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.

See as walkers are becoming more and more worthless, I've heard quite a few of the podcast personalities and other top ranked players say dreads need a total rework. If they were to keep their points, what Stateline should they get if concerted to MC?

I'm thinking WS BS 4, S6, T8 (so str 6 weapons still hurt on a 6), A3, I4, W4, Sv 3+

SR: Facings: if a model gets behind a dread all shooting attacks are one str higher
Dread CCW: allows smash attacks without halving attacks
Lord of the Field: in CC their save becomes an Invuln.

What do you guys think?

no thanks....not for me

toughness 8 would be rather nuts for a Dred I think. 7 would be the highest I would go.

even still, would not change them to a mc

 Lobukia wrote:
See as walkers are becoming more and more worthless, I've heard quite a few of the podcast personalities and other top ranked players say dreads need a total rework. If they were to keep their points, what Stateline should they get if concerted to MC?

I'm thinking WS BS 4, S6, T8 (so str 6 weapons still hurt on a 6), A3, I4, W4, Sv 3+

SR: Facings: if a model gets behind a dread all shooting attacks are one str higher
Dread CCW: allows smash attacks without halving attacks
Lord of the Field: in CC their save becomes an Invuln.

What do you guys think?

You don't want them to be MCs, you want them to be better than MCs. Those stat lines and abilities are Swarmlord level. T8 W4 3++ with 3 S10 CCs? Maybe for 200ish points.

Making smash attacks int 1 would solve a lot of problems.

If we make the 3 wounds they die to 3 shots at full range. That makes them as fragile as they are now. Seriously what competitive list runs dreads?

So T7 3wounds? And you'd take them at that cost?

Immunity to posion weapons [but not fleshbane] is pretty much a given.

EDIT: fleshbane would only wound on 4+.

Keep it a walker add InvSv add spec rules about there presence and battle aura ect. Increase dual weapon load out choices.

Do same for tau and elder!

No more monsterous creature walkers!

Evidently aromouered units that don't care about melta/armour bane ect, insted act like fleashy blobs caring about poison flesh bane lol what a ridiculous affair of all the rules fails GW have walked into this is the one that grinds my gears to dust!

I like that statline, but you'd might lower the attacks to 2.
And making them MC's is a great thing, nothing is as bad as having your CC-Dread being Immobilized by a single shot. That gets even worse with all the Graviton now.

Why do you have that weird wording on DCCW? Just make it a Power Fist and you are done.

I like this idea. My S3 Tyranids have enough problems taking out Dreadnoughts. Now I can wipe them out quickly thanks to Poison.

 Happyjew wrote:
I like this idea. My S3 Tyranids have enough problems taking out Dreadnoughts. Now I can wipe them out quickly thanks to Poison.

I'm sure they'd have a "anti-poison" ruling since they are mostly mechanical; probably something like 6+ needed.
But that is still something I wouldn't mind. As a Blood Angel-player I've stopped playing CC-dreads since they just die way too easily for their cost.

Kangodo wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
I like this idea. My S3 Tyranids have enough problems taking out Dreadnoughts. Now I can wipe them out quickly thanks to Poison.

I'm sure they'd have a "anti-poison" ruling since they are mostly mechanical; probably something like 6+ needed.
But that is still something I wouldn't mind. As a Blood Angel-player I've stopped playing CC-dreads since they just die way too easily for their cost.

Don't see why they would. I don't believe necron or eldar wraithanything do. Poison isn't really poison in 40k, its just a modification to a wound roll.

But I completely agree Dreads need help. Giving them an invunrability save would make sense for quite a few of the armies that use them. Letting them leave close combat if they wish was something they could do in 2nd ed, except in the case of CC with MC. I would say give them all the equivalent of dreadnought power weapons but then we would need entirely new arms. Unless they power feet. Dreadnought boot to the head?

Tomb Stalkers and Sentinels have it

But I don't think that they really "need to be MC's" as some people say.
They should fix this on a codex level: The Death Company Dread already ignores 'crew shaked/stunned' and that is a step in the right direction!

All I want now is something that gives my Talon-equipped Furioso something that gives him AP2, like a special 'smash' that only gives him AP2 and double Strength when he halves his attacks.

Kangodo wrote:
Tomb Stalkers and Sentinels have it

But I don't think that they really "need to be MC's" as some people say.
They should fix this on a codex level: The Death Company Dread already ignores 'crew shaked/stunned' and that is a step in the right direction!

All I want now is something that gives my Talon-equipped Furioso something that gives him AP2, like a special 'smash' that only gives him AP2 and double Strength when he halves his attacks.

