Anyone using Gladiator(s)?

[Sword Brother Adelard]

How does the Vindicator Laser Destroyer compare out of interest? Edited February 26, 2021 by Brother Adelard

[Alcyon]

I'm glad you asked! 

 

Volley Fire v. Rhino, 2 hits, 1.3 wounds, 1.1 unsaved, 5.5 damage for 175pts, comparable to the Annihilator.

Overcharge v. Rhino, 2 hits, 1.3 wounds, 1.3 unsaved, 8 damage - that's 3 more.

 

If you use a Techmarine or other method (IH psychic power) to give it +1 BS:

 

Volley Fire v. Rhino, 2.5 hits, 1.6 wounds, 1.3 unsaved, 6.9 damage 

Overcharge v. Rhino, 2.5 hits, 1.6 wounds, 1.6 unsaved, 10 damage - a dead Rhino.

 

So generally if I was taking a tank I'd rather take a Laser Destroyer over an Annihilator (T8 for free, and  Lascannons are just so bad right now) and certainly over the 30pt more Lancer. I do like that you can hang back and easily buff it with characters from your DZ, but it has a similar issue to the other long-range tanks that you're spending a big chunk of points for this mobile chassis that isn't really going to move, and this long range you probably won't get firing lanes to shoot down with all the terrain in this edition.

 

What the Lancer (and Annihilator, and Laser Destroyer) need most I think is some kind of special rule for Lascannons and other laser weapons so that they wound T7 or better on a 2+ without having to be Str 14-16. Their damage potential isn't as high as melta, and their range capability and higher Str is supposed to compensate but it just doesn't do it with only 1 shot per gun. The way weapons work in this edition really rewards volume of fire more than modifiers, which is reinforced whenever you face something with an invuln save.

 

The main problem though I think is for almost half the price (110pts) you can get 8 wounds' worth of T5 Attack Bikes with a 14" move that do the same amount of damage, don't get bracketed and have the mobility to perform secondaries as two distinct units. And for another 55pts you get a third for less than the cost of the Destroyer or any Gladiator. Like I said you can also get the same number of shots as the Attack Bikes for 30pts less as Eradicators, sacrificing 2/3s of the movement, but on board sizes smaller than 60x44 that might not even matter.

 

If the meta shifts to a lot of Autocannons and anti-T5 guns (makes sense with the popularity of Plasma Inceptors and DG) then that'll hit Attack Bikes too and maybe these SM vehicles can benefit from a corresponding lack of anti-tank. 

 

In that particular scenario, say my meta was full of Str 8 Plasma or Autocannons and not as much Melta, I think it might actually be pretty competitive to run a Laser Destroyer with an infantry screen, or even a Valiant with a Librarian to grant a 5++ and +1 to hit as Iron Hands or something. I'm glad there is some scenario where it seems like these tanks might have utility as a meta call, particularly the Laser Destroyer which I've always loved.

Edited February 26, 2021 by Alcyon

[Sword Brother Adelard]

Thanks! Mine may see the table a bit when I can play again. Being Templar there is absolutely no reason not to overcharge, as I can try to save the MWs on a 5+++.

[Mandragola]

I actually think there's a relatively simple fix you could apply to the lancer, which would be to give it different fire modes like the fire prism... and make them actually good. If it had something like a pulse fire mode doing 3 damage with more shots, it could do work against more kinds of targets.

 

Right now of course it's only good against single targets with lots of wounds, and it sucks even against them.

 

The other thing that I think all vehicles in 40k need is to take that second shot away from multimeltas. Seriously, what were they thinking, especially by combining it with a drop in the size of the board? This change has essentially written off an entire class of units from the game, while making things like lascannons seem pathetically weak in comparison. Vehicles can only really work now if they have invulnerable saves and even then they're in enormous danger.

[Sword Brother Adelard]

I always thought the Multi-Melta needed, well, multiple shots. But doing it at the same time as boosting the damage per shot was too much.

[Mandragola]

If you want to treat a multimelta as a multi-shot melta then fine, give it two shots but 12" range. Two shots at 24" on small boards is just way too much.

[Alcyon]

I don't think meltas outside melta range are really that oppressive, at only D6 damage a single Multi-Melta is going to kill 1 Gravis model or put 4.6 wounds on a t7 3+ vehicle. Sure, it would be a reasonable nerf to do something like half the range to 24" but make it D6+2 the entire time - I think 6" melta range is probably too much of a nerf. 

 

I agree more broadly though that Multi-Meltas going to 2 shots had a big impact on the meta for weapon selection, that's why I think Lascannons need some kind of boost. I kind of like D3+2 or something for them to reduce the variance while also capping their damage vs. melta. But Lascannons were also hurt by the shrinking board size and increased terrain. Long-range weapons that don't ignore LoS are much worse in 9th.

