Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Also lets not forget the 72" range of the cannon on the castigator. A savvy opponent can put it in the corner of a board and fire just the battle cannon turn 1. Are you going to dedicate your eradicators/AB squad/anti tank to that corner of the board? Where they will be out of range of anything else till probably turn 3?

Probably not, and then your opponent can move it up turn 2/3 and target your eradicators/AB squad/anti tank units along with whatever else with the Heavy Bolters and live till at least turn 3.

There are strategies, but these are situational.

Seabass wrote:
I think the predator is fine. I have a list with 3 dakka predators that seem to do ok. it's not meta breaking or anything, but they're fine for their purpose.

it's kind of cheeky to run 3 Baal predators and 3 Dakka predators. yeah, its a lot of points, but that's a LOT of shots

Yes. Some people have a tendency to mistake 'Good Enough' for 'Terrible.'

I agree with the concerns about the relative strength of a Predator and points cost. However, the difference is not so great that the Predator is completely outclassed.

If I was going to argue about Predators, I would be talking about CSM Predators compared to Primaris Repulsors. The later just has so many more shots in comparison, the points difference is not enough.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Tanks/Monsters need a complete rethink. Not saying AV system - I think that ship has sailed - but they need more wounds, better saves (in some cases), certainly higher toughness, and maybe the odd wound-reducing special rule, or self repair/regeneration stuff.

Totally agree that something needs to be done, but I'm not convinced that raising defensive stats is enough since GW has shown that they will again and again increase the lethality of the game. We definitely need a defensive system that puts vehicles/MC's in another class other than box-shaped infantry.

So something like shields in BFG that have to be beaten down every round before damage to the hull can occur, or armor pips in (new) XCOM that reduce incoming damage by a large amount amount and need specialist equipment to bypass or neutralize, or even VtM V5 where you have multiple dice to do things (think saving on multiple dice) but each subsequent action in that round reduces the number of available dice for the next action (so first save on three dice, second save on two, all others on 1).

Either that or go all in on GW's extreme lethality by making AT weapons extremely lethal (we're talking 8+ wounds a hit) and giving tanks/MC's 40+ wounds to compensate.

Most vehicles need +1T and an extra wound per 5 current wounds (or part thereof) - things like Russes would go up 3, light vehicles like Landspeeders would gain 2, etc.

Move degrading profiles up to 12 wounds minimum and losing the benefit of obscuring up to 21+ wounds.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Altima wrote:

So something like shields in BFG that have to be beaten down every round before damage to the hull can occur

That's pretty much the current implementation of void shields, but better (RAW - they only regenerate if the void shield still has wounds remaining).

Altima wrote:
Totally agree that something needs to be done, but I'm not convinced that raising defensive stats is enough since GW has shown that they will again and again increase the lethality of the game. We definitely need a defensive system that puts vehicles/MC's in another class other than box-shaped infantry.

GW's current trend of making anti-tank weapons more lethal (and less swingy ie. Dd6 vs Dd3+1) came without actually making vehicles any tougher.

This, to me at least, shows GW was trying to make AT weapons more attractive for actual AT work than 8th's issue with mid-strength, mid-damage multi-shot weapons being overall more effective due to having far more of those than expensive swingy AT weaponry, but because they don't understand (or just won't acknowledge) the core issue as to why AT weapons weren't being taken, they've left vehicles in an even worse position than they were before.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Altima wrote:
Totally agree that something needs to be done, but I'm not convinced that raising defensive stats is enough since GW has shown that they will again and again increase the lethality of the game. We definitely need a defensive system that puts vehicles/MC's in another class other than box-shaped infantry.

GW's current trend of making anti-tank weapons more lethal (and less swingy ie. Dd6 vs Dd3+1) came without actually making vehicles any tougher.

This, to me at least, shows GW was trying to make AT weapons more attractive for actual AT work than 8th's issue with mid-strength, mid-damage multi-shot weapons being overall more effective due to having far more of those than expensive swingy AT weaponry, but because they don't understand (or just won't acknowledge) the core issue as to why AT weapons weren't being taken, they've left vehicles in an even worse position than they were before.

