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.

From a kvantitave perspective is the redemptor dreadnought undercostet? It shows up so often in competitive lists.

Personally I do not think it is undervisted.it is just that the D3 plasma is such a sweet spot.

What do you think?

Both weapon loadouts are viable and mathematically very close together against important defensive profiles.

The reason you see it alot is that it is one of the few Marine vehicles that are worth the points to diversify your own army profile.

No, I don't think that Redemptors are undercosted. But I do think that many units with comparable profiles and abilities are overcosted. And for some reason, when many people see something that's "better for its points" than their own units, they have a tendency to think "That thing is too cheap", instead of thinking "Hey, my stuff is too expensive".

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
No, I don't think that Redemptors are undercosted. But I do think that many units with comparable profiles and abilities are overcosted. And for some reason, when many people see something that's "better for its points" than their own units, they have a tendency to think "That thing is too cheap", instead of thinking "Hey, my stuff is too expensive".

the anchoring effect. they take their own stuff as the "baseline" form which other stuff is judged against, so form their perspective, that other thing IS to cheap.

on topic, i dont know. certainly, it is a popular unit in competitive circles, but as others have said, that might just be the low viability of some of the alternatives for space marines.

The Redemptor is fine. It shows up a lot because having -1D (and CORE) makes it one of the few vehicles worth its points.

 Marshal Loss wrote:
The Redemptor is fine. It shows up a lot because having -1D (and CORE) makes it one of the few vehicles worth its points.

This.

Like the Raider, it feels more oppressive than it is due to its efficiency making it stand out in a very anaemic field.

The biggest problem is that other vehicles suck. Why would I take some tank that lacks <core>, costs more points and doesn't have -1 to damage taken, when I could take a Redemptor/Relic Contemptor?

At this stage, maybe GW should consider giving all vehicles -1 Damage. Getting tired of seeing nothing but mostly dreadnaughts in most lists whereas all the rest of the vehicles languish on the shelf.

Eldenfirefly wrote:
At this stage, maybe GW should consider giving all vehicles -1 Damage. Getting tired of seeing nothing but mostly dreadnaughts in most lists whereas all the rest of the vehicles languish on the shelf.

Thousand Sons got life with a simple invuln. We'll see if that's enough to make a difference though people seem happy just running lots of rubrics atm. I still personally feel a single tank wouldn't be detrimental to most lists.

I just received two Redemptors (putting me up to three) and two Space Wolves Ven Dreads yesterday. So I hope nothing changes there:p but I just like dreadnoughts and they fit my image for armored support in a space marine force way better than tanks. YMMV but I dont like artillery tanks like whirlwinds or other tanks in Space Marine armies as much as dreadnoughts. A bit off the topic, but I really like that dreadnoughts are viable

Relic Contemptors with Volkites >> Redemptors, but Redemptors are still pretty good. Not undercosted for sure. Personally I think the VolCon is undercosted, but I think the weapons need the points bump, not the unit itself.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
No, I don't think that Redemptors are undercosted. But I do think that many units with comparable profiles and abilities are overcosted. And for some reason, when many people see something that's "better for its points" than their own units, they have a tendency to think "That thing is too cheap", instead of thinking "Hey, my stuff is too expensive".

To be fair to those people, GW often thinks the same way and just ups the cost of the unit costed correctly to make it also useless as those other over costed choices.

Redemptors are one of the favorite units of a friend that I play regular, so I face them a lot. While you can't deny that they are good units, they aren't overly powerful by a long shot.
I think that people are used to units having obvious weak spots, and while the redemptor doesn't have any, it's still not hard to take out with focused shooting and assault.

Eldenfirefly wrote:
At this stage, maybe GW should consider giving all vehicles -1 Damage.

My only problem with this, is that weapons like Autocannons become even worse at killing vehicles. Autocannons used to be great at a killing a wide variety of vehicles pre-8th edition.

I think one solution is to either up the toughness on vehicles, give them FNP saves, or just increase their wounds across the board. Why aren't there toughness 9, 10 or even greater vehicles? Everything still wounds on a 6 anyways, but it would make some tanks actually feel like tanks. It would also give weapons with really high strength more of a purpose.

