP of the weapon]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8293259.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8293259.page GMT Monstrous Creatures vs. Vehicles

Matt.Kingsley wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Imateria wrote:
"Vehicles are weak so we should nerf MC's" is fals logic, especially when most MC's die to massed infantry fire pretty easily in my experience (and not just to my DE's massed poison fire). I agree that vehicles need a better armour set up and an actual save but making something else weak when it's not overpowered is not a good answer. Though GMC rules do need a nerf, or at least make it much harder points wise to field the damn things..

Most MCs do NOT die to mass infantry fire easily. Do the math. It's absurd.

Unfortunately, this is the problem. People aren't listening because - unfortunately - they don't care about tyranid monstrous creatures. Whenever anyone says "monstrous creature" they think Riptide, Dreadknight, Wraithknight and now Ghostkeel. And as long as they can point at these, they don't care that the problems are these units, not the monstrous creature rules as a whole.

The 'toe in terrain' phrase which gets trotted out at every opportunity is the same. Fine if you're a flying artillery piece, but if you're a walking assault unit, you have to close on the enemy to hurt them, which means (normally) coming out of cover. In addition, you either get your cover save or your armour save - against a lot of mid-strength firepower, you're not going to get the cover save regardless because a 3+ armour/carapace is better.

T6, 3+ save monsters (like, notably, dreadnoughts used to be in 1st edition) do not 'die easily to massed fire. I'm not going to say they do, and I'm not sure anyone's claiming they die easily. But the point is that a tactical squad rapid-firing into them and bunging a krak grenade at the same time will do a wound as often as not. Heavy bolters can hurt them, and so can pulse weapons, burst cannons, splinter weapons, shuriken catapults and so on. As a result, any army facing primarily monstrous creatures has probably 30 or so guys that can actually hurt them that would be nothing but warm bodies against a similar AV12/13 walker force. They don't go down easily, and shouldn't, but losing a few extra wounds per turn matters when your force is built around a small number of high toughness models, just like losing 'a few hull points' wrecks vehicles.

I'll be fair - I don't like 2+ save monstrous creatures either. I can just about forgive the tyrannofex - trying not to be biased - because it doesn't get an invulnerable save, it's incompetent in close combat and it's essentially supposed to be a walking weapons bunker, but I'd be perfectly happy with it having a 3+ save - the tervigon is based on the same model, after all - and making it a touch cheaper. The idea of monstrous creatures being easier to wound but harder to put down permanently than a tank is fine, but whilst a 3+ save is okay, a 2+ save is pushing it as it makes krak missiles - supposed to be a standard anti-tank weapon - irrelevant.

Equally, I would be perfectly happy removing the 'area terrain' exception for vehicles. The point of area terrain is that it's supposed to be dense forest, or ruins, or whatever, that's full of far more and far thicker scenery than is practical to put on the table and still move your models around - hence anything fully inside it should get a cover save, regardless of its unit type, and anything not fully inside it (because it wouldn't fit because it's a baneblade or a hierophant) won't.

I don't mind dropping or simplifying the damage table on tanks, but there should still be some 'overkill' mechanic - for the same reason Instant Death weapons scare a monstrous creature; a librarian with a force staff, or someone with an ichor injector or paragon blade has a fighting chance of killing a monster in one blow - there should be a way to do the same to walkers.

Frankly, if someone wants to revert dreadnoughts to (essentially) monstrous creatures, I don't mind, provided that they don't then try (as they usually do) to insist that they have a 2+ save and by T8 or 9 in order to be immune to anti-personnel weapons.

]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8293301.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8293301.page GMT Monstrous Creatures vs. Vehicles MC in M41 rules:

- removed unit types (replaced them with a trait system), all weapons work against all models (eg. Instant Death), all models treat terrain the same, etc

- Vehicle Armour is treated like toughness but those models have no armour save (value from 6-16)

- Anti Vehicle weapons (replaces armour & flesh bane) add 7-AP to their strength against Vehicle Armour.

- some weapons remove 2 wounds instead of one (eg lasercannons)

- All models above a specific size use the same damage table:
1-2: Glancing Hit: the models shooting attacks suffer a -1 to hit
3-4: Weapon damage: 1 weapon cannot shoot the next turn (owner choose)
5-6: Drive/Tracks/Legs damaged: the model cannot move the next turn

- the number of weapons fired is fixed to the size of the model

- some other tweaks/traits to take the other "old" rules into account ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8293369.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8293369.page GMT Monstrous Creatures vs. Vehicles

Martel732 wrote:

Imateria wrote:
"Vehicles are weak so we should nerf MC's" is fals logic, especially when most MC's die to massed infantry fire pretty easily in my experience (and not just to my DE's massed poison fire). I agree that vehicles need a better armour set up and an actual save but making something else weak when it's not overpowered is not a good answer. Though GMC rules do need a nerf, or at least make it much harder points wise to field the damn things..

Most MCs do NOT die to mass infantry fire easily. Do the math. It's absurd.