You know what also could've solved that?
A wound Charts that disallows everything can wound anything rather than increasing at lethality...

 techsoldaten wrote:

Seabass wrote:
I think the predator is fine. I have a list with 3 dakka predators that seem to do ok. it's not meta breaking or anything, but they're fine for their purpose.

it's kind of cheeky to run 3 Baal predators and 3 Dakka predators. yeah, its a lot of points, but that's a LOT of shots

Yes. Some people have a tendency to mistake 'Good Enough' for 'Terrible.'

I agree with the concerns about the relative strength of a Predator and points cost. However, the difference is not so great that the Predator is completely outclassed.

If I was going to argue about Predators, I would be talking about CSM Predators compared to Primaris Repulsors. The later just has so many more shots in comparison, the points difference is not enough.

IDK if the Repulsor is the best comparison though. It's pretty much universally considered over-costed. Especially now that it can't "fly". I LOVE my Repulsor and my Repulsor Executioner, but they're ... not great for the points.

I think the Predator needs a points drop and options for cheap defensive upgrades. It works much better in lower point games than it does in the bigger battles. I think that's fine. It's kind of fun to have different units that see play at different points levels. If you look at it through this lens, it's not as far from "useful" as it might seem.

 Black Knight wrote:
Also lets not forget the 72" range of the cannon on the castigator. A savvy opponent can put it in the corner of a board and fire just the battle cannon turn 1. Are you going to dedicate your eradicators/AB squad/anti tank to that corner of the board? Where they will be out of range of anything else till probably turn 3?

Probably not, and then your opponent can move it up turn 2/3 and target your eradicators/AB squad/anti tank units along with whatever else with the Heavy Bolters and live till at least turn 3.

There are strategies, but these are situational.

Not an expert on the new SoB codex, as it has not arrived here yet, and I did not download one. So I have a question. How does it ignore LoS, because unless the game is played on planet bowling ball ally, 72" range on a gun doesn't mean much in 9th ed. Not unless you fly or ignore LoS.

it's kind of cheeky to run 3 Baal predators and 3 Dakka predators. yeah, its a lot of points, but that's a LOT of shots

It is also free secondary points for the opponent.

Tycho wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:

Seabass wrote:
I think the predator is fine. I have a list with 3 dakka predators that seem to do ok. it's not meta breaking or anything, but they're fine for their purpose.

it's kind of cheeky to run 3 Baal predators and 3 Dakka predators. yeah, its a lot of points, but that's a LOT of shots

Yes. Some people have a tendency to mistake 'Good Enough' for 'Terrible.'

I agree with the concerns about the relative strength of a Predator and points cost. However, the difference is not so great that the Predator is completely outclassed.

If I was going to argue about Predators, I would be talking about CSM Predators compared to Primaris Repulsors. The later just has so many more shots in comparison, the points difference is not enough.

IDK if the Repulsor is the best comparison though. It's pretty much universally considered over-costed. Especially now that it can't "fly". I LOVE my Repulsor and my Repulsor Executioner, but they're ... not great for the points.

I think the Predator needs a points drop and options for cheap defensive upgrades. It works much better in lower point games than it does in the bigger battles. I think that's fine. It's kind of fun to have different units that see play at different points levels. If you look at it through this lens, it's not as far from "useful" as it might seem.

Chaos Predators compete with cultists to see who can inflict more wounds.

They're far from useful.

Lammia wrote:

Tycho wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:

Seabass wrote:
I think the predator is fine. I have a list with 3 dakka predators that seem to do ok. it's not meta breaking or anything, but they're fine for their purpose.

it's kind of cheeky to run 3 Baal predators and 3 Dakka predators. yeah, its a lot of points, but that's a LOT of shots

Yes. Some people have a tendency to mistake 'Good Enough' for 'Terrible.'

I agree with the concerns about the relative strength of a Predator and points cost. However, the difference is not so great that the Predator is completely outclassed.

If I was going to argue about Predators, I would be talking about CSM Predators compared to Primaris Repulsors. The later just has so many more shots in comparison, the points difference is not enough.

IDK if the Repulsor is the best comparison though. It's pretty much universally considered over-costed. Especially now that it can't "fly". I LOVE my Repulsor and my Repulsor Executioner, but they're ... not great for the points.

