Switch Theme:

Speculation on the Repulsor Executioner.  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Monster-Slaying Daemonhunter





 Togusa wrote:


Well, I'm just curious. Why can't both weapons be 1D6?


Under the assumption that it's A: a sidegrade with a role [as opposed to a weak option and a strong option for the same role], B: the weapons are meaningfully different from each other, and C: because they implied that the plasma cannon would be for targeting heavy infantry and the laser destroyer would be for targeting tanks.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/06/01 04:51:45


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! 
   
Made in us
Omnipotent Necron Overlord






 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
 Togusa wrote:
Spoiler:
 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
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.
It's not just that they are tenative about handing out more than d6 damage. Quite often the anti heavy infantry option is the best version at killing tanks too. Leading to useless weapon choices like the LR vanquisher and the tau rail gun. I think you really put the hammer on the nail when you said that str needs to go up drastically on these weapons.

For example a railgun should probably be like heavy 1 with str 14-16 and do min 6 damage on 2d6 dice. That is the kinda of profile I'd like to see on the laser destroyer. Plus then an additional rule weapons like this need is a specuial rule "Saves can not be rerolled vs this weapon"

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 
   
Made in gb
Stubborn Dark Angels Veteran Sergeant






 Xenomancers wrote:
 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
 Togusa wrote:
Spoiler:
 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
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.
It's not just that they are tenative about handing out more than d6 damage. Quite often the anti heavy infantry option is the best version at killing tanks too. Leading to useless weapon choices like the LR vanquisher and the tau rail gun. I think you really put the hammer on the nail when you said that str needs to go up drastically on these weapons.

For example a railgun should probably be like heavy 1 with str 14-16 and do min 6 damage on 2d6 dice. That is the kinda of profile I'd like to see on the laser destroyer. Plus then an additional rule weapons like this need is a specuial rule "Saves can not be rerolled vs this weapon"


The problem with your railgun proposal is saturation then. Whilst I do tend to agree a railgun should feasibly be able to one shot a predator... Tau can field a hell of a lot of them, at which point you end up being back to 7th edition and prior where heavy weapons can easily one shot a tank and they are no longer useful again. For heavy railgun maybe? Where there are only so many opportunities to field them.

I much prefer a move to semi-randomness damage for anti-tank vehicles as we have started to see, D6 damage with a minimum of 3 (or just 3 + D3), I'd allow for high strength though so there's more chance of being able to wound on 2's etc, mainly because it's not my opinion that unreliable damage is the true issue, it's the hit and wound rolls that cause more pain for anti-tank than anything.

My hobby instagram account: @the_shroud_of_vigilance
My Shroud of Vigilance Hobby update blog for me detailed updates and lore on the faction:
Blog 
   
Made in us
Monster-Slaying Daemonhunter





 Xenomancers wrote:
 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
 Togusa wrote:
Spoiler:
 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
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.
It's not just that they are tenative about handing out more than d6 damage. Quite often the anti heavy infantry option is the best version at killing tanks too. Leading to useless weapon choices like the LR vanquisher and the tau rail gun. I think you really put the hammer on the nail when you said that str needs to go up drastically on these weapons.

For example a railgun should probably be like heavy 1 with str 14-16 and do min 6 damage on 2d6 dice. That is the kinda of profile I'd like to see on the laser destroyer. Plus then an additional rule weapons like this need is a specuial rule "Saves can not be rerolled vs this weapon"


I actually think that resetting the toughness of the vehicle classes would be a simple change than amping up the guns:
Tracked, Wheeled, and Hover Heavy Tanks [Land Raiders, Baneblades] at T9
Tracked, Wheeled, and Hover Medium Tanks [Leman Russes, Predators], and Heavy Walkers [Knights] at T8
Tracked, Wheeled, and Hover Light Tanks [Rhinos, Chimerae], and Medium Walkers [Dreadnoughts] at T7
Light Vehicles [Sentinel, Tauros, Venom] at T6

The problem for the Railgun and Demolisher, and other high-S weapons, is that there's basically no difference between S8-9 and S14-16. Going from 8-9 and 14-16 matters a little bit because of Knights and Leman Russes, but it's not a big enough deal. The problem for Meltas is that since they're no more likely to do damage, and their damage roll isn't higher, Plasmaguns are more reliable, for the same performance and cheaper.
Armourbane could be realized as S x2, making them able to wound medium and heavy armor on 2's and 3's versus a plasmagun's 4 and 5.
Then, finally, tank guns would need their profiles revisteded. 2d6 damage, [or better, 2d6 doesn't break even for potential, but breaks even on average, with a single-fired Battle Cannon], for the Vanquisher and Railcannon, plus potentially "Headshot"-like effect [it has to be chaining MW's or more than 1MW, because the 1MW on a 6 basically never matters for a tank].

They introduced this high range and failed to capitalize on it, chosing instead too apparently differentiate heavy tanks from other tanks by their vulnerability to small arms, because that's totally what separates a Abrams from a Bradley: the ability for an AK-47 to penetrate it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
endlesswaltz123 wrote:


The problem with your railgun proposal is saturation then. Whilst I do tend to agree a railgun should feasibly be able to one shot a predator... Tau can field a hell of a lot of them, at which point you end up being back to 7th edition and prior where heavy weapons can easily one shot a tank and they are no longer useful again. For heavy railgun maybe? Where there are only so many opportunities to field them.

I much prefer a move to semi-randomness damage for anti-tank vehicles as we have started to see, D6 damage with a minimum of 3 (or just 3 + D3), I'd allow for high strength though so there's more chance of being able to wound on 2's etc, mainly because it's not my opinion that unreliable damage is the true issue, it's the hit and wound rolls that cause more pain for anti-tank than anything.


