PDA

View Full Version : Blood Angels make Predators Useful Again



pom134
08-03-2010, 12:38
From what I understand the regular predators are fast as well as the Baal Predators. This makes the BA versions of Predators even better than their 4th edition counterparts because now you can go 6" and fire 3 lascannons where as before it was only 1 lascannon.

I realize it might still be over priced but I will finally be able to take a themed army I've been dying to dry for years now:

HQ
Cheap and unimportant. HQ units are always a drag and having to take them sucks.

Troops
Something in Razorbacks. I haven't seen any details yet but maybe assault marines with no jumppacks in 2 TLLC Razorbacks?

Elites
Furioso Dreads. Hopefully with a HF and a meltagun.

Fast Attack
Baal Predators with AC and HB. The way I see it, shooting with 2 HB's all game coupled with being able to stay away from the enemy without any problem is better than HF. It's alot easier to stay away from meltagun death if you're shooting 36" instead of 8".

Heavy Support
Regular Predators with lascannon loadouts. Because we need some anti-tank.

I don't know points values but I'll roughly guess.

HQ: Whatever my cheapest option is = 100
Troops: 90 for the squad, 60 for the razorbacks x 2 = 300
Elites: 140 per dread? x 3 = 420
FA: 140 per baal? x 3 = 420
HS 160 per pred? x 3 = 480

That takes me to around 1750. I'd dump a baal and a pred to get to 1500.

It might not be the best army but it will sure be fun!

Noserenda
08-03-2010, 14:05
Id love Fast Predators in my Marines :cries:

WinglessVT2
08-03-2010, 14:35
Predators are already useful.
I love how GW are reacting to their poor and stupid rules for vehicles by adding special rules and 'fast' to everything.

primarch16
08-03-2010, 14:44
Have they lowered the front armour to acomodate?

SPYDER68
08-03-2010, 14:49
I like the idea of this..

3x Heavy AC/LC preds..
3x Fast attack Assault cannon preds..


2x Sternguard squads..
3-4 tactical squads..

HQ of choice..

That could be a fun army.

pom134
08-03-2010, 15:50
Predators for C:SM and C:CSM right now are mildly useful. If they've got a good target they don't need to fire at and your opponent is not near them with guys with krak grenades they are alright.

As soon as they have to move or infantry with even a little anti-tank get close its over.

And yes it is kind of lame that GW is fixing their awful tank rules by making everything fast. But at least they recognize the fact that their tank rules are in fact god awful.

Vepr
08-03-2010, 16:03
I don't know that I would call the tank rules awful. I would not call them good either but I think they work. GW has to walk a tightrope between making vehicles worth their points yet not make them so powerful that armies like orks and nids that don't have anti-tank options spread through out their entire list don't get swept right off the table. You also have to make sure the rules are streamlined enough not to slow the game to a crawl every time a vehicle moves, fires, or is attacked.

Kurgash
08-03-2010, 16:21
I don't know that I would call the tank rules awful. I would not call them good either but I think they work. GW has to walk a tightrope between making vehicles worth their points yet not make them so powerful that armies like orks and nids that don't have anti-tank options spread through out their entire list don't get swept right off the table. You also have to make sure the rules are streamlined enough not to slow the game to a crawl every time a vehicle moves, fires, or is attacked.

Sir, you do know that 'Nids now have some very good AT loving? In the form of lance love from a Zoanthrope.

Phytrion
08-03-2010, 16:29
Especially with the transport spam of 5th edition, having an autocannon and two heavy bolters at 85 points is nice. Dakka preds are rather useful, so I can't say I agree with the title of your thread.

templersstorms
08-03-2010, 16:33
The current Predator at their VERY low point cost assuming you don't use the lascannon one, is pretty darn good. Take three of them for about 250 points and you are getting 18 heavy bolter shots, and 6 autocannon shots. And 3 tanks with 13 armour.

These new fast ones scare the crap out of me though, I certainly don't want to fight the new blood angels.

Vepr
08-03-2010, 16:38
Sir, you do know that 'Nids now have some very good AT loving? In the form of lance love from a Zoanthrope.

Yes but over all Nids and Orks are constrained to AT in just a few units unlike armies that can have it spread across multiple units in multiple slots. If you concentrate on a few units in both ork and nid armies you can cripple their anti-tank ability. That is a lot harder to do against armies like IG, Chaos, Eldar, Marines etc. I am not saying nids and orks do not have AT but it is not quite the same as it is for other armies.

On a side note things like hoods and rune weapons make getting shots off with a Zoanthrope a nightmare. I played IG this weekend with an Inquisitor and the dang hood crippled my Zoans 2 out of the 3 rounds they were alive.

RampagingRavener
08-03-2010, 16:39
Sir, you do know that 'Nids now have some very good AT loving? In the form of lance love from a Zoanthrope.

Re-read his post. Tyranids have some pretty decent anti-tank options now, but they are not spread through the whole list. Instead they're all crammed into the Elites section, which means in order to get enough ranged anti-tank weapons in an army they lose access to other useful Elite choices - The Doom, Ymgarl Stealers, and Venomthropes for example. Compared to almost every other army, which can take credible anti-tank units in several slots, allowing a greater variety of army builds.

Worsle
08-03-2010, 16:56
Shoddy vehicle rules? Did I miss something *looks at the 5th edition rules* No mech is still king. Preds are good as it is anyway, well the autocannon verity anyway given how cheep and effective it is. Orks still can't deal with mech or produce it them selves and that is still why they are not any good. Nids on the other hand can and hence are a good army.

pom134 is your theme a mech army? If it is it has been effective for some time now.

Narf
08-03-2010, 16:59
you prob wont be able to take razorbacks with the assault squads as they tend to be tac squad only upgrades - also might want to recost them a little as its prob nearer 80pts per razorback, even from the marine codex.....

Fixer
08-03-2010, 17:18
Nids have arguably the best melee anti Tank. A Trygon with it's rerolls to hit and 7 attacks on the charge will rip apart anything short of a Monolith and even cause a fast moving Land Raider significant threat.

Anyway, on the discussion of Predators. The issue is that with the new edition rules Predators became static. The Lascannon turret predator became hideously overpriced and the heavy bolters could no longer fire and move. I had my old assault marine + tank based army which utterly died when 5th edition hit, looks like the new BA dex may ressurect it for me.

Since 4th edition mobile vehicles have significantly more useful. You can avoid melee and of course, make yourself less likely to be destroyed by powerfists (halving the chance of being destroyed by just moving an inch, or a 6th of the chance if you have a fast vehicle over inches) you can keep your army fluid and adapt to the enemy. Make sure your armor facings are in the best position, move around cover to get a better shot or present a bigger threat to the enemy who is using scenery to avoid your guns.

The AC/Las and AC/HB preds may both be reasonable choices, but their static playstyle and the other more effective/mobile AT options have made predators either redundant or extremely rare for most army lists.

pom134
08-03-2010, 17:30
Shoddy vehicle rules? Did I miss something *looks at the 5th edition rules* No mech is still king. Preds are good as it is anyway, well the autocannon verity anyway given how cheep and effective it is. Orks still can't deal with mech or produce it them selves and that is still why they are not any good. Nids on the other hand can and hence are a good army.

pom134 is your theme a mech army? If it is it has been effective for some time now.

There is a HUGE difference between a mechanized army and an army consisting of tanks.

