FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I dunno, if a trio of Repulsors dropped 3 squads of Hellblasters or Aggressors on my front line, I don't know how good my front lines would look after that. Also, that's not even accounting for the Executioner's attacks.
It may not be the new meta breaking ITC boss haxor l33t tactics yo, but it's still a good ability that, if the costs come back positive, will be a good look for Primaris.
Before the flaming starts about how dumb and stupid I am, I would have fun playing this way. Right or wrong, this would be an enjoyable setup for an army.
I've run that army before. It can win if you go first. Auto lose if you go second. Very poor army. You can't win a game with literally 0 invo saves.
Use the concealed postions strat. Now they've all got 2+ saves
I think a lot of the hate on Repulsors isn't about power level. It's about two things:
1. They're ugly as all heck.
2. They're a missed opportunity due to their confused design.
This new version looks a lot better. I like that they removed the bolters from the side.
Uhhh...It's not ulgy though. It looks like some kind of futuristic hover tank. Some people just hate all primaris. Lots of people hate all marines stuff cause they jealous of the model support. Going consensus from actually marine players is they love the repulsor. How could you not? It's a flying landraider. Looks a lot like a landraider.
I think a lot of the hate on Repulsors isn't about power level. It's about two things:
1. They're ugly as all heck.
2. They're a missed opportunity due to their confused design.
That's your opinion. It's not ugly or a missed opportunity.
Do you hate every other Marine vehicle as well? The Repulsor is a good evolution of the Land Raider shape but actually looks like it can function and won't get beached.
Martel732 wrote: Dude I don't have any "best on the table top units". Of course repulsors aren't the worst. The rest of the marine tank line exists. But EXTERNALLY they are garbage still.
And yes, I primarily face top tournament units. So many plaguebearers. I'm so sick of plaguebearers.
They aren't garbage at all, that's the thing.
I certainly agree that they aren't the top vehicles on the table, that's not in question. They do work however, an can perform at the highest level.
A lot of people are literally dismissing things because they aren't "winning large tournaments"
That is plain wrong. .
PS: They work great against plaguebearers. Loads of shots and can't be tied up.
Let's all stop with the hyperbolic comments and absolutes.
Those aren't the only opponents. They're like very other marine unit: work okay 40% of the time, get smoked 60% of the time. I'm dismissed them because I've killed a ton of these things with frickin BA, the worst list in the game. They are not impressive. Lack of invuln puts them way behind the 8-ball. When you consider the cost, repulsors are indeed garbage. Unfortunately.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I dunno, if a trio of Repulsors dropped 3 squads of Hellblasters or Aggressors on my front line, I don't know how good my front lines would look after that. Also, that's not even accounting for the Executioner's attacks.
It may not be the new meta breaking ITC boss haxor l33t tactics yo, but it's still a good ability that, if the costs come back positive, will be a good look for Primaris.
Before the flaming starts about how dumb and stupid I am, I would have fun playing this way. Right or wrong, this would be an enjoyable setup for an army.
I've run that army before. It can win if you go first. Auto lose if you go second. Very poor army. You can't win a game with literally 0 invo saves.
Use the concealed postions strat. Now they've all got 2+ saves
So great now I got a 6+ save vs AP-4.
Things that routinely rape my Respulsors where there is almost no point in rolling dice - the kill is close automatic.
Hemlocks
Crimson hunters
Nutron lasers
Castellan knights
Knight crusaders
Shinning spears
Obliterators
Repulsors are probably the least durable per point unit in the game vs anti armor weapons. Just a guess.
Martel732 wrote: Dude I don't have any "best on the table top units". Of course repulsors aren't the worst. The rest of the marine tank line exists. But EXTERNALLY they are garbage still.
And yes, I primarily face top tournament units. So many plaguebearers. I'm so sick of plaguebearers.
They aren't garbage at all, that's the thing.
I certainly agree that they aren't the top vehicles on the table, that's not in question. They do work however, an can perform at the highest level.
A lot of people are literally dismissing things because they aren't "winning large tournaments"
That is plain wrong. .
PS: They work great against plaguebearers. Loads of shots and can't be tied up.
Let's all stop with the hyperbolic comments and absolutes.
Those aren't the only opponents. They're like very other marine unit: work okay 40% of the time, get smoked 60% of the time. I'm dismissed them because I've killed a ton of these things with frickin BA, the worst list in the game. They are not impressive. Lack of invuln puts them way behind the 8-ball.
Ok you dismiss them. Now move on. You hate everything that isn't winning tournaments, we get it.
I'm actually calling you out. Either your group is incompetent or you are making things up. I see you in every topic talking things down.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I dunno, if a trio of Repulsors dropped 3 squads of Hellblasters or Aggressors on my front line, I don't know how good my front lines would look after that. Also, that's not even accounting for the Executioner's attacks.
It may not be the new meta breaking ITC boss haxor l33t tactics yo, but it's still a good ability that, if the costs come back positive, will be a good look for Primaris.
Before the flaming starts about how dumb and stupid I am, I would have fun playing this way. Right or wrong, this would be an enjoyable setup for an army.
I've run that army before. It can win if you go first. Auto lose if you go second. Very poor army. You can't win a game with literally 0 invo saves.
Use the concealed postions strat. Now they've all got 2+ saves
So great now I got a 6+ save vs AP-4.
Things that routinely rape my Respulsors where there is almost no point in rolling dice - the kill is close automatic.
Hemlocks
Crimson hunters
Nutron lasers
Castellan knights
Knight crusaders
Shinning spears
Obliterators
Repulsors are probably the least durable per point unit in the game vs anti armor weapons. Just a guess.
I can destroy those things in one turn as well. invul or no Invul.
How many games a week do you play? I wonder why you're so worried about a unit getting destroyed. I used to be like this when I was nervous because I played once every 3 months.
Martel732 wrote: Dude I don't have any "best on the table top units". Of course repulsors aren't the worst. The rest of the marine tank line exists. But EXTERNALLY they are garbage still.
And yes, I primarily face top tournament units. So many plaguebearers. I'm so sick of plaguebearers.
They aren't garbage at all, that's the thing.
I certainly agree that they aren't the top vehicles on the table, that's not in question. They do work however, an can perform at the highest level.
A lot of people are literally dismissing things because they aren't "winning large tournaments"
That is plain wrong. .
PS: They work great against plaguebearers. Loads of shots and can't be tied up.
Let's all stop with the hyperbolic comments and absolutes.
They work great if your opponent doesn't bring multi damage weapons with AP. It is routinely 1 shot by several dedicated shooting units. Basically that means its garbage. Spending 280ish points on a unit that can easily be 1 shot is bottom tier garbage. A wave serpent is more durable in most respects.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I dunno, if a trio of Repulsors dropped 3 squads of Hellblasters or Aggressors on my front line, I don't know how good my front lines would look after that. Also, that's not even accounting for the Executioner's attacks.
It may not be the new meta breaking ITC boss haxor l33t tactics yo, but it's still a good ability that, if the costs come back positive, will be a good look for Primaris.
Before the flaming starts about how dumb and stupid I am, I would have fun playing this way. Right or wrong, this would be an enjoyable setup for an army.
I've run that army before. It can win if you go first. Auto lose if you go second. Very poor army. You can't win a game with literally 0 invo saves.
Did you play that army before? Just three Repulsors? There have been some variations on the idea, I believe. The first popular one being Repulsor trio, double Redemptor, primaris blood angels with smash captain. That one did quite well in a couple tournies, I believe.
Ultras with Gman and 3 Repulsor. Really good damage output. Good chance at losing all 2-3 repulsors in a single turn though.
What I read about the BA list, all three Repulsors were kitted out for max damage. They were covered in Intercessors for protection. The whole army was walking gunline. The Repulsors pulled attention away from the smash captain and Redemptors, so they could mess everything else up. With BA trait, the redemptors were even giving Knights a good thrashing. I don’t know how you seem to lose your Repulsors so easily. From the reports I read on the BA list, at least one Repulsor usually survived until the end of the game.
Martel732 wrote: Dude I don't have any "best on the table top units". Of course repulsors aren't the worst. The rest of the marine tank line exists. But EXTERNALLY they are garbage still.
And yes, I primarily face top tournament units. So many plaguebearers. I'm so sick of plaguebearers.
They aren't garbage at all, that's the thing.
I certainly agree that they aren't the top vehicles on the table, that's not in question. They do work however, an can perform at the highest level.
A lot of people are literally dismissing things because they aren't "winning large tournaments"
That is plain wrong. .
PS: They work great against plaguebearers. Loads of shots and can't be tied up.
Let's all stop with the hyperbolic comments and absolutes.
Those aren't the only opponents. They're like very other marine unit: work okay 40% of the time, get smoked 60% of the time. I'm dismissed them because I've killed a ton of these things with frickin BA, the worst list in the game. They are not impressive. Lack of invuln puts them way behind the 8-ball.
Ok you dismiss them. Now move on. You hate everything that isn't winning tournaments, we get it.
I'm actually calling you out. Either your group is incompetent or you are making things up. I see you in every topic talking things down.
Ohhh. You're calling me out. Marines are bad. Good look at 40kstats.com. It's all right there. Someone else already did all the work on that one, chief.
"things" being terrible marine units, yes. Get a grip.
So you only care about tournament performance. Got it.
My sweet, insecure, summer child.
3 Repulsors are 48 T8 wounds that can't be locked up. They aren't easy to kill. Especially when surrounded by other units. You just don't play the game properly :-)
Martel732 wrote: Is getting smoked fun? If not, why would I use the repulsor hull?
Afraid to lose a single game? Afraid to master the game and win with lists that aren't copying others? Afraid to get better?
That's you
I don't copy other lists. There are almost no BA lists TO copy. Try again?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ishagu wrote: So you only care about tournament performance. Got it.
My sweet, insecure, summer child.
3 Repulsors are 48 T8 wounds that can't be locked up. They aren't easy to kill. Especially when surrounded by other units. You just don't play the game properly :-)
Maybe you play vs scrubs. That's the usual common denominator with marine success stories. That or Gman.
I have fun making names and sound effects for the units I'm using during matches. And let me tell you, the Marines lists always come up with the best sound effects!
(Contempter Dread) FISTO ROBOTO moving in for the kill!!!
I think a lot of the hate on Repulsors isn't about power level. It's about two things:
1. They're ugly as all heck.
2. They're a missed opportunity due to their confused design.
That's your opinion. It's not ugly or a missed opportunity.
Do you hate every other Marine vehicle as well? The Repulsor is a good evolution of the Land Raider shape but actually looks like it can function and won't get beached.
Actually I'm a big Primaris fan. I have a large Dark Angel army that is entirely Primaris or Terminators (though the latter don't see the table much at the moment...).
The issue I and many others have with the Repulsor is the haphazard way so many different guns are tacked onto it. It just looks silly to me, like something a child would come up with. The actual hull is a box, but I'm fine with a tank being a box.
Martel732 wrote: Is getting smoked fun? If not, why would I use the repulsor hull?
Afraid to lose a single game? Afraid to master the game and win with lists that aren't copying others? Afraid to get better?
That's you
I don't copy other lists. There are almost no BA lists TO copy. Try again?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ishagu wrote: So you only care about tournament performance. Got it.
My sweet, insecure, summer child.
3 Repulsors are 48 T8 wounds that can't be locked up. They aren't easy to kill. Especially when surrounded by other units. You just don't play the game properly :-)
Maybe you play vs scrubs. That's the usual common denominator with marine success stories. That or Gman.
So you don't actually play the game very much? You'd be too scared to lose with your limited armies. Are you a vocal backseat gamer? lol
Martel732 wrote: Dude I don't have any "best on the table top units". Of course repulsors aren't the worst. The rest of the marine tank line exists. But EXTERNALLY they are garbage still.
And yes, I primarily face top tournament units. So many plaguebearers. I'm so sick of plaguebearers.
They aren't garbage at all, that's the thing.
I certainly agree that they aren't the top vehicles on the table, that's not in question. They do work however, an can perform at the highest level.
A lot of people are literally dismissing things because they aren't "winning large tournaments"
That is plain wrong. .
PS: They work great against plaguebearers. Loads of shots and can't be tied up.
Let's all stop with the hyperbolic comments and absolutes.
Those aren't the only opponents. They're like very other marine unit: work okay 40% of the time, get smoked 60% of the time. I'm dismissed them because I've killed a ton of these things with frickin BA, the worst list in the game. They are not impressive. Lack of invuln puts them way behind the 8-ball.
Ok you dismiss them. Now move on. You hate everything that isn't winning tournaments, we get it.
I'm actually calling you out. Either your group is incompetent or you are making things up. I see you in every topic talking things down.
Ohhh. You're calling me out. Marines are bad. Good look at 40kstats.com. It's all right there. Someone else already did all the work on that one, chief.
"things" being terrible marine units, yes. Get a grip.
The fact that "40KStats.com" even exists makes me sad.
The game will be much more fun if the competitives will leave and go find some other game to play.
You should get some real facts. You are dismissing units you don't own and have never used.
You don't see me lecturing GSC players on how to play because I don't own the models or the army.
How many Repulsors do you have? Show me your Primaris army or stop talking about things you don't know. You can't understand how something can function fully unless you've used it multiple times.
Here's two of mine:
I think a lot of the hate on Repulsors isn't about power level. It's about two things:
1. They're ugly as all heck.
2. They're a missed opportunity due to their confused design.
That's your opinion. It's not ugly or a missed opportunity.
Do you hate every other Marine vehicle as well? The Repulsor is a good evolution of the Land Raider shape but actually looks like it can function and won't get beached.
Actually I'm a big Primaris fan. I have a large Dark Angel army that is entirely Primaris or Terminators (though the latter don't see the table much at the moment...).
The issue I and many others have with the Repulsor is the haphazard way so many different guns are tacked onto it. It just looks silly to me, like something a child would come up with. The actual hull is a box, but I'm fine with a tank being a box.
Modern battle tanks have similar weapon arrangements. Smoke launchers on turret. Pintle MG. Coaxel MG. They dont have hull mounted weapons but every other tank in 40k has those too. The only thing that is somewhat unconventional is the 3 turret mounted small arms on the sides. That is a lot more like a B29 or something. Hard to see why a storm bolter on the side of something would ruin a model for you though. I think there is something else going on there. Like...The real LR has sponson mounted weapons...
On a per point basis it is probably a mid-tier vehicle.
Out performed by armor from nearly every other faction (sorry orcs, maybe grot guns?): tank commanders, bane variants, guard artillery, valkyries, calidus, telemons, eldar flyers, wave serpents, knights, chaos FW dreads, hive guard, ravagers, broadsides, necron flyers, doomsday arks and I'd put Xiphons and leviathan dreads above them as well.
About on par with fire prisms, regular russes, FW sisters stuff? and other stuff I've probably never seen before. While above the rest of the astartes offerings.
They suffer from a lot of the issues with marines in addition to the lack of a chapter tactic. Priced as if they are in a guilliman bubble, pay for abilities they can't leverage fully (transport in this instance), weakness of marine weapons (las-cannons just don't work in a world with so many invlun saves), lack of good strats (shoot twice, advance and shoot, +1 save, -1 to hit, re-roll hits/wounds please), lack of invlun, they do a job that marines already have plenty of tools to do (kill infantry) and poorly costed troops leaving less points for proper screens/more toys.
They aren't the worst unit in the game but they are worse (marginally to substantially) than just about every other vehicle you will see on competitive tables. Not that you can't win with them but you will be at a competitive disadvantage against well tuned lists (which you may see every game or no games depending on your local meta/tournament attendance).
If you get lucky, get good match-ups, out-play your opponent you can totally win with them in your list. But realize at the highest level you will face better lists (per point more killey/resilient/more tools) and you will be fighting an up-hill battle where your repulsors are putting you at a disadvantage.
Although they may soon again be in the garbage pile with the soon to be released chaos knights. Hopefully GW has learned a thing or two from regular knight releases but judging them based on the power level of the newly released chaos stuff (lord discos, the purge, chain sword murder man, Contorted Epitome...) and how bad GW is at balancing in general I'm not excited.
It's actually kinda a quick interpretation of the M2/M3 Bradly or the Stryker. Except they took off the tracks and made it "hover". If you look at it from the side, it's very clearly a Bradley/Stryker.
As for all the up guns, well, this is 40k. Shiz get's cray cray.
That's only a superficial comparison. The tank is highly armoured, and very large in size.
I wouldn't personally draw too many comparisons to real world vehicles.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
bananathug wrote: On a per point basis it is probably a mid-tier vehicle.
Out performed by armor from nearly every other faction (sorry orcs, maybe grot guns?): tank commanders, bane variants, guard artillery, valkyries, calidus, telemons, eldar flyers, wave serpents, knights, chaos FW dreads, hive guard, ravagers, broadsides, necron flyers, doomsday arks and I'd put Xiphons and leviathan dreads above them as well.
About on par with fire prisms, regular russes, FW sisters stuff? and other stuff I've probably never seen before. While above the rest of the astartes offerings.
They suffer from a lot of the issues with marines in addition to the lack of a chapter tactic. Priced as if they are in a guilliman bubble, pay for abilities they can't leverage fully (transport in this instance), weakness of marine weapons (las-cannons just don't work in a world with so many invlun saves), lack of good strats (shoot twice, advance and shoot, +1 save, -1 to hit, re-roll hits/wounds please), lack of invlun, they do a job that marines already have plenty of tools to do (kill infantry) and poorly costed troops leaving less points for proper screens/more toys.
They aren't the worst unit in the game but they are worse (marginally to substantially) than just about every other vehicle you will see on competitive tables. Not that you can't win with them but you will be at a competitive disadvantage against well tuned lists (which you may see every game or no games depending on your local meta/tournament attendance).
If you get lucky, get good match-ups, out-play your opponent you can totally win with them in your list. But realize at the highest level you will face better lists (per point more killey/resilient/more tools) and you will be fighting an up-hill battle where your repulsors are putting you at a disadvantage.
Although they may soon again be in the garbage pile with the soon to be released chaos knights. Hopefully GW has learned a thing or two from regular knight releases but judging them based on the power level of the newly released chaos stuff (lord discos, the purge, chain sword murder man, Contorted Epitome...) and how bad GW is at balancing in general I'm not excited.
That's the thing. I have faced all of those units you mentioned, and I've never felt at any particular disadvantage. Dark Eldar vehicle spam probably gives me the most trouble in fairness. Anyway, enough of this discussion on use. This discussion is about the new variant.
Anyways, I expect it to cost around 280 points. I expect the main laser weapon to be Heavy 2, Str12, AP-4, D6 damage 3 Minimum, and it shoots twice if the vehicle moves less than half of it's max range.
Martel732 wrote: Dude I don't have any "best on the table top units". Of course repulsors aren't the worst. The rest of the marine tank line exists. But EXTERNALLY they are garbage still.
And yes, I primarily face top tournament units. So many plaguebearers. I'm so sick of plaguebearers.
They aren't garbage at all, that's the thing.
I certainly agree that they aren't the top vehicles on the table, that's not in question. They do work however, an can perform at the highest level.
A lot of people are literally dismissing things because they aren't "winning large tournaments"
That is plain wrong. .
PS: They work great against plaguebearers. Loads of shots and can't be tied up.
Let's all stop with the hyperbolic comments and absolutes.
Those aren't the only opponents. They're like very other marine unit: work okay 40% of the time, get smoked 60% of the time. I'm dismissed them because I've killed a ton of these things with frickin BA, the worst list in the game. They are not impressive. Lack of invuln puts them way behind the 8-ball.
Ok you dismiss them. Now move on. You hate everything that isn't winning tournaments, we get it.
I'm actually calling you out. Either your group is incompetent or you are making things up. I see you in every topic talking things down.
Ohhh. You're calling me out. Marines are bad. Good look at 40kstats.com. It's all right there. Someone else already did all the work on that one, chief.
"things" being terrible marine units, yes. Get a grip.
The fact that "40KStats.com" even exists makes me sad.
The game will be much more fun if the competitives will leave and go find some other game to play.
Martel732 wrote: Dude I don't have any "best on the table top units". Of course repulsors aren't the worst. The rest of the marine tank line exists. But EXTERNALLY they are garbage still.
And yes, I primarily face top tournament units. So many plaguebearers. I'm so sick of plaguebearers.
They aren't garbage at all, that's the thing.
I certainly agree that they aren't the top vehicles on the table, that's not in question. They do work however, an can perform at the highest level.
A lot of people are literally dismissing things because they aren't "winning large tournaments"
That is plain wrong. .
PS: They work great against plaguebearers. Loads of shots and can't be tied up.
Let's all stop with the hyperbolic comments and absolutes.
Those aren't the only opponents. They're like very other marine unit: work okay 40% of the time, get smoked 60% of the time. I'm dismissed them because I've killed a ton of these things with frickin BA, the worst list in the game. They are not impressive. Lack of invuln puts them way behind the 8-ball.
Ok you dismiss them. Now move on. You hate everything that isn't winning tournaments, we get it.
I'm actually calling you out. Either your group is incompetent or you are making things up. I see you in every topic talking things down.
Ohhh. You're calling me out. Marines are bad. Good look at 40kstats.com. It's all right there. Someone else already did all the work on that one, chief.
"things" being terrible marine units, yes. Get a grip.
The fact that "40KStats.com" even exists makes me sad.
The game will be much more fun if the competitives will leave and go find some other game to play.
People like numbers. Just look at all the baseball stats. Competitive players leaving won't make marines good.
Nothing wrong with competitive players. Nothing wrong with competitive playing. I personally love it.
You fail because you can't understand that not every game has to be in a competitive, tournament environment and you limit your hobby to that particular experience.
That can't be right. This thing gets shoot twice for everything it's carrying, and PoTMS? That's asking for a higher cost than 280. What balances out the Russ Shoot twice rule is it's feth awful BS, and on the move it's even worse.
This thing is moving 6.9", unloading a ton of nerds, unleashing a lot of fire power, twice, at full BS, with re-rolls likely, for 280? That can't be right. Everything Primaris is got a Primaris tax, so if we use any indicator, the closest is the Land Raider. I expect fully gunned this thing to be over 320.
For the reference to the Stryker, I merely meant the shape, not anything else. Which makes a funny point.
The Stryker was a giant waste of money, didn't work like intended, was way over-costed, and never made it to the hot spots to actually fully replace it's original counterpart, the HMMWV.
The amount of time my unit spent guarding wreckers as they pulled those things out of fish farms....on the bright side they caused a bump in retention, as everyone wanted to go Stryker.
the problem isn't compeitivenness the problem is mathhammering detirming a unit is .0005 percent less pwoerful then another unit and dismissing it as worthless
Some people are complaining about having to roll dice? Get out of here, you are a cynical troll if that's your opinion.
Actually there is a thing called too much dice rolling. Especially with all the rerolls. It takes away tons of time. It's not fun rolling like 200 dice to resolve shooting from ONE unit. And that's not exaggeration. Not that long time there was an ork unit where 1/3 of times(well bit more) in average rolled 250 dice or so in one turn. Before opponent rolls for save.
8th ed is GW's slowest edition ever barring maybe rogue trader(haven't played it) in standard game size. And that's precisely because 8th ed has taken dice rolling to ridiculous number.
Dont forget that there is a 6 man infantry unit in Ultramarine lists that fire 108 shots with full rerolls on both hit and wounds. That is 108 + 36 dice rolled just for hitting, 96 + 42 for wounding on t4. And then about 70 armor saves. That is over 300 die rolls for 6 models shooting at an infantry squad. Could probably squeeze in another 20-50 feel no pain rolls there too. My first game of 40k in 7 years and I met that stupid unit on the other side of the table with my 5th edition blood angels. Thought the opponent was joking when he rolled 3 containers worth of dice. Just for 6 guys
To be fair, those are Aggressors, which require a lot of things to go right for them to be effective. Also, that setup you are talking about requires a Captain, so it's actually 2 units. Then it requires a f-ton of points to field that squad. So, yeah. Maybe a good example of going over on dice, but surely any unit taken to extremes will provide extreme examples...
Um no, Centurion Devastators with G-man. Move and shoot without -1 to hit and ignores cover with 36 heavy bolter shots and 72 bolter shots. T5 3W with 2+. Can even add in an apothecary in the list to bring them back to life. They even average 21+ wounds on a t7 tank with 3+/4++ armor save or about 31 marines dead after saves. They dont need much to be effective at all. (You would probably still field G-man anyway and have him close by and they can make up their points against any statline). Lots of points but not like they are ill spent and they are infantry without to hit penalty so they can even hide out of LOS until they step forward and obliterate stuff. Anything that isnt a land raider(t8 2+ 16w) or tougher will be killed just by the amount of dice rolled.
Aggressors can have the same amount of shots for half the price but its true that they are gimmicky. 6-18 inch shorter range and have to stand still with their 18inch range to double tap, no str 5 ap1 shots and no ignores cover. And 1 less wound and worse save.
What's really funny about that is that Centurions are considered to be absurdly overcosted by most players, even with all the rerolls. They're 70 points a pop minimum, a full squad is 410 points. That's more than some Knights iirc.
Martel732 wrote: I can assure you bad units are off the mark by a greater margin than that.
A unit with a 4++ compared to a 3+ save is about 50% more durable and possibly even more than that in important situations with command rerolls on invo saves. To call that a .0005 % difference in power level is a really misrepresenting the facts.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: That can't be right. This thing gets shoot twice for everything it's carrying, and PoTMS? That's asking for a higher cost than 280. What balances out the Russ Shoot twice rule is it's feth awful BS, and on the move it's even worse.
The shoot twice rule only effects the Heavy Laser Destroyer and the Macro Plasma Cannon, only one of which can be on the tank at a time. And we only know for sure that it has that rule in Apocalypse. I'll be surprised if it doesn't have it under normal 40k rules as well, but there's no guarantee at this point.