Something like this. Honestly, the Soul Grinder is still pretty playable. Dreads need to be similar. AV13 front and sides, 5++, ignores shaken and stunned on a 2+, 4HP.

The only things that should be Monstrous Creatures are actual Monstrous Creatures. Riptides, Wraithknights, and Dreadknights are should not be Monstrous Creatures.

Maybe, but the problem is the only alternative sucks.

I think Walkers could use an overhaul in general.


Maybe add the following special rules to walkers.

Trample: Walkers are lumbering mechanical giants, well able to trample smaller foes into the dust. At initiative 1, a walker inflicts D6 automatic hits at its unmodified strength with an AP of 4. Wounds from these hits can only be allocated to models with the Infantry, Jump Infantry, or Swarm Unit Type. If there are no models of those types eligible for allocation the wounds are lost and do not count for combat resolution.

Moving Target: Because of their inherent mobility, attacks directed against a Walker can often be deflected by the simple movement of the walker itself. When ever a Walker loses a Hull Point as a result of a melee attack, roll a D6. On a 5+ the Hull Point is not lost. If the Walker has been immobilized this rule has no effect.

This would give them some inherent ability to kill swarms of cheap infantry better and make them a little more durable to melee attacks stripping away their hull points.

It's already stupid that the uber-guardians I mean wraithknights (THAT'S proof that GW is lazy) are MCs, I like having Tyranids be the only ones with a lot of MCs even though MC lists are boring.

There's no way you could justify having that sort of statline and special rules at their current points value.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
There's no way you could justify having that sort of statline and special rules at their current points value.

Wait, so you've never played against a dreadknight? This type of response just highlights how bad a dreadnaught is. With only 20 points more typically kitted out, a dreadknight has a 2+ save, an invuln, a better WS, a psychic power, and a better strength. A dreadnought is hard pressed to tangle with a dreadknight.

If it stays a vehicle, a dreadnought needs a contemptor statline at 100 points and probably something more too.

 Lobukia wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
There's no way you could justify having that sort of statline and special rules at their current points value.

Wait, so you've never played against a dreadknight? This type of response just highlights how bad a dreadnaught is. With only 20 points more typically kitted out, a dreadknight has a 2+ save, an invuln, a better WS, a psychic power, and a better strength. A dreadnought is hard pressed to tangle with a dreadknight.

If it stays a vehicle, a dreadnought needs a contemptor statline at 100 points and probably something more too.

So because Dreadknights and Riptides are ridiculously overpowered for their points cost, Dreadnoughts should be as well? I'm sick of this trend towards armies getting MC walkers that are better and cheaper than Daemon and Tyranid MCs.

Dreadknights definitely aren't overpowered. With a good loadout they cost more than a Landraider.

Pyrovores definitely aren't underpowered, with a good loadout they cost less than a Zoanthrope.

Trying to match an underperforming unit to an overperforming unit is piss-poor game balance. You look at the average and pull the units up or down to that baseline.

Your average MC:

S6
T6-7
W5-6
Sv 2+ to 3+ armor, 4+ to 5+ inv (if you are lucky)
Base cost: 160-180 pts
Fielded cost 200-300 pts

That's where you need to start looking if you want to make dreads MCs (which is a bad idea in the first place).

I really don't think dreadknights are OP. Maybe at the end of 5th they were, but certainly not now. I'm not a WAAC player, nor even one that goes to tournaments... but I keep up with the tournament scene. No successful lists field stock dreads. They just don't earn their points in a TAC list.

Balancing against Nids is pointless. Its a weak dex that needs (and will be getting) an update soon. That would be like holding DA up to SM a month ago and saying they were OP (which clearly, they are not).

If no one is using a model in competitive play (nor has for awhile, like all of 6th edition) it needs to be tweaked. The complete death of dread lists in 6th says that they either need a complete rethink, or that they need a complete recost.

What made Dreads not worth it? HPs and Blast weapons in 6th. Why? Three glances was a shrug before (especially with extra armour), now its a dead dread. Blasts if they scattered rarely hurt, now they kill.

So many of you thought that making it T8 was too much? But lets put my hypothetical dread against a stock dread and see how much better it is

let make 4 shooters and throw some different weapons around:
4 marine devs with krak missiles: Walker Dread: takes 1.33 HP with 15% chance to die, MC Dread takes 1.33 Wounds
4 marine devs with LC: Walker Dread: takes 1.8 HP with 41% chance to die, MC Dread takes 1.8 Wounds
4 marines with MM at range 24': Walker Dread: takes 1.33 HP with 45% chance to die, MC Dread takes 1.33 Wounds
4 marines with MM at range 10':Walker Dread: takes 2.44 HP with a 78% chance to die, MC Dread takes 1.33 Wounds
4 marines with bolters: Walker dread: Can't be hurt except in rear armour, MC Dread: Can't be hurt

Its not like I created something way above what a dread is already. A 3+ armour save kept it reasonable, and since the meta has shifted to MC walkers, that's were other walkers need to go to be viable options. It protects them from one shot kills and allows them to keep fighting until they drop. If no one's taking a model if they care about being competitive, it might as well not exist. Something needs to done for something like a SM dread to be worth taking... I'm curious what people who understand the mechanics of the game think it should be.

