You need to transport them, or deploy them out of line of sight.
I've used them in my most recent games without much problems. In a smaller game I was able to hide them and advance them. In bigger games I deploy them in a Repulsor.
If you can't hide an infantry unit in the early turns of the game you are playing with vastly insufficient terrain, I'm afraid.
I've faced both. They're both moderately challenging in their own ways. Aggressors do not like suppressors. I can tell you that.
Repulsors are still pretty expensive per wound with no invuln. The castellan nerf helps, but still plenty of incidental ap out there. For their cost, repulsors needed 20+ wounds. Also, rolling instadeath for expensive ass marine units is no fun, either.
Stormonu wrote: Modelwise, this is just a change to the turret, correct? Asking as I’m not in the mood to buy a whole new model just for a turret swap.
Look, I'm not going to lie, Ishagu has made a very valid point that keeps getting ignored. Diversify your offense, and your lack of invuln saves become less of a glaring issue.
If my opponent wants to waste a turn blowing up a 300pt target, let him. Meanwhile my DSers are in his backfield turn 2, or my gun line has wiped his off the board, or my custodes are in melee range of his juicy big guns, or any number of other plans are bearing fruit.
Oh well, one attack was blunted, big deal. Where are your other 1500ish points?
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Look, I'm not going to lie, Ishagu has made a very valid point that keeps getting ignored. Diversify your offense, and your lack of invuln saves become less of a glaring issue.
If my opponent wants to waste a turn blowing up a 300pt target, let him. Meanwhile my DSers are in his backfield turn 2, or my gun line has wiped his off the board, or my custodes are in melee range of his juicy big guns, or any number of other plans are bearing fruit.
Oh well, one attack was blunted, big deal. Where are your other 1500ish points?
Other armies do this better than marines, though. Anything you can think to do, so can a better codex. Also, other armies stuff has a chance of living due to invuln (IK), a cheaper cost per wound (IG), so they don't CARE if they die, or worse, a combination of both. (Drukhari)
He's pointing out an OBVIOUS tactic, which the repulsor actually leans AWAY from. Even if all I do is torch a 300+ point tank, and force death rolls for the contents, I'm still on track to cripple your army. Most lists can remove 16 T8 wounds with no invuln pretty consistently with less than 100% of their shooting, too.
How does losing your repulsor help your deep strikers? If you've got deep strikers people care about, they'll just hold anti-DS formation until you have to commit. Marine gunlines likely will not knock out an entire enemy gunline in one go. Maybe your custodes BIKES are close, but not foot Custodes. Losing a 300 pt tank to a fraction of enemy fire IS a big deal.
Marines struggle to diversify because of their cost. Lack of invuln will always be an issue, because your opponent is always getting full value from AP they purchase.
You say most "lists" can take out a repulsor in one turn. Without going through 100% of their shooting. Well, ofcourse, that's a whole list.
What I'm saying is if you dedicate your entire list to shooting one target in a single turn, you have severely hurt yourself.
Lets do this by the numbers. Lets use Drukari:
What lists are there that one turn 1 can eliminate two of these, and have shooting left over? Because I don't know why you are spending all your effort wiping out 1-2 tanks when there are far more valuable targets.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: You say most "lists" can take out a repulsor in one turn. Without going through 100% of their shooting. Well, ofcourse, that's a whole list.
What I'm saying is if you dedicate your entire list to shooting one target in a single turn, you have severely hurt yourself.
Lets do this by the numbers. Lets use Drukari:
What lists are there that one turn 1 can eliminate two of these, and have shooting left over? Because I don't know why you are spending all your effort wiping out 1-2 tanks when there are far more valuable targets.
Both of my tau and Knight's lists could do that on avarage dice I'd say. Also at that point your down 600+ points and what is your return AT coming from?
I hate to admit it but simply put 2 commander russes certainly seem a better investment of points than 1 of these.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: You say most "lists" can take out a repulsor in one turn. Without going through 100% of their shooting. Well, ofcourse, that's a whole list.
What I'm saying is if you dedicate your entire list to shooting one target in a single turn, you have severely hurt yourself.
Lets do this by the numbers. Lets use Drukari:
What lists are there that one turn 1 can eliminate two of these, and have shooting left over? Because I don't know why you are spending all your effort wiping out 1-2 tanks when there are far more valuable targets.
Are there? Repulsors are pretty damn valuable. I don't have to kill two turn one. Just one. Then fire the little guns at your infiltrators. Yes, some lists will struggle and have to get closer, which is in the favor of the marine player. CA did help the repulsor quite a bit, but giving full AP value to your foes sucks on such an expensive model.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: You say most "lists" can take out a repulsor in one turn. Without going through 100% of their shooting. Well, ofcourse, that's a whole list.
What I'm saying is if you dedicate your entire list to shooting one target in a single turn, you have severely hurt yourself.
Lets do this by the numbers. Lets use Drukari:
What lists are there that one turn 1 can eliminate two of these, and have shooting left over? Because I don't know why you are spending all your effort wiping out 1-2 tanks when there are far more valuable targets.
Both of my tau and Knight's lists could do that on avarage dice I'd say. Also at that point your down 600+ points and what is your return AT coming from?
I hate to admit it but simply put 2 commander russes certainly seem a better investment of points than 1 of these.
Martel732 wrote:I've faced both. They're both moderately challenging in their own ways. Aggressors do not like suppressors. I can tell you that.
I haven't yet faced any Suppressors on the table, but now that you mention it that does look like a pretty great counter. Thanks for sharing the insight!
Martel732 wrote:Repulsors are still pretty expensive per wound with no invuln. The castellan nerf helps, but still plenty of incidental ap out there. For their cost, repulsors needed 20+ wounds. Also, rolling instadeath for expensive ass marine units is no fun, either.
Sure, but they have a lot more in common with the majority of armoured units in this game than they do with the
Stormonu wrote:Modelwise, this is just a change to the turret, correct? Asking as I’m not in the mood to buy a whole new model just for a turret swap.
There's a whole new top panel to hold the turret that also removes the storm bolters over the doors (and relocates them to the back of the turret). It might be possible to just swap the turret, but we won't know for sure until we get it in our hands. In any case, it does not look like the sprue will be sold separately given we've already seen the order and pricing information for all items going up on the 29th.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:Look, I'm not going to lie, Ishagu has made a very valid point that keeps getting ignored. Diversify your offense, and your lack of invuln saves become less of a glaring issue.
If my opponent wants to waste a turn blowing up a 300pt target, let him. Meanwhile my DSers are in his backfield turn 2, or my gun line has wiped his off the board, or my custodes are in melee range of his juicy big guns, or any number of other plans are bearing fruit.
Oh well, one attack was blunted, big deal. Where are your other 1500ish points?
Well put. Regarding the first point, there's a fun, beautiful off-meta Primaris list I've been following for a little while that is built on threat overload of armoured units. The core is 3 Repulsors and 2 Redemptors. On their own, Redemptors tend to be a bit too squishy to reliably make it where they really belong - punching and smashing things with that str 14 (!!!) fist. But even though the Repulsor is considered 'bad' when compared to a unit like an Imperial Knight, you still can't really allow it to fire on you for multiple turns. They still hurt, which means you might choose to prioritize them over other armoured threats, thus removing one of the biggest weaknesses of the Redemptor: it's relative lack of durability. Redundancy can mean numbers sometimes.
As for your second point, regarding the poster on the previous page who was having trouble keeping his Eliminators alive...if your opponent really wants to focus a 72 point unit so heavily, I'd say let them. In fact, maybe bring a second so they feel the need to split fire and spend far more energy focusing them over something else. The key is to make sure you have an answer somewhere else in your list to handle the job your Eliminators are there for. Which means that redundancy doesn't always have to mean numbers - it can also mean building in the capability to do the same job or handle the same threats, even if its in a completely different way.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: You say most "lists" can take out a repulsor in one turn. Without going through 100% of their shooting. Well, ofcourse, that's a whole list.
What I'm saying is if you dedicate your entire list to shooting one target in a single turn, you have severely hurt yourself.
Lets do this by the numbers. Lets use Drukari:
What lists are there that one turn 1 can eliminate two of these, and have shooting left over? Because I don't know why you are spending all your effort wiping out 1-2 tanks when there are far more valuable targets.
Both of my tau and Knight's lists could do that on avarage dice I'd say. Also at that point your down 600+ points and what is your return AT coming from?
I hate to admit it but simply put 2 commander russes certainly seem a better investment of points than 1 of these.
Yeah, just my Plasma Devs would average 27.3 wounds on a Repulsor target. It doesn't take anywhere near a whole list to knock something like that out. In my experience the big vehicle targets just don't tank hits without an invuln.
Land Raiders in cover could almost tank effectively if it werent for a few AP-4 and above weapons. They dont quite put up enough return fire though.
Are there? Repulsors are pretty damn valuable. I don't have to kill two turn one. Just one. Then fire the little guns at your infiltrators. Yes, some lists will struggle and have to get closer, which is in the favor of the marine player. CA did help the repulsor quite a bit, but giving full AP value to your foes sucks on such an expensive model.
Kind of gets a bit into the weeds, but the worst thing to happen to heavy, elite armoured units is the inclusion of invulnerable saves. The Repulsor doesn't need an invuln save. Putting Invuln saves on elite armoured units was a mistake from the beginning, but it continues to be the knob GW prefers to tweak to make these elite units more durable. I think that's a crying shame. What should be happening is that those weapons with high AP and high damage should be the exact tools you use to fight any vehicle, elite or otherwise. Lascannons and their ilk should be the weapons that kill units like Repulsors, but all an invuln does is shift the preferred and efficient weapons to things like Plasma or autocannons, or even boatloads of mid-str D1 shooting.
A better way to make these units more durable is a FNP or additional wounds. If instead of 16 T8 wounds, you had to eat through 24 (pie in the sky never going to happen suggestion just for illustrative purposes) you'd be disinclined to try and chew through it with attrition fire or plasma. You'd need actual high damage weaponry to do the job, and it will likewise survive longer than it does now even against those. You've achieved the aim of making it last longer without making the concept of the meltagun or the lascannon fundamentally worthless. Some units like Knights kind of need the invuln - the Repulsor doesn't have to be one of them.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Look, I'm not going to lie, Ishagu has made a very valid point that keeps getting ignored. Diversify your offense, and your lack of invuln saves become less of a glaring issue.
If my opponent wants to waste a turn blowing up a 300pt target, let him. Meanwhile my DSers are in his backfield turn 2, or my gun line has wiped his off the board, or my custodes are in melee range of his juicy big guns, or any number of other plans are bearing fruit.
Oh well, one attack was blunted, big deal. Where are your other 1500ish points?
yeah, this pretty much sums it up.
Why on earth would you present a target that screams SHOOT ME & not have other targets that should also need to be shot at? Just like Landsraider you need more than one. Or deploy using more of the natural cover to gain the -1 to hit(obscured) & +1 to the save(hard cover). The list that will present the most varied threats at the most optimal ranges will make your enemy shoot at what you want them not & not the other way around. I think sometimes players get stuck into a specific mode of playing and no longer notice/adapt to the the enemy's positioning, threat range, etc... More than once I've been watching my buddies playing and figured out both of their battle plans, then comment to other friend whose watching and say Steve will do X, y, a & Johnny will do C, G, & R. If you use game tactics you may win but if you use actual military tactics you should win(dice/luck dependent)
I always liked the idea of actually needed certain strength weapon or AP 3 and up to even do damage to a heavy armored vehicle. There is no earthly reason that a lasrifle can take down a titan.
Are there? Repulsors are pretty damn valuable. I don't have to kill two turn one. Just one. Then fire the little guns at your infiltrators. Yes, some lists will struggle and have to get closer, which is in the favor of the marine player. CA did help the repulsor quite a bit, but giving full AP value to your foes sucks on such an expensive model.
Kind of gets a bit into the weeds, but the worst thing to happen to heavy, elite armoured units is the inclusion of invulnerable saves. The Repulsor doesn't need an invuln save. Putting Invuln saves on elite armoured units was a mistake from the beginning, but it continues to be the knob GW prefers to tweak to make these elite units more durable. I think that's a crying shame. What should be happening is that those weapons with high AP and high damage should be the exact tools you use to fight any vehicle, elite or otherwise. Lascannons and their ilk should be the weapons that kill units like Repulsors, but all an invuln does is shift the preferred and efficient weapons to things like Plasma or autocannons, or even boatloads of mid-str D1 shooting.
A better way to make these units more durable is a FNP or additional wounds. If instead of 16 T8 wounds, you had to eat through 24 (pie in the sky never going to happen suggestion just for illustrative purposes) you'd be disinclined to try and chew through it with attrition fire or plasma. You'd need actual high damage weaponry to do the job, and it will likewise survive longer than it does now even against those. You've achieved the aim of making it last longer without making the concept of the meltagun or the lascannon fundamentally worthless. Some units like Knights kind of need the invuln - the Repulsor doesn't have to be one of them.
I agree, but pandora's box is open. The reality is that bringing high ap is a huge risk.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I always liked the idea of actually needed certain strength weapon or AP 3 and up to even do damage to a heavy armored vehicle. There is no earthly reason that a lasrifle can take down a titan.
Not this silly argument again. You realise it takes an average of over 6,000 Lasgun shots from Guardsmen to down a Warlord Titan right?
That is for all practical purposes an immunity to being killed by Lasguns.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Look, I'm not going to lie, Ishagu has made a very valid point that keeps getting ignored. Diversify your offense, and your lack of invuln saves become less of a glaring issue.
If my opponent wants to waste a turn blowing up a 300pt target, let him. Meanwhile my DSers are in his backfield turn 2, or my gun line has wiped his off the board, or my custodes are in melee range of his juicy big guns, or any number of other plans are bearing fruit.
Oh well, one attack was blunted, big deal. Where are your other 1500ish points?
yeah, this pretty much sums it up.
Why on earth would you present a target that screams SHOOT ME & not have other targets that should also need to be shot at? Just like Landsraider you need more than one. Or deploy using more of the natural cover to gain the -1 to hit(obscured) & +1 to the save(hard cover). The list that will present the most varied threats at the most optimal ranges will make your enemy shoot at what you want them not & not the other way around. I think sometimes players get stuck into a specific mode of playing and no longer notice/adapt to the the enemy's positioning, threat range, etc... More than once I've been watching my buddies playing and figured out both of their battle plans, then comment to other friend whose watching and say Steve will do X, y, a & Johnny will do C, G, & R. If you use game tactics you may win but if you use actual military tactics you should win(dice/luck dependent)
This doesnt work well vs good players with good target priority. One of the strengths of shooting is that the shooting list chooses what dies. As opposed to assault where your opponent chooses.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I always liked the idea of actually needed certain strength weapon or AP 3 and up to even do damage to a heavy armored vehicle. There is no earthly reason that a lasrifle can take down a titan.
Not this silly argument again. You realise it takes an average of over 6,000 Lasgun shots from Guardsmen to down a Warlord Titan right?
That is for all practical purposes an immunity to being killed by Lasguns.
True, although I do think there's something to the spirit of the argument. Personally I am not against a hard limit for being able to wound something. When I was looking at potential ways for Tyranids to take out a Castellan, one of the most effective alpha strikes was a single unit of Temagants with Devourers, which - when firing twice, could put 6-7 wounds on it. That was both fun and a little irksome.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I always liked the idea of actually needed certain strength weapon or AP 3 and up to even do damage to a heavy armored vehicle. There is no earthly reason that a lasrifle can take down a titan.
Not this silly argument again. You realise it takes an average of over 6,000 Lasgun shots from Guardsmen to down a Warlord Titan right?
That is for all practical purposes an immunity to being killed by Lasguns.
True, although I do think there's something to the spirit of the argument. Personally I am not against a hard limit for being able to wound something. When I was looking at potential ways for Tyranids to take out a Castellan, one of the most effective alpha strikes was a single unit of Temagants with Devourers, which - when firing twice, could put 6-7 wounds on it. That was both fun and a little irksome.
Both ends of the spectrum leave something to be desired - it’s annoying when you’re otherwise out of antitank weapons and the enemy is now immune to your units, but at the same time it’s annoying that a lasgun does more than chip the paint on a vehicle or Titan. Scale creep in 40K has caused this issue, and there’s just no good answer - though the upcoming Apocalypse Rules May help alleviate some of the issues.
As an aside, I watched a 2K point game between Eldar and Primaris yesterday, and the Repulsor in that game survived a 1st round beating to return fire (and drop the Wraithknight to 1/2 wounds). While the Eldar player *could* have dropped the Repulsor in one go, that would have been nearly 1.5K - 2K points shooting at it, and I don’t expect much of anything would have survived that sort of onslaught. Likewise, focusing fire on it would have left a lot of other dangerous units free to cause havoc on the enemy army. I think, overall, it will be fine to bring to most games, and with the laser destroyers will pump out some impressive firepower that can’t be ignored.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I always liked the idea of actually needed certain strength weapon or AP 3 and up to even do damage to a heavy armored vehicle. There is no earthly reason that a lasrifle can take down a titan.
Not this silly argument again. You realise it takes an average of over 6,000 Lasgun shots from Guardsmen to down a Warlord Titan right?
That is for all practical purposes an immunity to being killed by Lasguns.
True, although I do think there's something to the spirit of the argument. Personally I am not against a hard limit for being able to wound something. When I was looking at potential ways for Tyranids to take out a Castellan, one of the most effective alpha strikes was a single unit of Temagants with Devourers, which - when firing twice, could put 6-7 wounds on it. That was both fun and a little irksome.
Both ends of the spectrum leave something to be desired - it’s annoying when you’re otherwise out of antitank weapons and the enemy is now immune to your units, but at the same time it’s annoying that a lasgun does more than chip the paint on a vehicle or Titan. Scale creep in 40K has caused this issue, and there’s just no good answer - though the upcoming Apocalypse Rules May help alleviate some of the issues.
As an aside, I watched a 2K point game between Eldar and Primaris yesterday, and the Repulsor in that game survived a 1st round beating to return fire (and drop the Wraithknight to 1/2 wounds). While the Eldar player *could* have dropped the Repulsor in one go, that would have been nearly 1.5K - 2K points shooting at it, and I don’t expect much of anything would have survived that sort of onslaught. Likewise, focusing fire on it would have left a lot of other dangerous units free to cause havoc on the enemy army. I think, overall, it will be fine to bring to most games, and with the laser destroyers will pump out some impressive firepower that can’t be ignored.
You know, I don't think it has to do with the scale of the game. I think it actually has more to do with the lack of unit restrictions in army building. If you're capable of bringing a huge skew list of all knights, you really want to make sure that the other army can hurt them. Thus, every weapon can be effective to at least some degree.
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.
Not really sure that is the case here. I have to set them up in range to shoot and their best round is heavy so -1 to hit if they move. Pretty much have to set them up in the line of fire within 36 inches. So everything in their army that hurts them can likely shoot them. It's just if your opponent has things like shadowseers or farseers that are core to their army - they have to kill them. At least with a transport I could protect them turn 1 and still take the best positions. It still likely wont make this repulsor destructor that great for it's points though. The mega plasma seems to be quite good though when it shoots twice. Will probably be best to take the cheapest load out. Forgo taking extra bolters and triple stubber as well with twin HB. So you'd be putting out decent anti tank and infantry at 30-36".
9 str 4 ap-1
18 str 5ap-1
2d6str 9 ap-4 falt 2 damage
In the Gman bubble that will do a lot of damage and way cheaper than a big hellblaster squad. Tiggy will make it -1 to hit and t9 if we get to go first.
Really not great units to put in there though. Maybe a 3 man Agressor that you advance with - will give you a basically a 9 inch move with a d6 advance - can probably get into a nice position and shoot turn 1 with like 28ish bolter shots.
Or you could put 6 eliminators in there. You can even use the +2 to hit round with ignore cover and try to snipe tau drones or something.
Outside of those 2 options there really isn't anything great for them to hold.
The other thing...compared to a levithan dread which costs like 303 (likely less than the repulsor) It just doesn't compete I dont think. The levi has a 4++ with a 2+ and only 2 less wounds. It is about twice as survivable and does comparable damage (probably better in a lot of cases where AP and str doesn't mater so much)
IMO this tank with the discribed set up needs to cost in the 240-260 range to be competitive with the levi. Taking both is kinda meh also because you can only really buff 1 tanks durability with tiggy.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: You say most "lists" can take out a repulsor in one turn. Without going through 100% of their shooting. Well, ofcourse, that's a whole list.
What I'm saying is if you dedicate your entire list to shooting one target in a single turn, you have severely hurt yourself.
Lets do this by the numbers. Lets use Drukari:
What lists are there that one turn 1 can eliminate two of these, and have shooting left over? Because I don't know why you are spending all your effort wiping out 1-2 tanks when there are far more valuable targets.
Both of my tau and Knight's lists could do that on avarage dice I'd say. Also at that point your down 600+ points and what is your return AT coming from?
I hate to admit it but simply put 2 commander russes certainly seem a better investment of points than 1 of these.
Yeah, just my Plasma Devs would average 27.3 wounds on a Repulsor target. It doesn't take anywhere near a whole list to knock something like that out. In my experience the big vehicle targets just don't tank hits without an invuln.
Land Raiders in cover could almost tank effectively if it werent for a few AP-4 and above weapons. They dont quite put up enough return fire though.
I think your math is off a bit there unless you are talking 3 squads. Assuming 10 shots with the cherub. You average about 8-9 hits with rerolls and wound about 5 times with reroll 1's. Plus he still gets a 6+ so probably averages about 8 damage. It still a lot but far from 1 shooting it. Ironically the double shooting plasma will average about the same damage because it wounds on 3's and is ap-4.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I always liked the idea of actually needed certain strength weapon or AP 3 and up to even do damage to a heavy armored vehicle. There is no earthly reason that a lasrifle can take down a titan.
Not this silly argument again. You realise it takes an average of over 6,000 Lasgun shots from Guardsmen to down a Warlord Titan right?
That is for all practical purposes an immunity to being killed by Lasguns.
True, although I do think there's something to the spirit of the argument. Personally I am not against a hard limit for being able to wound something. When I was looking at potential ways for Tyranids to take out a Castellan, one of the most effective alpha strikes was a single unit of Temagants with Devourers, which - when firing twice, could put 6-7 wounds on it. That was both fun and a little irksome.
Both ends of the spectrum leave something to be desired - it’s annoying when you’re otherwise out of antitank weapons and the enemy is now immune to your units, but at the same time it’s annoying that a lasgun does more than chip the paint on a vehicle or Titan. Scale creep in 40K has caused this issue, and there’s just no good answer - though the upcoming Apocalypse Rules May help alleviate some of the issues.
As an aside, I watched a 2K point game between Eldar and Primaris yesterday, and the Repulsor in that game survived a 1st round beating to return fire (and drop the Wraithknight to 1/2 wounds). While the Eldar player *could* have dropped the Repulsor in one go, that would have been nearly 1.5K - 2K points shooting at it, and I don’t expect much of anything would have survived that sort of onslaught. Likewise, focusing fire on it would have left a lot of other dangerous units free to cause havoc on the enemy army. I think, overall, it will be fine to bring to most games, and with the laser destroyers will pump out some impressive firepower that can’t be ignored.
Eh. Repuslors die really quick to eldar. If it's doomed - it's dying so freaking fast. I can't even play my repulsors for this reason now. Basically because it has no invun save it is very unable vs just about any army that brings guns.
IMHO the biggest issue is that blast weapons are better then concentrated damage weapons.
1D6 attacks 1 damage is intended to be a weapon you use to clear infantry, but it's straight up better then 1 attack 1d6 damage, which is clearly INTENDED to be your heavy punch weapons, GW needs to fix that IMHO
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: You say most "lists" can take out a repulsor in one turn. Without going through 100% of their shooting. Well, ofcourse, that's a whole list.
What I'm saying is if you dedicate your entire list to shooting one target in a single turn, you have severely hurt yourself.
Lets do this by the numbers. Lets use Drukari:
What lists are there that one turn 1 can eliminate two of these, and have shooting left over? Because I don't know why you are spending all your effort wiping out 1-2 tanks when there are far more valuable targets.
Both of my tau and Knight's lists could do that on avarage dice I'd say. Also at that point your down 600+ points and what is your return AT coming from?
I hate to admit it but simply put 2 commander russes certainly seem a better investment of points than 1 of these.
Yeah, just my Plasma Devs would average 27.3 wounds on a Repulsor target. It doesn't take anywhere near a whole list to knock something like that out. In my experience the big vehicle targets just don't tank hits without an invuln.
Land Raiders in cover could almost tank effectively if it werent for a few AP-4 and above weapons. They dont quite put up enough return fire though.
I think your math is off a bit there unless you are talking 3 squads. Assuming 10 shots with the cherub. You average about 8-9 hits with rerolls and wound about 5 times with reroll 1's. Plus he still gets a 6+ so probably averages about 8 damage. It still a lot but far from 1 shooting it. Ironically the double shooting plasma will average about the same damage because it wounds on 3's and is ap-4.
3 squads, Cherubs, Chapter Master + Lt. Rerolls.
Point is that it hardly takes an army to take one down. 8 Lascannons on a BS3+ platform with the same rerolls average 16 wounds.
Haha, Terminus Ultra.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BrianDavion wrote: IMHO the biggest issue is that blast weapons are better then concentrated damage weapons.
1D6 attacks 1 damage is intended to be a weapon you use to clear infantry, but it's straight up better then 1 attack 1d6 damage, which is clearly INTENDED to be your heavy punch weapons, GW needs to fix that IMHO
All else being equal (S and AP) it doesn't matter where the D6 is in the equation. A D6 shot 1D Lascannon is as effective as a 1 shot D6D Lascannon.
Point is that it hardly takes an army to take one down. 8 Lascannons on a BS3+ platform with the same rerolls average 16 wounds.
thaty's 387 points of devestators, assuming you don't run with ANY Abalative wounds (assuming you run with 5 abalative wounds in each squad thats another 195 points) meanwhile a repulsor clocks in at what 290?
Point is that it hardly takes an army to take one down. 8 Lascannons on a BS3+ platform with the same rerolls average 16 wounds.
thaty's 387 points of devestators, assuming you don't run with ANY Abalative wounds (assuming you run with 5 abalative wounds in each squad thats another 195 points) meanwhile a repulsor clocks in at what 290?
Cheap dakka Repulsors (which I think we might see a bit more of for Primaris forces) can come in at just over 250.
BrianDavion wrote: IMHO the biggest issue is that blast weapons are better then concentrated damage weapons.
1D6 attacks 1 damage is intended to be a weapon you use to clear infantry, but it's straight up better then 1 attack 1d6 damage, which is clearly INTENDED to be your heavy punch weapons, GW needs to fix that IMHO
Well, that assumes they have the same strength and AP. I think the problem is that because tanks are T7, and sometimes T8, and infantry and infantry-killers are between S4 and S7 with sometimes good AP, high RoF, low damage weapons can wound tanks reliably and efficiently.
I would imagine that a weapon dealing multiple shots at AT-gun grade strength would represent an artillery piece or other high-caliber high-explosive shell [like a Demolisher Cannon], which are certainly at good as most AT guns at wrecking tanks.
I think the big loss of this edition is the failure to fully exploit the potential of the uncapped S and T scales. Also, the making of tanks T7.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: You say most "lists" can take out a repulsor in one turn. Without going through 100% of their shooting. Well, ofcourse, that's a whole list.
What I'm saying is if you dedicate your entire list to shooting one target in a single turn, you have severely hurt yourself.
Lets do this by the numbers. Lets use Drukari:
What lists are there that one turn 1 can eliminate two of these, and have shooting left over? Because I don't know why you are spending all your effort wiping out 1-2 tanks when there are far more valuable targets.
Both of my tau and Knight's lists could do that on avarage dice I'd say. Also at that point your down 600+ points and what is your return AT coming from?
