Updates to existing Marine Vehicles

[Captain Idaho]

So seeing the "Predator" for the Sisters of Battle, I was wondering what sort of new kits would be cool for Marines based on those older models. A fun little thought experiment if you will. After all, there's loads of new weapons being created all the time for other armies and Primaris, may as well carry on the board! ;)

 

On that basis, I considered a new 3rd Predator (likely upscaled like everything else) would be cool, with that Sisters turret and Hull Heavy Bolter and perhaps the choice of Hurricane Bolters or Grav Cannons in the Sponsons.

 

What else can we sort in in turret as a new weapon potentially? Maybe a giant Grav Cannon?

[Spinsanity]

Grav? Nah man, if they ever created a new predator loadout, what everyone wants is Chooom, it’s Volkite…

[Captain Idaho]

The crowds want choom, but will they get it? I'd like to think they will one day.

 

I love plasma, so some twin linked Plasma Caronade style weapon would be cool. Kind of like a modern 40K, budget Sicarian.

 

Screw it, let's go super Marine and put quad Heavy Bolters in the Turret!

 

Whilst thinking, we all wanted Land Raiders with Plasma versions of Hurricane Bolters once upon a time. That would be delicious to see too.

[Rik Lightstar]

My thoughts:

 

All Marine vehicles desperately need to be more resilient, even a 6++ would be a help, but some sort of damage or AP reduction would be best. Point drops wouldn't really cut it, the big issue is they fill a Force Org slot and die too easily.

 

Both Predators would benefit from some new sponson options and Grav Cannons would be good.

 

For the Predator Destructor a fixed number of shots is the thing it really needs, 2D3 is still pretty swingy when you can't get rerolls to hit either.

 

For the Annihilator the Aquilon Optics would be a nice bump and in keeping with the "Tank Hunter" Primaris vehicles

 

 

 

 

I'd really like to see a new variant on the Vindicator silhouette with the Demolisher Cannon replaced with a giant Flamer or Frag Cannon, with the idea that they work in pairs, the Vindicator breaches the walls and this thing blasts anything that's the other side of the gap.

 

Rik

[Rik Lightstar]

The crowds want choom, but will they get it? I'd like to think they will one day.

 

I love plasma, so some twin linked Plasma Caronade style weapon would be cool. Kind of like a modern 40K, budget Sicarian.

 

Screw it, let's go super Marine and put quad Heavy Bolters in the Turret!

 

Whilst thinking, we all wanted Land Raiders with Plasma versions of Hurricane Bolters once upon a time. That would be delicious to see too.

 

 

Nah, a Land Raider with a Vulcan MegaBolter filling the centre and a couple of seats on top lol

 

Rik

[TheNewman]

Be reasonable, GW has no interest in updating any of the old Marine vehicle kits.

 

The best we can hope for is a rules update, and if we get that it will probably come from the CSM codex handing out invuns/damage reduction to the CSM tanks. GW might let spikey marines languish on W1 for two sodding years but there's no way they give CSM something nice and don't immediately port it to the loyalist equivalent.

[Captain Idaho]

My thoughts:

 

All Marine vehicles desperately need to be more resilient, even a 6++ would be a help, but some sort of damage or AP reduction would be best. Point drops wouldn't really cut it, the big issue is they fill a Force Org slot and die too easily.

 

Both Predators would benefit from some new sponson options and Grav Cannons would be good.

 

For the Predator Destructor a fixed number of shots is the thing it really needs, 2D3 is still pretty swingy when you can't get rerolls to hit either.

 

For the Annihilator the Aquilon Optics would be a nice bump and in keeping with the "Tank Hunter" Primaris vehicles

 

 

 

 

I'd really like to see a new variant on the Vindicator silhouette with the Demolisher Cannon replaced with a giant Flamer or Frag Cannon, with the idea that they work in pairs, the Vindicator breaches the walls and this thing blasts anything that's the other side of the gap.

 

Rik

All good ideas and thinking outside the box. Yes the Predator Autocannon can do with a flat 4 shots or even 5. Make it consistent.

 

If you're not making it consistent, make it really powerful. It's kinda an Ork philosophy that oddly enough they've move away from - if it will be random, make it potentially very powerful. Like 3D3 shots or AP-2.

