Giving Preds transport changes one of the most iconic Space Marine units.

Adding more to the formation requires increased cost, which makes them less valuable, not more.

What about reduced cost? 25 to 50 points?

_________________
The Apocrypha of Skaros 1.1
Rogue Trader Expedition 0.4
The Horus Heresy 0.5
Night Lords 0.1
My Trade Thread

Not in a Firefight... and I'm proposing making it a FF-biased tank...

Plus, as I've noted before, Predator Annihilators are not seen as a bad choice anymore, yet (Of course) have exactly the same armour profile and formation composition.


Well, I'd certainly use a super-Razorback, though it is in no way supported by the background or the 40k rules. :-)


Without a FF upgrade to 3+, it'd then sit in the same points bracket, and almost the same role, as a Vindicator.

Homogeneity is great for people living in Oceania, or the CCCP, but I don't think it's good for army list design. :-)

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Sorry, I meant WITH the upgrade. The formation for 250 instead of for 275. That way they're directly competitive with Devastators, with both benefits and downsides comparatively.

_________________
The Apocrypha of Skaros 1.1
Rogue Trader Expedition 0.4
The Horus Heresy 0.5
Night Lords 0.1
My Trade Thread

Well, I think with FF3+ they'd be fine at 275pts.

I don't see the rationale about them being too vulnerable in a formation of 4 as solid, when formations of 4 Predator Annihilators @ 275pts are considered fine.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Please note, the 'Transport' suggestion is only a 'brainstorm' idea.

Changing the formation size and changing the individual unit value are really two sides of the same coin. Current proposal in the UK is 275pts for 4x units, or ~69pts each. Reducing them to ~60pts, you could reduce the formation to 240pts for 4x units or return the formation to 5x units for 300pts.

If you added the Hunter as an automatic upgrade (not least to avoid the pack issue raised by E&C) then we can also address some of the costing concerns for that unit at the same time. So 300pts for 4x Preds and 1x Hunter is perhaps not unreasonable. As TRC says, having 4x Vindies and 1x Pred for 200pts is an alternative.

E&C:

Oh, I concur. If Pred Annihilators are OK, Destructors are too. If not, then not.

Some seem worried that they'll be too vulnerable etc, though. Since presumably these people don't think the two Predator variants differ in durability, they must be worried about both kinds of Predators...

They may want to ask the second question: Are Predators fine at 275?

Me, I'd say that Predator Destructor with FF3+ would be equivalent to Predator Annihilators in value (roughly so, anyway). If people feel Predators are too vulnerable at 275, that's a separate question.

* * *

Ginger:

Raising the prices of SM formations is a bad idea. Upgrades are already ignored in favor of adding activations - at the moment, an formations need to average out around 300 points each to keep activations decently high. A lot of Space Marine formations cost 275 or more. Making those formations more expensive will hamper their use, not aid it.

If you think Predators are worth less than 275 points for four, the appropriate solution would be to move them to 250 points for four. Making them more expensive, even if you make them somewhat more effective, makes things worse, not better.

Either way, that's not what E&C asked. He asked whether making the Predator Destructor have FF3+ would make it a comparable choice to the Predator Annihilator. If you want to discuss making Predators generally cheaper (and I'm not sure I wouldn't agree with you), say so. But they're different questions.

_________________
The Apocrypha of Skaros 1.1
Rogue Trader Expedition 0.4
The Horus Heresy 0.5
Night Lords 0.1
My Trade Thread

Ginger:

Whilst changing formation compositions could be used to make the formation attractive, I think it would be second-best to fixing the unit via fixing its stats to make it useful in its own right and on its own merits, not the merits of the cheap Hunter it would bring with it.


But it is freeform thinking, and I wouldn't seek to shut down brainstorming if it did happen to come up with a superior idea.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

True. But I think it's more appropriate to answer the question, then dive off into the waters of wild speculation.

_________________
The Apocrypha of Skaros 1.1
Rogue Trader Expedition 0.4
The Horus Heresy 0.5
Night Lords 0.1
My Trade Thread

The problem as I see it is that 2x hits makes Preds combat inneffective in either role (shooting or FF), and even 1x hit means the player must be far more cautious. Devs (and even scouts) retain combat effectiveness far longer because the Rhinos provide a form of shield (and Razorbacks form a much cheaper upgrade adding significant resilience).

Also infantry are also far more flexible in a tactical sense, though they are obviously slower. This and the fragility of AV formations tends to make infantry much more usefull.

This is why IMHO we should also try to find ways to improve the overall formation resilience, though your views obviously vary

Ginger, do you feel this is a problem with the Predator Destructors, or with Predators generally?

_________________
The Apocrypha of Skaros 1.1
Rogue Trader Expedition 0.4
The Horus Heresy 0.5
Night Lords 0.1
My Trade Thread

There's 38 Predators in the Blood Angels, for example, and ostensibly 25 Predators in the Ultramarines. Looking at the sample deployments in the 3e C:SM, I'd say a Codex army should be thinking about including anywhere up to two detachments of Predators (with one probably being more common than two). Three and none should also be viable options.



Predators just aren't that tough. They're light tanks. They're marginally better armored than Rhinos - in fact, in the old C:SM you could make a Rhino be BETTER armored than a Predator.

The real question is why Leman Russes are 4+RA and Land Raiders are 4+RA when the LR has five more armor points, while the Predator is 4+-no-RA and is only two points less than the Russ. And why the Dreadnought has 3+, when it has the same total as the Predator and weaker front armor...

I think vehicle armor numbers may be a little wonky.

Also, a change to Predator armor sort-of compels a change to Vindicator armor, since the Vindicator has the same armor statistics.

_________________
The Apocrypha of Skaros 1.1
Rogue Trader Expedition 0.4
The Horus Heresy 0.5
Night Lords 0.1
My Trade Thread

FF3+ looks like a good idea, and I agree with E&C rationale that if the PA are fine, then the PD should be fine too on the toughness issue.

250 as a price might be nice too, but I'd rather have this tested separately, and if possible lowering the prices for PA and PD at the same time if we do.

/contentious on

SN, I totally agree that the armour values are a bit 'wonky', and have long been advocating Variable Armour values as a means to correct this. The RA rule requires re-rolling the sme armour value, a game mechanic that produces these anomalies.

This is corrected by specifying both the normal and reinforced armour values, allowing Leman Russ to be down-graded slightly as 4+/5+, and allowing Predators to be upgraded to 4+/6+.

/contentious off
--------------------

I see resiliance as being a problem with Preds as a whole and have proposed increasing the formaton size as a means to correct this, given that Variable Armour values are unlikely to be adopted. This could be achieved by allowing formations to take a pred as an upgrade, by juggling the base formation sizes to allow more acceptable costings, or a measure of both.

If we start with the premis that the final formation should be ~275pts - 325pts, we could acheive this by

• Specifying the Pred formation as 5x units outright at 300pts (but fall foul of pack sizes etc)
• Specifying the Pred formation as 4x Preds +1 other vehicle as 300 pts (complying with pack sizes)
• Keeping the base Pred formation as 4x Preds at 250pts, and allowing a 50pt upgrade for a Pred
• Adjusting the above costs up or down to change their attractiveness