Anyone using Gladiator(s)?

[Iron Father Ferrum]

The purpose of creating CORE and then restricting who has it was to break the buff-bubbles.  The trick is to find other ways of achieving similar or comparable results.  I firmly believe that that is why Techmarine got their "Awaken" ability -- it makes up for losing CORE rerolls on tanks.  Iron Hands also get Heavy weapon RR1s in DevDoc, and we have a way (actually...I think two, but my memory is fuzzy) of keeping that active on a tank.

 

The idea is to encourage diversifying list-building; the problem, as you have all so ably demonstrated, is that meta-chasers will ignore anything that is not super-high end efficient.

 

 

On the durability issue, I agree they need to be tougher.  Inasmuch as I'm a treadhead and would love to have more armor on the table, I also understand that they need to be more expensive if they're to actually be as tough as they should be.

[Captain Idaho]

Referring to earlier discussion on Vindicator Laser Destroyers vs things like Lancers or even the Eradicator, I'm always dubious when we take a mathematical approach. If you use the high powered Laser Destroyer you will never score 3.5 wounds.

 

It's deceptive even though I know it is accurate. The weapon will either cause 6, 12 or 18 wounds. Which is why you purchase it.

 

The Lancer is a good weapon, it's just too expensive. As an artillery platform I think it is solid mind, just toooooo expensive compared to Lascannon alternatives.

[Karhedron]

The purpose of creating CORE and then restricting who has it was to break the buff-bubbles.  The trick is to find other ways of achieving similar or comparable results.  I firmly believe that that is why Techmarine got their "Awaken" ability -- it makes up for losing CORE rerolls on tanks.  Iron Hands also get Heavy weapon RR1s in DevDoc, and we have a way (actually...I think two, but my memory is fuzzy) of keeping that active on a tank.

I agree, the design purpose is clear. The problem is that they removed the ability of tanks to benefit from many buffs but did not reduce their points cost to match. This has left most vehicles overpriced. Dreadnoughts work well because they still benefits from auras and Duty Eternal is really good. Razorbacks and Drop Pods are still good because they are cheap and get your infantry where they need to go. Impulsors can work if you need to deliver high quality Primaris infantry.

 

Pretty much all other vehicles (including all the MBTs) are just too expensive for the weapons and durability they bring.

[Alcyon]

Referring to earlier discussion on Vindicator Laser Destroyers vs things like Lancers or even the Eradicator, I'm always dubious when we take a mathematical approach. If you use the high powered Laser Destroyer you will never score 3.5 wounds.

 

It's deceptive even though I know it is accurate. The weapon will either cause 6, 12 or 18 wounds. Which is why you purchase it.

 

The Lancer is a good weapon, it's just too expensive. As an artillery platform I think it is solid mind, just toooooo expensive compared to Lascannon alternatives.

 

I wouldn't say it's deceptive, I think it's just important to keep in mind that it's an average. Taking a Laser Destroyer with the mentality that it will reliably deal even a minimum of 6 wounds is a mistake - with only three shots, it can easily deal 0. Without a Techmarine or other +1 buff, it has a 2/3s chance of hitting, then usually a 2/3s chance of wounding, and occasionally there'll be a 1/6 chance that the wound is ignored (2+ armour save outside Devastator Doctrine.) Knowing that it won't reliably kill a Rhino is a very important thing to know when you're trying to weigh its value against other options in listbuilding, and when you're choosing what to shoot at in game.

 

I think comparing weapons this way is important to demonstrate the increased variance in running high damage, low shot weapons, which contributes in this case to why tanks like the Lancer are especially bad - whereas the Gladiator and Reaper are at least playable. The Gladiator Valiant in this example does 15 damage vs. 8 on average, with a potential max of 48 versus 18 for the Laser Destroyer. More than doubling the number of shots is a huge advantage that smashes the benefit of Str 10 or a flat 6 damage, particularly when the Meltas guarantee at least 3 within half range. Not to mention the ability to aim different guns at different targets.

[Captain Idaho]

Well what's the percentage chance of the Vindicator Laser Destroyer doing zero compared to 6/12/18 wounds? That would be likely more useful.

 

I just don't like relying on averages.

[SanguinaryGuardsman]

Well what's the percentage chance of the Vindicator Laser Destroyer doing zero compared to 6/12/18 wounds? That would be likely more useful.

 

I just don't like relying on averages.

Probability of doing damage in a range is more useful imo.  What % of the time does a laser destroyer do 6 or 12 dmg vs 18 dmg vs 0 dmg.  

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

T8 means literally nothing. T9 might help a bit but not much versus the wrong armies if they want to destroy it.

[Alcyon]

Well what's the percentage chance of the Vindicator Laser Destroyer doing zero compared to 6/12/18 wounds? That would be likely more useful.

 

I just don't like relying on averages.

