Good luck with that.

Use a chapter master and a command point. You're not spending them on anything else after all. And why aren't we using the additional 30 shots of Str4/5 ap-1?

I have no concern over vehicles with a 5++
Typically they can be chipped away with other weapons on top.

Dark Eldar vehicles
A Deredeo or Contemptor
A Calidius Tank

None of these are hard to remove. And in no circumstance should your only Anti Tank be a single Repulsor.

Everyone is creaming themselves about the range, that's why. If you are using that range, the other weapons are out of range.

I'm BA I don't get a chapter master. Command points are a bit hard to factor in, but the averages still give you a solid base line.

4 * 0.89 * 0.77 * 0.666 = 1.83. So chapter master gets you to 1.83 cleared hits. No way a single reroll is getting you up to an average of 3. Hell, the 5++ alone puts you at 2.67 even if all hit and wound everytime.

OBVIOUSLY it shouldn't be your only anti-tank. What kind of statement is that? But by the time you are done paying for marines models, it's not looking great imo.

Tell me all about how that blightcrawler is easy to remove. Seriously? Bottom line is that marines have such a small margin for error, they can't afford to pay for AP they don't get.

Hey, I get it. You hate this unit and every other Astartes unit, and you will continue to hate it until it's featured in a large tournament winning list, after which you'll be singing it's praises because variety, modelling, fun, aren't factors in your hobby experience.

So small, so limiting.

 Insectum7 wrote:


Why the heck would you bother doing the calculations for Devs if you're only going to give them Missile Launchers? Plasma or Las at least if you're calculating vs. T8 3+

Because Plas and Las numbers - or something similar enough to be in the educated guess ballpark are already done - and the process is laid out step by step for anyone curious enough to do the math themselves if ballpark isn't good enough?

Why are you bothering to complain about free math, when you can make an excel sheet for anything I didn't do for you?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lemondish wrote:

Breton wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
as for what it does. It gives Primaris Marines a SERIOUS anti-tank option. I mean, one of the things people always would qualify about all Primaris Marines is "their anti-tank isn't very good" this new tank gives a primaris army a solid bit of anti-tank work, we can argue about the points cost all day long but points costs change as time goes by, and GW's been pretty consistant about pricing primaris high and eventually moving the points costs down. so yeah it does give Primaris something they need.

See Above: Hellblasters and Plasma Interceptors are both within some +/- margins for anti-tank and points costs. If the anti-tank was bad before, it's still bad. If this is good anti-tank they had good anti-tank before. Of course, I'll allow perception and reality are rarely the same, it may improve perception of Primaris Anti-tank. This Repulsor is unlikely to come down in price unless the other does, and neither is likely to happen this edition. They'll perform on par with other choices for similar points, plus have added secondary and tertiary weapons/roles. This one is theoretically cheaper for everything you want it to do than the normal Repulsor except transport - and neither is really taken as a transport first, tank second - the transport capacity is the frosting, not the cake.

A key part you're forgetting - range.

15-18 is not a good place for your AT to operate without becoming suicide squads. While they could do the job, they really only had one way to do it. Worse, it was immediately telegraphed to your opponent. They are effective but easy to counter. Now there's another option with range.

Variety is important. This provides AT in a heavily armoured package that operates very differently than Hellblasters and Inceptors. Some lists could very much make use of a couple of these while others that built different AT solutions would find it hard to fit them in. As usual, new unit, new lists - folks who are too set in their preferences don't need it. They'll only misuse the damn thing anyway.

You think this thing is subtle? Surprise, I'm shooting your tank with my tank sporting the new anti tank gun? Bet you didn't see that coming!

I'm not forgetting range, I'm disputing the idea that Primaris Anti-Tank is somehow different now than it was before because of another unit that provides similar performance at the given task.

There is an argument to be made that this thing can replace two units for fewer points and only one Heavy Support slot - i.e the Hellblasters and the Dakka Devs. - However that doesn't make the Primaris AT better, and it has it's own eggs/basket counter point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Breton wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

Breton wrote:
This Repulsor is unlikely to come down in price unless the other does, and neither is likely to happen this edition.

you realize the repulsor has already gotten a points drop this edition yeah?

What does that matter? Was the points drop recent enough it occurred after they priced this one, so this one was priced on the old price model? The old one with a Heavy Onslaught Turret (and TLHB to match the new one as close as possible) is 272 with carrying capacity 10. The new one has everything the first one does minus a couple krakstorm launchers, adds a second Icarus Ironhail to the first and twin linked them, plus added a second turret main gun, AND gave it the ability to double-tap the new main gun while taking away 4 transport capacity - for what did people say? about 27 points? The two repulsors are going to be pretty linked on price, and this new one isn't going down unless the old one does first/as well. And expected performance for the first one is fairly comparable to other units performing similar functions.

A regular Land Raider 297 points - 2 TLLC - 4 shots, 2.68 hits, 1.7956 wounding rolls, 6.2846 wounds, 5.235 after Armor Saves. They're going to keep the Primaris stuff slightly better and slightly cheaper than the old stuff, but they're not going to break the game.

Every marine vehicle deserves at least a 10-15 point drop for not having chapter tactics which should really scale with how expensive the unit is. Obviously a -1 to hit is worth more on a LR than a rhino. This is across the board no questions asked. You have to accept this. There is no reason for marine tanks to no have CT or point drops. On top of this. LR are bad. They are really bad. They are the epitome of bad. They cost too dang much and everyone knows it and everyone is tired of explaining why. Just listen to us. We know. They aren't getting played because they are bad. You cant use them as a measuring stick for things. Repuslors at the end of the day are still better than LR. This doesn't mean a Repulsor is a good unit though. Its at the better end of the marine spectrum if you don't go to forge world. Marines are a bottom tier army though that every unit is made deliberately bad because they have good buff auras.

You can't compare the new Heavy Transport Tanks to the old Heavy Transport Tanks from the same codex/faction... not even on shared army- and game-wide statistical concepts like damage output, points costs, damage per point and so on? Such a rule does not inspire the trust you just demanded.

stratigo wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
Did we mention it doesnt have an inv, for ~300 pts. ? Even a 30 pts. character has an inv. FLY is great for weapons that get +1 to hit FLY, and there are many of those. Its a bullet magnet, easier to hit, and no inv.

Again take three or take 0.

Also hope you have 300ish dollars to drop.

The reason I'll not get them is I lack 300 dollars to spend on tanks. I'm already buying a gak ton of GW stuff

Unlike with regular marines where almost every marine has a transport, my primaris will mostly just footslog it looks like. Or I'll just start saving up and spring for a Thunderhawk.

The only reason I bought a repulsor was the local store to my parents was clearing out their GW stock @50% off. No way I was gonna pay $80, so the price of a razorback was significantly more palatable. $100 for the executioner is about $25 too high. if repulsor was $60 and the executioner was $80-85 it would be a much more reasonable. I sure as hell hope there is a $50-60 light/strike craft with 5 marine capacity(which should be cheap but prob not).

Originally I wanted to get 2 of them but with the $€£¥ I am going to go with one & add the Salamander doors I already have to it.

Sagittarii Orientalis wrote:
Reading the leaked datasheet and point costs for the Repulsor Executioner made me wonder: is there a good reason to take regular Repulsor over the Executioner?

The difference of anti-infantry firepower between two variants is little, yet the Executioner sports far greater anti-tank firepower.
The Executioner also has plethora of special rules which the regular variant already has, including auto launchers and -2 penalty to enemy charge rolls.
And yet the difference in points cost between the two Repulsor variants is only about 20, assuming the regular variant takes all-out anti-infantry weaponry.

The regular Repulsor can carry four more Primaris models, but I have rarely seen this extra transport capability come into action.
Not unless someone wishes to carry 10 Hellblasters safely until they are in range, but with abundance of to-hit penalties nowadays large unit of Hellblasters do not seem appealing.

I've got a list with Calgar, a Primaris Lieutenant, a Primaris Apothecary, and 3 Aggressors ready to hop into a Repulsor for a ride. Can't do that with an Executioner. Of course, if I take this one and the old one, I could bump the Agressor squad, stick the characters in the Executioner, and run it all up. Assuming I don't get holes blown in me for taking two giant targets. But yes, the transport capacity and about $100 is the only reason to take the old one over the new one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ishagu wrote:

Sagittarii Orientalis wrote:
Reading the leaked datasheet and point costs for the Repulsor Executioner made me wonder: is there a good reason to take regular Repulsor over the Executioner?

The difference of anti-infantry firepower between two variants is little, yet the Executioner sports far greater anti-tank firepower.
The Executioner also has plethora of special rules which the regular variant already has, including auto launchers and -2 penalty to enemy charge rolls.
And yet the difference in points cost between the two Repulsor variants is only about 20, assuming the regular variant takes all-out anti-infantry weaponry.

The regular Repulsor can carry four more Primaris models, but I have rarely seen this extra transport capability come into action.
Not unless someone wishes to carry 10 Hellblasters safely until they are in range, but with abundance of to-hit penalties nowadays large unit of Hellblasters do not seem appealing.

Absolutely. The Regular Repulsor is not punished for moving. It acts as a fire support tank, advancing with other units.

This new variant is a more static, ranged unit.

The new one can move 5" and still double tap. It can move 10 and POTMS still applies. Most troops move 5-6". The new one can still act as the fire support tank advancing with other units for most ground troops.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
Everyone is creaming themselves about the range, that's why. If you are using that range, the other weapons are out of range.

I'm BA I don't get a chapter master. Command points are a bit hard to factor in, but the averages still give you a solid base line.

4 * 0.89 * 0.77 * 0.666 = 1.83. So chapter master gets you to 1.83 cleared hits. No way a single reroll is getting you up to an average of 3. Hell, the 5++ alone puts you at 2.67 even if all hit and wound everytime.

OBVIOUSLY it shouldn't be your only anti-tank. What kind of statement is that? But by the time you are done paying for marines models, it's not looking great imo.

Tell me all about how that blightcrawler is easy to remove. Seriously? Bottom line is that marines have such a small margin for error, they can't afford to pay for AP they don't get.

You're BA. Technically you don't get a Repulsor Executioner either. Go look at the screen captures of the Datasheet. It's IMPERIUM, ADEPTUS ASTARTES, <CHAPTER> - the rules for <CHAPTER> are in Codex:SM and state you can't replace <CHAPTER> with BA/DA/SW/GK (and implies DW) - I imagine it will be errata/corrected before the pre-order's ship though to have language similar to the Shadow Spear set - If you're using X chapter replace this keyword with that keyword.

Lemondish wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Every marine vehicle deserves at least a 10-15 point drop for not having chapter tactics which should really scale with how expensive the unit is. Obviously a -1 to hit is worth more on a LR than a rhino. This is across the board no questions asked. You have to accept this. There is no reason for marine tanks to no have CT or point drops. On top of this. LR are bad. They are really bad. They are the epitome of bad. They cost too dang much and everyone knows it and everyone is tired of explaining why. Just listen to us. We know. They aren't getting played because they are bad. You cant use them as a measuring stick for things. Repuslors at the end of the day are still better than LR. This doesn't mean a Repulsor is a good unit though. Its at the better end of the marine spectrum if you don't go to forge world. Marines are a bottom tier army though that every unit is made deliberately bad because they have good buff auras.

More hyperbole...Look, Xeno - not everyone agrees with you. In fact, based on your rather abrasive attitude and lack of basic candor and cordiality, I'd even think most folks find what you're saying to be not worth listening. I do, because I think you're trying to be helpful. Unfortunately, you're not. I beg of you, please consider abandoning the constant railing against this unit. Folks in here are thinking about ways to make use of it and the one thing they absolutely do not need is some spoil sport coming in here derailing the thread by chastising, attacking, and outright insulting people who want to make use of this new model. It's a cool kit with neat rules! Why can't you just enjoy yourself without having to put others down.

More importantly, I think I speak for a few here when I say it's far more valuable to talk about units as they exist in reality. That means there's really no call to belly ache about something that doesn't exist. Vehicles don't get CTs. That's just how it is and is a known factor. I know it will boil your blood to hear this, but I'm excited for the unit even though it doesn't get CTs! What type of monster must I be, eh?

You understand the meaning of the word hyperbole means exaggeration? Nothing I state is exaggeration. Marine vehicles don't get CT and almost all other vehicles do. In the world of reality you speak of - that means they are weaker than other vehicles and therefore should cost less. What you are calling abrasiveness is what some call truthfulness - I see no reason to overlook this fact. Why would you make use of this Repuslor when you could make use of a far better unit? Why should I spend 100 dollar to be disappointed? Furthmore LR are bad. It's common knowledge. Including a LR in your list quite often means you lose as a result. It is that bad. Repuslors aren't that bad because they actually can lay down some fire before they get blown up by a not so large amount of fire compared to other 300 point units and they can fly which means a a slugga boy can't just turn you off by touching you. I'm simply responding to comments like. "This repulsor is almost as good as a Crusader" Nope...It's not. If you are considering competitive play in 40k it's going to underperform just like all the other marine units. In Apoc however it looks to be pretty good.

Martel732 wrote:


I'm BA I don't get a chapter master. Command points are a bit hard to factor in, but the averages still give you a solid base line.

We still have Dante and he is a chapter master. A bit too pricy for using as a long range buffer at 175pts and wasting his close combat potential. But he is still a chapter master and not just a captain.

 Xenomancers wrote:

You understand the meaning of the word hyperbole means exaggeration? Nothing I state is exaggeration.

Xenomancers Hyperbole wrote:]They are really bad. They are the epitome of bad. They cost too dang much and everyone knows it and everyone is tired of explaining why. Just listen to us. We know. They aren't getting played because they are bad. You cant use them as a measuring stick for things.

Breton wrote:


You're BA. Technically you don't get a Repulsor Executioner either. Go look at the screen captures of the Datasheet. It's IMPERIUM, ADEPTUS ASTARTES, <CHAPTER> - the rules for <CHAPTER> are in Codex:SM and state you can't replace <CHAPTER> with BA/DA/SW/GK (and implies DW) - I imagine it will be errata/corrected before the pre-order's ship though to have language similar to the Shadow Spear set - If you're using X chapter replace this keyword with that keyword.

Except that every primaris unit to date has specificly had <chapter> in it's keywords setting and said dark angels, blood angels and space wolves can take it. anyone who'd legit try to argue that is just being TFG at this point.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Nothing I state is exaggeration.

That's definitely an exaggeration.

Breton wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:


Why the heck would you bother doing the calculations for Devs if you're only going to give them Missile Launchers? Plasma or Las at least if you're calculating vs. T8 3+

Because Plas and Las numbers - or something similar enough to be in the educated guess ballpark are already done - and the process is laid out step by step for anyone curious enough to do the math themselves if ballpark isn't good enough?

Why are you bothering to complain about free math, when you can make an excel sheet for anything I didn't do for you?

"Free math" is hardly worth anything if it's a lousy comparison, that's why. Or if you're using the math to make a point, but using a (very) sub-optimal loadout, it's just wasted energy.

Martel732 wrote:
Everyone is creaming themselves about the range, that's why. If you are using that range, the other weapons are out of range.

You sit the tank at 30" away from the screen and shoot it to bits while the big gun can hit the big targets that were being screened. That tank is extremely hard to assault from that far away.

To get the much-vaunted superior firepower of the hallblasters you need to get them into 15" range of the big target which puts them in easy charge range of anything that wants to charge them, or just rapid fire range of the screening units which will usually be fatal enough. That is if you can even get them that close without a transport - because footslogging them is inviting your opponent to shoot them off the table. The problem is that at 30" the hellblasters are just not that great so they need to get danger-close.

happy_inquisitor wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Everyone is creaming themselves about the range, that's why. If you are using that range, the other weapons are out of range.

You sit the tank at 30" away from the screen and shoot it to bits while the big gun can hit the big targets that were being screened. That tank is extremely hard to assault from that far away.

To get the much-vaunted superior firepower of the hallblasters you need to get them into 15" range of the big target which puts them in easy charge range of anything that wants to charge them, or just rapid fire range of the screening units which will usually be fatal enough. That is if you can even get them that close without a transport - because footslogging them is inviting your opponent to shoot them off the table. The problem is that at 30" the hellblasters are just not that great so they need to get danger-close.

indeed. why do people assume their opponents will just LET Hellblasters into double tap range? If someone's moving a hellblaster squad up the board to get in range of my "big dangerous unit" I'm going to shoot that squad. or charge into melee with it. hellblasters are decent at melee (for a non melee specialist unit) but even if I tie them up for a turn or two thats a gain

It makes it more expensive... But wouldn’t a shyshield landing pad be perfect for the executioner? Combined with a Techmarine, captain and LT (or Techmarine and gullimen for UM)...

Ability to repair multiple wounds at a push (pad due to fly, but sacrificing the inv save and Techmarine).

Even more difficult to charge.

5++ invulnerable save if no crucial damage to repair...

I reckon you should be able to fit two on top of it.

It’s T8, 20 wounds and 4+ save, so fairly easy to kill with dedicated weapons, but those dedicated weapons are not shooting the tank(s), so saving it from a turn of shooting.

BrianDavion wrote:

Breton wrote:


You're BA. Technically you don't get a Repulsor Executioner either. Go look at the screen captures of the Datasheet. It's IMPERIUM, ADEPTUS ASTARTES, <CHAPTER> - the rules for <CHAPTER> are in Codex:SM and state you can't replace <CHAPTER> with BA/DA/SW/GK (and implies DW) - I imagine it will be errata/corrected before the pre-order's ship though to have language similar to the Shadow Spear set - If you're using X chapter replace this keyword with that keyword.

Except that every primaris unit to date has specificly had <chapter> in it's keywords setting and said dark angels, blood angels and space wolves can take it. anyone who'd legit try to argue that is just being TFG at this point.

As mentioned, They also had If using (one of the other non-SM Codex chapters) replace This Keyword with That Keyword. This isn't on the paper so far screen captured for the Executioner - that paper may or may not exist yet. Also as mentioned I expect them to correct that oversight in short order if it does not exist. One can point out the currently available information says it's Codex marines only, and an expectation it will be corrected (or proven to be, after all paperwork is available) to be available to non-Codex Chapters at the same time. IF - REPEAT IF - that is the full datasheet/documentation, it would not be the first time A) Codex Space Marines got some unit or piece of equipment - Say a Land Raider Crusader - before the non-Codex chapters got it or - Say a Centurion - not at all - AND/OR - B) GW made an oversight on their rules writing - say a generic chapter master for a Blood Angels Successor chapter? Pointing out such a discrepancy everyone is assuming as a given when it's very likely but not certain isn't TFG, it's prudence. I doubt GW would release a Codex SM only unit without making it clear it's Codex SM only but I wouldn't bet my life on it.

