Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I simply cannot see a way to write the rules for walkers that doesn't completely swing from what extreme to the other. Either they're impossible to kill by all but the strongest units (5e) or they are near useless points sinks that can be tied down by any unit.

My solution: Replace all walker rules wit MC rules.

The standard SM Dreadnought would be as such:

WS - 4, BS - 4, S - 6, T- 8, W- 3, I- 4, A- 2, Sv -3+


Venerable dread would have WS/BS 5 and a ++ save of some kind either 4++ or 5++

Ironclad would have a 2+ save

Note: I feel T8 is important. T6 is far too weak considering how tough dreads are supposed to be in the fluff.

They don't need to be toughness oh my god to be good. T6, W4, 3+, 4++, IWND and FNP is probably harder than T8. Especially if they had some sort of boosted IWND for venerable and contemptors.

This very topic came up the other day at our gaming club. I had HH Book 3 in with the rules for Ad Mech and the various automatons. Some of the guys were waxing lyrical about the advantages of the Castellax Battle Automaton over dreadnoughts...T7 W4, can't suffer damage effects so operates at full capability until it loses it's last wound - no stunning, weapons being knocked out etc. Also means that weapons with Melta/Lance/Armourbane also get no bonuses from shooting at them. When you consider they're of a comparable size to dreadnoughts you have to wonder why the robots are MC and the dreadnoughts are vehicles. Apparently the new Thanatar Siege-Automata towers over the Castellax and it's an MC as well....

Perhaps T7 then if T8 is too powerful...

T6 is far too low and means it'll get gunned down by lasguns.

T7 at the very least, probably T8.

lol .... the majority of Tyranid MCs are T6, a dreadnought shouldn't be tougher than a Tyranid MC imo

They should keep dreadnoughts how they are now but give ironclads av 14/4+ invu and regular dreads av 13/5+ invu, and have a good str blast explosion after they die ... with a hefty point increase.

or

Just put all dreadnoughts on the level of contemptor dreadnoughts.

 Whereswaldo wrote:
lol .... the majority of Tyranid MCs are T6, a dreadnought shouldn't be tougher than a Tyranid MC imo

Yes they should.

If you feel it's unfair, remember Nids get more wounds.

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Whereswaldo wrote:
lol .... the majority of Tyranid MCs are T6, a dreadnought shouldn't be tougher than a Tyranid MC imo

Yes they should.

If you feel it's unfair, remember Nids get more wounds.

And they can field far more MCs. And their MCs are cheaper. And their MCs can wreck any walker they come across,


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Whereswaldo wrote:
lol .... the majority of Tyranid MCs are T6, a dreadnought shouldn't be tougher than a Tyranid MC imo

They should keep dreadnoughts how they are now but give ironclads av 14/4+ invu and regular dreads av 13/5+ invu, and have a good str blast explosion after they die ... with a hefty point increase.

or

Just put all dreadnoughts on the level of contemptor dreadnoughts.

Like I said, doing that makes Dreads far too powerful. Now weaker armies and units don't have a chance in hell to hurt them, especially if they make it into CC.

Your standard dreadnought statline

WS - 4, BS - 4, S - 6, T- 8, W- 3, I- 4, A- 2, Sv -3+, MC

Wraithknight statline

only difference is more str (equal to the DCCW), double wounds, extra Int, 2 Attacks, Jump MC


since the dreadnought is well half the size of a wraithknight and can take a drop pod as a transport you would be paying at least 200pts before options (and drop pod) on the MC dreadnought .... honestly the way fluff dreads / space marines are written your not going to get the same stats on the table.

 Whereswaldo wrote:
Your standard dreadnought statline

WS - 4, BS - 4, S - 6, T- 8, W- 3, I- 4, A- 2, Sv -3+, MC

Wraithknight statline

only difference is more str (equal to the DCCW), double wounds, extra Int, 2 Attacks, Jump MC


since the dreadnought is well half the size of a wraithknight and can take a drop pod as a transport you would be paying at least 200pts before options (and drop pod) on the MC dreadnought .... honestly the way fluff dreads / space marines are written your not going to get the same stats on the table.

I love how you left out the WarithLORD, which has the same stats as my supposed Dread except is S8, 3 attacks, and is FEARLESS.

And he's only 120 pts...

I'd rather all robot-like mc's were walkers to be honest.

Giving space marines T8 MCs would have to come at a premium, if not drop pod 3 against most armies and call it game.