I think the Predator needs a points drop and options for cheap defensive upgrades. It works much better in lower point games than it does in the bigger battles. I think that's fine. It's kind of fun to have different units that see play at different points levels. If you look at it through this lens, it's not as far from "useful" as it might seem.

Chaos Predators compete with cultists to see who can inflict more wounds.

They're far from useful.

Nowhere did I say they were useful. I said they're a lot better in lower point games than they are in big games, need a points reduction, and need access to some cheap defensive buffs and that they're not AS FAR from useful.

They're farther from than you implied, even in low point games. They are just that bad

Tycho 798889 11144623 wrote:
Nowhere did I say they were useful. I said they're a lot better in lower point games than they are in big games, need a points reduction, and need access to some cheap defensive buffs and that they're not AS FAR from useful.

Okey, but that is like saying they could be good in crusade or outside of matched play. Plus useful is a binary term. You either are useful or you aren't useful. There is no in between.

 Black Knight wrote:
Also lets not forget the 72" range of the cannon on the castigator. A savvy opponent can put it in the corner of a board and fire just the battle cannon turn 1. Are you going to dedicate your eradicators/AB squad/anti tank to that corner of the board? Where they will be out of range of anything else till probably turn 3?

Probably not, and then your opponent can move it up turn 2/3 and target your eradicators/AB squad/anti tank units along with whatever else with the Heavy Bolters and live till at least turn 3.

There are strategies, but these are situational.

No they can't. Board's not big enough for this to be viable. It's only 44" wide and 66" corner to corner. Also, Eradicators shoot 24" and most antitank is in the 36 to 48" range, even if you put it in the absolute corner most of the board they can still shoot it from a midfield objective. Or a deployment zone objective if they're in the same quadrant.

Of all the takes about this, this is the one that's definitively wrong.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Altima wrote:
Totally agree that something needs to be done, but I'm not convinced that raising defensive stats is enough since GW has shown that they will again and again increase the lethality of the game. We definitely need a defensive system that puts vehicles/MC's in another class other than box-shaped infantry.

GW's current trend of making anti-tank weapons more lethal (and less swingy ie. Dd6 vs Dd3+1) came without actually making vehicles any tougher.

This, to me at least, shows GW was trying to make AT weapons more attractive for actual AT work than 8th's issue with mid-strength, mid-damage multi-shot weapons being overall more effective due to having far more of those than expensive swingy AT weaponry, but because they don't understand (or just won't acknowledge) the core issue as to why AT weapons weren't being taken, they've left vehicles in an even worse position than they were before.

You know what also could've solved that?
A wound Charts that disallows everything can wound anything rather than increasing at lethality...

Get off of this. The best anti-tank in 7th was scatterlasers so don't pretend like the old system was better or that the problem is that bolters can wound stuff on a 6 now.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 techsoldaten wrote:

Seabass wrote:
I think the predator is fine. I have a list with 3 dakka predators that seem to do ok. it's not meta breaking or anything, but they're fine for their purpose.

it's kind of cheeky to run 3 Baal predators and 3 Dakka predators. yeah, its a lot of points, but that's a LOT of shots

Yes. Some people have a tendency to mistake 'Good Enough' for 'Terrible.'

I agree with the concerns about the relative strength of a Predator and points cost. However, the difference is not so great that the Predator is completely outclassed.

If I was going to argue about Predators, I would be talking about CSM Predators compared to Primaris Repulsors. The later just has so many more shots in comparison, the points difference is not enough.

A predator is probably worth 30-50% of the value of an eradicator squad between being nowhere near as resilient and doing a bare fraction of the damage. It's also worse at capturing objectives and not as useful as an outflanker. It also has less buffs that it can benefit from.

Karol wrote:

Tycho 798889 11144623 wrote:
Nowhere did I say they were useful. I said they're a lot better in lower point games than they are in big games, need a points reduction, and need access to some cheap defensive buffs and that they're not AS FAR from useful.

Okey, but that is like saying they could be good in crusade or outside of matched play. Plus useful is a binary term. You either are useful or you aren't useful. There is no in between.

It is absolutely not binary. There are varying degrees of utility and usefulness. I'm not really sure what you mean by "... in crusade, or outside of matched play" either. Many groups play matched play at 1000-1200 points. Go take a look at the thread about interest in smaller games. The fact that your group doesn't is unfortunate, but it doesn't really mean it applies to everyone.