A mechanized army is infantry squads inside transports. Firedragons in Falcons, Berzerkers in Rhinos, TH/SS in Landraiders, Vets in Chims/Valks. This leads to three important characteristics:

The unit is a multiple threat, for the best example the TH/SS in a Redeemer can kill literally 2 squads of 10 marines without breaking a sweat or stomp as many tanks as can be charged while torching infantry.

The tanks can become scoring i.e. Vets in Chims, CSM in Rhinos, DA's in Waveserpents.

The tank dying does not make the unit useless. Because 10 guys pop out.




When you take tanks, for instance a predator, you are paying more points, 115 for a AC/HB/Havoc launcher for CSM compared to 70(not sure) for ML/HB/Heavy Stubber Chimera. Now what happens when those tanks die? The Pred is a total waste but the Chim becomes 3 easier to kill meltaguns that are a scoring unit. Plus what can that Predator do to a TH/SS squad in a Redeemer coming at your lines? Nothing. The Chim can drop of its cargo and cheaply deal with the Redeemer.



Please don't confuse mechanized armies with armies that take tanks. There is a HUGE difference.

Worsle
08-03-2010, 17:40
Ok then... so all those cheep ac/hb preds and rifleman dreadnoughts a lot of good space marines armies have are not vehicles? No really the only difference is with the BA is you can take baals instead of speeders, as that clearly changes everything.

Vaktathi
08-03-2010, 17:44
Shoddy vehicle rules? Did I miss something *looks at the 5th edition rules* No mech is still king. Preds are good as it is anyway, well the autocannon verity anyway given how cheep and effective it is. Orks still can't deal with mech or produce it them selves and that is still why they are not any good. Nids on the other hand can and hence are a good army.

pom134 is your theme a mech army? If it is it has been effective for some time now.

It's the defensive weapons rules, not vehicle damage rules people are talking about. Gun tanks are static pillboxes unless they get patched with special rules like "fast" or "lumbering behemoth" which seems to be increasingly common to get around the defensive weapon rules.

Oh, and Rifleman dreads don't suffer from the defensive weapon rules as they are walkers and can still move and fire to full effect.

CrownAxe
08-03-2010, 17:48
Predators are already useful.
I love how GW are reacting to their poor and stupid rules for vehicles by adding special rules and 'fast' to everything.

It's fluffy for BA to have 'Fast' vehicles

WinglessVT2
08-03-2010, 17:55
All marine vehicles should be, if we bring 'fluff' into it.

Worsle
08-03-2010, 18:00
Vaktathi increasenly common? This is our 5th book of the 5th edition and the first space marine one to add fast to their vehicles. While yes if we are being technical the appearance of the BA book does make it increasingly more common I think trying to draw a pattern out of that is stretching things beyond belief.

AC pred is a great tank for what SM and SW pay and gets used a fair bit. Complaining there is a downside to moving it seems a little unreasonable given devistators can't move and fire at all and given how damned survivable tanks are.

Vaktathi
08-03-2010, 18:07
Vaktathi increasenly common? This is our 5th book of the 5th edition and the first space marine one to add fast to their vehicles. While yes if we are being technical the appearance of the BA book does make it increasingly more common I think trying to draw a pattern out of that is stretching things beyond belief. With more and more vehicles becoming Fast and/or more Fast vehicles being added, rules like Lumbering Behemoth and the changes to PotMS, between the SM, IG, and now BA books, we're getting a pretty clear picture now that we are approaching the midpoint of the 5E lifecycle. The predator is pretty much the only heavy tank to truly suffer from the defensive weapons rules of 5E with no mitigation. The Hammerhead can shoot as though Fast, the LRBT has Lumbering Behemoth, the Land Raider has PotMS, The Fire Prism & Falcon are both Fast, the Battlewagon isn't really a guntank anyway, and the Exorcist has only one gun so it doesn't matter.

CrownAxe
08-03-2010, 18:20
All marine vehicles should be, if we bring 'fluff' into it.

BA are faster then normal SM vehicles in fluff

Vaktathi
08-03-2010, 18:21
BA are faster then normal SM vehicles in fluff

Which, is kinda silly seeing as how all SM's are about fast raids and lightning assaults.

WinglessVT2
08-03-2010, 18:22
And they drive the exact same vehicles.

sprugly
08-03-2010, 18:22
i almost always use 3 preds in my marine army. Often "dakka" pred but i do find either twin las on top (for veratility), or lascannon sponsons (for tank hunting) pretty good to.
All lascannon preds are a bit over the top points wise and don't perform much above the auto/las version imho.

Also, as far as i'm aware. "Mechanised" would be an infantry army, mounted in transports with tank support. Where as an army consisting almost entirely of the tanks themselves would be refered to as an "Armoured" force. Of coarse thats just how i see it!

What is the rifleman dread? Not heard the term before.

sprugly

Samus_aran115
08-03-2010, 18:25
Eh, I feel the same way. I never bother with preds. Just a point sink (at least in CSM). NOw I might field 1 or two (since obviously I'm playing blood angels, hahaha.)

Vaktathi
08-03-2010, 18:25
What is the rifleman dread? Not heard the term before.


It's a dual TL Autocannon dread, taken from a Battletech Mech called the Rifleman because it's looks and armament are similar.

WinglessVT2
08-03-2010, 18:25
Drads with matched pairs of linked autocannons are known as 'riflemen,' after the silly mech in mechwarrior/battletech.

sprugly
08-03-2010, 18:29
ah, thank you for that. Guess i wont be using them tho with the lack of autocannon arms outside of forgeworld.

sprugly

CrownAxe
08-03-2010, 18:31
Which, is kinda silly seeing as how all SM's are about fast raids and lightning assaults.


And they drive the exact same vehicles.

So a chapter can't make their vehicles better then the other chapters?

pom134
08-03-2010, 18:46
With more and more vehicles becoming Fast and/or more Fast vehicles being added, rules like Lumbering Behemoth and the changes to PotMS, between the SM, IG, and now BA books, we're getting a pretty clear picture now that we are approaching the midpoint of the 5E lifecycle. The predator is pretty much the only heavy tank to truly suffer from the defensive weapons rules of 5E with no mitigation. The Hammerhead can shoot as though Fast, the LRBT has Lumbering Behemoth, the Land Raider has PotMS, The Fire Prism & Falcon are both Fast, the Battlewagon isn't really a guntank anyway, and the Exorcist has only one gun so it doesn't matter.


It's actually impossible to get the point across better than this.

/thread

WinglessVT2
08-03-2010, 18:50
"So a chapter can't make their vehicles better then the other chapters? "

Doing so means you're not following the codex astartes, and are guilty of heresy.
If it was good enough for people 11,000 years ago, then it's good enough for you.

Stop bringing the 'fluff' into this.

Vaktathi
08-03-2010, 18:54
So a chapter can't make their vehicles better then the other chapters?

Why wouldn't the others do the same then?

sliganian
08-03-2010, 18:55
It's actually impossible to get the point across better than this.

/thread

The sad part is, playtesters for 5th warned GW that the Defensive Weapons rule would see a return to the 3rd edition 'pillbox' Rhino's and tanks. No good justification was ever given for the Defensive Weapon change. Yet another 'from on-high' rules dictate regardless of evidence to the contrary. :mad:

Vaktathi
08-03-2010, 18:58
The sad part is, playtesters for 5th warned GW that the Defensive Weapons rule would see a return to the 3rd edition 'pillbox' Rhino's and tanks. No good justification was ever given for the Defensive Weapon change. Yet another 'from on-high' rules dictate regardless of evidence to the contrary. :mad:

In the 5E podcast from 2008 Alessio said he didn't think a tank should be able to move and mow down his Banshee's in the open with heavy bolters. :rolleyes:

GrogDaTyrant
08-03-2010, 19:02
I gotta agree with Vaktathi. When defensive weapons were all Str 5 and under, only the Eldar players really complained due to the Shuriken Cannon. They then modified it so that defensive was 6 and under for them. No problem, except now you had things like Baal Predators that technically didn't have anything that wasn't a defensive weapon.

