Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
So the Heavy Laser Destroyer is 40 points. At a minimum that makes Lascannons and Twin-linked Lascannons over priced and makes the Lastalon make even less sense than it did before.
The Newman wrote: So the Heavy Laser Destroyer is 40 points. At a minimum that makes Lascannons and Twin-linked Lascannons over priced and makes the Lastalon make even less sense than it did before.
Sigh...
No. That's not how this works. You can only compare the price of weapons if you have a choice between them. Otherwise it's meaningless. Very often some of the cost of the weapon is baked into the base cost of the model, or vice versa.
2019/07/05 22:25:39
Subject: Re:Speculation on the Repulsor Executioner.
lascanons are also costed to account for the number of differant units that can take them. which means even if 99% of all units with a weapon are crap if there's one power combo with them, they price for the power combo. the heavy lasers destroyer, doesn't have that issue, I suspect we're going to see more cases of units built around a unique piece of equipment to address this issue (which wasn't an issue until they adopted universal price points for gear. *sigh*)
Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two
The Newman wrote: So the Heavy Laser Destroyer is 40 points. At a minimum that makes Lascannons and Twin-linked Lascannons over priced and makes the Lastalon make even less sense than it did before.
Sigh...
No. That's not how this works. You can only compare the price of weapons if you have a choice between them. Otherwise it's meaningless. Very often some of the cost of the weapon is baked into the base cost of the model, or vice versa.
The Newman wrote: So the Heavy Laser Destroyer is 40 points. At a minimum that makes Lascannons and Twin-linked Lascannons over priced and makes the Lastalon make even less sense than it did before.
Sigh...
No. That's not how this works. You can only compare the price of weapons if you have a choice between them. Otherwise it's meaningless. Very often some of the cost of the weapon is baked into the base cost of the model, or vice versa.
Thiiiissssssss.
and only one unit uses the Las heavy destoyer. so it's understood it's baked into the cost. I mean a boltrifle costs 0 points, a bolt gun costs 0 points. that does not mean boltguns are utterly useless in comparison because differant units use them
Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two
The Newman wrote: So the Heavy Laser Destroyer is 40 points. At a minimum that makes Lascannons and Twin-linked Lascannons over priced and makes the Lastalon make even less sense than it did before.
Sigh...
No. That's not how this works. You can only compare the price of weapons if you have a choice between them. Otherwise it's meaningless. Very often some of the cost of the weapon is baked into the base cost of the model, or vice versa.
Thiiiissssssss.
and only one unit uses the Las heavy destoyer. so it's understood it's baked into the cost. I mean a boltrifle costs 0 points, a bolt gun costs 0 points. that does not mean boltguns are utterly useless in comparison because differant units use them
Ehhh - basically their system is garbage. I've been saying it from the beginning. Some units have baked in cost. Like a Valiant. Some units pay for a weapon that is unique to it like the Executioner. Some units pay a different cost for the same weapon in the same codex...Like the baneblade and russ commander. It is not necessary to do this. Give a base cost for a unit without weapons. Then charge for the weapons it can take.
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
Breton wrote: The question becomes where you put the two mini-turrets, and what you use to hide/coverup the two holes.
Look to the post immediately above yours for that answer.
In a Top Turret conversion/magnetization deal - assuming you can get just the top turret. You'd still have the same top plate with the two slots for the mini turrets, and two slots for mini turrets on the top turret. Probably put the mini turrets in the top turret, and find a filler for the hull holes.
The Newman wrote: So the Heavy Laser Destroyer is 40 points. At a minimum that makes Lascannons and Twin-linked Lascannons over priced and makes the Lastalon make even less sense than it did before.
Sigh...
No. That's not how this works. You can only compare the price of weapons if you have a choice between them. Otherwise it's meaningless. Very often some of the cost of the weapon is baked into the base cost of the model, or vice versa.
Thiiiissssssss.
and only one unit uses the Las heavy destoyer. so it's understood it's baked into the cost. I mean a boltrifle costs 0 points, a bolt gun costs 0 points. that does not mean boltguns are utterly useless in comparison because differant units use them
Ehhh - basically their system is garbage. I've been saying it from the beginning. Some units have baked in cost. Like a Valiant. Some units pay for a weapon that is unique to it like the Executioner. Some units pay a different cost for the same weapon in the same codex...Like the baneblade and russ commander. It is not necessary to do this. Give a base cost for a unit without weapons. Then charge for the weapons it can take.
which is how they used to do it and yeah I agree it worked a bit better.
Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two
2019/07/06 04:20:45
Subject: Re:Speculation on the Repulsor Executioner.
BrianDavion wrote: lascanons are also costed to account for the number of differant units that can take them. which means even if 99% of all units with a weapon are crap if there's one power combo with them, they price for the power combo. the heavy lasers destroyer, doesn't have that issue, I suspect we're going to see more cases of units built around a unique piece of equipment to address this issue (which wasn't an issue until they adopted universal price points for gear. *sigh*)
That's been the way they've approached every Primaris unit thus far.
2019/07/06 04:32:45
Subject: Re:Speculation on the Repulsor Executioner.
BrianDavion wrote: lascanons are also costed to account for the number of differant units that can take them. which means even if 99% of all units with a weapon are crap if there's one power combo with them, they price for the power combo. the heavy lasers destroyer, doesn't have that issue, I suspect we're going to see more cases of units built around a unique piece of equipment to address this issue (which wasn't an issue until they adopted universal price points for gear. *sigh*)
That's been the way they've approached every Primaris unit thus far.
not 100% true, the heavy onslaught gatling canon is shared across several units. but closer to true then not.
Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two
2019/07/06 14:36:18
Subject: Re:Speculation on the Repulsor Executioner.
BrianDavion wrote: not 100% true, the heavy onslaught gatling canon is shared across several units. but closer to true then not.
Sure, but then I was making an observation of a trend, and one example does not disprove the trend. It only proves that it isn't a hard line.
Inceptors, Infiltrators, Intercessors, Eliminators, Hellblasters, Aggressors, Suppressors, and Reivers all include weapon options that are not shared across any other unit.
Armour and HQs do share some weapons, and interestingly (aside from melee weapons) armoured units are the only place you see cross over into the armoury of the Imperium. It's limited though, and a large selection of the weaponry, even if shared with other units, remains Primaris only.
That level of control is a far cry from the current marine landscape.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/07/06 14:38:11
BrianDavion wrote: not 100% true, the heavy onslaught gatling canon is shared across several units. but closer to true then not.
Sure, but then I was making an observation of a trend, and one example does not disprove the trend. It only proves that it isn't a hard line.
Inceptors, Infiltrators, Intercessors, Eliminators, Hellblasters, Aggressors, Suppressors, and Reivers all include weapon options that are not shared across any other unit.
Armour and HQs do share some weapons, and interestingly (aside from melee weapons) armoured units are the only place you see cross over into the armoury of the Imperium. It's limited though, and a large selection of the weaponry, even if shared with other units, remains Primaris only.
That level of control is a far cry from the current marine landscape.
agreed. I honestly think that within 5 years time once the basic primaris range is complete, Primaris will be in a neat place.
Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two
2019/07/07 01:33:43
Subject: Re:Speculation on the Repulsor Executioner.
Ishagu wrote: Wait for a new codex. I imagine weapons like the Las Talon will get more reductions.
Only been like 2 years....whats another 6 months? By any chance do you work for GW? Or do you just have huge tolerance for rules that make no sense?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/07/07 06:06:48
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
The Newman wrote: So the Heavy Laser Destroyer is 40 points. At a minimum that makes Lascannons and Twin-linked Lascannons over priced and makes the Lastalon make even less sense than it did before.
Sigh...
No. That's not how this works. You can only compare the price of weapons if you have a choice between them. Otherwise it's meaningless. Very often some of the cost of the weapon is baked into the base cost of the model, or vice versa.
Thiiiissssssss.
and only one unit uses the Las heavy destoyer. so it's understood it's baked into the cost. I mean a boltrifle costs 0 points, a bolt gun costs 0 points. that does not mean boltguns are utterly useless in comparison because differant units use them
Ehhh - basically their system is garbage. I've been saying it from the beginning. Some units have baked in cost. Like a Valiant. Some units pay for a weapon that is unique to it like the Executioner. Some units pay a different cost for the same weapon in the same codex...Like the baneblade and russ commander. It is not necessary to do this. Give a base cost for a unit without weapons. Then charge for the weapons it can take.