The 200pt tag might have been a little much ... maybe at 165-175 base but that would be the lowest

 Whereswaldo wrote:
Giving space marines T8 MCs would have to come at a premium, if not drop pod 3 against most armies and call it game.

The 200pt tag might have been a little much ... maybe at 165-175 base but that would be the lowest

Please explain to me how Drop Podding in T8 Dreads would be an auto-win cause I'm not seeing it.

Dreads still only have 2 attacks base, so if you ca'n't kill threm you can just tie them up with an expendable unit and call it a day. And if you're in an army that can't wound T8 then you'll have plenty of cheap troops then.

I must reiterate, the Wraithlord has better stats then my proposed dread and is only 120 pts and no one I've met complains that it is too cheap.

Lets say a vulkan salamander army runs vulkan, 2 sternguard squads, 4 tactical squads, 3 T8 dreadnoughts ... after the first 4 drop pods hit on T1 there shouldn't be anything left on the table that can deal with T8
or
Take 3 pods and dropping in 2 T8 MCs T1 with a White Scar bike list, it would force your opponent to shoot everything at your MCs for atleast one turn it not more allowing the rest of your army to secure objectives harassed or cripple the main units of their army.

No one complains about wraith lords because they aren't able to assault anything until T3 or T4 (and most are around 160+ after replacing the shuriken catapults), being able to charge with multiple T8 MCs on turn 2 would be brutal for almost any army. Lowering the MC toughness to 6-7 would be more balanced given the options.

Dreadnoughts are extremely underpowered atm, but giving them that much durability is too much.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
with the vulkan example the sternguard / dreads would have a FOC conflict, but you get the drift.

So, basically you want wraithknights everywhere. Maybe it's a better idea to fix overpowered MC rather than make everything overpowered so that troops will matter even less?

 koooaei wrote:
So, basically you want wraithknights everywhere. Maybe it's a better idea to fix overpowered MC rather than make everything overpowered so that troops will matter even less?

...huh? The only MC right now I see being accused of being OP is the Riptide (which I agree with, but thats for a whole 'nother topic)

I've yet to hear anyone complain about Wraithlords. And Wraithknights were thought of being OP up until people actually used them, when the consensus became that they are just okay considering their massive cost (both in pts and $$$)

And like I said earlier, I'd be fine with Dreads being only T7. I just don't want them T6 cause thats far too weak for them.

To be fair, no one complains about the Wraithlord because the Wraithknight is strictly better in every regard. Wraithlords are slow with no delivery mechanism to get them up field and their shooting is done better by War Walkers (cheaper + battle focus) while the Knight is a jump monster packing a pair of S10 AP2 guns. Thanks to the 7th edition change over, the only real advantage a Wraithlord has against a Dreadnaught is that it doesn't have the damage table to roll on, but even that is somewhat compensated for by all of the weapons that bypass toughness (sniper, rending, poisoned, bladestorm, grav, fleshbane, all of the various Eldar "on a 6" weapons...) compared to the list of weapons that bypass armor-values (haywire, entropic strike - armorbane/melta to a lesser extent) and the tweaks to the damage table itself.

If anything, the issue dreadnaughts have is that they are highly vulnerable to mass S6/7 firepower which is currently the go-to option in list building. The desire for it to be a T8 or T7 monster alone underscores this as the main problem, since the only thing making Dreadnaughts a monster would change in regards to attacks from that strength range is that it would get a save of some sort. Tyranid monstrous creatures also get torn apart by mass S6/7 firepower, but appear more durable since they have a built-in save to bounce some shots off.

With that in mind, the best change for Dreads (apart from a meta-shift away from mass S6/7 shooting) would be to give them a back-up save. A Iron Halo or a FNP save of sorts probably wouldn't hurt.

Also as an aside, Monstrous Creatures are now generally poor at fighting walkers, as smash in 7th only allows a single attack with double strength. The only monsters that a walker need worry about are Carnifexes, Haruspexes, Tervigons with Crushing Claws, and Eldar Wraith Constructs. The rest have too low of strength or volume of attacks to really hurt an AV12+ walker reliably.

 koooaei wrote:
I'd rather all robot-like mc's were walkers to be honest.

Same as that, anything piloted or is more mechanical than beast, like Daemon Engines, should be Walkers. My opinion of course

 Silverthorne wrote:
They don't need to be toughness oh my god to be good. T6, W4, 3+, 4++, IWND and FNP is probably harder than T8. Especially if they had some sort of boosted IWND for venerable and contemptors.

Almost all walkers, save Killa Kanz, range between AV 12 and 11 on the front and side facings.