Breton wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

Breton wrote:


You're BA. Technically you don't get a Repulsor Executioner either. Go look at the screen captures of the Datasheet. It's IMPERIUM, ADEPTUS ASTARTES, <CHAPTER> - the rules for <CHAPTER> are in Codex:SM and state you can't replace <CHAPTER> with BA/DA/SW/GK (and implies DW) - I imagine it will be errata/corrected before the pre-order's ship though to have language similar to the Shadow Spear set - If you're using X chapter replace this keyword with that keyword.

Except that every primaris unit to date has specificly had <chapter> in it's keywords setting and said dark angels, blood angels and space wolves can take it. anyone who'd legit try to argue that is just being TFG at this point.

As mentioned, They also had If using (one of the other non-SM Codex chapters) replace This Keyword with That Keyword. .

WRONG! I've been working with my Primaris Marines today (assmbled a repulsor and some hellblasters) the repulsor does NOT say "you can apply this to blood angels etc" it just has "adeptus astartes, Imperium <chapter>" as keywords, as do the hellblasters, as does Vanguard Marines. who in a mini codex only simply note that "the grey knights, death watch, and Legion of the damned all deviate signfcigently from orginization and cannot choose one of them as keywords when choosing these units" beyond that the only mention of the snowflake chapters specific in the vanguard codex is applying the useal "inner circle" stuff for dark angels and "they're actually called wolf guard battle leaders and wolf lords" in the space wolves.

BrianDavion wrote:

Breton wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

Breton wrote:


You're BA. Technically you don't get a Repulsor Executioner either. Go look at the screen captures of the Datasheet. It's IMPERIUM, ADEPTUS ASTARTES, <CHAPTER> - the rules for <CHAPTER> are in Codex:SM and state you can't replace <CHAPTER> with BA/DA/SW/GK (and implies DW) - I imagine it will be errata/corrected before the pre-order's ship though to have language similar to the Shadow Spear set - If you're using X chapter replace this keyword with that keyword.

Except that every primaris unit to date has specificly had <chapter> in it's keywords setting and said dark angels, blood angels and space wolves can take it. anyone who'd legit try to argue that is just being TFG at this point.

As mentioned, They also had If using (one of the other non-SM Codex chapters) replace This Keyword with That Keyword. .

WRONG! I've been working with my Primaris Marines today (assmbled a repulsor and some hellblasters) the repulsor does NOT say "you can apply this to blood angels etc" it just has "adeptus astartes, Imperium <chapter>" as keywords, as do the hellblasters, as does Vanguard Marines. who in a mini codex only simply note that "the grey knights, death watch, and Legion of the damned all deviate signfcigently from orginization and cannot choose one of them as keywords when choosing these units" beyond that the only mention of the snowflake chapters specific in the vanguard codex is applying the useal "inner circle" stuff for dark angels and "they're actually called wolf guard battle leaders and wolf lords" in the space wolves.

I'm wrong? There is no paper in the Shadow Spear vanguard box, where it instructs players to change this keyword with that keyword for non SM Codex chapters like BA/DA/SW? Just a little note in the Vanguard Codex from the Shadow Spear vanguard box that tells you if you're using BA/DA/SW to replace things like Captain with Master, or Wolf Lord?

I have seen the error of my ways. How could I be so wrong as to think the paper page from the vanguard codex from the Shadowspear box telling you to replace the Captain keyword with Master keyword - among others - could be a piece of paper telling you to replace this keyword with that keyword when playing not Codex:SM space marine chapters. I am so ashamed.

It's not out yet. There will probably be an FAQ to clarify just as they've done with other Primaris releases.

Breton wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

Breton wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

Breton wrote:


You're BA. Technically you don't get a Repulsor Executioner either. Go look at the screen captures of the Datasheet. It's IMPERIUM, ADEPTUS ASTARTES, <CHAPTER> - the rules for <CHAPTER> are in Codex:SM and state you can't replace <CHAPTER> with BA/DA/SW/GK (and implies DW) - I imagine it will be errata/corrected before the pre-order's ship though to have language similar to the Shadow Spear set - If you're using X chapter replace this keyword with that keyword.

Except that every primaris unit to date has specificly had <chapter> in it's keywords setting and said dark angels, blood angels and space wolves can take it. anyone who'd legit try to argue that is just being TFG at this point.

As mentioned, They also had If using (one of the other non-SM Codex chapters) replace This Keyword with That Keyword. .

WRONG! I've been working with my Primaris Marines today (assmbled a repulsor and some hellblasters) the repulsor does NOT say "you can apply this to blood angels etc" it just has "adeptus astartes, Imperium <chapter>" as keywords, as do the hellblasters, as does Vanguard Marines. who in a mini codex only simply note that "the grey knights, death watch, and Legion of the damned all deviate signfcigently from orginization and cannot choose one of them as keywords when choosing these units" beyond that the only mention of the snowflake chapters specific in the vanguard codex is applying the useal "inner circle" stuff for dark angels and "they're actually called wolf guard battle leaders and wolf lords" in the space wolves.

I'm wrong? There is no paper in the Shadow Spear vanguard box, where it instructs players to change this keyword with that keyword for non SM Codex chapters like BA/DA/SW? Just a little note in the Vanguard Codex from the Shadow Spear vanguard box that tells you if you're using BA/DA/SW to replace things like Captain with Master, or Wolf Lord?

I have seen the error of my ways. How could I be so wrong as to think the paper page from the vanguard codex from the Shadowspear box telling you to replace the Captain keyword with Master keyword - among others - could be a piece of paper telling you to replace this keyword with that keyword when playing not Codex:SM space marine chapters. I am so ashamed.

Yes you're wrong because it does not say "replace chapter with X" it rather it says

"Some modifications apply to Captains in Phobos armor, Leuitenants in Phobos armor and Libarians in Phobos armor if you decide they are drawn from space wolves or dark angels chapters"

and then specificly says to give the Captain Lt and Libby for dark angels the Inner Circle rule. and change the captain for dark angels keyword to Master, and to change the space wolves keyword to Wolf Lord and Battleguard. ohh and change the space wolves Libby keyword to Rune preist.

That's it. no specific explination on changing the chapter. just some keyword changes for the HQs. there's nothing there about the non HQ units, and nothing about blood angels specificly.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Breton wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:


Why the heck would you bother doing the calculations for Devs if you're only going to give them Missile Launchers? Plasma or Las at least if you're calculating vs. T8 3+

Because Plas and Las numbers - or something similar enough to be in the educated guess ballpark are already done - and the process is laid out step by step for anyone curious enough to do the math themselves if ballpark isn't good enough?

Why are you bothering to complain about free math, when you can make an excel sheet for anything I didn't do for you?

"Free math" is hardly worth anything if it's a lousy comparison, that's why. Or if you're using the math to make a point, but using a (very) sub-optimal loadout, it's just wasted energy.

The Plasma math was already done - One Inceptor plasma blaster and one Plasma Cannon are the same - At least for the relevant parts of the stat line we were comparing.

Are you suggesting the results for D3 S7/8 AP -3 D1/D2 damage output will change when coming from a BS 3+ Inceptor vs a BS 3+ Devastator? Or that you're incapable of adjusting 10D3 to 4D3? Using a calculator to multiply by .4?

I think we were comparing vs T8 3+, No Invuln? How much difference do you think there is between 4x S10 -4 D3-6 (Average 4) and 4x S9 -3 DD6 (Average 3.5) Vs T8 3+ No Invuln?

1 Repulsor Laser Destroyer 4 shots, 2.68 hits, 1.7956 successful wounding rolls, 7.1824 damage.

Will the BS 3+ Devastators hit more often than the BS3+ Repulsor? Will S10 wound T8 more than S9? Are you incapable of guestimating -or using a calculator to multiply - 1.7956 x 3.5 after being told what 1.7956 x 4 is?

I'll even grant you'll have to add in a 6+ armor save to the calculations. A feat never before accomplished in the history of Mathammer players vs Orks and IG.

So I repeat - Las and Plas numbers were already done far enough most can extrapolate the numbers - Probably in their head - for the -Cannons - thus I did a third different anti-tank weapon choice entirely. Why are you complaining?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

BrianDavion wrote:


Yes you're wrong because it does not say "replace chapter with X" it rather it says

"Some modifications apply to Captains in Phobos armor, Leuitenants in Phobos armor and Libarians in Phobos armor if you decide they are drawn from space wolves or dark angels chapters"

and then specificly says to give the Captain Lt and Libby for dark angels the Inner Circle rule. and change the captain for dark angels keyword to Master, and to change the space wolves keyword to Wolf Lord and Battleguard. ohh and change the space wolves Libby keyword to Rune preist.

That's it. no specific explination on changing the chapter. just some keyword changes for the HQs. there's nothing there about the non HQ units, and nothing about blood angels specificly.

Feel free to quote the post where I said

"replace chapter with X"

. I said this keyword with that keyword- generically.

What exactly are you claiming here? DA/BA/SW can take Vanguard marines (And this Repulsor Executioner), but their <CHAPTER> keyword has to be a Codex Space Marine Chapter while they'll replace their CAPTAIN type keywords with MASTER etc? That BA/DA/SW can't take Phobos units or this Repulsor Executioner but if they could they'd replace CAPTAIN with MASTER etc? That a blurb about replacing the CAPTAIN keyword but not the <CHAPTER> is the exact sort of oversight that was a significant part of the point I brought up in the first place?

happy_inquisitor wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Everyone is creaming themselves about the range, that's why. If you are using that range, the other weapons are out of range.

You sit the tank at 30" away from the screen and shoot it to bits while the big gun can hit the big targets that were being screened. That tank is extremely hard to assault from that far away.

To get the much-vaunted superior firepower of the hallblasters you need to get them into 15" range of the big target which puts them in easy charge range of anything that wants to charge them, or just rapid fire range of the screening units which will usually be fatal enough. That is if you can even get them that close without a transport - because footslogging them is inviting your opponent to shoot them off the table. The problem is that at 30" the hellblasters are just not that great so they need to get danger-close.

Yes, its better than hellblasters. But I think hellblasters are just about the worst marine unit there is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Klickor wrote:

Martel732 wrote:


I'm BA I don't get a chapter master. Command points are a bit hard to factor in, but the averages still give you a solid base line.

We still have Dante and he is a chapter master. A bit too pricy for using as a long range buffer at 175pts and wasting his close combat potential. But he is still a chapter master and not just a captain.

We don't get the cheapo chapter master, which is what I assume every marine player is running.

Martel732 wrote:

happy_inquisitor wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Everyone is creaming themselves about the range, that's why. If you are using that range, the other weapons are out of range.

You sit the tank at 30" away from the screen and shoot it to bits while the big gun can hit the big targets that were being screened. That tank is extremely hard to assault from that far away.

To get the much-vaunted superior firepower of the hallblasters you need to get them into 15" range of the big target which puts them in easy charge range of anything that wants to charge them, or just rapid fire range of the screening units which will usually be fatal enough. That is if you can even get them that close without a transport - because footslogging them is inviting your opponent to shoot them off the table. The problem is that at 30" the hellblasters are just not that great so they need to get danger-close.

Yes, its better than hellblasters. But I think hellblasters are just about the worst marine unit there is.

Ok, so in your estimation, what is the best point for point unit in the SM arsenal? Please don't say scouts....

No, it's not scouts. That's actually a really hard question, because marines don't get many good units at all. Probably the mortis contemptor? Or maybe the leviathan. I suppose the vanilla chapter master upgrade is pretty good, too, even though I hate that play style.

I specifically point out hellblasters as a terrible unit because so much can go wrong, and they cost quite a bit.

Martel732 wrote:
No, it's not scouts. That's actually a really hard question, because marines don't get many good units at all. Probably the mortis contemptor? Or maybe the leviathan. I suppose the vanilla chapter master upgrade is pretty good, too, even though I hate that play style.

I specifically point out hellblasters as a terrible unit because so much can go wrong, and they cost quite a bit.

Relic Contemptor Mortis is probably up there.

I'm dismissing the Hellblaster comment as hyperbole though, as it's ridiculous to call the unit terrible. Upper mid tier, at lowest.

No, it's a terrible unit. I'm quite serious. It's really best at bullying around other marines. We've got tons of weapons and units good vs other marines. I have 10 fully painted and will never use them again. Might as well throw them in the trash.

Martel732 wrote:
No, it's a terrible unit. I'm quite serious. It's really best at bullying around other marines. We've got tons of weapons and units good vs other marines. I have 10 fully painted and will never use them again. Might as well throw them in the trash.

You go ahead and do that then, I'll continue to have mine do good work.

30" S7/8 AP4 D1/2 weapons, with assault versions and carrying plasma pistols, are crap? They each have two wounds, so as a unit there is 20 wounds, which for removal, means you have to dedicate some serious dakka their way.

But sure, they are crap. I seriously have no clue what metric you are going by for what makes a good unit.

You're the guy who plops down the Rogue/Wizard sheet at a table full of first time players, and then proceeds to critique and criticize everyone else's sheet.

I certainly contributed that you can't expect 3 cleared shots from this thing's main gun, esp vs 5+++. You just don't like the point made.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
30" S7/8 AP4 D1/2 weapons, with assault versions and carrying plasma pistols, are crap? They each have two wounds, so as a unit there is 20 wounds, which for removal, means you have to dedicate some serious dakka their way.

But sure, they are crap. I seriously have no clue what metric you are going by for what makes a good unit.

You're the guy who plops down the Rogue/Wizard sheet at a table full of first time players, and then proceeds to critique and criticize everyone else's sheet.

They are crap because they are neutered in so many scenarios. -1 to hit? Can't overcharge. Can't get within 15"? Half shots. Opponent has a lot 2 damage weapons? They're dead. Opponent has lots of invulns? There goes the -4 AP. They're a huge gamble in a list that can't afford to gamble. They're particularly not good vs Xenos, where marines need the most help. Again, bullying other marines is not a useful function.

I mean I'd say hellblasters are are over priced in the sense that a hellblaster without a gun costs more than an intercessor with/without a bolt rifle but that's just me being nitpicky sense they cost a point more for being the same but have the privilege of carrying a plasma gun

I love the double standards:
Fly:
-Repulsor is bad because Fly is bad. Because too many weapons get +1 to hit against Fly targets.
-Serpent is OP because Fly is OP.

T8:
-Dreads are garbage, WL are OP because Dreads are T7, WL are T8 - therefore much more durable.
-Repulsor is no more durable than Serpent because T8 rarely ever matters over T7.

Lascannon/BL:
-BL's AP-4 means so much more than +12" range and +1S. Taking 3+ saves to no save is much more powerful than taking them to a 6+.
-IoM weapon sucks because AP-4 means nothing over AP-3. You're always firing at a target with an Invuln.

More on topic: I think people are discounting the small arms. This thing has a *crapton* of small arms shots. Mostly with a litlte AP too. If you're scared you won't clear 10W T5 5++ vehicles with 4 Lascannons, perhaps you should reconsider your stance on how valuable S5 AP-1 weapons are against a T5 4+/5++ platform.

I'm aware of this. But having using a ton of onslought gatlings this edition, they are *not quite good enough*. Just like marines in general. But again, I'm not debating the efficacy on my own turn as much as it being a lame duck defensively. Yeah, the main gun suffers vs invulns, but if I had any reasonable expectation that it would live to fire several times, it wouldn't be as bad. Glass cannons just don't work out in 8th.

Fly is great. Weapons with +1 to hit fly are fairly uncommon and most wound this thing on a 5+. FW dreads are certainly not garbage, as they are magically the best marine units EVAR for some reason. No one should be threatened by WL. I like lascannons better than bright lances, but the platforms for said lascannons typically suck, whereas the platform for lances are great.

I was just at a GT primer where repulsors were one-shotted by the relic shokk attack gun *3* times, and 3 more were lost to double tap tankbustas. They just don't live. For their price tag, this is untenable. You know what it IS tenable for? A command russ. Same defenses, minus 4 W and half the cost.

Bharring wrote:
...More on topic: I think people are discounting the small arms. This thing has a *crapton* of small arms shots. Mostly with a litlte AP too. If you're scared you won't clear 10W T5 5++ vehicles with 4 Lascannons, perhaps you should reconsider your stance on how valuable S5 AP-1 weapons are against a T5 4+/5++ platform.

The small arms shots annoy me almost more than anything else about any version of the Repulsor; I've seen people come to the table with a checklist to make sure they remember to fire all the guns on the normal version. Seven independent weapon profiles, most of them with two options to select, makes for a really incredibly irritating model to use.

I sometimes skip the smallest ones to save time. Fire lascannons, fire 18 gatling, fire 5D6 frag, two krak shots, done. Depending on the circumstance, I might not fire the kraks.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Lemondish wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Every marine vehicle deserves at least a 10-15 point drop for not having chapter tactics which should really scale with how expensive the unit is. Obviously a -1 to hit is worth more on a LR than a rhino. This is across the board no questions asked. You have to accept this. There is no reason for marine tanks to no have CT or point drops. On top of this. LR are bad. They are really bad. They are the epitome of bad. They cost too dang much and everyone knows it and everyone is tired of explaining why. Just listen to us. We know. They aren't getting played because they are bad. You cant use them as a measuring stick for things. Repuslors at the end of the day are still better than LR. This doesn't mean a Repulsor is a good unit though. Its at the better end of the marine spectrum if you don't go to forge world. Marines are a bottom tier army though that every unit is made deliberately bad because they have good buff auras.

More hyperbole...Look, Xeno - not everyone agrees with you. In fact, based on your rather abrasive attitude and lack of basic candor and cordiality, I'd even think most folks find what you're saying to be not worth listening. I do, because I think you're trying to be helpful. Unfortunately, you're not. I beg of you, please consider abandoning the constant railing against this unit. Folks in here are thinking about ways to make use of it and the one thing they absolutely do not need is some spoil sport coming in here derailing the thread by chastising, attacking, and outright insulting people who want to make use of this new model. It's a cool kit with neat rules! Why can't you just enjoy yourself without having to put others down.

More importantly, I think I speak for a few here when I say it's far more valuable to talk about units as they exist in reality. That means there's really no call to belly ache about something that doesn't exist. Vehicles don't get CTs. That's just how it is and is a known factor. I know it will boil your blood to hear this, but I'm excited for the unit even though it doesn't get CTs! What type of monster must I be, eh?

