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.
2019/05/30 15:22:47
Subject: Re:Speculation on the Repulsor Executioner.
casvalremdeikun wrote: They flat-out lost a sale from me when I saw that sprue image. The fact the "tank-destroyer" Repulsor has fewer tank destroying weapons than the regular version boggles the mind.
You don't know what the cannon does yet.
If it ends up being a Heavy D6 laser cannon at S10+ and AP-4+ with some kind of special rule, then you might be more apt to want it.
2019/05/31 20:54:10
Subject: Re:Speculation on the Repulsor Executioner.
The Newman wrote:@Ice-can: I'm pretty sure Fraser meant "FW Laser Destroyers consistently delete vehicles that don't have invulns", not "FW Laser Destroyers ignore invulns".
I think we can pretty safely assume that Grinding Advance isn't on the table, no Marine vehicle has that rule. We get Machine Spirit instead, and inconsistently at that.
Grinding Advance wouldn't even fit the Marine fluff all that well, no matter how much it would help the Predator and the Vindicator.
I wouldn't say it's off the table. It's not likely either, since the Repulsor is half-transport, but they could apply it if they're going for MBT. The Leman Russ didn't start with it, but GW observed that tank guns were not very good, having about the same effect as a Lascannon, and patched it in when the codex came out. The Predator could have had it, though first-codex strikes there, since there would have been no time for feedback. You can see that all over the SM codex, and SM derivatives haven't had any effort made to fix them because then they'd have to patch all the dataslates in like 9 books.
To some degree, MBT's that have one big tank gun have it, [Leman Russ, Fire Prisom, Gunwagon, Exocrine, Tyrannofex]. The Doomsday Ark and the Hammerhead are the exception, thought the Doomsday Cannon was flat increased from D3 to D6 shots with it's codex IIRC, and it already has a stationary fire mode. The hammerhead presumably lacks it because the Riptide has Nova-Charge, and Tau have gone all in on anime-robots.
The Repulsor could get it, since the Gunwagon is also half-transport, and it is similar to the rest of those in having one big gun in a turret mount rather than a giant cluster of bazookas strapped together. I wouldn't say it's a sure thing, though, just not off the table.
I'm hoping that it has a gun worthy of being a tank gun, and doesn't have Grinding Advance. That isn't going to happen though, so a crappy gun and Grinding Advance is the best we can hope for, especially given that we know the Plasma Cannon's stats.
Ice_can wrote:Grinding advance is a bad band aid solution that is downright broken on punisher commander Russes and makes every other tank look teribad.
A repulsor will have machine spirit, I dont see it having half the main weapon sats peopke are dreaming up, i suspect that it will be much like the normal one underwhelming but still playable.
I agree, Grinding Advance is a lame patch over the fact that GW initially released tank guns as being no more powerful than an infantry-carried shoulder-fired bazooka. Since that just doesn't work, and rather than fixing the problem by fixing the guns to perform more in line with how they should, they just figured that people wanted to use Leman Russes, so they'd path just that unit and move on.
Space Marines just aren't in a good spot at the moment due to the shakeup of Primaris.
Games Workshop was damned either way they did this. As I understand it, lots of people wanted true-scale marines.
Games Workshop was left with two choices: 1. Squat the entire existing line and release an entirely new line of models, tanks, characters and rules. 2. Hybrid the release of the new models, putting the entire faction into an awkward place. Neither choice was optimal, and we know which one they chose, likely based off the lessons learned from the re-branding and launch of AoS.
Now, in terms of this new forthcoming tank, we're faced again with two issues. Many people don't want to mix their models. I can't stand it when I see a table of mixed Primaris and squats now, it literally makes me feel ill. Primaris are lacking pretty much everything outside of the basic troop and character role, but design space is likely limited. So they splurged and mixed two units into one.
Here is the thing though, at least as I think about this.
What is the # of shots and S of this new gun? Why couldn't this lasercannon be S12+? Heavy D6? Heavy 4?
2019/06/01 01:45:27
Subject: Re:Speculation on the Repulsor Executioner.
