10e Dreadnoughts are bad….like really bad

[CCE1981]

One of my local opponents plays Knights, it’s crazy how many units he can bring.  Add in Knights rotate Ion Shields, making Oath of Moment mute. Throw in removing models en masse just adds in frustration.  Using the App, and comparing Dreadnoughts to Armigers and I am dumbfounded by how cheap Armigers are!!!! Compared to Dreadnoughts of any flavor it’s crazy.  I just can’t justify ANY Marine Dreadnought, why would I take a Box Dreadnought when I can take an Armiger for fewer points that will do the job better?

 

[Minsc]

The main appeal of the Armigers imo are their speed and OC, combined with them being pretty cheap. Their damageoutput isn't that great. 

 

Regular (box) Dreads are very overpriced. They pay a premium (read: tax) for the aura regardless if you want it or not.
In the recent legends update the Mortis Dread is 130 pts iirc, which shows how much the regular Dread pays for the aura.
(A Mortis Dread with 2x Twin Autocannons have a very similar damageoutput as a Armiger Helverin; 4 twin-linked shots with re-rolls to hit vs. 8 shots. The Helverin does have a vastly superior statline for only 15 pts more: +6" move, +1T, +4W, +5 OC, but does lose out on 1 point of Ld and the pretty important 2+ save.)

On the flipside, a 170 pts Ballistus is imo superior to the Helverin, but then it should be, since it's 25 pts more. 

 

 

Quote

I just can’t justify ANY Marine Dreadnought...

Except for the Box Dread (which can work in the proper list, make sure to have units that can benefit from the aura), I think most of our Dreads are fine or fine:ish, perhaps slightly overpriced. 

Ironclads seems slightly overpriced at 150 pts, but then you remember that they can have 2 HKMs and they feel alittle less overpriced.
Invictors are solid at 160 pts. Scout is great and S14 turns them into our best tankshocker. 
Contemptors are slightly overpriced at 170 pts since they don't really have much firepower, but them coming back on 2+ can really mess with your opponent.
Ballistuses are solid at 170 pts. Reliable long-range anti-tank on a sturdy frame.
I do find that both the Brutalis at 220 pts and the Redemptor at 225 pts are slightly overpriced, but they're absolutely useable. 

 

And I know they're Legends, but since I own them, I consider both the Mortis Dread at 130 pts and the Leviathan Dread at 210 pts to be solid choices. 
The Mortis is basically a baby Ballistus and can be really hard to shift while in cover, and the Leviathan is basically a cheaper, slightly sturdier Redemptor but with less firepower. 

 

Quote

why would I take a Box Dreadnought when I can take an Armiger for fewer points that will do the job better?

I mean, if you don't specificly want the aura then you shouldn't. Armigers are great. 

I've contemplated getting some myself. I've had great fun with my Dreadlists in 10th so far (literally a techmarine and 10 Dreads of varying flavours) and Armigers would give me more options to choose from.

 

Edited July 24, 2023 by Minsc

[CCE1981]

From what I am seeing Dreadnoughts are 30-50 pts overpriced.  The Standard Dreadnought I can’t see his use, he just doesn’t have the value add to justify 160 pts.  Too many competing design philosophies going.  I like  multiple layers working together, a small number of units working together having a big outcome.  Which is what the Dreadnought is trying to do.  The problem comes when you have a unit like a knight that is a one hit wonder.  
I don’t mind Knights being in the game in general, but they shouldn’t be able to do everything with them.  Bring back minimum ranges so I can get a unit close enough to be effective against them.  The little guns aren’t such a problem but a Rapid Fire Battle Cannon just laughs at your attempt to outflank Eradicators against it as it over-watches removing the squad, this has happened to me three times!!!! About the only other thing I can think of would be to remove Knights as a standalone force.  A few are tough to deal with, as a Standalone I don’t think they can be dealt with.

[Tacitus]

Knights have to be Just about everything because the army only gets a handful of them.

 

I'd agree I think the Dreads are maybe/probably a little overpriced.  not 20-50 points overpriced but maybe a skosh.   A lot of people are looking at the shooting, and the tanking of a Dread, but I think they're overlooking the melee of the Dread fists. 

