Speculation on the Repulsor Executioner.

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.

**Stux**

Togusa wrote:
Stux wrote:
Togusa wrote:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Wait, you are suicidal if you run Hellblasters in a Transport. They already explode on 1s, now you make them explode on 2s by disembarking and shooting....

Our local group ignores that rule. We erattaed everything to "NATURAL 1" because moving doesn't make guns more likely to blow up.

Moving certainly could make guns more likely to blow up if they're as unstable as plasma! Delicate machinery that stuff, blows up frequently enough when stationary, so hustling that gear around while firing surely can't be good for it!

That said, almost no one runs Heavy Hellblasters. Rapid fire ones are so much better, and they don't shoot at -1 when moving.

To each their own. I run them because I get the S8 without the risk.

Fair enough. But you're doing half the damage. A quarter within 15" compared to Rapid Fire overcharged.

**warhead01**

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Seriously, what purpose would you have to keep this thing on the opposite ends of the board?

For that matter, who has ever played on a board larger than 6'? The rules state the board has to be 4'x6'. And you deploy on the long sides. Who here is taking a 72" shot? Outside of indirect fires, or extreme situations, is there a reason to have a direct fire gun that ranges beyond that?

What is the purpose of the Volcano Cannon's 120" range? Or the Death Strike's 400.

Who here? Probably me.

It'll be good for either early or very late turns.
The rules, they're more like guide lines. My group plays on 4X6 or bigger all the time. We up size the table to allow for more models. Some of us just prefer a 4X8 over a 4X6. Are you saying you have never played on table larger than 4X6? There a re several deployments where, even on a 4X6, a range of more than 48" is a nice thing to have.

**Elbows**

While I commonly play on a 6x4, people who don't experiment with larger tables are missing out.

There's a type of 40K that becomes completely more interesting when you play on a larger table. Suddenly transports matter. Deepstriking, and flying units matter more. Heavy weapon ranges start to matter a lot more. It also changes the game when you don't have enough models to flood the table (i.e. you can't screen your entire deployment zone). Models within 36" range weapons aren't suddenly covering the entire table - you actually need to plan where to put them.

Also a bigger table allows for much more variety in terrain in a single engagement. People get stuck to 4x6 because it's convenient and a tournament standard (and that's how big gaming mats are). There's a lot more to 40K than just 6x4.

**The Newman**

Xenomancers wrote:

The Newman wrote:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Seriously, what purpose would you have to keep this thing on the opposite ends of the board?

For that matter, who has ever played on a board larger than 6'? The rules state the board has to be 4'x6'. And you deploy on the long sides. Who here is taking a 72" shot? Outside of indirect fires, or extreme situations, is there a reason to have a direct fire gun that ranges beyond that?

What is the purpose of the Volcano Cannon's 120" range? Or the Death Strike's 400.

As some people.have pointed out, 72" is corner-to-corner on a 4'x6'. Also, we play corner deployments on a 4'x10' with a 48" no-man's-land semi-regularly.

48 inches apart? Holy crap. That is just silly.

It definitely changes what looks valuable and what doesn't. Transports, Aircraft, and Deep Strikers suddenly start looking real important when you have that much ground to cover.

**Togusa**

Stux wrote:
Togusa wrote:
Stux wrote:
Togusa wrote:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Wait, you are suicidal if you run Hellblasters in a Transport. They already explode on 1s, now you make them explode on 2s by disembarking and shooting....

Our local group ignores that rule. We erattaed everything to "NATURAL 1" because moving doesn't make guns more likely to blow up.

Moving certainly could make guns more likely to blow up if they're as unstable as plasma! Delicate machinery that stuff, blows up frequently enough when stationary, so hustling that gear around while firing surely can't be good for it!

That said, almost no one runs Heavy Hellblasters. Rapid fire ones are so much better, and they don't shoot at -1 when moving.

To each their own. I run them because I get the S8 without the risk.