I hate to admit it but simply put 2 commander russes certainly seem a better investment of points than 1 of these.
Yeah, just my Plasma Devs would average 27.3 wounds on a Repulsor target. It doesn't take anywhere near a whole list to knock something like that out. In my experience the big vehicle targets just don't tank hits without an invuln.
Land Raiders in cover could almost tank effectively if it werent for a few AP-4 and above weapons. They dont quite put up enough return fire though.
I think your math is off a bit there unless you are talking 3 squads. Assuming 10 shots with the cherub. You average about 8-9 hits with rerolls and wound about 5 times with reroll 1's. Plus he still gets a 6+ so probably averages about 8 damage. It still a lot but far from 1 shooting it. Ironically the double shooting plasma will average about the same damage because it wounds on 3's and is ap-4.
3 squads, Cherubs, Chapter Master + Lt. Rerolls.
Point is that it hardly takes an army to take one down. 8 Lascannons on a BS3+ platform with the same rerolls average 16 wounds.
Haha, Terminus Ultra.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BrianDavion wrote: IMHO the biggest issue is that blast weapons are better then concentrated damage weapons.
1D6 attacks 1 damage is intended to be a weapon you use to clear infantry, but it's straight up better then 1 attack 1d6 damage, which is clearly INTENDED to be your heavy punch weapons, GW needs to fix that IMHO
All else being equal (S and AP) it doesn't matter where the D6 is in the equation. A D6 shot 1D Lascannon is as effective as a 1 shot D6D Lascannon.
Actually it does matter where you put the D6, if it's shots, then you're more likely to cause at least some damage, whereas if it's D6 damage, it's a much more of an "all or nothing" gamble
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: You say most "lists" can take out a repulsor in one turn. Without going through 100% of their shooting. Well, ofcourse, that's a whole list.
What I'm saying is if you dedicate your entire list to shooting one target in a single turn, you have severely hurt yourself.
Lets do this by the numbers. Lets use Drukari:
What lists are there that one turn 1 can eliminate two of these, and have shooting left over? Because I don't know why you are spending all your effort wiping out 1-2 tanks when there are far more valuable targets.
Both of my tau and Knight's lists could do that on avarage dice I'd say. Also at that point your down 600+ points and what is your return AT coming from?
I hate to admit it but simply put 2 commander russes certainly seem a better investment of points than 1 of these.
Yeah, just my Plasma Devs would average 27.3 wounds on a Repulsor target. It doesn't take anywhere near a whole list to knock something like that out. In my experience the big vehicle targets just don't tank hits without an invuln.
Land Raiders in cover could almost tank effectively if it werent for a few AP-4 and above weapons. They dont quite put up enough return fire though.
I think your math is off a bit there unless you are talking 3 squads. Assuming 10 shots with the cherub. You average about 8-9 hits with rerolls and wound about 5 times with reroll 1's. Plus he still gets a 6+ so probably averages about 8 damage. It still a lot but far from 1 shooting it. Ironically the double shooting plasma will average about the same damage because it wounds on 3's and is ap-4.
3 squads, Cherubs, Chapter Master + Lt. Rerolls.
Point is that it hardly takes an army to take one down. 8 Lascannons on a BS3+ platform with the same rerolls average 16 wounds.
Haha, Terminus Ultra.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BrianDavion wrote: IMHO the biggest issue is that blast weapons are better then concentrated damage weapons.
1D6 attacks 1 damage is intended to be a weapon you use to clear infantry, but it's straight up better then 1 attack 1d6 damage, which is clearly INTENDED to be your heavy punch weapons, GW needs to fix that IMHO
All else being equal (S and AP) it doesn't matter where the D6 is in the equation. A D6 shot 1D Lascannon is as effective as a 1 shot D6D Lascannon.
Actually it does matter where you put the D6, if it's shots, then you're more likely to cause at least some damage, whereas if it's D6 damage, it's a much more of an "all or nothing" gamble
It matters so little at shooting tanks compared to how much it matters at shooting non tanks that its neglible. A d6 shot 1D lascannon killing 3,5 more infantry models than a normal lascannon matters much more about it being a bit swingy sometimes.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Look, I'm not going to lie, Ishagu has made a very valid point that keeps getting ignored. Diversify your offense, and your lack of invuln saves become less of a glaring issue.
If my opponent wants to waste a turn blowing up a 300pt target, let him. Meanwhile my DSers are in his backfield turn 2, or my gun line has wiped his off the board, or my custodes are in melee range of his juicy big guns, or any number of other plans are bearing fruit.
Oh well, one attack was blunted, big deal. Where are your other 1500ish points?
Other armies do this better than marines, though. Anything you can think to do, so can a better codex. Also, other armies stuff has a chance of living due to invuln (IK), a cheaper cost per wound (IG), so they don't CARE if they die, or worse, a combination of both. (Drukhari)
He's pointing out an OBVIOUS tactic, which the repulsor actually leans AWAY from. Even if all I do is torch a 300+ point tank, and force death rolls for the contents, I'm still on track to cripple your army. Most lists can remove 16 T8 wounds with no invuln pretty consistently with less than 100% of their shooting, too.
How does losing your repulsor help your deep strikers? If you've got deep strikers people care about, they'll just hold anti-DS formation until you have to commit. Marine gunlines likely will not knock out an entire enemy gunline in one go. Maybe your custodes BIKES are close, but not foot Custodes. Losing a 300 pt tank to a fraction of enemy fire IS a big deal.
Marines struggle to diversify because of their cost. Lack of invuln will always be an issue, because your opponent is always getting full value from AP they purchase.
Why on God's name do you even play Astartes? You hate them, you complain about them, you only care about performance yet refuse to invest in a new army.
Either start collecting something new or please, for the sake of sanity, stop complaining over and over again in every.single.topic.
The problem as I see it is the reliance on the d6 system. If at max odds, your best chance is still almost 20% likely to go off, that is not hard to achieve, especially in armies where you get to roll 30-60 d6. Guard, Daemons, Chaos, Zerg, etc. Yeah, my telemon is hard to take down, but a squad of buffed up bloodletters scare the crap out of it. They can, by sheer dice averages, get enough 6s to just drop the thing in one go.
Now, if we were to go to D10, or d12, ala what Apoc is doing, it makes the entire game MUCH more dynamic. That squad of blood letters likely won't kill my telemon, and they will go after a better target they can actually influence.
Hence, why I see Apoc is going to be 40k 9th ed, and they are moving to a D12. Or did I read that wrong on Bell of Lost souls?
Some people seem to lack the ability to interact without getting sassy...
BTT:
I'm not really keen on the repulsor design. I like the hull, but there are to many things attached to it. Something a but "cleaner" would be nixe, in my opinion.
Even if getting more / bigger guns seems to be the logical next step in the evolution of the vehicle, it also lessens my urge to get one.
I'm curious if it will be seen very often, considering it's quite an asset (points- and cash-wise)
Let's move on from this unnecessary conflict, friends. Martel is just extremely passionate in his criticism - no harm done and you can always ignore a poster if you're not feeling they aren't contributing.
Back on topic - Eliminators with the new "Las-fusils" weapon could be a perfect unit to house inside the Executioner for a turn if you're worried they'll be erased early.
BTT:
I'm not really keen on the repulsor design. I like the hull, but there are to many things attached to it. Something a but "cleaner" would be nixe, in my opinion.
Even if getting more / bigger guns seems to be the logical next step in the evolution of the vehicle, it also lessens my urge to get one.
I'm curious if it will be seen very often, considering it's quite an asset (points- and cash-wise)
Could always not put the stowage bits on the hull if you want a cleaner look.
Apparently someone won a GT this weekend running predators and repulsors with eleminators in them, beating Reece and Pablo from FLG as well as abusepuppy's eldar (blogger veteran) with that list...
Point is that it hardly takes an army to take one down. 8 Lascannons on a BS3+ platform with the same rerolls average 16 wounds.
thaty's 387 points of devestators, assuming you don't run with ANY Abalative wounds (assuming you run with 5 abalative wounds in each squad thats another 195 points) meanwhile a repulsor clocks in at what 290?
I'm not sure what you're getting at. There was a claim made that the Repulsor chassis can tank wound from.an army shooting it, and the counterpoint was that it hardly required an army. 387 is less than 20% of an army, which was my point. In fact that 387 points was substantial overkill. Average rolls meant it only takes two such squads.
387 doesnt include cherubs, so +15. Except only 2 squads are needed, so 268.
Jidmah wrote: Apparently someone won a GT this weekend running predators and repulsors with eleminators in them, beating Reece and Pablo from FLG as well as abusepuppy's eldar (blogger veteran) with that list...
Do you know any more information so we can see the list?
Martel732 wrote: That's really impressive given how garbage predators are. I really don't get why they aren't 70 pts base.
Maybe being a good player makes up for their shortfall. You'll never know because by your own word you refuse to "run" units that aren't the best. But you've also said don't own any such units so I guess you can't really play the game?
Anyways, it takes skill and a bit of luck to win a GT with Marine vehicles as every loss can be felt. I've won the majority of games at some events using dual Repulsors and a Venator but was undone by an Eldar flyer soup in the later rounds.
Martel732 wrote: That's really impressive given how garbage predators are. I really don't get why they aren't 70 pts base.
Options dude. Options should cost lots of points. Then you should also pay for the options you select at a higher rate than xenos too...cause...worse options should cost more than better ones.
Martel732 wrote: That's really impressive given how garbage predators are. I really don't get why they aren't 70 pts base.
Options dude. Options should cost lots of points. Then you should also pay for the options you select at a higher rate than xenos too...cause...worse options should cost more than better ones.
Yeah, I forgot the GW design paradigm. 50 lashes for me.
Jidmah wrote: Apparently someone won a GT this weekend running predators and repulsors with eleminators in them, beating Reece and Pablo from FLG as well as abusepuppy's eldar (blogger veteran) with that list...
Do you know any more information so we can see the list?
Martel732 wrote: That's really impressive given how garbage predators are. I really don't get why they aren't 70 pts base.
Maybe being a good player makes up for their shortfall. You'll never know because by your own word you refuse to "run" units that aren't the best. But you've also said don't own any such units so I guess you can't really play the game?
Anyways, it takes skill and a bit of luck to win a GT with Marine vehicles as every loss can be felt. I've won the majority of games at some events using dual Repulsors and a Venator but was undone by an Eldar flyer soup in the later rounds.
I have preds from 3rd ed. I own basically every possible option BA can field.
Martel732 wrote: That's really impressive given how garbage predators are. I really don't get why they aren't 70 pts base.
Maybe being a good player makes up for their shortfall. You'll never know because by your own word you refuse to "run" units that aren't the best. But you've also said don't own any such units so I guess you can't really play the game?
Anyways, it takes skill and a bit of luck to win a GT with Marine vehicles as every loss can be felt. I've won the majority of games at some events using dual Repulsors and a Venator but was undone by an Eldar flyer soup in the later rounds.
I have preds from 3rd ed. I own basically every possible option BA can field.
But you literally said you won't run units unless they are the best. That means you cant play the game. I don't see any Eldar flyers, Broadsides or Knights in the BA codex.
Martel732 wrote: That's really impressive given how garbage predators are. I really don't get why they aren't 70 pts base.
Maybe being a good player makes up for their shortfall. You'll never know because by your own word you refuse to "run" units that aren't the best. But you've also said don't own any such units so I guess you can't really play the game?
Anyways, it takes skill and a bit of luck to win a GT with Marine vehicles as every loss can be felt. I've won the majority of games at some events using dual Repulsors and a Venator but was undone by an Eldar flyer soup in the later rounds.
He did face and beat or draw against some impressive players though, so it's not a shark in the fishtank issue. He also beat eldar flyers played by an eldar player whose strategy blog posts I was reading when I started back in 5th edition.
Multiple people also commented on how battlecannons suck at killing repulsors, a common gun for both IG and knights.
Krast battlecannons are a lot better, though. Battlecannons are still okay at it, they just don't get anything special. Battlecannons are amazing vs the field.
Martel732 wrote: That's really impressive given how garbage predators are. I really don't get why they aren't 70 pts base.
Maybe being a good player makes up for their shortfall. You'll never know because by your own word you refuse to "run" units that aren't the best. But you've also said don't own any such units so I guess you can't really play the game?
Anyways, it takes skill and a bit of luck to win a GT with Marine vehicles as every loss can be felt. I've won the majority of games at some events using dual Repulsors and a Venator but was undone by an Eldar flyer soup in the later rounds.
Ehhh...preds can't even move and shoot efficiently. He literally sets up a gman gunline and does target priority. It's the most basic strategy in the book. Yeah - you can wipe some players off the board with that. It's gonna get rekt by anything that get get into assault turn 1. Which is basically 50% of lists. Not sure how he dodges those lists. Maybe people just underestimate him or use bad priority against him (killing 1 of those preds is basically all you need to do to beat this list). Hinging a stratagey around the survivability of a rhino is not good strategy.
The second place list in this GT has 6 eldar flyers and a bunch of wave serpants.Tell me how he is supposed to stop 4 wave serpants from getting into cc with his preds after he loses both repulsors turn 1?
Martel732 wrote: That's really impressive given how garbage predators are. I really don't get why they aren't 70 pts base.
Maybe being a good player makes up for their shortfall. You'll never know because by your own word you refuse to "run" units that aren't the best. But you've also said don't own any such units so I guess you can't really play the game?
Anyways, it takes skill and a bit of luck to win a GT with Marine vehicles as every loss can be felt. I've won the majority of games at some events using dual Repulsors and a Venator but was undone by an Eldar flyer soup in the later rounds.
Ehhh...preds can't even move and shoot efficiently. He literally sets up a gman gunline and does target priority. It's the most basic strategy in the book. Yeah - you can wipe some players off the board with that. It's gonna get rekt by anything that get get into assault turn 1. Which is basically 50% of lists. Not sure how he dodges those lists. Maybe people just underestimate him or use bad priority against him (killing 1 of those preds is basically all you need to do to beat this list). Hinging a stratagey around the survivability of a rhino is not good strategy.
The second place list in this GT has 6 eldar flyers and a bunch of wave serpants.Tell me how he is supposed to stop 4 wave serpants from getting into cc with his preds after he loses both repulsors turn 1?
No idea but it did it, I suspect it's the same dude that's been running that list for almost a year now and is just 100% on it and he's described as being good but having a list that either wins or looses quite hard on dice.
He uses the repulsors and Gman and infantry to keep you out of CC with the predators, usesthe cover strategum a lot to have 2+ army wide and IIRC tiggy for a -1 and T9 on the repulsors to improve their survival.
Remove 1 predator and Gman as he's lost the game I'm sure was his statement a while back.
The other issue is re-roll upon rerolls from Gman makes a massive swing in the performance of units.
Martel732 wrote: That's really impressive given how garbage predators are. I really don't get why they aren't 70 pts base.
Maybe being a good player makes up for their shortfall. You'll never know because by your own word you refuse to "run" units that aren't the best. But you've also said don't own any such units so I guess you can't really play the game?
Anyways, it takes skill and a bit of luck to win a GT with Marine vehicles as every loss can be felt. I've won the majority of games at some events using dual Repulsors and a Venator but was undone by an Eldar flyer soup in the later rounds.
He did face and beat or draw against some impressive players though, so it's not a shark in the fishtank issue. He also beat eldar flyers played by an eldar player whose strategy blog posts I was reading when I started back in 5th edition.
Multiple people also commented on how battlecannons suck at killing repulsors, a common gun for both IG and knights.
Humm...Battlecannons do better than every option except for the demo cannon against a repulsor plasma also does better against it. 3 Manticores belong in every mono guard list - for some reason they are missing.
Xenomancers wrote: The second place list in this GT has 6 eldar flyers and a bunch of wave serpants.Tell me how he is supposed to stop 4 wave serpants from getting into cc with his preds after he loses both repulsors turn 1?
He bet that player in the final game, despite that eldar player getting a great first turn according to a spectator.
Martel732 wrote: That's really impressive given how garbage predators are. I really don't get why they aren't 70 pts base.
Maybe being a good player makes up for their shortfall. You'll never know because by your own word you refuse to "run" units that aren't the best. But you've also said don't own any such units so I guess you can't really play the game?
Anyways, it takes skill and a bit of luck to win a GT with Marine vehicles as every loss can be felt. I've won the majority of games at some events using dual Repulsors and a Venator but was undone by an Eldar flyer soup in the later rounds.
Ehhh...preds can't even move and shoot efficiently. He literally sets up a gman gunline and does target priority. It's the most basic strategy in the book. Yeah - you can wipe some players off the board with that. It's gonna get rekt by anything that get get into assault turn 1. Which is basically 50% of lists. Not sure how he dodges those lists. Maybe people just underestimate him or use bad priority against him (killing 1 of those preds is basically all you need to do to beat this list). Hinging a stratagey around the survivability of a rhino is not good strategy.
The second place list in this GT has 6 eldar flyers and a bunch of wave serpants.Tell me how he is supposed to stop 4 wave serpants from getting into cc with his preds after he loses both repulsors turn 1?
No idea but it did it, I suspect it's the same dude that's been running that list for almost a year now and is just 100% on it and he's described as being good but having a list that either wins or looses quite hard on dice.
He uses the repulsors and Gman and infantry to keep you out of CC with the predators, usesthe cover strategum a lot to have 2+ army wide and IIRC tiggy for a -1 and T9 on the repulsors to improve their survival.
Remove 1 predator and Gman as he's lost the game I'm sure was his statement a while back.
The other issue is re-roll upon rerolls from Gman makes a massive swing in the performance of units.
Didn't see Tiggy in his list. He brought a unit of black templar servators so he can shut down doom on a 4+. It's the only reason he is able to face an eldar list. Ultimately it's a gimick and realistically shouldn't be allowed. Those servers shutting down farseers is extremely stupid and yet again an example of how the game should not be played.
Martel732 wrote: That's really impressive given how garbage predators are. I really don't get why they aren't 70 pts base.
Maybe being a good player makes up for their shortfall. You'll never know because by your own word you refuse to "run" units that aren't the best. But you've also said don't own any such units so I guess you can't really play the game?
Anyways, it takes skill and a bit of luck to win a GT with Marine vehicles as every loss can be felt. I've won the majority of games at some events using dual Repulsors and a Venator but was undone by an Eldar flyer soup in the later rounds.
He did face and beat or draw against some impressive players though, so it's not a shark in the fishtank issue. He also beat eldar flyers played by an eldar player whose strategy blog posts I was reading when I started back in 5th edition.
Multiple people also commented on how battlecannons suck at killing repulsors, a common gun for both IG and knights.
Humm...Battlecannons do better than every option except for the demo cannon against a repulsor plasma also does better against it. 3 Manticores belong in every mono guard list - for some reason they are missing.
The thing is, people are bringing battlecannons because they are great, no matter what a space marine player decides to bring. Some goes for plasma and custodes missiles.
The repulsor being T8 makes it pretty durable against plenty pretty expensive weapons means that many imperial players have trouble handling it - according to imperial players.
Xenomancers wrote: The second place list in this GT has 6 eldar flyers and a bunch of wave serpants.Tell me how he is supposed to stop 4 wave serpants from getting into cc with his preds after he loses both repulsors turn 1?
He bet that player in the final game, despite that eldar player getting a great first turn according to a spectator.
On an average turn both those repulsors die against that eldar list. I can't imagine a good turn then not winning the game lol.
Martel732 wrote: That's really impressive given how garbage predators are. I really don't get why they aren't 70 pts base.
Maybe being a good player makes up for their shortfall. You'll never know because by your own word you refuse to "run" units that aren't the best. But you've also said don't own any such units so I guess you can't really play the game?
Anyways, it takes skill and a bit of luck to win a GT with Marine vehicles as every loss can be felt. I've won the majority of games at some events using dual Repulsors and a Venator but was undone by an Eldar flyer soup in the later rounds.
He did face and beat or draw against some impressive players though, so it's not a shark in the fishtank issue. He also beat eldar flyers played by an eldar player whose strategy blog posts I was reading when I started back in 5th edition.
Multiple people also commented on how battlecannons suck at killing repulsors, a common gun for both IG and knights.
Humm...Battlecannons do better than every option except for the demo cannon against a repulsor plasma also does better against it. 3 Manticores belong in every mono guard list - for some reason they are missing.
The thing is, people are bringing battlecannons because they are great, no matter what a space marine player decides to bring. Some goes for plasma and custodes missiles.
The repulsor being T8 makes it pretty durable against plenty pretty expensive weapons means that many imperial players have trouble handling it - according to imperial players.
Knights are T8. Russ are T8. Custodes tanks are T8. Levi Dreads are T8. Literally most competitive lists are featuring T8. There is no reason to be unprepared for it.
Martel732 wrote: That's really impressive given how garbage predators are. I really don't get why they aren't 70 pts base.
Maybe being a good player makes up for their shortfall. You'll never know because by your own word you refuse to "run" units that aren't the best. But you've also said don't own any such units so I guess you can't really play the game?
Anyways, it takes skill and a bit of luck to win a GT with Marine vehicles as every loss can be felt. I've won the majority of games at some events using dual Repulsors and a Venator but was undone by an Eldar flyer soup in the later rounds.
Ehhh...preds can't even move and shoot efficiently. He literally sets up a gman gunline and does target priority. It's the most basic strategy in the book. Yeah - you can wipe some players off the board with that. It's gonna get rekt by anything that get get into assault turn 1. Which is basically 50% of lists. Not sure how he dodges those lists. Maybe people just underestimate him or use bad priority against him (killing 1 of those preds is basically all you need to do to beat this list). Hinging a stratagey around the survivability of a rhino is not good strategy.
The second place list in this GT has 6 eldar flyers and a bunch of wave serpants.Tell me how he is supposed to stop 4 wave serpants from getting into cc with his preds after he loses both repulsors turn 1?
No idea but it did it, I suspect it's the same dude that's been running that list for almost a year now and is just 100% on it and he's described as being good but having a list that either wins or looses quite hard on dice.
He uses the repulsors and Gman and infantry to keep you out of CC with the predators, usesthe cover strategum a lot to have 2+ army wide and IIRC tiggy for a -1 and T9 on the repulsors to improve their survival.
Remove 1 predator and Gman as he's lost the game I'm sure was his statement a while back.
The other issue is re-roll upon rerolls from Gman makes a massive swing in the performance of units.
Didn't see Tiggy in his list. He brought a unit of black templar servators so he can shut down doom on a 4+. It's the only reason he is able to face an eldar list. Ultimately it's a gimick and realistically shouldn't be allowed. Those servers shutting down farseers is extremely stupid and yet again an example of how the game should not be played.
I maybe wrong but I've seen somone playing a very similar list for a while though this does look like the next evolution of the concept.
But yeah the 4+ from a servator is BS I agree, you should need a Detachment of keyword X to unlock Keyword X strategums but thats not how it currently work's.
Martel732 wrote: Something was lost in translation, because I field crappy BA all the time.
He refers back to one of our prior conversations where you said you wouldn’t get the triple Repulsor double redemptor list, even though that it had been doing very well as a BA army in tournies.
Xenomancers wrote: The second place list in this GT has 6 eldar flyers and a bunch of wave serpants.Tell me how he is supposed to stop 4 wave serpants from getting into cc with his preds after he loses both repulsors turn 1?
He bet that player in the final game, despite that eldar player getting a great first turn according to a spectator.
On an average turn both those repulsors die against that eldar list. I can't imagine a good turn then not winning the game lol.
Maybe he simply didn't try to kill the repulsors first if allegedly the key to beating the list is taking out the predators?
Heck, what do I know, I was reading that thread because of the ork list winning another tournament and just clicked on the list because he beat three people I actually can remember the screen names of. With the very strategy that was deemed idiotic by dakka's know-it-all marine players.
Go to reddit and tell them how he is using the wrong units to win a tournament against multiple seasoned veterans if it troubles you that much.
Xenomancers wrote: The second place list in this GT has 6 eldar flyers and a bunch of wave serpants.Tell me how he is supposed to stop 4 wave serpants from getting into cc with his preds after he loses both repulsors turn 1?
He bet that player in the final game, despite that eldar player getting a great first turn according to a spectator.
On an average turn both those repulsors die against that eldar list. I can't imagine a good turn then not winning the game lol.
Average turn?
3xCH: Hits on 4+ (moved), wounds on 4+ (S8), 2BL 1PL. Roughly 3 wounds per CH, 9 wounds total.
3xHemlocks: Autohits, wounds on 3s. Roughly 3W per CH, for 9 wounds total.
4xSerpents: Assuming BL, that's hits on 4+, wounds on 4+. 2BL. Less than 2W per Serpent, for 8W total.
That's 26W. That's a lot. But it's less than 2 Repulsors.
You specifically claim "On an average turn both those repulsors die against that eldar list.". That is *clearly* not true.
As for the 4+ to deny Doom - it's more likely to deny Quicken.
Martel732 wrote: Something was lost in translation, because I field crappy BA all the time.
He refers back to one of our prior conversations where you said you wouldn’t get the triple Repulsor double redemptor list, even though that it had been doing very well as a BA army in tournies.
Pardon me for balking at pouring more money into the statistically poorest list in the game. I don't even like either model.
Martel732 wrote: Something was lost in translation, because I field crappy BA all the time.
He refers back to one of our prior conversations where you said you wouldn’t get the triple Repulsor double redemptor list, even though that it had been doing very well as a BA army in tournies.
Pardon me for balking at pouring more money into the statistically poorest list in the game. I don't even like either model.
Just out of curiosity, do you gain something from being a giant poop cloud on everyone's attempt to enjoy a new model? I mean, you have been nothing but negative against the entire faction, we get it. You hate the new model, you hate the stat line, you have the rules. What is the point of all your negativity? You gain nothing from constantly pointing out how much you don't like the model.
But that is more a general hate of the Primairs/Cawl/Plasma IoM-is-best gak GW has been putting out since 8th started.
I miss the societal and technological regression story that was being told. And the "T'au actually improve!" schtick. And the "Ancient races with better tech" threat.
Xenomancers wrote: The second place list in this GT has 6 eldar flyers and a bunch of wave serpants.Tell me how he is supposed to stop 4 wave serpants from getting into cc with his preds after he loses both repulsors turn 1?
He bet that player in the final game, despite that eldar player getting a great first turn according to a spectator.
On an average turn both those repulsors die against that eldar list. I can't imagine a good turn then not winning the game lol.
Average turn?
3xCH: Hits on 4+ (moved), wounds on 4+ (S8), 2BL 1PL. Roughly 3 wounds per CH, 9 wounds total.
3xHemlocks: Autohits, wounds on 3s. Roughly 3W per CH, for 9 wounds total.
4xSerpents: Assuming BL, that's hits on 4+, wounds on 4+. 2BL. Less than 2W per Serpent, for 8W total.
That's 26W. That's a lot. But it's less than 2 Repulsors.
You specifically claim "On an average turn both those repulsors die against that eldar list.". That is *clearly* not true.
As for the 4+ to deny Doom - it's more likely to deny Quicken.
If there's one thing the last page or so has confirmed it's that certain posters are immune to the sort of logic presented above. Anything that goes against the sacred idea that SM are bad nad will always be bad is to be dismissed on sight, regardless of evidence ot the contrary.
Now, if you want to make a valid complaint about SM, I would point out it seems any successful SM list is almost required to include Guilliman. A greater variety of potentially successful builds would be welcome at this stage.
Martel732 wrote: It's good in theory. A more futuristic marine tank was a good idea. They just miscosted it. Or didn't give it appropriate defenses. Take your pick
I don't HATE the model. I just don't like it enough to buy three of them.
GREAT!