Some people are complaining about having to roll dice? Get out of here, you are a cynical troll if that's your opinion.
Actually there is a thing called too much dice rolling. Especially with all the rerolls. It takes away tons of time. It's not fun rolling like 200 dice to resolve shooting from ONE unit. And that's not exaggeration. Not that long time there was an ork unit where 1/3 of times(well bit more) in average rolled 250 dice or so in one turn. Before opponent rolls for save.
8th ed is GW's slowest edition ever barring maybe rogue trader(haven't played it) in standard game size. And that's precisely because 8th ed has taken dice rolling to ridiculous number.
Dont forget that there is a 6 man infantry unit in Ultramarine lists that fire 108 shots with full rerolls on both hit and wounds. That is 108 + 36 dice rolled just for hitting, 96 + 42 for wounding on t4. And then about 70 armor saves. That is over 300 die rolls for 6 models shooting at an infantry squad. Could probably squeeze in another 20-50 feel no pain rolls there too. My first game of 40k in 7 years and I met that stupid unit on the other side of the table with my 5th edition blood angels. Thought the opponent was joking when he rolled 3 containers worth of dice. Just for 6 guys
To be fair, those are Aggressors, which require a lot of things to go right for them to be effective. Also, that setup you are talking about requires a Captain, so it's actually 2 units. Then it requires a f-ton of points to field that squad. So, yeah. Maybe a good example of going over on dice, but surely any unit taken to extremes will provide extreme examples...
Um no, Centurion Devastators with G-man. Move and shoot without -1 to hit and ignores cover with 36 heavy bolter shots and 72 bolter shots. T5 3W with 2+. Can even add in an apothecary in the list to bring them back to life. They even average 21+ wounds on a t7 tank with 3+/4++ armor save or about 31 marines dead after saves. They dont need much to be effective at all. (You would probably still field G-man anyway and have him close by and they can make up their points against any statline). Lots of points but not like they are ill spent and they are infantry without to hit penalty so they can even hide out of LOS until they step forward and obliterate stuff. Anything that isnt a land raider(t8 2+ 16w) or tougher will be killed just by the amount of dice rolled.
Aggressors can have the same amount of shots for half the price but its true that they are gimmicky. 6-18 inch shorter range and have to stand still with their 18inch range to double tap, no str 5 ap1 shots and no ignores cover. And 1 less wound and worse save.
What's really funny about that is that Centurions are considered to be absurdly overcosted by most players, even with all the rerolls. They're 70 points a pop minimum, a full squad is 410 points. That's more than some Knights iirc.
Marine weapons are all overcosted...how is a hurricane bolter worth 10 points and a storm bolter 2 points? How is a HB 10 points? Why do marines have no invun saves in a game where practically every other model has them? Marines are supposed to be durable (it is their key attribute).
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: That can't be right. This thing gets shoot twice for everything it's carrying, and PoTMS? That's asking for a higher cost than 280. What balances out the Russ Shoot twice rule is it's feth awful BS, and on the move it's even worse.
This thing is moving 6.9", unloading a ton of nerds, unleashing a lot of fire power, twice, at full BS, with re-rolls likely, for 280? That can't be right. Everything Primaris is got a Primaris tax, so if we use any indicator, the closest is the Land Raider. I expect fully gunned this thing to be over 320.
For the reference to the Stryker, I merely meant the shape, not anything else. Which makes a funny point.
The Stryker was a giant waste of money, didn't work like intended, was way over-costed, and never made it to the hot spots to actually fully replace it's original counterpart, the HMMWV.
The amount of time my unit spent guarding wreckers as they pulled those things out of fish farms....on the bright side they caused a bump in retention, as everyone wanted to go Stryker.
You know that Leman Russes also ignore the move-fire penalty; and if you're using the variety of Leman Russ that isn't bad, it's BS3+. Fire Prisms are also BS3+
I expect the Repulsor Executioner will only fire it's main gun twice.
I think a lot of the hate on Repulsors isn't about power level. It's about two things:
1. They're ugly as all heck.
2. They're a missed opportunity due to their confused design.
That's your opinion. It's not ugly or a missed opportunity.
Do you hate every other Marine vehicle as well? The Repulsor is a good evolution of the Land Raider shape but actually looks like it can function and won't get beached.
Actually I'm a big Primaris fan. I have a large Dark Angel army that is entirely Primaris or Terminators (though the latter don't see the table much at the moment...).
The issue I and many others have with the Repulsor is the haphazard way so many different guns are tacked onto it. It just looks silly to me, like something a child would come up with. The actual hull is a box, but I'm fine with a tank being a box.
Modern battle tanks have similar weapon arrangements. Smoke launchers on turret. Pintle MG. Coaxel MG. They dont have hull mounted weapons but every other tank in 40k has those too. The only thing that is somewhat unconventional is the 3 turret mounted small arms on the sides. That is a lot more like a B29 or something. Hard to see why a storm bolter on the side of something would ruin a model for you though. I think there is something else going on there. Like...The real LR has sponson mounted weapons...
You can't debate me into liking how it looks I'm afraid. I appreciate others will feel differently, but as I say to my eyes it looks silly and ugly - and yes, to me it is a significant step down from the aesthetic of a Land Raider.
Since when are Lehman Russ BS 3+? Are you talking about a Tank Commander? Because I'm looking at my book right now, and it's 4+ BS for regular LRBTs. Are you talking about the Commander?
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Since when are Lehman Russ BS 3+? Are you talking about a Tank Commander? Because I'm looking at my book right now, and it's 4+ BS for regular LRBTs. Are you talking about the Commander?
In general youll never see more than 3 LR on the table anyways. So only commanders are relevent to the discussion. You can however take Cadian LR and focus them on a single target - for 2 CP they will be hitting on 3's along with the rest of your army vs that target.
Xenomancers wrote: Marine weapons are all overcosted...how is a hurricane bolter worth 10 points and a storm bolter 2 points? How is a HB 10 points?
Hurricane Bolter: 6 shots at 24", 12 at 12", S4AP0
Shuriken Cannon: 3 shots at 24", S6 AP0 pseudorend.
Two to *four times* the shots, in exchange for 2 less S, and pseudorend.
The SC outperforms vs:
- T8+ models without invulns.
Hurricane Bolter outperforms vs:
-GEQ -MEQ -TEQ -Light vehicles (Venoms, Piranhas, etc)
-Medium vehicles (Preds, Serpents, etc)
-*anything* within 12"
Doesn't look undercosted.
Storm Bolter: RF2 24" S4 AP0
Avenger SC: A2 18" S4 AP0 Bladestorm
Again, Storm Bolter destroys the ASC vs most targets.
Some people are complaining about having to roll dice? Get out of here, you are a cynical troll if that's your opinion.
Actually there is a thing called too much dice rolling. Especially with all the rerolls. It takes away tons of time. It's not fun rolling like 200 dice to resolve shooting from ONE unit. And that's not exaggeration. Not that long time there was an ork unit where 1/3 of times(well bit more) in average rolled 250 dice or so in one turn. Before opponent rolls for save.
8th ed is GW's slowest edition ever barring maybe rogue trader(haven't played it) in standard game size. And that's precisely because 8th ed has taken dice rolling to ridiculous number.
Dont forget that there is a 6 man infantry unit in Ultramarine lists that fire 108 shots with full rerolls on both hit and wounds. That is 108 + 36 dice rolled just for hitting, 96 + 42 for wounding on t4. And then about 70 armor saves. That is over 300 die rolls for 6 models shooting at an infantry squad. Could probably squeeze in another 20-50 feel no pain rolls there too. My first game of 40k in 7 years and I met that stupid unit on the other side of the table with my 5th edition blood angels. Thought the opponent was joking when he rolled 3 containers worth of dice. Just for 6 guys
To be fair, those are Aggressors, which require a lot of things to go right for them to be effective. Also, that setup you are talking about requires a Captain, so it's actually 2 units. Then it requires a f-ton of points to field that squad. So, yeah. Maybe a good example of going over on dice, but surely any unit taken to extremes will provide extreme examples...
Um no, Centurion Devastators with G-man. Move and shoot without -1 to hit and ignores cover with 36 heavy bolter shots and 72 bolter shots. T5 3W with 2+. Can even add in an apothecary in the list to bring them back to life. They even average 21+ wounds on a t7 tank with 3+/4++ armor save or about 31 marines dead after saves. They dont need much to be effective at all. (You would probably still field G-man anyway and have him close by and they can make up their points against any statline). Lots of points but not like they are ill spent and they are infantry without to hit penalty so they can even hide out of LOS until they step forward and obliterate stuff. Anything that isnt a land raider(t8 2+ 16w) or tougher will be killed just by the amount of dice rolled.
Aggressors can have the same amount of shots for half the price but its true that they are gimmicky. 6-18 inch shorter range and have to stand still with their 18inch range to double tap, no str 5 ap1 shots and no ignores cover. And 1 less wound and worse save.
What's really funny about that is that Centurions are considered to be absurdly overcosted by most players, even with all the rerolls. They're 70 points a pop minimum, a full squad is 410 points. That's more than some Knights iirc.
Find me something that is a Space Marine and isnt overcosted compared to other armies.
But yeah without any rerolls they are quite overcosted. Its like they are priced asuming Gulliman is close to them.
Xenomancers wrote: Marine weapons are all overcosted...how is a hurricane bolter worth 10 points and a storm bolter 2 points? How is a HB 10 points?
Hurricane Bolter: 6 shots at 24", 12 at 12", S4AP0
Shuriken Cannon: 3 shots at 24", S6 AP0 pseudorend.
Two to *four times* the shots, in exchange for 2 less S, and pseudorend.
The SC outperforms vs:
- T8+ models without invulns.
Hurricane Bolter outperforms vs:
-GEQ -MEQ -TEQ -Light vehicles (Venoms, Piranhas, etc)
-Medium vehicles (Preds, Serpents, etc)
-*anything* within 12"
Doesn't look undercosted.
Storm Bolter: RF2 24" S4 AP0
Avenger SC: A2 18" S4 AP0 Bladestorm
Again, Storm Bolter destroys the ASC vs most targets.
Don't forget the SC is assault and practically every unit that uses it can advance and shoot it with no penalty. Mobility is the name of the game. Plus I don't see anyone spamming SC anyways - so I'd consider it is pretty bad to begin with.
Avernger cats should be 0 or 1 point and you know it. Dire avengers are straight trash.
It's easy to tell the HB is overcosted. It has the same firepower as 3 storm bolters and it costs the same as 5 storm bolters. A comparison of trash can't be made any more literally.
Find me something that is a Space Marine and isnt overcosted compared to other armies.
Storm Bolter.
Storm Shield.
Lascannon.
But yeah without any rerolls they are quite overcosted. Its like they are priced asuming Gulliman is close to them.
It feels like almost the entire codex was costed that way.
2 point storm sheild is a joke. Too bad only DW can really utilize it. LC compared to BL is a joke. There is no reason for these weapons to have a different price point. LC should be 20 points. Storm bolters are good - youll see no argument there. Terminators though with 1 storm bolters though? Utter garbage?
25 pt lascannons are very overcosted imo. No one really bothers with the rof 1 stuff where I'm at now, though. I guess lances have the same problem. Everythings just worse because the dood you are putting the lascannon on is also overcosted.
Xenomancers wrote: Marine weapons are all overcosted...how is a hurricane bolter worth 10 points and a storm bolter 2 points? How is a HB 10 points?
Hurricane Bolter: 6 shots at 24", 12 at 12", S4AP0
Shuriken Cannon: 3 shots at 24", S6 AP0 pseudorend.
Two to *four times* the shots, in exchange for 2 less S, and pseudorend.
The SC outperforms vs:
- T8+ models without invulns.
Hurricane Bolter outperforms vs:
-GEQ -MEQ -TEQ -Light vehicles (Venoms, Piranhas, etc)
-Medium vehicles (Preds, Serpents, etc)
-*anything* within 12"
Doesn't look undercosted.
Storm Bolter: RF2 24" S4 AP0
Avenger SC: A2 18" S4 AP0 Bladestorm
Again, Storm Bolter destroys the ASC vs most targets.
Don't forget the SC is assault and practically every unit that uses it can advance and shoot it with no penalty. Mobility is the name of the game.
Can take the SC:
-Serpent - penalty
-Falcon - penalty
-Prism - penalty
-Nightspinner - penalty
-Vyper - penalty
-Skyweaver - penalty
-Starweaver - penalty
-Voidweaver - penalty
-Wraithlord - penalty
-Hornet - penalty
-Wasp - penalty
-War Walker - no penalty
-Guardian Platform - no penalty
-Reaper Exarch - no penalty
-Windrider - no penalty
So, 4 of 15 units off the top of my head that can take it have that rule. Most SCs can't - either by number of options that can or by frequency of platforms they're taken on.
Plus I don't see anyone spamming SC anyways - so I'd consider it is pretty bad to begin with.
I certainly wouldn't say they're bad. They aren't the best thing in the game, but they do work.
Avernger cats should be 0 or 1 point and you know it. Dire avengers are straight trash.
Dire Avengers aren't the best, but they aren't straight trash. ASCs should in no way be 0ppm (unless their cost were absorbed by the unit).
It's easy to tell the HB is overcosted. It has the same firepower as 3 storm bolters and it costs the same as 5 storm bolters. A comparison of trash can't be made any more literally.
Well, if that's the case, lets just quadrouple the cost of a Pulse Rifle for 4x the cost. By this logic, totally fair?
Find me something that is a Space Marine and isnt overcosted compared to other armies.
Storm Bolter.
Storm Shield.
Lascannon.
But yeah without any rerolls they are quite overcosted. Its like they are priced asuming Gulliman is close to them.
It feels like almost the entire codex was costed that way.
2 point storm sheild is a joke. Too bad only DW can really utilize it. LC compared to BL is a joke. There is no reason for these weapons to have a different price point. LC should be 20 points.
S9 48" AP-3 vs S8 36" AP-4? You're trading +1S and 12" range to go from AP-3 to AP-4.
The LC wounds anything T8 on 3s instead of 4s. Huge in a meta where Knights and Russes aren't exactly rare.
The LC can touch anything midfield and half their backfield from the safety of your backfield. The BL needs to be midfield to hit their backfield. 36" vs 48" is a big deal on weapons that can't afford to move.
The BL denies targets with a 3+ the 6+ save the LC would give - provided they have no invuln. Throw in a 6++ or better, and no difference.
In summary, the BL is better for killing:
-Marines in midfield
The LC is better for killing:
-Knights
-Leman Russes
-Land Raiders
-Spears
-Guardsmen
-Anything with less than a 3+
-Anything with a 6++ or better
-Any backfielder
There's no reason a LasCannon should be as cheap as a Brightlance.
Storm bolters are good - youll see no argument there. Terminators though with 1 storm bolters though? Utter garbage?
The shortcomings of Astartes units have little to do with stats or costs and everything to do with a lack of effective stratagems, psychic powers and Warlord traits.
Honestly, the Executioner (and likely the base Repulsor in reto-fix) will probably gain the shoot-twice ability. This would serve two purposes.
1) Make the tank maybe, almost, vaguely worth taking.
2) Put the nail in the coffin of Land Raiders and Predators (which are already in a bad place). That's a desired effect as the marine swap-out continues.
I just had this same go-around with someone else on how the Big Shoota compares to the Heavy Bolter or the Assault Bolter. The BS is a bad weapon at 5 points in an ork army, two similar but unambiguously worse weapons (one is Heavy instead of Assault, the other has half the range) cost twice as much for Marines. Better AP accounts for some of it but definitely not all of it.
What I'm getting at is that you can't compare a Bright Lance to a Lascannon point for point since you're judging their value in the context of different armies. The Stormbolter/Shurken Cannon comparison has the same problem.
The Stormbolter/Hurricane Bolter comparison is apt though since one is literally a triple-linked version of the other.
Elbows wrote: Honestly, the Executioner (and likely the base Repulsor in reto-fix) will probably gain the shoot-twice ability. This would serve two purposes.
1) Make the tank maybe, almost, vaguely worth taking.
2) Put the nail in the coffin of Land Raiders and Predators (which are already in a bad place). That's a desired effect as the marine swap-out continues.
I'd say it's exceedingly likely it'll happen.
Mm I hope you're wrong, kinda.
I want the new tank to shoot twice and sit at what the current repulsor point level. Then I want the current repulsor to be cheaper. I won't give a value that I believe it should be. But I think most of us only believe it's overpriced because of the race to the bottom
But with what has been said, if you're gonna take one leave it on the shelf because you need at least two. Land Raiders make appropriate proxies and I think this Executioner will make things interesting
Elbows wrote: Honestly, the Executioner (and likely the base Repulsor in reto-fix) will probably gain the shoot-twice ability. This would serve two purposes.
1) Make the tank maybe, almost, vaguely worth taking.
2) Put the nail in the coffin of Land Raiders and Predators (which are already in a bad place). That's a desired effect as the marine swap-out continues.
I'd say it's exceedingly likely it'll happen.
Mm I hope you're wrong, kinda.
I want the new tank to shoot twice and sit at what the current repulsor point level. Then I want the current repulsor to be cheaper. I won't give a value that I believe it should be. But I think most of us only believe it's overpriced because of the race to the bottom
But with what has been said, if you're gonna take one leave it on the shelf because you need at least two. Land Raiders make appropriate proxies and I think this Executioner will make things interesting
We just need a variant of repulsive which forgoes the turret.
Elbows wrote: Honestly, the Executioner (and likely the base Repulsor in reto-fix) will probably gain the shoot-twice ability. This would serve two purposes.
1) Make the tank maybe, almost, vaguely worth taking.
2) Put the nail in the coffin of Land Raiders and Predators (which are already in a bad place). That's a desired effect as the marine swap-out continues.
I'd say it's exceedingly likely it'll happen.
Except once again it's not actually fixing the underlying issue that doubel shooting is trying to fix which is simply GW got the wounding chart wrong.
It's simply too flat with far to much access to rerolls, it's the reason why the only repulsor build you see is max shots with Gman.
Marines suck but just throing out more horrendously balanced units with OP abilities to "fix" them just indicates that GW need to go back to the drawing board for 9th.
Elbows wrote: Honestly, the Executioner (and likely the base Repulsor in reto-fix) will probably gain the shoot-twice ability. This would serve two purposes.
1) Make the tank maybe, almost, vaguely worth taking.
2) Put the nail in the coffin of Land Raiders and Predators (which are already in a bad place). That's a desired effect as the marine swap-out continues.
I'd say it's exceedingly likely it'll happen.
Mm I hope you're wrong, kinda.
I want the new tank to shoot twice and sit at what the current repulsor point level. Then I want the current repulsor to be cheaper. I won't give a value that I believe it should be. But I think most of us only believe it's overpriced because of the race to the bottom
But with what has been said, if you're gonna take one leave it on the shelf because you need at least two. Land Raiders make appropriate proxies and I think this Executioner will make things interesting
We just need a variant of repulsive which forgoes the turret.
I can really get behind this provided it's cheaper money wise.
Points wise it'd be around 200, which is fair I think? But it would almost put the repulsor in an awkward middle zone. I'd expect this metal box to come out when gravis melee troops come out and they effectively half its capacity
Ishagu wrote: The shortcomings of Astartes units have little to do with stats or costs and everything to do with a lack of effective stratagems, psychic powers and Warlord traits.
These are things which elevate the armies.
BA are arguably in all three areas and are significantly worse, esp outside of itc. It is all about costs.
Elbows wrote: Honestly, the Executioner (and likely the base Repulsor in reto-fix) will probably gain the shoot-twice ability. This would serve two purposes.
1) Make the tank maybe, almost, vaguely worth taking.
2) Put the nail in the coffin of Land Raiders and Predators (which are already in a bad place). That's a desired effect as the marine swap-out continues.
I'd say it's exceedingly likely it'll happen.
Except once again it's not actually fixing the underlying issue that doubel shooting is trying to fix which is simply GW got the wounding chart wrong.
It's simply too flat with far to much access to rerolls, it's the reason why the only repulsor build you see is max shots with Gman.
Marines suck but just throing out more horrendously balanced units with OP abilities to "fix" them just indicates that GW need to go back to the drawing board for 9th.
I think you're pissing into the wind though. GW doesn't have any interest in balancing the game, only just enough so that model lines sell. We've been over this a bit. GW's goal is not a well balanced, beautifully written game. It's selling miniatures and models. To wit the goal for rules writing is merely to have it suitable enough that it continues miniature sales. What financial benefit do they get out of spending more time/resources making a beautiful game? If anything, the GW sales mentality is "survive 2-3 years...new edition = bonus sales". They'd never admit it, but they know full well the rules only have to be "good enough". That's it.
They'll take feedback from tournament organizers and their little cabal of playtesters because that's easy and cheap. It's feedback to know where the grumbling is coming from. They nerf just enough stuff to hope it keeps people from quitting the game in a rage.
I completely agree they got a couple of the fundamental rules architecture bits totally wrong (vastly over-valuing skill and armour saves vs. number of bodies + number of shots, etc.). When they release a new product they know it needs to be either A) exceptionally cool, or B) have a rules gimmick that promotes people picking it up to try (even if it doesn't make it into major tournament play).
Everyone knows we rarely see Repulsors on the table. They're not terribly good. GW is aware, but likely aware from their cabal and sales numbers. I'd imagine they're not shifting a ton of them. GW knows that a re-turreted Repulsor needs a gimmick to sell. So that'll be its weapons or its abilities/rules.
Well, they are very bad. Which is the polar opposite of bolter porn. So some are doubly disappointed. For those that didnt buy into the gladius gak show, its been a long time in the cold
Last I checked, playing Mono-Vanilla marines I didn't feel too far behind the curve of players rolling Castellans, Shield Captains and Guardsmen Batteries, or Ynnarri/Eldar Souper-soups. And since then, Ynnari took the nerf-bat, Doom took the nerf-bat, Castellans took the nerf-bat, and I got Bolter Discipline and a bunch of point cuts. Imo the outlook looks reasonably good.
Insectum7 wrote: Last I checked, playing Mono-Vanilla marines I didn't feel too far behind the curve of players rolling Castellans, Shield Captains and Guardsmen Batteries, or Ynnarri/Eldar Souper-soups. And since then, Ynnari took the nerf-bat, Doom took the nerf-bat, Castellans took the nerf-bat, and I got Bolter Discipline and a bunch of point cuts. Imo the outlook looks reasonably good.
Insectum7 wrote: Last I checked, playing Mono-Vanilla marines I didn't feel too far behind the curve of players rolling Castellans, Shield Captains and Guardsmen Batteries, or Ynnarri/Eldar Souper-soups. And since then, Ynnari took the nerf-bat, Doom took the nerf-bat, Castellans took the nerf-bat, and I got Bolter Discipline and a bunch of point cuts. Imo the outlook looks reasonably good.
What kind of list do you play ?
Mostly an Old-Marine Power Armor swarm is the basic setup. UM tactics, always with Chapter Master upgrade+Lt. Haven't fully adjusted to the point changes of December. I try to only play with painted models and that slows my build-adjustments. Lots of Plasma Devastators. Sometimes the Relic Banner. I was often taking 4-6 Rhinos or Razors up until I had to stop playing regularly a month or two ago.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote: Let me know your success rate at 6 round events. Ultimately, the data will show if you are correct or not.
Don't care about big tournaments. A: ITC is weird. B: Local gaming experience isn't determined by ITC tourneys.
It will be interesting to see how the tourney data progresses with the recent changes though.
Xenomancers wrote: Marine weapons are all overcosted...how is a hurricane bolter worth 10 points and a storm bolter 2 points? How is a HB 10 points?
Hurricane Bolter: 6 shots at 24", 12 at 12", S4AP0
Shuriken Cannon: 3 shots at 24", S6 AP0 pseudorend.
Two to *four times* the shots, in exchange for 2 less S, and pseudorend.
The SC outperforms vs:
- T8+ models without invulns.
Hurricane Bolter outperforms vs:
-GEQ -MEQ -TEQ -Light vehicles (Venoms, Piranhas, etc)
-Medium vehicles (Preds, Serpents, etc)
-*anything* within 12"
Doesn't look undercosted.
Storm Bolter: RF2 24" S4 AP0
Avenger SC: A2 18" S4 AP0 Bladestorm
Again, Storm Bolter destroys the ASC vs most targets.
Don't forget the SC is assault and practically every unit that uses it can advance and shoot it with no penalty. Mobility is the name of the game.
Can take the SC:
-Serpent - penalty
-Falcon - penalty
-Prism - penalty
-Nightspinner - penalty
-Vyper - penalty
-Skyweaver - penalty
-Starweaver - penalty
-Voidweaver - penalty
-Wraithlord - penalty
-Hornet - penalty
-Wasp - penalty
-War Walker - no penalty
-Guardian Platform - no penalty
-Reaper Exarch - no penalty
-Windrider - no penalty
So, 4 of 15 units off the top of my head that can take it have that rule. Most SCs can't - either by number of options that can or by frequency of platforms they're taken on.
Plus I don't see anyone spamming SC anyways - so I'd consider it is pretty bad to begin with.
I certainly wouldn't say they're bad. They aren't the best thing in the game, but they do work.
Avernger cats should be 0 or 1 point and you know it. Dire avengers are straight trash.
Dire Avengers aren't the best, but they aren't straight trash. ASCs should in no way be 0ppm (unless their cost were absorbed by the unit).
It's easy to tell the HB is overcosted. It has the same firepower as 3 storm bolters and it costs the same as 5 storm bolters. A comparison of trash can't be made any more literally.
Well, if that's the case, lets just quadrouple the cost of a Pulse Rifle for 4x the cost. By this logic, totally fair?