Fair enough. But you're doing half the damage. A quarter within 15" compared to Rapid Fire overcharged.

If I want to go heavier, I usually run them as the middle teir. But the cables were just too cool for me not to model them with.
I really how they put out prime devestators.

**Andykp**

So, any one got confirmation of transport capacity? My hope is 6 so aggressors or a 5 man squad and character but it’s the only thing I’ve not seen confirmed anywhere.

**Racerguy180**

Sterling191 wrote:
Insectum7 wrote:

I've definitely played on larger boards. But even on regular 6x4s I've often required range greater than 48".

The capacity to outmaneuver 36 and 48 inch guns with smart play cannot be undervalued.

very much this! skirting around threats while able to engage them from "safety" is excellent. The fly keyword is a benefit for the executioner. the destroyer coulda just been 3+D3 damage, less wording.

Bigger boards are better boards, well only with adequate & varied terrain.

**Wyzilla**

Holy gak, this thing might actually turn out useful in the end. Here's hoping GW doesn't screw the pooch with the points count and we get an honest-to-god good anti-titan mainline unit for Marines.

**Breton**

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Insectum7 wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Seriously, what purpose would you have to keep this thing on the opposite ends of the board?

For that matter, who has ever played on a board larger than 6'? The rules state the board has to be 4'x6'. And you deploy on the long sides. Who here is taking a 72" shot? Outside of indirect fires, or extreme situations, is there a reason to have a direct fire gun that ranges beyond that?

What is the purpose of the Volcano Cannon's 120" range? Or the Death Strike's 400.

I've definitely played on larger boards. But even on regular 6x4s I've often required range greater than 48".

Land superiority comes AFTER Air superiority, which is like one of the top three rules at the War College for the US Army. You Take the skies, then you send in tanks. According to standard '00s doctrine of take and hold, Infantry are a final measure used only in coordination with air superiority (Fixed wing or other), almost never without. Hence why even 10th MN now has attached Rotary Wing squadrons.

So getting back to the world of imagination, where plants become sentient Cockneys with 1930's era weaponry, and Space turns men into demons;

what in the current edition, standard game set, would the point of a 72" gun on a transport be? I have heard melee screen, which is odd, because this particular vehicle has the fly keyword I think(?) and can fallback over troops, and still shoot.

I think it's to make these threatening wherever they are on a standard sized board. If we go forward with that assumption, then it logically follows that they want a transport to be a potential tank hunter. But that is invalidated by the fact that it's only got 2 shots at that range, unless it doesn't move, in which case 4. So therein lays the confusion.

What method's would you use this? Would you:

advance, loose the shooting phase, and drop troops, hoping it survives to shoot next turn,
move under half, drop troops, shoot twice, and have intercessors miss the charge phase,
or
move full, drop troops, shoot once, (Maybe charge?)

I don't get the idea behind it's biggest gun. It's just counter to it's overall purpose. Unless the purpose is dedicated tank hunter, in which case WHY IS IT TRANSPORT?

Let's try it this way - Space Marines - outside of Forgeworld do not have an M1 Abrams - They have several different variations of M2 Bradleys (Land Raiders, Repulsors) Why does the Bradley have TOW missiles? Isn't the range on that thing over two miles? What does a squad transport need with a 2 mile range? The Rhinos, and Razorbacks look for all the world like an M59 APC. - in theory like the M113 as well, but the M59 looks more goofy and out of scale, so the Rhino looks MORE like the M59. The Predator feels like an M45/6/7/8 Patton Medium Tank, or even more so an M18 Hellcat Tank Destroyer (Fast-ish, crappy armor, big gun) You're trying to make the Repulsor either the M1 Main Battle Tank, or the M113 Amored Personnel Carrier, when it's really the M2 Bradly Infantry Fighting Vehicle (the APC/Tank hybrid).

Secondly I have a question - Why are you charging with Intercessors? I mean I get where youre coming from assaulting with primaris isn't as bad as it used to be with Tacs but its still not good.

