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.

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.

The Gladiator is imho overcosted in all of its configurations. Which is a pity, as I like the Predator silhouette.

I will get a Reaper for my BA as a spiritual successor at some point, though.

I agree that the output is lacklustre for the points given the current environment of the game.

 Xenomancers wrote:

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:

 Xenomancers wrote:

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?

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.

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.

 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 3d6 dmg 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.

I like the Gladiator, but definitely overcosted. Especially when it's competing for the job of anti-tank with the best anti-tank unit in the game.

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.

I wouldn't bet on that surviving.

Commanders being used as MBT is the kind of thing that 9th doesn't like.

At the very least, they will not be able to command themselves.

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.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 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.

 Dysartes wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 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.

 Nitro Zeus wrote:

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

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 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?