Tactical Command
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/

Dreadnoughts again
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=73&t=10230		 Page 1 of 4
Author:  Markconz [ Wed Aug 08, 2007 3:10 am ]
Post subject:  Dreadnoughts again
Dreadnoughts, that old chestnut...

For the long and tortuous story so far see here:
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/cgi-bin....36;st=0
or search for many of the other long threads on the topic...

Options now:

1. Dreadnought Formation (4 dreads, upgrades - commander).
2. 3+ armour
3. 5+ armour, reinforced

As will be evident from the previous dreadnought thread, I'm not including every idea that had just one or two people chiming in as supporting.  These options had more wide ranging support, even amongst people who favoured other ideas, thus here they are.


Personally I'm opting for option 2 - a tweak to their armour that will make them a bit more survivable (especially in engages), but still easily killable by MW as they should be.
Author:  Markconz [ Wed Aug 08, 2007 9:00 am ]
Post subject:  Dreadnoughts again

(Hena @ Aug. 08 2007,05:58)
QUOTE
You should have put the Chromas suggestion as well, as that is the best. And if one has multiple choices these polls isn't going to help. And there is no transport choice even if others want it.

I can't vote in this now.

*Sigh* Please actually read the poll Hena, and apologies if there are some translation difficulties.

As I said I am NOT including ideas that had only 1 or 2 people supporting them and even more people attacking them like those you mentioned. The poll could have a dozen options and no resolution like all the others.  I'm not doing that. Especially not if the options are not only obscure and unpopular, but also require some major or confusing reworking of the list, rather than a simple tweak to one stat, or are trivial or limited such that they are hardly worth bothering with (as you yourself said of Chroma's idea - "Chromas idea would be workable I think. I just question the need for it *shrug*.").

If you don't want to choose one of the options above as being preferable to the others then don't. I believe the majority of people are more reasonable and after all this time would like to choose a good enough solution for now, from the more popular suggestions. I know you like to argue for impossible cases, but I'm not spending anymore time indulging it.

Fortunately you admitted that the stat boost was a possibility in the other thread and preferable to dreadnought formations, and a lot of other people liked it too, so I will just count you as either 5+ RA, or 3+, randomly determined with a dice roll...   :alien:
Author:  Blarg D Impaler [ Wed Aug 08, 2007 5:00 pm ]
Post subject:  Dreadnoughts again

(Markconz @ Aug. 07 2007,22:10)
QUOTE
EDIT

As will be evident from the previous dreadnought thread, I'm not including every idea that had just one or two people chiming in as supporting. ?These options had more wide ranging support, even amongst people who favoured other ideas, thus here they are.

EDIT

While I understand your reasoning, I think it was a mistake to limit the poll as you have done.  I think it would have been a better idea to put out as many different ideas, including combinations of ideas, and inlude an option for "None of the Above."  By limiting the options you have skewed discussion towards what you want to see.  After all, who is going to bother to see if what you omitted was or was not popular?

I voted for the Dreadnought formation idea because it at least goes part of the way towards what I would like to see and will serve as the path towards the real fix that is needed - a transport option.
Author:  Markconz [ Thu Aug 09, 2007 12:29 am ]
Post subject:  Dreadnoughts again

(Blarg D Impaler @ Aug. 08 2007,16:00)
QUOTE
By limiting the options you have skewed discussion towards what you want to see.

All I want is a solution that is good enough for now Blarg.

If landraider transports had half a dozen people voicing support, rather than just a couple and more attacking it for various good reasons, then it would be up there with the rest. That didn't happen. So lets now see what people like you and Hena would choose from the options that were more popular given that you didn't get your first choice. On that note, thank you for voting.
Author:  Ginger [ Thu Aug 09, 2007 2:11 am ]
Post subject:  Dreadnoughts again
Only just read this and previous thread. Would have replied there but it is now locked, so sorry for the slight deviation to your poll.

I like the 3+ armour option - no contest there (better than 5+RA, which just doesnt feel right)

Gut reaction is I would also like transport - and I like Blarg's suggestion. But it raises a number of thoughts like how are Dreds used in the fluff - are they primarily offensive or defensive? If offensive, how do they get where they are going (in the fluff). Do they get to use LR or sleds etc?

