So the Heavy Laser Destroyer is 40 points. At a minimum that makes Lascannons and Twin-linked Lascannons over priced and makes the Lastalon make even less sense than it did before.
The Newman wrote: So the Heavy Laser Destroyer is 40 points. At a minimum that makes Lascannons and Twin-linked Lascannons over priced and makes the Lastalon make even less sense than it did before.
Sigh...
No. That's not how this works. You can only compare the price of weapons if you have a choice between them. Otherwise it's meaningless. Very often some of the cost of the weapon is baked into the base cost of the model, or vice versa.
lascanons are also costed to account for the number of differant units that can take them. which means even if 99% of all units with a weapon are crap if there's one power combo with them, they price for the power combo. the heavy lasers destroyer, doesn't have that issue, I suspect we're going to see more cases of units built around a unique piece of equipment to address this issue (which wasn't an issue until they adopted universal price points for gear. *sigh*)
The Newman wrote: So the Heavy Laser Destroyer is 40 points. At a minimum that makes Lascannons and Twin-linked Lascannons over priced and makes the Lastalon make even less sense than it did before.
Sigh...
No. That's not how this works. You can only compare the price of weapons if you have a choice between them. Otherwise it's meaningless. Very often some of the cost of the weapon is baked into the base cost of the model, or vice versa.
The Newman wrote: So the Heavy Laser Destroyer is 40 points. At a minimum that makes Lascannons and Twin-linked Lascannons over priced and makes the Lastalon make even less sense than it did before.
Sigh...
No. That's not how this works. You can only compare the price of weapons if you have a choice between them. Otherwise it's meaningless. Very often some of the cost of the weapon is baked into the base cost of the model, or vice versa.
Thiiiissssssss.
and only one unit uses the Las heavy destoyer. so it's understood it's baked into the cost. I mean a boltrifle costs 0 points, a bolt gun costs 0 points. that does not mean boltguns are utterly useless in comparison because differant units use them
The Newman wrote: So the Heavy Laser Destroyer is 40 points. At a minimum that makes Lascannons and Twin-linked Lascannons over priced and makes the Lastalon make even less sense than it did before.
Sigh...
No. That's not how this works. You can only compare the price of weapons if you have a choice between them. Otherwise it's meaningless. Very often some of the cost of the weapon is baked into the base cost of the model, or vice versa.
Thiiiissssssss.
and only one unit uses the Las heavy destoyer. so it's understood it's baked into the cost. I mean a boltrifle costs 0 points, a bolt gun costs 0 points. that does not mean boltguns are utterly useless in comparison because differant units use them
Ehhh - basically their system is garbage. I've been saying it from the beginning. Some units have baked in cost. Like a Valiant. Some units pay for a weapon that is unique to it like the Executioner. Some units pay a different cost for the same weapon in the same codex...Like the baneblade and russ commander. It is not necessary to do this. Give a base cost for a unit without weapons. Then charge for the weapons it can take.
Breton wrote: The question becomes where you put the two mini-turrets, and what you use to hide/coverup the two holes.
Look to the post immediately above yours for that answer.
In a Top Turret conversion/magnetization deal - assuming you can get just the top turret. You'd still have the same top plate with the two slots for the mini turrets, and two slots for mini turrets on the top turret. Probably put the mini turrets in the top turret, and find a filler for the hull holes.
The Newman wrote: So the Heavy Laser Destroyer is 40 points. At a minimum that makes Lascannons and Twin-linked Lascannons over priced and makes the Lastalon make even less sense than it did before.
Sigh...
No. That's not how this works. You can only compare the price of weapons if you have a choice between them. Otherwise it's meaningless. Very often some of the cost of the weapon is baked into the base cost of the model, or vice versa.
Thiiiissssssss.
and only one unit uses the Las heavy destoyer. so it's understood it's baked into the cost. I mean a boltrifle costs 0 points, a bolt gun costs 0 points. that does not mean boltguns are utterly useless in comparison because differant units use them
Ehhh - basically their system is garbage. I've been saying it from the beginning. Some units have baked in cost. Like a Valiant. Some units pay for a weapon that is unique to it like the Executioner. Some units pay a different cost for the same weapon in the same codex...Like the baneblade and russ commander. It is not necessary to do this. Give a base cost for a unit without weapons. Then charge for the weapons it can take.
which is how they used to do it and yeah I agree it worked a bit better.
