How is it possible to fail so badly on a unit? Then again...I look at a tau hammer head with a railgun and it is just about as bad.
I feel like the standard for a 200 point tank should be 4 Quality anti tank shots.
Hammerhead if it did flat 6 damage or 2d6 damage....or ignored invunes or something...Same thing for the lancer. If they want to make it all come down to 1 shot - that shoot should probably have the ability to destroy a battle tank in 1 shot. So should really be 3d6 damage for 1 shot or 2d6 on a 2 shot weapon (which should cost more).
Lets start a petition to make rail guns 3d6 damage and lancers 2d6.
I'd rather not return to a game where a weapon can have a good chance to kill a vehicle in one hit. Yes random damage is pretty stupid, but that can be mitigated with simply transitioning to, well, less random damage.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: I'd rather not return to a game where a weapon can have a good chance to kill a vehicle in one hit. Yes random damage is pretty stupid, but that can be mitigated with simply transitioning to, well, less random damage.
What would you think would be a good solution here then? When you reduce the number of shots on a weapon you make it weaker vs lighter targets because it can't remove as many models in a turn. You increase the likelyhood of doing 0 damage as well due to the chance to hit and wound and fail a save - esp with invune saves. Even if the average damage was the same between a 1 and 2 shot weapon the 2 shot weapon would always be better. So you need to get something by reducing the number of shots on a weapon that should have 4 shots (like a las pred) and instead give it 2 or 1.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: I'd rather not return to a game where a weapon can have a good chance to kill a vehicle in one hit. Yes random damage is pretty stupid, but that can be mitigated with simply transitioning to, well, less random damage.
What would you think would be a good solution here then? When you reduce the number of shots on a weapon you make it weaker vs lighter targets because it can't remove as many models in a turn. You increase the likelyhood of doing 0 damage as well due to the chance to hit and wound and fail a save - esp with invune saves. Even if the average damage was the same between a 1 and 2 shot weapon the 2 shot weapon would always be better. So you need to get something by reducing the number of shots on a weapon that should have 4 shots (like a las pred) and instead give it 2 or 1.
I literally gave the solution, which is to move on from random damage mechanics overall.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: I'd rather not return to a game where a weapon can have a good chance to kill a vehicle in one hit. Yes random damage is pretty stupid, but that can be mitigated with simply transitioning to, well, less random damage.
What would you think would be a good solution here then? When you reduce the number of shots on a weapon you make it weaker vs lighter targets because it can't remove as many models in a turn. You increase the likelyhood of doing 0 damage as well due to the chance to hit and wound and fail a save - esp with invune saves. Even if the average damage was the same between a 1 and 2 shot weapon the 2 shot weapon would always be better. So you need to get something by reducing the number of shots on a weapon that should have 4 shots (like a las pred) and instead give it 2 or 1.
I literally gave the solution, which is to move on from random damage mechanics overall.
So flat damage...You think a railgun should do like flat 10 or 12. Lancer flat 6?
jaredb wrote: The Lancer has two shots I thought already, and D3+3 is pretty good for a two shot gun, it is capable of killing a lot of vehicles in one shot.
Yes but so is 4 las cannons.
What is the advantage here over a preditor with 4 las?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Eihnlazer wrote: lancer gets +1str and more sub weapons over the twin Heavy blaze cannon that custodes get.
In return the blaze cannon has a burst fire mode for anti-infantry.
The weapons are comparable.
Comparable yes - but for the same points you just take the 8 shot version which is much better vs pretty much everything. The issue is the weapon type. No one is taking blaze cannons on this thing because they suck. Just like the lancer does. At least the blaze cannons do have an alternate mode. Str 10 has very little value on a low ROF weapon.
Aesthetically it is my favorite loadout of the 3. I think the lancer looks the part of a marine tank very well. It’s the classic look in the primaris age. I like the concept of the Big Gun in the turret, with just the light stuff in the sponsons to keep the grots from getting their greasy fingerprints on the hull. It is the cheapest of the 3, which is something. It shouldn’t compare identically to it’s more expensive kin. I like the fact that they tried to make the one big gun a little better with the to hit buff.
You pay a hefty premium for that big gun though. And its range (which you will almost never use). Sure the others cap out at 24/30”, but with a 10” move and no drawbacks for moving/shooting, how restrictive is that? You might not be able to cover the whole table with the other guys, but you can threaten a massive chunk of it.
The Valiant is 25% more expensive, but has 4 times the firepower. Sure it’s close range, and split between S8/9, but really. If you want to blow things up it’s hard to turn that away. And the difference in S is irrelevant against most targets.
Once you pay that much for the chassis, why not the upcharge for maximal firepower?
The Reaper looks nice on paper, but I feel there are so many ways to get that kind of firepower on the table, it’s a little excessive.
I want to really like the Lancer but its damage output is still a bit....meh. I know the stats mirror the Executioner gun but its still not exactly rocking the world for its price, even if it is the lowest one in the Gladiator family. I feel like they priced it for the range when range over 36" these days is basically a non issue with the smaller tables. For me an ideal anti tank weapon needs to be flat, or mostly flat high end damage and low shots......like a real world anti tank weapon (missiles, cannons, etc). The pinnacle of this is the Thundercoil Harpoon in all of its awesome but the Neutron laser of the onager dunecrawler is a really good way to implement it. Having random damage can work as long as you have a minimum. Obviously having minimum 10 damage is a bit much for anything but a short range weapon but when ever it does it IT WORKS. I'd love to see the valiant be something more like 3d3 minimum 6. You have the potential to one shot something but its really not likely and with multiple dice throws you're going to have more variance and less able to use the command reroll. It would be reliable at 6d (or even 4-5 tbh) and occasionally you can swing it pasting a rhino, especially when you consider its cost and lack of survivability.
I love weapons that can occasionally surprise you with a memorable kill. Sometimes we feel like we have to break it all down to exact math and X weapon is better because its .02% better, etc etc. The Knight Valiant and her Thundercoil Harpoon is still one of my favorites because of this. I even killed Gazghul with it once and that was just pure magic, very unreliably cinematic. That kind of weapon is pure fun and I really want the Gladiator Valiant and the Executioner to do those things occasionally. The one weapon that should be doing this all the time though.....THE RAIL GUN. Such lost opportunities.....
I look at the gun stats and the tank point costs, and I am starting to think that GW sometimes prices stuff for doing max damage and always hiting, and not what units actualy do on the battlefield
The Vanquisher, Railcannon, and now the Lancer are all victims of GW's inability to do math, and to a lesser extent their inability to make a tank gun meaningfully more powerful than a bazooka.
They consistently undervalue having several shots for middling damage, and overvalue having a single shot for... not that much damage in the end because somehow I think in their head they read "damage 1d6" as "damage 6".
Fundamentally, stating a single-fire tank gun to do more than 1d6 damage, to do 2d6, 6, or even 10+1d3 isn't super-heavy material. A Volcano Cannon fires 3d3 shots for 2d6 damage. If you fire one shot for 2d6 you're still at one-sixth the output of the shadowsword destroyer laser.
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: The Vanquisher, Railcannon, and now the Lancer are all victims of GW's inability to do math, and to a lesser extent their inability to make a tank gun meaningfully more powerful than a bazooka.
They consistently undervalue having several shots for middling damage, and overvalue having a single shot for... not that much damage in the end because somehow I think in their head they read "damage 1d6" as "damage 6".
Fundamentally, stating a single-fire tank gun to do more than 1d6 damage, to do 2d6, 6, or even 10+1d3 isn't super-heavy material. A Volcano Cannon fires 3d3 shots for 2d6 damage. If you fire one shot for 2d6 you're still at one-sixth the output of the shadowsword destroyer laser.
and a 1/6 of a Volcano cannon would still be VERY respectable for the price and platform (and actually a little underperforming really, its the 2+ BS that saves it)
Karol wrote: I look at the gun stats and the tank point costs, and I am starting to think that GW sometimes prices stuff for doing max damage and always hiting, and not what units actualy do on the battlefield
That would certainly explain the insane price hike on the Ork SAG.
I dunno Xeno a 3d6 weapon would still be wildly swingy. As much as you maybe don't like it I think in some cases just upping the number of shots is the safest way. Nobody would really enjoy playing against a 1 shot 3d6dmg cannon that can either one-shot their MBT or wiff and fail to kill a predator over 3 turns, unlikely as that is.
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: The Vanquisher, Railcannon, and now the Lancer are all victims of GW's inability to do math, and to a lesser extent their inability to make a tank gun meaningfully more powerful than a bazooka.
They consistently undervalue having several shots for middling damage, and overvalue having a single shot for... not that much damage in the end because somehow I think in their head they read "damage 1d6" as "damage 6".
Fundamentally, stating a single-fire tank gun to do more than 1d6 damage, to do 2d6, 6, or even 10+1d3 isn't super-heavy material. A Volcano Cannon fires 3d3 shots for 2d6 damage. If you fire one shot for 2d6 you're still at one-sixth the output of the shadowsword destroyer laser.
I'm afraid Shadowswords may be getting a nerf in the new Guard codex. Falchions have twin Volcano Cannons, and gw stated those at 2d3 D6 shots.
well if they're over costed and not all that great I'd say that's a major knock to those who claim that people only buy stuff thats OP because they're already sold out
I'd say the Lancer is my favorite of the 3, and it may be lacking slightly in comparison but as far as damage goes I'd say it's much more consistent than a quad cannon pred seeing as it's d3+3. Plus it's got T8 which seems to be flying under the radar. I can't form a complete opinion since I don't own one and obviously haven't played with one, but it fills a role that I've been wanting for a while, long range anti tank that can also reposition quickly.
I will say its pretty refreshing to see a new tank come out that isnt hands over better than anything i currently own.
Its hard to compare any anti-tank vehicle to something like a Demolisher commander though. 2d6 shots either maxed out for CP or rerolling if 3 or lower at str 10 ap-3 D6 damage.
There is no other vehicle in the game that can put out close to that much output for the same price of 190pts. And they usually strap on plasma cannon sponsons or have 3 heavy bolters as well for a few more points.
Comparing the lancer, or any other tank to a commander is gonna have said tank look bad.
BrianDavion wrote: well if they're over costed and not all that great I'd say that's a major knock to those who claim that people only buy stuff thats OP because they're already sold out
New marines stuff sells a lot anyway. The first primaris models were inferior to classic marines when they were released at the beginning of 8th and yet they did sell a lot. New shiny toy always sells for marines. At some point GW makes it overpowered so it keeps selling.
I don't know, those gladiators all seem decent to me. They might be a couple of points too much, but they are still good enough for semi-competitive play.
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: The Vanquisher, Railcannon, and now the Lancer are all victims of GW's inability to do math, and to a lesser extent their inability to make a tank gun meaningfully more powerful than a bazooka.
They consistently undervalue having several shots for middling damage, and overvalue having a single shot for... not that much damage in the end because somehow I think in their head they read "damage 1d6" as "damage 6".
Fundamentally, stating a single-fire tank gun to do more than 1d6 damage, to do 2d6, 6, or even 10+1d3 isn't super-heavy material. A Volcano Cannon fires 3d3 shots for 2d6 damage. If you fire one shot for 2d6 you're still at one-sixth the output of the shadowsword destroyer laser.
I'm afraid Shadowswords may be getting a nerf in the new Guard codex. Falchions have twin Volcano Cannons, and gw stated those at 2d3 D6 shots.
That's... odd.
Then again, given the amount of complaining about errors int he book, and the current lack of an errata/FAQ (as far as I'm aware), maybe the Falchion stats are wrong?
Jidmah wrote: I don't know, those gladiators all seem decent to me. They might be a couple of points too much, but they are still good enough for semi-competitive play.
