| Purestrain |
 |
 |
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 10:43 pm
Posts: 7925
Location: New Zealand
|
(nealhunt @ Oct. 01 2007,13:19)
QUOTE Thread recycle.
===========
I have a hard time reconciling a 3+ armor save to the actual 40k abilities of a Dreadnought.
3+ armor save is almost a 50% increase in survivability over a 4+. That means even just in Epic terms, without reference to 40K, the armor save change would make a dreadnought substantially tougher than all those 4+ and 5+RA armor saves.
Either way, to me, that just feels wrong.
OTOH, Markconz' handbook had a typo that made so much sense to me that I thought it was intentional:
3+ FF
Dreads have 2 heavy weapons (or 1 heavy and 1 secondary) and walker level mobility and flexibility in a firefight. Their role in the background fiction is frequently described as shock troop/"up close and personal" fire support which is in keeping with assaults in general and firefights in particular. An FF improvement would improve their ability in air assaults and drop pod attacks as well as helping their staying power when used in a garrison.
Basically, it's a decent buff in keeping with the unit's 40K stats and traits per the background. I actually included it in the "change docs" but then someone questioned it in light of the revelation that it was originally a typo.
I don't recall this particular option being discussed before. What do you guys think about a simple FF boost?
To me the idea of 3+ armour for dreads gave me more pause than almost any of the other change proposals, for exactly the reasons stated by Neal ? (1) it seems potentially overpowered, and (2) what justification is there for Dreads having better armour than preds or vindis anyway? To that end I have considered it rather deeply, but in the final analysis I ended up supporting it for the following reasons.
(1)
On the first critical point ? is it overpowered? Well possibly. However, I believe there are good indications that Dreads do need a reasonable boost, rather than something minor like the proposed FF tweak. Dreads have been widely regarded as a poor choice ever since EA was published with fierce debates about how to fix the problem since that time. Furthermore with the MW AP barrage rule change they have just taken yet another downgrade.
To summarise the problems most often cited by people. First off, you are paying points for a slow, vulnerable unit that ruins your free ground transport options. For the price of 2 dreads you could have 4 razorbacks and keep your mobility ? it?s not really a contest.
Next, regarding air assault - though a better option, they are also expensive to transport in t-hawks due to the space they take up. Instead of air assaulting with 2 dreads, you could be assaulting with a full assault or devastator formation and getting more bang per percentage of transport cost per point. Also an air assault with dreads mean that an infantry formation that would have been immune to AT attacks, is now a prime target for various forms of combined AP/AT attacks, including exceedingly common ones like fighta bombas, thunderbolts, etc. This is of course is a problem with mixed infantry/dread formations in general, and from my experience it is a real factor discouraging dreadnought use. Drop pods are something of a better option but have their own limitations.
In Epic assaults where Dreads should gain advantages of resiliency if the fluff and 40k rules are any guide, they instead die just as easily as a normal marine squad.
In short the dread option isn?t worth the bother in the current tourni lists. They are currently something for masochistic dreadnoughtophiles in air assaults, or uncharacteristically and limply feasible as garrisons. In my view they need a reasonable boost to make them worth bothering with, and FF3+ is not that (especially seeing as it helps the non-assault dreadnought more than the assault dreadnought - problematic given the iconic image of dreadnoughts in assaults, and problematic if you compare the power of the weapon loadouts of say a termi squad with a dread). I believe FF3+ would just result in further ongoing debate, houserules, and in dreads being largely left on the shelf until the next revision rolls around.
(2)
On the second point - how is it possible to justify 3+ armour in terms of background and 40k terms given the relative armour values?
Pixelgeeks idea of 3+ armour he supported with his observation that according to the background Dreads are more fearsome than we currently have them. Ie they are supposed to be veteran engines of destruction so why not just match their reputation a little bit more? I would say ok yes maybe that's a reason - but importantly I think that even from 40k the translation to EA is poor and could do with a boost from that perspective alone. However, I will recap all reasons here.
Firstly in 40k Dreads are more resilient in an assault situation than tanks (something that makes sense in terms of background). By the 40k rules a dreadnought is not nearly as easy as a tank for infantry to stick a grenade upon (and also you are always having to attack a high armour rating even if you do manage it), because the dread fights back in close assault on the same terms as the infantry. Also in 40k, unlike a tank, the close assault of a dreadnought locks the infantry in close combat preventing the effective use of ranged AT weapons by the infantry. Tanks are supposed to be more vulnerable in built up areas and assaults, but that is specifically the roll that dreadnoughts are supposed to excel in. In 40k Dreads gain resiliency in the assault situation but this is not reflected in Epic.
Second it is worth noting that in 40k Dreads do actually have better combined overall armour than preds and vindis (34 total as opposed to 33, but the actual qualitative game results of this are more important than the quantitative values). In an engagement the combat situation is by definition mixed up and confused and fire may be coming from multiple directions. In such a situation it?s worth comparing the benefits of ok front and side amour (dreads) vs better front armour but weak side armour (preds, vindis). In a 40k engagement, Vindis and Preds can and do die to 'Heavy machine gun' fire (Heavy Bolters, and also to a lesser extent Heavy Flamers) that are able to penetrate their vulnerable side armour (which also has a wide target profile). Dreads are immune to that problem, and more resistant to other enfilading fire in general. This is another factor that I do not believe is not taken into consideration in the current 40k to Epic translation.
Thirdly, there is the issue of the long-ranged fire in Epic that is not modelled in 40k (40k being limited to engage actions). From this perspective, compared to tanks, dreads obviously have a much smaller target profile (especially from the side, but also the front/rear, and possess a much smaller critical area than a tank). On top of this they also have a more morphable target profile. Ie their greater articulation should lend itself to taking advantage of cover in the way normal tanks cannot (eg quickly and unpredictably sidestepping in a way a tank cannot, sticking an arm weapon around a corner in a way a turret cannot (note a 40k dreads arm weapons have their own targeters on the arm), and able to make better use of craters and minor undulations in the ground and smaller clumps of cover not necessarily represented by rules specifically - but likely to be present even in ?open ground? class terrain in EA ). Also dreads are exceptional veterans that should be able to take maximum advantage of these opportunities. (On that note it is worth observing that in systems like Flames of War veteran troops get better ?armour saves? to represent the fact that they are more skilled in taking advantage of battlefield opportunities to improve their resiliency). Thus given the target profile and skill (and in actual fact real better overall armour), there is probably fair enough reason to expect that a dread may possess advantages to resiliency in longer ranged fire situations in addition to such effects in assaults.
Lastly it is worth considering that Dreadnoughts (like Landraiders) are one of the most iconic and defining features of the 40k marine imagery - instantly recognisable and distinctive. I think we would do a considerable disservice by leaving them rendered as such a lacklustre choice. From what I have observed, I think there is significant support for putting a bit more ?Dread? back in dreadnought. With this proposed boost to 3+ armour I very much doubt we will see hordes of dreadnoughts dominating the Epic tourni scene, but we might actually see them again, rather than being left on the shelf in their currently enfeebled state.
Thus despite my own initial hesitation about it, I?m supportive of 3+ armour. It has reasonable community support (divided with the dread formation), and it has reasonable justification in terms of background and 40k effectiveness. If it is overpowered, I have yet to see good evidence of that, and I believe a change is the only real way to find out in any case. Rather I am left thinking it is probably the level of power change required to make dreads a reasonable choice given their other drawbacks, and it certainly fits the concept and imagery of what dreadnoughts should be, eg:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSmmKTXmQMM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....search=
|
|