BrianDavion wrote: lascanons are also costed to account for the number of differant units that can take them. which means even if 99% of all units with a weapon are crap if there's one power combo with them, they price for the power combo. the heavy lasers destroyer, doesn't have that issue, I suspect we're going to see more cases of units built around a unique piece of equipment to address this issue (which wasn't an issue until they adopted universal price points for gear. *sigh*)
That's been the way they've approached every Primaris unit thus far.
BrianDavion wrote: lascanons are also costed to account for the number of differant units that can take them. which means even if 99% of all units with a weapon are crap if there's one power combo with them, they price for the power combo. the heavy lasers destroyer, doesn't have that issue, I suspect we're going to see more cases of units built around a unique piece of equipment to address this issue (which wasn't an issue until they adopted universal price points for gear. *sigh*)
That's been the way they've approached every Primaris unit thus far.
not 100% true, the heavy onslaught gatling canon is shared across several units. but closer to true then not.
BrianDavion wrote: not 100% true, the heavy onslaught gatling canon is shared across several units. but closer to true then not.
Sure, but then I was making an observation of a trend, and one example does not disprove the trend. It only proves that it isn't a hard line.
Inceptors, Infiltrators, Intercessors, Eliminators, Hellblasters, Aggressors, Suppressors, and Reivers all include weapon options that are not shared across any other unit.
Armour and HQs do share some weapons, and interestingly (aside from melee weapons) armoured units are the only place you see cross over into the armoury of the Imperium. It's limited though, and a large selection of the weaponry, even if shared with other units, remains Primaris only.
That level of control is a far cry from the current marine landscape.
BrianDavion wrote: not 100% true, the heavy onslaught gatling canon is shared across several units. but closer to true then not.
Sure, but then I was making an observation of a trend, and one example does not disprove the trend. It only proves that it isn't a hard line.
Inceptors, Infiltrators, Intercessors, Eliminators, Hellblasters, Aggressors, Suppressors, and Reivers all include weapon options that are not shared across any other unit.
Armour and HQs do share some weapons, and interestingly (aside from melee weapons) armoured units are the only place you see cross over into the armoury of the Imperium. It's limited though, and a large selection of the weaponry, even if shared with other units, remains Primaris only.
That level of control is a far cry from the current marine landscape.
agreed. I honestly think that within 5 years time once the basic primaris range is complete, Primaris will be in a neat place.
The Newman wrote: So the Heavy Laser Destroyer is 40 points. At a minimum that makes Lascannons and Twin-linked Lascannons over priced and makes the Lastalon make even less sense than it did before.
Sigh...
No. That's not how this works. You can only compare the price of weapons if you have a choice between them. Otherwise it's meaningless. Very often some of the cost of the weapon is baked into the base cost of the model, or vice versa.
Thiiiissssssss.
and only one unit uses the Las heavy destoyer. so it's understood it's baked into the cost. I mean a boltrifle costs 0 points, a bolt gun costs 0 points. that does not mean boltguns are utterly useless in comparison because differant units use them
Ehhh - basically their system is garbage. I've been saying it from the beginning. Some units have baked in cost. Like a Valiant. Some units pay for a weapon that is unique to it like the Executioner. Some units pay a different cost for the same weapon in the same codex...Like the baneblade and russ commander. It is not necessary to do this. Give a base cost for a unit without weapons. Then charge for the weapons it can take.
I still don't get why, after hitting perfect formula in 5th edition, both from balance and usability standpoint (no frakking constant page-flipping for one ) they went back to garbage, useless 'armory' for 6th and 7th, then, when it clearly didn't worked, they brought in back some bits from 5th, except leaving all the best points out. Does GW pay writers for making books so useless you wear them out with constant use (or tear out pages in rage/to make them usable) just so people need to buy a new one...?