Where the problems started, was 5th ed. They imposed the 'Str 4 and under' for Defensive weapons mostly to bring the common armies back down a bit. Namely marines, and such. It made sense to a degree, but didn't take into account the armies that were hurt the most by it (IG, Orks, Tau). With Str 4 being the baseline for defensive weaponry, the Russ became a static pillbox once again (which goes against the 'backbone of the guard' fluff/style), the only defensive weapon the Orks had was a Kannon firing a Frag round, and the Tau had absolutely nothing.

So they 'fixed' the Russ with Lumbering Behemoth, and are now 'fixing' the BA Pred by making it fast (with probably no penalty to it's front AV). Meanwhile many other armies don't get to expect any kind of fix to how their vehicles work for some time. For some (like the Orks) the current defensive weaponry rules makes no sense for their style. So exceptions are being made for the armies that the Defensive Weapon rules were effectively made for... while the armies that are hurt the most are the ones that these exceptions even more due to a lack of Twinlinked rules or lower average BS.

Badger[Fr]
08-03-2010, 19:16
Where the problems started, was 5th ed.
Well, not really. The problem actually started when the designers came up with the idea of defensive weapons in the first place. The arbitrary strenght threshold grossly favoured S5-6 Heavy Weapons with little regard to actual game balance: a Leman Russ Exterminator could pour up to 14 shots per turn while moving, but was forbidden to use his single hull Lascannon.

At least, the current S4 threshold makes sense, because Heavy Weapons tend to be S5 or more with very few exceptions. Though, I'd rather have a straight BS modifier...

MegaPope
08-03-2010, 19:32
In the 5E podcast from 2008 Alessio said he didn't think a tank should be able to move and mow down his Banshee's in the open with heavy bolters.

Is that a fact? I'd expect that from a 12 year old newbie, not a senior game designer! Surely it was tongue in cheek? :eek:

*looks at Defensive Weapons rules*.........oh

Vaktathi hit the nail on the head here, and to add my own two cents, this is exactly the kind of problem that reinforces my own view about the necessity of strong core rules to make the game work.

However, it's pretty clear that the core rules are kept screwed to create new marketing opportunities for the game. This might be working for them atm, but it is a sorry state of affairs that such an iconic brand should have come to this.

Asher
08-03-2010, 19:36
Is that a fact? I'd expect that from a 12 year old newbie, not a senior game designer! Surely it was tongue in cheek? :eek:

That's Alessio for you. Normaly I'd be sceptical, but he shows a bias in ruleswriting like no other.

MistaGav
08-03-2010, 19:40
Being able to take 6 predators does sound very nice, add 2 or three tactical squads and you got a very nice 10 tanks in a 1500pt game. I know it's a right ************* and probably not very competitive but dammit!

kendaop
08-03-2010, 19:42
;4463832']Though, I'd rather have a straight BS modifier...

This is one thing I've always wondered about GW. They create all sorts of modifiers, but they never create anything that modifies BS. I know there are a few examples, like tau markerlights, but GW seems to be afraid of using BS modifiers. I wonder why.

pom134
08-03-2010, 19:47
I personally think that the best way to deal with weapons firing when moving vrs when not moving is to have the weapons be attached by different "mounts"

If you stay still you can fire as many weapons on "primary" and "defensive" mounts as you want.

Combat speed = One "primary" mount and as many "defensive" mounts as you want

Cruising = zero "primary" and 2 "defensive"

Flat out = no shooting.

Make Hammerhead front guns "defensive" and turret "primary"

Make both falcon turrets "primary" and lower mount "defensive"

Pred turret "primary" side turrets "defensive"


The only issue i see there is a pred with "defensive" lascannons. ouch.




Or BS modifiers.

wingedserpant
08-03-2010, 19:51
Re-read his post. Tyranids have some pretty decent anti-tank options now, but they are not spread through the whole list. Instead they're all crammed into the Elites section, which means in order to get enough ranged anti-tank weapons in an army they lose access to other useful Elite choices - The Doom, Ymgarl Stealers, and Venomthropes for example. Compared to almost every other army, which can take credible anti-tank units in several slots, allowing a greater variety of army builds.

I'd argue that trygons are probably the most reliable from of anti-tank in the nid army.

tuebor
08-03-2010, 19:56
From what I understand the regular predators are fast as well as the Baal Predators. This makes the BA versions of Predators even better than their 4th edition counterparts because now you can go 6" and fire 3 lascannons where as before it was only 1 lascannon.

The big question is how many more points are the BA Predators than a regular one? The triple lascannon variant is already rather expensive and from what I've gathered pretty much everything in the new BA book is a fair bit more expensive than its Codex equivalent.

NightrawenII
08-03-2010, 20:21
AC pred is a great tank for what SM and SW pay and gets used a fair bit. Complaining there is a downside to moving it seems a little unreasonable given devistators can't move and fire at all and given how damned survivable tanks are.
So because infantry cannot move and shoot, the tank should not too.:eyebrows: Its just me, or there is something inherently wrong with this statement.
If the vehicles could move and shoot, it would be actually better, because people would be forced to take long-range AT and not spam melta all the day.

neko
08-03-2010, 20:36
There's all sorts of potential solutions to the defensive fire problem:
- Offensive/Defensive mounts.
- Ordinance/Heavy = Offensive, Assault/RapidFire = Defensive.
- Any weapon can be fired defensively, but defensive fire has a maximum range (12" maybe?)

I think any of these are preferable to what we have now...

WinglessVT2
08-03-2010, 20:46
They could just lower the limit to strength-5 again, or get rid of it completely.
Tanks should be able to move at a steady pace and fire lots of guns at the same time, or move at a kinda fast pace, while only firing lighter weapons.

Kroot Lord
08-03-2010, 21:32
I'd argue that trygons are probably the most reliable from of anti-tank in the nid army.

S10 Lance weapons (IE: 2= glance, 3-6 = pen)?

carl
08-03-2010, 22:58
S10 Lance weapons (IE: 2= glance, 3-6 = pen)?

With the amo8nt of psychic defences out there and how frail they are they don't match up very well.

Really as far as i'm concerned any vehicle or MC should be able to move and fire any and all weapons it has, regadless of distance moved or weapon type. Tanks and, (indeed infantry) rarely take actions that would preclude tem from shoting once batle has been joined unless forced to, (for example heavy fire forces them to change position rapidly or the enemy moving out of LoS, or even simple need to conserve ammo), so the need for a sopeed which is fast enough to peclude firing, (given the small scale of 40K), is just non-existant IMHO.

As far as i can see in reality the whole change was meant as part of a series of nerfs to fast moving skimmers as it was Eldar and Tau and DE that got hit the hardest by the various rules changes with their outgoing firepower drasticlly cut. Plus Eldar/DE lost durability.

Jupiter Terminalis
08-03-2010, 23:18
And yes it is kind of lame that GW is fixing their awful tank rules by making everything fast. But at least they recognize the fact that their tank rules are in fact god awful.

I don't know about awful as they are better than 4th or 3rd. I think if they are made a tad less sturdy, but get more relaxed firing restrictions, they'll be just right.


