NotBornVal

A dreadnought I do not like much

I donít really like the new ďLeviathanĒ box Dreadnought too much. Indeed, I think it is the most unworthy until now, so I will only buy three in the zero day, and probable not a lot more after that.

Well, does not sound like a big deception, but I must say a love dreadnoughts. I loved mechs since I was a child, when I saw TV show Exo Squad, and since then, the mental image of a combat biped weaponed to the teeth has followed me. I think it is the technological equivalent to a sharp sword.



However, there are a lot of mechs depending on the universe in which they could be found, and that is what makes a dreadnought differente, in my humble opinion, is that a dreadnought can defend itself in hand to hand combat. Cada make it right, like the redemptor dreadnought, or very well, like the brutalis doesÖ but this thing on the brutalis that fights bad sounds like heresy to me.

Here we have something contradictory. Our mind (well, not mine) tends to rebelate agains the idea that a mechine in the future carries a hand to hand weapon instead of a shooting one. I guess we would find ridiculous too if a modern soldier goest to war with a sword. Well, at least would be shocking, but Jack Churchill did in the second world war, and even there is a photo.



In the shame war, mi grandfather get two medals for his bayonet assaults, and while in a XXI century war hand to had combat tends to becomeÖ more rare, I donít think there is a single soldier who goes without his knife, and although is condered more of a tool, all of them knows how to use it to kill.

In this warhammer fantastic setting, armor offers more protection agains bullets than agains some hand to hand combat, so the utility of this ones have a relevant importance that not only makes the unit strong, but also make a sign of identity that makes warhammer dreadnoughts different from other mechs.

I think this is the difference between a dreadnought and any other tank or armored vehicle: the hand to hand combat capacity. Why they want legs if not? Height is out of the point, and doesnít help a lot overcoming obstacles (in the game). What they get with legs is the waist and hip set, and the ability to dodge enemy attacks. I think that gaves sense to a warhammer dreadnought, in my humble opinion, and because of that I donít like the helverin too. Titans are other thing, but I will write about them in other article.

Actually I am not enterely thrilled with the bruallis, with their multimelta in a small arms socket (what is the point of that?). I think It would be great if it had the multimeltas in an arm, and some big claw on the other, but well, I am happy because in a small frame if time I will take nine dreadnoughts in my army. I love them.

I love the redemptor (I have eight of them), I almos love equally the brutalis (I have three, but I will have more). I make a story to each one of them, I converse them and paint them very individualy. There are people who blames them because they are some generic, but precisely what I see is a oportunity to have a great time including modifications and making them worthy of a good story.

With the new ballistus I am not going to be able to make them special. I only see in them a generic marine who acts as an artillery platform and shoots as far away from enemy as they can. That wonít inspire me a good story, as didnít the gladiator or the land speeder somestrike (have three of each, with magnets). What will be the difference now that thery even donít have a -1 damage rule?

As I thing I have told, for me it is better to have a new dreadnought wich I donít like, than no new dreadnought at all. They will make the playing table look great, will add variety, and will grow my dreadnought collection.

Jack Churchill is credited with a sentence I like: "Any officer who goes into action without his sword is improperly dressed.". I think a dreadnought who goes into action without a huge combat fist is heretic.