If they really made Primaris weapons all unique just to patch holes in this abomination of a system (which is pretty silly, I mean, anyone can show any difference between bolt carbine, auto-bolter and that third bolt gun which eludes me now?) then whoever is responsible for it should be chainsworded off his seat and a competent writer brought back in...
Breton wrote: marines would still deathball without the auras, we’d just call it castle or gunline or something. Close combat sucks this edition, so you won’t see the assault units splitting off to rush while the shooters provide covering fire to soften up targets. And if everything is going to shoot you might as well keep it all together so it can cover for each other.
Close combat is amazing, you just need half a brain to make it work and no brain to put a bunch of guns next to an aura and then roll dice. And marines aren't a CC army.
Ishagu wrote: Wait for a new codex. I imagine weapons like the Las Talon will get more reductions.
Only been like 2 years....whats another 6 months? By any chance do you work for GW? Or do you just have huge tolerance for rules that make no sense?
Two years? Get in the line mate, Templars are coming up on six in September.
Just forget about other edditions. I'm talking about this eddition with very basic complaints like. "This weapon is obviously better but costs the same". Still weve had what...4 major balacing patches and still some of the most obvious changes havn't been made?
Also this is quite disturbing.
Just opened the Executoner kit and I've realized something. GW doesn't even know which weapons are which on the repulsor. The model is armed with krakstorm grenade launchers and autolaunchers but the rules state you have a fragstorm grenade launcher and autolaunchers. The repuslors can trade autolaunchers for frag storms (who wouldn't) and it can also trade 2 stom bolters for fragstorms which this boat cant do.
I still don't get why, after hitting perfect formula in 5th edition, both from balance and usability standpoint (no frakking constant page-flipping for one ) they went back to garbage, useless 'armory' for 6th and 7th, then, when it clearly didn't worked, they brought in back some bits from 5th, except leaving all the best points out. Does GW pay writers for making books so useless you wear them out with constant use (or tear out pages in rage/to make them usable) just so people need to buy a new one...?
If they really made Primaris weapons all unique just to patch holes in this abomination of a system (which is pretty silly, I mean, anyone can show any difference between bolt carbine, auto-bolter and that third bolt gun which eludes me now?) then whoever is responsible for it should be chainsworded off his seat and a competent writer brought back in...
Honestly, I really like the current layout of the codecies. It's the best they've done so far [that I've experienced].
However, the downside is that weapons have a fixed cost independent of the platform, which is a bit of a limitation.
Breton wrote: marines would still deathball without the auras, we’d just call it castle or gunline or something. Close combat sucks this edition, so you won’t see the assault units splitting off to rush while the shooters provide covering fire to soften up targets. And if everything is going to shoot you might as well keep it all together so it can cover for each other.
Close combat is amazing, you just need half a brain to make it work and no brain to put a bunch of guns next to an aura and then roll dice. And marines aren't a CC army.
Actually. Running a marine deathball takes a lot of brain power. Playing armies that move really fast and are functional without powerball formations is easy in comparison.
I still don't get why, after hitting perfect formula in 5th edition, both from balance and usability standpoint (no frakking constant page-flipping for one ) they went back to garbage, useless 'armory' for 6th and 7th, then, when it clearly didn't worked, they brought in back some bits from 5th, except leaving all the best points out. Does GW pay writers for making books so useless you wear them out with constant use (or tear out pages in rage/to make them usable) just so people need to buy a new one...?
If they really made Primaris weapons all unique just to patch holes in this abomination of a system (which is pretty silly, I mean, anyone can show any difference between bolt carbine, auto-bolter and that third bolt gun which eludes me now?) then whoever is responsible for it should be chainsworded off his seat and a competent writer brought back in...
Honestly, I really like the current layout of the codecies.
I don't use the codex for points (battle scribe is a life saver) but it takes quite a lot of work to figure out how much a build costs from being naive to a codex. You need to figure out the weapons it can take from the data sheet. Find the base cost in 1 place for the tank and then add up all the weapons options from possibly several other places. I hate it.
