I think the Predator Annihilator (The Lascannon-armed one) is fine at 275pts per formation.

The Predator Destructor, however, is just not as good even with a boost to FF4+.

I favour testing it at FF3+.

Discuss.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Looking at it from a comparative perspective, the Predator Destructor deserves FF3+, regardless of whether that requires recosting.

Compare it to Devastators. Two missile launchers and three bolters per base. FF3+. The Predator Destructor has two heavy bolters and and an autocannon. In regards to short-ranged firepower, I would expect those two to be roughly equivalent. Thus, I would expect the Predator Destructor to have comparable firepower.

Looked at from a gameplay perspective, the Predator Destructor wants to get close. Things that get close need to be able to FF or CC particularly well, or be particularly tough. CC is out, as is toughness - thus, FF would seem a good choice for improvement.

I think testing it at 3+ would be an excellent idea.

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

Agreed something has to be done to differentiate them, because Destructors blow.

The big problem is that it needs to be done as part of a complete Marine Armour overhaul. Each considered individually, just isn't going to work, because comparisons will be made up and down. Part of the derailment of the Land Raiders was "It'd make PD's worse!". And Vindicators jump into the equation too.

Vindicators (NetEA) at 50pts per upgrade, 225pts per Formation
Predators (NetEA for PA, FF3+ for PD) at 275pts per Formation
Land Raiders (NetEA) at 75pts per upgrade, 350pts per Formation

That all seems right to me. I still wouldn't be likely to use them, but at least they'd be considerations.

I did think maybe keeping the PD's at 5+ (consistency), and giving them EAFF+1, but that doesn't really work within the established formatting. It'd also head off any concerns about Librarian Predators, but for the most part there, I can't see THAT being a problem.

Morgan Vening

They could well see some use.

However, that is more than no use, at all, ever.

As such, I don't regard it as a problem. As an air drop formation they're still inferior to the cheaper and more flexible Devastators.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

I don't think they deserve that high a FF compared to other units and to variant tanks.

Maybe need to change the force structure instead.

Predator annihilators - 4 Predator Annihilators, any number may be swapped for Destructor's at no cost - Upgrades, Hunter (compulsory really ), Commander (why?) and I would drop Vindicator.

Close Support - 4 units, Any mix of Predator Destructors and Vindicators - Upgrades, Hunter (I wouldn't), Commander (if you are feeling odd), Vindicator (that's worth considering).

And really, the poor old vindicator should have a better FF than the pred destructor, that's the designed close support vehicle!

IMHO there are two pressing issues - the relatively fragile nature of the 4x formation (and the unit itself), and the cost of the resultant formation.

Costing is going to be sensitive to the pricing of other formations, so 275-300 would seem to be appropriate (especially in the light of the LR debate). But could we go as low as 250?

How can we make the unit / formation more resilient? The 4x strong formation is very sensitive to damage despite ATSKNF, but would 5x strong formations be inappropriate?

Well the 4 strong unit does mean that one dead tank is only a 50% drop in firepower - and marine tanks bar land raiders aren't supposed to be able to roll up the table in the open. For raiders and annihilators hunters are common/compulsory so they take the suppression in this situation possibly giving you your 5 strong formation. Still works with pred destructors though not as well and well, vindicators, poor things. With the above formation incidentally if I was going for vindies I would include 1 pred destructor to give extra range (stretch) and take suppressions if we were double firing into cover. Would then at the suggested 225 a formation of 4 pred d's be viable? I have a horrible suspicion it would be based on the cost of getting flak in the army as 300 for a marine flak formation is quite good. Better than devs at 350 (4 dev, 2 rhino, 1 hunter, 1 razor) though? I think if I wanted AP possibly and at least I could suffer a mobility kill as easily.

My view is that formation size changes are undesirable as we should at least theoretically try to match GW pack sizes. A formation size of 5 would mean people would need 3 blisters before getting themselves a uniform weapon formation, and then they'd be left with spare tanks too.




The reason I would favour 3+ is fourfold:

1 - It gives the Predator Destructor a unique niche in the Space Marine list, that of a lightly armoured AP / FF tank.

2 - It does not change formation compositions, army list structure, or require different points costs to the Predator Annihilator.

3 - It would seem to match expectations of what its stats should be, more aptly.

4 - It would make the tank useful, and occasionally worth taking. Predator Annihilators have a niche that makes them desirable, that of ranged AT which is rare in the Marine list. Marines do not lack for AP so the Predator Annihilator is never going to be desirable unless you carve out a new niche for it: That of AP/FF tank. And yeah, a nice FF tank to use as a prep formation meshes nicely with the Marine style of play.

I don't believe it would overshadow Devastators as it would lack their flexibility, and their ability to enter cover.


A Hellhound has FF3+ and it only has a flamegun and a heavy bolter.
A Vindicator has FF4+ and it only has 1 gun.
A Land Raider only has FF4+ and most of its guns are AT (Not generally a indicative of a high FF rating).

Plenty of justification can be made when comparing it to other units.

As to whether it throws any variant tanks out of whack, the Land Raider Crusader will still have a better FF rating (Average of 1 hit rather than 0.66 of a hit in firefights).

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Or possibly include the Hunter within the Pred formation as part of the 275 cost?

That does nothing to fix the balance problem between the Pred A. and Pred D., just gives you a consolation prize for choosing to take the rubbish version of tank. :-)

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Oh so the comparison is 275 at FF3+ verses Devs with a heavy bolter razorback at 275? Does this not simply leave them as something of a second best? 2/3 of a hit less FF and 3 less units, vs the ability to counter charge 10cm with everything. When doubling 2 AP hits vs the devs 1 2/3 ap hits with the devs having a better secondary AT ability? Or do you propose a price drop as well?

They would have some advantages as compared to Devastators:

- Better hits when sustaining fire
- They keep their mobility for as long as they're alive because you can't strip off their Rhinos
- They can always Engage 30cm, without needing to stay inside Rhinos to do that

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

But what of their resilience? As TRC says, they really need the Hunter (and possibly additional pred as upgrade??) to make the formation more viable. So how does this combined formation compare . . . and what costs should be applied??

They're no more or less resilient than Predator Annihilators, and those are perfectly useful at 275pts.

I don't think resilience is an issue.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Umm, I am less sure about that E&C. As TRC says, the loss of a single Pred reduces the formation's firepower by 50%, and the costs are very sensitive. Preds are always going to be a support formation, which in turn will limit the number of formations fielded.

I have long argued for variable armour, Preds being one of the main reasons both to iron out the apparent inconsistency between infantry and AV armour values, and also to improve their resilience - though I recognise this is unlikely to find support. So if we do not change armour values, that leaves increased formation sizes (which seems almost as unpopular )

Being AV, Preds are much less able to make use of terrain which make them more vulnerable to enemy fire, and especially enemy air-power. Now I am very unfamiliar with the ratios of infantry to vehicles of WWII and later armies, but I would suggest that it is much higher than those currently achieved in Marine lists.

Are there any other options, giving one version of the Preds 'transport (1)' perhaps???