Redemptors kind of exemplify the issue with the Marine dex and its supplements in that when you have an aggressively priced CORE unit with the rules accessible in those books it feels incredibly oppressive to play into. Seriously, being on the receiving end of a 3-Redemptor castle rocking a 5++ and with all its hit bonuses and re-rolls is really not very enjoyable. This is why so many other Marine units have eaten brutal points increases over the past year and it's why Admech are so miserable to play against; the amount of buff stacking gets to be too much after a while that unless you change the actual buff mechanics then you've got to price the units out of real viability for them to feel remotely fair.

gibbindefs wrote:

Eldenfirefly wrote:
At this stage, maybe GW should consider giving all vehicles -1 Damage.

My only problem with this, is that weapons like Autocannons become even worse at killing vehicles. Autocannons used to be great at a killing a wide variety of vehicles pre-8th edition.

I think one solution is to either up the toughness on vehicles, give them FNP saves, or just increase their wounds across the board. Why aren't there toughness 9, 10 or even greater vehicles? Everything still wounds on a 6 anyways, but it would make some tanks actually feel like tanks. It would also give weapons with really high strength more of a purpose.

Some armies have no high strength weapons, so upping toughness would take away their ability to handle vehicles at all. In order to implement this, there would be a full rework of weapons and defensive profiles necessary, at which point you could just try to find a better solution.

There were quite some threads on this, and the only real solution that can be "patched in" without overhauling the entire system would be adding (depending on the various poster's opinion on how durable vehicles should be) 50-125% more wounds on all vehicles and monsters while adjusting points by slightly less.

gibbindefs wrote:

Eldenfirefly wrote:
At this stage, maybe GW should consider giving all vehicles -1 Damage.

My only problem with this, is that weapons like Autocannons become even worse at killing vehicles. Autocannons used to be great at a killing a wide variety of vehicles pre-8th edition.

I think one solution is to either up the toughness on vehicles, give them FNP saves, or just increase their wounds across the board. Why aren't there toughness 9, 10 or even greater vehicles? Everything still wounds on a 6 anyways, but it would make some tanks actually feel like tanks. It would also give weapons with really high strength more of a purpose.

I wouldn't like mechanics that add more dice rolling (FNP) or things that need to be tracked even more. I mean vehicles already have 10+ wounds, there's no need to increase those. Instead T and saves (I'm even in favour of 1+ saves) could definitely be increased.

Autocannons IMHO were too good in killing light vehicles, and I think they're not a bad weapons now, just hard to spam for cheap. Light vehicles in general were too flimsy, to the point that they were straight up unplayable. I hated ork vehicles for that. Now they're still fragile but at least they can soak a few shots, despite the average rate of fire that armies brings has dramatically increased.

 Jidmah wrote:

gibbindefs wrote:

Eldenfirefly wrote:
At this stage, maybe GW should consider giving all vehicles -1 Damage.

My only problem with this, is that weapons like Autocannons become even worse at killing vehicles. Autocannons used to be great at a killing a wide variety of vehicles pre-8th edition.

I think one solution is to either up the toughness on vehicles, give them FNP saves, or just increase their wounds across the board. Why aren't there toughness 9, 10 or even greater vehicles? Everything still wounds on a 6 anyways, but it would make some tanks actually feel like tanks. It would also give weapons with really high strength more of a purpose.

Some armies have no high strength weapons, so upping toughness would take away their ability to handle vehicles at all. In order to implement this, there would be a full rework of weapons and defensive profiles necessary, at which point you could just try to find a better solution.

There were quite some threads on this, and the only real solution that can be "patched in" without overhauling the entire system would be adding (depending on the various poster's opinion on how durable vehicles should be) 50-125% more wounds on all vehicles and monsters while adjusting points by slightly less.

pretty much this, we have to many codexes out this edition to really fix the issue. adding toughness or armor saves would make some armies be hard countered by vehicle spam. adding more wounds to more vehicles is really probably the best way to go about balancing them this edition.

also of note as an example GW gave orks +1 T and boyz basically disappeared from the meta. The resulting price hikes to all infantry basically means you fight vehicle or squig spam and infantry is very few and far between. (pretty sad for a faction that is often depicted as a green tide, now its mad max).