Agreed, I think people have been spoiled for too long with options that are too much. Ofc a lancer seems weak compared to the output of eradicators, or the reaper seems ok but when compared to the stupid number of bullets aggressors had it feels like it could be underwhelming.
The more things in the game that seem "just ok" the better really rather expecting there to have to be an overly efficient option.
Jidmah wrote: I don't know, those gladiators all seem decent to me. They might be a couple of points too much, but they are still good enough for semi-competitive play.
Yeah, it's a typical SM players' response. If it's not Eradicators' OP level it's trash.
And the entire point of a Gladiator isn't to provide a better alternative to a Predator, just to be the primaris equivalent of a Predator. What was the point of Intercessors, Hellblasters/Eradicators, Outriders, Bladeguards etc... when TACs, Devastators, Bikes, Terminators, etc already existed? They all had no point, that's what happens when an entire line of models is released.
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: The Vanquisher, Railcannon, and now the Lancer are all victims of GW's inability to do math, and to a lesser extent their inability to make a tank gun meaningfully more powerful than a bazooka.
They consistently undervalue having several shots for middling damage, and overvalue having a single shot for... not that much damage in the end because somehow I think in their head they read "damage 1d6" as "damage 6".
Fundamentally, stating a single-fire tank gun to do more than 1d6 damage, to do 2d6, 6, or even 10+1d3 isn't super-heavy material. A Volcano Cannon fires 3d3 shots for 2d6 damage. If you fire one shot for 2d6 you're still at one-sixth the output of the shadowsword destroyer laser.
I'm afraid Shadowswords may be getting a nerf in the new Guard codex. Falchions have twin Volcano Cannons, and gw stated those at 2d3 D6 shots.
That's... odd.
Then again, given the amount of complaining about errors int he book, and the current lack of an errata/FAQ (as far as I'm aware), maybe the Falchion stats are wrong?
It's just as likely that the Falchion's guns are deliberately weaker as a punishment for being resin.
BrianDavion wrote: well if they're over costed and not all that great I'd say that's a major knock to those who claim that people only buy stuff thats OP because they're already sold out
Except that it is a model that shares a lot with two other options that aren’t as overcosted
And regardless, “overcosted” by SM player standards is like fair and balanced for everyone else. It’s hardly an unplayable model, the dex has some of the biggest bs in the game so it’s less appealing.
BrianDavion wrote: well if they're over costed and not all that great I'd say that's a major knock to those who claim that people only buy stuff thats OP because they're already sold out
Except that it is a model that shares a lot with two other options that aren’t as overcosted
And regardless, “overcosted” by SM player standards is like fair and balanced for everyone else. It’s hardly an unplayable model, the dex has some of the biggest bs in the game so it’s less appealing.
I'd certainly pay the +25 points to get a 2 shot railgun with +1 to hit on my hammerheads. Thats ignoring the T8 vrs T7
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: The Vanquisher, Railcannon, and now the Lancer are all victims of GW's inability to do math, and to a lesser extent their inability to make a tank gun meaningfully more powerful than a bazooka.
They consistently undervalue having several shots for middling damage, and overvalue having a single shot for... not that much damage in the end because somehow I think in their head they read "damage 1d6" as "damage 6".
Fundamentally, stating a single-fire tank gun to do more than 1d6 damage, to do 2d6, 6, or even 10+1d3 isn't super-heavy material. A Volcano Cannon fires 3d3 shots for 2d6 damage. If you fire one shot for 2d6 you're still at one-sixth the output of the shadowsword destroyer laser.
I'm afraid Shadowswords may be getting a nerf in the new Guard codex. Falchions have twin Volcano Cannons, and gw stated those at 2d3 D6 shots.
That's... odd.
Then again, given the amount of complaining about errors int he book, and the current lack of an errata/FAQ (as far as I'm aware), maybe the Falchion stats are wrong?
It's just as likely that the Falchion's guns are deliberately weaker as a punishment for being resin.
You've been infected with tneva's conspiracy theory too, huh?
BrianDavion wrote: well if they're over costed and not all that great I'd say that's a major knock to those who claim that people only buy stuff thats OP because they're already sold out
But is it lancer that is selling or 1 of the other 2 variants, all 3being built from same kit?
Guess what: lancer is weakest of the variants. Now can you prove more than 33% of kits are built as lancer? If not its not major knock.
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: The Vanquisher, Railcannon, and now the Lancer are all victims of GW's inability to do math, and to a lesser extent their inability to make a tank gun meaningfully more powerful than a bazooka.
They consistently undervalue having several shots for middling damage, and overvalue having a single shot for... not that much damage in the end because somehow I think in their head they read "damage 1d6" as "damage 6".
Fundamentally, stating a single-fire tank gun to do more than 1d6 damage, to do 2d6, 6, or even 10+1d3 isn't super-heavy material. A Volcano Cannon fires 3d3 shots for 2d6 damage. If you fire one shot for 2d6 you're still at one-sixth the output of the shadowsword destroyer laser.
I'm afraid Shadowswords may be getting a nerf in the new Guard codex. Falchions have twin Volcano Cannons, and gw stated those at 2d3 D6 shots.
That's... odd.
Then again, given the amount of complaining about errors int he book, and the current lack of an errata/FAQ (as far as I'm aware), maybe the Falchion stats are wrong?
It's just as likely that the Falchion's guns are deliberately weaker as a punishment for being resin.
You've been infected with tneva's conspiracy theory too, huh?
If you haven"t seen pattern your math is worse than 1st grader
Facts ain"t conspiracy theories. It's easily shown especially once gw took control how they systematically nerf resin. 300% price hikes to crappy units etc. It's too systematic to be accidental and when you know enough of casting process for kindergarden abc the reason is obvious. Profit
BrianDavion wrote: well if they're over costed and not all that great I'd say that's a major knock to those who claim that people only buy stuff thats OP because they're already sold out
But is it lancer that is selling or 1 of the other 2 variants, all 3being built from same kit?
Guess what: lancer is weakest of the variants. Now can you prove more than 33% of kits are built as lancer? If not its not major knock.
A lot of people will be building them swappable too, as its pretty easy with the kit.
BrianDavion wrote: well if they're over costed and not all that great I'd say that's a major knock to those who claim that people only buy stuff thats OP because they're already sold out
But is it lancer that is selling or 1 of the other 2 variants, all 3being built from same kit?
Guess what: lancer is weakest of the variants. Now can you prove more than 33% of kits are built as lancer? If not its not major knock.
A lot of people will be building them swappable too, as its pretty easy with the kit.
Yep. So 1 variant out of 3 build kit being bad and kit selling out is not proof of anything.
Now if all 3 variants are super bad, it's not marines and it sells out like hot cakes we are talking. Marines, by sheer number of players(especially kids with parents who don't know rules when looking at presents etc) will sell well enough with decent rules so don't need to be super op. Especially when by sheer layer of buffs unit needs to be really bad to be bad
If you haven"t seen pattern your math is worse than 1st grader
Facts ain"t conspiracy theories. It's easily shown especially once gw took control how they systematically nerf resin. 300% price hikes to crappy units etc. It's too systematic to be accidental and when you know enough of casting process for kindergarden abc the reason is obvious. Profit
Right or wrong the concept behind that assumption is wrong though.
I really like X forgeworld unit.
It has pants rules
I don't buy anything
GW make less money
Your making the same corprate middle manager decision that forgets people won't buy something just because the thing they wanted has been made too expensive to be justified.
If you haven"t seen pattern your math is worse than 1st grader
Facts ain"t conspiracy theories. It's easily shown especially once gw took control how they systematically nerf resin. 300% price hikes to crappy units etc. It's too systematic to be accidental and when you know enough of casting process for kindergarden abc the reason is obvious. Profit
Right or wrong the concept behind that assumption is wrong though.
I really like X forgeworld unit.
It has pants rules
I don't buy anything
GW make less money
Your making the same corprate middle manager decision that forgets people won't buy something just because the thing they wanted has been made too expensive to be justified.
That and it's not like some people leaned heavily on relic dreads, terrax assault drills, malanthropes or whatever decent FW units exist. There's a long history showing that good rules sell FW models time and again, for the first time in years we're in a position where none seem objectively too good and the "bad" ones aren't terrible.
But agree that the point still stands, there is no objective reason for GW to not recoup money through FW.
fraser1191 wrote: I'd say the Lancer is my favorite of the 3, and it may be lacking slightly in comparison but as far as damage goes I'd say it's much more consistent than a quad cannon pred seeing as it's d3+3. Plus it's got T8 which seems to be flying under the radar. I can't form a complete opinion since I don't own one and obviously haven't played with one, but it fills a role that I've been wanting for a while, long range anti tank that can also reposition quickly.
woah, it totally did for me, i just assumed it would be t7 like all (non vindicator) rhino-chassis tanks.
It getting T8 is actually huge.
Who ever justified the points for the riptide alternatives as Levianth dreadnaught was higher than snoopdog.
Can't comment about those but never know, next tau book might make the point costs make sense (maybe?).
That's bad because it means they are over costed for another 3 months minimum probably longer potentially as long as a year.
Also it really would be terrible news for game balance as the level of buffing that Tau's doctorines equivalents would have to give would be bigger than marine's currently rediculous buff stack.
More like they just need to 20-30% points premium they have been charged taken off.
I'm afraid Shadowswords may be getting a nerf in the new Guard codex. Falchions have twin Volcano Cannons, and gw stated those at 2d3 D6 shots.
A Clarification because that reads as d6 damage, it is in fact flat 6 damage. S14 AP-5 Blast,re-rolls wounds against titanic, if that matters.
Sorry if that wasn't clear, but it doesn't. Average damage from a Shadowsword's Volcano Cannon against it's favorite target: T8 3+ 5++: 18.148. Average damage for a Falchion's twin Volcano Cannon against the same: 9.481. So roughly half as effective for twice the gun. If Shadowswords remain the same in the new Guard codex I think Falchion owners have every right to be salty.
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: The Vanquisher, Railcannon, and now the Lancer are all victims of GW's inability to do math, and to a lesser extent their inability to make a tank gun meaningfully more powerful than a bazooka.
They consistently undervalue having several shots for middling damage, and overvalue having a single shot for... not that much damage in the end because somehow I think in their head they read "damage 1d6" as "damage 6".
Fundamentally, stating a single-fire tank gun to do more than 1d6 damage, to do 2d6, 6, or even 10+1d3 isn't super-heavy material. A Volcano Cannon fires 3d3 shots for 2d6 damage. If you fire one shot for 2d6 you're still at one-sixth the output of the shadowsword destroyer laser.
I'm afraid Shadowswords may be getting a nerf in the new Guard codex. Falchions have twin Volcano Cannons, and gw stated those at 2d3 D6 shots.
That's... odd.
Then again, given the amount of complaining about errors int he book, and the current lack of an errata/FAQ (as far as I'm aware), maybe the Falchion stats are wrong?
It's just as likely that the Falchion's guns are deliberately weaker as a punishment for being resin.
Or it's a case of gw trying to make the Falchion reasonable at a playable points cost. Literally giving it twice the output of a Shadowsword would make it ridiculous, unless it was exorbitantly expensive. So instead they tried to make it's twin Volcano Cannon equal the damage output of the Fellblade's accelerator cannon AE profile + it's demolisher cannon, and then gave them the exact same price. Which is stupid, as one is a general purpose super-heavy tank and the other is supposed to be a LOW killer, but I think that's what they were trying to do.
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: The Vanquisher, Railcannon, and now the Lancer are all victims of GW's inability to do math, and to a lesser extent their inability to make a tank gun meaningfully more powerful than a bazooka.
They consistently undervalue having several shots for middling damage, and overvalue having a single shot for... not that much damage in the end because somehow I think in their head they read "damage 1d6" as "damage 6".