[The Unseen]

The issue is that 1-shot multi-meltas, even at d6+2, just aren't good.

Because a lot of models that are very expensive are packing a single multi-melta as a primary weapon.

 

Like Dreadnoughts, Attack Bikes, Razorbacks, Immolators, several fliers, etc.

And if MMs go back to 1 shot, those units go back in the garbage bin, because 1 shot just isnt worth it because of having to hit wound and get thru an invul and we just end back up that a mm is just a bad lascannon, because Str9 is still a substantial benefit.

 

The only issue is that they're too CHEAP.

A retributor with a 2 shot melta gun on a t3 3+ save w1 model is fine, until a unit with 4 of them and no penalty for moving and shooting is like 160 pts, and just melts stuff.

 

Eradicators aren't even taking a mm half the time, but similarly they arent broken, they just don't cost quite enough points, they're efficient enough to compete with plasma for heavy infantry killing and that's no good.

 

Also, sidenote, I do find it funny that Plasma has been the de facto only special weapon worth using for ~4 or 5 editions, and now everyone is losing their minds that melta is good.

[Ishagu]

Hellblasters with Assault Plasmas are almost as good at destroying vehicles as Eradicators, and much better at dealing with everything else.

 

It's a lot of perception at play. Eradicators look great, they do a job, they are in a super popular army so they are everywhere. People immediately think they are overpowered, despite the fact that units in other factions or even in the same codex can perform to a similar degree or even better, point for point, in some cases.

 

Multi Melta, after 10 years, is FINALLY good and people want to nerf it already?! Come on guys, let's relax lol.

 

Our tanks are simply poor, they need a boost. We don't need to nerf things around them. If the MM is nerfed a lot of our vehicles will also become garbage, as mentioned above.

Edited February 27, 2021 by Ishagu

[Mandragola]

I do think that multimeltas are a real problem for the game. The doubling of their power has seriously stepped up the game’s lethality and made it extremely hard to run battle tanks. It affects everyone, not just marines.

 

Multimeltas aren’t the only problematic weapon of course. The game is very lethal right now. The only things that can survive in this environment are things like Mortarion.

[Karhedron]

Also, sidenote, I do find it funny that Plasma has been the de facto only special weapon worth using for ~4 or 5 editions, and now everyone is losing their minds that melta is good.

Ah, Grav was king of everything in 7th and plasma was the poor cousin. It was 8th that made plasma great again.

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

Hellblasters with Assault Plasmas are almost as good at destroying vehicles as Eradicators, and much better at dealing with everything else.

 

It's a lot of perception at play. Eradicators look great, they do a job, they are in a super popular army so they are everywhere. People immediately think they are overpowered, despite the fact that units in other factions or even in the same codex can perform to a similar degree or even better, point for point, in some cases.

 

Multi Melta, after 10 years, is FINALLY good and people want to nerf it already?! Come on guys, let's relax lol.

 

Our tanks are simply poor, they need a boost. We don't need to nerf things around them. If the MM is nerfed a lot of our vehicles will also become garbage, as mentioned above.

I run both hellblasters with assault plasma incinerators and eradicators in my lists (one squad of each). While I think hellblasters are under rated, it's really tough for me to compare them to eradicators, and not feel like eradicators have to go up another 5 points per model. This is true for most options that can take MM equivalents.

[The Unseen]

 

Also, sidenote, I do find it funny that Plasma has been the de facto only special weapon worth using for ~4 or 5 editions, and now everyone is losing their minds that melta is good.

Ah, Grav was king of everything in 7th and plasma was the poor cousin. It was 8th that made plasma great again.

 

Only the Grav Cannon. The grav gun wasn't used except on bikes, because salvo. For infantry, its been plasma since 4th, though Melta wasn't so far behind in 5th because it could  semi-reliably get 1-shot tank kills thanks to 2d6 pen and +2 on the vehicle damage chart. Plasma was still overall better though

[Mandragola]

 

 

Also, sidenote, I do find it funny that Plasma has been the de facto only special weapon worth using for ~4 or 5 editions, and now everyone is losing their minds that melta is good.

Ah, Grav was king of everything in 7th and plasma was the poor cousin. It was 8th that made plasma great again.

 

Only the Grav Cannon. The grav gun wasn't used except on bikes, because salvo. For infantry, its been plasma since 4th, though Melta wasn't so far behind in 5th because it could  semi-reliably get 1-shot tank kills thanks to 2d6 pen and +2 on the vehicle damage chart. Plasma was still overall better though

 

I'm not losing my mind because melta is good, but because something (which happens to be melta) is too good. I'd be saying the same thing if plasma or grav were making it impossible to field tanks.

[Ishagu]

But is it too good? Or are the vehicles just rubbish?