The Newman wrote:@Ice-can: I'm pretty sure Fraser meant "FW Laser Destroyers consistently delete vehicles that don't have invulns", not "FW Laser Destroyers ignore invulns".
I think we can pretty safely assume that Grinding Advance isn't on the table, no Marine vehicle has that rule. We get Machine Spirit instead, and inconsistently at that.
Grinding Advance wouldn't even fit the Marine fluff all that well, no matter how much it would help the Predator and the Vindicator.
I wouldn't say it's off the table. It's not likely either, since the Repulsor is half-transport, but they could apply it if they're going for MBT. The Leman Russ didn't start with it, but GW observed that tank guns were not very good, having about the same effect as a Lascannon, and patched it in when the codex came out. The Predator could have had it, though first-codex strikes there, since there would have been no time for feedback. You can see that all over the SM codex, and SM derivatives haven't had any effort made to fix them because then they'd have to patch all the dataslates in like 9 books.
To some degree, MBT's that have one big tank gun have it, [Leman Russ, Fire Prisom, Gunwagon, Exocrine, Tyrannofex]. The Doomsday Ark and the Hammerhead are the exception, thought the Doomsday Cannon was flat increased from D3 to D6 shots with it's codex IIRC, and it already has a stationary fire mode. The hammerhead presumably lacks it because the Riptide has Nova-Charge, and Tau have gone all in on anime-robots.
The Repulsor could get it, since the Gunwagon is also half-transport, and it is similar to the rest of those in having one big gun in a turret mount rather than a giant cluster of bazookas strapped together. I wouldn't say it's a sure thing, though, just not off the table.
I'm hoping that it has a gun worthy of being a tank gun, and doesn't have Grinding Advance. That isn't going to happen though, so a crappy gun and Grinding Advance is the best we can hope for, especially given that we know the Plasma Cannon's stats.
Ice_can wrote:Grinding advance is a bad band aid solution that is downright broken on punisher commander Russes and makes every other tank look teribad.
A repulsor will have machine spirit, I dont see it having half the main weapon sats peopke are dreaming up, i suspect that it will be much like the normal one underwhelming but still playable.
I agree, Grinding Advance is a lame patch over the fact that GW initially released tank guns as being no more powerful than an infantry-carried shoulder-fired bazooka. Since that just doesn't work, and rather than fixing the problem by fixing the guns to perform more in line with how they should, they just figured that people wanted to use Leman Russes, so they'd path just that unit and move on.
Space Marines just aren't in a good spot at the moment due to the shakeup of Primaris.
Games Workshop was damned either way they did this. As I understand it, lots of people wanted true-scale marines.
Games Workshop was left with two choices: 1. Squat the entire existing line and release an entirely new line of models, tanks, characters and rules. 2. Hybrid the release of the new models, putting the entire faction into an awkward place. Neither choice was optimal, and we know which one they chose, likely based off the lessons learned from the re-branding and launch of AoS.
Now, in terms of this new forthcoming tank, we're faced again with two issues. Many people don't want to mix their models. I can't stand it when I see a table of mixed Primaris and squats now, it literally makes me feel ill. Primaris are lacking pretty much everything outside of the basic troop and character role, but design space is likely limited. So they splurged and mixed two units into one.
Here is the thing though, at least as I think about this.
What is the # of shots and S of this new gun? Why couldn't this lasercannon be S12+? Heavy D6? Heavy 4?
I've said this already, but:
It can't be Heavy 1d6 because the Plasmagun option that's already been established as the multi-target weapon is heavy 1d6, which is why that the best I'm expecting is Heavy 1d3.
In addition, it would have to be S14 or S16 for the appreciable increase in strength to matter vs S9, and even then, it doesn't really matter a whole lot in the grand scheme of things if it can't output an adequate amount of damage.
At Heavy 1d3, it needs to have at least 2d6 for it's damage roll to be considered to "break even" with the base Repulsor AT loadout, potentially marginally improved with AP4 or something. However, GW has been extremely skittish about giving anything higher than a 1d6 damage roll short of titantic weapons, to the detriment of tank hunter vehicles across the game.
Well, I'm just curious. Why can't both weapons be 1D6?
