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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Xenomancers wrote:

Lemondish wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"We know."
Clear exaggeration of understanding.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The bottom five win rate as a primary codex are:

BA
SW
DA
vanilla
GK.

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

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

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

I guess you'll just have to kill it.

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

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

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

No, because it has <fly>.

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

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

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

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

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

I thought that was only with "aircraft".

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 p5freak wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

Breton wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Xenomancers wrote:

Breton wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So it's functionally immune to skirmishers

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

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

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

High-ROF shots will bounce off T8 3+.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Xenomancers wrote:

Breton wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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