Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  Page 4 of 4
  [ 59 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

Dreadnoughts again
1. Dreadnought Formation 43%  43%  [ 12 ]
2. 3+ armour 46%  46%  [ 13 ]
3. 5+ armour, reinforced 11%  11%  [ 3 ]
Total votes : 28

Dreadnoughts again
Markconz
 Post subject: Dreadnoughts again
PostPosted: Tue Oct 02, 2007 11:21 am 
Purestrain
Purestrain
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 10:43 pm
Posts: 7925
Location: New Zealand
Nice going in choosing to debate only a trivial point, as if there is any point in addressing that without the main ones. And of course it makes total sense to you that 2 dreads can be used with transports but 2 and only 2 and never 3... so was it written.

But small details, the main point is that you want to add yet another special rule to an army list that already has quite enough, violating WWJD (What Would Jervis Do  :alien: ).

Nor would it help with the fact that individual dreadnoughts would still be lame compared to the background and 40k. Rather it just substitutes quantity for quality in a limited situation (garrisons, which of course dreadnoughts are well known for - rather than assaulting or anything like that...).

No, pick an idea, any idea , but not this... (well actually when I say 'any' idea choose a stat tweak or something minor rather than inventing some weird special rule).

_________________
http://hordesofthings.blogspot.co.nz/
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Ginger
 Post subject: Dreadnoughts again
PostPosted: Tue Oct 02, 2007 11:47 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 5483
Location: London, UK
To follow on from what Markonz presented (with feeling :;): ) does the "fluff" and general 40K rules / background suggest that Dreadnoughts are the equivalent of Leman Russ in close quarters engagements?? They do not have the same firepower, but at close quarters the powerfist is very usefull etc, and at 50 points each they seem to be equivalent in price - what is missing is the equivalence in armour.

As I said earlier, I would really prefer to allow Dreadnoughts 4+ Reinforced armour, which would then present the player with the question of whether to choose mobility or survivability for his formations. The 0-2 limitation per formation will more than limit the number fielded anyway. If you are really concerned, you could consider making them LV or possibly limit the overall number fielded to 1 per 1000 points. Compared with Terminators, though cheaper they would still have less firepower or assault capabilities and less transport options.

As stated earlier, allowing Drednought formations seems out of context and increasing their transportation options does not seem to fit any better. 'Swapping' Rhinos for Drednoughts is inelegant (and will cause problems if the Drop Pod debate is anything to go by) and their firepower etc seems just about spot on.

On the other hand, improving their armour capability is the obvious way to fix the Dreadnought dilemma - and we would then return to the image of the venerable veterans leading their troops in vital assaults or desperate defences etc rather than skulking at the rear trying to avoid being shot - and we might actually see them used as characters as well . . . .  :blues:

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Markconz
 Post subject: Dreadnoughts again
PostPosted: Tue Oct 02, 2007 12:27 pm 
Purestrain
Purestrain
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 10:43 pm
Posts: 7925
Location: New Zealand
@ Ginger: 4+ RA might be justified by background but definitely not by the 40k rules IMO, except perhaps in the case of venerable dreadnoughts (eg dreads should die to meltas). However venerable dreadnoughts can already be reasonably elegantly represented by adding a character to a dreadnought I think.  Also I believe 1-3 upgrade would be a good number as this matches SG pack sizes, numbers in 40k, and numbers in the Chaos list.

@ Hena:  claiming that introducing a new dreadnought specific swap rule into the transport rule section is 'not adding a special rule but changing an existing one' just looks like an amateurish attempt at obfuscation to me. You should know full well what Jervis meant by the principle of avoiding special rules and exceptions.

_________________
http://hordesofthings.blogspot.co.nz/
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Ginger
 Post subject: Dreadnoughts again
PostPosted: Tue Oct 02, 2007 1:34 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 5483
Location: London, UK

(Markconz @ Oct. 02 2007,12:27)
QUOTE
@ Ginger: 4+ RA might be justified by background but definitely not by the 40k rules IMO, except perhaps in the case of venerable dreadnoughts (eg dreads should die to meltas).

Given what you said earlier and the way that the 40K rules change at the whim of the GW sales figures, I think this is one case where we should follow the background rather than the 40K rules. Also, Dreadnoughts would still die to meltas - just not automatically. ?

As I said earlier, we could always make them LV which would make them more vulnerable than either Termies or Leman Russ and more appropriate :- I do not see a Dreadnought weighing the same as a main battle tank, do you? ?It would also remove the AV cover from the troops which I favour; clinging to their legs to claim cover is definately not 'Marine behaviour' IMO ?:p ?:laugh:

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
BlackLegion
 Post subject: Dreadnoughts again
PostPosted: Tue Oct 02, 2007 1:36 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2005 12:13 am
Posts: 8711
Location: Leipzig, Germany, Europe, Sol III, Orion Arm, Milky Way, Local Group, Virgo Supercluster, Universe
A 1-3 upgrade would make sence. The FOC inWH40k is roughly based on the composition of a SpaceMarine BattleCompany:

2 HQ (Captain and Chaplain)
3 Elites (Dreadnoughts or support from the 1st or 10th Company)
6 Troops (6 Tactical Squads)
3 Assault (2 Assault Squads + 1 support from the ReserveCompanies)
2 Heavy Support (2 Devastator Squads + 1 Support from the 9th Company or a Tank)

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Markconz
 Post subject: Dreadnoughts again
PostPosted: Tue Oct 02, 2007 1:40 pm 
Purestrain
Purestrain
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 10:43 pm
Posts: 7925
Location: New Zealand

(Ginger @ Oct. 02 2007,12:34)
QUOTE
As I said earlier, we could always make them LV which would make them more vulnerable than either Termies or Leman Russ and more appropriate.

