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.

 Anpu42 wrote:
The one thing we did was allow Dreads to benefit from Chapter Tactics.
This helps a lot and for the Smurfs must decide right after determining Warlord Traits if they count as TACs, ASM or Devs. We are not sure how that works, no one plays Smurfs.

I play smurfs - best tactics in the book IMO. Only Viable build is tactical spam and that doesn't really attract people when you consider how weak they are for their points. When you are getting 2-3 turns of full twinlinked fire from a double doctirne from calgar and a good chance at another round from your triple rerolled WL trait - they kinda catch up to their points and then some.

On topic about dreadnoughts. The two major issues I have for them are as follows...

If a squad can't hurt them they get to break off - then they can flank you and shot you in your armor 10 rear - this is especially stupid because this is exactly why you take a dreadnought - to tie up and destroy a squad that can't hurt it.

Second issue I have is their weaponry. Their fire is equivalent to a devastator marine for the most part. They should be able to take shoulder mounted weapons and or give them POTMS.

I think making them a MC or giving them more wounds is the answer.

Vehicles have always been inferior to their fleshy counterparts for some reason.

You only get to use the “our weapons are useless” rule if they actually are useless. Anyone with a krack grenade can potentially hurt an AV12 dread, so have to keep in CC. They can break off from the AV13s though.

Giving dreads and armor save won’t help, as most guns strong enough to damage them are going to have the AP to ignore it. I think an 5++ would help a lot though. Or something like IWND stock (give IH dreads a better version)

Firepower could be a little bet better, but they are not that far off from some of the other options in the codex. You are just paying for a TAC unit, that’s OK for fire, and OK in CC. But not the best at either. I think the gun prices could be dropped a bit, especially the ones that replace the powerfist. The single shot missile is particularly bad. It should be heavy 2, get free flack missiles, or both.

I’d like to see them get a buff aura, to represent their place and status in the chapter. Even something like re-rolling pinning checks would be nice, but all Ld check, or granting a special rule would be cool.

 DoomShakaLaka wrote:
I think making them a MC or giving them more wounds is the answer.

Vehicles have always been inferior to their fleshy counterparts for some reason.

They were like that in the good only days.
I loved that my old Chuck was immune to Bolters.

I don't see that as a real change for all Walkers till 8th.

 Nevelon wrote:
You only get to use the “our weapons are useless” rule if they actually are useless. Anyone with a krack grenade can potentially hurt an AV12 dread, so have to keep in CC.

And that means every single MEQ has to stay in combat with it. But most people that aren't wearing a PA don't have kraks on every single model.

What about IC status and a buff that grants furious charge for the ironclad's unit and re-rolling failed leadership tests for the venerable dreadnought?

Have them joining a squad of assault marines and charging with them into battle.

This actually sounds awesome IMO.

 DoomShakaLaka wrote:
What about IC status and a buff that grants furious charge for the ironclad's unit and re-rolling failed leadership tests for the venerable dreadnought?

Have them joining a squad of assault marines and charging with them into battle.

This actually sounds awesome IMO.

Best suggestion in a long time. It would look thematically awesome and the upgrade in survivability would be amazing.

Purifier wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:
You only get to use the “our weapons are useless” rule if they actually are useless. Anyone with a krack grenade can potentially hurt an AV12 dread, so have to keep in CC.

And that means every single MEQ has to stay in combat with it. But most people that aren't wearing a PA don't have kraks on every single model.

In which case they are probably filthy xenos who need to be purged anyway. Or guardsmen who should do their job and tapit the dread.

(I kid. I really miss krack grenades everywhere when playing eldar. One of those things you just get used to having as an option)

DoomShakaLaka wrote:What about IC status and a buff that grants furious charge for the ironclad's unit and re-rolling failed leadership tests for the venerable dreadnought?

Have them joining a squad of assault marines and charging with them into battle.

This actually sounds awesome IMO.

I agree it sounds awesome, but I think having a vehicle IC joining a squad of troops is probably more rules hassle then it’s worth.

I'm fairly certain that there is something similar in Tau dex' with an IC Monstrous Creature.

Majority Toughness would not be affected because it has an AV value.

Using the same rules for wound allocation, the dreadnought would be able to reliably make it into combat, and act as support unit for the squad he's in.

Any unused assault range is an added attack in melee?

Opponent is 3 inches away and you get a 6 so you add 3 attacks to the regular attacks?

The biggest problem with walkers is the sheer lack of actual scariness when compared to the deathstars and huge MCs that are now the standard in 40k.

Used to be, a dread with 4 S10 AP2 attacks was a close combat unit.

