Should monsters have a different design philosophy from vehicles?

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

While I’m not familiar with the datasheets of monsters, but from what I recall from playing against them stat wise they’re almost identical to tanks and other vehicles in their points/size class.

 

i propose armored vehicles be high T, mid wound numbers, and mid save with 5/6++ while monsters be mid T, high wound numbers, good saves with 5/6+++
 

this could help make anti-vehicle and anti-monster keywords be a bit more unique in a future edition rather than being functionally identical.

 

for example anti-tank4+ would function as it currently does, but anti-monster3+ would add 3 damage to an attack against a monster. Autocannons potentially could have anti-monster2+ making them 5 damage against monsters, while Krak missiles could have anti-tank4+ functioning as it would currently.

 

edit

so instead of tyrannofex being T12 18W 2+ Sv

make it T10 25W 3+ 5+++
so dedicated high S AT style weapons will still be very good at passing the wound rolls, but monsters will still be a bit more durable against them due to their numbers of wounds.

Edited November 12 by Inquisitor_Lensoven

[Lathe Biosas]

Sadly in the last few editions the only difference in monsters and vehicles is a Keyword.

 

 

[Nichodemus10]

Conceptually I like the idea of making them different in an understandable way, I think that it likely hurts the list building too much if I need to bring weapons for light units, medium units, heavy units A, and Heavy Units B. It will make some bad moments when you make your list but favor killing vehicles over monsters and then run into a monster heavy list. 

I do think having tanks with better Saves and monsters with more wounds could make sense. And example being Lascannon kills a land raider and a tyranofex in the same number of shots, but how it arrives there looks different (tank has more makeable saves, monster has more wounds), but if that is the case you didn't really change anything so why bother making the change?

[HeadlessCross]

On 11/12/2025 at 10:53 AM, Lathe Biosas said:

Sadly in the last few editions the only difference in monsters and vehicles is a Keyword.

 

 

Sadly? It's been the best thing for vehicles, frankly. 

[Karhedron]

8 hours ago, HeadlessCross said:

Sadly? It's been the best thing for vehicles, frankly. 

 

Agreed. For several editions GW struggled with having vehicles and monsters using completely different mechanics. Dreadnoughts were always inferior Wraithlords despite being equivalent. GW kept trying to layer on extra rules when the solution was simply to use the same basic rules. Both should be largely unbothered by small arms fire while a lascannon should take a chunk out of both. 

 

Ultimately it doesn't really matter if a large target is made out of machines, organics or something in between. 40k is sufficiently abstracted that giving them separate rules simply tended to give one an unfair advantage over the other. 

[Evil Eye]

I can see the argument for walkers and monsters having the same rules, but more "conventional" vehicles (tanks etc) should absolutely have their own rules. A Land Raider should not be vulnerable to small arms fire, and nor should it be able to shoot through itself.

 

On the walkers vs monsters note though I actually think both should have their own similar but distinct rules. Assuming I ever find time to work more on my hypothetical ruleset, I was thinking monstrous creatures would work much the same as before (infantry that ignore armour saves, roll 2D6 for armour pentration, can move through cover etc) whilst walkers would still move through cover but would trade the ignoring armour and 2D6 armour pen for generally higher durability and when losing its last wound, rolling on a damage chart. It would go something like this:

1: Light damage- The walker is still functional but has minor balance and sensory systems damaged. WS and BS reduced by 1.
2: Heavy damage- The walker's armour has taken major punishment and is beginning to buckle. T reduced by 1.

3: Weapon destroyed- The walker has a weapon torn loose or otherwise disabled. One weapon (chosen by attacker) may not fire for the rest of the game. If no weapons are left, treat as immobilized.

4: Immobilized- The walker's locomotion systems are crippled. It may not move for the rest of the game. If already immobilized, treat as weapon destroyed.

5: Wrecked- The walker is knocked out of action. It is counted as a casualty and left in place as a wreck, which counts as difficult terrain and blocks line of sight. If a walker receives a weapon destroyed or immobilized result when all weapons are destroyed and it is already immobilized, it counts as wrecked.

6: Explodes- The walker detonates in a fireball. The walker is removed as a casualty and any units partially within 6" receive D6 S4 AP- hits.