This is important because it means they're immune to small arms fire, and in some cases even medium arms fire (ergo a deff-dread doesn't care about a heavy bolter) in most cases. Making them toughness six, regardless of giving them beefed up IWND and even a beefed up FNP, would be a huge nerf in comparison.

t7, even with IWND and FNP, would be a pretty big loss. Imagine being able to just bolter-to-death a deff dread from the front, or having a mob of 30 boyz just gun a dreadnaught nearly to death before piling in and whacking it to death without a nob being involved. That's a pretty big nerf. You're either going to want to make most walkers toughness 8 (bigger ones would have to be 10, weaker ones like Kanz 7), give them a very high amount of wounds, or load them up with invulnerable saves and special rules which make them tougher. Some combination there in would get the job done, but it will doubtlessly leave a bad taste in -one- side's mouth.

Either way I largely agree with making walks just MCs would be better, all I'm saying is there would definitely be growing pains along the way.

Considering how most things S6-7 (the bane of all vehicles/walkers) are not AP2 or AP1 (so no +1/2 on the damage table, if the walker is not open topped), the primary concern for Walkers is not an Explodes! result but getting glanced to death. How about More Hull Points?

I very much think that walkers should stay vehicles and not become MC's which they honestly aren't.

It's not just dreadnoughts and walkers, but vehicles in general that are messed up after the introduction of hull points. You can already make an analogy between toughness and armor value, and wounds and hull points. The difference is that most monstrous creatures

1) have armor saves that mitigate a lot of the S5-7, or in some cases higher, hits they take

2) don't suffer additional damage other than the loss of a wound

So essentially, you have a roll to hit and a roll to wound, but no chance to pass an armor save. In 5th edition you could get lucky and avoid vehicle destroyed-results even after multiple hits, which added to their sturdiness. Now you are still paying the same cost, but your hull points get whittled down by a fraction of the same amount of shots that monstrous creatures can withstand. If they were going to give vehicles "wounds", then they should have given them an armor save as well.

I've been working on vehicle rules to make them tougher without making them invincible.

Vehicles are not removed as a casualty at 0 Hull Points.
All glances caused after 0HP are penetrating hits, a roll of Weapon Destroyed, or immobilized results in a wreck.
Vehicle Damage Table:
1-2: Crew Shaken
3: Crew Stunned
4: Weapon Destroyed
5: Immobilized
6: Wrecked
7: Explodes!

AP1 +1 modifier on the damage table

It also nerfs AP 2, which is sorely needed.

Honestly, its hard to say if completely removing walkers would be a good idea or not. With the advent of Hull Points, Walkers just aren't that different from them with a few notable exceptions.

Armor Value vs Toughness & Armor Save

Using Armor Value instead of Toughness allows for immunity to Str 3 or lower. That's a pretty big buff since it means that massed lasgun fire can't hurt at all. Also, depending on AV and facing, even Bolters and Pulse Rifles (or even Krak Grenades against AV 13) bounce as well. MCs just don't have that kind of advantage. Poisoned Weapons? Hahahahaha. No. Snipers? Only AV10 (Since they now count as Str 4 vs vehicles).

On the other hand, armor saves provide something armor value doesn't. Now, at first, comparing these two might seem laughable. After all, GW has been particularly ruthless with gutting 2+ saves from most MCs (Riptide is a notable exception), and most Anti-Tank (and therefore Anti-MC) weapons are at least AP 3. However, compare a Tyranid MC (T6, 3+) versus an AV 10 Walker.

At that point, both are threatened by Bolters on a 6. However, where the walker is concerned, each and every 6 not saved by cover is an automatic hull point. By comparison, every 6 on that MC is allowed an additional save on a 3+ with or without cover. That can be pretty significant, considering how relatively common a bolter equivalent is. Also, there are plenty of high Str but bad AP attacks out there which the MC can basically ignore on a 3+. Additionally, most MC have more wounds than walkers have hull points. That means, though they are more vulnerable to small arms fire, they can survive more, too.

Finally, Toughness and AV are more-or-less identical when it comes to Anti-Tank fire. A Krak Missile (Str 8) will wound T6 and glance AV 10 on a 2+. This holds true as you improve both. T8 provides the same protection as AV 12. The only major difference is that MCs care not about facing. If you've got T8, you've got the equivalent of AV12 all around against Anti-Tank fire. Most Walkers tend to only have a higher AV on 1 facing.