I think you just failed at maths. My Mawlocs (T6, W6, 3+) have died in a single round of fire more often than not thanks to mass bolter fire and a few heavy weapons. Occaisonally they'll last just long enough for someone to get into close combat and take that last wound off them since most Tyranid MC's are actually quite bad at close combat.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8293651.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8293651.page GMT Monstrous Creatures vs. Vehicles

Matt.Kingsley wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Imateria wrote:
"Vehicles are weak so we should nerf MC's" is fals logic, especially when most MC's die to massed infantry fire pretty easily in my experience (and not just to my DE's massed poison fire). I agree that vehicles need a better armour set up and an actual save but making something else weak when it's not overpowered is not a good answer. Though GMC rules do need a nerf, or at least make it much harder points wise to field the damn things..

Most MCs do NOT die to mass infantry fire easily. Do the math. It's absurd.

Except marines get wounded at triple the rate by S4 and about double the rate by S6. So, yeah I can. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8293673.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8293673.page GMT Monstrous Creatures vs. Vehicles http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8293681.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8293681.page GMT Monstrous Creatures vs. Vehicles

Imateria wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Imateria wrote:
"Vehicles are weak so we should nerf MC's" is fals logic, especially when most MC's die to massed infantry fire pretty easily in my experience (and not just to my DE's massed poison fire). I agree that vehicles need a better armour set up and an actual save but making something else weak when it's not overpowered is not a good answer. Though GMC rules do need a nerf, or at least make it much harder points wise to field the damn things..

Most MCs do NOT die to mass infantry fire easily. Do the math. It's absurd.

Anecdotal. T6 3+ is not a good bolter target. The points of bolters that have to be fired at an MC is cost prohibitive. If they were able to get away with it, that's on you.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

locarno24 wrote:
And also have between one and a half and two and a half times the wounds per 'unit' on the board compared to a monster.

And yet, are completely inept compared to an MC. AP3/2 blasts destroy marines but only can take a single wound from a monster. Marines' durability is even their strong point. Their offense is terrible. They have to buy expensive power weapons to do what MCs do for free. MCs = OP, some are just much more OP than others. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8293684.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8293684.page GMT Monstrous Creatures vs. Vehicles

Martel732 wrote:

Anecdotal. T6 3+ is not a good bolter target. The points of bolters that have to be fired at an MC is cost prohibitive. If they were able to get away with it, that's on you.

I don't think you're taking a very important piece into account.

Units will never be 100% effective or make the 'optimal choice' every turn. Whether its not assaulting even though you can get the charge, not shooting a unit with a T that gives you 2+ to wound, not claiming an objective with objective secured unit. There will be situations that are strategically more sound.

If you have a unit of 5 marines in rapid fire range, you have a roughly 50% chance of dealing a wound to a T6 MC. 50% for one squad.

If they fail? Meh, its half a squad of bolters would probably wouldn't be shooting much else anything. Maybe some of your opponents troops live. Gaunts maybe.
If they succeed? That is one less wound a Melta or a Lascannon needs to knock off to kill it.

This alone can be the difference between needing one, or two dev squads to take out the MC.

The situation dictates if this is a good idea. Having the CHOICE to do something (Shooting bolters/other S3-5 weapons at an MC), is infinitely better then having no choice.

]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8294400.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8294400.page GMT Monstrous Creatures vs. Vehicles

Datastream wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

Anecdotal. T6 3+ is not a good bolter target. The points of bolters that have to be fired at an MC is cost prohibitive. If they were able to get away with it, that's on you.

An entire squad having a 50/50 chance to do nothing is terrible. Especially since that MC will come squish them next turn 100% guaranteed. Moving away from the MC is probably a better choice. And that's what's wrong with MCs. It's better to just run. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8294406.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8294406.page GMT Monstrous Creatures vs. Vehicles

Martel732 wrote:

Datastream wrote:
Martel732 wrote:

Anecdotal. T6 3+ is not a good bolter target. The points of bolters that have to be fired at an MC is cost prohibitive. If they were able to get away with it, that's on you.

I don't think you're taking a very important piece into account.

Units will never be 100% effective or make the 'optimal choice' every turn. Whether its not assaulting even though you can get the charge, not shooting a unit with a T that gives you 2+ to wound, not claiming an objective with objective secured unit. There will be situations that are strategically more sound.

If you have a unit of 5 marines in rapid fire range, you have a roughly 50% chance of dealing a wound to a T6 MC. 50% for one squad.

If they fail? Meh, its half a squad of bolters would probably wouldn't be shooting much else anything. Maybe some of your opponents troops live. Gaunts maybe.
If they succeed? That is one less wound a Melta or a Lascannon needs to knock off to kill it.

This alone can be the difference between needing one, or two dev squads to take out the MC.

The situation dictates if this is a good idea. Having the CHOICE to do something (Shooting bolters/other S3-5 weapons at an MC), is infinitely better then having no choice.

I honestly think the only MCs you face are Tau and Eldar, whose admittedly over the top with how strong they are.