Find me something that is a Space Marine and isnt overcosted compared to other armies.
Storm Bolter.
Storm Shield.
Lascannon.
But yeah without any rerolls they are quite overcosted. Its like they are priced asuming Gulliman is close to them.
It feels like almost the entire codex was costed that way.
2 point storm sheild is a joke. Too bad only DW can really utilize it. LC compared to BL is a joke. There is no reason for these weapons to have a different price point. LC should be 20 points.
S9 48" AP-3 vs S8 36" AP-4? You're trading +1S and 12" range to go from AP-3 to AP-4.
The LC wounds anything T8 on 3s instead of 4s. Huge in a meta where Knights and Russes aren't exactly rare.
The LC can touch anything midfield and half their backfield from the safety of your backfield. The BL needs to be midfield to hit their backfield. 36" vs 48" is a big deal on weapons that can't afford to move.
The BL denies targets with a 3+ the 6+ save the LC would give - provided they have no invuln. Throw in a 6++ or better, and no difference.
In summary, the BL is better for killing:
-Marines in midfield
The LC is better for killing:
-Knights
-Leman Russes
-Land Raiders
-Spears
-Guardsmen
-Anything with less than a 3+
-Anything with a 6++ or better
-Any backfielder
There's no reason a LasCannon should be as cheap as a Brightlance.
Storm bolters are good - youll see no argument there. Terminators though with 1 storm bolters though? Utter garbage?
You bring up a great point. Sometimes a weapons cost is absobed by the model. Sometimes it cost 0 in 1 codex where in others it costs points.This inconsitency makes any discussion about the cost of weapons mute.
Basically the point I was making is that an ASC is not worth what you are paying for it.
AP -4 is equal to +1 str in most situations where an invun save is not relevent. Taking a 6+ to a 7+ is massive. Plus units with 2+ saves in cover. It is essentially a give and take. Plus the range is pretty insignificant. 36" is enough to do the job. Plus since we are incorperating outside influences like invun saves you have to account for the fact doom makes BL wound better than LC. In any case - BL and LC are both in a pretty bad spot right now due to the ionvun save spam that is all over the place. The is also a much bigger list of units that the LC is worse against compared to a bright lance. There is literally no reason a LC or BL should have a different cost. TLLC cost 40 or 20 per...is that breaking the game? NOPE.
Also in regaurds to SC - I said units that use it. The only popular choice that takes SC that doesn't have battle focus is a wave serpant and they can negate the effect by taking a 5 point upgrade (that no one takes because you don't need to advacne when you can move 14" and shoot 24) everyone else takes the much better prices TLSC.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
The Newman wrote: I just had this same go-around with someone else on how the Big Shoota compares to the Heavy Bolter or the Assault Bolter. The BS is a bad weapon at 5 points in an ork army, two similar but unambiguously worse weapons (one is Heavy instead of Assault, the other has half the range) cost twice as much for Marines. Better AP accounts for some of it but definitely not all of it.
What I'm getting at is that you can't compare a Bright Lance to a Lascannon point for point since you're judging their value in the context of different armies. The Stormbolter/Shurken Cannon comparison has the same problem.
The Stormbolter/Hurricane Bolter comparison is apt though since one is literally a triple-linked version of the other.
The issue is that it's probably not going to offer any form of game changing boon to marine armies. Rather just an overcosted form of getting AT for a marine army that is inferior to alternatives and doesn't even have the advantage of the 3/.2 Blood Angel Repulsor/Redemptor bumrush. What marines need is something to give them enough firepower to stop sucking arse and be peer with top armies. Instead they keep getting thrown useless tokens that doesn't take the army anywhere it wasn't already. GW could always break its tend and actually release something new for marines that actually helps them out, but I wouldn't hold your breath over it.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I dunno, if a trio of Repulsors dropped 3 squads of Hellblasters or Aggressors on my front line, I don't know how good my front lines would look after that. Also, that's not even accounting for the Executioner's attacks.
It may not be the new meta breaking ITC boss haxor l33t tactics yo, but it's still a good ability that, if the costs come back positive, will be a good look for Primaris.
Before the flaming starts about how dumb and stupid I am, I would have fun playing this way. Right or wrong, this would be an enjoyable setup for an army.
.
You think this tank Repulsor is still going to be a dedicated transport, or you’re going to have 6+ Heavy Support Options? I’m not going to flame you for optimistically thinking this is going to do what most of us are actually hoping for. But I’m also not going to pretend it’s very likely. It’s being described as more tank than transport. That hints at two things. Less transport capacity, and a slot change to Heavy Support. The 10 capacity of the current Repulsor is already too small, especially as the primary unit one would want to load into one is the Aggressors in double slot Gravis armor.
Add in a move to the Heavy Support role, already extremely crowded, and the new Repulsor has to be even better to not be even worse.
Elbows wrote: Honestly, the Executioner (and likely the base Repulsor in reto-fix) will probably gain the shoot-twice ability. This would serve two purposes.
1) Make the tank maybe, almost, vaguely worth taking.
2) Put the nail in the coffin of Land Raiders and Predators (which are already in a bad place). That's a desired effect as the marine swap-out continues.
I'd say it's exceedingly likely it'll happen.
Except once again it's not actually fixing the underlying issue that doubel shooting is trying to fix which is simply GW got the wounding chart wrong.
It's simply too flat with far to much access to rerolls, it's the reason why the only repulsor build you see is max shots with Gman.
Marines suck but just throing out more horrendously balanced units with OP abilities to "fix" them just indicates that GW need to go back to the drawing board for 9th.
I think you're pissing into the wind though. GW doesn't have any interest in balancing the game, only just enough so that model lines sell. We've been over this a bit. GW's goal is not a well balanced, beautifully written game. It's selling miniatures and models. To wit the goal for rules writing is merely to have it suitable enough that it continues miniature sales. What financial benefit do they get out of spending more time/resources making a beautiful game? If anything, the GW sales mentality is "survive 2-3 years...new edition = bonus sales". They'd never admit it, but they know full well the rules only have to be "good enough". That's it.
They'll take feedback from tournament organizers and their little cabal of playtesters because that's easy and cheap. It's feedback to know where the grumbling is coming from. They nerf just enough stuff to hope it keeps people from quitting the game in a rage.
I completely agree they got a couple of the fundamental rules architecture bits totally wrong (vastly over-valuing skill and armour saves vs. number of bodies + number of shots, etc.). When they release a new product they know it needs to be either A) exceptionally cool, or B) have a rules gimmick that promotes people picking it up to try (even if it doesn't make it into major tournament play).
Everyone knows we rarely see Repulsors on the table. They're not terribly good. GW is aware, but likely aware from their cabal and sales numbers. I'd imagine they're not shifting a ton of them. GW knows that a re-turreted Repulsor needs a gimmick to sell. So that'll be its weapons or its abilities/rules.
It's not about rules...it's about selling minis.
I think you’re missing something as well. They make their money off the rules, not the models. You don’t have to buy a new Tactical squad every time they release a new edition, but you do need a new BRB and codexes. I’ve used the same models, in some cases, for 20 years and 7 editions. The rules rarely sell the models, the sculpts sell the models, I didn’t buy new Terminators because the rules changed in 3rd and they’ve sucked ever since. I bought new Terminators because the sculpt changed and I liked it better enough.
Martel732 wrote: Let me know your success rate at 6 round events.
Why? The number of gamers who actually attend those kind of events is tiny in comparison to the overall 40k gaming population. The vast, vast majority of players couldn't care less how their armies fare at major tournaments. More balance is always a good thing, but in my experience it's simply not the case that everyone's playing top-tier tournament armies all the time. If you obsess over having that kind of army you're ultimately going to be disappointed no matter what unless you're willing to spend a lot of money to keep up as the true top-tier stuff changes all the time due to new Codices and points/FAQ changes.
Martel732 wrote: Let me know your success rate at 6 round events. Ultimately, the data will show if you are correct or not.
I recently (It was actually 6 months ago lol, time flies) took two Repulsors to a 5 round, 100+ player tournament and won 4 games.
As I said, not the very best units but good enough to put up a fight.
I'm not as insecure as you and don't need to only run the most optimum units in order to enjoy the game. Why do you impose limits on yourself that prevent you from experiencing the full range and options of the hobby?
I've recently been running AdMech but I'm looking forward to trying a Tripulsor list at a tournament once this one is released.
Martel732 wrote: Let me know your success rate at 6 round events.
Why? The number of gamers who actually attend those kind of events is tiny in comparison to the overall 40k gaming population. The vast, vast majority of players couldn't care less how their armies fare at major tournaments. More balance is always a good thing, but in my experience it's simply not the case that everyone's playing top-tier tournament armies all the time. If you obsess over having that kind of army you're ultimately going to be disappointed no matter what unless you're willing to spend a lot of money to keep up as the true top-tier stuff changes all the time due to new Codices and points/FAQ changes.
It's a better source of validation than beating up the local yahoos.
fraser1191 wrote: There could be multiple reasons for the repulsor to not gain grinding advance, like not wanting to draw fire from enemies, or maybe not having extra ammo since it's got more crew capacity, etc
Not sure if the point was made, but the Repulsor is a transport. It is not the MBT and it never was. It is a rhino and razorback mix.
Martel732 wrote: Let me know your success rate at 6 round events. Ultimately, the data will show if you are correct or not.
Is that even relevant for 95% of players?
Most players do not play in tournaments. Of those that do play in tournaments most only play one tournament local to them per year - usually an RTT. Of those that go to GTs most are 5 games not 6.
So really you are looking at the number of players who happen to attend a handful of events in the world per year. Miniscule compared to the overall player base.
You may as well ask how well they do in City Fight. I reckon there are a lot more city fight games played in a year worldwide than games played in singles tournaments with 6+ rounds in them.
I am just finishing up my Primaris force. Do I believe it is as hard-hitting as the T'au force I have been playing? No it is not. Do I think I still have a good chance of winning with it in the sort of tournaments I prefer to enter? Yes I do. Does it therefore make the slightest difference in outcome if one is a theoretically a bit more optimal than the other? Only if I am playing badly.
Ohhh. You're calling me out. Marines are bad. Good look at 40kstats.com. It's all right there. Someone else already did all the work on that one, chief.
"things" being terrible marine units, yes. Get a grip.
40kstats is a meta analysis. It tells us nothing about what is in the lists and what they faced. It does not differentiate between new players and experienced. Use it as a guide at your own peril.
You should get some real facts. You are dismissing units you don't own and have never used.
You don't see me lecturing GSC players on how to play because I don't own the models or the army.
How many Repulsors do you have? Show me your Primaris army or stop talking about things you don't know. You can't understand how something can function fully unless you've used it multiple times.
Here's two of mine:
Xenomancers wrote: yeah but lots of times you are wounding on the same number....that's is the point
Far more frequently, you're saving on the same.
Unless you spam Lascannons to kill Marines, you're better off bringing the weapons that wounds the big stuff at +1 over weapons that drop a 3+ to a 7+ instead of a 6+.
Why would you think having your AT kill Marines 16% faster is anywhere near as useful as having your AT kill the big stuff 33% faster?
And if you *are* bringing heavy weapons to kill marines, the Plasma Cannon does it better than the Brightlance by a lot.
As for 36" range vs 48" range, it's kinda a big deal. A 48" weapon can sit in your backfield with good board coverage (if you position right). A 36" range can only touch the midfield unless it moves up to the midfield. And staying in the backfield is very important for weapons that suffer a to-hit penalty on the move and/or aren't that durable. Look at it this way: a backfield unit with Lascannons will be at +1S *and* relative +1BS vs the Brightlance unit going after it (at least for the first round).
Once again, it's a case of "Marine good, Space Elf bad" bias.
I think you're pissing into the wind though. GW doesn't have any interest in balancing the game, only just enough so that model lines sell. We've been over this a bit. GW's goal is not a well balanced, beautifully written game. It's selling miniatures and models. To wit the goal for rules writing is merely to have it suitable enough that it continues miniature sales. What financial benefit do they get out of spending more time/resources making a beautiful game? If anything, the GW sales mentality is "survive 2-3 years...new edition = bonus sales". They'd never admit it, but they know full well the rules only have to be "good enough". That's it.
They'll take feedback from tournament organizers and their little cabal of playtesters because that's easy and cheap. It's feedback to know where the grumbling is coming from. They nerf just enough stuff to hope it keeps people from quitting the game in a rage.
I completely agree they got a couple of the fundamental rules architecture bits totally wrong (vastly over-valuing skill and armour saves vs. number of bodies + number of shots, etc.). When they release a new product they know it needs to be either A) exceptionally cool, or B) have a rules gimmick that promotes people picking it up to try (even if it doesn't make it into major tournament play).
Everyone knows we rarely see Repulsors on the table. They're not terribly good. GW is aware, but likely aware from their cabal and sales numbers. I'd imagine they're not shifting a ton of them. GW knows that a re-turreted Repulsor needs a gimmick to sell. So that'll be its weapons or its abilities/rules.
It's not about rules...it's about selling minis.
While I agree to a point that they won't fully balance the game you're trying to have your cake and eat it too on this one.
It won't be fully balanced, because it's a HUGE game and they keep adding factions and other systems to play in. A unit that is only 5% worse than others is not a bad unit despite attempts to mathhammer it out of existence.
You're tkaing the position that any rules GW adds to this thing is purely for sales and not balance, but if it didn't have those rules it would likely fall flat and need a rules adjustment later on anyway. They're just finally getting it more right on release than wrong instead of having to fix it later.
What financial benefit do they get out of spending more time/resources making a beautiful game?
Gee. I dunno, more sales? Happy customers = more profit?
You're talking about a game that has way too many factions, way too many sub factions, rules spread across 30 different books, FAQ's, Chapter Approved, White Dwarf, and even in BL books. 8th Edition has gone a long way to fixing some of the most glaring issues with the game, however it's not hit critical mass yet. I think a lot of people underestimate the damage the previous CEO did to the company, and massive (in years) lead time on things currently coming out. Heck, a lot of the recent releases were probably planned over 6 years ago, under a different corporate structure with a different philosophy. It takes a massive amount of time to work on something this big, and I am thinking that 9th edition will take the next step towards more balance and army composition.
What financial benefit do they get out of spending more time/resources making a beautiful game?
Gee. I dunno, more sales? Happy customers = more profit?
You're talking about a game that has way too many factions, way too many sub factions, rules spread across 30 different books, FAQ's, Chapter Approved, White Dwarf, and even in BL books. 8th Edition has gone a long way to fixing some of the most glaring issues with the game, however it's not hit critical mass yet. I think a lot of people underestimate the damage the previous CEO did to the company, and massive (in years) lead time on things currently coming out. Heck, a lot of the recent releases were probably planned over 6 years ago, under a different corporate structure with a different philosophy. It takes a massive amount of time to work on something this big, and I am thinking that 9th edition will take the next step towards more balance and army composition.
Yea, i'm actually quite optimistic. If they carry over the damage phase from Apocalypse it could go a long way to eliminating alpha strike concerns.
What financial benefit do they get out of spending more time/resources making a beautiful game?
Gee. I dunno, more sales? Happy customers = more profit?
You're talking about a game that has way too many factions, way too many sub factions, rules spread across 30 different books, FAQ's, Chapter Approved, White Dwarf, and even in BL books. 8th Edition has gone a long way to fixing some of the most glaring issues with the game, however it's not hit critical mass yet. I think a lot of people underestimate the damage the previous CEO did to the company, and massive (in years) lead time on things currently coming out. Heck, a lot of the recent releases were probably planned over 6 years ago, under a different corporate structure with a different philosophy. It takes a massive amount of time to work on something this big, and I am thinking that 9th edition will take the next step towards more balance and army composition.
Yea, i'm actually quite optimistic. If they carry over the damage phase from Apocalypse it could go a long way to eliminating alpha strike concerns.
I wouldn't be at all surprised is both Apoc and KT are test beds for what will eventually be 9th Edition. Charging in the movement phase is brilliant, reactions to being charged, max/min range penalties, move even if charge is failed. Good stuff.
Xenomancers wrote: yeah but lots of times you are wounding on the same number....that's is the point
Far more frequently, you're saving on the same.
Unless you spam Lascannons to kill Marines, you're better off bringing the weapons that wounds the big stuff at +1 over weapons that drop a 3+ to a 7+ instead of a 6+.
Why would you think having your AT kill Marines 16% faster is anywhere near as useful as having your AT kill the big stuff 33% faster?
And if you *are* bringing heavy weapons to kill marines, the Plasma Cannon does it better than the Brightlance by a lot.
As for 36" range vs 48" range, it's kinda a big deal. A 48" weapon can sit in your backfield with good board coverage (if you position right). A 36" range can only touch the midfield unless it moves up to the midfield. And staying in the backfield is very important for weapons that suffer a to-hit penalty on the move and/or aren't that durable. Look at it this way: a backfield unit with Lascannons will be at +1S *and* relative +1BS vs the Brightlance unit going after it (at least for the first round).
Once again, it's a case of "Marine good, Space Elf bad" bias.
That is just not that case. The competitive meta is not representative of all the units in the game you can face. Your average tank is a t7 3+ profile. That profile sucks. So people don't use it. The most common infantry profile is t4 3+ save or less. Bright lance is better against both those profiles. There is literally 0 reason it should cost less than a las cannon.
At the expense of sound dumb, again, I just want to point out that saying things like "The Repulsor isn't the MBT of the Marines" is essentially saying you know what is coming in the future. You very likely don't. There is no fluff around the repulsor, and no fluff around the Predator/Land Raiders. Therefor, this very well could be the MBT and who could dispute it? Just because it's a transport doesn't make it a tank. The armor and weapons make it a tank.
That is just not that case. The competitive meta is not representative of all the units in the game you can face. Your average tank is a t7 3+ profile. That profile sucks. So people don't use it. The most common infantry profile is t4 3+ save or less. Bright lance is better against both those profiles. There is literally 0 reason it should cost less than a las cannon.
The average Knight is T8, and all Leman Russ Chassis are T8, the step fro S8 to 9 for AT weapons is a big one.
Also, if 25 point Lascannons is too rich for you, just take Twin Lascannons. Then they're 20.
Xenomancers wrote: yeah but lots of times you are wounding on the same number....that's is the point
Far more frequently, you're saving on the same.
Unless you spam Lascannons to kill Marines, you're better off bringing the weapons that wounds the big stuff at +1 over weapons that drop a 3+ to a 7+ instead of a 6+.
Why would you think having your AT kill Marines 16% faster is anywhere near as useful as having your AT kill the big stuff 33% faster?
And if you *are* bringing heavy weapons to kill marines, the Plasma Cannon does it better than the Brightlance by a lot.
As for 36" range vs 48" range, it's kinda a big deal. A 48" weapon can sit in your backfield with good board coverage (if you position right). A 36" range can only touch the midfield unless it moves up to the midfield. And staying in the backfield is very important for weapons that suffer a to-hit penalty on the move and/or aren't that durable. Look at it this way: a backfield unit with Lascannons will be at +1S *and* relative +1BS vs the Brightlance unit going after it (at least for the first round).
Once again, it's a case of "Marine good, Space Elf bad" bias.
That is just not that case. The competitive meta is not representative of all the units in the game you can face. Your average tank is a t7 3+ profile. That profile sucks. So people don't use it. The most common infantry profile is t4 3+ save or less. Bright lance is better against both those profiles. There is literally 0 reason it should cost less than a las cannon.
yeah except GW bases their points etc around everythin, not the dozen or so units you only see at a toruny. if a gun has more value against harder targets then yes it has more value, even if those harder targets aren't "in favor with the meta right now"
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: At the expense of sound dumb, again, I just want to point out that saying things like "The Repulsor isn't the MBT of the Marines" is essentially saying you know what is coming in the future. You very likely don't. There is no fluff around the repulsor, and no fluff around the Predator/Land Raiders. Therefor, this very well could be the MBT and who could dispute it? Just because it's a transport doesn't make it a tank. The armor and weapons make it a tank.
What is a razorback then? And more importantly if the Executioner is NOT the MBT then what could you possibly expect to come after it other than a super heavy?
Xenomancers wrote: yeah but lots of times you are wounding on the same number....that's is the point
Far more frequently, you're saving on the same.
Unless you spam Lascannons to kill Marines, you're better off bringing the weapons that wounds the big stuff at +1 over weapons that drop a 3+ to a 7+ instead of a 6+.
Why would you think having your AT kill Marines 16% faster is anywhere near as useful as having your AT kill the big stuff 33% faster?
And if you *are* bringing heavy weapons to kill marines, the Plasma Cannon does it better than the Brightlance by a lot.
As for 36" range vs 48" range, it's kinda a big deal. A 48" weapon can sit in your backfield with good board coverage (if you position right). A 36" range can only touch the midfield unless it moves up to the midfield. And staying in the backfield is very important for weapons that suffer a to-hit penalty on the move and/or aren't that durable. Look at it this way: a backfield unit with Lascannons will be at +1S *and* relative +1BS vs the Brightlance unit going after it (at least for the first round).
Once again, it's a case of "Marine good, Space Elf bad" bias.
That is just not that case. The competitive meta is not representative of all the units in the game you can face. Your average tank is a t7 3+ profile. That profile sucks. So people don't use it. The most common infantry profile is t4 3+ save or less. Bright lance is better against both those profiles. There is literally 0 reason it should cost less than a las cannon.
yeah except GW bases their points etc around everythin, not the dozen or so units you only see at a toruny. if a gun has more value against harder targets then yes it has more value, even if those harder targets aren't "in favor with the meta right now"
More value vs harder targets? The the expense of being weaker vs medium target is a trade off. Trade offs don't require a price spike. ESP when medium targets are more plentiful than hard ones. You are missing the point about the meta. When points are made every unit in the game has to be considered. Not just the 20 units you see in a tournament.
What financial benefit do they get out of spending more time/resources making a beautiful game?
Gee. I dunno, more sales? Happy customers = more profit?
You're talking about a game that has way too many factions, way too many sub factions, rules spread across 30 different books, FAQ's, Chapter Approved, White Dwarf, and even in BL books. 8th Edition has gone a long way to fixing some of the most glaring issues with the game, however it's not hit critical mass yet. I think a lot of people underestimate the damage the previous CEO did to the company, and massive (in years) lead time on things currently coming out. Heck, a lot of the recent releases were probably planned over 6 years ago, under a different corporate structure with a different philosophy. It takes a massive amount of time to work on something this big, and I am thinking that 9th edition will take the next step towards more balance and army composition.
I don' think anyone underestimates the previous CEO's damage to the brand. Also, GW knows its customers plenty well. You guys seem to think I'm making GW out to be dastardly villains sitting in a tower somewhere rubbing their hands greedily....that's not the case, but they are very pragmatic (despite their apparent enthusiasm) about how to make money. They're no different from any other large organization.
I've got close friends who were store managers and even regional managers. GW is a money making business, they're just in it for the fun of the game or the goodness of their hearts, etc.
Honestly, a properly designed game of 40K could actually be beautifully balanced, but that means more structure, more editing, more play-testing, more control, more people, more resources, etc. Even at it's current size, it's very do-able. The benefit does not outweigh the cost of doing so. GW knows they'll sell minis regardless as long as they're not forcing players to rage quit the game. As much as people complain on here, they're still buying minis. Even half of the folks here on Dakka who insist they don't play - do (or are still collecting models, etc.). That's fine.
And GW is absolutely setting rules to help shift away from classic marines to Primaris. That makes sense, and will continue.
Martel732 wrote: The bs 2+ ones. And ven dreads i guess. Which i dont get.
Razorbacks do not provide good utility for their cost. Thats my overall experience playing against them mostly.
Sterling191 wrote: Contemptor mortis dreads rock four lascannons at a BS2+ for 160ish points.
I'd worry that those would be too much of a target, but sure, they seem pretty solid. I'm hesitant to start going the FW route as I dislike updating my army with more than one book. The Contemptor Mortis with Las or Autocannon a cool looking model though, I'll keep it in mind.
I like the Razors for their wounds, HK mount, ability to transport and block LOS. I also like that they're "free" from a force Org standpoint. I have some standard/Ven Dreads that I still got to paint up with all their weapon options, but I'm looking forward to fielding them. Because I have the Chapter Master option I rarely tend to need a BS2+.
Xenomancers wrote: yeah but lots of times you are wounding on the same number....that's is the point
Far more frequently, you're saving on the same.
Unless you spam Lascannons to kill Marines, you're better off bringing the weapons that wounds the big stuff at +1 over weapons that drop a 3+ to a 7+ instead of a 6+.
Why would you think having your AT kill Marines 16% faster is anywhere near as useful as having your AT kill the big stuff 33% faster?
And if you *are* bringing heavy weapons to kill marines, the Plasma Cannon does it better than the Brightlance by a lot.
As for 36" range vs 48" range, it's kinda a big deal. A 48" weapon can sit in your backfield with good board coverage (if you position right). A 36" range can only touch the midfield unless it moves up to the midfield. And staying in the backfield is very important for weapons that suffer a to-hit penalty on the move and/or aren't that durable. Look at it this way: a backfield unit with Lascannons will be at +1S *and* relative +1BS vs the Brightlance unit going after it (at least for the first round).
Once again, it's a case of "Marine good, Space Elf bad" bias.
That is just not that case. The competitive meta is not representative of all the units in the game you can face. Your average tank is a t7 3+ profile. That profile sucks. So people don't use it. The most common infantry profile is t4 3+ save or less. Bright lance is better against both those profiles. There is literally 0 reason it should cost less than a las cannon.
yeah except GW bases their points etc around everythin, not the dozen or so units you only see at a toruny. if a gun has more value against harder targets then yes it has more value, even if those harder targets aren't "in favor with the meta right now"
More value vs harder targets? The the expense of being weaker vs medium target is a trade off. Trade offs don't require a price spike. ESP when medium targets are more plentiful than hard ones. You are missing the point about the meta. When points are made every unit in the game has to be considered. Not just the 20 units you see in a tournament.
