Dragons: Are they worth it?

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

The latest issue of the 9th Scroll is here! You can read all about it in the news.

  • Dragons: Are they worth it?

    So, I'm a fairly new player and have just ordered a dragon. I've been hoping to use it in the future since, well, I was expecting dragons to be powerful units. However, after looking at stats and talking to other players, I'm getting the feeling that dragons aren't so great.

    I'd like to know what you all think about them. Although they have great attacks, as well as terror, only 4 armor and no special saves, and the fact that their stomp attacks won't affect larger units, makes me think they are very situational and may fall prey to many types of units, even ones that I would have thought they would be effective against (e.g. infantry units with poison attacks).

    What are people's thoughts and uses for them?
  • They are not terror inspiring monsters that will make the enemy force want to say away but they are decent gaming pieces with certain advantages and disadvantages. Due to the nature of having high cost per wound suffered and not having protection that is spectacular they require a bit more careful usage to get their maximum. Usage of terrain is especially important against many armies in the opening stages of the game.

    From personal experience I can say that Dragons with Wizards on top at the moment have a higher utility level than combat dragons to the greater versatility of usage.

    Background Team

    Rules Team

    Conceptual Design

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- :BH: :DL: :DE: :DH: :EoS: :HE: :ID: :KoE: :OK: :O&G: :SA: :SE_bw: :VS: :UD_bw: :VC: :WDG:
  • The dragons are not a solution to all the problems and are not invincible but the work done on the rules of these figurines is very interesting I think.

    Personally, I play one very often because the pleasure to release such a beautiful and impressive figurine, and the tactical challenge it represents passes before the inconveniences.
  • Giladis wrote:

    They are not terror inspiring monsters that will make the enemy force want to say away but they are decent gaming pieces with certain advantages and disadvantages. Due to the nature of having high cost per wound suffered and not having protection that is spectacular they require a bit more careful usage to get their maximum. Usage of terrain is especially important against many armies in the opening stages of the game.

    From personal experience I can say that Dragons with Wizards on top at the moment have a higher utility level than combat dragons to the greater versatility of usage.
    Thank you for the tips. I guess I'll just have to try them out a bit before making my final decision on them.

    I just don't know see why they don't cost more but have 5 armor and maybe even an Aegis (6+)... it would make more sense for them if they are to be, well, powerful dragons.
  • I am a fan and don't think they are punishingly sub-optimal.

    I am particularly a fan of the Order of the Fiery Heart Master riding a Dragon to boost it's damage potential and movement. I don't, however, like the huge price tag and the additional victory points at risk if made your general so I have started running it naked with no gear - This allows me to take a BSB and MoCT General alongside.
    OotFH Alchemy/Pyro Master - Dragon = 945

    This is my preferred method of running a dragon and minimising the downsides. You do still have to accept that running a dragon pushes you towards certain other list considerations though and somewhat dictates play style.
  • Ancient dragon just doesn't seem worth it to me, too fragile, base is so huge that you get far too many attacks coming back your way, even infantry units can be a significant threat. Unless you can get the charge on heavy cavalry units, it's probably never getting it's points back. The damage output is ok, but nothing special compared to a lot of other big monsters out there now. It needs some redesign work imo.
  • Yes, they are worth it.
    (My justification being I just won an event with a mage on dragon with heirloom and lucky charm :) )

    They are not easy pieces to use, and they do not have the raw power that they once did.
    The flip side to this is that the game isn't decided by whether the dragon lives or dies.

    If you use it coherently with the rest of your list, it is not a handicap. But equally it is not a crutch.
    Ask not what the project can do for you, but what you can do for the project :)

    Don't forget that however convinced you are of your opinion on something in the project, or something it should/shouldn't do, there is someone out there holding on to the opposite belief just as strongly :D

    Or, as Wasteland Warrior says, "Can't please any of the people any of the time!"
  • DanT wrote:

    Yes, they are worth it.
    (My justification being I just won an event with a mage on dragon with heirloom and lucky charm :) )

    They are not easy pieces to use, and they do not have the raw power that they once did.
    The flip side to this is that the game isn't decided by whether the dragon lives or dies.

    If you use it coherently with the rest of your list, it is not a handicap. But equally it is not a crutch.
    ah, but that is the application of a mage on a dragon (which is a popular way to apply them as they serve as mobility, bunker and force enhancer for a usually weak mage)

    Can the same be said for the cc variants? Is a prince on an AD actually worth its salt in your opinion? Or is the extra risk required to make the most of the cc power too much when there are many many easy counters to such a high priced target?
  • Masamune88 wrote:

    ah, but that is the application of a mage on a dragon (which is a popular way to apply them as they serve as mobility, bunker and force enhancer for a usually weak mage)
    Can the same be said for the cc variants? Is a prince on an AD actually worth its salt in your opinion? Or is the extra risk required to make the most of the cc power too much when there are many many easy counters to such a high priced target?
    I tried a prince on dragon during my practice games and he didnt underperform.
    The ancient dragon was too big a points investment in the context of my list, so I didn't try him.

    I'm also not sure that "popular way to apply them" is true. Until this weekend just gone in the UK I had seen few to none doing anything in the UK.
    Ask not what the project can do for you, but what you can do for the project :)

    Don't forget that however convinced you are of your opinion on something in the project, or something it should/shouldn't do, there is someone out there holding on to the opposite belief just as strongly :D

    Or, as Wasteland Warrior says, "Can't please any of the people any of the time!"
  • DanT wrote:

    Masamune88 wrote:

    ah, but that is the application of a mage on a dragon (which is a popular way to apply them as they serve as mobility, bunker and force enhancer for a usually weak mage)
    Can the same be said for the cc variants? Is a prince on an AD actually worth its salt in your opinion? Or is the extra risk required to make the most of the cc power too much when there are many many easy counters to such a high priced target?
    I tried a prince on dragon during my practice games and he didnt underperform.The ancient dragon was too big a points investment in the context of my list, so I didn't try him.

    I'm also not sure that "popular way to apply them" is true. Until this weekend just gone in the UK I had seen few to none doing anything in the UK.
    most of the lists I have seen involving dragons have been as mage mounts rather than combat monsters over the last couple of months.

    So do we have confirmation from you then that you feel AD is overcosted then? :P
  • Masamune88 wrote:

    So do we have confirmation from you then that you feel AD is overcosted then? :P
    That is not what I said.
    I said that it is too many points to work with my list.
    This is a very different statement to one about its personal points efficiency.
    It could be undercosted and still be too many points to work coherently with my list.
    Ask not what the project can do for you, but what you can do for the project :)

    Don't forget that however convinced you are of your opinion on something in the project, or something it should/shouldn't do, there is someone out there holding on to the opposite belief just as strongly :D

    Or, as Wasteland Warrior says, "Can't please any of the people any of the time!"
  • @DanT I know, not sure if the sarcasm came through via text or not, apologies if you took it in a different way than intended.

    Personally I don't think that the AD is worth its current points/base size/stat line however BLT felt differently and are relatively unlikely to move on it due to the inherent swingy-ness of the AD and its prime corner application of force. Its possibly too good in the right hands and utter crap in an inexperienced players hands. Player error is the biggest participant in whether it will perform or not, not its design unfortunately.

    Ah well, big bertha will have be sidelined for a while longer then, along side griffs until FAB