First off, the obvious aesthetic complaint: why the feth did they move the two side-mounted Stormbolters up to the turret? That's a weird looking spot for them, they were better in the original position right over the side doors.
That aside, it looks like they dropped the hull stubber for an Onslaught (good, that's how it should have been to begin with) and swapped the Fragstorm Launcher for what looks like the business end of the Icarus Rocket Pod from the Redemptor dreadnaught (24", heavy d3, s7, ap1, d1) which is an improvement. I'd assume the rear mounter Icarus Heavy Stubber is probably still swappable for the missile pod or Stormbolter.
We already have access to the Macro Plasma Blaster, my experience has been that it usually feels like a mistake to take it over the Heavy Onslaught on the Redemptor, I doubt it will feel any better here. Although obviously that's just one data point.
Figuring transport capacity is down to 6* and nothing stupid happens to the point cost, how good does the new Heavy Laser Destroyer have to be to take this over a regular twin-lascannon/heavy onslaught Repulsor? I want to be excited about it and I'll probably buy one anyway, but it doesn't feel like something Marines needed right now.
* It would be pretty stupid to go lower than 6, it needs at least that for a min Aggressor squad.
I'm skeptical. The Repulsor isn't in a bad place because its gun is too small, it's because T8/3+ with no Invulnerable save drops too easily when armies come equipped to handle Knights. Giving it a bigger and presumably more expensive gun isn't going to fix anything, it's still just going to die too quickly.
If it comes with a new SM book that gives some kind of Chapter Tactics to vehicles, better psychic powers, and/or something else that makes the Repulsor hull more viable I'll give it another look, but as-is I don't think it'll make any waves.
Annnnnd guess what still won't be appearing on boards? THESE THINGS.
Because for all it's success, GW/Blizzard can't make a Tank anymore. Walking tanks with giant guns for arms? Sure. Flying tanks? Sure. But something like what the Russ was/is? Nope.
I'm going to make a total no logic guess here, and say:
Cost: North of $120
Points: North of 350
Weapons: A few Heavy 2d3, a Heavy 20, and the standard Plasma Cannon profile. All of it will get PotMS.
Wounds: 14-18
Primary Mission: A Grounded Blackstar.
Seriously. It will likely have all the cost of a Land Raider, with twice the problems. EVERYTHING HAS DEEP STRIKE. Who out there was begging for more transports for the LEAST used army?
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Who out there was begging for more transports for the LEAST used army?
The rest of your analysis is not wrong, but Space Marines are the most popular army that GW produces bar none. It's why they keep getting new models, even ones that they don't need.
In the entire Shadowspear box, there was one power sword on the Librarian. There was zero anti-tank. Now, we're getting this new Repulsor. If it didn't have a transport capacity, it might actually be south of 300 points and might be worth it, but GW seems to think that having a transport capacity immediately makes a vehicle worth 75 more points, even if half the time it won't be transporting anything at all.
While a lot of their recent reveals show that they're listening (admech transport, iron hands character, chaos knights), this repulsor spits in the face of what Primaris players have been asking for.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Who out there was begging for more transports for the LEAST used army?
The rest of your analysis is not wrong, but Space Marines are the most popular army that GW produces bar none. It's why they keep getting new models, even ones that they don't need.
In the entire Shadowspear box, there was one power sword on the Librarian. There was zero anti-tank. Now, we're getting this new Repulsor. If it didn't have a transport capacity, it might actually be south of 300 points and might be worth it, but GW seems to think that having a transport capacity immediately makes a vehicle worth 75 more points, even if half the time it won't be transporting anything at all.
While a lot of their recent reveals show that they're listening (admech transport, iron hands character, chaos knights), this repulsor spits in the face of what Primaris players have been asking for.
indeed it's the exact oppisite of what we've been asking for, Primaris players have been asking for a transport that loses weapons, to reduce cost for awhile now, and GW gives us a upgunned transport with, it sounds like, less transport slots.
on the other hand most people run their primaris in squads of 5 so it might be the better option.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Annnnnd guess what still won't be appearing on boards? THESE THINGS.
Because for all it's success, GW/Blizzard can't make a Tank anymore. Walking tanks with giant guns for arms? Sure. Flying tanks? Sure. But something like what the Russ was/is? Nope.
I'm going to make a total no logic guess here, and say:
Cost: North of $120
Points: North of 350
Weapons: A few Heavy 2d3, a Heavy 20, and the standard Plasma Cannon profile. All of it will get PotMS.
Wounds: 14-18
Primary Mission: A Grounded Blackstar.
Seriously. It will likely have all the cost of a Land Raider, with twice the problems. EVERYTHING HAS DEEP STRIKE. Who out there was begging for more transports for the LEAST used army?
The price probably won't be over $100, no kit in the marine range is over ...$85ish at the moment.
No comment on the actual point cost without seeing the rules.
We have a pretty good idea of what the weapon profile will look like just looking at the model:
- 3 Stormbolters
- 2 Krakstorm lauchers
- 2 Icarus Rocket pods (informed speculation here)
- Optional Heavy Stubber
- Onslaught Gattling Cannon
- 2 Heavy Bolters (or 2 Lascannons if they stick to the base profile)
- Whichever main gun you choose. We already know one option is the Macro Plasma Incinerator because GW outright said so, it's definitely not the standard plasma cannon. The other is a mystery, nothing I'm aware of has a gun called a Heavy Laser Destroyer.
You're not wrong about it probably not being very good, but your summary of the likely weapons is awfully dismissive.
So it has access to the redemptor plasma? It's a decent weapon I suppose. However - 2 onslaught cannons is what you really want for this beast. 24 str 5 ap-1 with 3 ap-1 stubbers and 2 heavy bolters puts it well above the damage of a punisher russ command tank. Has fly keyword and more wounds plus more secondary weapons too. Basically if it were in the 250-260 range that would be a pretty dang good tank and I would use it.
For it to serve anti tank duty. It's going to need to be a really nice superlascannon.
Stats? It would have to be str 10 or more with ap-4 and flat 4 damage. This would make it very similar to a neutron laser - which it looks a lot like IMO.
Xenomancers wrote: So it has access to the redemptor plasma? It's a decent weapon I suppose. However - 2 onslaught cannons is what you really want for this beast. 24 str 5 ap-1 with 3 ap-1 stubbers and 2 heavy bolters puts it well above the damage of a punisher russ command tank. Has fly keyword and more wounds plus more secondary weapons too. Basically if it were in the 250-260 range that would be a pretty dang good tank and I would use it.
For it to serve anti tank duty. It's going to need to be a really nice superlascannon.
Stats? It would have to be str 10 or more with ap-4 and flat 4 damage. This would make it very similar to a neutron laser - which it looks a lot like IMO.
Gitdakka wrote: Wait... That thing is gonna be a transport? I tought it was a pure battle tank variant for sure.
It ought to be, but its more of a razorbak,
The Repulsor is like Cawl watched the mockumentary on the Bradley APC development and thought it was training on how to design combat vehicles.
Don't go hating on the bradley. It's a fine vehicle.
The Repulsor with HOGC, THB, OGC, 3 SB, and 2 FGL is 262 points.
The main gun would have to be better than a TLC. The common design is an increase in strength and/or AP and in the case of the macro PC - twice the shots. So 4 S10 AP4 shots seems quite likely. I'd like to see damage go up, but I'm not certain they will do that.
So, again, does anyone see the big shiny boat o' dakka with a sign on it saying "SHOOT ME I HAVE IMPORTANT UNITS IN ME" living past turn 1? I don't see this having more wounds than a Repulsor, which has 16 right?
Second point - Lets guess high side, and say this thing has a upgun anti-tank that is D6 S8 AP-4 D3. Pretty beastly anti-tank gun for a transport. Almost rivals a Russ Battle Cannon. But here is the problem, unless this thing has some weird invuln, or a ton of wounds, it's not going to earn it's points back. And in the grand scheme of this game, one of the easiest metrics is, can this model earn it's points back consistently?
I say this cannot kill 300 points before being taken out or wounded to bottom tier.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: So, again, does anyone see the big shiny boat o' dakka with a sign on it saying "SHOOT ME I HAVE IMPORTANT UNITS IN ME" living past turn 1? I don't see this having more wounds than a Repulsor, which has 16 right?
Second point - Lets guess high side, and say this thing has a upgun anti-tank that is D6 S8 AP-4 D3. Pretty beastly anti-tank gun for a transport. Almost rivals a Russ Battle Cannon. But here is the problem, unless this thing has some weird invuln, or a ton of wounds, it's not going to earn it's points back. And in the grand scheme of this game, one of the easiest metrics is, can this model earn it's points back consistently?
I say this cannot kill 300 points before being taken out or wounded to bottom tier.
I'm pretty sure that it's going to be better than lascannon stats...consider it's a "heavy" lascannon so I have no idea why you decided on such arbitrary stats.
Also it's quite clear the high model count armies with few large models are gaining traction. A repulsor is something that covers all targets pretty damn well. You'll most certainly get two of these Executioners for the cost of a Castellan. Can a Castellan kill one? Absolutely. A Castellan can also kill a Shadowsword. The point is to bring a list that supports your work horse models.
Who out there was begging for more transports for the LEAST used army?
.......... yeah because Space Marines are the least used army in the game, totally!
Right?
They planned out every single unit before the first one hit the shelves(according to Jes on voxcast). So they've had this in the pipeline for a while and it works out better(for them) to release the thing that they planned to, rather than what we want.
argonak wrote:
Gitdakka wrote: Wait... That thing is gonna be a transport? I tought it was a pure battle tank variant for sure.
It ought to be, but its more of a razorbak,
The Repulsor is like Cawl watched the mockumentary on the Bradley APC development and thought it was training on how to design combat vehicles.
now that is funny. I was around when they were testing the A3 upgrade and CIV, it kinda explains what happened to FMC.
I hope they release a turret-less version of the repulsor and let that be the "rhino" equiv. it would still have the hull mounted las-talon or HB with auto/grenade/SB and should be "cheap" enough to be used as a transport that just so happens to have some weapons, rather than the other way.
I do know people who don't run or play Repulsors because they just get tired of resolving a half dozen different attacks (many of which are pretty trivial). I see this sharing the same issue. Couple that with the quagmire that tanks are in (in general) and I don't see it being a particularly great unit. It'll still sell a ton because people buy new marine kits - always have, always will.
Unlikely you'll see some at top level tournaments unless they have some crazy unexpected ability or match up with a particular strat well. If the Dark Angels can use weapons of the dark age on its plasma gun, etc...should be fine. (I don't know what that strat can affect)
My personal thoughts are simply that it's lazy as hell. It's not different enough to really justify a new kit, but I imagine we'll see a half dozen versions of the Repulsor eventually. Primaris needed a genuine cheap and effective transport far more than they need another platform for a bazaar of mediocre weapons. Also...it's still ugly as feth.
Elbows wrote: My personal thoughts are simply that it's lazy as hell. It's not different enough to really justify a new kit, but I imagine we'll see a half dozen versions of the Repulsor eventually.
The Razorback, Whirlwind, Predator, Hunter, Stalker, and Vindicator say hello.
Who out there was begging for more transports for the LEAST used army?
.......... yeah because Space Marines are the least used army in the game, totally!
Right?
They planned out every single unit before the first one hit the shelves(according to Jes on voxcast). So they've had this in the pipeline for a while and it works out better(for them) to release the thing that they planned to, rather than what we want.
argonak wrote:
Gitdakka wrote: Wait... That thing is gonna be a transport? I tought it was a pure battle tank variant for sure.
It ought to be, but its more of a razorbak,
The Repulsor is like Cawl watched the mockumentary on the Bradley APC development and thought it was training on how to design combat vehicles.
now that is funny. I was around when they were testing the A3 upgrade and CIV, it kinda explains what happened to FMC.
I hope they release a turret-less version of the repulsor and let that be the "rhino" equiv. it would still have the hull mounted las-talon or HB with auto/grenade/SB and should be "cheap" enough to be used as a transport that just so happens to have some weapons, rather than the other way.
It's weird to me that Space Marine players keep asking for transports, because you probably wouldn't use them. Almost no one uses imperial-type transports. Admech want to because they have very cheap troops with strong short range weapons they can pack into a half dozen or more transports (which is the minimum you nees to make sure at least 2 make it into firing range) and the thing is open topped.
Space marines meanwhile are trying to pack 200pt units into theoretical 100pts tranports (at best) and creating juicy points pinatas.
Elbows wrote: My personal thoughts are simply that it's lazy as hell. It's not different enough to really justify a new kit, but I imagine we'll see a half dozen versions of the Repulsor eventually.
The Razorback, Whirlwind, Predator, Hunter, Stalker, and Vindicator say hello.
The concept is fine, this execution is garbage. This is more akin to "we replaced your Razorback...with a different Razorback", etc. If this has some mega-cannons and zero transport capacity and perhaps sponsons it'd actually look/act differently. It's a 1/4 measure, not even a 1/2 measure.
It's weird to me that Space Marine players keep asking for transports, because you probably wouldn't use them. Almost no one uses imperial-type transports. Admech want to because they have very cheap troops with strong short range weapons they can pack into a half dozen or more transports (which is the minimum you nees to make sure at least 2 make it into firing range) and the thing is open topped.
Space marines meanwhile are trying to pack 200pt units into theoretical 100pts tranports (at best) and creating juicy points pinatas.
I use transports with my Space Wolves. They offer drop reduction, protection for valuable units against first-turn fire, and lascannons.
Also, I use Rhinos and Immolators extensively with my Sisters, because I have lots of units that need to go to the enemy. Fundamentally, the problem with the Repulsor is that it's an expensive carrier carrying an inexpensive unit, transports generally need to be cheaper than the unit they're carrying; at the very least, they can't be expensive. Generally, a transport is taken to enable an [expensive] unit to be more effective than it would be on foot, generally by protecting it from enemy fire by putting 10 T7 3+ wounds between the expensive unit and the enemy. It thus needs to be cheap enough to be wholly disposable, which is why Land Raiders fail.
The Newman wrote:
- Whichever main gun you choose. We already know one option is the Macro Plasma Incinerator because GW outright said so, it's definitely not the standard plasma cannon. The other is a mystery, nothing I'm aware of has a gun called a Heavy Laser Destroyer.
You're not wrong about it probably not being very good, but your summary of the likely weapons is awfully dismissive.
The Destroyer Tank Hunter has a Heavy Laser Destroyer that's Heavy 1d3, S9, AP3, D1d6.
The Rapier Gun Carrier has a Laser Destroyer Array that's Heavy 1, S12, AP4, D1d6 with "If this weapon successfully inflicts damage, roll an additional D6. On a result of a ‘3-5’, the weapon’s Damage is increased to 2D6. On a result of a ‘6’, the weapon’s Damage is increased to 3D6."
That said, I'd expect the Laser Destroyer on the Repulsor to be something along the lines of: Heavy 1d3, S10, AP4, D1d6. They're too afraid to give a tank breaking gun 2d6 damage, which the single-fire heavy AT guns need severely to make them effective and worthwhile compared to high-volume-of-fire low-damage weapons. Anyway, I predict that it'll be Heavy 1d3 shots, since it can't have 1d6 shots [or it wouldn't be a sidegrade from the plasma cannon], and it'll invariably have multiple shots but not a fixed number because GW makes all their weapons unnecessarily like that. It also can't possibly actually have performance appreciably better than infantry-portable antitank weapons to make it worthy of being a tank gun [especially one on a 300 point tank] as opposed to a cluster of bazooka-equivalents, because that's the precedent they've set with all their other tanks and tank-mounted weapons.
Oddlly, it doesn't look like a laser weapon, and more like a Battle Cannon, with the distinctive cues of Imperial projectile antitank weapons while the lacking the cues of Imperial laser weapons. It notably lacks the angled muzzle shroud that lascannons, lasguns, multilasers, and almost all other laser weapons have. In addition, it has a baffled muzzle brake and muzzle architechture similar to that of a Leman Russ Battle Cannon/Vanquisher Gun and Imperial Guard Autocannons. It also has a prominent fume extractor near the mantlet, similar to the Battle Cannon/Vanquishgers Cannon.
I will invariably get one of these and build it with the Heavy Laser Destroyer, though, because I think it looks really cool [and maybe reconstruct the turret bustle because the turret-rear storm bolters look kind of wierd].
Who out there was begging for more transports for the LEAST used army?
.......... yeah because Space Marines are the least used army in the game, totally!
Right?
They planned out every single unit before the first one hit the shelves(according to Jes on voxcast). So they've had this in the pipeline for a while and it works out better(for them) to release the thing that they planned to, rather than what we want.
argonak wrote:
Gitdakka wrote: Wait... That thing is gonna be a transport? I tought it was a pure battle tank variant for sure.
It ought to be, but its more of a razorbak,
The Repulsor is like Cawl watched the mockumentary on the Bradley APC development and thought it was training on how to design combat vehicles.
now that is funny. I was around when they were testing the A3 upgrade and CIV, it kinda explains what happened to FMC.
I hope they release a turret-less version of the repulsor and let that be the "rhino" equiv. it would still have the hull mounted las-talon or HB with auto/grenade/SB and should be "cheap" enough to be used as a transport that just so happens to have some weapons, rather than the other way.
It's weird to me that Space Marine players keep asking for transports, because you probably wouldn't use them. Almost no one uses imperial-type transports. Admech want to because they have very cheap troops with strong short range weapons they can pack into a half dozen or more transports (which is the minimum you nees to make sure at least 2 make it into firing range) and the thing is open topped.
Space marines meanwhile are trying to pack 200pt units into theoretical 100pts tranports (at best) and creating juicy points pinatas.
I happen to like having my units embarked in an APC that can rush up the board and get to objectives. I play for fun/narrative so I dont care if it's not the most points efficient and 90% of my opponents have the same view.
They just need the actual tank version with the sponsons & a dedicated light-transport.
I could see the purpose for all of them, the executioner as a mobile heavy support unit disgourging a squad of Agressors. Repulsor dropping hellblaster /intercessors on or near objectives, & the "rhino" equiv doing same for cheaper.
In my Salamanders I currently have; 2 Preds, LR Helios, Vindicator, Damocles Command Rhino, Repulsor & 5 Razobacks. I would like to have more Primaris vehicles but only really want 1 more Repulsor, so a couple executioners and light transports to round out my Pride of Nocturne Battle Company.
I honestly don’t see it bringing enough to the table to justify getting one to replace my current repulsor, which is magnetized to run with the TLLC and lastalon if I want AV work from it. It’s going to do the same job, just chucking some slightly different dice.
I suspect the kit is going to cost the same as the normal repulsor, maybe $5-10 more. So $80-90. But I suspect the old price. It looks like the same number of sprues, and the old one’s price point wasn’t set so long ago it needs an update.
I can’t see the stats changing that much over the basic one either. The hull is almost identical. Moving the door guns to the turret might increase the integrity of the hull to add a couple of wounds, but I don’t see anything that says it’s getting a 2+ armor save, an invuln, or an extra point of toughness. So it’s going to have the same old problem of being an overgunned glass hammer. Not really glass, but in a world where people have to deal with knights, it lacks staying power.
My one hope is that one of the pics of it don’t have the spare guns glued to the turret. If you didn’t have to pay for all the random small arms, it might make it slightly more economical to bring to the table.
--
I’d buy a stripped down pure transport. It would do something the basic one didn’t (get troops where they need to be without blowing 300 points). I’d also buy a pure tank. Slap some sponsons on it, focus the guns a little better, and add some extra armor bits to make it a little more rugged. But the old repulsor is already filling the role of the hybrid tank. We don’t need two. Although if we get the two endpoints, having more options in the middle is not horrible. Just a little redundant.
AnomanderRake wrote: I'm skeptical. The Repulsor isn't in a bad place because its gun is too small, it's because T8/3+ with no Invulnerable save drops too easily when armies come equipped to handle Knights. Giving it a bigger and presumably more expensive gun isn't going to fix anything, it's still just going to die too quickly.
If it comes with a new SM book that gives some kind of Chapter Tactics to vehicles, better psychic powers, and/or something else that makes the Repulsor hull more viable I'll give it another look, but as-is I don't think it'll make any waves.
Well that does depent on the size of the gun. If it is something like 4 shots str 9 d4 or 6, with some nice proc on +6, then running 3 of those bad boys could be a thing, even if they don't have an inv.
The issue with the repulsor is certainly not firepower. It's just way to easy to kill for it's points. This tank is likely even more expensive than a repulsor. So it will be even less useful.
a twin las/talon repulsor with storm bolters all around and no other weapons is 285
I'm betting this guy clocks in at 195-215 with the reduced transport capacity!
I'm looking forward to it. I love the primaris look and feel and have enjoyed them in blood angels quite a bit. I think it would be awesome to have two repulsors, two of these and some units of primaris intercessors and hellblasters moving up the table in them!
Seabass wrote: a twin las/talon repulsor with storm bolters all around and no other weapons is 285
I'm betting this guy clocks in at 195-215 with the reduced transport capacity!
I'm looking forward to it. I love the primaris look and feel and have enjoyed them in blood angels quite a bit. I think it would be awesome to have two repulsors, two of these and some units of primaris intercessors and hellblasters moving up the table in them!
redboi wrote: I have zero interest in using repulsors simply because I can't be hassled to fire a dozen slightly different weapon profiles for a single vehicle
This. Even Imperial Knights, fully kitted out, have fewer weapons than the Repulsor. It's such a pain to figure out all the different itty bitty forms of dakka the Repulsor has.
Nevelon wrote: Sometimes you pay a premium for the opportunity to mount more guns. Rhinos and Razors cost the same before guns, despite the difference in capacity.
I’d bet the same is going to happen here.
The community also believes you pay a premium for transport capacity, so the likelihood that this is a wash is pretty high.
redboi wrote: I have zero interest in using repulsors simply because I can't be hassled to fire a dozen slightly different weapon profiles for a single vehicle
This. Even Imperial Knights, fully kitted out, have fewer weapons than the Repulsor. It's such a pain to figure out all the different itty bitty forms of dakka the Repulsor has.
Many of the guns have similar profiles, which helps. All you need to do is get your range and see how many you can hit with, and roll for shots for those that need it.
The gatling cannons and HB are the same
The TLLC and lastalon as well
stormbolters and fragstorms can be done together.
Krackstorms you can’t do anything about.
The stubbers need to roll separate, but why are you putting them on a marine tank? Guard is over that way -->
Rocket pod is alone.
You can get it down to 3 profiles
HB-equivelent
Bolter-equivelent
krackstorms.
I feel it’s worth rollig the dice for the icarus rocket launcher, but not the stubbers. So I left off the “free” one of these and always upgrade the one on the tail. And when I run the repulsor with LCs, that adds another profile. But it doesn’t have to be as bad as it can be.
redboi wrote: I have zero interest in using repulsors simply because I can't be hassled to fire a dozen slightly different weapon profiles for a single vehicle
This. Even Imperial Knights, fully kitted out, have fewer weapons than the Repulsor. It's such a pain to figure out all the different itty bitty forms of dakka the Repulsor has.
Many of the guns have similar profiles, which helps. All you need to do is get your range and see how many you can hit with, and roll for shots for those that need it.
The gatling cannons and HB are the same
The TLLC and lastalon as well
stormbolters and fragstorms can be done together.
Krackstorms you can’t do anything about.
The stubbers need to roll separate, but why are you putting them on a marine tank? Guard is over that way -->
Rocket pod is alone.
You can get it down to 3 profiles
HB-equivelent
Bolter-equivelent
krackstorms.
I feel it’s worth rollig the dice for the icarus rocket launcher, but not the stubbers. So I left off the “free” one of these and always upgrade the one on the tail. And when I run the repulsor with LCs, that adds another profile. But it doesn’t have to be as bad as it can be.
Many devastator squads carry this many profiles, and there are zero complaints there, so this complaint seems like a fabricated issue.
redboi wrote: I have zero interest in using repulsors simply because I can't be hassled to fire a dozen slightly different weapon profiles for a single vehicle
This. Even Imperial Knights, fully kitted out, have fewer weapons than the Repulsor. It's such a pain to figure out all the different itty bitty forms of dakka the Repulsor has.
Many of the guns have similar profiles, which helps. All you need to do is get your range and see how many you can hit with, and roll for shots for those that need it.
The gatling cannons and HB are the same
The TLLC and lastalon as well
stormbolters and fragstorms can be done together.
Krackstorms you can’t do anything about.
The stubbers need to roll separate, but why are you putting them on a marine tank? Guard is over that way -->
Rocket pod is alone.
You can get it down to 3 profiles
HB-equivelent
Bolter-equivelent
krackstorms.
I feel it’s worth rollig the dice for the icarus rocket launcher, but not the stubbers. So I left off the “free” one of these and always upgrade the one on the tail. And when I run the repulsor with LCs, that adds another profile. But it doesn’t have to be as bad as it can be.
Many devastator squads carry this many profiles, and there are zero complaints there, so this complaint seems like a fabricated issue.
Not really, it's hugely different. Devastators Squads have the option to take mostly the same weapons, the Repulsor doesn't. Some people choose not to. Some people are fine with the Repulsor. That doesn't stop it being a real issue for many people.
Coupled with the fact that it is a big part of why many people simply find it to be a very ugly model.
redboi wrote: I have zero interest in using repulsors simply because I can't be hassled to fire a dozen slightly different weapon profiles for a single vehicle
This. Even Imperial Knights, fully kitted out, have fewer weapons than the Repulsor. It's such a pain to figure out all the different itty bitty forms of dakka the Repulsor has.
Many of the guns have similar profiles, which helps. All you need to do is get your range and see how many you can hit with, and roll for shots for those that need it.
The gatling cannons and HB are the same
The TLLC and lastalon as well
stormbolters and fragstorms can be done together.
Krackstorms you can’t do anything about.
The stubbers need to roll separate, but why are you putting them on a marine tank? Guard is over that way -->
Rocket pod is alone.
You can get it down to 3 profiles
HB-equivelent
Bolter-equivelent
krackstorms.
I feel it’s worth rollig the dice for the icarus rocket launcher, but not the stubbers. So I left off the “free” one of these and always upgrade the one on the tail. And when I run the repulsor with LCs, that adds another profile. But it doesn’t have to be as bad as it can be.
Many devastator squads carry this many profiles, and there are zero complaints there, so this complaint seems like a fabricated issue.
Not really, it's hugely different. Devastators Squads have the option to take mostly the same weapons, the Repulsor doesn't. Some people choose not to. Some people are fine with the Repulsor. That doesn't stop it being a real issue for many people.
Coupled with the fact that it is a big part of why many people simply find it to be a very ugly model.
I strongly suspect that most people think it's ugly because it's cluttered. Moving the pintle gun to a coaxial mount with the Onslaught and leave off the antennas and the random bits on the back quarter panels makes a huge difference.
(Also, why the hate for the Heavy Stubber? It's pretty much just three Bolt Rifles strapped together.)
It is cluttered. I personally left the kit off the back myself. Helps a lot.