The "average" tank may be T7 3+ profile, but the average tank is either T8 or has a 4+ save.
There might be more T7 3+ profile vehicles than T8 vehicles, 4+ save vehicles, *or* Invuln-possesing vehicles individually, but not combined.
In other words, the list of targets you're bringing Brightlances or Lascannons for are more likely to not be T7 3+, as there's a plurality of profiles. For every Pred or Serpent, there's also a Knight or Vyper or Venom or War Walker or Leman Russ or Land Raider or Demon Prince or... the list goes on for days. And the Brightlance loses to the Lascannon for every single one of those targets.
It might *feel* like the T7 3+ profile is the most common, but it is only so by plurality. Other hard targets significantly outnumber them.
As for "The most common infantry profile is t4 3+ save or less", are you seriously arguing that Marines outnumber Guardsmen? Brightlances marginally outperform Lascannons against T4 3+ provided range isn't an issue, but they have absolutely no upside vs anything with a 4+ or any invuln whatsoever. And the units with either a 4+ or some sort of invuln *heavily* outnumber the 3+/no invuln options. In number of entries, frequency of use, or frequency of relevance. So even if you're bringing these weapons to shoot basic infantry (which is dumb), the Lascannon is still the superior weapon.
There is a tradeoff. 5 extra points gives you 33% more damage vs the biggest threats and more range, vs saving 5 points for 16% more damage vs the weaker threats and shorter range. Drop the points from that tradeoff, and the Lascannon is clearly superior.
Martel732 wrote: The bs 2+ ones. And ven dreads i guess. Which i dont get.
Razorbacks do not provide good utility for their cost. Thats my overall experience playing against them mostly.
I keep 1 Tiwnlas Razorback per Long Fangs section in my list [most of the time, since it's a pretty soupy list and I can only Keen Senses+Wolfs Eye 1 squad, that's 1 razorback]
I think it gives good utility. The unit starts inside the tank, along with a Rune Priest in the 6th chair. Turn 1, they bail from the tank into a tower and start shooting, and the Rune Priest either hangs out to grant Cloaked by the Storm, or deploys forward to get stuck in and fighting. Sometimes it loads up a new unit and take both the priest and the other unit forward. It's good for protecting high cost-density units from fire, puts out good fire of its own, provide good mobility, and drop reduction. I wouldn't feel bad about having more razorbacks in my list.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: At the expense of sound dumb, again, I just want to point out that saying things like "The Repulsor isn't the MBT of the Marines" is essentially saying you know what is coming in the future. You very likely don't. There is no fluff around the repulsor, and no fluff around the Predator/Land Raiders. Therefor, this very well could be the MBT and who could dispute it? Just because it's a transport doesn't make it a tank. The armor and weapons make it a tank.
What is a razorback then? And more importantly if the Executioner is NOT the MBT then what could you possibly expect to come after it other than a super heavy?
I apologize, are we arguing the same point? I am saying the Executioner IS the new MBT for the SMs.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: At the expense of sound dumb, again, I just want to point out that saying things like "The Repulsor isn't the MBT of the Marines" is essentially saying you know what is coming in the future. You very likely don't. There is no fluff around the repulsor, and no fluff around the Predator/Land Raiders. Therefor, this very well could be the MBT and who could dispute it? Just because it's a transport doesn't make it a tank. The armor and weapons make it a tank.
What is a razorback then? And more importantly if the Executioner is NOT the MBT then what could you possibly expect to come after it other than a super heavy?
I apologize, are we arguing the same point? I am saying the Executioner IS the new MBT for the SMs.
What financial benefit do they get out of spending more time/resources making a beautiful game?
Gee. I dunno, more sales? Happy customers = more profit?
You're talking about a game that has way too many factions, way too many sub factions, rules spread across 30 different books, FAQ's, Chapter Approved, White Dwarf, and even in BL books. 8th Edition has gone a long way to fixing some of the most glaring issues with the game, however it's not hit critical mass yet. I think a lot of people underestimate the damage the previous CEO did to the company, and massive (in years) lead time on things currently coming out. Heck, a lot of the recent releases were probably planned over 6 years ago, under a different corporate structure with a different philosophy. It takes a massive amount of time to work on something this big, and I am thinking that 9th edition will take the next step towards more balance and army composition.
Yea, i'm actually quite optimistic. If they carry over the damage phase from Apocalypse it could go a long way to eliminating alpha strike concerns.
I wouldn't be at all surprised is both Apoc and KT are test beds for what will eventually be 9th Edition. Charging in the movement phase is brilliant, reactions to being charged, max/min range penalties, move even if charge is failed. Good stuff.
Your assuming that they won't actually just finally admit that 40k doesn't work across the scales and split up the game into sub games. And 9th edition will be apoc and kill team only.
Martel732 wrote: The bs 2+ ones. And ven dreads i guess. Which i dont get.
Razorbacks do not provide good utility for their cost. Thats my overall experience playing against them mostly.
Sterling191 wrote: Contemptor mortis dreads rock four lascannons at a BS2+ for 160ish points.
I'd worry that those would be too much of a target, but sure, they seem pretty solid. I'm hesitant to start going the FW route as I dislike updating my army with more than one book. The Contemptor Mortis with Las or Autocannon a cool looking model though, I'll keep it in mind.
I like the Razors for their wounds, HK mount, ability to transport and block LOS. I also like that they're "free" from a force Org standpoint. I have some standard/Ven Dreads that I still got to paint up with all their weapon options, but I'm looking forward to fielding them. Because I have the Chapter Master option I rarely tend to need a BS2+.
98% is better than 89%. Especially with as many logic gates in 40k.
Martel732 wrote: The bs 2+ ones. And ven dreads i guess. Which i dont get.
Razorbacks do not provide good utility for their cost. Thats my overall experience playing against them mostly.
I keep 1 Tiwnlas Razorback per Long Fangs section in my list [most of the time, since it's a pretty soupy list and I can only Keen Senses+Wolfs Eye 1 squad, that's 1 razorback]
I think it gives good utility. The unit starts inside the tank, along with a Rune Priest in the 6th chair. Turn 1, they bail from the tank into a tower and start shooting, and the Rune Priest either hangs out to grant Cloaked by the Storm, or deploys forward to get stuck in and fighting. Sometimes it loads up a new unit and take both the priest and the other unit forward. It's good for protecting high cost-density units from fire, puts out good fire of its own, provide good mobility, and drop reduction. I wouldn't feel bad about having more razorbacks in my list.
The rest of us dont get to play with long fangs. Changes the picture. For 110 pts, you dont get much compared to xenos or ig.
Martel732 wrote: The 2+ stands up better vs neg to hit as well. FW dreads are what the rest of marine vehicles could be.
Locally, they tend to be big fat targets for Castellans, etc. This is why I usually don't take expensive vehicles. Although the Contemptor probably hides better than the Leviathan.
Martel732 wrote: The 2+ stands up better vs neg to hit as well. FW dreads are what the rest of marine vehicles could be.
Locally, they tend to be big fat targets for Castellans, etc. This is why I usually don't take expensive vehicles. Although the Contemptor probably hides better than the Leviathan.
They have 5++ and 4++ saves, Which is a chance for them to say...nope.
At LVO I played with a castellan vs Relic contemptors. Put 4 wounds on a contemptor with relic plasma. Makes 3 5++ out of 4. Obviously lucky. But dude would get 0 saves on a razorback and would have been automatically destroyed. Just having the chance to survive is huge. Even if it is a 6++ save. It is a chance to turn d6 damage into 0 damage.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote: Lances have less range and get boned by invulns even worse. There is a low rof weapon problem, not a lance vs lascannon problem.
Yeah - 1 shot weapons are bad period. But these 2 weapons are equal value. I've even seen it debated that rockets are better pointed than lascannons. Rockets are a bright lance with -2 AP instead of -4 LOL (they cost the same). It's really getting bonkers in here. It's like you guys have never played marines and got hit with AP-4 on basically every weapon and you get 0 save. Then you shoot a lascannon at a fireprism and they make a 6+....Dude...trust me. The weapons are of equal value.
^True, although I tend towards the direction of 'more targets last longer'. I'm not saying it's necessarily better, it's just a reasonably viable alternative in my experience. Like, if I take Razors I take 4-6 of them.
If the Contemptor Mortis really packs a BS 2+, 4 Lascannons and a 5++ for 160ish, that seems like a unit I might use.
Well if we get a double shooting Plasma Destructor with POTMS and a billion other weapons....It will be a top teir option for marine armor if it's pointed around the same cost as the current repulsor. The cool thing about that plasma weapon is it doesn't destroy you if you roll a 1. It just does 1 wound. It will be best as DA most likely though. with a -1 to hit blanket on it and I believe it will be able to use weapons of the dark age on it as well.
Martel732 wrote: Yeah, marines are really leaning on fwatm. My 5th ed self is in the corner vomiting.
I struggle to think of a time when I've even used FW.
Here's the thing about the Contemptor Mortis, which appears closer to 170. It's 10W. While it COULD save a few incoming Lascannon shots with it's 5++, 3 solid Lascannon hits could also knock it out immediately (technically 2 could, but the chances of that are slim). I don't feel I can 'lean' on something like that, especially if I have a deployment that doesn't allow me some good place to hide it. 2 Razorbacks gives me double the wounds, on two different targets. And I can have a 5+ save vs. AP-3 just by using the Cover Strat. I'm also less likely to hide them, because they're bigger and I'd feel less precious about them, which oddly makes them more accurate when I don't have to move them to fire at a good target.
Lot's of FW stuff has solid stats, but rarely do I see them drastically outperforming codex choices in most cases.
Insectum7 wrote: ^True, although I tend towards the direction of 'more targets last longer'. I'm not saying it's necessarily better, it's just a reasonably viable alternative in my experience. Like, if I take Razors I take 4-6 of them.
If the Contemptor Mortis really packs a BS 2+, 4 Lascannons and a 5++ for 160ish, that seems like a unit I might use.
An ideal dreadnought spam list involves 3 Contemptor Mortis Dreadnoughts with lascannons and 3 Venerable Dreadnoughts with missile launchers and lascannons. It packs quite a nasty punch when facing lists with heavy amounts of armor.
Insectum7 wrote: ^True, although I tend towards the direction of 'more targets last longer'. I'm not saying it's necessarily better, it's just a reasonably viable alternative in my experience. Like, if I take Razors I take 4-6 of them.
If the Contemptor Mortis really packs a BS 2+, 4 Lascannons and a 5++ for 160ish, that seems like a unit I might use.
An ideal dreadnought spam list involves 3 Contemptor Mortis Dreadnoughts with lascannons and 3 Venerable Dreadnoughts with missile launchers and lascannons. It packs quite a nasty punch when facing lists with heavy amounts of armor.
That just doesn't seem like a very smart list for longevity, though.
Insectum7 wrote: ^True, although I tend towards the direction of 'more targets last longer'. I'm not saying it's necessarily better, it's just a reasonably viable alternative in my experience. Like, if I take Razors I take 4-6 of them.
If the Contemptor Mortis really packs a BS 2+, 4 Lascannons and a 5++ for 160ish, that seems like a unit I might use.
An ideal dreadnought spam list involves 3 Contemptor Mortis Dreadnoughts with lascannons and 3 Venerable Dreadnoughts with missile launchers and lascannons. It packs quite a nasty punch when facing lists with heavy amounts of armor.
That just doesn't seem like a very smart list for longevity, though.
The key is also playing with enough cover that alpha striking is impossible. Ideally little to nothing should be able to shoot over the entire board clearly without cover saves getting involved.
I don't know the exact cost of the Contemptor, but looking at CA it appears to be 88 base, plus two twin Lascannons for 168 total. The two Lazorbacks are 232, for a difference of 64 points. It's true they are more expensive in total.
Advantages for the Razors that matter to me.
A: double the wounds
B: More guns for the Alpha strike
C: can carry guys, synergyzing well with my "lots of power armor" armies. Good for missions where you're looking for fewer drops.
D: can block LOS for my guys, which is something I wind up doing a bunch.
E: Faster speed for the occasions when I want to pre-empt a charge, which is also something I do fairly often.
Advantage Contemptor
A: Higher base BS B: 5++
C: Easier to hide
D: Lower cost.
E: Chapter Tactics
I think that's a fair breakdown. IMO, the Contemptor is better for certain uses. But also, imo, the Razors are better in other uses. Therefore, I don't see the Contemptor as being a "hands-down-better" option. It's a competing option for the AT role, which might work better for your army context, but is not necessarily better in every army/context. Neither appear to be bad choices, and seem pretty balanced. Personally, I don't like to give my opponent the opportunity for a 'fluke'. To me the Contemptor is 'fluke-able', because a couple solid hits can take it out because it only has 10 wounds. But that's just my personal preference in army building/play style.
The key is also playing with enough cover that alpha striking is impossible. Ideally little to nothing should be able to shoot over the entire board clearly without cover saves getting involved.
Insectum7 wrote: ^True, although I tend towards the direction of 'more targets last longer'. I'm not saying it's necessarily better, it's just a reasonably viable alternative in my experience. Like, if I take Razors I take 4-6 of them.
If the Contemptor Mortis really packs a BS 2+, 4 Lascannons and a 5++ for 160ish, that seems like a unit I might use.
An ideal dreadnought spam list involves 3 Contemptor Mortis Dreadnoughts with lascannons and 3 Venerable Dreadnoughts with missile launchers and lascannons. It packs quite a nasty punch when facing lists with heavy amounts of armor.
That just doesn't seem like a very smart list for longevity, though.
The key is also playing with enough cover that alpha striking is impossible. Ideally little to nothing should be able to shoot over the entire board clearly without cover saves getting involved.
Thats not remotely a reliable plan. It cant be the "key". If your army needs to turn off enemy shooting for free, that means your units are too fragile. The good lists can win on bowling ball.
I don't know the exact cost of the Contemptor, but looking at CA it appears to be 88 base, plus two twin Lascannons for 168 total. The two Lazorbacks are 232, for a difference of 64 points. It's true they are more expensive in total.
Advantages for the Razors that matter to me.
A: double the wounds
B: More guns for the Alpha strike
C: can carry guys, synergyzing well with my "lots of power armor" armies. Good for missions where you're looking for fewer drops.
D: can block LOS for my guys, which is something I wind up doing a bunch.
E: Faster speed for the occasions when I want to pre-empt a charge, which is also something I do fairly often.
The Contemptor has two twin Lascannons, so same firepower (discounting two Storm Bolters because come on). The 64 points also almost gets you a Rhino, which can also carry people and equalizes the wounds and can do all that other stuff the Razorbacks can, except it's not sacrificing damage output for doing so.
Dude pretty much if I played a game and brought 3-4 of these guys. The firepower would be okay. But After turn 2. I likely wouldn't be shooting any of them again. They will ether be locked in CC - or dead. They also don't contribute to CP.
I see no reason to ever bring a Razor over a dread with a twin las in literally any situation. Then again. I don't bring a single tac or dev in my list EVER. Even though I have over 120 tactical marines with assorted weapons.
This new tank though - if it can put out essentially 6 lascannons for around 280 points and still move 5 inches. Plus all its supporting dakka. It will probably take over that roll.
Dude pretty much if I played a game and brought 3-4 of these guys. The firepower would be okay. But After turn 2. I likely wouldn't be shooting any of them again. They will ether be locked in CC - or dead. They also don't contribute to CP.
Yeah well, it's not like the Dreds are particularly tougher. They'd die just as easy. Imo easier point for point in most cases.
That's not a terrible profile, but still very weak vs invuln. Sure will be great at bullying around other marines. Maybe -2 AP ignores invulns would have been better.
The rest of us dont get to play with long fangs. Changes the picture. For 110 pts, you dont get much compared to xenos or ig.
A Razorback with twinlas or twin assault cannons is pretty damn solid compared to a Chimera or Taurox. The Chimera is absolutely terrible; without even confronting the problem of what should ride in it. Even unloaded though, a Razorback is a pretty adequate tank. I really like, and am generally really happy with, the performance of my Razorbacks, Rhinos, and Immolators [which are Razorbacks by another name].
I havent seen a chimera or taurox all edition. I have seen russes, commander russes, manticores, basilisks, wyvern, and hellhounds. All of which are far superior to a razorback. Slots dont matter in 8th as much as what you can get for your point. Compared to ig, marines get damn little.
Martel732 wrote: None of the marine equipment has the brutal efficiency necessary in 8th, unfortunately. No plague crawler, no ravager, no wave serpent.
translation: GW hasn't massivly undercosted something for marines in 8th so they can't spam their way to victory
Dude pretty much if I played a game and brought 3-4 of these guys. The firepower would be okay. But After turn 2. I likely wouldn't be shooting any of them again. They will ether be locked in CC - or dead. They also don't contribute to CP.
Yeah well, it's not like the Dreds are particularly tougher. They'd die just as easy. Imo easier point for point in most cases.
I think what you get from the dreads are: Chapter Tactic, so either rerolls one failed hit and wound, get -1 to hit protection, or fall back and shoot. Plus, the Ven Dread can reposition itself and still hit on 3s, and have a 6+++. It is well worth the ~20pts over a Razorback with twin las and HK.
Insectum7 wrote: ^Maybe. I'm building out for 3 Dreds so I get to choose or mix and match.
Honestly I'm more inclined to go normal Dred with the same loadout. The 20 point upgrade for BS2+ and a 6+++ seems steep.
No it's completely worth it as it enables marching fire. The issue with 3+ BS is that, unless your board is devoid of terrain, it's shooting at a 4+ most of the time. Venerables and Contemptors are good specifically because they can be aggressive and remain lethal.
I think we are missing a key part of what has happened in 8th. There was a fundamental and critical change to how 8th worked, about half way through.
They changed how Deep Strikes work. Right there you invalidated half the units, tactics, and strategies in the game. Drop pods are now worthless, as are Terminators. A lot of Space Marine units took a massive nerf on that day.
Whats worse, up to that point, a lot of the armies had been designed to compete with those abilities in mind. Grey knights, assault armies, etc. So then GW started building NEW armies with this new direction, and never changed their now fundamentally flawed armies.
This new Exectutioner is an attempt, I think, to fix that. Giving the SMs a hard hitting heavy armor answer to a lot of the meta out there currently.
So with the ability to fire twice we effectively are looking at 2d6 for the plasma and 4 for the cannon. Plasma of course has the on average advantage of 7 shots compared to 4, but of course there is that variability of going lower or higher along with vulnerability to negative to hit penalties in the form of hurting yourself if you overcharge (which if you are using it for anti heavy you will be).
In raw damage I'd say the laser would win out due to being reliable. You can always count on four damaging shots that do a minimum three damage. You can put it in your list and know it will do it's job. The plasma on the other hand is more variable. You can't count on it to do it's anti tank job because you have no idea what the 2d6 will be, but it has the on average advantage of superior rate of fire which is huge plus when you run into negative to hit you will be seriously nerfed where as the laser just chugs along. Though points to the plasma for being an overall more versatile weapon overall as with it's rate of fire and damage output it's not BAD at taking out infantry.
I'm definitely going to get it. Been waiting for a dedicated gun platform for my Space Wolves that slots nicely in between a Predator and a Questoris Knight since I started playing them. Will be a very nice Distraction Carnifex for my Razorbacks while they carry Blood Claws (of the Stalker Pack get-5-ThunderHammer-attacks-if-you-play-it-right variety) up the field. Love the design of the Skorpius as well, almost a pity I don't play AdMech
godardc wrote: I got this piece of info about the repulsor, don't know if it's true but he implied it is:
72" / heavy 2 / S10 / AP-4 / Damage D6 (minimum 3)
Can shoot twice if it didn't move or only half of its movement value.
315 pts
I guess we will soon know
Confirmed. Two of these plus captain and lt are in Castellan range.
8 * .777 * .777 * .5 * 4 = 9.7 damage to any 4++
A Raven volcano can put almost 13 on to a Repulsor, so these will still limp behind the Castellan, but not terrible overall.
The question is, Does that 315 pint price mark include any of the weapons? if it does, that feels mighty cheap IMO...
You still only have T8 W16 3+ without any sort of invul or FNP though, which is kinda flimsy for 315 points. Especially considering that for about 450 you have a Baneblade or Questoris Knight. I agree it sounds cheap, but in the current 40k landscape it really isn't.
Cost differential between the two main guns is gonna play into things. Macro-plas clocks in at 31 points (if it keeps the Redemptor pricing). I seriously doubt the Laser option is that cheap.
Sterling191 wrote: Cost differential between the two main guns is gonna play into things. Macro-plas clocks in at 31 points (if it keeps the Redemptor pricing). I seriously doubt the Laser option is that cheap.
Better not be. It's a turbo-Twin Lascannon, so I'm guessing minimum 50-60 pts.
Edit: Looking at the 72" range I'm betting at least 60.
Sterling191 wrote: Cost differential between the two main guns is gonna play into things. Macro-plas clocks in at 31 points (if it keeps the Redemptor pricing). I seriously doubt the Laser option is that cheap.
Better not be. It's a turbo-Twin Lascannon, so I'm guessing minimum 50-60 pts.
godardc wrote: I got this piece of info about the repulsor, don't know if it's true but he implied it is:
72" / heavy 2 / S10 / AP-4 / Damage D6 (minimum 3)
Can shoot twice if it didn't move or only half of its movement value.
315 pts
I guess we will soon know
Confirmed. Two of these plus captain and lt are in Castellan range.
8 * .777 * .777 * .5 * 4 = 9.7 damage to any 4++
A Raven volcano can put almost 13 on to a Repulsor, so these will still limp behind the Castellan, but not terrible overall.
The question is, Does that 315 pint price mark include any of the weapons? if it does, that feels mighty cheap IMO...
Well we've seen a few things already assuming the following...
185 for chassis
30 for heavy onslaught
17 for twin heavy bolter
12? for the back twin stubber
8 for krakstorm
6 for pintle heavy stubber
4 for two storm bolters
0 for auto launchers
Base 262 for the unit, with the macro plasma as 31 bringing that to 293. Rumour of 315 makes the laser destroyer 50+ points. The closest comparison is the neutron laser at 48" with 1D3 shots and a stubber for 47 points. I think that kind of fits.
Well we've seen a few things already assuming the following...
185 for chassis
30 for heavy onslaught
17 for twin heavy bolter
12? for the back twin stubber
8 for krakstorm
6 for pintle heavy stubber
4 for two storm bolters
0 for auto launchers
Base 262 for the unit, with the macro plasma as 31 bringing that to 293. Rumour of 315 makes the laser destroyer 50+ points. The closest comparison is the neutron laser at 48" with 1D3 shots and a stubber for 47 points. I think that kind of fits.
I'd asterisk the chassis price point. Executioner doesnt have the same transport capacity, and should (I know, I know, applying logic to GW at my own peril) be somewhat less expensive as a result.
Well we've seen a few things already assuming the following...
185 for chassis
30 for heavy onslaught
17 for twin heavy bolter
12? for the back twin stubber
8 for krakstorm
6 for pintle heavy stubber
4 for two storm bolters
0 for auto launchers
Base 262 for the unit, with the macro plasma as 31 bringing that to 293. Rumour of 315 makes the laser destroyer 50+ points. The closest comparison is the neutron laser at 48" with 1D3 shots and a stubber for 47 points. I think that kind of fits.
I'd asterisk the chassis price point. Executioner doesnt have the same transport capacity, and should (I know, I know, applying logic to GW at my own peril) be somewhat less expensive as a result.
Land Raider and Crusader have the same hull price, even though they have different transport capacity. Same with Rhinos and Razorbacks.
godardc wrote: I got this piece of info about the repulsor, don't know if it's true but he implied it is:
72" / heavy 2 / S10 / AP-4 / Damage D6 (minimum 3)
Can shoot twice if it didn't move or only half of its movement value.
315 pts
I guess we will soon know
That's basically a Neutron Laser with an extra two feet of range. One of my regular opponents plays AdMech and that gun is awful to have shooting at your stuff, the minimum 3 damage is really good.
I really wish that at least with this version we can leave most of the grenade launchers and other extra weapons off. They serve even less purpose than on the standard Repulsor.
What is the point of a 70+" shot on a unit that transports troops CLOSER to the battle?
What good is a transport that hangs back at range?
I would fall in love with this if they mounted a Inferno Cannon and you could replace the HBs with Heavy Flamers.
Get that vehicle up close, drop troops, and unleash a ton of D6 auto-hitting shots, with good AP. Then this thing becomes instantly auto-take. It's great for obliterating chaff, and it can even somehow threaten heavy armor.
Seriously, what purpose would you have to keep this thing on the opposite ends of the board?
For that matter, who has ever played on a board larger than 6'? The rules state the board has to be 4'x6'. And you deploy on the long sides. Who here is taking a 72" shot? Outside of indirect fires, or extreme situations, is there a reason to have a direct fire gun that ranges beyond that?
What is the purpose of the Volcano Cannon's 120" range? Or the Death Strike's 400.
What is the point of a 70+" shot on a unit that transports troops CLOSER to the battle?
What good is a transport that hangs back at range?
I would fall in love with this if they mounted a Inferno Cannon and you could replace the HBs with Heavy Flamers.
Get that vehicle up close, drop troops, and unleash a ton of D6 auto-hitting shots, with good AP. Then this thing becomes instantly auto-take. It's great for obliterating chaff, and it can even somehow threaten heavy armor.
It's a nice way to keep stuff like Hellblasters or Aggressors safe if you lose 1st turn, but otherwise it's pretty superficial yes.