They're farther from than you implied, even in low point games. They are just that bad

I just don't agree. A good, solid points drop, some tweaks to the weapons, and options for some cheap defensive upgrades would have them competitive again fairly quickly.

Tanks and monsters don't need a complete re-think. Simply GW should remove some mechanics that allow insane buffs on some shooting models.

Tanks especially don't seem to shine because some specialists can be more durable or (sometimes even and) more killy for the same role. That's it. Make multimelta 35 points, avoid double tap and re-rolls, cost stratagems that enhance shooting 3CPs...

Vehicles are currently in one of their greatest moments ruleswise, their problem is related to those codexes where some other stuff can fulfill the same role more effectively, and IMHO it's those units/weapons/combos that should be addressed. In older editions vehicles had tons and tons of drawbacks but the much lower rate of fire and the more expensive/limited wargear on specialists made them more durable and more appealing. In some cases, with my orks vehicles have been terrible to mediocre for the entire 3rd-7th editions, except a single skew list in 5th with 3 BWs all with 4+ cover or ultraspammy lists with 8-10 trukks. Which are something that I hope I'll never see again, like any other list based on spamming stuff.

A predator for example is already fine at least, but the plethora of other units that perform the same role but better, in a codex with 200 datasheets, makes it sub-optimal.

ERJAK wrote:

No they can't. Board's not big enough for this to be viable. It's only 44" wide and 66" corner to corner. Also, Eradicators shoot 24" and most antitank is in the 36 to 48" range, even if you put it in the absolute corner most of the board they can still shoot it from a midfield objective. Or a deployment zone objective if they're in the same quadrant.

Of all the takes about this, this is the one that's definitively wrong.

A predator is probably worth 30-50% of the value of an eradicator squad between being nowhere near as resilient and doing a bare fraction of the damage. It's also worse at capturing objectives and not as useful as an outflanker.

You're not drawing line of sight straight across, sure. But you still have the advantage of an angle of attack when you move 12" as opposed to 5". Attack Bikes are not much faster than a Predator / Castigator. Eradicators suffer the same issues drawing LOS with the benefit of walking through buildings.

Then you have to consider the deployment zones that favor range like in missions 11, 13, 21, 22, 23, 32, and 33. Those either have deeper zones or the no man's land is 28" - an inch shy out of the full range of Eradicators.

I don't think anyone should take multiple vehicles, but one that fills a role well and you're able to make good trades with it would do fine.

Karol wrote:

Tycho 798889 11144623 wrote:
Nowhere did I say they were useful. I said they're a lot better in lower point games than they are in big games, need a points reduction, and need access to some cheap defensive buffs and that they're not AS FAR from useful.

Okey, but that is like saying they could be good in crusade or outside of matched play. Plus useful is a binary term. You either are useful or you aren't useful. There is no in between.

The good old dakkadakka mantra: Units are either OP Needs Nerfs or Worthless Unplayable Trash.

They are my space marines, and they shall know...no....nuance!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ERJAK wrote:


A predator is probably worth 30-50% of the value of an eradicator squad between being nowhere near as resilient and doing a bare fraction of the damage. It's also worse at capturing objectives and not as useful as an outflanker. It also has less buffs that it can benefit from.

I'm sorry....just to be clear here, you're saying that a predator would be properly costed at 40-68 points in your book?

And that a squad that, last I checked, has 9 T5 Sv3+ wounds total is more durable than a vehicle with 11 T7 3+ wounds total?

ERJAK wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:

Seabass wrote:
I think the predator is fine. I have a list with 3 dakka predators that seem to do ok. it's not meta breaking or anything, but they're fine for their purpose.

it's kind of cheeky to run 3 Baal predators and 3 Dakka predators. yeah, its a lot of points, but that's a LOT of shots

Yes. Some people have a tendency to mistake 'Good Enough' for 'Terrible.'

I agree with the concerns about the relative strength of a Predator and points cost. However, the difference is not so great that the Predator is completely outclassed.

If I was going to argue about Predators, I would be talking about CSM Predators compared to Primaris Repulsors. The later just has so many more shots in comparison, the points difference is not enough.