I don’t have any rules problems with stubbers, but classically marines have never used them. Why start now? Lets take a more primitive weapon and just slap it on a state of the art tank. While there is some occasional borrowing from other imperial armies, mostly marines stick with their own gear. I can understand if it’s a primary thing, like the vindicator, but why dilute your brand/theme for a tertiary gun?
redboi wrote: I have zero interest in using repulsors simply because I can't be hassled to fire a dozen slightly different weapon profiles for a single vehicle
This. Even Imperial Knights, fully kitted out, have fewer weapons than the Repulsor. It's such a pain to figure out all the different itty bitty forms of dakka the Repulsor has.
Many of the guns have similar profiles, which helps. All you need to do is get your range and see how many you can hit with, and roll for shots for those that need it.
The gatling cannons and HB are the same
The TLLC and lastalon as well
stormbolters and fragstorms can be done together.
Krackstorms you can’t do anything about.
The stubbers need to roll separate, but why are you putting them on a marine tank? Guard is over that way -->
Rocket pod is alone.
You can get it down to 3 profiles
HB-equivelent
Bolter-equivelent
krackstorms.
I feel it’s worth rollig the dice for the icarus rocket launcher, but not the stubbers. So I left off the “free” one of these and always upgrade the one on the tail. And when I run the repulsor with LCs, that adds another profile. But it doesn’t have to be as bad as it can be.
Many devastator squads carry this many profiles, and there are zero complaints there, so this complaint seems like a fabricated issue.
Not really, it's hugely different. Devastators Squads have the option to take mostly the same weapons, the Repulsor doesn't. Some people choose not to. Some people are fine with the Repulsor. That doesn't stop it being a real issue for many people.
Coupled with the fact that it is a big part of why many people simply find it to be a very ugly model.
I strongly suspect that most people think it's ugly because it's cluttered. Moving the pintle gun to a coaxial mount with the Onslaught and leave off the antennas and the random bits on the back quarter panels makes a huge difference.
(Also, why the hate for the Heavy Stubber? It's pretty much just three Bolt Rifles strapped together.)
Cluttering is part of it. It generally lacks elegance in design. Repositioning them would help, though not completely solve the issue.
Which would be fine if it was an Ork vehicle. Passable even for Guard. But for Space Marines I expect a bit more streamlining.
I like the kit on the back, that's like my favorite part of it.
I like the door guns least. The turret clutter is acceptable, since tanks generally have all kinds of crap on them, but too many like guns in hull mounts is a little odd looking.
I'm fairly confident that the repulsor was designed during 7th, just like Primaris marines in general.
Repulsor has weapons facing in every direction, some of them wouldn't even be able to fire in the last edition. But now all guns can fire from anywhere on the hull making it just a mess.
But sticking to similar profiles makes it much easier to manage. Frankly I also find it laughable that people can't/won't resolve all of its weapons
fraser1191 wrote: I'm fairly confident that the repulsor was designed during 7th, just like Primaris marines in general.
Repulsor has weapons facing in every direction, some of them wouldn't even be able to fire in the last edition. But now all guns can fire from anywhere on the hull making it just a mess.
But sticking to similar profiles makes it much easier to manage. Frankly I also find it laughable that people can't/won't resolve all of its weapons
agreed, Primaris make so much more sense if they where designed in 7th edition.
Though as I recall from the teaser pictures we have seen of the new repulsor there will be options to reduce the amount of guns you have on the repulsor. Removing most of the turret and door guns.
Seems like it drops you down to 5 guns, the pintle mount probably being optional. It could indeed be a touch cheaper and certainly easier to shoot with.
Ah you are right, there does seem to be at least one, probably 2 stormbolters mounted on the back of the turret. At first I thought they were some lights or sensors. Hopefully the icarus stubbers on the very back can be swapped out for a stormbolter too. 3 stormbolters is a lot easier to manage than the 3 stormbolters 2 krak grenades and 2 frag launchers that the regular repulsor has.
cody.d. wrote: Ah you are right, there does seem to be at least one, probably 2 stormbolters mounted on the back of the turret. At first I thought they were some lights or sensors. Hopefully the icarus stubbers on the very back can be swapped out for a stormbolter too. 3 stormbolters is a lot easier to manage than the 3 stormbolters 2 krak grenades and 2 frag launchers that the regular repulsor has.
The stubbers are amazing - I would not remove them. I'd take as many as you can to be honest. The -1 to hit ground targets is well worth the -1 ap and range. Plus a lot of times you will be hitting on 2's with them vs jetbikes and such. -1 ap is highly valuable. Like I said before I hope this boat has the option to take 2 gatling cannons.
So something like 2 stubbers 2 HB 2 Gatling and a light gatlings + 2 storm bolters and 2 frag launchers and 2 krak launchers.13 guns LOL.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also - from that picture this new tank seems to be significantly smaller than the repulsor both shorter and thinner. That should come with a wounds reduction and point savings. If we can put these babbies on the field for under 230 points. They will be a bargain.
To my knowledge we've only seen one sprue for this vehicle so far. Looking like a portion to slip over the existing Repulsor top section and turret. Sadly I can't remember where the crewman was situated on the previous sprues but I doubt he'd get access to the lighter gatling.
cody.d. wrote: To my knowledge we've only seen one sprue for this vehicle so far. Looking like a portion to slip over the existing Repulsor top section and turret. Sadly I can't remember where the crewman was situated on the previous sprues but I doubt he'd get access to the lighter gatling.
If they are swapping out sprues, this is the one getting switched. I’d not count on anything on it being an option for the Executioner. GW could, of course, prove us wrong, as all the parts should be compatible. But no model, no rules.
Also - from that picture this new tank seems to be significantly smaller than the repulsor both shorter and thinner. That should come with a wounds reduction and point savings. If we can put these babbies on the field for under 230 points. They will be a bargain.
Where are you getting that from? The pictures in the community article look like it's exactly the same hull as the regular Repulsor.
cody.d. wrote: To my knowledge we've only seen one sprue for this vehicle so far. Looking like a portion to slip over the existing Repulsor top section and turret. Sadly I can't remember where the crewman was situated on the previous sprues but I doubt he'd get access to the lighter gatling.
If they are swapping out sprues, this is the one getting switched. I’d not count on anything on it being an option for the Executioner. GW could, of course, prove us wrong, as all the parts should be compatible. But no model, no rules.
I really do hope to be proven wrong here, I'd love to build a dedicated tank hunter with Twin LC + Heavy Laser Destroyer.
Good eyes there, the hull-mounted twin LCs are not on the new sprue.
That's a bummer, the heavy laser destroyer is going to have to be phenomenal for the Executioner to beat out the Twin-LC + LasTalon Repulsor as an anti-tank platform, and if it doesn't then what was the point?
The Newman wrote: Good eyes there, the hull-mounted twin LCs are not on the new sprue.
That's a bummer, the heavy laser destroyer is going to have to be phenomenal for the Executioner to beat out the Twin-LC + LasTalon Repulsor as an anti-tank platform, and if it doesn't then what was the point?
It still has an extra heavy gatling cannon for extra dakka. But yeah, there's a huge risk of this making the Executioner an overpriced allrounder.
So, are we all in agreement? 350 points, can transport all Primaris troops, some elites, is basically a flying Stormlord lite? Wait, it's better, because it likely has an ++ and PoTMS, plus Repulser fields.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: So, are we all in agreement? 350 points, can transport all Primaris troops, some elites, is basically a flying Stormlord lite? Wait, it's better, because it likely has an ++ and PoTMS, plus Repulser fields.
That's about 75 points above what I'm expecting.
Current Repulsor chassis is 185, and we know the costs of almost every single weapon except the laser destroyer. Assuming the chassis doesn't drop any points for the smaller transport capacity, this will run somewhere around 275.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: So, are we all in agreement? 350 points, can transport all Primaris troops, some elites, is basically a flying Stormlord lite? Wait, it's better, because it likely has an ++ and PoTMS, plus Repulser fields.
Why do you think the new super repulsor is going to have an invulnerable save when the base repulsor doesn't?
They flat-out lost a sale from me when I saw that sprue image. The fact the "tank-destroyer" Repulsor has fewer tank destroying weapons than the regular version boggles the mind.
The Executioner might have a flare shield or something, since it's more of a target. it kinda makes sense since it's more of a heavy support/assault role, like dumping a squad of Aggressors/hellblasters and sticking around to take the role of anti-tank/MC. Primaris needed a way to augment the current SM line and I think this fits the bill.
We still need the "inexpensive" (pts & $€£¥) transport. But with more armour on the field that isnt an all rounder(repulsor) but has a specific doctrine(generalterm)to use in current mixed and especially in primaris only armies. SM & Primaris rules need to be addressed (along w pts) to reflect how elite/durable they're supposed to be(rather than dying en masse).
I was considering adding another repulsor but 2 Executioners would fill the role a little better.
No idea why they are trying to give the tank asymetric guns. They would look much better, if it was two of the same. But maybe it is just me, I hate it when when colours don't match or halfs look different.
Karol wrote: No idea why they are trying to give the tank asymetric guns. They would look much better, if it was two of the same. But maybe it is just me, I hate it when when colours don't match or halfs look different.
Yeah, a Repulsor with 2 turret- mounted Plasma Exterminators or Laser Destroyers would look awesome.
Karol wrote: No idea why they are trying to give the tank asymetric guns. They would look much better, if it was two of the same. But maybe it is just me, I hate it when when colours don't match or halfs look different.
Yeah, a Repulsor with 2 turret- mounted Plasma Exterminators or Laser Destroyers would look awesome.
If some of the internet roumer are true, that is what's likely coming along later as the primaris replacement for the predator.
But all I can say is damn do I expect these to be seriously points heavy, I suspect some people are in for a shock when these are costed by GW.
Karol wrote: No idea why they are trying to give the tank asymetric guns. They would look much better, if it was two of the same. But maybe it is just me, I hate it when when colours don't match or halfs look different.
Yeah, a Repulsor with 2 turret- mounted Plasma Exterminators or Laser Destroyers would look awesome.
If some of the internet roumer are true, that is what's likely coming along later as the primaris replacement for the predator.
But all I can say is damn do I expect these to be seriously points heavy, I suspect some people are in for a shock when these are costed by GW.
I'd be shocked if the chassis ends up more expensive than the base Repulsor. Extended transport capacity for Astartes vehicles has historically been exactly as expensive as increased weapon options (see Rhino and Razorback; Land Raiders).
Ice_can 775880 10462198 wrote:
If some of the internet roumer are true, that is what's likely coming along later as the primaris replacement for the predator.
But all I can say is damn do I expect these to be seriously points heavy, I suspect some people are in for a shock when these are costed by GW.
Well then why not mount only a single gun in the turret? It would look better, be more symetric and would mean the whole thing doesn't cost 260+pts.
But again asymetrical thing irks me on a physical level. Took me years to stop myself from trying to fix other people cloths or hair to be symetric.
I love the repulsor and this looks ace too. Last thing I wanted was a basic transport, it would only ever be a flying rhino and cost a lot of money. What I wanted was a dedicated battle tank. And that is what we have here, with a wee bit of transport too.
It looks awesome and will do a nice job for me in my primaris only army. It’s an auto buy.
Andykp wrote: I love the repulsor and this looks ace too. Last thing I wanted was a basic transport, it would only ever be a flying rhino and cost a lot of money. What I wanted was a dedicated battle tank. And that is what we have here, with a wee bit of transport too.
It looks awesome and will do a nice job for me in my primaris only army. It’s an auto buy.
From what we can see on the sprue the Executioner can't have the twin Lascannons on the hull, and without it the Heavy Laser Destroyer is going to have to be better that a Battlecannon under Grinding Advance for the Executioner to be a better MBT than the base Repulsor (all other things being equal).
Not saying that won't be the case, but it seems unlikely.
Also - from that picture this new tank seems to be significantly smaller than the repulsor both shorter and thinner. That should come with a wounds reduction and point savings. If we can put these babbies on the field for under 230 points. They will be a bargain.
Where are you getting that from? The pictures in the community article look like it's exactly the same hull as the regular Repulsor.
I could be wrong. The turret might just be much larger than the repulsor but I think the hull is less wide on this new variant. Also the rear side hull section appears to be a little shorter.
casvalremdeikun wrote: They flat-out lost a sale from me when I saw that sprue image. The fact the "tank-destroyer" Repulsor has fewer tank destroying weapons than the regular version boggles the mind.
You don't know what the cannon does yet.
If it ends up being a Heavy D6 laser cannon at S10+ and AP-4+ with some kind of special rule, then you might be more apt to want it.
casvalremdeikun wrote: They flat-out lost a sale from me when I saw that sprue image. The fact the "tank-destroyer" Repulsor has fewer tank destroying weapons than the regular version boggles the mind.
You don't know what the cannon does yet.
If it ends up being a Heavy D6 laser cannon at S10+ and AP-4+ with some kind of special rule, then you might be more apt to want it.
If it's anything close to those sort of stats and the points will be massive.
Or it will be the points people say and no better than a repulsor firepower.
Or GW will make it a repulsor + in points with repulsor levels of firepower and reduced transport capacity.
Personally I think the people saying it's going to have to have an invulnerable save are dreaming, but if it does that'd would be the most blatant version of rules creep since the Castellen.
Are repulsors competitive? Are Primaris competitive?
Someone made it to top 8 of LVO with 2 and Gulliman and 3 predators
Ehhh - If the list goes first it has a good chance to blow up most of the threats to the repulsors. Still though...vs shinning spears and Castellans and Tzangor bombs (this is basically the only thing I saw at LVO) you couldn't possibly take a worse army.
Are repulsors competitive? Are Primaris competitive?
Someone made it to top 8 of LVO with 2 and Gulliman and 3 predators
Ehhh - If the list goes first it has a good chance to blow up most of the threats to the repulsors. Still though...vs shinning spears and Castellans and Tzangor bombs (this is basically the only thing I saw at LVO) you couldn't possibly take a worse army.
Repulsors can fly, -2 to charges, and carry plenty of anti-infantry fire power. With Bobby nearby to intervene I don't think you're getting spectacularly far with melee.
Andykp wrote: I love the repulsor and this looks ace too. Last thing I wanted was a basic transport, it would only ever be a flying rhino and cost a lot of money. What I wanted was a dedicated battle tank. And that is what we have here, with a wee bit of transport too.
It looks awesome and will do a nice job for me in my primaris only army. It’s an auto buy.
From what we can see on the sprue the Executioner can't have the twin Lascannons on the hull, and without it the Heavy Laser Destroyer is going to have to be better that a Battlecannon under Grinding Advance for the Executioner to be a better MBT than the base Repulsor (all other things being equal).
Not saying that won't be the case, but it seems unlikely.
Yeah but looks the part, and to me it’s already won right there. And we don’t know the rules yet. Yes it is a bit of a shame no twin las on the sprue and it seems only down to lack of space, like there doesn’t seem to be an option for the rear AA turret either. But for me it’s all on the looks of it right now and I like it. I’m a fan of the repulsor and I like the bigger turret, and I like mixed load outs now that we can split fire again. I know I’ll be in the minority here but looks beat maths every time.
In order to outperform a base Repulsor's weapons complement, the Heavy Laser Destroyer needs to be at least S9, AP3, and have a minimum potential damage roll of 4d6 [IE, if it has 1d6 damage per shot, it needs to make at least 4 shots]. We can also inform some of it's characteristics from the macro plasma incinerator, it's alternate weapon option.
The Macro Plasma Incinerator is Heavy 1d6, S9, AP4, D2. This is somewhat, slightly, better than 2 Lascannons. With a Grinding Advance-like property [which isn't unlikely, given it's common on most factions' main battle tanks, but isn't a given either since the Repulsor Executioner is half-transport and it's not universal to all tanks or main battle tanks], this breaks even, which isn't saying a lot and doesn't bode well.
Anyway, informed by the Macro Plasma Incinerator's 1d6 shots, I don't think we can expect the Heavy Laser Destroyer to have more than Heavy 1d3 shots. It's got to be appreciably less than the Macro Plasma Incinerator. Here's the problem though: outside of Forgeworld weapons and those mounted on titanics, GW has avoided giving things better than 1d6 of damage even if they fire only a single shot, to the general detriment of every special AT weapon in the game [Railgun and Vanquisher, especially].
Where does that leave us for the Heavy Laser Destroyer? Not in a good place. The best we can probably hope for is Heavy 1d3, S10, AP4, D3d3 with Grinding Advance; the worst is Heavy 1d3, S9, Ap3, D1d6, and the probable is closer to the worst than the best.
Are repulsors competitive? Are Primaris competitive?
Someone made it to top 8 of LVO with 2 and Gulliman and 3 predators
Ehhh - If the list goes first it has a good chance to blow up most of the threats to the repulsors. Still though...vs shinning spears and Castellans and Tzangor bombs (this is basically the only thing I saw at LVO) you couldn't possibly take a worse army.
Repulsors can fly, -2 to charges, and carry plenty of anti-infantry fire power. With Bobby nearby to intervene I don't think you're getting spectacularly far with melee.
Rereading my comment it comes off a bit snide not really my intention.
But I agree for the most part that any list with repulsors has to go first to stand a chance, and I find I need a librarian to buff one to T9.
I'm hoping that in SM 2.0 they buff the chassis with either rules or point drips. (but I find this highly unlikely since Chaos got a new book and not much changed, marines are still 13ppm so I don't see Primaris dropping more)
As for the heavy laser destroyer, going off of the forgeworld laser destroyers barring invulns then the Executioner will be able to point and delete a vehicle. Just depends on what Heavy does to the weapon, like extra damage or strength or shots
Are repulsors competitive? Are Primaris competitive?
Someone made it to top 8 of LVO with 2 and Gulliman and 3 predators
Ehhh - If the list goes first it has a good chance to blow up most of the threats to the repulsors. Still though...vs shinning spears and Castellans and Tzangor bombs (this is basically the only thing I saw at LVO) you couldn't possibly take a worse army.
Repulsors can fly, -2 to charges, and carry plenty of anti-infantry fire power. With Bobby nearby to intervene I don't think you're getting spectacularly far with melee.
Rereading my comment it comes off a bit snide not really my intention.
But I agree for the most part that any list with repulsors has to go first to stand a chance, and I find I need a librarian to buff one to T9.
I'm hoping that in SM 2.0 they buff the chassis with either rules or point drips. (but I find this highly unlikely since Chaos got a new book and not much changed, marines are still 13ppm so I don't see Primaris dropping more)
As for the heavy laser destroyer, going off of the forgeworld laser destroyers barring invulns then the Executioner will be able to point and delete a vehicle. Just depends on what Heavy does to the weapon, like extra damage or strength or shots
Which forgeworld laser destroyers do not allow invulnerable saves?
Nevelon wrote: Sometimes you pay a premium for the opportunity to mount more guns. Rhinos and Razors cost the same before guns, despite the difference in capacity.
I’d bet the same is going to happen here.
Then we can expect the naked car being 185pts. Just hope the big laser destroyer not being priced at 100pts for 2D6 shot S10 AP-4 D6dmg garbage. Because then this tank will never survive to fire a single shot and it is just a dead weight.
@Ice-can: I'm pretty sure Fraser meant "FW Laser Destroyers consistently delete vehicles that don't have invulns", not "FW Laser Destroyers ignore invulns".
I think we can pretty safely assume that Grinding Advance isn't on the table, no Marine vehicle has that rule. We get Machine Spirit instead, and inconsistently at that.
Grinding Advance wouldn't even fit the Marine fluff all that well, no matter how much it would help the Predator and the Vindicator.
The Newman wrote: I think we can pretty safely assume that Grinding Advance isn't on the table, no Marine vehicle has that rule. We get Machine Spirit instead, and inconsistently at that.
Grinding Advance wouldn't even fit the Marine fluff all that well, no matter how much it would help the Predator and the Vindicator.
Grinding advance is a bad band aid solution that is downright broken on punisher commander Russes and makes every other tank look teribad.
A repulsor will have machine spirit, I dont see it having half the main weapon sats peopke are dreaming up, i suspect that it will be much like the normal one underwhelming but still playable.
Are repulsors competitive? Are Primaris competitive?
Someone made it to top 8 of LVO with 2 and Gulliman and 3 predators
Ehhh - If the list goes first it has a good chance to blow up most of the threats to the repulsors. Still though...vs shinning spears and Castellans and Tzangor bombs (this is basically the only thing I saw at LVO) you couldn't possibly take a worse army.
Repulsors can fly, -2 to charges, and carry plenty of anti-infantry fire power. With Bobby nearby to intervene I don't think you're getting spectacularly far with melee.
Oh jezz I've played this match so many times. Repulsors drop like flies to eldar firepower. Plus spears moving 44" in a turn means you can't do dick to stop them from charging your preditors without some really silly deployment shenanigans that will end up losing you the game because you can't even hold an objective. Predators might as well not even exist as a unit they are so trash. The vindi trick is actually better and cheaper to pull off anyways. I saw this guys army though - it looks great. I assumed he lost every game but this is a dice game. A castellan stands a good change to wipe his armor in 2 turns only.
The Newman wrote: I think we can pretty safely assume that Grinding Advance isn't on the table, no Marine vehicle has that rule. We get Machine Spirit instead, and inconsistently at that.
Grinding Advance wouldn't even fit the Marine fluff all that well, no matter how much it would help the Predator and the Vindicator.
Grinding advance is a bad band aid solution that is downright broken on punisher commander Russes and makes every other tank look teribad.
A repulsor will have machine spirit, I dont see it having half the main weapon sats peopke are dreaming up, i suspect that it will be much like the normal one underwhelming but still playable.
Yeah...not sure why some tanks can shoot twice and some cant lol. Like if predators could shoot 4 las from their turret they would start to be good. However it would make every other iteration of a lascannon a waste because it's not as good as 4 LC for the price of 2.
The Newman wrote:@Ice-can: I'm pretty sure Fraser meant "FW Laser Destroyers consistently delete vehicles that don't have invulns", not "FW Laser Destroyers ignore invulns".
I think we can pretty safely assume that Grinding Advance isn't on the table, no Marine vehicle has that rule. We get Machine Spirit instead, and inconsistently at that.
Grinding Advance wouldn't even fit the Marine fluff all that well, no matter how much it would help the Predator and the Vindicator.
I wouldn't say it's off the table. It's not likely either, since the Repulsor is half-transport, but they could apply it if they're going for MBT. The Leman Russ didn't start with it, but GW observed that tank guns were not very good, having about the same effect as a Lascannon, and patched it in when the codex came out. The Predator could have had it, though first-codex strikes there, since there would have been no time for feedback. You can see that all over the SM codex, and SM derivatives haven't had any effort made to fix them because then they'd have to patch all the dataslates in like 9 books.
To some degree, MBT's that have one big tank gun have it, [Leman Russ, Fire Prisom, Gunwagon, Exocrine, Tyrannofex]. The Doomsday Ark and the Hammerhead are the exception, thought the Doomsday Cannon was flat increased from D3 to D6 shots with it's codex IIRC, and it already has a stationary fire mode. The hammerhead presumably lacks it because the Riptide has Nova-Charge, and Tau have gone all in on anime-robots.
The Repulsor could get it, since the Gunwagon is also half-transport, and it is similar to the rest of those in having one big gun in a turret mount rather than a giant cluster of bazookas strapped together. I wouldn't say it's a sure thing, though, just not off the table.
I'm hoping that it has a gun worthy of being a tank gun, and doesn't have Grinding Advance. That isn't going to happen though, so a crappy gun and Grinding Advance is the best we can hope for, especially given that we know the Plasma Cannon's stats.
Ice_can wrote:Grinding advance is a bad band aid solution that is downright broken on punisher commander Russes and makes every other tank look teribad.
A repulsor will have machine spirit, I dont see it having half the main weapon sats peopke are dreaming up, i suspect that it will be much like the normal one underwhelming but still playable.
I agree, Grinding Advance is a lame patch over the fact that GW initially released tank guns as being no more powerful than an infantry-carried shoulder-fired bazooka. Since that just doesn't work, and rather than fixing the problem by fixing the guns to perform more in line with how they should, they just figured that people wanted to use Leman Russes, so they'd path just that unit and move on.
The Newman wrote:@Ice-can: I'm pretty sure Fraser meant "FW Laser Destroyers consistently delete vehicles that don't have invulns", not "FW Laser Destroyers ignore invulns".
I think we can pretty safely assume that Grinding Advance isn't on the table, no Marine vehicle has that rule. We get Machine Spirit instead, and inconsistently at that.
Grinding Advance wouldn't even fit the Marine fluff all that well, no matter how much it would help the Predator and the Vindicator.
I wouldn't say it's off the table. It's not likely either, since the Repulsor is half-transport, but they could apply it if they're going for MBT. The Leman Russ didn't start with it, but GW observed that tank guns were not very good, having about the same effect as a Lascannon, and patched it in when the codex came out. The Predator could have had it, though first-codex strikes there, since there would have been no time for feedback. You can see that all over the SM codex, and SM derivatives haven't had any effort made to fix them because then they'd have to patch all the dataslates in like 9 books.
To some degree, MBT's that have one big tank gun have it, [Leman Russ, Fire Prisom, Gunwagon, Exocrine, Tyrannofex]. The Doomsday Ark and the Hammerhead are the exception, thought the Doomsday Cannon was flat increased from D3 to D6 shots with it's codex IIRC, and it already has a stationary fire mode. The hammerhead presumably lacks it because the Riptide has Nova-Charge, and Tau have gone all in on anime-robots.
The Repulsor could get it, since the Gunwagon is also half-transport, and it is similar to the rest of those in having one big gun in a turret mount rather than a giant cluster of bazookas strapped together. I wouldn't say it's a sure thing, though, just not off the table.
I'm hoping that it has a gun worthy of being a tank gun, and doesn't have Grinding Advance. That isn't going to happen though, so a crappy gun and Grinding Advance is the best we can hope for, especially given that we know the Plasma Cannon's stats.
Ice_can wrote:Grinding advance is a bad band aid solution that is downright broken on punisher commander Russes and makes every other tank look teribad.
A repulsor will have machine spirit, I dont see it having half the main weapon sats peopke are dreaming up, i suspect that it will be much like the normal one underwhelming but still playable.
I agree, Grinding Advance is a lame patch over the fact that GW initially released tank guns as being no more powerful than an infantry-carried shoulder-fired bazooka. Since that just doesn't work, and rather than fixing the problem by fixing the guns to perform more in line with how they should, they just figured that people wanted to use Leman Russes, so they'd path just that unit and move on.
Space Marines just aren't in a good spot at the moment due to the shakeup of Primaris.
Games Workshop was damned either way they did this. As I understand it, lots of people wanted true-scale marines.
Games Workshop was left with two choices: 1. Squat the entire existing line and release an entirely new line of models, tanks, characters and rules. 2. Hybrid the release of the new models, putting the entire faction into an awkward place. Neither choice was optimal, and we know which one they chose, likely based off the lessons learned from the re-branding and launch of AoS.
Now, in terms of this new forthcoming tank, we're faced again with two issues. Many people don't want to mix their models. I can't stand it when I see a table of mixed Primaris and squats now, it literally makes me feel ill. Primaris are lacking pretty much everything outside of the basic troop and character role, but design space is likely limited. So they splurged and mixed two units into one.
Here is the thing though, at least as I think about this.
What is the # of shots and S of this new gun? Why couldn't this lasercannon be S12+? Heavy D6? Heavy 4?
Are repulsors competitive? Are Primaris competitive?
