Tactical Command | View topic

Page 2 of 5

[ 75 posts ]

Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next

View unanswered posts | View active topics View unread posts | View new posts | View your posts

Dreadnoughts

pixelgeek

Post subject: Dreadnoughts

Posted: Sat Jul 28, 2007 9:58 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2003 8:10 pm
Posts: 2642
Location: Edmonton, Alberta

(Blarg D Impaler @ Jul. 28 2007,12:26)

QUOTE

but GW has written at least one fluff story told from the perspective of a dreadnought inhabitant as he and his squad(?) of 4 dreadnoughts are on patrol.

They also have a story with an Inquisitor talking to the Emperor. Fluff isn't very useful for the most part.

I'm referring more to the background material in the various army books.

That said, it still seems as if the only way it would get used would be in drop pods and it would then be yet another nasty tool to specifically create drop pod/THawk only armies.

Which is a good idea of that is the idea of the list but the Codex Marine list was never intended for that.

So the idea has two strikes against it

_________________
Guns don't break formations. Blast Markers break formations.

Top

Markconz

Post subject: Dreadnoughts

Posted: Sun Jul 29, 2007 12:00 am

Purestrain

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

(pixelgeek @ Jul. 28 2007,20:58)

QUOTE

I'm referring more to the background material in the various army books.

That said, it still seems as if the only way it would get used would be in drop pods and it would then be yet another nasty tool to specifically create drop pod/THawk only armies.

Re: background - In the army book background material assault squads don't move around in pairs, or devastators or any of the other epic formations for that matter. That is a an irrelevant point.
Those assault 'formations' can exist according to the 40k army lists though, as can 'formations' of dreadnoughts (which also exist in other relevant background material). Frankly arguments about the background that you are making just don't stack up.

Re: game balance - allowing one extra formation to drop pod (when scouts have been removed due to ZOC abuses), is hardly going to alter peoples already strong preferences for air units in a dramatic way. Especially when that formation is just going to be replacing other powerful drop pod or t-hawk loads.

It may actually see people finally able to use some cool models though - something you seem opposed to despite the fact that you are responsible for drop-podding dreads in the Chaos army list!

Your position is more than a little ironic and hypocritical I think.

_________________
http://hordesofthings.blogspot.co.nz/

Top

pixelgeek

Post subject: Dreadnoughts

Posted: Sun Jul 29, 2007 12:10 am

Brood Brother

Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2003 8:10 pm
Posts: 2642
Location: Edmonton, Alberta

(Markconz @ Jul. 28 2007,16:00)

QUOTE

Re: background - In the army book background material assault squads don't move around in pairs, or devastators or any of the other epic formations for that matter. That is a an irrelevant point.

You really are quick to label people's comments as irrelevant aren't you? Really kills people's desire to discuss things with you.

And the Dreadnoughts were in the list before I took it over and there is no comparable CSM formation so the point isn't relevant anyway.

_________________
Guns don't break formations. Blast Markers break formations.

Top

Markconz

Post subject: Dreadnoughts

Posted: Sun Jul 29, 2007 12:55 am

Purestrain

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

(pixelgeek @ Jul. 28 2007,23:10)

QUOTE

You really are quick to label people's comments as irrelevant aren't you?

When something absolutely trivial is claimed as a major point then yes definitely. Dreadnought formations are not specifically mentioned in the army books but so what? Neither are assault formations or devastator formations or anything else relevant to this point to my knowledge.

And the Dreadnoughts were in the list before I took it over and there is no comparable CSM formation so the point isn't relevant anyway.

Well at least they can get 3 per formation which is a start...

Curious - after all this time do you think that the dreadnought problem is actually a problem at all? If not what do you say to everyone who actually wants to have more useable dreadnoughts in some form?

Basically I don't care how this goes, but I am sick of seeing it raised all the time and I want a 'good enough for now' satisfactory solution that involves only minor tweaks to the current marine list.

_________________
http://hordesofthings.blogspot.co.nz/

Top

Flogus

Post subject: Dreadnoughts

Posted: Sun Jul 29, 2007 2:56 am

Brood Brother

Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 4:11 pm
Posts: 418
Location: France (Rouen)

(Evil and Chaos @ Jul. 28 2007,17:13)

QUOTE

Then charge a premium for the Drop Pod.