But that's besides the point. The scenario that a MC would need to tie itself up for 2 turns to kill 5 Tac marines is laughable. Not to mention the marines themselves for 5 is what, 70? 75 points? Would you be mad that a single TWC model can do the same thing? That's half the points fully kitted out and still killing all 5 in half the time.

EDIT:

Not to mention the last part of my scenario. Wounds the TAC squad deal is wounds your real weapons like meltas wont need to bother dealing, freeing them up for more targets.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8294431.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8294431.page GMT Re:Monstrous Creatures vs. Vehicles MCs that ignore power armor that fight at full effectiveness until the last wound is gone. Meanwhile, a stiff breeze to the size of my predator takes it out of the fight. Totally fair.

Meltas mean nothing to MCs. They do a whooping one wound if they don't make their cover save. Why am I saving meltas again?]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8294434.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8294434.page GMT Monstrous Creatures vs. Vehicles tac marines? The fact that every tac marine is equipped with Krak granades making them wound on 4s?

Saying meltas do nothing is laughable. Yeah, the 25 point upgrade does one wound a turn. Good thing you have 4-5 to a squad!

Unless you're saying you only get one melta per MC. Then I know why you have such problems with MCs.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8294553.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8294553.page GMT Monstrous Creatures vs. Vehicles MC's just need a damage table like vehicles.

And Walkers really out shine MC's in CC. I hade a Vanilla dreadnaught solo a Riptide with full wounds]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8294560.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8294560.page GMT Monstrous Creatures vs. Vehicles BA?

2000 points. No 2+ saves, no AV13, no models with more than 3 wounds, no AP1, no Ethereals and no fortifications, single CAD.

What I'm trying to suss out here, is this: is the problem with MCs, or is it just that Tau are too strong and cannot be beaten by any army other than Eldar, who are also too strong.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8294563.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8294563.page GMT Monstrous Creatures vs. Vehicles HQ you can take is a Fireblade? ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8294570.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8294570.page GMT Monstrous Creatures vs. Vehicles

raverrn wrote:
So the only HQ you can take is a Fireblade?

Darkstrider]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8294578.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8294578.page GMT Monstrous Creatures vs. Vehicles
Limited, but still strong. 36 shots of S6 AP2 from a single unit with jump-shoot-jump? 2+ cover saves in forests? 40-point AV11 fast skimmers? All pretty mean, if used right.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8294579.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8294579.page GMT Re:Monstrous Creatures vs. Vehicles BA have the fundamental problem of assaulty power armor just not being viable against anyone in 7th.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8294586.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8294586.page GMT Monstrous Creatures vs. Vehicles
Ought to do it.
]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8294589.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8294589.page GMT Monstrous Creatures vs. Vehicles MC's into the ground, making every carnifex and daemon prince less durable than a raider/venom. It has, as I really suspected, turned into a "riptides are too stronk" thing. Yes, riptides are too strong. I have 2 or 3 ways of fighting riptides with my bugs.

Let me pose you this question however. What if the Riptide -was- a jet pack walker? A likely 12/12/10 walker that moves 2d6 in assault phase, has a 5++ that can turn into a 3++, and all of a sudden requires at least str6 to hurt the damn thing? Because you're never getting shots against its rear armor with that sort of maneuverability. I'd venture to say it'd be even more infuriating to fight against.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8294618.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8294618.page GMT Re:Monstrous Creatures vs. Vehicles
Mcs are still too strong across the board. Just because your tyranid mcs are not as abusive as tau, does not make them fair.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8294625.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8294625.page GMT Re:Monstrous Creatures vs. Vehicles

Martel732 wrote:
It would lose the saves as a walker. Welcome to the vehicle rules.

It would retain its invulnerable saves, but it would lose its armor save.

In any regards, it would be a hell of a lot more vulnerable as now Haywire becomes a very real threat.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8294630.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8294630.page GMT Re:Monstrous Creatures vs. Vehicles

Kanluwen wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
It would lose the saves as a walker. Welcome to the vehicle rules.

It would retain its invulnerable saves, but it would lose its armor save.

In any regards, it would be a hell of a lot more vulnerable as now Hayworth becomes a very real threat.

Why does it get any save at all? ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8294636.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8294636.page GMT Re:Monstrous Creatures vs. Vehicles

Martel732 wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
It would lose the saves as a walker. Welcome to the vehicle rules.

It would retain its invulnerable saves, but it would lose its armor save.

In any regards, it would be a hell of a lot more vulnerable as now Hayworth becomes a very real threat.

Why does it get any save at all?

Why do Onager Dunecrawlers or Imperial Knights get Invulnerable saves?
Energy Fields.

And why did you correct "Haywire" to "Hayworth"?]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8294641.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8294641.page GMT Re:Monstrous Creatures vs. Vehicles

Martel732 wrote:
It would lose the saves as a walker. Welcome to the vehicle rules.

Mcs are still too strong across the board. Just because your tyranid mcs are not as abusive as tau, does not make them fair.