Someone made it to top 8 of LVO with 2 and Gulliman and 3 predators
Ehhh - If the list goes first it has a good chance to blow up most of the threats to the repulsors. Still though...vs shinning spears and Castellans and Tzangor bombs (this is basically the only thing I saw at LVO) you couldn't possibly take a worse army.
Repulsors can fly, -2 to charges, and carry plenty of anti-infantry fire power. With Bobby nearby to intervene I don't think you're getting spectacularly far with melee.
Rereading my comment it comes off a bit snide not really my intention.
But I agree for the most part that any list with repulsors has to go first to stand a chance, and I find I need a librarian to buff one to T9.
I'm hoping that in SM 2.0 they buff the chassis with either rules or point drips. (but I find this highly unlikely since Chaos got a new book and not much changed, marines are still 13ppm so I don't see Primaris dropping more)
As for the heavy laser destroyer, going off of the forgeworld laser destroyers barring invulns then the Executioner will be able to point and delete a vehicle. Just depends on what Heavy does to the weapon, like extra damage or strength or shots
Which forgeworld laser destroyers do not allow invulnerable saves?
"Barring invulns", in other words provided they don't have an invuln
A laser destroyer is Heavy 1 S12 Ap - 4 D6 damage
If this weapon successfully inflicts damage, roll an additional D6. On a 3-5 damage is increased to 2d6, on a 6 damage is 3d6
I hope the heavy laser destroyer is this but with more shots, most likely D3
The Newman wrote:@Ice-can: I'm pretty sure Fraser meant "FW Laser Destroyers consistently delete vehicles that don't have invulns", not "FW Laser Destroyers ignore invulns".
I think we can pretty safely assume that Grinding Advance isn't on the table, no Marine vehicle has that rule. We get Machine Spirit instead, and inconsistently at that.
Grinding Advance wouldn't even fit the Marine fluff all that well, no matter how much it would help the Predator and the Vindicator.
I wouldn't say it's off the table. It's not likely either, since the Repulsor is half-transport, but they could apply it if they're going for MBT. The Leman Russ didn't start with it, but GW observed that tank guns were not very good, having about the same effect as a Lascannon, and patched it in when the codex came out. The Predator could have had it, though first-codex strikes there, since there would have been no time for feedback. You can see that all over the SM codex, and SM derivatives haven't had any effort made to fix them because then they'd have to patch all the dataslates in like 9 books.
To some degree, MBT's that have one big tank gun have it, [Leman Russ, Fire Prisom, Gunwagon, Exocrine, Tyrannofex]. The Doomsday Ark and the Hammerhead are the exception, thought the Doomsday Cannon was flat increased from D3 to D6 shots with it's codex IIRC, and it already has a stationary fire mode. The hammerhead presumably lacks it because the Riptide has Nova-Charge, and Tau have gone all in on anime-robots.
The Repulsor could get it, since the Gunwagon is also half-transport, and it is similar to the rest of those in having one big gun in a turret mount rather than a giant cluster of bazookas strapped together. I wouldn't say it's a sure thing, though, just not off the table.
I'm hoping that it has a gun worthy of being a tank gun, and doesn't have Grinding Advance. That isn't going to happen though, so a crappy gun and Grinding Advance is the best we can hope for, especially given that we know the Plasma Cannon's stats.
Ice_can wrote:Grinding advance is a bad band aid solution that is downright broken on punisher commander Russes and makes every other tank look teribad.
A repulsor will have machine spirit, I dont see it having half the main weapon sats peopke are dreaming up, i suspect that it will be much like the normal one underwhelming but still playable.
I agree, Grinding Advance is a lame patch over the fact that GW initially released tank guns as being no more powerful than an infantry-carried shoulder-fired bazooka. Since that just doesn't work, and rather than fixing the problem by fixing the guns to perform more in line with how they should, they just figured that people wanted to use Leman Russes, so they'd path just that unit and move on.
Space Marines just aren't in a good spot at the moment due to the shakeup of Primaris.
Games Workshop was damned either way they did this. As I understand it, lots of people wanted true-scale marines.
Games Workshop was left with two choices: 1. Squat the entire existing line and release an entirely new line of models, tanks, characters and rules. 2. Hybrid the release of the new models, putting the entire faction into an awkward place. Neither choice was optimal, and we know which one they chose, likely based off the lessons learned from the re-branding and launch of AoS.
Now, in terms of this new forthcoming tank, we're faced again with two issues. Many people don't want to mix their models. I can't stand it when I see a table of mixed Primaris and squats now, it literally makes me feel ill. Primaris are lacking pretty much everything outside of the basic troop and character role, but design space is likely limited. So they splurged and mixed two units into one.
Here is the thing though, at least as I think about this.
What is the # of shots and S of this new gun? Why couldn't this lasercannon be S12+? Heavy D6? Heavy 4?
I've said this already, but:
It can't be Heavy 1d6 because the Plasmagun option that's already been established as the multi-target weapon is heavy 1d6, which is why that the best I'm expecting is Heavy 1d3.
In addition, it would have to be S14 or S16 for the appreciable increase in strength to matter vs S9, and even then, it doesn't really matter a whole lot in the grand scheme of things if it can't output an adequate amount of damage.
At Heavy 1d3, it needs to have at least 2d6 for it's damage roll to be considered to "break even" with the base Repulsor AT loadout, potentially marginally improved with AP4 or something. However, GW has been extremely skittish about giving anything higher than a 1d6 damage roll short of titantic weapons, to the detriment of tank hunter vehicles across the game.
The Newman wrote:@Ice-can: I'm pretty sure Fraser meant "FW Laser Destroyers consistently delete vehicles that don't have invulns", not "FW Laser Destroyers ignore invulns".
I think we can pretty safely assume that Grinding Advance isn't on the table, no Marine vehicle has that rule. We get Machine Spirit instead, and inconsistently at that.
Grinding Advance wouldn't even fit the Marine fluff all that well, no matter how much it would help the Predator and the Vindicator.
I wouldn't say it's off the table. It's not likely either, since the Repulsor is half-transport, but they could apply it if they're going for MBT. The Leman Russ didn't start with it, but GW observed that tank guns were not very good, having about the same effect as a Lascannon, and patched it in when the codex came out. The Predator could have had it, though first-codex strikes there, since there would have been no time for feedback. You can see that all over the SM codex, and SM derivatives haven't had any effort made to fix them because then they'd have to patch all the dataslates in like 9 books.
To some degree, MBT's that have one big tank gun have it, [Leman Russ, Fire Prisom, Gunwagon, Exocrine, Tyrannofex]. The Doomsday Ark and the Hammerhead are the exception, thought the Doomsday Cannon was flat increased from D3 to D6 shots with it's codex IIRC, and it already has a stationary fire mode. The hammerhead presumably lacks it because the Riptide has Nova-Charge, and Tau have gone all in on anime-robots.
The Repulsor could get it, since the Gunwagon is also half-transport, and it is similar to the rest of those in having one big gun in a turret mount rather than a giant cluster of bazookas strapped together. I wouldn't say it's a sure thing, though, just not off the table.
I'm hoping that it has a gun worthy of being a tank gun, and doesn't have Grinding Advance. That isn't going to happen though, so a crappy gun and Grinding Advance is the best we can hope for, especially given that we know the Plasma Cannon's stats.
Ice_can wrote:Grinding advance is a bad band aid solution that is downright broken on punisher commander Russes and makes every other tank look teribad.
A repulsor will have machine spirit, I dont see it having half the main weapon sats peopke are dreaming up, i suspect that it will be much like the normal one underwhelming but still playable.
I agree, Grinding Advance is a lame patch over the fact that GW initially released tank guns as being no more powerful than an infantry-carried shoulder-fired bazooka. Since that just doesn't work, and rather than fixing the problem by fixing the guns to perform more in line with how they should, they just figured that people wanted to use Leman Russes, so they'd path just that unit and move on.
Space Marines just aren't in a good spot at the moment due to the shakeup of Primaris.
Games Workshop was damned either way they did this. As I understand it, lots of people wanted true-scale marines.
Games Workshop was left with two choices: 1. Squat the entire existing line and release an entirely new line of models, tanks, characters and rules. 2. Hybrid the release of the new models, putting the entire faction into an awkward place. Neither choice was optimal, and we know which one they chose, likely based off the lessons learned from the re-branding and launch of AoS.
Now, in terms of this new forthcoming tank, we're faced again with two issues. Many people don't want to mix their models. I can't stand it when I see a table of mixed Primaris and squats now, it literally makes me feel ill. Primaris are lacking pretty much everything outside of the basic troop and character role, but design space is likely limited. So they splurged and mixed two units into one.
Here is the thing though, at least as I think about this.
What is the # of shots and S of this new gun? Why couldn't this lasercannon be S12+? Heavy D6? Heavy 4?
I've said this already, but:
It can't be Heavy 1d6 because the Plasmagun option that's already been established as the multi-target weapon is heavy 1d6, which is why that the best I'm expecting is Heavy 1d3.
In addition, it would have to be S14 or S16 for the appreciable increase in strength to matter vs S9, and even then, it doesn't really matter a whole lot in the grand scheme of things if it can't output an adequate amount of damage.
At Heavy 1d3, it needs to have at least 2d6 for it's damage roll to be considered to "break even" with the base Repulsor AT loadout, potentially marginally improved with AP4 or something. However, GW has been extremely skittish about giving anything higher than a 1d6 damage roll short of titantic weapons, to the detriment of tank hunter vehicles across the game.
Well, I'm just curious. Why can't both weapons be 1D6?
Well, I'm just curious. Why can't both weapons be 1D6?
Under the assumption that it's A: a sidegrade with a role [as opposed to a weak option and a strong option for the same role], B: the weapons are meaningfully different from each other, and C: because they implied that the plasma cannon would be for targeting heavy infantry and the laser destroyer would be for targeting tanks.
The Newman wrote:@Ice-can: I'm pretty sure Fraser meant "FW Laser Destroyers consistently delete vehicles that don't have invulns", not "FW Laser Destroyers ignore invulns".
I think we can pretty safely assume that Grinding Advance isn't on the table, no Marine vehicle has that rule. We get Machine Spirit instead, and inconsistently at that.
Grinding Advance wouldn't even fit the Marine fluff all that well, no matter how much it would help the Predator and the Vindicator.
I wouldn't say it's off the table. It's not likely either, since the Repulsor is half-transport, but they could apply it if they're going for MBT. The Leman Russ didn't start with it, but GW observed that tank guns were not very good, having about the same effect as a Lascannon, and patched it in when the codex came out. The Predator could have had it, though first-codex strikes there, since there would have been no time for feedback. You can see that all over the SM codex, and SM derivatives haven't had any effort made to fix them because then they'd have to patch all the dataslates in like 9 books.
To some degree, MBT's that have one big tank gun have it, [Leman Russ, Fire Prisom, Gunwagon, Exocrine, Tyrannofex]. The Doomsday Ark and the Hammerhead are the exception, thought the Doomsday Cannon was flat increased from D3 to D6 shots with it's codex IIRC, and it already has a stationary fire mode. The hammerhead presumably lacks it because the Riptide has Nova-Charge, and Tau have gone all in on anime-robots.
The Repulsor could get it, since the Gunwagon is also half-transport, and it is similar to the rest of those in having one big gun in a turret mount rather than a giant cluster of bazookas strapped together. I wouldn't say it's a sure thing, though, just not off the table.
I'm hoping that it has a gun worthy of being a tank gun, and doesn't have Grinding Advance. That isn't going to happen though, so a crappy gun and Grinding Advance is the best we can hope for, especially given that we know the Plasma Cannon's stats.
Ice_can wrote:Grinding advance is a bad band aid solution that is downright broken on punisher commander Russes and makes every other tank look teribad.
A repulsor will have machine spirit, I dont see it having half the main weapon sats peopke are dreaming up, i suspect that it will be much like the normal one underwhelming but still playable.
I agree, Grinding Advance is a lame patch over the fact that GW initially released tank guns as being no more powerful than an infantry-carried shoulder-fired bazooka. Since that just doesn't work, and rather than fixing the problem by fixing the guns to perform more in line with how they should, they just figured that people wanted to use Leman Russes, so they'd path just that unit and move on.
Space Marines just aren't in a good spot at the moment due to the shakeup of Primaris.
Games Workshop was damned either way they did this. As I understand it, lots of people wanted true-scale marines.
Games Workshop was left with two choices: 1. Squat the entire existing line and release an entirely new line of models, tanks, characters and rules. 2. Hybrid the release of the new models, putting the entire faction into an awkward place. Neither choice was optimal, and we know which one they chose, likely based off the lessons learned from the re-branding and launch of AoS.
Now, in terms of this new forthcoming tank, we're faced again with two issues. Many people don't want to mix their models. I can't stand it when I see a table of mixed Primaris and squats now, it literally makes me feel ill. Primaris are lacking pretty much everything outside of the basic troop and character role, but design space is likely limited. So they splurged and mixed two units into one.
Here is the thing though, at least as I think about this.
What is the # of shots and S of this new gun? Why couldn't this lasercannon be S12+? Heavy D6? Heavy 4?
I've said this already, but:
It can't be Heavy 1d6 because the Plasmagun option that's already been established as the multi-target weapon is heavy 1d6, which is why that the best I'm expecting is Heavy 1d3.
In addition, it would have to be S14 or S16 for the appreciable increase in strength to matter vs S9, and even then, it doesn't really matter a whole lot in the grand scheme of things if it can't output an adequate amount of damage.
At Heavy 1d3, it needs to have at least 2d6 for it's damage roll to be considered to "break even" with the base Repulsor AT loadout, potentially marginally improved with AP4 or something. However, GW has been extremely skittish about giving anything higher than a 1d6 damage roll short of titantic weapons, to the detriment of tank hunter vehicles across the game.
It's not just that they are tenative about handing out more than d6 damage. Quite often the anti heavy infantry option is the best version at killing tanks too. Leading to useless weapon choices like the LR vanquisher and the tau rail gun. I think you really put the hammer on the nail when you said that str needs to go up drastically on these weapons.
For example a railgun should probably be like heavy 1 with str 14-16 and do min 6 damage on 2d6 dice. That is the kinda of profile I'd like to see on the laser destroyer. Plus then an additional rule weapons like this need is a specuial rule "Saves can not be rerolled vs this weapon"
The Newman wrote:@Ice-can: I'm pretty sure Fraser meant "FW Laser Destroyers consistently delete vehicles that don't have invulns", not "FW Laser Destroyers ignore invulns".
I think we can pretty safely assume that Grinding Advance isn't on the table, no Marine vehicle has that rule. We get Machine Spirit instead, and inconsistently at that.
Grinding Advance wouldn't even fit the Marine fluff all that well, no matter how much it would help the Predator and the Vindicator.
I wouldn't say it's off the table. It's not likely either, since the Repulsor is half-transport, but they could apply it if they're going for MBT. The Leman Russ didn't start with it, but GW observed that tank guns were not very good, having about the same effect as a Lascannon, and patched it in when the codex came out. The Predator could have had it, though first-codex strikes there, since there would have been no time for feedback. You can see that all over the SM codex, and SM derivatives haven't had any effort made to fix them because then they'd have to patch all the dataslates in like 9 books.
To some degree, MBT's that have one big tank gun have it, [Leman Russ, Fire Prisom, Gunwagon, Exocrine, Tyrannofex]. The Doomsday Ark and the Hammerhead are the exception, thought the Doomsday Cannon was flat increased from D3 to D6 shots with it's codex IIRC, and it already has a stationary fire mode. The hammerhead presumably lacks it because the Riptide has Nova-Charge, and Tau have gone all in on anime-robots.
The Repulsor could get it, since the Gunwagon is also half-transport, and it is similar to the rest of those in having one big gun in a turret mount rather than a giant cluster of bazookas strapped together. I wouldn't say it's a sure thing, though, just not off the table.
I'm hoping that it has a gun worthy of being a tank gun, and doesn't have Grinding Advance. That isn't going to happen though, so a crappy gun and Grinding Advance is the best we can hope for, especially given that we know the Plasma Cannon's stats.
Ice_can wrote:Grinding advance is a bad band aid solution that is downright broken on punisher commander Russes and makes every other tank look teribad.
A repulsor will have machine spirit, I dont see it having half the main weapon sats peopke are dreaming up, i suspect that it will be much like the normal one underwhelming but still playable.
I agree, Grinding Advance is a lame patch over the fact that GW initially released tank guns as being no more powerful than an infantry-carried shoulder-fired bazooka. Since that just doesn't work, and rather than fixing the problem by fixing the guns to perform more in line with how they should, they just figured that people wanted to use Leman Russes, so they'd path just that unit and move on.
Space Marines just aren't in a good spot at the moment due to the shakeup of Primaris.
Games Workshop was damned either way they did this. As I understand it, lots of people wanted true-scale marines.
Games Workshop was left with two choices: 1. Squat the entire existing line and release an entirely new line of models, tanks, characters and rules. 2. Hybrid the release of the new models, putting the entire faction into an awkward place. Neither choice was optimal, and we know which one they chose, likely based off the lessons learned from the re-branding and launch of AoS.
Now, in terms of this new forthcoming tank, we're faced again with two issues. Many people don't want to mix their models. I can't stand it when I see a table of mixed Primaris and squats now, it literally makes me feel ill. Primaris are lacking pretty much everything outside of the basic troop and character role, but design space is likely limited. So they splurged and mixed two units into one.
Here is the thing though, at least as I think about this.
What is the # of shots and S of this new gun? Why couldn't this lasercannon be S12+? Heavy D6? Heavy 4?
I've said this already, but:
It can't be Heavy 1d6 because the Plasmagun option that's already been established as the multi-target weapon is heavy 1d6, which is why that the best I'm expecting is Heavy 1d3.
In addition, it would have to be S14 or S16 for the appreciable increase in strength to matter vs S9, and even then, it doesn't really matter a whole lot in the grand scheme of things if it can't output an adequate amount of damage.
At Heavy 1d3, it needs to have at least 2d6 for it's damage roll to be considered to "break even" with the base Repulsor AT loadout, potentially marginally improved with AP4 or something. However, GW has been extremely skittish about giving anything higher than a 1d6 damage roll short of titantic weapons, to the detriment of tank hunter vehicles across the game.
It's not just that they are tenative about handing out more than d6 damage. Quite often the anti heavy infantry option is the best version at killing tanks too. Leading to useless weapon choices like the LR vanquisher and the tau rail gun. I think you really put the hammer on the nail when you said that str needs to go up drastically on these weapons.
For example a railgun should probably be like heavy 1 with str 14-16 and do min 6 damage on 2d6 dice. That is the kinda of profile I'd like to see on the laser destroyer. Plus then an additional rule weapons like this need is a specuial rule "Saves can not be rerolled vs this weapon"
The problem with your railgun proposal is saturation then. Whilst I do tend to agree a railgun should feasibly be able to one shot a predator... Tau can field a hell of a lot of them, at which point you end up being back to 7th edition and prior where heavy weapons can easily one shot a tank and they are no longer useful again. For heavy railgun maybe? Where there are only so many opportunities to field them.
I much prefer a move to semi-randomness damage for anti-tank vehicles as we have started to see, D6 damage with a minimum of 3 (or just 3 + D3), I'd allow for high strength though so there's more chance of being able to wound on 2's etc, mainly because it's not my opinion that unreliable damage is the true issue, it's the hit and wound rolls that cause more pain for anti-tank than anything.
The Newman wrote:@Ice-can: I'm pretty sure Fraser meant "FW Laser Destroyers consistently delete vehicles that don't have invulns", not "FW Laser Destroyers ignore invulns".
I think we can pretty safely assume that Grinding Advance isn't on the table, no Marine vehicle has that rule. We get Machine Spirit instead, and inconsistently at that.
Grinding Advance wouldn't even fit the Marine fluff all that well, no matter how much it would help the Predator and the Vindicator.
I wouldn't say it's off the table. It's not likely either, since the Repulsor is half-transport, but they could apply it if they're going for MBT. The Leman Russ didn't start with it, but GW observed that tank guns were not very good, having about the same effect as a Lascannon, and patched it in when the codex came out. The Predator could have had it, though first-codex strikes there, since there would have been no time for feedback. You can see that all over the SM codex, and SM derivatives haven't had any effort made to fix them because then they'd have to patch all the dataslates in like 9 books.
To some degree, MBT's that have one big tank gun have it, [Leman Russ, Fire Prisom, Gunwagon, Exocrine, Tyrannofex]. The Doomsday Ark and the Hammerhead are the exception, thought the Doomsday Cannon was flat increased from D3 to D6 shots with it's codex IIRC, and it already has a stationary fire mode. The hammerhead presumably lacks it because the Riptide has Nova-Charge, and Tau have gone all in on anime-robots.
The Repulsor could get it, since the Gunwagon is also half-transport, and it is similar to the rest of those in having one big gun in a turret mount rather than a giant cluster of bazookas strapped together. I wouldn't say it's a sure thing, though, just not off the table.
I'm hoping that it has a gun worthy of being a tank gun, and doesn't have Grinding Advance. That isn't going to happen though, so a crappy gun and Grinding Advance is the best we can hope for, especially given that we know the Plasma Cannon's stats.
Ice_can wrote:Grinding advance is a bad band aid solution that is downright broken on punisher commander Russes and makes every other tank look teribad.
A repulsor will have machine spirit, I dont see it having half the main weapon sats peopke are dreaming up, i suspect that it will be much like the normal one underwhelming but still playable.
I agree, Grinding Advance is a lame patch over the fact that GW initially released tank guns as being no more powerful than an infantry-carried shoulder-fired bazooka. Since that just doesn't work, and rather than fixing the problem by fixing the guns to perform more in line with how they should, they just figured that people wanted to use Leman Russes, so they'd path just that unit and move on.
Space Marines just aren't in a good spot at the moment due to the shakeup of Primaris.
Games Workshop was damned either way they did this. As I understand it, lots of people wanted true-scale marines.
Games Workshop was left with two choices: 1. Squat the entire existing line and release an entirely new line of models, tanks, characters and rules. 2. Hybrid the release of the new models, putting the entire faction into an awkward place. Neither choice was optimal, and we know which one they chose, likely based off the lessons learned from the re-branding and launch of AoS.
Now, in terms of this new forthcoming tank, we're faced again with two issues. Many people don't want to mix their models. I can't stand it when I see a table of mixed Primaris and squats now, it literally makes me feel ill. Primaris are lacking pretty much everything outside of the basic troop and character role, but design space is likely limited. So they splurged and mixed two units into one.
Here is the thing though, at least as I think about this.
What is the # of shots and S of this new gun? Why couldn't this lasercannon be S12+? Heavy D6? Heavy 4?
I've said this already, but:
It can't be Heavy 1d6 because the Plasmagun option that's already been established as the multi-target weapon is heavy 1d6, which is why that the best I'm expecting is Heavy 1d3.
In addition, it would have to be S14 or S16 for the appreciable increase in strength to matter vs S9, and even then, it doesn't really matter a whole lot in the grand scheme of things if it can't output an adequate amount of damage.
At Heavy 1d3, it needs to have at least 2d6 for it's damage roll to be considered to "break even" with the base Repulsor AT loadout, potentially marginally improved with AP4 or something. However, GW has been extremely skittish about giving anything higher than a 1d6 damage roll short of titantic weapons, to the detriment of tank hunter vehicles across the game.
It's not just that they are tenative about handing out more than d6 damage. Quite often the anti heavy infantry option is the best version at killing tanks too. Leading to useless weapon choices like the LR vanquisher and the tau rail gun. I think you really put the hammer on the nail when you said that str needs to go up drastically on these weapons.
For example a railgun should probably be like heavy 1 with str 14-16 and do min 6 damage on 2d6 dice. That is the kinda of profile I'd like to see on the laser destroyer. Plus then an additional rule weapons like this need is a specuial rule "Saves can not be rerolled vs this weapon"
I actually think that resetting the toughness of the vehicle classes would be a simple change than amping up the guns:
Tracked, Wheeled, and Hover Heavy Tanks [Land Raiders, Baneblades] at T9
Tracked, Wheeled, and Hover Medium Tanks [Leman Russes, Predators], and Heavy Walkers [Knights] at T8
Tracked, Wheeled, and Hover Light Tanks [Rhinos, Chimerae], and Medium Walkers [Dreadnoughts] at T7
Light Vehicles [Sentinel, Tauros, Venom] at T6
The problem for the Railgun and Demolisher, and other high-S weapons, is that there's basically no difference between S8-9 and S14-16. Going from 8-9 and 14-16 matters a little bit because of Knights and Leman Russes, but it's not a big enough deal. The problem for Meltas is that since they're no more likely to do damage, and their damage roll isn't higher, Plasmaguns are more reliable, for the same performance and cheaper.
Armourbane could be realized as S x2, making them able to wound medium and heavy armor on 2's and 3's versus a plasmagun's 4 and 5.
Then, finally, tank guns would need their profiles revisteded. 2d6 damage, [or better, 2d6 doesn't break even for potential, but breaks even on average, with a single-fired Battle Cannon], for the Vanquisher and Railcannon, plus potentially "Headshot"-like effect [it has to be chaining MW's or more than 1MW, because the 1MW on a 6 basically never matters for a tank].
They introduced this high range and failed to capitalize on it, chosing instead too apparently differentiate heavy tanks from other tanks by their vulnerability to small arms, because that's totally what separates a Abrams from a Bradley: the ability for an AK-47 to penetrate it.
The problem with your railgun proposal is saturation then. Whilst I do tend to agree a railgun should feasibly be able to one shot a predator... Tau can field a hell of a lot of them, at which point you end up being back to 7th edition and prior where heavy weapons can easily one shot a tank and they are no longer useful again. For heavy railgun maybe? Where there are only so many opportunities to field them.
I much prefer a move to semi-randomness damage for anti-tank vehicles as we have started to see, D6 damage with a minimum of 3 (or just 3 + D3), I'd allow for high strength though so there's more chance of being able to wound on 2's etc, mainly because it's not my opinion that unreliable damage is the true issue, it's the hit and wound rolls that cause more pain for anti-tank than anything.
I don't see a particularly massive problem. Making big holes in tanks is what tank weapons are for, and with a singe shot it won't be doing much else.
There's also design space for saves better than 2+, which tanks could have to represent heavier armor and provide a measure of resistance to AT weapons. A Predator could be T8 Sv2+, giving a solid level of resistance to light AT weapons but not so much against tank-mounted tank-breaking guns, while a Leman Russ could be T8 with a 1+ or 0+ save, representing the heavy frontal armor that'll still work sometimes against the big guns. A Land Raider could be T9 Sv 0+, impressively resistant to most forms of fire.
Maybe add an extra mechanic to weapons where they do extra wounds, or get extra AP when they double the T of their target? Then having something like a str 18 or higher weapon would make sense.
But maybe am wrong I don't know if adding +1 to Damage, when doubling T, wouldnt break the game for infantry. Maybe it should work only for guns with a specific trait like anti tank or anti armour. There could even be two types, maybe MM would be +1 to damge and lascanons would have extra -AP, or something like that.
Simply put GW will not allow 1+ or 0+ saves in 8th edition because it has wierd interactions see looted armour mega nobs.