Then stop trying to tell everyone else who really likes the model, that they should hate it and not buy it, or play with it, or build lists with it! Seriously, I don't know why you are so driven to ruin this for everyone. I'm very excited to see this model, and a lot of others are as well. We get you think it's not good. Stop trying to ruin our happiness with your negativity.
You are being super negative and it's really exhausting trying to have a fun progressive dialogue about how to effectively use this when all you do is come in and crap over everything.
I don't think I said that. I just said it's not fairly costed when Gman is not on the table. It absolutely dominates some matchups. And then other times, gets smoked instantly. That's too swingy for such an expensive mode in my book.
Agreed. Gman is basically the same as the Catlady of the Eldar was (Yvraine). A single model whos buffs basically reshape the faction by being so powerful.
Unfortunately, Marines seem priced to assume Gman's presence, whereas Eldar seemed priced assuming Yvraine's absence. Fortunately, Yvraine(/Ynnari) got nerfed hard.
That, and I'd love to see Marines get out of the deathblob/gunline playstyle.
Xenomancers wrote: The second place list in this GT has 6 eldar flyers and a bunch of wave serpants.Tell me how he is supposed to stop 4 wave serpants from getting into cc with his preds after he loses both repulsors turn 1?
He bet that player in the final game, despite that eldar player getting a great first turn according to a spectator.
On an average turn both those repulsors die against that eldar list. I can't imagine a good turn then not winning the game lol.
Average turn?
3xCH: Hits on 4+ (moved), wounds on 4+ (S8), 2BL 1PL. Roughly 3 wounds per CH, 9 wounds total.
3xHemlocks: Autohits, wounds on 3s. Roughly 3W per CH, for 9 wounds total.
4xSerpents: Assuming BL, that's hits on 4+, wounds on 4+. 2BL. Less than 2W per Serpent, for 8W total.
That's 26W. That's a lot. But it's less than 2 Repulsors.
You specifically claim "On an average turn both those repulsors die against that eldar list.". That is *clearly* not true.
As for the 4+ to deny Doom - it's more likely to deny Quicken.
His list is slightly different that what you are describing You are also failing hard at math A single hemlock with doom averages about 8 damage with the smite on a repulsor.
It's simple to figure out. You skip hitting - you average 4 shots and you'll wound 3 times with no save (WITHOUT DOOM) Plus smite for about 2 wounds.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bharring wrote: Agreed. Gman is basically the same as the Catlady of the Eldar was (Yvraine). A single model whos buffs basically reshape the faction by being so powerful.
Unfortunately, Marines seem priced to assume Gman's presence, whereas Eldar seemed priced assuming Yvraine's absence. Fortunately, Yvraine(/Ynnari) got nerfed hard.
That, and I'd love to see Marines get out of the deathblob/gunline playstyle.
I Guess Gman should go down in price then. Maybe to the base cost of a gallant which outperforms him a great deal in CC with twice the durability. If Gman buff cost is going to be included in ever marine unit.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote: I refuse to play that. Probably explains my record. And frustration.
LOL youd still lose. Take a 400 point tax plus paying increased cost on all your bad units.
Like - you might snowball 20-30% of your games but in over half your games your going to get tabled even faster than blood angels. Real competitive lists don't rely on your opponents being bad or having bad turns against you to not be tabled in 3 turns.
*shrug*. I guess I just see the Repulsor as the reintroduction of the deodorant hover tank from Rogue Trader with a modern plastic kit.
I have the existing Repulsor model at home, but since I usually play with my ‘nids or Tau, It wasn’t until this last week that I’d seen how it actually performs on the table. I wouldn’t mind having a copy of the new model to throw in a game, and in the 1K point games I play (that also don’t use named characters), I suspect it would perform fairly well.
Okay, I definitely think the negativity here from Xeno and Martel has been somewhat useful to highlight the unit's weaknesses. Thanks, guys - but we got the message, no need to keep repeating the same things over again
It is pretty good vs assault armies. Max firepower at 18", so even 12" movers might fail the charge. Ive had trouble trying to melee them. Now we just need melee to be meta relevant
Stormonu wrote: *shrug*. I guess I just see the Repulsor as the reintroduction of the deodorant hover tank from Rogue Trader with a modern plastic kit.
I love that idea, but the Repulsor doesn't really fit the bill for that, imo. I'd hope for something less. . . brick-ish. The Land Speeder Javelin scratches that itch for me.
The Repulsor to me feels like a response to imagery of the Bradley IFV, except "space marine-d" up. Bigger, blockier, more guns and future-anti-grav.
I'm not a Primaris guy, but I aalllmost like the Repulsor. the hull is a bit to tall for me.
Lemondish wrote: Okay, I definitely think the negativity here from Xeno and Martel has been somewhat useful to highlight the unit's weaknesses. Thanks, guys - but we got the message, no need to keep repeating the same things over again
It's not a weakness. If the unit was properly pointed it would still have a weakness against ap-4 multi damage weapons. It's a glaring oversight in rules writing. It is a unit that is supposed to be durable that is not. I can not reiterate this enough. The unit is not durable at all. It's like trying to argue that a space marine is not durable to you people. IT IS NOT. The way the game is played you are just paying points for nothing of value.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote: It is pretty good vs assault armies. Max firepower at 18", so even 12" movers might fail the charge. Ive had trouble trying to melee them. Now we just need melee to be meta relevant
It's the marines vs zerglings scenario. Glass cannons do pretty well when you cant hurt them because you die to fast to get into range to attack.
Xenomancers wrote: The second place list in this GT has 6 eldar flyers and a bunch of wave serpants.Tell me how he is supposed to stop 4 wave serpants from getting into cc with his preds after he loses both repulsors turn 1?
He bet that player in the final game, despite that eldar player getting a great first turn according to a spectator.
On an average turn both those repulsors die against that eldar list. I can't imagine a good turn then not winning the game lol.
Average turn?
3xCH: Hits on 4+ (moved), wounds on 4+ (S8), 2BL 1PL. Roughly 3 wounds per CH, 9 wounds total.
3xHemlocks: Autohits, wounds on 3s. Roughly 3W per CH, for 9 wounds total.
4xSerpents: Assuming BL, that's hits on 4+, wounds on 4+. 2BL. Less than 2W per Serpent, for 8W total.
That's 26W. That's a lot. But it's less than 2 Repulsors.
You specifically claim "On an average turn both those repulsors die against that eldar list.". That is *clearly* not true.
As for the 4+ to deny Doom - it's more likely to deny Quicken.
His list is slightly different that what you are describing You are also failing hard at math A single hemlock with doom averages about 8 damage with the smite on a repulsor.
Why would you take the Smites on your Repulsors instead of on your troops? Positioning decides the targetting, and it'd be just plain silly to let the Hemlock be closest to the Repulsors.
I'm sure the CWE list is different from what I'm describing. Brightlances don't tend to get taken, especially on Serpents. I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. Swap out the weapons, and the numbers get even worse.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bharring wrote: Agreed. Gman is basically the same as the Catlady of the Eldar was (Yvraine). A single model whos buffs basically reshape the faction by being so powerful.
Unfortunately, Marines seem priced to assume Gman's presence, whereas Eldar seemed priced assuming Yvraine's absence. Fortunately, Yvraine(/Ynnari) got nerfed hard.
That, and I'd love to see Marines get out of the deathblob/gunline playstyle.
I Guess Gman should go down in price then. Maybe to the base cost of a gallant which outperforms him a great deal in CC with twice the durability. If Gman buff cost is going to be included in ever marine unit.
Or, just maybe, the cost of those other units should go down instead. Gman is still worth it, if you're bringing those other units. Those other units aren't worth it, if you don't bring Gman. So "fixing it" by dropping Gman's price is like "fixing" IG Guardsmen by making Veterans 2ppm. Sure, you fixed the issue. By making things *worse*.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote: I refuse to play that. Probably explains my record. And frustration.
LOL youd still lose. Take a 400 point tax plus paying increased cost on all your bad units.
Like - you might snowball 20-30% of your games but in over half your games your going to get tabled even faster than blood angels. Real competitive lists don't rely on your opponents being bad or having bad turns against you to not be tabled in 3 turns.
So is your argument that this Marine player is running "fake" list? I mean, how is it "fake"? If it's so poor, why aren't you outplacing him?
He doesn't have troops dude. When you take Gman and 2 repulsors and 3 predators...you have no points left for troops.
He has 3 units of eliminators - that is all. Hemlocks can easily get through those guys. Realistically screening with the eliminators would hurt him in the situation because it would give the wave serpents free movement to ensure predator wrap up.
In what world is losing a Repulsor because you felt it should eat Smites a better idea than losing some Eliminators or Servitors?
I was running numbers for the generic case, but sure, lets get specific. The CWE list had:
-3 CHEs with Starcannons
3xPL: 4 wounds
6xStarCannons: 11 wounds
-3 Razorwings
12xDisintigrators: 4 wounds
3x Missiles: Might get another 2 wounds?
2xSC/SC Serpents + 3xSC/SL Serpents
7xSC: Less than 1 wound
3xSL: Less than 1 wound
Add it all together? I'm counting 23W. Not even close to wiping 2 Repulsors.
Automatically Appended Next Post: T8 3+ 16W is actually very durable.
Not for its cost. If it cost 190 points, I'd agree. Russes are durable because of their cheap T8 hulls. At the repulsor price point and wound count, you need more tricks.
Repulsors are ideal smite targets. You need to make your schmoes take the smites.
Lemondish wrote: Okay, I definitely think the negativity here from Xeno and Martel has been somewhat useful to highlight the unit's weaknesses. Thanks, guys - but we got the message, no need to keep repeating the same things over again
It's not a weakness. If the unit was properly pointed it would still have a weakness against ap-4 multi damage weapons. It's a glaring oversight in rules writing. It is a unit that is supposed to be durable that is not. I can not reiterate this enough. The unit is not durable at all. It's like trying to argue that a space marine is not durable to you people. IT IS NOT. The way the game is played you are just paying points for nothing of value.
Okay, understood - I'm still going to buy it because it looks cool, it fits my list design and how I like to play, my local meta will have trouble handling multiple armoured threats like this, and I'm eager to slap some paint on it. Can we move on now before we just repeat the last page over again? I'm trying not to be rude here but I don't think you're getting the message that you're coming off as a broken record with information that is fundamentally irrelevant - we're still going to seek ways to make it work in a real game. You've said your bit - no need to rehash it over and over again
It's too fat to fit in a deredeo shield, so i see the marine player options as limited. Some tables might have a los blocker that you can fly over on your turn. Other than that, its about how your foe is built.
Bharring wrote: In what world is losing a Repulsor because you felt it should eat Smites a better idea than losing some Eliminators or Servitors?
I was running numbers for the generic case, but sure, lets get specific. The CWE list had:
-3 CHEs with Starcannons
3xPL: 4 wounds
6xStarCannons: 11 wounds
-3 Razorwings
12xDisintigrators: 4 wounds
3x Missiles: Might get another 2 wounds?
2xSC/SC Serpents + 3xSC/SL Serpents
7xSC: Less than 1 wound
3xSL: Less than 1 wound
Add it all together? I'm counting 23W. Not even close to wiping 2 Repulsors.
Automatically Appended Next Post: T8 3+ 16W is actually very durable.
Doom comes very close to doubling that damage. It is not in the least bit durable. A wave serpant is almost 4 times as durable per point.
Not for its cost. If it cost 190 points, I'd agree. Russes are durable because of their cheap T8 hulls. At the repulsor price point and wound count, you need more tricks.
Repulsors are ideal smite targets. You need to make your schmoes take the smites.
3 squads of 3 marines cant block 2 repulsors from smites on 3 hemlocks. It's impossible. Plus - protecting Gman is probably of higher concern.
Why would the eldar player need to kill both repulsors. Kill one and one-two preds and then kill the second repulsor turn 2?
I have no idea how that gulliman list deals with GSC. Kellermorph kills both units of eliminators. bikes pop up and demo charge the repulsors to death. Rock saws and abberants kill whatever's left and then guilliman tries to solo an entire army?
I don't think pointing out that this army won a tourney proves that repulsors are fine but it does show they aren't as bad as some of us claim. Again, not trash tier but match-up/opponent dependent.
Either way, if the new tank costs more than the existing repulsor I don't think I could justify buying it much less playing it. Even with a double shooting main gun you'd have to give up so much to squeeze it in your army and it's main gun suffers from the same weakness vs invuln saves as most marine big guns.
If it had a mortal wound mechanic (WAACK!!) or greater ROF (Heavy 8-10, s8, -2 ap, 2d 36" please!!! Let that thing shoot twice if you move less than 5" and we might be talking).
Why would the eldar player need to kill both repulsors. Kill one and one-two preds and then kill the second repulsor turn 2?
I have no idea how that gulliman list deals with GSC. Kellermorph kills both units of eliminators. bikes pop up and demo charge the repulsors to death. Rock saws and abberants kill whatever's left and then guilliman tries to solo an entire army?
I don't think pointing out that this army won a tourney proves that repulsors are fine but it does show they aren't as bad as some of us claim. Again, not trash tier but match-up/opponent dependent.
Either way, if the new tank costs more than the existing repulsor I don't think I could justify buying it much less playing it. Even with a double shooting main gun you'd have to give up so much to squeeze it in your army and it's main gun suffers from the same weakness vs invuln saves as most marine big guns.
If it had a mortal wound mechanic (WAACK!!) or greater ROF (Heavy 8-10, s8, -2 ap, 2d 36" please!!! Let that thing shoot twice if you move less than 5" and we might be talking).
No the last thing the game needs right now is more race to the bottom with overpowered offence, especially not when it can be gicen re-roll everything aura buffing.
Lemondish wrote: Okay, I definitely think the negativity here from Xeno and Martel has been somewhat useful to highlight the unit's weaknesses. Thanks, guys - but we got the message, no need to keep repeating the same things over again
It's not a weakness. If the unit was properly pointed it would still have a weakness against ap-4 multi damage weapons. It's a glaring oversight in rules writing. It is a unit that is supposed to be durable that is not. I can not reiterate this enough. The unit is not durable at all. It's like trying to argue that a space marine is not durable to you people. IT IS NOT. The way the game is played you are just paying points for nothing of value.
Okay, understood - I'm still going to buy it because it looks cool, it fits my list design and how I like to play, my local meta will have trouble handling multiple armoured threats like this, and I'm eager to slap some paint on it. Can we move on now before we just repeat the last page over again? I'm trying not to be rude here but I don't think you're getting the message that you're coming off as a broken record with information that is fundamentally irrelevant - we're still going to seek ways to make it work in a real game. You've said your bit - no need to rehash it over and over again
Happy to discuss it's potential uses. Merely responding to comments about marines winning tournaments and why they doesn't mean a repulsor is actually a good unit. I do think this New destructor repulsor is going to be marginally better than the current repulsor. It actually has a realistically good main weapon with a double shooting d6 plasma str 9 ap -4.
Why would the eldar player need to kill both repulsors. Kill one and one-two preds and then kill the second repulsor turn 2?
I have no idea how that gulliman list deals with GSC. Kellermorph kills both units of eliminators. bikes pop up and demo charge the repulsors to death. Rock saws and abberants kill whatever's left and then guilliman tries to solo an entire army?
I don't think pointing out that this army won a tourney proves that repulsors are fine but it does show they aren't as bad as some of us claim. Again, not trash tier but match-up/opponent dependent.
Either way, if the new tank costs more than the existing repulsor I don't think I could justify buying it much less playing it. Even with a double shooting main gun you'd have to give up so much to squeeze it in your army and it's main gun suffers from the same weakness vs invuln saves as most marine big guns.
If it had a mortal wound mechanic (WAACK!!) or greater ROF (Heavy 8-10, s8, -2 ap, 2d 36" please!!! Let that thing shoot twice if you move less than 5" and we might be talking).
No the last thing the game needs right now is more race to the bottom with overpowered offence, especially not when it can be gicen re-roll everything aura buffing.
It it only matches the current top units it wont be a problem. A Levi dread does that almost - 20 str 7 ap-2 flat 2 damage. Cost 303 points. I don't autowin games when I play a levi ether. It just gives me a tool to compete with. It has significant draw backs with only 24" range - no ignore movement penalties and being forced to bring 2 useless heavy flamers. It does have a 4++ though and decent wounds. So if an opponent shoots at it - there is a big chance of doing minimal damage. Shooting at a repulsor with something like a Neutron Laser is like....okay - it's dead - just hope it takes 3 neutron lasers and not 2.
Lemondish wrote: Okay, I definitely think the negativity here from Xeno and Martel has been somewhat useful to highlight the unit's weaknesses. Thanks, guys - but we got the message, no need to keep repeating the same things over again
It's not a weakness. If the unit was properly pointed it would still have a weakness against ap-4 multi damage weapons. It's a glaring oversight in rules writing. It is a unit that is supposed to be durable that is not. I can not reiterate this enough. The unit is not durable at all. It's like trying to argue that a space marine is not durable to you people. IT IS NOT. The way the game is played you are just paying points for nothing of value.
Okay, understood - I'm still going to buy it because it looks cool, it fits my list design and how I like to play, my local meta will have trouble handling multiple armoured threats like this, and I'm eager to slap some paint on it. Can we move on now before we just repeat the last page over again? I'm trying not to be rude here but I don't think you're getting the message that you're coming off as a broken record with information that is fundamentally irrelevant - we're still going to seek ways to make it work in a real game. You've said your bit - no need to rehash it over and over again
Happy to discuss it's potential uses. Merely responding to comments about marines winning tournaments and why they doesn't mean a repulsor is actually a good unit. I do think this New destructor repulsor is going to be marginally better than the current repulsor. It actually has a realistically good main weapon with a double shooting d6 plasma str 9 ap -4.
Why would the eldar player need to kill both repulsors. Kill one and one-two preds and then kill the second repulsor turn 2?
I have no idea how that gulliman list deals with GSC. Kellermorph kills both units of eliminators. bikes pop up and demo charge the repulsors to death. Rock saws and abberants kill whatever's left and then guilliman tries to solo an entire army?
I don't think pointing out that this army won a tourney proves that repulsors are fine but it does show they aren't as bad as some of us claim. Again, not trash tier but match-up/opponent dependent.
Either way, if the new tank costs more than the existing repulsor I don't think I could justify buying it much less playing it. Even with a double shooting main gun you'd have to give up so much to squeeze it in your army and it's main gun suffers from the same weakness vs invuln saves as most marine big guns.
If it had a mortal wound mechanic (WAACK!!) or greater ROF (Heavy 8-10, s8, -2 ap, 2d 36" please!!! Let that thing shoot twice if you move less than 5" and we might be talking).
No the last thing the game needs right now is more race to the bottom with overpowered offence, especially not when it can be gicen re-roll everything aura buffing.
It it only matches the current top units it wont be a problem. A Levi dread does that almost - 20 str 7 ap-2 flat 2 damage. Cost 303 points. I don't autowin games when I play a levi ether. It just gives me a tool to compete with. It has significant draw backs with only 24" range - no ignore movement penalties and being forced to bring 2 useless heavy flamers. It does have a 4++ though and decent wounds. So if an opponent shoots at it - there is a big chance of doing minimal damage. Shooting at a repulsor with something like a Neutron Laser is like....okay - it's dead - just hope it takes 3 neutron lasers and not 2.
8 to 10 shots of S8 -2Ap 2d makes marines worse not better as thats a statline that destroys primaris units rediculous well. The leviathan may only be 303 poi nt but your forgetting that it also need a tax unit to be played ok it's heavy support so you were probably taking one anyway but it does limit the amount of them you can cram into a list.
Also your compairing all the shots from a leviathan for 303 vrs a transport that still has how much extra stick on dakka and transport ability to pay points for? Repulsors might not be meta defining but tuning everything to be the next OP won't make a better game.
Transport capacity is worth next to nothing. GW highly overvalues it.
Your argument isn't invalid it's just highly opinionated. You'd rather balance to the middle rather than the top. It makes no difference to me. The units we talk about in the competitive scene are really the only units that we have any data on - it's the easiest way to gauge actual power.
Stormonu wrote: Modelwise, this is just a change to the turret, correct? Asking as I’m not in the mood to buy a whole new model just for a turret swap.
. Not exactly. The hull is missing the mini turrets over the doors. Chances are you could just as easily pull them, and probably turret swap and be the same with an empty mini turret thing.
I think you could easily manage to convert this model without destroying any models.
Buy a redemptor dread and a regular repulsor. That gives you the one unique weapon to the repulsor destructor plasma or for the super las you could easily convert the mega lascannon out of some legos. They have cylindrical peices that would do really well for the barrel with some green stuff.
Xenomancers wrote: Transport capacity is worth next to nothing. GW highly overvalues it.
Your argument isn't invalid it's just highly opinionated. You'd rather balance to the middle rather than the top. It makes no difference to me. The units we talk about in the competitive scene are really the only units that we have any data on - it's the easiest way to gauge actual power.
Maybe I'm not conveying it well, my issue with balancing to the most killy is the most kill everything edition becomes even more hyper aplah strike.
2 or 3 of the stats somepeople want with Gman going first your losing 40-50%of your list to turn 1 alpha strike. No point in even continuing the game outside of the -2 to hit cheese lists.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: The problem as I see it is the reliance on the d6 system. If at max odds, your best chance is still almost 20% likely to go off, that is not hard to achieve, especially in armies where you get to roll 30-60 d6. Guard, Daemons, Chaos, Zerg, etc. Yeah, my telemon is hard to take down, but a squad of buffed up bloodletters scare the crap out of it. They can, by sheer dice averages, get enough 6s to just drop the thing in one go.
Now, if we were to go to D10, or d12, ala what Apoc is doing, it makes the entire game MUCH more dynamic. That squad of blood letters likely won't kill my telemon, and they will go after a better target they can actually influence.
Hence, why I see Apoc is going to be 40k 9th ed, and they are moving to a D12. Or did I read that wrong on Bell of Lost souls?
they used to have people grab their dungeons and dragons dice for armor pen, and terminator armor used to be 3+ on 2D6. Going to a D10+ based system would definitely be beneficial with all the new races all being sandwiched on T4 3+
Bharring wrote: In what world is losing a Repulsor because you felt it should eat Smites a better idea than losing some Eliminators or Servitors?
I was running numbers for the generic case, but sure, lets get specific. The CWE list had:
-3 CHEs with Starcannons
3xPL: 4 wounds
6xStarCannons: 11 wounds
-3 Razorwings
12xDisintigrators: 4 wounds
3x Missiles: Might get another 2 wounds?
2xSC/SC Serpents + 3xSC/SL Serpents
7xSC: Less than 1 wound
3xSL: Less than 1 wound
Add it all together? I'm counting 23W. Not even close to wiping 2 Repulsors.
Automatically Appended Next Post: T8 3+ 16W is actually very durable.
Doom comes very close to doubling that damage.
Without doom: 23W
With doom:
-3 CHEs with Starcannons
3xPL: Doom increases wounds taken on a 4+ by 50%. So that's +2W.
6xStarCannons: Doom increases wounds taken on a 5+ by 66%. So that's roughly +8W
-3 Razorwings
12xDisintigrators: A 5+ so another +2W
3x Missiles: 5+ so another +1W
2xSC/SC Serpents + 3xSC/SL Serpents
7xSC + 3SL: another +1W
Rounding up (significantly) gives us +14W with full rerolls. Only one of the two repulsors can be Doomed, so only half the dakka gets it, making it (liberally) +7W.
Assuming Doom, which is a roughly 40% chance, brings you to *30*W. Still short of killing two Repulsors.
So not only does Doom only increase firepower by ~60% on the target affected - it only increases firepower vs the pair of Repulsors by *30%*.
And that's being very generous with the rounding.
Try running numbers before spouting nonsense. Doom is always less than *double* damage. And more often not in play in this situation.
It is not in the least bit durable. A wave serpant is almost 4 times as durable per point.
Really? Lets see how that works!
Vs Brightlances:
Repulsor: Roughly 9 Brightlance hits to kill it (50% wound average 3.5D/W)
Wave Serpent: Roughly 9 Brightlance hits to kill it (2/3 wound average 2.66D/W)
Roughly the same per model. The Serpent doesn't cost 4x the Repulsor.
Vs Boltguns:
Repulsor: Roughly 288 hits to kill
Serpent: 144 hits to kill
Repusor takes twice as many Boltgun rounds to kill
Lasguns:
Both take 288 hits to kill. Same here.
Plasma Guns (non-OCed)
Repulsor: 72 hits to kill
Serpent: 48 hits to kill
Again, Repulsor is much better off
Plasma Guns (OCed)
This is the weapon Serpents are best at tanking.
Repulsor: 24 hits
Serpent: 36 hits
The Serpent takes 50% more firepower *against the weapons it's best designed to take*
So in a few cases, the Serpent takes 50% more firepower. In a few cases, they're the same. But in most cases, the Repulsor takes much more firepower to put down - even double, in extreme cases!
This "The Serpent takes 4x the firepower to kill per point" argument is another one of those sounds-good-in-your-head arguments that doesn't pan out. I'm sure fully supported, while not paying for the buffs, being shot by OC PGs inside Rapid Fire range, while outside 12" (why does that even come up?), in cover, etc a Serpent takes 4x the firepower to kill than a fully debuffed Repulsor at point blank in the open. But generally, not even close. The Serpent is more durable per point, generally, sure. But not 4x.
I should hope so. Much less firepower. Worse defensive statline. The Repulsor a the Serpent price point would be OP as gak. The Serpent at the Repulsor price point would never see play.
Maybe closer, but certainly not close. The Repulsor outclasses the Serpent in nearly every way beyond pricepoint; it should certainly cost a lot more. Not as much more as it does today, though.
Martel732 wrote: LOL. No. Lists with loyalist terminators were typically tabled by turn 3. CSM terminators on the other hand, were insane.
especially back then Loyalist and CSM terminators were practically the same. Suggesting loyalist lists were being tabled is probably more about the rest of the list than anything else.
Their weapon options were very different. You'd probably have to see the massacres i guess. Marine lists in 2nd frequently died in 2 turns and sometimes didnt get to move at all bc of chain pulsa rokkit
Bharring wrote: Maybe closer, but certainly not close. The Repulsor outclasses the Serpent in nearly every way beyond pricepoint; it should certainly cost a lot more. Not as much more as it does today, though.
Cost to power ratio is all that matters. Vs the majority of weapons the WS is More durable it costs well under half. Plus it actually is an effective transport. Flys far with assault weapons so you can actually get things places. It can also carry more unit types and carry more of them. Clearly the Repulsor has more power than a wave serpent so it should cost more...It shouldn't cost anywhere near double though which is about where it sits depending on the build.
Sure, the Serpent costs a little more than half the points (139 vs 256). But it also has maybe a quarter the firepower, and is generally easier to kill (per model).
The Serpent does move 4" more than the Repulsor. But the Repulsor has much better range.
Throw 12 Dire Avengers into it, and it now costs more than the Repulsor, dies just as fast, and still has worse dakka. Throw 12 Fire Dragons, and the dakka might be in the same range, but you're paying a gakton more.
Triple Shuirken Cannons means you have 9 Assualt shots. It's great that you don't get the -1 to hit, but it's still easily outperformed by the Repulsors main gun alone. Or the Heavy Bolters and small arms fire. Either half of the Repulsor's firepower outshine the Serpent. And contrary to your claims, the Serpent *does* suffer -1 to hit if it advances.
Serpents are effective battletanks, but only passable transports.
Correction: A handful of Eldar units are strong. The rest of the book is marine-level-mediocre. When was the last time you saw an effective army of Aspect Warriors that wasn't just Dark Reapers and Shining Spears?
Elbows wrote: Correction: A handful of Eldar units are strong. The rest of the book is marine-level-mediocre. When was the last time you saw an effective army of Aspect Warriors that wasn't just Dark Reapers and Shining Spears?
Haha, that would be Warp Spiders back in 7th. They were OP back then but now are just medicore.