Personally I suspect it is THawks or nothing - after all they are venerated, so ought to get the best treatment! OK, so lets consider one last deviation - I'd quite like to see THawks allowed to transport three Rhinos or Two LandRaiders for the onboard troops. But if we do, there not would be enough transport capacity for our venerated Dred as well as the troops! (the same is also true for Landing craft - and the current transport configuration for vehicles works well there)

So - - - it is a rather long winded way of saying that with regret, I guess Dreds will have to stick to being dropped off by THawks and Drop pods to get into offensive positions, Garrisoning for defensive positions, and to hoof it to get elsewhere (or reserve enough THawks etc to pick them up again).

my 2 cents as they say
Author:  BlackLegion [ Thu Aug 09, 2007 4:32 pm ]
Post subject:  Dreadnoughts again
Dreadnoughts are offensive. The usual deployment of them are via DropPod or Thunderhawk/Landingcraft.

And i see no way how a regular Thunderhawk can transport any transport vehicle and still maintain its infantry transport capacity.
Author:  Evil and Chaos [ Thu Aug 09, 2007 7:41 pm ]
Post subject:  Dreadnoughts again
There is NO support for Dreadnoughts being transported by Land Raiders in the background. Maybe ten years ago they could, but now they can't.

I voted for a 3+ armour save, for a whole bunch of reasons.
Author:  Ginger [ Thu Aug 09, 2007 8:20 pm ]
Post subject:  Dreadnoughts again

(BlackLegion @ Aug. 09 2007,16:32)
QUOTE
And i see no way how a regular Thunderwahl can transport any transport vehicle and still maintain its infantry transport capacity.

Unlike Forgeworld, who recon the "Thunderwhale" can carry two Rhinos or a single Landraider (which does not seem very usefull :p )

(and I love the translations BL, keep 'em coming)
Author:  Blarg D Impaler [ Thu Aug 09, 2007 9:08 pm ]
Post subject:  Dreadnoughts again

(Evil and Chaos @ Aug. 09 2007,14:41)
QUOTE
There is NO support for Dreadnoughts being transported by Land Raiders in the background. Maybe ten years ago they could, but now they can't.

I voted for a 3+ armour save, for a whole bunch of reasons.

And the funny part is that this whole "no transport for dreadnoughts" all makes sense to you...

So, Master of WH40K Trivia, what do the piles of ever-changing background material say about how dreadnoughts get from one place to another?  Does the background material say anything?  Are they carried around only in Thunderhawks, Landing Craft, and Drop Pods?  Do 20-man teams of laborers carry them around on their backs?  Do they walk around the whole time after they get planetside?

If  you voted for 3+ armor save for a whole bunch of reasons I'd like to know what they are.  I'm going to stick by my suggestion of Land Raider transports and dreadnought formations, but I am willing to have my mind changed.  Tell me why dreadnoughts should have a 3+ armor save.  How will increasing their armor save make them more useful to a Tactical formation of 6 Tacticals and 3 Rhinos?
Author:  BlackLegion [ Thu Aug 09, 2007 9:32 pm ]
Post subject:  Dreadnoughts again
@Ginger: actually that was a typo :D
Author:  Evil and Chaos [ Thu Aug 09, 2007 10:46 pm ]
Post subject:  Dreadnoughts again
Does the background material say anything?  Are they carried around only in Thunderhawks, Landing Craft, and Drop Pods?  Do 20-man teams of laborers carry them around on their backs?  Do they walk around the whole time after they get planetside?

Apart from the 20 man teams of labourors, yes to all the above.

Tell me why dreadnoughts should have a 3+ armor save.

Armour saves are not just 'how hard your armour is', but also a representation of your tactical accumen and normal strategies in the abstract events we know as Engagements.

How will increasing their armor save make them more useful to a Tactical formation of 6 Tacticals and 3 Rhinos?

It won't really, and I don't think that's the proper niche of a Dreadnought.

Dreadnoughts are shock units (When attached to airborne formations), or static hardpoints in defensive formations (When attached to an infantry garrison or a whirlwind formation, for example).

They are not mobile whilst on the battlefield.


I also support Dreadnought formations of four for 175pts (I've playtested them in many games).
Author:  Evil and Chaos [ Fri Aug 10, 2007 7:11 am ]
Post subject:  Dreadnoughts again
Let me put it simply.

I believe that there's no way we could ever get Land Raider-transported Dreadnoughts past the ERC & the Studio, even if we wanted to (And most of us categorically don't).

So, as I'm always telling you Hena, you have to work within the background of Warhammer 40,000, not make up your own background because you'd like the rules better if "X" wasn't so "Y".
Page 1 of 4 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/