The rwal issue is they wanted to make everything wound everything hence the flat as to wound chart. They really needed to go way bigger with the spread of Strength and Toughness values.
A custode on bike being T6 2+4++and a Tourox being T6 3+ highlights the issue you, can't differentiate AT weapons from anti heavy infantry when they have almost identical defensive stats
S Triple your targets T 2+ reroll 1's
S double targets T 2+
Strength more than T 3+
Strength equal T 4+
Toughness more than S 5+
Toughness double S 6+
Toughness tripple S need the old 7+ roll 6+ then 4+
Could go to 8+, 9+ if needed
Ice_can wrote: Simply put GW will not allow 1+ or 0+ saves in 8th edition because it has wierd interactions see looted armour mega nobs.
The rwal issue is they wanted to make everything wound everything hence the flat as to wound chart. They really needed to go way bigger with the spread of Strength and Toughness values.
A custode on bike being T6 2+4++and a Tourox being T6 3+ highlights the issue you, can't differentiate AT weapons from anti heavy infantry when they have almost identical defensive stats
S Triple your targets T 2+ reroll 1's
S double targets T 2+
Strength more than T 3+
Strength equal T 4+
Toughness more than S 5+
Toughness double S 6+
Toughness tripple S need the old 7+ roll 6+ then 4+
Could go to 8+, 9+ if needed
How about a lemon russ gets a 3+ save but on 2D6 then instead.
Maybe have it that tanks have a class keyword, some get standard 1D6 (light vehicle) some get 2D3 or 1D6 + 1D3 (medium battle tank), some get 2D6 (heavy and super heavy battle tank/walker).
I’d then change invulnerable saves on vehicles to reduce ap by 1 or 2 depending. So a -4 becomes a -3 for a comtemptor, -2 for a knight.
Of course it would be easier to have d10, d12 and d20 for vehicles but that’s asking a lot then.
Ice_can wrote: Simply put GW will not allow 1+ or 0+ saves in 8th edition because it has wierd interactions see looted armour mega nobs.
The rwal issue is they wanted to make everything wound everything hence the flat as to wound chart. They really needed to go way bigger with the spread of Strength and Toughness values.
A custode on bike being T6 2+4++and a Tourox being T6 3+ highlights the issue you, can't differentiate AT weapons from anti heavy infantry when they have almost identical defensive stats
S Triple your targets T 2+ reroll 1's
S double targets T 2+
Strength more than T 3+
Strength equal T 4+
Toughness more than S 5+
Toughness double S 6+
Toughness tripple S need the old 7+ roll 6+ then 4+
Could go to 8+, 9+ if needed
How about a lemon russ gets a 3+ save but on 2D6 then instead.
Maybe have it that tanks have a class keyword, some get standard 1D6 (light vehicle) some get 2D3 or 1D6 + 1D3 (medium battle tank), some get 2D6 (heavy and super heavy battle tank/walker).
I’d then change invulnerable saves on vehicles to reduce ap by 1 or 2 depending. So a -4 becomes a -3 for a comtemptor, -2 for a knight.
Of course it would be easier to have d10, d12 and d20 for vehicles but that’s asking a lot then.
Ah bit like second edition that with d everything's and AP of d6+2d8 or D6+D20+D8
Really thou infantry should be all of T1 to T10 and tanks T11 to T20
Are repulsors competitive? Are Primaris competitive?
Someone made it to top 8 of LVO with 2 and Gulliman and 3 predators
Ehhh - If the list goes first it has a good chance to blow up most of the threats to the repulsors. Still though...vs shinning spears and Castellans and Tzangor bombs (this is basically the only thing I saw at LVO) you couldn't possibly take a worse army.
Repulsors can fly, -2 to charges, and carry plenty of anti-infantry fire power. With Bobby nearby to intervene I don't think you're getting spectacularly far with melee.
Rereading my comment it comes off a bit snide not really my intention.
But I agree for the most part that any list with repulsors has to go first to stand a chance, and I find I need a librarian to buff one to T9.
I'm hoping that in SM 2.0 they buff the chassis with either rules or point drips. (but I find this highly unlikely since Chaos got a new book and not much changed, marines are still 13ppm so I don't see Primaris dropping more)
As for the heavy laser destroyer, going off of the forgeworld laser destroyers barring invulns then the Executioner will be able to point and delete a vehicle. Just depends on what Heavy does to the weapon, like extra damage or strength or shots
Yeah, if we get a Laser Destroyer that is D3 shots and does an average of 2D6 damage per shot like a FW Destroyer, that's gonna be scary. In that case the gun will probably also cost as much as a Thermal Cannon though.
I really like the laser destroyer on my rapier and it has helped more than once on the tabletop. it's only downside is mobility, while it is easier to "hide" in cover, cover rules currently suck.
If I could have those stats with the mobility of a hover tank it would allow for more creative deployment/movement/use. Having the ability to flank a target, dump aggressors out and open up with dedicated anti-tank would be great.
Yeah, if we get a Laser Destroyer that is D3 shots and does an average of 2D6 damage per shot like a FW Destroyer, that's gonna be scary. In that case the gun will probably also cost as much as a Thermal Cannon though.
It's not really that scary. That's basically what the Repulsor does right now, with 4 shots, hitting on 3's, wounding on 3's, and doing D6 each.
This is why I feel like pointing out that a Railcannon or Vanquisher cannon should be doing 2d6or more base, probably more, because, for example, a singly-fired Vanquisher Gun dealing 2d6 damage would actually just come close to breaking even [sort of, it's much less reliable and lacks the high-end potential, so it still doesn't actually break even] as a singly-fired Battle Cannon.
In addition, there are 1+ saves in the game, on the new Vanguard Eliminators and Characters, who have 3+ armor and +2 to their save for being in cover. I think it's pretty simple to handle.
Yeah, if we get a Laser Destroyer that is D3 shots and does an average of 2D6 damage per shot like a FW Destroyer, that's gonna be scary. In that case the gun will probably also cost as much as a Thermal Cannon though.
It's not really that scary. That's basically what the Repulsor does right now, with 4 shots, hitting on 3's, wounding on 3's, and doing D6 each.
This is why I feel like pointing out that a Railcannon or Vanquisher cannon should be doing 2d6or more base, probably more, because, for example, a singly-fired Vanquisher Gun dealing 2d6 damage would actually just come close to breaking even [sort of, it's much less reliable and lacks the high-end potential, so it still doesn't actually break even] as a singly-fired Battle Cannon.
In addition, there are 1+ saves in the game, on the new Vanguard Eliminators and Characters, who have 3+ armor and +2 to their save for being in cover. I think it's pretty simple to handle.
The laser destroyer is S12 AP-4 though and has 36" range, which gives a 12" advantage over the normal version (because Lastalon is only 24").
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: If a vanquisher does 2D6, that might be too much. I'd say rather flat D6.
Flat 6 really is a lot better than 2d6 in most situations. The number of units are you will automatically kill without even rolling is so high that an average 1 damage higher is still significantly worse because your chance of failure on kills on a lot of units. Realistically I like 2d6 better for anti tank weapons because you have the chance to 1 shot things but most of the time you wont.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: If a vanquisher does 2D6, that might be too much. I'd say rather flat D6.
Flat 6 really is a lot better than 2d6 in most situations. The number of units are you will automatically kill without even rolling is so high that an average 1 damage higher is still significantly worse because your chance of failure on kills on a lot of units. Realistically I like 2d6 better for anti tank weapons because you have the chance to 1 shot things but most of the time you wont.
Right, but you have to remember Russes shoot twice. So now you are talking 4D6, and you are potentially one-shotting things with 24 wounds....
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: If a vanquisher does 2D6, that might be too much. I'd say rather flat D6.
Flat 6 really is a lot better than 2d6 in most situations. The number of units are you will automatically kill without even rolling is so high that an average 1 damage higher is still significantly worse because your chance of failure on kills on a lot of units. Realistically I like 2d6 better for anti tank weapons because you have the chance to 1 shot things but most of the time you wont.
Right, but you have to remember Russes shoot twice. So now you are talking 4D6, and you are potentially one-shotting things with 24 wounds....
Yeah or automatically 1 shotting russes if you get 2 wounds through. It's like the dang sereptec contruct the crons just got. It's guns do flat 6 and they are so devastating. OFC it's getting 2d3 shots with it too.
My point is, Vanqs have a Vanq cannon, not a Baneblade Cannon. I am fine never touching Vanqs again. Hell, the regular Russ cannon is amazeballs at Anti-tank as is.
I am honestly confused why GW is all the sudden:
"VEHHECKLES!!! LOOK AT ALL DA SHINEY VEHHECKLES!!"
I mean, dollars, but still. I see more people buying Elites than Heavies. 8th just isn't very heavy friendly. Superheavy, sure, but not vanilla heavy.
And just to throw more sand in the gears, if the Heavy Laser Destroyer actually is a goot anti-tank weapon then it's adding to 40k's current lethality problem.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: If a vanquisher does 2D6, that might be too much. I'd say rather flat D6.
Flat 6 isn't good, because while it does one-shot small things without question, I feel like the potential of a high roll to wreck vehicles is important for the heavy AT guns. Fixed medium damage would be good for HE guns, like the Demolisher or the Battle Cannon, but not for the heavy antitank guns.
2d6 on the Railcannon and Vanquisher gun are fairly reasonable, [if still too low]. A 150 point Vanquisher currently gets 2d6 potential damage to vehicles. Increasing that to 4d6 potential damage would bring it to still worse than the Battle Tank. And even with improved S [which it also needs] it's not going to step on the toes of the Shadowsword, which is 425 points and had 3d3 shots for 2d6 [that's an average of 12d6 potential damage]
Anyway, back to the Repulsor... most of the speculated "ideal" stats just break even\ with what it currently does. I don't realistically see a window, barring something really unprecedented or unexpected, that leads to this thing exacerbating the issue of firepower vs. toughness.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: If a vanquisher does 2D6, that might be too much. I'd say rather flat D6.
Flat 6 isn't good, because while it does one-shot small things without question, I feel like the potential of a high roll to wreck vehicles is important for the heavy AT guns. Fixed medium damage would be good for HE guns, like the Demolisher or the Battle Cannon, but not for the heavy antitank guns.
2d6 on the Railcannon and Vanquisher gun are fairly reasonable, [if still too low]. A 150 point Vanquisher currently gets 2d6 potential damage to vehicles. Increasing that to 4d6 potential damage would bring it to still worse than the Battle Tank. And even with improved S [which it also needs] it's not going to step on the toes of the Shadowsword, which is 425 points and had 3d3 shots for 2d6 [that's an average of 12d6 potential damage]
Anyway, back to the Repulsor... most of the speculated "ideal" stats just break even\ with what it currently does. I don't realistically see a window, barring something really unprecedented or unexpected, that leads to this thing exacerbating the issue of firepower vs. toughness.
You've indirectly hit the nail on the head the current Battlecannon Russ is just too good at anti armour than it should be. Not to mention that 8th core mechanics follow the logic of more dice = better always.
Also GW allowing Blast weapons to hit single models repeatedly also eclipsed the design space for single shot high damage weapons with multi shot medium damage weapons.
You've indirectly hit the nail on the head the current Battlecannon Russ is just too good at anti armour than it should be. Not to mention that 8th core mechanics follow the logic of more dice = better always.
Also GW allowing Blast weapons to hit single models repeatedly also eclipsed the design space for single shot high damage weapons with multi shot medium damage weapons.
I actually feel the Battle Cannon on the Leman Russ feels mostly close to about right. Tank guns should be tank guns worthy of being mounted on tanks, and appreciably more powerful than a shoulder-fired light gun, and a Battle Cannon with Grinding Advance is somewhat more than twice as effective as a Lascannon, which is about where it should be. The AT versions need to be appreciably better, because a Vanquisher gun is basically just a worse lascannon right now, whereas it's supposed to be appreciably better than 2 Lascannons.
As far as eclipsing the design space, that's just because they seem to be fixated on nothing having more than 1d6 damage short of a titanic weapon. As I've already pointed out 3 times, a Shadowsword has 3d3 shots for 2d6 damage on a 424 point platform, a Railcannon or Vanquisher wouldn't remotely step on it's toes if they had 2d6, or even higher, damage.
As a random thought, legit towed AT guns would be cool to have in this game.
You've indirectly hit the nail on the head the current Battlecannon Russ is just too good at anti armour than it should be. Not to mention that 8th core mechanics follow the logic of more dice = better always.
Also GW allowing Blast weapons to hit single models repeatedly also eclipsed the design space for single shot high damage weapons with multi shot medium damage weapons.
I actually feel the Battle Cannon on the Leman Russ feels mostly close to about right. Tank guns should be tank guns worthy of being mounted on tanks, and appreciably more powerful than a shoulder-fired light gun, and a Battle Cannon with Grinding Advance is somewhat more than twice as effective as a Lascannon, which is about where it should be. The AT versions need to be appreciably better, because a Vanquisher gun is basically just a worse lascannon right now, whereas it's supposed to be appreciably better than 2 Lascannons.
As far as eclipsing the design space, that's just because they seem to be fixated on nothing having more than 1d6 damage short of a titanic weapon. As I've already pointed out 3 times, a Shadowsword has 3d3 shots for 2d6 damage on a 424 point platform, a Railcannon or Vanquisher wouldn't remotely step on it's toes if they had 2d6, or even higher, damage.
As a random thought, legit towed AT guns would be cool to have in this game.
I'm not saying that removing grinding advance would fix a russ, but it would highlight to GW the massive issue they have with their over crowding of design space.
So we get a proper fix that makes everyones MBT's viable and not just the generalist weapons into the kings of anti armour etc, the fact that a BC russ outshoots against armour a quad lascannon or vanquisher tank hunter loadout is a problem.
Also the band aid lead to a punisher with grinding advance, which is so unbalanced, no model should be throwing 50 something shots out for sub 170 points, maybe it didnt have enough base but the correction went too far.
The band aid they threw at IG has left most other factions MBT's lacklustre performance at best in comparison.
I would submit the Russ and all it's variants needs a re-do. Right now there are 7? And they all pretty much suck compared to the do all battle cannon? I mean the Punisher is the Punisher, but still.
We don't need the Nova cannon, the demo cannon, the Auto cannon, the plasma cannon, the Vanquisher cannon....It should just be the battle cannon and the Punisher. And revise both of those...I don't even want to go into the FW stuff.
You've indirectly hit the nail on the head the current Battlecannon Russ is just too good at anti armour than it should be. Not to mention that 8th core mechanics follow the logic of more dice = better always.
Also GW allowing Blast weapons to hit single models repeatedly also eclipsed the design space for single shot high damage weapons with multi shot medium damage weapons.
I actually feel the Battle Cannon on the Leman Russ feels mostly close to about right. Tank guns should be tank guns worthy of being mounted on tanks, and appreciably more powerful than a shoulder-fired light gun, and a Battle Cannon with Grinding Advance is somewhat more than twice as effective as a Lascannon, which is about where it should be. The AT versions need to be appreciably better, because a Vanquisher gun is basically just a worse lascannon right now, whereas it's supposed to be appreciably better than 2 Lascannons.
As far as eclipsing the design space, that's just because they seem to be fixated on nothing having more than 1d6 damage short of a titanic weapon. As I've already pointed out 3 times, a Shadowsword has 3d3 shots for 2d6 damage on a 424 point platform, a Railcannon or Vanquisher wouldn't remotely step on it's toes if they had 2d6, or even higher, damage.
As a random thought, legit towed AT guns would be cool to have in this game.
I'm not saying that removing grinding advance would fix a russ, but it would highlight to GW the massive issue they have with their over crowding of design space.
So we get a proper fix that makes everyones MBT's viable and not just the generalist weapons into the kings of anti armour etc, the fact that a BC russ outshoots against armour a quad lascannon or vanquisher tank hunter loadout is a problem.
Also the band aid lead to a punisher with grinding advance, which is so unbalanced, no model should be throwing 50 something shots out for sub 170 points, maybe it didnt have enough base but the correction went too far.
The band aid they threw at IG has left most other factions MBT's lacklustre performance at best in comparison.
Grinding Advance is a bad solution to the fact that the battle cannon is intrinsically terrible as a tank gun, since it's not appreciably more dangerous than something that can be carted around by an infantry dude. Unfortunately, Grinding Advance addresses the problem at the top level: that virtually all the actual tank guns GW implemented suck badly in their original incarnation, because somebody on initial release decided that infantry-carried light AT weapons and their ilk should be counted as among the more effective antitank option [short form: lascannons are little guns in the world of Battle Cannons, Prism Lasers, and Demolishers]. And rather than addressing the problem at the source, they added an ability to double-fire the gun to the Leman Russ, Fire Prism, [and Gunwagon]. However, that's neither here nor there, because we're talking about tank breakers.
And the problem carried down. Because GW decided that, short of a Titan, as Lascannon or Missile Launcher would be a "good gun", and therefore that the Railcannon and Vanquisher gun would still do 1d6 damage, while multishot weapons could easily eclipse that because nobody thought about it in comparison. It's not necessarily that the multishot weapons are more efficient because they're multishot, it's that no single shot weapon does more than D6+1, while multishot weapons can easily have 4 to 10+ shots for multiple damage each. If a Vanquisher did 2d6 damage, it would "break even" with a Battle Cannon in terms of average out, and if it did 3d6, or 2d6+Headshot, or something like that, it would be a better tank breaker.
Then there's the Railcannon, which is an even better example of the problem where GW just didn't stop and think about what an AT gun should be capable of, and the kinds of things it would shoot at. It does a mortal wound when it rolls a 6; which, when you think about it, is meaningless to any of its targets, a poor ability for something that's supposed to be the second most, or most, devastating tank-mounted AT gun in the GW line. It should be something like Headshot or the Thundercoil Harpoon's extra D3, which helps to cinch a kill or at least a degrade against a vehicle crippled by the main gun.
I think we're agreeing for the most part.
My only concer with going straight to giving things like railguns and vanquishers 2D6 or 3D6 damage is that they become able to oneshot vehicals without invulnerable saves at a rediculous rate and we go back to having medium Vehicals without invulnerable saves vanish from tables like they did against CP rage raven Castellen.
Now if vehicals had way more wounds that would be less of an issue and would expand the design space for MEW/TEQ killing weapons which arn't automatically destroying tanks as well.
While pointing AT weapons at infantry would be blatantly obvious overkill.
Ice_can wrote: I think we're agreeing for the most part.
My only concer with going straight to giving things like railguns and vanquishers 2D6 or 3D6 damage is that they become able to oneshot vehicals without invulnerable saves at a rediculous rate and we go back to having medium Vehicals without invulnerable saves vanish from tables like they did against CP rage raven Castellen.
Now if vehicals had way more wounds that would be less of an issue and would expand the design space for MEW/TEQ killing weapons which arn't automatically destroying tanks as well.
While pointing AT weapons at infantry would be blatantly obvious overkill.
There is 1 solution to this problem. Give all vehicals invo saves (because the weapons that get shot at them almost always ignore armor) Or remove invo saves across the board on a large variety of units.
Ice_can wrote: I think we're agreeing for the most part.
My only concer with going straight to giving things like railguns and vanquishers 2D6 or 3D6 damage is that they become able to oneshot vehicals without invulnerable saves at a rediculous rate and we go back to having medium Vehicals without invulnerable saves vanish from tables like they did against CP rage raven Castellen.
Now if vehicals had way more wounds that would be less of an issue and would expand the design space for MEW/TEQ killing weapons which arn't automatically destroying tanks as well.
While pointing AT weapons at infantry would be blatantly obvious overkill.
There is 1 solution to this problem. Give all vehicals invo saves (because the weapons that get shot at them almost always ignore armor) Or remove invo saves across the board on a large variety of units.
Well, alternatively, give them 2+, 1+ and 0+ armor saves. That way, the relative penetrative difference between a Missile Launcher and a Meltagun is important in your selection of AT weapons, and AP isn't meaningless, and vehicle armor isn't also meaningless.
Ice_can wrote: I think we're agreeing for the most part.
My only concer with going straight to giving things like railguns and vanquishers 2D6 or 3D6 damage is that they become able to oneshot vehicals without invulnerable saves at a rediculous rate and we go back to having medium Vehicals without invulnerable saves vanish from tables like they did against CP rage raven Castellen.
Now if vehicals had way more wounds that would be less of an issue and would expand the design space for MEW/TEQ killing weapons which arn't automatically destroying tanks as well.
While pointing AT weapons at infantry would be blatantly obvious overkill.
There is 1 solution to this problem. Give all vehicals invo saves (because the weapons that get shot at them almost always ignore armor) Or remove invo saves across the board on a large variety of units.
Well, alternatively, give them 2+, 1+ and 0+ armor saves. That way, the relative penetrative difference between a Missile Launcher and a Meltagun is important in your selection of AT weapons, and AP isn't meaningless, and vehicle armor isn't also meaningless.
Personally I'd prefer a game where there were no Invo saves - or at least where invo saves are really rare. Then we could go to a system like you are proposing. It would be a lot easier to balance the game when all the stats you pay for have actual value in game.
Ice_can wrote: I think we're agreeing for the most part.
My only concer with going straight to giving things like railguns and vanquishers 2D6 or 3D6 damage is that they become able to oneshot vehicals without invulnerable saves at a rediculous rate and we go back to having medium Vehicals without invulnerable saves vanish from tables like they did against CP rage raven Castellen.
Now if vehicals had way more wounds that would be less of an issue and would expand the design space for MEW/TEQ killing weapons which arn't automatically destroying tanks as well.
While pointing AT weapons at infantry would be blatantly obvious overkill.
Here's the thing:
A hypothetical Repulsor Executioner with a gun that does 2 shots for 2d6 damage wouldn't actually have a higher average, potential, or chance to 1-shot any vehicle than a current repulsor with 4 shots for 1d6 [which is why that, considering it lost transport capacity for this big gun, I hope it does a little more than that]
A Vanquisher or Railcannon with 2d6 damage wouldn't have higher average damage than a Twinlas, or a Battle Cannon [though it would still be markedly worse, but there's a lot of things to fix about the existing big AT guns]
The game already takes too long for all the shooting rules. # of shots rolls, re rolls, hit rolls, re rolls, wound rolls, re rolls, save rolls, re rolls, invuln rolls, re rolls, FNP rolls, re rolls, damage rolls., then do it all again twice for the charge phase and the melee phase.
I like the idea of removing invuln saves. It would nerf psyker heavy armies like 1kSons though, because they rely on mortal wounds. Or remove FNP. But as is there are too many re-rolls, and invulns play a big part of that.
As for the Repulsor, if it's getting the damage potential that some people are throwing around here, this is getting into DBZ levels of power scaling ridiculousness. There are entire armies that were designed around the capabilities of pre-primaris weaponry.
At the end of DBZ, the power levels were expanded to such a degree that it was impossible to keep up, because each boost was muliplicative of the previous level. 2 to 4, 4 to 8, 8 to 16...etc. If you have a sub 300 pt unit roaming around with 4d6 damage potential over 2-3 shots from 1 of it's 3-5 guns, we have officially gone SSJ4 Blue.
??? Katherine suspects something isn't right with FezzikDaBullgryn.
You shouldn't be taking armour save rolls and invulnerable save rolls. You pick one [an Invulnerable save is the minimum value your armour save can be, basically].
You shouldn't be taking armour save rolls and invulnerable save rolls. You pick one [an Invulnerable save is the minimum value your armour save can be, basically].
Well, I'm a bullgryn, you'll pardon the mistake. That being said, are you implying that I am incorrect in my assertion that there are too many rolls, or were you agreeing with me in the premise?
At the end of DBZ, the power levels were expanded to such a degree that it was impossible to keep up, because each boost was muliplicative of the previous level. 2 to 4, 4 to 8, 8 to 16...etc. If you have a sub 300 pt unit roaming around with 4d6 damage potential over 2-3 shots from 1 of it's 3-5 guns, we have officially gone SSJ4 Blue.
That's pretty exaggerated. Couple things:
- The Repulsor Executioner is only going to have 2 big guns, the laser destroyer/macro plasma incinerator and the heavy gatling cannon. then there's a couple medium guns like the twin heavy bolter and krak grenade launchers and a whole bunch of small arms like the heavy stubber and a bunch of storm bolters. In other words, that 4d6 damage comes from 1 of the 2 guns that are worth mentioning for the price you pay for the platform.
- If it's really going to be a D3 or 2 shot S12 AP-4 Dd6 gun-that-can-potentially-deal-2d6-or-3d6-damage (like the FW laser destroyer) it's going to cost anywhere between 60 and 80 points.
- The vanilla Repulsor is already doing kind of the same thing with it's lastalon + twin lascannon + a whole bunch of small and medium guns, and that one is widely considered underpowered unless it's part of a Guilliman parking lot.
At the end of DBZ, the power levels were expanded to such a degree that it was impossible to keep up, because each boost was muliplicative of the previous level. 2 to 4, 4 to 8, 8 to 16...etc. If you have a sub 300 pt unit roaming around with 4d6 damage potential over 2-3 shots from 1 of it's 3-5 guns, we have officially gone SSJ4 Blue.
That's pretty exaggerated. Couple things:
- The Repulsor Executioner is only going to have 2 big guns, the laser destroyer/macro plasma incinerator and the heavy gatling cannon. then there's a couple medium guns like the twin heavy bolter and krak grenade launchers and a whole bunch of small arms like the heavy stubber and a bunch of storm bolters. In other words, that 4d6 damage comes from 1 of the 2 guns that are worth mentioning for the price you pay for the platform.
- If it's really going to be a D3 or 2 shot S12 AP-4 Dd6 gun-that-can-potentially-deal-2d6-or-3d6-damage (like the FW laser destroyer) it's going to cost anywhere between 60 and 80 points.
- The vanilla Repulsor is already doing kind of the same thing with it's lastalon + twin lascannon + a whole bunch of small and medium guns, and that one is widely considered underpowered unless it's part of a Guilliman parking lot.
Well, I will admit it was hyperbole, however power creep has been a major issue in this edition, and it's getting out of hand. A Transport that outshoots dedicated Anti-tank platforms? For around the same cost?
At the end of DBZ, the power levels were expanded to such a degree that it was impossible to keep up, because each boost was muliplicative of the previous level. 2 to 4, 4 to 8, 8 to 16...etc. If you have a sub 300 pt unit roaming around with 4d6 damage potential over 2-3 shots from 1 of it's 3-5 guns, we have officially gone SSJ4 Blue.
That's pretty exaggerated. Couple things:
- The Repulsor Executioner is only going to have 2 big guns, the laser destroyer/macro plasma incinerator and the heavy gatling cannon. then there's a couple medium guns like the twin heavy bolter and krak grenade launchers and a whole bunch of small arms like the heavy stubber and a bunch of storm bolters. In other words, that 4d6 damage comes from 1 of the 2 guns that are worth mentioning for the price you pay for the platform.
- If it's really going to be a D3 or 2 shot S12 AP-4 Dd6 gun-that-can-potentially-deal-2d6-or-3d6-damage (like the FW laser destroyer) it's going to cost anywhere between 60 and 80 points.
- The vanilla Repulsor is already doing kind of the same thing with it's lastalon + twin lascannon + a whole bunch of small and medium guns, and that one is widely considered underpowered unless it's part of a Guilliman parking lot.
