Unit of the Week: Dreadnoughts

[Iron Father Ferrum]

So, Iron Hand Venerable Dreadnoughts now have TWO attempts to roll 6+ FNP saves even against mortal wounds (one from their Chapter Tactics, one from the Venerable's inbuilt rules), whereas all other Dreadnoughts get at least the CT:IH save.

 

Does this durability boost change anyone's mind (or at least their thinking) about the best uses of Dreadnoughts?  What about some of the other CTs (Raven Guard in particular, with their -1 to hit at over 12", comes to mind for Rifleman and the like...)?

[Race Bannon]

IFF, see post 51 on page 3 ^_^

 

Yeah, that's happening.

[Gen.Steiner]

Fair comment. From the battle report on Warhammer TV it seems to come in at about 200-250 points depending on loadout, and has options for dakka, more dakka, or MOAR DAKKA. So I think it's primarily quite a shooty platform rather than, say, being a replacement Ironclad or Furioso.

[ebonknight]

Apparently GW is not adding rules for models that they don't sell anymore. Which means no bike libys or apoths, and no dual auto-cannon dreads in the new codex

[Race Bannon]

But, GW never sold those three ...

[Captain Idaho]

That's a tad upsetting unless I go for the Index for the unit. I live my Venerable Dreadnought with Assault Cannon and Twin Autocannon.

[Firepower]

If I understand correctly (quite possible I don't) using Index units is only optional if that unit isn't present in the new Dex, not if it has a different load out.  For instance, you can use the Chaplain on Bike because it is a separate datasheet, rather than a Chaplain with an option for a Bike in the wargear choices.

[Captain Idaho]

Without a source my gaming group won't be happy.

 

So my poor Venerable Dreadnought has now suffered a major blow. I loved that model's load out.

[Tyberos the Red Wake]

Remember in 7E when GW/FW FAQ was like, "Three different versions of this unit's rules exist? Whatever, just use whichever one you want".

[Iron Father Ferrum]

. . . . damnit, looks like I'll need to pull that second set of autocannons off.  Maybe a missile launcher will suffice?

[LucidNinja]

Mortis twin auto vs contemptor assault missile... Someone hit the maths for me

[Race Bannon]

Need confirmation before a rumor catches on fire yo.

[Firepower]

Yeaaahhh...again, I have to underline that I may not be understanding that Index issue correctly.  

[Tyberos the Red Wake]

Yeaaahhh...again, I have to underline that I may not be understanding that Index issue correctly.  

 

Your understanding is correct. New updates to datasheets and units, such as those found in Codex: Space Marines, are meant to replace older ones such as those found in the Index. The only time you would go with the Index over a newer rules source is if the unit has become no longer supported, such as with Chaplains on Bikes.

 

I don't think GW would have intended it to be totally up to you as to which version you want to use, because this meant if they balanced something by nerfing it in a newer product, such as Codex: Space Marines, I don't think you are going to be allowed to just say "I'm using C:SM, but for this one unit I'm going with the old Index rules because they're better". Therefore, the only time you're meant to use outdated rules is if those are actually the most up to date version for the unit to begin with.

 

Although I'm sure ignoring the new codex entirely and choosing to only use the Index is still an option.

Edited July 24, 2017 by Tyberos the Red Wake

[Captain Idaho]

I truly believe that GW don't care whether we use the Index or the Codex.

[LucidNinja]

The index will become obsolete though I believe as I doubt we'll see any FAQ or erratas for them from now on. I really hope we get a "you can use index loadouts that are missing from the codex" but I doubt it... I think units from the index OK but otherwise codex.

[Captain Idaho]

It's disappointing for sure. I guess I'll have to go back to anpower fist on my Venerable Dreadnought. My group likes to keep it "official" and modern for simplicity and to ensure we're always on the same page.

 

Likely this will make Redemptor Dreadnoughts more valuable since they are no longer competetive with the (cheaper) twin autocannon build.

[LucidNinja]

I wonder if forgeworld will ever go this way, if so we'll lose a lot of units

[Ishagu]

Well, you can always use the FW Mortis Dreadnought rules if anyone is concerned about losing some options.

[Captain Idaho]

Again, depends on the gaming group. Not everyone plays FW.

 

It's fine. I'll whack a powerfist on my Venerable and beat fools with him.

[Gen.Steiner]

Well, I'll be going with quad autocannos for at least one of my Deathwing Dreadnoughts anyway, because I can so there neener neener neener.

[Iron Father Ferrum]

Again, depends on the gaming group. Not everyone plays FW.

 

It's fine. I'll whack an iron hand on my Venerable and beat fools with him.

FTFY.

[ebonknight]

Dont need to carve up your models!

 

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/07/05/codexes-your-questions-answered-july-5gw-homepage-post-2/

 

"While the indexes are designed to cover a long history of miniatures, the codexes are designed to give you rules for the current Warhammer 40,000 range. There are a few options in the indexes for some Characters and vehicles that are no longer represented in the Citadel range – certain Dreadnought weapons that don’t come in the box, or some characters on bikes, for example.

 

Don’t worry though, you can still use all of these in your games if you have these older models. In these instances, use the datasheet from the index, and the most recent points published for that model and its weapons (currently, also in the index).

 

They still gain all the army wide-bonuses for things like Chapter Tactics and can use Space Marines Stratagems and the like, so such venerable heroes still fit right in with the rest of your army."

[Race Bannon]

From the mouth of babes. In other words, if it's not in the Codex, but is in the Index, then you'll need both to have it all. No sweat.

[LucidNinja]

Ah so next edition we are boned