The Black Legion charge the Drop Pods (5pts per unit 'drop-podded'). As a Dreadnoughts formation has no Rhinos to trade, let's charge the Drop Pod option at +25pts (5pts per Dreadnought, 'rounded' at 25) ?

_________________
My gaming and painting blog : http://figsdeflogus.blogspot.fr

Top

pixelgeek

Post subject: Dreadnoughts

Posted: Sun Jul 29, 2007 5:25 am

Brood Brother

Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2003 8:10 pm
Posts: 2642
Location: Edmonton, Alberta

The problem is, as I've said before, that Dreadnoughts in a game of this scale are a massively bad idea.

The battleground is littered with AT weapons and a slow, big target gets shot easily.

Dreads are a bad idea in this scale of game.

The CSM list does indeed provide an option to allow drop Dreads in but this is always as part of another formation and it costs points to do so.

Putting an all Dread formation on the table isn't a solution to this problem... it is another problem waiting to be solved at a later date as it will be unbalancing.

What the Codex Marine list needs is a way for Dreads to be brought into combat in a way that is consistent with the bg material and not unbalanced.

Dropping four or five dreads into a target is going to suck.

The Codex list has the ability to put Dreads on the ground into combat or into objectives... they can already be dropped and they can be put into Landers and THawks.

Now, it is true that the CSM list can put together formations with three or four Dreads in them but I would be surprised to see these used since it means that the formation in question can't take an IB, Champion or even the Daemonic Pact.

Note that this is also not a Dread formation since the Dreads come with other infantry. And the added cost.

It strikes me that people want to have Dreads work the way they do in 40K and this isn't going to happen in Epic so its probably better to get used to having them be more fragile in Epic and act accordingly. Mind you, they seem to blow up pretty darn quick in 40K as well :-)

As I've mentioned before, I can't see anyone using a 4 or 5 Dread formation on ground so it means that the formation will be used almost exclusively via drops or air landing. And this seems to be the core issue. I think people want to be able to drop a formation of four Dreads with Power Fists into an objective to open it up for their army.

And then probably die pretty quickly after that as it will get chewed up by AT fire.

Building a formation of units that suck for the purpose of delivering them in a THawk to chew up an opposing formation before getting shot to heck isn't a solution to this issue.

I agree that this is a boring issue to see come up again and again but it does because Space Marine players see their Dreads get shot to crap and are POed about it.

Marines are tough to play. Dreads are tough to play. The mixture of the two is not a good thing for Marine players.

This proposition doesn't solve the core problem though and potentially creates an unbalanced formation that exploits the flexibility and power of a Marine air/drop force.

We have this same problem in the CSM list with Defilers and Dreads. They are tough to use on the ground and you can get schooled trying to use these.

But that simply reflects a core problem that slow armoured walkers have on an Epic battlefield.

Better to explore options for making these units last longer or be easier to protect on the battlefield than do this.

_________________
Guns don't break formations. Blast Markers break formations.

Top

pixelgeek

Post subject: Dreadnoughts

Posted: Sun Jul 29, 2007 5:32 am

Brood Brother

Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2003 8:10 pm
Posts: 2642
Location: Edmonton, Alberta

Dreads also suffer from the combat system. I can, if I want to, have all my CSM stands fire AT shots to take out a Dread and this is probably not the most realistic way to model fire.

That is a much larger change though

Dreads in the game are also not a resistant to damage as they are in the BG and in the fluff (in this case the fluff tends to be pretty consistent) and so it would make a bit more sense to me to see there be some effort made to make the Dreads more resilient.

Not necessarily the Chaos Dreads though as they don't seem to be the same sort of ancient venerable warriors that the Marine dreads are.

_________________
Guns don't break formations. Blast Markers break formations.

Top

pixelgeek

Post subject: Dreadnoughts

Posted: Sun Jul 29, 2007 5:35 am

Brood Brother

Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2003 8:10 pm
Posts: 2642
Location: Edmonton, Alberta

(Chroma @ Jul. 28 2007,07:40)

QUOTE

Then you could have a Dev formation with 3 Dreads, 4 Devs, and a Hunter, and it would be an excellent garrison.

Sure would. There might be some FAQ questions arising from how that would interact with the transport rules for the marine list.

Why not just let Dreads be transported in LRs? Couldn't they be put inot LRs in 2nd Ed?