Hull Points vs Wounds

AP 1, AP 2, Open Topped; These things, right here, mean that the Walker can just straight up explode. If the enemy rolls well on a Penetrating Hit where any of these things are in play, that's it. Show's over. Hull Points mean exactly squat.

Also, the Walker, before it dies, can lose access to its weapons, lose the ability to shoot, or even be unable to move at all. This impairment can be temporary, or permanent. MCs don't have to worry about the vehicle damage table. They lose no effectiveness as they lose wounds in any way. AP 1 and 2 weapons just nullify their armor save, but they don't risk causing the MC to suffer from spontaneous combustion.

Most armies that have a Walker have access to someone who can patch it up. Typically, this is Tech Priests, Techmarines, and Meks. They can, with a little help, reliably patch those vehicles up so long as they aren't a smoking wreck. Add some Servitors to the Techmarine and you've got a Hull Point generator which can add a TON of survivability to the Walker. However, this adds cost to the Walker, though the price can be discounted since the unit is separate and can aid other vehicles. Also, some vehicles (Iron Hands Chapter Tactics, Daemon Vehicles, Grot Riggers) can also get IWND for free or cheap. That makes them even easier to keep alive.

On the flip side, MCs typically have only one option to regain wounds. IWND (or Regeneration for the Nids). That's usually a 5+ (or 4+ for Nids). This can cost points, too, but not always, and certainly no where near as much. There's no real solid way to improve this, either. Sure, some MCs can manifest Psychic Powers and regain lost wounds, or others have FNP, but they are atypical for our purposes. Walkers can usually spend more to become more survivable than MCs.

Special Rules

Walkers lose out in this department, for MCs get a host of shiny rules that Walkers just don't get. Smash is the first one to come to mind. Walkers need Dreadnought Close Combat weapons (or their equivalent) to get a hold of AP 2. However, while MCs gain access to some of these, they also become far more vulnerable to them. How's that Huskblade on your Archon or the Force Sword Mephiston's swinging against your Ironclad Dreadnought? Yeah. Your ID special rule just became worthless. Even Rending, which would normally be an auto wound against most MCs, is now only potentially a glancing hit or penetrating hit, depending on how you roll. Str 4 Rending Attacks vs AV 12? Better roll another 3+ for all those 6s to do anything. Now, sure, Melta & Lance mean nothing to MCs, but consider those weapons are usually attached to Str 8, AP 1/2, does it really matter? Haywire is obviously worthless against an MC, but high strength and low AP values are far easier to come by, especially at range.

TL;DR - Consider all the above, I think I'm actually fine with Walkers & MCs remaining two different unit types. However, there are a few examples (Penitent Engines) that clearly just need to be moved to the MC category. Others (like Sentinels) need to be kept as Walkers, otherwise you'll end up with something like a Scout Sentinel getting this statline (WS 3, BS 3, S 5, T 6, W 2, I 3, A 1 Sv 4+) and being able to be taken in Squadrons of 3 with Scout USR for 35 points each. Give them Lascannons and run them at any vehicle. That's 3 Str 9 AP 2 shots followed by 3 Str 10 AP 2 attacks for 135 points. Hellooo Guard Distraction Carnie.

MC don't have a damage table. When other things ballance out eventually, this one just doesn't have it's counterpart.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Let's invent a Cripple table and everyone's gona be happy.

1-4 Nothing additional happens
5 Looses 1 Attack
6 Looses 1 Toughness
7 Armor save and invul save listed in profile become 1 worse.

ap1/2 also apply.

Don't take this table literally - it's just an idea. Multi-wound models should have a chance to be penalized when they loose a wound.

 Strat_N8 wrote:

If anything, the issue dreadnaughts have is that they are highly vulnerable to mass S6/7 firepower which is currently the go-to option in list building. The desire for it to be a T8 or T7 monster alone underscores this as the main problem, since the only thing making Dreadnaughts a monster would change in regards to attacks from that strength range is that it would get a save of some sort. Tyranid monstrous creatures also get torn apart by mass S6/7 firepower, but appear more durable since they have a built-in save to bounce some shots off.

With that in mind, the best change for Dreads (apart from a meta-shift away from mass S6/7 shooting) would be to give them a back-up save. A Iron Halo or a FNP save of sorts probably wouldn't hurt.

This is the good part of this thread.

My suggestion would be to simply give it a plain, normal, every-day 3+ armour save.

A contemptor style 4+ invulnerable save. On my travels, never seemed broken.

I think walkers in 7th are fine. They are much stronger and more durble than in 6th while not being super powerful.

