Anyone using Gladiator(s)?

[MegaVolt87]

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.

 

Players work with what they are given. If tanks are trash they won't get used, its not the players fault GW can't get the tank vs infantry balance right. I have seen better ideas around the forum here over the past few weeks than the GW 40k design team has had in the past few years about the problem. 

[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.

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.

 

 

Of course I was being hyperbolic, but there are more than just Space Marines out there.

[SkimaskMohawk]

Tanks used to benefit from obscurement the same way as infantry. Partially blocked by intervening models? 5+ save. Blocked by ruins? 4+ save.

 

So most stuff could get a solid save (that couldn't be modified until 7th spammed ignores cover all over the place) in addition to being harder to wound on the whole than their 8th+ counterparts.

 

Letting them benefit from cover when being 50% obscured without having to be in it would allow for circumstantial +1 saves and make heavier tanks...actually somewhat survivable.

Edited March 12, 2021 by SkimaskMohawk

[Alcyon]

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.

 

Even if there was fluff backing for it, I don't think invuln saves are really that useful because a 2+ is now exactly equivalent to a 5+ against AP-3 and actually better below that, which makes sense for a battle tank with thick armour. High toughness demonstrates how hard it is to actually damage a tank with small arms, and so do regular armour saves. It'd make little sense for a high AP weapon with low Str (like Grav or certain snipers) to be able to punch through tank armour as easily as a Lascannon when they have the same chance to beat an invulnerable save.

 

Going down to a 6+ against Melta seems decent to me when it's already only wounding on a 4+ and it probably won't be in range to get AP-5 in Devastator Doctrine. Like I said before, maybe when we go to 10th edition we can scale up the Toughness rankings and get T9 against Melta to help compensate for all the re-rolls available but that's not going to happen between editions.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

Of course I was being hyperbolic, but there are more than just Space Marines out there.

 

 

Like Karhedron says I don't think this is a very common issue. Yes, the elimination of armour values etc. has made bolters etc. able to damage tanks. But there aren't a lot of cheap 2 dmg weapons - most small arms still just deal 1. I do think it's a minor issue that the Gladiator is exactly as survivable as a Rhino against Str 5 because T7/8 is not a breakpoint if you're already wounding on a 5, but again, most small arms are Str 4 or worse and in that case T8 reduces them to wounding on a 6. Nobody is going to bother firing 200pts of Intercessors into your Gladiator to deal a total of 1.6 wounds, and if they do, well, it's doing its job soaking fire for your infantry. I think most of us agree we would like to see a 2+ for tanks like the Gladiator which'd help improve its resilience, including against medium chip damage like Heavy Bolters.

 

Tanks used to benefit from obscurement the same way as infantry. Partially blocked by intervening models? 5+ save. Blocked by ruins? 4+ save.

 

So most stuff could get a solid save (that couldn't be modified until 7th spammed ignores cover all over the place) in addition to being harder to wound on the whole than their 8th+ counterparts.

 

Letting them benefit from cover when being 50% obscured without having to be in it would allow for circumstantial +1 saves and make heavier tanks...actually somewhat survivable.

 

This is another interesting angle, and very real world fluffy. Access to -1 to hit via Dense Cover might also be ok. The only issue I can see with it is that GW designed variants like the Gladiator to be linebreaker style tanks, and cowering behind cover isn't very thematic for a Space Marine assault vehicle. That issue further exposes the problem with the design decision of putting the Lancer and Valiant on the same chassis, like, the former might as well be on a Rhino chassis like the Vindicator Laser Destroyer since it'll be in the backline all the time, whereas the Valiant (and to a lesser extent the Reaper) really need the T8 and more to help make them survivable in their thematic role.

[Alcyon]

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. 

 

I agree with you generally but we're too far past this point to go back now. Infantry kits have come out with Multi-meltas for literally decades. And GW has made the issue worse by releasing entire armies of Knights, requiring TAC lists to run enough anti-tank to kill units tougher than most tanks - and then granting Secondary VP for doing so. The standard Melta weapon for tanks should probably be on the level of the Melta Destroyer, and most infantry-portable heavy weapons should probably lose a point or so of Str, AP and/or Damage on top of being -1 to hit for moving in order to explain how they work without a tank's power system. But again that's such a major change it'd have to happen between editions and doesn't seem likely. 

[Karhedron]

How about a rule that Heavy anti-tank weapons such as Lascannons, Krak Missiles, multimeltas etc suffer a -1 to-Hit penalty when firing at anything without the Vehicle or Monster keywords. By itself it doesn't directly benefit vehicles but it might help indirectly by making people hesitate to spam such weapons in TAC lists.

