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.

 Mahtamori wrote:

Dat Guy wrote:

 Dakkamite wrote:
They don't need to be better at close combat - they need to be able to *get* to close combat first and foremost

This totally deserves to be exalted. It's so true though.

On a side note I think it should do more damage in melee like it can have two attacks but 1 wound causes 2 or just d3 wounds like someone else mentioned.

The only type of opponent this would serve against is HQ and MC. How would causing two or more wounds per successful attack actually make the dreadnought more useful? Are melee with characters and monstrous creatures really their problem? Really, is it the dreadnought's shortcoming or does it just so happen that there's a few too many MCs in this edition? That last one is actually a serious question, because if it is the latter then the Dreadnought sure as hell shouldn't cause more wounds per failed save.

I went through the comparatives between a Dread and an MC, and really now, there's not much difference! A Dreadnought typically has a toughness that is more equivalent of a Wraithlord, i.e. significantly higher than the average MC, but no save. For slightly lower cost it also comes without Smash but has a Power Fist that gets one attack less - so it's always smashing at initiative 1 instead of 4+. Armament options are slightly worse for shooting, but the Wraithlord actually has to pay for a heavy weapon to begin with - albeit this is hard to compare.
Why do I compare with the Wraithlord? I like the Wraithlord and seldom find them to be bad value in my non-Iyanden non-Wraithseer lists.

Really, all I can justify for the Dreadnought variants (in Space Wolf and Space Marine (latest) codex) is a point drop by at the very most 20 points, and that's pushing it. Mechanical problems of delivery is an edition thing - but then again you actually get a transport for the bloody things and drop pod as well! Maybe, just maybe, it needs another attack in close combat, but I'm retracting the point discount in that case.

It's not meant to be your go-to solution for the Wraithknight/Riptide problem!

(Sorry for just quoting you, Dat Guy, there's other I address as well)

If it causes D3 wounds per wound, I imagine he meant it in the way that it would cause D3 dead grunts per wound. That is certainly not useless.

In that case, what would you recognise as a decent price for a basic dreadnought? 'cause prices can only go up with an ability like that. Also, that ability smells like Chaos Daemon or Ork.

Just increase number of attacks by one in that case. It's not quite the same as doubling the number of attacks by rolling another set of dice, but roughly the equivalent of a 15 to 20 point free upgrade and lands the Dreadnought close to the performance of a Wraithlord.

 Mahtamori wrote:
In that case, what would you recognise as a decent price for a basic dreadnought? 'cause prices can only go up with an ability like that. Also, that ability smells like Chaos Daemon or Ork.

Just increase number of attacks by one in that case. It's not quite the same as doubling the number of attacks by rolling another set of dice, but roughly the equivalent of a 15 to 20 point free upgrade and lands the Dreadnought close to the performance of a Wraithlord.

I'd take the +1A. Sounds like a useful bonus.

I still have the problem of T1 lascannon, and no counter gunline, however.

I don't think they need more attacks. personally i feel they are just not survivable enough.

pretty much the only ones used are the ironclad, and only because small arms and tau interceptor cant pen them.

really they need an armor save or be changed to a T based model, probably start with T8 for av 12, with any to wounds greater than what would be needed causing some extra table or something. (though it never made sense that a riptide getting missed to the knee can still move unhindered. )

T6 with 3 wounds and 3+ save is the equivalent and, I'm afraid, the standard. T8 is reserved for stuff made from the hardest material in the universe and T7 is reserved for stuff made by the most vicious and cunning engineers in the universe. Humans have access to neither (and let's ignore parody armoured armour armour Grey Knights for a second). Maybe Mars has access to robots that would merit T7 or even T8, but that's not Astartes.

Also, being a toughness based model is a travesty for the Rip Tide and whateverGreyKnightsthingiscalled and it stretches the imagination for the Wraith-models.

Bottom line is, they're not all that worse for wear. Maybe a bit costly, but nothing about them merits a paradigm shift.