This is one thing I've always wondered about GW. They create all sorts of modifiers, but they never create anything that modifies BS. I know there are a few examples, like tau markerlights, but GW seems to be afraid of using BS modifiers. I wonder why.
Because since 3rd edition came out, they're increasingly targeting younger and/or dumber folks who struggle with all but the most basic arithmetic?

Vaktathi
08-03-2010, 23:23
I don't know about awful as they are better than 4th or 3rd. I think if they are made a tad less sturdy, but get more relaxed firing restrictions, they'll be just right.

their sturdiness isn't the problem, gun tanks are relatively easily kept out of a fight just by glancing them. It's transports that don't care about a glance 5/6ths of the time and pen's 1/2 the time that are the issue. Transports really don't care about anything but immobilization or destruction, whereas the gun tanks care about everything.

Worsle
08-03-2010, 23:39
With more and more vehicles becoming Fast and/or more Fast vehicles being added, rules like Lumbering Behemoth and the changes to PotMS, between the SM, IG, and now BA books, we're getting a pretty clear picture now that we are approaching the midpoint of the 5E lifecycle. The predator is pretty much the only heavy tank to truly suffer from the defensive weapons rules of 5E with no mitigation. The Hammerhead can shoot as though Fast, the LRBT has Lumbering Behemoth, the Land Raider has PotMS, The Fire Prism & Falcon are both Fast, the Battlewagon isn't really a guntank anyway, and the Exorcist has only one gun so it doesn't matter.

Again you use those terms but they way you are using them is strecking them meaning to the maximum. Lumbering behemoth only effects one IG tank out of how many? PotMS changes came out not that long after the edition change and are also far more of a simplification of what used to be a needlessly complex rule. Of the new books we have SM, SW, IG and now BA to make your hypothesis work on. From them you have one rule that already existed in one form, for lumbering I am not too familiar with the old guard any more so I will say that is totally new and now BA who have been given fast that a cost as a reworking of the old overcharged engines rules. While yes technically with any new book adding these rules would count as more and more but that is a very dodgy way of running the books.

Also the original question is more that a little dodgy. First without costs and working with them in army restrictions saying something is useful from the new BA book is foolish at best. Second saying perdators where not already useful is also wrong as ac/hb preds where already very useful and very cheep. They are also not that stationary; a devastator squad is stationary, not being able to fire all your weapons is an inconvenience but it does not make you stationary.

edit. NightrawenII that point is calling your self stationary when you are not is blatently false. It is also wrong to say that you are hard done by when they are plenty of truly stationary options in the game.

Vaktathi
08-03-2010, 23:53
Again you use those terms but they way you are using them is strecking them meaning to the maximum. Lumbering behemoth only effects one IG tank out of how many? It's the primary heavy gun tank. The others are either transports (chimera), became Fast (hellhound, also gaining move+fire benefits), ordnance barrage carriers (and wouldn't fire anything else anyway, e.g. Bassy), or very very cheap (Hydra).


PotMS changes came out not that long after the edition change and are also far more of a simplification of what used to be a needlessly complex rule. It changed it from being able to fire one weapon at BS2 if you moved 6" or moving even if you were stunned to always being able to fire one weapon at BS4 even up to 12" movement. A much different mechanic.


Of the new books we have SM, SW, IG and now BA to make your hypothesis work on. And we can see a fair bit from that. We're almost halfway through 5E's lifecycle.


From them you have one rule that already existed in one form PotMS was previously primarily similar to Daemonic Possession and was changed to allow for greater firing potential.


for lumbering I am not too familiar with the old guard any more so I will say that is totally new correct.


and now BA who have been given fast that a cost as a reworking of the old overcharged engines rules. Yes, and this adds a whole lot more capability to the army as a result.




Also the original question is more that a little dodgy. First without costs and working with them in army restrictions saying something is useful from the new BA book is foolish at best. Second saying perdators where not already useful is also wrong as ac/hb preds where already very useful and very cheep. They are also not that stationary; a devastator squad is stationary, not being able to fire all your weapons is an inconvenience but it does not make you stationary. It very heavily penalizes movement, staying stationary is what the rules incentivize. Losing 2/3rds of your firepower because you moved is pretty punitive.

carl
08-03-2010, 23:58
They are also not that stationary; a devastator squad is stationary, not being able to fire all your weapons is an inconvenience but it does not make you stationary

Except if you move your firepower is so drasticlly cut that the very act of moving cuts your efectivness. A devestator squad can't move and fire, but it get's a lot more shots for it's points than a preadetor ever will and you can't even call them massivvly diffrent in durability really.

Simply put if your opponnent forces you to move your pred he's done almost the same as if he was to shake it because your firepower drop off is so great. And i'm sorry but if you look carefully every single tank out there from a post 5th ed dex or immidietly prior 5th ed dex, (so it was written for the new edition), that has multipule weapons that are not defensive and that it would really want to fire, the vast majority have some form of rule in place.

It's only the cheap transports and light gunships like the predetor that went un touched initially, and over time they've been modified too, re the BA dex.

Worsle
09-03-2010, 00:05
No PotMS used to allow you to fire an extra weapon too, at BS2 and only if you moved 6" or less. While it was improved it was also a simplification of what was a needlessly complex rule. Also you can't just stop counting IG tanks because it does not suit your point, it is a very poor theory if you have to do that to make it work. Being halfway though the 5th does not change you only have 4 books to work on and what did SW add while we are at it? Given SW came so much later on in the 5th compared to SM if you are correct there must have been some major changes where they not? No?

Movement is penalized? Oh no! You mean the same movement that would render things like devastators useless and make tanks so much harder to hit is penalized? Say it is not so, it is almost like we would have to way up the pros and cons and make a tactical choice of wither to move or not! Not on my watch GW, not on my watch :mad:

Vaktathi
09-03-2010, 00:13
No PotMS used to allow you to fire an extra weapon too, at BS2 and only if you moved 6" or less. That's exactly what I said, except you could also use it to move if stunned.


While it was improved it was also a simplification of what was a needlessly complex rule. It removed the movement component while heavily enhancing the shooting component.


Also you can't just stop counting IG tanks because it does not suit your point, it is a very poor theory if you have to do that to make it work. Nobody is doing that. The primary battletanks of the IG either became Fast or got Lumbering Behemoth. The only ones that didn't get some sort of ability to mitigate the defensive weapons changes were Chimeras & ordnance carriers, and the Hydra. The ordnance carriers really weren't affected by any of the changes so they *can* be relatively ignored for that.

So basically, the the stuff that it really mattered on, the IG got all sorts of mitigation on the defensive weapons thing.



Being halfway though the 5th does not change you only have 4 books to work on and what did SW add while we are at it? I never said they did, but given that with respect to vehicles they are just a copy/paste of the basic SM's, what's to add?


Given SW came so much later on in the 5th compared to SM if you are correct there must have been some major changes where they not? No? Not necessarily. This needn't be the case at all, especially not for a minor subdex coming only a year later, they got everything SM's got except the transport capacity upgrades which look to not be sticking around.



Movement is penalized? Oh no! You mean the same movement that would render things like devastators useless and make tanks so much harder to hit is penalized? Devestators have much more firepower, and are much more survivable. The tanks are only harder to hit in CC.


Say it is not so, it is almost like we would have to way up the pros and cons and make a tactical choice of wither to move or not! Not on my watch GW, not on my watch :mad:Get over yourself please.