Fundamentally, stating a single-fire tank gun to do more than 1d6 damage, to do 2d6, 6, or even 10+1d3 isn't super-heavy material. A Volcano Cannon fires 3d3 shots for 2d6 damage. If you fire one shot for 2d6 you're still at one-sixth the output of the shadowsword destroyer laser.
I'm afraid Shadowswords may be getting a nerf in the new Guard codex. Falchions have twin Volcano Cannons, and gw stated those at 2d3 D6 shots.
That's... odd.
Then again, given the amount of complaining about errors int he book, and the current lack of an errata/FAQ (as far as I'm aware), maybe the Falchion stats are wrong?
It's just as likely that the Falchion's guns are deliberately weaker as a punishment for being resin.
You've been infected with tneva's conspiracy theory too, huh?
If you haven"t seen pattern your math is worse than 1st grader
Facts ain"t conspiracy theories. It's easily shown especially once gw took control how they systematically nerf resin. 300% price hikes to crappy units etc. It's too systematic to be accidental and when you know enough of casting process for kindergarden abc the reason is obvious. Profit
No, not really. Compare the Lancer (200 PPM) to the fw equivalent "tank hunter" for marines, the Sicaran Venator ( 170 PPM+1CP). Lancer gets 2 S10 AP-3 Dd3+3 shots averaging 4.636 damage against T8 3+ targets and 3.704 against T8 3+ 5++. Venator gets 3 S12 AP-3 D6 shots (if it stays still) averaging 6.667 damage against T8 3+ and 5.333 against T8 3+ 5+++. So, no, gw isn't just "making fw units worse".
BrianDavion wrote: well if they're over costed and not all that great I'd say that's a major knock to those who claim that people only buy stuff thats OP because they're already sold out
Except that it is a model that shares a lot with two other options that aren’t as overcosted
And regardless, “overcosted” by SM player standards is like fair and balanced for everyone else. It’s hardly an unplayable model, the dex has some of the biggest bs in the game so it’s less appealing.
I'd certainly pay the +25 points to get a 2 shot railgun with +1 to hit on my hammerheads. Thats ignoring the T8 vrs T7
No you wouldn't - youd just take ioncannons like all tau players do currently. Because it is a good weapons vs a terrible one for the same price.
It is bad. It is bad by the standards of any army.
Unit1126PLL wrote: How many wounds does the Lancer have? Are we finally seeing an SM MBT that outclasses the Leman Russ in durability?
12 wounds, t8, 3+ save
So equally durable to a Leman Russ, with a 2+ BS (right?). Even with a 3+ BS, it's basically a Tank Commander...
3+ but with a special rule that makes the main gun a 2+
So yeah, basically SM got a Tank Commander, which is one of the best MBTs in 40k, and they're upset about it...
It is a LR chassis that can't take battle cannons and it costs significantly more. The punisher version I think is okay though. I am just targeting the lancers and also at the same time complaining about all low volume anti tank shots compared to their multi shot competitiors. I can pretty much garentee that the double Gatling version averages about the same damage to a tank as the lancer.
BrianDavion wrote: well if they're over costed and not all that great I'd say that's a major knock to those who claim that people only buy stuff thats OP because they're already sold out
Except that it is a model that shares a lot with two other options that aren’t as overcosted
And regardless, “overcosted” by SM player standards is like fair and balanced for everyone else. It’s hardly an unplayable model, the dex has some of the biggest bs in the game so it’s less appealing.
I'd certainly pay the +25 points to get a 2 shot railgun with +1 to hit on my hammerheads. Thats ignoring the T8 vrs T7
No you wouldn't - youd just take ioncannons like all tau players do currently. Because it is a good weapons vs a terrible one for the same price.
It is bad. It is bad by the standards of any army.
BrianDavion wrote: well if they're over costed and not all that great I'd say that's a major knock to those who claim that people only buy stuff thats OP because they're already sold out
Except that it is a model that shares a lot with two other options that aren’t as overcosted
And regardless, “overcosted” by SM player standards is like fair and balanced for everyone else. It’s hardly an unplayable model, the dex has some of the biggest bs in the game so it’s less appealing.
I'd certainly pay the +25 points to get a 2 shot railgun with +1 to hit on my hammerheads. Thats ignoring the T8 vrs T7
No you wouldn't - youd just take ioncannons like all tau players do currently. Because it is a good weapons vs a terrible one for the same price.
It is bad. It is bad by the standards of any army.
Unit1126PLL wrote: How many wounds does the Lancer have? Are we finally seeing an SM MBT that outclasses the Leman Russ in durability?
12 wounds, t8, 3+ save
So equally durable to a Leman Russ, with a 2+ BS (right?). Even with a 3+ BS, it's basically a Tank Commander...
3+ but with a special rule that makes the main gun a 2+
So yeah, basically SM got a Tank Commander, which is one of the best MBTs in 40k, and they're upset about it...
It is a LR chassis that can't take battle cannons and it costs significantly more. The punisher version I think is okay though. I am just targeting the lancers and also at the same time complaining about all low volume anti tank shots compared to their multi shot competitiors. I can pretty much garentee that the double Gatling version averages about the same damage to a tank as the lancer.
Against T7 3+ with storm bolters the lancer does 5.2 damage, or 4.9 against T8 3+
The reaper does 4.44 against T7 3+ or 3.56 against T8 3+
Put in a 5+ and it's very close in favour of the reaper and 4+ invuln and the reaper overtakes further.
Edit: put everything in rapid fire range to be generous.
BrianDavion wrote: well if they're over costed and not all that great I'd say that's a major knock to those who claim that people only buy stuff thats OP because they're already sold out
Except that it is a model that shares a lot with two other options that aren’t as overcosted
And regardless, “overcosted” by SM player standards is like fair and balanced for everyone else. It’s hardly an unplayable model, the dex has some of the biggest bs in the game so it’s less appealing.
I'd certainly pay the +25 points to get a 2 shot railgun with +1 to hit on my hammerheads. Thats ignoring the T8 vrs T7
No you wouldn't - youd just take ioncannons like all tau players do currently. Because it is a good weapons vs a terrible one for the same price.
It is bad. It is bad by the standards of any army.
Xenomancers wrote: I can pretty much garentee that the double Gatling version averages about the same damage to a tank as the lancer.
Lancer averages 3.704 damage against T8 3+ 5++ and 4.630 damage against T8 3+ vs Reaper double gatling at 2.667 against both defensive profiles. So Lancer is 27% better against T8 3+ 5++ and 42% better against T8 3+. There goes your guarantee.
Edit: Just pointing out I was only comparing the main guns, no auxiliary weapons.
Xenomancers wrote: I can pretty much garentee that the double Gatling version averages about the same damage to a tank as the lancer.
Lancer averages 3.704 damage against T8 3+ 5++ and 4.630 damage against T8 3+ vs Reaper double gatling at 2.667 against both defensive profiles. So Lancer is 27% better against T8 3+ 5++ and 42% better against T8 3+. There goes your guarantee.
You are also forgetting the secondary weapon on the reaper. which is a significant 12 more ap-1 shots. I did the math. It is about 4 average damage to 5. AKA almost the same. Plus granted we are talking about 36 shots compared to 2 (10).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Unit1126PLL wrote: The fact that it can't take battlecannons just means it's more specialized - as people have said, like a Vanquisher. Take a look at some of the maths.
Would you say the vanquisher is good at it's job? Or do people take battle cannons and demolishers instead...
Wait don't answer...just get the point. These weapon systems are bad and they should stop making them. The only reason the repulsor executioner was good was because it got 4 automatic shots. Then they nerfed it because it was already not great for 370ish points.
Xenomancers wrote: I can pretty much garentee that the double Gatling version averages about the same damage to a tank as the lancer.
Lancer averages 3.704 damage against T8 3+ 5++ and 4.630 damage against T8 3+ vs Reaper double gatling at 2.667 against both defensive profiles. So Lancer is 27% better against T8 3+ 5++ and 42% better against T8 3+. There goes your guarantee.
You are also forgetting the secondary weapon on the reaper. which is a significant 12 more ap-1 shots. I did the math. It is about 4 average damage to 5. AKA almost the same. Plus granted we are talking about 36 shots compared to 2 (10).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Unit1126PLL wrote: The fact that it can't take battlecannons just means it's more specialized - as people have said, like a Vanquisher. Take a look at some of the maths.
Would you say the vanquisher is good at it's job? Or do people take battle cannons and demolishers instead...
Wait don't answer...just get the point. These weapon systems are bad and they should stop making them. The only reason the repulsor executioner was good was because it got 4 automatic shots. Then they nerfed it because it was already not great for 370ish points.
So you're acknowledging the reaper is less effective (albeit only just) at AT than the lancer for more points? If so surely you answered why the lancer has a place still, even if it's not hyper competitive.
BrianDavion wrote: well if they're over costed and not all that great I'd say that's a major knock to those who claim that people only buy stuff thats OP because they're already sold out
Except that it is a model that shares a lot with two other options that aren’t as overcosted
And regardless, “overcosted” by SM player standards is like fair and balanced for everyone else. It’s hardly an unplayable model, the dex has some of the biggest bs in the game so it’s less appealing.
I'd certainly pay the +25 points to get a 2 shot railgun with +1 to hit on my hammerheads. Thats ignoring the T8 vrs T7
No you wouldn't - youd just take ioncannons like all tau players do currently. Because it is a good weapons vs a terrible one for the same price.
It is bad. It is bad by the standards of any army.
Unit1126PLL wrote: How many wounds does the Lancer have? Are we finally seeing an SM MBT that outclasses the Leman Russ in durability?
12 wounds, t8, 3+ save
So equally durable to a Leman Russ, with a 2+ BS (right?). Even with a 3+ BS, it's basically a Tank Commander...
3+ but with a special rule that makes the main gun a 2+
So yeah, basically SM got a Tank Commander, which is one of the best MBTs in 40k, and they're upset about it...
It is a LR chassis that can't take battle cannons and it costs significantly more. The punisher version I think is okay though. I am just targeting the lancers and also at the same time complaining about all low volume anti tank shots compared to their multi shot competitiors. I can pretty much garentee that the double Gatling version averages about the same damage to a tank as the lancer.
Against T7 3+ with storm bolters the lancer does 5.2 damage, or 4.9 against T8 3+
The reaper does 4.44 against T7 3+ or 3.56 against T8 3+
Put in a 5+ and it's very close in favour of the reaper and 4+ invuln and the reaper overtakes further.
Edit: put everything in rapid fire range to be generous.
BrianDavion wrote: well if they're over costed and not all that great I'd say that's a major knock to those who claim that people only buy stuff thats OP because they're already sold out
Except that it is a model that shares a lot with two other options that aren’t as overcosted
And regardless, “overcosted” by SM player standards is like fair and balanced for everyone else. It’s hardly an unplayable model, the dex has some of the biggest bs in the game so it’s less appealing.
I'd certainly pay the +25 points to get a 2 shot railgun with +1 to hit on my hammerheads. Thats ignoring the T8 vrs T7
No you wouldn't - youd just take ioncannons like all tau players do currently. Because it is a good weapons vs a terrible one for the same price.
It is bad. It is bad by the standards of any army.
Unit1126PLL wrote: How many wounds does the Lancer have? Are we finally seeing an SM MBT that outclasses the Leman Russ in durability?
12 wounds, t8, 3+ save
So equally durable to a Leman Russ, with a 2+ BS (right?). Even with a 3+ BS, it's basically a Tank Commander...
3+ but with a special rule that makes the main gun a 2+
So yeah, basically SM got a Tank Commander, which is one of the best MBTs in 40k, and they're upset about it...
It is a LR chassis that can't take battle cannons and it costs significantly more.
10 points is significantly more Or is this typical Marine Player Hyperbole?