If not MC what? Give them all +1 armour all the way around but at no cost increase? I'd be up for that, but then an Ironclad or Contemptor might need to stay AV13 and just gain something else.

You don't have to compare them to Nids. Daemons also have a ton of MCs and are a 6th edition dex. Look at their stats/price.

Those are the two armies that really should be fielding MCs. The vast majority of other MCs in the game have no business being such. Let's not make the problem worse by adding more.

I think most rational people will agree that dreads could use some help. Personally, I think you give them a strong points reduction, but leave them alone otherwise. I don't have an issue with dreads being fragile if I can pack more of them into a list (or have more points available for the units they are supporting).

I think Walkers in general need a bit of an overhaul, it really shows how bad the Walker rules currently are when the devs feel the need to make things Monstrous Creatures when they should have been Walkers just to sell the models. Without updated Walker rules, Dreadnoughts are in need of a points reduction and either more Hull Points or higher AV. We don't need to completely phase Walkers out of the game and encroach on MC territory.

 Maelstrom808 wrote:

Those are the two armies that really should be fielding MCs. The vast majority of other MCs in the game have no business being such. Let's not make the problem worse by adding more.

Why? Pacific Rim 40k is awesome! A few weeks ago we had an Apocalypse game in my gaming club with 70 Riptides (and 20-30 other MCs of various type) and it was mind-blowing!

I would actually love some MC Dreadnought, even though I think the current Dreadnought model is way too small for that. With a new model (a slightly larger Contemptor maybe) and a statline of WS4/BS4/S6/T8/I4/A4/Ld9/Sv3+ for 250-260 points the Space Marines could join the battle of the big guys with their own personal face-wrecker centerpiece model (instead of the face-wrecker grav bikers) and everyone can have fun and listen to the new Warhammer 40k theme .

 AtoMaki wrote:

 Maelstrom808 wrote:

Those are the two armies that really should be fielding MCs. The vast majority of other MCs in the game have no business being such. Let's not make the problem worse by adding more.

Why? Pacific Rim 40k is awesome! A few weeks ago we had an Apocalypse game in my gaming club with 70 Riptides (and 20-30 other MCs of various type) and it was mind-blowing!

I would actually love some MC Dreadnought, even though I think the current Dreadnought model is way too small for that. With a new model (a slightly larger Contemptor maybe) and a statline of WS4/BS4/S6/T8/I4/A4/Ld9/Sv3+ for 250-260 points the Space Marines could join the battle of the big guys with their own personal face-wrecker centerpiece model (instead of the face-wrecker grav bikers) and everyone can have fun and listen to the new Warhammer 40k theme .

I love big walking robots as well...but those kind of things already have a rule classification - walkers (or titans if you are going towards something Pacific Rim sized)

 Maelstrom808 wrote:

I love big walking robots as well...but those kind of things already have a rule classification - walkers (or titans if you are going towards something Pacific Rim sized)

Nah.. I can't see how a Sentinel is comparable to a Wraithknight in terms of agility and dexterity. And I guess that is why a Sentinel a Walker (an inferior machine with inferior rules) and the Wraithknight is a Monstrous Creature (a better machine with better rules).

Rumbleguts wrote:

Kangodo wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
I like this idea. My S3 Tyranids have enough problems taking out Dreadnoughts. Now I can wipe them out quickly thanks to Poison.

I'm sure they'd have a "anti-poison" ruling since they are mostly mechanical; probably something like 6+ needed.
But that is still something I wouldn't mind. As a Blood Angel-player I've stopped playing CC-dreads since they just die way too easily for their cost.

Don't see why they would. I don't believe necron or eldar wraithanything do. Poison isn't really poison in 40k, its just a modification to a wound roll.

But I completely agree Dreads need help. Giving them an invunrability save would make sense for quite a few of the armies that use them. Letting them leave close combat if they wish was something they could do in 2nd ed, except in the case of CC with MC. I would say give them all the equivalent of dreadnought power weapons but then we would need entirely new arms. Unless they power feet. Dreadnought boot to the head?

The Tomb Stalker has anti-poison, but it's specifically noted as being unnaturally resilient even for Necron constructs.