A predator is probably worth 30-50% of the value of an eradicator squad between being nowhere near as resilient and doing a bare fraction of the damage. It's also worse at capturing objectives and not as useful as an outflanker. It also has less buffs that it can benefit from.

You're kind of making the point for me.

All these things may be true (I'd argue about capturing objectives, but don't want to derail the conversation.) But that doesn't make it worthless, even though it's less points efficient.

If your CSM army also features 2 squads of Obliterators, you might be taking a Dakkapred to fill out Heavy Support. 2 outstanding units plus one good enough unit - which may be there completely for the purpose of distraction - is not a bad play.

Comparing the Chaos Predator with a Redemptor, we have two sub-par units subject to a lot of valid criticism. The point difference being what it is, a Redemptor is simply a more capable tank. Assuming other things are roughly equal, a triple Redemptor list is going to win over a triple Pred list probably 80% of the time.

The real problem is the Chaos tanks are outclassed. The individual points almost don't matter so long as one unit can fire 40+ times per turn and the other can only fire 8. A marginal difference in toughness and saves doesn't matter very much for single model units that are likely to get attention from high damage weapons.

We often focus on points cost instead of other factors. I'd rather have an overcosted, mediocre unit than something that's highly points efficient and completely outclassed.

 the_scotsman wrote:

Karol wrote:

Tycho 798889 11144623 wrote:
Nowhere did I say they were useful. I said they're a lot better in lower point games than they are in big games, need a points reduction, and need access to some cheap defensive buffs and that they're not AS FAR from useful.

Okey, but that is like saying they could be good in crusade or outside of matched play. Plus useful is a binary term. You either are useful or you aren't useful. There is no in between.

The good old dakkadakka mantra: Units are either OP Needs Nerfs or Worthless Unplayable Trash.

They are my space marines, and they shall know...no....nuance!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ERJAK wrote:


A predator is probably worth 30-50% of the value of an eradicator squad between being nowhere near as resilient and doing a bare fraction of the damage. It's also worse at capturing objectives and not as useful as an outflanker. It also has less buffs that it can benefit from.

I'm sorry....just to be clear here, you're saying that a predator would be properly costed at 40-68 points in your book?

And that a squad that, last I checked, has 9 T5 Sv3+ wounds total is more durable than a vehicle with 11 T7 3+ wounds total?

The first bit was hyperbole. Fair enough.

The second bit is true. A predator can't get cover, a predator is harder to hide, a predator is a giant screeching melta magnet. Eradicators can sometimes force lost damage. The predators numbers are bigger which is why GW thinks it's almost as good eradicators but doesn't represent its practical survivability.

Both of them are high priority targets for multidamage, high strength weapons. For the weapons that are going to be shooting at them, both will take roughly 3 shots to kill. The difference is that the predator can (and often does) die in 2 and Eradicators always take at least 3.

Not an expert on the new SoB codex, as it has not arrived here yet, and I did not download one. So I have a question. How does it ignore LoS, because unless the game is played on planet bowling ball ally, 72" range on a gun doesn't mean much in 9th ed. Not unless you fly or ignore LoS.

ERJAK wrote:


Capable of nothing. Both die in a single volley to the majority of current anti-tank weapons, both do significantly less damage than an equivalent point value of a better unit(eradicators or retributors respectively). They are neither as survivable or as potent as their closest peers. There's no place for either at their current point values. Which is why you never see them.

T7, 11 wounds 3+ save.

Vs, 10 Tankbustas = 10 shots, 3.33 hits, 6.67 rerolls for another 2.22 hits, total 5.55 hits, add in exploding 6s another 1.5 hits including further rerolls. Total of 7 hits. Against T7 that is 4.66 wounds Vs a 3+ save which becomes a 5+ = 9.33 dmg. Still very much alive, tankbustas are than dead next turn.

Vs 15 Lootas = 30 shots, 11.6 hits (including DDD), Vs T7 = 5.8, -1AP = 2.9 wounds for 2dmg each or 5.8dmg. Very much alive....not even bracketed.

Vs 4 smasha Gunz = 8 shots, 4.6 hits = about 2.7 wounds (7+ on 2 dice) for 9.4dmg on average. Still alive.