[CCE1981]

My Points values are depending on the Dread.  I  have tried the Redemptor Dreadnought, I asked myself why I wasn’t taking a Repulsor for fewer points, faster, more utility and a lot more of the same firepower,  an executioner to replace plasma or standard for the Heavy Onslought.  I have tried placing a Brutalis Dreadnought in a list and am completely astonished by its price tag.  Three Armiger Warglaves vs two Brutalis that is a laughable comparison.
 

9 minutes ago, Tacitus said:

Knights have to be Just about everything because the army only gets a handful of them.

Part of my point is just that, you shouldn’t have force multipliers get cancelled by a cheaper single unit alternative.  Again, I don’t mind Knights, I mind them as a stand alone faction.  
 

I think I will try allying them to my marines, use the Armigers against my opponent and my Marines to hold objectives.

[Berzul]

My biggest gripe with the state of Dreads, right now, is that a regular dread with a missile launcher and a twin lascannon (my trusted and favorite variant to hold the line and give supporting fire against larger things out there) costs 160 points, and has a M"6, T8, and W10, which now fires one Lascannon shot al S12 Dd6+1 with Twin Linked and one Krak Missile at S9 Dd6, and hits in Melee with 5 attacks at S6 AP0 D1.

 

The Ballistus Dread costs just 10 extra points (170), but has +2"M, +2T, +2W, then fires twice as many Lascannon shots, twice as many Krak Missiles (with +1S, also), and hits in melee with +1S.

 

That is a HUGE improvement for just +10 points. Which means that there is absolutely no reason to take a Dread over a Ballistus Dread, for this battlefield role, unless you want to actively handicap yourself against your opponent.

 

The design philosophy for Primaris units seems to still be "like the Firtborn, but better, with a minor cost increase", but I had never noticed such a HUGE disparity in quality between two units.

 

EDIT: Oh, and that +1S on the Missiles, brings it to S10. Even S is far, far better than just being a higher number, as it puts you on a new bracket for TvsS calculations in wound rolls. Unlike, say, going from S8 to S9.

Edited July 26, 2023 by Berzul

[CCE1981]

We just got an update, looks like all the various Dreadnought, Primaris and otherwise got the "Dreadnought" keyword!

[Minsc]

10 hours ago, Berzul said:

My biggest gripe with the state of Dreads, right now, is that a regular dread with a missile launcher and a twin lascannon (my trusted and favorite variant to hold the line and give supporting fire against larger things out there) costs 160 points, and has a M"6, T8, and W10, which now fires one Lascannon shot al S12 Dd6+1 with Twin Linked and one Krak Missile at S9 Dd6, and hits in Melee with 5 attacks at S6 AP0 D1.

 

The Ballistus Dread costs just 10 extra points (170), but has +2"M, +2T, +2W, then fires twice as many Lascannon shots, twice as many Krak Missiles (with +1S, also), and hits in melee with +1S.

 

That is a HUGE improvement for just +10 points. Which means that there is absolutely no reason to take a Dread over a Ballistus Dread, for this battlefield role, unless you want to actively handicap yourself against your opponent.

 

The design philosophy for Primaris units seems to still be "like the Firtborn, but better, with a minor cost increase", but I had never noticed such a HUGE disparity in quality between two units.

 

EDIT: Oh, and that +1S on the Missiles, brings it to S10. Even S is far, far better than just being a higher number, as it puts you on a new bracket for TvsS calculations in wound rolls. Unlike, say, going from S8 to S9.

 

As stated, the regular Dread pays a premium for it's re-roll 1's to hit-aura. If you don't plan to use it, the Dread is overpriced for it's weapons and statline. 

A more apt comparison to the Balistus would be the Mortis Dreadnought with 2x Twin Lascannons and the same reroll hits-rule as the Balistus - at 130 pts
Suddenly the Ballistus is +40(!) pts for 2"M, +2T, +2W and 2 Krak Missiles, but without Twin-Linked on the Lascannons. 
The Firstborn doesn't look as shabby in comparison now eh? 
 

[Marshal Valkenhayn]

Ironclads with full 2 hunter killer and assault launchers actually aren't bad. Being able to use the grenade strat, the tank shock strat, and then do legitimately good damage to a knight in melee is great. They might be a smidge overcosted but one by itself can kill a knight.