Ishagu wrote: Wait for a new codex. I imagine weapons like the Las Talon will get more reductions.
Only been like 2 years....whats another 6 months? By any chance do you work for GW? Or do you just have huge tolerance for rules that make no sense?
Two years? Get in the line mate, Templars are coming up on six in September.
Just forget about other edditions. I'm talking about this eddition with very basic complaints like. "This weapon is obviously better but costs the same". Still weve had what...4 major balacing patches and still some of the most obvious changes havn't been made?
Also this is quite disturbing.
Just opened the Executoner kit and I've realized something. GW doesn't even know which weapons are which on the repulsor. The model is armed with krakstorm grenade launchers and autolaunchers but the rules state you have a fragstorm grenade launcher and autolaunchers. The repuslors can trade autolaunchers for frag storms (who wouldn't) and it can also trade 2 stom bolters for fragstorms which this boat cant do.
Did you happen to notice that the datasheet lists * stats for speed, BS, and Attacks, but the degradation chart lists speed, BS, and WS? They're literally less than an inch apart on the page layout.
I didn't like the physical layout of the Storm Bolter sub-turrets at first blush, but the bigger turret makes the Executioner look more like an MBT than the base Repulsor. I think I like it better now that I've seen them side-by side. (Still wish they'd left the over-the-door bolters where they were, I think that would have looked even better. Didn't think I could do the conversion justice though.)
Ishagu wrote: Wait for a new codex. I imagine weapons like the Las Talon will get more reductions.
Only been like 2 years....whats another 6 months? By any chance do you work for GW? Or do you just have huge tolerance for rules that make no sense?
Two years? Get in the line mate, Templars are coming up on six in September.
Just forget about other edditions. I'm talking about this eddition with very basic complaints like. "This weapon is obviously better but costs the same". Still weve had what...4 major balacing patches and still some of the most obvious changes havn't been made?
Also this is quite disturbing.
Just opened the Executoner kit and I've realized something. GW doesn't even know which weapons are which on the repulsor. The model is armed with krakstorm grenade launchers and autolaunchers but the rules state you have a fragstorm grenade launcher and autolaunchers. The repuslors can trade autolaunchers for frag storms (who wouldn't) and it can also trade 2 stom bolters for fragstorms which this boat cant do.
Did you happen to notice that the datasheet lists * stats for speed, BS, and Attacks, but the degradation chart lists speed, BS, and WS? They're literally less than an inch apart on the page layout.
I didn't like the physical layout of the Storm Bolter sub-turrets at first blush, but the bigger turret makes the Executioner look more like an MBT than the base Repulsor. I think I like it better now that I've seen them side-by side. (Still wish they'd left the over-the-door bolters where they were, I think that would have looked even better. Didn't think I could do the conversion justice though.)
Just finish the build. I think it looks spectacular. I was at first going to make the plasma version but the large barrel looks so good on it I had to use the Las. I also noticed the "frag launchers" are slightly different. Essentially they are a modified krakstorm launcher with frags for ordinance. So maybe GW does understand their weapons systems. Or maybe not...
I still don't get why, after hitting perfect formula in 5th edition, both from balance and usability standpoint (no frakking constant page-flipping for one ) they went back to garbage, useless 'armory' for 6th and 7th, then, when it clearly didn't worked, they brought in back some bits from 5th, except leaving all the best points out. Does GW pay writers for making books so useless you wear them out with constant use (or tear out pages in rage/to make them usable) just so people need to buy a new one...?
If they really made Primaris weapons all unique just to patch holes in this abomination of a system (which is pretty silly, I mean, anyone can show any difference between bolt carbine, auto-bolter and that third bolt gun which eludes me now?) then whoever is responsible for it should be chainsworded off his seat and a competent writer brought back in...
Honestly, I really like the current layout of the codecies.
I don't use the codex for points (battle scribe is a life saver) but it takes quite a lot of work to figure out how much a build costs from being naive to a codex. You need to figure out the weapons it can take from the data sheet. Find the base cost in 1 place for the tank and then add up all the weapons options from possibly several other places. I hate it.