P.s. The normal Dread is also immune to small arms. You need IG sentinels or Eldar War Walkers to find stuff that's susceptible to small arms (i.e. large sized automatic rocket propelled grenade launchers. Real small arms can't scratch even Sentinels).
You need massive high-tech laser batteries to scratch Dreads, and cannons or missiles to pen them.

But a Dread is basically made of terminator armor >or the other way around? and besides that t8 would make it equivalent as it takes st 7 a 5 to wound t 8 which is what it takes to glance av 12. same st st 8 and so on while it is immune to st 4 or less. (surprised about st 5 needing 6s)
but i suppose with an armor save its much diffrent.

its all a damn mess and my dreads dont really ever see play. and wont till things change.

A reccurent rant about the difference of MC's and Walkers, are that WAlkers can have permanent Damages that debilitate them, while MC's till their last Wound act has normal.

Then why not create a new type of unit for those MC's that are War machines?

Monstruous Walkers; the unit is treated like a MC, but if they are at/under 50% of their starting Wounds, they roll on the Vehicle damage chart, you apply the effects of the damages has normal, occurence of a damages making you loose an HP, you instead Loose a Wound.

Rules and items/attacks that only affects Walkers, also affects Monstruous Walkers.

Now their can be a variety of when and how the rolls on the damage chart are made.

Another way to do it would be "...If a Monstruous Walkers suffers the lose of a Wound from a weapon that has his Strength equal or higher then the MW Thougness, the MW makes a roll on the vehicle damage chart..."

It would make things Like Riptides, Wratihlords/knights and Dreadknights on a much more even level regarding their durability.

Honestly, a point reduction would do it for me. Fifteen to twenty points should be sufficient. Normally I'm not that into dropping points or abandoning units as bad choices, but I've put some serious effort into this, and dreadnoughts definitely need some work. I'd play them if they remade them as MCs, but I'd feel dirty about it.

Really, all I would do would just change how ALL vehicles are damaged, kind of like a mix between 5th and 6th vehicle damage. For example:
Vehicles no longer lose hull points on all glancing hits, however they roll on a glance damage chart

When a vehicles suffers a glancing hit roll on the following table:

1-2 Shaken
3-4 Stunned
5 Weapon Destroyed, -1 HP
6+ Immobilised, -1 HP



When a vehicles suffers a penetrating hit it loses 1 HP. In addition, roll on the following table:

1-2 Shaken
3 Stunned
4 Weapon Destroyed
5 Immobilised
6+ Explodes!

 Slayer le boucher wrote:

Monstruous Walkers; the unit is treated like a MC, but if they are at/under 50% of their starting Wounds, they roll on the Vehicle damage chart, you apply the effects of the damages has normal, occurence of a damages making you loose an HP, you instead Loose a Wound.

It would be rather interesting to have exploding carnifexes

Carnifexes in this use of the rule, wouldn't be a Monstruous walker.

Monstruous Walker rule would be given to models that looks like a giant freakin robot, but that is a MC instead.

Namely, Riptides, Wratihlords/Knight, Dreadknight, Deamon Engines maybe, DE Talos and Cronos, but not really sure about those...

Ok, if people are proposing ripping up the current vehicle vs. monstrous creature distinction and writing new rules -- to which I heartily say "amen" -- y'all really need to look at the "Vehicles are People too" discussion in the 100 Heresies thread, beginning with the end of this post of mine that kicked off a whole discussion about vehicles with Toughness and Wounds....

I think this goes beyond just fixing Dreadnaughts, but it is true that Dreadnaughts have their own unique issues.

The problem is that 6th edition gakked Vehicles overall, and made Monstrous Creatures way too strong. Both those unit types need a rework.

Vehicles:

Boons:
Glancing hits no longer cause status effects
Increased Flat Out options
Snapshots for moving and firing
12" assault range helps Dreadnaughts

Penalties:
Hull Points mean most vehicles can be killed with only 2-3 glancing hits. Penetrating hits aren't necessary to kill vehicles anymore at all.
Vehicles can be hit easier by grenades
Vehicles are much easier to hit in assault
Rework of the Damage table means that "Explodes" is much more common on all penetrating hits. (For example on a Battlewagon, any AP2 weapon penetrating hit causes Explodes! on 4+)

(There are others but this is a brief summary, I'm not even getting into Transports)

Monstrous Creatures:

Boons:
Now get cover easily
Smash (Really the benefits of this can't be overstated. It's incredibly powerful)
12" Assault range means it's easier for them to assault.
Flying Monstrous Creatures have 360 degree arcs of fire.
Hammer of wrath
Fear

Penalties:
???