Well, I will admit it was hyperbole, however power creep has been a major issue in this edition, and it's getting out of hand. A Transport that outshoots dedicated Anti-tank platforms? For around the same cost?
Not like that's a new problem for Marines, compare a Razorback and a Predator without sponsons.
Well, I will admit it was hyperbole, however power creep has been a major issue in this edition, and it's getting out of hand. A Transport that outshoots dedicated Anti-tank platforms? For around the same cost?
Not like that's a new problem for Marines, compare a Razorback and a Predator without sponsons.
Wave Serpents have been doing that to the Eldar for years (decades?) now. It’s not exclusive to marines.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Now we are comparing SMs to Eldar? Point is, no one asked for a new Land Raider.
New Rhino*
Primaris land raider will be out in a few years
Well, I never considered the Rhino to be an offensive powerhouse. Whereas the Landraider USED to be a nice tanky transport thing for getting your terminators into range quickly. This is a flying landraider for getting your aggressors and centurions into combat quickly.
Neither version is a rhino, which is my favorite marine transport since it was just that, a transport.
It's firepower came from it's cargo via it's fire points, which this edition took away for no reason. I miss the days when a land raider or monolith was the height of a heavy vehicle.
So, it's kinda telling that this is the Primaris Landraider. Heavy Firepower transport. GW doesn't want anything to compete with it for sales, so they are removing older transports from shelves.
Ever notice before GW releases something, anything like it becomes "online only". The Baneblade v. Knights.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: So, it's kinda telling that this is the Primaris Landraider. Heavy Firepower transport. GW doesn't want anything to compete with it for sales, so they are removing older transports from shelves.
Ever notice before GW releases something, anything like it becomes "online only". The Baneblade v. Knights.
Yeah, so? It's to do with shelf space in stores for the most part. A lot of GWs are quite pokey and don't have space to stock more stuff. So when they have new releases, something hasn't to get bumped out.
Honestly I'm not expecting much from the Executioner.
When CSM got their codex 2.0 they still had 13 point marines. So I doubt any of the Primaris stuff will change. Unless we get our Primaris codex instead
I'm going to HATE this tank. I'm also going to buy it the second its out. I need a second tank next to my regular repulsor for my Primaris only army.... dangit.
These Primaris keep coming out with new toys with the promise of eventually being a viable army. Biggest darn lie there is.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Now we are comparing SMs to Eldar? Point is, no one asked for a new Land Raider.
New Rhino*
Primaris land raider will be out in a few years
Well, I never considered the Rhino to be an offensive powerhouse. Whereas the Landraider USED to be a nice tanky transport thing for getting your terminators into range quickly. This is a flying landraider for getting your aggressors and centurions into combat quickly.
Except that in spite of all sense and consistency Centurions are not Primaris.
Setting aside the fact that buffing primaris into Terminator armor pretty much makes them HQ level, how does the Repulsive even carry them? It can only carry 6 regular primaris right? And the age old conversion chart seems to be 2-1 for Termi-non. So, 3?
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Setting aside the fact that buffing primaris into Terminator armor pretty much makes them HQ level, how does the Repulsive even carry them? It can only carry 6 regular primaris right? And the age old conversion chart seems to be 2-1 for Termi-non. So, 3?
Regular Repulsor carries 10. Which is super annoying since it's the only Primaris transport and it really wants to carry 10 and a Captain.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Setting aside the fact that buffing primaris into Terminator armor pretty much makes them HQ level, how does the Repulsive even carry them? It can only carry 6 regular primaris right? And the age old conversion chart seems to be 2-1 for Termi-non. So, 3?
Regular Repulsor carries 10. Which is super annoying since it's the only Primaris transport and it really wants to carry 10 and a Captain.
Part of the problem is that Grinding Advance was brought in to solve the problem that the typical IG has a gunnery of 4+, so without it, on average you tank was only hitting once every other round. They didn’t factor in tank commanders making the tanks hit every single time.
Gamewise, I would really prefer that your average AFV can take two hits (giving it one turn in a 1-on-1 to do something), and is only destroyed on an outside chance in one shot. Tanks and superheavies then being able to last longer from there (say 4 hits for a Leman Russ-like tank [last to the last round] , and 6 or more hits for superheavies [likely to survive the game, but greatly battered)
Overall, I like the baseline of 2 shots, 2D6 damage and a 50% hit chance for a tank gun, and then rebalance everything around that. Man portable guns shouldn’t be able to one-shot tanks(gamewise, not real life), but be able to reasonable take down a tank if deployed in sufficient numbers with acceptable losses.
And for god’s sake, tone down the Tank commanders so people at least have to take a few moment’s thought whether they’re worth it, rather than the only thing to take.
Really there's quite a few personal weapons that should have a change of just one-shotting a tank outright if the wargame were to get some good game design. Grav Guns, Meltaguns/Fusion Blasters, and lascannons/dark/bright lances/etc should all be capable of gutting or crippling a tank on one penetrating shot.
Wyzilla wrote: Really there's quite a few personal weapons that should have a change of just one-shotting a tank outright if the wargame were to get some good game design. Grav Guns, Meltaguns/Fusion Blasters, and lascannons/dark/bright lances/etc should all be capable of gutting or crippling a tank on one penetrating shot.
While I agree with the sentiment that tanks don't have hitpoints, and much like people, a shot that penetrates has fair odds of just blowing the tank right up...
I don't think of Lascannons or Missile Launchers, and especially Grav Guns [which aren't even AT weapons], should be knocking out tanks in the meta. Lascannons are not big AT weapons, they're little guns that the infantry carries around to give them a chance. A Missile Launcher is [literally] a Bazooka or PTRD, a Lascannon is like a 57mm AT gun; it'll make holes in light tanks, and be adequate most of the time against medium tanks with flank shots or real close, but not really be a good option for heavy tanks. If you really want to stop that tank, that's what Vanquishers, Railcannons, Laser Destroyers, and high-caliber HE guns like the Vindicator are for.
A Battle Cannon is a much more powerful and effective weapon than a Lascannon.
Wyzilla wrote: Really there's quite a few personal weapons that should have a change of just one-shotting a tank outright if the wargame were to get some good game design. Grav Guns, Meltaguns/Fusion Blasters, and lascannons/dark/bright lances/etc should all be capable of gutting or crippling a tank on one penetrating shot.
While I agree with the sentiment that tanks don't have hitpoints, and much like people, a shot that penetrates has fair odds of just blowing the tank right up...
I don't think of Lascannons or Missile Launchers, and especially Grav Guns [which aren't even AT weapons], should be knocking out tanks in the meta. Lascannons are not big AT weapons, they're little guns that the infantry carries around to give them a chance. A Missile Launcher is [literally] a Bazooka or PTRD, a Lascannon is like a 57mm AT gun; it'll make holes in light tanks, and be adequate most of the time against medium tanks with flank shots or real close, but not really be a good option for heavy tanks. If you really want to stop that tank, that's what Vanquishers, Railcannons, Laser Destroyers, and high-caliber HE guns like the Vindicator are for.
A Battle Cannon is a much more powerful and effective weapon than a Lascannon.
Grav Cannons are actually more powerful than a battle cannon in the lore, being able to reduce anything from a Leman Russ or a Terminator to a crumpled wreck with one shot. Furthermore yes Lascannons and Missile Launchers are small AT weapons... because you don't need big ones to inflict massive harm to a vehicle. If a lascannon or missile launcher penetrates the armor, you're still just as dead as if a vanquisher cannon had shot you because either weapon has left a smoking hole, ignited ammunition/reactor/unstable fuel, or riddled the compartments with heatened shrapnel shredding everyone and everything in the tank not in their own compartment. And since you're bringing up historical examples, I'd actually remind you that the biggest threats to tanks were anti tank guns and infantry hiding in forests with recoilless rifles - not tanks and not planes. I also don't get why you're calling the 57mm gun a threat only to light tanks when it was disabling Tigers in the Africa Campaign.
Furthemore the only vehicles that should be really able to survive multiple penetrating hits are things like Baneblades and other superheavies - where everything is so heavily compartmentalized as a kind of motorized bunker with treads that one section getting blown to hell isn't that important because there's around 10 other guys in it with only a hardpoint or critical system being damaged. Compromising the tank's overall effectiveness, but certainly not killing it outright.
Grav Cannons are actually more powerful than a battle cannon in the lore, being able to reduce anything from a Leman Russ or a Terminator to a crumpled wreck with one shot. Furthermore yes Lascannons and Missile Launchers are small AT weapons... because you don't need big ones to inflict massive harm to a vehicle. If a lascannon or missile launcher penetrates the armor, you're still just as dead as if a vanquisher cannon had shot you because either weapon has left a smoking hole, ignited ammunition/reactor/unstable fuel, or riddled the compartments with heatened shrapnel shredding everyone and everything in the tank not in their own compartment. And since you're bringing up historical examples, I'd actually remind you that the biggest threats to tanks were anti tank guns and infantry hiding in forests with recoilless rifles - not tanks and not planes. I also don't get why you're calling the 57mm gun a threat only to light tanks when it was disabling Tigers in the Africa Campaign.
Furthemore the only vehicles that should be really able to survive multiple penetrating hits are things like Baneblades and other superheavies - where everything is so heavily compartmentalized as a kind of motorized bunker with treads that one section getting blown to hell isn't that important because there's around 10 other guys in it with only a hardpoint or critical system being damaged. Compromising the tank's overall effectiveness, but certainly not killing it outright.
Just because you can doesn't mean it's good. A PTRD can kill a Pz.V through a band of armor above the tracks, but a D-25T tank gun will make a big hole in the glacis without question at almost any range.
Also, the 6pdr OQF gun was knocking out Pz.VI E's, but it wasn't doing it well.
And, while we're talking about infantry being the greatest threat to armored targets, the infantry in the woods is only dangerous because they've already closed the range, and are able to attack tanks from directions they are weak [like the top or side], not because their weapons are more powerful or dangerous than a tank's cannon. Also, there's lots of them, and relatively few tanks.
Also, IIRCAT guns, self-propelled artillery, and mines all casued considerably more tank losses than infantry with bazookas or tanks. Let me find a source.
Edit: ORO-T-117 [Survey of Allied Tank Casulaties WWII] indicates that "Bazookas" accounted for 14% of lost vehicles, while artillery and mortars accounted for 20% and direct fire from tanks, AT, and artillery accounted for 50%
Grav Cannons are actually more powerful than a battle cannon in the lore, being able to reduce anything from a Leman Russ or a Terminator to a crumpled wreck with one shot. Furthermore yes Lascannons and Missile Launchers are small AT weapons... because you don't need big ones to inflict massive harm to a vehicle. If a lascannon or missile launcher penetrates the armor, you're still just as dead as if a vanquisher cannon had shot you because either weapon has left a smoking hole, ignited ammunition/reactor/unstable fuel, or riddled the compartments with heatened shrapnel shredding everyone and everything in the tank not in their own compartment. And since you're bringing up historical examples, I'd actually remind you that the biggest threats to tanks were anti tank guns and infantry hiding in forests with recoilless rifles - not tanks and not planes. I also don't get why you're calling the 57mm gun a threat only to light tanks when it was disabling Tigers in the Africa Campaign.
Furthemore the only vehicles that should be really able to survive multiple penetrating hits are things like Baneblades and other superheavies - where everything is so heavily compartmentalized as a kind of motorized bunker with treads that one section getting blown to hell isn't that important because there's around 10 other guys in it with only a hardpoint or critical system being damaged. Compromising the tank's overall effectiveness, but certainly not killing it outright.
Just because you can doesn't mean it's good. A PTRD can kill a Pz.V through a band of armor above the tracks, but a D-25T tank gun will make a big hole in the glacis without question at almost any range.
Also, the 6pdr OQF gun was knocking out Pz.VI E's, but it wasn't doing it well.
And, while we're talking about infantry being the greatest threat to armored targets, the infantry in the woods is only dangerous because they've already closed the range, and are able to attack tanks from directions they are weak [like the top or side], not because their weapons are more powerful or dangerous than a tank's cannon. Also, there's lots of them, and relatively few tanks.
Also, IIRCAT guns, self-propelled artillery, and mines all casued considerably more tank losses than infantry with bazookas or tanks. Let me find a source.
I was talking about AT guns themselves, the bazooka wouldn't have the majority of kills as it's more of a late war weapon in terms of popularity and effectiveness. And the lascannon isn't anything like a PTRD and I don't get why you are comparing it to a megajoule laser able to flash-vaporize meter-thick armor and reduce infantry to slag. All 40k anti tank personnel weapons have far more in common with modern ATGM's which are far more of a 'one and done' deal for any vehicle. Anything being shot by a lascannon, melta, or grav gun that achieves a penetrating hit/grav field should either suffer crippling damage or be outright killed entirely. Even Imperial Knights should suffer severe damage when giant holes get punched clean through them, or a grav gun instantly turns a leg into a crumpled wreck.
Regardless of what is "realistic" there's also the little matters of game balance and good play experiences to consider. Two man-portable AT guns reliably taking a transport off the table pushes armor out of the meta altogether and the game is already too lethal as it is, making that bad play experience even worse isn't going to help things.
I was talking about AT guns themselves, the bazooka wouldn't have the majority of kills as it's more of a late war weapon in terms of popularity and effectiveness. And the lascannon isn't anything like a PTRD and I don't get why you are comparing it to a megajoule laser able to flash-vaporize meter-thick armor and reduce infantry to slag. All 40k anti tank personnel weapons have far more in common with modern ATGM's which are far more of a 'one and done' deal for any vehicle. Anything being shot by a lascannon, melta, or grav gun that achieves a penetrating hit/grav field should either suffer crippling damage or be outright killed entirely. Even Imperial Knights should suffer severe damage when giant holes get punched clean through them, or a grav gun instantly turns a leg into a crumpled wreck.
AT artillery aren't what I think of as infantry AT weapons.
Anyway, for 1944-'45 for the 6th Armored Division
50% of tanks destroyed were destroyed by direct fire
20% were destroyed by indirect fire
14% were destroyed by bazookas
62% of tanks disabled were done by indirect fire
28% disabled by direct fire
5% disabled by bazooka
That makes, since "disabled" might as well be destroyed for the scale of 40k-like wargame:
39% destroyed by direct fire
41% destroyed by indirect fire
10% destroyed by bazookas
Breaking down that "direct fire" category, which covers basically anything that isn't carried by infantry, in the ETO:
3% were from "light" antitank weapons, caliber 57mm [6lbr] and below.
92% were from "medium" antitank weapons, caliber 75mm to 105mm.
The rest were from heavy artillery conducting direct fire.
Of those medium AT weapons:
48.4% originated from 75mm guns
37.4% originated from 88mm guns
This is in presumably due to the large volume of available weapons and their ammunition in these calibers. However, orders of magnitudes more panzerfausts and panzerschrecks were manufactured than barrels of AT guns, so that's pretty decent evidence that it's guns [on artillery carraiges, tanks, and SPG's] that were killing tanks, not really the infantry's shoulder-fired rockets.
A Lascannon is a weapon carried by a team of 2 on a tripod, or one space marine over the shoulder. It's a light antitank weapon, and not exactly an analogue 7.5cm PaK 40.
And if we want to move to modern guided antitank rockets: tanks most serious threat is from guided missiles because they're not being engaged by enemy tanks, AT guns, and artillery systems. This comes down to the fact that missiles are widely available to anybody, by a good tank or advanced artillery system aren't even available to most nations.
Fortunately, there haven't been conflicts where this has been put to the test. The best attempt is the gulf war, but I don't have any documents regarding categorized Iraqi losses. The only piece of information I have is that the Bradleys supposedly claim more total kills than the Abrams, however, this needs to be taken with a grain of salt. Unit kill records are notoriously unreliable, and the Iraqi tanks didn't stand up to either so it's not that the Bradleys were succeeding while the Abrams weren't. It's also been noted that post-Soviet Union testing of tanks intended for use by the Soviets demonstrated superior equipment, upgrade packages, and quality for home-use tanks, and that USSR tank armor could defeat NATO antitank munitions. In addition, modern tanks and antitank weapons are much more complicated to analyzed, especially since we don't have good field performance metrics [fortunately] and there are a lot of features of both armor and munitions designed to defeat specific things.
Anyway, I think it's still valid based on cursory inspection of estimated numbers to assume that tank guns' long rods are more effective than TOWs at defeating armor. The M1 tank supposedly has ~600mm RHAe vs. APFSDS and ~1300mm RHAe vs. HEAT. HEAT ToW missiles from the Bradley and from infantry have ~900mm and ~600mm RHAe, respectively, while tank gun long rods have postulated between 600-900mm RHAe penetration. In addition, slatted armor, active defenses, and ERA are generally more effective against rockets and HEAT warheads than long rod penetrators. Finally, the tank gun has threat out to 3000m, while the missiles are only effective out to 500m.
This edition is the first edition where a Lascannon doesn't have a chance to blow up most tanks in a single hit, I think. That's a funny counterpoint to the theory of "everything can hut everything".
The Newman wrote: Regardless of what is "realistic" there's also the little matters of game balance and good play experiences to consider. Two man-portable AT guns reliably taking a transport off the table pushes armor out of the meta altogether and the game is already too lethal as it is, making that bad play experience even worse isn't going to help things.
A 3.2% chance for two lascannons wielding by space marines costing 76pts (not counting the rest of the attached squad(s) to kill a 70~ point rhino is reliable now? I must be playing the game wrong.
That aside, I agree that player experience is important. Which is why I'm fine with not going back to 5th edition's parking lot.
The Newman wrote: Regardless of what is "realistic" there's also the little matters of game balance and good play experiences to consider. Two man-portable AT guns reliably taking a transport off the table pushes armor out of the meta altogether and the game is already too lethal as it is, making that bad play experience even worse isn't going to help things.
A 3.2% chance for two lascannons wielding by space marines costing 76pts (not counting the rest of the attached squad(s) to kill a 70~ point rhino is reliable now? I must be playing the game wrong.
That aside, I agree that player experience is important. Which is why I'm fine with not going back to 5th edition's parking lot.
I was commenting on the latest back-and-forth regarding what a man-portable AT gun ought to be capable of. One commentor said two shots from such a gun should be dropping an APC, I said you'd never see armor on the table at all if that were the case.
Although sometimes "the game is too lethal as it is" rings a little hollow when it takes me 14+ Lascannon shots to drop a Hive Tyrant.
But you currently have that now? A Rhino is 12 wounds, which is two shots from a Lascannon or a missile launcher? Granted it's improbable, but not impossible.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: But you currently have that now? A Rhino is 12 wounds, which is two shots from a Lascannon or a missile launcher? Granted it's improbable, but not impossible.
No, the poster I was originally responding to said that two Lascannon hits should reliably drop an APC.. They don't, and they probably shouldn't.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: But you currently have that now? A Rhino is 12 wounds, which is two shots from a Lascannon or a missile launcher? Granted it's improbable, but not impossible.
No, the poster I was originally responding to said that two Lascannon hits should reliably drop an APC.. They don't, and they probably shouldn't.
Ah, my mistake was in the consistency. I don't think 8th would do well if one Twin-linked LC shot took down Rhino's with 51% probability. However, I would like to see a game where it does. Because as is, we toss around too many AT weapons in this game with ZERO affect. Melta's should be flat 6 damage. Multi-Meltas should be able to oneshot a Rhino reliably for the cost/range. Tank weaponry should have a huge damage affect against all targets. Right now it takes way too much attacking to kill anything realistically.
The Newman wrote: Regardless of what is "realistic" there's also the little matters of game balance and good play experiences to consider. Two man-portable AT guns reliably taking a transport off the table pushes armor out of the meta altogether and the game is already too lethal as it is, making that bad play experience even worse isn't going to help things.
A 3.2% chance for two lascannons wielding by space marines costing 76pts (not counting the rest of the attached squad(s) to kill a 70~ point rhino is reliable now? I must be playing the game wrong.
That aside, I agree that player experience is important. Which is why I'm fine with not going back to 5th edition's parking lot.
I was commenting on the latest back-and-forth regarding what a man-portable AT gun ought to be capable of. One commentor said two shots from such a gun should be dropping an APC, I said you'd never see armor on the table at all if that were the case.
Although sometimes "the game is too lethal as it is" rings a little hollow when it takes me 14+ Lascannon shots to drop a Hive Tyrant.
I've always thought the manport version should be D3 wounds. It's a smaller, portable version of the full tank mounted weapon. It shouldn't be able to draw the power of its big brother.
Ah, my mistake was in the consistency. I don't think 8th would do well if one Twin-linked LC shot took down Rhino's with 51% probability. However, I would like to see a game where it does. Because as is, we toss around too many AT weapons in this game with ZERO affect. Melta's should be flat 6 damage. Multi-Meltas should be able to oneshot a Rhino reliably for the cost/range. Tank weaponry should have a huge damage affect against all targets. Right now it takes way too much attacking to kill anything realistically.
You want a ~20 point gun to vaporize a ~70 point model?
Ah, my mistake was in the consistency. I don't think 8th would do well if one Twin-linked LC shot took down Rhino's with 51% probability. However, I would like to see a game where it does. Because as is, we toss around too many AT weapons in this game with ZERO affect. Melta's should be flat 6 damage. Multi-Meltas should be able to oneshot a Rhino reliably for the cost/range. Tank weaponry should have a huge damage affect against all targets. Right now it takes way too much attacking to kill anything realistically.
You want a ~20 point gun to vaporize a ~70 point model?
Yeah that's balance right there.
Points don't indicate Balance. And the gun isn't the cost. The UNIT holding the gun is the cost. And a squad of Tac Marines with a Multi-melta vaporizing a Rhino isn't that bad.
Ah, my mistake was in the consistency. I don't think 8th would do well if one Twin-linked LC shot took down Rhino's with 51% probability. However, I would like to see a game where it does. Because as is, we toss around too many AT weapons in this game with ZERO affect. Melta's should be flat 6 damage. Multi-Meltas should be able to oneshot a Rhino reliably for the cost/range. Tank weaponry should have a huge damage affect against all targets. Right now it takes way too much attacking to kill anything realistically.
You want a ~20 point gun to vaporize a ~70 point model?
Yeah that's balance right there.
Points don't indicate Balance. And the gun isn't the cost. The UNIT holding the gun is the cost. And a squad of Tac Marines with a Multi-melta vaporizing a Rhino isn't that bad.
I agree about the points.
My friends and I spent the weekend playing games at power level instead of matched play points. We had a great time playing, list construction was far less rigid, and the games felt a lot more balanced and fun. Very thematic and we had some unexpected results.
You do understand that Tacs arent remotely the only unit that can pack a multi-melta right? And how do you plan to adjust weapon scaling on say, the Warglaive, Devil Dog, or Crusader (just to name a few melta weapons that make the multi-melta look like a popgun).
How about Fusion Cannons and their evolutions? Tyranid bio weapons? Eldar blasters and fusion guns?
My friends and I spent the weekend playing games at power level instead of matched play points. We had a great time playing, list construction was far less rigid, and the games felt a lot more balanced and fun. Very thematic and we had some unexpected results.
The shenanigans you can pull abusing power levels makes current points valuations look like perfection.
fraser1191 wrote: I thought lascannons were supposed to be really advanced anti tank technology which is why marines have so much of them compared to guard.
The fluff isn't massively consistent on the power of weapons.
Also much like lasguns and bolters the fluff breaks lascannons into multiple patterns of lascannons like I'm sure landraider lascannons are supposed to be a class or two up from even predator or russ class lascannons. Yet the game treats them as the same.
Ah, my mistake was in the consistency. I don't think 8th would do well if one Twin-linked LC shot took down Rhino's with 51% probability. However, I would like to see a game where it does. Because as is, we toss around too many AT weapons in this game with ZERO affect. Melta's should be flat 6 damage. Multi-Meltas should be able to oneshot a Rhino reliably for the cost/range. Tank weaponry should have a huge damage affect against all targets. Right now it takes way too much attacking to kill anything realistically.
You want a ~20 point gun to vaporize a ~70 point model?
Yeah that's balance right there.
The percent discrepancy between a 25 point Lascannon and a 70ish point Rhino is a lot lower than the percent discrepancy between a 1 point Bolter and a 13 point Marine. What the gun costs can't really be directly compared to the cost of what it can kill like that.
Honestly, if you are dumb enough to park your Rhino within Melta range of a unit with Meltas in it, you deserve your fate, sod the points.
And Lascannons are designed to be the counter to Heavy Vehicles for infantry heavy armies. Points have literally nothing to do with this. It's like saying a Leadership 6 unit shouldn't be able to take down a tank.
That being said, no one takes Meltas, and opposing players have no fear of running roughshod and charging infantry lines.
I love watching a player who thinks he's hot lose a tank to a melta he forgot about, because who check's for melta's in 8th? It's Plasma or go home.
Ah, my mistake was in the consistency. I don't think 8th would do well if one Twin-linked LC shot took down Rhino's with 51% probability. However, I would like to see a game where it does. Because as is, we toss around too many AT weapons in this game with ZERO affect. Melta's should be flat 6 damage. Multi-Meltas should be able to oneshot a Rhino reliably for the cost/range. Tank weaponry should have a huge damage affect against all targets. Right now it takes way too much attacking to kill anything realistically.
You want a ~20 point gun to vaporize a ~70 point model?
Yeah that's balance right there.
Points don't indicate Balance. And the gun isn't the cost. The UNIT holding the gun is the cost. And a squad of Tac Marines with a Multi-melta vaporizing a Rhino isn't that bad.
I agree about the points.
My friends and I spent the weekend playing games at power level instead of matched play points. We had a great time playing, list construction was far less rigid, and the games felt a lot more balanced and fun. Very thematic and we had some unexpected results.
Melta stuff should be able to reliably jack up/destroy most armour with the tradeoff of short range & expense.
SHHHHHH you said the naughty PL word, you know what happens when its uttered. But it is fun when playing wysiwyg and amongst others who dont minmax/cheese/spam.
The percent discrepancy between a 25 point Lascannon and a 70ish point Rhino is a lot lower than the percent discrepancy between a 1 point Bolter and a 13 point Marine. What the gun costs can't really be directly compared to the cost of what it can kill like that.
Percent discrepancies get even more hilarious when you use, say, a zero point weapon. But then you already knew that when you tried to bring a relative skew argument into play using a one point piece of wargear.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Honestly, if you are dumb enough to park your Rhino within Melta range of a unit with Meltas in it, you deserve your fate, sod the points.
And Lascannons are designed to be the counter to Heavy Vehicles for infantry heavy armies. Points have literally nothing to do with this. It's like saying a Leadership 6 unit shouldn't be able to take down a tank.
That being said, no one takes Meltas, and opposing players have no fear of running roughshod and charging infantry lines.
I love watching a player who thinks he's hot lose a tank to a melta he forgot about, because who check's for melta's in 8th? It's Plasma or go home.
Right...because mobility shenanigans arent a thing in 8th apparently.
But by all means please continue your nonsensical arguments about how a single infantry portable weapon should be able to one-shot a tank because you don't like how AT works this edition.
It is clear that most weapons could use price adjustments based on their effectiveness. Plus being targeted by a weapon has almost nothing to do with you in this edition. Units can move the entire table length in a single turn but we have guns with a range of 12"....