Worsle
09-03-2010, 00:40
Vaktathi problem is you are putting forward an idea that requires a lot of selective evidence. If these rules are being added only to fix problems in the 5th edition rules then you would not need to overlook tanks. If we changed the defenive weapon rules it would effect all tanks so all tanks matter when you are talking about this. If the rules where so flawed that 2 years later BA are getting the fast vehicel rule every where to compensate rather than for a diffrent reason why was it not noticed when the SW book was being worked on? Maybe it is because your theory is wrong and the BA are getting these rules for a different reason? Maybe for a simplified way of representing the overcharged engines that have been part of the army for some time now?

Though devastators are more survivable than a tank? Are you still playing the 4th edition or something?

Vaktathi
09-03-2010, 00:53
Vaktathi problem is you are putting forward an idea that requires a lot of selective evidence. If these rules are being added only to fix problems in the 5th edition rules then you would not need to overlook tanks. There's some that it just isn't an issue for, why would you look at them if the change didn't affect them?

Defensive Weapons aren't a huge issue for many vehicles, if they only have one or are really only ever going to be using one at a time due to the nature of their weapons. It's the gun tanks that are built around having multiple weapons to engage a target with that were hurt (transports don't care, vehicles with only one weapon don't care, barrage weapon units don't care, etc), and the Predator is probably the biggest one hurt by these rules at this point now that the Leman Russ, Land Raider, Hellhounds, etc have mitigated this.


If we changed the defenive weapon rules it would effect all tanks No, only those that actually had sufficient weapons to be affected by it.


so all tanks matter when you are talking about this. No, they don't.


If the rules where so flawed that 2 years later BA are getting the fast vehicel rule every where to compensate rather than for a diffrent reason why was it not noticed when the SW book was being worked on? Because they aren't patching the rules for each and every vehicle, and SW's have always been copy/paste clones of normal SM's when it comes to vehicles.


Maybe it is because your theory is wrong and the BA are getting these rules for a different reason? In part I'm sure they are. It doesn't also mean that it's *part* of a trend towards mitigating the defensive weapon rules.


Maybe for a simplified way of representing the overcharged engines that have been part of the army for some time now? It's not simplifying anything. They weren't very complicated to begin with.



Though devastators are more survivable than a tank? Are you still playing the 4th edition or something?A devestator squad is harder to kill off than an AV13 predator, especially if 10 strong. It would be very hard to debate that. Sure the Pred is immune to small arms fire, but it takes a much greater quanitity of firepower to get rid of that devestator squad. The vehicle damage table didn't make tanks invincible. Also, the whole unit isn't kept from firing if it sustains damage like the predator is.

pom134
09-03-2010, 01:15
It's the primary heavy gun tank. The others are either transports (chimera), became Fast (hellhound, also gaining move+fire benefits), ordnance barrage carriers (and wouldn't fire anything else anyway, e.g. Bassy), or very very cheap (Hydra).

It changed it from being able to fire one weapon at BS2 if you moved 6" or moving even if you were stunned to always being able to fire one weapon at BS4 even up to 12" movement. A much different mechanic.

And we can see a fair bit from that. We're almost halfway through 5E's lifecycle.

PotMS was previously primarily similar to Daemonic Possession and was changed to allow for greater firing potential.

correct.

Yes, and this adds a whole lot more capability to the army as a result.


It very heavily penalizes movement, staying stationary is what the rules incentivize. Losing 2/3rds of your firepower because you moved is pretty punitive.


Whenever I want to make a point I'm just going to ask you to do it.

Worsle
09-03-2010, 01:17
So what you are saying makes sense as long as we ignore all the tanks that are not touched and ignore the SW codex entirely? Selective evidence much?

Really the only book you seem to be able to base this theory of is IG and BA. SM came out to close to the edition change to be part to sensibly be considered any move to counter rules put in place by it. SW are a copy of SM with no alterations but apparently this does not matter, why? I am not sure it came out later so any changes would be shown here. IG well at least there are some changes here, but lets just ignore any tanks you don't want to count? That seems really fair. Finally we have the BA who you can add to your list if we ignore the fact SW had no changes and that removing an extra rules and replacing it with a basic vehicle one is quite certainly simplifying the rules.

Vehicels might not be invincible but they are damn well hard to kill unless you get into melta range. Also for the price of 10 man devastator squad without any weapons I could get 2 ac/hb preds and get a lot more use of them. BA book does not need to make preds useful what it needs to do is make devastators useful, though I get the feeling it has not.

edit. I have yet to hear a good argument as to why movement should not be penalized. Given how tough tanks become when they move why should they get to do with with impunity? Because you want them to is not a good reason either.

The Marshel
09-03-2010, 02:02
Because you want them to is not a good reason either.

actually, this is one of the most important reasons. GW wants to attract players to this game and they want to keep the ones they have already managed to con into their plastic crack. A vast majority of people disliked the fact that their preds, russes etc couldn't really do anything effective without staying still. Even if you are willing to ignore every other 5th ed codex, you cannot deny that gw responded to this issue in the imperial guard codex.

The leman russ was made faster then a predator. there is no reasonable reason for this. under any movement system, the predator should be faster. The rule in question itself refers to the sheer momentum due to the tanks bulk is what drives it forward, under that logic predators ought to be fast already.

Tell me, why do the defensive rules matter to transports? why do they matter to one weaponed vehicles? and why do they matter to ordnance barrage artillery?

we know why they matter to the gun tanks, they can't function properly due to being unable to fire their weapons on the move.

but why does a chimera care if the contents are the real threat. my land raider doesn't fear the chimera, it fears the meltguns inside and no amount of defensive weapon rules on vehicles will change that.

Do whirlwinds and basilisk move often? From my experience most ordnance barrage based vehicles tend to stay at the back of the board in cover or out of line of sight and have only ever moved after I've destroyed their main weapon. these vehicles don't care that they cannot fire their heavy bolter, their heavy flamers etc. 9 times out of 10 they don't need too, they don't want too. if they had the option to lose hose weapons for a points reduction they'd probably take it. they only time they use these weapons are after the main cannon is destroyed and they literally have nothing better to do.

I don't feel there is any real need to explain one weaponed vehicles.

the defensive weapons ruling only has significant effect on one type of vehicle, the gun tanks. everything else really wouldn't care much if they could fire additional weapons. I'm sure all the guard players would be pleasantly amused by their chimeras firring both weapons on the move but frankly it doesn't change a great deal for them. I'm sure every artillery user is still going to leave their tanks stationary and out of los so they can fire those big guns safely.

The only vehicles that have anything to lose or gain from defensive weapon rules are "gun tanks". everything else is still immensely effective at what they are designed to do regardless. more relaxed defensive rules would only slightly improve everything else. more strict defensive rules would only slightly impede everything else. on the other hand, relaxing these rules makes lemen russes, predators, hammer heads etc much more competent without upgrades and special rules, while making them more hash completely cripples them.

Vaktathi
09-03-2010, 03:05
So what you are saying makes sense as long as we ignore all the tanks that are not touched and ignore the SW codex entirely? Selective evidence much? :cries: why is it so hard to understand this. Why do you not understand that work arounds are not needed for vehicles that were not affected by the change? Why on earth is that selective evidence? I'm not ignoring the SW dex, I'm saying it is irrelevant because it doesn't have and never has had different equipment in terms of vehicles when compared with the SM book.

For the tanks where the defensive weapons rule has actually had an effect that are purely gun tanks (that actually have multiple weapons that would be utilized together), in the armies that have been released, most have gotten work arounds for the defensive weapons rules. The Leman russ family, land raiders, and hellhounds all got something. The only ones that did not are the Predator & Hydra.

