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.
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
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/12/02 18:07:08
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
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.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/12/02 18:13:47
CoALabaer wrote: Wargamers hate two things: the state of the game and change.
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/12/02 18:22:10
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.
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
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.
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
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!
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/12/02 19:10:23
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
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.
Gamgee on Tau Players wrote:we all kill cats and sell our own families to the devil and eat live puppies.
Kanluwen wrote: This is, emphatically, why I will continue suggesting nuking Guard and starting over again. It's a legacy army that needs to be rebooted with a new focal point.
Confirmation of why no-one should listen to Kanluwen when it comes to the IG - he doesn't want the IG, he want's Kan's New Model Army...
tneva82 wrote: You aren't even trying ty pretend for honest arqument. Open bad faith trolling.
- No reason to keep this here, unless people want to use it for something...
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.
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain.
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.
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain.
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.
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain.
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...
Skaven - 4500
OBR - 4250
- 6800
- 4250
- 2750 
(judged by points per damage dealt to typical T7/3+ save vehicles at max range).