[SkimaskMohawk]

 

 

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.

Even if there was fluff backing for it, I don't think invuln saves are really that useful because a 2+ is now exactly equivalent to a 5+ against AP-3 and actually better below that, which makes sense for a battle tank with thick armour. High toughness demonstrates how hard it is to actually damage a tank with small arms, and so do regular armour saves. It'd make little sense for a high AP weapon with low Str (like Grav or certain snipers) to be able to punch through tank armour as easily as a Lascannon when they have the same chance to beat an invulnerable save.

 

Going down to a 6+ against Melta seems decent to me when it's already only wounding on a 4+ and it probably won't be in range to get AP-5 in Devastator Doctrine. Like I said before, maybe when we go to 10th edition we can scale up the Toughness rankings and get T9 against Melta to help compensate for all the re-rolls available but that's not going to happen between editions.

 

 

 

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.

Of course I was being hyperbolic, but there are more than just Space Marines out there.

Like Karhedron says I don't think this is a very common issue. Yes, the elimination of armour values etc. has made bolters etc. able to damage tanks. But there aren't a lot of cheap 2 dmg weapons - most small arms still just deal 1. I do think it's a minor issue that the Gladiator is exactly as survivable as a Rhino against Str 5 because T7/8 is not a breakpoint if you're already wounding on a 5, but again, most small arms are Str 4 or worse and in that case T8 reduces them to wounding on a 6. Nobody is going to bother firing 200pts of Intercessors into your Gladiator to deal a total of 1.6 wounds, and if they do, well, it's doing its job soaking fire for your infantry. I think most of us agree we would like to see a 2+ for tanks like the Gladiator which'd help improve its resilience, including against medium chip damage like Heavy Bolters.

Tanks used to benefit from obscurement the same way as infantry. Partially blocked by intervening models? 5+ save. Blocked by ruins? 4+ save.

 

So most stuff could get a solid save (that couldn't be modified until 7th spammed ignores cover all over the place) in addition to being harder to wound on the whole than their 8th+ counterparts.

 

Letting them benefit from cover when being 50% obscured without having to be in it would allow for circumstantial +1 saves and make heavier tanks...actually somewhat survivable.

This is another interesting angle, and very real world fluffy. Access to -1 to hit via Dense Cover might also be ok. The only issue I can see with it is that GW designed variants like the Gladiator to be linebreaker style tanks, and cowering behind cover isn't very thematic for a Space Marine assault vehicle. That issue further exposes the problem with the design decision of putting the Lancer and Valiant on the same chassis, like, the former might as well be on a Rhino chassis like the Vindicator Laser Destroyer since it'll be in the backline all the time, whereas the Valiant (and to a lesser extent the Reaper) really need the T8 and more to help make them survivable in their thematic role.

It honestly doesn't matter what gw designs things for if they're not used in those ways. Tanks aren't used as tanks in the marine range; theres too little firepower and too little survivability for the price. Compare a gladiator to plasma inceptors and they'll lose on every metric because of transhuman and core and general pricing.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

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.

i disagree here.

Infantry AT weapons should be very effective against tanks, they just need to go back to making sure that low S weapons can't hurt a tank.

 

S4 AP-2 or something should not be capable of harming an MBT.

Edited March 12, 2021 by Inquisitor_Lensoven

[Ishagu]

No one is killing tanks with low Strength anti-infantry weapons in this game lol. They really are not an issue.

 

There are a limited number of turns, and no one is burning all their Bolter or Las gun shots on sub optimal targets unless there is nothing else you can shoot at.

 

At most they'll chip away a wound or two, and that's only worthwhile in niche circumstances.

Edited March 12, 2021 by Ishagu

[SkimaskMohawk]

Well the possibility is there. A marine can wound a dread on a 5+ instead of...not ever. Sure you've got a 3+ save, but that's not much in the grand scheme of things.

 

You can hail Mary ping down an injured vehicle instead of wasting more shots to overkill it with anti tank weapons like in the past. These things all tend to add up to undermine vehicle durability and doesn't help the gladius when it's also highly priced compared to its relatively survivability and output.

[The Unseen]

And I much prefer that over not being able to damage a big monster or vehicle with a huge portion of my army at all, rendering all-armor skew lists a constant concern. I don't want the rules to go back to a place where running into an entire army of knights that, once they knock out your anti-tank units, cannot be physically damaged at all by whats left. Even if it wasn't ever broken or top-tier, its a horrible feeling to play against a unit you just can't damage.

Chipping a wound or two off a vehicle with massed bolter fire to finish it off isn't the issue.