Insectum7 wrote: This edition is the first edition where a Lascannon doesn't have a chance to blow up most tanks in a single hit, I think. That's a funny counterpoint to the theory of "everything can hut everything".
But it's also the first edition where tanks are also legitimately scared of Lascannons.
In the past, a Lascannon had a 1/6 chance of penetrating and then a 1/3 chance of wrecking or exploding the vehicle. If the vehicle was in cover, it had an additional 4+ save.
This edition, Lascannons have been promoted to premier tank breaker tier, and wound all non-titans 2/3 of the time, and going through the save 5/6 of the time to deal damage.
The percent discrepancy between a 25 point Lascannon and a 70ish point Rhino is a lot lower than the percent discrepancy between a 1 point Bolter and a 13 point Marine. What the gun costs can't really be directly compared to the cost of what it can kill like that.
Percent discrepancies get even more hilarious when you use, say, a zero point weapon. But then you already knew that when you tried to bring a relative skew argument into play using a one point piece of wargear.
That's not really a skew argument, Marines are something a Bolter regularly kills. Comparing a 1 point Bolter in rapid fire range to a 33 point Terminator, now that would be a skew argument. And it doesn't change whether I'm wrong or not, the point value of a gun is not a solid indicator of how many points of enemy models you should expect it to kill in a turn, or even what it's kill total might be on a good turn.
Insectum7 wrote: This edition is the first edition where a Lascannon doesn't have a chance to blow up most tanks in a single hit, I think. That's a funny counterpoint to the theory of "everything can hut everything".
But it's also the first edition where tanks are also legitimately scared of Lascannons.
In the past, a Lascannon had a 1/6 chance of penetrating and then a 1/3 chance of wrecking or exploding the vehicle. If the vehicle was in cover, it had an additional 4+ save.
This edition, Lascannons have been promoted to premier tank breaker tier, and wound all non-titans 2/3 of the time, and going through the save 5/6 of the time to deal damage.
The biggest issue with AT this edition is
Having on a 4+ a 28% chance of doing D6 damage per hit is not great compaired to multi shot weapons.
A 4+ dissy cannon has a 14% chance of doing 2D, but with 3 shots.
A 4+ Dark Lance vrs T8 3+ 25% chance of doing D6 damage per hit.
14% 3 times is better than 28% or 25% 1 time.
Thats before you add invulnerable saves etc which tilts the balance even more to multi shot weapons.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: But you currently have that now? A Rhino is 12 wounds, which is two shots from a Lascannon or a missile launcher? Granted it's improbable, but not impossible.
No, the poster I was originally responding to said that two Lascannon hits should reliably drop an APC.. They don't, and they probably shouldn't.
They should in order to make infantry viable against vehicles. The issue is that all special weapons with AP are grossly undercosted leading to the wargear porn of these modern editions.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: But you currently have that now? A Rhino is 12 wounds, which is two shots from a Lascannon or a missile launcher? Granted it's improbable, but not impossible.
No, the poster I was originally responding to said that two Lascannon hits should reliably drop an APC.. They don't, and they probably shouldn't.
They should in order to make infantry viable against vehicles. The issue is that all special weapons with AP are grossly undercosted leading to the wargear porn of these modern editions.
Unless you're playing Marines and all the special weapons with AP are grossly overcosted instead. And, again, if infantry are that capable against vehicles then vehicles aren't viable.
Insectum7 wrote: This edition is the first edition where a Lascannon doesn't have a chance to blow up most tanks in a single hit, I think. That's a funny counterpoint to the theory of "everything can hut everything".
But it's also the first edition where tanks are also legitimately scared of Lascannons.
In the past, a Lascannon had a 1/6 chance of penetrating and then a 1/3 chance of wrecking or exploding the vehicle. If the vehicle was in cover, it had an additional 4+ save.
This edition, Lascannons have been promoted to premier tank breaker tier, and wound all non-titans 2/3 of the time, and going through the save 5/6 of the time to deal damage.
That depends wildly on which edition and which vehicles you're referring too. In 3rd and 4th, a Lascannon had a 50% chance to Pen armor 12, then a 50% chance to blow it up with that, iirc. A "glance" in 3rd. (merely rolling Pen equal to the armor value) had a 1 in 6 of a kill. Earlier editions were also a 5+ cover, rather than a 4+.
Not to mention that any Penetrating Hit had a "cant fire next turn" result. A.k. a. suppression of tanks firing with good AT power. . . rather than running up and touching it.
In fact most damage results, even on the Glance damage table, resulted in a "can't fire next turn". "Suppressing" lots of vehicles was pretty easy to do, especially if you flanked them.
. . .
Also, meaningful distinction between the Razorback and Predator Chassis, as one had front armor 11, and one had front armor 13.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: But you currently have that now? A Rhino is 12 wounds, which is two shots from a Lascannon or a missile launcher? Granted it's improbable, but not impossible.
No, the poster I was originally responding to said that two Lascannon hits should reliably drop an APC.. They don't, and they probably shouldn't.
They should in order to make infantry viable against vehicles. The issue is that all special weapons with AP are grossly undercosted leading to the wargear porn of these modern editions.
Unless you're playing Marines and all the special weapons with AP are grossly overcosted instead. And, again, if infantry are that capable against vehicles then vehicles aren't viable.
No they're still viable, the issue is that you can't just blindly drive vehicles across the board right into infantry and expect any vehicle to come out intact. Vehicles should never be in close proximity to infantry in general as you have no idea what kind of heat said infantry is packing.
Without getting too far away from the point of the original post, I would just like to point out that the current chassis for this thing eclipses most "transports" and "Light tanks" in the game currently. I have no idea if the executioner will be different than the regular stock repulsor in base stats, one might presume no. If that is the case, we have a "light tank//transport" that has anti tank, anti-infantry, anti-charge, and anti-heavy infantry capabilities, flying, PotMS, and all for roughly 20-50pts LESS than a Land Raider?
At some point I would like the see behind the math for all Astartes units, and that includes Chaos. I mean everything from Cultists to Stormravens. Because if you an field three of these things in a list for less than 900pts, I will be gobsmacked.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: But you currently have that now? A Rhino is 12 wounds, which is two shots from a Lascannon or a missile launcher? Granted it's improbable, but not impossible.
No, the poster I was originally responding to said that two Lascannon hits should reliably drop an APC.. They don't, and they probably shouldn't.
Uh, I think you were referring to me, and I didn't say that. I said two Battlecannon ("tank gun") shots should on average drop an AFV, and that a man-portable weapon (such as a Lascannon), shouldn't. Though as someone pointed out, melta weapons should really be fearsome.
Insectum7 wrote: This edition is the first edition where a Lascannon doesn't have a chance to blow up most tanks in a single hit, I think. That's a funny counterpoint to the theory of "everything can hut everything".
But it's also the first edition where tanks are also legitimately scared of Lascannons.
In the past, a Lascannon had a 1/6 chance of penetrating and then a 1/3 chance of wrecking or exploding the vehicle. If the vehicle was in cover, it had an additional 4+ save.
This edition, Lascannons have been promoted to premier tank breaker tier, and wound all non-titans 2/3 of the time, and going through the save 5/6 of the time to deal damage.
That depends wildly on which edition and which vehicles you're referring too. In 3rd and 4th, a Lascannon had a 50% chance to Pen armor 12, then a 50% chance to blow it up with that, iirc. A "glance" in 3rd. (merely rolling Pen equal to the armor value) had a 1 in 6 of a kill. Earlier editions were also a 5+ cover, rather than a 4+.
Not to mention that any Penetrating Hit had a "cant fire next turn" result. A.k. a. suppression of tanks firing with good AT power. . . rather than running up and touching it.
In fact most damage results, even on the Glance damage table, resulted in a "can't fire next turn". "Suppressing" lots of vehicles was pretty easy to do, especially if you flanked them.
. . .
Also, meaningful distinction between the Razorback and Predator Chassis, as one had front armor 11, and one had front armor 13.
AV12 is a light vehicle like a Chimera, not really a tank. Predators and Hammerheads were AV13, and Leman Russes and Battlewagons were AV14.
I started playing in 5th Edition: at that time, from the front, a missile launcher basically didn't do anything; and a lascannon was hoping on a prayer. Flanking a tank was neccessary for infantry to achieve success in any capacity [and of course, that's what infantry protection for tanks are for]. A Railcannon or a Vanquisher or a Meltagun, though, could perforate a tank and was a neccessary tank killer.
Also, suppression by intense fire of small antitank weapons seems fair.
^IMO "light" is 10 and 11. A lot of Ork and DE vehicles were 10 or 11 and Open Topped. 12 was a Dreadnought and Wave Serpent, and I'd definitely call that "medium".
It's true, the Vehicle Damage Chart changed for 5th edition, and part of why I remember 5th as being the beginning of "parking lot 40K". For the the 4 editions prior, however, the balance was more towards infantry.
During 4th, I ran a "Veteran" Devastator Squad with "Tank Hunters", meaning their Lascannons basically counted as S10. Those guys did serious work for me.
Edit: Also during 4th, the Rending rule on the Assault Cannon gave an extra D6 of armor penetration on a 6 to hit, iirc, and Terminators could get two Assault Cannons per 5-man unit. I could teleport them in and fire at the side or rear of a Leman Russ and have if not a destroyed tank, at the very least a tank that couldn't fire next turn, allowing my troops to advance over open ground against those Battle Cannons. It was $$$!
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: So, are Executioners worth the points? Or are they worth far more than the projected cost?
Have they even come out with a points cost yet?
I don't think so, I was more talking about the projected costs. People have said roughly 220-320. Which is a mighty big margin of error. I would see this fairly priced at 330, fully kitted out. Which makes it at least partially synonymous with the idea that it's the 2020 Landraider XLK edition. Heated seats, Positraction, etc.
Knowing GW,and it being a “marine” release, my pessimistic streak says it will be costed towards the low end, to encourage sales. Then repointed to more sane levels 3+ months down the road.
Stormonu wrote: Knowing GW,and it being a “marine” release, my pessimistic streak says it will be costed towards the low end, to encourage sales. Then repointed to more sane levels 3+ months down the road.
<EDIT; Blasted autocorrect>
...have you paid any attention whatsoever to the Primaris releases?
Because that's not what has really been happening.
Stormonu wrote: Knowing GW,and it being a “marine” release, my pessimistic streak says it will be costed towards the low end, to encourage sales. Then repointed to more sane levels 3+ months down the road.
<EDIT; Blasted autocorrect>
...have you paid any attention whatsoever to the Primaris releases?
Because that's not what has really been happening.
I hadn’t been following Primaris releases beyond the Suppresors - my pessimism is based on mostly pre-Roundtree habits, so if they’ve changed - I guess that’s good?
Stormonu wrote: Knowing GW,and it being a “marine” release, my pessimistic streak says it will be costed towards the low end, to encourage sales. Then repointed to more sane levels 3+ months down the road.
<EDIT; Blasted autocorrect>
...have you paid any attention whatsoever to the Primaris releases?
Because that's not what has really been happening.
I hadn’t been following Primaris releases beyond the Suppresors - my pessimism is based on mostly pre-Roundtree habits, so if they’ve changed - I guess that’s good?
every primaris release to date has been on the high end of acceptable to outright over costed. it's been dropped over time, but remember back when they first came out intercessors where what, 20 PPM?
Stormonu wrote: Knowing GW,and it being a “marine” release, my pessimistic streak says it will be costed towards the low end, to encourage sales. Then repointed to more sane levels 3+ months down the road.
<EDIT; Blasted autocorrect>
...have you paid any attention whatsoever to the Primaris releases?
Because that's not what has really been happening.
I hadn’t been following Primaris releases beyond the Suppresors - my pessimism is based on mostly pre-Roundtree habits, so if they’ve changed - I guess that’s good?
It's basically the opposite. On drop, Primaris were basically worthless. Only after 3 rounds of mechanical buffs, cost reductions, and a splatbook are they appreciably viable.
I suspect the base hull’s points are going to be identical to the stock repulser.
The main plasma turret mount, if the same as the one on the dread, will be 31 points (if battlescribe isn’t lying to me) I suspect that’s going to be the budget gun. The gatling cannon looks fixed. The tertiary guns look to be found in the same numbers as on the stock tank, with a few new options, which might push the points up 2-4 per slot. Although not being able to just slap a stubber on the turret, and without the option for a gatling on the coupla, that will keep a few points down.
The other gun depends a lot on its stats. If it’s a TLLC+, I suspect it will run in the 60-75 point range.
I think the low end price is going to be a hair over 300 points. Kitted out, pushing 400.
I absolutely love my Repulsor and it's really been excellent each time I use it so will 100 percent be adding this to my army along with another squad of intercessors when the time comes.
One thing I'm curious about is the transport capacity.
So far I've had my best luck with 2 repulsors. One with intercessors and hellblasters, and one with calgar, an ancient, a lieutenant, and 3 aggressors.
So if the Executioner can only hold 6 I'm probably gonna have to leave behind the hellblasters and give them the heavy variant so the interssors can hold an objective then stuff the ancient in there too
fraser1191 wrote: One thing I'm curious about is the transport capacity.
So far I've had my best luck with 2 repulsors. One with intercessors and hellblasters, and one with calgar, an ancient, a lieutenant, and 3 aggressors.
So if the Executioner can only hold 6 I'm probably gonna have to leave behind the hellblasters and give them the heavy variant so the interssors can hold an objective then stuff the ancient in there too
I think 6 is likely. Same as Razorback, and means you can still carry minimum squad Gravis dudes, or combat squad of normal guys plus a character.
So, interesting question, What do people think the bare minimum costs will be? If this is going to be a dedicated transport, it doesn't make sense to have it be a tank buster. Because if fully decked out it's 400+, but with the cheapest guns it's 300+, I think that's a good bargain. Allows the flexibility that Primaris seem to be striving for. That being said, If you go all out Primaris, this is their sole dedicated Anti-tank platform correct?
Even with the Executioner Primaris still won't have a dedicated AT platform. A Repulsor with hull Lascannons and Lastalon doesn't count because it also has transport capacity and a bunch of anti-infantry guns, and the same goes for the Executioner. The closest thing is probably Hellblasters but they aren't great at that job.
[edit]
That's not necessarily a flaw. Having AT capacity spread through a force instead of centralized in dedicated AT units makes it harder for an opponent to delete all your AT guns and then have free reign with his armor. Primaris don't have that going on either unfortunately.
[/edit]
Frankly, if it's anything like the Destroyer Tank Hunter from FW? It'll be dedicated AT.
60" Heavy D3 S9 AP-3 D6 damage--with "Tank Hunter"(attacking a Vehicle with the heavy laser destroyer array means you roll 2 dice when inflicting damage and discard the lowest).
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: So then, redemptors? It just confuses me why there isn't a single dedicated anti-tank ranged primaris unit.
Nah, Redemptors stink for anti-tank work too. Even overcharging it the Plasma Annihilator isn't any better than a twin Lascannon (and a lot harder to use effectively with the shorter range) and even then it still has a bunch of anti-infantry guns.
If I had to guess I'd say it's because mini-marines have a bunch of AT options and GW doesn't want to completely obsolete them while the molds are still good.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: So then, redemptors? It just confuses me why there isn't a single dedicated anti-tank ranged primaris unit.
Nah, Redemptors stink for anti-tank work too. Even overcharging it the Plasma Annihilator isn't any better than a twin Lascannon (and a lot harder to use effectively with the shorter range) and even then it still has a bunch of anti-infantry guns.
If I had to guess I'd say it's because mini-marines have a bunch of AT options and GW doesn't want to completely obsolete them while the molds are still good.
I agree, when I take a redemptor I always kit him with onslaughts.
If I want similar plasma I'll take hellblasters, granted I don't play anyone with a T8 model.
The macro plasma really needs a base D2 to even be considered in my opinion. I know overcharging gives it that but I haven't had much luck with it
I'd bet money that the Suppressors alternate weapon load won't be a Lascannon. In fact, I'd bet the Supressors don't get an alternate weapon load at all, the kit will probably build a completely different unit similar to the Electro Priest and Kataphron boxes.
If pressed to take a guess at what the alternate weapon is likely to be I'd point at either the Heavy Plasma Annihilator, some variant on the Melta gun, or the Onslaught Gattling Cannon, depending on how cynical I'm feeling at the moment. Mostly because none of those would be a good fit for the unit.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: So then, redemptors? It just confuses me why there isn't a single dedicated anti-tank ranged primaris unit.
Nah, Redemptors stink for anti-tank work too. Even overcharging it the Plasma Annihilator isn't any better than a twin Lascannon (and a lot harder to use effectively with the shorter range) and even then it still has a bunch of anti-infantry guns.
If I had to guess I'd say it's because mini-marines have a bunch of AT options and GW doesn't want to completely obsolete them while the molds are still good.
I agree, when I take a redemptor I always kit him with onslaughts.
If I want similar plasma I'll take hellblasters, granted I don't play anyone with a T8 model.
The macro plasma really needs a base D2 to even be considered in my opinion. I know overcharging gives it that but I haven't had much luck with it
Macro Plasma needs fixed to only overheat on an unmodified one just like every other plasma gun in the game so that overcharging isn't suicidal against 95% of the field. Everyone who has access to it takes the -1 to be hit trait and stacks it if they can because armor is worthless.
The Newman wrote: I'd bet money that the Suppressors alternate weapon load won't be a Lascannon. In fact, I'd bet the Supressors don't get an alternate weapon load at all, the kit will probably build a completely different unit similar to the Electro Priest and Kataphron boxes.
If pressed to take a guess at what the alternate weapon is likely to be I'd point at either the Heavy Plasma Annihilator, some variant on the Melta gun, or the Onslaught Gattling Cannon, depending on how cynical I'm feeling at the moment. Mostly because none of those would be a good fit for the unit.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: So then, redemptors? It just confuses me why there isn't a single dedicated anti-tank ranged primaris unit.
Nah, Redemptors stink for anti-tank work too. Even overcharging it the Plasma Annihilator isn't any better than a twin Lascannon (and a lot harder to use effectively with the shorter range) and even then it still has a bunch of anti-infantry guns.
If I had to guess I'd say it's because mini-marines have a bunch of AT options and GW doesn't want to completely obsolete them while the molds are still good.
I agree, when I take a redemptor I always kit him with onslaughts.
If I want similar plasma I'll take hellblasters, granted I don't play anyone with a T8 model.
The macro plasma really needs a base D2 to even be considered in my opinion. I know overcharging gives it that but I haven't had much luck with it
Macro Plasma needs fixed to only overheat on an unmodified one just like every other plasma gun in the game so that overcharging isn't suicidal against 95% of the field. Everyone who has access to it takes the -1 to be hit trait and stacks it if they can because armor is worthless.
... Pretty sure all overcharging plasma gets worse with modifiers. Not just the Macro one. Maybe there are niche examples that don't, but Plasma Pistols, Plasma Cannons, Plasmaguns all suffer horribly from negative modifiers.
The Newman wrote: I'd bet money that the Suppressors alternate weapon load won't be a Lascannon. In fact, I'd bet the Supressors don't get an alternate weapon load at all, the kit will probably build a completely different unit similar to the Electro Priest and Kataphron boxes.
If pressed to take a guess at what the alternate weapon is likely to be I'd point at either the Heavy Plasma Annihilator, some variant on the Melta gun, or the Onslaught Gattling Cannon, depending on how cynical I'm feeling at the moment. Mostly because none of those would be a good fit for the unit.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: So then, redemptors? It just confuses me why there isn't a single dedicated anti-tank ranged primaris unit.
Nah, Redemptors stink for anti-tank work too. Even overcharging it the Plasma Annihilator isn't any better than a twin Lascannon (and a lot harder to use effectively with the shorter range) and even then it still has a bunch of anti-infantry guns.
If I had to guess I'd say it's because mini-marines have a bunch of AT options and GW doesn't want to completely obsolete them while the molds are still good.
I agree, when I take a redemptor I always kit him with onslaughts.
If I want similar plasma I'll take hellblasters, granted I don't play anyone with a T8 model.
The macro plasma really needs a base D2 to even be considered in my opinion. I know overcharging gives it that but I haven't had much luck with it
Macro Plasma needs fixed to only overheat on an unmodified one just like every other plasma gun in the game so that overcharging isn't suicidal against 95% of the field. Everyone who has access to it takes the -1 to be hit trait and stacks it if they can because armor is worthless.
... Pretty sure all overcharging plasma gets worse with modifiers. Not just the Macro one. Maybe there are niche examples that don't, but Plasma Pistols, Plasma Cannons, Plasmaguns all suffer horribly from negative modifiers.
No no, it's "Macro Plasma needs the same fix all the other plasma weapons need", not "Macro Plasma needs to work like all the other plasma weapons do".
I guess my question is, to quote Drax, WHY IS MACRO PLASMA?
Regular plasma shooters, get that. You need to give infantry the ability to take down heavy infantry. Great. But what is the point of mounted Plasma cannons and their ilk? Surely tank weaponry and the overwhelming firepower of the heavy onslaught cannon can do the work better? What role does Heavy Plasma weapons fill?
Light vehicles? Autocannons. Besides, what light vehicles are in the game? Almost everything is pretty much a medium tank or has an invuln so the point of "high ap weapons" is moot there.
Heavy vehicles? See lascannons.
Regular Infantry? Onslaught guns.
What is the purpose of plasma beyond the plasma rifles? What role does it perform better than any other weapon?
In all honesty if you want to take down heavy infantry the Plasma Gun is only marginally better than the Gravgun. Sure S7/S8 is better than S5, but the Gravgun doesn't risk blowing up to do more damage and that matters on heavy infantry.
Really it's just the extra 6" of range and all the special weapon prices being laughably wrong that even has the Plasma Gun in the discussion.
(And really, the Heavy Grav gun is worth the extra points over any of them.)
If that's the case we must be playing different editions
In the context of destroying heavy infantry four shots at S5 Ap3 D3 damage is better than any Marine special weapon by a wide margin. On any other target, not so much.
If that's the case we must be playing different editions
In the context of destroying heavy infantry four shots at S5 Ap3 D3 damage is better than any Marine special weapon by a wide margin. On any other target, not so much.
Grav Devs Vs Hellblasters?
Grav Devs bare bones are 177 points with 16 shots.
Hellblasters are 165 points with 10 shots
Vs Primaris marines, the Gravs will do 12 wounds on average. However due to the random shots effectively 1/3 shots will be lost so we're looking at about 4 kills.
The Hellblasters will get 5.5 kills on average when overcharging and double tapping..
Range is a wash as Hellblasters can shoot further overall but need to be nearer to get both shots.
Hellblasters have a big advantage in being able to move and shoot without penalty though! Especially considering the range, you're going to really struggle to shoot the Devs at anything worthwhile without moving and that's going to severely hamper their damage output.
Overall I give it to the Hellblasters. Not by a massive margin offensively, but when you consider durability and mobility I don't see much reason to take the Grav Devs.
Whoa, hold on. We are not giving the Dev's their due in this scenario. Are they getting the Cherubim, or the whatever thing that reloads and lets them shoot twice?
Hellblasters are a great solution to a lot of situations, but I think in a fair test they loose this one.
I am likely wrong on this but don't they also hit on 2+s with their Sgt?
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Whoa, hold on. We are not giving the Dev's their due in this scenario. Are they getting the Cherubim, or the whatever thing that reloads and lets them shoot twice?
Hellblasters are a great solution to a lot of situations, but I think in a fair test they loose this one.
Armorium Cherub will bring them onto about even on kills Vs Hellblasters against Primaris statline. Slightly behind still actually, but very close.
Remember it is only once per game, and only affects one model.
Imo the other advantages the Hellblasters bring still make them a far more attractive choice, even Vs Heavy Infantry specifically.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Whoa, hold on. We are not giving the Dev's their due in this scenario. Are they getting the Cherubim, or the whatever thing that reloads and lets them shoot twice?
Hellblasters are a great solution to a lot of situations, but I think in a fair test they loose this one.
Armorium Cherub will bring them onto about even on kills Vs Hellblasters against Primaris statline. Slightly behind still actually, but very close.
Remember it is only once per game, and only affects one model.
Imo the other advantages the Hellblasters bring still make them a far more attractive choice, even Vs Heavy Infantry specifically.
IMO the Grav has a few advantages in the sense that it's good against many non-heavy infantry targets.
For one, it brings a ton of shots, so it winds up being the most effective man-portable Heavy Weapon against any infantry.
But it also doesn't degrade against T8+ targets, like Plasma. The Grav continues to wound everything on a 5, while Plasma drops from 3+ to 4+ (or 5+ for the rare T9).
The major downside of Grav I've found in terms of effectiveness is against targets with 4+ armor. The lack of multi-wound capability against Tyranid Warriors and many Eldar vehicles can really hurt.
For Devs I've been using Plasma Cannons because they are cheeeeaaaappp. But the T8 targets make me want to switch a few back to Grav.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Given the nature of the shift in 8th towards heavy everything, It seems like Grav cannons would outperform Lascannons. Quantity over quality etc...
If that's the case we must be playing different editions
The plasma gun is better than the Grav gun, that's probably true - it gets more shots over the magic 24" rapid fire distances.
The Grav Cannon with Amp is usually better enough than the Plasma Canon - against heavy infantry (i.e. TEQ, the context of this sideroad - to justify its points. A reliable 4 shots at 24" wounding on 3's vs a random D3 shots at up to 36" wounding on 3's is much better. Vs say.. Gravis Equivalent 4 shots wounding on 4's vs D3 wounding on 3's is closer, but I'd still rather have the 4 shots. Gets Hot with +1S/+1D vs D3D is probably a wash.
On a 6 turn game, the Grav Dev is going to theoretically get 24 shots per game, 21.48 wounds per game, .767 wounds per point.
On a 6 turn game, the Plasma Dev will get 12/6 Gets Hot shots per game= 5.3868 wounds per 6 turns - = .33 wounds per point with either 6 turns of regular Plas, or 3 turns and a self inflicted death of Gets Hot Plas.
Edit to fix the Grav math - forgot their Multi-wound.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Of course, remember this is all math hammer. Who's going to have 11 terminators within 24/36" of Grav or Plasma.
This is the same theory that prefers 10 rapid firing lasguns over 1 lascanon vs Terminators - the D6 flaw.
10 Guard, rapid fire 20 shots, 10 hits, 5 wounds 4.1665 saves, .8333 wounds after saves
1 Lascannon 1 shot, .5 hits, .33 wounds - .2211 wound in shots after invuln, about .09 dead terminators per turn given the D6 wounds.
Bare in mind there's a reasonable chance you don't get to shoot turn one with the Grav, at least without moving. That 12" difference in range is way more significant than you're giving credit for on a unit that doesn't want to move.
Still, Plasma Devs are somewhat redundant to Hellblasters anyway.
Stux wrote: Bare in mind there's a reasonable chance you don't get to shoot turn one with the Grav, at least without moving. That 12" difference in range is way more significant than you're giving credit for on a unit that doesn't want to move.
Still, Plasma Devs are somewhat redundant to Hellblasters anyway.
There's a reasonable chance you don't get to shoot with the Plasma Devs either.
