Anyone using Gladiator(s)?

[Karhedron]

For what it is worth, I think GW will fix Gladiators. They were quick to tweak the points of Eradicators, Inceptors and Outriders when they started cropping up too much. It can't escape GW's notice for very long that no one is taking any SM tanks.

[Ishagu]

Will they?

 

They tend to tone down things that are too good pretty quickly.

 

Not so much in reverse. They might drop the points a bit in the next CA.

[Alcyon]

I think GW will sell plenty of Gladiators to people who think they're cool (they are, visually) and want to own one regardless of whether it's good competitively. The codex is full of datasheets that are not quite good enough (or definitely not good enough) to see top tables and those models still sell. 

 

I think the issue with improving the Gladiator is it'll need to also improve the Land Raider; making the Glad T9 2+ hurts the flagship tank (which is also unplayable competitively already.) LR could get T9 plus a FNP or Duty Eternal to push it over the top - or just a bigger chunk of wounds. A Knight has 25 and a Russ has 12, no reason a Glad couldn't have 14-16 (making it survive 3 Eradicators with a Multi-Melta) and an LR 18 or 20. 

 

I'd be happy for the Valiant to take a little hit vs. Eradicators or MM Attack Bikes if there's ways to buff it and make it work synergistically, particularly in an Iron Hands force or something like that.

[Iron Father Ferrum]

=][= I've split all of the "how to improve tanks" posts into a new thread here.  Let's keep this one about Gladiators please. =][=

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Thanks my bruvha. :)

[Warhead01]

I've fielded the Gladiator Valiant one time so far. It's first outing so far. 
It did not work out as I had hoped or planned. In my head that's 8D6 damage out put should everything hit and wound, which sounds very killy. 
My opponent has far more experience at 9th, I've played just 3 games as of now. My first instincts were to put it into reserves to bring it on turn 3 after things started moving around. Maybe I'd find the shot I was looking for. I'd envisioned an early engine kill. I failed to take bad dice and an Invulnerable save into account when I picked my targets. 
The real problem with this vehicle was  that I did something dumb, I put it out on it's own far away from my forces. I'm still getting used to 9th and though if it killed it's target it would be worth the trade in points and worth it. This comes from not having a strong understanding of 9th. 
I like the valiant and want to try it again but am starting to think the lancer would put in more work over all. even coming on the table on turn two I could keep my force operating together and maybe not just throw my tank away.  
I'm going to try the reaper out after my next game, so in game 5. I want to try the valiant out one more time.
It cost way too many points to do so little for me but that's on me. I knew it was a bone head move and did it anyway.  Big risk big reward, or not. 
 

[Ishagu]

The Lancer is NOT going to put in more work.

 

It has very bad damage per turn, and the new terrain rules can keep it from functioning at range anyway.

 

You're better off adding a techmarine to the list and keeping him close to your Valiant.

[Squark]

The Lancer is NOT going to put in more work.

 

It has very bad damage per turn, and the new terrain rules can keep it from functioning at range anyway.

 

You're better off adding a techmarine to the list and keeping him close to your Valiant.

The Lancer is just badly designed. I don't think it could be priced correctly. A single, super-specialized gun like that can't afford to be mounted on such a durable base. It's such a bizarre ratio of firepower-durability. The other gladiators could be rebalanced with a price drop, but the lancer? I don't think it works anymore than, say, a landspeeder with nothing but a sniper rifle.

[Ishagu]

Agreed. The only way the Lancer could be compelling is if they double the shots and keep the BS @ 2+

[Warhead01]

The Lancer is NOT going to put in more work.

 

It has very bad damage per turn, and the new terrain rules can keep it from functioning at range anyway.

 

You're better off adding a techmarine to the list and keeping him close to your Valiant.

Your not wrong but I think the context is key for my thinking. I also mean staying at long range and shooting every turn for 4 or 5 turns while also being able to move and threaten or take objectives.  I have to keep it well back and mostly out of danger. The Valiant has to play more aggressively because of the 24" rang band and has to get those kills as fast as possible to survive. (seems to me.) 