_________________
Guns don't break formations. Blast Markers break formations.

Top

Markconz

Post subject: Dreadnoughts

Posted: Sun Jul 29, 2007 7:47 am

Purestrain

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

Ok some more comments on some of these ideas.

1. Dreadnoughts are not that tough. They die easily if they get in the way of serious antitank guns in 40k, and the same thing happening in epic is not something we should be concerned about (3+ AV at absolute most if you want to represent the fact that they are smaller more skilled and agile targets than other marine AV's and their general superiority in close actions). However, Dreads ARE essentially immune to small arms fire. Thus forcing people to take infantry with them in epic sadly ruins their distinctive niche which they have in the background and in 40k - an ability to smash up units without antitank weapons (or to take on units with only a few light AT guns).

2. Chromas idea - to me it hardly seems worth the trouble of altering the list just for 1 extra dread in a formation of infantry. It's a solution that also doesn't solve the problem of infantry having to accompany the dreads. Ie, just not worth the effort and doesn't solve the problem anyway.

3. Regarding use in epic: In sufficiently dense terrain where you can cut down lines of fire, dreads do come into their own more. In addition to airdrop, garrisoning forward or rear objectives where there is sufficient terrain would be another use. I find small stompa and dreadnought formations useful as 'immune to AP' garrisons in the ork list - provided the terrain is right (difficult and dense). Taking such positions is typically the job of infantry (and dreads), LOS is often limited to 10cm meaning that to get within shooting range you also have to get within dreadnought charge range (and suffer -1 to hit because of the cover, and flamethrowers and such like don't work against dreads). Same tactic could be used with marine dreads - thus I don't accept that dreadnought formation use would be purely limited to air assaults. Objective garrisons and general immune to AP armoured support on the ground in dense terrain is useful too.

Naturally it makes sense that orks are smarter in figuring this sort of thing out than marines (who insist on making infantry formations vulnerable to AT by including a dreadnought or two, and dreadnought formations vulnerable to AP by taking infantry).

4. Regarding Landraiders yes that would be useful. I haven't been able to track down any details of it though. It is also not current (or even recent) background as far as I am aware.

Overall what I am seeing thus far is that nearly everyone thinks SOME sort of change would be good though disagreement continues over exactly what. Of those that DO want change a majority (so far) would like to see this dread formations given a shot. Hmm.

_________________
http://hordesofthings.blogspot.co.nz/

Top

Markconz

Post subject: Dreadnoughts

Posted: Sun Jul 29, 2007 8:22 am

Purestrain

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

(Hena @ Jul. 29 2007,07:18)

QUOTE

Problem of having infantry for dreads? What's that?

Read it again if you didn't understand, being vulnerable to AP fire is a problem. For the same reason sticking LV's or infantry in a tank formation can be a problem sometimes. Basic stuff.

_________________
http://hordesofthings.blogspot.co.nz/

Top

Evil and Chaos

Post subject: Dreadnoughts

Posted: Sun Jul 29, 2007 10:29 am

Brood Brother

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire

Oh, I'd like to mention that one of the players in my group would like Dreadnoughts to be an available upgrade to Whirlwind formations.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Top

pixelgeek

Post subject: Dreadnoughts

Posted: Sun Jul 29, 2007 1:24 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2003 8:10 pm
Posts: 2642
Location: Edmonton, Alberta

(Markconz @ Jul. 28 2007,23:47)

QUOTE

Naturally it makes sense that orks are smarter in figuring this sort of thing out than marines (who insist on making infantry formations vulnerable to AT by including a dreadnought or two, and dreadnought formations vulnerable to AP by taking infantry).

Orks have Killa Kans in infantry formations all the time. They also add WEs and other vehicles.

Transports also do the same thing to an infantry formation. The difference being that the transports add an option that the player is willing to make the trade-off for.

Dreads just aren't good enough to make this a good idea for anything other than garrisons... in which case the Dread has typically already done its movement. The movement where I think it is typically most vulnerable.

Dreads also do get blown away in 40K as quickly as they do in Epic. The reference I was making was simply to the background and fluff.

I think that overall the Dreads are meant to be tougher and they should be tougher. If only to make them useful.

_________________
Guns don't break formations. Blast Markers break formations.

Top

Print view

Previous topic | Next topic

Page 2 of 5

[ 75 posts ]

Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next

Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 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

Jump to:

Dreadnoughts

Who is online