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.
First off, the obvious aesthetic complaint: why the feth did they move the two side-mounted Stormbolters up to the turret? That's a weird looking spot for them, they were better in the original position right over the side doors.
That aside, it looks like they dropped the hull stubber for an Onslaught (good, that's how it should have been to begin with) and swapped the Fragstorm Launcher for what looks like the business end of the Icarus Rocket Pod from the Redemptor dreadnaught (24", heavy d3, s7, ap1, d1) which is an improvement. I'd assume the rear mounter Icarus Heavy Stubber is probably still swappable for the missile pod or Stormbolter.
We already have access to the Macro Plasma Blaster, my experience has been that it usually feels like a mistake to take it over the Heavy Onslaught on the Redemptor, I doubt it will feel any better here. Although obviously that's just one data point.
Figuring transport capacity is down to 6* and nothing stupid happens to the point cost, how good does the new Heavy Laser Destroyer have to be to take this over a regular twin-lascannon/heavy onslaught Repulsor? I want to be excited about it and I'll probably buy one anyway, but it doesn't feel like something Marines needed right now.
* It would be pretty stupid to go lower than 6, it needs at least that for a min Aggressor squad.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/05/24 16:48:05
I'm skeptical. The Repulsor isn't in a bad place because its gun is too small, it's because T8/3+ with no Invulnerable save drops too easily when armies come equipped to handle Knights. Giving it a bigger and presumably more expensive gun isn't going to fix anything, it's still just going to die too quickly.
If it comes with a new SM book that gives some kind of Chapter Tactics to vehicles, better psychic powers, and/or something else that makes the Repulsor hull more viable I'll give it another look, but as-is I don't think it'll make any waves.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/05/24 17:11:11
Annnnnd guess what still won't be appearing on boards? THESE THINGS.
Because for all it's success, GW/Blizzard can't make a Tank anymore. Walking tanks with giant guns for arms? Sure. Flying tanks? Sure. But something like what the Russ was/is? Nope.
I'm going to make a total no logic guess here, and say:
Cost: North of $120
Points: North of 350
Weapons: A few Heavy 2d3, a Heavy 20, and the standard Plasma Cannon profile. All of it will get PotMS.
Wounds: 14-18
Primary Mission: A Grounded Blackstar.
Seriously. It will likely have all the cost of a Land Raider, with twice the problems. EVERYTHING HAS DEEP STRIKE. Who out there was begging for more transports for the LEAST used army?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/05/24 17:16:18
2019/05/24 17:45:40
Subject: Re:Speculation on the Repulsor Executioner.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Who out there was begging for more transports for the LEAST used army?
The rest of your analysis is not wrong, but Space Marines are the most popular army that GW produces bar none. It's why they keep getting new models, even ones that they don't need.
In the entire Shadowspear box, there was one power sword on the Librarian. There was zero anti-tank. Now, we're getting this new Repulsor. If it didn't have a transport capacity, it might actually be south of 300 points and might be worth it, but GW seems to think that having a transport capacity immediately makes a vehicle worth 75 more points, even if half the time it won't be transporting anything at all.
While a lot of their recent reveals show that they're listening (admech transport, iron hands character, chaos knights), this repulsor spits in the face of what Primaris players have been asking for.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Who out there was begging for more transports for the LEAST used army?
The rest of your analysis is not wrong, but Space Marines are the most popular army that GW produces bar none. It's why they keep getting new models, even ones that they don't need.
In the entire Shadowspear box, there was one power sword on the Librarian. There was zero anti-tank. Now, we're getting this new Repulsor. If it didn't have a transport capacity, it might actually be south of 300 points and might be worth it, but GW seems to think that having a transport capacity immediately makes a vehicle worth 75 more points, even if half the time it won't be transporting anything at all.