I still don't get why, after hitting perfect formula in 5th edition, both from balance and usability standpoint (no frakking constant page-flipping for one ) they went back to garbage, useless 'armory' for 6th and 7th, then, when it clearly didn't worked, they brought in back some bits from 5th, except leaving all the best points out. Does GW pay writers for making books so useless you wear them out with constant use (or tear out pages in rage/to make them usable) just so people need to buy a new one...?
If they really made Primaris weapons all unique just to patch holes in this abomination of a system (which is pretty silly, I mean, anyone can show any difference between bolt carbine, auto-bolter and that third bolt gun which eludes me now?) then whoever is responsible for it should be chainsworded off his seat and a competent writer brought back in...
Breton wrote: marines would still deathball without the auras, we’d just call it castle or gunline or something. Close combat sucks this edition, so you won’t see the assault units splitting off to rush while the shooters provide covering fire to soften up targets. And if everything is going to shoot you might as well keep it all together so it can cover for each other.
Close combat is amazing, you just need half a brain to make it work and no brain to put a bunch of guns next to an aura and then roll dice. And marines aren't a CC army.
Ishagu wrote: Wait for a new codex. I imagine weapons like the Las Talon will get more reductions.
Only been like 2 years....whats another 6 months? By any chance do you work for GW? Or do you just have huge tolerance for rules that make no sense?
Two years? Get in the line mate, Templars are coming up on six in September.
Just forget about other edditions. I'm talking about this eddition with very basic complaints like. "This weapon is obviously better but costs the same". Still weve had what...4 major balacing patches and still some of the most obvious changes havn't been made?
Also this is quite disturbing.
Just opened the Executoner kit and I've realized something. GW doesn't even know which weapons are which on the repulsor. The model is armed with krakstorm grenade launchers and autolaunchers but the rules state you have a fragstorm grenade launcher and autolaunchers. The repuslors can trade autolaunchers for frag storms (who wouldn't) and it can also trade 2 stom bolters for fragstorms which this boat cant do.
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
I still don't get why, after hitting perfect formula in 5th edition, both from balance and usability standpoint (no frakking constant page-flipping for one ) they went back to garbage, useless 'armory' for 6th and 7th, then, when it clearly didn't worked, they brought in back some bits from 5th, except leaving all the best points out. Does GW pay writers for making books so useless you wear them out with constant use (or tear out pages in rage/to make them usable) just so people need to buy a new one...?
If they really made Primaris weapons all unique just to patch holes in this abomination of a system (which is pretty silly, I mean, anyone can show any difference between bolt carbine, auto-bolter and that third bolt gun which eludes me now?) then whoever is responsible for it should be chainsworded off his seat and a competent writer brought back in...
Honestly, I really like the current layout of the codecies. It's the best they've done so far [that I've experienced].
However, the downside is that weapons have a fixed cost independent of the platform, which is a bit of a limitation.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/07/07 16:56:17
Guardsmen, hear me! Cadia may lie in ruin, but her proud people do not! For each brother and sister who gave their lives to Him as martyrs, we will reap a vengeance fiftyfold! Cadia may be no more, but will never be forgotten; our foes shall tremble in fear at the name, for their doom shall come from the barrels of Cadian guns, fired by Cadian hands! Forward, for vengeance and retribution, in His name and the names of our fallen comrades!
Breton wrote: marines would still deathball without the auras, we’d just call it castle or gunline or something. Close combat sucks this edition, so you won’t see the assault units splitting off to rush while the shooters provide covering fire to soften up targets. And if everything is going to shoot you might as well keep it all together so it can cover for each other.
Close combat is amazing, you just need half a brain to make it work and no brain to put a bunch of guns next to an aura and then roll dice. And marines aren't a CC army.
Actually. Running a marine deathball takes a lot of brain power. Playing armies that move really fast and are functional without powerball formations is easy in comparison.