**Ishagu**

I think a lot of people are failing to realise that the Primaris are not mirrors of classic Astartes, and that those expectations are not shared with the design philosophy of the actual design studio.

Don't compare the units to the classic Astartes, that is a failure in recognising their function. Don't set your own expectations of what they should be, and then become disappointed because a promise that was never made was not met.

And also, we should stop using real would sense, comparisons or warfare as an example of what 40k should be. In this setting we have roving bands of green football hooligans armed with cleavers facing off against WW1 style entrenched platoons whilst star ships that can turn planets into glass do nothing.

This new tank has proven to be quite an attractive platform - the weapons are deadly. Long range anti tank firepower and anti infantry weapons combined make it effective at clearing out multiple targets a turn. 18Str5 shots at 30" range isn't to be ignored. The main laser cannon is good too, better than expected in fact.

Edit: Fixed Typos

**Breton**

Ishagu wrote:
I think a lot of people are failing to realise that the Primaris are not mirrors of classic Astartes, and that those expectations are not shared with the design philosophy of the actual design studio.

Don't compare the units to the classic Astartes, that is a failure in recognising their function. Don't set your own expectations of what they should be, and then become disappointed because a promise that was never made was not met.

And also, we should stop using real would sense, comparisons or warfare as an example of what 40k should be. In this setting we have roving bands of green football hooligans armed with cleavers facing off against WW1 style entrenched platoons whilst star ships that can turn planets into glass do nothing.

This new tank has proven to be quite an attractive platform - the weapons are deadly. Long range anti tank firepower and anti infantry weapons combined make it effective at clearing out multiple targets a turn. 18Str5 shots at 30" range isn't to be ignored. The main laser cannon is good too, better than expected in fact.

Edit: Fixed Typos

The entire function of the game is to compare units to other units.

Nobody expects Primaris to be carbon copies of the 1.0's but I think most of expect all the roles to be filled by some sort of specialist that can do the job they specialize in as well as the 1.0's Those roles include close combat, and troop transportation. We are still missing several of those roles - the true APC, the close combat rapid response force...

The tank doesn't have anything. Its all rumors and a few rumors that are called leaks.

**Stux**

Togusa wrote:

If I want to go heavier, I usually run them as the middle teir. But the cables were just too cool for me not to model them with.

That is true, they do look great! I get a kind of Ghostbusters vibe from them.

**Racerguy180**

Stux wrote:
Togusa wrote:

If I want to go heavier, I usually run them as the middle teir. But the cables were just too cool for me not to model them with.

That is true, they do look great! I get a kind of Ghostbusters vibe from them.

what happens when they overcharge and cross streams?

**Stux**

Racerguy180 wrote:
Stux wrote:
Togusa wrote:

If I want to go heavier, I usually run them as the middle teir. But the cables were just too cool for me not to model them with.

That is true, they do look great! I get a kind of Ghostbusters vibe from them.

what happens when they overcharge and cross streams?

Try to imagine all life as you know it stopping instantaneously and every molecule in your body exploding at the speed of light.

**The Newman**

Breton wrote:
Secondly I have a question - Why are you charging with Intercessors? I mean I get where youre coming from assaulting with primaris isn't as bad as it used to be with Tacs but its still not good.

I don't know about Fezzik but I tend to use Intercessors as a screening unit for my classic squads. Intercessors can block charge paths and charge in themselves to buy a turn for more heavily armed Oldstares units to open the range back up without feeling like I'm wasting activations or burning an expensive unit on something it's not good at. And their shooting isn't awful if you're not up against an armor skew list.

**Blood Hawk**

The more I hear about this tank the more I like it. I am definitely picking up two.

**Ishagu**

The Newman wrote:
Breton wrote:
Secondly I have a question - Why are you charging with Intercessors? I mean I get where youre coming from assaulting with primaris isn't as bad as it used to be with Tacs but its still not good.