While a lot of their recent reveals show that they're listening (admech transport, iron hands character, chaos knights), this repulsor spits in the face of what Primaris players have been asking for.
indeed it's the exact oppisite of what we've been asking for, Primaris players have been asking for a transport that loses weapons, to reduce cost for awhile now, and GW gives us a upgunned transport with, it sounds like, less transport slots.
on the other hand most people run their primaris in squads of 5 so it might be the better option.
Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Annnnnd guess what still won't be appearing on boards? THESE THINGS.
Because for all it's success, GW/Blizzard can't make a Tank anymore. Walking tanks with giant guns for arms? Sure. Flying tanks? Sure. But something like what the Russ was/is? Nope.
I'm going to make a total no logic guess here, and say:
Cost: North of $120
Points: North of 350
Weapons: A few Heavy 2d3, a Heavy 20, and the standard Plasma Cannon profile. All of it will get PotMS.
Wounds: 14-18
Primary Mission: A Grounded Blackstar.
Seriously. It will likely have all the cost of a Land Raider, with twice the problems. EVERYTHING HAS DEEP STRIKE. Who out there was begging for more transports for the LEAST used army?
The price probably won't be over $100, no kit in the marine range is over ...$85ish at the moment.
No comment on the actual point cost without seeing the rules.
We have a pretty good idea of what the weapon profile will look like just looking at the model:
- 3 Stormbolters
- 2 Krakstorm lauchers
- 2 Icarus Rocket pods (informed speculation here)
- Optional Heavy Stubber
- Onslaught Gattling Cannon
- 2 Heavy Bolters (or 2 Lascannons if they stick to the base profile)
- Whichever main gun you choose. We already know one option is the Macro Plasma Incinerator because GW outright said so, it's definitely not the standard plasma cannon. The other is a mystery, nothing I'm aware of has a gun called a Heavy Laser Destroyer.
You're not wrong about it probably not being very good, but your summary of the likely weapons is awfully dismissive.
So it has access to the redemptor plasma? It's a decent weapon I suppose. However - 2 onslaught cannons is what you really want for this beast. 24 str 5 ap-1 with 3 ap-1 stubbers and 2 heavy bolters puts it well above the damage of a punisher russ command tank. Has fly keyword and more wounds plus more secondary weapons too. Basically if it were in the 250-260 range that would be a pretty dang good tank and I would use it.
For it to serve anti tank duty. It's going to need to be a really nice superlascannon.
Stats? It would have to be str 10 or more with ap-4 and flat 4 damage. This would make it very similar to a neutron laser - which it looks a lot like IMO.
Gitdakka wrote: Wait... That thing is gonna be a transport? I tought it was a pure battle tank variant for sure.
It ought to be, but its more of a razorbak,
The Repulsor is like Cawl watched the mockumentary on the Bradley APC development and thought it was training on how to design combat vehicles.
Don't go hating on the bradley. It's a fine vehicle.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/05/24 18:55:43
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
Xenomancers wrote: So it has access to the redemptor plasma? It's a decent weapon I suppose. However - 2 onslaught cannons is what you really want for this beast. 24 str 5 ap-1 with 3 ap-1 stubbers and 2 heavy bolters puts it well above the damage of a punisher russ command tank. Has fly keyword and more wounds plus more secondary weapons too. Basically if it were in the 250-260 range that would be a pretty dang good tank and I would use it.
For it to serve anti tank duty. It's going to need to be a really nice superlascannon.
Stats? It would have to be str 10 or more with ap-4 and flat 4 damage. This would make it very similar to a neutron laser - which it looks a lot like IMO.
Gitdakka wrote: Wait... That thing is gonna be a transport? I tought it was a pure battle tank variant for sure.
It ought to be, but its more of a razorbak,
The Repulsor is like Cawl watched the mockumentary on the Bradley APC development and thought it was training on how to design combat vehicles.
Don't go hating on the bradley. It's a fine vehicle.
The Repulsor with HOGC, THB, OGC, 3 SB, and 2 FGL is 262 points.