Just because 95% of MCs are fine as is doesn't mean we shouldn't nerf them all making them unplayable because these one or two MCs in an already strong codex are too strong! /s]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8294652.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8294652.page GMT Re:Monstrous Creatures vs. Vehicles

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Datastream wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
It would lose the saves as a walker. Welcome to the vehicle rules.

Mcs are still too strong across the board. Just because your tyranid mcs are not as abusive as tau, does not make them fair.

Just because 95% of MCs are fine as is doesn't mean we shouldn't nerf them all making them unplayable because these one or two MCs in an already strong codex are too strong! /s

The point is that they are not fine at all. T6 3+ with multiple wounds is crazy good compared to vehicles.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8294653.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8294653.page GMT Monstrous Creatures vs. Vehicles Tau MC's into walkers, because their is nothing monster like about them and the only reason they are MC's is so they can jump-shoot-jump]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8294685.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8294685.page GMT Monstrous Creatures vs. Vehicles

Tactical_Spam wrote:
This whole topic can be solved if we made the Tau MC's into walkers, because their is nothing monster like about them and the only reason they are MC's is so they can jump-shoot-jump

And also the Dreadknight...]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8294694.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8294694.page GMT Monstrous Creatures vs. Vehicles
You might note that Dark Eldar Venoms get an invulnerable save, so do Eldar War Walkers (10/10/10 2HP open-topped, both of them). IG Sentinels don't, but they're also cheaper (or else not open-topped, and AV12 front). Surely you're not arguing that Venoms should lose their save because they're not superheavies?

What about perhaps reducing all MCs to no better than T6 (and most would be T3/T4), and saves no better than 4+, and they can never claim cover saves? Alternatively, make them all W1 or W2 at their current T/Sv. I suspect just about anyone could kill 10-12 T6/3+ W1 models... (Can you kill 10 Wraithguard, if you get to shoot first?)

Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'll agree that Tau/Eldar MCs aren't properly MCs, anyway, true. C'Tan and Pain Engines are, though, every bit as much as Daemons and Tyranids.

I've posted my nerfed Riptide idea before. Here's a few others:

Wraithlord: WS4 BS3 S5 AV11/11/11 HP2 I4 A2, Walker
Wraithknight: WS4 BS3 S6 AV12/12/10 HP6 I5 A2, Super-Heavy Walker

Ghostkeel: WS1 BS2 S4 AV11/10/10 HP2 I1 A1, Walker
Stormsurge: WS1 BS2 S5 AV12/10/10 HP4 I1 A1, Walker, Open-Topped

Nemesis Dreadknight: WS5 BS4 S6 AV13/12/10 HP3, I4 A4, Jump Walker, Open-Topped

I suspect with those profiles they probably wouldn't be used other than maybe the Wraithknight (which should basically be a baby Revenant Titan). Well, OK, maybe the NDK, which would be a fast Ironclad Dreadnought,]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8294695.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8294695.page GMT Monstrous Creatures vs. Vehicles

I forgot about those, too. So it seems I'm just too used to the dumpster fire of Imperial vehicles. That being said, war walkers wouldn't be crap without the scatterlaser and I don't know about venoms really. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8294706.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8294706.page GMT Monstrous Creatures vs. Vehicles

jade_angel wrote:
Are you arguing that vehicles are sufficiently strong? I'd say they're too weak by a fair margin. It's possible to be stuck with no way to hurt them, but if you can damage vehicles, they're not hard to kill.

You might note that Dark Eldar Venoms get an invulnerable save, so do Eldar War Walkers (10/10/10 2HP open-topped, both of them). IG Sentinels don't, but they're also cheaper (or else not open-topped, and AV12 front). Surely you're not arguing that Venoms should lose their save because they're not superheavies?

What about perhaps reducing all MCs to no better than T6 (and most would be T3/T4), and saves no better than 4+, and they can never claim cover saves? Alternatively, make them all W1 or W2 at their current T/Sv. I suspect just about anyone could kill 10-12 T6/3+ W1 models... (Can you kill 10 Wraithguard, if you get to shoot first?)

Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'll agree that Tau/Eldar MCs aren't properly MCs, anyway, true. C'Tan and Pain Engines are, though, every bit as much as Daemons and Tyranids.

I've posted my nerfed Riptide idea before. Here's a few others:

Wraithlord: WS4 BS3 S5 AV11/11/11 HP2 I4 A2, Walker
Wraithknight: WS4 BS3 S6 AV12/12/10 HP6 I5 A2, Super-Heavy Walker

Ghostkeel: WS1 BS2 S4 AV11/10/10 HP2 I1 A1, Walker
Stormsurge: WS1 BS2 S5 AV12/10/10 HP4 I1 A1, Walker, Open-Topped

Nemesis Dreadknight: WS5 BS4 S6 AV13/12/10 HP3, I4 A4, Jump Walker, Open-Topped

I suspect with those profiles they probably wouldn't be used other than maybe the Wraithknight (which should basically be a baby Revenant Titan). Well, OK, maybe the NDK, which would be a fast Ironclad Dreadnought,

lol at Ghostkeels having less strength than Crisis suits. And Wraithlords being made of toilet paper

And Dreadknights being open topped for some reason?]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8294757.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8294757.page GMT Re:Monstrous Creatures vs. Vehicles http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8294783.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8294783.page GMT Monstrous Creatures vs. Vehicles
As for the open-topped Dreadknight, that's due to the exposed - although power-armored - pilot. One could argue otherwise, due to the power armor (or maybe it's artificer armor? If it is, then yeah, not open-topped. Anything that can cut through artificer armor gets +1 or better on the damage chart anyway).