I find that I don't ever really simultaneously need the points and the statcards. The 7e way, with the points on each datasheet was awful. The 5e Codecies were okay [with the caveat that things like Orders and Lumbering Behemoth were enumerated on the codex page, but the AVs and BS were in the back], but I still like 8th better for ease of use. All the rules are together for use in the game, all the points are together for making my list.
CA is a little irritating, since I have to cross-reference what's been updated and what hasn't. I wish they offered a PDF of the points cost tables, or something. But it's not that bad.
the poitns issues is a pain, to the point I've ended up using battlescribe for my lists but with battle scribe well.. it's less important too so *shrugs*
Breton wrote: marines would still deathball without the auras, we’d just call it castle or gunline or something. Close combat sucks this edition, so you won’t see the assault units splitting off to rush while the shooters provide covering fire to soften up targets. And if everything is going to shoot you might as well keep it all together so it can cover for each other.
Close combat is amazing, you just need half a brain to make it work and no brain to put a bunch of guns next to an aura and then roll dice. And marines aren't a CC army.
You have numbers to back this up? I've done the math on multiple armies basic close combat units to back up my claim. I'm assuming you've done so as well and didn't just make a wild baseless claim based on your feelings not data?
Hormaguants were bad. Assault Marines were bad. Sisters were bad. Ork Boys were on the bad side of OK- because they had special rules to make up for most of what Close Combat lost in general rules. The only good basic close combat unit I tested that was good were bloodletters - and they were equipped far differently than - and closer to - the elite close combat units,
As for Marines not being a CC army, I'll be sure to let the Blood Angels, Raven Guard, and Space Wolves know they've been playing wrong for years.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
I don't use the codex for points (battle scribe is a life saver) but it takes quite a lot of work to figure out how much a build costs from being naive to a codex. You need to figure out the weapons it can take from the data sheet. Find the base cost in 1 place for the tank and then add up all the weapons options from possibly several other places. I hate it.
It's much easier on an e-Codex. You can just tap on the options and get a popup with the points costs.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just finish the build. I think it looks spectacular. I was at first going to make the plasma version but the large barrel looks so good on it I had to use the Las. I also noticed the "frag launchers" are slightly different. Essentially they are a modified krakstorm launcher with frags for ordinance. So maybe GW does understand their weapons systems. Or maybe not...
Magnetize. Assuming the unit/model/Primaris line is going to stick around the various editions and various builds are going to favor Plasma over Las and Las over Plasma from time to time. And I'm not buying two to be able to use one either way.
an assault marine squad of 4 marines, and 1 sergent the sergent can take a power weapon and one marine can take an eviscirator. this is, almost, on paper equal in hitting power to a 5 man tac marine squad. each grunts gets 2 S4 AP - attacks. with the "heavy weapons" guy hitting harder, but having less shots. (I'm comparing this to a lascanon as it's the most similer BTW. and yeah I'll get back to that) and the sergent could potentially likewise have a harder hitting weapon.
and thats p[retty typical of a lot of the CC units out there. they simply hit, as hard as their ranged counterpart.. and at that point, they're wasted points. sure I COULD take an assault squad, but I'm proably better off taking a tactical marine squad instead. I'll hit harder, and more often. (and yes I know Tac squads aren;t that great eaither, I'm making a point)
an assault marine squad of 4 marines, and 1 sergent the sergent can take a power weapon and one marine can take an eviscirator. this is, almost, on paper equal in hitting power to a 5 man tac marine squad. each grunts gets 2 S4 AP - attacks. with the "heavy weapons" guy hitting harder, but having less shots. (I'm comparing this to a lascanon as it's the most similer BTW. and yeah I'll get back to that) and the sergent could potentially likewise have a harder hitting weapon.