What is the point of a 70+" shot on a unit that transports troops CLOSER to the battle?
What good is a transport that hangs back at range?
I dunno, ask Israel? (Merkava) Or the Land Raider.
Theoretically, to achieve land superiority before delivering troops to the objective.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Seriously, what purpose would you have to keep this thing on the opposite ends of the board?
For that matter, who has ever played on a board larger than 6'? The rules state the board has to be 4'x6'. And you deploy on the long sides. Who here is taking a 72" shot? Outside of indirect fires, or extreme situations, is there a reason to have a direct fire gun that ranges beyond that?
What is the purpose of the Volcano Cannon's 120" range? Or the Death Strike's 400.
I've definitely played on larger boards. But even on regular 6x4s I've often required range greater than 48".
Plenty of people play on tables larger than 6' as well. The standard in the US back in the 90's was actually 8'x4' - because that's the standard size of a sheet of plywood....which was 90% of gaming surfaces. A sheet of plywood, some framing and a couple rolls of model railroad grass sheeting.
Apocalypse style games (even played without the new apocalypse rules) would almost always be played on a gaming surface larger than 6'x4'. My group routinely plays on a 6'x'5' even for normal games.
With regard to the transport capacity, I agree it's a bit silly game-wise (as is the Land Raider), but it makes sense in-universe. Now competitive players won't care, but perhaps - just perhaps there is simple fluff reasoning that these tanks carry mounted infantry. Doesn't need to play out on the table to be a function of the vehicle.
Well we've seen a few things already assuming the following...
185 for chassis
30 for heavy onslaught
17 for twin heavy bolter
12? for the back twin stubber
8 for krakstorm
6 for pintle heavy stubber
4 for two storm bolters
0 for auto launchers
Base 262 for the unit, with the macro plasma as 31 bringing that to 293. Rumour of 315 makes the laser destroyer 50+ points. The closest comparison is the neutron laser at 48" with 1D3 shots and a stubber for 47 points. I think that kind of fits.
I'd asterisk the chassis price point. Executioner doesnt have the same transport capacity, and should (I know, I know, applying logic to GW at my own peril) be somewhat less expensive as a result.
That's never happened before in Astartes vehicles, but I think the double shoot main turret option is a fair trade off.
All my argument is here is that 315 for that isn't at all out of the question and could be accurate.
What is the point of a 70+" shot on a unit that transports troops CLOSER to the battle?
What good is a transport that hangs back at range?
I would fall in love with this if they mounted a Inferno Cannon and you could replace the HBs with Heavy Flamers.
Get that vehicle up close, drop troops, and unleash a ton of D6 auto-hitting shots, with good AP. Then this thing becomes instantly auto-take. It's great for obliterating chaff, and it can even somehow threaten heavy armor.
Stop thinking of this as a transport with an MBT weapon and more as an MBT with bonus transport capability. You don't have to use it, but protection a backline unit is an option here.
Since no Astartes vehicle appears to cost substantially different in points due to transport capacity, I think this myth should hopefully die. Think of it as a bonus not a purpose.
Also, keep in mind this unit was originally showcased this week in an Apocalypse article. 72" is pretty relevant there. Hell, it's pretty relevant on any table above the "standard", which can and does happen when the game has three ways to play.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Seriously, what purpose would you have to keep this thing on the opposite ends of the board?
For that matter, who has ever played on a board larger than 6'? The rules state the board has to be 4'x6'. And you deploy on the long sides. Who here is taking a 72" shot? Outside of indirect fires, or extreme situations, is there a reason to have a direct fire gun that ranges beyond that?
What is the purpose of the Volcano Cannon's 120" range? Or the Death Strike's 400.
Technically, the recommended board size for a 2001+ game is 4'x8'. I don't know anyone who owns a table that big, though. I have played a bunch of games on a ping-pong table, though, which are bigger than 4'x6'.
As for absurd range weapons [like the Deathstrike's formerly infinite range], I have played games where the board is larger than the range of a Shadowsword. Usually, these are played on the floor.
What is the point of a 70+" shot on a unit that transports troops CLOSER to the battle?
What good is a transport that hangs back at range?
I dunno, ask Israel? (Merkava) Or the Land Raider.
Theoretically, to achieve land superiority before delivering troops to the objective.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Seriously, what purpose would you have to keep this thing on the opposite ends of the board?
For that matter, who has ever played on a board larger than 6'? The rules state the board has to be 4'x6'. And you deploy on the long sides. Who here is taking a 72" shot? Outside of indirect fires, or extreme situations, is there a reason to have a direct fire gun that ranges beyond that?
What is the purpose of the Volcano Cannon's 120" range? Or the Death Strike's 400.
I've definitely played on larger boards. But even on regular 6x4s I've often required range greater than 48".
Land superiority comes AFTER Air superiority, which is like one of the top three rules at the War College for the US Army. You Take the skies, then you send in tanks. According to standard '00s doctrine of take and hold, Infantry are a final measure used only in coordination with air superiority (Fixed wing or other), almost never without. Hence why even 10th MN now has attached Rotary Wing squadrons.
So getting back to the world of imagination, where plants become sentient Cockneys with 1930's era weaponry, and Space turns men into demons;
what in the current edition, standard game set, would the point of a 72" gun on a transport be? I have heard melee screen, which is odd, because this particular vehicle has the fly keyword I think(?) and can fallback over troops, and still shoot.
I think it's to make these threatening wherever they are on a standard sized board. If we go forward with that assumption, then it logically follows that they want a transport to be a potential tank hunter. But that is invalidated by the fact that it's only got 2 shots at that range, unless it doesn't move, in which case 4. So therein lays the confusion.
What method's would you use this? Would you:
advance, loose the shooting phase, and drop troops, hoping it survives to shoot next turn,
move under half, drop troops, shoot twice, and have intercessors miss the charge phase,
or
move full, drop troops, shoot once, (Maybe charge?)
I don't get the idea behind it's biggest gun. It's just counter to it's overall purpose. Unless the purpose is dedicated tank hunter, in which case WHY IS IT TRANSPORT?
What is the point of a 70+" shot on a unit that transports troops CLOSER to the battle?
What good is a transport that hangs back at range?
I dunno, ask Israel? (Merkava) Or the Land Raider.
Theoretically, to achieve land superiority before delivering troops to the objective.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Seriously, what purpose would you have to keep this thing on the opposite ends of the board?
For that matter, who has ever played on a board larger than 6'? The rules state the board has to be 4'x6'. And you deploy on the long sides. Who here is taking a 72" shot? Outside of indirect fires, or extreme situations, is there a reason to have a direct fire gun that ranges beyond that?
What is the purpose of the Volcano Cannon's 120" range? Or the Death Strike's 400.
I've definitely played on larger boards. But even on regular 6x4s I've often required range greater than 48".
Land superiority comes AFTER Air superiority, which is like one of the top three rules at the War College for the US Army. You Take the skies, then you send in tanks. According to standard '00s doctrine of take and hold, Infantry are a final measure used only in coordination with air superiority (Fixed wing or other), almost never without. Hence why even 10th MN now has attached Rotary Wing squadrons.
So getting back to the world of imagination, where plants become sentient Cockneys with 1930's era weaponry, and Space turns men into demons;
what in the current edition, standard game set, would the point of a 72" gun on a transport be? I have heard melee screen, which is odd, because this particular vehicle has the fly keyword I think(?) and can fallback over troops, and still shoot.
I think it's to make these threatening wherever they are on a standard sized board. If we go forward with that assumption, then it logically follows that they want a transport to be a potential tank hunter. But that is invalidated by the fact that it's only got 2 shots at that range, unless it doesn't move, in which case 4. So therein lays the confusion.
What method's would you use this? Would you:
advance, loose the shooting phase, and drop troops, hoping it survives to shoot next turn,
move under half, drop troops, shoot twice, and have intercessors miss the charge phase,
or
move full, drop troops, shoot once, (Maybe charge?)
I don't get the idea behind it's biggest gun. It's just counter to it's overall purpose. Unless the purpose is dedicated tank hunter, in which case WHY IS IT TRANSPORT?
Just because you can fall back with the fly keyword doesn't mean you should get in combat to begin with
Martel732 wrote: Lances have less range and get boned by invulns even worse. There is a low rof weapon problem, not a lance vs lascannon problem.
Yeah - 1 shot weapons are bad period. But these 2 weapons are equal value. I've even seen it debated that rockets are better pointed than lascannons. Rockets are a bright lance with -2 AP instead of -4 LOL (they cost the same).
So your argument is that MLs are better pointed than a Lascannon - which depends on -3AP vs -2AP and +1S is less of a benefit over the Krak option? While arguing that -4AP vs -3AP is more beneficial than 48" range and +1S?
What makes going from -2AP to -3AP worth so much less than going from -3AP to -4AP? I can't think of a single upside. In every case I've seen, there's a lot more value on the other end of the scale - going from 0AP to -1AP being the best step.
It's like you guys have never played marines and got hit with AP-4 on basically every weapon and you get 0 save.
A large part of that is because I never see anyone field an entire army of Fire Dragons or Melta Vets.
If you're getting destroyed by Brightlances (and/or Melta Guns) here's a suggestion: try taking some Marines. They'll trade fire with most Brightlance weapons platforms wonderfully. Granted, they're crap at most of the game, but BrightLances aren't exactly a good tool for killing buckets of Marines. A *boltgun* does that better (per points).
Then you shoot a lascannon at a fireprism and they make a 6+....Dude...trust me. The weapons are of equal value.
I don't trust you.
I don't see how Prisms/Preds/etc gaining a 6+ outweighs wounding the most important targets on 3+. Or hitting on 3s much more often.
Most of the time, both weapons do the same thing: wound on 2s for infantry, 3s for anything but the hard targets. No armor save rolled. The differences are the corner cases.
The corner cases where the Brightlance wins are:
-T7 *and* lower 3+ Sv and better better with absolutely no invluns targets that are within 36". A 16% advantage.
The corner cases where the Lascannon wins are:
-Anything T8+. A 33% advantage.
-Anything 36-48" away. A 33% advantage.
-Anything both T8 and 36-48" away. A roughly 70% advantage.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Seriously, what purpose would you have to keep this thing on the opposite ends of the board?
For that matter, who has ever played on a board larger than 6'? The rules state the board has to be 4'x6'. And you deploy on the long sides. Who here is taking a 72" shot? Outside of indirect fires, or extreme situations, is there a reason to have a direct fire gun that ranges beyond that?
What is the purpose of the Volcano Cannon's 120" range? Or the Death Strike's 400.
As some people.have pointed out, 72" is corner-to-corner on a 4'x6'. Also, we play corner deployments on a 4'x10' with a 48" no-man's-land semi-regularly.
Martel732 wrote: Lances have less range and get boned by invulns even worse. There is a low rof weapon problem, not a lance vs lascannon problem.
Yeah - 1 shot weapons are bad period. But these 2 weapons are equal value. I've even seen it debated that rockets are better pointed than lascannons. Rockets are a bright lance with -2 AP instead of -4 LOL (they cost the same).
So your argument is that MLs are better pointed than a Lascannon - which depends on -3AP vs -2AP and +1S is less of a benefit over the Krak option? While arguing that -4AP vs -3AP is more beneficial than 48" range and +1S?
What makes going from -2AP to -3AP worth so much less than going from -3AP to -4AP? I can't think of a single upside. In every case I've seen, there's a lot more value on the other end of the scale - going from 0AP to -1AP being the best step.
It's like you guys have never played marines and got hit with AP-4 on basically every weapon and you get 0 save.
A large part of that is because I never see anyone field an entire army of Fire Dragons or Melta Vets.
If you're getting destroyed by Brightlances (and/or Melta Guns) here's a suggestion: try taking some Marines. They'll trade fire with most Brightlance weapons platforms wonderfully. Granted, they're crap at most of the game, but BrightLances aren't exactly a good tool for killing buckets of Marines. A *boltgun* does that better (per points).
Then you shoot a lascannon at a fireprism and they make a 6+....Dude...trust me. The weapons are of equal value.
I don't trust you.
I don't see how Prisms/Preds/etc gaining a 6+ outweighs wounding the most important targets on 3+. Or hitting on 3s much more often.
Most of the time, both weapons do the same thing: wound on 2s for infantry, 3s for anything but the hard targets. No armor save rolled. The differences are the corner cases.
The corner cases where the Brightlance wins are:
-T7 *and* lower 3+ Sv and better better with absolutely no invluns targets that are within 36". A 16% advantage.
The corner cases where the Lascannon wins are:
-Anything T8+. A 33% advantage.
-Anything 36-48" away. A 33% advantage.
-Anything both T8 and 36-48" away. A roughly 70% advantage.
My argument is people actually advocate taking rockets over lascannons on Devs and long fangs because you save 5 points. BL is the same points except gets -4 ap and compared to -2....
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Seriously, what purpose would you have to keep this thing on the opposite ends of the board?
For that matter, who has ever played on a board larger than 6'? The rules state the board has to be 4'x6'. And you deploy on the long sides. Who here is taking a 72" shot? Outside of indirect fires, or extreme situations, is there a reason to have a direct fire gun that ranges beyond that?
What is the purpose of the Volcano Cannon's 120" range? Or the Death Strike's 400.
As some people.have pointed out, 72" is corner-to-corner on a 4'x6'. Also, we play corner deployments on a 4'x10' with a 48" no-man's-land semi-regularly.
What is the point of a 70+" shot on a unit that transports troops CLOSER to the battle?
What good is a transport that hangs back at range?
I dunno, ask Israel? (Merkava) Or the Land Raider.
Theoretically, to achieve land superiority before delivering troops to the objective.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Seriously, what purpose would you have to keep this thing on the opposite ends of the board?
For that matter, who has ever played on a board larger than 6'? The rules state the board has to be 4'x6'. And you deploy on the long sides. Who here is taking a 72" shot? Outside of indirect fires, or extreme situations, is there a reason to have a direct fire gun that ranges beyond that?
What is the purpose of the Volcano Cannon's 120" range? Or the Death Strike's 400.
I've definitely played on larger boards. But even on regular 6x4s I've often required range greater than 48".
Land superiority comes AFTER Air superiority, which is like one of the top three rules at the War College for the US Army. You Take the skies, then you send in tanks. According to standard '00s doctrine of take and hold, Infantry are a final measure used only in coordination with air superiority (Fixed wing or other), almost never without. Hence why even 10th MN now has attached Rotary Wing squadrons.
So getting back to the world of imagination, where plants become sentient Cockneys with 1930's era weaponry, and Space turns men into demons;
what in the current edition, standard game set, would the point of a 72" gun on a transport be? I have heard melee screen, which is odd, because this particular vehicle has the fly keyword I think(?) and can fallback over troops, and still shoot.
I think it's to make these threatening wherever they are on a standard sized board. If we go forward with that assumption, then it logically follows that they want a transport to be a potential tank hunter. But that is invalidated by the fact that it's only got 2 shots at that range, unless it doesn't move, in which case 4. So therein lays the confusion.
What method's would you use this? Would you:
advance, loose the shooting phase, and drop troops, hoping it survives to shoot next turn,
move under half, drop troops, shoot twice, and have intercessors miss the charge phase,
or
move full, drop troops, shoot once, (Maybe charge?)
I don't get the idea behind it's biggest gun. It's just counter to it's overall purpose. Unless the purpose is dedicated tank hunter, in which case WHY IS IT TRANSPORT?
I'm sure some people do advocate that, but most people still seem to pick LCs over MLs. For good reasons.
But the ML isn't just a BL with AP-2. It also has 48" range. And a Frag profile (although it's not great). Sure, the Frag profile is overcosted. But that's not just an SM/IoM problem.
What is the point of a 70+" shot on a unit that transports troops CLOSER to the battle?
What good is a transport that hangs back at range?
I dunno, ask Israel? (Merkava) Or the Land Raider.
Theoretically, to achieve land superiority before delivering troops to the objective.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Seriously, what purpose would you have to keep this thing on the opposite ends of the board?
For that matter, who has ever played on a board larger than 6'? The rules state the board has to be 4'x6'. And you deploy on the long sides. Who here is taking a 72" shot? Outside of indirect fires, or extreme situations, is there a reason to have a direct fire gun that ranges beyond that?
What is the purpose of the Volcano Cannon's 120" range? Or the Death Strike's 400.
I've definitely played on larger boards. But even on regular 6x4s I've often required range greater than 48".
Land superiority comes AFTER Air superiority, which is like one of the top three rules at the War College for the US Army. You Take the skies, then you send in tanks. According to standard '00s doctrine of take and hold, Infantry are a final measure used only in coordination with air superiority (Fixed wing or other), almost never without. Hence why even 10th MN now has attached Rotary Wing squadrons.
So getting back to the world of imagination, where plants become sentient Cockneys with 1930's era weaponry, and Space turns men into demons;
what in the current edition, standard game set, would the point of a 72" gun on a transport be? I have heard melee screen, which is odd, because this particular vehicle has the fly keyword I think(?) and can fallback over troops, and still shoot.
I think it's to make these threatening wherever they are on a standard sized board. If we go forward with that assumption, then it logically follows that they want a transport to be a potential tank hunter. But that is invalidated by the fact that it's only got 2 shots at that range, unless it doesn't move, in which case 4. So therein lays the confusion.
What method's would you use this? Would you:
advance, loose the shooting phase, and drop troops, hoping it survives to shoot next turn,
move under half, drop troops, shoot twice, and have intercessors miss the charge phase,
or
move full, drop troops, shoot once, (Maybe charge?)
I don't get the idea behind it's biggest gun. It's just counter to it's overall purpose. Unless the purpose is dedicated tank hunter, in which case WHY IS IT TRANSPORT?
Because it's cool.
See also: Falcons. One of the few 48" guns for Craftworlders. On a transport.
Same concept. It's an MBT that has some transport cap - practically incidentally.
Martel732 wrote: I havent seen a chimera or taurox all edition. I have seen russes, commander russes, manticores, basilisks, wyvern, and hellhounds. All of which are far superior to a razorback. Slots dont matter in 8th as much as what you can get for your point. Compared to ig, marines get damn little.
Razors are trash. You're just fooling yourself.
You know what?
A Razorback point-for-point compares fairly favorably with a Basilisk.
For a net difference of 2 points...
A Razorback has +1T
A Catachan Basilisk has about 7% better base average offensive capability
A Not-Catachan Basilisk has 6% less base average offensive capability than a Razorback
A Razorback loses 24% of it's offensive capability after 6 wounds, a Basilisk loses 33% of it's offensive capability after the same
While a Basilisk is IF capable, though a Razorback has transport that can be used to help secure the first turn and to protect high offensive power low-defense units [like the aforementioned Long Fangs].
That said, and back to the Repulsor, while I like Razorbacks, I don't like expensive transports. Transport, IMO, are only good when they're dirt-cheap and are protecting a unit more valuable than themselves. If it's an expesive transport, like the Repulsor Executioner, you're not really getting the defensive value of loading it up, and loading it up with expensive things is just kind of giving bonus points for smacking it about. However, it might be valid to load it up with it's support characters to go for drop reduction to try to get the first turn, if that's still relevant to your scenario.
I don't think the transport of the Executioner is really a selling point. It's just sort of an extra.
What is the point of a 70+" shot on a unit that transports troops CLOSER to the battle?
What good is a transport that hangs back at range?
I would fall in love with this if they mounted a Inferno Cannon and you could replace the HBs with Heavy Flamers.
Get that vehicle up close, drop troops, and unleash a ton of D6 auto-hitting shots, with good AP. Then this thing becomes instantly auto-take. It's great for obliterating chaff, and it can even somehow threaten heavy armor.
Well for me, I'm going to stick my Heavy Hellblasters in it for the first turn, get out my first movement phase and shoot. It's an extra layer of protection for my Plasma Bois!
Martel732 wrote: Lances have less range and get boned by invulns even worse. There is a low rof weapon problem, not a lance vs lascannon problem.
Yeah - 1 shot weapons are bad period. But these 2 weapons are equal value. I've even seen it debated that rockets are better pointed than lascannons. Rockets are a bright lance with -2 AP instead of -4 LOL (they cost the same).
So your argument is that MLs are better pointed than a Lascannon - which depends on -3AP vs -2AP and +1S is less of a benefit over the Krak option? While arguing that -4AP vs -3AP is more beneficial than 48" range and +1S?
What makes going from -2AP to -3AP worth so much less than going from -3AP to -4AP? I can't think of a single upside. In every case I've seen, there's a lot more value on the other end of the scale - going from 0AP to -1AP being the best step.
It's like you guys have never played marines and got hit with AP-4 on basically every weapon and you get 0 save.
A large part of that is because I never see anyone field an entire army of Fire Dragons or Melta Vets.
If you're getting destroyed by Brightlances (and/or Melta Guns) here's a suggestion: try taking some Marines. They'll trade fire with most Brightlance weapons platforms wonderfully. Granted, they're crap at most of the game, but BrightLances aren't exactly a good tool for killing buckets of Marines. A *boltgun* does that better (per points).
Then you shoot a lascannon at a fireprism and they make a 6+....Dude...trust me. The weapons are of equal value.
I don't trust you.
I don't see how Prisms/Preds/etc gaining a 6+ outweighs wounding the most important targets on 3+. Or hitting on 3s much more often.
Most of the time, both weapons do the same thing: wound on 2s for infantry, 3s for anything but the hard targets. No armor save rolled. The differences are the corner cases.
The corner cases where the Brightlance wins are:
-T7 *and* lower 3+ Sv and better better with absolutely no invluns targets that are within 36". A 16% advantage.
The corner cases where the Lascannon wins are:
-Anything T8+. A 33% advantage.
-Anything 36-48" away. A 33% advantage.
-Anything both T8 and 36-48" away. A roughly 70% advantage.
My argument is people actually advocate taking rockets over lascannons on Devs and long fangs because you save 5 points. BL is the same points except gets -4 ap and compared to -2....
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Seriously, what purpose would you have to keep this thing on the opposite ends of the board?
For that matter, who has ever played on a board larger than 6'? The rules state the board has to be 4'x6'. And you deploy on the long sides. Who here is taking a 72" shot? Outside of indirect fires, or extreme situations, is there a reason to have a direct fire gun that ranges beyond that?
What is the purpose of the Volcano Cannon's 120" range? Or the Death Strike's 400.
As some people.have pointed out, 72" is corner-to-corner on a 4'x6'. Also, we play corner deployments on a 4'x10' with a 48" no-man's-land semi-regularly.
48 inches apart? Holy crap. That is just silly.
I always run triple missile dev squads when I can. Love missile launchers.
Wait, you are suicidal if you run Hellblasters in a Transport. They already explode on 1s, now you make them explode on 2s by disembarking and shooting....
What gets me about primaris transports is that they're already very juicy targets to blow up, but then when you put valuable infantry inside you make them even MORE juicy and don't really provide much protection at all if the transport goes down to anti tank before the anti infantry opens up.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Wait, you are suicidal if you run Hellblasters in a Transport. They already explode on 1s, now you make them explode on 2s by disembarking and shooting....
??? Hellblasters have rapid-fire weapons. Why would they be exploding on 2's after bailing?
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Wait, you are suicidal if you run Hellblasters in a Transport. They already explode on 1s, now you make them explode on 2s by disembarking and shooting....
Our local group ignores that rule. We erattaed everything to "NATURAL 1" because moving doesn't make guns more likely to blow up.
Also I rarely overcharge anyways. That's why I play the heavy vrsion of the gun so they're at S8 already.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Wait, you are suicidal if you run Hellblasters in a Transport. They already explode on 1s, now you make them explode on 2s by disembarking and shooting....
Our local group ignores that rule. We erattaed everything to "NATURAL 1" because moving doesn't make guns more likely to blow up.
Moving certainly could make guns more likely to blow up if they're as unstable as plasma! Delicate machinery that stuff, blows up frequently enough when stationary, so hustling that gear around while firing surely can't be good for it!
That said, almost no one runs Heavy Hellblasters. Rapid fire ones are so much better, and they don't shoot at -1 when moving.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Wait, you are suicidal if you run Hellblasters in a Transport. They already explode on 1s, now you make them explode on 2s by disembarking and shooting....
Our local group ignores that rule. We erattaed everything to "NATURAL 1" because moving doesn't make guns more likely to blow up.
Moving certainly could make guns more likely to blow up if they're as unstable as plasma! Delicate machinery that stuff, blows up frequently enough when stationary, so hustling that gear around while firing surely can't be good for it!
That said, almost no one runs Heavy Hellblasters. Rapid fire ones are so much better, and they don't shoot at -1 when moving.
To each their own. I run them because I get the S8 without the risk.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Wait, you are suicidal if you run Hellblasters in a Transport. They already explode on 1s, now you make them explode on 2s by disembarking and shooting....
Our local group ignores that rule. We erattaed everything to "NATURAL 1" because moving doesn't make guns more likely to blow up.
Also I rarely overcharge anyways. That's why I play the heavy vrsion of the gun so they're at S8 already.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Seriously, what purpose would you have to keep this thing on the opposite ends of the board?
For that matter, who has ever played on a board larger than 6'? The rules state the board has to be 4'x6'. And you deploy on the long sides. Who here is taking a 72" shot? Outside of indirect fires, or extreme situations, is there a reason to have a direct fire gun that ranges beyond that?
What is the purpose of the Volcano Cannon's 120" range? Or the Death Strike's 400.
If you play narrative, there are effects that reduce shooting range by 1/2. Def useful then.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Wait, you are suicidal if you run Hellblasters in a Transport. They already explode on 1s, now you make them explode on 2s by disembarking and shooting....
Our local group ignores that rule. We erattaed everything to "NATURAL 1" because moving doesn't make guns more likely to blow up.