Now, a close combat unit is Thunderwolves with Claw and Fist rolling 5 dice each on the charge who can choose to shred or crush, or a flying MC who's almost totally invincible and moves across the whole board when he wants to get into cc.

Walkers need a buff. They've needed a buff for ages.

 Purifier wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:
You only get to use the “our weapons are useless” rule if they actually are useless. Anyone with a krack grenade can potentially hurt an AV12 dread, so have to keep in CC.

And that means every single MEQ has to stay in combat with it. But most people that aren't wearing a PA don't have kraks on every single model.

Ahh yes - yet another way the points you pay for a marine actually hurt you. Theres an off chance you might actually be able to hurt something if you had 10 turns but would just do better if you could just fall back and shoot him in the but.

Thanks for all the responses! Looking back on it, I agree with you guys, more firepower isn't the answer, I guess it would just make them feel a little more useful. I think the change to MCs would fix most of the problem they currently have. Even if they only were T6 with 4 wounds and a 3+ save, I think they would be decent.

Out of curiosity what is the cost for a WraithLord? T8 with 3 Wounds and 3+ right? I think a Dreadnought at ~140 points should have a similar profile.

the_scotsman wrote:
The biggest problem with walkers is the sheer lack of actual scariness when compared to the deathstars and huge MCs that are now the standard in 40k.

Used to be, a dread with 4 S10 AP2 attacks was a close combat unit.

Now, a close combat unit is Thunderwolves with Claw and Fist rolling 5 dice each on the charge who can choose to shred or crush, or a flying MC who's almost totally invincible and moves across the whole board when he wants to get into cc.

Walkers need a buff. They've needed a buff for ages.

Back in 5th edition, even when Thunderwolves were around they were actually alright (if more used as gunplatforms)

The problem with GW is, they think it's the past when it comes to units sometimes, Terminators are fine at 40 points because they were pretty good in 2nd and 3rd edition!

Well making them MC going by old school

The Furibundus “Fury” would be
S-1 [What?]
T-10
W-3
Save-2+/5+
Two Bolt Guns
Las Cannon
Power Fist

The Contmpetor “Chuck”
S-8
T-8
W-4
Save-4+/5+
4 Bolt Guns
2x Power Fist
Jump Pack

The Dorerdeo “Eddy”
S-8
T-8
W-4
Save-4+/5+
Bolt Gun
Missile Launcher
Power Fist

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
The biggest problem with walkers is the sheer lack of actual scariness when compared to the deathstars and huge MCs that are now the standard in 40k.

Used to be, a dread with 4 S10 AP2 attacks was a close combat unit.

Now, a close combat unit is Thunderwolves with Claw and Fist rolling 5 dice each on the charge who can choose to shred or crush, or a flying MC who's almost totally invincible and moves across the whole board when he wants to get into cc.

Walkers need a buff. They've needed a buff for ages.

Back in 5th edition, even when Thunderwolves were around they were actually alright (if more used as gunplatforms)

The problem with GW is, they think it's the past when it comes to units sometimes, Terminators are fine at 40 points because they were pretty good in 2nd and 3rd edition!

Vehicals were better in 5th despite the fact that melta was about twice as powerful because no hull points - because just about everything else stunk at killing vehicles. GK dreads were amazing with str 8 TL auto cannons.

A lot of people forget that for 50 points you can bring a Lucius Pattern Drop Pod, arrives back field turn one, the Dreadnought stays embarked for turn one. The Drop Pod has the shrouded special rule on the first turn.
turn two, disembark your 6 inches and either shoot something of run out and charge.

my advice is find a unit that will have a tough time getting too far away from it.

I'd hate to see vehicles moved to MC as it takes away from the variety of mechanics the game has. I see the problem more as the power and quantity of guns has continually increased while most things durability has not. MC's are an exception to this. A GUO used to be a very durable MC but now its statline seems like a starting point for new MCs. The best solution would be toning down many high powered guns and/or making them more expensive, but we all know that will never happen. Instead we're getting D weapons on infantry so expect things like vehicles to become increasingly flimsy compared to available fire power.

It's not the Dreadnoughts fault. The fault lies in the system itself.

40K does a pretty good job resolving combat with (infantry) models that have WS, BW, S, T, I, A, and a save. Think about this when resolving actions: You roll to hit (either against your BS or WS vs. WS), you roll to wound (comparing S vs. T), and then the model gets a save (or not). One wound is deducted from its profile, and you move on.