10 Tankbustas = 170pts
15 Lootas = 300pts
4 Smasha Gunz = 160pts.

I mean, I think a Predator isn't super competitive, but it isn't exactly flimsy. Its only weak vs ridiculously broken things like the new DE weapons or the Eradicators or MM units running around in SM lists.

ERJAK wrote:

 the_scotsman wrote:

Karol wrote:

Tycho 798889 11144623 wrote:
Nowhere did I say they were useful. I said they're a lot better in lower point games than they are in big games, need a points reduction, and need access to some cheap defensive buffs and that they're not AS FAR from useful.

Okey, but that is like saying they could be good in crusade or outside of matched play. Plus useful is a binary term. You either are useful or you aren't useful. There is no in between.

The good old dakkadakka mantra: Units are either OP Needs Nerfs or Worthless Unplayable Trash.

They are my space marines, and they shall know...no....nuance!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ERJAK wrote:


A predator is probably worth 30-50% of the value of an eradicator squad between being nowhere near as resilient and doing a bare fraction of the damage. It's also worse at capturing objectives and not as useful as an outflanker. It also has less buffs that it can benefit from.

I'm sorry....just to be clear here, you're saying that a predator would be properly costed at 40-68 points in your book?

And that a squad that, last I checked, has 9 T5 Sv3+ wounds total is more durable than a vehicle with 11 T7 3+ wounds total?

The first bit was hyperbole. Fair enough.

The second bit is true. A predator can't get cover, a predator is harder to hide, a predator is a giant screeching melta magnet. Eradicators can sometimes force lost damage. The predators numbers are bigger which is why GW thinks it's almost as good eradicators but doesn't represent its practical survivability.

Both of them are high priority targets for multidamage, high strength weapons. For the weapons that are going to be shooting at them, both will take roughly 3 shots to kill. The difference is that the predator can (and often does) die in 2 and Eradicators always take at least 3.

Meltas are absolutely more effective vs predators (read: vehicles in general) than eradicators, mostly by nature of the fact that almost all the stat advantages that the pred does have are offset by the particular statline of the melta. generally, at least in the eradicator comparison, the limiting factor is that its vastly easier to get an eradicator in melta range than it is to get a predator in melta range.

the main problem at this point that I think gw needs to contend with is the fact that the microboard functionally means there's no such thing as a 'safe backline' unit anymore that you can use to count on range as one of the ways you're avoiding firepower. It is trivial to get any target within range of a 24" gun in 9th edition.

Personally my preferred solution to the problem of 'suicide spike damage unit instantly blows up my big tank' would be a re-introduction of the vehicle damage table as an option - you as the defender can choose to ignore an instance of damage to roll on a critical hit table of being immobilized/weapons destroyed/etc etc. Either that or just go the AOS route of having big things having bigger numbers.

A big model in aos has like 36 wounds.

They could start giving tanks more wounds and higher T, if they don't want to make the only valid vehicles those that are ultra cheap or high utility with good fire power.

No idea why a Knight shouldn't be T10 or T12 in case of a castellan. And stuff would have more spread too. when all vehicles are carbon copies of each other, the special rules and arment per point costs decide for people what is valid and what is not. Maybe predators should have more wounds, heck maybe a chaos predator dedicated to nurgle should have even more wounds then a regular predator. Maybe a lemman russ should be more tough, and I mean substentially tougher, then a predator. Maybe the ork stuff should be ramshackled stuff with lower T, with exeptions of heavy armoured stuff like a wagon or stomp or a naut, but the vehicles orks have should have a ton of wounds. The eldar stuff could be low T, low W, but with invs and the whole minus to hit etc. Would make vehicles feel different, and not just, this vehcile is this other armis vehicle only without the good rules. Like in case of lets say the impulsor and raider.

I do love how this thread basically became:

"Make tanks great again!"

Of which I heartily approve :-)

leerm02 wrote:
I do love how this thread basically became:

"Make tanks great again!"

Of which I heartily approve :-)

Not surprising, though. Even the shiny new space marine tanks were kinda meh.
Can't think of the last time a proper tank came out and was impressive. Or even an old one got updated in a positive way.