I still don't get why, after hitting perfect formula in 5th edition, both from balance and usability standpoint (no frakking constant page-flipping for one ) they went back to garbage, useless 'armory' for 6th and 7th, then, when it clearly didn't worked, they brought in back some bits from 5th, except leaving all the best points out. Does GW pay writers for making books so useless you wear them out with constant use (or tear out pages in rage/to make them usable) just so people need to buy a new one...?
If they really made Primaris weapons all unique just to patch holes in this abomination of a system (which is pretty silly, I mean, anyone can show any difference between bolt carbine, auto-bolter and that third bolt gun which eludes me now?) then whoever is responsible for it should be chainsworded off his seat and a competent writer brought back in...
Honestly, I really like the current layout of the codecies.
I don't use the codex for points (battle scribe is a life saver) but it takes quite a lot of work to figure out how much a build costs from being naive to a codex. You need to figure out the weapons it can take from the data sheet. Find the base cost in 1 place for the tank and then add up all the weapons options from possibly several other places. I hate it.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/07/07 16:58:43
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
Ishagu wrote: Wait for a new codex. I imagine weapons like the Las Talon will get more reductions.
Only been like 2 years....whats another 6 months? By any chance do you work for GW? Or do you just have huge tolerance for rules that make no sense?
Two years? Get in the line mate, Templars are coming up on six in September.
Just forget about other edditions. I'm talking about this eddition with very basic complaints like. "This weapon is obviously better but costs the same". Still weve had what...4 major balacing patches and still some of the most obvious changes havn't been made?
Also this is quite disturbing.
Just opened the Executoner kit and I've realized something. GW doesn't even know which weapons are which on the repulsor. The model is armed with krakstorm grenade launchers and autolaunchers but the rules state you have a fragstorm grenade launcher and autolaunchers. The repuslors can trade autolaunchers for frag storms (who wouldn't) and it can also trade 2 stom bolters for fragstorms which this boat cant do.
Did you happen to notice that the datasheet lists * stats for speed, BS, and Attacks, but the degradation chart lists speed, BS, and WS? They're literally less than an inch apart on the page layout.
I didn't like the physical layout of the Storm Bolter sub-turrets at first blush, but the bigger turret makes the Executioner look more like an MBT than the base Repulsor. I think I like it better now that I've seen them side-by side. (Still wish they'd left the over-the-door bolters where they were, I think that would have looked even better. Didn't think I could do the conversion justice though.)
Ishagu wrote: Wait for a new codex. I imagine weapons like the Las Talon will get more reductions.
Only been like 2 years....whats another 6 months? By any chance do you work for GW? Or do you just have huge tolerance for rules that make no sense?
Two years? Get in the line mate, Templars are coming up on six in September.
Just forget about other edditions. I'm talking about this eddition with very basic complaints like. "This weapon is obviously better but costs the same". Still weve had what...4 major balacing patches and still some of the most obvious changes havn't been made?
Also this is quite disturbing.
Just opened the Executoner kit and I've realized something. GW doesn't even know which weapons are which on the repulsor. The model is armed with krakstorm grenade launchers and autolaunchers but the rules state you have a fragstorm grenade launcher and autolaunchers. The repuslors can trade autolaunchers for frag storms (who wouldn't) and it can also trade 2 stom bolters for fragstorms which this boat cant do.
Did you happen to notice that the datasheet lists * stats for speed, BS, and Attacks, but the degradation chart lists speed, BS, and WS? They're literally less than an inch apart on the page layout.
I didn't like the physical layout of the Storm Bolter sub-turrets at first blush, but the bigger turret makes the Executioner look more like an MBT than the base Repulsor. I think I like it better now that I've seen them side-by side. (Still wish they'd left the over-the-door bolters where they were, I think that would have looked even better. Didn't think I could do the conversion justice though.)
Just finish the build. I think it looks spectacular. I was at first going to make the plasma version but the large barrel looks so good on it I had to use the Las. I also noticed the "frag launchers" are slightly different. Essentially they are a modified krakstorm launcher with frags for ordinance. So maybe GW does understand their weapons systems. Or maybe not...
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
) they went back to garbage, useless 'armory' for 6th and 7th, then, when it clearly didn't worked, they brought in back some bits from 5th, except leaving all the best points out. Does 