The main gun would have to be better than a TLC. The common design is an increase in strength and/or AP and in the case of the macro PC - twice the shots. So 4 S10 AP4 shots seems quite likely. I'd like to see damage go up, but I'm not certain they will do that.
So, again, does anyone see the big shiny boat o' dakka with a sign on it saying "SHOOT ME I HAVE IMPORTANT UNITS IN ME" living past turn 1? I don't see this having more wounds than a Repulsor, which has 16 right?
Second point - Lets guess high side, and say this thing has a upgun anti-tank that is D6 S8 AP-4 D3. Pretty beastly anti-tank gun for a transport. Almost rivals a Russ Battle Cannon. But here is the problem, unless this thing has some weird invuln, or a ton of wounds, it's not going to earn it's points back. And in the grand scheme of this game, one of the easiest metrics is, can this model earn it's points back consistently?
I say this cannot kill 300 points before being taken out or wounded to bottom tier.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/05/24 19:49:16
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: So, again, does anyone see the big shiny boat o' dakka with a sign on it saying "SHOOT ME I HAVE IMPORTANT UNITS IN ME" living past turn 1? I don't see this having more wounds than a Repulsor, which has 16 right?
Second point - Lets guess high side, and say this thing has a upgun anti-tank that is D6 S8 AP-4 D3. Pretty beastly anti-tank gun for a transport. Almost rivals a Russ Battle Cannon. But here is the problem, unless this thing has some weird invuln, or a ton of wounds, it's not going to earn it's points back. And in the grand scheme of this game, one of the easiest metrics is, can this model earn it's points back consistently?
I say this cannot kill 300 points before being taken out or wounded to bottom tier.
I'm pretty sure that it's going to be better than lascannon stats...consider it's a "heavy" lascannon so I have no idea why you decided on such arbitrary stats.
Also it's quite clear the high model count armies with few large models are gaining traction. A repulsor is something that covers all targets pretty damn well. You'll most certainly get two of these Executioners for the cost of a Castellan. Can a Castellan kill one? Absolutely. A Castellan can also kill a Shadowsword. The point is to bring a list that supports your work horse models.
2019/05/24 20:26:15
Subject: Re:Speculation on the Repulsor Executioner.
Who out there was begging for more transports for the LEAST used army?
.......... yeah because Space Marines are the least used army in the game, totally!
Right?
They planned out every single unit before the first one hit the shelves(according to Jes on voxcast). So they've had this in the pipeline for a while and it works out better(for them) to release the thing that they planned to, rather than what we want.
argonak wrote:
Gitdakka wrote: Wait... That thing is gonna be a transport? I tought it was a pure battle tank variant for sure.
It ought to be, but its more of a razorbak,
The Repulsor is like Cawl watched the mockumentary on the Bradley APC development and thought it was training on how to design combat vehicles.
now that is funny. I was around when they were testing the A3 upgrade and CIV, it kinda explains what happened to FMC.
I hope they release a turret-less version of the repulsor and let that be the "rhino" equiv. it would still have the hull mounted las-talon or HB with auto/grenade/SB and should be "cheap" enough to be used as a transport that just so happens to have some weapons, rather than the other way.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/05/24 20:29:08
2019/05/24 21:22:36
Subject: Re:Speculation on the Repulsor Executioner.
I do know people who don't run or play Repulsors because they just get tired of resolving a half dozen different attacks (many of which are pretty trivial). I see this sharing the same issue. Couple that with the quagmire that tanks are in (in general) and I don't see it being a particularly great unit. It'll still sell a ton because people buy new marine kits - always have, always will.
Unlikely you'll see some at top level tournaments unless they have some crazy unexpected ability or match up with a particular strat well. If the Dark Angels can use weapons of the dark age on its plasma gun, etc...should be fine. (I don't know what that strat can affect)
My personal thoughts are simply that it's lazy as hell. It's not different enough to really justify a new kit, but I imagine we'll see a half dozen versions of the Repulsor eventually. Primaris needed a genuine cheap and effective transport far more than they need another platform for a bazaar of mediocre weapons. Also...it's still ugly as feth.
