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.

Imperial Guard got it, looks like Eldar are going to get it too - Double-firing tank turrets when the tank moves slowly.
Predators are almost never taken unless someone is trying to use the Killshot strategem, because Lascannon Devestators are much better for cost-to-damage-output, and Razorbacks are much better for cost-to-durability.
Vindicators, meanwhile, suck. Period. They aren't even worth bringing to try and use their strategem.
So why not give them the same buff? 50% more shots gives Predators equal output to Devs, point-for-point, makes them better platforms than Razorbacks (as it should be) and a 100% increase makes Vindicators... Still not great, but useable.

Well, it might be a fix. But myself i'd be looking at why it's needed and going on a case-by-case basis. The problem with lrs is that their main gun was bad (and extremely random). If they had made the battlecanon 1D3+3 instead of 1D6, it might not have been so bad. The average roll on 2d6 is 7, so instead of adding a new 'bespoke' rule, why not just fix the main gun to achieve that sort of probability?

Same thing with vindicators. Las preds raise the question: why would i have a tank where the primary armament is pretty much something a guy can carry on foot? I think that there is a significant issue - tanks are meant to carry the 'big' guns, not something jones can carry by himself. Tanks have always been rather underwhelming in 40k.

Because it can move twice as fast and still fire them? Seems like a pretty clear reason.

It gets the big Autocannon too, which infantry can't carry.

What's the Grinding Advance rule do?

It allows the main gun to fire twice if the tank has moved half speed or less. Which kinda 'fixes' the standard battlecanon problem leman russes have, but then introduces new problems when you can have punisher leman russes firing twice as well. Add a tank commander/pask, and suddenly that's a lot of firepower.

The same thing would happen with predators - the autocannon variety gets double shots, well that's not too bad right? But the baal is a predator too, so it would be putting out 24 shots. Idk, it might be a fix, it might encourage taking baals instead of razorbacks.

Enter conspiracy theory: While I agree that the Space Marine codex is slowly but surely being outgunned...I also expect a proper new Primaris codex within 18-24 months. I'm not saying this is intended, but it would fit nicely when the second half of the Primaris model line drops and suddenly their rules and codex-creep are stronger. It would aid in slowly pushing old marines out the door.

As a Chaos player on occasion I will agree it's tough to justify the Vindicator - the Predator is still good (way harder to kill than a simple devastator squad). Hell, I get a lot of work and use out of damn Rhino, let alone a Predator.

Idk preds are already pretty good in a chaos army.

Predator works as intended IMO. Vehicles took a hit across the board so its not just predator that performs less than before.

What needs to happen is fixing the damage conversion for large blast template weapons of the old. Vindicator should be hitting somewhere along 1+d3 for targets less than 5, and 1+2d3 for targets more than 5 models. The current range of d3-d6 is too random to be justfied by a +100pt investment.

 skchsan wrote:
Predator works as intended IMO. Vehicles took a hit across the board so its not just predator that performs less than before.

What needs to happen is fixing the damage conversion for large blast template weapons of the old. Vindicator should be hitting somewhere along 1+d3 for targets less than 5, and 1+2d3 for targets more than 5 models. The current range of d3-d6 is too random to be justfied by a +100pt investment.

I'm not sure we played the same 7th edition, if you think Vehicles took a hit across the board.

Surely with a predator vs a lascannon dev team, you are paying the extra points for the higher toughness wounds, the predator is not a serious anti armour choice unless you go with triple las, but I imagine thats just not cost effective.

 skchsan wrote:
Predator works as intended IMO. Vehicles took a hit across the board so its not just predator that performs less than before.

What needs to happen is fixing the damage conversion for large blast template weapons of the old. Vindicator should be hitting somewhere along 1+d3 for targets less than 5, and 1+2d3 for targets more than 5 models. The current range of d3-d6 is too random to be justfied by a +100pt investment.