[MegaVolt87]

Is anyone surprised dreads were nerfed after x2 straight editions where they ruled the roost and probably hit the sales targets? Gotta keep consuming next product you don't own yet ! 

[Berzul]

10 hours ago, Minsc said:

 

As stated, the regular Dread pays a premium for it's re-roll 1's to hit-aura. If you don't plan to use it, the Dread is overpriced for it's weapons and statline. 

A more apt comparison to the Balistus would be the Mortis Dreadnought with 2x Twin Lascannons and the same reroll hits-rule as the Balistus - at 130 pts
Suddenly the Ballistus is +40(!) pts for 2"M, +2T, +2W and 2 Krak Missiles, but without Twin-Linked on the Lascannons. 
The Firstborn doesn't look as shabby in comparison now eh? 
 

 

Isn't the Mortis Pattern Dreadnough in Legends? That would take away a bit of its usefulness.

 

As for the Aura, while it is a good one, you are essentially locking up 160 points for an ability that, while useful, one has to wonder if it is worth the cost.

 

I imagine you could get enough rerrolls through Oath of Moments or other leaders, as you would naturally pair the Dread with high priority of fire squads, which means they will likely be firing at the Oath of Moments target regularly. Instead of through a vehicle that gets killed easily and adds little else to the table, in comparison to other options for (close to) the same points value.

 

This is all very circumstancial, of course. There is value to the aura. But, I don't think I'd bring the unit just for it. 

[Minsc]

2 hours ago, Berzul said:

 

Isn't the Mortis Pattern Dreadnough in Legends? That would take away a bit of its usefulness.

 

It is, but it also shows what GW considers the Dreads aura to be worth, i.e. ~30-35 pts. 

[Berzul]

2 minutes ago, Minsc said:

 

It is, but it also shows what GW considers the Dreads aura to be worth, i.e. ~30-35 pts. 

 

Oh, I meant it because you were comparing the stats and firepower of the Ballistus vs de Mortis. 

 

If you compare both, in terms of the same Battlefield Role, there is an argument to be had. If you also ignore the fact that the Mortis is Legends and therefore only usable in specific circumstances. But if you compare them just for the sake of the aura, well, again, just because GW made the aura with a 30-35 points cost, I do not think that that means that it is WORTH the 30-35 points cost.

 

You could try and line up a bunch of infantry round the dread, and have it act as a guidance system for their shots, sure. But infantry is slow, terrain is plentiful (or should be), and lining up mass shooting with infantry is not that easy. Often times, too, you will be boosting squads that are meant to kill things that are of high priority, because why would you waste your aura boosting a squad with bolters that are clearing some cultists or gants, for instance. High priority targets are usually marked with Oath of Moments, and you replace the aura. Plus, Oath of Moments works for you entire army, unlike the range of the aura.

 

Again, it is not that the aura is bad. In an edition with few rerrolls (when compared to 8th or 9th, where it was hard to find a unit that did NOT get to rerroll everything) the aura is quite good. But, you are spending 160 points for it, and you are getting a unit that is pretty bad on its own. Specially when you could just forgo the aura and, for 10 points, get a unit that does every single other thing the Dread does, but more, and better. With no other downside whatsoever.

[Lemondish]

2 hours ago, Berzul said:

If you also ignore the fact that the Mortis is Legends and therefore only usable in specific circumstances.

It's pedantic, but I'd say the better way to say this is "only unusable in one specific scenario".

 

This hate boner against Legends should disappear sooner rather than later, one hopes.

[Berzul]

6 minutes ago, Lemondish said:

It's pedantic, but I'd say the better way to say this is "only unusable in one specific scenario".

 

This hate boner against Legends should disappear sooner rather than later, one hopes.

 

I don't think that will happen. 

 

There are only two situations for play: Friendly, or competitive. The contexts by which Legends can be used, or not, exists in a binary. Either they are allowed, or they are not allowed. And, as such, "one specific scenario" literally means "half of all scenarios". So, its the flip of a coin. One in two odds. You either can play them against your opponent, or you cannot play them against your opponent. 

 

I would also then clarify and correct my OWN words. It should not be phrased as specificity. You can use Legends on one scenario, and you cannot use Legends on the other scenario.