2019/05/24 21:44:14
Subject: Re:Speculation on the Repulsor Executioner.
Elbows wrote: My personal thoughts are simply that it's lazy as hell. It's not different enough to really justify a new kit, but I imagine we'll see a half dozen versions of the Repulsor eventually.
The Razorback, Whirlwind, Predator, Hunter, Stalker, and Vindicator say hello.
Who out there was begging for more transports for the LEAST used army?
.......... yeah because Space Marines are the least used army in the game, totally!
Right?
They planned out every single unit before the first one hit the shelves(according to Jes on voxcast). So they've had this in the pipeline for a while and it works out better(for them) to release the thing that they planned to, rather than what we want.
argonak wrote:
Gitdakka wrote: Wait... That thing is gonna be a transport? I tought it was a pure battle tank variant for sure.
It ought to be, but its more of a razorbak,
The Repulsor is like Cawl watched the mockumentary on the Bradley APC development and thought it was training on how to design combat vehicles.
now that is funny. I was around when they were testing the A3 upgrade and CIV, it kinda explains what happened to FMC.
I hope they release a turret-less version of the repulsor and let that be the "rhino" equiv. it would still have the hull mounted las-talon or HB with auto/grenade/SB and should be "cheap" enough to be used as a transport that just so happens to have some weapons, rather than the other way.
It's weird to me that Space Marine players keep asking for transports, because you probably wouldn't use them. Almost no one uses imperial-type transports. Admech want to because they have very cheap troops with strong short range weapons they can pack into a half dozen or more transports (which is the minimum you nees to make sure at least 2 make it into firing range) and the thing is open topped.
Space marines meanwhile are trying to pack 200pt units into theoretical 100pts tranports (at best) and creating juicy points pinatas.
2019/05/24 22:02:46
Subject: Re:Speculation on the Repulsor Executioner.
Elbows wrote: My personal thoughts are simply that it's lazy as hell. It's not different enough to really justify a new kit, but I imagine we'll see a half dozen versions of the Repulsor eventually.
The Razorback, Whirlwind, Predator, Hunter, Stalker, and Vindicator say hello.
The concept is fine, this execution is garbage. This is more akin to "we replaced your Razorback...with a different Razorback", etc. If this has some mega-cannons and zero transport capacity and perhaps sponsons it'd actually look/act differently. It's a 1/4 measure, not even a 1/2 measure.
2019/05/25 00:00:48
Subject: Re:Speculation on the Repulsor Executioner.
It's weird to me that Space Marine players keep asking for transports, because you probably wouldn't use them. Almost no one uses imperial-type transports. Admech want to because they have very cheap troops with strong short range weapons they can pack into a half dozen or more transports (which is the minimum you nees to make sure at least 2 make it into firing range) and the thing is open topped.
Space marines meanwhile are trying to pack 200pt units into theoretical 100pts tranports (at best) and creating juicy points pinatas.
I use transports with my Space Wolves. They offer drop reduction, protection for valuable units against first-turn fire, and lascannons.
Also, I use Rhinos and Immolators extensively with my Sisters, because I have lots of units that need to go to the enemy. Fundamentally, the problem with the Repulsor is that it's an expensive carrier carrying an inexpensive unit, transports generally need to be cheaper than the unit they're carrying; at the very least, they can't be expensive. Generally, a transport is taken to enable an [expensive] unit to be more effective than it would be on foot, generally by protecting it from enemy fire by putting 10 T7 3+ wounds between the expensive unit and the enemy. It thus needs to be cheap enough to be wholly disposable, which is why Land Raiders fail.
The Newman wrote:
- Whichever main gun you choose. We already know one option is the Macro Plasma Incinerator because GW outright said so, it's definitely not the standard plasma cannon. The other is a mystery, nothing I'm aware of has a gun called a Heavy Laser Destroyer.