[CCE1981]

A lot of the issue seems to be not being able to bring tailored lists. Turning tournaments into a quasi-Crusade format might help. Something like 2,000 pt list with 1,000 pt sidebar would help a bit with something like Knights. Something that could help vehicles might be the Dreadnought Duty Eternal, except to allow it to reduce damage to 0, as long as the vehicle is above a certain damage threshold. To make it easier make it the bottom threshhold. Any ability the “counts vehicle as double wounds for the damage profile” would still count as being where it’s wounds actually are.

[Ishagu]

Well the possibility is there. A marine can wound a dread on a 5+ instead of...not ever. Sure you've got a 3+ save, but that's not much in the grand scheme of things.

 

You can hail Mary ping down an injured vehicle instead of wasting more shots to overkill it with anti tank weapons like in the past. These things all tend to add up to undermine vehicle durability and doesn't help the gladius when it's also highly priced compared to its relatively survivability and output.

It really doesn't in practice, in any quantity that should be of concern.

 

The game is all about target priorities and positioning, and when you have limited turns to win, you can't waste shots or actions.

 

Even with Str 3 weapons having the ability to chip the vehicles, the vehicles are still far more durable than they were in past editions.

 

The way to look at this objectively is to see how much a unit costs, and how many points or assets it takes to remove it, and how much it offers on the tabletop in terms of helping to win the game/remove threats. Currently the tanks are too pricey.

 

If a Gladiator cost 75 points it would be the most durable and most offensive unit unit on the tabletop, point for point. GW need to find the correct balance. I still think a Valiant, for example, with all the extra options should only be priced at 200 points.

Edited March 13, 2021 by Ishagu

[Karhedron]

The problem is that a squad of Eradicators costs far less than a Gladiator Valiant but has a similar lethality output and 75% the number of wounds (albeit at T5). The Eradicators can be buffed by virtually every Character in the codex and have access to THP and the Gravis stratagem to buff their durability.

 

The Gladiator is faster and can be buffed by the Techmarine and not much else.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Seeing how we have new gaming mechanics for vehicles - such as many wounds and degrading profiles - I think the resistance to say a 5++ is unjustified. We all know there’s a problem but some are not really open to addressing these issues IMO and would rather just point out what feels wrong. Things like trying to make case for the DDA being a flimsy skimmer is just silly when it is point for point more deadly and resilient than any SM tank

Edited March 13, 2021 by Black Blow Fly

[Warhead01]

Seeing how we have new gaming mechanics for vehicles - such as many wounds and degrading profiles - I think the resistance to say a 5++ is unjustified. We all know there’s a problem but some are not really open to addressing these issues IMO and would rather just point out what feels wrong. Things like trying to make case for the DDA being a flimsy skimmer is just silly when it is point for point more deadly and resilient than any SM tank

I think I agree. Was thinking a vehicle, depending on what ever to create balance, could have a 6+ fnp and a 5+ fnp. 

It might be a little weird. I see each save set against a weapons strength bracket, like a 2-4 and a 5-7, or something like that, where the lower the weapons strength the better the fnp save.

and a damage reduction to 1 for weapons under say Strength 6 or less. I wasn't sure if adding a 4+ fnp was balanced or not but that would have to be for the lowest possible strength if at all. 

 

I don't know it's probably just a time suck or overly unbalanced. 

The thing that sticks out to me is the game design of looking for rolls. I already know how many of my weapons will wound a vehicle on a 5+ and will just dump them all in if I'm doing it at all. there's no one lucky roll just a mass of dice looking for those 5+ rolls. It's the current nature of the beast as far as I can tell.  I'd consider setting some vehicles to never be wounded on less than X but that's just more like I know my rules aren't very good so I just invalidate them "some of the time".

 

Maybe we should just lower our expectations?  

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Lowering the points is minimum acceptable fix.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

And I much prefer that over not being able to damage a big monster or vehicle with a huge portion of my army at all, rendering all-armor skew lists a constant concern. I don't want the rules to go back to a place where running into an entire army of knights that, once they knock out your anti-tank units, cannot be physically damaged at all by whats left. Even if it wasn't ever broken or top-tier, its a horrible feeling to play against a unit you just can't damage.

 

Chipping a wound or two off a vehicle with massed bolter fire to finish it off isn't the issue.

but apparently it's reliable enough for you to want to be able to do it...?

[Ishagu]

 

If you think it's a problem I suggest you actually play more games. Go ahead and fire all your bolters or lasguns at T8 tanks.

 

You'll quickly find you've done little to no damage and your opponent's infantry would have claimed objectives uncontested.