I'm also not thinking about the Lancer on it's own but with supporting units. A big misstep from my last game where I had a Repulsor kitted for killing tanks and relative safety.

At this point I don't own a Primaris Techmarine or a Techmarine at all come to think of it. 

I also think if I want to run a lancer I need to run two of them. I'm also open to trying two Valiants in the not too distant future. 

[Ishagu]

I understand your thinking, but in practice it simply won't work as you hope. And if you're keen on staying back and firing, I think a pair of FW Dreadnoughts will be far more effective.

 

The defensive playstyle of staying at range and shooting isn't viable in this edition, and the more games you play the more you'll realise that table long firing lanes don't really occur very frequently, especially if playing with a good amount of terrain.

 

I don't want you to handicap yourself by throwing 400 points away. It's crazy to think about how expensive the Lancer is compared to how little it actually does. Trust me, by the time you roll to hit, to wound, and then if the opponent has an invul, you'll be doing 0 damage most turns.

 

You can make a single Valiant work in the right list, with the right support at least.

Edited February 24, 2021 by Ishagu

[Karhedron]

I have to agree, if you want something that sits back at long range you are better off with a Whirlwind in an anti-infantry role since it can hide and ignores line of sight. Then some Eradicators, MM Attacks Bikes or MM ATVs for your anti-tank duties.

[Warhead01]

I have to agree, if you want something that sits back at long range you are better off with a Whirlwind in an anti-infantry role since it can hide and ignores line of sight. Then some Eradicators, MM Attacks Bikes or MM ATVs for your anti-tank duties.

Looks like we get 3 ATV's for the price of a Vaillant. I'm interested and thinking I'd still field the Gladiator as a reaper. 

Depending on the list.  

 

I understand your thinking, but in practice it simply won't work as you hope. And if you're keen on staying back and firing, I think a pair of FW Dreadnoughts will be far more effective.

 

The defensive playstyle of staying at range and shooting isn't viable in this edition, and the more games you play the more you'll realise that table long firing lanes don't really occur very frequently, especially if playing with a good amount of terrain.

 

I don't want you to handicap yourself by throwing 400 points away. It's crazy to think about how expensive the Lancer is compared to how little it actually does. Trust me, by the time you roll to hit, to wound, and then if the opponent has an invul, you'll be doing 0 damage most turns.

 

You can make a single Valiant work in the right list, with the right support at least.

I'm playing with an imposed handicap, Primaris units  or NU-Marine units only. 

There are loads of better options than a Gladiator for sure.  

I have an Executioner I will try before buying another Gladiator to see what I can do with the Lance. 

It took me so long to finally get the Executioner that it had lost it's fire twice agility by the time I got one. Bad luck. 

[Ishagu]

Don't sleep on a Redemptor with a Plasma.

[Alcyon]

If I had to pick a tank I like even less than the Lancer it'd be an Executioner. For a 175pt Redemptor you can get the Macro Plasma on a T7 chassis with almost as many wounds plus Duty Eternal, great close combat ability and a much smaller footprint (easier to hide behind Obscuring), plus it has Core so you can give it re-rolls or it can ITSELF give re-rolls with Wisdom of the Ancients to make up for the loss of Aquilon Optics. You're basically paying 180pts to staple a T8 Razorback with Twin Heavy Bolter to it in exchange for 2" of movement and losing all close combat potential. 

 

The Repulsors have all the same issues as the Gladiator plus being 150pts more. It's even more of an all-your-eggs problem.

 

Plus, in the age of so much anti-tank power in the form of melta, anything worth killing has an invulnerable save and so you need more shots to overwhelm that, not fewer high power shots. Just look at the math. The Repulsor/Lancer's two shots will hit about 1.6 times on BS2+, wounding any vehicle T7+ 1.1 times and dealing an average of 5.5 wounds. Against a Knight, the Invuln will reduce you to 0.74 wounds and a total damage of 3.7. Even against the best possible target, say a Boomdakka Snazzwagon with a 4+ and T6 which it'll wound on a 2+, you're looking at those 1.6 hits causing 1.38 wounds for an average damage of 7, which won't even kill it. And you know what that model costs? 90pts.