Moving certainly could make guns more likely to blow up if they're as unstable as plasma! Delicate machinery that stuff, blows up frequently enough when stationary, so hustling that gear around while firing surely can't be good for it!
That said, almost no one runs Heavy Hellblasters. Rapid fire ones are so much better, and they don't shoot at -1 when moving.
To each their own. I run them because I get the S8 without the risk.
Fair enough. But you're doing half the damage. A quarter within 15" compared to Rapid Fire overcharged.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Seriously, what purpose would you have to keep this thing on the opposite ends of the board?
For that matter, who has ever played on a board larger than 6'? The rules state the board has to be 4'x6'. And you deploy on the long sides. Who here is taking a 72" shot? Outside of indirect fires, or extreme situations, is there a reason to have a direct fire gun that ranges beyond that?
What is the purpose of the Volcano Cannon's 120" range? Or the Death Strike's 400.
Who here? Probably me. It'll be good for either early or very late turns.
The rules, they're more like guide lines. My group plays on 4X6 or bigger all the time. We up size the table to allow for more models. Some of us just prefer a 4X8 over a 4X6. Are you saying you have never played on table larger than 4X6? There a re several deployments where, even on a 4X6, a range of more than 48" is a nice thing to have.
While I commonly play on a 6x4, people who don't experiment with larger tables are missing out.
There's a type of 40K that becomes completely more interesting when you play on a larger table. Suddenly transports matter. Deepstriking, and flying units matter more. Heavy weapon ranges start to matter a lot more. It also changes the game when you don't have enough models to flood the table (i.e. you can't screen your entire deployment zone). Models within 36" range weapons aren't suddenly covering the entire table - you actually need to plan where to put them.
Also a bigger table allows for much more variety in terrain in a single engagement. People get stuck to 4x6 because it's convenient and a tournament standard (and that's how big gaming mats are). There's a lot more to 40K than just 6x4.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Seriously, what purpose would you have to keep this thing on the opposite ends of the board?
For that matter, who has ever played on a board larger than 6'? The rules state the board has to be 4'x6'. And you deploy on the long sides. Who here is taking a 72" shot? Outside of indirect fires, or extreme situations, is there a reason to have a direct fire gun that ranges beyond that?
What is the purpose of the Volcano Cannon's 120" range? Or the Death Strike's 400.
As some people.have pointed out, 72" is corner-to-corner on a 4'x6'. Also, we play corner deployments on a 4'x10' with a 48" no-man's-land semi-regularly.
48 inches apart? Holy crap. That is just silly.
It definitely changes what looks valuable and what doesn't. Transports, Aircraft, and Deep Strikers suddenly start looking real important when you have that much ground to cover.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Wait, you are suicidal if you run Hellblasters in a Transport. They already explode on 1s, now you make them explode on 2s by disembarking and shooting....
Our local group ignores that rule. We erattaed everything to "NATURAL 1" because moving doesn't make guns more likely to blow up.
Moving certainly could make guns more likely to blow up if they're as unstable as plasma! Delicate machinery that stuff, blows up frequently enough when stationary, so hustling that gear around while firing surely can't be good for it!
That said, almost no one runs Heavy Hellblasters. Rapid fire ones are so much better, and they don't shoot at -1 when moving.
To each their own. I run them because I get the S8 without the risk.
Fair enough. But you're doing half the damage. A quarter within 15" compared to Rapid Fire overcharged.
If I want to go heavier, I usually run them as the middle teir. But the cables were just too cool for me not to model them with.
I really how they put out prime devestators.
So, any one got confirmation of transport capacity? My hope is 6 so aggressors or a 5 man squad and character but it’s the only thing I’ve not seen confirmed anywhere.
I've definitely played on larger boards. But even on regular 6x4s I've often required range greater than 48".
The capacity to outmaneuver 36 and 48 inch guns with smart play cannot be undervalued.
very much this! skirting around threats while able to engage them from "safety" is excellent. The fly keyword is a benefit for the executioner. the destroyer coulda just been 3+D3 damage, less wording.
Bigger boards are better boards, well only with adequate & varied terrain.
Holy gak, this thing might actually turn out useful in the end. Here's hoping GW doesn't screw the pooch with the points count and we get an honest-to-god good anti-titan mainline unit for Marines.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Seriously, what purpose would you have to keep this thing on the opposite ends of the board?
For that matter, who has ever played on a board larger than 6'? The rules state the board has to be 4'x6'. And you deploy on the long sides. Who here is taking a 72" shot? Outside of indirect fires, or extreme situations, is there a reason to have a direct fire gun that ranges beyond that?
What is the purpose of the Volcano Cannon's 120" range? Or the Death Strike's 400.
I've definitely played on larger boards. But even on regular 6x4s I've often required range greater than 48".
Land superiority comes AFTER Air superiority, which is like one of the top three rules at the War College for the US Army. You Take the skies, then you send in tanks. According to standard '00s doctrine of take and hold, Infantry are a final measure used only in coordination with air superiority (Fixed wing or other), almost never without. Hence why even 10th MN now has attached Rotary Wing squadrons.
So getting back to the world of imagination, where plants become sentient Cockneys with 1930's era weaponry, and Space turns men into demons;
what in the current edition, standard game set, would the point of a 72" gun on a transport be? I have heard melee screen, which is odd, because this particular vehicle has the fly keyword I think(?) and can fallback over troops, and still shoot.
I think it's to make these threatening wherever they are on a standard sized board. If we go forward with that assumption, then it logically follows that they want a transport to be a potential tank hunter. But that is invalidated by the fact that it's only got 2 shots at that range, unless it doesn't move, in which case 4. So therein lays the confusion.
What method's would you use this? Would you:
advance, loose the shooting phase, and drop troops, hoping it survives to shoot next turn,
move under half, drop troops, shoot twice, and have intercessors miss the charge phase,
or
move full, drop troops, shoot once, (Maybe charge?)
I don't get the idea behind it's biggest gun. It's just counter to it's overall purpose. Unless the purpose is dedicated tank hunter, in which case WHY IS IT TRANSPORT?
Let's try it this way - Space Marines - outside of Forgeworld do not have an M1 Abrams - They have several different variations of M2 Bradleys (Land Raiders, Repulsors) Why does the Bradley have TOW missiles? Isn't the range on that thing over two miles? What does a squad transport need with a 2 mile range? The Rhinos, and Razorbacks look for all the world like an M59 APC. - in theory like the M113 as well, but the M59 looks more goofy and out of scale, so the Rhino looks MORE like the M59. The Predator feels like an M45/6/7/8 Patton Medium Tank, or even more so an M18 Hellcat Tank Destroyer (Fast-ish, crappy armor, big gun) You're trying to make the Repulsor either the M1 Main Battle Tank, or the M113 Amored Personnel Carrier, when it's really the M2 Bradly Infantry Fighting Vehicle (the APC/Tank hybrid).
Secondly I have a question - Why are you charging with Intercessors? I mean I get where youre coming from assaulting with primaris isn't as bad as it used to be with Tacs but its still not good.
I think a lot of people are failing to realise that the Primaris are not mirrors of classic Astartes, and that those expectations are not shared with the design philosophy of the actual design studio.
Don't compare the units to the classic Astartes, that is a failure in recognising their function. Don't set your own expectations of what they should be, and then become disappointed because a promise that was never made was not met.
And also, we should stop using real would sense, comparisons or warfare as an example of what 40k should be. In this setting we have roving bands of green football hooligans armed with cleavers facing off against WW1 style entrenched platoons whilst star ships that can turn planets into glass do nothing.
This new tank has proven to be quite an attractive platform - the weapons are deadly. Long range anti tank firepower and anti infantry weapons combined make it effective at clearing out multiple targets a turn. 18Str5 shots at 30" range isn't to be ignored. The main laser cannon is good too, better than expected in fact.
Ishagu wrote: I think a lot of people are failing to realise that the Primaris are not mirrors of classic Astartes, and that those expectations are not shared with the design philosophy of the actual design studio.
Don't compare the units to the classic Astartes, that is a failure in recognising their function. Don't set your own expectations of what they should be, and then become disappointed because a promise that was never made was not met.
And also, we should stop using real would sense, comparisons or warfare as an example of what 40k should be. In this setting we have roving bands of green football hooligans armed with cleavers facing off against WW1 style entrenched platoons whilst star ships that can turn planets into glass do nothing.
This new tank has proven to be quite an attractive platform - the weapons are deadly. Long range anti tank firepower and anti infantry weapons combined make it effective at clearing out multiple targets a turn. 18Str5 shots at 30" range isn't to be ignored. The main laser cannon is good too, better than expected in fact.
Edit: Fixed Typos
The entire function of the game is to compare units to other units.
Nobody expects Primaris to be carbon copies of the 1.0's but I think most of expect all the roles to be filled by some sort of specialist that can do the job they specialize in as well as the 1.0's Those roles include close combat, and troop transportation. We are still missing several of those roles - the true APC, the close combat rapid response force...
The tank doesn't have anything. Its all rumors and a few rumors that are called leaks.
Breton wrote: Secondly I have a question - Why are you charging with Intercessors? I mean I get where youre coming from assaulting with primaris isn't as bad as it used to be with Tacs but its still not good.
I don't know about Fezzik but I tend to use Intercessors as a screening unit for my classic squads. Intercessors can block charge paths and charge in themselves to buy a turn for more heavily armed Oldstares units to open the range back up without feeling like I'm wasting activations or burning an expensive unit on something it's not good at. And their shooting isn't awful if you're not up against an armor skew list.
Breton wrote: Secondly I have a question - Why are you charging with Intercessors? I mean I get where youre coming from assaulting with primaris isn't as bad as it used to be with Tacs but its still not good.
I don't know about Fezzik but I tend to use Intercessors as a screening unit for my classic squads. Intercessors can block charge paths and charge in themselves to buy a turn for more heavily armed Oldstares units to open the range back up without feeling like I'm wasting activations or burning an expensive unit on something it's not good at. And their shooting isn't awful if you're not up against an armor skew list.
This sounds really silly. You're wasting better quality troops to protect worse quality assets. The only unit this might be worthwhile for is Centurions.
Primaris Intercessors in conjunction with Hellblasters and Inceptors have better board control and damage output than classic Astartes units.
Literally some of the worst tactics I've seen outlined on the forum lol
Breton wrote: Secondly I have a question - Why are you charging with Intercessors? I mean I get where youre coming from assaulting with primaris isn't as bad as it used to be with Tacs but its still not good.
I don't know about Fezzik but I tend to use Intercessors as a screening unit for my classic squads. Intercessors can block charge paths and charge in themselves to buy a turn for more heavily armed Oldstares units to open the range back up without feeling like I'm wasting activations or burning an expensive unit on something it's not good at. And their shooting isn't awful if you're not up against an armor skew list.
This sounds really silly. You're wasting better quality troops to protect worse quality assets. The only unit this might be worthwhile for is Centurions.
Primaris Intercessors in conjunction with Hellblasters and Inceptors have better board control and damage output than classic Astartes units.
Literally some of the worst tactics I've seen outlined on the forum lol
You have to get the troops in there somewhere and Intercessors definitely are not more valuable than a Tac squad with a Lascannon in my meta, and one Intercessor unit can spread out enough to block charge lanes for several other squads.
I mostly play against AdMech, Knights, Guard, and transport-heavy Death Watch. Most of the time if I show up with fewer than 18 Lascannons it's not worth unpacking the case.
Intercessors are infinitely more valuable than a Tac Squad with a Las Cannon. What you just said is wrong on every level.
I can get Las cannons on far more effective platforms. Intercessors have better guns, better range, better close combat, much more endurance and cost significantly less per wound.
You want your troops to win objectives, engage light infantry and to last. You want dedicated units to provide the firepower. A tac squad with a Las cannon is an awful unit, not optimised in any way - uneven range, punishes movement, unreliable, easy to destroy, etc
Yes you can get Lascannons on more effective units, which are also priority targets that don't get you CPs. Lascannon Tac squads aren't a high-value target so they also don't get shot right away.
You can tell me Primaris are more efficient, and you're right. But it doesn't matter when they're more efficient at a job that I don't need done. What I need is AT, and one thing Primaris don't bring is points-efficient AT.
"You want troops to win objectives, engage light infantry, and last." No Marine unit is good at doing those things. Intercessors are better at it than Tacs, but if you really care about it then The Loyal 32 is vastly better.
A las cannon on a Tactical squad is really not ideal in any situation. You'd need 4 squads to bring 4 shots, and that's costing you at minimum more points than a Repulsor and is on a t4 model that is punished for moving.
A las cannon on a Tactical squad is really not ideal in any situation. You'd need 4 squads to bring 4 shots, and that's costing you at minimum more points than a Repulsor and is on a t4 model that is punished for moving.
I only start putting Lascannon Tac squads in a list if I have enough Intercessors for screening but I don't have enough Troop selections. They're not competing with anything for the points, they're making the most of a troop slot that I have to fill.
A las cannon on a Tactical squad is really not ideal in any situation. You'd need 4 squads to bring 4 shots, and that's costing you at minimum more points than a Repulsor and is on a t4 model that is punished for moving.
TO be fair, I really hate it when people tell other people "Go buy some forgeworld models!"
A las cannon on a Tactical squad is really not ideal in any situation. You'd need 4 squads to bring 4 shots, and that's costing you at minimum more points than a Repulsor and is on a t4 model that is punished for moving.
TO be fair, I really hate it when people tell other people "Go buy some forgeworld models!"
All I see is this:
Spoiler:
yeah glad I'm not the only one. telling someone to buy a expensive resin model from the botique online store isn't really helpful.
Ishagu wrote: Intercessors are infinitely more valuable than a Tac Squad with a Las Cannon. What you just said is wrong on every level.
I can get Las cannons on far more effective platforms. Intercessors have better guns, better range, better close combat, much more endurance and cost significantly less per wound.
You want your troops to win objectives, engage light infantry and to last. You want dedicated units to provide the firepower. A tac squad with a Las cannon is an awful unit, not optimised in any way - uneven range, punishes movement, unreliable, easy to destroy, etc
Your meta sounds tactically deprived.
Tactical Squads still do more damage against a number of targets because of their weapon options. "Dedicated units" often translates to "designated targets".
A las cannon on a Tactical squad is really not ideal in any situation. You'd need 4 squads to bring 4 shots, and that's costing you at minimum more points than a Repulsor and is on a t4 model that is punished for moving.
TO be fair, I really hate it when people tell other people "Go buy some forgeworld models!"
All I see is this:
Spoiler:
yeah glad I'm not the only one. telling someone to buy a expensive resin model from the botique online store isn't really helpful.
The plastic Dread can also do TLLC and ML. They're not as good, but they're cheaper. Both ways, I think.
The tank doesn't have anything. Its all rumors and a few rumors that are called leaks.
This is the first time I've ever seen somebody claim a WarCom article is only rumour.
Smdh
Is in in a codex or a data sheet yet? Then its not fact yet, and if it's not fact, its rumor.
.
it's in an offical post made by GW I'd say that makes it more reliable then being just a "rumor" or do you refuse to accept release announcements as "facts" too?
The tank doesn't have anything. Its all rumors and a few rumors that are called leaks.
This is the first time I've ever seen somebody claim a WarCom article is only rumour.
Smdh
Is in in a codex or a data sheet yet? Then its not fact yet, and if it's not fact, its rumor.
I've never seen somebody so damn committed to being wrong.
Wrong wrong wrong. You can feel free to call it whatever you want, but it doesn't mean we have to listen to nonsense.
Now, let's carry on the discussion as if official rules previews are a thing.
I honestly have not really decided how I feel about the plasma. I'm intrigued to say the least. But at the end of the day the new laser destroyer is pretty cool looking.
But if I can save a ton of points and play these things aggressively alongside dakka Repulsors...then the similar range band for all it's weapons, solid effectiveness against tanks and infantry alike, and transport capacity could make them pretty compelling.
The tank doesn't have anything. Its all rumors and a few rumors that are called leaks.
This is the first time I've ever seen somebody claim a WarCom article is only rumour.
Smdh
Is in in a codex or a data sheet yet? Then its not fact yet, and if it's not fact, its rumor.
I've never seen somebody so damn committed to being wrong.
Wrong wrong wrong. You can feel free to call it whatever you want, but it doesn't mean we have to listen to nonsense.
Now, let's carry on the discussion as if official rules previews are a thing.
I honestly have not really decided how I feel about the plasma. I'm intrigued to say the least. But at the end of the day the new laser destroyer is pretty cool looking.
But if I can save a ton of points and play these things aggressively alongside dakka Repulsors...then the similar range band for all it's weapons, solid effectiveness against tanks and infantry alike, and transport capacity could make them pretty compelling.
Will definitely try it out.
A couple of the laser destroyer versions in a RG castle is going to be quite reliable anti tank. The cost will be the pinch point but it will be delivering something primaris marines lack in some respect, hell blaster can do the job but you really want them firing at other units and they can be squishy.
BrianDavion wrote:it's in an offical post made by GW I'd say that makes it more reliable then being just a "rumor" or do you refuse to accept release announcements as "facts" too?
We could ask the people who pre-ordered some Sylvaneth or read through a White Dwarf or two. Hey, who writes and publishes White Dwarf?
SpikeyBits wrote: While Warhammer Community has still been steadily releasing a stream of previews, the Dominion of Sigmar was actually first spotted in May’s White Dwarf as already released.
Spikeybits wrote: This interesting document outlining recent Games Workshop imports from China to the US was spotted on Sprues & Brews. This indicates that the Sigmarite Dais, Enduring Stormvault, and Shattered temple (The Dominion of Sigmar Scenery Range) was offloaded in a US port, to be transported to GW’s Memphis TN distribution facility.
Take a close look at the dates. They arrived at some port in the US the week of Adepticon in late March /early April. By the time the White Dwarf hit stores in late April, the terrain was supposed to have already been released!
We’re not shipping and warehousing experts (aka shipologists), but three weeks seems like a pretty tight turnaround from offloading products at the port, to hitting retail store shelves for any company.
I've never seen somebody so damn committed to being wrong.
Wrong wrong wrong. You can feel free to call it whatever you want, but it doesn't mean we have to listen to nonsense.
Now, let's carry on the discussion as if official rules previews are a thing.
I honestly have not really decided how I feel about the plasma. I'm intrigued to say the least. But at the end of the day the new laser destroyer is pretty cool looking.
But if I can save a ton of points and play these things aggressively alongside dakka Repulsors...then the similar range band for all it's weapons, solid effectiveness against tanks and infantry alike, and transport capacity could make them pretty compelling.
Will definitely try it out.
As long as you're so polite, I won't ask about how often you see a mirror then.
Remember that time Spiderman and Ironman were flying through Queens in Spiderman: Homecoming? What's that you say? It didn't happen in the movie? But Marvel told me it would happen when they released the trailer. I've seen more than a few movie trailers using footage that was cut from the theatrical release. Things change between development and production and release. A rumor started by GW is still a rumor until they put the Datasheet out.
The Macro Plasma vs the Destroyer is pretty minimal. 3.5 shots on average (per turn/activation/halfturn/whatever you want to call the baseline of one round without the double main-gun/turret shots) S9 -4 D2 if you're supporting overcharging through rerolls and techmarine(s) vs 2 S10 -4 3-6 Damage (Average 4 based on how we're instructed to do the rolling) is likely to wash against all but the most niche comparisons. T9/10 targets. To keep the math simple I'm only going to do a couple of broad ranges - On T4/T5 or less - 3.752 wounds per turn (3.5*2*.67*.8) 4.288 (2*(3+3+3+4+5+6=24/6=4)*.67*0.8) On T5/T6-T8/T9 3.14 wounds per turn, 3.5912 for the Destroyer. At T9 and T10 the Destroyer will pull further away, at T11 to T17? it'll be closer again - Does anything have a T17? T18+?. I don't see a whole lot of T9+, but your meta mileage may vary.
Less than half a wound per turn in ideal conditions with zero wounds lost on targets that didn't have enough wounds to absorb the full damage? The long and short of it is, in the extremes, there is a distinct advantage for either main gun. T3 single wound models? Macro Plasma and you don't even want to supercharge. T4 3+ 2W PrimarisMEQ? Macro Plasma and overcharge.T5 2+ GravisMEQ? My gut says Plasma Overcharged? (16% wounding difference vs ~60% shots (and 60% being 1.5) is a pretty thin margin) but the math might surprised me. T9+ 3+ wound models? Destroyer. In between there? Flip a coin, it won't make much difference in a 6 turn game.
CapRichard wrote: Marvel specifically does that to avoid spoilers..
Also, film industry =/= tabletop one.
films also by their nature film more then they need and stuff gets cut but used for promotional images. That's not something that you see much of in tabletop gaming,.
CapRichard wrote: Marvel specifically does that to avoid spoilers..
Also, film industry =/= tabletop one.
Only sometimes. Most of the time it's because you can't release a four hour movie, and something had to get cut.
Also - When was the Dominion of Sigmar released? One of my examples was GW itself, and one was the film industry displaying multiple reasons a leak from a company is not always - in fact - true.
I get you guys are on your high horse over calling it a rumor. I don't get why, but you guys do you. I even get that a GW started rumor is likely to prove true. But it's not guaranteed, and not worth getting any shorts in a twist over said rumor until the datasheet is in your hand and you have a real reason to.
Stux wrote: It's not a rumour, it's a reveal. It's very different.
Dictionary.com wrote: rumor/ ˈru mər /PHONETIC RESPELLING
a story or statement in general circulation without confirmation or certainty as to facts:
The confirmation of what the new Repulsor can/will do is the datasheet. GW has said it will do X, Y, and Z. That is a fact. This may change between now and it's actual release. That is also a fact. Ergo, this leak/reveal is neither certain nor confirmed. Making it... a rumor.
CapRichard wrote: Marvel specifically does that to avoid spoilers..
Also, film industry =/= tabletop one.
Only sometimes. Most of the time it's because you can't release a four hour movie, and something had to get cut.
Also - When was the Dominion of Sigmar released? One of my examples was GW itself, and one was the film industry displaying multiple reasons a leak from a company is not always - in fact - true.
I get you guys are on your high horse over calling it a rumor. I don't get why, but you guys do you. I even get that a GW started rumor is likely to prove true. But it's not guaranteed, and not worth getting any shorts in a twist over said rumor until the datasheet is in your hand and you have a real reason to.
People will have the dataslate within a week, some printed and in the box I presume. Are you suggesting that they will go back and change all those printed data slates between now and then from something that was published 2 days ago?
That would be an incredible and even by GW's standards act of incompetence as it would mean the rules printed are incorrect or someone has managed to read them so wrong they have been able to put a whole article together based on their errors and had it approved by others. Surely the actual rules writer has read the article as well and it has got past them or not been pulled down from the site by now?
You are severely clutching at straws now dude... Rather than carrying on the argument, come back on the release day to confirm if you were right or wrong and the rest of us can carry on discussing the rules we know.
People will have the dataslate within a week, some printed and in the box I presume. Are you suggesting that they will go back and change all those printed data slates between now and then from something that was published 2 days ago?
That would be an incredible and even by GW's standards act of incompetence as it would mean the rules printed are incorrect or someone has managed to read them so wrong they have been able to put a whole article together based on their errors and had it approved by others. Surely the actual rules writer has read the article as well and it has got past them or not been pulled down from the site by now?
You are severely clutching at straws now dude... Rather than carrying on the argument, come back on the release day to confirm if you were right or wrong and the rest of us can carry on discussing the rules we know.
Do people have one now? Will the dictionary definition of rumor change between today and next week to make me wrong? Is that why we'll have to wait until next week to see if I'm wrong that statements both unconfirmed, and uncertain are rumors? The details can be exactly what the article says they are, and I'm still right. The fact that you just admitted we'll have to come back next week to "see if I'm right" proves. The details are not confirmed, or certain until... Next Week when we have to come back with... a datasheet. I really don't understand what is so difficult about this concept. Rumors can be correct, rumors can be wrong. I didn't say the Repulsor would or wouldn't be different than stated in the article, I said we don't have confirmation of what it will be like. Which you just admitted by saying we have to come back next week.
People will have the dataslate within a week, some printed and in the box I presume. Are you suggesting that they will go back and change all those printed data slates between now and then from something that was published 2 days ago?
That would be an incredible and even by GW's standards act of incompetence as it would mean the rules printed are incorrect or someone has managed to read them so wrong they have been able to put a whole article together based on their errors and had it approved by others. Surely the actual rules writer has read the article as well and it has got past them or not been pulled down from the site by now?
You are severely clutching at straws now dude... Rather than carrying on the argument, come back on the release day to confirm if you were right or wrong and the rest of us can carry on discussing the rules we know.
Do people have one now? Will the dictionary definition of rumor change between today and next week to make me wrong? Is that why we'll have to wait until next week to see if I'm wrong that statements both unconfirmed, and uncertain are rumors? The details can be exactly what the article says they are, and I'm still right. The fact that you just admitted we'll have to come back next week to "see if I'm right" proves. The details are not confirmed, or certain until... Next Week when we have to come back with... a datasheet. I really don't understand what is so difficult about this concept. Rumors can be correct, rumors can be wrong. I didn't say the Repulsor would or wouldn't be different than stated in the article, I said we don't have confirmation of what it will be like. Which you just admitted by saying we have to come back next week.
Incorrect. We come back next week to see if you are right in terms of all of us are wrong... As it isn't a rumour, it is essentially confirmed rules. In fact I'll go as far as saying the only way they won't be the rules is if they FAQ them day 1. Those are the rules the model will come with.
So let's get back to discussing them as the fact they are.
Incorrect. We come back next week to see if you are right in terms of all of us are wrong... As it isn't a rumour, it is essentially confirmed rules. In fact I'll go as far as saying the only way they won't be the rules is if they FAQ them day 1. Those are the rules the model will come with.
