Anyone using Gladiator(s)?

[MegaVolt87]

 

 

Storm Speeders > Gladiators

 

Definitely. Storm speeder and Gladiator are far too close to each other in utility. The Hailstrike has my intrest, I definately want to run two of those in a list I have in mind.

 

I debated this with myself for a long time. Guess who won? ;)

 

Seriously though I don't know if I believe that just yet. First off the Hailstrike (?) cheapest of the three... is really not that great to me. I want a much greater volume of firepower for those points. I think it should have had a Heavy Onslaught perhaps? 

 

The other ones are okay, but the points are starting to contest with Redemptors which I like better.

 

For my money I think the T8, Gladiators, with higher wound count, and ability to "Smoke Screen" are more attractive to me. However, actually the one single thing that has me liking the Storm Speeders is range and fly. Just zooming through ruins is big.  But T6 and the lower fire rate... I just feel like the Gladiator makes more sense.

 

Maybe not. I haven't proxied the Storm Speeders but I have played the Gladiators (as shown in my opening post).

Its interesting though, we complain about over gunned primaris tanks GW gives us primaris tanks that are sensibly armed and we hate it haha. Still, the list I have in mind is more geared withh its infantry to counter elite infantry/vechicles, its left a hole for sweepers I need filled. I would like to take the dakka gladiator, but I don't want to cut infantry to do it. For the points, I think the Hailstrike is not that bad- and 300 points currently gets you two.

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

I value the speeders more than the gladiators overall because of the fly rule. I've tested the hammer strike out a bit, and of the things I liked was that I was fairly comfortable with it starting on the table because I could hide it, and still get off a decent amount of shots before reserves arrived in the few games I played with them. I put my thoughts down below on how the different gladiators compare to the corresponding storm speeders.

 

Reaper vs Hailstrike

 

I tend to agree with Prot on this one, the gladiator just has a ton more shots with the twin heavy onslaught cannons, and the range helps make up for lack of speed. I can see MegaVolt87's point about the cost of the unit though. 

 

Valiant vs Hammerstrike

I think the firepower is scaled well between it and the valiant. The problem with the valiant is that its expensive, and has to be close to a high value target to work.

 

I also think that melta weapons really benefit from the fly rule just because you can use terrain to get within that half range sweet spot. This is where I think the hammerstrike can compete with some of the more popular options like attack bikes with MM, and eradicators. I don't need to spend CP to outflank them, and they navigate terrain better than the bikes. I'm not suggesting they're better because they aren't, but I don't think they're a handicap either.

 

Lancer vs thunder strike

The lancer has a laser destroyer that has great range, it gains a bonus to hit with it, and the minimum damage per shot is pretty good. The problem I see with it, is that its hard to leverage that range on a lot of tables. The thunderstrike is actually capable of causing more damage (though its going to vary more), and I really like that it starts at bs 2+ for everything. I think both variants are in a weird spot because of how good melta is at the moment. I like the speeder more, but I think in the right army the lancer can be a better choice.

 

[Prot]

Even if you are a fan of the Storm Speeder variant(s) over the Gladiator variant(s), I just keep finding myself drawn to "core", and re-rolls, better healing, better synergy with the rest of the army. Just the general bad spot all vehicles are in right now.

 

I think as MegaVolt says; in the list building phase it feels like a bad decision to remove infantry for nearly any tank/vehicle.

 

The support functions of the army also feel clunky. (I keep saying I really think the Techmarine should be an Elite much like the Apothecary.)

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

Yeah I know trust me I'm not suggesting either vehicle is good enough. I couldn't justify the hammerstrike over eradicators or attack bikes if I were I trying to make the best list. It just has some favorable scenarios, which to be blunt I don't feel any of the other gladiators/speeders have.

 

Honestly I mainly made my last post because its more fun to compare rule of cool units, then to acknowledge that your way better off just loading up on our best infantry.