I don't know about Fezzik but I tend to use Intercessors as a screening unit for my classic squads. Intercessors can block charge paths and charge in themselves to buy a turn for more heavily armed Oldstares units to open the range back up without feeling like I'm wasting activations or burning an expensive unit on something it's not good at. And their shooting isn't awful if you're not up against an armor skew list.

This sounds really silly. You're wasting better quality troops to protect worse quality assets. The only unit this might be worthwhile for is Centurions.

Primaris Intercessors in conjunction with Hellblasters and Inceptors have better board control and damage output than classic Astartes units.

Literally some of the worst tactics I've seen outlined on the forum lol

**Lemondish**

Breton wrote:

The tank doesn't have anything. Its all rumors and a few rumors that are called leaks.

This is the first time I've ever seen somebody claim a WarCom article is only rumour.

Smdh

**The Newman**

Ishagu wrote:
The Newman wrote:
Breton wrote:
Secondly I have a question - Why are you charging with Intercessors? I mean I get where youre coming from assaulting with primaris isn't as bad as it used to be with Tacs but its still not good.

I don't know about Fezzik but I tend to use Intercessors as a screening unit for my classic squads. Intercessors can block charge paths and charge in themselves to buy a turn for more heavily armed Oldstares units to open the range back up without feeling like I'm wasting activations or burning an expensive unit on something it's not good at. And their shooting isn't awful if you're not up against an armor skew list.

This sounds really silly. You're wasting better quality troops to protect worse quality assets. The only unit this might be worthwhile for is Centurions.

Primaris Intercessors in conjunction with Hellblasters and Inceptors have better board control and damage output than classic Astartes units.

Literally some of the worst tactics I've seen outlined on the forum lol

You have to get the troops in there somewhere and Intercessors definitely are not more valuable than a Tac squad with a Lascannon in my meta, and one Intercessor unit can spread out enough to block charge lanes for several other squads.

I mostly play against AdMech, Knights, Guard, and transport-heavy Death Watch. Most of the time if I show up with fewer than 18 Lascannons it's not worth unpacking the case.

**Ishagu**

Intercessors are infinitely more valuable than a Tac Squad with a Las Cannon. What you just said is wrong on every level.

I can get Las cannons on far more effective platforms. Intercessors have better guns, better range, better close combat, much more endurance and cost significantly less per wound.

You want your troops to win objectives, engage light infantry and to last. You want dedicated units to provide the firepower. A tac squad with a Las cannon is an awful unit, not optimised in any way - uneven range, punishes movement, unreliable, easy to destroy, etc

Your meta sounds tactically deprived.

**The Newman**

Yes you can get Lascannons on more effective units, which are also priority targets that don't get you CPs. Lascannon Tac squads aren't a high-value target so they also don't get shot right away.

You can tell me Primaris are more efficient, and you're right. But it doesn't matter when they're more efficient at a job that I don't need done. What I need is AT, and one thing Primaris don't bring is points-efficient AT.

"You want troops to win objectives, engage light infantry, and last." No Marine unit is good at doing those things. Intercessors are better at it than Tacs, but if you really care about it then The Loyal 32 is vastly better.

**Ishagu**

Take some Mortis Contemptors

A las cannon on a Tactical squad is really not ideal in any situation. You'd need 4 squads to bring 4 shots, and that's costing you at minimum more points than a Repulsor and is on a t4 model that is punished for moving.

**The Newman**

Ishagu wrote:
Take some Mortis Contemptors

A las cannon on a Tactical squad is really not ideal in any situation. You'd need 4 squads to bring 4 shots, and that's costing you at minimum more points than a Repulsor and is on a t4 model that is punished for moving.

I only start putting Lascannon Tac squads in a list if I have enough Intercessors for screening but I don't have enough Troop selections. They're not competing with anything for the points, they're making the most of a troop slot that I have to fill.