 

In contrast the Valiant can statistically kill two of those per turn if you shoot the Las-talon at one and the Meltas at the other. All its guns together will kill a T7 3+ Rhino, and it'll strip 4 wounds off a Knight - about the same output there as the Repulsor for 115 points less. You know what'll also kill a T6 8w vehicle or a Rhino in one turn, and do 3.3 more wounds to a Knight? 135pts of Eradicators for another 115pt savings.

 

The Lancer's biggest problem is paying a bunch of points for T8 and some more wounds that don't really make tougher, and then being the type of weapon you want to hide anyway. I think Valiants have a hope, especially if you have a Librarian around to give it Psychic Fortress and a Techmarine to give it +1 to hit, but then you need a way to get those units up the table. Maybe if there was a Repulsor variant with a Melta destroyer and a serious points cut that'd be a little exciting but we're talking about Gladiators after all.

 

I don't hate the Reaper variant either, I do think it's the single biggest source of anti-infantry firepower you can take, but you have to take troops with bolters anyway, I dunno.

 

I do think the Gladiator Valiant & Reaper are the fluffiest Space Marine tanks other than maybe the Vindicator, and I would love to try running them in an Iron Hands list where they can get full re-rolls for 2CP or +1 to hit via a more mobile Librarian, plus Duty Eternal from an Ironstone - I love the idea of rolling one up the battlefield surrounded by 6+++ Intercessors, and Overwatching with a Reaper on a 4+ makes me drool even if it does currently cost 3 CP to do so.

Edited February 24, 2021 by Alcyon

[Warhead01]

regarding the lancer and Executioner again, I hadn't realized just how "little" damage they put out with their lances. D3 + 3 seems really light in the damage department.  
I guess that would average 4/5 damage each. combined for about 9 reliably. So the range and the AP are the best part of what that has going for it. 
Shocked it wasn't a higher damage as I had thought I had read before. 
I guess I am not going to set up a lancer any time soon. 

Defiantly puts this tank into the high risk high reward category. 
Kinda disappointing. 

I am almost tempted to try two valiants in a list. I have no idea yet how I would even manage to make that work with out buckets of lucky dice and lots of clear opportunity. 

As mentioned above we could field 3 ATV's for the price of a valiant but is that a better choice? 


 

[Ishagu]

I don't care much for the ATVs to be honest, mainly for the way they look. They are a good unit however, and disposable too.

 

I run a single Valiant, and it can do well as long as the opponent doesn't focus on it immediately. You can run the ATVs alongside it. They advance forward and distract the opponent whilst the rest of your force moves up.

 

Use a Librarian to cast a 5++ invul to bolster the durability of the tank.

[Karhedron]

As mentioned above we could field 3 ATV's for the price of a valiant but is that a better choice?

3 ATVs have roughly 75% of the firepower of the Valiant but their higher speed and smaller footprint make it easier to bring that firepower to bear. They are also CORE which makes them easier to buff.

 

They 200% of the wounds of the Valiant although T5 vs T8 means they will be easier to wound and S4 and S6/7 guns in particular will inflict twice as much damage. Overall they are probably surprisingly comparable in terms of durability. They are much more durable vs anything chucking Mortal Wounds their way.

 

The ATVs do not degrade as such but of course every 8 wounds will kill one which has much the same effect.

 

The ATVs are also Fast rather than Heavy which may be good or bad depending on what else you have in your army.

[SkimaskMohawk]

They're not core, that was the main thing that pushed the attack bike into a superior position over the brand new primaris version.

[Karhedron]

They're not core, that was the main thing that pushed the attack bike into a superior position over the brand new primaris version.

Whoops, my bad.