I made the same assumptions for both groups - they have enough purpose fulfilling targets to shoot as as they can handle because we're comparing wargear not units. For a fair comparison one can't assume your opponent will line up the terminators 1" out of range for the Grav and 11 inches in range for the Plasma especially as the Plasma range isn't board edge long. The numbers change when you're talking about "worse" than MEQ But then, neither of these are "purposed" for worse than MEQ. Its also not entirely relevant to the new Repulsor speculation. There isn't a Heavy Laser Destroyer in Imperial Armor I can find, but there are a couple Laser Destroyer variants. Both are Low Volume High Strength. In this case worse than the Macro Plasma at TEQ/MEQ removal.
The Onslaught Gatling Canon 6 shots, 4 hits, 3+ wounds, 1+ unsaved is also not going to be reliably effective at MEQ/TEQ removal.
Hellblaster plasma is different than Plasma Cannon - the additional -1 to save will make a difference vs MEQ, but not TEQ. TEQ vs PC/GravAmp were already 5+ either way, the Incinerator still leaves them at 5+ invulns. There's a 5 point difference between Hellblasters and PCDevs and Rapid Fire 1 vs Heavy D3 (Average 2).
A Centurion Dev with Heavy Bolter and Hurricane Bolter 6 shots 4 hits 2 wounds + 6/12 shots ~9 shots 6 hits, 3 wounds is 5 total wounds a turn x 6 turns = .57 wounds per point (wargear + difference between a Centurion and Dev Marine in points per model)
Aggressor 12 or 24 shots. 8 or 16 hits. 4 or 8 wounds. 1+ to not quite 3 unsaved + 3.5-7 shots 1+ to 3 wounds, about a third of an unsaved wound. 2 to just over 3 unsaved. Split the moving vs standing still in half - 8 wounds per turn .979 wounds per point assuming 6 turns of shooting in a 6 turn game.
To bring this all back around to speculation about the Repulsor variant - it probably will be unable to win its points back by defending itself from Tank Killing MEQ+ units. Its main gun is - as far as we know - not MEQ+ purposed, the auxilliary weapons do not have enough rate of fire without a MEQ+ purposed main gun. To keep pace with a Grav AmpDev, it would need to generate... - using a current Repulsor as a ballpark - 39 wounds per turn. assuming wounds on 3's that's 58 hits, assuming hits on 3's about 86 shots. (I think. Its starting to get a little crowded doing the math hammer juggling) - to keep pace with a Plasma Dev - its about 100 wounds per game 16 per turn. 24 hits, 36 shots.
Some of that wounds/per/point value-return has to be figured as the shots the tank will absorb of course because it is so much more durable than a MEQ infantry. But I think we all know it isn't THAT much more durable than some heavy weapon infantry when it's Target #1 on the board.
36" is by and large "enough range" most of the time.
It's enough to fire from within your deploy area across the no-man's land and across a good chunk [generally about 1/3-2/3] of the enemy deploy area.
24" on the other hand, does not have that flexibility, and generally cannot reach units in the enemy deploy area, odd deployments like the arrowhead deployments notwithstanding.
48" is enough that the leading cause of not being able to hit things will be line of sight, not range.
It's enough to fire from within your deploy area across the no-man's land and across a good chunk [generally about 1/3-2/3] of the enemy deploy area.
24" on the other hand, does not have that flexibility, and generally cannot reach units in the enemy deploy area, odd deployments like the arrowhead deployments notwithstanding.
48" is enough that the leading cause of not being able to hit things will be line of sight, not range.
Agreed. 36" makes a huge difference over 24" much of the time.
Not that I'm saying Plasma Devs are a 'good' unit. The opposite in fact, that they are sub standard and Gravs are only situationally a bit better, and in some instances worse.
It's kinda odd then, because a missile launcher is 48" right? I can't remember. In any event, that leads to the conclusion, that is false, that a missile launcher is a more effective first turn weapon than a Plasma Cannon.
It's enough to fire from within your deploy area across the no-man's land and across a good chunk [generally about 1/3-2/3] of the enemy deploy area.
24" on the other hand, does not have that flexibility, and generally cannot reach units in the enemy deploy area, odd deployments like the arrowhead deployments notwithstanding.
48" is enough that the leading cause of not being able to hit things will be line of sight, not range.
Agreed. 36" makes a huge difference over 24" much of the time.
Not that I'm saying Plasma Devs are a 'good' unit. The opposite in fact, that they are sub standard and Gravs are only situationally a bit better, and in some instances worse.
I'm curious as to what you're comparing the Plasma Devs too. They're a mainstay of most of my builds.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: It's kinda odd then, because a missile launcher is 48" right? I can't remember. In any event, that leads to the conclusion, that is false, that a missile launcher is a more effective first turn weapon than a Plasma Cannon.
The missile launcher has the problem of it cost all most as much as a lascannon and it is much weaker in all most all situations you want to use them in.
It's enough to fire from within your deploy area across the no-man's land and across a good chunk [generally about 1/3-2/3] of the enemy deploy area.
24" on the other hand, does not have that flexibility, and generally cannot reach units in the enemy deploy area, odd deployments like the arrowhead deployments notwithstanding.
48" is enough that the leading cause of not being able to hit things will be line of sight, not range.
Agreed. 36" makes a huge difference over 24" much of the time.
Not that I'm saying Plasma Devs are a 'good' unit. The opposite in fact, that they are sub standard and Gravs are only situationally a bit better, and in some instances worse.
I'm curious as to what you're comparing the Plasma Devs too. They're a mainstay of most of my builds.
Well, depends what you're using them for. But personally I don't really see any reason to take Plasma Devs over Hellblasters. Yeah, you lose 6" of range, but your threat range is still 36" because you can move and fire without penalty. Also the Sgt isn't wasted, you can control the battlefield better moving every turn, you're more durable with the extra wounds, and you have more AP - which does make a difference against 3+ saves if there's no invuln.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: It's kinda odd then, because a missile launcher is 48" right? I can't remember. In any event, that leads to the conclusion, that is false, that a missile launcher is a more effective first turn weapon than a Plasma Cannon.
The missile launcher has the problem of it cost all most as much as a lascannon and it is much weaker in all most all situations you want to use them in.
I generally pick Missile Launchers for my Long Fangs over Lascannons, actually.
When push comes to shove, there's not a lot of T8 out there, and even less of that is going to see the light of day. I'd rather save the points. My Razorback[s] generally are adequate numbers of Lascannons, and the extra 20 points in an already vulnerable and expensive squad doesn't sit well when it's not neccessary.
It's enough to fire from within your deploy area across the no-man's land and across a good chunk [generally about 1/3-2/3] of the enemy deploy area.
24" on the other hand, does not have that flexibility, and generally cannot reach units in the enemy deploy area, odd deployments like the arrowhead deployments notwithstanding.
48" is enough that the leading cause of not being able to hit things will be line of sight, not range.
Agreed. 36" makes a huge difference over 24" much of the time.
Not that I'm saying Plasma Devs are a 'good' unit. The opposite in fact, that they are sub standard and Gravs are only situationally a bit better, and in some instances worse.
I'm curious as to what you're comparing the Plasma Devs too. They're a mainstay of most of my builds.
Well, depends what you're using them for. But personally I don't really see any reason to take Plasma Devs over Hellblasters. Yeah, you lose 6" of range, but your threat range is still 36" because you can move and fire without penalty. Also the Sgt isn't wasted, you can control the battlefield better moving every turn, you're more durable with the extra wounds, and you have more AP - which does make a difference against 3+ saves if there's no invuln.
Wait, how is the SGT wasted in a Dev squad? He's got the same gun right? Also, the Reloading Cherub. But yeah, Hellblasters are better at pretty much every target up to and including tanks, which irks me. Their inclusion nullified over half the SM units. There is no more cost effective shooter in the whole SM infantry list, outside of characters.
Well, depends what you're using them for. But personally I don't really see any reason to take Plasma Devs over Hellblasters. Yeah, you lose 6" of range, but your threat range is still 36" because you can move and fire without penalty. Also the Sgt isn't wasted, you can control the battlefield better moving every turn, you're more durable with the extra wounds, and you have more AP - which does make a difference against 3+ saves if there's no invuln.
Even though the Devs average double the shots per model at long range? IMO the extra range and the extra shot is a clear win in my book. Plus they get the option of different weapons (like a Missile Launcher for the Flakk Strat), Cherub, Signum, etc. Not to mention access to cheap Transports. The two-shot Hellblaster with the Assault version is enticing, but the drop in Strength is a big factor.
It's enough to fire from within your deploy area across the no-man's land and across a good chunk [generally about 1/3-2/3] of the enemy deploy area.
24" on the other hand, does not have that flexibility, and generally cannot reach units in the enemy deploy area, odd deployments like the arrowhead deployments notwithstanding.
48" is enough that the leading cause of not being able to hit things will be line of sight, not range.
Agreed. 36" makes a huge difference over 24" much of the time.
Not that I'm saying Plasma Devs are a 'good' unit. The opposite in fact, that they are sub standard and Gravs are only situationally a bit better, and in some instances worse.
I'm curious as to what you're comparing the Plasma Devs too. They're a mainstay of most of my builds.
Well, depends what you're using them for. But personally I don't really see any reason to take Plasma Devs over Hellblasters. Yeah, you lose 6" of range, but your threat range is still 36" because you can move and fire without penalty. Also the Sgt isn't wasted, you can control the battlefield better moving every turn, you're more durable with the extra wounds, and you have more AP - which does make a difference against 3+ saves if there's no invuln.
Wait, how is the SGT wasted in a Dev squad? He's got the same gun right? Also, the Reloading Cherub. But yeah, Hellblasters are better at pretty much every target up to and including tanks, which irks me. Their inclusion nullified over half the SM units. There is no more cost effective shooter in the whole SM infantry list, outside of characters.
Because he can't take a heavy weapon. You're getting 4 weapons to the Hellblasters 5+. Hellblasters also have the advantage you can add a couple more Plasma Incinerators on if you have the points spare without needing to afford a whole squad.
I'll admit Devs let you take ablative wounds which is somewhat useful. Cherub is nice to have, but it's not as good as some people seem to think. In a plasma squad you're averaging 2 extra shots, and that is once per game.
Well, depends what you're using them for. But personally I don't really see any reason to take Plasma Devs over Hellblasters. Yeah, you lose 6" of range, but your threat range is still 36" because you can move and fire without penalty. Also the Sgt isn't wasted, you can control the battlefield better moving every turn, you're more durable with the extra wounds, and you have more AP - which does make a difference against 3+ saves if there's no invuln.
Even though the Devs average double the shots per model at long range? IMO the extra range and the extra shot is a clear win in my book. Plus they get the option of different weapons (like a Missile Launcher for the Flakk Strat), Cherub, Signum, etc. Not to mention access to cheap Transports. The two-shot Hellblaster with the Assault version is enticing, but the drop in Strength is a big factor.
That's fair, they aren't by any means strictly better. But I'd always pick the tactical flexibility of Hellblasters.
As for other weapons, sure - I'd love Primaris to get access to Lascannons or equivalent.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: It's kinda odd then, because a missile launcher is 48" right? I can't remember. In any event, that leads to the conclusion, that is false, that a missile launcher is a more effective first turn weapon than a Plasma Cannon.
The missile launcher has the problem of it cost all most as much as a lascannon and it is much weaker in all most all situations you want to use them in.
I generally pick Missile Launchers for my Long Fangs over Lascannons, actually.
When push comes to shove, there's not a lot of T8 out there, and even less of that is going to see the light of day. I'd rather save the points. My Razorback[s] generally are adequate numbers of Lascannons, and the extra 20 points in an already vulnerable and expensive squad doesn't sit well when it's not neccessary.
T8 is literally everywhere. Rockets are gartbage for their cost. At least Ap-3 comes in handy sometimes when the str difference doesn't matter - plus - it's almost always better to shot a an ap-2 str 8 over d6str 4 0 AP anyways so just forget about the frag rule. turns out though both weapons are overcosted
CapRichard wrote: So, double shot turret for the executioner in 40k too?
If that doesn’t port over 40k, I’ll be shocked.
Nice way to bump it’s AV potential as a MBT without going crazy.
Now to see it on all the other marine tanks that need it...
So the plasma version becomes 2d6 shots? With str 9 ap-4. Manking stronger than the standard version opf the castellans plasmacannon and only slightly worse than the relic version. Yes - this tank will see play with this rule. Kinda weird if the standard repulsor does not get access to this rule as well.
Well, depends what you're using them for. But personally I don't really see any reason to take Plasma Devs over Hellblasters. Yeah, you lose 6" of range, but your threat range is still 36" because you can move and fire without penalty. Also the Sgt isn't wasted, you can control the battlefield better moving every turn, you're more durable with the extra wounds, and you have more AP - which does make a difference against 3+ saves if there's no invuln.
Even though the Devs average double the shots per model at long range? IMO the extra range and the extra shot is a clear win in my book. Plus they get the option of different weapons (like a Missile Launcher for the Flakk Strat), Cherub, Signum, etc. Not to mention access to cheap Transports. The two-shot Hellblaster with the Assault version is enticing, but the drop in Strength is a big factor.
I agree - plasma devs are superior to hellblasters at range and unfortunately. Without being DW to deep strike. Hellblasters will NEVER make it into that range without repulsors.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: It's kinda odd then, because a missile launcher is 48" right? I can't remember. In any event, that leads to the conclusion, that is false, that a missile launcher is a more effective first turn weapon than a Plasma Cannon.
The missile launcher has the problem of it cost all most as much as a lascannon and it is much weaker in all most all situations you want to use them in.
I generally pick Missile Launchers for my Long Fangs over Lascannons, actually.
When push comes to shove, there's not a lot of T8 out there, and even less of that is going to see the light of day. I'd rather save the points. My Razorback[s] generally are adequate numbers of Lascannons, and the extra 20 points in an already vulnerable and expensive squad doesn't sit well when it's not neccessary.
T8 is literally everywhere. Rockets are gartbage for their cost. At least Ap-3 comes in handy sometimes when the str difference doesn't matter - plus - it's almost always better to shot a an ap-2 str 8 over d6str 4 0 AP anyways so just forget about the frag rule. turns out though both weapons are overcosted
I have no problems with my rocket launcher long fangs. As for T8, it's basically just Knights, which AP higher than 1 basically is irrelevant against. Fundamentally, only one of the Lascannon's advantages will be in play at any given time: either the S9 matters and the AP is on Invul, or the AP matters and you'd be on 3+ to wound anyway. In addition, Lascannons are 5 points more than Missile Launchers, and I'd rather not put 20 more points into an already fragile and expensive unit.
I don't think Lascannons are universally bad, since I equip my Razorback with them, but I don't feel they're worth the upgrade for Long Fangs over Missile Launchers; and I do actually find myself firing frag a lot at Genestealers, Guardsmen, and Boyz if tank targets are unavailable.
There could be multiple reasons for the repulsor to not gain grinding advance, like not wanting to draw fire from enemies, or maybe not having extra ammo since it's got more crew capacity, etc
fraser1191 wrote: There could be multiple reasons for the repulsor to not gain grinding advance, like not wanting to draw fire from enemies, or maybe not having extra ammo since it's got more crew capacity, etc
IDK man...If you don't want to get shot probably shouldn't have 11 weapon systems. Plus literally all the weapons that claim to befit from the rule are energy based. Plus beingtwice the size of a lemon russ which has the rule....this rule would literally fix the majority of space marine armor. Though - it's not the best way to do it. I don't care. This belong on probably every tank in the game if some are gonna have it. Fix pricing too. Obviosuly it would make some things too good.
fraser1191 wrote: There could be multiple reasons for the repulsor to not gain grinding advance, like not wanting to draw fire from enemies, or maybe not having extra ammo since it's got more crew capacity, etc
IDK man...If you don't want to get shot probably shouldn't have 11 weapon systems. Plus literally all the weapons that claim to befit from the rule are energy based. Plus beingtwice the size of a lemon russ which has the rule....this rule would literally fix the majority of space marine armor. Though - it's not the best way to do it. I don't care. This belong on probably every tank in the game if some are gonna have it. Fix pricing too. Obviosuly it would make some things too good.
Don't get me wrong I'd love it, maybe even shed a tear, but I can't see them going back patching something like that on all repulsor chassis'
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: It's kinda odd then, because a missile launcher is 48" right? I can't remember. In any event, that leads to the conclusion, that is false, that a missile launcher is a more effective first turn weapon than a Plasma Cannon.
The missile launcher has the problem of it cost all most as much as a lascannon and it is much weaker in all most all situations you want to use them in.
I generally pick Missile Launchers for my Long Fangs over Lascannons, actually.
When push comes to shove, there's not a lot of T8 out there, and even less of that is going to see the light of day. I'd rather save the points. My Razorback[s] generally are adequate numbers of Lascannons, and the extra 20 points in an already vulnerable and expensive squad doesn't sit well when it's not neccessary.
T8 is literally everywhere. Rockets are gartbage for their cost. At least Ap-3 comes in handy sometimes when the str difference doesn't matter - plus - it's almost always better to shot a an ap-2 str 8 over d6str 4 0 AP anyways so just forget about the frag rule. turns out though both weapons are overcosted
I have no problems with my rocket launcher long fangs. As for T8, it's basically just Knights, which AP higher than 1 basically is irrelevant against. Fundamentally, only one of the Lascannon's advantages will be in play at any given time: either the S9 matters and the AP is on Invul, or the AP matters and you'd be on 3+ to wound anyway. In addition, Lascannons are 5 points more than Missile Launchers, and I'd rather not put 20 more points into an already fragile and expensive unit.
I don't think Lascannons are universally bad, since I equip my Razorback with them, but I don't feel they're worth the upgrade for Long Fangs over Missile Launchers; and I do actually find myself firing frag a lot at Genestealers, Guardsmen, and Boyz if tank targets are unavailable.
All most all the heavy hitting imperial units are T8 knights, command russes and repulsseers. I don't know about your region but that makes up over half the meta around where I play sure if all you play is vs tau and eldar the S9 might see a bit over priced but even then the extra AP would still be worth the 5 points.
Yeah if it can shoot twice with the whole turret that would seem to be enough of a difference to be worth a look. I currently use a 4 las Repulsor with Deathwatch and frequently use the +1 wound strats on it. It really isn't too bad when used in this way. All the dakka guns do add some decent chip damage with that +1W, esp the gatling.
Regarding RL comparisons I think the tech level has to be considered. Bradleys with Uranium ammunition destroying 50's era T-55 is interesting but 40k is supposed to have relative parity at the point/power level. Even if we just compare it to WWII, the 37mm was a great anti tank gun for a few years and then became obsolete once the medium tanks were introduced. So the new US "Tank Destroyer" with 37mm becomes the new US "Scout Car" and everyone starts making bigger guns. A Bazooka fires a much weaker round than more modern missile launchers like the Javelin.
It is fun to talk about this stuff but there is only so far you can take it. A marine squad with a ML very probably will not destroy a tank shooting at it the whole game. Two marine squads each with a ML now are getting closer to the cost of a tank and still probably will not kill one in a game by themselves. But they can do other stuff other than just shooting their missiles. How weak should they really be? I think they are already on the weak side.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: It's kinda odd then, because a missile launcher is 48" right? I can't remember. In any event, that leads to the conclusion, that is false, that a missile launcher is a more effective first turn weapon than a Plasma Cannon.
The missile launcher has the problem of it cost all most as much as a lascannon and it is much weaker in all most all situations you want to use them in.
I generally pick Missile Launchers for my Long Fangs over Lascannons, actually.
When push comes to shove, there's not a lot of T8 out there, and even less of that is going to see the light of day. I'd rather save the points. My Razorback[s] generally are adequate numbers of Lascannons, and the extra 20 points in an already vulnerable and expensive squad doesn't sit well when it's not neccessary.
T8 is literally everywhere. Rockets are gartbage for their cost. At least Ap-3 comes in handy sometimes when the str difference doesn't matter - plus - it's almost always better to shot a an ap-2 str 8 over d6str 4 0 AP anyways so just forget about the frag rule. turns out though both weapons are overcosted
I have no problems with my rocket launcher long fangs. As for T8, it's basically just Knights, which AP higher than 1 basically is irrelevant against. Fundamentally, only one of the Lascannon's advantages will be in play at any given time: either the S9 matters and the AP is on Invul, or the AP matters and you'd be on 3+ to wound anyway. In addition, Lascannons are 5 points more than Missile Launchers, and I'd rather not put 20 more points into an already fragile and expensive unit.
I don't think Lascannons are universally bad, since I equip my Razorback with them, but I don't feel they're worth the upgrade for Long Fangs over Missile Launchers; and I do actually find myself firing frag a lot at Genestealers, Guardsmen, and Boyz if tank targets are unavailable.
Russ/Knights/Levi dreads/ Custodes tanks/dreads. Basically every Imperial faction is putting A lot of T8 out there. Those are all competitive units too. All these units can get cover saves too. The AP is not useless. If your goal is to make things use their 5++ save Ap-3 is good to have. Also - anything with a 2+ save in cover you really want that AP-3.
I can see wanting to save 20 points but I can think of better places to save it.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: The game already takes too long for all the shooting rules. # of shots rolls, re rolls, hit rolls, re rolls, wound rolls, re rolls, save rolls, re rolls, invuln rolls, re rolls, FNP rolls, re rolls, damage rolls., then do it all again twice for the charge phase and the melee phase.
I like the idea of removing invuln saves. It would nerf psyker heavy armies like 1kSons though, because they rely on mortal wounds. Or remove FNP. But as is there are too many re-rolls, and invulns play a big part of that.
As for the Repulsor, if it's getting the damage potential that some people are throwing around here, this is getting into DBZ levels of power scaling ridiculousness. There are entire armies that were designed around the capabilities of pre-primaris weaponry.
At the end of DBZ, the power levels were expanded to such a degree that it was impossible to keep up, because each boost was muliplicative of the previous level. 2 to 4, 4 to 8, 8 to 16...etc. If you have a sub 300 pt unit roaming around with 4d6 damage potential over 2-3 shots from 1 of it's 3-5 guns, we have officially gone SSJ4 Blue.
How do invulns affect rerolls? You take either the armor save, or the invuln. You don't take the armor save, reroll the fails, then take the invuln, and reroll the fails. Invuln and Armor are an either or.
It's enough to fire from within your deploy area across the no-man's land and across a good chunk [generally about 1/3-2/3] of the enemy deploy area.
24" on the other hand, does not have that flexibility, and generally cannot reach units in the enemy deploy area, odd deployments like the arrowhead deployments notwithstanding.
48" is enough that the leading cause of not being able to hit things will be line of sight, not range.
Agreed. 36" makes a huge difference over 24" much of the time.
Not that I'm saying Plasma Devs are a 'good' unit. The opposite in fact, that they are sub standard and Gravs are only situationally a bit better, and in some instances worse.
I'm curious as to what you're comparing the Plasma Devs too. They're a mainstay of most of my builds.
I'm guessing this was in response to the mathhammer I posted a few above comparing PCDevs, Hellblasters, and Grav AmpDevs to both add context to an earlier speculation about Grav vs Plas, and to set a "baseline" for shooting effectiveness of a Heavy Support Slot like a Repulsor Executioner. The Executioner did not fare well compared to any of the infantry Devs on a purely killing aspect.
CapRichard wrote: So, double shot turret for the executioner in 40k too?
If that doesn’t port over 40k, I’ll be shocked.
Nice way to bump it’s AV potential as a MBT without going crazy.
Now to see it on all the other marine tanks that need it...
So the plasma version becomes 2d6 shots? With str 9 ap-4. Manking stronger than the standard version opf the castellans plasmacannon and only slightly worse than the relic version. Yes - this tank will see play with this rule. Kinda weird if the standard repulsor does not get access to this rule as well.
And the powercreep cycle goes into full swing.
If the anti infantry weapon is 2d6 S9 Ap-4 what kinda rediculous stats is the heavy laser destroyer going to have to compete with that.
CapRichard wrote: So, double shot turret for the executioner in 40k too?
If that doesn’t port over 40k, I’ll be shocked.
Nice way to bump it’s AV potential as a MBT without going crazy.
Now to see it on all the other marine tanks that need it...
So the plasma version becomes 2d6 shots? With str 9 ap-4. Manking stronger than the standard version opf the castellans plasmacannon and only slightly worse than the relic version. Yes - this tank will see play with this rule. Kinda weird if the standard repulsor does not get access to this rule as well.
And the powercreep cycle goes into full swing.
If the anti infantry weapon is 2d6 S9 Ap-4 what kinda rediculous stats is the heavy laser destroyer going to have to compete with that.
Why bother competing with stats when you can just compete with a 50 point discount.
Russ/Knights/Levi dreads/ Custodes tanks/dreads. Basically every Imperial faction is putting A lot of T8 out there. Those are all competitive units too. All these units can get cover saves too. The AP is not useless. If your goal is to make things use their 5++ save Ap-3 is good to have. Also - anything with a 2+ save in cover you really want that AP-3.
I can see wanting to save 20 points but I can think of better places to save it.
4++. Knights generally have a 4++.
Anyway, sure, fine, I'll switch back to Lascannons, we can talk about missiles versus lascannons on a disgustingly expensive infantry unit with literally no survivability somewhere else.
Back to the Repulsor Executioner:
It's definitely going to have a fire-twice property, and it looks like it's main gun will have more than one shot. These are both signs that it will at least break even with the vanilla repulsor. Will it do better? I don't have high hopes, but maybe.
CapRichard wrote: So, double shot turret for the executioner in 40k too?
If that doesn’t port over 40k, I’ll be shocked.
Nice way to bump it’s AV potential as a MBT without going crazy.
Now to see it on all the other marine tanks that need it...
So the plasma version becomes 2d6 shots? With str 9 ap-4. Manking stronger than the standard version opf the castellans plasmacannon and only slightly worse than the relic version. Yes - this tank will see play with this rule. Kinda weird if the standard repulsor does not get access to this rule as well.
And the powercreep cycle goes into full swing.
If the anti infantry weapon is 2d6 S9 Ap-4 what kinda rediculous stats is the heavy laser destroyer going to have to compete with that.
Why bother competing with stats when you can just compete with a 50 point discount.
i don't follow?
Given the plasma is 31 points and I can't see GW adding 2 points costs for the same weapon that would make the laser destoyer -19 points.
The base points cost is going to have to be higher or it's going to be cheaper than a repulsor.
Aquilon Optics gives me hope that some of the other Marine vehicles / weapon options will get a badly needed fix in Marine Codex 2.0. Predators, Vindicators, Dreadnaughts, the Repulsor's main turret gun has that huge targeting array (despite the hull-mounted Lascannons being the actual main gun...), lots of stuff in the current Marine book could use that bump.
Not to change the subject there, but Marine codex 2.0 is actually a little worrisome. The rumors I'm hearing are that it's all Primaris and "here's how to use your old Marines as Primaris units now", there's a lot of potential for old Marine units to not make the transition. Here's hoping they caught enough of the backlash over Bretonians and Corsairs to not make that mistake again.
(Although if GW converted all the old Rhino and Land Raider-based tanks to hover-rhinos and Repulsor variants and released a couple of "upgrade" kit to replace the tracks on old Rhino and Land Raiders I'd pull a "Shut up and take my money" on them. I would not argue with Fly on all the Marine armor.)