You're not wrong about it probably not being very good, but your summary of the likely weapons is awfully dismissive.
The Destroyer Tank Hunter has a Heavy Laser Destroyer that's Heavy 1d3, S9, AP3, D1d6.
The Rapier Gun Carrier has a Laser Destroyer Array that's Heavy 1, S12, AP4, D1d6 with "If this weapon successfully inflicts damage, roll an additional D6. On a result of a ‘3-5’, the weapon’s Damage is increased to 2D6. On a result of a ‘6’, the weapon’s Damage is increased to 3D6."
That said, I'd expect the Laser Destroyer on the Repulsor to be something along the lines of: Heavy 1d3, S10, AP4, D1d6. They're too afraid to give a tank breaking gun 2d6 damage, which the single-fire heavy AT guns need severely to make them effective and worthwhile compared to high-volume-of-fire low-damage weapons. Anyway, I predict that it'll be Heavy 1d3 shots, since it can't have 1d6 shots [or it wouldn't be a sidegrade from the plasma cannon], and it'll invariably have multiple shots but not a fixed number because GW makes all their weapons unnecessarily like that. It also can't possibly actually have performance appreciably better than infantry-portable antitank weapons to make it worthy of being a tank gun [especially one on a 300 point tank] as opposed to a cluster of bazooka-equivalents, because that's the precedent they've set with all their other tanks and tank-mounted weapons.
Oddlly, it doesn't look like a laser weapon, and more like a Battle Cannon, with the distinctive cues of Imperial projectile antitank weapons while the lacking the cues of Imperial laser weapons. It notably lacks the angled muzzle shroud that lascannons, lasguns, multilasers, and almost all other laser weapons have. In addition, it has a baffled muzzle brake and muzzle architechture similar to that of a Leman Russ Battle Cannon/Vanquisher Gun and Imperial Guard Autocannons. It also has a prominent fume extractor near the mantlet, similar to the Battle Cannon/Vanquishgers Cannon.
I will invariably get one of these and build it with the Heavy Laser Destroyer, though, because I think it looks really cool [and maybe reconstruct the turret bustle because the turret-rear storm bolters look kind of wierd].
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2019/05/25 00:10:45
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!
2019/05/25 00:23:47
Subject: Re:Speculation on the Repulsor Executioner.
Who out there was begging for more transports for the LEAST used army?
.......... yeah because Space Marines are the least used army in the game, totally!
Right?
They planned out every single unit before the first one hit the shelves(according to Jes on voxcast). So they've had this in the pipeline for a while and it works out better(for them) to release the thing that they planned to, rather than what we want.
argonak wrote:
Gitdakka wrote: Wait... That thing is gonna be a transport? I tought it was a pure battle tank variant for sure.
It ought to be, but its more of a razorbak,
The Repulsor is like Cawl watched the mockumentary on the Bradley APC development and thought it was training on how to design combat vehicles.
now that is funny. I was around when they were testing the A3 upgrade and CIV, it kinda explains what happened to FMC.
I hope they release a turret-less version of the repulsor and let that be the "rhino" equiv. it would still have the hull mounted las-talon or HB with auto/grenade/SB and should be "cheap" enough to be used as a transport that just so happens to have some weapons, rather than the other way.
It's weird to me that Space Marine players keep asking for transports, because you probably wouldn't use them. Almost no one uses imperial-type transports. Admech want to because they have very cheap troops with strong short range weapons they can pack into a half dozen or more transports (which is the minimum you nees to make sure at least 2 make it into firing range) and the thing is open topped.
Space marines meanwhile are trying to pack 200pt units into theoretical 100pts tranports (at best) and creating juicy points pinatas.
I happen to like having my units embarked in an APC that can rush up the board and get to objectives. I play for fun/narrative so I dont care if it's not the most points efficient and 90% of my opponents have the same view.
They just need the actual tank version with the sponsons & a dedicated light-transport.