As for Wraithlords, you mean they're actually intended to be fairly durable? I'm being mostly facetious there, but too often I either hear complaints that they're tougher than Dreadnoughts (debatable) or that they're useless because they get shot to bits before doing anything (often they do).

I'm a wee bit annoyed at the debate, mostly because I don't think "nerf MCs into unplayability" is helpful, I do think vehicles are generally too weak - but the few exceptions are real doozies - and I get somewhat annoyed at the mentality that says "Space Marines should always defeat everything". Though I broadly agree that we *should* mainly be seeing infantry supported by big stuff, not just "spam the big guys", with the possible exception of Daemons and Tyranids, whose whole schtick is "we have big scary monsters, and lots of them". ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8294803.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8294803.page GMT Re:Monstrous Creatures vs. Vehicles MCs. Although I'm not sure how one would do that.

Right now, base space marines defeat precious little in the game. Take away grav cents, skyhammer, gladius, and TFC.... you have BA. If base marines were actually good, BA wouldn't be the worst. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8294812.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8294812.page GMT Re:Monstrous Creatures vs. Vehicles

Martel732 wrote:
IKs are superheavy. That's what I figured. For a riptide to be comparable to what I have to work with, it gets no save. Thats my point about vehicles.

Way to cherrypick.

Onager Dunecrawlers aren't superheavies and they have an Invulnerable Save. In fact, their save gets better if you have a squadron of at least two.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8294842.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8294842.page GMT Re:Monstrous Creatures vs. Vehicles

Martel732 wrote:
I never said that. The other option is to make vehicles as good as current MCs. Although I'm not sure how one would do that.

Right now, base space marines defeat precious little in the game. Take away grav cents, skyhammer, gladius, and TFC.... you have BA. If base marines were actually good, BA wouldn't be the worst.

You get something worse than BA. No tac squad Heavy Flamers or hand flamers or infernus pistols or death company or Lib dreads...]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8294854.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8294854.page GMT Monstrous Creatures vs. Vehicles MC, though maybe with walkers shifted to a T/W/Sv system, and some things that are MCs now not being such, that wouldn't be necessary. I think, for example, that Daemons, most Tyranid MCs, Pain Engines, C'Tan and Wraithlords/Knights should probably have Smash, but Riptides, Ghostkeels and Stormsurges shouldn't. Smash is the reason why they're not utterly useless in CC currently, after all. Without it they could tarpit, but wouldn't do much back. (Well, and Stomp for the Stormsurge, but usually they want to plant anchors, which means no Stomp, and the penalty for pulling up anchors is at least one shooting phase without them planted, and probably two depending on when you do it).

That would also mean the Lance, Melta, Haywire, Armourbane, Rending, Bladestorm and certain other rules that either only apply to vehicles or else specifically exclude them would continue to work the way they "should". For example, shuriken catapults should absolutely not be able to kill Land Raiders; gauss flayers should, but with very long odds (just like it is now).

I'd also argue, when making that change, to take the damage table out. It's more crap to track and it makes balancing costs harder. MCs are currently priced with the expectation that one-shot kills are vanishingly rare; vehicles have the expectation built into the cost, but they usually die to HP loss instead. Easiest just to nix the blasted chart, IMHO. (It also makes things like Ork Trukks so stupidly, comically squishy that they make Rhinos look positively difficult to kill. Raiders only last because of Night Shields and Jink, and even then, ask anyone who's ever had a Raider one-shotted by a heavy bolter what they think of their durability!)

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Furthermore, I'd argue that at least Orks and Dark Eldar are currently in a worse spot than BA. And no, I don't elevate the DE position because of Eldar battle brothers - if I do that, I'd have to consider the array of Battle Brothers BA can use, which is... extensive, to put it mildly.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8294864.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8294864.page GMT Re:Monstrous Creatures vs. Vehicles

Martel732 wrote:
Because the Dreadknight is open topped.

A pilot in Terminator armor is open topped? He's probably the toughest part of the thing!

Back in 3rd firing out of a Rhino used to make them open topped, unless your passengers were power-armored, under the assumption that they're just as heavily armored as the vehicle.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8294889.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8294889.page GMT Re:Monstrous Creatures vs. Vehicles

Kanluwen wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
IKs are superheavy. That's what I figured. For a riptide to be comparable to what I have to work with, it gets no save. Thats my point about vehicles.