 

From there, though, I would still hold that Legends will see less play than regular units. Simply because Legends is now the exception to the general rule. A regular game comes with the basic understanding that legally allowed units are available for play. You should not be expecting to have to ask your opponent for permission to play a Redemptor Dread, or a Ballistus Dread, or a Brutalis Dread. You should expect to simply be able to put it on the table and play it, no questions asked. For the Mortis Pattern Dreadnought, however, this is not so. The assumptions is that Legends are NOT usable, unless you both agree to allowing them. They are the exception to the rule, and as such, you cannot simply show up with the unit and play it as is. You need to at least get your opponent to agee to it at the last second, or preferably, to have informed your opponent ahead of time and ensure he understands and agrees to the unit being used.

 

In tournaments and the like, it is even more so that Legends is the type of unit seeing limited play. Sure, activities can be organized that allow for them, but the baseline of rules from which you are starting off, excludes them. The generic tournament will not allow them. The tournaments that do will  be those that act as the exception to that general rule.

 

So, yeah. I do not think that people that have issue with Legends will stop having that issuse. Specially, as more and more units start getting placed in it. 

 

I also do not think that the hatred for Legends (if you can even call it that, for I have never seen someone actively hating Legends) will increase. 

 

I think it will just stay as it is. 

 

[Galron]

I disagree. I fully expect to always be able to play legends stuff since I play much of that and am not really planning on uograding wide scale to new stuff. Granted, I play 30k and use quite a bit of stuff between them. I do not play tournaments but do play leagues. I wont even ask, they are legal models and they will see the board. Anyone having an issue with that isnt worth my time playing against. 

 

I am looking forward to putting my freshly painted Iron Clad back on the board when I get some time and am currently in the process of printing a new dreadnought drop pod for it.

[Lemondish]

1 hour ago, Berzul said:

There are only two situations for play: Friendly, or competitive. The contexts by which Legends can be used, or not, exists in a binary. Either they are allowed, or they are not allowed. And, as such, "one specific scenario" literally means "half of all scenarios".

 

This is completely wrong.

 

The only time Legends are not welcome is at an organized event.

 

You cannot, with a straight face, tell me that the binary is either friendly or at a tournament.

 

That's just absurd lol

 

We really need to cut through all this WAAC nonsense. They very clearly say that these units can be played in narrative and matched play. It's also always been like this, so the hang up is just players being difficult for no reason.

 

Now, with so many iconic space Marine units going last chance to buy and entering into Legends, I sincerely hope that we can get away from this nonsense and arbitrary limitations that don't actually follow any of the rules and let people just play.

 

Let people just play.

Edited July 27, 2023 by Lemondish

[Berzul]

No, it's not absurd at all.

 

If you go to a game with a random friendly player in a store, and you bring NON legend units, no one will look at you twice over it. If you DO bring Legends units, you might find most people don't care or mind, but you might find people who do, and who ask that you abstain from playing units that are not in the regular game. 

 

I can tell you this with the straightest of faces, and you might not have had this experience, to which all I can say is, good for you, kudos. But that does not mean that, suddenly, rules have changed, and legends makes absolutely no difference from regular non legends units.

 

Again, you'd have to be very... obtuse, to bar someone from playing Legends. But they'd be in their right to do so, if they so wanted. Legends are the exception to the rule, and so you CAN play them in friendly games. Granted that the person you are playing against has no issue. And you CANNOT play them in tournaments. Unless the organizer has no issue.

 

In turn, you may choose to not play that friendly match if you are not allowed legends, and you may choose to play that tournament that allows them. So, before the argument is made, yes, I do realize that this is very much a possibility. But I will preemtively counter that by reminding you that that would not take away from the fact that you would be the one choosing to play or not play against someone who was not ok or was ok with what is an exceptional way of oganizing your army, and not the general rule.

 

To detail this point:

 

There ARE two types of game

 

Competitive, is a formally organized form of play, done in an event that is put together by an organizer, with a structure or format for competition. Friendly is a game everything else.

 

I used to run Crusade campaigns in Urban Conquest for my friends... Those were friendly games. Regardless of structure. Because the way of play was friendly and allowed for whatever the group wanted, granted no one opposed.

 

I have also run Tournaments. Where, regardless of what two players might otherwise be ok with doing or playing, the rules of the event, and not the mere decision of the two players ina  match on a specific round, determine what can or cannot be done.