I'd agree with this modification to the vindicator rules stats, I guess the issues could be solved by the SM vehicles getting a version of the 'Griding Advance', however this could possibly propel the predator as being an autotake for reasons that aren't fluffy. Predators are not meant to be slow tanks after all.... then again the eldar grav tanks aren't meant to be either However, for the vindicator I could see it working both from a game sense but also fluffwise

I think id be happerier with potms.

seems weird that the best of the best only chucks it into a few things.

Waaaghpower wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
Predator works as intended IMO. Vehicles took a hit across the board so its not just predator that performs less than before.

What needs to happen is fixing the damage conversion for large blast template weapons of the old. Vindicator should be hitting somewhere along 1+d3 for targets less than 5, and 1+2d3 for targets more than 5 models. The current range of d3-d6 is too random to be justfied by a +100pt investment.

I'm not sure we played the same 7th edition, if you think Vehicles took a hit across the board.

Some took more, some less, but all of the vehicles lost or had their abilties revised to fit the current 8th ed rulesets. For instance, the USR for vehicles being able to fire their heavy weapon after moving - has been removed with the revision to heavy type weapons. I think this was the key element that vehicles/walkers were attractive in 7th.

Obviously mechanized forces like AM took less hit, but we still see their large blast weapons took a hit nonetheless.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Desubot wrote:
I think id be happerier with potms.

seems weird that the best of the best only chucks it into a few things.

I agree but I think this will have to come at a heafty cost to justify all SM tanks being able to fire heavy weapons without penalty.

Maybe certain weapons can be changed to assault, and call it "predator lascannon" or "predator autocannon" to distinguish it from handheld versions. I can totally picture a predator steadily advancing and firing its weapons or zooming across the board with less accuracy.

I don't understand why vehicles lost their 'stable platform' rules in the first place. It seems logical, intuitive and immersive to me - *that's* why you mount man-portable heavy weapons on a tank. Again, if the gun is underperforming then fix the gun, don't add a bespoke rule that has wildly different impacts depending on where it lands.

 Torga_DW wrote:
I don't understand why vehicles lost their 'stable platform' rules in the first place. It seems logical, intuitive and immersive to me - *that's* why you mount man-portable heavy weapons on a tank. Again, if the gun is underperforming then fix the gun, don't add a bespoke rule that has wildly different impacts depending on where it lands.

That seems to make sense, I think the demolisher cannon needs an FAQ, mind isn't the SM codex already out? Seems unlikely that they have the intention of actually changing it, which is shame cos vindicators used to be absolute monsters in 7th

 DaemonColin wrote:

 Torga_DW wrote:
I don't understand why vehicles lost their 'stable platform' rules in the first place. It seems logical, intuitive and immersive to me - *that's* why you mount man-portable heavy weapons on a tank. Again, if the gun is underperforming then fix the gun, don't add a bespoke rule that has wildly different impacts depending on where it lands.

That seems to make sense, I think the demolisher cannon needs an FAQ, mind isn't the SM codex already out? Seems unlikely that they have the intention of actually changing it, which is shame cos vindicators used to be absolute monsters in 7th

RIP Battle of Keylak Vindicators.

The SM codex was intentionally made bland and underpowered. Marines will sell, regardless of the rules. This way, GW adds incentive to buy non-marines while keeping all the juicy profits from the marine line.

I'd say give the Predators +1T instead...

Slayer6 wrote:
I'd say give the Predators +1T instead...

Truthfully, I'd drop the Hunter and Stalker down a point of Toughness instead of bumping the Predators up to their level.

Rhino hulls shouldn't be sitting at T8 without a marked degradation in Movement.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Slayer6 wrote:
I'd say give the Predators +1T instead...

Truthfully, I'd drop the Hunter and Stalker down a point of Toughness instead of bumping the Predators up to their level.

Rhino hulls shouldn't be sitting at T8 without a marked degradation in Movement.

That's true, I just wonder about the Grinding Advance rule - it doesn't seem to fit the highly mobile nature of the Space Marines... Maybe a Power of the Machine Spirit rule that lets it fire additional shots at BS5+?