2 BS2+ S10 Ap -4 Dd3+3 +1MW at 200 points for 6 damage vrs T8 3+
3.5 S8 Ap-2 3D at BS3+ at 180 for 2.3 damage vrs T8 3+
A russ fires twice and there's no mortal wound randomly appearing so they're pretty comparable.
New Railgun stats assuming the railgun profile in FW transferred across which given it's comparible to a Lancer it should.
Vrs ioncannon on a Hammerhead
That Xeno says you're always taking as it's just soo much better.
Xenomancers wrote: I can pretty much garentee that the double Gatling version averages about the same damage to a tank as the lancer.
Lancer averages 3.704 damage against T8 3+ 5++ and 4.630 damage against T8 3+ vs Reaper double gatling at 2.667 against both defensive profiles. So Lancer is 27% better against T8 3+ 5++ and 42% better against T8 3+. There goes your guarantee.
Edit: Just pointing out I was only comparing the main guns, no auxiliary weapons.
You have to evaluate the whole unit compared to cost. Especially when the units come at full price with required secondary's. The issue is the main gun I agree with that.
BrianDavion wrote: well if they're over costed and not all that great I'd say that's a major knock to those who claim that people only buy stuff thats OP because they're already sold out
Except that it is a model that shares a lot with two other options that aren’t as overcosted
And regardless, “overcosted” by SM player standards is like fair and balanced for everyone else. It’s hardly an unplayable model, the dex has some of the biggest bs in the game so it’s less appealing.
I'd certainly pay the +25 points to get a 2 shot railgun with +1 to hit on my hammerheads. Thats ignoring the T8 vrs T7
No you wouldn't - youd just take ioncannons like all tau players do currently. Because it is a good weapons vs a terrible one for the same price.
It is bad. It is bad by the standards of any army.
Unit1126PLL wrote: How many wounds does the Lancer have? Are we finally seeing an SM MBT that outclasses the Leman Russ in durability?
12 wounds, t8, 3+ save
So equally durable to a Leman Russ, with a 2+ BS (right?). Even with a 3+ BS, it's basically a Tank Commander...
3+ but with a special rule that makes the main gun a 2+
So yeah, basically SM got a Tank Commander, which is one of the best MBTs in 40k, and they're upset about it...
It is a LR chassis that can't take battle cannons and it costs significantly more. The punisher version I think is okay though. I am just targeting the lancers and also at the same time complaining about all low volume anti tank shots compared to their multi shot competitiors. I can pretty much garentee that the double Gatling version averages about the same damage to a tank as the lancer.
Against T7 3+ with storm bolters the lancer does 5.2 damage, or 4.9 against T8 3+
The reaper does 4.44 against T7 3+ or 3.56 against T8 3+
Put in a 5+ and it's very close in favour of the reaper and 4+ invuln and the reaper overtakes further.
Edit: put everything in rapid fire range to be generous.
BrianDavion wrote: well if they're over costed and not all that great I'd say that's a major knock to those who claim that people only buy stuff thats OP because they're already sold out
Except that it is a model that shares a lot with two other options that aren’t as overcosted
And regardless, “overcosted” by SM player standards is like fair and balanced for everyone else. It’s hardly an unplayable model, the dex has some of the biggest bs in the game so it’s less appealing.
I'd certainly pay the +25 points to get a 2 shot railgun with +1 to hit on my hammerheads. Thats ignoring the T8 vrs T7
No you wouldn't - youd just take ioncannons like all tau players do currently. Because it is a good weapons vs a terrible one for the same price.
It is bad. It is bad by the standards of any army.
Unit1126PLL wrote: How many wounds does the Lancer have? Are we finally seeing an SM MBT that outclasses the Leman Russ in durability?
12 wounds, t8, 3+ save
So equally durable to a Leman Russ, with a 2+ BS (right?). Even with a 3+ BS, it's basically a Tank Commander...
3+ but with a special rule that makes the main gun a 2+
So yeah, basically SM got a Tank Commander, which is one of the best MBTs in 40k, and they're upset about it...
It is a LR chassis that can't take battle cannons and it costs significantly more.
10 points is significantly more Or is this typical Marine Player Hyperbole?
2 BS2+ S10 Ap -4 Dd3+3 +1MW at 200 points for 6 damage vrs T8 3+
3.5 S8 Ap-2 3D at BS3+ at 180 for 2.3 damage vrs T8 3+
A russ fires twice and there's no mortal wound randomly appearing so they're pretty comparable.
New Railgun stats assuming the railgun profile in FW transferred across which given it's comparible to a Lancer it should.
Vrs ioncannon on a Hammerhead
That Xeno says you're always taking as it's just soo much better.
Oh I see the flow of the conversation wasn't quite right there, it looked like you were trying to compare a lancer to a russ lol
BrianDavion wrote: well if they're over costed and not all that great I'd say that's a major knock to those who claim that people only buy stuff thats OP because they're already sold out
Except that it is a model that shares a lot with two other options that aren’t as overcosted
And regardless, “overcosted” by SM player standards is like fair and balanced for everyone else. It’s hardly an unplayable model, the dex has some of the biggest bs in the game so it’s less appealing.
I'd certainly pay the +25 points to get a 2 shot railgun with +1 to hit on my hammerheads. Thats ignoring the T8 vrs T7
No you wouldn't - youd just take ioncannons like all tau players do currently. Because it is a good weapons vs a terrible one for the same price.
It is bad. It is bad by the standards of any army.
Unit1126PLL wrote: How many wounds does the Lancer have? Are we finally seeing an SM MBT that outclasses the Leman Russ in durability?
12 wounds, t8, 3+ save
So equally durable to a Leman Russ, with a 2+ BS (right?). Even with a 3+ BS, it's basically a Tank Commander...
3+ but with a special rule that makes the main gun a 2+
So yeah, basically SM got a Tank Commander, which is one of the best MBTs in 40k, and they're upset about it...
It is a LR chassis that can't take battle cannons and it costs significantly more. The punisher version I think is okay though. I am just targeting the lancers and also at the same time complaining about all low volume anti tank shots compared to their multi shot competitiors. I can pretty much garentee that the double Gatling version averages about the same damage to a tank as the lancer.
Against T7 3+ with storm bolters the lancer does 5.2 damage, or 4.9 against T8 3+
The reaper does 4.44 against T7 3+ or 3.56 against T8 3+
Put in a 5+ and it's very close in favour of the reaper and 4+ invuln and the reaper overtakes further.
Edit: put everything in rapid fire range to be generous.
BrianDavion wrote: well if they're over costed and not all that great I'd say that's a major knock to those who claim that people only buy stuff thats OP because they're already sold out
Except that it is a model that shares a lot with two other options that aren’t as overcosted
And regardless, “overcosted” by SM player standards is like fair and balanced for everyone else. It’s hardly an unplayable model, the dex has some of the biggest bs in the game so it’s less appealing.
I'd certainly pay the +25 points to get a 2 shot railgun with +1 to hit on my hammerheads. Thats ignoring the T8 vrs T7
No you wouldn't - youd just take ioncannons like all tau players do currently. Because it is a good weapons vs a terrible one for the same price.
It is bad. It is bad by the standards of any army.
Unit1126PLL wrote: How many wounds does the Lancer have? Are we finally seeing an SM MBT that outclasses the Leman Russ in durability?
12 wounds, t8, 3+ save
So equally durable to a Leman Russ, with a 2+ BS (right?). Even with a 3+ BS, it's basically a Tank Commander...
3+ but with a special rule that makes the main gun a 2+
So yeah, basically SM got a Tank Commander, which is one of the best MBTs in 40k, and they're upset about it...
It is a LR chassis that can't take battle cannons and it costs significantly more.
10 points is significantly more Or is this typical Marine Player Hyperbole?
2 BS2+ S10 Ap -4 Dd3+3 +1MW at 200 points for 6 damage vrs T8 3+
3.5 S8 Ap-2 3D at BS3+ at 180 for 2.3 damage vrs T8 3+
A russ fires twice and there's no mortal wound randomly appearing so they're pretty comparable.
New Railgun stats assuming the railgun profile in FW transferred across which given it's comparible to a Lancer it should.
Vrs ioncannon on a Hammerhead
That Xeno says you're always taking as it's just soo much better.
Which railgun? The swiftstrike?
Also the Ioncannon being better is not my opinion - it is objective fact. It is quite literally better in every situation except against units that dont exist like...t10 2+ save and T16
IMO the bigger issue with single-shot tanks like the Railhead and the Lancer is that their one shot is subject to RNG in order to hit. Knowing that absent markerlights or strategems or other bonuses that your one shot will miss about a third the time feels pretty bad. Knowing that the 2/3rds of the time it does hit that it won't necessarily damage the target (and that if it does damage the target it won't do very much to it) feels even worse.
Basically, mathematically speaking, these units have an extremely steep up-hill climb to being at all points efficient, and often require the investment of significant additional resources just to guarantee their ability to break even, whereas multishot-based units in the same category are often more competitively priced to begin with and more points efficient and resource efficient.
Yeah 1BS3+ shot is bad.
However complaining about 2 BS2+ shots (like the lancer has) thats a 1 in 36 to fail both shots which wound everything on a 3+ is insane.
Xenomancers wrote: I can pretty much garentee that the double Gatling version averages about the same damage to a tank as the lancer.
Lancer averages 3.704 damage against T8 3+ 5++ and 4.630 damage against T8 3+ vs Reaper double gatling at 2.667 against both defensive profiles. So Lancer is 27% better against T8 3+ 5++ and 42% better against T8 3+. There goes your guarantee.
Edit: Just pointing out I was only comparing the main guns, no auxiliary weapons.
You have to evaluate the whole unit compared to cost. Especially when the units come at full price with required secondary's. The issue is the main gun I agree with that.
Right, and the Lancer does more damage on average for 30 PPM less. Getting that much damage output from the Reaper's sponson weapons would also mean getting within rapid fire range, which can be a dangerous proposition with some potential targets. The Lancer can do its job without getting in charge/melta range of units that could easily one shot it if it did so. The Reaper can't.
I also don't think it's impossible for low ROF weapons to be effective. The new stats for the Macharius Vanquisher Cannon and Tau Heavy Rail Cannon are quite nasty. I just wish the writers of the Compendium showed equal attention to other Heavy 2 weapons mounted on super-heavy chassis.
And if you're really nervous about it's shots missing, even though it's not core there are plenty of ways to give it a reroll or alter the hit roll. Master Artisans, Martial Precision (UM), Iron Hands Devastator Doctrine. I'm sure there are more, but those are the ones I can recall off the top of my head.
Xenomancers wrote: I can pretty much garentee that the double Gatling version averages about the same damage to a tank as the lancer.
Lancer averages 3.704 damage against T8 3+ 5++ and 4.630 damage against T8 3+ vs Reaper double gatling at 2.667 against both defensive profiles. So Lancer is 27% better against T8 3+ 5++ and 42% better against T8 3+. There goes your guarantee.
Edit: Just pointing out I was only comparing the main guns, no auxiliary weapons.
You have to evaluate the whole unit compared to cost. Especially when the units come at full price with required secondary's. The issue is the main gun I agree with that.
Right, and the Lancer does more damage on average for 30 PPM less. Getting that much damage output from the Reaper's sponson weapons would also mean getting within rapid fire range, which can be a dangerous proposition with some potential targets. The Lancer can do its job without getting in charge/melta range of units that could easily one shot it if it did so. The Reaper can't.
I also don't think it's impossible for low ROF weapons to be effective. The new stats for the Macharius Vanquisher Cannon and Tau Heavy Rail Cannon are quite nasty. I just wish the writers of the Compendium showed equal attention to other Heavy 2 weapons mounted on super-heavy chassis.