 

Note that the first four results can be repaired by an appropriate model (Techmarine, Mekboy etc). The last two cannot because, well, it's dead, Jim.

 

As an example of how I'd stat, say, a Castraferrum Dreadnought I'd go with this:

 

M: 7" WS: 4 BS: 4 S: 6 T: 7 W: 4 I: 4 A: 3 Ld: 10 Sv: 1+

(Note that in this context a 1+ save is in practice a 2+ save that requires AP1 to negate).

 

I'd also make walkers immune to the poisoned special rule, but anything that would normally roll 2D6 for armour penetration (melta within half-range, chainfists, monstrous creatures etc) inflicts 2 wounds instead of 1 on a failed save.

 

As a last note I'd also make Wraithlords walkers instead of monstrous creatures- this would even the playing field between them and other walkers whilst keeping them appropriately scary.

[Dr. Clock]

I don't think it makes a tonne of sense to compare the 'overarching averages' of Monster/vehicle stats and expect them to be so different and typical between factions... The game already needs to differentiate things between rosters enough that you kinda need all the available stat-line levers available so that a Necrons monster is materially different from a Nids one. That's to say that I care less about the differences between 'unit types' than between the different armies.

 

The idea of 'Monsters' is a fantastical one, while 'Vehicles' is not. This can create a bit of a problem where we come to expect a higher degree of 'simulation' or 'crunch' from vehicles with clear real life comparators, while 'Monsters' can easily be handwaved into any old profile or ability because they're supposed to be over the top, except when they're not.

 

In a smaller game of more like 1000pts of current 40k minis and more tight control on unit type availability it could be cool to differentiate the mechanics a bit more and widen the distances between all the unit types, but the current 'smoothness' of transitions between profiles right now feels important for ease of play in an environment where any list can easily hit '10 big things' with room to spare, and may just as easily bring none.

 

I don't hate the idea of making monsters mostly just a bit more vulnerable to chip damage, but I'm likewise loathe to have monsters generally have 'more wounds and more wound reduction' than vehicles... and while I understand kind of where you're going with the 'these have invulnerables and these have FnP', and that 'Anti' works differently in different places, that could easily end up being a distinction without a difference to me. Then we arrive back at the part where we want some vehicles that also 'act much like monsters' (walkers/dreadnought-equivalents), and also monsters with straight-up magical capabilities, not just 'big animals'... Plus of course the magical vehicles... and some of each should fly, of course!

 

Basically right now one needs to balance offence into three 'baskets' of profiles: Big stuff, small stuff, and medium stuff (basically your 3-4W T4-6 profiles). Adding a whole extra category of 'big' feels like more squeeze than juice to me tbh, and it feels like the game could benefit a bit more from differentiation in the lower end... I guess it's weirder to me that a grot and a zoanthrope are the same 'kind of thing' than that a Deffdread and a Carnifex have a bunch of similarities. 

 

Cheers,

 

The Good Doctor.

[jaxom]

10 hours ago, Dr. Clock said:

I don't hate the idea of making monsters mostly just a bit more vulnerable to chip damage, but I'm likewise loathe to have monsters generally have 'more wounds and more wound reduction' than vehicles

Hmm, I think stat deterioration could be where this happens. Tanks get -1 To Hit and -1 Ld as damage makes it harder to see out of the interior and the crew starts choking on smoke. Monsters get -1T and -1 Sv as their carapace cracks open. I dunno about specifics, just something like that.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

On 11/13/2025 at 11:36 PM, Nichodemus10 said:

Conceptually I like the idea of making them different in an understandable way, I think that it likely hurts the list building too much if I need to bring weapons for light units, medium units, heavy units A, and Heavy Units B. It will make some bad moments when you make your list but favor killing vehicles over monsters and then run into a monster heavy list. 

I do think having tanks with better Saves and monsters with more wounds could make sense. And example being Lascannon kills a land raider and a tyranofex in the same number of shots, but how it arrives there looks different (tank has more makeable saves, monster has more wounds), but if that is the case you didn't really change anything so why bother making the change?

That’s just a one weapon example.

S10/11 as well as 6 and below weapons will perform very differently against both of the stat lines I shared.