Way to cherrypick.

Onager Dunecrawlers aren't superheavies and they have an Invulnerable Save. In fact, their save gets better if you have a squadron of at least two.

I don't have much experience with those, and I admit I forgot the others. That was what I was thinking, but I was wrong. So it seems that IG and marine vehicles are the worst of the lot.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

jade_angel wrote:
I'd call for moving everything to using Toughness and Wounds, and making "Vehicle" a unit type like Infantry, Cavalry or Monstrous Creature is now. Also, I'd argue that Smash shouldn't be an intrinsic part of being an MC, though maybe with walkers shifted to a T/W/Sv system, and some things that are MCs now not being such, that wouldn't be necessary. I think, for example, that Daemons, most Tyranid MCs, Pain Engines, C'Tan and Wraithlords/Knights should probably have Smash, but Riptides, Ghostkeels and Stormsurges shouldn't. Smash is the reason why they're not utterly useless in CC currently, after all. Without it they could tarpit, but wouldn't do much back. (Well, and Stomp for the Stormsurge, but usually they want to plant anchors, which means no Stomp, and the penalty for pulling up anchors is at least one shooting phase without them planted, and probably two depending on when you do it).

That would also mean the Lance, Melta, Haywire, Armourbane, Rending, Bladestorm and certain other rules that either only apply to vehicles or else specifically exclude them would continue to work the way they "should". For example, shuriken catapults should absolutely not be able to kill Land Raiders; gauss flayers should, but with very long odds (just like it is now).

I'd also argue, when making that change, to take the damage table out. It's more crap to track and it makes balancing costs harder. MCs are currently priced with the expectation that one-shot kills are vanishingly rare; vehicles have the expectation built into the cost, but they usually die to HP loss instead. Easiest just to nix the blasted chart, IMHO. (It also makes things like Ork Trukks so stupidly, comically squishy that they make Rhinos look positively difficult to kill. Raiders only last because of Night Shields and Jink, and even then, ask anyone who's ever had a Raider one-shotted by a heavy bolter what they think of their durability!)

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Furthermore, I'd argue that at least Orks and Dark Eldar are currently in a worse spot than BA. And no, I don't elevate the DE position because of Eldar battle brothers - if I do that, I'd have to consider the array of Battle Brothers BA can use, which is... extensive, to put it mildly.

At least Orks and DE have remotely viable schemes. Far from fully viable, mind you. But assaulty meqs are literally the worst thing for this meta.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tactical_Spam wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
I never said that. The other option is to make vehicles as good as current MCs. Although I'm not sure how one would do that.

Right now, base space marines defeat precious little in the game. Take away grav cents, skyhammer, gladius, and TFC.... you have BA. If base marines were actually good, BA wouldn't be the worst.

You get something worse than BA. No tac squad Heavy Flamers or hand flamers or infernus pistols or death company or Lib dreads...

As if those things really mattered. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8294927.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8294927.page GMT Monstrous Creatures vs. Vehicles BA armoury]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8294947.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8294947.page GMT Monstrous Creatures vs. Vehicles

Tactical_Spam wrote:
Salamanders would love to have the BA armoury

No, you wouldn't. No smashbane, no grav cents, etc. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8294952.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8294952.page GMT Monstrous Creatures vs. Vehicles MEQ has some serious issues - not quite durable enough (which assault MCs are), not quite numerous enough (which Orks and Gaunts are), not quite enough offensive output (which Harlequins have, ish). Shooty Marines do pretty well, though, still.
]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8294978.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8294978.page GMT Monstrous Creatures vs. Vehicles

jade_angel wrote:
I agree that assault-centric MEQ has some serious issues - not quite durable enough (which assault MCs are), not quite numerous enough (which Orks and Gaunts are), not quite enough offensive output (which Harlequins have, ish). Shooty Marines do pretty well, though, still.

BA aren't very shooty, though. The grav cannon is the weapon that keeps the Imperium in the game at this point. And the BA don't have it. All other Imperial heavy weapons are pretty much crap. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8294980.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8294980.page GMT Monstrous Creatures vs. Vehicles
I've gotten wrecked many a time by IG, Skitarii, Cult Mechanicus, vanilla SM, DA, even SW and BA. Necrons reliably make me cry, but that's neither here nor there.

Maybe some of the problem is that the gap between "fun lists" and "WAAC lists" is bigger than it's ever been.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8295064.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8295064.page GMT Monstrous Creatures vs. Vehicles

Martel732 wrote:

Tactical_Spam wrote:
Salamanders would love to have the BA armoury

No, you wouldn't. No smashbane, no grav cents, etc.

Did I say codex or armoury? Them juicy TL hand flamers on a jump pack captain.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8295179.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8295179.page GMT Monstrous Creatures vs. Vehicles

Tactical_Spam wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Tactical_Spam wrote:
Salamanders would love to have the BA armoury

No, you wouldn't. No smashbane, no grav cents, etc.