The Newman wrote: Regardless of what is "realistic" there's also the little matters of game balance and good play experiences to consider. Two man-portable AT guns reliably taking a transport off the table pushes armor out of the meta altogether and the game is already too lethal as it is, making that bad play experience even worse isn't going to help things.
A 3.2% chance for two lascannons wielding by space marines costing 76pts (not counting the rest of the attached squad(s) to kill a 70~ point rhino is reliable now? I must be playing the game wrong.
That aside, I agree that player experience is important. Which is why I'm fine with not going back to 5th edition's parking lot.
I was commenting on the latest back-and-forth regarding what a man-portable AT gun ought to be capable of. One commentor said two shots from such a gun should be dropping an APC, I said you'd never see armor on the table at all if that were the case.
Although sometimes "the game is too lethal as it is" rings a little hollow when it takes me 14+ Lascannon shots to drop a Hive Tyrant.
I've always thought the manport version should be D3 wounds. It's a smaller, portable version of the full tank mounted weapon. It shouldn't be able to draw the power of its big brother.
Ah, my mistake was in the consistency. I don't think 8th would do well if one Twin-linked LC shot took down Rhino's with 51% probability. However, I would like to see a game where it does. Because as is, we toss around too many AT weapons in this game with ZERO affect. Melta's should be flat 6 damage. Multi-Meltas should be able to oneshot a Rhino reliably for the cost/range. Tank weaponry should have a huge damage affect against all targets. Right now it takes way too much attacking to kill anything realistically.
You want a ~20 point gun to vaporize a ~70 point model?
Yeah that's balance right there.
Points don't indicate Balance. And the gun isn't the cost. The UNIT holding the gun is the cost. And a squad of Tac Marines with a Multi-melta vaporizing a Rhino isn't that bad.
I agree about the points.
My friends and I spent the weekend playing games at power level instead of matched play points. We had a great time playing, list construction was far less rigid, and the games felt a lot more balanced and fun. Very thematic and we had some unexpected results.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: The Rhino costs what it costs because no one uses it anymore and no one is buying it. See the cost of drop pods. There are two at my local store, $60. And they will stay there forever likely.
The Repulsor will be commiserate with other Transpo-tanks out there. 100-120.
GW hasn't increased prices of old kits for long time actually leaving price hikes for new SKU's. Rhino costs what it costs because that's what it costed when GW froze prices(before that they often applied yearly price hikes across the line)
Some people are complaining about having to roll dice? Get out of here, you are a cynical troll if that's your opinion.
Actually there is a thing called too much dice rolling. Especially with all the rerolls. It takes away tons of time. It's not fun rolling like 200 dice to resolve shooting from ONE unit. And that's not exaggeration. Not that long time there was an ork unit where 1/3 of times(well bit more) in average rolled 250 dice or so in one turn. Before opponent rolls for save.
8th ed is GW's slowest edition ever barring maybe rogue trader(haven't played it) in standard game size. And that's precisely because 8th ed has taken dice rolling to ridiculous number.
Some are saying that Repulsors aren't good? I'm not sure what the metric or comparison for that is.
See repulsors dominating tournaments? Just because it might be better than predator doesn't make either of good. It just makes predator even more pathetic. 1000$ for single infantry model doesn't become cheap just because there exists 1500$ one.
TOURNAMENTS ARE NOT THE ONLY MODE OF PLAY.
I would suspect that nearly 60% of the player base has no interest in going to major/minor events. So why should these events dictate what is good and what is not. Local metas are all over the place.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote: Dude I don't have any "best on the table top units". Of course repulsors aren't the worst. The rest of the marine tank line exists. But EXTERNALLY they are garbage still.
And yes, I primarily face top tournament units. So many plaguebearers. I'm so sick of plaguebearers.
That's unfortunate. I would say that you need to find a nice play group.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/06/19 14:40:54
No official confirmation on if itll transfer over to 40k, but its a reasonable inference to make.
Means literally nothing. I wish people wouldn't jump to conclusions on this kind of stuff. There is 0% chance this will come to 40K proper.
Well, we'll revisit this post soon I guess!