 

I've just pointed out that Hellblasters with Assault Plasmas are basically just as efficient for destroying vehicles, point for point, and much better for dealing with most infantry units.

Edited February 27, 2021 by Ishagu

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Melta was awesome prior to eighth edition with armorbane. They function similarly again. It’s nothing to get worked up over. Xenos factions are getting an overhaul as well so dont looks gift horse in mouth.

[War of the Eagle]

No one in my area brings Metla besides Eliminators and SoB. i dont think Its that great compaired to anything else. Tho multi melta shooting twice makr me actually use then ocasionaly on ATVs.

[Alcyon]

We're getting OT again and it's partially my fault but we should re-rail, or just close the thread since I think we've beaten the Gladiator horse to death. 

 

TL;DR the Reaper and Valiant are playable, particularly in metas with little melta or anti-tank generally, and especially if you are running IH or other CT and/or buff characters that maximize them. But they are not competitively costed and we don't expect them to see them at top tables without some kind of points drop or buff, and it doesn't seem like there is an elegant or obvious way to do that.

 

Oh, one other thing - the Reaper seems like a particularly fun platform for Crusade given how its main weapon takes to Enhancements.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

If you want to treat a multimelta as a multi-shot melta then fine, give it two shots but 12" range. Two shots at 24" on small boards is just way too much.

#bringback6x4

[Karhedron]

 

If you want to treat a multimelta as a multi-shot melta then fine, give it two shots but 12" range. Two shots at 24" on small boards is just way too much.

#bringback6x4

 

The sizes given in the rulebook are minima. Nothing to stop you continuing to play on 6x4. Just be aware that short range and slow units will be proportionally weaker while long ranged and faster units will be stronger.

[Mandragola]

 

 

If you want to treat a multimelta as a multi-shot melta then fine, give it two shots but 12" range. Two shots at 24" on small boards is just way too much.

#bringback6x4

The sizes given in the rulebook are minima. Nothing to stop you continuing to play on 6x4. Just be aware that short range and slow units will be proportionally weaker while long ranged and faster units will be stronger.

Obviously you can do what you want, but the smaller size is now the standard for events.

 

The size of the board combines with the new missions, which require you to control the centre of the board. Tanks are rubbish at that. The Core change is a major nerf to

 

So I think the conclusion is that right now tanks just don’t work. Too many things have hit them all at once. They just can’t survive the hammering they’ve taken.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Super OT now.

[9x19 Parabellum]

So I've played about a dozen games now of 9th.  I'm finding something happening pretty regularly and it's this:

 

I often have too many models to cluster around my "buffers", to the extent I inevitably have to put more than a few models outside the buff range. That, and/or (usually "and") I'm also finding far more instances where I need to deploy stuff outside buffing range in order to baby sit objectives (or to be within striking range of an objective).

 

Take away from this is that it's simply not feasible to expect your whole army to be buffable all the time.

Now if that is a correct...paradigm...around which to build an army, we can somewhat unshackle ourselves from the necessity of the "Core" keyword.

In fact, it might be more flexible because we liberate ourselves from what would otherwise be the lure to deploy (or move) a "Core" unit closer to the buffers. Simply put, a vehicle (no "Core") is free to go whereever because it can never be buffed by most HQs.

 

So this brings us back to the other problem(s) with vehicles. Now some vehicles are better than others to be sure, and I'm not going to get too deep into ranking (suffice to say that I agree the Lancer is very poor but the Reaper looks pretty decent to me).  If  we can agree that the Reaper has pretty good offensive output the question becomes how to get it to survive.  For me auto-launchers is a must.  After that, I think putting it in reserve and popping it out T2 is probably the right play.

 

Now there is one other use that almost all blocky SM vehicles have that often gets overlooked, and it's particularly useful (IMHO) for a melee centric army (my black templar), and that's as a LOS blocker to get my melee units into play.   Granted this somewhat goes against the idea of putting the Gladiator into strategic reserves, but it's nice to have it as an option to deploy it either as a LOS blocker or a deployment "unknown" to help keep my opponent on his toes.

Edited March 6, 2021 by 9x19 Parabellum

[Alcyon]

I do like the mentality that not everything can or should be Core, I think people like SkimaskMohawk and recent RG tournament winners have demonstrated the power of non-Core units like Centurions that can be very impactful without reliance on buffs. It's interesting to think of using tanks in this way. That said, I think the SM Codex has so many datasheets that there's often a swap you can do that gives you a cheaper, faster, more effective version of most/all vehicles and might even incidentally get Core. But your point is well taken.

Edited March 6, 2021 by Alcyon

[SkimaskMohawk]

Yea that's kind of the crux; they're just badly costed and lack of core compounds that. Why use them as a flanking or coming on from reserve unit when there's better options that also happen to be core.