Did I say codex or armoury? Them juicy TL hand flamers on a jump pack captain.

Fair enough. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8295383.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8295383.page GMT Monstrous Creatures vs. Vehicles MC should be 75% organic?]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8295395.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8295395.page GMT Monstrous Creatures vs. Vehicles

Tactical_Spam wrote:
Is it safe to assume that an MC should be 75% organic?

The reasoning GW gave for making the Riptide a MC was that it was supposed to move with an organic grace w/r/t the neural interface.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8295431.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8295431.page GMT Monstrous Creatures vs. Vehicles MC? ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8303445.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8303445.page GMT Monstrous Creatures vs. Vehicles

Filch wrote:
so it moving gracefully is what makes it a MC?

According to the GW design team, yes.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8304292.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8304292.page GMT Monstrous Creatures vs. Vehicles MC distinction should probably be nixed, and vehicle rules unified with non-vehicles, honestly. The distinction is pretty arbitrary - take the Wraithlord as a good example, too. That's been an MC forever. OTOH, we have things like Soul Grinders and Helbrutes (or heck, Forgefiends...)

What gives? Well, it seems GW is huffing bees, but that isn't news.

There's a number of proposals floating around for how to do the conversion, but I think that's really what ought to be done. Yes, it would come with the risk of some vehicles becoming vulnerable to bolters - or maybe even lasguns - when they're immune now, but they'd also be a lot harder to sand to death with, say, scatter lasers.

Sample calculation - 9 scatter laser hits reliably kills a Rhino out of cover from the front (Space Marines or Chaos; Sisters get a 6++ that changes this a tiny, wee bit), but it takes 12 hits if it were T6/4+/W3 instead. I'm ignoring the effects of the damage chart here - as it stands the Rhino could in theory be double-immobilized and killed in as few as two pens, though that's very improbable. (And of course, one pen if we're talking, say, starcannons instead of scatter lasers)

There's lots of ways it should be done, but it *should* be. It would put MCs and walkers on something resembling even terms and make them more straightforward to balance.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8304733.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8304733.page GMT Monstrous Creatures vs. Vehicles MCs are actually one of the few things in the game scatterlasers aren't good against. That tells you something when the most broken weapon in the game (maybe grav cannons, it's close) is basically worthless against a unit. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8304737.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8304737.page GMT Monstrous Creatures vs. Vehicles Sv -)

Also, scatter lasers aren't broken by themselves (they're assault cannons that give up AP4 and Rending for 12" more range, or multilasers with +1 shot). Being able to take 10 of them in a unit that can move as fast as jetbikes can move is. Heck, a unit that mobile putting out 40 S3 AP- shots at 36" would make a lot of units sit up and take notice.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8304934.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8304934.page GMT Monstrous Creatures vs. Vehicles
The diparity is so great that I consider the assault cannon a poor weapon compared to the scatterlaser.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8304946.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8304946.page GMT Monstrous Creatures vs. Vehicles

jade_angel wrote:
Well, yes. Though the example above was a 4+ save, not a 2+. (Comparing T6/4+ with AV11, Sv -)

Also, scatter lasers aren't broken by themselves (they're assault cannons that give up AP4 and Rending for 12" more range, or multilasers with +1 shot). Being able to take 10 of them in a unit that can move as fast as jetbikes can move is. Heck, a unit that mobile putting out 40 S3 AP- shots at 36" would make a lot of units sit up and take notice.

Are scat lasers only S3?]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8304985.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8304985.page GMT Monstrous Creatures vs. Vehicles http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8304990.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8304990.page GMT Re:Monstrous Creatures vs. Vehicles MC/GMC from every army that isn't Daemons or Nids]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8304997.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8304997.page GMT Monstrous Creatures vs. Vehicles http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8305024.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8305024.page GMT Monstrous Creatures vs. Vehicles

Martel732 wrote:
Or just cost them appropriately. That's fine too. There's no way W5 T6 2+/5++ comes in around only 200 pts. There's nothing I can buy in my whole codex for 200 pts that's even remotely that durable.

Lets not forget it can get FnP and can get a 3++]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8305034.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8305034.page GMT Monstrous Creatures vs. Vehicles

Tactical_Spam wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Or just cost them appropriately. That's fine too. There's no way W5 T6 2+/5++ comes in around only 200 pts. There's nothing I can buy in my whole codex for 200 pts that's even remotely that durable.

Lets not forget it can get FnP and can get a 3++

I was quoting the base statistics. Tau players get mad when I assume 3++ or FNP. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8305040.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8305040.page GMT Monstrous Creatures vs. Vehicles were S3 (I know they aren't, I play Eldar!), 40 shots of that kind on a platform as mobile as bikes would still be nasty. Obviously it follows from that, that S6 shots are even worse!

@Tactical_spam: What about Necrons and their C'Tan Shards or Transcendent C'Tan?