[Mandragola]

I think the Reaper might just possibly have a role. It can throw out really useful amounts of dakka a long way. That many shots have an "anti-anything" effect in 40k right now, so it's pretty versatile. The Lancer is a joke obviously and the Valiant has the fire power of roughly half its price in Eradicators, before you factor in the rerolls they get and it doesn't.

 

Ultimately these things don't work because they've got too much firepower. This pushes their price up beyond what's reasonable for the platform, making them complete glass cannons. It's a real shame because I like the model, but I can see no use for these things at all I'm afraid. The Reaper is the nearest one to being useable, but not all that near I think.

 

I've been trying to work out if storm speeders work for Ravenwing. They're still really expensive for their profile I think.

 

The game is fundamentally about controlling the midfield. You want tough, obsec units that can fight in melee, so as to take objectives from the enemy and score them in your next turn. Tanks and speeders can't do that.

[Sword Brother Adelard]

Which brings us back to the core issue. Durability. Vehicles would be worth their high cost if they could dish out firepower over the length of the game.

 

They can't. So they aren't worth the cost. I'd rather sink it into more hammernators.

[SanguinaryGuardsman]

All the gladiator and storm speeder variants seem to me to be ridiculously overcosted.  The hammerstrike is something like 170 points and a plagueburst crawler is 175.  The hammerstrike might have more anti tank but being as durable as eggs shells is not worth a slight edge in firepower or speed.  Gladiators are even worse since they are north of 200 and generally have less firepower and stratagem support than a PBC.  I think the gladiator variants need to be around 160ish points and the stormspeeders like 120 or so.  That would be probably be enough to get them into decent lists.  

 

 

edit: actually even at 160 why is anyone thinking about gladiators when redemptor dreads are 170?  Yikes... what a mess.  

Edited February 1, 2021 by SanguinaryGuardsman

[Marshal Mittens]

I'm going to use some. They are not competitive but 100% of my games are friendly games with friends, so its not like I win anything anyway. I am more in it for the scotch and conversation anyway.

 

And the Gladiator tanks look cool.

[Ishagu]

I think all Astartes tanks are suffering for the sins of Iron Hands lists in late 8th edition. Tanks might be worth those prices if they could still be buffed, remain in Devastator Doctrine etc.

Jackpot.

 

And having fly taken away is really silly too. These vehicles are super expensive, and static ranged play is no longer viable in 9th.

[Sword Brother Adelard]

They took away fly, because the tanks don't fly.

 

What they do need is a hover keyword, to allow them to fly over some terrain, but not things like buildings.

[Sword Brother Adelard]

On reflection, it may have also been done to distinguish the storm speeders from the gladiators. If Gladiators could fly, speed aside, the two would be functionally identical.

[Karhedron]

Considering that FLY no longer allows you to Fall Back and shoot, it's loss is not quite such a big deal.

[SkimaskMohawk]

Considering that FLY no longer allows you to Fall Back and shoot, it's loss is not quite such a big deal.

For vehicles, especially large primaris ones, fly is important. They have to maneuver around allied stuff and terrain instead of just being able to pop over.

 

Being able to fall back and shoot is less import since ultras could always do that and scars and ravens can strat it.

[Marshal Mittens]

I'm going to paint one or two of them, but they are 30-40% too expensive. Still neat models though.

[Ishagu]

Considering that FLY no longer allows you to Fall Back and shoot, it's loss is not quite such a big deal.

It's the terrain that's the issue. These vehicles are quite slow. It wasn't a problem when they could move over terrain but now they have to get around it.

 

This is in combination with the high price.

 

1: Slow to get around

2: Expensive

3: Not hard to destroy

 

I'm happy to take Fly away if it means the cost is reduced, but they didn't do that.