It does about the same damage as the infantry shredder when shooting at tanks. Meanwhile the reaper is 2ish to 14 times more effective against smaller targets. This disparity is to high to overlook.
Xenomancers wrote: It does about the same damage as the infantry shredder when shooting at tanks. Meanwhile the reaper is 2ish to 14 times more effective against smaller targets. This disparity is to high to overlook.
Consider this : a tank with one big gun on the front looks better than a tank with gatling cannons on the top.
Xenomancers wrote: It does about the same damage as the infantry shredder when shooting at tanks. Meanwhile the reaper is 2ish to 14 times more effective against smaller targets. This disparity is to high to overlook.
Consider this : a tank with one big gun on the front looks better than a tank with gatling cannons on the top.
I am quite fond of tanks with double barrel anything really. Brings me back to the command and conquer days with USSR heavy tanks and Mammoth tanks.
Xenomancers wrote: I can pretty much garentee that the double Gatling version averages about the same damage to a tank as the lancer.
Lancer averages 3.704 damage against T8 3+ 5++ and 4.630 damage against T8 3+ vs Reaper double gatling at 2.667 against both defensive profiles. So Lancer is 27% better against T8 3+ 5++ and 42% better against T8 3+. There goes your guarantee.
Edit: Just pointing out I was only comparing the main guns, no auxiliary weapons.
You have to evaluate the whole unit compared to cost. Especially when the units come at full price with required secondary's. The issue is the main gun I agree with that.
Right, and the Lancer does more damage on average for 30 PPM less. Getting that much damage output from the Reaper's sponson weapons would also mean getting within rapid fire range, which can be a dangerous proposition with some potential targets. The Lancer can do its job without getting in charge/melta range of units that could easily one shot it if it did so. The Reaper can't.
I also don't think it's impossible for low ROF weapons to be effective. The new stats for the Macharius Vanquisher Cannon and Tau Heavy Rail Cannon are quite nasty. I just wish the writers of the Compendium showed equal attention to other Heavy 2 weapons mounted on super-heavy chassis.
It does about the same damage as the infantry shredder when shooting at tanks. Meanwhile the reaper is 2ish to 14 times more effective against smaller targets. This disparity is to high to overlook.
That's more of a problem with the current wounding table than the weapons. S6 should be wounding T8 on 6s, with S4 just bouncing off, while S10 should be wounding T8 on 2s, same as it worked on the old wounding table.
VladimirHerzog wrote:
Xenomancers wrote: It does about the same damage as the infantry shredder when shooting at tanks. Meanwhile the reaper is 2ish to 14 times more effective against smaller targets. This disparity is to high to overlook.
Consider this : a tank with one big gun on the front looks better than a tank with gatling cannons on the top.
That's subjective. I'd argue a tank looks best with two big guns at the top.
Xenomancers wrote: I can pretty much garentee that the double Gatling version averages about the same damage to a tank as the lancer.
Lancer averages 3.704 damage against T8 3+ 5++ and 4.630 damage against T8 3+ vs Reaper double gatling at 2.667 against both defensive profiles. So Lancer is 27% better against T8 3+ 5++ and 42% better against T8 3+. There goes your guarantee.
Edit: Just pointing out I was only comparing the main guns, no auxiliary weapons.
You have to evaluate the whole unit compared to cost. Especially when the units come at full price with required secondary's. The issue is the main gun I agree with that.
Right, and the Lancer does more damage on average for 30 PPM less. Getting that much damage output from the Reaper's sponson weapons would also mean getting within rapid fire range, which can be a dangerous proposition with some potential targets. The Lancer can do its job without getting in charge/melta range of units that could easily one shot it if it did so. The Reaper can't.
I also don't think it's impossible for low ROF weapons to be effective. The new stats for the Macharius Vanquisher Cannon and Tau Heavy Rail Cannon are quite nasty. I just wish the writers of the Compendium showed equal attention to other Heavy 2 weapons mounted on super-heavy chassis.
It does about the same damage as the infantry shredder when shooting at tanks. Meanwhile the reaper is 2ish to 14 times more effective against smaller targets. This disparity is to high to overlook.
That's more of a problem with the current wounding table than the weapons. S6 should be wounding T8 on 6s, with S4 just bouncing off, while S10 should be wounding T8 on 2s, same as it worked on the old wounding table.
VladimirHerzog wrote:
Xenomancers wrote: It does about the same damage as the infantry shredder when shooting at tanks. Meanwhile the reaper is 2ish to 14 times more effective against smaller targets. This disparity is to high to overlook.
Consider this : a tank with one big gun on the front looks better than a tank with gatling cannons on the top.
That's subjective. I'd argue a tank looks best with two big guns at the top.
Right - it's like GW still doesn't understand they changed the wounding table to work like this!
Xenomancers wrote: It does about the same damage as the infantry shredder when shooting at tanks. Meanwhile the reaper is 2ish to 14 times more effective against smaller targets. This disparity is to high to overlook.
Consider this : a tank with one big gun on the front looks better than a tank with gatling cannons on the top.
And why does that matter when we are talking about the effectiveness on the weapons?
Xenomancers wrote: It does about the same damage as the infantry shredder when shooting at tanks. Meanwhile the reaper is 2ish to 14 times more effective against smaller targets. This disparity is to high to overlook.
Consider this : a tank with one big gun on the front looks better than a tank with gatling cannons on the top.
I am quite fond of tanks with double barrel anything really. Brings me back to the command and conquer days with USSR heavy tanks and Mammoth tanks.
Loved using the mammoth tank in Renegade. Missile Launchers, main gun, AND Machine Gun.
You could staple additional options on here, but they're equally effective for each vehicle.
Because of how RF affects secondary shots, we end up with the following effectiveness brackets:
0-12"
12-15"
15-24"
24-30"
30-72"
I appreciate that some will claim the higher brackets aren't going to apply on the "minimum table size" shoeboxes, but they are still a thing.
Targets:
Rhino (T7, 3+, 10W)
Gladiator X (T8, 3+, 12W)
Land Raider X (T8, 2+, 16W)
Here's what I get as the output in a turn without Dev or Tac Doctrines (as I really CBA dealing with the extra AP here or there, and the additional combinations)...
Lancer (vs Rhino, vs Gladiator, vs Land Raider)
0-12" (4.78, 4.47, 3.48)
12-24" (4.47, 4.32, 3.4)
24-72" (4.17, 4.17, 3.33)
Reaper (vs Rhino, vs Gladiator, vs Land Raider)
0-15" (4.45, 3.56, 2.37)
15-30" (3.56, 3.11, 2.08)
Valiant (vs Rhino, vs Gladiator, vs Land Raider)
0-12" (14.97, 12.52, 10.26)
12-24" (11.41, 9.86, 8.04)
I was adding these at 2 decimal places, so there may be small rounding errors.
From what I can see here, the Valiant is stupidly better than the Lancer as an AT vehicle - something I don't think anyone has disputed - though the longer range of the Lancer could mean times when it can shoot and the Valiant can't.
I don't see a range bracket where the Reaper outperforms the Lancer against these targets - but given the Reaper seems to be designed as an anti-infantry vehicle, I'd've hoped the gap would be larger.
And why does that matter when we are talking about the effectiveness on the weapons?
because the competitive-ness of a weapon/unit isnt the only metric by which you can evaluate it.
I was clumsily trying to highlight that.
With the amount of models there is in the game right now, its impossible for every single one to be the best at a special role. The fact that the lancer is maginally better than the reaper at killing tanks is fine, its still better and fills a different role overall.
Do single shot weapons feel bad when they miss? absolutely, but it doesnt mean they shouldnt exist in the game IMO because these weapons usually have a high damage potential.
As it was already mentionned, the real problem stems from the wounding chart where mid S/Ap with high RoF are the best because of statistics. Weapons should be bad at damaging their non intended targets.
Anti tank should be bad at killing infantry because of their low rate of fire, Anti infantry should be bad at killing tanks because of their low str (an AK47 wouldnt take down a tank)
Jidmah wrote: I don't know, those gladiators all seem decent to me. They might be a couple of points too much, but they are still good enough for semi-competitive play.
Yeah, it's a typical SM players' response. If it's not Eradicators' OP level it's trash.
And the entire point of a Gladiator isn't to provide a better alternative to a Predator, just to be the primaris equivalent of a Predator. What was the point of Intercessors, Hellblasters/Eradicators, Outriders, Bladeguards etc... when TACs, Devastators, Bikes, Terminators, etc already existed? They all had no point, that's what happens when an entire line of models is released.
The entire point of Primaris was to create a new faction for Space Marines without actually creating a new faction. Why? Because than every single chapter would be willing to acquire this new faction.
Think about this, when Custodes or Harlequins came out, how many actually bought them? Now compare that to "Primaris" which is basically just an entire new faction that every SM faction can use. I can't throw a stikkbomb in a game shop without hitting 4 Space Marine armies fielding decent amounts of Primaris marines right now.
As far as the Gladiator lancer. The fact is that its not great, xeno is right that its a bit weak compared to other Marine options....but he is completely wrong on the level of weakness. Yet again this is a wonderful example of SM syndrome. Since the unit isn't the best in every way possible its clearly garbage by Marine standards.
Aggressors weren't OP pre-nerf because a 45pt model pumping out 24 S4 shots a turn isn't that great honestly. Also, Eradicators aren't OP right now either because they have to focus fire 1 vehicle at a time. Doesn't matter they will kill most vehicles in 1 salvo, that is irrelevant, so is the T5 and 3 wounds, totally not OP on a 40pt model.
These are points he has defended in the past, so remember that when trying to argue about the effectiveness of any SM unit in the game.
But they don't have a higher damage potential a dual taping melta or a multi shot d2-3 weapon is going to out damge a single shot weapon, specialy one with a random damage number. If it did flat 9 or 12 damage maybe it would be different, but this is not the case. The tank is worse at anti tank then a ton of units, which cost similar or less points, and more important less money or are already owned by marine players.
If the rules don't entice people to buy a model, it is not going to be very popular, at least to a degree units with good rules are. There aren't going to be many people buying 3 of those tanks. But people buying 3 squads or eradictors, new attack bikes, old attack bikes, or devastators are easy to imagine.
VladimirHerzog wrote: Do single shot weapons feel bad when they miss? absolutely, but it doesnt mean they shouldnt exist in the game IMO because these weapons usually have a high damage potential.
As it was already mentionned, the real problem stems from the wounding chart where mid S/Ap with high RoF are the best because of statistics. Weapons should be bad at damaging their non intended targets.
Anti tank should be bad at killing infantry because of their low rate of fire, Anti infantry should be bad at killing tanks because of their low str (an AK47 wouldnt take down a tank)
I don't think this is really the case any more. Melta is not by any means "mid" S/AP.
The issue is that GW have created a meta where Melta is available very cheap for Marines (and potentially, in time, all factions). Eradicators, Attack Bikes etc.
So when you have two glorified lascannons with slightly boosted stats, you can't be very expensive. Certainly not 200 points expensive.
And being T8 is nice and all - but in reality, again, in that melta meta, you are just going to be deleted.
I don't really get "well its a Tank Commander, what are you complaining about". I mean Guard are in an awful spot right now. The fact Tank Commanders are a better investment than BS 4+ no orders Leman Russ doesn't change this. Its a similar step to "the Hammerhead isn't that bad really, I say after taking a large amount of acid."
I'm not sure the Lancer is a significant upgrade on a 4 Las Predator. Which for some reason tends to be brought up as "the vehicle by which comparisons are made" - and then another poster immediately points out that it sucks though.
Maybe if the guns had really long range something like +48", then maybe there could be an argument in favour of the tank. But with the range it has right now, it is not much different then then any of the melta carrying units, which all can deep strike, come from reserves or are fast from the get go.