The people writing the codex's aren't the ones that wrote the core rulebook, they have different design philosophies and methods, but they aren't just going to blanket override a core rulebook rule for the whole army on something like vehicle firing rules. So they patch the ones where it actually matters.



Really the only book you seem to be able to base this theory of is IG and BA. SM came out to close to the edition change to be part to sensibly be considered any move to counter rules put in place by it. A large assumption, especially given that they were not written by the same people with different design philosophies.


SW are a copy of SM with no alterations but apparently this does not matter, why? I am not sure it came out later so any changes would be shown here.


IG well at least there are some changes here, but lets just ignore any tanks you don't want to count? That seems really fair. The fact that you can't (or won't) understand that there are just some vehicles where the defensive weapons rules didn't have any impact or only had a relatively minimal one is astounding.

The only tank that is really worth considering that didn't get any mitigation is the Hydra. The Chimera possibly but its also a transport, not purely a gun tank, and got a huge boost to the ability of the squad inside to project firepower, and with the rather popular hull heavy flamer the defensive weapons rules are of minimal impact anyway. The Hellhound tanks became Fast, the Bassy family are generally barrage weapons, thus their firepower hasn't been affected by the defensive weapons rules at all. Can you understand this?




Finally we have the BA who you can add to your list if we ignore the fact SW had no changes and that removing an extra rules and replacing it with a basic vehicle one is quite certainly simplifying the rules. Adding a level of capability that didn't exist before by making them flat out Fast.



Vehicels might not be invincible but they are damn well hard to kill unless you get into melta range. Not easy sure, but definitely by no means impossible. Far easier than heavy infantry in cover, and can actually resist assaults too.



Also for the price of 10 man devastator squad without any weapons I could get 2 ac/hb preds and get a lot more use of them. depends on what you're shooting at. 10 devs with 4 ML's is a pretty solid firebase against anything that isn't AV14. Those 10 SM's are probably still harder to kill than the 2 AV 13/11/10 tanks.




edit. I have yet to hear a good argument as to why movement should not be penalized. It should be done by a BS modifier, which has been by far the most popular and logical alternative, not by simply S value cutoffs that make no sense. Nobody is saying otherwise, I have no idea where you created that illusion, although currently Fast vehicles face absolutely no tradeoff for movement between 0 and 6", or a Leman Russ/Land Raider moving the same distance.

tuebor
09-03-2010, 03:06
The leman russ was made faster then a predator. there is no reasonable reason for this. under any movement system, the predator should be faster.

The Leman Russ is able to put out more firepower on the move but the Predator is in fact faster.

pom134
09-03-2010, 03:13
So what you are saying makes sense as long as we ignore all the tanks that are not touched and ignore the SW codex entirely? Selective evidence much?


You are completely ignoring what he is saying. There have been 4 books, IG, SW, nids, BA.

In IG: There are 5 kinds of tanks in the book:

1. Leman Russes
2. Chimera
3. Ordnance Barrage
4. Hellhound types
5. Valk/Vendetta
6. Sentinels

Here is how the move and shoot rules have been avoided:

1. Lumbering Behemoth
2. It is a transport it is not supposed to be moving and shooting because it has cargo.
3. They have one main gun and a hull gun. Use of the hull gun is detrimental to the survival of the tank under almost all circumstances. It doesn't have to move and shoot because it is WORSE if it is moving around the battefield and not just in cover.
4. They are fast.
5. They are fast.
6. Can always shoot all guns.

SW (which is pretty much identical to the C:SM rules):

1. Rhino
2. Razorback/Whirlwind/Vindicator
3. Predators
4. Landraiders
5. Landspeeders
6. Dreadnoughts

How they avoid the move and shoot rules:

1. It is a transport.
2. Only has one gun/doesn't want to move out of cover. See above.
3. Does not avoid move and shoot rules.
4. PotMS. I play Chaos and I would GLADLY pay the 30 points for this ability. It is amazing.
5. They are fast.
6. Can always shoot all guns

No tanks for nids.


BA codex is the same as SW codex except now Predators are fast. Before the BA codex the Predator was the ONLY vehicle that didn't somehow get around using the move and shoot rules.


You can't argue against this. There is nothing you can say that will change the facts about the special rules and uses of these tanks. You might argue that the Chimera is more battle tank than transport but I still think the 3 melta vets inside are more dangerous.



Vehicels might not be invincible but they are damn well hard to kill unless you get into melta range. Also for the price of 10 man devastator squad without any weapons I could get 2 ac/hb preds and get a lot more use of them. BA book does not need to make preds useful what it needs to do is make devastators useful, though I get the feeling it has not.

What are the odds of killing a 10 man devastator squad with one lascannon shot? 0%. No chance. You literally cannot do it. Even a 5 man squad.

What are the odds of killing a landraider with one lascannon shot?

2/3 * 1/6 * 1/3 = 2/54 = 3.7%

A predator is twice that.


That to me is the trade off between tanks and heavy weapson squads. The tanks always have that chance of getting picked off by the very first lascannon to get pointed their way. You pay more for the Devastators but they stick around alot longer and have more guns. Which is better? I don't know but if Predators get to move 6" and shoot everything I am personally going to prefer tanks everytime.

pom134
09-03-2010, 03:16
The Leman Russ is able to put out more firepower on the move but the Predator is in fact faster.

Only when you don't roll a 6. And what use is speed if you aren't shooting? Getting your opponent to voluntarily move his predator 12" is the exact same thing as scoring a crew shaken but you did it without shooting at him. You really need to understand that. As far as I'm concerned I'm giving me enemy free lascannon shots when I am forced to move my tanks. It is ridiculous.

sabreu
09-03-2010, 03:18
hehe. Red wunz really do go fasta!

librisrouge
09-03-2010, 03:21
I think that this was kinda a given for BA. I even predicted it with a friend a couple weeks ago. :p

It both mitigates to truly awful defensive weapon rules and is completely fluffy. There I said it...fluffy. Other chapters don't modify their tanks because it's heretical and would be bad...:cries: We are the Blood Angels, we are NOT a codex chapter (except where it's convenient for us) and we don't care what the rest of the Imperium thinks (as long as you don't declare a crusade on us.) We care what the Emperor and Sanguinus would think and the other chapters (I'm looking at you Ultramarines) don't get a vote.

I mean, come on. We 'discovered' a way to mount an assault cannon on a predator, called it a STC, and then proceeded to do the most honorable thing in this situation...hoard it for ourselves.

We are secretive and more than willing to bend the rules. Our techmarines are too.

We're Blood Angels, and that is how we roll (quickly.)

Vaktathi
09-03-2010, 03:28
@Pom134, thanks for better illustrating that :D


We are the Blood Angels, we are NOT a codex chapter They primarily were until recently apparently :p aside from Death Company (an unavoidable result of their geneseed flaw) and a couple weapons swaps on vehicles. Not really any more "non-codex" than many of the chapters included in the basic SM book like Iron Hands. Although apparently now that will soon no longer be the case.

tuebor
09-03-2010, 03:28
Only when you don't roll a 6. And what use is speed if you aren't shooting? Getting your opponent to voluntarily move his predator 12" is the exact same thing as scoring a crew shaken but you did it without shooting at him. You really need to understand that. As far as I'm concerned I'm giving me enemy free lascannon shots when I am forced to move my tanks. It is ridiculous.

You're really getting upset about this, aren't you?

Maybe we use more LOS blocking terrain where I play but it's a rare game where my vehicles have LOS to targets every single turn and more than once I've had to lumber my Russes around terrain to set up a shot for the next turn and would have liked to be able to go 12" every time rather than just having a 1/6 chance to do so.

pom134
09-03-2010, 03:30
You're really getting upset about this, aren't you?