You understand the meaning of the word hyperbole means exaggeration? Nothing I state is exaggeration. Marine vehicles don't get CT and almost all other vehicles do. In the world of reality you speak of - that means they are weaker than other vehicles and therefore should cost less. What you are calling abrasiveness is what some call truthfulness - I see no reason to overlook this fact. Why would you make use of this Repuslor when you could make use of a far better unit? Why should I spend 100 dollar to be disappointed? Furthmore LR are bad. It's common knowledge. Including a LR in your list quite often means you lose as a result. It is that bad. Repuslors aren't that bad because they actually can lay down some fire before they get blown up by a not so large amount of fire compared to other 300 point units and they can fly which means a a slugga boy can't just turn you off by touching you. I'm simply responding to comments like. "This repulsor is almost as good as a Crusader" Nope...It's not. If you are considering competitive play in 40k it's going to underperform just like all the other marine units. In Apoc however it looks to be pretty good.

"Every marine vehicle deserves at least a 10-15 point drop for not having chapter tactics which should really scale with how expensive the unit is."
Even Contemptor/Levi Dreads? Those don't seem to need to go down 10-15 points. Clearly hyperbole.

"Obviously a -1 to hit is worth more on a LR than a rhino."
Probably not. Most of the Rhino's value is getting dudes places cheaply. It does this by surviving T1 and driving up. Once it's within 12", it's done most of it's work already. On the other hand, a LR generally wants to be within 12" so it can fully unload. Per point, the Rhino may actually get more than a LR out of a -1 to hit. Certainly not obvious. So exageration, possibly wrong too.

"This is across the board no questions asked."
Clearly, questions were asked. Obvious hyperbole/falsehood.

"You have to accept this."
Taken figuratively, it's just a hyperbolic device to drive home your point. Taken literally, it's just a fallacy.

"There is no reason for marine tanks to no have CT or point drops."
Not enough reason is certainly a defensible point. Fluff reasons get trotted out, potential intended balance reasons get trotted out - I'd agree it's not fair, but reasons do exist. Dismissing those as "not existing" is either hyperbolic or willful ignorance.

"On top of this. LR are bad."
True.

"They are really bad."
I'd agree.

"They are the epitome of bad."
`Epitome of [X]`, outside of elemental constructs, is almost always hyperbole. They're not even close to the worst thing in the game currently. Nowhere close to the worst thing ever. Not every aspect of them is outright terrible.

"They cost too dang much and everyone knows it [...]"
"[...] and everyone is tired of explaining why."
Two slight exaggerations ("everyone"), but I wouldn't call them hyperbole.

"Just listen to us."
I'd argue that he/we have. But no exaggeration here.

"We know."
Clear exaggeration of understanding.

"They aren't getting played because they are bad."
Generally. Won't count this one either.

"You cant use them as a measuring stick for things."
Certainly he can. This is either exaggeration of the state of things, or outright wrong.

"Repuslors at the end of the day are still better than LR."
Probably.

"This doesn't mean a Repulsor is a good unit though."
Agree

"Its at the better end of the marine spectrum if you don't go to forge world."
No problem here, though I don't know if it's true or not.

"Marines are a bottom tier army [...]"
Low-tier, sure. Bottom tier is again based on anything worse than Marines "not counting". Hyperbole.

"though that every unit is made deliberately bad because they have good buff auras. "
Seeing as not *every* unit is bad, that's hyperbole.

Final score:
11/18 statements are at best exaggeration and/or hyperbole.

And that's counting stuff like "Just listen to us" as just fine and things like "LR are bad" as it's own statement. So conservative.

If you truly don't see a single exaggeration/hyperbolistic statement in your comment, you should reread it.

I just realized this thing will wreck my jetbikes. It's AA guns are hitting on twos, as are it's rocket pods, and that's already 12+2d3 shots that will be wounding on 4s and 5s, that is a lot of hurt.

That is not bad considering 8th's facination with adding fly to everything. This will be an effective tool for SM counter to Jetbike spam.

And before Martel chimes in, yes, there are better options. I'm just saying I didn't realize how this thing is against anything with the Fly keyword. Look out daemon princes, jetbikes, jetpacks, things with wings, etc.

The bottom five win rate as a primary codex are:

BA
SW
DA
vanilla
GK.

So yeah, marines are the bottom. We have 5 data points that all reinforce this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I just realized this thing will wreck my jetbikes. It's AA guns are hitting on twos, as are it's rocket pods, and that's already 12+2d3 shots that will be wounding on 4s and 5s, that is a lot of hurt.

That is not bad considering 8th's facination with adding fly to everything. This will be an effective tool for SM counter to Jetbike spam.

And before Martel chimes in, yes, there are better options. I'm just saying I didn't realize how this thing is against anything with the Fly keyword. Look out daemon princes, jetbikes, jetpacks, things with wings, etc.

I guess you'll just have to kill it.

Why do you care so much? At the end of 7th Vanilla Astartes were top tier. Books rise and fall. In a year it could be different. Calm yourself.

Collect a new army if it bothers you. If you are broke maybe reconsider your hobbies.

So, if I charge this thing, it stops shooting everything right?

No, because it has <fly>.

This thing looks like a nightmare for any skirmisher unit. Those units are fairly bad now, but this thing will wipe them out easily with secondary weapons, not get hurt if they do charge in, and back away without penalty.

Most people have stopped relying on that with all the <fly> and IKs around, though.

 fraser1191 wrote:
I mean I'd say hellblasters are are over priced in the sense that a hellblaster without a gun costs more than an intercessor with/without a bolt rifle but that's just me being nitpicky sense they cost a point more for being the same but have the privilege of carrying a plasma gun

Their cost without a gun is irrelevant anyway, because you can't field them without a gun.

Martel732 wrote:
No, because it has <fly>.

I thought that was only with "aircraft".

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I just realized this thing will wreck my jetbikes. It's AA guns are hitting on twos, as are it's rocket pods, and that's already 12+2d3 shots that will be wounding on 4s and 5s, that is a lot of hurt.

That is not bad considering 8th's facination with adding fly to everything. This will be an effective tool for SM counter to Jetbike spam.

And before Martel chimes in, yes, there are better options. I'm just saying I didn't realize how this thing is against anything with the Fly keyword. Look out daemon princes, jetbikes, jetpacks, things with wings, etc.

Speculation is the Icarus rocket pod replaces the twin Icarus stubber. The data sheet doesn’t say so, so maybe not, but there isn’t an obvious place to put it if you can take it in addition to... And one Tertiary AA weapon isn’t going to make this a danger to Flyrants and Princes. Ive toyed with the idea of taking Hunters/Stalkers for the jump pack stuff. But I’m not willing to give up the HS slot yet.

Oh, my no. Anything with <fly> keyword. Yes, that means most of the Tau army.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So, if I charge this thing, it stops shooting everything right?

No, because anything with FLY can still shoot after falling back. And because it has FLY it ignores enemy models in the movement phase, when if falls back, but must end its movement more than 1" from enemy models.

 p5freak wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So, if I charge this thing, it stops shooting everything right?

No, because anything with FLY can still shoot after falling back. And because it has FLY it ignores enemy models in the movement phase, when if falls back, but must end its movement more than 1" from enemy models.

Yeah, so it's extremely difficult to tarpit basically. The only way is to fill out a whole area in the 10" circle around the Repulsor (assuming it's on the top tier of its Damage chart) so there is no space for it to be placed outside of 1" of your models. Which generally is going to be very hard to do!

If you can't do that, it will be able to shoot if it wants to.

Also thanks to FLY it can ignore vertical distance when moving, so you need to fill in the 10" circle for all elevations if you have terrain on different levels.

Breton wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

You understand the meaning of the word hyperbole means exaggeration? Nothing I state is exaggeration.

Xenomancers Hyperbole wrote:]They are really bad. They are the epitome of bad. They cost too dang much and everyone knows it and everyone is tired of explaining why. Just listen to us. We know. They aren't getting played because they are bad. You cant use them as a measuring stick for things.

Epitome - a person or thing that is a perfect example of a particular quality or type.
LR fits this criteria "Epitome of bad". Do you dispute this? I guess maybe you could make another good example of a bad unit - it still doesn't make my example any worse. LR are a bottom tier vehicle and therefore meet this definition.

Again - it's not hyperbole if it's true.

Xeno, there's a lot of hyperbole in your words.

You can nitpick which exact examples count as hyperbole, but to say you're not using ANY is just plain wrong.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Breton wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

You understand the meaning of the word hyperbole means exaggeration? Nothing I state is exaggeration.

Xenomancers Hyperbole wrote:]They are really bad. They are the epitome of bad. They cost too dang much and everyone knows it and everyone is tired of explaining why. Just listen to us. We know. They aren't getting played because they are bad. You cant use them as a measuring stick for things.

Epitome - a person or thing that is a perfect example of a particular quality or type.
LR fits this criteria "Epitome of bad". Do you dispute this? I guess maybe you could make another good example of a bad unit - it still doesn't make my example any worse. LR are a bottom tier vehicle and therefore meet this definition.

Again - it's not hyperbole if it's true.

The problem is that bad is a subjective term - we all have different definitions of 'bad' (or 'good') in this game, and a lot of arguments are about this.

When you say it's the epitome of bad, you are essentially saying it is objectively a subjective thing. Which doesn't make sense logically, and so could well be regarded as hyperbolic.

If you just say "I think it's bad", acknowledging the subjective nature of the term, then that's fine. That's not hyperbolic, it's just a statement of your evaluation of the unit.

So it's functionally immune to skirmishers

Shooting skirmishers are wounding on 6s, and CC skirmishers (who might also be wounding on 6s) eat a ton of Overwatch, then see this thing fly away and shoot.

As if that weren't bad enough, it's secondary dakka will destroy most skirmishers easily - so it makes your backline a terrible place to be for most skirmishers.

One option is to kill it with heavy CC AT. But first you have to get to it with it's super long range. Then you have to survive it's guns. Then you have to one-round it or it backs away and continues to shoot.

High-ROF shots will bounce off T8 3+.

Short range weapons have to get in range (and stay in range). Meaning you're eating all it's secondary firepower *and* it'll just fly away next turn if you don't kill it.

So you're looking at low-ROF high-S good-AP weapons. And either Meltacide or Lascannon style weapons.

There are complaints that the Lascannon/Melta style weapons kill it too easily. Seeing how solid it is vs most other threat form factors, it *shouldn't* be too sturdy vs LCs/Melta.

(And, despite all the "This is perfect for facing Marines, gak for facing Xenos", the Lascannon wounds this thing on 3s whereas the Bright/Dark Lance wounds it on 4s.)

Orks killed six repulsors in one event with no trouble at all. Those were just the kills i saw. It's far more fragile vs the field than you think. When you pay 18 ppw, lots of weapons are cost effective.

Iks have been immune to skirmishers all edition. Difference is that they dont crumble easily to shooting

 JNAProductions wrote:
Xeno, there's a lot of hyperbole in your words.

You can nitpick which exact examples count as hyperbole, but to say you're not using ANY is just plain wrong.

The only thing I state in that post that could be considered hyperbole is - "taking a LR is autolose" but only if you are being extremely literal. This is a dice game - you can win with an army of grots but it is highly improbable. If you take it to mean. "LR hurts you chances of winning" I doubt you'd find a single competitive player that disagrees with that.

I guess I'll amend my statement about LR. LR are the epitome of bad for a competitive game and therefore shouldn't be used as measuring sticks for balance against repulsors or any other unit. Both units are overcosted by approximately 40-50 .points.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Breton wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

You understand the meaning of the word hyperbole means exaggeration? Nothing I state is exaggeration.

Xenomancers Hyperbole wrote:]They are really bad. They are the epitome of bad. They cost too dang much and everyone knows it and everyone is tired of explaining why. Just listen to us. We know. They aren't getting played because they are bad. You cant use them as a measuring stick for things.

Epitome - a person or thing that is a perfect example of a particular quality or type.
LR fits this criteria "Epitome of bad". Do you dispute this? I guess maybe you could make another good example of a bad unit - it still doesn't make my example any worse. LR are a bottom tier vehicle and therefore meet this definition.

Statement: "[Land Raiders] are the epitome of bad."
By your provided definition: The [Land Raider] is [the] perfect example of [bad].
I'll agree that the Land Raider is bad.

First, is it *a* perfect example of bad?
-It has POTMS. On a platform that wants to move (short range weapons, transport cap, etc). This is a positive thing.
-It is T8 2+. Tanks being above T7 or 3+ are uncommon. T8 2+ is more ideal than T7 3+. This is a positive thing.
I could go on. Note that, while the Land Raider *is* bad, not everything about it is bad. It's not a perfect example of bad, because not everything about it is. Therefore, it's an *im*perfect example. As stated, it's bad, but is not the epitome (ie, perfect example) of bad.

Second, you argue that they are *the* epitome of bad. That's a lot more specific than *an* epitome of bad. Using the "perfect example" definition, this is a much stronger claim. Even ignoring that it doesn't meet the 'epitome' definition (see above), what makes it *the* epitome? This would mean it fits "epitome of bad" more than anything else in the game. There are many, many units that fit "epitome of bad" much better than it. For this to be *the* epitome of bad, then there isn't anything else that is.

So your arguments that "[Land Raiders] are the epitome of bad" first exaggerates the Land Raider as to claim there is *nothing* about it that isn't bad.
Then, assuming that part is accurate (which it is not), it further exaggerates it as being the only unit that such a claim could be made for.

You've managed to layer two exaggerations into a single one-clause statement.

Again - it's not hyperbole if it's true.

That's because it's not true if it's hyperbole. When you load your language beyond the truth, your statements aren't true.

Land Raiders are bad. Them being "the epitome of bad" is not.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Xeno, there's a lot of hyperbole in your words.

You can nitpick which exact examples count as hyperbole, but to say you're not using ANY is just plain wrong.

The only thing I state in that post that could be considered hyperbole is - "taking a LR is autolose" but only if you are being extremely literal.

That was probably the most hyperbolic statement made, but 11 of the 18 claims you made were hyperbolic - not just that one.

This is a dice game - you can win with an army of grots but it is highly improbable. If you take it to mean. "LR hurts you chances of winning" I doubt you'd find a single competitive player that disagrees with that.

If you had said "LR hurts your chances of wining", we wouldn't call it hyperbolic. Nobody's claimed the "LR are bad" claim was hyperbolic. And the problem isn't a single statement. It's a diatribe full of them that demands to be taken as fact.

I guess I'll amend my statement about LR. LR are the epitome of bad for a competitive game and therefore shouldn't be used as measuring sticks for balance against repulsors or any other unit. Both units are overcosted by approximately 40-50 .points.

Much better. Only problems are the "the epitome" hyperboles.

Statement: "[Land Raiders] are the epitome of bad."
By your provided definition: The [Land Raider] is [the] perfect example of [bad].
I'll agree that the Land Raider is bad.

It really is funny how much you can change the definition of something by changing an "a" to a "the".

"a" being one of many possibilities.
"the" being the only possibility.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Statement: "[Land Raiders] are the epitome of bad."
By your provided definition: The [Land Raider] is [the] perfect example of [bad].
I'll agree that the Land Raider is bad.

It really is funny how much you can change the definition of something by changing an "a" to a "the".

"a" being one of many possibilities.
"the" being the only possibility.

And that's hyperbole. There are positive aspects to a Land Raider-they are outweighed by the cons, but it's NOT the perfect example of bad. It's not even A perfect example of bad. It's just an example of bad.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Statement: "[Land Raiders] are the epitome of bad."
By your provided definition: The [Land Raider] is [the] perfect example of [bad].
I'll agree that the Land Raider is bad.

It really is funny how much you can change the definition of something by changing an "a" to a "the".

"a" being one of many possibilities.
"the" being the only possibility.

It's not so much "funny" so much as it is "how words work".

But the bigger change was changing "[thing] is [descriptor]" to "[thing] is *an epitome of* [descriptor].

There's a lot more possible states between "Not bad", "Bad", and "Perfect example of bad".

Martel732 wrote:
Orks killed six repulsors in one event with no trouble at all. Those were just the kills i saw. It's far more fragile vs the field than you think. When you pay 18 ppw, lots of weapons are cost effective.

Iks have been immune to skirmishers all edition. Difference is that they dont crumble easily to shooting

Can you give a time, date, lists, or any sort of evidence for the claim that you went to a tournament and saw orks take down 6 repulsors with no trouble at all? Also, what list had 6 of these?

In different games. The shokk attack guns did roll a bit hot for str, and the double tap strat was used everytime. Granted, a 5++ wouldnt help vs tankbustas.

Martel732 wrote:
In different games. The shokk attack guns did roll a bit hot for str, and the double tap strat was used everytime. Granted, a 5++ wouldnt help vs tankbustas.

So that's a no then?

All you've stated is a Relic Shokk gun killed a vehicle. That's amazing. Really great evidence there. Considering the thing can take down a Knight in a single shooting phase, color me surprised that it can take down a transport/tank. /sarcasm.

Besides, a Land Raider can't be the epitome of bad, Drop Pods are a worse inventment and they're in the same codex.

Also; Stompas.

Believe what you want . It's really hard to accept judgment from someone who didn't even understand the fly-fall back mechanics until this thread.

If you don't think 15 double-firing tank bustas are a threat, go do the math on it.

Ultimately if you think this tank is good, you're going to use it. I'm not shelling out for the $$ for a tank that solves zero of the problems marine currently experience. If I want to build a list to smoke T8 with no invuln, that's easy to do with marines. And yes, baneblades are a headache. But they're not the meta, and not what is squeezing me out game after game.

Kill them before they arrive. They can’t be in a Trukk at 15 strong.

He kept them hidden until it was time and then used da jump.

Ohpleaseohpleaseohplease Da Jump some Tankbustas up to me.

Because then you're not jumping dem Boyz.

Against a tank-spam list that works. Against anything infantry heavy, not much. But you don't field Repulsors in infantry-heavy lists.

The Newman wrote:
Besides, a Land Raider can't be the epitome of bad, Drop Pods are a worse inventment and they're in the same codex.

Also; Stompas.

A drop pod is ( "a" ) another example of the epitome of bad. Really the way you figure it out is simple. You ask yourself. Is this thing a giant waste of points? If the answer is yes - it is the epitome of bad.

It need only be a perfect example of a unit that is way overcosted.

Bharring wrote:
Ohpleaseohpleaseohplease Da Jump some Tankbustas up to me.

Because then you're not jumping dem Boyz.

Against a tank-spam list that works. Against anything infantry heavy, not much. But you don't field Repulsors in infantry-heavy lists.

