| Tactical Command http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/ |
|
| Dreadnoughts http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=73&t=19356 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | BlackLegion [ Sun Oct 10, 2010 1:48 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Dreadnoughts |
Can't seem to find the old thread so i repost the stats of all the current Dreadnought variants: Space Marine Dreadnought Type Speed Armour CloseCombat Firefight Armoured Vehicle 15cm 3+ 4+ 4+ Weapon Range Firepower Notes Assault Cannon 30cm AP5+/AT5+ - Power Fist (base contact) Assault Weapon Macro-weapon, Extra-Attack (+1) Notes: Walker. Space Marine Hellfire Dreadnought Type Speed Armour CloseCombat Firefight Armoured Vehicle 15cm 3+ 4+ 4+ Weapon Range Firepower Notes Twin Lascannon 45cm AT4+ - Missile Launcher 45cm AP5+/AT6+ - Notes: Walker. Space Marine Vulcan Dreadnought Type Speed Armour CloseCombat Firefight Armoured Vehicle 15cm 3+ 4+ 4+ Weapon Range Firepower Notes Mult-melta 15cm MW5+ and Macro-weapon Small Arms Macro-weapon Power Fist (base contact) Assault Weapon Macro-weapon, Extra-Attack (+1) Notes: Walker. The Multi-melta can shoot and be used to confer the macro-weapon ability to the unit’s firefight value. Space Marine Siege Dreadnought Type Speed Armour CloseCombat Firefight Armoured Vehicle 15cm 3+ 4+ 3+ Weapon Range Firepower Notes Flamestorm Cannon 15cm AP3+ Ignore Cover Heavy Flamer 15cm AP4+ Ignore Cover Siege Drill (base contact) Assault Weapon Macro-weapon, Extra-Attack (+1) Notes: Walker, Ignore Cover. Space Marine Ironclad Dreadnought Type Speed Armour CloseCombat Firefight Armoured Vehicle 15cm 4+ 3+ 4+ Weapon Range Firepower Notes Hurricane Bolter (15cm) Small Arms - Seismic Hammer (base contact) Assault Weapon Macro-weapon, Extra-Attack (+1) Notes: Reinforced Armour, Walker. Space Marine Mortis Dreadnought Type Speed Armour CloseCombat Firefight Armoured Vehicle 15cm 3+ 5+ 4+ Weapon Range Firepower Notes 2 x Twin Lascannon 45cm AT4+ - OR 2 x Missile Launcher 45cm AP5+/AT6+ - Notes: Walker. Note that a Mortis Dreadnought may be armed with either two Twin Lascannons or two Missile Launchers, not all four! Space Marine Executioner Dreadnought Type Speed Armour CloseCombat Firefight Armoured Vehicle 15cm 3+ 4+ 4+ Weapon Range Firepower Notes Plasma Cannon 30cm AP4+/AT4+ Slow Firing Power Fist (base contact) Assault Weapon Macro-weapon, Extra-Attack (+1) Notes: Walker. Space Marine Furioso Dreadnought Type Speed Armour CloseCombat Firefight Armoured Vehicle 15cm 3+ 4+ 6+ Weapon Range Firepower Notes Flamers (15cm) Small Arms - Power Fists (base contact) Assault Weapon Macro-weapon, Extra-Attack (+2) Notes: Walker. |
|
| Author: | Evil and Chaos [ Sun Oct 10, 2010 5:37 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Dreadnoughts |
Hena wrote: There is no Hellfire Dreadnought. It's just Marine Dreadnought with OR weapons set. For lists that only have that config of Dreadnought, the variants have been using that name. |
|
| Author: | BlackLegion [ Mon Oct 11, 2010 2:53 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Dreadnoughts |
Yep. Salamanders have only Vulcan and Hellfire Dreadnoughts. |
|
| Author: | nealhunt [ Thu Oct 14, 2010 3:31 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Dreadnoughts |
Following on the "Burna Boyz" discussion in the Ork list... why are all these Dreadnoughts needed? Basic Dread and "hellfire" are the stock variants - assault and fire support, respectively. Vulcan, Siege, and Executioner are all assault dreads. The only distinction is a minor change in non-CC weaponry. Mortis is a minor variant on the fire support dread. Ironclad and Furioso are both super-assault dreads. I can see a reasonable need for these as they are really a different role than the others. I know that a 40K maven might get tweaked up about "Dreadnought X carries different heavy weapons" but the difference in Epic is miniscule even if you include the exact stats. These can readily be abstracted out into 3 stat lines - fire support, assault and super-assault. |