Maybe we use more LOS blocking terrain where I play but it's a rare game where my vehicles have LOS to targets every single turn and more than once I've had to lumber my Russes around terrain to set up a shot for the next turn and would have liked to be able to go 12" every time rather than just having a 1/6 chance to do so.

I wasn't yelling I was making sure you read the important part.

I'm actually thrilled about these new rules. Read my original post I'm already planning an army. All I need are point values.

Boogersmcgee
09-03-2010, 03:58
A devestator squad is harder to kill off than an AV13 predator, especially if 10 strong. It would be very hard to debate that. Sure the Pred is immune to small arms fire, but it takes a much greater quanitity of firepower to get rid of that devestator squad. The vehicle damage table didn't make tanks invincible. Also, the whole unit isn't kept from firing if it sustains damage like the predator is.

Are you looking at comparable points cost here though? For my money I would still take the tank simply because for similar points and load-out I can take more armor with more defense to small arms fire.

pom134
09-03-2010, 04:00
Are you looking at comparable points cost here though? For my money I would still take the tank simply because for similar points and load-out I can take more armor with more defense to small arms fire.

Sure you become immune to small arms fire but you become MUCH more vulnerable to anti-tank weaponry.

Jupiter Terminalis
09-03-2010, 04:20
So what you are saying makes sense as long as we ignore all the tanks that are not touched and ignore the SW codex entirely? Selective evidence much?
You're being very thick-headed here. His point is crystal clear. Vehicles with a single weapon, transports, and artillery don't give a damn about defensive weapons. They are irrelevant to this conversation. Defensive weapons only matter for tanks designed to shoot multiple weapons. Out of those, the Predator was the only one that has the issue remaining, and it's no longer an issue for BA Predators. How hard is this to understand, especially after several repetitions? I think Vak has to get some kind of "Most Patient Forumite of the Year" award.

That said, I don't think this is a concerted effort by GW to correct their 5th edition mishaps, because that's giving them too much credit. They are simply not that smart, or that forward-thinking. :shifty:


edit. I have yet to hear a good argument as to why movement should not be penalized. Given how tough tanks become when they move why should they get to do with with impunity? Because you want them to is not a good reason either.
I don't think anyone is saying movement should not be penalized. Now you're the one practicing "selective evidence", since you're so fond of that term, or perhaps "selective reading" is the proper term. However, the current limitations are quite goofy, and models increasingly have rules to compensate for it. While GW as a whole is too dense to see the forest for the trees, as it were, it's perfectly conceivable that individual authors see the issue and respond to it by creating additional rules. The reason SW weren't changed from the SM blueprint is probably because only Matt Ward has the sheer testicular fortitude to throw any sense of balance out the window when writing his books (particularly glaring since he wrote the original Marine codex in the first place).

librisrouge
09-03-2010, 04:42
Vaktathi
I think that we call ourselves a 'codex chapter' because not being one tends to attract unfavorable questions. This would be really bad sees as a few of our members have a couple of bad habits (drinking blood, going berserk, genuinely think we're our primarch, going bonkers before battle, etc.) Those things tend to get one purged.

I think Blood Angels have never really been a true codex chapter but has been reflected as one because we have, until now, just been a simple modification to codex: Space Marines. Consider the following:


Death Company...duh, duh, duh, dum
How are Chaplains are specialized toward the Death Company
How the Sanguary Priesthood has taken over much of the Chaplains jobs.
The vehicle modifications that we never, ever share with other chapters.
Really, consider that. Space Wolves made the Annihilator and immediately shared it. We totally hoard the Baal. It's probably not even an actual STC, but something we just made up.
Specialized units, Sanguary Guard now.
Tactics violations (abundant Assault Squads, Veteran Assault Squads, etc.) Well rounded we ain't but that is what the codex demands.
I'm sure there are other things that I'm forgetting...


See...not codex.

Vaktathi
09-03-2010, 04:51
Sure, granted there are differences from strict Ultramarines codex, but organizationally they are organized identically in 10 companies with the same command structure etc with the same standard equipment except the Baal Pred, Furioso (extra DCCW, not a huge deal) and some engine modifications. All the new stuff like Sanguinary Guard is stuff thrown in to really justify a distinct codex, and really isn't all *that* different from Honor Guard and the like.

I mean, surely many of the chapters encompassed by the current SM dex are at least as divergent. The Iron Hands various companies are almost distinct mini sub chapters of their own, and they all have their hands removed and replaced, and have a huge mystical reverence for dreads, etc.

Znail
09-03-2010, 05:02
I think it was mentioned in the old Angels of Death codex, but I might be wrong. BA and DA are officialy codex chapters as their leaders didnt see any need to fight over trivial matters like organisation. Thus they follow the codex astartes except where they dont feel like it while still officialy supporting the codex astartes. SW on the other hand are clearly disregarding the codex and do things their own way. So BA looks superficialy like a true codex chapter, but they do quite alot of things their own way, including weapon loadouts and other innovations.

Tactical Retreat!
09-03-2010, 05:06
Outflanking, fast predators with flamestorm cannons and sponson heavy flamers...
yummy.

librisrouge
09-03-2010, 05:44
And I've always felt that calling Iron Hands a codex chapter is just Gamesworkshop being cheap copouts.

I mean, the Iron Hands only have eight companies. The Salamanders have only six, and their self sufficient in their recruitment and arming. These are not codex chapters. They violate the codex. Gamesworkshop is being directly contradictory in calling them codex.

Znail
09-03-2010, 06:12
Well, having fewer companies doesnt realy violate the codex astertes as there are proviosions for being understrenght. The main rule that neither BA nor DA breaks are the max limit on companies as this was the main reason behind it in the first place. Papasmurf might be slightly miffed when someone doesnt follow all the dots and regulations of the codex astartes, but its no big deal as long as a chapter doesnt break the rule of how large they may be.

Jupiter Terminalis
09-03-2010, 06:17
I'm surprised Fenris hasn't been nuked already. Bunch of heretical, mutant scum.

Znail
09-03-2010, 06:23
I dont remember the exact story about how SW got away with ignoring the codex restriction on chapter size. I do remember that it came pretty close to fighting over it.

Jupiter Terminalis
09-03-2010, 06:30
I thought Grimnar just told them to suck it, and had the visiting officials killed. After a few attempts, the Officio Ministorum (or whoever) finally decided to just let it be as long as the SW killed more or less who they told them to kill, as assaulting their homeworld would be too expensive.

I say it's worth the cost! Nuke em!

Back on topic, do we have any idea how much BA predators cost? Depending on the price hike, them being fast may well be irrelevant. So far, I've heard that rhinos are +15, and vindicators are +30.

Znail
09-03-2010, 06:36
I have heared diffrent bids for the cost of Baals, both +10 and -10 for the base cost. Cost with HB spoonsons seems to be +20 compared to before.

LKHERO
09-03-2010, 07:04
My Blood Angels list will be running 3 Baal Preds, 3 Vindies and 0 friends. That is all.

CrownAxe
09-03-2010, 07:49
I think I'm running a Trip Lascannon Pred and a Baal Pred

Plus the Stormraven and 4 dreadnoughts

metal bawks
09-03-2010, 09:54
That said, I don't think this is a concerted effort by GW to correct their 5th edition mishaps, because that's giving them too much credit. They are simply not that smart, or that forward-thinking. :shifty:

Nah, that's exactly how they designers try to fix the failings of the core rules. Aside from the defensive weapons, other examples include:

1. Morale rules (practically every army has some way to avoid them)
2. Instant Death (as a result they ended up giving most multi-wound models Eternal Warrior or T5+)
3. Movement rules (they dropped the Move characteristic and replaced it with two special rules: Fleet and Slow & Purposeful)

And I'm pretty sure this is done on purpose, to go along with the "splash" releases GW base their sales model on.