BTW, would you call Crimson Hunter a kind of Aspect Warriors? If yes, it is one of the mostly used Aspect Warriors.
Bharring wrote: In what world is losing a Repulsor because you felt it should eat Smites a better idea than losing some Eliminators or Servitors?
I was running numbers for the generic case, but sure, lets get specific. The CWE list had:
-3 CHEs with Starcannons
3xPL: 4 wounds
6xStarCannons: 11 wounds
-3 Razorwings
12xDisintigrators: 4 wounds
3x Missiles: Might get another 2 wounds?
2xSC/SC Serpents + 3xSC/SL Serpents
7xSC: Less than 1 wound
3xSL: Less than 1 wound
Add it all together? I'm counting 23W. Not even close to wiping 2 Repulsors.
Automatically Appended Next Post: T8 3+ 16W is actually very durable.
Doom comes very close to doubling that damage.
Without doom: 23W
With doom:
-3 CHEs with Starcannons
3xPL: Doom increases wounds taken on a 4+ by 50%. So that's +2W.
6xStarCannons: Doom increases wounds taken on a 5+ by 66%. So that's roughly +8W
-3 Razorwings
12xDisintigrators: A 5+ so another +2W
3x Missiles: 5+ so another +1W
2xSC/SC Serpents + 3xSC/SL Serpents
7xSC + 3SL: another +1W
Rounding up (significantly) gives us +14W with full rerolls. Only one of the two repulsors can be Doomed, so only half the dakka gets it, making it (liberally) +7W.
Assuming Doom, which is a roughly 40% chance, brings you to *30*W. Still short of killing two Repulsors.
So not only does Doom only increase firepower by ~60% on the target affected - it only increases firepower vs the pair of Repulsors by *30%*.
And that's being very generous with the rounding.
Try running numbers before spouting nonsense. Doom is always less than *double* damage. And more often not in play in this situation.
It is not in the least bit durable. A wave serpant is almost 4 times as durable per point.
Really? Lets see how that works!
Vs Brightlances:
Repulsor: Roughly 9 Brightlance hits to kill it (50% wound average 3.5D/W)
Wave Serpent: Roughly 9 Brightlance hits to kill it (2/3 wound average 2.66D/W)
Roughly the same per model. The Serpent doesn't cost 4x the Repulsor.
Vs Boltguns:
Repulsor: Roughly 288 hits to kill
Serpent: 144 hits to kill
Repusor takes twice as many Boltgun rounds to kill
Lasguns:
Both take 288 hits to kill. Same here.
Plasma Guns (non-OCed)
Repulsor: 72 hits to kill
Serpent: 48 hits to kill
Again, Repulsor is much better off
Plasma Guns (OCed)
This is the weapon Serpents are best at tanking.
Repulsor: 24 hits
Serpent: 36 hits
The Serpent takes 50% more firepower *against the weapons it's best designed to take*
So in a few cases, the Serpent takes 50% more firepower. In a few cases, they're the same. But in most cases, the Repulsor takes much more firepower to put down - even double, in extreme cases!
This "The Serpent takes 4x the firepower to kill per point" argument is another one of those sounds-good-in-your-head arguments that doesn't pan out. I'm sure fully supported, while not paying for the buffs, being shot by OC PGs inside Rapid Fire range, while outside 12" (why does that even come up?), in cover, etc a Serpent takes 4x the firepower to kill than a fully debuffed Repulsor at point blank in the open. But generally, not even close. The Serpent is more durable per point, generally, sure. But not 4x.
This analysis is a little miss-leading, as a large chunk of a wave serpents protection is front loaded into its potentially -3 to hit debuff (most of the time -1). Because realistically, its almost always going to be an Alaitoc serpent, and if the user wants it to be durable, its going to be advancing with the upgrade to give it an additional -1, and if they really really want it alive, theyve got their additional -1 strat, and they can buy fnp for the thing, and still keep it in the approximately 50% cost category.
By picking bright lances we are also playing into the repulsors durability in T8, while if we picked something like a lascannon (which is a far more ubiquitous weapon), The wave serpent would also pull further ahead. Ultimately to provide a comprehensive anaylsis of durability vs weapons, we would probabaly have to have a huge sample size of weapons taken from event lists, and weight their relative 'survivability scores' vs the relative number of the weapons youre likely to face. But as we cant, its important to point out that all of the above weapons except the lasgun, favour the repulsors T8, while there are a great many anti vehicle weapons that would treat the wave serpents T7 equally to the Repulsor.
Bharring wrote: In what world is losing a Repulsor because you felt it should eat Smites a better idea than losing some Eliminators or Servitors?
I was running numbers for the generic case, but sure, lets get specific. The CWE list had:
-3 CHEs with Starcannons
3xPL: 4 wounds
6xStarCannons: 11 wounds
-3 Razorwings
12xDisintigrators: 4 wounds
3x Missiles: Might get another 2 wounds?
2xSC/SC Serpents + 3xSC/SL Serpents
7xSC: Less than 1 wound
3xSL: Less than 1 wound
Add it all together? I'm counting 23W. Not even close to wiping 2 Repulsors.
Automatically Appended Next Post: T8 3+ 16W is actually very durable.
Doom comes very close to doubling that damage.
Without doom: 23W
With doom:
-3 CHEs with Starcannons
3xPL: Doom increases wounds taken on a 4+ by 50%. So that's +2W.
6xStarCannons: Doom increases wounds taken on a 5+ by 66%. So that's roughly +8W
-3 Razorwings
12xDisintigrators: A 5+ so another +2W
3x Missiles: 5+ so another +1W
2xSC/SC Serpents + 3xSC/SL Serpents
7xSC + 3SL: another +1W
Rounding up (significantly) gives us +14W with full rerolls. Only one of the two repulsors can be Doomed, so only half the dakka gets it, making it (liberally) +7W.
Assuming Doom, which is a roughly 40% chance, brings you to *30*W. Still short of killing two Repulsors.
So not only does Doom only increase firepower by ~60% on the target affected - it only increases firepower vs the pair of Repulsors by *30%*.
And that's being very generous with the rounding.
Try running numbers before spouting nonsense. Doom is always less than *double* damage. And more often not in play in this situation.
It is not in the least bit durable. A wave serpant is almost 4 times as durable per point.
Really? Lets see how that works!
Vs Brightlances:
Repulsor: Roughly 9 Brightlance hits to kill it (50% wound average 3.5D/W)
Wave Serpent: Roughly 9 Brightlance hits to kill it (2/3 wound average 2.66D/W)
Roughly the same per model. The Serpent doesn't cost 4x the Repulsor.
Vs Boltguns:
Repulsor: Roughly 288 hits to kill
Serpent: 144 hits to kill
Repusor takes twice as many Boltgun rounds to kill
Lasguns:
Both take 288 hits to kill. Same here.
Plasma Guns (non-OCed)
Repulsor: 72 hits to kill
Serpent: 48 hits to kill
Again, Repulsor is much better off
Plasma Guns (OCed)
This is the weapon Serpents are best at tanking.
Repulsor: 24 hits
Serpent: 36 hits
The Serpent takes 50% more firepower *against the weapons it's best designed to take*
So in a few cases, the Serpent takes 50% more firepower. In a few cases, they're the same. But in most cases, the Repulsor takes much more firepower to put down - even double, in extreme cases!
This "The Serpent takes 4x the firepower to kill per point" argument is another one of those sounds-good-in-your-head arguments that doesn't pan out. I'm sure fully supported, while not paying for the buffs, being shot by OC PGs inside Rapid Fire range, while outside 12" (why does that even come up?), in cover, etc a Serpent takes 4x the firepower to kill than a fully debuffed Repulsor at point blank in the open. But generally, not even close. The Serpent is more durable per point, generally, sure. But not 4x.
This analysis is a little miss-leading, as a large chunk of a wave serpents protection is front loaded into its potentially -3 to hit debuff (most of the time -1). Because realistically, its almost always going to be an Alaitoc serpent, and if the user wants it to be durable, its going to be advancing with the upgrade to give it an additional -1, and if they really really want it alive, theyve got their additional -1 strat, and they can buy fnp for the thing, and still keep it in the approximately 50% cost category.
By picking bright lances we are also playing into the repulsors durability in T8, while if we picked something like a lascannon (which is a far more ubiquitous weapon), The wave serpent would also pull further ahead. Ultimately to provide a comprehensive anaylsis of durability vs weapons, we would probabaly have to have a huge sample size of weapons taken from event lists, and weight their relative 'survivability scores' vs the relative number of the weapons youre likely to face. But as we cant, its important to point out that all of the above weapons except the lasgun, favour the repulsors T8, while there are a great many anti vehicle weapons that would treat the wave serpents T7 equally to the Repulsor.
Some great points. I overreached in some cases in my response to some outlandish claims.
LasCannons do, indeed, kill a Repulsor 33% faster than a Serpent.
There's also the meta of Plasma - between Disintigrator Cannons, Starcannons, IoM Plasma, Spears, and Reapers, a great deal of AT currently used is actually S:less than 7 D2 - for which the Repulsor can be twice as vulnerable to. In those cases, the stock Repulsor approaches the 1/4th durability/pt of the stock Serpent (but doesn't quite get there).
While Serpents can be buffed up significantly for durability (>12" and Alaitoc, strat, and Engines upgrade, for instance - but not Conceal/etc), Repulsors can likewise be buffed up significantly for dakka.
My concern is all the FUD that goes on in this thread:
Upthread there's complaints about Doom always doubling the CWE force's firepower (despite only bumping it ~30%, and only doing that *~40%* of the time). In the same matchup, both Repulsors - and the Preds - are effectively doubled: most of their weapons are hitting on a 3+ or 4+ and wounding on a 5+ (shooting at vehicles). A 3+ followed by a 5+ is x2 factor. A 4+ followed by a 5+ is a x2.5 factor. In other words, the CWE's list's dakka is getting buffs bumping their dakka by about 12%, whereas the SM list is getting buffs bumping their dakka by over 100%. And the complaints are that the CWE dakka buffs are OP?
Upthread there's complaints that the Serpent is 4x as durable for the point. As shown above, it's roughly half the cost stock, and roughly as durable (wins some, loses some). It can approach twice as durable (thus hit 4x per point) in it's absolute best case, but not in most cases. The Serpent can be more durable (purchased upgrades, powers, strats, etc), but those have a cost, too.
Upthread there's complaints that the Repulsor should be much closer to the Serpent in price; there's no argument that they're close to eachother in durability per model, but the Serpent is no better a transport, and has only a fraction of the dakka.
TLDR: Yes, the Serpent is better per point. It's a flying brick. But the Repulsor is *much* better per model - so the two shouldn't be anywhere close in points.
(@secretForge - thank you for calling me out on this.)
Bharring wrote: In what world is losing a Repulsor because you felt it should eat Smites a better idea than losing some Eliminators or Servitors?
I was running numbers for the generic case, but sure, lets get specific. The CWE list had:
-3 CHEs with Starcannons
3xPL: 4 wounds
6xStarCannons: 11 wounds
-3 Razorwings
12xDisintigrators: 4 wounds
3x Missiles: Might get another 2 wounds?
2xSC/SC Serpents + 3xSC/SL Serpents
7xSC: Less than 1 wound
3xSL: Less than 1 wound
Add it all together? I'm counting 23W. Not even close to wiping 2 Repulsors.
Automatically Appended Next Post: T8 3+ 16W is actually very durable.
Doom comes very close to doubling that damage.
Without doom: 23W
With doom:
-3 CHEs with Starcannons
3xPL: Doom increases wounds taken on a 4+ by 50%. So that's +2W.
6xStarCannons: Doom increases wounds taken on a 5+ by 66%. So that's roughly +8W
-3 Razorwings
12xDisintigrators: A 5+ so another +2W
3x Missiles: 5+ so another +1W
2xSC/SC Serpents + 3xSC/SL Serpents
7xSC + 3SL: another +1W
Rounding up (significantly) gives us +14W with full rerolls. Only one of the two repulsors can be Doomed, so only half the dakka gets it, making it (liberally) +7W.
Assuming Doom, which is a roughly 40% chance, brings you to *30*W. Still short of killing two Repulsors.
So not only does Doom only increase firepower by ~60% on the target affected - it only increases firepower vs the pair of Repulsors by *30%*.
And that's being very generous with the rounding.
Try running numbers before spouting nonsense. Doom is always less than *double* damage. And more often not in play in this situation.
It is not in the least bit durable. A wave serpant is almost 4 times as durable per point.
Really? Lets see how that works!
Vs Brightlances:
Repulsor: Roughly 9 Brightlance hits to kill it (50% wound average 3.5D/W)
Wave Serpent: Roughly 9 Brightlance hits to kill it (2/3 wound average 2.66D/W)
Roughly the same per model. The Serpent doesn't cost 4x the Repulsor.
Vs Boltguns:
Repulsor: Roughly 288 hits to kill
Serpent: 144 hits to kill
Repusor takes twice as many Boltgun rounds to kill
Lasguns:
Both take 288 hits to kill. Same here.
Plasma Guns (non-OCed)
Repulsor: 72 hits to kill
Serpent: 48 hits to kill
Again, Repulsor is much better off
Plasma Guns (OCed)
This is the weapon Serpents are best at tanking.
Repulsor: 24 hits
Serpent: 36 hits
The Serpent takes 50% more firepower *against the weapons it's best designed to take*
So in a few cases, the Serpent takes 50% more firepower. In a few cases, they're the same. But in most cases, the Repulsor takes much more firepower to put down - even double, in extreme cases!
This "The Serpent takes 4x the firepower to kill per point" argument is another one of those sounds-good-in-your-head arguments that doesn't pan out. I'm sure fully supported, while not paying for the buffs, being shot by OC PGs inside Rapid Fire range, while outside 12" (why does that even come up?), in cover, etc a Serpent takes 4x the firepower to kill than a fully debuffed Repulsor at point blank in the open. But generally, not even close. The Serpent is more durable per point, generally, sure. But not 4x.
This analysis is a little miss-leading, as a large chunk of a wave serpents protection is front loaded into its potentially -3 to hit debuff (most of the time -1). Because realistically, its almost always going to be an Alaitoc serpent, and if the user wants it to be durable, its going to be advancing with the upgrade to give it an additional -1, and if they really really want it alive, theyve got their additional -1 strat, and they can buy fnp for the thing, and still keep it in the approximately 50% cost category.
By picking bright lances we are also playing into the repulsors durability in T8, while if we picked something like a lascannon (which is a far more ubiquitous weapon), The wave serpent would also pull further ahead. Ultimately to provide a comprehensive anaylsis of durability vs weapons, we would probabaly have to have a huge sample size of weapons taken from event lists, and weight their relative 'survivability scores' vs the relative number of the weapons youre likely to face. But as we cant, its important to point out that all of the above weapons except the lasgun, favour the repulsors T8, while there are a great many anti vehicle weapons that would treat the wave serpents T7 equally to the Repulsor.
Some great points. I overreached in some cases in my response to some outlandish claims.
LasCannons do, indeed, kill a Repulsor 33% faster than a Serpent.
There's also the meta of Plasma - between Disintigrator Cannons, Starcannons, IoM Plasma, Spears, and Reapers, a great deal of AT currently used is actually S:less than 7 D2 - for which the Repulsor can be twice as vulnerable to. In those cases, the stock Repulsor approaches the 1/4th durability/pt of the stock Serpent (but doesn't quite get there).
While Serpents can be buffed up significantly for durability (>12" and Alaitoc, strat, and Engines upgrade, for instance - but not Conceal/etc), Repulsors can likewise be buffed up significantly for dakka.
My concern is all the FUD that goes on in this thread:
Upthread there's complaints about Doom always doubling the CWE force's firepower (despite only bumping it ~30%, and only doing that *~40%* of the time). In the same matchup, both Repulsors - and the Preds - are effectively doubled: most of their weapons are hitting on a 3+ or 4+ and wounding on a 5+ (shooting at vehicles). A 3+ followed by a 5+ is x2 factor. A 4+ followed by a 5+ is a x2.5 factor. In other words, the CWE's list's dakka is getting buffs bumping their dakka by about 12%, whereas the SM list is getting buffs bumping their dakka by over 100%. And the complaints are that the CWE dakka buffs are OP?
Upthread there's complaints that the Serpent is 4x as durable for the point. As shown above, it's roughly half the cost stock, and roughly as durable (wins some, loses some). It can approach twice as durable (thus hit 4x per point) in it's absolute best case, but not in most cases. The Serpent can be more durable (purchased upgrades, powers, strats, etc), but those have a cost, too.
Upthread there's complaints that the Repulsor should be much closer to the Serpent in price; there's no argument that they're close to eachother in durability per model, but the Serpent is no better a transport, and has only a fraction of the dakka.
TLDR: Yes, the Serpent is better per point. It's a flying brick. But the Repulsor is *much* better per model - so the two shouldn't be anywhere close in points.
(@secretForge - thank you for calling me out on this.)
Again, they should be closer than they are. One of the problems with paying for weapons ala carte is that units like repulsors become extremely fragile per point and simultaneously a huge target.
You can make that assumption, but I've never seen foot Custodes do well anywhere. Many marine lists avoid the actual marines. Eldar avoid aspect warriors except for a couple of outliers. The difference between Eldar and marines is that marines have no outliers to exploit.
I could post a bunch of math, but it's been posted before. You either believe it or you don't.
Maybe. I don't know all the tournament winners. I see them constantly get skunked either by getting shot or being outnumbered and failing to score obj, though. I think mathematically necron warriors through custodes are not a good place in 8th averaged across all cases.
Bullgryns, priests, and command squads are a staple of many ITC top guard lists.
Aggressors are boss, and are as close to auto-include as you can get in SM pure lists.
ASSASSINS? Hello?
Fire Dragons?
Nobs?
So a bunch of 3W 3A infantry that basically have Thunderhammers which shoot OC Plasma with no chance of exploding, 2+W/BS, and 2+4++ for 52 points is crap?
Bharring wrote: In what world is losing a Repulsor because you felt it should eat Smites a better idea than losing some Eliminators or Servitors?
I was running numbers for the generic case, but sure, lets get specific. The CWE list had:
-3 CHEs with Starcannons
3xPL: 4 wounds
6xStarCannons: 11 wounds
-3 Razorwings
12xDisintigrators: 4 wounds
3x Missiles: Might get another 2 wounds?
2xSC/SC Serpents + 3xSC/SL Serpents
7xSC: Less than 1 wound
3xSL: Less than 1 wound
Add it all together? I'm counting 23W. Not even close to wiping 2 Repulsors.
Automatically Appended Next Post: T8 3+ 16W is actually very durable.
Doom comes very close to doubling that damage.
Without doom: 23W
With doom:
-3 CHEs with Starcannons
3xPL: Doom increases wounds taken on a 4+ by 50%. So that's +2W.
6xStarCannons: Doom increases wounds taken on a 5+ by 66%. So that's roughly +8W
-3 Razorwings
12xDisintigrators: A 5+ so another +2W
3x Missiles: 5+ so another +1W
2xSC/SC Serpents + 3xSC/SL Serpents
7xSC + 3SL: another +1W
Rounding up (significantly) gives us +14W with full rerolls. Only one of the two repulsors can be Doomed, so only half the dakka gets it, making it (liberally) +7W.
Assuming Doom, which is a roughly 40% chance, brings you to *30*W. Still short of killing two Repulsors.
So not only does Doom only increase firepower by ~60% on the target affected - it only increases firepower vs the pair of Repulsors by *30%*.
And that's being very generous with the rounding.
Try running numbers before spouting nonsense. Doom is always less than *double* damage. And more often not in play in this situation.
It is not in the least bit durable. A wave serpant is almost 4 times as durable per point.
Really? Lets see how that works!
Vs Brightlances:
Repulsor: Roughly 9 Brightlance hits to kill it (50% wound average 3.5D/W)
Wave Serpent: Roughly 9 Brightlance hits to kill it (2/3 wound average 2.66D/W)
Roughly the same per model. The Serpent doesn't cost 4x the Repulsor.
Vs Boltguns:
Repulsor: Roughly 288 hits to kill
Serpent: 144 hits to kill
Repusor takes twice as many Boltgun rounds to kill
Lasguns:
Both take 288 hits to kill. Same here.
Plasma Guns (non-OCed)
Repulsor: 72 hits to kill
Serpent: 48 hits to kill
Again, Repulsor is much better off
Plasma Guns (OCed)
This is the weapon Serpents are best at tanking.
Repulsor: 24 hits
Serpent: 36 hits
The Serpent takes 50% more firepower *against the weapons it's best designed to take*
So in a few cases, the Serpent takes 50% more firepower. In a few cases, they're the same. But in most cases, the Repulsor takes much more firepower to put down - even double, in extreme cases!
This "The Serpent takes 4x the firepower to kill per point" argument is another one of those sounds-good-in-your-head arguments that doesn't pan out. I'm sure fully supported, while not paying for the buffs, being shot by OC PGs inside Rapid Fire range, while outside 12" (why does that even come up?), in cover, etc a Serpent takes 4x the firepower to kill than a fully debuffed Repulsor at point blank in the open. But generally, not even close. The Serpent is more durable per point, generally, sure. But not 4x.
This analysis is a little miss-leading, as a large chunk of a wave serpents protection is front loaded into its potentially -3 to hit debuff (most of the time -1). Because realistically, its almost always going to be an Alaitoc serpent, and if the user wants it to be durable, its going to be advancing with the upgrade to give it an additional -1, and if they really really want it alive, theyve got their additional -1 strat, and they can buy fnp for the thing, and still keep it in the approximately 50% cost category.
By picking bright lances we are also playing into the repulsors durability in T8, while if we picked something like a lascannon (which is a far more ubiquitous weapon), The wave serpent would also pull further ahead. Ultimately to provide a comprehensive anaylsis of durability vs weapons, we would probabaly have to have a huge sample size of weapons taken from event lists, and weight their relative 'survivability scores' vs the relative number of the weapons youre likely to face. But as we cant, its important to point out that all of the above weapons except the lasgun, favour the repulsors T8, while there are a great many anti vehicle weapons that would treat the wave serpents T7 equally to the Repulsor.
Some great points. I overreached in some cases in my response to some outlandish claims.
LasCannons do, indeed, kill a Repulsor 33% faster than a Serpent.
There's also the meta of Plasma - between Disintigrator Cannons, Starcannons, IoM Plasma, Spears, and Reapers, a great deal of AT currently used is actually S:less than 7 D2 - for which the Repulsor can be twice as vulnerable to. In those cases, the stock Repulsor approaches the 1/4th durability/pt of the stock Serpent (but doesn't quite get there).
While Serpents can be buffed up significantly for durability (>12" and Alaitoc, strat, and Engines upgrade, for instance - but not Conceal/etc), Repulsors can likewise be buffed up significantly for dakka.
My concern is all the FUD that goes on in this thread:
Upthread there's complaints about Doom always doubling the CWE force's firepower (despite only bumping it ~30%, and only doing that *~40%* of the time). In the same matchup, both Repulsors - and the Preds - are effectively doubled: most of their weapons are hitting on a 3+ or 4+ and wounding on a 5+ (shooting at vehicles). A 3+ followed by a 5+ is x2 factor. A 4+ followed by a 5+ is a x2.5 factor. In other words, the CWE's list's dakka is getting buffs bumping their dakka by about 12%, whereas the SM list is getting buffs bumping their dakka by over 100%. And the complaints are that the CWE dakka buffs are OP?
Upthread there's complaints that the Serpent is 4x as durable for the point. As shown above, it's roughly half the cost stock, and roughly as durable (wins some, loses some). It can approach twice as durable (thus hit 4x per point) in it's absolute best case, but not in most cases. The Serpent can be more durable (purchased upgrades, powers, strats, etc), but those have a cost, too.
Upthread there's complaints that the Repulsor should be much closer to the Serpent in price; there's no argument that they're close to eachother in durability per model, but the Serpent is no better a transport, and has only a fraction of the dakka.
TLDR: Yes, the Serpent is better per point. It's a flying brick. But the Repulsor is *much* better per model - so the two shouldn't be anywhere close in points.
(@secretForge - thank you for calling me out on this.)
Again, they should be closer than they are. One of the problems with paying for weapons ala carte is that units like repulsors become extremely fragile per point and simultaneously a huge target.
A Guardsman and a Phantom Titan should be closer to eachother in points. But, like Serpent and Repulsor, should still be nowhere close to eachother.
Bharring wrote: In what world is losing a Repulsor because you felt it should eat Smites a better idea than losing some Eliminators or Servitors?
I was running numbers for the generic case, but sure, lets get specific. The CWE list had:
-3 CHEs with Starcannons
3xPL: 4 wounds
6xStarCannons: 11 wounds
-3 Razorwings
12xDisintigrators: 4 wounds
3x Missiles: Might get another 2 wounds?
2xSC/SC Serpents + 3xSC/SL Serpents
7xSC: Less than 1 wound
3xSL: Less than 1 wound
Add it all together? I'm counting 23W. Not even close to wiping 2 Repulsors.
Automatically Appended Next Post: T8 3+ 16W is actually very durable.
Doom comes very close to doubling that damage.
Without doom: 23W
With doom:
-3 CHEs with Starcannons
3xPL: Doom increases wounds taken on a 4+ by 50%. So that's +2W.
6xStarCannons: Doom increases wounds taken on a 5+ by 66%. So that's roughly +8W
-3 Razorwings
12xDisintigrators: A 5+ so another +2W
3x Missiles: 5+ so another +1W
2xSC/SC Serpents + 3xSC/SL Serpents
7xSC + 3SL: another +1W
Rounding up (significantly) gives us +14W with full rerolls. Only one of the two repulsors can be Doomed, so only half the dakka gets it, making it (liberally) +7W.
Assuming Doom, which is a roughly 40% chance, brings you to *30*W. Still short of killing two Repulsors.
So not only does Doom only increase firepower by ~60% on the target affected - it only increases firepower vs the pair of Repulsors by *30%*.
And that's being very generous with the rounding.
Try running numbers before spouting nonsense. Doom is always less than *double* damage. And more often not in play in this situation.
It is not in the least bit durable. A wave serpant is almost 4 times as durable per point.
Really? Lets see how that works!
Vs Brightlances:
Repulsor: Roughly 9 Brightlance hits to kill it (50% wound average 3.5D/W)
Wave Serpent: Roughly 9 Brightlance hits to kill it (2/3 wound average 2.66D/W)
Roughly the same per model. The Serpent doesn't cost 4x the Repulsor.
Vs Boltguns:
Repulsor: Roughly 288 hits to kill
Serpent: 144 hits to kill
Repusor takes twice as many Boltgun rounds to kill
Lasguns:
Both take 288 hits to kill. Same here.
Plasma Guns (non-OCed)
Repulsor: 72 hits to kill
Serpent: 48 hits to kill
Again, Repulsor is much better off
Plasma Guns (OCed)
This is the weapon Serpents are best at tanking.
Repulsor: 24 hits
Serpent: 36 hits
The Serpent takes 50% more firepower *against the weapons it's best designed to take*
So in a few cases, the Serpent takes 50% more firepower. In a few cases, they're the same. But in most cases, the Repulsor takes much more firepower to put down - even double, in extreme cases!
This "The Serpent takes 4x the firepower to kill per point" argument is another one of those sounds-good-in-your-head arguments that doesn't pan out. I'm sure fully supported, while not paying for the buffs, being shot by OC PGs inside Rapid Fire range, while outside 12" (why does that even come up?), in cover, etc a Serpent takes 4x the firepower to kill than a fully debuffed Repulsor at point blank in the open. But generally, not even close. The Serpent is more durable per point, generally, sure. But not 4x.