It is a strange tank. Maybe its job is to wait till the melta nerf happens, to force marines that bought those attack bikes and eradictors to stack on 3 of the tanks. Same fate happened to aggresors or eliminators, they are no where near as used as they were before. And the aggresor nerf cost salamanders a top marine army spot, alongside other nerfs, but the aggresor nerf was big.
VladimirHerzog wrote: Do single shot weapons feel bad when they miss? absolutely, but it doesnt mean they shouldnt exist in the game IMO because these weapons usually have a high damage potential.
As it was already mentionned, the real problem stems from the wounding chart where mid S/Ap with high RoF are the best because of statistics. Weapons should be bad at damaging their non intended targets.
Anti tank should be bad at killing infantry because of their low rate of fire, Anti infantry should be bad at killing tanks because of their low str (an AK47 wouldnt take down a tank)
I don't think this is really the case any more. Melta is not by any means "mid" S/AP.
The issue is that GW have created a meta where Melta is available very cheap for Marines (and potentially, in time, all factions). Eradicators, Attack Bikes etc.
So when you have two glorified lascannons with slightly boosted stats, you can't be very expensive. Certainly not 200 points expensive.
And being T8 is nice and all - but in reality, again, in that melta meta, you are just going to be deleted.
I don't really get "well its a Tank Commander, what are you complaining about". I mean Guard are in an awful spot right now. The fact Tank Commanders are a better investment than BS 4+ no orders Leman Russ doesn't change this. Its a similar step to "the Hammerhead isn't that bad really, I say after taking a large amount of acid."
I'm not sure the Lancer is a significant upgrade on a 4 Las Predator. Which for some reason tends to be brought up as "the vehicle by which comparisons are made" - and then another poster immediately points out that it sucks though.
You misunderstood me. For pure anti-tank meltas/lascannons & co are the best.
The thing is taking something like disintegrator cannons is also an efficient choice because they CAN wound vehicles reliably enough and they bring enough shots to deal with infantry blobs too. Which gives them more versatility.
VladimirHerzog wrote: You misunderstood me. For pure anti-tank meltas/lascannons & co are the best.
The thing is taking something like disintegrator cannons is also an efficient choice because they CAN wound vehicles reliably enough and they bring enough shots to deal with infantry blobs too. Which gives them more versatility.
I think they've nerfed Dissies into oblivion tbh. That world is gone now.
I don't want to put my Dark Eldar hat on - but really, its more *how bad* - or *how overcosted* 1 shot weapons were.
Between missing, failing to wound, hitting an invul - or just rolling a 1-2 on the damage, there is a huge probability for a Dark Lance or Blaster to do nothing.
When they work, great. But its going to let you down in too many games. Its the problem of all 1-shot weapons that you can't spam in sufficient numbers to make up the difference.
Whereas with Disintegrators, you got so many dice that I think you tended much more towards the mean. Wounding on 5s isn't that great really - even with rerolling 1s - but if rolling 6-7 dice you'd expect to get some. So you at least probably do *some* damage, rather than having a turn of doing absolutely nothing.
Which is the problem here. I mean you can camp in a corner and chuck out your two shots. But if there is cover, suddenly you are hitting on 3s, and odds on to miss one of those shots. Wounding on 3s same issue. Run into a 5++? Oh dear. Suddenly your 200 point brick has done absolutely nothing. It might as well not have been on the table. Which almost certainly won't be the case with say 5 or so eradicators, nearly 4 attack bikes etc.
If eradicators actually were costed inline with the rest of the dang game 200 points wouldn't be five of them.
Heck it probably shouldn't even get you 4.
When your yard stick is the most broken undercosted crap yes everything looks trash.
Also a Lancer isnt 1 shot it's 2 shots on a M10 vehical if you can't get a shot without a -1 to hit that's on you.
That hits on a 2+ and wounds everything on a 3+ if you really thing wounding 2/3 of the time is bad you need to try other armies.
VladimirHerzog wrote: You misunderstood me. For pure anti-tank meltas/lascannons & co are the best.
The thing is taking something like disintegrator cannons is also an efficient choice because they CAN wound vehicles reliably enough and they bring enough shots to deal with infantry blobs too. Which gives them more versatility.
I think they've nerfed Dissies into oblivion tbh. That world is gone now.
I don't want to put my Dark Eldar hat on - but really, its more *how bad* - or *how overcosted* 1 shot weapons were.
Between missing, failing to wound, hitting an invul - or just rolling a 1-2 on the damage, there is a huge probability for a Dark Lance or Blaster to do nothing.
When they work, great. But its going to let you down in too many games. Its the problem of all 1-shot weapons that you can't spam in sufficient numbers to make up the difference.
Whereas with Disintegrators, you got so many dice that I think you tended much more towards the mean. Wounding on 5s isn't that great really - even with rerolling 1s - but if rolling 6-7 dice you'd expect to get some. So you at least probably do *some* damage, rather than having a turn of doing absolutely nothing.
Which is the problem here. I mean you can camp in a corner and chuck out your two shots. But if there is cover, suddenly you are hitting on 3s, and odds on to miss one of those shots. Wounding on 3s same issue. Run into a 5++? Oh dear. Suddenly your 200 point brick has done absolutely nothing. It might as well not have been on the table. Which almost certainly won't be the case with say 5 or so eradicators, nearly 4 attack bikes etc.
i'm talking purely on the stats of the weapons, not the pts cost.
I don't think Eradicators are overcosted--i think they have a broken rule that should not exist. Their rule should be like the Lancer and Executioner: +1BS when firing at the same target. They are impossible to point cost properly with the double shoot rule.
But let's leave them out of the equation. The reason the Lancer is trash is because it does not sufficiently outdamage its primary targets vs its alternatives. Sure, a Reaper does a bit less to tanks, but you can also shoot it at heavy and light infantry efficiently. There are no games where you will not have something to shoot the Reaper at, whole the Lancer vs an Ork or gaunt horde will do jack squat, and even vs some tanks will not do enough damage to make its points back. Its potential to do nothing is way too high. It probably should have had some autocannon sponsors, or a better solution of just giving it 4 shots (at BS3) or higher strength gun such as 14 so you wound most vehicles on 2+.
I think its a datasheet issue thus unfortunately will not get addressed until a new codex or 10th ed
i'm talking purely on the stats of the weapons, not the pts cost.
It is impossible to judge a unit or weapon without considering the units or its platforms point cost. There is a world of difference between an eradictors unit cost now, and an eradictor costing 80-85pts per model.
People don't play limitless armies or 10k pts games for something like a single tanks cost to not matter.
i'm talking purely on the stats of the weapons, not the pts cost.
It is impossible to judge a unit or weapon without considering the units or its platforms point cost. There is a world of difference between an eradictors unit cost now, and an eradictor costing 80-85pts per model.
People don't play limitless armies or 10k pts games for something like a single tanks cost to not matter.
I took disintegrators as a more concrete example of "mid strength, mid AP, high rate of fire" weapon, its current pts cost is irrelevant when i use it as an example to critique the wounding table.
To be fair to the Lancer, it is the best marine platform in the niche of anti tank gun with range beyond 48", beating off stiff competition from the OP heavyweights - Whirlwinds, Hunters and Repulsor Executioners (judged by points per damage dealt to typical T7/3+ save vehicles at max range).
Personally, I think it looks the coolest of the 3 variants, but strategic reserving either of the other gladiators seems like a universally better plan.
SemperMortis wrote: Lets see, for 200pts I could have 10 ork lootas which put out 20 S7 AP-1 2D shots a turn on average. At BS 5+ of course.
Averages almost 8 hits a turn. Vs T7 thats 4 wounds and T8 that is 2.6.
Vs a 3+ its 2 wounds and 1.3 and vs a 2+ its 1.3 and .86 unsaved wounds for 2.6 and 1.72 dmg respectively
So when you say the damage output vs vehicles is bad...you mean compared to Marine equivalents. For orkz it would be amazing.
And lets not forget the difference in durability. 10 T4 6+ save wounds vs 12 T8 3+ wounds
You're under the assumption Lootas are good anti-tank, which they are absolutely not.
lol, better than most things we have access to. You could do 12 tankbustas for 204pts, but they are Max range of 24 so fairly different in regards to range and 12 of those little guys nets you 4 hits, 2 exploding 6s for .66 more hits and than 8 rerolls which gets you 2.66 more hits and 1.33 exploding 6s for another .44 hits, grand total 7.7ish hits. Vs a T8 platform that is 3.85 wounds and vs a T5-7 its 5.17
Against 2+ armor that is 1.9 unsaved wounds for 5.7 dmg, Vs a 3+ save its 2.5 unsaved wounds for 7.7 dmg. on the T5-7 its 7.7dmg and 10.3dmg. requiring 24' range and all on a T4 6+ save 1 wound model.
So less than half the range and significantly less durable.
Insularum wrote: To be fair to the Lancer, it is the best marine platform in the niche of anti tank gun with range beyond 48", beating off stiff competition from the OP heavyweights - Whirlwinds, Hunters...
SemperMortis wrote: Lets see, for 200pts I could have 10 ork lootas which put out 20 S7 AP-1 2D shots a turn on average. At BS 5+ of course.
Averages almost 8 hits a turn. Vs T7 thats 4 wounds and T8 that is 2.6.
Vs a 3+ its 2 wounds and 1.3 and vs a 2+ its 1.3 and .86 unsaved wounds for 2.6 and 1.72 dmg respectively
So when you say the damage output vs vehicles is bad...you mean compared to Marine equivalents. For orkz it would be amazing.
And lets not forget the difference in durability. 10 T4 6+ save wounds vs 12 T8 3+ wounds
You're under the assumption Lootas are good anti-tank, which they are absolutely not.
lol, better than most things we have access to. You could do 12 tankbustas for 204pts, but they are Max range of 24 so fairly different in regards to range and 12 of those little guys nets you 4 hits, 2 exploding 6s for .66 more hits and than 8 rerolls which gets you 2.66 more hits and 1.33 exploding 6s for another .44 hits, grand total 7.7ish hits. Vs a T8 platform that is 3.85 wounds and vs a T5-7 its 5.17
Against 2+ armor that is 1.9 unsaved wounds for 5.7 dmg, Vs a 3+ save its 2.5 unsaved wounds for 7.7 dmg. on the T5-7 its 7.7dmg and 10.3dmg. requiring 24' range and all on a T4 6+ save 1 wound model.
So less than half the range and significantly less durable.
Maybe I'm having a brain fart, but how is 12 Tankbustas less durable than 10 Lootas?
SemperMortis wrote: Lets see, for 200pts I could have 10 ork lootas which put out 20 S7 AP-1 2D shots a turn on average. At BS 5+ of course.
Averages almost 8 hits a turn. Vs T7 thats 4 wounds and T8 that is 2.6.
Vs a 3+ its 2 wounds and 1.3 and vs a 2+ its 1.3 and .86 unsaved wounds for 2.6 and 1.72 dmg respectively
So when you say the damage output vs vehicles is bad...you mean compared to Marine equivalents. For orkz it would be amazing.
And lets not forget the difference in durability. 10 T4 6+ save wounds vs 12 T8 3+ wounds
You're under the assumption Lootas are good anti-tank, which they are absolutely not.
lol, better than most things we have access to. You could do 12 tankbustas for 204pts, but they are Max range of 24 so fairly different in regards to range and 12 of those little guys nets you 4 hits, 2 exploding 6s for .66 more hits and than 8 rerolls which gets you 2.66 more hits and 1.33 exploding 6s for another .44 hits, grand total 7.7ish hits. Vs a T8 platform that is 3.85 wounds and vs a T5-7 its 5.17
Against 2+ armor that is 1.9 unsaved wounds for 5.7 dmg, Vs a 3+ save its 2.5 unsaved wounds for 7.7 dmg. on the T5-7 its 7.7dmg and 10.3dmg. requiring 24' range and all on a T4 6+ save 1 wound model.