* * *

I've thought of many ways to revamp Vehicles to make them useful again, and make them worth taking vs Monstrous Creatures, which are superior in almost all instances. Mostly they need to be more survivable.

When all the Hull Points on a vehicle have been removed, it is no longer Wrecked. Instead, from that point onwards, all Glancing Hits automatically cause Penetrating Hits, with +1 to the Damage Table. All future Penetrating Hits also add +1 to the damage table.

Remove the +1 to the damage table for AP2 weapons

A Vehicle that moves counts as WS 3. Skimmer type adds +3 to WS. A Fast type adds +3 to WS. (Thus a Fast Skimmer that moves has WS9).

* * *

I've also thought of nerfing Monstrous Creatures, specifically SMASH.

Smash Attacks are resolved at S10, I1, and become AP3. Monstrous Creatures aren't able to benefit as much from their pincers, swords, and other destructive wargear when they are simply throwing their mass behind a strong blow to the enemy. When not using it's Smash attacks, normal attacks are still resolved at AP2.

Like above id like to see vehicles rolling on the damamge chart after all hull points are gone. but then you lose out on wrecked vehicles.

perhaps bringing back the older damage chart would do.

probably leave the +1 +2 for ap 1 and 2 though

WS 3 - 9 i dont know seems excessive. especially considering how much it can boost wave serpents which are already annoying.

My personal preference,
Give vehicles armor saves. (it makes no sense that the same ceramite plates on a power armor gives a 3+ vs an auto cannon but doesnt against a rhino.)

MC: easy fix
remove AP 2 from all attacks and leave it only for smash.
id say for all multi wound models give em there own chart of damage so they can be stunned and stuff mabye?
MC should never benefit from area terrain that is stupid.

Actually, forgot to mention this.

What I'd do about exploding vehicles is to keep the vehicle damage table from 6th Edition, but I'd change the value of 6 from "Explodes!" to "Wrecked". Then what I'd do is say that whenever a vehicle is Wrecked, roll a D6. On a 5+, the vehicle explodes.

This does two things. It makes it such that tons of modifications to the damage chart don't automatically result in vehicle explosions. Also, it prevents multiple penetrating hits from having an increased chance to cause an explosion. You just roll once whenever the vehicle is wrecked.

The main reason I don't feel AP2 weapons need a +1 on the damage chart is because most high strength weapons already have enough vehicle killing power by virtue of their high strength. I don't think they need an additional buff to the damage chart on top of that.

As for the Helbrute model, GW could do the same thing they do with vehicles. Just make a Chaos Dreadnought upgrade sprue and include it with one of the loyalist Dreadnought kits (probably the Venerable Dreadnought, since it has most of the Helbrute wargear options already in it). There, done. Needn't be more complicated than that.

You'd be surprised at what a small bunch of points in reduced price can do. Might mean you can fit in that missile launcher which ultimately keeps your dread safe to do it's job.

Slayer le boucher wrote:Carnifexes in this use of the rule, wouldn't be a Monstruous walker.

Monstruous Walker rule would be given to models that looks like a giant freakin robot, but that is a MC instead.

Namely, Riptides, Wratihlords/Knight, Dreadknight, Deamon Engines maybe, DE Talos and Cronos, but not really sure about those...

Pretty spot on on all of them.

You can discuss Wraithlord and the Dark Eldar equivalents due to lack of pilots, but otherwise yes. Wraithknight would have a mandatory Spirit Stone, of course, but it does have a pilot.

SisterSydney wrote:Ok, if people are proposing ripping up the current vehicle vs. monstrous creature distinction and writing new rules -- to which I heartily say "amen" -- y'all really need to look at the "Vehicles are People too" discussion in the 100 Heresies thread, beginning with the end of this post of mine that kicked off a whole discussion about vehicles with Toughness and Wounds....