All I'm saying is, let's wait and see what the gun even has for stats before we start worrying about special rules. We don't even know points or powerlevel cost yet.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ishagu wrote: They aren't garbage at all, that;s the thing.
I certainly agree that they aren't the top vehicles on the table, that's not in question. They do work however, an can perform at the highest level.
A lot of people are literally dismissing things because they aren't "winning large tournaments"
That is plain wrong
THANK YOU!
I'm so sick of listening to competitives tell me how, when and why I should play my games.
I am continually amazed at the amount of fire power that a repulsor with double cannons can lob per turn, and it's funny when you turn a deepstrike 9+ inch charge into an 11+ inch charge.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/06/19 14:43:47
Martel732 wrote: Dude I don't have any "best on the table top units". Of course repulsors aren't the worst. The rest of the marine tank line exists. But EXTERNALLY they are garbage still.
And yes, I primarily face top tournament units. So many plaguebearers. I'm so sick of plaguebearers.
They aren't garbage at all, that's the thing.
I certainly agree that they aren't the top vehicles on the table, that's not in question. They do work however, an can perform at the highest level.
A lot of people are literally dismissing things because they aren't "winning large tournaments"
That is plain wrong. .
PS: They work great against plaguebearers. Loads of shots and can't be tied up.
Let's all stop with the hyperbolic comments and absolutes.
Those aren't the only opponents. They're like very other marine unit: work okay 40% of the time, get smoked 60% of the time. I'm dismissed them because I've killed a ton of these things with frickin BA, the worst list in the game. They are not impressive. Lack of invuln puts them way behind the 8-ball.
Ok you dismiss them. Now move on. You hate everything that isn't winning tournaments, we get it.
I'm actually calling you out. Either your group is incompetent or you are making things up. I see you in every topic talking things down.
Ohhh. You're calling me out. Marines are bad. Good look at 40kstats.com. It's all right there. Someone else already did all the work on that one, chief.
"things" being terrible marine units, yes. Get a grip.
The fact that "40KStats.com" even exists makes me sad.
The game will be much more fun if the competitives will leave and go find some other game to play.
2019/06/20 15:11:10
Subject: Re:Speculation on the Repulsor Executioner.
What financial benefit do they get out of spending more time/resources making a beautiful game?
Gee. I dunno, more sales? Happy customers = more profit?
You're talking about a game that has way too many factions, way too many sub factions, rules spread across 30 different books, FAQ's, Chapter Approved, White Dwarf, and even in BL books. 8th Edition has gone a long way to fixing some of the most glaring issues with the game, however it's not hit critical mass yet. I think a lot of people underestimate the damage the previous CEO did to the company, and massive (in years) lead time on things currently coming out. Heck, a lot of the recent releases were probably planned over 6 years ago, under a different corporate structure with a different philosophy. It takes a massive amount of time to work on something this big, and I am thinking that 9th edition will take the next step towards more balance and army composition.
2019/06/20 15:33:06
Subject: Re:Speculation on the Repulsor Executioner.
What financial benefit do they get out of spending more time/resources making a beautiful game?
Gee. I dunno, more sales? Happy customers = more profit?
You're talking about a game that has way too many factions, way too many sub factions, rules spread across 30 different books, FAQ's, Chapter Approved, White Dwarf, and even in BL books. 8th Edition has gone a long way to fixing some of the most glaring issues with the game, however it's not hit critical mass yet. I think a lot of people underestimate the damage the previous CEO did to the company, and massive (in years) lead time on things currently coming out. Heck, a lot of the recent releases were probably planned over 6 years ago, under a different corporate structure with a different philosophy. It takes a massive amount of time to work on something this big, and I am thinking that 9th edition will take the next step towards more balance and army composition.
Yea, i'm actually quite optimistic. If they carry over the damage phase from Apocalypse it could go a long way to eliminating alpha strike concerns.
I wouldn't be at all surprised is both Apoc and KT are test beds for what will eventually be 9th Edition. Charging in the movement phase is brilliant, reactions to being charged, max/min range penalties, move even if charge is failed. Good stuff.