But sure, delete the Wraithlord, Wraithknight, both types of Pain Engine (or maybe make them Infantry?), Riptide, Ghostkeel, Stormsurge, NDK (well, make it a special type of Ironclad Dreadnought), I could go for that I suppose. The Wraithlord's been around forever and most folks say it isn't broken, though.

As for scatbikes, remove the scatter laser from the codex completely and make shuriken cannons 1 in 3 like before. Remove +1T from all bikes except SM and CSM (and variants: BA, DA, SW, etc). Reduce the armor save of Windriders to 4+. Shining Spears have heavy aspect armor, they can have 3+ for the same reason SM bikers have it.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8305056.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8305056.page GMT Monstrous Creatures vs. Vehicles http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8305062.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8305062.page GMT Monstrous Creatures vs. Vehicles

Filch wrote:
so it moving gracefully is what makes it a MC?

I was under the impression that GW classed tau/elder walkers as MCs because they are so far ahead in terms of tech that their walkers are more agile/similar to a living creature (I.E not some clunky old imperial junker). Kinda like the level of mobility shown in e.g. the transformer movies vs something like the power rangers megathingies.

In regards to their durability, maybe to represent the better tech being more sturdy/less likely to fall apart if you kick it? Just a guess

]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8305073.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8305073.page GMT Monstrous Creatures vs. Vehicles

hippyjr wrote:

Filch wrote:
so it moving gracefully is what makes it a MC?

All of that is fine. Just make them pay the points for all of it. I really don't care about the rules for any given model, as long as it's appropriately costed. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8305081.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8305081.page GMT Monstrous Creatures vs. Vehicles

hippyjr wrote:

Filch wrote:
so it moving gracefully is what makes it a MC?

Shooting a riptide at point blank range with a meltagun is not equivelent to kicking it. Its primarily a machine and most machines evaporate against melta]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8305132.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8305132.page GMT Monstrous Creatures vs. Vehicles IA is... just wrong, for reasons we've established elsewhere). This disparity is exactly why some folks suggest just ignoring it - it's a fire sink, but isn't that scary offensively. (That said, large volumes of medium-strength shooting, as established, do some work, so ignore at your peril...) At 350 points base, I'd never touch it, but at 180 it's too cheap.

GW seems to be pretty bad at consistently getting costs right. I think a chunk of this (not all, but some) is balancing the relative "goodness" of vehicles versus non-vehicles, tending to simultaneously underrate and overrate mobility options, and tending to overprice assault options.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8305138.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8305138.page GMT Monstrous Creatures vs. Vehicles

Martel732 wrote:

hippyjr wrote:
Filch wrote:
so it moving gracefully is what makes it a MC?

I was under the impression that GW classed tau/elder walkers as MCs because they are so far ahead in terms of tech that their walkers are more agile/similar to a living creature (I.E not some clunky old imperial junker). Kinda like the level of mobility shown in e.g. the transformer movies vs something like the power rangers megathingies.

In regards to their durability, maybe to represent the better tech being more sturdy/less likely to fall apart if you kick it? Just a guess

All of that is fine. Just make them pay the points for all of it. I really don't care about the rules for any given model, as long as it's appropriately costed.

Completely agree with you. I was just voicing my thoughts on why they classed a big robot as a living creature, I was not attempting to provide an excuse for making them stronger than their vehicle counterparts

Tactical_Spam wrote:
hippyjr wrote:
Filch wrote:
so it moving gracefully is what makes it a MC?

I was under the impression that GW classed tau/elder walkers as MCs because they are so far ahead in terms of tech that their walkers are more agile/similar to a living creature (I.E not some clunky old imperial junker). Kinda like the level of mobility shown in e.g. the transformer movies vs something like the power rangers megathingies.

In regards to their durability, maybe to represent the better tech being more sturdy/less likely to fall apart if you kick it? Just a guess

Shooting a riptide at point blank range with a meltagun is not equivelent to kicking it. Its primarily a machine and most machines evaporate against melta

Maybe I should have made my stance clearer. I completely agree that MCs and walkers/vehicle should be similarly costed/balanced/should equally suffer from high strength weapons/etc, all I was trying to do was give my opinion on the possible reasons for the difference, which is largely based on GWs tendency (from what I have seen) to base crunch around fluff.

Besides, I hear the angry marines have power boots

]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8305208.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8305208.page GMT Monstrous Creatures vs. Vehicles

Tactical_Spam wrote:

hippyjr wrote:
Filch wrote:
so it moving gracefully is what makes it a MC?

I was under the impression that GW classed tau/elder walkers as MCs because they are so far ahead in terms of tech that their walkers are more agile/similar to a living creature (I.E not some clunky old imperial junker). Kinda like the level of mobility shown in e.g. the transformer movies vs something like the power rangers megathingies.

In regards to their durability, maybe to represent the better tech being more sturdy/less likely to fall apart if you kick it? Just a guess

Shooting a riptide at point blank range with a meltagun is not equivelent to kicking it. Its primarily a machine and most machines evaporate against melta

It's one wound. If you are lucky. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8305248.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/671888/8305248.page GMT