I could see the purpose for all of them, the executioner as a mobile heavy support unit disgourging a squad of Agressors. Repulsor dropping hellblaster /intercessors on or near objectives, & the "rhino" equiv doing same for cheaper.
In my Salamanders I currently have; 2 Preds, LR Helios, Vindicator, Damocles Command Rhino, Repulsor & 5 Razobacks. I would like to have more Primaris vehicles but only really want 1 more Repulsor, so a couple executioners and light transports to round out my Pride of Nocturne Battle Company.
I honestly don’t see it bringing enough to the table to justify getting one to replace my current repulsor, which is magnetized to run with the TLLC and lastalon if I want AV work from it. It’s going to do the same job, just chucking some slightly different dice.
I suspect the kit is going to cost the same as the normal repulsor, maybe $5-10 more. So $80-90. But I suspect the old price. It looks like the same number of sprues, and the old one’s price point wasn’t set so long ago it needs an update.
I can’t see the stats changing that much over the basic one either. The hull is almost identical. Moving the door guns to the turret might increase the integrity of the hull to add a couple of wounds, but I don’t see anything that says it’s getting a 2+ armor save, an invuln, or an extra point of toughness. So it’s going to have the same old problem of being an overgunned glass hammer. Not really glass, but in a world where people have to deal with knights, it lacks staying power.
My one hope is that one of the pics of it don’t have the spare guns glued to the turret. If you didn’t have to pay for all the random small arms, it might make it slightly more economical to bring to the table.
--
I’d buy a stripped down pure transport. It would do something the basic one didn’t (get troops where they need to be without blowing 300 points). I’d also buy a pure tank. Slap some sponsons on it, focus the guns a little better, and add some extra armor bits to make it a little more rugged. But the old repulsor is already filling the role of the hybrid tank. We don’t need two. Although if we get the two endpoints, having more options in the middle is not horrible. Just a little redundant.
AnomanderRake wrote: I'm skeptical. The Repulsor isn't in a bad place because its gun is too small, it's because T8/3+ with no Invulnerable save drops too easily when armies come equipped to handle Knights. Giving it a bigger and presumably more expensive gun isn't going to fix anything, it's still just going to die too quickly.
If it comes with a new SM book that gives some kind of Chapter Tactics to vehicles, better psychic powers, and/or something else that makes the Repulsor hull more viable I'll give it another look, but as-is I don't think it'll make any waves.
Well that does depent on the size of the gun. If it is something like 4 shots str 9 d4 or 6, with some nice proc on +6, then running 3 of those bad boys could be a thing, even if they don't have an inv.
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain.
The issue with the repulsor is certainly not firepower. It's just way to easy to kill for it's points. This tank is likely even more expensive than a repulsor. So it will be even less useful.
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
a twin las/talon repulsor with storm bolters all around and no other weapons is 285
I'm betting this guy clocks in at 195-215 with the reduced transport capacity!
I'm looking forward to it. I love the primaris look and feel and have enjoyed them in blood angels quite a bit. I think it would be awesome to have two repulsors, two of these and some units of primaris intercessors and hellblasters moving up the table in them!
Seabass wrote: a twin las/talon repulsor with storm bolters all around and no other weapons is 285
I'm betting this guy clocks in at 195-215 with the reduced transport capacity!
I'm looking forward to it. I love the primaris look and feel and have enjoyed them in blood angels quite a bit. I think it would be awesome to have two repulsors, two of these and some units of primaris intercessors and hellblasters moving up the table in them!
I highly doubt it'll be that cheap.
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
redboi wrote: I have zero interest in using repulsors simply because I can't be hassled to fire a dozen slightly different weapon profiles for a single vehicle
This. Even Imperial Knights, fully kitted out, have fewer weapons than the Repulsor. It's such a pain to figure out all the different itty bitty forms of dakka the Repulsor has.
Ultramarines, 3rd Co. and friends, 16k+ 
4k 
2k Points
Competition Index