So let's get back to discussing them as the fact they are.
The dictionary is incorrect? Or its incorrect to say something is unconfirmed, when you - in the next breath - say it will be confirmed next week.
if they FAQ them day 1
Uncertainty and Unconfirmed status acknowledged.
So let's get back to discussing them as the fact they are
In the Speculation thread.
I really don't understand where I'm losing you. At no time did I say what the rules would or wouldn't be. You keep telling me I'm wrong and those will be the rules, but I never said what the rules would or would not be, so I can't be wrong about that. I said it was just a rumor. That I can be right or wrong about. The Dictionary, and your own insistence that these rules will be confirmed next week when people have - the very thing I already identified as confirmation earlier - datasheets matches up with the dictionary definition of rumor. Where are you getting lost in this?
Anyway, the 'confirmed' weapon profiles then. DW are going to get a big boost out of the super las cannon, again I think this could be a slayer of all big nasties for ultramarines with Bobby G in support. Especially is there are two or 3 of them.
The real kicker of it seems to be the support weapons, it looks like it can potentially rival a normal repulsor in terms of anti personal as well. And since it seems most people use three repulsors for firepower as it is, these could totally replace that and then add some wicked AT as well.
Stux wrote: It's not a rumour, it's a reveal. It's very different.
Dictionary.com wrote: rumor/ ˈru mər /PHONETIC RESPELLING
a story or statement in general circulation without confirmation or certainty as to facts:
The confirmation of what the new Repulsor can/will do is the datasheet. GW has said it will do X, Y, and Z. That is a fact. This may change between now and it's actual release. That is also a fact. Ergo, this leak/reveal is neither certain nor confirmed. Making it... a rumor.
How many model releases have there been where they showed stats then after pre-orders GW goes "haha fooled you the unit is garbage!" that's not good business practice and you're being willfully ignorant
Anyway, the 'confirmed' weapon profiles then. DW are going to get a big boost out of the super las cannon, again I think this could be a slayer of all big nasties for ultramarines with Bobby G in support. Especially is there are two or 3 of them.
The real kicker of it seems to be the support weapons, it looks like it can potentially rival a normal repulsor in terms of anti personal as well. And since it seems most people use three repulsors for firepower as it is, these could totally replace that and then add some wicked AT as well.
While arguing with you is tedious, given how much you think I said I didn't - I wouldn't call you stupid when I could just chalk it up to enthusiasm and jumping to conclusions
Calgar + a LT will be slightly cheaper than Guilliman, provide rerolls to all failed hits and 1's to wound only falling behind in those rare cases you won't wound on a 2 plus providing two HQ's instead of a LOW for Slot filling.
The math on the two main guns is above. The difference between the two is pretty small, and I hope the price difference is as well. Hypothesizing shared weapon mounts stay the same - i.e. a TLHB can still be a TLLC as well, there's little difference between the two beyond the main gun. You trade two of the mini-turrets (rapid Fire 4, plus a HeaHow many model releases have there been where they showed stats then after pre-orders GW goes "haha fooled you the unit is garbage!" that's not good business practice and you're being willfully ignorant vy 3 Ironhail, for a Heavy 6 Onslaught Gatling.
fraser1191 wrote:How many model releases have there been where they showed stats then after pre-orders GW goes "haha fooled you the unit is garbage!" that's not good business practice and you're being willfully ignorant
How many times did I say any discrepancies between leak and eventual release would be a prank? So far my examples of how things change between production and release have been movies cutting scenes in the trailers for time, and a GW roll-out delayed by geopolitical influences on shipping logistics. Do you fantasize about a lot of geopolitical tension caused logistical pranks when you have to run by UPS or Fed Ex?
Stux wrote: It's not a rumour, it's a reveal. It's very different.
Dictionary.com wrote: rumor/ ˈru mər /PHONETIC RESPELLING
a story or statement in general circulation without confirmation or certainty as to facts:
The confirmation of what the new Repulsor can/will do is the datasheet. GW has said it will do X, Y, and Z. That is a fact. This may change between now and it's actual release. That is also a fact. Ergo, this leak/reveal is neither certain nor confirmed. Making it... a rumor.
It will not change between now and release, because they will have already sent the booklets in the boxes to print.
It's possible they made a mistake in the article, but that doesn't make it a rumour. It makes it a mistake, just like they could make in the printed codex too.
I don't like the dollar price hike compared to the regular repulsor, but I think I will be getting one. I have been painting up a Primaris army for a bit now, and it has been really lacking anti-armor. Not to mention I would like to field a couple of vehicles too. Plus, the executioner has does feel like more of a modern-ish tank than anything else the space marines have in plastic.
I plan to deploy as a tank destroyer. I don't have high hopes for it getting much out of it other than as a damage magnet. Which is fine, my opponent has to shoot at something.
As for the weapons, I think there really aren't than many more than modern tanks. It is just that the way the rules work allowing all of them fire makes repulsors a little more points than players want to spend. Only the rear AA gun seems a unnecessary to me as conceptually that is what the pintle mounted stubber would be used for. It would make far more sense as a anti-infantry weapon to prevent rear armor attacks, but that is what the point defense grenades or coaxial should be in my opinion. Otherwise the executioner has the usual tank guns even if they a 40k-ed. It has the main gun, coaxial gun, hull gun, and pintle mounted gun. The anti-infantry grenade point defense like weapon doesn't seem too outlandish either. All-in-all, fairly reasonable armaments for 40k. I think them fair more than side sponson weapons that a many other 40k vehicles have.
To keep points cost down, I would prefer the repulsor line of vehicles had limits on which weapons can be used. I am always a big fan of main gun or the coaxial gun choice which seems like it would work well with the Executioner (not so much with the regular repulsor). I also would have liked to see the grenade launchers as more of an Overwatch only weapon again to keep point costs down. Of course I am looking at these vehicles more as tanks, especially the executioner, and less and transports.
Stux wrote: It's not a rumour, it's a reveal. It's very different.
Dictionary.com wrote: rumor/ ˈru mər /PHONETIC RESPELLING
a story or statement in general circulation without confirmation or certainty as to facts:
The confirmation of what the new Repulsor can/will do is the datasheet. GW has said it will do X, Y, and Z. That is a fact. This may change between now and it's actual release. That is also a fact. Ergo, this leak/reveal is neither certain nor confirmed. Making it... a rumor.
A whole lot of appeal to definition fallacy going on here.
Stux wrote: It's not a rumour, it's a reveal. It's very different.
Dictionary.com wrote: rumor/ ˈru mər /PHONETIC RESPELLING
a story or statement in general circulation without confirmation or certainty as to facts:
The confirmation of what the new Repulsor can/will do is the datasheet. GW has said it will do X, Y, and Z. That is a fact. This may change between now and it's actual release. That is also a fact. Ergo, this leak/reveal is neither certain nor confirmed. Making it... a rumor.
A whole lot of appeal to definition fallacy going on here.
I know right, Sem meet antic.
It doesnt really matter anyway, none of this really matters. In the grim darkness of the 42nd millennium there is only war(just not a flame war over which definition defines a specific word)!
Stux wrote: It's not a rumour, it's a reveal. It's very different.
Dictionary.com wrote: rumor/ ˈru mər /PHONETIC RESPELLING
a story or statement in general circulation without confirmation or certainty as to facts:
The confirmation of what the new Repulsor can/will do is the datasheet. GW has said it will do X, Y, and Z. That is a fact. This may change between now and it's actual release. That is also a fact. Ergo, this leak/reveal is neither certain nor confirmed. Making it... a rumor.
Alright, you've derailed this thread enough. Feel free to go chat about your definition of rumours and what marvel does somewhere else, mate. It's got zero place here.
Now, let's try and get back to the real topic, yeah?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Saturmorn Carvilli wrote: I don't like the dollar price hike compared to the regular repulsor, but I think I will be getting one. I have been painting up a Primaris army for a bit now, and it has been really lacking anti-armor. Not to mention I would like to field a couple of vehicles too. Plus, the executioner has does feel like more of a modern-ish tank than anything else the space marines have in plastic.
I plan to deploy as a tank destroyer. I don't have high hopes for it getting much out of it other than as a damage magnet. Which is fine, my opponent has to shoot at something.
As for the weapons, I think there really aren't than many more than modern tanks. It is just that the way the rules work allowing all of them fire makes repulsors a little more points than players want to spend. Only the rear AA gun seems a unnecessary to me as conceptually that is what the pintle mounted stubber would be used for. It would make far more sense as a anti-infantry weapon to prevent rear armor attacks, but that is what the point defense grenades or coaxial should be in my opinion. Otherwise the executioner has the usual tank guns even if they a 40k-ed. It has the main gun, coaxial gun, hull gun, and pintle mounted gun. The anti-infantry grenade point defense like weapon doesn't seem too outlandish either. All-in-all, fairly reasonable armaments for 40k. I think them fair more than side sponson weapons that a many other 40k vehicles have.
To keep points cost down, I would prefer the repulsor line of vehicles had limits on which weapons can be used. I am always a big fan of main gun or the coaxial gun choice which seems like it would work well with the Executioner (not so much with the regular repulsor). I also would have liked to see the grenade launchers as more of an Overwatch only weapon again to keep point costs down. Of course I am looking at these vehicles more as tanks, especially the executioner, and less and transports.
I kind of like what this might mean for the standard Repulsor in general. For many Primaris players the platform stood in for two things - transport and the only source of anti-tank.
Now with suppressors being great for T6 and T7 and Hellblasters always being solid, maybe we don't need the lascannons on normal Repulsors and can run them at like 250 points all dakka.
Stux wrote: It's not a rumour, it's a reveal. It's very different.
Dictionary.com wrote: rumor/ ˈru mər /PHONETIC RESPELLING
a story or statement in general circulation without confirmation or certainty as to facts:
The confirmation of what the new Repulsor can/will do is the datasheet. GW has said it will do X, Y, and Z. That is a fact. This may change between now and it's actual release. That is also a fact. Ergo, this leak/reveal is neither certain nor confirmed. Making it... a rumor.
A whole lot of appeal to definition fallacy going on here.
A whole lot of fallacy fallacy going on here. When one argues what something is or isn't: the criteria of, the definition of what something is - is relevant. But then, we've also seen straw men, poisoning the well, and ad hom.
Alright, you've derailed this thread enough. Feel free to go chat about your definition of rumours and what marvel does somewhere else, mate. It's got zero place here.
Now, let's try and get back to the real topic, yeah?
I'm not the one calling people stupid for using a word as it's actually defined, and continuing to argue the definition is wrong. I've also been more than happy to provide on topic feedback - see the number crunching of the two main gun options, the comparison of the two vs infantry - when someone isn't calling me stupid for pointing out bits and pieces of information that might not make it into the end product we don't even have yet aren't yet important enough to get shorts in a twist calling this thing a failure or the best thing since sliced bread.
I kind of like what this might mean for the standard Repulsor in general. For many Primaris players the platform stood in for two things - transport and the only source of anti-tank.
Now with suppressors being great for T6 and T7 and Hellblasters always being solid, maybe we don't need the lascannons on normal Repulsors and can run them at like 250 points all dakka.
Suppresors are great for T6 and T7? Outside of price, they're not even good. They're cheaper than plasma inceptors, but Plasma Inceptors are much better. Potentially at least as much better as their cost. Heavy Deep Strike-able Jump Infantry is a little mismatched, while the Plasma Inceptors are Assault Deep Strike-able Jump Infantry. They're also expandable beyond 3- which isn't AS big of a deal in the FA slot as opposed to Heavy Support, but could still matter. Suppressor/Inceptor math - which was more or less even until you got to extremes like T3 1W, or T9/T10 3+W - will begin similar to, but then diverge drastically from Destroyer/Macro Plasma math with more advantages going to the Inceptors/Plasma - Suppressors and Inceptors will have roughly the same shots per activation - though only the Inceptors get to activate/fire twice(being two-gunned). The Inceptors won't get the -1 to shoot the Supressors after moving (and when they do (advancing), the Supressors won't even get to shoot at all) The Inceptors have a significant threshold-crossing Toughness stat advantage.
Inceptors (.67(BS3)*4 (Average D3*2)*.67 (S7/T6)/59 .03 wounds per point (or 1.79) -3 AP per round
Overcharged (.67(BS3)*4(Average D3*2)*.67 (S8/T6) .03 wounding shots that will do 2 wounds if the model has two wounds (or 3.59), and kill the intercessor after two turns without reroll support
Overcharged Yadda Yadda .67 (S8/T7) yadda yadda .03 wounding shots that will do 2 wounds if the model has two wounds , and kill the intercessor after two turns without reroll support
Suppressors (.67(BS3- no move and fire)*2*.67(S7/T6)/35 .026 Wounding shots per round (Or 1.79) -2AP that will do 2 wounds if the model has two wounds.
Suppressors Yadda Yadda *.5 (S7/T7) 0.0128 Yadda Yadda.
At T5 you're talking Gravis/Very Large infatry(or Very small MC's) Landspeeders/DeffKoptas/Bikes and Buggies, etc.
T6 Wraithguard/Wartrakks/light vehicles/MC's
T7 Dreads, Rhino Chassis/medium vehicles/MC's
T8 Heavy LR/Repulsor type Vehicles/MC's
For One Turn, On the T7 Rhino chassis:
the overcharged Intercessor will do 3.598 wounds, 2.998 after 6+ saves
The Suppressor will do .4498 wounds or .3748 after 5+ saves
The Range + moving and firing (both the benefits and drawbacks) have to feed into that value judgement at as well of course. Inceptors have shorter range. But both units can Alpha Strike on the Deep Strike. Inceptors can just do it better, the same way they can move and shoot better. Using Supressors for that Alpha/Deep strike faces two issues. They're stuck at lower model count with a lower fire rate per model. They will have a -1 for moving once terrain interferes with LOS - the primary response to long ranged high strength dakka - because it's usually easier and faster to cut off LOS, than march over and take them out while they shoot at you.
Edit to Add: This is subject to change when/if the Suppressors get their own box with an alternate weapon. With the Autocannon being a hybrid/compromise options I'm not sure what they'll do for an option, they could go High Dakka, or High AT. I wouldn't be surprised to see the High AT being LasTalons. High Dakka might be an Onslaught Gatling Cannon though I'm not sure that's different enough from the Autocannon. Something else entirely new is also possible, while retooling an existing 1.0 weapon platform like Grav, heavy bolters, missile launchers, and the like feels unlikely - even their Autocannon is new - neither the Predator nor CSM autocannons have the same stat line.
A las cannon on a Tactical squad is really not ideal in any situation. You'd need 4 squads to bring 4 shots, and that's costing you at minimum more points than a Repulsor and is on a t4 model that is punished for moving.
TO be fair, I really hate it when people tell other people "Go buy some forgeworld models!"
All I see is this:
A FW Contemptor is around €70. That's a little more expensive point for point than what you'd normally get in GW plastic but it's hardly something for the Privileged Few or Pay to Win. For as far as 40k isn't Pay to Win anyway if you're serious about competitive play and you're not in the hobby long enough yet to literally have multiple units of every codex entry of all the armies that you play.
A FW Contemptor is around €70. That's a little more expensive point for point than what you'd normally get in GW plastic but it's hardly something for the Privileged Few or Pay to Win. For as far as 40k isn't Pay to Win anyway if you're serious about competitive play and you're not in the hobby long enough yet to literally have multiple units of every codex entry of all the armies that you play.
Two GW Venerable SM Dreads on Ebay are about $70 (about 61.5 Euro right now) - its more than a little more expensive. But you're right about 40K not really being pay to win beyond the fact that you have to pay to get the models for your army whatever models those are. And you're right that a Contemptor isn't really a Privileged Few purchase like a Legio Titanicus Titan Maniple (about 4100 Euro). But it is more pricey, and it is Forgeworld instead of GW Proper which will "feel" like cheating to some.
A FW Contemptor is around €70. That's a little more expensive point for point than what you'd normally get in GW plastic but it's hardly something for the Privileged Few or Pay to Win. For as far as 40k isn't Pay to Win anyway if you're serious about competitive play and you're not in the hobby long enough yet to literally have multiple units of every codex entry of all the armies that you play.
Two GW Venerable SM Dreads on Ebay are about $70 (about 61.5 Euro right now) - its more than a little more expensive. But you're right about 40K not really being pay to win beyond the fact that you have to pay to get the models for your army whatever models those are. And you're right that a Contemptor isn't really a Privileged Few purchase like a Legio Titanicus Titan Maniple (about 4100 Euro). But it is more pricey, and it is Forgeworld instead of GW Proper which will "feel" like cheating to some.
That's a huge part of the problem with 40k right now that people can equate I bought X or Y cool model with cheating shows a very broken state of the hobby.
Yeah the power of the game is all over the shop both FW and GW but that shouldn't mean someone is a cheat because they have certain models.
That's a huge part of the problem with 40k right now that people can equate I bought X or Y cool model with cheating shows a very broken state of the hobby.
Yeah the power of the game is all over the shop both FW and GW but that shouldn't mean someone is a cheat because they have certain models.
Meh, I probably should have put cheating in "air quotes" too. Its not Look at my Aura HQ on a Warlord Titan base while I roll my loaded dice coming up 6's cheating. Its the first guy who figured out how magnetize so you don't have to buy two models kind of "cheating" - the kind where there's nothing wrong with it, but I just bought two kits and now I'm kicking myself while already making a shopping list for rare earth magnets. Although to some I supposed it will feel like that kind of cheating for any number of reasons - not realizing how related GW and FW are, not feeling like they have the same access. Feeling like FW is an expansion that's being sprung on them by surprise. When it comes down to it, FW like GW has some clunkers and some gems. Some of the same human nature that gives you soup lists gives you people picking up a FW model at times. (I happen to have a Thunderhawk so I know it's not always the case). And some people will just forever see anything outside of how it's SUPPOSED to be done, however that is, as cheating.
I think a lot of that sentiment stems from previous editions where FW actually was often much more powerful than GW stuff. The feeling is still somewhat strong in some communities though. As you say, these days it's not really any different in power level to standard GW. Sure there's a few units that are well above the curve, but that's true of GW just as much.
The rumour is that FW is moving away from making content for core GW games though, that it's being refocused to concentrate eventually solely on specialist games like HH, Necromunda and Blood Bowl. Even assuming that is true though, we don't know what that means for existing 40k content, and presumably some future HH stuff would still 40k rules.
What does any of this have to do with the Repulsor?
And yes, FW is "cheating" because you are fully allowed to use them, but they should have their own subdivision in ITC. Their rules are MARKEDLY better than anything GW puts out, by a large factor. Comparing ANY dreadnaught GW puts out to the Dreadnaughts FW put out isn't even the same level. FW ones are mini knights, and the GW ones are utter trash. So, yeah.
If you want to win as Custodes, you have to either spam bikes or be the FW guy with Telemons, Aquillons, and Calliduses. There isn't even competition.
So yeah, FW isn't cheating by definition, it's cheating by spirit. You are taking a strong pay to win advantage over any opponent not using their models.
Simply put if your going to start labeling things as pay to win, then surely the new repulsive fits squarely into the pay to win box of buy this new expensive primaris model that gets the same broken rules as Astra Militarum.
Having this magical line that GW = not cheating, FW = Pay to Win Cheating is absolutely not an acceptable attitude to have.
By the simple fact that it requires an additional codex and models surely the 32 or 17 are by definition pay to win options by the same measures.
If this thing is as cheap as people are claiming in points with access to rerolls and more rerolls it's going to be just the next round of power creep.
If this thing is as cheap as people are claiming in points with access to rerolls and more rerolls it's going to be just the next round of power creep.
Two of them with a captain and lt cost the same (assuming 315) as a Castellan and do not outperform it, so I can't see where you get the idea of power creep. Is it just the fashionable thing to say when people don't have a clear picture of the issue at hand?
Seriously, the thing likely costs more than a Landraider, which outperforms it in every respect other than ability to transport Primaris and FLY, both are worth the bump in points.
This model is in NO WAY broken, and anyone who says otherwise is intentionally being argumentative or has never really researched the game. Because this at best is a solid addition to a weak army, and at worst a useless overcosted AT platform that won't see tables that much.
On my side, I would field at least 2 of these, if I played SMs still. My only question is will DW see them? Any word on that?
And yes, FW is "cheating" because you are fully allowed to use them, but they should have their own subdivision in ITC. Their rules are MARKEDLY better than anything GW puts out, by a large factor. Comparing ANY dreadnaught GW puts out to the Dreadnaughts FW put out isn't even the same level. FW ones are mini knights, and the GW ones are utter trash. So, yeah.
...
So yeah, FW isn't cheating by definition, it's cheating by spirit. You are taking a strong pay to win advantage over any opponent not using their models.
Right so there's a huge problem with this post, and that is that you are focusing on one of the best Forgeworld units and not looking at Forgeworld as a whole. Yes, Relic Contemptors are great. Leviathans are very good, and Deredeos are pretty good. Regular marine dreadnoughts are mostly poor. That doesn't mean FW is cheating or pay to win. It means Contemptors are strong and normal Dreadnoughts are not. This really highlights issues with Marines far more so than issues with FW. There's a huge range of power in FW and that is exactly the same as regular GW. You saw a heck of a lot more Castellans in competitive lists than Contemptors.
It is my contention that the mean power in FW is no higher and is indeed probably lower than core GW, and that the peak outliers in FW are generally outperformed by some lists that run no FW at all.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Would a DW Repulsor be an effective tool for dropping a squad of HTH Vets in close range? That would be scary.
Don't Repulsors only carry Primaris? If so there's not really a good HtH unit they can transport.
Oh jeez, I'm getting my Vet loadouts confused. Thank you. You are right. I somehow melded the Vet's rules with the primaris rules.
What about Repulsors dropping off Reivers at 8", and they all unleashing Vengence rounds, and one tossing the "No overwatch grenade". Followed up by other charges?
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Would a DW Repulsor be an effective tool for dropping a squad of HTH Vets in close range? That would be scary.
Don't Repulsors only carry Primaris? If so there's not really a good HtH unit they can transport.
Oh jeez, I'm getting my Vet loadouts confused. Thank you. You are right. I somehow melded the Vet's rules with the primaris rules.
What about Repulsors dropping off Reivers at 8", and they all unleashing Vengence rounds, and one tossing the "No overwatch grenade". Followed up by other charges?
Assuming you can safely get to 8" away you get to engage in some thoroughly mediocre combat with your overpriced Primaris. You'd be better off dropping Intercessors off at a longer distance, probably in cover, and unloading with them. The real benefit of Repulsor/Executioner transport capacity is the ability to keep expensive but fragile units like Hellblasters off the table for a turn to protect them from shooting. It's not good at delivering units into the enemy's face, because there aren't too many units you'd really want to do that with.
Well, if the capacity rumors are true, 6 bodies max, half for terms, then that doesn't leave a lot for consideration. 6 man intercessor squads, or 6 man hellblasters, or 2 Reiver squads(are they still 3 man?). I think the Reivers can shut down quite a bit, that before they couldn't with their deep strike rules.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Well, if the capacity rumors are true, 6 bodies max, half for terms, then that doesn't leave a lot for consideration. 6 man intercessor squads, or 6 man hellblasters, or 2 Reiver squads(are they still 3 man?). I think the Reivers can shut down quite a bit, that before they couldn't with their deep strike rules.
Or 6 character/ single model units. Freeing up space in the other Repulsors.
So, with the exception of maybe Hellblasters, it looks like Aggressors would be the go-to squad loadouts for these. 2x Repulsors with 3x Aggressors, 1x repulsor W/ 1x captain and 5 Hellblasters.
That's some pretty ugly Dakka, especially if the Aggressors are flamer version, and you get them within 8". Then you are right toast.
I’m thinking the best use for this tank would be to transport troops to an objective whilst sniping another enemy unit elsewhere on the board. At best, it will provide light or pinpoint support for the disembarking troops.
If deepstriking wasn’t so prevalent/encouraged, this and other transports would be a lot more useful.
<EDIT; Thinking about it, deepstriking a unit should cost 3 CP; arriving by transport should cost 1 CP, and stop baking both into the units points - at least, that’s my opinion)>
Even my Custodes have to pay a tax for FGTC. They could overnight really make transports viable again by making DS'ing less easy.
I really hope this has a high (12) transport capacity.
Not that this is the right place for this, but I think any weapon that has AT capability should be considered a heavy weapon and subject to penalties when DS is used for positioning. Maybe you do have a gun that can wreck a landraider, but I garuntee you it's going to be hard to aim and fire when you materialized 50 FT from the enemy.
Even my Custodes have to pay a tax for FGTC. They could overnight really make transports viable again by making DS'ing less easy.
I really hope this has a high (12) transport capacity.
Not that this is the right place for this, but I think any weapon that has AT capability should be considered a heavy weapon and subject to penalties when DS is used for positioning. Maybe you do have a gun that can wreck a landraider, but I garuntee you it's going to be hard to aim and fire when you materialized 50 FT from the enemy.
Maybe we've been playing that wrong, but we've always taken the movement penalty on the turn a unit DSes.
And yes, FW is "cheating" because you are fully allowed to use them, but they should have their own subdivision in ITC. Their rules are MARKEDLY better than anything GW puts out, by a large factor. Comparing ANY dreadnaught GW puts out to the Dreadnaughts FW put out isn't even the same level. FW ones are mini knights, and the GW ones are utter trash. So, yeah.
If you want to win as Custodes, you have to either spam bikes or be the FW guy with Telemons, Aquillons, and Calliduses. There isn't even competition.
So yeah, FW isn't cheating by definition, it's cheating by spirit. You are taking a strong pay to win advantage over any opponent not using their models.