[SkimaskMohawk]

Ishagu you're also forgetting slot efficiency since they discouraged multi-detachment. There's multiple factors that made marine vehicles less good than in 8.5 without even touching on points or ability nerfs.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

I’m really still steaming over here they took the keyword Fly away from our Primaris vehicles... this nerf wasn’t needed.

[Mandragola]

I think a Reaper might have a use in some cases, particularly if there's a lot of obscuring terrain around. It should lurk where it can only see infantry and shoot them up, without going too close to scary things. It does have decent firepower for its price in a way that the other versions really do not. The range and speed, though not amazing, should be good enough too.

[SkimaskMohawk]

In 8.5 marine lists were traditionally double battalion. This allowed a large concentration of characters (which were pretty dominant due to the auras working fully, as well as smash captains being cheaper) and slot inefficient units like the thunderfire, whirlwind, eliminators and the like. You could take 3 units of eliminators because you still had another 3 slots to work with and could fill up on leviathans or centurions or whatever.

 

A lot of those units caught pretty stiff points hikes, statline and utility nerfs in addition to thinking about what you want in a particular foc slot. Slot efficiency very much exists and plays a part in why some units aren't seen.

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

In 8.5 marine lists were traditionally double battalion. This allowed a large concentration of characters (which were pretty dominant due to the auras working fully, as well as smash captains being cheaper) and slot inefficient units like the thunderfire, whirlwind, eliminators and the like. You could take 3 units of eliminators because you still had another 3 slots to work with and could fill up on leviathans or centurions or whatever.

 

A lot of those units caught pretty stiff points hikes, statline and utility nerfs in addition to thinking about what you want in a particular foc slot. Slot efficiency very much exists and plays a part in why some units aren't seen.

 

Right but the reason those units slot inefficiency mattered was because they were strong competitive choices in loaded slots. If we were still using the second marine codex from 8th, and the 9th edition weapon changes hadn't happened the top marine lists would be really close to what they were in 8th. The heavy support slot was just loaded, and It would be worth it for most marine chapters to pay cp to unlock more of them.

 

My point was that even if they encouraged us to take multiple detachments gladiators would still stink. I'm not suggesting slot inefficiency doesn't matter, just that Gladiators are over costed enough where it doesn't matter for them. 

[Captain Idaho]

Ah I'm old school and often associate in my word usage vehicles with tanks and Dreadnoughts with Walkers. Sorry wasn't clear there.

 

I think tanks need to be cheaper.

 

Dreads are pretty cool this edition and work well.

[Alcyon]

I think the smaller table sizes and other benefits to combat units have also hurt vehicles. For example:

 

I think a Reaper might have a use in some cases, particularly if there's a lot of obscuring terrain around. It should lurk where it can only see infantry and shoot them up, without going too close to scary things. It does have decent firepower for its price in a way that the other versions really do not. The range and speed, though not amazing, should be good enough too.

 

Reaper gives you 16 Bolter shots and 24 Heavy Onslaught at S6 AP-1. That kills about 3.5 Marines, just under 10 Necron Warriors or 16 GEQ. That's basically the same as 15 Assault Intercessors on a platform that's T8 and 12 wounds with a 10" move. The Intercessors cost 55pts more, but they can move through breachable terrain, have ObSec, bring 30 wounds (more than double) and have Transhuman to be wounded on max 4+ anyway. And you can run them as three MSU squads making it far easier to have as a dual role.

 

There's something to be said for making sure that your anti-infantry units are especially tough vs. infantry, but then vehicles have the unfortunate downside of giving your opponent's meltas a nice juicy target that represents 1/8th of a 2000pt army. You have to take Troops anyway and it's not like a Guardsman is really any better against a T4 2w 3+ marine than a 12w T8 tank. 

 

Valiant has the same issue, see 24" range Eradicators on a board that's only 30-44" deep and going up against units that are way more likely to have the guns to kill it. 