**FezzikDaBullgryn**

Ishagu wrote:
Take some Mortis Contemptors

A las cannon on a Tactical squad is really not ideal in any situation. You'd need 4 squads to bring 4 shots, and that's costing you at minimum more points than a Repulsor and is on a t4 model that is punished for moving.

TO be fair, I really hate it when people tell other people "Go buy some forgeworld models!"

All I see is this:

**godardc**

I'm pretty sure a mortis contemptor would be cheaper than a executioner repulsor or 4 boxes or Tac marines.

**BrianDavion**

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Ishagu wrote:
Take some Mortis Contemptors

A las cannon on a Tactical squad is really not ideal in any situation. You'd need 4 squads to bring 4 shots, and that's costing you at minimum more points than a Repulsor and is on a t4 model that is punished for moving.

TO be fair, I really hate it when people tell other people "Go buy some forgeworld models!"

All I see is this:

Spoiler:

yeah glad I'm not the only one. telling someone to buy a expensive resin model from the botique online store isn't really helpful.

**Insectum7**

Ishagu wrote:
Intercessors are infinitely more valuable than a Tac Squad with a Las Cannon. What you just said is wrong on every level.

I can get Las cannons on far more effective platforms. Intercessors have better guns, better range, better close combat, much more endurance and cost significantly less per wound.

You want your troops to win objectives, engage light infantry and to last. You want dedicated units to provide the firepower. A tac squad with a Las cannon is an awful unit, not optimised in any way - uneven range, punishes movement, unreliable, easy to destroy, etc

Your meta sounds tactically deprived.

Tactical Squads still do more damage against a number of targets because of their weapon options. "Dedicated units" often translates to "designated targets".

**Breton**

Lemondish wrote:
Breton wrote:

The tank doesn't have anything. Its all rumors and a few rumors that are called leaks.

This is the first time I've ever seen somebody claim a WarCom article is only rumour.

Smdh

Is in in a codex or a data sheet yet? Then its not fact yet, and if it's not fact, its rumor.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

BrianDavion wrote:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Ishagu wrote:
Take some Mortis Contemptors

A las cannon on a Tactical squad is really not ideal in any situation. You'd need 4 squads to bring 4 shots, and that's costing you at minimum more points than a Repulsor and is on a t4 model that is punished for moving.

TO be fair, I really hate it when people tell other people "Go buy some forgeworld models!"

All I see is this:

Spoiler:

yeah glad I'm not the only one. telling someone to buy a expensive resin model from the botique online store isn't really helpful.

The plastic Dread can also do TLLC and ML. They're not as good, but they're cheaper. Both ways, I think.

**BrianDavion**

Breton wrote:
Lemondish wrote:
Breton wrote:

The tank doesn't have anything. Its all rumors and a few rumors that are called leaks.

This is the first time I've ever seen somebody claim a WarCom article is only rumour.

Smdh

Is in in a codex or a data sheet yet? Then its not fact yet, and if it's not fact, its rumor.

.

it's in an offical post made by GW I'd say that makes it more reliable then being just a "rumor" or do you refuse to accept release announcements as "facts" too?

**Lemondish**

Breton wrote:
Lemondish wrote:
Breton wrote:

The tank doesn't have anything. Its all rumors and a few rumors that are called leaks.

This is the first time I've ever seen somebody claim a WarCom article is only rumour.

Smdh

Is in in a codex or a data sheet yet? Then its not fact yet, and if it's not fact, its rumor.

I've never seen somebody so damn committed to being wrong.

Wrong wrong wrong. You can feel free to call it whatever you want, but it doesn't mean we have to listen to nonsense.

Now, let's carry on the discussion as if official rules previews are a thing.

I honestly have not really decided how I feel about the plasma. I'm intrigued to say the least. But at the end of the day the new laser destroyer is pretty cool looking.

But if I can save a ton of points and play these things aggressively alongside dakka Repulsors...then the similar range band for all it's weapons, solid effectiveness against tanks and infantry alike, and transport capacity could make them pretty compelling.

Will definitely try it out.