and thats p[retty typical of a lot of the CC units out there. they simply hit, as hard as their ranged counterpart.. and at that point, they're wasted points. sure I COULD take an assault squad, but I'm proably better off taking a tactical marine squad instead. I'll hit harder, and more often. (and yes I know Tac squads aren;t that great eaither, I'm making a point)
I think you and I are arguing the same point - here are the numbers I already did in the Sister's thread:
20 Hormaguants Dealing - we'll split the difference between points (30) vs base size (12) - 40 attacks 20 hits, 6.6 wounds, 2.2 after armor saves. (I skipped the rerolled 1's - which guants get from the talons and potentially mob size, because I didn't give it to the marines, and won't to the orks who would have likely had it - it turns out to be about 1/2-3/4 of a wound)
Receiving 21 attacks, 14 hits, 7 wounds, 5.88 Wounds received
15 Ork Boys Dealing (again splitting points(20) vs base size(10) 45 attacks, 30 hits, 15 wounds, 5 after armor saves.
Receiving 21 attacks, 14 hits, 7 wounds, 5.88 Wounds received.
15 Bloodletters (including -Leaper) 1st turn - 33 attacks 22 hits, 18.48 wounds 15.52 after saves -
6.0984 after saves if we pretend their hellblade isn't a power weapon equivalent which was part of my point about basic assault troops not getting save mod's making close combat not very good.
Second turn. 16 attacks 10.72 hits, 5.36 wounding rolls, 4.5 after armor saves
1.7688 if we again pretend they aren't equipped with power sword equivalent weapons AND after the +1A, +1S for "charging" wears off which was also part of my point about Close Combat in general not being good.
15 battle sisters - no special/heavy weapons Lest someone complain if I use a Space Marine unit everyone is familiar with for a comparison baseline (roughly equal points - shooting doesn't care about base size) gets 15-30 shots depending on rapid fire range.
15 shots, 10 hits 5 wounding rolls, 1.65 wounds after saves.
30 shots 20 hits, 10 wounding rolls, 3.3 wounds after saves. - Average 2.475
And they can do this pretty reliably turn after turn. Close Combat can be assumed to be somewhere between every other turn, and just under every turn. If we assume an every other turn - and a few other things like basic shooty troops should be roughly as effective as basic bashy troops (i.e. Tau might be an exception) - then the bashy troop should be rougly twice as effective in close combat as the shooty is at shooting.
I still don't get why, after hitting perfect formula in 5th edition, both from balance and usability standpoint (no frakking constant page-flipping for one ) they went back to garbage, useless 'armory' for 6th and 7th, then, when it clearly didn't worked, they brought in back some bits from 5th, except leaving all the best points out. Does GW pay writers for making books so useless you wear them out with constant use (or tear out pages in rage/to make them usable) just so people need to buy a new one...?
If they really made Primaris weapons all unique just to patch holes in this abomination of a system (which is pretty silly, I mean, anyone can show any difference between bolt carbine, auto-bolter and that third bolt gun which eludes me now?) then whoever is responsible for it should be chainsworded off his seat and a competent writer brought back in...
Honestly, I really like the current layout of the codecies. It's the best they've done so far [that I've experienced].
However, the downside is that weapons have a fixed cost independent of the platform, which is a bit of a limitation.
Have you ever seen fifth edition book? Not only points were all on unit entry, requiring no flipping at all, they were individually balanced, too. Say, power fist was full points on captain, got discount on librarian, to account for his all around worse CC skills, then even bigger discount on a sergeant. There were even subtle pro-fluff discounts to make squads looking in-universe (say, tacticals had discount on their single heavy weapon to encourage taking them instead of just having boring 5 bolter MSU, assault squads had discount on transports if they dropped their jump packs, etc). All in all, I can't think of any other edition coming even close to this, promoting both fluff and balance (see also a lot of units that were made to give players fluffy squads plugging holes in army organization, which you were expected to convert yourself to really make them 'your guys')...
In 8th E, we've seen:
-Morty and Maggy
-PoxWalker tides
-Shining Spear deathstars
-Alpha Legion Zerkers
-Bloodletter Bomb
-Ork Mobs
-Knights
-SmashCaptain
-Banana Bikes
CC can do serious work this edition. Pure CC lists tend to not hold up as frequently, but the top contenders meta-wise have had some CC elements more often than not.