This analysis is a little miss-leading, as a large chunk of a wave serpents protection is front loaded into its potentially -3 to hit debuff (most of the time -1). Because realistically, its almost always going to be an Alaitoc serpent, and if the user wants it to be durable, its going to be advancing with the upgrade to give it an additional -1, and if they really really want it alive, theyve got their additional -1 strat, and they can buy fnp for the thing, and still keep it in the approximately 50% cost category.
By picking bright lances we are also playing into the repulsors durability in T8, while if we picked something like a lascannon (which is a far more ubiquitous weapon), The wave serpent would also pull further ahead. Ultimately to provide a comprehensive anaylsis of durability vs weapons, we would probabaly have to have a huge sample size of weapons taken from event lists, and weight their relative 'survivability scores' vs the relative number of the weapons youre likely to face. But as we cant, its important to point out that all of the above weapons except the lasgun, favour the repulsors T8, while there are a great many anti vehicle weapons that would treat the wave serpents T7 equally to the Repulsor.
Some great points. I overreached in some cases in my response to some outlandish claims.
LasCannons do, indeed, kill a Repulsor 33% faster than a Serpent.
There's also the meta of Plasma - between Disintigrator Cannons, Starcannons, IoM Plasma, Spears, and Reapers, a great deal of AT currently used is actually S:less than 7 D2 - for which the Repulsor can be twice as vulnerable to. In those cases, the stock Repulsor approaches the 1/4th durability/pt of the stock Serpent (but doesn't quite get there).
While Serpents can be buffed up significantly for durability (>12" and Alaitoc, strat, and Engines upgrade, for instance - but not Conceal/etc), Repulsors can likewise be buffed up significantly for dakka.
My concern is all the FUD that goes on in this thread:
Upthread there's complaints about Doom always doubling the CWE force's firepower (despite only bumping it ~30%, and only doing that *~40%* of the time). In the same matchup, both Repulsors - and the Preds - are effectively doubled: most of their weapons are hitting on a 3+ or 4+ and wounding on a 5+ (shooting at vehicles). A 3+ followed by a 5+ is x2 factor. A 4+ followed by a 5+ is a x2.5 factor. In other words, the CWE's list's dakka is getting buffs bumping their dakka by about 12%, whereas the SM list is getting buffs bumping their dakka by over 100%. And the complaints are that the CWE dakka buffs are OP?
Upthread there's complaints that the Serpent is 4x as durable for the point. As shown above, it's roughly half the cost stock, and roughly as durable (wins some, loses some). It can approach twice as durable (thus hit 4x per point) in it's absolute best case, but not in most cases. The Serpent can be more durable (purchased upgrades, powers, strats, etc), but those have a cost, too.
Upthread there's complaints that the Repulsor should be much closer to the Serpent in price; there's no argument that they're close to eachother in durability per model, but the Serpent is no better a transport, and has only a fraction of the dakka.
TLDR: Yes, the Serpent is better per point. It's a flying brick. But the Repulsor is *much* better per model - so the two shouldn't be anywhere close in points.
(@secretForge - thank you for calling me out on this.)
Again, they should be closer than they are. One of the problems with paying for weapons ala carte is that units like repulsors become extremely fragile per point and simultaneously a huge target.
A Guardsman and a Phantom Titan should be closer to eachother in points. But, like Serpent and Repulsor, should still be nowhere close to eachother.
We might disagree on the magnitude. The repulsor is quite fragile at its current price point.
Bharring wrote: In what world is losing a Repulsor because you felt it should eat Smites a better idea than losing some Eliminators or Servitors?
I was running numbers for the generic case, but sure, lets get specific. The CWE list had:
-3 CHEs with Starcannons
3xPL: 4 wounds
6xStarCannons: 11 wounds
-3 Razorwings
12xDisintigrators: 4 wounds
3x Missiles: Might get another 2 wounds?
2xSC/SC Serpents + 3xSC/SL Serpents
7xSC: Less than 1 wound
3xSL: Less than 1 wound
Add it all together? I'm counting 23W. Not even close to wiping 2 Repulsors.
Automatically Appended Next Post: T8 3+ 16W is actually very durable.
Doom comes very close to doubling that damage.
Without doom: 23W
With doom:
-3 CHEs with Starcannons
3xPL: Doom increases wounds taken on a 4+ by 50%. So that's +2W.
6xStarCannons: Doom increases wounds taken on a 5+ by 66%. So that's roughly +8W
-3 Razorwings
12xDisintigrators: A 5+ so another +2W
3x Missiles: 5+ so another +1W
2xSC/SC Serpents + 3xSC/SL Serpents
7xSC + 3SL: another +1W
Rounding up (significantly) gives us +14W with full rerolls. Only one of the two repulsors can be Doomed, so only half the dakka gets it, making it (liberally) +7W.
Assuming Doom, which is a roughly 40% chance, brings you to *30*W. Still short of killing two Repulsors.
So not only does Doom only increase firepower by ~60% on the target affected - it only increases firepower vs the pair of Repulsors by *30%*.
And that's being very generous with the rounding.
Try running numbers before spouting nonsense. Doom is always less than *double* damage. And more often not in play in this situation.
It is not in the least bit durable. A wave serpant is almost 4 times as durable per point.
Really? Lets see how that works!
Vs Brightlances:
Repulsor: Roughly 9 Brightlance hits to kill it (50% wound average 3.5D/W)
Wave Serpent: Roughly 9 Brightlance hits to kill it (2/3 wound average 2.66D/W)
Roughly the same per model. The Serpent doesn't cost 4x the Repulsor.
Vs Boltguns:
Repulsor: Roughly 288 hits to kill
Serpent: 144 hits to kill
Repusor takes twice as many Boltgun rounds to kill
Lasguns:
Both take 288 hits to kill. Same here.
Plasma Guns (non-OCed)
Repulsor: 72 hits to kill
Serpent: 48 hits to kill
Again, Repulsor is much better off
Plasma Guns (OCed)
This is the weapon Serpents are best at tanking.
Repulsor: 24 hits
Serpent: 36 hits
The Serpent takes 50% more firepower *against the weapons it's best designed to take*
So in a few cases, the Serpent takes 50% more firepower. In a few cases, they're the same. But in most cases, the Repulsor takes much more firepower to put down - even double, in extreme cases!
This "The Serpent takes 4x the firepower to kill per point" argument is another one of those sounds-good-in-your-head arguments that doesn't pan out. I'm sure fully supported, while not paying for the buffs, being shot by OC PGs inside Rapid Fire range, while outside 12" (why does that even come up?), in cover, etc a Serpent takes 4x the firepower to kill than a fully debuffed Repulsor at point blank in the open. But generally, not even close. The Serpent is more durable per point, generally, sure. But not 4x.
This analysis is a little miss-leading, as a large chunk of a wave serpents protection is front loaded into its potentially -3 to hit debuff (most of the time -1). Because realistically, its almost always going to be an Alaitoc serpent, and if the user wants it to be durable, its going to be advancing with the upgrade to give it an additional -1, and if they really really want it alive, theyve got their additional -1 strat, and they can buy fnp for the thing, and still keep it in the approximately 50% cost category.
By picking bright lances we are also playing into the repulsors durability in T8, while if we picked something like a lascannon (which is a far more ubiquitous weapon), The wave serpent would also pull further ahead. Ultimately to provide a comprehensive anaylsis of durability vs weapons, we would probabaly have to have a huge sample size of weapons taken from event lists, and weight their relative 'survivability scores' vs the relative number of the weapons youre likely to face. But as we cant, its important to point out that all of the above weapons except the lasgun, favour the repulsors T8, while there are a great many anti vehicle weapons that would treat the wave serpents T7 equally to the Repulsor.
Some great points. I overreached in some cases in my response to some outlandish claims.
LasCannons do, indeed, kill a Repulsor 33% faster than a Serpent.
There's also the meta of Plasma - between Disintigrator Cannons, Starcannons, IoM Plasma, Spears, and Reapers, a great deal of AT currently used is actually S:less than 7 D2 - for which the Repulsor can be twice as vulnerable to. In those cases, the stock Repulsor approaches the 1/4th durability/pt of the stock Serpent (but doesn't quite get there).
While Serpents can be buffed up significantly for durability (>12" and Alaitoc, strat, and Engines upgrade, for instance - but not Conceal/etc), Repulsors can likewise be buffed up significantly for dakka.
My concern is all the FUD that goes on in this thread:
Upthread there's complaints about Doom always doubling the CWE force's firepower (despite only bumping it ~30%, and only doing that *~40%* of the time). In the same matchup, both Repulsors - and the Preds - are effectively doubled: most of their weapons are hitting on a 3+ or 4+ and wounding on a 5+ (shooting at vehicles). A 3+ followed by a 5+ is x2 factor. A 4+ followed by a 5+ is a x2.5 factor. In other words, the CWE's list's dakka is getting buffs bumping their dakka by about 12%, whereas the SM list is getting buffs bumping their dakka by over 100%. And the complaints are that the CWE dakka buffs are OP?
Upthread there's complaints that the Serpent is 4x as durable for the point. As shown above, it's roughly half the cost stock, and roughly as durable (wins some, loses some). It can approach twice as durable (thus hit 4x per point) in it's absolute best case, but not in most cases. The Serpent can be more durable (purchased upgrades, powers, strats, etc), but those have a cost, too.
Upthread there's complaints that the Repulsor should be much closer to the Serpent in price; there's no argument that they're close to eachother in durability per model, but the Serpent is no better a transport, and has only a fraction of the dakka.
TLDR: Yes, the Serpent is better per point. It's a flying brick. But the Repulsor is *much* better per model - so the two shouldn't be anywhere close in points.
(@secretForge - thank you for calling me out on this.)
Again, they should be closer than they are. One of the problems with paying for weapons ala carte is that units like repulsors become extremely fragile per point and simultaneously a huge target.
A Guardsman and a Phantom Titan should be closer to eachother in points. But, like Serpent and Repulsor, should still be nowhere close to eachother.
We might disagree on the magnitude. The repulsor is quite fragile at its current price point.
Honest question:
When you say "fragile" are you talking about the ease at which it can be destroyed, or the fact that it CAN be destroyed in one turn? Because aren't those sort of the same thing?
Further point, if we gave this a 5++, for no points increase, would you then lean more towards this being a good unit, or would you still be opposed? What, if I may, in list form, changes would turn this from a bad unit in your eyes, to a good unit? No restrictions.
Fragile for its cost. Not in absolute terms. Most repulsors clock in around 17-18 points per wound, which is really high. It's already super weak vs mortal wounds because of this. Now lump in no invuln, and it starts looking grim indeed.
A 5++ would make it better, as it cuts everything down to AP -2 at worst at that point. Of course, this would contribute to the death knell of weapons that pay for AP. I'd rather the thing just had more wounds. If it had 24 wounds, it would be down to 11-13 points per wound, which is more in line with successful vehicles in 40K.
Of the GW Knights, Questoris top at 22.29 PPW.
Dominous, 25.14 PPW.
They're much more susceptible to mortal wounds than a Repulsor is, and have much less in-Codex screening. Even with their 5+ FNP Strat (which I think Space Marines might have-or is that just for Dreads?) they're not that much better.
That's about the same as 24 wounds. I guess it depends if you like to roll dice or not.
I do like the redemptor, even though it gets some hate. It stumbles around and does its thing for only about 12 points per wound. I care a lot less about T7 no invuln if I'm only paying 12 point per wound. It's great for soaking up mortals.
Bharring wrote: In what world is losing a Repulsor because you felt it should eat Smites a better idea than losing some Eliminators or Servitors?
I was running numbers for the generic case, but sure, lets get specific. The CWE list had:
-3 CHEs with Starcannons
3xPL: 4 wounds
6xStarCannons: 11 wounds
-3 Razorwings
12xDisintigrators: 4 wounds
3x Missiles: Might get another 2 wounds?
2xSC/SC Serpents + 3xSC/SL Serpents
7xSC: Less than 1 wound
3xSL: Less than 1 wound
Add it all together? I'm counting 23W. Not even close to wiping 2 Repulsors.
Automatically Appended Next Post: T8 3+ 16W is actually very durable.
Doom comes very close to doubling that damage.
Without doom: 23W
With doom:
-3 CHEs with Starcannons
3xPL: Doom increases wounds taken on a 4+ by 50%. So that's +2W.
6xStarCannons: Doom increases wounds taken on a 5+ by 66%. So that's roughly +8W
-3 Razorwings
12xDisintigrators: A 5+ so another +2W
3x Missiles: 5+ so another +1W
2xSC/SC Serpents + 3xSC/SL Serpents
7xSC + 3SL: another +1W
Rounding up (significantly) gives us +14W with full rerolls. Only one of the two repulsors can be Doomed, so only half the dakka gets it, making it (liberally) +7W.
Assuming Doom, which is a roughly 40% chance, brings you to *30*W. Still short of killing two Repulsors.
So not only does Doom only increase firepower by ~60% on the target affected - it only increases firepower vs the pair of Repulsors by *30%*.
And that's being very generous with the rounding.
Try running numbers before spouting nonsense. Doom is always less than *double* damage. And more often not in play in this situation.
It is not in the least bit durable. A wave serpant is almost 4 times as durable per point.
Really? Lets see how that works!
Vs Brightlances:
Repulsor: Roughly 9 Brightlance hits to kill it (50% wound average 3.5D/W)
Wave Serpent: Roughly 9 Brightlance hits to kill it (2/3 wound average 2.66D/W)
Roughly the same per model. The Serpent doesn't cost 4x the Repulsor.
Vs Boltguns:
Repulsor: Roughly 288 hits to kill
Serpent: 144 hits to kill
Repusor takes twice as many Boltgun rounds to kill
Lasguns:
Both take 288 hits to kill. Same here.
Plasma Guns (non-OCed)
Repulsor: 72 hits to kill
Serpent: 48 hits to kill
Again, Repulsor is much better off
Plasma Guns (OCed)
This is the weapon Serpents are best at tanking.
Repulsor: 24 hits
Serpent: 36 hits
The Serpent takes 50% more firepower *against the weapons it's best designed to take*
So in a few cases, the Serpent takes 50% more firepower. In a few cases, they're the same. But in most cases, the Repulsor takes much more firepower to put down - even double, in extreme cases!
This "The Serpent takes 4x the firepower to kill per point" argument is another one of those sounds-good-in-your-head arguments that doesn't pan out. I'm sure fully supported, while not paying for the buffs, being shot by OC PGs inside Rapid Fire range, while outside 12" (why does that even come up?), in cover, etc a Serpent takes 4x the firepower to kill than a fully debuffed Repulsor at point blank in the open. But generally, not even close. The Serpent is more durable per point, generally, sure. But not 4x.
This analysis is a little miss-leading, as a large chunk of a wave serpents protection is front loaded into its potentially -3 to hit debuff (most of the time -1). Because realistically, its almost always going to be an Alaitoc serpent, and if the user wants it to be durable, its going to be advancing with the upgrade to give it an additional -1, and if they really really want it alive, theyve got their additional -1 strat, and they can buy fnp for the thing, and still keep it in the approximately 50% cost category.
By picking bright lances we are also playing into the repulsors durability in T8, while if we picked something like a lascannon (which is a far more ubiquitous weapon), The wave serpent would also pull further ahead. Ultimately to provide a comprehensive anaylsis of durability vs weapons, we would probabaly have to have a huge sample size of weapons taken from event lists, and weight their relative 'survivability scores' vs the relative number of the weapons youre likely to face. But as we cant, its important to point out that all of the above weapons except the lasgun, favour the repulsors T8, while there are a great many anti vehicle weapons that would treat the wave serpents T7 equally to the Repulsor.
Some great points. I overreached in some cases in my response to some outlandish claims.
LasCannons do, indeed, kill a Repulsor 33% faster than a Serpent.
There's also the meta of Plasma - between Disintigrator Cannons, Starcannons, IoM Plasma, Spears, and Reapers, a great deal of AT currently used is actually S:less than 7 D2 - for which the Repulsor can be twice as vulnerable to. In those cases, the stock Repulsor approaches the 1/4th durability/pt of the stock Serpent (but doesn't quite get there).
While Serpents can be buffed up significantly for durability (>12" and Alaitoc, strat, and Engines upgrade, for instance - but not Conceal/etc), Repulsors can likewise be buffed up significantly for dakka.
My concern is all the FUD that goes on in this thread:
Upthread there's complaints about Doom always doubling the CWE force's firepower (despite only bumping it ~30%, and only doing that *~40%* of the time). In the same matchup, both Repulsors - and the Preds - are effectively doubled: most of their weapons are hitting on a 3+ or 4+ and wounding on a 5+ (shooting at vehicles). A 3+ followed by a 5+ is x2 factor. A 4+ followed by a 5+ is a x2.5 factor. In other words, the CWE's list's dakka is getting buffs bumping their dakka by about 12%, whereas the SM list is getting buffs bumping their dakka by over 100%. And the complaints are that the CWE dakka buffs are OP?
Upthread there's complaints that the Serpent is 4x as durable for the point. As shown above, it's roughly half the cost stock, and roughly as durable (wins some, loses some). It can approach twice as durable (thus hit 4x per point) in it's absolute best case, but not in most cases. The Serpent can be more durable (purchased upgrades, powers, strats, etc), but those have a cost, too.
Upthread there's complaints that the Repulsor should be much closer to the Serpent in price; there's no argument that they're close to eachother in durability per model, but the Serpent is no better a transport, and has only a fraction of the dakka.
TLDR: Yes, the Serpent is better per point. It's a flying brick. But the Repulsor is *much* better per model - so the two shouldn't be anywhere close in points.
(@secretForge - thank you for calling me out on this.)
Again, they should be closer than they are. One of the problems with paying for weapons ala carte is that units like repulsors become extremely fragile per point and simultaneously a huge target.
A Guardsman and a Phantom Titan should be closer to eachother in points. But, like Serpent and Repulsor, should still be nowhere close to eachother.
We might disagree on the magnitude. The repulsor is quite fragile at its current price point.
Honest question:
When you say "fragile" are you talking about the ease at which it can be destroyed, or the fact that it CAN be destroyed in one turn? Because aren't those sort of the same thing?
Further point, if we gave this a 5++, for no points increase, would you then lean more towards this being a good unit, or would you still be opposed? What, if I may, in list form, changes would turn this from a bad unit in your eyes, to a good unit? No restrictions.
The Repulsor is quite easily eliminated by anti tank firepower. Pretty much everyone I have used it against has eliminated it in a turn. I think a berserker list is the exception. In part I blame knights. Everyone has been rocking around with a pile of firepower to eliminate a knight and has been since 7th, and it you can kill a knight, a Repulsor May as well not be there.
And it rarely carries its own weight in firepower for the turn it has to live. I’ve had it die to Eldar, admech, sisters, more admech, deldar, some admech, knights, admech, and guard. An invul won’t save the Repulsor sadly. But it might make three at once a better bet
Bharring wrote: In what world is losing a Repulsor because you felt it should eat Smites a better idea than losing some Eliminators or Servitors?
I was running numbers for the generic case, but sure, lets get specific. The CWE list had:
-3 CHEs with Starcannons
3xPL: 4 wounds
6xStarCannons: 11 wounds
-3 Razorwings
12xDisintigrators: 4 wounds
3x Missiles: Might get another 2 wounds?
2xSC/SC Serpents + 3xSC/SL Serpents
7xSC: Less than 1 wound
3xSL: Less than 1 wound
Add it all together? I'm counting 23W. Not even close to wiping 2 Repulsors.
Automatically Appended Next Post: T8 3+ 16W is actually very durable.
Doom comes very close to doubling that damage.
Without doom: 23W
With doom:
-3 CHEs with Starcannons
3xPL: Doom increases wounds taken on a 4+ by 50%. So that's +2W.
6xStarCannons: Doom increases wounds taken on a 5+ by 66%. So that's roughly +8W
-3 Razorwings
12xDisintigrators: A 5+ so another +2W
3x Missiles: 5+ so another +1W
2xSC/SC Serpents + 3xSC/SL Serpents
7xSC + 3SL: another +1W
Rounding up (significantly) gives us +14W with full rerolls. Only one of the two repulsors can be Doomed, so only half the dakka gets it, making it (liberally) +7W.
Assuming Doom, which is a roughly 40% chance, brings you to *30*W. Still short of killing two Repulsors.
So not only does Doom only increase firepower by ~60% on the target affected - it only increases firepower vs the pair of Repulsors by *30%*.
And that's being very generous with the rounding.
Try running numbers before spouting nonsense. Doom is always less than *double* damage. And more often not in play in this situation.
It is not in the least bit durable. A wave serpant is almost 4 times as durable per point.
Really? Lets see how that works!
Vs Brightlances:
Repulsor: Roughly 9 Brightlance hits to kill it (50% wound average 3.5D/W)
Wave Serpent: Roughly 9 Brightlance hits to kill it (2/3 wound average 2.66D/W)
Roughly the same per model. The Serpent doesn't cost 4x the Repulsor.
Vs Boltguns:
Repulsor: Roughly 288 hits to kill
Serpent: 144 hits to kill
Repusor takes twice as many Boltgun rounds to kill
Lasguns:
Both take 288 hits to kill. Same here.
Plasma Guns (non-OCed)
Repulsor: 72 hits to kill
Serpent: 48 hits to kill
Again, Repulsor is much better off
Plasma Guns (OCed)
This is the weapon Serpents are best at tanking.
Repulsor: 24 hits
Serpent: 36 hits
The Serpent takes 50% more firepower *against the weapons it's best designed to take*
So in a few cases, the Serpent takes 50% more firepower. In a few cases, they're the same. But in most cases, the Repulsor takes much more firepower to put down - even double, in extreme cases!
This "The Serpent takes 4x the firepower to kill per point" argument is another one of those sounds-good-in-your-head arguments that doesn't pan out. I'm sure fully supported, while not paying for the buffs, being shot by OC PGs inside Rapid Fire range, while outside 12" (why does that even come up?), in cover, etc a Serpent takes 4x the firepower to kill than a fully debuffed Repulsor at point blank in the open. But generally, not even close. The Serpent is more durable per point, generally, sure. But not 4x.
This analysis is a little miss-leading, as a large chunk of a wave serpents protection is front loaded into its potentially -3 to hit debuff (most of the time -1). Because realistically, its almost always going to be an Alaitoc serpent, and if the user wants it to be durable, its going to be advancing with the upgrade to give it an additional -1, and if they really really want it alive, theyve got their additional -1 strat, and they can buy fnp for the thing, and still keep it in the approximately 50% cost category.
By picking bright lances we are also playing into the repulsors durability in T8, while if we picked something like a lascannon (which is a far more ubiquitous weapon), The wave serpent would also pull further ahead. Ultimately to provide a comprehensive anaylsis of durability vs weapons, we would probabaly have to have a huge sample size of weapons taken from event lists, and weight their relative 'survivability scores' vs the relative number of the weapons youre likely to face. But as we cant, its important to point out that all of the above weapons except the lasgun, favour the repulsors T8, while there are a great many anti vehicle weapons that would treat the wave serpents T7 equally to the Repulsor.
Some great points. I overreached in some cases in my response to some outlandish claims.
LasCannons do, indeed, kill a Repulsor 33% faster than a Serpent.
There's also the meta of Plasma - between Disintigrator Cannons, Starcannons, IoM Plasma, Spears, and Reapers, a great deal of AT currently used is actually S:less than 7 D2 - for which the Repulsor can be twice as vulnerable to. In those cases, the stock Repulsor approaches the 1/4th durability/pt of the stock Serpent (but doesn't quite get there).
While Serpents can be buffed up significantly for durability (>12" and Alaitoc, strat, and Engines upgrade, for instance - but not Conceal/etc), Repulsors can likewise be buffed up significantly for dakka.
My concern is all the FUD that goes on in this thread:
Upthread there's complaints about Doom always doubling the CWE force's firepower (despite only bumping it ~30%, and only doing that *~40%* of the time). In the same matchup, both Repulsors - and the Preds - are effectively doubled: most of their weapons are hitting on a 3+ or 4+ and wounding on a 5+ (shooting at vehicles). A 3+ followed by a 5+ is x2 factor. A 4+ followed by a 5+ is a x2.5 factor. In other words, the CWE's list's dakka is getting buffs bumping their dakka by about 12%, whereas the SM list is getting buffs bumping their dakka by over 100%. And the complaints are that the CWE dakka buffs are OP?
Upthread there's complaints that the Serpent is 4x as durable for the point. As shown above, it's roughly half the cost stock, and roughly as durable (wins some, loses some). It can approach twice as durable (thus hit 4x per point) in it's absolute best case, but not in most cases. The Serpent can be more durable (purchased upgrades, powers, strats, etc), but those have a cost, too.
Upthread there's complaints that the Repulsor should be much closer to the Serpent in price; there's no argument that they're close to eachother in durability per model, but the Serpent is no better a transport, and has only a fraction of the dakka.
TLDR: Yes, the Serpent is better per point. It's a flying brick. But the Repulsor is *much* better per model - so the two shouldn't be anywhere close in points.
(@secretForge - thank you for calling me out on this.)
Again, they should be closer than they are. One of the problems with paying for weapons ala carte is that units like repulsors become extremely fragile per point and simultaneously a huge target.
A Guardsman and a Phantom Titan should be closer to eachother in points. But, like Serpent and Repulsor, should still be nowhere close to eachother.
We might disagree on the magnitude. The repulsor is quite fragile at its current price point.
Honest question:
When you say "fragile" are you talking about the ease at which it can be destroyed, or the fact that it CAN be destroyed in one turn? Because aren't those sort of the same thing?
Further point, if we gave this a 5++, for no points increase, would you then lean more towards this being a good unit, or would you still be opposed? What, if I may, in list form, changes would turn this from a bad unit in your eyes, to a good unit? No restrictions.
The Repulsor is quite easily eliminated by anti tank firepower. Pretty much everyone I have used it against has eliminated it in a turn. I think a berserker list is the exception. In part I blame knights. Everyone has been rocking around with a pile of firepower to eliminate a knight and has been since 7th, and it you can kill a knight, a Repulsor May as well not be there.
And it rarely carries its own weight in firepower for the turn it has to live. I’ve had it die to Eldar, admech, sisters, more admech, deldar, some admech, knights, admech, and guard. An invul won’t save the Repulsor sadly. But it might make three at once a better bet
Great point. The Repulsor is a request to a pre-knights question. Give us a transport for our Primaris! Then Knights came along and prison raped the meta, and GW backlashed by giving everything 3/4++ and super tank deleting weapons.
That should have been answered by "What idiot said Primaris can't hop in a Rhino? Did we stop selling them or something?"
I'd much rather see something like the Repulsor have 24W than a FNP. It might math out the same, but it's a very different feel. And please no more Invulns to represent "This tank is super tanky!". AP is *supposed* to screw stuff like tanks.
Bharring wrote: That should have been answered by "What idiot said Primaris can't hop in a Rhino? Did we stop selling them or something?"
I'd much rather see something like the Repulsor have 24W than a FNP. It might math out the same, but it's a very different feel. And please no more Invulns to represent "This tank is super tanky!". AP is *supposed* to screw stuff like tanks.
Yeah, the invulns being thrown around willy nilly is getting old. Why do grotesques have 4++? Insanity.
Bharring wrote: That should have been answered by "What idiot said Primaris can't hop in a Rhino? Did we stop selling them or something?"
I'd much rather see something like the Repulsor have 24W than a FNP. It might math out the same, but it's a very different feel. And please no more Invulns to represent "This tank is super tanky!". AP is *supposed* to screw stuff like tanks.
Yeah, the invulns being thrown around willy nilly is getting old. Why do grotesques have 4++? Insanity.
Yeah, and not enough weapons ignore them. Like this Heavy Laser Destroyer. It should blast through damn near everything. But WOO! minimum three damage is its claim to fame.
Bharring wrote: In what world is losing a Repulsor because you felt it should eat Smites a better idea than losing some Eliminators or Servitors?