|
| Author: | The_Real_Chris [ Thu Oct 14, 2010 3:35 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Dreadnoughts |
I do agree that a list should be limited to 2 dred types - Assault and Fire support. However I see nothing wrong with having minor differences between lists. You are always dealing with either something that is going to hit you or something that is going to shoot you and its still only 2 stat lines to remember for that army. To date I think in fact all marine lists are limited to 2 dred types within that list. |
|
| Author: | Evil and Chaos [ Thu Oct 14, 2010 3:50 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Dreadnoughts |
I agree that lists should be limited to 1-2 Dreadnought types per list***, but don't have a problem with those Dreadnoughts being drawn from a wider pool of 8 variants. Most of them are chapter-specific iconic dreadnoughts, in any case. ***Exception: Iron Hands, they could well be seen as the "Dreadnought list" at Epic scale. |
|
| Author: | BlackLegion [ Thu Oct 14, 2010 3:53 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Dreadnoughts |
Most(if not all) Marine lists use only 2 Dreadnought variants. Those 2 are usually the most iconical for these variant list (eg Furioso for Blood Angels, Vulcan for Salamanders, Mortis for Dark Angels etc). So i see no problem here. EDIT: E&C beat me to this 
|
|
| Author: | Athmospheric [ Thu Oct 14, 2010 4:04 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Dreadnoughts |
I still need to think about it as I am not adamant in my opinion on this, but it's been nagging me for some time now, there are LOTS of variants, specially in the SM and IG lists (A by-product of FW newsletters and releases I guess ), for what amount to very very minor changes. It tend toward a 40K in 6mm frame of mind that i don't like much. It's a bit like the beautiful original 'KISS' design is getting forgotten more and more with time. I am with neal on that.A few variants are nice, but detailing tac squad with each kind of heavy weapons, and 8 dreadnought, is just too much for Epic IMO. 3 basic dreads should do the trick, and we shouldn't even consider the Heavy weapons used the most by this or that chapter. It's fine having separate models (I am actually as crazy as anyone about that), but the rules can and should abstract this somewhat. Another example, of course, is special rules. Originally, the goal was to have a few special rules for each race (e.g: TSKNF, Hit and Run), and NONE at list level. Now many list have 3 or more... I don't like it very much. I'm not sure how those different issue should be resolved (although I have a few ideas), while still retaining enough "flavour" for specific lists to be interesting to everyone. A few iconic new units (Baal predator, Planetfalling Landspeeders) or even none at all should be enough, and for many list the formation size, availability and restrictions should be quite enough to build chapter specific lists. I wouldn't have issue with the same unit being listed with different names in variant lists though. Hum. I need to collate my thoughts about that a bit, but I have planned to open a thread on that subject for some time. Probably in the general E:A forum, though, as it potentially concern all lists. At least, I think a discussion of that kind of design principles is needed. |
|
| Author: | Evil and Chaos [ Thu Oct 14, 2010 4:08 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Dreadnoughts |
Quote: Another example, of course, is special rules. Originally, the goal was to have a few special rules for each race (e.g: TSKNF, Hit and Run), and NONE at list level. Not sure as this is true, of the 3 variant lists that were released officially: White Scars got a list-specific special rule for their bike-riders. Siegemasters got several. That said, I try and keep army-wide special rules to an absolute minimum in the lists I steward. Krieg had no unique special rules, for example, just some new units. |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|