The Newman wrote: Aquilon Optics gives me hope that some of the other Marine vehicles / weapon options will get a badly needed fix in Marine Codex 2.0. Predators, Vindicators, Dreadnaughts, the Repulsor's main turret gun has that huge targeting array (despite the hull-mounted Lascannons being the actual main gun...), lots of stuff in the current Marine book could use that bump.
Not to change the subject there, but Marine codex 2.0 is actually a little worrisome. The rumors I'm hearing are that it's all Primaris and "here's how to use your old Marines as Primaris units now", there's a lot of potential for old Marine units to not make the transition. Here's hoping they caught enough of the backlash over Bretonians and Corsairs to not make that mistake again.
(Although if GW converted all the old Rhino and Land Raider-based tanks to hover-rhinos and Repulsor variants and released a couple of "upgrade" kit to replace the tracks on old Rhino and Land Raiders I'd pull a "Shut up and take my money" on them. I would not argue with Fly on all the Marine armor.)
I can see why as a marine player you would eant that but I have to say I hope they don't do that as it doesn't fix the underlying issue that doubel shooting russes caused.
It favoured mass die rolling over actually having the right weapon.
Back to the Repulsor Executioner:
It's definitely going to have a fire-twice property, and it looks like it's main gun will have more than one shot. These are both signs that it will at least break even with the vanilla repulsor. Will it do better? I don't have high hopes, but maybe.
Dont forget the transport capabilities. If the Transport capabilities are tiny, that's going to be what makes them both stink.
Ice_can wrote: I can see why as a marine player you would eant that but I have to say I hope they don't do that as it doesn't fix the underlying issue that doubel shooting russes caused.
It favoured mass die rolling over actually having the right weapon.
I totally agree. I'd actually go a step further since it adds to the general problem of the edition being vastly too lethal. Unfortunately that's not going to get fixed without a complete overhaul so the best we can hope for is getting the factions into balance.
As designed Marines seem to be set up to play a gunline that doesn't have great fire output but is tough enough to grind out wins on attrition (which would be forgiving for new players) but to actually make that strategy work in 8th every single thing in the army needs almost twice as many wounds as it actually has. There is no way that's going to happen, so getting the firepower tapped upward is the best we can reasonably expect.
That raises an interesting point: If a unit is designed as a gunline army, what need is there for transports? The units that need to be in melee usually have abilities or good movement that lets them cross the field quickly. The units that don't are usually long range shooty types.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: That raises an interesting point: If a unit is designed as a gunline army, what need is there for transports? The units that need to be in melee usually have abilities or good movement that lets them cross the field quickly. The units that don't are usually long range shooty types.
You could ask what is the point of many primaris units it feels very much like an army without an identity.
It's a gun line that can't gun line, it's really the aura ball of death army which is super unfun to play as or against.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: That raises an interesting point: If a unit is designed as a gunline army, what need is there for transports? The units that need to be in melee usually have abilities or good movement that lets them cross the field quickly. The units that don't are usually long range shooty types.
Game-wise it's because at least some transports bring as many guns per-point as the units they might be carrying and putting static gunline units in transports lowers your drop count. Going first is still a pretty big advantage after all. (It baffles me that GW hasn't done more to address that, they have to have had a ton of suggestions by now and at least some of them had to be good ideas just on probability.)
I feel like this is getting more and more off topic. I don't see how they can effectively price the new Repulsor with these rules, the weapons, and the transport capacity, and still expect it to be viable or even take-able. Before the shoot twice rule got dropped, it was hypothetically closing to 350pts range. Now with shoot twice, 360-370? That's too much. I doubt it will come to that, but if this ends up being 300 max I'll re-think painting up my old SMs.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I feel like this is getting more and more off topic. I don't see how they can effectively price the new Repulsor with these rules, the weapons, and the transport capacity, and still expect it to be viable or even take-able. Before the shoot twice rule got dropped, it was hypothetically closing to 350pts range. Now with shoot twice, 360-370? That's too much. I doubt it will come to that, but if this ends up being 300 max I'll re-think painting up my old SMs.
GW almost pathologically overvalues transport capacity, especially in its hybrid units. Dropping from 12 to 6 is going to cover most, if not all, of the cost for being a better gunship.
CapRichard wrote: So, double shot turret for the executioner in 40k too?
If that doesn’t port over 40k, I’ll be shocked.
Nice way to bump it’s AV potential as a MBT without going crazy.
Now to see it on all the other marine tanks that need it...
So the plasma version becomes 2d6 shots? With str 9 ap-4. Manking stronger than the standard version opf the castellans plasmacannon and only slightly worse than the relic version. Yes - this tank will see play with this rule. Kinda weird if the standard repulsor does not get access to this rule as well.
And the powercreep cycle goes into full swing.
If the anti infantry weapon is 2d6 S9 Ap-4 what kinda rediculous stats is the heavy laser destroyer going to have to compete with that.
Why bother competing with stats when you can just compete with a 50 point discount.
competition isnt the only way to play the game.
If this thing isnt so damn expensive (pl/pts/$€£¥) I might buy it instead of an additional repulsor. At this rate the troop transport version will be $150 & have only 8 weapons, but 12 trans capacity, so probably 270pts.
we can look at the rhino/razorback/pred pricing as a "guide";
Rhino is $37.25
Razorback is $41
Predator is $57.75
The Rhino costs what it costs because no one uses it anymore and no one is buying it. See the cost of drop pods. There are two at my local store, $60. And they will stay there forever likely.
The Repulsor will be commiserate with other Transpo-tanks out there. 100-120.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: The Rhino costs what it costs because no one uses it anymore and no one is buying it. See the cost of drop pods. There are two at my local store, $60. And they will stay there forever likely.
Nobody's buying Rhinos because we already have a bunch left over from the glorious Gladius Formation
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: The Rhino costs what it costs because no one uses it anymore and no one is buying it. See the cost of drop pods. There are two at my local store, $60. And they will stay there forever likely.
Nobody's buying Rhinos because we already have a bunch left over from the glorious Gladius Formation
Also that. But honestly, every day GW is making it clearer that regulars are being squatted. They are dropping older models from shelves, removing things, making them special orders, etc. Keep on those Rhinos, because they are going to be collectors items in a couple years.
^There are lots of models not kept on the shelves, that doesn't mean they're on the way to the bin. I'll believe truemarines are phased out when they're no longer available on the site.
agreed. just because GW's not pushing something doesn't mean they're phasing it out. the "rumors" space marine codex 2.0 will start dropping regular marines etc is REDICULAS. It won't happen. we've seen a 2.0 codex. they added the new units to the codex. other then that no changes (in fact they missed on adding bloody errata) space marines will be the same way. they'll put the vanguard marines, and the new transport in the codex. and that will be it. MAYBE MAYBE if we're lucky they'll give us the index astartes chapter tactics found in WDs in the codex but I'd doubt that very VERY much
So, if the Repulsor Executioner isn't in any codex, are GW going to post the rules sheet on warhammer community? Because they usually only provide power points in the box.
argonak wrote: So, if the Repulsor Executioner isn't in any codex, are GW going to post the rules sheet on warhammer community? Because they usually only provide power points in the box.
most likely. That said I'd expect that once apoc has settled the space mariens will get a 2.0 codex and vanguard marine release. I expect it'll be augest but we could see it as early as July using the blood ravens index article as a chance to fluff new vanguard stuff out.
A lot of negative or unreasonable opinions are being tossed around during this discussion.
Some people are complaining about having to roll dice? Get out of here, you are a cynical troll if that's your opinion.
Some are saying that Repulsors aren't good? I'm not sure what the metric or comparison for that is. The tank costs 100 points more than a Predator yet has far more firepower, machine spirit, defence against assaults, more armour and wounds, has fly and can transport models.
Yes, a Repulsor can be destroyed. Every unit in the game can be destroyed in a single turn, including the 704 point Castellan. You nee to run multiples or other threats that function as a distraction to divide your opponent's firepower and attention. It's probably the best Astartes tank in terms of rules.
Also, I'm baffled that anyone is writing the new tank off. We literally have no idea what the main weapon will do. Looking at the Apocalypse previews it's possible that the tank will have a similar rule to the Leman Russ - firing twice if moving less than half. If the main weapon is a two shot, Str10 cannon with AP-4 , and D6 damage, minimum 3, it will be a phenomenal tank hunter.
Some of you need to stop being negative. I know you get excited and feel good when you complain but it's very boring and tiresome for most people on the forum.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: The Rhino costs what it costs because no one uses it anymore and no one is buying it. See the cost of drop pods. There are two at my local store, $60. And they will stay there forever likely.
The Repulsor will be commiserate with other Transpo-tanks out there. 100-120.
GW hasn't increased prices of old kits for long time actually leaving price hikes for new SKU's. Rhino costs what it costs because that's what it costed when GW froze prices(before that they often applied yearly price hikes across the line)
Some people are complaining about having to roll dice? Get out of here, you are a cynical troll if that's your opinion.
Actually there is a thing called too much dice rolling. Especially with all the rerolls. It takes away tons of time. It's not fun rolling like 200 dice to resolve shooting from ONE unit. And that's not exaggeration. Not that long time there was an ork unit where 1/3 of times(well bit more) in average rolled 250 dice or so in one turn. Before opponent rolls for save.
8th ed is GW's slowest edition ever barring maybe rogue trader(haven't played it) in standard game size. And that's precisely because 8th ed has taken dice rolling to ridiculous number.
Some are saying that Repulsors aren't good? I'm not sure what the metric or comparison for that is.
See repulsors dominating tournaments? Just because it might be better than predator doesn't make either of good. It just makes predator even more pathetic. 1000$ for single infantry model doesn't become cheap just because there exists 1500$ one.
Some people are complaining about having to roll dice? Get out of here, you are a cynical troll if that's your opinion.
Actually there is a thing called too much dice rolling. Especially with all the rerolls. It takes away tons of time. It's not fun rolling like 200 dice to resolve shooting from ONE unit. And that's not exaggeration. Not that long time there was an ork unit where 1/3 of times(well bit more) in average rolled 250 dice or so in one turn. Before opponent rolls for save.
8th ed is GW's slowest edition ever barring maybe rogue trader(haven't played it) in standard game size. And that's precisely because 8th ed has taken dice rolling to ridiculous number.
Dont forget that there is a 6 man infantry unit in Ultramarine lists that fire 108 shots with full rerolls on both hit and wounds. That is 108 + 36 dice rolled just for hitting, 96 + 42 for wounding on t4. And then about 70 armor saves. That is over 300 die rolls for 6 models shooting at an infantry squad. Could probably squeeze in another 20-50 feel no pain rolls there too. My first game of 40k in 7 years and I met that stupid unit on the other side of the table with my 5th edition blood angels. Thought the opponent was joking when he rolled 3 containers worth of dice. Just for 6 guys
Some people are complaining about having to roll dice? Get out of here, you are a cynical troll if that's your opinion.
Actually there is a thing called too much dice rolling. Especially with all the rerolls. It takes away tons of time. It's not fun rolling like 200 dice to resolve shooting from ONE unit. And that's not exaggeration. Not that long time there was an ork unit where 1/3 of times(well bit more) in average rolled 250 dice or so in one turn. Before opponent rolls for save.
8th ed is GW's slowest edition ever barring maybe rogue trader(haven't played it) in standard game size. And that's precisely because 8th ed has taken dice rolling to ridiculous number.
Dont forget that there is a 6 man infantry unit in Ultramarine lists that fire 108 shots with full rerolls on both hit and wounds. That is 108 + 36 dice rolled just for hitting, 96 + 42 for wounding on t4. And then about 70 armor saves. That is over 300 die rolls for 6 models shooting at an infantry squad. Could probably squeeze in another 20-50 feel no pain rolls there too. My first game of 40k in 7 years and I met that stupid unit on the other side of the table with my 5th edition blood angels. Thought the opponent was joking when he rolled 3 containers worth of dice. Just for 6 guys
To be fair, those are Aggressors, which require a lot of things to go right for them to be effective. Also, that setup you are talking about requires a Captain, so it's actually 2 units. Then it requires a f-ton of points to field that squad. So, yeah. Maybe a good example of going over on dice, but surely any unit taken to extremes will provide extreme examples...
Some people are complaining about having to roll dice? Get out of here, you are a cynical troll if that's your opinion.
Actually there is a thing called too much dice rolling. Especially with all the rerolls. It takes away tons of time. It's not fun rolling like 200 dice to resolve shooting from ONE unit. And that's not exaggeration. Not that long time there was an ork unit where 1/3 of times(well bit more) in average rolled 250 dice or so in one turn. Before opponent rolls for save.
8th ed is GW's slowest edition ever barring maybe rogue trader(haven't played it) in standard game size. And that's precisely because 8th ed has taken dice rolling to ridiculous number.
Dont forget that there is a 6 man infantry unit in Ultramarine lists that fire 108 shots with full rerolls on both hit and wounds. That is 108 + 36 dice rolled just for hitting, 96 + 42 for wounding on t4. And then about 70 armor saves. That is over 300 die rolls for 6 models shooting at an infantry squad. Could probably squeeze in another 20-50 feel no pain rolls there too. My first game of 40k in 7 years and I met that stupid unit on the other side of the table with my 5th edition blood angels. Thought the opponent was joking when he rolled 3 containers worth of dice. Just for 6 guys
To be fair, those are Aggressors, which require a lot of things to go right for them to be effective. Also, that setup you are talking about requires a Captain, so it's actually 2 units. Then it requires a f-ton of points to field that squad. So, yeah. Maybe a good example of going over on dice, but surely any unit taken to extremes will provide extreme examples...
Um no, Centurion Devastators with G-man. Move and shoot without -1 to hit and ignores cover with 36 heavy bolter shots and 72 bolter shots. T5 3W with 2+. Can even add in an apothecary in the list to bring them back to life. They even average 21+ wounds on a t7 tank with 3+/4++ armor save or about 31 marines dead after saves. They dont need much to be effective at all. (You would probably still field G-man anyway and have him close by and they can make up their points against any statline). Lots of points but not like they are ill spent and they are infantry without to hit penalty so they can even hide out of LOS until they step forward and obliterate stuff. Anything that isnt a land raider(t8 2+ 16w) or tougher will be killed just by the amount of dice rolled.
Aggressors can have the same amount of shots for half the price but its true that they are gimmicky. 6-18 inch shorter range and have to stand still with their 18inch range to double tap, no str 5 ap1 shots and no ignores cover. And 1 less wound and worse save.
Ishagu wrote: A lot of negative or unreasonable opinions are being tossed around during this discussion.
Some people are complaining about having to roll dice? Get out of here, you are a cynical troll if that's your opinion.
Some are saying that Repulsors aren't good? I'm not sure what the metric or comparison for that is. The tank costs 100 points more than a Predator yet has far more firepower, machine spirit, defence against assaults, more armour and wounds, has fly and can transport models.
Yes, a Repulsor can be destroyed. Every unit in the game can be destroyed in a single turn, including the 704 point Castellan. You nee to run multiples or other threats that function as a distraction to divide your opponent's firepower and attention. It's probably the best Astartes tank in terms of rules.
Also, I'm baffled that anyone is writing the new tank off. We literally have no idea what the main weapon will do. Looking at the Apocalypse previews it's possible that the tank will have a similar rule to the Leman Russ - firing twice if moving less than half. If the main weapon is a two shot, Str10 cannon with AP-4 , and D6 damage, minimum 3, it will be a phenomenal tank hunter.
Some of you need to stop being negative. I know you get excited and feel good when you complain but it's very boring and tiresome for most people on the forum.
Comparing to a predator is the reverse of convincing. Compare it to a wave serpent. If repulsor is the best the marines have, that's not very inspiring. Marine vehicles are among the worst in the game.
The primary weapon is probably good at bullying around other marines, but enemy vehicles and monsters with invulns will greatly diminish its value. The same situation that already exists with lascannons, etc.
I dunno, I feel like three of these firing their main guns at a Knight will knock it at a minimum into the lowest bracket. Meanwhile it's deposited a few squads of something awful, maybe aggressors? Now you have all those shots into your chaff stuff. I see these as being a great fun toy for getting back to what makes SM armies special. Shock assault attacks, getting up in your face and unloading everything, while being difficult to remove.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I dunno, I feel like three of these firing their main guns at a Knight will knock it at a minimum into the lowest bracket. Meanwhile it's deposited a few squads of something awful, maybe aggressors? Now you have all those shots into your chaff stuff. I see these as being a great fun toy for getting back to what makes SM armies special. Shock assault attacks, getting up in your face and unloading everything, while being difficult to remove.
what is it going to unload? A few squads of aggressors? It’s going to be lucky to hold a Min unit of Agressors at 1 model per two capacity given the 6 capcity speculation. And that’s the only thing I can think of that’s both nasty and you’d want to drop off “in their face” that couldn’t have gotten there without the Repulsor.
I dunno, if a trio of Repulsors dropped 3 squads of Hellblasters or Aggressors on my front line, I don't know how good my front lines would look after that. Also, that's not even accounting for the Executioner's attacks.
It may not be the new meta breaking ITC boss haxor l33t tactics yo, but it's still a good ability that, if the costs come back positive, will be a good look for Primaris.
Before the flaming starts about how dumb and stupid I am, I would have fun playing this way. Right or wrong, this would be an enjoyable setup for an army.
The trio will never get there. One will get destroyed, and another crippled on the way. It would be cool, I suppose, if that were to happen. Problem is that you are probably better off just getting more marines.
Ishagu wrote: A lot of negative or unreasonable opinions are being tossed around during this discussion.
Some people are complaining about having to roll dice? Get out of here, you are a cynical troll if that's your opinion.
Some are saying that Repulsors aren't good? I'm not sure what the metric or comparison for that is. The tank costs 100 points more than a Predator yet has far more firepower, machine spirit, defence against assaults, more armour and wounds, has fly and can transport models.
Yes, a Repulsor can be destroyed. Every unit in the game can be destroyed in a single turn, including the 704 point Castellan. You nee to run multiples or other threats that function as a distraction to divide your opponent's firepower and attention. It's probably the best Astartes tank in terms of rules.
Also, I'm baffled that anyone is writing the new tank off. We literally have no idea what the main weapon will do. Looking at the Apocalypse previews it's possible that the tank will have a similar rule to the Leman Russ - firing twice if moving less than half. If the main weapon is a two shot, Str10 cannon with AP-4 , and D6 damage, minimum 3, it will be a phenomenal tank hunter.
Some of you need to stop being negative. I know you get excited and feel good when you complain but it's very boring and tiresome for most people on the forum.
Comparing to a predator is the reverse of convincing. Compare it to a wave serpent. If repulsor is the best the marines have, that's not very inspiring. Marine vehicles are among the worst in the game.
The primary weapon is probably good at bullying around other marines, but enemy vehicles and monsters with invulns will greatly diminish its value. The same situation that already exists with lascannons, etc.
I have beaten Eldar, Dark Eldar, Orks, Nids, Knights, Guard, Chaos and Tau with my dual Repulsor lists, at tournaments, clubs and casual games.
I'm not saying they are the best of course. They aren't the worst either. They perform well and carry out their jobs better than other units in the army.
Are you too insecure to play a unit which isn't "the best on the tabletop"? Do you only play the top tournament units? How dull
Dude I don't have any "best on the table top units". Of course repulsors aren't the worst. The rest of the marine tank line exists. But EXTERNALLY they are garbage still.
And yes, I primarily face top tournament units. So many plaguebearers. I'm so sick of plaguebearers.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: The Rhino costs what it costs because no one uses it anymore and no one is buying it. See the cost of drop pods. There are two at my local store, $60. And they will stay there forever likely.
The Repulsor will be commiserate with other Transpo-tanks out there. 100-120.
GW hasn't increased prices of old kits for long time actually leaving price hikes for new SKU's. Rhino costs what it costs because that's what it costed when GW froze prices(before that they often applied yearly price hikes across the line)
Some people are complaining about having to roll dice? Get out of here, you are a cynical troll if that's your opinion.
Actually there is a thing called too much dice rolling. Especially with all the rerolls. It takes away tons of time. It's not fun rolling like 200 dice to resolve shooting from ONE unit. And that's not exaggeration. Not that long time there was an ork unit where 1/3 of times(well bit more) in average rolled 250 dice or so in one turn. Before opponent rolls for save.
8th ed is GW's slowest edition ever barring maybe rogue trader(haven't played it) in standard game size. And that's precisely because 8th ed has taken dice rolling to ridiculous number.
Some are saying that Repulsors aren't good? I'm not sure what the metric or comparison for that is.
See repulsors dominating tournaments? Just because it might be better than predator doesn't make either of good. It just makes predator even more pathetic. 1000$ for single infantry model doesn't become cheap just because there exists 1500$ one.
TOURNAMENTS ARE NOT THE ONLY MODE OF PLAY.
I would suspect that nearly 60% of the player base has no interest in going to major/minor events. So why should these events dictate what is good and what is not. Local metas are all over the place.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote: Dude I don't have any "best on the table top units". Of course repulsors aren't the worst. The rest of the marine tank line exists. But EXTERNALLY they are garbage still.
And yes, I primarily face top tournament units. So many plaguebearers. I'm so sick of plaguebearers.
That's unfortunate. I would say that you need to find a nice play group.
Martel732 wrote: Dude I don't have any "best on the table top units". Of course repulsors aren't the worst. The rest of the marine tank line exists. But EXTERNALLY they are garbage still.
And yes, I primarily face top tournament units. So many plaguebearers. I'm so sick of plaguebearers.
They aren't garbage at all, that's the thing.
I certainly agree that they aren't the top vehicles on the table, that's not in question. They do work however, an can perform at the highest level.
A lot of people are literally dismissing things because they aren't "winning large tournaments"
That is plain wrong. .
PS: They work great against plaguebearers. Loads of shots and can't be tied up.
Let's all stop with the hyperbolic comments and absolutes.
No official confirmation on if itll transfer over to 40k, but its a reasonable inference to make.
Means literally nothing. I wish people wouldn't jump to conclusions on this kind of stuff. There is 0% chance this will come to 40K proper.
Well, we'll revisit this post soon I guess!
All I'm saying is, let's wait and see what the gun even has for stats before we start worrying about special rules. We don't even know points or powerlevel cost yet.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ishagu wrote: They aren't garbage at all, that;s the thing.
I certainly agree that they aren't the top vehicles on the table, that's not in question. They do work however, an can perform at the highest level.
A lot of people are literally dismissing things because they aren't "winning large tournaments"
That is plain wrong
THANK YOU!
I'm so sick of listening to competitives tell me how, when and why I should play my games.
I am continually amazed at the amount of fire power that a repulsor with double cannons can lob per turn, and it's funny when you turn a deepstrike 9+ inch charge into an 11+ inch charge.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I dunno, if a trio of Repulsors dropped 3 squads of Hellblasters or Aggressors on my front line, I don't know how good my front lines would look after that. Also, that's not even accounting for the Executioner's attacks.
It may not be the new meta breaking ITC boss haxor l33t tactics yo, but it's still a good ability that, if the costs come back positive, will be a good look for Primaris.
Before the flaming starts about how dumb and stupid I am, I would have fun playing this way. Right or wrong, this would be an enjoyable setup for an army.
I've run that army before. It can win if you go first. Auto lose if you go second. Very poor army. You can't win a game with literally 0 invo saves.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I dunno, if a trio of Repulsors dropped 3 squads of Hellblasters or Aggressors on my front line, I don't know how good my front lines would look after that. Also, that's not even accounting for the Executioner's attacks.
It may not be the new meta breaking ITC boss haxor l33t tactics yo, but it's still a good ability that, if the costs come back positive, will be a good look for Primaris.
Before the flaming starts about how dumb and stupid I am, I would have fun playing this way. Right or wrong, this would be an enjoyable setup for an army.
I've run that army before. It can win if you go first. Auto lose if you go second. Very poor army. You can't win a game with literally 0 invo saves.
Did you play that army before? Just three Repulsors? There have been some variations on the idea, I believe. The first popular one being Repulsor trio, double Redemptor, primaris blood angels with smash captain. That one did quite well in a couple tournies, I believe.
Martel732 wrote: Dude I don't have any "best on the table top units". Of course repulsors aren't the worst. The rest of the marine tank line exists. But EXTERNALLY they are garbage still.
And yes, I primarily face top tournament units. So many plaguebearers. I'm so sick of plaguebearers.
They aren't garbage at all, that's the thing.
I certainly agree that they aren't the top vehicles on the table, that's not in question. They do work however, an can perform at the highest level.
A lot of people are literally dismissing things because they aren't "winning large tournaments"
That is plain wrong. .
PS: They work great against plaguebearers. Loads of shots and can't be tied up.
Let's all stop with the hyperbolic comments and absolutes.
They work great if your opponent doesn't bring multi damage weapons with AP. It is routinely 1 shot by several dedicated shooting units. Basically that means its garbage. Spending 280ish points on a unit that can easily be 1 shot is bottom tier garbage. A wave serpent is more durable in most respects.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I dunno, if a trio of Repulsors dropped 3 squads of Hellblasters or Aggressors on my front line, I don't know how good my front lines would look after that. Also, that's not even accounting for the Executioner's attacks.
It may not be the new meta breaking ITC boss haxor l33t tactics yo, but it's still a good ability that, if the costs come back positive, will be a good look for Primaris.
Before the flaming starts about how dumb and stupid I am, I would have fun playing this way. Right or wrong, this would be an enjoyable setup for an army.
I've run that army before. It can win if you go first. Auto lose if you go second. Very poor army. You can't win a game with literally 0 invo saves.
Did you play that army before? Just three Repulsors? There have been some variations on the idea, I believe. The first popular one being Repulsor trio, double Redemptor, primaris blood angels with smash captain. That one did quite well in a couple tournies, I believe.
Ultras with Gman and 3 Repulsor. Really good damage output. Good chance at losing all 2-3 repulsors in a single turn though.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I dunno, if a trio of Repulsors dropped 3 squads of Hellblasters or Aggressors on my front line, I don't know how good my front lines would look after that. Also, that's not even accounting for the Executioner's attacks.
It may not be the new meta breaking ITC boss haxor l33t tactics yo, but it's still a good ability that, if the costs come back positive, will be a good look for Primaris.
Before the flaming starts about how dumb and stupid I am, I would have fun playing this way. Right or wrong, this would be an enjoyable setup for an army.
I've run that army before. It can win if you go first. Auto lose if you go second. Very poor army. You can't win a game with literally 0 invo saves.
1. Most HQ's have Invulns.
2. We don't know yet if the Executioner will or won't.
3. That would not be the full list.
4. My Custodes list last week took down a 1kSons list with a ton of 3/4++, and lost to a Nids list with hardly any.
5. Again, stop trying to take the fun out of the game.
Chess matches are boring until a genius comes along like Bobby Fischer and throws the last 100 years of "established science" on Chess out the window. People told him he'd lose by sacrificing knights, bishops, and the queen just to save pawns. Then he beat Kaspirov with a few pawns an a knight, and no one saw it coming. Be less afraid of loosing, than having no fun. I have more fun now with my Custodes+ than I ever did with my IG+, my DW, or my pure IG.