I was running numbers for the generic case, but sure, lets get specific. The CWE list had:
-3 CHEs with Starcannons
3xPL: 4 wounds
6xStarCannons: 11 wounds
-3 Razorwings
12xDisintigrators: 4 wounds
3x Missiles: Might get another 2 wounds?
2xSC/SC Serpents + 3xSC/SL Serpents
7xSC: Less than 1 wound
3xSL: Less than 1 wound
Add it all together? I'm counting 23W. Not even close to wiping 2 Repulsors.
Automatically Appended Next Post: T8 3+ 16W is actually very durable.
Doom comes very close to doubling that damage.
Without doom: 23W
With doom:
-3 CHEs with Starcannons
3xPL: Doom increases wounds taken on a 4+ by 50%. So that's +2W.
6xStarCannons: Doom increases wounds taken on a 5+ by 66%. So that's roughly +8W
-3 Razorwings
12xDisintigrators: A 5+ so another +2W
3x Missiles: 5+ so another +1W
2xSC/SC Serpents + 3xSC/SL Serpents
7xSC + 3SL: another +1W
Rounding up (significantly) gives us +14W with full rerolls. Only one of the two repulsors can be Doomed, so only half the dakka gets it, making it (liberally) +7W.
Assuming Doom, which is a roughly 40% chance, brings you to *30*W. Still short of killing two Repulsors.
So not only does Doom only increase firepower by ~60% on the target affected - it only increases firepower vs the pair of Repulsors by *30%*.
And that's being very generous with the rounding.
Try running numbers before spouting nonsense. Doom is always less than *double* damage. And more often not in play in this situation.
It is not in the least bit durable. A wave serpant is almost 4 times as durable per point.
Really? Lets see how that works!
Vs Brightlances:
Repulsor: Roughly 9 Brightlance hits to kill it (50% wound average 3.5D/W)
Wave Serpent: Roughly 9 Brightlance hits to kill it (2/3 wound average 2.66D/W)
Roughly the same per model. The Serpent doesn't cost 4x the Repulsor.
Vs Boltguns:
Repulsor: Roughly 288 hits to kill
Serpent: 144 hits to kill
Repusor takes twice as many Boltgun rounds to kill
Lasguns:
Both take 288 hits to kill. Same here.
Plasma Guns (non-OCed)
Repulsor: 72 hits to kill
Serpent: 48 hits to kill
Again, Repulsor is much better off
Plasma Guns (OCed)
This is the weapon Serpents are best at tanking.
Repulsor: 24 hits
Serpent: 36 hits
The Serpent takes 50% more firepower *against the weapons it's best designed to take*
So in a few cases, the Serpent takes 50% more firepower. In a few cases, they're the same. But in most cases, the Repulsor takes much more firepower to put down - even double, in extreme cases!
This "The Serpent takes 4x the firepower to kill per point" argument is another one of those sounds-good-in-your-head arguments that doesn't pan out. I'm sure fully supported, while not paying for the buffs, being shot by OC PGs inside Rapid Fire range, while outside 12" (why does that even come up?), in cover, etc a Serpent takes 4x the firepower to kill than a fully debuffed Repulsor at point blank in the open. But generally, not even close. The Serpent is more durable per point, generally, sure. But not 4x.
This analysis is a little miss-leading, as a large chunk of a wave serpents protection is front loaded into its potentially -3 to hit debuff (most of the time -1). Because realistically, its almost always going to be an Alaitoc serpent, and if the user wants it to be durable, its going to be advancing with the upgrade to give it an additional -1, and if they really really want it alive, theyve got their additional -1 strat, and they can buy fnp for the thing, and still keep it in the approximately 50% cost category.
By picking bright lances we are also playing into the repulsors durability in T8, while if we picked something like a lascannon (which is a far more ubiquitous weapon), The wave serpent would also pull further ahead. Ultimately to provide a comprehensive anaylsis of durability vs weapons, we would probabaly have to have a huge sample size of weapons taken from event lists, and weight their relative 'survivability scores' vs the relative number of the weapons youre likely to face. But as we cant, its important to point out that all of the above weapons except the lasgun, favour the repulsors T8, while there are a great many anti vehicle weapons that would treat the wave serpents T7 equally to the Repulsor.
Some great points. I overreached in some cases in my response to some outlandish claims.
LasCannons do, indeed, kill a Repulsor 33% faster than a Serpent.
There's also the meta of Plasma - between Disintigrator Cannons, Starcannons, IoM Plasma, Spears, and Reapers, a great deal of AT currently used is actually S:less than 7 D2 - for which the Repulsor can be twice as vulnerable to. In those cases, the stock Repulsor approaches the 1/4th durability/pt of the stock Serpent (but doesn't quite get there).
While Serpents can be buffed up significantly for durability (>12" and Alaitoc, strat, and Engines upgrade, for instance - but not Conceal/etc), Repulsors can likewise be buffed up significantly for dakka.
My concern is all the FUD that goes on in this thread:
Upthread there's complaints about Doom always doubling the CWE force's firepower (despite only bumping it ~30%, and only doing that *~40%* of the time). In the same matchup, both Repulsors - and the Preds - are effectively doubled: most of their weapons are hitting on a 3+ or 4+ and wounding on a 5+ (shooting at vehicles). A 3+ followed by a 5+ is x2 factor. A 4+ followed by a 5+ is a x2.5 factor. In other words, the CWE's list's dakka is getting buffs bumping their dakka by about 12%, whereas the SM list is getting buffs bumping their dakka by over 100%. And the complaints are that the CWE dakka buffs are OP?
Upthread there's complaints that the Serpent is 4x as durable for the point. As shown above, it's roughly half the cost stock, and roughly as durable (wins some, loses some). It can approach twice as durable (thus hit 4x per point) in it's absolute best case, but not in most cases. The Serpent can be more durable (purchased upgrades, powers, strats, etc), but those have a cost, too.
Upthread there's complaints that the Repulsor should be much closer to the Serpent in price; there's no argument that they're close to eachother in durability per model, but the Serpent is no better a transport, and has only a fraction of the dakka.
TLDR: Yes, the Serpent is better per point. It's a flying brick. But the Repulsor is *much* better per model - so the two shouldn't be anywhere close in points.
(@secretForge - thank you for calling me out on this.)
Again, they should be closer than they are. One of the problems with paying for weapons ala carte is that units like repulsors become extremely fragile per point and simultaneously a huge target.
A Guardsman and a Phantom Titan should be closer to eachother in points. But, like Serpent and Repulsor, should still be nowhere close to eachother.
We might disagree on the magnitude. The repulsor is quite fragile at its current price point.
Honest question:
When you say "fragile" are you talking about the ease at which it can be destroyed, or the fact that it CAN be destroyed in one turn? Because aren't those sort of the same thing?
Further point, if we gave this a 5++, for no points increase, would you then lean more towards this being a good unit, or would you still be opposed? What, if I may, in list form, changes would turn this from a bad unit in your eyes, to a good unit? No restrictions.
The Repulsor is quite easily eliminated by anti tank firepower. Pretty much everyone I have used it against has eliminated it in a turn. I think a berserker list is the exception. In part I blame knights. Everyone has been rocking around with a pile of firepower to eliminate a knight and has been since 7th, and it you can kill a knight, a Repulsor May as well not be there.
And it rarely carries its own weight in firepower for the turn it has to live. I’ve had it die to Eldar, admech, sisters, more admech, deldar, some admech, knights, admech, and guard. An invul won’t save the Repulsor sadly. But it might make three at once a better bet
Great point. The Repulsor is a request to a pre-knights question. Give us a transport for our Primaris! Then Knights came along and prison raped the meta, and GW backlashed by giving everything 3/4++ and super tank deleting weapons.
The knight problem predates primaris marines. The consequence of putting super heavies in standard play is everyone upguns their lists (not everyone everyone, if the read on the meta is all hordes and you’re tailoring to it, then You’d struggle to kill a knight but are hoping to not face one).
A unit like the Repulsor simply can’t thrive in a world where super heavies are common. It’ll be too costly until it suddenly isn’t and then everyone takes five. You can’t really justify making it as survivable as a knight, but if it isn’t, it will always be a turn away from death against even casual anti armor firepower, and the only redemption would come in redundancy, which has its own issues as we all saw with the g man Razorback parking lot of early 8th
Martel732 wrote: That's about the same as 24 wounds. I guess it depends if you like to roll dice or not.
I do like the redemptor, even though it gets some hate. It stumbles around and does its thing for only about 12 points per wound. I care a lot less about T7 no invuln if I'm only paying 12 point per wound. It's great for soaking up mortals.
I'd like the Redemptor a lot better if GW would get around to fixing Plasma so it only explodes on a natural one. Having the Redemptor chewing up it's own wounds because the Plasma gun doesn't have enough range to not move and also doesn't hit hard enough to not overcharge it is bad under the best of circumstances, it's suicidal when you're also playing Cities Of Death and everyone in your meta that has a -1 to-be-hit trait uses it. MWing itself on a 4 is crazy.
I like it a lot better with the Heavy Onslaught, but I miss the AP.
I always liked the idea of not telling the opponent what is in the transport.
Are my squad of guys in the Repulsor on the left, the repulsor on the right, or the teleportarium? It should have to be somehow declared before the game starts, but it shouldn't have to be told to your opponent.
And be a fantastic way to cheat your way to an advantage.
After all, if you don't have to tell someone what's in your transports nobody can hold you accountable for what eventually disembarks from them. Unless you record it somewhere, then it remains ultimately amorphous to both you and your opponent until the time comes to decide to pile out of it. As such, choose the unit you think is the best for that moment and claim that was what was in there all along. Hardly an upstanding move.
And be a fantastic way to cheat your way to an advantage.
After all, if you don't have to tell someone what's in your transports nobody can hold you accountable for what eventually disembarks from them. Unless you record it somewhere, then it remains ultimately amorphous to both you and your opponent until the time comes to decide to pile out of it. As such, choose the unit you think is the best for that moment and claim that was what was in there all along. Hardly an upstanding move.
Hi, did you see the point where I said you have to declare them somehow before fielding them? I don't know how, but maybe on your list you have to write down where your reserves are?
Point being, this game is all about integrity. I have no fething clue what the stats and rules are regarding GSC, because I don't see them often. But I believe the people I play with because they have integrity. If your argument is that everyone is a liar, you might want to find a new hobby group.
I am totally fine with writing down which units not on the table are where, saying I HAVE them, and placing my list face down on the table. There. Fair.
And be a fantastic way to cheat your way to an advantage.
After all, if you don't have to tell someone what's in your transports nobody can hold you accountable for what eventually disembarks from them. Unless you record it somewhere, then it remains ultimately amorphous to both you and your opponent until the time comes to decide to pile out of it. As such, choose the unit you think is the best for that moment and claim that was what was in there all along. Hardly an upstanding move.
You could do it with counters with a hidden side or something. It wouldn't be that hard.
Sure, it would be possible to cheat. But that's true of a bunch of things in the game already, and outside of a tournament if someone wants to cheat that badly then they clearly need a win more than I do!
Hi, did you see the point where I said you have to declare them somehow before fielding them? I don't know how, but maybe on your list you have to write down where your reserves are?
No, sorry - I didn't understand what you were saying because right now you do 100% declare that when you deploy. Otherwise you have to deploy the unit on the board or declare it will be in reserves for deep strike. Not really sure what the point of the discussion is though so I'd say we leave that there and get back to the speculation on the Repulsor because we have a potential leak...
Take with a grain of salt because 290 would be pretty good and even though I expect a 6 July pdf like the initial Intercessor launch describing the use in other chapters, the point about the other astartes armies still seems a bit awkward.
Bharring wrote: That should have been answered by "What idiot said Primaris can't hop in a Rhino? Did we stop selling them or something?"
I'd much rather see something like the Repulsor have 24W than a FNP. It might math out the same, but it's a very different feel. And please no more Invulns to represent "This tank is super tanky!". AP is *supposed* to screw stuff like tanks.
Yeah, the invulns being thrown around willy nilly is getting old. Why do grotesques have 4++? Insanity.
Yeah, and not enough weapons ignore them. Like this Heavy Laser Destroyer. It should blast through damn near everything. But WOO! minimum three damage is its claim to fame.
Absolutely. More weapons should ignore invun saves. Some armor types should only get saves against low AP weapons (like a protoss immortal).
The more diversity of targets there are the more people are forced to bring balanced lists. Right now you spam invune saves and ap-2 ROF and multi damage weapons and you have such a huge advantage it's not funny. Invul saves are literally my least favorite part of the game. Which is why I am excited for Apoc.
Hi, did you see the point where I said you have to declare them somehow before fielding them? I don't know how, but maybe on your list you have to write down where your reserves are?
No, sorry - I didn't understand what you were saying because right now you do 100% declare that when you deploy. Otherwise you have to deploy the unit on the board or declare it will be in reserves for deep strike. Not really sure what the point of the discussion is though so I'd say we leave that there and get back to the speculation on the Repulsor because we have a potential leak...
Take with a grain of salt because 290 would be pretty good and even though I expect a 6 July pdf like the initial Intercessor launch describing the use in other chapters, the point about the other astartes armies still seems a bit awkward.
About 50 points overcosted is about standard for a marine unit. Maybe the Plasma will be cheaper than the las?
You are in flat denial about the value of things. Compare it to a plasma commander. 187 points
You get
2d6str 8 ap-3 flat 2 damage
2d3 str 8 ap-3 flat 2 damage
A heavy bolter
Plus a storm bolter.
You get tank orders.
So what does the repulsor get? for roughly 100 more points?
Pros
Fly Keyword
slightly better plasma
15 str 5ap-1
6 ap-1 str 4 shots
4 str 4 ap0 shots -
2 str 6 ap-1 d3 shots
+4 wounds
Transport 6 units
Cons
-2 2d3 plasma shots
No tank orders
No army traits
Summary - you trade about 25 chaff shots for 2 plasma cannons and gain fly keyword and some transport and 4 wounds. Maybe a 50-60 points increase (being generous) not even close to 100.
Because you say it isn't - automatically means it's in a decent spot. Rule #732 of Dakka - if Martel complains heavily about something by repeating the same complaint across at least 4 pages of a thread, then the unit is pretty close to being viable, therefore for 90% of the game's players it'll be fine. I mean, it's a marine unit, so by even going with marines you've already thrown efficiency out in favour of model preference or things you think are cool. Maybe it's this concept you can't reconcile which makes you so salty I kid
I mean, you don't complain about lost causes, you complain the most about units that are right there on the edge, and you never, ever stop.
Thus, surely it's in a good spot.
Rule #733 is that Xeno will jump on the bandwagon in the most condescending way possible
You are in flat denial about the value of things. Compare it to a plasma commander. 187 points
You get
2d6str 8 ap-3 flat 2 damage
2d3 str 8 ap-3 flat 2 damage
A heavy bolter
Plus a storm bolter.
You get tank orders.
So what does the repulsor get? for roughly 100 more points?
Pros
Fly Keyword
slightly better plasma
15 str 5ap-1
6 ap-1 str 4 shots
4 str 4 ap0 shots -
2 str 6 ap-1 d3 shots
+4 wounds
Transport 6 units
Cons
-2 2d3 plasma shots
No tank orders
No army traits
Summary - you trade about 25 chaff shots for 2 plasma cannons and gain fly keyword and some transport and 4 wounds. Maybe a 50-60 points increase (being generous) not even close to 100.
25 chaff shots *and Fly* should be only 50-60 points?
SC Serpents get 9 chaff shots (and fly). And you complain about *their* dakka.
The Bajillion "chaff shots" and the Fly keyword are quite valuable, imo. Particularly that Fly Keyword.
At the moment it looks very close to a flying Landraider with more AT capability, and way more defensive-fire capability. That's why less-than-a-Land-Raider seems very good.
Because you say it isn't - automatically means it's in a decent spot. Rule #732 of Dakka - if Martel complains heavily about something by repeating the same complaint across at least 4 pages of a thread, then the unit is pretty close to being viable, therefore for 90% of the game's players it'll be fine. I mean, it's a marine unit, so by even going with marines you've already thrown efficiency out in favour of model preference or things you think are cool. Maybe it's this concept you can't reconcile which makes you so salty I kid
I mean, you don't complain about lost causes, you complain the most about units that are right there on the edge, and you never, ever stop.
Thus, surely it's in a good spot.
Rule #733 is that Xeno will jump on the bandwagon in the most condescending way possible
Cute, but incorrect. 18 pts/w is too high for the way 8th plays currently.
You are in flat denial about the value of things. Compare it to a plasma commander. 187 points
You get
2d6str 8 ap-3 flat 2 damage
2d3 str 8 ap-3 flat 2 damage
A heavy bolter
Plus a storm bolter.
You get tank orders.
So what does the repulsor get? for roughly 100 more points?
Pros
Fly Keyword
slightly better plasma
15 str 5ap-1
6 ap-1 str 4 shots
4 str 4 ap0 shots -
2 str 6 ap-1 d3 shots
+4 wounds
Transport 6 units
Cons
-2 2d3 plasma shots
No tank orders
No army traits
Summary - you trade about 25 chaff shots for 2 plasma cannons and gain fly keyword and some transport and 4 wounds. Maybe a 50-60 points increase (being generous) not even close to 100.
25 chaff shots *and Fly* should be only 50-60 points?
SC Serpents get 9 chaff shots (and fly). And you complain about *their* dakka.
Your trading chaff shots for quality multi damage shots in this example. Obviosuly the repuslor has more firepower. Its average damage vs anything with an armor save or reasonable toughness is going to be about equivalent. I don't even need to do the math to know that. You are basically comparing 2 plasmacannons to 5 heavy bolters and 2 stubbers and a storm bolter. It is not that significant. 100 points is significant.
Insectum7 wrote: The Bajillion "chaff shots" and the Fly keyword are quite valuable, imo. Particularly that Fly Keyword.
At the moment it looks very close to a flying Landraider with more AT capability, and way more defensive-fire capability. That's why less-than-a-Land-Raider seems very good.
A landraider is terrible. Possibly the worst unit in the entire game. It is also overpriced by about 60 points. Have you seen a Custdard flying tank? Literally better than a landraider and costs about 60 points less. Unless you really think transport capacity is worth that much. Heres a hint though. It's not. Transport capacity is like a 10-20 point upgrade at best.
Cute, but incorrect. 18 pts/w is too high for the way 8th plays currently.
Naw, it's fine. 18ppw is decent for its offensive output and capabilities.
The offense doesn't matter on the opponent's turn. No invuln, no FNP, no 2+ should never be 18 ppw. Regardless of the weaponry on it; within reason. Plus, its' getting offense from AP -4 which also decreases its value. It's the same thing as the GK fallacy. GK pay a lot for features that do nothing on the opponent's turn, making them overpriced.
Insectum7 wrote: The Bajillion "chaff shots" and the Fly keyword are quite valuable, imo. Particularly that Fly Keyword.
At the moment it looks very close to a flying Landraider with more AT capability, and way more defensive-fire capability. That's why less-than-a-Land-Raider seems very good.
A landraider is terrible. Possibly the worst unit in the entire game. It is also overpriced by about 60 points. Have you seen a Custdard flying tank? Literally better than a landraider and costs about 60 points less. Unless you really think transport capacity is worth that much. Heres a hint though. It's not. Transport capacity is like a 10-20 point upgrade at best.
I can think of several units worse than the land raider
Cute, but incorrect. 18 pts/w is too high for the way 8th plays currently.
Naw, it's fine. 18ppw is decent for its offensive output and capabilities.
Why must you spout nonsense? It's not just PPW ether. It's effective wounds. Repsulor denies practically 0 damage from anti tank weapons. Most the time it gets only a 6+ save. So not only really high points per wound - almost 0 ability to deny damage. It's basically the juiciest target on the battlefield no matter what. which is not to be confused with other units not being good. It's just the least protected valuable target no matter what.
Cute, but incorrect. 18 pts/w is too high for the way 8th plays currently.
Dark Reapers are 34 (?) points per wound? They must be terrible.
They are a notable exception because of all the rules they get. Rules that help them live, in particular. Repulsor gets no such rules. They are the exception that proves the rule. You need dark reaper levels of absurdity to justify that kind of cost. For example, I give space marine with missile launcher. 33 pts/wound, terrible model.
Insectum7 wrote: The Bajillion "chaff shots" and the Fly keyword are quite valuable, imo. Particularly that Fly Keyword.
At the moment it looks very close to a flying Landraider with more AT capability, and way more defensive-fire capability. That's why less-than-a-Land-Raider seems very good.
A landraider is terrible. Possibly the worst unit in the entire game. It is also overpriced by about 60 points. Have you seen a Custdard flying tank? Literally better than a landraider and costs about 60 points less. Unless you really think transport capacity is worth that much. Heres a hint though. It's not. Transport capacity is like a 10-20 point upgrade at best.
I hope you don't mind if I don't take your word for it.
Cute, but incorrect. 18 pts/w is too high for the way 8th plays currently.
Dark Reapers are 34 (?) points per wound? They must be terrible.
They would be pretty bad if not for the fact you can't actually shoot them and when you can they get an on demand -1 to hit and probably a 1+ save too or a 5+ FNP.
Cute, but incorrect. 18 pts/w is too high for the way 8th plays currently.
Naw, it's fine. 18ppw is decent for its offensive output and capabilities.
Why must you spout nonsense? It's not just PPW ether. It's effective wounds. Repsulor denies practically 0 damage from anti tank weapons. Most the time it gets only a 6+ save. So not only really high points per wound - almost 0 ability to deny damage. It's basically the juiciest target on the battlefield no matter what. which is not to be confused with other units not being good. It's just the least protected valuable target no matter what.
Why must you be so condescending? It's a fine unit and I'm sorry you can't see that.
Martel732 wrote: Okay: 18 points per wound with no ameliorating factors. Better?
Sure, whatever you say It would still be good though.
It's not, though. It's a liability on your opponent's turn. GW constantly forgets their own game paradigm of IGOUGO. If it was just shooting on the marine turn and couldn't be shot back, then yes, the cost seems fine.
Insectum7 wrote: The Bajillion "chaff shots" and the Fly keyword are quite valuable, imo. Particularly that Fly Keyword.
At the moment it looks very close to a flying Landraider with more AT capability, and way more defensive-fire capability. That's why less-than-a-Land-Raider seems very good.
A landraider is terrible. Possibly the worst unit in the entire game. It is also overpriced by about 60 points. Have you seen a Custdard flying tank? Literally better than a landraider and costs about 60 points less. Unless you really think transport capacity is worth that much. Heres a hint though. It's not. Transport capacity is like a 10-20 point upgrade at best.
I hope you don't mind if I don't take your word for it.
Transport has almost no advantage over deep strike. Other than turn 1 protection where you can act turn 1 - it's a trade off for mobility though - DS gets you a lot farther. Reivers (a bad unit) pay about 20 points for a unit of 10 to DS. Lots of units get the ability for free. Niche examples where your opponent is walking into your threat range (rare and stupid) transports can offer another advantage too - it's also a trade off you can be destroyed on a roll of a 1 if inside of a transport.
Martel732 wrote: It's not, though. It's a liability on your opponent's turn. GW constantly forgets their own game paradigm of IGOUGO. If it was just shooting on the marine turn and couldn't be shot back, then yes, the cost seems fine.
Sure, it's a glass cannon against armies that field lots of ways to handle T8 platforms.
But it's still good at 290 points for the HLD though.
Insectum7 wrote: The Bajillion "chaff shots" and the Fly keyword are quite valuable, imo. Particularly that Fly Keyword.
At the moment it looks very close to a flying Landraider with more AT capability, and way more defensive-fire capability. That's why less-than-a-Land-Raider seems very good.
A landraider is terrible. Possibly the worst unit in the entire game. It is also overpriced by about 60 points. Have you seen a Custdard flying tank? Literally better than a landraider and costs about 60 points less. Unless you really think transport capacity is worth that much. Heres a hint though. It's not. Transport capacity is like a 10-20 point upgrade at best.
I hope you don't mind if I don't take your word for it.
Oh, he'll mind. You basically just personally attacked him.
Martel732 wrote: It's not, though. It's a liability on your opponent's turn. GW constantly forgets their own game paradigm of IGOUGO. If it was just shooting on the marine turn and couldn't be shot back, then yes, the cost seems fine.
Sure, it's a glass cannon against armies that field lots of ways to handle T8 platforms.
But it's still good at 290 points for the HLD though.
290 and glass cannon don't go together. Not in 8th. Non invuln, non FNP, no - to hit should really be capped at 15 point per wound (maybe less) regardless of its armament. Unless that armament is absurd, which is not the case here. In fact,this thing is gimped by the most ubiquitous defense: invulns.
It's only acceptable at 290 if your opponent does't get to go.
Cute, but incorrect. 18 pts/w is too high for the way 8th plays currently.
Naw, it's fine. 18ppw is decent for its offensive output and capabilities.
Why must you spout nonsense? It's not just PPW ether. It's effective wounds. Repsulor denies practically 0 damage from anti tank weapons. Most the time it gets only a 6+ save. So not only really high points per wound - almost 0 ability to deny damage. It's basically the juiciest target on the battlefield no matter what. which is not to be confused with other units not being good. It's just the least protected valuable target no matter what.
Why must you be so condescending? It's a fine unit and I'm sorry you can't see that.
Martel732 wrote: Okay: 18 points per wound with no ameliorating factors. Better?
Sure, whatever you say It would still be good though.
Sorry I meant no offense. I wasn't attacking you personally. I am attacking the idea that nearly 300 point units should have the effective durability of 2 rhinos which are over costed at 70. They should actually cost 50 points max.
Insectum7 wrote: The Bajillion "chaff shots" and the Fly keyword are quite valuable, imo. Particularly that Fly Keyword.
At the moment it looks very close to a flying Landraider with more AT capability, and way more defensive-fire capability. That's why less-than-a-Land-Raider seems very good.
A landraider is terrible. Possibly the worst unit in the entire game. It is also overpriced by about 60 points. Have you seen a Custdard flying tank? Literally better than a landraider and costs about 60 points less. Unless you really think transport capacity is worth that much. Heres a hint though. It's not. Transport capacity is like a 10-20 point upgrade at best.
I hope you don't mind if I don't take your word for it.
Oh, he'll mind. You basically just personally attacked him.
Imagine being passionate about something. With people spitting on that something regularly without seeing it as a problem. Yeah. It bothers me to see people being unfair about a game because of whatever reason. Why exactly are you guys okay with marines being awful? Keep in mind I play every army.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: That really licks my bacon bits, about the no DW. Whelp, there go my two purchases...
Naw, don't worry about that at all. The Primaris instruction booklets for every multi-part kit released thus far fail to mention the other non-Codex chapters. The initial release wave came with that PDF that explained what limitations or what keywords to swap out for back then, so I imagine that'll be the case here too.
Martel732 wrote: It's not, though. It's a liability on your opponent's turn. GW constantly forgets their own game paradigm of IGOUGO. If it was just shooting on the marine turn and couldn't be shot back, then yes, the cost seems fine.
Sure, it's a glass cannon against armies that field lots of ways to handle T8 platforms.
But it's still good at 290 points for the HLD though.
290 and glass cannon don't go together. Not in 8th. Non invuln, non FNP, no - to hit should really be capped at 15 point per wound (maybe less) regardless of its armament. Unless that armament is absurd, which is not the case here. In fact,this thing is gimped by the most ubiquitous defense: invulns.
It's only acceptable at 290 if your opponent does't get to go.
Let's agree on the following statement and then move on:
"This is a unit that you can play in a game of Warhammer 40k"
Insectum7 wrote: The Bajillion "chaff shots" and the Fly keyword are quite valuable, imo. Particularly that Fly Keyword.
At the moment it looks very close to a flying Landraider with more AT capability, and way more defensive-fire capability. That's why less-than-a-Land-Raider seems very good.