Huh. Not really.
There's like a handful of good things courtesy of FW, and the rest of it basically just accumulates shelf space.
That said, I liked it better when they focused on making new [and sometimes strange] units instead of contemptor dreadnoughts with pre-cast details for every legion, since in some ways new and different units and unit options add something to the game, another legion dreadnought does not.
And yes, FW is "cheating" because you are fully allowed to use them, but they should have their own subdivision in ITC. Their rules are MARKEDLY better than anything GW puts out, by a large factor. Comparing ANY dreadnaught GW puts out to the Dreadnaughts FW put out isn't even the same level. FW ones are mini knights, and the GW ones are utter trash. So, yeah.
If you want to win as Custodes, you have to either spam bikes or be the FW guy with Telemons, Aquillons, and Calliduses. There isn't even competition.
So yeah, FW isn't cheating by definition, it's cheating by spirit. You are taking a strong pay to win advantage over any opponent not using their models.
Huh. Not really.
There's like a handful of good things courtesy of FW, and the rest of it basically just accumulates shelf space.
That said, I liked it better when they focused on making new [and sometimes strange] units instead of contemptor dreadnoughts with pre-cast details for every legion, since in some ways new and different units and unit options add something to the game, another legion dreadnought does not.
Not to mention, EVERYONE has access to FW. It's not something that only certain people can purchase.
I'll agree that the dude rocking up to your casual gaming table with Bobby G and three Leviathan Dreadnoughts is being a jerk, but so is the guy showing up with a Knight Lance of a Castellan and two Gallants or something.
FW has some good models, and a lot of duds. GW has some good models, and a lot of duds.
Thought has just occurred... will standard repulsors get the double shot turret weapon rule? Probably not but I think it should be justified by GW why they do not other than them being not equipped with the optics... It seems a no brained they should also have them
And yes, FW is "cheating" because you are fully allowed to use them, but they should have their own subdivision in ITC. Their rules are MARKEDLY better than anything GW puts out, by a large factor. Comparing ANY dreadnaught GW puts out to the Dreadnaughts FW put out isn't even the same level. FW ones are mini knights, and the GW ones are utter trash. So, yeah.
If you want to win as Custodes, you have to either spam bikes or be the FW guy with Telemons, Aquillons, and Calliduses. There isn't even competition.
So yeah, FW isn't cheating by definition, it's cheating by spirit. You are taking a strong pay to win advantage over any opponent not using their models.
Huh. Not really.
There's like a handful of good things courtesy of FW, and the rest of it basically just accumulates shelf space.
That said, I liked it better when they focused on making new [and sometimes strange] units instead of contemptor dreadnoughts with pre-cast details for every legion, since in some ways new and different units and unit options add something to the game, another legion dreadnought does not.
Not to mention, EVERYONE has access to FW. It's not something that only certain people can purchase.
I'll agree that the dude rocking up to your casual gaming table with Bobby G and three Leviathan Dreadnoughts is being a jerk, but so is the guy showing up with a Knight Lance of a Castellan and two Gallants or something.
FW has some good models, and a lot of duds. GW has some good models, and a lot of duds.
Most of the commonly selected and successful units in the last year of tourney results are all plastic GW, beyond the weird Don list for chaos atm there aren't any FW units placing high I can think of.
Apocalypse data sheets are up on the website. Two things of note for the Executioner that almost certainly will carry over to 40k.
1. The pintle mounted heavy stubber is optional, unlike for the Repulsor itself.
2. Transport capacity is 6 (woohoo!)
I'm not sure it's worth trying to glean any kind of insight into the power level comparison, but since wild speculation is so much damn fun let's just dig into it a bit.
The power level of the standard Repulsor equipped with las-talon, stubber, twin heavy bolters, "icarus weapons", and "defensive weapon systems" is 13. Icarus is the anti-air shenanigans and defensive weapon systems are likely to be the stormbolters/fragstorm/krakstorm launchers. A current Repulsor in 40k with this loadout (assuming fragstorms) would be about 270 points.
It can upgrade to the heavy onslaught for +3 power rating and replace the stubber with the onslaught for a +1 power rating, and replace the twin heavy bolters for lascannons for free bringing the power rating to 17 but reflecting a unit just 1 point shy of 300.
In comparison, the Executioner starts with a heavy onslaught, icarus weapons, macro plasma, twin heavy bolter, and defensive weapon systems for 24 power rating.
I certainly hope it isn't that big of a gap in 40k.
Even my Custodes have to pay a tax for FGTC. They could overnight really make transports viable again by making DS'ing less easy.
I really hope this has a high (12) transport capacity.
Not that this is the right place for this, but I think any weapon that has AT capability should be considered a heavy weapon and subject to penalties when DS is used for positioning. Maybe you do have a gun that can wreck a landraider, but I garuntee you it's going to be hard to aim and fire when you materialized 50 FT from the enemy.
Maybe we've been playing that wrong, but we've always taken the movement penalty on the turn a unit DSes.
Some AT are Assault or Rapidfire, therefore incurring no penalty. I'm arguing everything should be treated as Heavy when DS occurs.
Lemondish wrote: Apocalypse data sheets are up on the website. Two things of note for the Executioner that almost certainly will carry over to 40k.
1. The pintle mounted heavy stubber is optional, unlike for the Repulsor itself.
2. Transport capacity is 6 (woohoo!)
I'm not sure it's worth trying to glean any kind of insight into the power level comparison, but since wild speculation is so much damn fun let's just dig into it a bit.
The power level of the standard Repulsor equipped with las-talon, stubber, twin heavy bolters, "icarus weapons", and "defensive weapon systems" is 13. Icarus is the anti-air shenanigans and defensive weapon systems are likely to be the stormbolters/fragstorm/krakstorm launchers. A current Repulsor in 40k with this loadout (assuming fragstorms) would be about 270 points.
It can upgrade to the heavy onslaught for +3 power rating and replace the stubber with the onslaught for a +1 power rating, and replace the twin heavy bolters for lascannons for free bringing the power rating to 17 but reflecting a unit just 1 point shy of 300.
In comparison, the Executioner starts with a heavy onslaught, icarus weapons, macro plasma, twin heavy bolter, and defensive weapon systems for 24 power rating.
I certainly hope it isn't that big of a gap in 40k.
The 24 PL on the Apoc Executioner makes zero sense, and if its even remotely an indication of points costing it'll be beyond DoA in 40k.
The 24 PL on the Apoc Executioner makes zero sense, and if its even remotely an indication of points costing it'll be beyond DoA in 40k.
My concern as well. I mean, it puts the Executioner in the same power level range as Knights. I'm hoping that 315 points with the HLD rumour to be true...
redboi wrote: I have zero interest in using repulsors simply because I can't be hassled to fire a dozen slightly different weapon profiles for a single vehicle
This. Even Imperial Knights, fully kitted out, have fewer weapons than the Repulsor. It's such a pain to figure out all the different itty bitty forms of dakka the Repulsor has.
Are the points for apocalypse the same as normal 40k?
Ice_can wrote: Simply put if your going to start labeling things as pay to win, then surely the new repulsive fits squarely into the pay to win box of buy this new expensive primaris model that gets the same broken rules as Astra Militarum.
Having this magical line that GW = not cheating, FW = Pay to Win Cheating is absolutely not an acceptable attitude to have.
By the simple fact that it requires an additional codex and models surely the 32 or 17 are by definition pay to win options by the same measures.
If this thing is as cheap as people are claiming in points with access to rerolls and more rerolls it's going to be just the next round of power creep.
Tyrannofex, Exocrine, Fire Prism, and Gunwagons also have Grinding Advance-equivalent rules. I'm more surprised than the Hammerhead doesn't have it, but that's presumably because the Riptide has Novacharge to achieve a similar end and they don't care about eh Hammerhead because the Riptide is the new Tau "core" tank.
It seems to be the standard patch for "this unit is your tank".
IMO, it's good that the Executioner has it, but the Predator needs to get it.
As far as the power of this thing vs the regular Repulsor, I sincerely hope it isn't particularly more expensive. Its average damage is a short improvement and it has no more potential, but has to move at half speed to keep output parity [it also has less offensive flexibility, since all 4 shots hit the same thing]. It does have range, but that's it.
The 24 PL on the Apoc Executioner makes zero sense, and if its even remotely an indication of points costing it'll be beyond DoA in 40k.
My concern as well. I mean, it puts the Executioner in the same power level range as Knights. I'm hoping that 315 points with the HLD rumour to be true...
It's not comparable. In 40K a S10 gun means nothing for typically fielded units - it already wounds it wants to hit everything on a 3+. In apoc it wounds vehicles better than a lascannon including knights then you add on double tap. It will be really formidable in that system.
Something that focus fires, rerolls 1s to hit - so 2s rerolling 1s - and then wounds on 4s on a D12 with reroll 1s to wound...is going to hurt a LOT.
I mean a primaris captain is barely different in apoc than a regular captain, but they're the same cost. Comparing the two systems is a fools errand.
The 24 PL on the Apoc Executioner makes zero sense, and if its even remotely an indication of points costing it'll be beyond DoA in 40k.
My concern as well. I mean, it puts the Executioner in the same power level range as Knights. I'm hoping that 315 points with the HLD rumour to be true...
It's not comparable. In 40K a S10 gun means nothing for typically fielded units - it already wounds it wants to hit everything on a 3+. In apoc it wounds vehicles better than a lascannon including knights then you add on double tap. It will be really formidable in that system.
Something that focus fires, rerolls 1s to hit - so 2s rerolling 1s - and then wounds on 4s on a D12 with reroll 1s to wound...is going to hurt a LOT.
I mean a primaris captain is barely different in apoc than a regular captain, but they're the same cost. Comparing the two systems is a fools errand.
Apoc also doesn't have invul saves. So space marine tanks start to look good again.
The 24 PL on the Apoc Executioner makes zero sense, and if its even remotely an indication of points costing it'll be beyond DoA in 40k.
My concern as well. I mean, it puts the Executioner in the same power level range as Knights. I'm hoping that 315 points with the HLD rumour to be true...
It's not comparable. In 40K a S10 gun means nothing for typically fielded units - it already wounds it wants to hit everything on a 3+. In apoc it wounds vehicles better than a lascannon including knights then you add on double tap. It will be really formidable in that system.
Something that focus fires, rerolls 1s to hit - so 2s rerolling 1s - and then wounds on 4s on a D12 with reroll 1s to wound...is going to hurt a LOT.
I mean a primaris captain is barely different in apoc than a regular captain, but they're the same cost. Comparing the two systems is a fools errand.
It's important to note that the version detailed in the data sheet is equipped with the plasma weapon by default.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Would a DW Repulsor be an effective tool for dropping a squad of HTH Vets in close range? That would be scary.
Don't Repulsors only carry Primaris? If so there's not really a good HtH unit they can transport.
Oh jeez, I'm getting my Vet loadouts confused. Thank you. You are right. I somehow melded the Vet's rules with the primaris rules.
What about Repulsors dropping off Reivers at 8", and they all unleashing Vengence rounds, and one tossing the "No overwatch grenade". Followed up by other charges?
Assuming you can safely get to 8" away you get to engage in some thoroughly mediocre combat with your overpriced Primaris. You'd be better off dropping Intercessors off at a longer distance, probably in cover, and unloading with them. The real benefit of Repulsor/Executioner transport capacity is the ability to keep expensive but fragile units like Hellblasters off the table for a turn to protect them from shooting. It's not good at delivering units into the enemy's face, because there aren't too many units you'd really want to do that with.
A Gravis Captain with 3 Agressors and a Lieutenant would work with the Lastalon Repulsor, especially if they're SW and the Gravis Captain/ Lord has Wulfen Stone. The Lastalon repulsor wants to be within 24 or 18" anyway to unleash all it's dakka, might as well drop off that Aggressor Squad + Gravis Captain within threat range. That or safely get a Captain + a Rapid Fire Hellblaster squad within 15" of whatever your opponents Precious is. For the executioner though, the only way you should use it's transport capacity is to keep something valuable safe from harm in case you lose T1. You never want one to move more than 5" if at all possible so it can double tap the super plasma/ lascannon.
Stux wrote: I think a lot of that sentiment stems from previous editions where FW actually was often much more powerful than GW stuff. The feeling is still somewhat strong in some communities though. As you say, these days it's not really any different in power level to standard GW. Sure there's a few units that are well above the curve, but that's true of GW just as much.
The rumour is that FW is moving away from making content for core GW games though, that it's being refocused to concentrate eventually solely on specialist games like HH, Necromunda and Blood Bowl. Even assuming that is true though, we don't know what that means for existing 40k content, and presumably some future HH stuff would still 40k rules.
I'm not sure about that one, I mean technically the Thunderhawk and Warlord Titan etc are for the Core rules, but they're not really for a Core game. I get what you're saying also, but between the special game core rule models, and GW unlikely to start making the super heavy flyers/titans, etc. FW will continue to make them as long as there's a demand. GW is also unlikely to make the purely aesthetic models like the Deimos pattern stuff people buy because they want the look of a 2nd Edition Predator/Rhino etc. They MIGHT make an addon sprue for the command rhino, etc, they could easily take over the Contemptor Dreads and what not given they've already put out a plastic contemptor in the Calth box, and the other small stuff like Minotaur chapter, landraider and rhino doors etc is just a matter of iconography and making a bigger codex, but I just don't see them taking over most of what Forgeworld makes, and Forgeworld wouldn't make it if they could turn a profit on it.
Even my Custodes have to pay a tax for FGTC. They could overnight really make transports viable again by making DS'ing less easy.
I really hope this has a high (12) transport capacity.
The original Repulsor only carries 10, this is supposedly less.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
endlesswaltz123 wrote: Thought has just occurred... will standard repulsors get the double shot turret weapon rule? Probably not but I think it should be justified by GW why they do not other than them being not equipped with the optics... It seems a no brained they should also have them
The turret is different between the two, if the original isn't retconned, it'll be something in the turret.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lemondish wrote: Apocalypse data sheets are up on the website. Two things of note for the Executioner that almost certainly will carry over to 40k.
1. The pintle mounted heavy stubber is optional, unlike for the Repulsor itself.
The Turret/Hull/Fixed Stubber was optional, and looks like it's been repalced by a mandatory Gatling of some kind. Looks like they just moved the optional location.
As far as the power of this thing vs the regular Repulsor, I sincerely hope it isn't particularly more expensive. Its average damage is a short improvement and it has no more potential, but has to move at half speed to keep output parity [it also has less offensive flexibility, since all 4 shots hit the same thing]. It does have range, but that's it.
Power level and points costs are frequently relative, but not directly linked. Look at the various incarnations of Marneus Calgar. Higher Points costs Marneus's have been lower power level.
The Turret/Hull/Fixed Stubber was optional, and looks like it's been repalced by a mandatory Gatling of some kind. Looks like they just moved the optional location.
Nope - one stubber is optional, the other is part of the starting loadout from the data sheet. The normal Repulsor currently requires a pintle mounted weapon - whether that's a stubber or replaced with an onslaught cannon. Per the data sheet, it is necessary to take one or the other. It's how you can take a hull mounted one in addition to the mandatory pintle mounted weapon.
This new unit does not require a pintle mounted stubber despite the precedent set by the preview pics and the standard Repulsor.
The Turret/Hull/Fixed Stubber was optional, and looks like it's been repalced by a mandatory Gatling of some kind. Looks like they just moved the optional location.
Nope - one stubber is optional, the other is part of the starting loadout from the data sheet. The normal Repulsor currently requires a pintle mounted weapon - whether that's a stubber or replaced with an onslaught cannon. Per the data sheet, it is necessary to take one or the other. It's how you can take a hull mounted one in addition to the mandatory pintle mounted weapon.
This new unit does not require a pintle mounted stubber despite the precedent set by the preview pics and the standard Repulsor.
According to the Apoc data sheets, that is.
If you look at the original Repulsor is has two Stubbers. One built into the turret, one on a Pintle mount. The one on the pintle mount was "required" - it was upgradable but something was there. The one built into the turret wall was optional and could be replaced by a light bit.
If you look at the Repulsor Executioner, it looks like they got rid of the stubber built into the turret and replaced it with a Gatling Something that will always be there - while the pintle stubber is now optional.
I don't think they've reduced the number of gun mounts (outside of those Stormbolter/Grenade Launcher mini turrets) , just moved them around for which is required. Possibly due to modelling/storage/transport feedback. The pintle mount may be more fragile than an inline below turret top mount that allows for a lower foam height and fewer snapped off point bits sticking in the air - especially for the people who leave off the aerials/antennae
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Doesn't it also carry two assblasters? Like, Iron hail heavy stubbers in it's butt?
Wild speculation if you will, but they appeared to be twin linked Icarus Ironhail. The Apoc sheet references "Icarus weapons" so the anti-air theme seems to be a lock. I'd bet on 12 points for that thing, and a perusal of the sprue makes me think it won't be optional, but it might! We shall see, though.
If so, I guess it probably can but you may be better off setting them up with their infilatration rules.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Pandabeer wrote: For the executioner though, the only way you should use it's transport capacity is to keep something valuable safe from harm in case you lose T1. You never want one to move more than 5" if at all possible so it can double tap the super plasma/ lascannon.
I was thinking the same. If you have some backfield Intercessors then they can sit in it quite happily to protect them from T1 shooting if your opponent is going first.
Maybe some Flamestorm Aggressors as defence against someone getting into your DZ but I am not convinced that is a good use of the points.
I was thinking the same. If you have some backfield Intercessors then they can sit in it quite happily to protect them from T1 shooting if your opponent is going first.
Maybe some Flamestorm Aggressors as defence against someone getting into your DZ but I am not convinced that is a good use of the points.
Maybe not anywhere near an efficient use, but sounds fun when it works.
Could also carry a 5 man Intercessor squad and an HQ to add 3'' of movement to them before they head out to a nearby objective. Same with a 3 man bolter Aggressor squad. Or just a 5 man Intercessor unit to intercept any backfield threats. I'm not sure if folks will run both Hellblasters and the Executioner, but if so then they'll probably be castling together and can help protect the blasters if you lose T1.
There will also be times where full movement is all but necessary to get the platform into a better position for a next turn salvo, either due to LoS blocking terrain or if you're running the plasma option and run out of valid targets in its range, so carrying some Intercessors could be worthwhile.
If so, I guess it probably can but you may be better off setting them up with their infilatration rules.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Pandabeer wrote: For the executioner though, the only way you should use it's transport capacity is to keep something valuable safe from harm in case you lose T1. You never want one to move more than 5" if at all possible so it can double tap the super plasma/ lascannon.
I was thinking the same. If you have some backfield Intercessors then they can sit in it quite happily to protect them from T1 shooting if your opponent is going first.
Maybe some Flamestorm Aggressors as defence against someone getting into your DZ but I am not convinced that is a good use of the points.
I might use it to pack a Wolf Lord and Pack Leader in it for drop reduction, so they can jump out and support it on turn 1. 5 Intercessors for holding points also sound like a good idea if you're going for limited backfield commitment. Unfortunately, it doesn't fit Long Fangs, or I'd moderately strongly consider ditching their metal box [which they hide in like cowards and fools ] for it.
Lemondish wrote: Apocalypse data sheets are up on the website. Two things of note for the Executioner that almost certainly will carry over to 40k.
1. The pintle mounted heavy stubber is optional, unlike for the Repulsor itself.
2. Transport capacity is 6 (woohoo!)
I'm not sure it's worth trying to glean any kind of insight into the power level comparison, but since wild speculation is so much damn fun let's just dig into it a bit.
The power level of the standard Repulsor equipped with las-talon, stubber, twin heavy bolters, "icarus weapons", and "defensive weapon systems" is 13. Icarus is the anti-air shenanigans and defensive weapon systems are likely to be the stormbolters/fragstorm/krakstorm launchers. A current Repulsor in 40k with this loadout (assuming fragstorms) would be about 270 points.
It can upgrade to the heavy onslaught for +3 power rating and replace the stubber with the onslaught for a +1 power rating, and replace the twin heavy bolters for lascannons for free bringing the power rating to 17 but reflecting a unit just 1 point shy of 300.
In comparison, the Executioner starts with a heavy onslaught, icarus weapons, macro plasma, twin heavy bolter, and defensive weapon systems for 24 power rating.
I certainly hope it isn't that big of a gap in 40k.
The 24 PL on the Apoc Executioner makes zero sense, and if its even remotely an indication of points costing it'll be beyond DoA in 40k.
Apoc and normal 40k are completely different rule systems now, it would be stupid as hell to copypaste power levels and point costs from that.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: If this is 24PL, I see this being 400pts. Easy. Which stinks. You can't even field 3 at that cost.
Again - Apoc does not cleanly transfer to 40K. Chaos bikes are PL8 for 3 and they're no where near 160 points for 3 in 40K.
Marneus Calgar is/has been been PL 10 200 points, PL11 200 points, and PL9 235 points. All in one edition of 40K not even Apocalypse. And that 2 power level spread is based off of - as near as I can tell - what he can ride in, as the lowest PL highest point cost is the guy who can ride in the most choices, the middle one has teleport strike and can ride in the second most choices while the highest PL (thus lowest points per PL - is the primaris version who has the fewest choices.
One of the only other differences - Terminator Marneus has a never used Relic Blade, and Artificer Marneus doesn’t halve wounds.
PL and Points are not that closely or strictly related.
For almost all new releases, 1 PL = 20 points has been a pretty good guess - all the ork and chaos stuff, for example.
Note that the PL is calculated by using the average between the cheapest and the most expensive loadout, so a PL of 24 could still resullt in a 400 point tank with all gear you might want.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: If this is 24PL, I see this being 400pts. Easy. Which stinks. You can't even field 3 at that cost.
Are you joking or trolling?
This the Apoc datsheet. Have you seen the 40k rules?
I didn't think so
Still, a repulsor is 13 PL in apoc and the executioner almost twice as much. Since the rules are somewhat bases on WH40k, it wouldn't be surprised if it were significantly more expensive than a repulsor.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: If this is 24PL, I see this being 400pts. Easy. Which stinks. You can't even field 3 at that cost.
Are you joking or trolling?
This the Apoc datsheet. Have you seen the 40k rules?
I didn't think so
Still, a repulsor is 13 PL in apoc and the executioner almost twice as much. Since the rules are somewhat bases on WH40k, it wouldn't be surprised if it were significantly more expensive than a repulsor.
or transports simply get a discount in Apoc vs normal. which actually makes sense. a Rhinos of minimal use unless you have eneugh for your entire detachment I would think
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: If this is 24PL, I see this being 400pts. Easy. Which stinks. You can't even field 3 at that cost.
Are you joking or trolling?
This the Apoc datsheet. Have you seen the 40k rules?
I didn't think so
Still, a repulsor is 13 PL in apoc and the executioner almost twice as much. Since the rules are somewhat bases on WH40k, it wouldn't be surprised if it were significantly more expensive than a repulsor.
Landraiders have vastly different costs also in Apoc. The new Repulsor is costed appropriately for the Apoc game. Simple as that. Random tings cost more in Apoc than they do in regular 40k, whilst other things are cheaper.
We'll have the rules by next week. Assuming anything now is silly.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: If this is 24PL, I see this being 400pts. Easy. Which stinks. You can't even field 3 at that cost.
Are you joking or trolling?
This the Apoc datsheet. Have you seen the 40k rules?
I didn't think so
Still, a repulsor is 13 PL in apoc and the executioner almost twice as much. Since the rules are somewhat bases on WH40k, it wouldn't be surprised if it were significantly more expensive than a repulsor.
Landraiders have vastly different costs also in Apoc. The new Repulsor is costed appropriately for the Apoc game. Simple as that. Random tings cost more in Apoc than they do in regular 40k, whilst other things are cheaper.
We'll have the rules by next week. Assuming anything now is silly.
I'd say a few things are pretty safe assumptions, like the carrying capacity and which weapons appear to be optional, all derived from the Apoc data sheet. Points cost really isn't one of those things to assume in this case.
If so, I guess it probably can but you may be better off setting them up with their infilatration rules.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Pandabeer wrote: For the executioner though, the only way you should use it's transport capacity is to keep something valuable safe from harm in case you lose T1. You never want one to move more than 5" if at all possible so it can double tap the super plasma/ lascannon.
I was thinking the same. If you have some backfield Intercessors then they can sit in it quite happily to protect them from T1 shooting if your opponent is going first.
Maybe some Flamestorm Aggressors as defence against someone getting into your DZ but I am not convinced that is a good use of the points.
Yeah that is what I met. Every game I play them they get targeted heavily. Typically they are all dead turn 1. They aren't easy to kill ether. They are just that much of a priority to kill it seems. Can't think of any other primaris unit I'd like to protect turn 1 in a backfield transport. The reason I ask is because they are Phobos - I don't know if it can carry phobos.
If you find the same unit in your list is always destroyed on turn 1, then your list or deployments are not balanced and you're making your opponent's choices for him.
You need to present multiple threats, maybe units that are cheaper but in more pressing positions that can soak up attention, or multiple units that draw attention.
Also, you need more redundancy. You can't expect anything to change if you make no changes.
Ishagu wrote: If you find the same unit in your list is always destroyed on turn 1, then your list or deployments are not balanced and you're making your opponent's choices for him.
You need to present multiple threats, maybe units that are cheaper but in more pressing positions that can soak up attention, or multiple units that draw attention.
Also, you need more redundancy. You can't expect anything to change if you make no changes.
Its really hard to draw attention off aggressors. Scouts and infiltrators won't do it. Most people will lose a couple turns of vps to set up the tabling.
It'll be good for either early or very late turns.
![[Disk]](/dakkaforum/templates/default/images/icon_disk.gif){kind=icon}
] for it.