It was tank spam. The Ork guy won the whole thing. He knew what he was doing. He was VERY impressive. His Ghazgull disintegrated every big bug he touched in his Nid matchup. He trucked the Gman list he fought off the table easily. Turn 1: shokk attack kills repulsor 1. Turn 2: Tankbustas kill repulsor 2. Turn 3: mass assault from 100+ boyz on the predator line. GG.

Bharring wrote:
Ohpleaseohpleaseohplease Da Jump some Tankbustas up to me.

Because then you're not jumping dem Boyz.

Against a tank-spam list that works. Against anything infantry heavy, not much. But you don't field Repulsors in infantry-heavy lists.

You want 15 tank bustas shooting twice with more dakka? O thats right...you are an eldar player and just blow the unit up easily for 2 CP with forwarding....

 Xenomancers wrote:

The Newman wrote:
Besides, a Land Raider can't be the epitome of bad, Drop Pods are a worse inventment and they're in the same codex.

Also; Stompas.

A drop pod is ( "a" ) another example of the epitome of bad. Really the way you figure it out is simple. You ask yourself. Is this thing a giant waste of points? If the answer is yes - it is the epitome of bad.

It need only be a perfect example of a unit that is way overcosted.

Only if you define "perfect example" as "example".

To be completely, fair, the drop pod would a lot more reasonable if there were something worthwhile to load into it.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Bharring wrote:
Ohpleaseohpleaseohplease Da Jump some Tankbustas up to me.

Because then you're not jumping dem Boyz.

Against a tank-spam list that works. Against anything infantry heavy, not much. But you don't field Repulsors in infantry-heavy lists.

You want 15 tank bustas shooting twice with more dakka? O thats right...you are an eldar player and just blow the unit up easily for 2 CP with forwarding....

Marines have Auspex Scan.

Doesn't work outside 12". If forewarned were as limited as auspex scan, no one would complain about it.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Bharring wrote:
Ohpleaseohpleaseohplease Da Jump some Tankbustas up to me.

Because then you're not jumping dem Boyz.

Against a tank-spam list that works. Against anything infantry heavy, not much. But you don't field Repulsors in infantry-heavy lists.

You want 15 tank bustas shooting twice with more dakka? O thats right...you are an eldar player and just blow the unit up easily for 2 CP with forwarding....

I love how I'm spending 2CP to blow up a 15man unit by killing only a couple doods. Even assuming a 10man Reaper squad (I run 3-5), you're looking at 8-9 dead guys. That's certainly not 'deleted'. And that's assuming he's dumb enough to put them in LOS of the Reapers *and* only DS one unit while I'm perfectly set up for it. "Just blow up the unit easily for 2 CP with forwarding [sic]" is just more hyperbole when you're looking at spending hundreds of points and depending on the opponent to play stupidly in order to cut them in half.

I don't *want* 15 Tank Bustas shooting twice with more dakka, but I'd take that over a max mob of Boyz T1 charging my frontlines no matter how far back I deploy. Believe it or not, Eldar players do fear some things



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
Doesn't work outside 12".

Neither do Boyz mob charges.

It was a Gman tank party. No front lines to speak of. I'm sure against you, he'd jump da boyz. It was the right call and that repulsor disintegrated. He actually cleared 21W against it.

"Neither do Boyz mob charges."

Good thing he was using tankbustas in this particular instance.

Sorry, got caught up on the whole "Eldar are OP, so everything you say is wrong" line. Yes, Jumping the Tankbusters was the much better move. As Repulsors can't get locked in CC anyways, and it's a tank-heavy skew list.

My point was that, against many lists, you can't count on Da Jump for Tankbustas, as you need to get your Boyz (or something else) up fast. Which, I suppose is tangential.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:

The Newman wrote:
Besides, a Land Raider can't be the epitome of bad, Drop Pods are a worse inventment and they're in the same codex.

Also; Stompas.

A drop pod is ( "a" ) another example of the epitome of bad. Really the way you figure it out is simple. You ask yourself. Is this thing a giant waste of points? If the answer is yes - it is the epitome of bad.

It need only be a perfect example of a unit that is way overcosted.

What, in your mind, is the difference between saying "[Thing] is [descriptor]" and "[Thing] is the epitome of [descriptor]"?

Also, if your bar for "perfect [descriptor]" is "[descriptor]", what does value or meaning does "perfect" have in your language?

Bharring wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Bharring wrote:
Ohpleaseohpleaseohplease Da Jump some Tankbustas up to me.

Because then you're not jumping dem Boyz.

Against a tank-spam list that works. Against anything infantry heavy, not much. But you don't field Repulsors in infantry-heavy lists.

You want 15 tank bustas shooting twice with more dakka? O thats right...you are an eldar player and just blow the unit up easily for 2 CP with forwarding....

I love how I'm spending 2CP to blow up a 15man unit by killing only a couple doods. Even assuming a 10man Reaper squad (I run 3-5), you're looking at 8-9 dead guys. That's certainly not 'deleted'. And that's assuming he's dumb enough to put them in LOS of the Reapers *and* only DS one unit while I'm perfectly set up for it. "Just blow up the unit easily for 2 CP with forwarding [sic]" is just more hyperbole when you're looking at spending hundreds of points and depending on the opponent to play stupidly in order to cut them in half.

I don't *want* 15 Tank Bustas shooting twice with more dakka, but I'd take that over a max mob of Boyz T1 charging my frontlines no matter how far back I deploy. Believe it or not, Eldar players do fear some things



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
Doesn't work outside 12".

Neither do Boyz mob charges.

How DARE you use facts and logic against hyperbolic arguments....

Martel732 wrote:
Doesn't work outside 12". If forewarned were as limited as auspex scan, no one would complain about it.

This also cuts both ways.

A unit can drop in within 12" and LOS of it's target (meltacide!) while being out of LOS of some seperate backfield unit hugging a Farseer. It cannot drop within 12" and LOS of it's target and be outside 12" and LOS of something that can Auspex.

Now, the Marine version also has a -1-to-hit feature as well. I certainly agree that Auspex is weaker than Forewarned. But fixating on Auspex's downsides but not it's upsides isn't doing you any favors.

You know what? This thing sucks. I saw it get one shot by a dude last night with a Astraeus Super Heavy Tank.

Bharring wrote:
Sorry, got caught up on the whole "Eldar are OP, so everything you say is wrong" line. Yes, Jumping the Tankbusters was the much better move. As Repulsors can't get locked in CC anyways, and it's a tank-heavy skew list.

My point was that, against many lists, you can't count on Da Jump for Tankbustas, as you need to get your Boyz (or something else) up fast. Which, I suppose is tangential.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:

The Newman wrote:
Besides, a Land Raider can't be the epitome of bad, Drop Pods are a worse inventment and they're in the same codex.

Also; Stompas.

A drop pod is ( "a" ) another example of the epitome of bad. Really the way you figure it out is simple. You ask yourself. Is this thing a giant waste of points? If the answer is yes - it is the epitome of bad.

It need only be a perfect example of a unit that is way overcosted.

What, in your mind, is the difference between saying "[Thing] is [descriptor]" and "[Thing] is the epitome of [descriptor]"?

Also, if your bar for "perfect [descriptor]" is "[descriptor]", what does value or meaning does "perfect" have in your language?

Eldar have a whopping 52% win rate as a primary. Without the Ynarri crutch, they are far from OP. Its just that marines are so damn bad.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Doesn't work outside 12". If forewarned were as limited as auspex scan, no one would complain about it.

This also cuts both ways.

A unit can drop in within 12" and LOS of it's target (meltacide!) while being out of LOS of some seperate backfield unit hugging a Farseer. It cannot drop within 12" and LOS of it's target and be outside 12" and LOS of something that can Auspex.

Now, the Marine version also has a -1-to-hit feature as well. I certainly agree that Auspex is weaker than Forewarned. But fixating on Auspex's downsides but not it's upsides isn't doing you any favors.

The real problem is that marines frequently don't field any units worth using auspex scan on.

I don't disagree that Eldar are more powerful than Marines. Some posters just read my posts as saying that and paint me in that light.

What I disagree with is basing discussions on things like Forewarned meaning any 15-man squad gets immediately deleted. Or if unit A is bad, it's the worst thing ever. And, if unit B is worse, it's the worst thing ever. But unit A is the worst thing ever, too...

Bharring wrote:
Sorry, got caught up on the whole "Eldar are OP, so everything you say is wrong" line. Yes, Jumping the Tankbusters was the much better move. As Repulsors can't get locked in CC anyways, and it's a tank-heavy skew list.

My point was that, against many lists, you can't count on Da Jump for Tankbustas, as you need to get your Boyz (or something else) up fast. Which, I suppose is tangential.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:

The Newman wrote:
Besides, a Land Raider can't be the epitome of bad, Drop Pods are a worse inventment and they're in the same codex.

Also; Stompas.

A drop pod is ( "a" ) another example of the epitome of bad. Really the way you figure it out is simple. You ask yourself. Is this thing a giant waste of points? If the answer is yes - it is the epitome of bad.

It need only be a perfect example of a unit that is way overcosted.

What, in your mind, is the difference between saying "[Thing] is [descriptor]" and "[Thing] is the epitome of [descriptor]"?

Also, if your bar for "perfect [descriptor]" is "[descriptor]", what does value or meaning does "perfect" have in your language?

First of all I have no idea what you are talking about. This is some kind of literary gimnastic you are pulling.
Here is the first definition of the word perfect as an adjective. - "Having all the required or desirable elements, qualities, or characteristics; as good as it is possible to be."
What is required for a unit to be bad other than being 20% overcosted? Nothing. So it fits.
Also - the word is common usage is even more lenient. Ever hear people use the phrase? "you'd be perfect for that?" Do they literally mean youd be the best possible choice? Or just that you'd do well in that role? Pretty obvious.
You agree the LR is bad but then say it can't be the Epitome of bad because their might be some unnamed worse possible unit. This is unnecessary. In order to be the epitome of something you meerly need to be a really good example of. Which a LR is. Based on every possible metric you put on it.

Bharring wrote:
I don't disagree that Eldar are more powerful than Marines. Some posters just read my posts as saying that and paint me in that light.

What I disagree with is basing discussions on things like Forewarned meaning any 15-man squad gets immediately deleted. Or if unit A is bad, it's the worst thing ever. And, if unit B is worse, it's the worst thing ever. But unit A is the worst thing ever, too...

More importantly, the dark reapers can probably whittle them down to the point where they aren't popping a valuable eldar target. You don't need to kill them all.

ON a side note, however the orks are getting exploding dice on a 5+ was not a necessary buff.

Go to 40kstats. It's really all about marines being trash, not Eldar being especially nutso. I've seen plenty of bad stuff happen to Eldar. Just not at the hands of marines usually.

Bharring wrote:
I don't disagree that Eldar are more powerful than Marines. Some posters just read my posts as saying that and paint me in that light.

What I disagree with is basing discussions on things like Forewarned meaning any 15-man squad gets immediately deleted. Or if unit A is bad, it's the worst thing ever. And, if unit B is worse, it's the worst thing ever. But unit A is the worst thing ever, too...

You only need to kill like 6-7 of the unit to make using the stratagems a waste of CP. Plus - you should easily kill the entire unit. They are t4 with 6+ saves. Now IDK what pure CWE armies are running these days. It's pretty variable it seems. However, I know what my friends use. A 3 man warwalker with scatter lasters is usually in there. or a wraithknight with suncannon and scatter lasers or starcannons.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Doesn't work outside 12". If forewarned were as limited as auspex scan, no one would complain about it.

This also cuts both ways.

A unit can drop in within 12" and LOS of it's target (meltacide!) while being out of LOS of some seperate backfield unit hugging a Farseer. It cannot drop within 12" and LOS of it's target and be outside 12" and LOS of something that can Auspex.

Now, the Marine version also has a -1-to-hit feature as well. I certainly agree that Auspex is weaker than Forewarned. But fixating on Auspex's downsides but not it's upsides isn't doing you any favors.

Controlling your own fate is always better than relying on your opponent to drop into range of a unit. Plus the -1 makes the strat almost useless. Forwarding is also usable on vehicles. You can use it on a damn scorpion.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Bharring wrote:
Sorry, got caught up on the whole "Eldar are OP, so everything you say is wrong" line. Yes, Jumping the Tankbusters was the much better move. As Repulsors can't get locked in CC anyways, and it's a tank-heavy skew list.

My point was that, against many lists, you can't count on Da Jump for Tankbustas, as you need to get your Boyz (or something else) up fast. Which, I suppose is tangential.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:

The Newman wrote:
Besides, a Land Raider can't be the epitome of bad, Drop Pods are a worse inventment and they're in the same codex.

Also; Stompas.

A drop pod is ( "a" ) another example of the epitome of bad. Really the way you figure it out is simple. You ask yourself. Is this thing a giant waste of points? If the answer is yes - it is the epitome of bad.

It need only be a perfect example of a unit that is way overcosted.

What, in your mind, is the difference between saying "[Thing] is [descriptor]" and "[Thing] is the epitome of [descriptor]"?

Also, if your bar for "perfect [descriptor]" is "[descriptor]", what does value or meaning does "perfect" have in your language?

First of all I have no idea what you are talking about. This is some kind of literary gimnastic you are pulling.
Here is the first definition of the word perfect as an adjective. - "Having all the required or desirable elements, qualities, or characteristics; as good as it is possible to be."
What is required for a unit to be bad other than being 20% overcosted? Nothing. So it fits.

What you're calling 'literary gymnastics', I call "basic/common English usage".
Calling something "the epitome of [X]", in common usage, is a superlative meant to show how it's seen as the most [X] a thing can be. Naturally, like most perfection-based desciptors, it's usually used for hyperbole.
Likewise, "perfect", in the vernacular, is entirely like the definitions you gave: there's no missing quality, and it's not possible to be more [X].

Once again, you're flipping "Bad" with "The epitome of bad". A unit that's 20% overcosted is bad. But is it the epitome of bad?
For the first half of your definition:
Is being 30% overcosted bad? If so, and a unit is between 20% and 30% overcosted, then clearly it's not "perfectly" bad.
Is being of lower toughness than 3 bad? Does the Land Raider have lower toughness than 3? Again, clearly, not "perfectly" bad.

For the second half of your definition:
Could the Land Raider cost 10 more points? Clearly it could be worse; so it's not "perfectly" bad.
Are there units that are even *more* bad ? Yes. Other units being even worse clearly means it's not as bad as "it is possible to be".

Also - the word is common usage is even more lenient. Ever hear people use the phrase? "you'd be perfect for that?" Do they literally mean youd be the best possible choice? Or just that you'd do well in that role? Pretty obvious.
You agree the LR is bad but then say it can't be the Epitome of bad because their might be some unnamed worse possible unit. This is unnecessary. In order to be the epitome of something you meerly need to be a really good example of. Which a LR is. Based on every possible metric you put on it.

That phrase is a perfect example. When people are saying "You'd be perfect for that", they're engaging in hyperbole to sell a point (that you fit whatever 'that' is well). They do *literally* mean you'd be the best possible choice, but they *figuratively* mean you'd be a good choice. What they (figuratively) mean is obvious. Hyperbole isn't a sin. It's used to great effect all the time. (See? Two hyperbolistic statements in a row to support a point.)

The difference is that, like most tools for emphasis, it should be used for emphasis. When everything is "Teh best EVAR" or "Absolute trash", neither phrase means anything.

Swearing is another tool for emphasis: I corrected a statement I made in an upper management meeting the other day to change "Stuff" to "the S-word". It was appropriate language. Because swearing is so rare in that forum, and because I so rarely use it, that change was impactful. And meaningful. If someone swore all the time, and dropped an F-bomb in casual conversation, that F-bomb means nothing.

The reason we bring this up is because you're conflating hyperbole with accurate statements. And you're flooding the conversation with hyperbole. The first is a problem because it can be difficult to follow a conversation where we have crazy, clearly contradictory claims clearly intended to be taken as true. The second is a problem because it means any linguistic flair that uses hyperbole to convey actual meaning gets lost in the noise that is all the superfluous excessive statements.

To bring this all together, people use "[X] is the epitome of [Y]" in common conversation to emphasize how much [X] is [Y] - almost always as hyperbole. The statement itself is fine, used contextually correctly and in moderation. The problems are when it's not properly understood to be hyperbole, or a speaker emphasizes everything ("if everything is important, nothing is"). It's made worse, in this case, because the speaker doesn't seem to know the statements are hyperbolic - meaning they're spouting stuff without knowing what they're saying.

This stuff isn't "linguistic gymnastics". It's basic human communications.

The land raider had its uses after ca. This new tank had its uses. But in both cases those uses arent applicable to a large enough percentage of the opponemt pool to render them undesirable.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Bharring wrote:
I don't disagree that Eldar are more powerful than Marines. Some posters just read my posts as saying that and paint me in that light.

What I disagree with is basing discussions on things like Forewarned meaning any 15-man squad gets immediately deleted. Or if unit A is bad, it's the worst thing ever. And, if unit B is worse, it's the worst thing ever. But unit A is the worst thing ever, too...

You only need to kill like 6-7 of the unit to make using the stratagems a waste of CP. Plus - you should easily kill the entire unit. They are t4 with 6+ saves. Now IDK what pure CWE armies are running these days. It's pretty variable it seems. However, I know what my friends use. A 3 man warwalker with scatter lasters is usually in there. or a wraithknight with suncannon and scatter lasers or starcannons.

3 WW with SLs: 3x4x2 shots, 2/3 hit, 2/3 wound = 10-11 dead Orkz.
WK won't get close either.
It takes a lot more Eldar firepower than you seem to realize to kill Orkz.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Doesn't work outside 12". If forewarned were as limited as auspex scan, no one would complain about it.

This also cuts both ways.

A unit can drop in within 12" and LOS of it's target (meltacide!) while being out of LOS of some seperate backfield unit hugging a Farseer. It cannot drop within 12" and LOS of it's target and be outside 12" and LOS of something that can Auspex.

Now, the Marine version also has a -1-to-hit feature as well. I certainly agree that Auspex is weaker than Forewarned. But fixating on Auspex's downsides but not it's upsides isn't doing you any favors.

Controlling your own fate is always better than relying on your opponent to drop into range of a unit. Plus the -1 makes the strat almost useless.

So depending on an opponent to drop within range and LOS of a unit he's not shooting is more "controlling your own fate" than depending on an opponent to drop within range and LOS of what he wants to shoot? How so?

Sorry but human communication doesn't require tons of brackets and analogies to make a point. Your point is the LR could possibly be worse so it can't be the epitome of bad. That is an okay argument is suppose. It is unreasonable though because as pointed out the term "bad" is subjective. We are quibbling here. You agree the LR is bad - just not "that bad" okay...come on dude. What metric are you using to make that statement? Hyperbole is a big stretch.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Bharring wrote:
I don't disagree that Eldar are more powerful than Marines. Some posters just read my posts as saying that and paint me in that light.