CherryMan
09-03-2010, 13:11
Personally don't think a 85 point tank (side bolters so to have at least some firepower) is that "cheep" when adding a mere 30 points and you're able to get a vindicator instead. 60 points for a Auto cannon just isn't that cheep, even thou "normal infantry guns" cant harm it, why would they bother to? two shots a turn, hitting one, and with a bit of luck scoring a wound. And all that for 60 points ladies and gents!!
And on the flip side, placing out a pie plate, annihilating a full squad of Ork nobs and warboss with one lucky shot.... Something with the best of luck the predator just wouldn't be able to do no matter the arments.

To make it fast is the least they could do, lower the points cost on the side sponsons and turret options, and you might... just might get a tank worthy of taking up a heavy support slot:/

Znail
09-03-2010, 13:25
My personal favorit use for Predators are as dirt cheap mobile cover. Its more expensive then Rhino's, but also more durable. Jump troops goes realy well with some shoeboxes to give them cover. The extra speed makes the BA ones even better, the question is if the costs will be too high. But I think Jump plus Predator spam will be a valid BA army even for tournament play.

Jupiter Terminalis
09-03-2010, 13:31
It will be armor spam, or a close combat army with FC and FNP on every model. And a combo of both in larger games.

gitburna
09-03-2010, 14:02
Waaaay back in the days of the games-workshop.com message boards, i posted an idea on the much maligned games-development board. My main concerns at the time were that I never got to shoot the twin heavy bolters on my landraider when i deployed a squad, the shuriken catapults on my falcon, the storm bolter cupolas on my imperial tanks etc. I was thinking more about the transport vehicles with their infantry support weapons than MBTs but still...

my suggestion at the time was that all weapons reverted to BS6 when on the move instead of being unable to fire. So a tank like the predator when moving could shoot one weapon at BS4, while the other weapons only hit on 6s.

In my mind, it represented the difficulty of aiming on the move (in the 40k setting). It meant that the twin linked weaponry on the landraider was superior to other tanks when moving.

I figured that multishot weapons like the heavybolters et al would benefit more from the extra shots at reduced BS and had the added quirk of showing that ork vehicles were only slightly more accurate when stopped than when going at full speed :D

Anyway, onto the Baal - I can't make up my mind if i will get one anyway... I've been seriously considering taking my unpainted sections of my current marine army and changing them into a small blood angels force. But with the units I already have, i'm not convinced that taking even more short ranged (ie 24" or less) weaponry is a great plan against my main opponents (which tends to be a fast assaulty plague marine army). I need more punch not more speed....!

borithan
09-03-2010, 23:51
Defensive Weapons aren't a huge issue for many vehicles, if they only have one or are really only ever going to be using one at a time due to the nature of their weapons. It's the gun tanks that are built around having multiple weapons to engage a target with that were hurtI think part of the problem is that they seem to have moved away from the multiple main gun tank. The main sufferers from their weird move and fire rules are the older vehicles designed in 2nd edition (Predator, Leman Russ and Falcon). Since then most tanks (though not that many have been introduced) have been designed around one main weapon system or two weapon systems with different roles.


The leman russ was made faster then a predator.Well... no it didn't. It made it more mobile, not faster. Of course this also means it is likely to travel further in a game, but if speeding then a Predator will outpace a Leman Russ... its just that a slowly moving Leman Russ is less effected by moving than a Predator.


We are the Blood Angels, we are NOT a codex chapter (except where it's convenient for us)Actually, they are, except where their raging stops them. Totally mental Death Company and a slight preference to get where their going faster due to being slightly mental... otherwise totally codex.


How are Chaplains are specialized toward the Death CompanyPurely a result of the flaw, meaning that there is a role needed which is not needed in other Chapters. Not a real departing from Codex there.


How the Sanguary Priesthood has taken over much of the Chaplains jobs.Again, a result of the flaw. Someone needs to do a Chaplain's normal job now that they are watching over the mouth frothing lunatics, and someone is needed to specialise in the whole blood nonsense. Again not a real departing from the Codex.


The vehicle modifications that we never, ever share with other chapters.Does the Codex say you have to share all secrets?


Tactics violations (abundant Assault Squads, Veteran Assault Squads, etc.)Meh, purely due to violent impatience on the part of the Blood Angels. Yes, a departing from the Codex, but the norm is to stick to it when possible, not choosing to stick to it only when it suits them.

Worsle
10-03-2010, 00:20
Vaktathi I think I am going to drop this argument as it is going no where. However don't be suprised if the next marine book does not give fast to its tanks. If SW did not get it then odds are against other marines getting it.

pom134 using a lascannon to prove that devastators are more survivable? Sure... So other than the fact S6 and less can't penetrate a preds front armour so can't destroy a pred. Or that any good marine player will have everything in a tank or as a vehicle of some sort meaning all anti inf weapons will be free to target the devastators. Or template weapons or large blast weapons that kill multiple devastators at once. If we ignore all those factors then yes the devastators are clearly more survivable. They are also immobile and more 5 points more for 5 devastators with no heavy weapons than the ac/hp pred does. Yes clearly predators are terrible and are never used in good armies.


Personally don't think a 85 point tank (side bolters so to have at least some firepower) is that "cheep" when adding a mere 30 points and you're able to get a vindicator instead.

Only vindicators have a much shorter range and are one weapon destroyed away from being a very expensive rhino that can't hold any troops. Also if the ac/hp pred isn't cheep then what is? Devastators cost more naked, 5 man tactical squad costs more and every one knows they at least need a rhino, scouts cost more once you facter in camo and sergeant Talon, bike squads cost more, rifleman dreads cost more and do I have to go on? I mean I could but there are only so many units in the SM codex. If 85 points for Av13 front armour an ac and heavy bolter sponsons is not cheep then what is?

borithan even if the deviation are as a result of the flaw that does not make them any less of a deviation. That and I would rather BA where less codex, we are stuck with them having a book so the less like main SM book they are the better.

MajorWesJanson
10-03-2010, 00:24
The reason for a lack of fast in other chapters: Maintenance. It may be a benefit to be faster in a battle, but if it takes 5-6 times as long and is twice as hard to placate the machine spirits before and afterwords, most chapters will fall back on slower but more reliable variants. A 5-7 turn game you won't see that balancing factor come into play however.

duffybear1988
10-03-2010, 00:34
hmmmm so you can move a tri las predator 6" and still fire all guns or 12" and fire one lascannon... well thats a pain in the rear, especially considering that you may aswell always move 6" so enemies hit on 4+ in combat (yay). In fact that kind of sucks quite a bit if you dont play blood angels.

Yeah im not liking that rule.

If anyone should get all tanks counting as fast it should be iron hands who have mechanicum friends tooling them up for them.

I can understand fast baal predators and rhinos but making all the tanks fast is just dumb (please dont tell me land raiders are fast as well). Why didnt GW just go one step forward and give them scout as well... oh wait they did for some.

Lame rules man... lame rules.

sabreu
10-03-2010, 03:59
Lame rules man... lame rules.

Marine variants are just lame in general, it's just especially appalling that the Red wunz are nicking the Orks' shtick. :p