 

There are, in essence, to ways of play. A friendly one where the players at the table can do whatever they want, and a competitive one, in which you must abide by a structure set by an organizer. This is, in fact, the binary reality of gameplay. And while friendly play allows for a myriad of different matches, rule sets, exceptions, counter exceptions, and whatever else, it all still falls under the umbrella or friendly game. As opposed to games that do not allow for anything outside of what the organizing body or person putting the game together has decided to allow; with those games falling undeer the umbrella of competitive games.

 

And I say this with a very, VERY straight face.

[Kallas]

27 minutes ago, Lemondish said:

We really need to cut through all this WAAC nonsense. They very clearly say that these units can be played in narrative and matched play. It's also always been like this, so the hang up is just players being difficult for no reason.

The "for no reason" is really the problem: a lot of people attend tournaments (whether they intend to win or not irrelevant: a lot of people play them). In turn, this means that people will often (not always, of course) consider what options are legal in a tournament, and then, if they have any interest in doing decently well (again, not necessarily winning the event, but they may well want to 'do well', whatever that might be for them) they will build lists based on what they are allowed to bring in tournament play.

 

So yes, they are 'only' expressly disallowed in tournaments...but this still has a major knock on effect into groups that are playing in tournaments - even if they're not WAAC.

 

Oh, and playing in tournaments does not make you WAAC, just so we're clear. You can find WAAC players in any group, competitive or casual, Legends-allowing or not.

[Karhedron]

I agree. It is not tournement or non-tournement. It is playing against friends you know and all other games.

 

Basically Legends are defacto opponent's consent. Unless you are playing a friend you know is cool with Legends units, you can't expect to be allowed to use them. If you are playing any game except a friendly game, everyone works on the default assumption of tournement legal. If I were playing a pick-up game, at the very least I would bring a 2nd list in case my opponent was not cool with Legends units.

 

GW can claim that Legends are simply discouraged in tournements and nowhere else but in practice that means they are only playablewith your opponent's consent and GW are being dishonest if they pretend not to understand that.

 

I do not like the situation and I have no hate for Lgends units as I have been playing long enough to have plenty myself (I even have a Blood Angels Honour Guard squad which is so old it does not even get Legends rules anymore ). But GW have created a system of 2-tier units and that sucks.

[Berzul]

40 minutes ago, Karhedron said:

I agree. It is not tournement or non-tournement. It is playing against friends you know and all other games.

 

Basically Legends are defacto opponent's consent. Unless you are playing a friend you know is cool with Legends units, you can't expect to be allowed to use them. If you are playing any game except a friendly game, everyone works on the default assumption of tournement legal. If I were playing a pick-up game, at the very least I would bring a 2nd list in case my opponent was not cool with Legends units.

 

GW can claim that Legends are simply discouraged in tournements and nowhere else but in practice that means they are only playablewith your opponent's consent and GW are being dishonest if they pretend not to understand that.

 

I do not like the situation and I have no hate for Lgends units as I have been playing long enough to have plenty myself (I even have a Blood Angels Honour Guard squad which is so old it does not even get Legends rules anymore ). But GW have created a system of 2-tier units and that sucks.

 

That was very well put. A far better explanation than mine. Thank you.

[Sambojin]

Half of the reason for a Dreadnought is Tank Shock as a 1CP mortal wounds provider. They can have very high strength weapons, that can make that work. Other than that, SM have pretty unconstumizble dreads. This is from a 1kSons player, but seriously. Did you need to name them all different names? Ok, they've got different abilities, but a Devastator squad doesn't change their name just because they're holding different weapons.

Get it together guys...

Edited July 28, 2023 by Sambojin

[Helias_Tancred]

This isn't so much about dreadnoughts being bad in 10e, but more about how OP Imperial Knights are relative to other factions. My dreadnoughts have done well in my games so far, but I was playing World Eaters and CSM ... not Imperial Knights. Maybe the title should be how OP Imperial Knights are?

 

 

[Orion]

I figure if someone refuses to play against legends units in a casual pickup game, rather than removing any legends units from your list, it's probably worth not playing against them.

You might require consent for legends, but you require consent to even play the game.

Don't have to kick up a fuss about it either.

[Helias_Tancred]

Don't play Cheeseballs.