Karol wrote:
They could start giving tanks more wounds and higher T, if they don't want to make the only valid vehicles those that are ultra cheap or high utility with good fire power.

No idea why a Knight shouldn't be T10 or T12 in case of a castellan. And stuff would have more spread too. when all vehicles are carbon copies of each other, the special rules and arment per point costs decide for people what is valid and what is not. Maybe predators should have more wounds, heck maybe a chaos predator dedicated to nurgle should have even more wounds then a regular predator. Maybe a lemman russ should be more tough, and I mean substentially tougher, then a predator. Maybe the ork stuff should be ramshackled stuff with lower T, with exeptions of heavy armoured stuff like a wagon or stomp or a naut, but the vehicles orks have should have a ton of wounds. The eldar stuff could be low T, low W, but with invs and the whole minus to hit etc. Would make vehicles feel different, and not just, this vehcile is this other armis vehicle only without the good rules. Like in case of lets say the impulsor and raider.

The problem with relying on toughness as the equalizer is that we're starting to see more and more auto-wound weapons/strategems which would do nothing for these high toughness units. Plus we don't want to invalidate devoted AT weapons even more.

Vehicle/MC survivability should be addressed as a class first, then layer on army specific benefits on top of that such as orks' ramshackles, something with Imperial machine spirits, Necron living metal, tyranid regeneration, Dark/Eldar hyper advanced technology, etc. This means that not only are your base units survivable, the uniqueness of each faction can still be preserved.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Voss wrote:


Not surprising, though. Even the shiny new space marine tanks were kinda meh.
Can't think of the last time a proper tank came out and was impressive. Or even an old one got updated in a positive way.

DE Raider. People were extremely offended that it performed its intended role as a transport, didn't break the bank on points cost, and could put out around 15 wounds in a game on average. Arguably overcosted upgrades though. Not a MBT but as close as you'd get in most Dark Eldar lists with the Ravager falling out of favor. Especially relevant since most DE lists are required to run at least four of the things, if not more.

Karol wrote:

it's kind of cheeky to run 3 Baal predators and 3 Dakka predators. yeah, its a lot of points, but that's a LOT of shots

It is also free secondary points for the opponent.

12 points at max. And it is worth mentioning that 6 t7 tanks do have some difficulty in removing, especially when they're removing things in return. Like I said, it's not perfect, not competitive, but it is VERY fun to play. Toss in a few techmarines to give them +1 to hit or repair them and it's surprising just how much that you can catch someone off guard.

GW has had big issues with battle tanks for a very long time now. Hardly any of them see play; the tanks you do see are almost all artillery or transports, i.e. stuff that either doesn't get shot at, or as a function other than just going out and shooting stuff.

There has to be some reason for that, it is such a clear pattern replicated across the entire game. I don't know if it is that the designers just don't really understand how their game is really played, or if there are philosophical objections to making battle tanks competitive, but it's surely not some big coincidence that almost all of them are non-competitive.

 techsoldaten wrote:
If your CSM army also features 2 squads of Obliterators, you might be taking a Dakkapred to fill out Heavy Support. 2 outstanding units plus one good enough unit - which may be there completely for the purpose of distraction - is not a bad play.

What if your opponent is actually skilled and doesn't fall for your distraction unit and instead focuses on their objectives and units that threaten those plans?

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:
If your CSM army also features 2 squads of Obliterators, you might be taking a Dakkapred to fill out Heavy Support. 2 outstanding units plus one good enough unit - which may be there completely for the purpose of distraction - is not a bad play.

What if your opponent is actually skilled and doesn't fall for your distraction unit and instead focuses on their objectives and units that threaten those plans?

Then they get picked on by a D3 autocannon with 2D3 shots a turn plus the HB sponsons, which are a lot better now? I don't think you are going to revolutionize the meta with it, but the weapons on a predator aren't its problem. They are a threat, and 6 obliterators can be pretty difficult to remove if supported well.

Side note, does the CSM codex still have killshot? It might, if it does, that strategy, now that they are able to move and shoot without penalty, may be worth revisiting. (Well, that and RR1s from a lord until that changes) *edit: Nevermind, it only works on vehicles and monsters, I forgot. I'm not sure if they would have the target availability they need to justify that.