What I disagree with is basing discussions on things like Forewarned meaning any 15-man squad gets immediately deleted. Or if unit A is bad, it's the worst thing ever. And, if unit B is worse, it's the worst thing ever. But unit A is the worst thing ever, too...

You only need to kill like 6-7 of the unit to make using the stratagems a waste of CP. Plus - you should easily kill the entire unit. They are t4 with 6+ saves. Now IDK what pure CWE armies are running these days. It's pretty variable it seems. However, I know what my friends use. A 3 man warwalker with scatter lasters is usually in there. or a wraithknight with suncannon and scatter lasers or starcannons.

3 WW with SLs: 3x4x2 shots, 2/3 hit, 2/3 wound = 10-11 dead Orkz.
WK won't get close either.
It takes a lot more Eldar firepower than you seem to realize to kill Orkz.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Doesn't work outside 12". If forewarned were as limited as auspex scan, no one would complain about it.

This also cuts both ways.

A unit can drop in within 12" and LOS of it's target (meltacide!) while being out of LOS of some seperate backfield unit hugging a Farseer. It cannot drop within 12" and LOS of it's target and be outside 12" and LOS of something that can Auspex.

Now, the Marine version also has a -1-to-hit feature as well. I certainly agree that Auspex is weaker than Forewarned. But fixating on Auspex's downsides but not it's upsides isn't doing you any favors.

Controlling your own fate is always better than relying on your opponent to drop into range of a unit. Plus the -1 makes the strat almost useless.

So depending on an opponent to drop within range and LOS of a unit he's not shooting is more "controlling your own fate" than depending on an opponent to drop within range and LOS of what he wants to shoot? How so?

4 ork rockets aren't going to do anything - then they gonna die to morale most likely because they are overextended. That is the point. Plus you should have an autarch there. It's the entire purpose for taking the WW to begin with. The WK is for forwarding against a unit with armor saves.

Correct me if I am wrong but you do control where your autarch and farseer all your units are placed don't you?

 Xenomancers wrote:
Sorry but human communication doesn't require tons of brackets and analogies to make a point.

Yes, most of the time these parts of human communication don't require tons of brackets or analogies to get across. Most people learn them naturally.

Your point is the LR could possibly be worse so it can't be the epitome of bad. That is an okay argument is suppose. It is unreasonable though because as pointed out the term "bad" is subjective.

Something being "good" or "bad" is subjective. Something being "worse" in a particular way is not, unless that particular way is subjective. For instance, Land Raiders being "good" or "bad" is subjective (although most people agree). Paying 300 points for a Land Raider being worse than paying 250 points is not subjective.

We are quibbling here. You agree the LR is bad - just not "that bad" okay...come on dude. What metric are you using to make that statement? Hyperbole is a big stretch.

The metric - which you provided - is "The epitome of bad" or "perfectly bad". Either of those are very clearly hyperbole, as it's very clearly not.

Can we just say "most marine units are bad compared to the field" and leave it at that? That position is strongly supported by available data as well as anecdotal experiences.

Bharring wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Sorry but human communication doesn't require tons of brackets and analogies to make a point.

Yes, most of the time these parts of human communication don't require tons of brackets or analogies to get across. Most people learn them naturally.

Your point is the LR could possibly be worse so it can't be the epitome of bad. That is an okay argument is suppose. It is unreasonable though because as pointed out the term "bad" is subjective.

Something being "good" or "bad" is subjective. Something being "worse" in a particular way is not, unless that particular way is subjective. For instance, Land Raiders being "good" or "bad" is subjective (although most people agree). Paying 300 points for a Land Raider being worse than paying 250 points is not subjective.

We are quibbling here. You agree the LR is bad - just not "that bad" okay...come on dude. What metric are you using to make that statement? Hyperbole is a big stretch.

The metric - which you provided - is "The epitome of bad" or "perfectly bad". Either of those are very clearly hyperbole, as it's very clearly not.

Man...you are really going to have to convince me I am exaggerating here. What is a worse choice than a LR for competitive play?

 Xenomancers wrote:
Sorry but human communication doesn't require tons of brackets and analogies to make a point. Your point is the LR could possibly be worse so it can't be the epitome of bad. That is an okay argument is suppose. It is unreasonable though because as pointed out the term "bad" is subjective. We are quibbling here. You agree the LR is bad - just not "that bad" okay...come on dude. What metric are you using to make that statement? Hyperbole is a big stretch.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Bharring wrote:
I don't disagree that Eldar are more powerful than Marines. Some posters just read my posts as saying that and paint me in that light.

What I disagree with is basing discussions on things like Forewarned meaning any 15-man squad gets immediately deleted. Or if unit A is bad, it's the worst thing ever. And, if unit B is worse, it's the worst thing ever. But unit A is the worst thing ever, too...

You only need to kill like 6-7 of the unit to make using the stratagems a waste of CP. Plus - you should easily kill the entire unit. They are t4 with 6+ saves. Now IDK what pure CWE armies are running these days. It's pretty variable it seems. However, I know what my friends use. A 3 man warwalker with scatter lasters is usually in there. or a wraithknight with suncannon and scatter lasers or starcannons.

3 WW with SLs: 3x4x2 shots, 2/3 hit, 2/3 wound = 10-11 dead Orkz.
WK won't get close either.
It takes a lot more Eldar firepower than you seem to realize to kill Orkz.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Doesn't work outside 12". If forewarned were as limited as auspex scan, no one would complain about it.

This also cuts both ways.

A unit can drop in within 12" and LOS of it's target (meltacide!) while being out of LOS of some seperate backfield unit hugging a Farseer. It cannot drop within 12" and LOS of it's target and be outside 12" and LOS of something that can Auspex.

Now, the Marine version also has a -1-to-hit feature as well. I certainly agree that Auspex is weaker than Forewarned. But fixating on Auspex's downsides but not it's upsides isn't doing you any favors.

Controlling your own fate is always better than relying on your opponent to drop into range of a unit. Plus the -1 makes the strat almost useless.

So depending on an opponent to drop within range and LOS of a unit he's not shooting is more "controlling your own fate" than depending on an opponent to drop within range and LOS of what he wants to shoot? How so?

4 ork rockets aren't going to do anything - then they gonna die to morale most likely because they are overextended. That is the point.

"Plus - you should easily kill the entire unit."
The point is that, no, you don't. As shown, even your suggested cases don't even come close. That is the point you were making, and it's simply not true.

Plus you should have an autarch there. It's the entire purpose for taking the WW to begin with. The WK is for forwarding against a unit with armor saves.

Correct me if I am wrong but you do control where your autarch and farseer all your units are placed don't you?

No more than the Marine list controls where their units are. In fact, even less in this specific point - Auspex Scan (while worse for other reasons) doesn't depend on a particular HQ being in a particular range of the firing unit.
The point isn't that Auspex Scan is better. It's that the specific claim that Eldar one is better specifically because it is more "controlling your own fate" than the Marine one. That's not why it's better. That's not even true.

Baal predators. Land speeders. Furioso dreadnoughts. Death company. Assault marines. Regular dreadnoughts. Hunters. Chaplains. Stormravens. Tactical marines. Hellblasters. Inceptors. Reivers.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Bharring wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Sorry but human communication doesn't require tons of brackets and analogies to make a point.

Yes, most of the time these parts of human communication don't require tons of brackets or analogies to get across. Most people learn them naturally.

Your point is the LR could possibly be worse so it can't be the epitome of bad. That is an okay argument is suppose. It is unreasonable though because as pointed out the term "bad" is subjective.

Something being "good" or "bad" is subjective. Something being "worse" in a particular way is not, unless that particular way is subjective. For instance, Land Raiders being "good" or "bad" is subjective (although most people agree). Paying 300 points for a Land Raider being worse than paying 250 points is not subjective.

We are quibbling here. You agree the LR is bad - just not "that bad" okay...come on dude. What metric are you using to make that statement? Hyperbole is a big stretch.

The metric - which you provided - is "The epitome of bad" or "perfectly bad". Either of those are very clearly hyperbole, as it's very clearly not.

Man...you are really going to have to convince me I am exaggerating here. What is a worse choice than a LR for competitive play?

As posted upthread, the Drop Pod.

We've now wasted *pages* debating one single line from your hyperbole-laden rant, and we still need to repeat ourselves. We should move on. If you want to discuss the 10 other points, sure, but we should just drop the 11th.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Bharring wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Sorry but human communication doesn't require tons of brackets and analogies to make a point.

Yes, most of the time these parts of human communication don't require tons of brackets or analogies to get across. Most people learn them naturally.

Your point is the LR could possibly be worse so it can't be the epitome of bad. That is an okay argument is suppose. It is unreasonable though because as pointed out the term "bad" is subjective.

Something being "good" or "bad" is subjective. Something being "worse" in a particular way is not, unless that particular way is subjective. For instance, Land Raiders being "good" or "bad" is subjective (although most people agree). Paying 300 points for a Land Raider being worse than paying 250 points is not subjective.

We are quibbling here. You agree the LR is bad - just not "that bad" okay...come on dude. What metric are you using to make that statement? Hyperbole is a big stretch.

The metric - which you provided - is "The epitome of bad" or "perfectly bad". Either of those are very clearly hyperbole, as it's very clearly not.

Man...you are really going to have to convince me I am exaggerating here. What is a worse choice than a LR for competitive play?

Squats, Ratlings, Rein & Raus, Drop pods, Black Stars, Wyrdvane Psykers, Vanquishers, Stompas, Supa Stompas, KillaCans, Mutilators, Gorkanaut, Servitors....want me to keep going?

Mine all came from one codex. Just sayin

Martel732 wrote:
Baal predators. Land speeders. Furioso dreadnoughts. Death company. Assault marines. Regular dreadnoughts. Hunters. Chaplains. Stormravens. Tactical marines. Hellblasters. Inceptors. Reivers.

Other than the ballpred....None of these units even come close IMO. Some are actually top tier options out of their codex. Like Stormravens and interceptors.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Baal predators. Land speeders. Furioso dreadnoughts. Death company. Assault marines. Regular dreadnoughts. Hunters. Chaplains. Stormravens. Tactical marines. Hellblasters. Inceptors. Reivers.

Other than the ballpred....None of these units even come close IMO. Some are actually top tier options out of their codex. Like Stormravens and interceptors.

Servitors?

Bharring wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Bharring wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Sorry but human communication doesn't require tons of brackets and analogies to make a point.

Yes, most of the time these parts of human communication don't require tons of brackets or analogies to get across. Most people learn them naturally.

Your point is the LR could possibly be worse so it can't be the epitome of bad. That is an okay argument is suppose. It is unreasonable though because as pointed out the term "bad" is subjective.

Something being "good" or "bad" is subjective. Something being "worse" in a particular way is not, unless that particular way is subjective. For instance, Land Raiders being "good" or "bad" is subjective (although most people agree). Paying 300 points for a Land Raider being worse than paying 250 points is not subjective.

We are quibbling here. You agree the LR is bad - just not "that bad" okay...come on dude. What metric are you using to make that statement? Hyperbole is a big stretch.

The metric - which you provided - is "The epitome of bad" or "perfectly bad". Either of those are very clearly hyperbole, as it's very clearly not.

Man...you are really going to have to convince me I am exaggerating here. What is a worse choice than a LR for competitive play?

As posted upthread, the Drop Pod.

We've now wasted *pages* debating one single line from your hyperbole-laden rant, and we still need to repeat ourselves. We should move on. If you want to discuss the 10 other points, sure, but we should just drop the 11th.

Someone said a drop pod is worse than a LR doesn't make it a true statement. Think I've seen you defending drop pods in other threads. More in bad faith argument from you again. Insectum does pretty well with them from what I hear.

Martel732 wrote:
It was a Gman tank party. No front lines to speak of. I'm sure against you, he'd jump da boyz. It was the right call and that repulsor disintegrated. He actually cleared 21W against it.

"Neither do Boyz mob charges."

Good thing he was using tankbustas in this particular instance.

That is why you bring scouts/infiltrators - to screen against this sort of T1 nonsense happening. To be fair even Intercessors do a pretty good job of it on most deployment maps. You just need to have a few such units and know how to deploy.

Screening against lootas is pretty much impossible, screening against tankbustas is tricky but a good player should be able to do it. I suspect that the marine player just did not anticipate what was coming and therefore failed to defend against it - i.e. they got outplayed by a better player. Hard to know without seeing the game in person.

None of that invalidates taking tanks - and none of it has anything to do with the supposed terrible nature of this tank for not having an invulnerable save which is of course useless against tankbustas. It just means that any unit is vulnerable to its direct counter if your opponent brought that counter and outplays you. Which applies to every unit in the game one way or another.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Baal predators. Land speeders. Furioso dreadnoughts. Death company. Assault marines. Regular dreadnoughts. Hunters. Chaplains. Stormravens. Tactical marines. Hellblasters. Inceptors. Reivers.

Other than the ballpred....None of these units even come close IMO. Some are actually top tier options out of their codex. Like Stormravens and interceptors.

Servitors?

On paper they look bad but they are in fact one of the most competitive space marine units as the cheaply unlock stratagems from other chapters.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

happy_inquisitor wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
It was a Gman tank party. No front lines to speak of. I'm sure against you, he'd jump da boyz. It was the right call and that repulsor disintegrated. He actually cleared 21W against it.

"Neither do Boyz mob charges."

Good thing he was using tankbustas in this particular instance.

That is why you bring scouts/infiltrators - to screen against this sort of T1 nonsense happening. To be fair even Intercessors do a pretty good job of it on most deployment maps. You just need to have a few such units and know how to deploy.

Screening against lootas is pretty much impossible, screening against tankbustas is tricky but a good player should be able to do it. I suspect that the marine player just did not anticipate what was coming and therefore failed to defend against it - i.e. they got outplayed by a better player. Hard to know without seeing the game in person.

None of that invalidates taking tanks - and none of it has anything to do with the supposed terrible nature of this tank for not having an invulnerable save which is of course useless against tankbustas. It just means that any unit is vulnerable to its direct counter if your opponent brought that counter and outplays you. Which applies to every unit in the game one way or another.

Pretty sure ork rockets shoot 24" so...unable to screen them. Plus. They just ensure you get charged turn 1 with stuff starting in their deployment zone. This is fail city.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Baal predators. Land speeders. Furioso dreadnoughts. Death company. Assault marines. Regular dreadnoughts. Hunters. Chaplains. Stormravens. Tactical marines. Hellblasters. Inceptors. Reivers.

Other than the ballpred....None of these units even come close IMO. Some are actually top tier options out of their codex. Like Stormravens and interceptors.

I'm going with my view on my own codex over yours. A 300 pt tanks with T8 2+ and 4 lascannons with no movement penalty seems pretty good compared to rest of that crap. Stormravens lost any vestige of usefulness when they lost prepared positions and inceptors are just soap bubbles with guns. They never work. Well, they work for one turn, then die. Way too expensive for that.

Martel732 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Baal predators. Land speeders. Furioso dreadnoughts. Death company. Assault marines. Regular dreadnoughts. Hunters. Chaplains. Stormravens. Tactical marines. Hellblasters. Inceptors. Reivers.

Other than the ballpred....None of these units even come close IMO. Some are actually top tier options out of their codex. Like Stormravens and interceptors.

I'm going with my view on my own codex over yours. A 300 pt tanks with T8 2+ and 4 lascannons with no movement penalty seems pretty good compared to rest of that crap. Stormravens lost any vestige of usefulness when they lost prepared positions and inceptors are just soap bubbles with guns. They never work. Well, they work for one turn, then die. Way too expensive for that.

My blood angels buddy uses phobo libby with 6 plasma interceptors using the +1 to hit WL trait. It kills just about any 2 units. With 2 smash captains hitting around the same time + Mephiston is is threat overload.

I can make a SR -2 to hit turn 1 with tiggy and protect a levi dread with the same buff turn 1. Not to mention the best way to take HB cents which are basically the best unit to buff with Gman. They are basically the best options in the codex IMO.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Bharring wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Bharring wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Sorry but human communication doesn't require tons of brackets and analogies to make a point.

Yes, most of the time these parts of human communication don't require tons of brackets or analogies to get across. Most people learn them naturally.

Your point is the LR could possibly be worse so it can't be the epitome of bad. That is an okay argument is suppose. It is unreasonable though because as pointed out the term "bad" is subjective.

Something being "good" or "bad" is subjective. Something being "worse" in a particular way is not, unless that particular way is subjective. For instance, Land Raiders being "good" or "bad" is subjective (although most people agree). Paying 300 points for a Land Raider being worse than paying 250 points is not subjective.

We are quibbling here. You agree the LR is bad - just not "that bad" okay...come on dude. What metric are you using to make that statement? Hyperbole is a big stretch.

The metric - which you provided - is "The epitome of bad" or "perfectly bad". Either of those are very clearly hyperbole, as it's very clearly not.

Man...you are really going to have to convince me I am exaggerating here. What is a worse choice than a LR for competitive play?

As posted upthread, the Drop Pod.

We've now wasted *pages* debating one single line from your hyperbole-laden rant, and we still need to repeat ourselves. We should move on. If you want to discuss the 10 other points, sure, but we should just drop the 11th.

Someone said a drop pod is worse than a LR doesn't make it a true statement. Think I've seen you defending drop pods in other threads. More in bad faith argument from you again. Insectum does pretty well with them from what I hear.

You've also "seen" me argue that Marines are OP and Eldar are trash this edition. That doesn't mean I've argued either.

Drop Pods have some value. I wouldn't call them the epitome of bad. I think I'd rank them below Land Raiders, though. I'm sure I've said that I see some value or upside in Pods before, but having upsides doesn't mean it's necessarily better than a unit that's "bad". I can't think of a single unit in this game that doesn't have some "upside".

Someone saying a Drop Pod is worse than a Land Raider doesn't make it worse, true; Are you saying the Land Raider is, in fact, the worst choice in the game? Worse than Corsair squads? Worse than Stompas? Worse then Rein & Raus?

And, not just worse, but worse in every single way?

No it's not. There is only one smash capt first of all. And mephy is greatly overrated offensively. Both capts can be killed easily with S4 AP 0. The inceptors die to damage 2. Mephy is ignorable.

Good luck when those two units are freaking guardsmen. Or some other stupid screen. Inceptors are bad because they cost too much and there's too many screens.

I stand by my statement. I'd much rather field a land raider than inceptors.