 

 

SanguinaryGuardsman, on 08 Mar 2021 - 3:23 PM, said:

 

Probability of doing damage in a range is more useful imo.  What % of the time does a laser destroyer do 6 or 12 dmg vs 18 dmg vs 0 dmg.  

 

I think the average is far more useful, and I don't have a calculator as handy as the Mathhammer site to do this. When you look at a potential target and consider shooting your Laser Destroyer at it, knowing the average likely result is the most effective way to quickly determine how likely you are to kill that thing and/or whether you might need to end up spending a CP re-roll on it. At the end of the day what you want to know is, will this kill the target? In a case like a Knight maybe you want to know how much damage it'll do, but the average still tells you that without giving you these arbitrary ideas you'll just tilt at if they don't happen - "I was 66% to deal 12 and I only dealt 6!" 

 

I do think you can draw some conclusions from the average result but I could be wrong, I'm not good at math, I just use a calculator. My guess is that a result of 8 damage tells you you're quite likely to do at least 6 (6 divided by the potential damage of 16 = 0.33 so 66%), unlikely to do 12 (33%) and very unlikely to do 18 - and you'd be pretty unlikely to do 0, as well. Assuming that's right, I was wrong about it being easy to do 0, which makes sense when you consider it's damage 6 - a more relevant conclusion though is that you're only 50/50 to do 8, which tells you the Laser Destroyer is unlikely to kill a Rhino without a CP re-roll. I wouldn't pick a Laser Destroyer based on its ability to reliably do 6 damage when there are so few targets with that exact number of wounds. 

 

T8 means literally nothing. T9 might help a bit but not much versus the wrong armies if they want to destroy it.

 

I think T8 is pretty strong, I mean we spend CP on Transhuman all the time to make troops effective T8 against Plasma, Thunder Hammers, Melta, etc. Nobody runs Lascannons right now for the same reasons the Lancer is bad, so it's rare to run across a weapon that wounds it even on a 3+. I think the issue is T8 isn't enough - to make a unit resilient against the weight of firepower out there right now, you also need at least a 5++ or Duty Eternal or some other way to mitigate that damage. Again, we can use Transhuman as a reference - Bladeguard are more resilient per wound than the Gladiators are even before you apply effective T8.

[Tyriks]

It's much easier to draw poor conclusions from averages than ranges.  If you only look at one result's probability then you have equal data to the average and an equal chance of making a mistake.  But since it gives you the percent likelihood of every result, you see a much larger picture of what is likely.  It still doesn't predict what will happen, but it gives the fullest possible view of the outcomes, especially when there are wide ranges of possibilities.  I do completely agree though that finding probability calculators is much harder and doing them yourself is very intensive (at least for me).  The one I was using for most of 8th seems to have gone away, but UnitCrunch : MathHammer Calculator for Warhammer 40k (9th Edition) is pretty good so far.  Just keep in mind the more simulations you run, the more accurate.

[Alcyon]

Maybe you're trying to make more complex determinations than I am? Sure, I'll grant that ranges include more data, but I don't think that data really tells you that much more meaningful information in this particular case. We are trying to establish the value of a given set of vehicle weapons relative to their points costs, and I think the average result against a range of given targets, plus the knowledge of the potential floor and ceiling, tell you all you practically need to know there.

[SkimaskMohawk]

Yea the math helps you make a more informed decision. Whether it's to gamble on a high roll to finish stuff or to devote multiple units to shooting a target, you can roughly know what to expect.

 

It's not a guarantee. But it gives you an idea on what to expect from a given volley and is one of the best ways to talk about units because everyone can be on the same page about the capabilities rather than relying on anecdotes.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

T8 is not that hard when you start buffing your shooting with things like VotLW. Plus there are things with higher strength.

[Alcyon]

T8 is not that hard when you start buffing your shooting with things like VotLW. Plus there are things with higher strength.

 

I mean, I think we agree here. T8 is not enough - like I said, you need an invuln or Duty Eternal or something else in concert. Those two examples I think are pretty weak, VotLW is accessible to one competitive army (DG) and there are very few S>8 weapons in the meta with the buffs to melta. Reducing the Gladiator to T7 and adding an invuln would be a big hit, putting highly prevalent meltas to wounding on 3s. I guess you're arguing they need T9? But then you'd have to update every other vehicle in the game, which isn't going to happen between editions. 

[Ishagu]

The Gladiator should have a 2+ save (Basically the same as a 5++ against most AT weapons).

[9x19 Parabellum]

The problem with giving vehicles an invuln save is that it entirely defeats the purpose of AT weapons.   To me this is a design flaw.  Anti-tank guns should do just that: kill tanks.  (Or at least, damage them.)  Personally, I want to see FEWER sources of invuln saves, not more. 