Vehicles have a completely different stat line- BS AV HP. They move differently from infantry, they have shooting rules different from infantry (though they still use BS). When it comes to taking damage though, things change dramatically. While similar to S of weapon compared to T, S vs. AV is actually a huge weakness. Because of the T and armor save system, it turns out that anti-vehicle weapons are actually the best infantry killers in the game! But when anti-vehicle weapons are used on vehicles... you roll to hit. If you hit, you make an Armor Penetration roll- with certain weapons getting buffs (AP 1 or 2, Armor Bane, etc). If you equal the Armor Value of the armor side facing you, you "Glance" it- removing a Hull Point and nothing else. If you exceed the AV, you penetrate the armor, and it still loses a HP. Now, you roll on the Vehicle Damage table- again, with modifiers. You could do nothing, all the way up to an explosion, no matter how many HP the vehicle has left. The vehicle during this entire process is a passive model- it might get a cover save, but for the most part, the owning player gets no "active" defense against shooting. Close combat is even worse.

A vehicle in close combat has a fixed WS of 1 (unless it's immobilized), no matter how far or fast it moved in the previous phase. Vehicles can't over watch (though some can...) Infantry that charge it might all be in base contact with the front armor of the vehicle... but all it's attacks are going against the REAR armor of the vehicle- typically AV 10. It makes Melta Bombs almost superfluous when most assault models automatically come with Krak grenades (S6).

There is a disjoint in the game when it comes to resolving vehicle damage. This situation gets even worse when you add in Walkers/Dreadnaught. Walkers follow all the rules for vehicles except for moving, shooting, and close combat- you could even say they have different psyker rules as well. GW would like to think that there are two classes of vehicles in 40K: Vehicles and non-vehicles. In fact, there are four model types: Infantry (Gargantuan Creatures, Jet pack troops, Bikes, basic Space Marine- whatever- they all follow the same rules with special rules tacked on), vehicles, flyers, and walkers. Maybe chariots should be added as well for five different unit types

Walkers have all the weaknesses of vehicles (AV system and vehicle damage table), and none of the advantages of the infantry that they fight like in close combat (no armor or invulnerable saves with a few exceptions). They have to depend on AV and WS to protect them. Typically, they will have far fewer attacks then the foes they face, unless it's another walker or vehicle. Even the best close combat walkers are vulnerable to a lowly Imperial Guardsman with a Krak grenade, or hidden power fist.

As a gun plateform, Walkers just don't work. They are expensive, and then the weapon options that go with them are even more expensive. Consider IG Sentinels. For 35 points, you get an incredibly fragile plateform with a multilaser. Add a lascannon for 10 points, and you now have a 45 point lascannon that can die to basic S4 attack. There are better choices in the IM codex for a heavy weapon. Consider the Space Marine Dreadnought. 125 points gets you a twin-linked Lascannon, and a Storm Bolter. For 100 points, I can get a Predator with a TL Lascannon. For 140 points, I can get two more Lascannons on the Pred. You can do something similar with Devastators for firepower.

TLDR- Walkers suffer from all the weaknesses of a vehicle (low HP/Glancing death, vehicle damage table), poor close combat performance, and expensive points values. As a gun plateform, they are too expensive and the advantage (mobility for a heavy weapon) is typically negated by an opponents one good anti-vehicle shot. As a close combat plateform, well, we are in a shooty edition. Walkers walking across the table will never make close combat. Drop Podding them means they get to stand around for a turn before they can even think about close combat. Fixing them- there has been some great ideas in this thread so far. I just felt the need to define the problem more. It's not as easy as reducing points costs or adding an extra attack.

I'm not sure why (aside from historical reasons) vehicles couldn't just use the same Toughness and Armor system that infantry models use.

AV10 = T6, and so on (so the chance of causing a wound/strip a hull point would stay the same). But also give them an armor saves, so that you still want to be using low-AP weapons if you can (so something like a Manticore would easily wound vehicles, but would have a hard time punching through their armor save). You would have to re-do the number of HP on vehicles, but whatever.

I know GW likes the idea of damage results tables, but as long as MC's don't have the concept of a damage table, they're going to be comparatively more durable than a vehicle with the equivalent number of hit points.

 DanielBeaver wrote:
I'm not sure why (aside from historical reasons) vehicles couldn't just use the same Toughness and Armor system that infantry models use.

AV10 = T6, and so on (so the chance of causing a wound/strip a hull point would stay the same). But also give them an armor saves, so that you still want to be using low-AP weapons if you can (so something like a Manticore would easily wound vehicles, but would have a hard time punching through their armor save). You would have to re-do the number of HP on vehicles, but whatever.

I know GW likes the idea of damage results tables, but as long as MC's don't have the concept of a damage table, they're going to be comparatively more durable than a vehicle with the equivalent number of hit points.

Especially since with the cap of S 10, outside of Force and ID, most MCs can't be oneshotted like vehicles can.

Don't worry, with a lil' bit of luck they will be gargantuan creatures or MCs next SM codex