GW gave space marines more wounds and they are doing awesome, you often see plenty of infantry and bikes, though their vehicles are (mostly) meh

For me, Redemptors are what all Dreadnoughts should be.

Better shooting than infantry, better HTH than a vehicle. Dreadnoughts haven’t felt like that to me since 2nd Edition.

Orks also lost green tide. Witch often gave your opponent a bad choise of killing the 30 orks that got Da Jump into your deployment zone. Either you wiped them out entierly or they just spawned and charged you again. That often tok your first turn meaning you where on the backfoot the entier game.

The lack of CORE on other vehicles is definitely the primary reason you only see the Redemptor.

I wouldn't say that. If Gladiators would get CORE, I'd still rather take a Redemptor.

What does the core affect it? I know you can use wisdom of the ancient to boost itself. But if you just wnat to shoot more and techmarine can boost a redemptor to BS2+.

gibbindefs wrote:

Eldenfirefly wrote:
At this stage, maybe GW should consider giving all vehicles -1 Damage.

My only problem with this, is that weapons like Autocannons become even worse at killing vehicles. Autocannons used to be great at a killing a wide variety of vehicles pre-8th edition.

I think one solution is to either up the toughness on vehicles, give them FNP saves, or just increase their wounds across the board. Why aren't there toughness 9, 10 or even greater vehicles? Everything still wounds on a 6 anyways, but it would make some tanks actually feel like tanks. It would also give weapons with really high strength more of a purpose.

Toughness didnt ever translate properly for vehicles. A lazcannon had to roll a 6 to penetrate a LR in previous editions, now it needs a 3. Thats dumb.

Anything that had armor 13 on front and sides should be tough 9. If you only had armor 13 on the front then you should be tough 8. Land raiders should be T10 though as they had 14 all around, so should monoliths.

Armor 12 on front and sides should be T8 as well, but only 12 on the front should be T7. All vehicles that had armor 10 on 3 facings or more should be T6 (which i think they nailed on that front).

Doin this opens up the super heavy monsters to raising in Toughness as well. Taking the Heirophant to T10 is perfectly fine. Taking Gargantuan Squiggoth to T10 is fine too. Heirodules and the Harridan should be T9.

It is 185 points with the proper configuration and has no invunerable save. It is probably overcosted compared to the newer armies like admech and drukari and GK. Compared to a dreadknight...it is kind of a head scratcher.

As pointed out by many above. The rest of the space marine vehicals are so bad (or arent core which also means bad) redemptor is the only option at that point. It's ether that or run entirely infantry - which is the other viable option.

 Niiai wrote:
What does the core affect it? I know you can use wisdom of the ancient to boost itself. But if you just wnat to shoot more and techmarine can boost a redemptor to BS2+.

Re-roll 1s to hit or to wound, depending on the proximity to a Captain or a Lieutenant.

Is your captain or lieutenants hanging out with the dreadnought? Most lists I have seen they are getting stuck in, while the redemptor hangs out in the back. If they are just babysitting a mech might be just as good. And a mech boosting a big tank makes more sence.

In Deathwatch lists you take that relic that gives out a 5++ invul save and have your Captain hang back with your Dreads.

If you are already doing this kind of playstyle, a Lieutenant gives some extra oomph at little cost.

deathwatch doesnt need a lieutenant, as they get reroll 1's to wound natively against 1 battlefield roll, and they can get it against a second on one unit.

A master of the forge is excellent though, as he gives on dread +1 to hit and heals for flat 3 every turn.

 ZergSmasher wrote:
Relic Contemptors with Volkites >> Redemptors, but Redemptors are still pretty good. Not undercosted for sure. Personally I think the VolCon is undercosted, but I think the weapons need the points bump, not the unit itself.

VolCons gak the bed once Ork buggies are in their face. They are not panacea.