A landraider is terrible. Possibly the worst unit in the entire game. It is also overpriced by about 60 points. Have you seen a Custdard flying tank? Literally better than a landraider and costs about 60 points less. Unless you really think transport capacity is worth that much. Heres a hint though. It's not. Transport capacity is like a 10-20 point upgrade at best.
I hope you don't mind if I don't take your word for it.
Transport has almost no advantage over deep strike. Other than turn 1 protection where you can act turn 1 - it's a trade off for mobility though - DS gets you a lot farther. Reivers (a bad unit) pay about 20 points for a unit of 10 to DS. Lots of units get the ability for free. Niche examples where your opponent is walking into your threat range (rare and stupid) transports can offer another advantage too - it's also a trade off you can be destroyed on a roll of a 1 if inside of a transport.
You misunderstand me. I don't take your word for any of your claims. The Land Raider being the worst unit in the game, being overcost by 60, the Flying Custodes tank being "outright better" etc. any of it. If you toned the hyperbole back or backed up your claims with some actual data, then maybe we could have a conversation. But posts like that are just not worth answering.
I've played against the Custodes tank, it's ok. But T7 3+ is a far, far cry form T8 2+. I've killed those things with Termagants. T8 is a big jump for many AT solutions. S7 and 8 are hit hard.
Martel732 wrote: I don't understand why people are glazing over the glass cannon problem.
I'm not so sure it's a glass cannon when it can hit models from 72" away. I'm looking at it form the perspective that it can function as a tank killer at extreme range, but has the defensive capability to protect itself from stuff that could normally be used to shut something like that down. Land Raiders have that irritating problem where if a model touches it, it stops firing, and it's Heavy Bolters can't stop units threatening to contact it. On the right table, I can see the RE being pretty tough to interfere with.
Keep in mind Im probably gonna buy 2 of these. They are going to get blown up on turn 1 - probably both of them. Joy and expectation will be sucked from my soul. All the hard work of painting them and building them will trivialized by bad rules and lack of fun. When I damage enemy units they get a save and I don't. Talk about unfun.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote: I don't understand why people are glazing over the glass cannon problem.
Martel732 wrote: I don't understand why people are glazing over the glass cannon problem.
I'm not so sure it's a glass cannon when it can hit models from 72" away. I'm looking at it form the perspective that it can function as a tank killer at extreme range, but has the defensive capability to protect itself from stuff that could normally be used to shut something like that down. Land Raiders have that irritating problem where if a model touches it, it stops firing, and it's Heavy Bolters can't stop units threatening to contact it. On the right table, I can see the RE being pretty tough to interfere with.
Do we play the same game? I am often assault turn 1 by shinning spears deploy literally as far away as I possibly can. You can't hide...if they can see an antenna you can be shot.
I wouldn't say too good. I'd say it's what I expected to be honest, a little under 300. I think that Primaris phase 2 is where slots are gonna get real competitive between classic marines and Primaris
I wouldn't say too good. I'd say it's what I expected to be honest, a little under 300. I think that Primaris phase 2 is where slots are gonna get real competitive between classic marines and Primaris
I've long felt that Stratagem support will always be the key that makes or breaks a lot of these new elite Primaris units. Exactly like it did with Knights.
Sure it is. Provided we're playing on a board with adequate terrain - you know, a game of Warhammer 40k - then it will be no sweat to mitigate the relative lack of durability against tank hunting weapons. That's 40k 101 my man.
Martel732 wrote: It's not, though. It's a liability on your opponent's turn. GW constantly forgets their own game paradigm of IGOUGO. If it was just shooting on the marine turn and couldn't be shot back, then yes, the cost seems fine.
Sure, it's a glass cannon against armies that field lots of ways to handle T8 platforms.
But it's still good at 290 points for the HLD though.
290 and glass cannon don't go together. Not in 8th. Non invuln, non FNP, no - to hit should really be capped at 15 point per wound (maybe less) regardless of its armament. Unless that armament is absurd, which is not the case here. In fact,this thing is gimped by the most ubiquitous defense: invulns.
It's only acceptable at 290 if your opponent does't get to go.
That's why max-size Spectre, Reaper, and Spears squads have been so garbage this edition....
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote: Okay: 18 points per wound with no ameliorating factors. Better?
Bharring wrote: Shadow Spectres have a -1 to hit. But also has only T3 (vs T8). And 28ppw (vs 18ppw).
Reapers have none of the above. But still T3 vs T8.
Spears have no to-hit penalty, but do have a 4++ vs shooting (but not CC). However, it's T4 vs T8.
I wouldn't call those fair comparisions; the Repulsor out-survives all three per point easily.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Only on DakkaDakka is 18ppw too high a price for a T8 gunboat, but 28ppw is too low a price for T3 infantry.
I don't know why are you so smug about this. Comparing to tanks to infantry is never a fair comparison, imagine apples and a coconut tree. I don't think most people have a problem with Shining Spears, Reapers (you brough these to the discussion even though they were only broken when Ynnari was a thing) and especially spectres. If you were right you would see Repulsors left and right, and that isn't happening right now. That's all there is to it.
Bharring wrote: Kraetor,
I don't think you realize what I'm arguing.
I'm not saying this vehicle is OP, or that those options or trash.
I'm trying to show that the specific claim that anything 18ppw or higher is going to be worthless.
All three of the above have been great at 18ppw or higher. And while they had other rules, they didn't have T8.
Sorry then I completely misunderstood you. In fact I agree with you, I dont think ppw is a good indicative of the power of a unit, in relation to the Repulsor, I think it's main disadvantage is its lack of invu.
What do you think about bringing a Deredeo with Atomantic Pavise to protect a Repulsor (Executioner, for instance) and a Redemptor? The thing is expensive but it brings it weight in superautocannon shots in addition to the aura. Throw in a Chapter Master and lieutenant to buff the whole lot, and some cheap Hellblasters in the Repulsor.
This sounds more viable with the (hopefully cheaper) Macro Plasma Incinerator, it doesn't feel so wrong to lose double shooting first turn to position it (and cargo) well.
Xenomancers wrote: Keep in mind Im probably gonna buy 2 of these. They are going to get blown up on turn 1 - probably both of them. Joy and expectation will be sucked from my soul. All the hard work of painting them and building them will trivialized by bad rules and lack of fun. When I damage enemy units they get a save and I don't. Talk about unfun.
This really resonates with me. I paint my marines (I paint them well to be honest) and I paint my friends Tau. So I put in a great effort to create a battlefield that could be a diorama and yet most of the game I'm just placing my models then retrieving them later.
I wouldn't say too good. I'd say it's what I expected to be honest, a little under 300. I think that Primaris phase 2 is where slots are gonna get real competitive between classic marines and Primaris
I've long felt that Stratagem support will always be the key that makes or breaks a lot of these new elite Primaris units. Exactly like it did with Knights.
I feel like this is hitting the nail on the head. 9 times out of 10 we could all deal with dark reapers, but then there's the fire and fade stratagem, now they're significantly harder to deal with and you get way more value out of them
Xenomancers wrote: Keep in mind Im probably gonna buy 2 of these. They are going to get blown up on turn 1 - probably both of them. Joy and expectation will be sucked from my soul. All the hard work of painting them and building them will trivialized by bad rules and lack of fun. When I damage enemy units they get a save and I don't. Talk about unfun.
Most of my units are on 6+ or worse against incoming fire, and I don't have too much of a problem with that in the general sense. [I do have a problem with the fact that my infantry can reliably get 4+, 3+, and 2+ saves but my tanks will never get better than a 5+, usually a 6+]
If you don't like your army taking casualties, you should probably play an RPG.
Martel732 wrote: I don't understand why people are glazing over the glass cannon problem.
It's a version of stockholm syndrome. I think.
Is this about Marines or about the Repulsor? Marines, especially Intercessors, are not glass cannons in the slightest. This new Repulsor might be though, but I'm more concerned with a rather disappointing show with regards to firepower vs. the ordinary and a points cost at the level of a Knight, since it's resiliency doesn't seem to be anywhere near real glass cannon levels.
Martel732 wrote: I don't understand why people are glazing over the glass cannon problem.
I'm not so sure it's a glass cannon when it can hit models from 72" away. I'm looking at it form the perspective that it can function as a tank killer at extreme range, but has the defensive capability to protect itself from stuff that could normally be used to shut something like that down. Land Raiders have that irritating problem where if a model touches it, it stops firing, and it's Heavy Bolters can't stop units threatening to contact it. On the right table, I can see the RE being pretty tough to interfere with.
Do we play the same game? I am often assault turn 1 by shinning spears deploy literally as far away as I possibly can. You can't hide...if they can see an antenna you can be shot.
I usually state when setting up that I do not consier aerials, hedgerow cutters, tank commanders, long gun barrels etc to be "part of the tank". It makes it pretty easy to define when and where the tank can be shot. This doesn't work as well for poseable models like Dreadnoughts.
I usually state when setting up that I do not consier aerials, hedgerow cutters, tank commanders, long gun barrels etc to be "part of the tank". It makes it pretty easy to define when and where the tank can be shot. This doesn't work as well for poseable models like Dreadnoughts.
I imagine most people are willing to be reasonable about this. but a WAACTFG is going to be inflexable and insist thats incorrect.course someone like that you don't wanna play anyway
I usually state when setting up that I do not consier aerials, hedgerow cutters, tank commanders, long gun barrels etc to be "part of the tank". It makes it pretty easy to define when and where the tank can be shot. This doesn't work as well for poseable models like Dreadnoughts.
Well it is different between the dreads as to what you can pose but LOS is gonna be different on a "regular" dread vs a levi, Redemptor, contemptor w missle rack, & a deredeo. Is what's visible part of the hull, turret, copula, then yes. Aerials, antennae, small arms, etc no but if using CA18 rules -1 to hit with +1 to the save really works in evening out being targeted.
I imagine most people are willing to be reasonable about this. but a WAACTFG is going to be inflexable and insist thats incorrect.course someone like that you don't wanna play anyway
Ummm, yeah, they probably proxy everything and have a massive grey army so.........if they wont put in the effort to make sure both their opponent and themselves has an enjoyable game, by all means avoid them like a plague marine(unless you're a nurgling, then stay away like its hand sanitizer).
It is waaayyyyyyyyy more fun to play on a battlefield that has choke points, fatal funnels, tank traps. the CA18 rules are some of the best they've had so far in 8th and wish they'd be made part of the core rules.
So the NZ pre-order is up...appears to confirm beyond a shadow of a doubt that it will carry 6. Also appears to come with the full Repulsor kit on top of the new sprue, which kind of explains the upcharge.
I'm still going with 18 ppw is too much on a tank with no meaningful defenses. You probably can't hide it, and tables aren't big enough to leverage the range most of the time. Repulsors should probably be 240 ish with gear because of their lack of defenses. You can have all the guns you want... for a turn.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bharring wrote: Shadow Spectres have a -1 to hit. But also has only T3 (vs T8). And 28ppw (vs 18ppw).
Reapers have none of the above. But still T3 vs T8.
Spears have no to-hit penalty, but do have a 4++ vs shooting (but not CC). However, it's T4 vs T8.
I wouldn't call those fair comparisions; the Repulsor out-survives all three per point easily.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Only on DakkaDakka is 18ppw too high a price for a T8 gunboat, but 28ppw is too low a price for T3 infantry.
I think you know what I mean. Stop being obtuse.
"I usually state when setting up that I do not consier aerials, hedgerow cutters, tank commanders, long gun barrels etc to be "part of the tank"
Most events, they are. As such, I'd have to insist they are targetable.
"T8 3+ is not an ameliorating factor?"
I think you know the answer to that, too.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
DanielFM wrote: What do you think about bringing a Deredeo with Atomantic Pavise to protect a Repulsor (Executioner, for instance) and a Redemptor? The thing is expensive but it brings it weight in superautocannon shots in addition to the aura. Throw in a Chapter Master and lieutenant to buff the whole lot, and some cheap Hellblasters in the Repulsor.
This sounds more viable with the (hopefully cheaper) Macro Plasma Incinerator, it doesn't feel so wrong to lose double shooting first turn to position it (and cargo) well.
Repulsor doesn't fit wholly within 6". I already tried.
My concern is all the FUD that goes on in this thread: Upthread there's complaints about Doom always doubling the CWE force's firepower (despite only bumping it ~30%, and only doing that *~40%* of the time). In the same matchup, both Repulsors - and the Preds - are effectively doubled: most of their weapons are hitting on a 3+ or 4+ and wounding on a 5+ (shooting at vehicles). A 3+ followed by a 5+ is x2 factor. A 4+ followed by a 5+ is a x2.5 factor. In other words, the CWE's list's dakka is getting buffs bumping their dakka by about 12%, whereas the SM list is getting buffs bumping their dakka by over 100%. And the complaints are that the CWE dakka buffs are OP?
Doubled discarded wounds are still discarded. Double Zero because it's a smoking crater is still zero. I'm not entirely sure why you think hitting on 3's and wounding on 5's in the normal game mechanic is some sort of doubling, but you're glossing over multiple points of comparison. The save modifier, volume of fire, plus potential suicidal tendencies of overcharged plasma and other drawbacks need to be factored into their Dakka - to be completely in depth, one would also have to compare diminishing returns after each wound bracket, and how fast/often they get pushed into those brackets based on durability.
Upthread there's complaints that the Serpent is 4x as durable for the point. As shown above, it's roughly half the cost stock, and roughly as durable (wins some, loses some). It can approach twice as durable (thus hit 4x per point) in it's absolute best case, but not in most cases. The Serpent can be more durable (purchased upgrades, powers, strats, etc), but those have a cost, too.
Don't the powers, strats, etc. buffing the Repulsors and Predators you were talking about above have a cost too?
Upthread there's complaints that the Repulsor should be much closer to the Serpent in price; there's no argument that they're close to eachother in durability per model, but the Serpent is no better a transport, and has only a fraction of the dakka.
TLDR: Yes, the Serpent is better per point. It's a flying brick. But the Repulsor is *much* better per model - so the two shouldn't be anywhere close in points.
(@secretForge - thank you for calling me out on this.)
Wait, what? The model you say is a higher target priority - even we accept your premise they have the same durability, better Dakka says Repulsor is a higher target priority that a Serpent - Isn't a better transport? The model that will get shot up less often while transporting your plastic dudes is not a better transport than the model that will get shot up more often while transporting your plastic dudes?
The serpent is better per point, but the Repulsor is better per model? What kind of logic is that?
The Imperial Guardsman is better per point, but the Terminator is better per model. Sure you can get about 10 guardsmen per Terminator - and 10 guardsmen get 20 shots, 10 hits, 3-4 wounds, one dead Termie per every other turn or so, while the Termie gets 4 shots, 3-4 wounds, 3-4 dead guardsmen per turn. After two turns, one termie will be dead, and 7 Guardsmen will be dead. Of course the Guard player has 3 guardsmen left, and the SM player is tabled. But the Terminator is better per model.
Another example - A squad of guardsmen with an extremely basic kit are 60 points give or take. A Warlord Titan is somewhere around 3,000 points. The Warlord Titan is much better per model. Which doesn't do you a lot of good in a 2,000 point game.
Neither better per point or better per model is - by itself - a full value measure. But better per point is a whole lot closer. But you still have to take Force Org slot, points per list size, and other feasibility factors into account. If two wave Serpents (with better durability - but lets accept your premise they're about the same again) have similar dakka to one Repulsor, (and via force org + points costs/limits) you can easily take two Serpents per Repulsor The two serpents are better than one Repulsor for the same reason two marines are better than one Primaris Marine - or 10 guardsmen are better than one terminator.
Repulsor doesn't fit wholly within 6". I already tried.
Nothing in Deredeo rules suggests "wholy within". It's "a unit within". AFAIK (and as long as it hasn't been FAQed) you only need a part of one model of the unit within 6" to get the save.
Repulsor doesn't fit wholly within 6". I already tried.
Nothing in Deredeo rules suggests "wholy within". It's "a unit within". AFAIK (and as long as it hasn't been FAQed) you only need a part of one model of the unit within 6" to get the save.
You really need to keep more upto date on your FAQ' that was changed at big FAQ 1
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bharring wrote: Shadow Spectres have a -1 to hit. But also has only T3 (vs T8). And 28ppw (vs 18ppw).
Reapers have none of the above. But still T3 vs T8.
Spears have no to-hit penalty, but do have a 4++ vs shooting (but not CC). However, it's T4 vs T8.
I wouldn't call those fair comparisions; the Repulsor out-survives all three per point easily.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Only on DakkaDakka is 18ppw too high a price for a T8 gunboat, but 28ppw is too low a price for T3 infantry.
While I don't disagree with the argument your trying to make you forgot or didnt include the stacking -1 from alitoc already for those units.
That's really the mean reason those units are far more durable than model cost/wounds implies.
Lemondish wrote: So the NZ pre-order is up...appears to confirm beyond a shadow of a doubt that it will carry 6. Also appears to come with the full Repulsor kit on top of the new sprue, which kind of explains the upcharge.
That is rather surprising but does at least explain the increase. I wonder how easy it would be to build it interchangeably between regular Repulsor and Executioner.
Cute, but incorrect. 18 pts/w is too high for the way 8th plays currently.
Naw, it's fine. 18ppw is decent for its offensive output and capabilities.
Why must you spout nonsense? It's not just PPW ether. It's effective wounds. Repsulor denies practically 0 damage from anti tank weapons. Most the time it gets only a 6+ save. So not only really high points per wound - almost 0 ability to deny damage. It's basically the juiciest target on the battlefield no matter what. which is not to be confused with other units not being good. It's just the least protected valuable target no matter what.
So exactly the same as the Repulsor, yet someone managed to win a GT with a list with two of those
I think the truth is that building a list around something like this you need to understand its strengths and weaknesses and list build for those. In that winning list you can see a load of tough vehicles. If on the other hand you take just one tank in an infantry list then that tank had better have an amazing invulnerable save to mitigate the weakness you designed into the list - which is why lone Imperial Knights do better than lone tanks.
Also anything which grants an invulnerable save to nearby units could mitigate the whole problem - e.g. Deredeo with pavaise.
So to my mind there are two list building strategies that could work.
1. Accept the drawback and double-down on the the advantages. Go for target saturation and assume enough survives to devastate your opponent in return.
2. Find ways to mitigate the drawback even if that is at the cost of diluting the strength.
Seems to me that both approaches are available so its just up to competitive players how they want to approach it. Being slightly a glass cannon is only an insurmountable problem if you can adopt neither of those strategies.
You really need to keep more upto date on your FAQ' that was changed at big FAQ 1
Hence the "if it hasn't been FAQed clause". Sometimes it's difficult to keep up with the most obscure ones.
Way to ruin an expensive, non overpowered unit GW.
Edit: sorry for delving deeper into the off-topic, but I can definitely fit a Repulsor wholly within 6 of a Deredeo. You just have to keep them touching, side by side. Not practical, but doable.
Lemondish wrote: So the NZ pre-order is up...appears to confirm beyond a shadow of a doubt that it will carry 6. Also appears to come with the full Repulsor kit on top of the new sprue, which kind of explains the upcharge.
That is rather surprising but does at least explain the increase. I wonder how easy it would be to build it interchangeably between regular Repulsor and Executioner.
Extremely. Worst/Easiest case you magnetize the top plate. Its easiest because you just green stuff a few places to hold the magnet and swap the entire top plate with/without the cups for the mini turrets, and put the correct top turret on. Worst case because that's going to hardest to fit. If the turret is directly swappable, I suspect more than a few people will run the old chassis with empty cups for the mini turrets, and the new big turret. I wonder if we'll get to buy the upgrade sprue seperately like they eventually did with the Land Raider Crusader Sprue.
DanielFM wrote: What do you think about bringing a Deredeo with Atomantic Pavise to protect a Repulsor (Executioner, for instance) and a Redemptor? The thing is expensive but it brings it weight in superautocannon shots in addition to the aura. Throw in a Chapter Master and lieutenant to buff the whole lot, and some cheap Hellblasters in the Repulsor.
This sounds more viable with the (hopefully cheaper) Macro Plasma Incinerator, it doesn't feel so wrong to lose double shooting first turn to position it (and cargo) well.
The fact that the base Derereo is only 30ish points more than a Redemptor is disturbing.
If you don't like FW for whatever reason a Custodes Vexilla brings an area Invuln with a 3" larger bubble for half the points along with a pretty darn good melee statline, and it's a character so it's easier to protect. Not necessarily a better option, just a different one.
You really need to keep more upto date on your FAQ' that was changed at big FAQ 1
Hence the "if it hasn't been FAQed clause". Sometimes it's difficult to keep up with the most obscure ones.
Way to ruin an expensive, non overpowered unit GW.
Edit: sorry for delving deeper into the off-topic, but I can definitely fit a Repulsor wholly within 6 of a Deredeo. You just have to keep them touching, side by side. Not practical, but doable.
I think the repulsor is longer than 6", making it impossible.
I think the repulsor is longer than 6", making it impossible.
No? You measure 6 from each side of the base of the Deredeo (80 mm/ 3.15 inches) and you get a 15.15 diameter aura. The Repulsor is 6.7x4.33 inches. How is it not fitting there?
You don't put the Repulsor in front of the Deredeo by the narrow end, you put it sideways.
Edit: graphical demonstration with real measurements
Bharring wrote: Kraetor,
I don't think you realize what I'm arguing.
I'm not saying this vehicle is OP, or that those options or trash.
I'm trying to show that the specific claim that anything 18ppw or higher is going to be worthless.
All three of the above have been great at 18ppw or higher. And while they had other rules, they didn't have T8.
Why are you comparing the durability of 16 wound tanks to one wound infantry?
A significant portion of tanks durability is mitigated by multidamage weapons. D6 damage weapon gets a single wound through and it can do almost 100 points of damage a lascannon can't do that to a dark reaper unit. You know this. You are arguing in bad faith here.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
KurtAngle2 wrote: 293 Points with Laser, 284 with Plasma Incinerator.
Seems cheap as feth and honestly wouldn't be taking any other anti-vehicle units
Hows that cheap it's like 70 points more than the custodes flying tank. Which has an invun save - hits on 2's with lots of firepower and all the special rules of the repulsor.
Hows that cheap it's like 70 points more than the custodes flying tank. Which has an invun save - hits on 2's with lots of firepower and all the special rules of the repulsor.
I am not even going to bother comparing with Beta rules where that one particular unit is clearly and obviously undercosted. Pretty much everything in the game will look overcosted by comparison with that Beta rule, that does not invalidate everything else in the game.
As for the repulsor executioner, seems costed well enough to be competitive if you build a list around it properly. As always if you just throw one randomly into a list it will fail to be worth the points.
Hows that cheap it's like 70 points more than the custodes flying tank. Which has an invun save - hits on 2's with lots of firepower and all the special rules of the repulsor.
I am not even going to bother comparing with Beta rules where that one particular unit is clearly and obviously undercosted. Pretty much everything in the game will look overcosted by comparison with that Beta rule, that does not invalidate everything else in the game.
As for the repulsor executioner, seems costed well enough to be competitive if you build a list around it properly. As always if you just throw one randomly into a list it will fail to be worth the points.
Exactly this; we all know that unit is going to change and get costed appropriately (that's what Beta rules exist for) so I wouldn't really compare anything with it
KurtAngle2 wrote: 293 Points with Laser, 284 with Plasma Incinerator.
Seems cheap as feth and honestly wouldn't be taking any other anti-vehicle units
Hows that cheap it's like 70 points more than the custodes flying tank. Which has an invun save - hits on 2's with lots of firepower and all the special rules of the repulsor.
It's also a whole 100 points more than a Predator for +1T, a couple extra wounds, and some marginal carrying capacity. 293 is probably too much.
A TC is 184, and while this guy is appreciably better than a TC, he's not a whole 100 points better.
250 points sounds like a more reasonable level, but so far most primaris stuff has been hideously overcosted on release, and then tuned up over the course of multiple patches. Maybe fear of power creep?
KurtAngle2 wrote: 293 Points with Laser, 284 with Plasma Incinerator.
Seems cheap as feth and honestly wouldn't be taking any other anti-vehicle units
Hows that cheap it's like 70 points more than the custodes flying tank. Which has an invun save - hits on 2's with lots of firepower and all the special rules of the repulsor.
It's also a whole 100 points more than a Predator for +1T, a couple extra wounds, and some marginal carrying capacity. 293 is probably too much.
A TC is 184, and while this guy is appreciably better than a TC, he's not a whole 100 points better.
250 points sounds like a more reasonable level, but so far most primaris stuff has been hideously overcosted on release, and then tuned up over the course of multiple patches. Maybe fear of power creep?
See, i dunno. The laser double-shooting gives it similar AT to a Predator. But then it also has 26(ish?) extra shots, many of them Heavy Bolter/Assault Cannon equivalent. Like, a Las-Pred, with two Razorbacks stacked on top of it. That's worth quite a bit, imo.
I agree that its at least 50 points overcosted. Did anyone notice the error on the damage table ? It looks like it says WS next to BS, which should be A, i believe. Surely this tank doesnt have a WS of D6 or even 1 when it gets damaged. Way to go GW, even more mistakes before a product is released
p5freak wrote: I agree that its at least 50 points overcosted. Did anyone notice the error on the damage table ? It looks like it says WS next to BS, which should be A, i believe. Surely this tank doesnt have a WS of D6 or even 1 when it gets damaged. Way to go GW, even more mistakes before a product is released
well it's ahrd to make mistakes after a product is released
KurtAngle2 wrote: 293 Points with Laser, 284 with Plasma Incinerator.
Seems cheap as feth and honestly wouldn't be taking any other anti-vehicle units
Take three. Seriously. This is the kind of unit that needs saturation to shine
I am not exactly taking three of them, but my initial plan for my Primaris only army is to have an executioner, repulsor, and a stormraven. And yeah, I know I can't take Primaris in the stormraven. It is basically an attack helicopter. My army is a long, long way from being tuned and will probably never be anything close to high tier, but I didn't have much of an issue getting those things in. I had more of an issue losing the Heavy Support slot preventing me from fielding more Hellblasters than the points right now.
KurtAngle2 wrote: 293 Points with Laser, 284 with Plasma Incinerator.
Seems cheap as feth and honestly wouldn't be taking any other anti-vehicle units
Take three. Seriously. This is the kind of unit that needs saturation to shine
I am not exactly taking three of them, but my initial plan for my Primaris only army is to have an executioner, repulsor, and a stormraven. And yeah, I know I can't take Primaris in the stormraven. It is basically an attack helicopter. My army is a long, long way from being tuned and will probably never be anything close to high tier, but I didn't have much of an issue getting those things in. I had more of an issue losing the Heavy Support slot preventing me from fielding more Hellblasters than the points right now.
depending on how many hellblasters you take since points aren't an issue maybe built a spear head detachment around 2 hellblaster squads and a executioner?
Martel732 wrote: Let's assume this thing isn't a total liability. (which it is on your opponent's turn)
What problem does this solve for marines? If I want to lose to invuln saves, I can already take lascannons. -4 AP makes me lose harder to invulns.
What problem? Why would it need to solve a problem? What does that even mean? Are you asking what it does? It's on the bloody tin, mate.
Fit it into your list or don't - the problem it "solves" is AT, and it does so by being a T8 gunboat with a supporting cast of transport capacity and anti-infantry firepower. If those bonuses mean something to your style or your list, then it fits. If it doesn't, then the problem it "solves" you can find another way to handle. Just like every unit. In every army. What "problem" do Dark Reapers solve? Silly bloody question, right?
Marty, look - this game kind of encourages the player to build a force on their own. Don't expect any unit to just outright tell you it will solve some "problem" and fit perfectly in your list. It won't. You're going to have to do that all by yourself, bud. I'd expect somebody with your seasoned attitude to have already picked that up ages ago.