Also, on calling another person out for bad faith; it's extremely bad form to do so just because you don't like their viewpoint. It's potentially a rule#1 violation.

Martel732 wrote:
No it's not. There is only one smash capt first of all. And mephy is greatly overrated offensively. Both capts can be killed easily with S4 AP 0. The inceptors die to damage 2. Mephy is ignorable.

Good luck when those two units are freaking guardsmen. Or some other stupid screen. Inceptors are bad because they cost too much and there's too many screens.

I stand by my statement. I'd much rather field a land raider than inceptors.

I feel like you aren't playing this game properly if you're letting opponents take out your characters with S4 AP 0.

I'm also surprised to see you have a belief that Land Raiders are acceptable, but a single S4 AP0 attack in melee, whether it hits or not, silences the bloody thing. And at over 18 points a wound for barely any offensive output, this should be the exact unit you hate the most! How inconsistent, Marty

It could just be punches from dum dums after they charge whatever.

BA characters are usually in hazardous situations, so all kinds of gak befalls them.

I said I'd choose it over the other gak I listed. I didn't say it was GOOD. Also if someone wants to come play tag with a BA LR, have fun getting past my menagerie of things that want to be in CQC.

Other than smash capt, I'm not sure there's a GOOD unit in the whole BA codex atm.

Martel732 wrote:
No it's not. There is only one smash capt first of all. And mephy is greatly overrated offensively. Both capts can be killed easily with S4 AP 0. The inceptors die to damage 2. Mephy is ignorable.

Good luck when those two units are freaking guardsmen. Or some other stupid screen. Inceptors are bad because they cost too much and there's too many screens.

I stand by my statement. I'd much rather field a land raider than inceptors.

Wow. I'm starting to get a strong feeling that either you don't actually play, or your local meta is just hyper competitive, and not representative of most people's games. Does every Imperium list you face run the loyal 32!?

Inceptors are decent. Plasma ones can be really good.

Bharring wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Bharring wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Bharring wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Sorry but human communication doesn't require tons of brackets and analogies to make a point.

Yes, most of the time these parts of human communication don't require tons of brackets or analogies to get across. Most people learn them naturally.

Your point is the LR could possibly be worse so it can't be the epitome of bad. That is an okay argument is suppose. It is unreasonable though because as pointed out the term "bad" is subjective.

Something being "good" or "bad" is subjective. Something being "worse" in a particular way is not, unless that particular way is subjective. For instance, Land Raiders being "good" or "bad" is subjective (although most people agree). Paying 300 points for a Land Raider being worse than paying 250 points is not subjective.

We are quibbling here. You agree the LR is bad - just not "that bad" okay...come on dude. What metric are you using to make that statement? Hyperbole is a big stretch.

The metric - which you provided - is "The epitome of bad" or "perfectly bad". Either of those are very clearly hyperbole, as it's very clearly not.

Man...you are really going to have to convince me I am exaggerating here. What is a worse choice than a LR for competitive play?

As posted upthread, the Drop Pod.

We've now wasted *pages* debating one single line from your hyperbole-laden rant, and we still need to repeat ourselves. We should move on. If you want to discuss the 10 other points, sure, but we should just drop the 11th.

Someone said a drop pod is worse than a LR doesn't make it a true statement. Think I've seen you defending drop pods in other threads. More in bad faith argument from you again. Insectum does pretty well with them from what I hear.

You've also "seen" me argue that Marines are OP and Eldar are trash this edition. That doesn't mean I've argued either.

Drop Pods have some value. I wouldn't call them the epitome of bad. I think I'd rank them below Land Raiders, though. I'm sure I've said that I see some value or upside in Pods before, but having upsides doesn't mean it's necessarily better than a unit that's "bad". I can't think of a single unit in this game that doesn't have some "upside".

Someone saying a Drop Pod is worse than a Land Raider doesn't make it worse, true; Are you saying the Land Raider is, in fact, the worst choice in the game? Worse than Corsair squads? Worse than Stompas? Worse then Rein & Raus?

And, not just worse, but worse in every single way?

It doesn't have the be worse in every way. It only needs to be worse in the 1 way that matters. Cost prohibitive to the point is loses you the game. Also to be fair. A few of these options don't count. Corsairs have not received a first update - they are basically 7th edition units. Plus Many of the large forge world superheavies were up to doubled in points intentionally so they could not be played in tournaments. This is across the board these units do not count because they aren't ment to be considered. Rein & Raus WTF? what is that some exclusive white dwarf fluff ball unit no one cares about? It's still not worse than a LR? What do they cost you? 40 points and you get an untargetable sniper?

Why wouldn't they? Even I do it most of the time.

There's also the ork hordes and plague bearer hordes.

Inceptors are decent on YOUR turn. Then your opponent gets a turn, and you don't have any more inceptors. At their price point, this doesn't work out.

 Stux wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
No it's not. There is only one smash capt first of all. And mephy is greatly overrated offensively. Both capts can be killed easily with S4 AP 0. The inceptors die to damage 2. Mephy is ignorable.

Good luck when those two units are freaking guardsmen. Or some other stupid screen. Inceptors are bad because they cost too much and there's too many screens.

I stand by my statement. I'd much rather field a land raider than inceptors.

Wow. I'm starting to get a strong feeling that either you don't actually play, or your local meta is just hyper competitive, and not representative of most people's games. Does every Imperium list you face run the loyal 32!?

Inceptors are decent. Plasma ones can be really good.

Martel is the kind of person that wallows. You show him a winning list with, say, BA Repulsors and Redemptors, and instead of jumping on the idea or seeing the actual use in the units, he continues to wallow and not let anyone else convince him otherwise. The Executioner looks good for SM. Interceptors are already good for SM, especially BA.

But they aren't. Why do you think that they are?

That list won once, and will probably never be seen again. For a reason.

Bharring wrote:
Also, on calling another person out for bad faith; it's extremely bad form to do so just because you don't like their viewpoint. It's potentially a rule#1 violation.

Now you are claiming not to argue with me that drop pods aren't hugely overcosted? You've argued with me about transport capacity. All kinds of stuff. Every single time you are favoring the eldar side. EVERY SINGLE TIME. It's no surprise to anyone. Me on the other hand. I play all the armies. Including armies I play in which I called for nerfs to my own units. Like the Castellan.

Martel732 wrote:
To be completely, fair, the drop pod would a lot more reasonable if there were something worthwhile to load into it.

You're not wrong.

The only thing I can think of that makes sense to Drop Pod is tooled up Company Veterans, and putting them in a drop pod is kind of a hard sell when most of the other available transports have enough shooting to justify taking before you put Marines in them.

Martel732 wrote:
But they aren't. Why do you think that they are?

That list won once, and will probably never be seen again. For a reason.

They are your best option is all I am saying. Now that you can get a +1 to hit on demand on them. It is pretty fething gross what kind of targeted damage they can do. 24 plasma shots on average destroys almost anything. If you hit and tie up a much of units the turn you drop them. They might even get to shoot again. Plus you can drop them next to your banner and they can even shoot again when they die. All marines can do this OFC. BA just do it best because they have a lot of units that get in front of the interceptors and run interference / plus can drop the biggest hammer.

Not saying it's OP. Just saying its your best option.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Bharring wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Bharring wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Bharring wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Sorry but human communication doesn't require tons of brackets and analogies to make a point.

Yes, most of the time these parts of human communication don't require tons of brackets or analogies to get across. Most people learn them naturally.

Your point is the LR could possibly be worse so it can't be the epitome of bad. That is an okay argument is suppose. It is unreasonable though because as pointed out the term "bad" is subjective.

Something being "good" or "bad" is subjective. Something being "worse" in a particular way is not, unless that particular way is subjective. For instance, Land Raiders being "good" or "bad" is subjective (although most people agree). Paying 300 points for a Land Raider being worse than paying 250 points is not subjective.

We are quibbling here. You agree the LR is bad - just not "that bad" okay...come on dude. What metric are you using to make that statement? Hyperbole is a big stretch.

The metric - which you provided - is "The epitome of bad" or "perfectly bad". Either of those are very clearly hyperbole, as it's very clearly not.

Man...you are really going to have to convince me I am exaggerating here. What is a worse choice than a LR for competitive play?

As posted upthread, the Drop Pod.

We've now wasted *pages* debating one single line from your hyperbole-laden rant, and we still need to repeat ourselves. We should move on. If you want to discuss the 10 other points, sure, but we should just drop the 11th.

Someone said a drop pod is worse than a LR doesn't make it a true statement. Think I've seen you defending drop pods in other threads. More in bad faith argument from you again. Insectum does pretty well with them from what I hear.

You've also "seen" me argue that Marines are OP and Eldar are trash this edition. That doesn't mean I've argued either.

Drop Pods have some value. I wouldn't call them the epitome of bad. I think I'd rank them below Land Raiders, though. I'm sure I've said that I see some value or upside in Pods before, but having upsides doesn't mean it's necessarily better than a unit that's "bad". I can't think of a single unit in this game that doesn't have some "upside".

Someone saying a Drop Pod is worse than a Land Raider doesn't make it worse, true; Are you saying the Land Raider is, in fact, the worst choice in the game? Worse than Corsair squads? Worse than Stompas? Worse then Rein & Raus?

And, not just worse, but worse in every single way?

It doesn't have the be worse in every way. It only needs to be worse in the 1 way that matters. Cost prohibitive to the point is loses you the game.

So you're not arguing "The epitome" or "epitome" anymore? Just "worst"? For clarity.

"Cost prohibitive to the point is [sic] loses you the game" is a very narrow metric. If I added a 5 point unit that had the rule "Remove as a casualty at the start of the first player turn", by your definition it could arguably be better than something like a Land Raider; however, it clearly will do less for it's points than a Land Raider. Points effectiveness is a much more common and accepted metric. But, I digress. We can look at it from your metric.

Also to be fair. A few of these options don't count. Corsairs have not received a first update - they are basically 7th edition units.

I would agree that Corsairs aren't a great example of what we should expect to be balanced. But it's hard to accept something being "the worst choice in the game" when dismissing so many choices that are "in the game".
That said, Corsairs did get a first update - the Forgeworld Index has rules for them. And a CAs/FAQs have changed them.

Plus Many of the large forge world superheavies were up to doubled in points intentionally so they could not be played in tournaments. This is across the board these units do not count because they aren't ment to be considered.

IOW, things that are overpointed too much shouldn't be considered. Incidentally, anything pointed worse than Land Raider is what you're considering "too much". Why do the classic SM big centerpieces (Land Raiders) count but not the classic big centerpieces of other factions (Squigoths, Stompas, Greater Demons, Vampyrs, etc)? Your argument will always be true when you reinvent reality to match it.

Rein & Raus WTF? what is that some exclusive white dwarf fluff ball unit no one cares about? It's still not worse than a LR? What do they cost you? 40 points and you get an untargetable sniper?

Warhammer Quest, not White Dwarf. Not the most unreasonable exclusion, but it's still arbitrary.

One of their guns can shoot. Not the whole model.

They are so expensive and now we are talking multiple babysitters.

If the guns were 24" range instead of 18" I'd be a lot more excited about trying that.

Martel732 wrote:
But they aren't. Why do you think that they are?

That list won once, and will probably never be seen again. For a reason.

The list has two top ten and a top twenty placing, actually. Sorry that you have trouble believing that BA can be anything other than trash. Must be a depressing mindset.

 Apple Peel wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
But they aren't. Why do you think that they are?

That list won once, and will probably never be seen again. For a reason.

The list has two top ten and a top twenty placing, actually. Sorry that you have trouble believing that BA can be anything other than trash. Must be a depressing mindset.

Oh, it didn't even finish first?

Martel732 wrote:

 Apple Peel wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
But they aren't. Why do you think that they are?

That list won once, and will probably never be seen again. For a reason.

The list has two top ten and a top twenty placing, actually. Sorry that you have trouble believing that BA can be anything other than trash. Must be a depressing mindset.

Oh, it didn't even finish first?

I don’t know, from what it sounds like, it does way better than you.

While that's true, it was made to sound like it took an entire event. I've considered a list similar to that before, but didn't purchase the models b/c of the anti-IK meta.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Pretty sure ork rockets shoot 24" so...unable to screen them. Plus. They just ensure you get charged turn 1 with stuff starting in their deployment zone. This is fail city.

Only unable if you do not know how to play the game. You put your screen so they can't drop within 24" of the tank - e.g 16-18" away from the tank. They cannot drop between the screen and the tank because there is nowhere not within 9" of something and if they drop 9" + 16" from the tank they sure aint shooting it. Obviously you can shuffle things slightly but always so that the final distance of an Ork from your tank is >24".

If this is the level of understanding you have of the game then I guess its no wonder you have such odd opinions. Learn to use those 9" exclusion zones properly.

I've seen 24" guns screened out before, particularly Tyranid shock cannons. This particular list had zero chance of doing this, though. As I said, Ork guy knew what he was looking at.

Martel732 wrote:
While that's true, it was made to sound like it took an entire event. I've considered a list similar to that before, but didn't purchase the models b/c of the anti-IK meta.

Now i don’t recall the highs and lows of the meta, but wasn’t anti-IK popular during Bad Moons Rumble #1, the London Open, and the Gibraltar 40K GT? Because that’s when this list played so well.

Martel732 wrote:
I've seen 24" guns screened out before, particularly Tyranid shock cannons. This particular list had zero chance of doing this, though. As I said, Ork guy knew what he was looking at.

Bad unbalanced list loses game, wow shocker. Teaches us nothing about the Repulsor Executioner. What point exactly were you trying to make?

Well it was the #2 list that event, so how bad could it be?

 Xenomancers wrote:

Bharring wrote:
Also, on calling another person out for bad faith; it's extremely bad form to do so just because you don't like their viewpoint. It's potentially a rule#1 violation.

Now you are claiming not to argue with me that drop pods aren't hugely overcosted?

Edit: I think I remember the conversation you're referencing. I was arguing that a Droppod should cost more than 0pts + 1CP. As in, you shouldn't get to just spend 1 CP to deploy any given unit in a Drop Pod. At 0 points, I would certainly argue they *wouldn't* be overcosted, arguing that 0pts is too low is a far cry from arguing that their current points is too low.

You've argued with me about transport capacity. All kinds of stuff. Every single time you are favoring the eldar side. EVERY SINGLE TIME.

ITT:
Me: Eldar are OP. Forewarned is better than Auspex. Auspex has some upsides, but is worse.
You: "Every single time you are favoring the eldar side. EVERY SINGLE TIME."
Does. Not. Compute.

It's no surprise to anyone. Me on the other hand. I play all the armies. Including armies I play in which I called for nerfs to my own units. Like the Castellan.

So your argument is that I've always argued against nerfs to:
-Reaper Deathstars
-Spears Deathstars
-Doom
-Serpents
-Farseers
-Forewarned
-CWE WWP
? Because I've called for nerfs to every single one and more. Conversely, I've argued for buffs to:
-Tac Marines
-ASM
-General Marine profile
-Drop Pods
-And more

You might want to try reading my posts. As in, piece together the sentences and figure out the specific meanings of every statement. Don't just look for keywords then assume meaning.

Where you might be getting confused is that, sometimes, a viewpoint is more nuanced than "X is good" or "Y is bad". Sometimes, there's upsides and downsides. Sometimes, there's tradeoffs. And, beyond that, just because X is good doesn't mean it's the best thing ever - or that not-X is the worst thing ever. Even 40k - as relatively simplistic as it is - has some nuance beyond that.

 Apple Peel wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
While that's true, it was made to sound like it took an entire event. I've considered a list similar to that before, but didn't purchase the models b/c of the anti-IK meta.

Now i don’t recall the highs and lows of the meta, but wasn’t anti-IK popular during Bad Moons Rumble #1, the London Open, and the Gibraltar 40K GT? Because that’s when this list played so well.

Maybe it was. Maybe I was wrong about the chances of such a list. Still though, I'm not acquiring those models at this time.

happy_inquisitor wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Pretty sure ork rockets shoot 24" so...unable to screen them. Plus. They just ensure you get charged turn 1 with stuff starting in their deployment zone. This is fail city.

Only unable if you do not know how to play the game. You put your screen so they can't drop within 24" of the tank - e.g 16-18" away from the tank. They cannot drop between the screen and the tank because there is nowhere not within 9" of something and if they drop 9" + 16" from the tank they sure aint shooting it. Obviously you can shuffle things slightly but always so that the final distance of an Ork from your tank is >24".

If this is the level of understanding you have of the game then I guess its no wonder you have such odd opinions. Learn to use those 9" exclusion zones properly.

Here is what I know. 24 inch guns CAN NOT be screened from deep strike by a single unit. It requires multiple units and it can backfire ESP vs orks. Want to put 15 scouts out in the middle of the table so every unit in their army gets bonus movement on their first turn? It is a GREAT way to auto lose the game.

That's true. Most nids with shock cannons are mostly shooting lists. You can push out the screen with less chance of things going wrong.

Martel732 wrote:
But they aren't. Why do you think that they are?

Inceptors?

Because of how reliably I'm deleting targets worth more than them on the turn they drop.

In all fairness to you, I do play Dark Angels so I have the option of Weapons of the Dark Age. But they are considerably more playable than a Land Raider regardless.

Martel732 wrote:

 Apple Peel wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
While that's true, it was made to sound like it took an entire event. I've considered a list similar to that before, but didn't purchase the models b/c of the anti-IK meta.

Now i don’t recall the highs and lows of the meta, but wasn’t anti-IK popular during Bad Moons Rumble #1, the London Open, and the Gibraltar 40K GT? Because that’s when this list played so well.

Maybe it was. Maybe I was wrong about the chances of such a list. Still though, I'm not acquiring those models at this time.

Then don’t. I won’t force you. However, I will strongly suggest that you step outside of your bubble of interpretation on how well units may perform. It may be enlightening. In case you want to keep up with the player, it’s Joseph Moscardini.

But how does a Land Raider compare to a Stompa, Gorka/Morkanaugt, Squiggoth, Tantaulus, Vampyr Raider/Hunter, Greater Demon, etc?

Oh, small detail there. You can get two damage without overload. Or even three damage vs those without to hit penalties.

I'm still taking a BA LR over BA inceptors. I'm actually taking neither, but that's unimportant for the ranking.

Bharring wrote:
But how does a Land Raider compare to a Stompa, Gorka/Morkanaugt, Squiggoth, Tantaulus, Vampyr Raider/Hunter, Greater Demon, etc?