So less than half the range and significantly less durable.
Maybe I'm having a brain fart, but how is 12 Tankbustas less durable than 10 Lootas?
Less durable than the Gladiator which the topic is about sorry for the confusion.
SemperMortis wrote: Lets see, for 200pts I could have 10 ork lootas which put out 20 S7 AP-1 2D shots a turn on average. At BS 5+ of course.
Averages almost 8 hits a turn. Vs T7 thats 4 wounds and T8 that is 2.6.
Vs a 3+ its 2 wounds and 1.3 and vs a 2+ its 1.3 and .86 unsaved wounds for 2.6 and 1.72 dmg respectively
So when you say the damage output vs vehicles is bad...you mean compared to Marine equivalents. For orkz it would be amazing.
And lets not forget the difference in durability. 10 T4 6+ save wounds vs 12 T8 3+ wounds
You're under the assumption Lootas are good anti-tank, which they are absolutely not.
lol, better than most things we have access to. You could do 12 tankbustas for 204pts, but they are Max range of 24 so fairly different in regards to range and 12 of those little guys nets you 4 hits, 2 exploding 6s for .66 more hits and than 8 rerolls which gets you 2.66 more hits and 1.33 exploding 6s for another .44 hits, grand total 7.7ish hits. Vs a T8 platform that is 3.85 wounds and vs a T5-7 its 5.17
Against 2+ armor that is 1.9 unsaved wounds for 5.7 dmg, Vs a 3+ save its 2.5 unsaved wounds for 7.7 dmg. on the T5-7 its 7.7dmg and 10.3dmg. requiring 24' range and all on a T4 6+ save 1 wound model.
So less than half the range and significantly less durable.
Maybe I'm having a brain fart, but how is 12 Tankbustas less durable than 10 Lootas?
Less durable than the Gladiator which the topic is about sorry for the confusion.
Ah okay gotcha. Yeah for most weapons the Orks will be less durable. Keep in mind too that GW prices Orks for melee ability as well. After all, Tank Bustaz still have AT melee don't they? Not that they get to use it much, but GW prices for that potential.
Ah okay gotcha. Yeah for most weapons the Orks will be less durable. Keep in mind too that GW prices Orks for melee ability as well. After all, Tank Bustaz still have AT melee don't they? Not that they get to use it much, but GW prices for that potential.
Nope. Ork Tankbustas are functionally useless in CC against vehicles. The only benefit they have over a standard 8pt boy is that their Tankhunta rule applies in CC as well. So 12 of them would get 24 attacks hitting on 3s rerolling misses so 21ish hits at S4 no AP.
You can opt to give a tankbusta a Tank hammer...but you wouldn't do that except for fun because all it does is D3 mortal wounds if it hits, but then the user dies. And if you have a tankhammer you can't have a rokkit launcha.
And as far as pricing for CC. SM now have as many attacks base as orkz, at least on the turn they start combat. GW just sucks at pricing ork stuff. Hence why the Stompa has been hot garbage forever.
BrianDavion wrote: well if they're over costed and not all that great I'd say that's a major knock to those who claim that people only buy stuff thats OP because they're already sold out
The Dakka Gladiator is probably pretty close on price. One kit, three store links is why they’re sold out as people will build that one, or magnetize. But the Lancer is pretty bad.
Ah okay gotcha. Yeah for most weapons the Orks will be less durable. Keep in mind too that GW prices Orks for melee ability as well. After all, Tank Bustaz still have AT melee don't they? Not that they get to use it much, but GW prices for that potential.
Tankbustas are completely useless in CC, the equivalent in points of ork boyz does a better job regardless of the bustas' loadout; however they can benefit from a stratagem that allows every model to throw a Melta Bomb which is extremely powerful if a full squad gets very close to a juicy target.
I can also argue that 12 tankbustas are actually less durable than 10 lootas because the latter will likely be in cover and out of range from most anti infantry weapons as they can fire at targets that are 48'' far way while tankbustas only have 24'' range.
Back on topic, the more I look at the Gladiator, the more I think it's actually a good model. I use a Gunwagon a lot which is 175 points + 1 CP and it's probably worse than the Gladiator.
Also don't forget 12 tankbustas suffers full effects from blast weapons (minimum 24 shots from a wyvern) while 10 Lootas does not (minimum 4 shots from the same weapon).
Unit1126PLL wrote: Also don't forget 12 tankbustas suffers full effects from blast weapons (minimum 24 shots from a wyvern) while 10 Lootas does not (minimum 4 shots from the same weapon).
I can't remember if Tankbustas even benefit from their tankhunta rule if they are embarked in a trukk
Unit1126PLL wrote: Also don't forget 12 tankbustas suffers full effects from blast weapons (minimum 24 shots from a wyvern) while 10 Lootas does not (minimum 4 shots from the same weapon).
I can't remember if Tankbustas even benefit from their tankhunta rule if they are embarked in a trukk
In theory they shouldn't, all abilities don't work from transports. But then you can also have a few immortal bomb squigs (since the fact that they are slain after firing is an ability) while the unit is embarked, aka regular BS2+ rokkit guys.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Also don't forget 12 tankbustas suffers full effects from blast weapons (minimum 24 shots from a wyvern) while 10 Lootas does not (minimum 4 shots from the same weapon).
I can't remember if Tankbustas even benefit from their tankhunta rule if they are embarked in a trukk
In theory they shouldn't, all abilities don't work from transports. But then you can also have a few immortal bomb squigs (since the fact that they are slain after firing is an ability) while the unit is embarked, aka regular BS2+ rokkit guys.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Also don't forget 12 tankbustas suffers full effects from blast weapons (minimum 24 shots from a wyvern) while 10 Lootas does not (minimum 4 shots from the same weapon).
I can't remember if Tankbustas even benefit from their tankhunta rule if they are embarked in a trukk
In theory they shouldn't, all abilities don't work from transports. But then you can also have a few immortal bomb squigs (since the fact that they are slain after firing is an ability) while the unit is embarked, aka regular BS2+ rokkit guys.
That's quite the oversight isn't it?
Are you surprised? GW is not known for tight rules.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Also don't forget 12 tankbustas suffers full effects from blast weapons (minimum 24 shots from a wyvern) while 10 Lootas does not (minimum 4 shots from the same weapon).
I can't remember if Tankbustas even benefit from their tankhunta rule if they are embarked in a trukk
In theory they shouldn't, all abilities don't work from transports. But then you can also have a few immortal bomb squigs (since the fact that they are slain after firing is an ability) while the unit is embarked, aka regular BS2+ rokkit guys.
Abilities work from transports if they are on your datasheet. You just can't be affected by abilities that need you to select a unit or have a unit to affect (basically all stratagems and auras). Tank busta get rerolls from inside their transports. It is interesting about the bomb squigs - can a unit not on the battlefeild be slain? I know they can be destroyed as in reserves that don't enter the battlefield are considered destroyed - slain though...IDK.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Also don't forget 12 tankbustas suffers full effects from blast weapons (minimum 24 shots from a wyvern) while 10 Lootas does not (minimum 4 shots from the same weapon).
I can't remember if Tankbustas even benefit from their tankhunta rule if they are embarked in a trukk
In theory they shouldn't, all abilities don't work from transports. But then you can also have a few immortal bomb squigs (since the fact that they are slain after firing is an ability) while the unit is embarked, aka regular BS2+ rokkit guys.
Abilities work from transports if they are on your datasheet. You just can't be affected by abilities that need you to select a unit or have a unit to affect (basically all stratagems and auras). Tank busta get rerolls from inside their transports. It is interesting about the bomb squigs - can a unit not on the battlefeild be slain? I know they can be destroyed as in reserves that don't enter the battlefield are considered destroyed - slain though...IDK.
What happens when a Kastellan robot saves with its invuln on a 6 against a shot coming from something inside an open-topped transport?
Unit1126PLL wrote: Also don't forget 12 tankbustas suffers full effects from blast weapons (minimum 24 shots from a wyvern) while 10 Lootas does not (minimum 4 shots from the same weapon).
I can't remember if Tankbustas even benefit from their tankhunta rule if they are embarked in a trukk
In theory they shouldn't, all abilities don't work from transports. But then you can also have a few immortal bomb squigs (since the fact that they are slain after firing is an ability) while the unit is embarked, aka regular BS2+ rokkit guys.
That's quite the oversight isn't it?
Are you surprised? GW is not known for tight rules.
Abilities work from transports if they are on your datasheet. You just can't be affected by abilities that need you to select a unit or have a unit to affect (basically all stratagems and auras). Tank busta get rerolls from inside their transports. It is interesting about the bomb squigs - can a unit not on the battlefeild be slain? I know they can be destroyed as in reserves that don't enter the battlefield are considered destroyed - slain though...IDK.
Is there a FAQ that says what kind of abilties work and what don't? Because all I see is the generic term "abilities", with no exceptions between abilities from the unit's datasheet, abilities from the chapter or any other abilties. Stratagems are not abilities, they don't work because the unit is not on the table which means it can't be selected for a stratagem while auras don't work because embarked units can't be within X'' to benefit from an aura, psychic power, litany, etc...
RAW there's clearly a mistake with open topped rule but it is what it is. We can either house rule it or play it strictly RAW with all the odd consequences.
The rule says you NORMALLY can't use abilities. When you're allowed to shoot, it is not normal and this obvious implicitly means rules that are part of the gun you are firing would apply. Claiming they dont is frankly rules lawyering of the worst kind.
Stux wrote: The rule says you NORMALLY can't use abilities. When you're allowed to shoot, it is not normal and this obvious implicitly means rules that are part of the gun you are firing would apply. Claiming they dont is frankly rules lawyering of the worst kind.
Either you can use abilities while shooting or you can't.
If you interpret it as if you can, it affects all abilities, including clan traits, the unit's and the weapon's abilities. Which means that squigs die when you shoot them, but you can use re-rolls to hit on the tankbusta unit.
If you interpret it as if you can't, then none of the abilities can affect these attacks. Which means that the tankbustas cannot use their re-rolls or clan traits, but also means that squigs don't die when they shoot.
The first interpretation seems like the most sensible one, since it doesn't cause any weird rules-interactions.
It's merely yet another badly written rule, calling people playing it one way or the other rules lawyers is nothing but victim blaming.
The only people who really are rules lawyers are those people playing against orks and drukhari who claim that the passengers of transports are not affected by abilities granting a benefits, but still insist that negative effects apply. There is no rules support for this.
Its very clear to me that if I'm allowed to shoot my gun, the rules on that gun will apply. Doesnt mean I can use a strat on it though, thats different. The gun has permission to shoot which implicitly means the abilities that are inextricably tied to it will apply.
Strategems (as well as anything that requires you to be "within" of something) are out of question because units in transports are not on the table, not even while shooting.
Essentially your interpretation is the first one I listed.
Stux wrote: Its not all or nothing. Thats your reading of it.
Its very clear to me that if I'm allowed to shoot my gun, the rules on that gun will apply.
Why should the rules on the gun apply and the rules on the gunner don't? We have three different kinds of abilities for an embarked unit that are referred to the unit and are not generated by external sources (like stratagems, auras, psychic powers, etc...):
- Abilities from the gun
- Abilities from the unit's datasheet
- Abilities granted by being part of a legal detachment
They're all in the exact same same spot, you can't say one is legit and the other two aren't. RAI it's very clear to me that if I'm allowed to shoot my gun I can shoot with all the rules I have with me. This is how we play in my group, basically like in 8th.
But it's an house rule and something that must be clarified before playing. In a tournament an organizer can say no ability works. At all. And there's nothing you can do about it because RAW he's right.