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

Personally I think going backwards and making more HH builds translate in 40k would be the best way for them to add options. They have a lot of good weapon options, and can add more. I also think having different models of predators and other tank hulls from HH would make firstborn armies pop a bit more from a visual perspective. 

 

That said I really want GW to give us another survey. We've gotten to the point in 9th where its fairly obvious that GW knows what vehicles need to be successful in this edition, and they've known it since the start. I think they've gone back to pushing certain units for fractions, and I don't like it because they aren't being upfront about it. IMO marine tanks are intentionally bad this edition. On the other hand our elite infantry, dreads, and special units are pushed. I don't want fractions to be balanced this way in a game that expects me to pay around a $100 dollars a year in rules for each fraction, I want all my options to feel viable. 

[Rik Lightstar]

Personally I think going backwards and making more HH builds translate in 40k would be the best way for them to add options. They have a lot of good weapon options, and can add more. I also think having different models of predators and other tank hulls from HH would make firstborn armies pop a bit more from a visual perspective.

 

That said I really want GW to give us another survey. We've gotten to the point in 9th where its fairly obvious that GW knows what vehicles need to be successful in this edition, and they've known it since the start. I think they've gone back to pushing certain units for fractions, and I don't like it because they aren't being upfront about it. IMO marine tanks are intentionally bad this edition. On the other hand our elite infantry, dreads, and special units are pushed. I don't want fractions to be balanced this way in a game that expects me to pay around a $100 dollars a year in rules for each fraction, I want all my options to feel viable.

Marine armies as far as the background goes have pretty consistently been about the guys not the vehicles with the exception of the Land Raider which is well short of where it deserves to be for the fluff and the points.

 

To me Marines should always be the focus with vehicles there as support.

 

That being said, I think a perfectly acceptable improvement for all of the Rhino chassis vehicles would be to allow them to be taken in squadrons of 1-3 with a free "sergeant" upgrade to BS2+ if you take all 3.

 

Rik

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

I agree Rik Lightstar that the marine infantry should be the focus. I just think the "Core" keyword mechanic should be what does the heavy lifting.

 

Right now I just don't feel that the predator is anywhere close to being as good as attack bikes, eradicators, inceptors, or devs. If Predator Annihilators dropped 20 points, and eradicators went up 20 points..... I'd still take the eradicators. Between the stratagem support, how good melta weapons are, and the fact that wounds don't spill over into infantry I think they'd still be a better choice. That said I wouldn't raise an eyebrow if someone went the opposite direction. If your going to sell me a book every year for $40 that updates points, & gives missions a gap like that shouldn't exist. I can understand a measured approach where you move in smaller increments but they haven't done anything so hopefully they give me a chance to give them some constructive criticism in a survey.

 

 

[MegaVolt87]

Personally I think going backwards and making more HH builds translate in 40k would be the best way for them to add options. They have a lot of good weapon options, and can add more. I also think having different models of predators and other tank hulls from HH would make firstborn armies pop a bit more from a visual perspective. 

 

That said I really want GW to give us another survey. We've gotten to the point in 9th where its fairly obvious that GW knows what vehicles need to be successful in this edition, and they've known it since the start. I think they've gone back to pushing certain units for fractions, and I don't like it because they aren't being upfront about it. IMO marine tanks are intentionally bad this edition. On the other hand our elite infantry, dreads, and special units are pushed. I don't want fractions to be balanced this way in a game that expects me to pay around a $100 dollars a year in rules for each fraction, I want all my options to feel viable. 

 

Agree, just add the HH loadouts in re-scaled plastic demios preads to 40k SM codex. Its that easy, why re-invent the wheel adding in new designs especially for firstborn. Its lighter on the dev budget to port over relevant 30k stuff like that to firstborn. OP? not really, but if people insist split the SM codex between primaris + firstborn, no possibility of a dual list to stop the min-maxing we have already. They both have enough to stand on their own. 

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

I don’t think the people writing the rules now really understand tanks at all… it’s obvious they have poorly transitioned from 7th edition and they need some serious help.