Greater deamons are good....what are you talking about? LOL My 3++ -1 damage LOC dumping out supersmites and infernal gateway with a +3/4 to cast is a game winner. Tantaulus can carry quite possibly the most powerful melle unit in the game for it's cost...Vampyr Raider? What is this? A corsair unit? I've already described that that does not count because it's not really even a real unit. Hunter? Ehhh - it's bad but it's not as bad as a LR - you can take 3 for the cost of a LR and you get double the t8 wounds with about the same firepower.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Here is what I know. 24 inch guns CAN NOT be screened from deep strike by a single unit. It requires multiple units and it can backfire ESP vs orks. Want to put 15 scouts out in the middle of the table so every unit in their army gets bonus movement on their first turn? It is a GREAT way to auto lose the game.

Why would I ever have less than 3 units of troops?

Why would I need more than one of those anywhere outside my deployment zone to do the screening, probably not even that far outside my deployment zone?

Is everyone assuming that the only place to deploy is dead-centre right on the front line and therefore you need to put your screen in the literal middle of the table? That would just be bad deployment in this match-up.

So yes, if someone charges a mob of boyz into my scouts they die. But they are way too far away from my castle for any useful pile-in action after that and now there is a unit of boyz just dangling there ready to be shot. I'll trade a cheap unit for that sort of table position advantage any day, which is of course why scouts are so great.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Bharring wrote:
But how does a Land Raider compare to a Stompa, Gorka/Morkanaugt, Squiggoth, Tantaulus, Vampyr Raider/Hunter, Greater Demon, etc?

Greater deamons are good....what are you talking about? LOL My 3++ -1 damage LOC dumping out supersmites and infernal gateway with a +3/4 to cast is a game winner.

I was thinking the FW ones. Good luck getting too-many-vowels-for-name to do his job.

Tantaulus can carry quite possibly the most powerful melle unit in the game for it's cost...

Land Raiders can carry a number of units that are better than Land Raiders, but that doesn't make Land Raiders good. Why does it make the Tauntaulus good?

Vampyr Raider? What is this? A corsair unit? I've already described that that does not count because it's not really even a real unit.

IIRC, Corsairs can take them too, but the Vampyr is a CWE vehicle.

Hunter? Ehhh - it's bad but it's not as bad as a LR - you can take 3 for the cost of a LR and you get double the t8 wounds with about the same firepower.

The Vampyr Hunter costs way more than a Land Raider. I wasn't talking about the SM Hunter.

Once again, your argument boils down to "If it's worse than the Land Raider, it doesn't count"?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And what about the Gorka/Morkanaught or Stompa?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Edit: This should *really* be ripped out of this thread. Started another thread if you still want to claim "LR are the epitome of bad" is not an exaggeration.

Ummm this 1500 point monstrosity with a 4d6 str 12 ap-4 d6 weapon that does 2d6 on 6 to wound? Plus 2 pulse lasers?

Like...I'm really not sure how bad this unit is. It has a 4++ save at full profile with a 6+ FNP. Can have -3 to hit on demand. If you were playing 5000 point battles it might actually be one of the best units I've ever seen. Seems to me it 1 shots a space marine falchion every turn while being almost impossible to hit and being quite durable on top of that. At 1500 points we will never see it in a 2000 point game. Ill concede that this unit would be a bad choice in competitive but not because it is a bad unit. Its just on the wrong battlefield. The LR is bad no matter what game you bring it to.

Also - why are we comparing space marine trash units to other armies trash units. If you are playing space marines you can't bring these things. Your options are imperial only. For 410ish points you can bring a shadowsword. Why would you pay 290ish for a repuslor exterminator?

So you could have that or 6 Executioners.

24 S9 Ap-3 Dd6 shots.
Hundreds of small arms shots.
Nearly 100W.

Once again, regardless of rules, you assume anything CWE is OP, anything Marine is garbage.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Ummm this 1500 point monstrosity with a 4d6 str 12 ap-4 d6 weapon that does 2d6 on 6 to wound? Plus 2 pulse lasers?

Like...I'm really not sure how bad this unit is. It has a 4++ save at full profile with a 6+ FNP. Can have -3 to hit on demand. If you were playing 5000 point battles it might actually be one of the best units I've ever seen. Seems to me it 1 shots a space marine falchion every turn while being almost impossible to hit and being quite durable on top of that. At 1500 points we will never see it in a 2000 point game. Ill concede that this unit would be a bad choice in competitive but not because it is a bad unit. Its just on the wrong battlefield. The LR is bad no matter what game you bring it to.

Also - why are we comparing space marine trash units to other armies trash units.

-Anything bigger than a LR doesn't count - they're pointed out of the game.
-Anything smaller than a LR doesn't count - they're easier to absorb the cost of.
-Anything FW doesn't count - it's too niche/unknown.
-Anything Xenos/Chaos doesn't count - for reasons.

The LR is the worst possible unit that isn't higher costed than, lower costed than, or otherwise not, a Land Raider. That's quite a stretch, and clearly not what you originally meant.

responding in the new thread.

Breton wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Breton wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:


Why the heck would you bother doing the calculations for Devs if you're only going to give them Missile Launchers? Plasma or Las at least if you're calculating vs. T8 3+

Because Plas and Las numbers - or something similar enough to be in the educated guess ballpark are already done - and the process is laid out step by step for anyone curious enough to do the math themselves if ballpark isn't good enough?

Why are you bothering to complain about free math, when you can make an excel sheet for anything I didn't do for you?

"Free math" is hardly worth anything if it's a lousy comparison, that's why. Or if you're using the math to make a point, but using a (very) sub-optimal loadout, it's just wasted energy.

The Plasma math was already done - One Inceptor plasma blaster and one Plasma Cannon are the same - At least for the relevant parts of the stat line we were comparing.

Are you suggesting the results for D3 S7/8 AP -3 D1/D2 damage output will change when coming from a BS 3+ Inceptor vs a BS 3+ Devastator? Or that you're incapable of adjusting 10D3 to 4D3? Using a calculator to multiply by .4?

I think we were comparing vs T8 3+, No Invuln? How much difference do you think there is between 4x S10 -4 D3-6 (Average 4) and 4x S9 -3 DD6 (Average 3.5) Vs T8 3+ No Invuln?

1 Repulsor Laser Destroyer 4 shots, 2.68 hits, 1.7956 successful wounding rolls, 7.1824 damage.

Will the BS 3+ Devastators hit more often than the BS3+ Repulsor? Will S10 wound T8 more than S9? Are you incapable of guestimating -or using a calculator to multiply - 1.7956 x 3.5 after being told what 1.7956 x 4 is?

I'll even grant you'll have to add in a 6+ armor save to the calculations. A feat never before accomplished in the history of Mathammer players vs Orks and IG.

So I repeat - Las and Plas numbers were already done far enough most can extrapolate the numbers - Probably in their head - for the -Cannons - thus I did a third different anti-tank weapon choice entirely. Why are you complaining?

A: Ok, so I see what you were doing so far as the purposes of comparing new weapons not already in the pile. Fair enough. I read the original post as a comparison of units, and thought you had taken a sub-par version of the unit to compare.
However. .
B: The Devs will actually will hit differently, because one model can have a BS of 2+ and fire twice with a Cherub. So with Las you get five shots vs. four, at a different save modifier, with two shots at BS2+. Imo this is a meaningful enough a distinction and more worthwhile too look at than Missile Launchers.

C: For more interesting weapon variation you can go with Grav Cannons, which outperform Lascannons vs. such a target. I get (3x4x.666x.333x2+(2x4x.666x.333x2)) for 8.87 wounds.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Bharring wrote:
But how does a Land Raider compare to a Stompa, Gorka/Morkanaugt, Squiggoth, Tantaulus, Vampyr Raider/Hunter, Greater Demon, etc?

Greater deamons are good....what are you talking about? LOL My 3++ -1 damage LOC dumping out supersmites and infernal gateway with a +3/4 to cast is a game winner. Tantaulus can carry quite possibly the most powerful melle unit in the game for it's cost...Vampyr Raider? What is this? A corsair unit? I've already described that that does not count because it's not really even a real unit. Hunter? Ehhh - it's bad but it's not as bad as a LR - you can take 3 for the cost of a LR and you get double the t8 wounds with about the same firepower.

How do you get a 3++?

The only way to get that, to my knowledge, is by cheating.

I think it's worth taking a step back and remembering that a lot of us posting in this thread play Marines and it's easy to be salty about Marines and the state of the game in general if you're playing Marines. They're in a really bad place.

I've still got fingers crossed that Marines are in a better spot when Codex: Marines 2.0 drops. I'm not optimistic by any stretch, but I'm hoping GW is smart enough to realise that Marines are a big percentage of the player base and leaving the faction a garbage fire is probably a bad idea.

Vanilla marines like smouldering dumpster fire. BA like raging dumpster fire. :(

The Newman wrote:
I think it's worth taking a step back and remembering that a lot of us posting in this thread play Marines and it's easy to be salty about Marines and the state of the game in general if you're playing Marines. They're in a really bad place.

I've still got fingers crossed that Marines are in a better spot when Codex: Marines 2.0 drops. I'm not optimistic by any stretch, but I'm hoping GW is smart enough to realise that Marines are a big percentage of the player base and leaving the faction a garbage fire is probably a bad idea.

I'm expecting it'll be the same as CSM 2.0 just adding new units in and calling it a day.

BrianDavion wrote:

The Newman wrote:
I think it's worth taking a step back and remembering that a lot of us posting in this thread play Marines and it's easy to be salty about Marines and the state of the game in general if you're playing Marines. They're in a really bad place.

I've still got fingers crossed that Marines are in a better spot when Codex: Marines 2.0 drops. I'm not optimistic by any stretch, but I'm hoping GW is smart enough to realise that Marines are a big percentage of the player base and leaving the faction a garbage fire is probably a bad idea.

I'm expecting it'll be the same as CSM 2.0 just adding new units in and calling it a day.

I think it's going to be wildly different, with a big focus on Primaris. There's already 10+ units to be added into the next book so it's already more different than the Chaos release.

 Insectum7 wrote:


A: Ok, so I see what you were doing so far as the purposes of comparing new weapons not already in the pile. Fair enough. I read the original post as a comparison of units, and thought you had taken a sub-par version of the unit to compare.
However. .
B: The Devs will actually will hit differently, because one model can have a BS of 2+ and fire twice with a Cherub. So with Las you get five shots vs. four, at a different save modifier, with two shots at BS2+. Imo this is a meaningful enough a distinction and more worthwhile too look at than Missile Launchers.

C: For more interesting weapon variation you can go with Grav Cannons, which outperform Lascannons vs. such a target. I get (3x4x.666x.333x2+(2x4x.666x.333x2)) for 8.87 wounds.

A. I accept your apology... that you didn't actually offer.

B. the Cherub is one turn only - Not an average performance that can be counted on turn after turn. The Signum doesn't make them BS2, its a +1 to Hit. This makes a difference on rerolls, but I was also trying to avoid reroll/aura/one-turn etc because it was as much about comparing the weapons as the host unit - plus, you could be doing math all day. As I have pointed out numerous times, if you feel the distinction is significant enough, you're welcome to do your own homework without complaining I didn't do it for you. Personally I'd make me an Excel Spreadsheet if I were as demanding on each and every weapon and upgrade option- then you only have to create a formula once or twice, and plug units/values.

C. Grav - using the same methodology to reduce apples/oranges - would be 16 shots, 10.72 hits, 3.53 wounding rolls, 2.97 after armor saves, 5.94 Damage after D3(2) damage per. This should (Again) be fairly similar to the plasma S7 -3 D1 numbers, simply adjusted to D2 instead of D1

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Bharring wrote:
But how does a Land Raider compare to a Stompa, Gorka/Morkanaugt, Squiggoth, Tantaulus, Vampyr Raider/Hunter, Greater Demon, etc?

Greater deamons are good....what are you talking about? LOL My 3++ -1 damage LOC dumping out supersmites and infernal gateway with a +3/4 to cast is a game winner. Tantaulus can carry quite possibly the most powerful melle unit in the game for it's cost...Vampyr Raider? What is this? A corsair unit? I've already described that that does not count because it's not really even a real unit. Hunter? Ehhh - it's bad but it's not as bad as a LR - you can take 3 for the cost of a LR and you get double the t8 wounds with about the same firepower.

How do you get a 3++?

The only way to get that, to my knowledge, is by cheating.

impossible robes.

 Ishagu wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

The Newman wrote:
I think it's worth taking a step back and remembering that a lot of us posting in this thread play Marines and it's easy to be salty about Marines and the state of the game in general if you're playing Marines. They're in a really bad place.

I've still got fingers crossed that Marines are in a better spot when Codex: Marines 2.0 drops. I'm not optimistic by any stretch, but I'm hoping GW is smart enough to realise that Marines are a big percentage of the player base and leaving the faction a garbage fire is probably a bad idea.

I'm expecting it'll be the same as CSM 2.0 just adding new units in and calling it a day.

I think it's going to be wildly different, with a big focus on Primaris. There's already 10+ units to be added into the next book so it's already more different than the Chaos release.

It could go either way - If new model kits with secondary options aren't available the Vanguard Marines might not even be in the new Codex. They may just punt and leave it as a Codex: Vanguard supplement.

Eliminators, Suppressors, Infiltrators, Phobos Cap, Phobos LT, Phobos Librarian is 6... Executioner is 7. What are the other three?

1 Each: RG, IF, CF, BT, UM, Salamanders, IH, WS named Primaris Special Character is another 8.

 Ishagu wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

The Newman wrote:
I think it's worth taking a step back and remembering that a lot of us posting in this thread play Marines and it's easy to be salty about Marines and the state of the game in general if you're playing Marines. They're in a really bad place.

I've still got fingers crossed that Marines are in a better spot when Codex: Marines 2.0 drops. I'm not optimistic by any stretch, but I'm hoping GW is smart enough to realise that Marines are a big percentage of the player base and leaving the faction a garbage fire is probably a bad idea.

I'm expecting it'll be the same as CSM 2.0 just adding new units in and calling it a day.

I think it's going to be wildly different, with a big focus on Primaris. There's already 10+ units to be added into the next book so it's already more different than the Chaos release.

Ten? I count 4. You have the Infiltrators, Supressors Eliminators and Repulsor Executioners. Captains Leuitenants and Librarians all have new options yes but they're no more likely to get a specific mention then captains in terminator armor did (they didn't) and the repulsor executioner could very likely be added as a blurb onto the standard repulsor. my guess is the repulsor text will be rewritten to account for the repulsor varient and we'll get a new two page "Vanguard Marines" spread. that might simply be little more then a repeat of page 6 and 7 of the vanguard marines mini-dex

BrianDavion wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

The Newman wrote:
I think it's worth taking a step back and remembering that a lot of us posting in this thread play Marines and it's easy to be salty about Marines and the state of the game in general if you're playing Marines. They're in a really bad place.

I've still got fingers crossed that Marines are in a better spot when Codex: Marines 2.0 drops. I'm not optimistic by any stretch, but I'm hoping GW is smart enough to realise that Marines are a big percentage of the player base and leaving the faction a garbage fire is probably a bad idea.

I'm expecting it'll be the same as CSM 2.0 just adding new units in and calling it a day.

I think it's going to be wildly different, with a big focus on Primaris. There's already 10+ units to be added into the next book so it's already more different than the Chaos release.

Ten? I count 4. You have the Infiltrators, Supressors Eliminators and Repulsor Executioners. Captains Leuitenants and Librarians all have new options yes but they're no more likely to get a specific mention then captains in terminator armor did (they didn't) and the repulsor executioner could very likely be added as a blurb onto the standard repulsor. my guess is the repulsor text will be rewritten to account for the repulsor varient and we'll get a new two page "Vanguard Marines" spread. that might simply be little more then a repeat of page 6 and 7 of the vanguard marines mini-dex

Captain in Gravis Armor got it's own entry. Captain/etc in Phobos Armor probably will as well- the Librarian especially so as it'll get its own power chart, which I'm guessing GW already regrets, they don't want to pack the thing with this Librarian gets that power set, that librarian gets this power set...

The Executioner will be a seperate datasheet as it's a different force org slot.

Breton wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

The Newman wrote:
I think it's worth taking a step back and remembering that a lot of us posting in this thread play Marines and it's easy to be salty about Marines and the state of the game in general if you're playing Marines. They're in a really bad place.

I've still got fingers crossed that Marines are in a better spot when Codex: Marines 2.0 drops. I'm not optimistic by any stretch, but I'm hoping GW is smart enough to realise that Marines are a big percentage of the player base and leaving the faction a garbage fire is probably a bad idea.

I'm expecting it'll be the same as CSM 2.0 just adding new units in and calling it a day.

I think it's going to be wildly different, with a big focus on Primaris. There's already 10+ units to be added into the next book so it's already more different than the Chaos release.

Ten? I count 4. You have the Infiltrators, Supressors Eliminators and Repulsor Executioners. Captains Leuitenants and Librarians all have new options yes but they're no more likely to get a specific mention then captains in terminator armor did (they didn't) and the repulsor executioner could very likely be added as a blurb onto the standard repulsor. my guess is the repulsor text will be rewritten to account for the repulsor varient and we'll get a new two page "Vanguard Marines" spread. that might simply be little more then a repeat of page 6 and 7 of the vanguard marines mini-dex

Captain in Gravis Armor got it's own entry. Captain/etc in Phobos Armor probably will as well- the Librarian especially so as it'll get its own power chart, which I'm guessing GW already regrets, they don't want to pack the thing with this Librarian gets that power set, that librarian gets this power set...

The Executioner will be a seperate datasheet as it's a different force org slot.

oohh yeah you're talking datasheets, I was thinking "fluff pages" yeah it'll incldue all the new datasheets but I don't expect much else. if CSM 2.0 is anything to go by we won't be able to count on getting the new warlord traits in the codex sadly

BrianDavion wrote:


oohh yeah you're talking datasheets, I was thinking "fluff pages" yeah it'll incldue all the new datasheets but I don't expect much else. if CSM 2.0 is anything to go by we won't be able to count on getting the new warlord traits in the codex sadly

Who'd be shocked if the Obscuration power set was missing too? We'll get a fluff page or two. I expect we'll get some named Primaris - but not Calgar- they'll leave him Vigilus required. I heard someone suggest they won't remove Marine 1.0's just push people into Primaris. Primaris Specials are a step on that road.

If I'm right and we do get some Primaris special's those details will be interesting. An Iron Hands Phobos Captain stumping around quietly on two whirring and grinding bionic legs? Will Pedro Kantor cross the Primaris Rubicon as well, and ended up as a Aggressor after Cawl upgrades him to the Two Fisted Dakka Of Dorn? Oh wait, they already have a Primaris Marneus character. Wlll High Marshall Helbrect unveil the first Primaris Emperor's Champion, Bob? Will Shrike get an Inceptor Lieutenant/Aide? Will Korsarro Khan build the first Primaris Bike?