Martel732 wrote: I think you know what it means. GW keeps giving marines equipment that's really only good vs other imperials.
Which this thing is not..so not sure what you are talking about.
Its "main gun" would be good at killling imperial armour, but the secondary guns all 26+ shots are good at killing basic infantry.
Its not like this thing is covered in low shot significant -ap weapons, its not designed to kill other imperials. Unless you mean imperial soup, in which case its good at killing everything in the game as imperial soup basically encompasses every possible unit type in the game given how over saturated their rules/model line are.
Its a flying tank with significant anti armor shooting, and even more significant anti infantry shooting, and it can carry 6 models. Oh did we mention it has the FLY keyword? That is pretty huge for a tank.
Did we mention it doesnt have an inv, for ~300 pts. ? Even a 30 pts. character has an inv. FLY is great for weapons that get +1 to hit FLY, and there are many of those. Its a bullet magnet, easier to hit, and no inv.
KurtAngle2 wrote: 293 Points with Laser, 284 with Plasma Incinerator.
Seems cheap as feth and honestly wouldn't be taking any other anti-vehicle units
300 points, 1 HS slot is not "cheap" - 1 HS slot of 10 Hellblasters gets far more (Anti-Tank viable) shots - with likely more wounds per round - per HS slot for similar points.
Vs T8 3+, No Invuln:
10 Hellblasters (Overcharged + Single/Rapid Fire) - 110% of the points - 10/20 shots, 6.5/13 hits, 3.25/6.5 successful wounds doing 6.5/13 damage. 1 Repulsor Laser Destroyer 4 shots, 2.68 hits, 1.7956 successful wounding rolls, 7.1824 damage. Macro Plasma 7 shots, 4.69 hits, 3.1423 wounding rolls, 6.2846 damage T8 vs Cover + discarded multi-wound damage is a situational wash. A person's local meta could easily benefit either over the other more often.
The Repuslor does have the benefit of secondary and tertiary weapons systems to allow some anti-personnel as well as anti-tank work and the drawback of a higher target priority, all eggs/one basket. Fewer shots as Hellblasters die, and less accurate shots is probably a wash overall, with peaks and valleys depending on the wound tier.
So neither the fully kitted out Hellblasters nor the Repulsor are cheap. Nor do they appear all that expensive once you look at the math.
Compared to Devastators - Min Size Devs, 4 ML's 50-60% of the points, 4 shots, 2.68 hits, 1.34 wounding rolls, 4.69 wounds, 3.1423 after armor saves. Compared to Interceptors (5, Plasma) 5 x 2D3 shots = 20 shots, 13.4 hits, 6.7 wounding rolls, 13.4 wounds - roughly halfway between the Hellblasters, and the Repulsor in points cost, and the less crowded FA slot - Durability is far far less assured - they will get a guaranteed turn of work, but could be forced into a practically throw away situation, even if not, probably next turn opposition reaction will be hard on them, and assuming the deep alpha strike usage, Captain/Lieutenant/Gulliman aura support is less assumed - but still easily doable - than it is for the units mentioned already making 20 overcharged shots potentially suicidal for 3 of them.
Just looked at the data sheet - two interesting things jumped out at me. Can't upgrade the twin HB's into Twin LC's, and the Gatling Cannon really is the Heavy Onslaught not the smaller Onslaught. Which I figure is nice, but a mistake. They stuck both right arm options of the Redemptor (one of which was already the main gun for the first Repulsor as well) in the turret at the same time. This diminishses the Redemptor a bit, plus throws off the scale a bit as well. The mini turrets above the doors weren't removed, they were just moved. They're now on the back of the big turret where they weren't very visible. Options for many of these turrets have gone away and they're just hard coded - they will be launchers/stormbolters/whatever they start as rather than being swappable.
as for what it does. It gives Primaris Marines a SERIOUS anti-tank option. I mean, one of the things people always would qualify about all Primaris Marines is "their anti-tank isn't very good" this new tank gives a primaris army a solid bit of anti-tank work, we can argue about the points cost all day long but points costs change as time goes by, and GW's been pretty consistant about pricing primaris high and eventually moving the points costs down. so yeah it does give Primaris something they need.
BrianDavion wrote: as for what it does. It gives Primaris Marines a SERIOUS anti-tank option. I mean, one of the things people always would qualify about all Primaris Marines is "their anti-tank isn't very good" this new tank gives a primaris army a solid bit of anti-tank work, we can argue about the points cost all day long but points costs change as time goes by, and GW's been pretty consistant about pricing primaris high and eventually moving the points costs down. so yeah it does give Primaris something they need.
See Above: Hellblasters and Plasma Interceptors are both within some +/- margins for anti-tank and points costs. If the anti-tank was bad before, it's still bad. If this is good anti-tank they had good anti-tank before. Of course, I'll allow perception and reality are rarely the same, it may improve perception of Primaris Anti-tank. This Repulsor is unlikely to come down in price unless the other does, and neither is likely to happen this edition. They'll perform on par with other choices for similar points, plus have added secondary and tertiary weapons/roles. This one is theoretically cheaper for everything you want it to do than the normal Repulsor except transport - and neither is really taken as a transport first, tank second - the transport capacity is the frosting, not the cake.
BrianDavion wrote: as for what it does. It gives Primaris Marines a SERIOUS anti-tank option. I mean, one of the things people always would qualify about all Primaris Marines is "their anti-tank isn't very good" this new tank gives a primaris army a solid bit of anti-tank work, we can argue about the points cost all day long but points costs change as time goes by, and GW's been pretty consistant about pricing primaris high and eventually moving the points costs down. so yeah it does give Primaris something they need.
If i want a serious anti tank option for marines i go with the quad lascannon contemptor mortis dreadnought. For 300 pts i can almost get two of them. That 8 lascannon shots, hitting on 2s, with 5+ inv., with chapter tactics, which the executioner doesnt get. Go with RG, and they get -1 to hit at 12+". The repulsor gets +1 to hit with an anti FLY weapon Move is 9" for the dread, compared to 10" for the executioner, still hitting on 3s, like the executioner. This repulsor is DOA. GW has no idea how to make a viable marine tank.
Breton wrote: This Repulsor is unlikely to come down in price unless the other does, and neither is likely to happen this edition.
you realize the repulsor has already gotten a points drop this edition yeah?
What does that matter? Was the points drop recent enough it occurred after they priced this one, so this one was priced on the old price model? The old one with a Heavy Onslaught Turret (and TLHB to match the new one as close as possible) is 272 with carrying capacity 10. The new one has everything the first one does minus a couple krakstorm launchers, adds a second Icarus Ironhail to the first and twin linked them, plus added a second turret main gun, AND gave it the ability to double-tap the new main gun while taking away 4 transport capacity - for what did people say? about 27 points? The two repulsors are going to be pretty linked on price, and this new one isn't going down unless the old one does first/as well. And expected performance for the first one is fairly comparable to other units performing similar functions.
A regular Land Raider 297 points - 2 TLLC - 4 shots, 2.68 hits, 1.7956 wounding rolls, 6.2846 wounds, 5.235 after Armor Saves. They're going to keep the Primaris stuff slightly better and slightly cheaper than the old stuff, but they're not going to break the game.
BrianDavion wrote: as for what it does. It gives Primaris Marines a SERIOUS anti-tank option. I mean, one of the things people always would qualify about all Primaris Marines is "their anti-tank isn't very good" this new tank gives a primaris army a solid bit of anti-tank work, we can argue about the points cost all day long but points costs change as time goes by, and GW's been pretty consistant about pricing primaris high and eventually moving the points costs down. so yeah it does give Primaris something they need.
If i want a serious anti tank option for marines i go with the quad lascannon contemptor mortis dreadnought. For 300 pts i can almost get two of them. That 8 lascannon shots, hitting on 2s, with 5+ inv., with chapter tactics, which the executioner doesnt get. Go with RG, and they get -1 to hit at 12+". The repulsor gets +1 to hit with an anti FLY weapon Move is 9" for the dread, compared to 10" for the executioner, still hitting on 3s, like the executioner. This repulsor is DOA. GW has no idea how to make a viable marine tank.
the contemptor isn't a PRIMARIS unit now is it?
Keep in mind I never said the tank was an amazing tank, I simply noted it filled a specific role that Primaris Marines did have a need for.
BrianDavion wrote: as for what it does. It gives Primaris Marines a SERIOUS anti-tank option. I mean, one of the things people always would qualify about all Primaris Marines is "their anti-tank isn't very good" this new tank gives a primaris army a solid bit of anti-tank work, we can argue about the points cost all day long but points costs change as time goes by, and GW's been pretty consistant about pricing primaris high and eventually moving the points costs down. so yeah it does give Primaris something they need.
If i want a serious anti tank option for marines i go with the quad lascannon contemptor mortis dreadnought. For 300 pts i can almost get two of them. That 8 lascannon shots, hitting on 2s, with 5+ inv., with chapter tactics, which the executioner doesnt get. Go with RG, and they get -1 to hit at 12+". The repulsor gets +1 to hit with an anti FLY weapon Move is 9" for the dread, compared to 10" for the executioner, still hitting on 3s, like the executioner. This repulsor is DOA. GW has no idea how to make a viable marine tank.
You also need two HS slots. And Forgeworld.
8 shots hitting on threes is 5.36 hits, wounding on 3's is 3.5912 - *3.5 (average roll on a D6) is 12.56, 10.47 after armor saves. 10 hellblasters are similarly costed - probably within about 4 points - and put out more damage on the rapid fire for one Heavy Support Slot.
5 Plasma Inceptors at ~10% fewer points, and the FAR less crowded Fast Attack slot do 13.4 wounds
Your Two Contemptor Mortis dreads are: not Serious Anti-Tank compared to basic GW options, somehow appreciably better than a Repulsor Executioner, and not any sort of proof the Executioner is a bad tank. Its not actually a bad tank. Its not a great tank either. It won't be DOA or a Must Take.
KurtAngle2 wrote: 293 Points with Laser, 284 with Plasma Incinerator.
Seems cheap as feth and honestly wouldn't be taking any other anti-vehicle units
300 points, 1 HS slot is not "cheap" - 1 HS slot of 10 Hellblasters gets far more (Anti-Tank viable) shots - with likely more wounds per round - per HS slot for similar points.
Vs T8 3+, No Invuln:
10 Hellblasters (Overcharged + Single/Rapid Fire) - 110% of the points - 10/20 shots, 6.5/13 hits, 3.25/6.5 successful wounds doing 6.5/13 damage.
1 Repulsor Laser Destroyer 4 shots, 2.68 hits, 1.7956 successful wounding rolls, 7.1824 damage.
Macro Plasma 7 shots, 4.69 hits, 3.1423 wounding rolls, 6.2846 damage
T8 vs Cover + discarded multi-wound damage is a situational wash. A person's local meta could easily benefit either over the other more often.
The Repuslor does have the benefit of secondary and tertiary weapons systems to allow some anti-personnel as well as anti-tank work and the drawback of a higher target priority, all eggs/one basket.
Fewer shots as Hellblasters die, and less accurate shots is probably a wash overall, with peaks and valleys depending on the wound tier.
So neither the fully kitted out Hellblasters nor the Repulsor are cheap. Nor do they appear all that expensive once you look at the math.
Compared to Devastators -
Min Size Devs, 4 ML's 50-60% of the points, 4 shots, 2.68 hits, 1.34 wounding rolls, 4.69 wounds, 3.1423 after armor saves.
Compared to Interceptors (5, Plasma)
5 x 2D3 shots = 20 shots, 13.4 hits, 6.7 wounding rolls, 13.4 wounds - roughly halfway between the Hellblasters, and the Repulsor in points cost, and the less crowded FA slot - Durability is far far less assured - they will get a guaranteed turn of work, but could be forced into a practically throw away situation, even if not, probably next turn opposition reaction will be hard on them, and assuming the deep alpha strike usage, Captain/Lieutenant/Gulliman aura support is less assumed - but still easily doable - than it is for the units mentioned already making 20 overcharged shots potentially suicidal for 3 of them.
Just looked at the data sheet - two interesting things jumped out at me. Can't upgrade the twin HB's into Twin LC's, and the Gatling Cannon really is the Heavy Onslaught not the smaller Onslaught. Which I figure is nice, but a mistake. They stuck both right arm options of the Redemptor (one of which was already the main gun for the first Repulsor as well) in the turret at the same time. This diminishses the Redemptor a bit, plus throws off the scale a bit as well. The mini turrets above the doors weren't removed, they were just moved. They're now on the back of the big turret where they weren't very visible. Options for many of these turrets have gone away and they're just hard coded - they will be launchers/stormbolters/whatever they start as rather than being swappable.
Why the heck would you bother doing the calculations for Devs if you're only going to give them Missile Launchers? Plasma or Las at least if you're calculating vs. T8 3+
BrianDavion wrote: as for what it does. It gives Primaris Marines a SERIOUS anti-tank option. I mean, one of the things people always would qualify about all Primaris Marines is "their anti-tank isn't very good" this new tank gives a primaris army a solid bit of anti-tank work, we can argue about the points cost all day long but points costs change as time goes by, and GW's been pretty consistant about pricing primaris high and eventually moving the points costs down. so yeah it does give Primaris something they need.
See Above: Hellblasters and Plasma Interceptors are both within some +/- margins for anti-tank and points costs. If the anti-tank was bad before, it's still bad. If this is good anti-tank they had good anti-tank before. Of course, I'll allow perception and reality are rarely the same, it may improve perception of Primaris Anti-tank. This Repulsor is unlikely to come down in price unless the other does, and neither is likely to happen this edition. They'll perform on par with other choices for similar points, plus have added secondary and tertiary weapons/roles. This one is theoretically cheaper for everything you want it to do than the normal Repulsor except transport - and neither is really taken as a transport first, tank second - the transport capacity is the frosting, not the cake.
A key part you're forgetting - range.
15-18 is not a good place for your AT to operate without becoming suicide squads. While they could do the job, they really only had one way to do it. Worse, it was immediately telegraphed to your opponent. They are effective but easy to counter. Now there's another option with range.
Variety is important. This provides AT in a heavily armoured package that operates very differently than Hellblasters and Inceptors. Some lists could very much make use of a couple of these while others that built different AT solutions would find it hard to fit them in. As usual, new unit, new lists - folks who are too set in their preferences don't need it. They'll only misuse the damn thing anyway.
The new Repulsor is good in my opinion. Easy to include in lists and projects a lot of firepower at respectable ranges. It is not invulnerable, so any list using it will require redundancy, target saturation and will need to place pressure on an opponent in other ways.
The firepower is comparable to a Knight Crusader, at 200 points less. 3 of these cost only 150 points more than a single Castellan, and they'll grant you 48 T8 wounds with Fly. Prepared positions makes them more durable in the early turns.
It's easy to target a tank in the distance, but less so if the opponent it belongs to has surrounded your units and has claimed objectives across the board.
Breton wrote: This Repulsor is unlikely to come down in price unless the other does, and neither is likely to happen this edition.
you realize the repulsor has already gotten a points drop this edition yeah?
What does that matter? Was the points drop recent enough it occurred after they priced this one, so this one was priced on the old price model? The old one with a Heavy Onslaught Turret (and TLHB to match the new one as close as possible) is 272 with carrying capacity 10. The new one has everything the first one does minus a couple krakstorm launchers, adds a second Icarus Ironhail to the first and twin linked them, plus added a second turret main gun, AND gave it the ability to double-tap the new main gun while taking away 4 transport capacity - for what did people say? about 27 points? The two repulsors are going to be pretty linked on price, and this new one isn't going down unless the old one does first/as well. And expected performance for the first one is fairly comparable to other units performing similar functions.
A regular Land Raider 297 points - 2 TLLC - 4 shots, 2.68 hits, 1.7956 wounding rolls, 6.2846 wounds, 5.235 after Armor Saves. They're going to keep the Primaris stuff slightly better and slightly cheaper than the old stuff, but they're not going to break the game.
Every marine vehicle deserves at least a 10-15 point drop for not having chapter tactics which should really scale with how expensive the unit is. Obviously a -1 to hit is worth more on a LR than a rhino. This is across the board no questions asked. You have to accept this. There is no reason for marine tanks to no have CT or point drops. On top of this. LR are bad. They are really bad. They are the epitome of bad. They cost too dang much and everyone knows it and everyone is tired of explaining why. Just listen to us. We know. They aren't getting played because they are bad. You cant use them as a measuring stick for things. Repuslors at the end of the day are still better than LR. This doesn't mean a Repulsor is a good unit though. Its at the better end of the marine spectrum if you don't go to forge world. Marines are a bottom tier army though that every unit is made deliberately bad because they have good buff auras.
Ishagu wrote: The new Repulsor is good in my opinion. Easy to include in lists and projects a lot of firepower at respectable ranges. It is not invulnerable, so any list using it will require redundancy, target saturation and will need to place pressure on an opponent in other ways.
The firepower is comparable to a Knight Crusader, at 200 points less. 3 of these cost only 150 points more than a single Castellan, and they'll grant you 48 T8 wounds with Fly. Prepared positions makes them more durable in the early turns.
It's easy to target a tank in the distance, but less so if the opponent it belongs to has surrounded your units and has claimed objectives across the board.
Is it really comparable to a crusader though? A crusader has access to a relic weapon moves farther is devastating in assault can act normal when it falls back. It's damage potential is propably more around double than equal to a repulsorEX. Plus of course. On demand 4++ from shooting and 8 more wounds and a house trait. It's not even in the same ball park dude.
A good example was made - you don't get a lot going from a pred to a repulsor for around 100 points. You get a lot more for 100 more points on a crusader.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ishagu wrote: There are rumors that Astartes will get modified chapter tactics on vehicles in the next codex, expected in the second half of September.
That will be welcome. Not sure why it takes 2 years to make such an obvious change but it will help.
Although I do agree a Knight Crusader is better than a Repulsor, and by more than 100 points. However, they're a top-tier competitive unit. Not that does not equal garbage.
Reading the leaked datasheet and point costs for the Repulsor Executioner made me wonder: is there a good reason to take regular Repulsor over the Executioner?
The difference of anti-infantry firepower between two variants is little, yet the Executioner sports far greater anti-tank firepower.
The Executioner also has plethora of special rules which the regular variant already has, including auto launchers and -2 penalty to enemy charge rolls.
And yet the difference in points cost between the two Repulsor variants is only about 20, assuming the regular variant takes all-out anti-infantry weaponry.
The regular Repulsor can carry four more Primaris models, but I have rarely seen this extra transport capability come into action.
Not unless someone wishes to carry 10 Hellblasters safely until they are in range, but with abundance of to-hit penalties nowadays large unit of Hellblasters do not seem appealing.
Sagittarii Orientalis wrote: Reading the leaked datasheet and point costs for the Repulsor Executioner made me wonder: is there a good reason to take regular Repulsor over the Executioner?
The difference of anti-infantry firepower between two variants is little, yet the Executioner sports far greater anti-tank firepower.
The Executioner also has plethora of special rules which the regular variant already has, including auto launchers and -2 penalty to enemy charge rolls.
And yet the difference in points cost between the two Repulsor variants is only about 20, assuming the regular variant takes all-out anti-infantry weaponry.
The regular Repulsor can carry four more Primaris models, but I have rarely seen this extra transport capability come into action.
Not unless someone wishes to carry 10 Hellblasters safely until they are in range, but with abundance of to-hit penalties nowadays large unit of Hellblasters do not seem appealing.
Absolutely. The Regular Repulsor is not punished for moving. It acts as a fire support tank, advancing with other units.
Sagittarii Orientalis wrote: Reading the leaked datasheet and point costs for the Repulsor Executioner made me wonder: is there a good reason to take regular Repulsor over the Executioner?
The difference of anti-infantry firepower between two variants is little, yet the Executioner sports far greater anti-tank firepower.
The Executioner also has plethora of special rules which the regular variant already has, including auto launchers and -2 penalty to enemy charge rolls.
And yet the difference in points cost between the two Repulsor variants is only about 20, assuming the regular variant takes all-out anti-infantry weaponry.
The regular Repulsor can carry four more Primaris models, but I have rarely seen this extra transport capability come into action.
Not unless someone wishes to carry 10 Hellblasters safely until they are in range, but with abundance of to-hit penalties nowadays large unit of Hellblasters do not seem appealing.
I imagine one could do quite well to take a Repulsor kitted for anti-infantry with four Aggressors and a Gravis Captain while hammering away at enemy armor with two Executioners in the back.
Is it really comparable to a crusader though? A crusader has access to a relic weapon moves farther is devastating in assault can act normal when it falls back. It's damage potential is propably more around double than equal to a repulsorEX. Plus of course. On demand 4++ from shooting and 8 more wounds and a house trait. It's not even in the same ball park dude.
A good example was made - you don't get a lot going from a pred to a repulsor for around 100 points. You get a lot more for 100 more points on a crusader.
Different models with different rules. If I fly my repulsor executioner up onto a ruin exactly what can that Knight Crusader do to it in assault? Fly is an amazing keyword to have if you know how to use it - unless you are playing on planet bowling ball in which case I'd suggest finding a better place to play your games.
I don't see how you think the Crusader has double the damage output. Its shooting does not really justify the additional 160 points and its CC output is highly situational - both on whether you can afford to commit it to assault and on whether anything it wants to fight is standing at ground level.
As for the las-predator comparision, for 100 points you get nearly 60 points of additional weapons (literally that much of the cost difference is in the points you pay for all that dakka) plus more toughness, more wounds and Fly. Effectively 40 points for +1T, +5W and Fly seems OK to me, although this did remind me why I think las-predators are so terrible.
Of course where the Knight does benefit is in having some great stratagems etc. This is the real problem with Primaris units and by now I think we all know it - desperately poor access to decent stratagems. So if you have CP to burn the Knight will perform better than the Repulsor Executioner because it has great ways to turn CP into extra durability/firepower. With the Repulsor you need to have units elsewhere in your list which can make use of the CP because this one really cannot. If they fix this one thing in a new codex they will immediately make Primaris armies a lot more fun to play - right now pure primaris feel a lot like an index army.
So if the Knight is the thing in your list in which you invest all your CP then it will perform better than a Repulsor Executioner. If the repulsor is in a list where something else is what you invest all your CP in (for me its smash captains, because why not) then you still get plenty of bang for your CP you just get it elsewhere in your list. For me the Knight is not an obvious choice because for those points I can have the tank and a smash captain and still have some points to spare and not use a detachment.
right my post was that it gave PRIMARIS an anti-tank option. I know people love the contemptor dreadnought but I'm getting a liiiiiiiittle sick of every bloody post turning into "just buy the motis contemptor" etc
Contemptors (with their new cost) are "the" dreadnought to have. They make normal ones, and even the Leviathan obsolete (you can have two Contemptors for the cost of a Leviathan....and that's better, lol)
p5freak wrote: Did we mention it doesnt have an inv, for ~300 pts. ? Even a 30 pts. character has an inv. FLY is great for weapons that get +1 to hit FLY, and there are many of those. Its a bullet magnet, easier to hit, and no inv.
Again take three or take 0.
Also hope you have 300ish dollars to drop.
The reason I'll not get them is I lack 300 dollars to spend on tanks. I'm already buying a gak ton of GW stuff
Ishagu wrote: There are rumors that Astartes will get modified chapter tactics on vehicles in the next codex, expected in the second half of September.
Hmmm, I will take that one with a pinch of salt. Did CSM vehicles gain traits in their v2.0 codex? (Honest question, I don't play CSM and I haven't faced them for months).
Ishagu wrote: There are rumors that Astartes will get modified chapter tactics on vehicles in the next codex, expected in the second half of September.
Hmmm, I will take that one with a pinch of salt. Did CSM vehicles gain traits in their v2.0 codex? (Honest question, I don't play CSM and I haven't faced them for months).
Bleh, I'd much rather see marine traits get a revamp in CA. Somewhere they can just drop them all at once. Same could be said for the other troublesome traits from other factions, and the lackluster traits.
fraser1191 wrote: Bleh, I'd much rather see marine traits get a revamp in CA. Somewhere they can just drop them all at once. Same could be said for the other troublesome traits from other factions, and the lackluster traits.
yeah if they updated traits in a codex they'd almost need to incldue the crimson fists in the codex,
Every marine vehicle deserves at least a 10-15 point drop for not having chapter tactics which should really scale with how expensive the unit is. Obviously a -1 to hit is worth more on a LR than a rhino. This is across the board no questions asked. You have to accept this. There is no reason for marine tanks to no have CT or point drops. On top of this. LR are bad. They are really bad. They are the epitome of bad. They cost too dang much and everyone knows it and everyone is tired of explaining why. Just listen to us. We know. They aren't getting played because they are bad. You cant use them as a measuring stick for things. Repuslors at the end of the day are still better than LR. This doesn't mean a Repulsor is a good unit though. Its at the better end of the marine spectrum if you don't go to forge world. Marines are a bottom tier army though that every unit is made deliberately bad because they have good buff auras.
More hyperbole...Look, Xeno - not everyone agrees with you. In fact, based on your rather abrasive attitude and lack of basic candor and cordiality, I'd even think most folks find what you're saying to be not worth listening. I do, because I think you're trying to be helpful. Unfortunately, you're not. I beg of you, please consider abandoning the constant railing against this unit. Folks in here are thinking about ways to make use of it and the one thing they absolutely do not need is some spoil sport coming in here derailing the thread by chastising, attacking, and outright insulting people who want to make use of this new model. It's a cool kit with neat rules! Why can't you just enjoy yourself without having to put others down.
More importantly, I think I speak for a few here when I say it's far more valuable to talk about units as they exist in reality. That means there's really no call to belly ache about something that doesn't exist. Vehicles don't get CTs. That's just how it is and is a known factor. I know it will boil your blood to hear this, but I'm excited for the unit even though it doesn't get CTs! What type of monster must I be, eh?
fraser1191 wrote: Bleh, I'd much rather see marine traits get a revamp in CA. Somewhere they can just drop them all at once. Same could be said for the other troublesome traits from other factions, and the lackluster traits.
yeah if they updated traits in a codex they'd almost need to incldue the crimson fists in the codex,
Oh they'd have to or we'd never hear the end of it
That being said has there been much outrage over traits like the bladed cog where they have a 6++ and ignore movement penalty for heavy weapons yet iron hands only have the 6++?
I know given the choice iron hands would probably have preferred moving and shooting heavy weapons....
With capt and lt support, this thing's main weapon averages vs a 5++ is
4 * 0.77 * 0.77 * 0.666 = 1.58 cleared hits. Each hit does an average of 4.5 damage, which is nice. Total damage: 7.1.
Three hits getting through is almost double the average, which is extremely unlikely. Without the 5++, you are looking at 2.37 cleared hits. You are FAR more likely to clear your three hits with an average of 2.37. You still won't, more than half the time though.
Vs an IK, this thing's main weapon does less than 6 damage total.
The devil is in the details. So no, you didn't do the math.
That being said has there been much outrage over traits like the bladed cog where they have a 6++ and ignore movement penalty for heavy weapons yet iron hands only have the 6++?
I know given the choice iron hands would probably have preferred moving and shooting heavy weapons....
no but by time codex GSC came out Space Marine fans had pretty much come to accept that we had a monkey version of everyone else's chapter tactics
This thing makes the Phobos Librarian Trick even more potent. If you can position the Librarian near enough to a big target with Temporal Corridor and drop Null Zone, you are going to wreck whatever you want with the main Cannon of this tank.
I kid 
I completely misunderstood you. In fact I agree with you, I dont think ppw is a good indicative of the power of a unit, in relation to the Repulsor, I think it's main disadvantage is its lack of invu.
Move is 9" for the dread, compared to 10" for the executioner, still hitting on 3s, like the executioner. This repulsor is