Hey, we need something explaining why Dreadknights are so bad here, not just a pic! Ok, it fuels RAGE, but it's not enough!
Okay, let's be fair here...
The complete lack of any armouring for the pilot would save considerably on weight, especially since it won't likely make them any more survivable. I mean, think about Sentinels: they only have enough armour to protect their squishy pilot against small arms whereas the pilot of a dreadknight is already encased in some of the heaviest powered armour available. Lack of armouring would also improve overall balance and dexterity, both of which are essential for the close combat role.
So while every other argument against the dreadknight applies, I can't quite say that arguing about the lack of armour is reasonable given that the Warhammer 40k setting as a whole isn't even close to being sensible... as hypocritical as this sounds, I'm just putting this out there.
- Then why not just drop the termie armor and put some plating on instead? That shit ain't free, you know.
- At least the terminator armour is capable of supporting its own weight and movement, so the baby carrier would be more of a powered exoskeleton. That being said, I know I'm digging myself deeper into a hole here, so I'll just shut up now.
Who's the asswipe trying to change the article to make Ward look good? He's been trying to subvert our edits for a while and it has to stop.--Newerfag 14:58, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Whoa! Why the shitstorm? Oh, the cockpit, yea... How I say this... I hate defend him, make me puke and feel dirty; but Ward have nothing to do with the design of the miniature, just the shitty explanation (impenetrable field? what did you smoke, Ward?) of why looks like a baby car-harness. Blame the design studio of GW of this and other "brilliants" ideas. Now I remember that when 5th ed. necros were about to be released, Ward was also blamed of the Ark, just because the "ribs" had a likeness to an inversed omega (the Smurf symbol).
Ugh, I feel bad now.
Anyway, Matt Ward IS the worst codex/army book writer of all time, we khow that, bus he is in Game Development, Not in 'Eavy Metal, not in the design Studio and not in the directive; so he es not the source of all the bad GW does to us, only the relatives to books. Also note that I'm no Ward-defender, he made me much butthurt (Aberrant chapters... I'm embarrased for my brew chapter is Ultras-succesor) and may Chaos gods be reserving him a "special" place in the warp fot what he've done. But rage is better with common sense. As (probably, I'm one of them) Tzeentch's acolytes must say "Skub is better when you are right, and everyone knows it". --Korvalus 16:40, 4 December 2012 (GTM)
- He was saying the 'impenetrable field" was actually a good explanation. It's got to be a Ward sockpuppet.--Newerfag 15:45, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the explaining Newerfag. I rushed too much and over-explained. Anyway my opinion on the subject was already in the message, so no loss.Korvalus 21:31, 4 December 2012 (UTC +1)
- From what I can gather, Newerfag wants the first image on the page resized. What I don't understand is why he doesn't just edit the thumbnail code to resize the thumbnail - or does the image require cropping/rescaling? I don't know what's being asked. --Dr. Thompson 03:41, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
- It doesn't really matter- I thought the picture would show up at its full size, so it's not important.--Newerfag 14:56, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
As freakish as this sounds, I think there's a little TOO much negativity towards Matt here. Can we get this rewritten in a way similar to the other vehicle articles?--Newerfag (talk) 04:27, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- I've been working on it myself, but I'm spotty on actual Dreadknight tactics. Any Knights players on here who can help fill the Tactics section out?