Assault Marines are a terrible measuring stick. They make even Tac Marines look good. You get the opposite result measuring Grot dakka against Boyz choppas.
Breton wrote: marines would still deathball without the auras, we’d just call it castle or gunline or something. Close combat sucks this edition, so you won’t see the assault units splitting off to rush while the shooters provide covering fire to soften up targets. And if everything is going to shoot you might as well keep it all together so it can cover for each other.
Close combat is amazing, you just need half a brain to make it work and no brain to put a bunch of guns next to an aura and then roll dice. And marines aren't a CC army.
You have numbers to back this up? I've done the math on multiple armies basic close combat units to back up my claim. I'm assuming you've done so as well and didn't just make a wild baseless claim based on your feelings not data?
Hormaguants were bad. Assault Marines were bad. Sisters were bad. Ork Boys were on the bad side of OK- because they had special rules to make up for most of what Close Combat lost in general rules. The only good basic close combat unit I tested that was good were bloodletters - and they were equipped far differently than - and closer to - the elite close combat units,
As for Marines not being a CC army, I'll be sure to let the Blood Angels, Raven Guard, and Space Wolves know they've been playing wrong for years.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
I don't use the codex for points (battle scribe is a life saver) but it takes quite a lot of work to figure out how much a build costs from being naive to a codex. You need to figure out the weapons it can take from the data sheet. Find the base cost in 1 place for the tank and then add up all the weapons options from possibly several other places. I hate it.
It's much easier on an e-Codex. You can just tap on the options and get a popup with the points costs.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just finish the build. I think it looks spectacular. I was at first going to make the plasma version but the large barrel looks so good on it I had to use the Las. I also noticed the "frag launchers" are slightly different. Essentially they are a modified krakstorm launcher with frags for ordinance. So maybe GW does understand their weapons systems. Or maybe not...
Magnetize. Assuming the unit/model/Primaris line is going to stick around the various editions and various builds are going to favor Plasma over Las and Las over Plasma from time to time. And I'm not buying two to be able to use one either way.
Have you ever seen fifth edition book? Not only points were all on unit entry, requiring no flipping at all, they were individually balanced, too. Say, power fist was full points on captain, got discount on librarian, to account for his all around worse CC skills, then even bigger discount on a sergeant. There were even subtle pro-fluff discounts to make squads looking in-universe (say, tacticals had discount on their single heavy weapon to encourage taking them instead of just having boring 5 bolter MSU, assault squads had discount on transports if they dropped their jump packs, etc). All in all, I can't think of any other edition coming even close to this, promoting both fluff and balance (see also a lot of units that were made to give players fluffy squads plugging holes in army organization, which you were expected to convert yourself to really make them 'your guys')...
Although let's be honest, the actual points values were just as likely to be an asspull as they are now.
Tamwulf wrote: I thought this thread was about the Repulsor Executioner? Why are we talking about close combat and Assault Marines?
Because we're on page 42.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Breton wrote: Magnetize. Assuming the unit/model/Primaris line is going to stick around the various editions and various builds are going to favor Plasma over Las and Las over Plasma from time to time. And I'm not buying two to be able to use one either way.
The Executioner doesn't even need magnets. Don't glue the top of the turret to the bottom of the turret, then just close the two halves around the gun. The fit is more than tight enough to hold it in place once it's primed. And since you'll probably use the Destroyer 90% of the time it will take a while to start getting lose.
I think the repulsor is longer than 6", making it impossible.
No? You measure 6 from each side of the base of the Deredeo (80 mm/ 3.15 inches) and you get a 15.15 diameter aura. The Repulsor is 6.7x4.33 inches. How is it not fitting there?
You don't put the Repulsor in front of the Deredeo by the narrow end, you put it sideways.
Edit: graphical demonstration with real measurements
The problem is that in case of Repulsor you should measure from the dread's base to the top of the hull and unfortunately it is slightly more than 6".
) they went back to garbage, useless 'armory' for 6th and 7th, then, when it clearly didn't worked, they brought in back some bits from 5th, except leaving all the best points out. Does 