Blackie wrote: They're all in the exact same same spot, you can't say one is legit and the other two aren't. RAI it's very clear to me that if I'm allowed to shoot my gun I can shoot with all the rules I have with me. This is how we play in my group, basically like in 8th.
But it's an house rule and something that must be clarified before playing. In a tournament an organizer can say no ability works. At all. And there's nothing you can do about it because RAW he's right.
Hmmm. I'd say house interpretation rather than rule - and one which is near universal at least in my experience.
I guess you always meet rules lawyers in 40k but this feels like ye olde "the assault rule doesn't mean you can shoot" nonsense.
Stux wrote: Its not all or nothing. Thats your reading of it.
Its very clear to me that if I'm allowed to shoot my gun, the rules on that gun will apply.
Why should the rules on the gun apply and the rules on the gunner don't? We have three different kinds of abilities for an embarked unit that are referred to the unit and are not generated by external sources (like stratagems, auras, psychic powers, etc...):
- Abilities from the gun
- Abilities from the unit's datasheet
- Abilities granted by being part of a legal detachment
They're all in the exact same same spot, you can't say one is legit and the other two aren't. RAI it's very clear to me that if I'm allowed to shoot my gun I can shoot with all the rules I have with me. This is how we play in my group, basically like in 8th.
But it's an house rule and something that must be clarified before playing. In a tournament an organizer can say no ability works. At all. And there's nothing you can do about it because RAW he's right.
I think it is pretty clear that you can. The datasheet ability usually reads like "when making an attack". That is the only condition that needs to be met. Are you making an attack? Yes. You would in fact be breaking the rules if you didn't follow what the rest of that rule was. Example - say a weapon was to have -1 to hit flyers or something. Would the camp that says you would then ignore the negative if firing from inside the transport?
Stux wrote: Its not all or nothing. Thats your reading of it.
Its very clear to me that if I'm allowed to shoot my gun, the rules on that gun will apply.
Why should the rules on the gun apply and the rules on the gunner don't? We have three different kinds of abilities for an embarked unit that are referred to the unit and are not generated by external sources (like stratagems, auras, psychic powers, etc...):
- Abilities from the gun
- Abilities from the unit's datasheet
- Abilities granted by being part of a legal detachment
They're all in the exact same same spot, you can't say one is legit and the other two aren't. RAI it's very clear to me that if I'm allowed to shoot my gun I can shoot with all the rules I have with me. This is how we play in my group, basically like in 8th.
But it's an house rule and something that must be clarified before playing. In a tournament an organizer can say no ability works. At all. And there's nothing you can do about it because RAW he's right.
I think it is pretty clear that you can. The datasheet ability usually reads like "when making an attack". That is the only condition that needs to be met. Are you making an attack? Yes. You would in fact be breaking the rules if you didn't follow what the rest of that rule was. Example - say a weapon was to have -1 to hit flyers or something. Would the camp that says you would then ignore the negative if firing from inside the transport?
Given the way the rules are written... One can make that argument.
Open-Topped is a hot mess of garbage rules writing.
Models embarked in this transport can still shoot. For any attack made by these models, treat them as being on the battlefield wholly within the transports base/hull.
Stux wrote: Its not all or nothing. Thats your reading of it.
Its very clear to me that if I'm allowed to shoot my gun, the rules on that gun will apply.
Why should the rules on the gun apply and the rules on the gunner don't? We have three different kinds of abilities for an embarked unit that are referred to the unit and are not generated by external sources (like stratagems, auras, psychic powers, etc...):
- Abilities from the gun
- Abilities from the unit's datasheet
- Abilities granted by being part of a legal detachment
They're all in the exact same same spot, you can't say one is legit and the other two aren't. RAI it's very clear to me that if I'm allowed to shoot my gun I can shoot with all the rules I have with me. This is how we play in my group, basically like in 8th.
But it's an house rule and something that must be clarified before playing. In a tournament an organizer can say no ability works. At all. And there's nothing you can do about it because RAW he's right.
I think it is pretty clear that you can. The datasheet ability usually reads like "when making an attack". That is the only condition that needs to be met. Are you making an attack? Yes. You would in fact be breaking the rules if you didn't follow what the rest of that rule was. Example - say a weapon was to have -1 to hit flyers or something. Would the camp that says you would then ignore the negative if firing from inside the transport?
Given the way the rules are written... One can make that argument.
Open-Topped is a hot mess of garbage rules writing.
IDK if it really is a big a mess as I am seeing in this thread. I've come across rules debates in game before but never about this.
Xenomancers wrote: IDK if it really is a big a mess as I am seeing in this thread. I've come across rules debates in game before but never about this.
Yeah, no. Open-Topped was broken in 8th, and remains that way in 9th.
For instance-Dark Eldar, some of the biggest users of Open-Topped Transports, might not have their guns work, since they do damage solely off an ability.
Models embarked in this transport can still shoot. For any attack made by these models, treat them as being on the battlefield wholly within the transports base/hull.
I think the idea here was to make it impossible for the units inside to benefit from an outside source. I understand that so it is easy for me to see the way the rule is intended. They aren't trying to make the mess they have made with the wording. They just don't expect people to take it this far because well frankly...they are Englishmen. They consider it absurd that anyone would take it so far.
I would write it this way.
"Units embarked on an open topped transport are eligible to make shooting attacks. For the purposes of movement they count as having moved if the vehicle moved in the previous movement phase. If the vehicle is not eligible to shoot the occupants are also not eligible to shoot. For the purposes of auras they can not benefit from auras and no stratagems can be targeted/selected to the unit embarked on the transport."
Xenomancers wrote: IDK if it really is a big a mess as I am seeing in this thread. I've come across rules debates in game before but never about this.
Yeah, no. Open-Topped was broken in 8th, and remains that way in 9th.
For instance-Dark Eldar, some of the biggest users of Open-Topped Transports, might not have their guns work, since they do damage solely off an ability.
Flayed skull literally grants units embarked in transports an ability.
Xenomancers wrote: Flayed skull literally grants units embarked in transports an ability.
yeah but poisoned weapons is an ability.
As for making open-topped jank just to dodge auras, why? Why can't the dudes in the venom benefit from the Archon rerolls thats affecting the venom itself.
Xenomancers wrote: Flayed skull literally grants units embarked in transports an ability.
yeah but poisoned weapons is an ability.
As for making open-topped jank just to dodge auras, why? Why can't the dudes in the venom benefit from the Archon rerolls thats affecting the venom itself.
Also, it's possible for GW to crap the bed and grant an ability that does nothing.
Xenomancers wrote: Flayed skull literally grants units embarked in transports an ability.
yeah but poisoned weapons is an ability.
As for making open-topped jank just to dodge auras, why? Why can't the dudes in the venom benefit from the Archon rerolls thats affecting the venom itself.
I think overall it is to prevent fortifications too much power. There aren't any particular issues with any of the open topped transports being too powerful with auras. Some fortifications would just be silly though.
Xenomancers wrote: Flayed skull literally grants units embarked in transports an ability.
yeah but poisoned weapons is an ability.
As for making open-topped jank just to dodge auras, why? Why can't the dudes in the venom benefit from the Archon rerolls thats affecting the venom itself.
I think overall it is to prevent fortifications too much power. There aren't any particular issues with any of the open topped transports being too powerful with auras. Some fortifications would just be silly though.
then give fortifications a rule that prevents auras instead of making generic open-topped so jank.
Xenomancers wrote: Flayed skull literally grants units embarked in transports an ability.
yeah but poisoned weapons is an ability.
As for making open-topped jank just to dodge auras, why? Why can't the dudes in the venom benefit from the Archon rerolls thats affecting the venom itself.
I think overall it is to prevent fortifications too much power. There aren't any particular issues with any of the open topped transports being too powerful with auras. Some fortifications would just be silly though.
then give fortifications a rule that prevents auras instead of making generic open-topped so jank.
Wasn't this the argument for getting rid of USRs in the first place? That fixing jankiness with one model would ruin them all?
Xenomancers wrote: Flayed skull literally grants units embarked in transports an ability.
yeah but poisoned weapons is an ability.
As for making open-topped jank just to dodge auras, why? Why can't the dudes in the venom benefit from the Archon rerolls thats affecting the venom itself.
I think overall it is to prevent fortifications too much power. There aren't any particular issues with any of the open topped transports being too powerful with auras. Some fortifications would just be silly though.
then give fortifications a rule that prevents auras instead of making generic open-topped so jank.
Wasn't this the argument for getting rid of USRs in the first place? That fixing jankiness with one model would ruin them all?
yes? but we're not talking about USRs here (altough i feel they could be perfectly implemented in this case, transports have open topped, fortifications have a rule that specifies auras only work within the fortification, IF we even chose to nerf fortifications that way)
Regardless of the rules with the gladiator tank being less than stellar. I did buy 2 today. Will assemble 1 as a valiant and 1 as a reaper.
Lancer not even being considered I am afraid. Considering they all look pretty cool - (reaper looks best IMO) it really comes down to rules how you arm them. I don't magnetize (I would just lose parts this way) If they buff it eventually maybe I'll get another one.
Xenomancers wrote: Regardless of the rules with the gladiator tank being less than stellar. I did buy 2 today. Will assemble 1 as a valiant and 1 as a reaper.
Lancer not even being considered I am afraid. Considering they all look pretty cool - (reaper looks best IMO) it really comes down to rules how you arm them. I don't magnetize (I would just lose parts this way) If they buff it eventually maybe I'll get another one.
And there you go. Even though it doesn't have "the best" rules you still bought a model you like and intend to use it. As it should be. Everything can't be "top tier" competitive, sometimes you just want to play what you like. That's why even with the infuriating Martial Legacy rule, I'll still be playing my Legion vehicles. Night Lords shouldn't be using daemonic stuff or mutant dreadnoughts, so even though it will make my army "less competitive" I'll still use them. Playing the models you like is what makes this game fun.
Xenomancers wrote: Regardless of the rules with the gladiator tank being less than stellar. I did buy 2 today. Will assemble 1 as a valiant and 1 as a reaper.
Lancer not even being considered I am afraid. Considering they all look pretty cool - (reaper looks best IMO) it really comes down to rules how you arm them. I don't magnetize (I would just lose parts this way) If they buff it eventually maybe I'll get another one.
And there you go. Even though it doesn't have "the best" rules you still bought a model you like and intend to use it.
He bought a kit that can make three "models". He is not making the "bad" model (the subject of the thread the Lancer version). The Reaper ( I think it's the Reaper - the Dakka/Crusader/Baal version with twin Gatling) is pretty attractive - and comes from the same kit.
Xenomancers wrote: Regardless of the rules with the gladiator tank being less than stellar. I did buy 2 today. Will assemble 1 as a valiant and 1 as a reaper.
Lancer not even being considered I am afraid. Considering they all look pretty cool - (reaper looks best IMO) it really comes down to rules how you arm them. I don't magnetize (I would just lose parts this way) If they buff it eventually maybe I'll get another one.
And there you go. Even though it doesn't have "the best" rules you still bought a model you like and intend to use it. As it should be. Everything can't be "top tier" competitive, sometimes you just want to play what you like. That's why even with the infuriating Martial Legacy rule, I'll still be playing my Legion vehicles. Night Lords shouldn't be using daemonic stuff or mutant dreadnoughts, so even though it will make my army "less competitive" I'll still use them. Playing the models you like is what makes this game fun.
Oh for sure. I have an end game here. My priamris strike force on display will be lit.
1 Astraeus
3 Repulsors
2 Executionsers
2 Gladiators
3 Impulsors
(Eventually 2 of the new land speeders)
Not to mention so really awesome apoc games.
It's just sad to me that across the board we can have such a wide disparity in 3 kits coming from the same box. This goes for any army.