[SkimaskMohawk]

 

 

In 8.5 marine lists were traditionally double battalion. This allowed a large concentration of characters (which were pretty dominant due to the auras working fully, as well as smash captains being cheaper) and slot inefficient units like the thunderfire, whirlwind, eliminators and the like. You could take 3 units of eliminators because you still had another 3 slots to work with and could fill up on leviathans or centurions or whatever.

 

A lot of those units caught pretty stiff points hikes, statline and utility nerfs in addition to thinking about what you want in a particular foc slot. Slot efficiency very much exists and plays a part in why some units aren't seen.

Right but the reason those units slot inefficiency mattered was because they were strong competitive choices in loaded slots. If we were still using the second marine codex from 8th, and the 9th edition weapon changes hadn't happened the top marine lists would be really close to what they were in 8th. The heavy support slot was just loaded, and It would be worth it for most marine chapters to pay cp to unlock more of them.

 

My point was that even if they encouraged us to take multiple detachments gladiators would still stink. I'm not suggesting slot inefficiency doesn't matter, just that Gladiators are over costed enough where it doesn't matter for them.

Ya I agree that gladiators are very overcosted, but they're still a bit inefficient as you're capped at 3.

[Prot]

Let’s not say ‘dumb’ ..... I mean we play a game where a Chainsword is not as deadly as a Deathguard marine passing gas after eating a week old burrito!

 

So I’ve read the thread with interest but haven’t said much since making the original post.... I often really prefer to play it out on the table top. When I made that original post I want to say that I had maybe 5 games with various gladiators, and less than that with the Repulsor tanks ( which are beyond terrible).

 

Anyway back to Gladiators.... In the Ultramarines forum and on my blog I have reported on some of the latest games with various Gladiators.

 

Honestly I don’t know how to fix them. They are bad overall but as time passes and I see how other armies face them and how poorly vehicles fit in with marines overall, I strongly believe it’s Dreadnoughts or nothing.

 

Even the support character takes an HQ slot and simply can’t keep up to the damage output these tanks receive. Unlike the Apothecary who sits comfortably in the elites and is healing twice, and resurrecting once per turn. It doesn’t make sense to further handicap vehicles with the support HQ being substantially worse than an Apothecary and in the wrong slot.

 

When I faced high power anti tank opponents like sisters or Necrons, these tanks have literally no chance. They can’t really hide well, they can’t be buffed, or healed in time. A devastator taking an 8 damage shot stops at one guy, but cripples a tank. Plus the dev may come back from the dead or even shoot upon death, etc.

 

The more I play the Gladiators the more I realize how far GW has to go to make them truly competitive choices. They need fixing on every level...survival, buffing, cost, damage reduction, core or some designation, support character reworking, strats, etc. It’s a really deep hole I think they’re in.

Edited February 21, 2021 by Prot

[solarisqc]

...

Also keep in mind this topic is about the Gladiator tank specifically. It's a new kit, and a great looking one at that. People WANT to use it, they WANT to make it work. GW have missed the mark, and a holdover from Iron Hands in 8th edition has made them far, far too conservative with the rules/cost of this unit.

 

 

The main problem is vehicule (tank) in general, how can you make Gladiator a viable option when almost all vehicule are broken on the bad side. Land raider use to be good vehicule but try to remember the last time you see one in a game. Whirlwind are probable the best SM vehicule now and it's only because of a stratagem.

 

The CORE keyword just make thing worst. It's a good thing that character can't be buff anymore but infantry/dreadnought have the CORE keyword, they can be buff and can become obj. sec. with warlord trait. Vehicule never get the CORE keyword, there is no trick to make a gladiator obj. sec. and sit on objective without fear of losing it to running ennemy troop..

 

Another problem with vehicule is the fact you can easily block them from moving. It's just stupid that a single guardman standing in front of a tank between 2 wall stop the tank from moving foward. Think in WW2, tank are use to break infantry line, even in 40k where you have man portable weapon able to destroy tank, why can't you just move over infantry.