[Alcyon]

They're not core, that was the main thing that pushed the attack bike into a superior position over the brand new primaris version.

 

Was that really the main thing? I haven't seen a lot of people explicitly planning to buff their Attack Bikes with characters. To me I feel like double the attacks and wounds isn't really worth 30ppm which is why people are going with the cheaper one. The Multi-Melta getting two shots at D6+2 I think was the tipping point for both units and the Attack Bike maximizes that better since you can easily budget to run more of them.

[SkimaskMohawk]

Yea core probably isn't the main reason, as you say the MM is very good and two for the price of one is a better investment.

 

But, on release a ton of people were trying the big unit of ATVs with apothecary support; if they had core to buff them with the various bike chaplains and chapter masters that are common they might have seen a lot more play.

[SkimaskMohawk]

Yea core probably isn't the main reason, as you say the MM is very good and two for the price of one is a better investment.

 

But, on release a ton of people were trying the big unit of ATVs with apothecary support; if they had core to buff them with the various bike chaplains and chapter masters that are common they might have seen a lot more play.

[BloodyB]

The gladiators look cool, but they just don't back up the looks. A vindicator or predator annihilator does nearly as good as the lancer or valiant, and is easier to hide. A pred destructor deals with heavy infantry in a way the reaper can't. Smaller knights and light vehicles too, actually. And light infantry is mince meat before our bolters anyway.

 

The vehicles are too strong to be cheap and too points heavy to be granted redundancies. In a way, they mirror the space marines eerily well. I think the gladiator (especially the lancer) is a gorgeous model, but is not competitive at the moment.

 

Of course, in a spearhead style game, maybe...

[Alcyon]

A vindicator or predator annihilator does nearly as good as the lancer or valiant, and is easier to hide. A pred destructor deals with heavy infantry in a way the reaper can't. Smaller knights and light vehicles too, actually. And light infantry is mince meat before our bolters anyway.

 

The vehicles are too strong to be cheap and too points heavy to be granted redundancies. In a way, they mirror the space marines eerily well. I think the gladiator (especially the lancer) is a gorgeous model, but is not competitive at the moment.

 

At the risk of flying too close to the "how to improve SM tanks" sun, the breakdown between these tanks mathematically is instructive. I already covered the Lancer's stats above, recall that it hits 1.6 times on BS2+, wounding any vehicle T7+ 1.1 times and dealing an average of 5.5 wounds.

 

Vindicator v. Rhino, 2.3 hits, 1.5 wounds, 1.2 unsaved, 4.5 damage - slightly worse but also T8 at 70pts cheaper, 24" range.

Annihilator v. Rhino, 2.6 hits, 1.7 wounds, 1.4 unsaved, 5.1 damage - 40pts more than a Vindi for 48" range at T7.

Valiant v. Rhino, 5.3 hits, 3.5 wounds, 3.2 unsaved, 15 damage - 3x as much for only 80pts more at 24" range.

 

Of these, I mean the only one I would even consider is the Valiant given the pathetic damage output of the other two. Against anti-infantry or light vehicles you're also not seeing much benefit:

 

170pt Destructor w/ 2 HB vs. Gravis, 6.6 hits, 3.7 wounds, 1.8 unsaved, 4.6 damage - that's 1.5 Gravis at 113pts per kill.

240pt Reaper vs. Gravis, 26.6 hits, 14 wounds, 6.5 unsaved, 6.5 damage - just over two at 120ppk (but T8, less range).

 

The Reaper's additional hits push it over the top no matter how you slice it, Str 7 and 3 dmg doesn't make up for 2d3 shots. And the Reaper is far better against 1w infantry than pretty much anything else in the Codex, the question is just whether you need that in your force since you already have troops.

 

If we're trying to find a way to use the Gladiator, comparing it to the Predator mostly just shows how bad the Lancer is, how weak the Predator chassis is (same problems as the Gladiators with less output) and what Gladiators really compete with, which is fast-moving or far cheaper platforms like Attack Bikes and Eradicators.