PRIMARIS KALDOR DRAIGO!

You're all thinking too small.

Roboute Guilliman will be the first Primarisarch.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
You're all thinking too small.

Roboute Guilliman will be the first Primarisarch.

Primaris Emperor..?

No! Primaris Khorne!

 Xenomancers wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Bharring wrote:
But how does a Land Raider compare to a Stompa, Gorka/Morkanaugt, Squiggoth, Tantaulus, Vampyr Raider/Hunter, Greater Demon, etc?

Greater deamons are good....what are you talking about? LOL My 3++ -1 damage LOC dumping out supersmites and infernal gateway with a +3/4 to cast is a game winner. Tantaulus can carry quite possibly the most powerful melle unit in the game for it's cost...Vampyr Raider? What is this? A corsair unit? I've already described that that does not count because it's not really even a real unit. Hunter? Ehhh - it's bad but it's not as bad as a LR - you can take 3 for the cost of a LR and you get double the t8 wounds with about the same firepower.

How do you get a 3++?

The only way to get that, to my knowledge, is by cheating.

impossible robes.

Forgot that relic. Okay, my bad.

BrianDavion wrote:

oohh yeah you're talking datasheets, I was thinking "fluff pages" yeah it'll incldue all the new datasheets but I don't expect much else. if CSM 2.0 is anything to go by we won't be able to count on getting the new warlord traits in the codex sadly

All told, the following data sheets...

Captain in Phobos

Lieutenant in Phobos

Vanguard Librarian in Phobos

Infiltrator

Suppressor

Eliminator

Repulsor Executioner

New Iron Hands character and potential techmarine

Bookkeeping: updates to Intercessors, Reivers, Primaris Captain options, etc.

Primarneus Calgar

Victrix Honour Guard

And the following rules...

Poor Chaos missed the boat, but we'll have Bolter Discipline in the book

Crimson Fists and Blood Ravens Chapter Tactics, Relics, Stratagems, and Warlord Traits

Obscuration Discipline

And this is all before any other new units or the long rumoured Chapter Tactics for vehicles.

Speaking of new units...

Where's all this coming from?

 fraser1191 wrote:
Where's all this coming from?

The pics? From the video posted on WarCom - Primaris Lieutenant Daily #723

It's freakin' hilarious.

The rest is just wild speculation given the data sheets released already.

Lemondish wrote:

 fraser1191 wrote:
Where's all this coming from?

The pics? From the video posted on WarCom - Primaris Lieutenant Daily #723

It's freakin' hilarious.

The rest is just wild speculation given the data sheets released already.

I'll have to watch the video when I can.

Wow. A new dread, I never would have seen this coming. It looks stripped down too. So awesome. I guess it's a kit for infiltrators, eliminators with their Las fusils and that "land seeder" thing we've been hearing about

 fraser1191 wrote:

Lemondish wrote:

 fraser1191 wrote:
Where's all this coming from?

The pics? From the video posted on WarCom - Primaris Lieutenant Daily #723

It's freakin' hilarious.

The rest is just wild speculation given the data sheets released already.

I'll have to watch the video when I can.

Wow. A new dread, I never would have seen this coming. It looks stripped down too. So awesome. I guess it's a kit for infiltrators, eliminators with their Las fusils and that "land seeder" thing we've been hearing about

Stripped down look kind of makes it seem like a support piece for Vanguard marines...interesting.

More Vanguard releases and more armour opens up the potential for the Executioner - greater screening ability and more armoured threat saturation always helps these tanks.

Anyone care to post an actual link to said video?

Is it just me or did that rhino have Rhino have sponsons? I can't see it really clear, but I had no idea what the hell that was.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Is it just me or did that rhino have Rhino have sponsons? I can't see it really clear, but I had no idea what the hell that was.

I'm more interested in the fact that the Rhino with sponsons appears to be on a flying base.

Its not a Rhino. Its a Repulsor-like hover-tank, but in a somewhat smaller form factor.

The "sponsons" appear to be engine intakes.

CVould that be a new Repulsor or is it just a home brewed counts as?

We know it's not a Rhino. It merely has the rough outline of one, so we default to "Rhino" for conversation's sake.

I agree on the intakes, I hope the blur is making them look bigger than they actually are.

 fraser1191 wrote:

Lemondish wrote:

 fraser1191 wrote:
Where's all this coming from?

The pics? From the video posted on WarCom - Primaris Lieutenant Daily #723

It's freakin' hilarious.

The rest is just wild speculation given the data sheets released already.

I'll have to watch the video when I can.

Wow. A new dread, I never would have seen this coming. It looks stripped down too. So awesome. I guess it's a kit for infiltrators, eliminators with their Las fusils and that "land seeder" thing we've been hearing about

I'm not convinced that is a dread, it looks to be open topped like a sentinel. I'm quietly hoping it's like a dreadknight but done well.

Well, my search-foo is weaker than I'd like:

https://youtu.be/SFsL-VdxLYw

Perhaps another thread for speculation is in order, or a name change here lol

https://www.belloflostsouls.net/2019/07/40k-new-primaris-lieutenant-other-models.html

Snipers are getting Anti-tank....the new Repulsor may be the new Whirlwind....and the new Dreadnaught is, I'm guessing, a new Primaris LT.

Dudeface wrote:

 fraser1191 wrote:

Lemondish wrote:

 fraser1191 wrote:
Where's all this coming from?

The pics? From the video posted on WarCom - Primaris Lieutenant Daily #723

It's freakin' hilarious.

The rest is just wild speculation given the data sheets released already.

I'll have to watch the video when I can.

Wow. A new dread, I never would have seen this coming. It looks stripped down too. So awesome. I guess it's a kit for infiltrators, eliminators with their Las fusils and that "land seeder" thing we've been hearing about

I'm not convinced that is a dread, it looks to be open topped like a sentinel. I'm quietly hoping it's like a dreadknight but done well.

Except in the video he actually calls it a dreadnought.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
https://www.belloflostsouls.net/2019/07/40k-new-primaris-lieutenant-other-models.html

Snipers are getting Anti-tank....the new Repulsor may be the new Whirlwind....and the new Dreadnaught is, I'm guessing, a new Primaris LT.

I don't buy it being a spin on a Whirlwind. Top bit looks too small. I'm hoping this is the Primaris Rhino we've all been waiting for.

Dudeface wrote:

 fraser1191 wrote:

Lemondish wrote:

 fraser1191 wrote:
Where's all this coming from?

The pics? From the video posted on WarCom - Primaris Lieutenant Daily #723

It's freakin' hilarious.

The rest is just wild speculation given the data sheets released already.

I'll have to watch the video when I can.

Wow. A new dread, I never would have seen this coming. It looks stripped down too. So awesome. I guess it's a kit for infiltrators, eliminators with their Las fusils and that "land seeder" thing we've been hearing about

I'm not convinced that is a dread, it looks to be open topped like a sentinel. I'm quietly hoping it's like a dreadknight but done well.

Potentially! Those 2 Grey bars running horizontal do look like roll bars of some sort. It's blurred and I already like the aesthetic.

I'm pretty confident the model being pointed at is a Phobos Lt.
I'll be honest I've been a little salty having to wait for the vanguard marines but things have been resparked.

New tank, new dread, new "rhino". Last thing to wrack my brain around is to the left of the "rhino", is that a Phobos librarian in front of some infiltrators?

Great, one more overpriced primaris only transport, and another useless, overpriced dread, like the redemptor. Both probably wont have an inv.

 Stux wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
https://www.belloflostsouls.net/2019/07/40k-new-primaris-lieutenant-other-models.html

Snipers are getting Anti-tank....the new Repulsor may be the new Whirlwind....and the new Dreadnaught is, I'm guessing, a new Primaris LT.

I don't buy it being a spin on a Whirlwind. Top bit looks too small. I'm hoping this is the Primaris Rhino we've all been waiting for.

What will that even do, other than give your opponent the opportunity to instakill your expensive primaris on 1s when the transport dies? Transports don't work well for marines in 8th.

Martel732 wrote:

 Stux wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
https://www.belloflostsouls.net/2019/07/40k-new-primaris-lieutenant-other-models.html

Snipers are getting Anti-tank....the new Repulsor may be the new Whirlwind....and the new Dreadnaught is, I'm guessing, a new Primaris LT.

I don't buy it being a spin on a Whirlwind. Top bit looks too small. I'm hoping this is the Primaris Rhino we've all been waiting for.

What will that even do, other than give your opponent the opportunity to instakill your expensive primaris on 1s when the transport dies? Transports don't work well for marines in 8th.

Nothing in your games clearly, you can ignore this chat if you like. We'll just imagine your negativity and save you the effort of posting.

What will it do in YOUR games?

Well, if it gets the Primaris tax, I can see it being about 100-120 points? That would be a great alternative to the Rhino.

If it's the Whirlwind, what will they call it? Tornado? Jesushatestrailerparksinthemidwest? Dust Devil? Vortex? Cyclone? Here's to hoping it's got a IDF Plasma Cannon that does nothing!

Martel732 wrote:
What will it do in YOUR games?

Well of course it will depend on points, any weapons, and special rules.

But basically it'll make Aggressors and Hellblasters more mobile and protect them from some early game shooting.

Yeah, when it explodes it's a 1/6 chance of each one dying. But that's better than the unit getting shot directly. And if they're using their anti tank to crack transports, that's less to shoot at Repulsors

Most things suffer a 1/6 chance of dying when being shot at by Boltguns...

Martel732 wrote:
What will it do in YOUR games?

Who knows maybe the dread can infiltrate, maybe the hover rhino infiltrates and has a 4++ against shooting, maybe Las fusils are assault 5 S10 ap - 5 6D let's at least wait and see what they do before buying a ticket for the hate train...

Transport death doesn't have to hit, wound or give a save though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 fraser1191 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
What will it do in YOUR games?

Who knows maybe the dread can infiltrate, maybe the hover rhino infiltrates and has a 4++ against shooting, maybe Las fusils are assault 5 S10 ap - 5 6D let's at least wait and see what they do before buying a ticket for the hate train...

It's always time for the primaris hate train.

It’s expensive, but we do have a Primaris transport. Can anyone judge to size? If it has a six man capacity and that’s it, I could see it being useful, otherwise I don’t see need another one.

Martel732 wrote:

It's always time for the primaris hate train.

Yes it seems to be a recurring theme with your posts.

While I agree marines as a whole suck, I'm still excited to see new releases as my love for them runs deep. And there's no point getting all riled up over something that might be competitive for marines and haul them up a couple rungs

Primaris is really good at one thing: refuting the idea that GW always overpowers new kits. Some people STILL claim this.

Martel732 wrote:
Primaris is really good at one thing: refuting the idea that GW always overpowers new kits. Some people STILL claim this.

I'm with you on that. So bizarre that many people still think it's true...

Like, sometimes a new kit is overpowered. But it looks basically random more than anythibg.

It is TOTALLY random. I've basically been losing to the same Eldar kits since early 2000s. They redid the whole BA line. Still crap.

Yet, I CONSTANTLY run into to people that claim this.

I've tried hauling around aggressors in a repulsor. No matter what other units I have on the table, that thing is THE target because they know they get the bonus rolls to kill 30+ point models on top of the expensive ass repulsor. Even FW dreads are not juicy enough to distract off such a target. I've borrowed some and tried.

Same Eldar kits, like the Jetbike Farseer? Maybe Eldred too?

Because no other CWE kit has been top-tier since 2000.

Bharring wrote:
Same Eldar kits, like the Jetbike Farseer? Maybe Eldred too?

Because no other CWE kit has been top-tier since 2000.

I don't know the exact age of them all. Wave serpents, reapers, etc. The usual suspects. War walkers were certainly top tier in 5th when used correctly.

WW were good, done right, in 5th and half of 6th, but not great aside from that.

Serpents suddenly got amazing during the second half of 6th, but was nothing special before that.

Reapers got decent in 7th, but didn't get great until 8. They were overcosted in later 6th, and increadibly overcosted in early 6th - they got destroyed by Marines.

"The ususal suspects" are anything but. Each book, it's been mostly different kits. The price/power does track close to random, but CWE have such a random assortment of units that random distribution will generally put them in a good place.

Point is, GW randomly superpowers old kits and constantly makes new kits with crap rules. Like basically every primaris unit.

Wraithknight. Riptide. Grav weaponry.

Each of those were OP when their kits were released.

I am at the point where Im happy about new primaris stuff. It looks cool and the sight of a whole primaris army makes me smile. Its no where near competitive but its fun collecting them.

Bharring wrote:
Wraithknight. Riptide. Grav weaponry.

Each of those were OP when their kits were released.

And there are many that weren't, and many older kits were made OP with an edition change or something too.

GW is just bad at balance in general.

Bharring wrote:
Wraithknight. Riptide. Grav weaponry.

Each of those were OP when their kits were released.

I didn't say it NEVER happened. It's just far from universal.

Bharring wrote:
Wraithknight. Riptide. Grav weaponry.

Each of those were OP when their kits were released.

in fairness Grav weaponry had a big impact beyond just being OP because it was a hard counter to the meta at the time of it's release.

but yeah, GW has been very conserfitive with Primaris pricing, my guess is they're deliberatly trying to not rock the boat and obselete old marines. If an intercessor squad was say.. 15 points at release no matter what corrections and changes they made the narrative would have been "old marines are obselete now, get ridda em, they want you to switch to Primaris" plenty of people already think that but GW seems to be trying to subtly present a "mixed formations" narrative, at least for now.

Grav was the marine crutch because their other units were just getting skunked.

I'm pretty sure GSC was pretty broken, hence week 1 patch, or am I misremembering how GSC released?

Also, are you telling me the Castellan didn't unbalance the entire game when it first dropped?

How about when DW were getting Beta Bolters with SIA while carrying SSs?

New kits were overpowered, we are just forgetting quickly.

Sometimes they are. But then, primaris. The point is that its totally random.

 p5freak wrote:
Great, one more overpriced primaris only transport, and another useless, overpriced dread, like the redemptor. Both probably wont have an inv.

Redemptor is 155pts with the onslaughts. That is cheap as chips for the firepower, wounds and S/T

Redemptor is one of the few good primaris units. It's not cheap. Cheap would be sub 10 ppw. It's still overcosted probably, but not by much. To be truly fearsome, it would need to clock in around 120. Xenos level costing.

Martel is right at this point. for every new kit that releases somewhat broken, there's one that releases that's not that great. moving away from Primaris Marines...

does anyone rememebr the Taurox dominating the battlefield on release? Cause I sure don't! Custodes when they released had one unit widely agreed as amazing but the terminators and wardens where just "alright" anytime an entire new faction gets released chances are some of it';s units will be amazing and others will be crap, just the way it goes.

BrianDavion wrote:

Bharring wrote:
Wraithknight. Riptide. Grav weaponry.

Each of those were OP when their kits were released.

in fairness Grav weaponry had a big impact beyond just being OP because it was a hard counter to the meta at the time of it's release.

but yeah, GW has been very conserfitive with Primaris pricing, my guess is they're deliberatly trying to not rock the boat and obselete old marines. If an intercessor squad was say.. 15 points at release no matter what corrections and changes they made the narrative would have been "old marines are obselete now, get ridda em, they want you to switch to Primaris" plenty of people already think that but GW seems to be trying to subtly present a "mixed formations" narrative, at least for now.

They're failing miserably if that's what they're aiming at.

The good news is that as much as Primaris are nudging mini-marines out of the boat in Vanilla Marine armies, mini-marines are still hands-down better that Primaris in Death Watch due to Stormbolters interacting so much better with SIA and the Primaris DW squad being less flexible. I'm more sanguine about that than I expected, even if I don't really want to do the conversion and re-painting.

- I'm looking forward to getting a second box of Suppressors once the stand-alone kit comes out, their cannon is just about as on-meta as you can get.
- If the Lasfusile is any sort of good then LasFusile Eliminators push Devs out of the boat just on being a 1+ save in cover. Especially if it winds up being something middle-of-the-road since Marines have a problem with only having specialized guns and nothing like the Battle Cannon that is good against the field.
- A hover-rhino means there's a decent chance that the various Rhino-based tanks that Death Watch can't use are only a printed conversion kit away from usable in a solid Primaris list. There's probably files out there already for the Land Raider.

It's in a place where I can kind of see it coming together.

I've thought about DW, but I hate the concept so much. Marines that are even MOAR marininer. Marines are already absurd. GK, DW, and such are on a different level.

I'd rather they just make primaris good so we can compete and get rid of old marines entirely. It's better than this middle limbo world where every marine unit sucks. Yeah, that's like 90% of what I own, but it's already garbage at this point.

 bullyboy wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
Great, one more overpriced primaris only transport, and another useless, overpriced dread, like the redemptor. Both probably wont have an inv.

Redemptor is 155pts with the onslaughts. That is cheap as chips for the firepower, wounds and S/T

It hits on 3s, when it moves on 4s, and when its damaged its on 5s, or even 6s. No inv. Thats ridiculous.

Pretty excited for Primaris Rhino. It probably wont be able to hold gravis though. It will be able to hold hell blasters though. Maybe intercessors.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 p5freak wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
Great, one more overpriced primaris only transport, and another useless, overpriced dread, like the redemptor. Both probably wont have an inv.

Redemptor is 155pts with the onslaughts. That is cheap as chips for the firepower, wounds and S/T

It hits on 3s, when it moves on 4s, and when its damaged its on 5s, or even 6s. No inv. Thats ridiculous.

Yeah and on demand -1 to hit. Lots of times this unit can't even hit. Vehicle degrading profiles really make increased wound not as valuable as in when things get bigger they should start paying less for wounds.

I don't have a ton of experience with the redemptor so take my input with a grain of salt, but I find it performs alright when taking two or three of them. They are not radically expensive and can put out a respectable amount of firepower. Throw in -1 to hit from raven guard or 6+++ Iron hand tactics on top of re-roll auras (which marines have a ton of) and they'll do alright at their cost. They are not meta sweepers or anything of the like, but they far from bad IMO.

 Tibs Ironblood wrote:
I don't have a ton of experience with the redemptor so take my input with a grain of salt, but I find it performs alright when taking two or three of them. They are not radically expensive and can put out a respectable amount of firepower. Throw in -1 to hit from raven guard or 6+++ Iron hand tactics on top of re-roll auras (which marines have a ton of) and they'll do alright at their cost. They are not meta sweepers or anything of the like, but they far from bad IMO.

If they could take double onslaughts they would be Meta AF.