[DantesRevenge]

I think the main issue with Space Marine tanks is they are just not points efficient at the moment and Las-cannons are massively over-costed.

 

For slightly less points than he Pred Annihilator, Deathguard have a plagueburst crawler which has better damage output guns, is T8 and has disgustingly resilient.

 

Two tweaks that I think would help tanks are a general point decrease, especially for las cannons and change a las cannon profile to 2d3. I think even guaranteeing 2 damage from the las would help the tanks a bit.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

The lascannon should be 3+d3.

[Berzul]

Seems like just reducind the cost of vehicles, or upping their damage output, would not be enough to make them viable in an Astartes Army. 

 

If a tank is to be included to add firepower to a list, one will find that their lack of the <CORE> keyword and the way auras now work, along with the availability of high-damage weapons on infantry we have in the codex, all makes them the inferior choice. 

 

If a tank is instead to be included to add protection and mobility to a unit, again, the overabundance of options the codex gives makes almost all transports somewhat pointless.

 

For the first issue, yeah, you could up their damage output, but they will still be inefficient gun-platforms when compared to well placed specialty infantry squads with proper support (something that is not expensive to put together). For the second, unless the vehicles are improved in toughness, there will still be little point to take them, even if costs go down on a model. 

 

If you break it down to bare essentials, I think that, in the end, the one thing that a vehicle can provide that a unit of infantry cannot, is durability. More wounds, more toughness. Except, the game has way too many invul saves for other units, too much AP and too much damage on pretty much anything around that can fire at you, and a toughness scale for vehicles that makes them kinda pointless. I think even something as simple as AP reduction, or even one or two extra points of toughness, to take vehicles to T8/T9, could do the trick in making most vehicles in the codex worth using again.

[Charlo]

I'd like to see a Primaris version of the Whirlwind and Vindicator.

 

I suppose the Hammerfall is kind of the Whirlwind though!

[Iron Father Ferrum]

It's almost as if the change from AV to Toughness made tanks too susceptible to damage...like I said it would at the advent of 8th. All this worry of chip damage from small arms wouldn't be an issue if we'd just kept the AV system.

[Orange Knight]

It's almost as if the change from AV to Toughness made tanks too susceptible to damage...like I said it would at the advent of 8th. All this worry of chip damage from small arms wouldn't be an issue if we'd just kept the AV system.

This change made vehicles far better.

 

The problem with Marine vehicles isn't an inherent issue with the rules, but is instead down to very poor balance.

 

In recent months we've seen people running multiple large squads of Ironstriders and completely dominating the tournament scene with them.

In 8th edition we saw vehicles dominating multiple tournaments at the highest level of play - examples include Triple Repulsors or the Custodes Grav Tanks.

 

The current Marine codex has simply tuned vehicles very poorly. They are costed too high, and not supported with enough overlapping rules or stratagems.

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

I think the main issue with Space Marine tanks is they are just not points efficient at the moment and Las-cannons are massively over-costed.

 

For slightly less points than he Pred Annihilator, Deathguard have a plagueburst crawler which has better damage output guns, is T8 and has disgustingly resilient.

 

Two tweaks that I think would help tanks are a general point decrease, especially for las cannons and change a las cannon profile to 2d3. I think even guaranteeing 2 damage from the las would help the tanks a bit.

 

The Plague burst crawler is the perfect example for why I'm frustrated with GW. I can't think of a single reason why someone would take a predator over a PBC, heck you even left out the 5++. They knew what they had to do to get the PBC to see play and did it. They chose not to make predators or gladators that good. 

 

I don't think they should up the damage on las cannons btw. changing the profile to 2d3 makes tanks tougher to field. For example a predator vs devs with lascannons would be pretty one sided. when the pred hits it would kill a marine per shot, where as the devs could kill it with just 2 shots. I think the goal should be to get MM and the 3+d3 weapons down to las cannons level. 

 

I can't stress that point enough. People complain about chip damage all the time, but tanks aren't on the shelf the shelf because intercessors are good at the killing them. They're on the shelf because 1 melta hit at 1/2 range can put them down to their bottom bracket. They may die because of intercessors knocking off a wound or two but the melta damage is what put them in that situation.