What is the point of a 70+" shot on a unit that transports troops CLOSER to the battle?
What good is a transport that hangs back at range?
I would fall in love with this if they mounted a Inferno Cannon and you could replace the HBs with Heavy Flamers.
Get that vehicle up close, drop troops, and unleash a ton of D6 auto-hitting shots, with good AP. Then this thing becomes instantly auto-take. It's great for obliterating chaff, and it can even somehow threaten heavy armor.
Well for me, I'm going to stick my Heavy Hellblasters in it for the first turn, get out my first movement phase and shoot. It's an extra layer of protection for my Plasma Bois!
Martel732 wrote: Lances have less range and get boned by invulns even worse. There is a low rof weapon problem, not a lance vs lascannon problem.
Yeah - 1 shot weapons are bad period. But these 2 weapons are equal value. I've even seen it debated that rockets are better pointed than lascannons. Rockets are a bright lance with -2 AP instead of -4 LOL (they cost the same).
So your argument is that MLs are better pointed than a Lascannon - which depends on -3AP vs -2AP and +1S is less of a benefit over the Krak option? While arguing that -4AP vs -3AP is more beneficial than 48" range and +1S?
What makes going from -2AP to -3AP worth so much less than going from -3AP to -4AP? I can't think of a single upside. In every case I've seen, there's a lot more value on the other end of the scale - going from 0AP to -1AP being the best step.
It's like you guys have never played marines and got hit with AP-4 on basically every weapon and you get 0 save.
A large part of that is because I never see anyone field an entire army of Fire Dragons or Melta Vets.
If you're getting destroyed by Brightlances (and/or Melta Guns) here's a suggestion: try taking some Marines. They'll trade fire with most Brightlance weapons platforms wonderfully. Granted, they're crap at most of the game, but BrightLances aren't exactly a good tool for killing buckets of Marines. A *boltgun* does that better (per points).
Then you shoot a lascannon at a fireprism and they make a 6+....Dude...trust me. The weapons are of equal value.
I don't trust you.
I don't see how Prisms/Preds/etc gaining a 6+ outweighs wounding the most important targets on 3+. Or hitting on 3s much more often.
Most of the time, both weapons do the same thing: wound on 2s for infantry, 3s for anything but the hard targets. No armor save rolled. The differences are the corner cases.
The corner cases where the Brightlance wins are:
-T7 *and* lower 3+ Sv and better better with absolutely no invluns targets that are within 36". A 16% advantage.
The corner cases where the Lascannon wins are:
-Anything T8+. A 33% advantage.
-Anything 36-48" away. A 33% advantage.
-Anything both T8 and 36-48" away. A roughly 70% advantage.
My argument is people actually advocate taking rockets over lascannons on Devs and long fangs because you save 5 points. BL is the same points except gets -4 ap and compared to -2....
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.
I always run triple missile dev squads when I can. Love missile launchers.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/06/21 20:39:34
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.
Also I rarely overcharge anyways. That's why I play the heavy vrsion of the gun so they're at S8 already.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/06/21 20:58:53
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.
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.
Even my Custodes have to pay a tax for FGTC. They could overnight really make transports viable again by making DS'ing less easy.
I really hope this has a high (12) transport capacity.
Not that this is the right place for this, but I think any weapon that has AT capability should be considered a heavy weapon and subject to penalties when DS is used for positioning. Maybe you do have a gun that can wreck a landraider, but I garuntee you it's going to be hard to aim and fire when you materialized 50 FT from the enemy.
Even my Custodes have to pay a tax for FGTC. They could overnight really make transports viable again by making DS'ing less easy.
I really hope this has a high (12) transport capacity.
Not that this is the right place for this, but I think any weapon that has AT capability should be considered a heavy weapon and subject to penalties when DS is used for positioning. Maybe you do have a gun that can wreck a landraider, but I garuntee you it's going to be hard to aim and fire when you materialized 50 FT from the enemy.
Maybe we've been playing that wrong, but we've always taken the movement penalty on the turn a unit DSes.
Some AT are Assault or Rapidfire, therefore incurring no penalty. I'm arguing everything should be treated as Heavy when DS occurs.