I don't think LV is justified at all. They should be totally immune to AP fire - that is one of there major benefits in 40k. They can wade through Bolter, Heavy bolter, and flamer fire without danger (except from rear arc). I also don't think it's unreasonable that they are able to provide some degree of protection to infantry given this feature, and the fact that they can do it in 40k.

Also although the 40k rules do change, some things seem pretty stable - for example dreadnoughts power relative to other vehicles. At least for the last 2-3 editions. I can't remember back before that but I have owned the most recent 2-3 codexes and used dreads under those quite a bit.

_________________
http://hordesofthings.blogspot.co.nz/
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
nealhunt
 Post subject: Dreadnoughts again
PostPosted: Tue Oct 02, 2007 1:47 pm 
Purestrain
Purestrain

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA
Armor:  Okay, I give.  You convinced me.  3+ armor.

Transport swap:  I dislike this, not because of concept (which I like) but because of practicality.

The transport rule is dorked up anyway.  I'm just about inclined to scrap the whole thing and write up point costs for all the transport options.  I definitely don't want to add in another "if/then" set of conditions and try to get wording straight for all the interactions with LRs, Razorbacks, Rhinos, and Dreads.  It seems easy to us because we know the concept and we've discussed it, but my head hurts just thinking about trying to get the wording clear.

There's also the simple issue of fair points.  Devs and Tacs trading Rhinos is essentially a different price - 2 Rhinos v 3 Rhinos.  At a hefty discount (~20-30 points) compared to what is supposed to be a 50 point unit, this is essentially a sneaky way to discount dreads rather than just making their point values match their abilities.

_________________
Neal
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Ginger
 Post subject: Dreadnoughts again
PostPosted: Tue Oct 02, 2007 2:19 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 5483
Location: London, UK

(Markconz @ Oct. 02 2007,13:40)
QUOTE

(Ginger @ Oct. 02 2007,12:34)
QUOTE
As I said earlier, we could always make them LV which would make them more vulnerable than either Termies or Leman Russ and more appropriate.

I don't think LV is justified at all. They should be totally immune to AP fire - that is one of there major benefits in 40k. They can wade through Bolter, Heavy bolter, and flamer fire without danger (except from rear arc). I also don't think it's unreasonable that they are able to provide some degree of protection to infantry given this feature, and the fact that they can do it in 40k.

Also although the 40k rules do change, some things seem pretty stable - for example dreadnoughts power relative to other vehicles. At least for the last 2-3 editions. I can't remember back before that but I have owned the most recent 2-3 codexes and used dreads under those quite a bit.

To be fair LV with 4+RA would still wade through most bolter fire (except for the odd lucky shot ricocheting onto the rear of the Dreadnought which this would reflect) as it would be spread across all the troops in the same way that Rhinos would provide similar protection against AT fire. Likewise, the presence of them as an LV target ahead of the troops would provide a measure of protection to the troops behind by taking the first hit allocated.

As for the 40K rules, I will have to bow to your superior knowledge as I have never played them (nor intend to). I am really only comparing the Dreadnought tabletop performance against the little background I know and against other E:A units and races. So for example, I see them as better than Eldar WraithGuards, but worse than WraithLords; worse than Termies (of course), but better than other marine armour except Landraiders etc. But to continue 40K comparisons for a moment, just how do Dreadnoughts stack up against Leman Russ and other vehicles?

In the end I could live with 3+ armour, but would really like to see if LV with 4+RA is workable (as I think it is) or a step too far.

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
BlackLegion
 Post subject: Dreadnoughts again
PostPosted: Tue Oct 02, 2007 2:33 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2005 12:13 am
Posts: 8711
Location: Leipzig, Germany, Europe, Sol III, Orion Arm, Milky Way, Local Group, Virgo Supercluster, Universe
LVis a step to far. With this you could justify all AV becoming LV with expectionally good armour saves to represent them working as cover for infantry.




_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Markconz
 Post subject: Dreadnoughts again
PostPosted: Tue Oct 02, 2007 2:48 pm 
Purestrain
Purestrain
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 10:43 pm
Posts: 7925
Location: New Zealand

(Ginger @ Oct. 02 2007,13:19)
QUOTE
But to continue 40K comparisons for a moment, just how do Dreadnoughts stack up against Leman Russ and other vehicles?

Leman Russ have the same side armour, better rear armour,  and maximum possible front armour (38). The front armour is a big deal. Leman Russ Demolishers add another point of armour on the sides (40). Landraiders have maximum armour all around (42). Dreads tend to die more easily than any of these MBT's due to the lack of such strong front armour (throwing crack missiles at Leman Russ is a frustrating experience, and even Lascannons have to get rather lucky), though context is important of course. For example a dread locked in an assault is immune to ranged weapon targeting unlike a MBT.

_________________
http://hordesofthings.blogspot.co.nz/
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Markconz
 Post subject: Dreadnoughts again
PostPosted: Tue Oct 02, 2007 2:49 pm 
Purestrain
Purestrain
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 10:43 pm
Posts: 7925
Location: New Zealand
Ok, now that Neal has made a decision, this thread has served the purpose I started it for.  Time to lock it and focus everyone's attention on the remaining outstanding issues.  

Thanks to everyone for all the comments and feedback.

_________________
http://hordesofthings.blogspot.co.nz/
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
  Print view Previous topic | Next topic 
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  Page 4 of 4
  [ 59 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  


Powered by phpBB ® Forum Software © phpBB Group
CoDFaction Style by Daniel St. Jules of Gamexe.net