As others have said, there are compound problems threatening a tank's survivability.  One of them is chip damage.  You can fire 1,000,000 rounds of 5.56 nato ball ammo at an M1A1. It's never going to die. You might get some metal compression/compaction at the point of aim.  More likely you will kill yourself from a ricochet.  Another is mortal wounds, which have more point-for-point efficacy against vehicles where they completely disregard the high toughness and high armor and other built-in defense (duty eternal, etc.) that vehicles have.

 

I don't know what the proper answer is except to get a more complicated game.   Maybe tank-killer weapons need to be more expensive.  Maybe they need to be less efficient against non-vehicles (-1 to hit against anything that doesn't have the "vehicle" keyword).   Maybe they need other limiters:  (heavy weapons can never be selected to fire overwatch).  Maybe we need a rock-paper-scissors approach to vehicular defense (composite armor, reactive armor and force energy armor; where different weapon types are the hard counter to different armor types: ie, plasma/las overcomes reactive armor, bullets/bolters overcomes force energy, missiles and high explosive stuff overcomes composite armor). Something like that.  

[Alcyon]

Personally I don't think chip damage or mortals are a big part of what hurts these tanks. Weapons that would deal chip damage are so often better spent targeting other things they're better against, like enemy infantry, and I think the damage tables are these days a surprisingly irrelevant component of whether a vehicle is playable. Plus, vehicles have access to Armour of Contempt for a 5+++ against mortal wounds. If this was a major issue, I would advocate for increasing the toughness ratio even further - making most vehicles T8 at a minimum, with especially tough ones getting T9 and Knights etc. getting T10 to make Lascannons wound on 5s. This would help offset the increased output of A/T weapons that now translate a single wound into multiple damage while also reducing the impact of chip. But again that's an edition change and again, we're majorly O/T.

 

I do agree I don't think invulns are a good fluff or necessarily a good balance method of increasing tank resilience, and I also agree with Ishagu that a 2+ save makes them mostly unnecessary anyway. Tank armour should be tougher than marine plate. If the Gladiators went to a 2+ and got a points reduction I think we'd see them on tables a lot more even without a toughness boost.

Edited March 10, 2021 by Alcyon

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Necron and Drukhari have vehicles with invulnerable saves.

[Alcyon]

Sure, but those are light, fast or eldritch vehicles that need invulns to help make up for their low toughness and wounds. They aren't heavy tanks protected by armour, that's what armour saves are for.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Dooms Day Arks are much more survivable with quantum shielding (Transhuman) and 5++ which can be boosted to 4++ for a CP. I’d consider it much more of a heavy tank as compared to a Gladiator.

[Alcyon]

Okay, I mean, yes it's tougher in game terms, but it's a skeletal floating basket with no armour at all. It's tough because it has force fields and is made of living metal, that's the fluff grounds that justifies the special rules. Invulnerable saves and eldritch toughness make sense. The Gladiator is a big heavy tank with thick armour, a 2+ save makes sense there and so does a high toughness.

 

GW designs things based on a certain fluff logic, and they wouldn't give the Gladiator the same abilities as the Doomsday Ark just to make them both equally heavy tanks. They'd do it a different way (high normal armour save, high toughness) because it's a totally different vehicle. I don't really understand what your point is here.

[Sword Brother Adelard]

Because SM tanks have armour, not energy fields or other esoteric methods of defence, I agree that invuls are NOT the answer. They should be vulnerable to high strength, high AP anti-tank weapons. What they need is either the better armour save, or an inbuilt AP resistance to signify that the armour shrugs off the low strength hits, but is still vulnerable to high.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Back when we had AV it would require a roll of a 6 to glance a land raider with a missile launcher but you didn’t get an armor save. Back then plasma was useless. Sure 2+ armor save is better than a 3+ but it’s really not all that great now versus high strength high AP weapons.

[CCE1981]

I’m not bothered by losing a tank to high strength high AP weapons. I’m annoyed about a squad of 10x 3-shot, str 5, ap -1, 2d guns at half the cost of my tank shredding it to uselessness in one round of fire.

[Karhedron]

I’m not bothered by losing a tank to high strength high AP weapons. I’m annoyed about a squad of 10x 3-shot, str 5, ap -1, 2d guns at half the cost of my tank shredding it to uselessness in one round of fire.

I can't think of many 10-man squads all armed with heavy bolters. Lets say 2 5-man Dev squads with 4 HBs each and a Cherub. That would set you back around 300 points which is more than the cost of a Gladiator. Together they would average about 6 wounds so just about enough to bracket it. Not an amazing return on the points.

[Son of Sacrifice]

Tanks should be the solution to Tanks. Infantry anti-tank weaponry should have a chance to cripple a tank, but not be as automatic as it is now. The problem comes down to players, again. If half your army is toting melta guns you are part of the problem. Edited March 12, 2021 by Son of Sacrifice