That thought line has been around for more than a decade and began somewhere around Eldar's 3rd edition codex. Essentially, people have been disagreeing with Wraithlords being monsters for a long long time. Then again, the machine is their flesh, and there's no pilot inside.

I still don't know how'd you fix Penitent Engines. They're open topped walkers that are supposed to run into CC, but many small arms can shoot them to pieces and if its assaulting a squad with krack grenades? Forget about it.
If there was a candidate for the MC conversion, it would be it.
My IF army runs 5 rifledreads and armor saturations works alright. It's not a super win win army, but I have fun.

I think that the OP should prove Dreads are broken or at least explain the reason for thinking so before looking for ideas to fix them.

That out of the way, I think Walkers in general should have Smash.

Jefffar wrote:
I think that the OP should prove Dreads are broken or at least explain the reason for thinking so before looking for ideas to fix them.

Well, I can only really speak for Helbrutes, but dreadnoughts are incapable of surviving much of anything, and they make for pretty terrible fire support.
They're a 100+ point unit that moves ~6" per turn, and is incapable of achieving it's point's worth. You can give them 1-2 guns, which, for their cost, are easily outclassed by other shooting units, and the only reason to take them for CC is if you constantly face Orks.

Just add the same rules the contemptor has, keep price the same and it's worth it's 100pts, up the contemptor to 4++ shooting and 5++ combat and it's suddenly worth it's 175pts, both are so overcosted

How is a Riptide a monstrous creature, and a hellbrute (specifically the actual hellbrute model) NOT a monstrous creature? And why don't hellbrutes have marks? Some marks granting fleet, hatred, IWND or shrouded would really help.

 Musashi363 wrote:
How is a Riptide a monstrous creature, and a hellbrute (specifically the actual hellbrute model) NOT a monstrous creature? And why don't hellbrutes have marks? Some marks granting fleet, hatred, IWND or shrouded would really help.

I know, right?

I have no idea wtf Phil Kelly was thinking when he wrote the codex, or what the Tau codex's writer when he was writing that codex, but these things make little to no sense...

If we go with this:

Helbrute:

Ws: 4
Bs: 4
S: 6
T: 8
W: 3
I: 4
A: 3
Ld: 9
Sv: 2+ (Because TDA)

Unit Type: Monstrous Creature, Rampaging Monstrosity [The Helbrute moves +D6" in the movement phase, and can re-roll the dice to move through cover]

Special Rules: Daemon, Fearless, VotLW, IWND
Crazed [When the Helbrute takes an unsaved wound, roll a D3:
1: Fire Frenzy - During the Helbrute's next shooting phase, all of it's guns gain the Twin-Linked rule.
2: Rising Fury - During the Helbrute's next assault phase, it gains: +1 I, +2 A.
3: Blood Rage - During the Helbrute's next turn, it gains the following: +1 I, +3 A, Fleet.

Wargear:
CCW, Multi-Melta

Options: (Same as normal, except it can't take vehicle upgrades)
-May take one of the following:
Brute of Nurgle [Helbrute gains Shrouded, +1T, Blight Grenades]
Brute of Khorne [Helbrute gains Furious Charge, Rage, +1A, Fleshbane]
Brute of Tzeentch [Helbrute gains +1 to his Inv save, may re-roll any two dice per turn relating to the Helbrute]
Brute of Slaanesh [Helbrute gains +2 I, and moves +2D6 in the movement phase, rather than +1D6]

That is a unit I'd want to take.

Dunno about points cost though.

I really like how the Dreadnought works in Dawn of War II. In that game, walkers tend to be tougher than tanks, but compensate by often having limited ranged capabilities and slower speed than their tank brethren. So, a Predator can kite a Deff Dread to oblivion, but if you get a unit of Tankbustas in there, the Predator will go down fast whereas the Deff Dread is likely to survive all the way to melee.

