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.

Hi,

I've have some dreadnoughts I'm getting around to building, and I'm magnetizing them in order to swap weapons out.

I'd like to be able to play them as Mortis (w/dual Twin Autocannons), but would most people have a problem with that now that the Space Marine Codex has changed things for regular dreadnoughts?

I have the Forgeworld Imperial Armour Index: Adeptus Astartes book on PDF.

And I'm not seeing anything that contradicts my Index Imperium 1 book in terms of point costs for the Twin Autocannons.

Mainly it's to make the gun profiles for both weapons consistent, but also I just think it helps with weight of fire in terms of support in smaller point games (500-1,500).

But I get it if people feel as though this might be overpowered. Anyway I'd just like to hear your thoughts.

I think it depends on the unit. None of the FW Tyranids seem that bad. From what I hear, one of the FW Imperial flier is pretty nasty.

FW generally isn't in their own league like they were in 4th or 5th edition, due to a lot of formerly FW-only mechanics now having been imported into 40k (such as flyers and superheavies) or gotten rid of in this edition (like d-weapons and structure points).

I say it would be pretty fair, as broken FW units are generally a case-by-case basis, and the percentage isn't that much higher than what GW puts out.

No Forgeworld units come anywhere close to being as overpowered as Guilliman or most Imperial Guard armies.

Entirely depends on the unit. I see nothing wrong with a quad autocannon dakkanought. Yes, most FW units are big and strong but also expensive to field. My relic contemptor is a wrecking ball on the tabletop but it costs as much as 2 normal dreads to field (about 280 points).

Eh.

I've got a Daemonic equivalent Leviathan with twin Butcher Cannon array.

Pretty much 8 shot autocannon on each arm, with the added bonus of humping leadership when it inflicts casualties.

If anyone thinks of a Rifleman Mortis as overpowered, I feel sorry for them playing against any of the actual strong units in the game.

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
FW generally isn't in their own league like they were in 4th or 5th edition, due to a lot of formerly FW-only mechanics now having been imported into 40k (such as flyers and superheavies) or gotten rid of in this edition (like d-weapons and structure points).

I say it would be pretty fair, as broken FW units are generally a case-by-case basis, and the percentage isn't that much higher than what GW puts out.

Pretty much this, though FW does still carry a heavy stigma from the previous editions.

"Friendly" means different things to different people. For some people it is a more low powered thing, maybe fluff or story-driven. For others it is a chance to try out those funky FW toys that may not be appropriate in a TAC list. As a rough guide, just ask your opponent what they are cool with. This allows you to gauge their reaction. It also allows them to bring their own FW units if they wish to.

As for Tournaments, they usually have their own rules about whether FW is allowed or not. As a rule of thumb, tournaments are normally quite competitive and it is generally acceptable to take units that are as powerful as the composition rules allow.