 

I find that the people who worry most about low Strength weapons destroying their vehicles are the ones who don't really play all that often. I can count on one hand the number of times I've actually done damage to vehicles with Str 3/4 weapons over the last 3+ years. It's definitely possible but it's so ineffective to do outside of limited, niche situations that it becomes irrelevant.

 

200 Guardsmen in Rapid Fire range will do 5 wounds to a Landraider.

 

No, this does not concern me at all.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Some factions are very effective doing chip damage to vehicles such as Death Guard lowering the toughness. Ignore it at your own peril.

[Ishagu]

Some factions are very effective doing chip damage to vehicles such as Death Guard lowering the toughness. Ignore it at your own peril.

There are definitely situations like this but at this point it's quite thematic. The foul warp taint of the Death Guard has weakened the armour of your tanks.

 

That's pretty cool, but it's attributed to special modifiers over the weapons themselves.

[SkimaskMohawk]

Let's not use "theme" for anything. It's not thematic for guns to shoot in angles they physically can't aim towards, or for a tank to be stopped by a guy standing in the way, or for 12 guys punching at once to kill a gladiator.

 

I'll agree that chip damage isn't the deal breaker for vehicles. But it's a factor that wasn't present before and compounds on any other weaknesses of a particular vehicle. Especially with heavy bolters doing 2 damage and how they wound all the heaviest tanks on 5s.

 

The gladiator can take chip damage and be finished off by nothing weapons in pinch. It can be tied up by stuff and have it's target selection neutered. It can also just be body blocked and have to drive around stuff. It has almost no synergy at all with stratagems or abilities. And it's priced too high after you consider all of those things.

[Alcyon]

 

It honestly doesn't matter what gw designs things for if they're not used in those ways. Tanks aren't used as tanks in the marine range; theres too little firepower and too little survivability for the price. Compare a gladiator to plasma inceptors and they'll lose on every metric because of transhuman and core and general pricing.

 

It absolutely does matter when it's the design decisions that directly lead into whether units are used in the intended ways. Tanks not being used as tanks is a design failure that's a result of, in part, granting too many buffs to comparable infantry models. If you wanna talk about just the state of the game then we could've ended this thread after 5 posts. We're now into the reasoning behind design decisions and whether certain suggestions are viable based on that info, I think that's pretty relevant.

 

Seeing how we have new gaming mechanics for vehicles - such as many wounds and degrading profiles - I think the resistance to say a 5++ is unjustified. We all know there’s a problem but some are not really open to addressing these issues IMO and would rather just point out what feels wrong. Things like trying to make case for the DDA being a flimsy skimmer is just silly when it is point for point more deadly and resilient than any SM tank

 

Potato potahto. I think GW's design logic is key to understanding their decisions and whether certain ideas have a chance in hell of ever being implemented. I think I've made a lot of constructive comments in this thread suggesting things and to be told I'm only "pointing out what feels wrong" is pretty insulting. The rules basis for the DDA's toughness is one thing and its fluff justification is another. If the latter didn't matter then there would be no reason to have armour saves, toughness, invulns, FNPs and additional special rules - we'd just have one metric and all weapons would be indexed to that. Not to mention the DDA sees zero play since the Necron codex revamp.

 

I take some responsibility for posting too much in this thread and keeping it alive despite it being a typical B&C circlejerk. I'm not doing anything here other than getting pissed off so I'm unsubscribing and taking a break to actually play some games. Thanks for all the fish.

[Ishagu]

Let's not use "theme" for anything. It's not thematic for guns to shoot in angles they physically can't aim towards, or for a tank to be stopped by a guy standing in the way, or for 12 guys punching at once to kill a gladiator.

 

I'll agree that chip damage isn't the deal breaker for vehicles. But it's a factor that wasn't present before and compounds on any other weaknesses of a particular vehicle. Especially with heavy bolters doing 2 damage and how they wound all the heaviest tanks on 5s.

 

The gladiator can take chip damage and be finished off by nothing weapons in pinch. It can be tied up by stuff and have it's target selection neutered. It can also just be body blocked and have to drive around stuff. It has almost no synergy at all with stratagems or abilities. And it's priced too high after you consider all of those things.

But even now, in 9th edition, a Gladiator is more durable than tanks were in 7th edition when chip damage from low Str weapons wasn't a thing. A single Melta gun could destroy any tank in one hit.

[Sword Brother Adelard]

Yeah, but it was pretty unlikely AND at least it was thematic. I actually have less of an issue with a dedicated anti-tank weapon killing a tank, than I do with a Stalker Bolt Rifles taking 20% of a Rhino's hit point with one shot.