[Claws and Effect]

I miss armor values.

 

It wasn't perfect, and you still had times where a vehicle would be one shotted. But they were more durable overall. I don't know if I'd bring back front/side/rear armor values and firing arcs etc. But a vehicle that is meant to fill the role of a main battle tank should not get plinked to death by small arms fire. Armor just doesn't work like that. If a gun isn't strong enough to penetrate armor shooting it more times typically doesn't help.

[Djangomatic82]

Double vehicles wounds, triple for anything that is supposed to be legitimately tough as nails (for SM, only Landraiders, maybe Stormravens), leave the degradation charts as they are but change Power of the Machine Spirit to being that the vehicle ignores the chart altogether.

From a BA perspective, change the Baal Predators Overcharged Engines ability and the Lucifer Pattern Engines stratagem to be a once per game datasheet ability where the model treats all Heavy and Rapid Fire weapons as Assault until the end of turn.

For the Furioso dread, change the Heavy Frag Cannon to Assault 3d3 shots, auto hitting, damage 1, NOT BLAST!

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

I miss armor values.

 

It wasn't perfect, and you still had times where a vehicle would be one shotted. But they were more durable overall. I don't know if I'd bring back front/side/rear armor values and firing arcs etc. But a vehicle that is meant to fill the role of a main battle tank should not get plinked to death by small arms fire. Armor just doesn't work like that. If a gun isn't strong enough to penetrate armor shooting it more times typically doesn't help.

 

I don't really remember them being anymore durable in that system than they are now. I mean in 6th and 7th they were pretty awful with hull points and don't get me started on d-weapons. In fifth I remember tanks being pretty decent but they weren't super durable the edition just really favored dedicated transports and troops.  

[The Unseen]

Chip damage isn't the issue, its never been the issue, and I wish people would stop saying it is. Tanks die when they get hit with the abundance of incredibly potent anti-tank weapons every army is bringing, most of which have easy access to rerolls and strat support. Vehicles *don't* usually get those rerolls or have any strat support worth mentioning. You'll notice the ones that do, namely Dreadnoughts who get full core access, and Ironstriders who did before they got nerfed, and now the ork buggies who are absurdly cheap for how tough they are and how many guns they have. Hell, even Tank Commanders and full payload manticores are disgustingly good units, its just the rest of the Guard codex can't do much else so the overall army can't function because it can't hold objectives for :cuss.

 

So they die quickly to weapons designed to kill them (which isn't a bad thing, they just cost to much for their durability which isn't actually that good when people are packing d3+3 damage weapons, or multi-meltas, AND for most factions and most vehicles, they don't really get faction traits that help them and get NO reroll or strat support worth mentioning. So when they are compared to infantry, who do get those buffs that are fundamental to 9ths unit design, get strats to boost them even further, and aren't vulnerable to the defacto anti tank weapon being taken by the top meta armies, they feel fragile AND under-gunned. Or you could be like whichever new speeder packs a bunch of short ranged anti-tank, which defientely doesn't feel undergunned, but is so hilariously brittle it explodes if something looks at it funny. And then you compare it to an ork buggy and cry a bit.

Vehicles CAN be good in 9th, it just requires them to, you know, actually do things.

[Orange Knight]

I agree with The Unseen.

 

The misconception that chip damage is the cause for the woe of vehicles is simply incorrect.

 

A lot of them are costed out of play and lack compelling rule support. Armies with vehicles that don't succumb to these pitfalls see plenty of vehicles used to good effect. Note AdMech, Dark Eldar, Orks, etc

[Claws and Effect]

I lost count of the number of times my Fire Raptor has been blown out of the sky before it even got to move, let alone shoot at anything.

 

It's to the point that I don't bother bringing any vehicles at all because it's a waste of points. Why would I spend 300+ points on a vehicle that I'm just going to put back in my case before it can do anything?

 

In my experience in 9th edition Space Marine vehicles are just barely this side of completely useless.

 

If I bring 2 tanks in a 2,000 point game they're going to get focus fired off the table before they can even move if I don't get first turn. That ends up putting me at a de facto disadvantage when I have to fight a 2,000 point army with effectively 1,400 points.