I think immunity to stun and shaken for certain walkers is the only thing I would add but I think they are fine otherwise. I know I plan to start fielding my dreadnaughts again now that smash has been nerfed.

 Leth wrote:
I think walkers in 7th are fine. They are much stronger and more durble than in 6th while not being super powerful.

I think immunity to stun and shaken for certain walkers is the only thing I would add but I think they are fine otherwise. I know I plan to start fielding my dreadnaughts again now that smash has been nerfed.

What meta do you have where dreadnoughts are durable? I'd love to be able to use my helbrutes without the deepstrike formation.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Leth wrote:
I think walkers in 7th are fine. They are much stronger and more durble than in 6th while not being super powerful.

I think immunity to stun and shaken for certain walkers is the only thing I would add but I think they are fine otherwise. I know I plan to start fielding my dreadnaughts again now that smash has been nerfed.

What meta do you have where dreadnoughts are durable? I'd love to be able to use my helbrutes without the deepstrike formation.

Durable enough to survive as long as I dont do something stupid with them(like get them in melta range of their entire army).

Also having higher priority targets helps as well, or being mechanized.

Just the fact that they HAVE to be hullpointed out against most guns makes a huge difference in how long they last.

Hi Guys

Long time reader/player(3rd edition)...first time poster. I read this thread a few months back and decided to start trialling rules around this.

Dreadnoughts need an armour save...There we go...I said it.

We first trialled running them as a squadron, and this worked...way too effectively, especially once close combat was reached. Also the ability to field 9(3 per squadron) made a return of the gunline dreads.

My gaming group and I have been trialing having dreadnoughts with armour saves for a while...so we based the armour saves off terminator units(tactical dreadnoughts) as in theory the armour should be "atleast" as good as a the armour on something 1/3 of its size. We gave the dreadnought an additional attack. Left it with hammer of wrath and all other special rules. We capped the usage of dreadnoughts at 3.

So the only change really is...standard dreadnought 2+ 5++ and the ironclad was given the assault terminators 2+ 3++. Each with an additional attack.

All MC's were given 2d6 when rolling to penetrate/wound and were treated as ap2.

There are no modifiers to a walkers damage table results in CC, what you roll is what you get. When out of HPs the unit is wrecked.

Grenades were made like the old rules a 6 to hit in CC.

So what were the effects?

Vanilla dreadnoughts were survivable. They basically received a buff in that, tactical marines rapidfiring using chapter tactics on rear armour didn't glance it to death very easily(mathhamer off 19 bolter shots with re rolls to hit provides you with 2-3 glances(like 2.8 roughly im guessing). At moving and shooting the dreadnoughts were a bit more survivable. I wouldn't say over powered though. Points wise id think a charge of 10-20 points for the model would be sufficient...I don't think it should be paying for something it should already have, but understand that an invulnerable shouldn't be cheap. In CC they were better as well. With 3 attacks standard...Hammer of wrath on the charge...They actually had the ability to deal with being clogged up by infantry. Grav weapons with massed volleys were less effective as well thanks to a 2+. All in all it performed as it should.

Ironclad dreadnoughts became a cc beast. 4 attacks...hammer of wraith...they were less prone to being caught in battle. MC's beat them, but they were capable of putting up a very good fight. I will note...rending attacks from genestealers didn't glance a dreadnought to death...nor should they.

A few interesting points of contention were...

Drop pods...drop podding 3 ironclads is tough to deal with and might be something worth noting...seeing as the unit is more survivable...definitely seen an increase in the "melta" meta. And I thought that this was quiet difficult to deal with for most armies.
Points cost - Standard dread - 120
- Ironclad - 180
Ground pound - we trialled a rule of ground pound, any dread with a dccw could sacrifice all attack(including hammer of wraith) and perform a ground pound, using a large blast template placed over the dread. The move was resolved at the dreadnoughts normal strength at ap - . I personally thought...the inclusion of this...would mean that we keep the base attacks of the dread the same. One or the other. I like the idea...its fits the fluff, but it would need to just keep the standard attacks it has now. And I personally liked it. It made mcs more dangerous against them, with the reduction in attacks and it made the horde fighting ability strong. Once again...no more clogging up a dreadnought in CC with weak units.

Hope this helps guys. As mentioned this was trialled over about 50 games.

We ended up running with the points cost listed, ground pound and the extra attack. They are now what id consider a usable unit without being OP.

PS sorry about the dig up, I just wanted to keep you guys up to date. Hopefully games workshop listen next time and include an armour save. The community has wanted one for 3 editions now.