The Chaos Dreadnought/Helbrute in particular. With the MoT missile launcher it becomes a nasty tough anti-vehicle platform that is slow but somewhat capable in melee, but with MoK dual claws and Blood Rage it becomes a very deadly and tough combat monster that is difficult to control.

An example of what I'd love:

Mark of Khorne: Grants the Blood Rage ability.

Blood Rage: Can be activated at the start of any movement phase. Sends the Helbrute into a berserker rampage. The mindless rage gives the Helbrute a 4+ invulnerable save as well as the Rage, Rampage, Shred, Fleet and Counter-attack special rules. However, while Blood Rage is active, the Helbrute is absolutely uncontrollable. It must move as far as possible against the nearest unit (Friend or enemy) and charge it in the following assault phase if within range, and run against it if not. At the beginning of the next friendly movement phase, roll a D6: On a roll of a 1-4 Blood Rage ends and may not be reused this turn, but on a 5+ it continues.

May need reworking, but what do you think of the base concept?

Drop it to 65pts with dccw, storm bolter & multimelta/twin HB/autocannon/assault cannon. '
+5pts for plasma, +10pts for lascannon.
Missile launcher/autocannon left arm exchange for free.
+10pts for underslung heavy flamer/melta
+20pts for venerable
Let it use chapter tactics like it was a centurion.

Glances do only half a hull point's damage. Problem solved. Or ignore glances on a 4+.

 Selym wrote:

Sv: 2+ (Because TDA)

Really this alone would make all vehicles work better.
It gives you a chance at surviving auto cannon spam, and would actually make it relevant to take low ap weapons like the heavy rail rifles.

Probably 2+ for dreads 3+ for rhino types.

 Desubot wrote:

 Selym wrote:

Sv: 2+ (Because TDA)

Really this alone would make all vehicles work better.
It gives you a chance at surviving auto cannon spam, and would actually make it relevant to take low ap weapons like the heavy rail rifles.

Probably 2+ for dreads 3+ for rhino types.

That's actually not TOO bad an idea. Considering the fact that the "nerf" to vehicles was essentially giving them a wounds value without giving them a Save value. Going back and giving all vehicles an Armor save would go a long ways towards equalizing them with Monstrous Creatures.

However, then I think you're just turning Vehicles into Monstrous Creatures. That alone should tell us that something is seriously gakked with the way vehicles work in the game, when we're looking at fixing them by making them more like MC and less like vehicles. Monstrous Creatures need toned down, and Vehicles need to be made distinct from them. I think Hull Points was a good idea for 6th Edition to make vehicles more killable than they used to be. One problem is that I think ALL vehicles really need MORE hull points. More hull points would give players an incentive to go for those penetrating hits... to get those one-shot explosions. But with the new damage table and hull points, combined with the fact that most high strength weapons are one-shot, when you've got autocannons that have four... it's just easier to go for Hull Points instead. TOO EASY.

Meanwhile Monstrous Creatures that have more benefits than vehicles start getting written into codexes that have 5 and 6 wounds, armour saves, and they're awesome in assault to boot! No wonder Dreadnaughts suck in comparison.

Armour save is interesting because it addresses casual anti-vehicle weapons (krak grenades, scatter lasers, etc) without challenging dedicated anti-vehicle weapons (melta bombs, rokkit launchas, etc).

Simply more hull points is interesting in that it just ups what it takes to kill a vehicle.

Doesn't directly fix Dreadnoughts, of course, but benefits all vehicles which are struggling.
Quite frankly I'm a bit partial to the armour save idea since I'm so annoyed at the "hits rear" rule, which in itself makes no sense because this 30-man pile of green-skins is trying to use axes against a space-flight capable grav-tank - they can't all fit in the rear and even if they could they'd be hard pressed to actually find something that's vulnerable.
Will still not matter against the Nob, of course.

Bringing crew shaken back on a glance may be a mitigation?

What I'm not so sure about is the AV14 vehicles, though. There's a huge difference between AV12->13 and even larger AV13->14

"hits rear"

Honestly i though it was justified in that the models are actually climbing all over the place punching out lenses and jamming grenades into places that dont belong.