I don't see a particularly massive problem. Making big holes in tanks is what tank weapons are for, and with a singe shot it won't be doing much else.


There's also design space for saves better than 2+, which tanks could have to represent heavier armor and provide a measure of resistance to AT weapons. A Predator could be T8 Sv2+, giving a solid level of resistance to light AT weapons but not so much against tank-mounted tank-breaking guns, while a Leman Russ could be T8 with a 1+ or 0+ save, representing the heavy frontal armor that'll still work sometimes against the big guns. A Land Raider could be T9 Sv 0+, impressively resistant to most forms of fire.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/06/01 06:08:03


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! 
   
Made in pl
Fixture of Dakka




Maybe add an extra mechanic to weapons where they do extra wounds, or get extra AP when they double the T of their target? Then having something like a str 18 or higher weapon would make sense.

But maybe am wrong I don't know if adding +1 to Damage, when doubling T, wouldnt break the game for infantry. Maybe it should work only for guns with a specific trait like anti tank or anti armour. There could even be two types, maybe MM would be +1 to damge and lascanons would have extra -AP, or something like that.

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. 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




Simply put GW will not allow 1+ or 0+ saves in 8th edition because it has wierd interactions see looted armour mega nobs.

The rwal issue is they wanted to make everything wound everything hence the flat as to wound chart. They really needed to go way bigger with the spread of Strength and Toughness values.
A custode on bike being T6 2+4++and a Tourox being T6 3+ highlights the issue you, can't differentiate AT weapons from anti heavy infantry when they have almost identical defensive stats

S Triple your targets T 2+ reroll 1's
S double targets T 2+
Strength more than T 3+
Strength equal T 4+
Toughness more than S 5+
Toughness double S 6+
Toughness tripple S need the old 7+ roll 6+ then 4+
Could go to 8+, 9+ if needed
   
Made in gb
Stubborn Dark Angels Veteran Sergeant






Ice_can wrote:
Simply put GW will not allow 1+ or 0+ saves in 8th edition because it has wierd interactions see looted armour mega nobs.

The rwal issue is they wanted to make everything wound everything hence the flat as to wound chart. They really needed to go way bigger with the spread of Strength and Toughness values.
A custode on bike being T6 2+4++and a Tourox being T6 3+ highlights the issue you, can't differentiate AT weapons from anti heavy infantry when they have almost identical defensive stats

S Triple your targets T 2+ reroll 1's
S double targets T 2+
Strength more than T 3+
Strength equal T 4+
Toughness more than S 5+
Toughness double S 6+
Toughness tripple S need the old 7+ roll 6+ then 4+
Could go to 8+, 9+ if needed


How about a lemon russ gets a 3+ save but on 2D6 then instead.

Maybe have it that tanks have a class keyword, some get standard 1D6 (light vehicle) some get 2D3 or 1D6 + 1D3 (medium battle tank), some get 2D6 (heavy and super heavy battle tank/walker).

I’d then change invulnerable saves on vehicles to reduce ap by 1 or 2 depending. So a -4 becomes a -3 for a comtemptor, -2 for a knight.

Of course it would be easier to have d10, d12 and d20 for vehicles but that’s asking a lot then.

My hobby instagram account: @the_shroud_of_vigilance
My Shroud of Vigilance Hobby update blog for me detailed updates and lore on the faction:
Blog 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




endlesswaltz123 wrote:
Ice_can wrote:
Simply put GW will not allow 1+ or 0+ saves in 8th edition because it has wierd interactions see looted armour mega nobs.

The rwal issue is they wanted to make everything wound everything hence the flat as to wound chart. They really needed to go way bigger with the spread of Strength and Toughness values.
A custode on bike being T6 2+4++and a Tourox being T6 3+ highlights the issue you, can't differentiate AT weapons from anti heavy infantry when they have almost identical defensive stats

S Triple your targets T 2+ reroll 1's
S double targets T 2+
Strength more than T 3+
Strength equal T 4+
Toughness more than S 5+
Toughness double S 6+
Toughness tripple S need the old 7+ roll 6+ then 4+
Could go to 8+, 9+ if needed


How about a lemon russ gets a 3+ save but on 2D6 then instead.

Maybe have it that tanks have a class keyword, some get standard 1D6 (light vehicle) some get 2D3 or 1D6 + 1D3 (medium battle tank), some get 2D6 (heavy and super heavy battle tank/walker).

I’d then change invulnerable saves on vehicles to reduce ap by 1 or 2 depending. So a -4 becomes a -3 for a comtemptor, -2 for a knight.

Of course it would be easier to have d10, d12 and d20 for vehicles but that’s asking a lot then.

Ah bit like second edition that with d everything's and AP of d6+2d8 or D6+D20+D8

Really thou infantry should be all of T1 to T10 and tanks T11 to T20
   
Made in nl
Crazed Spirit of the Defiler




 fraser1191 wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
Ice_can wrote:
 fraser1191 wrote:
Rules creep...

Are repulsors competitive? Are Primaris competitive?

Someone made it to top 8 of LVO with 2 and Gulliman and 3 predators

Ehhh - If the list goes first it has a good chance to blow up most of the threats to the repulsors. Still though...vs shinning spears and Castellans and Tzangor bombs (this is basically the only thing I saw at LVO) you couldn't possibly take a worse army.


Repulsors can fly, -2 to charges, and carry plenty of anti-infantry fire power. With Bobby nearby to intervene I don't think you're getting spectacularly far with melee.


Rereading my comment it comes off a bit snide not really my intention.

But I agree for the most part that any list with repulsors has to go first to stand a chance, and I find I need a librarian to buff one to T9.

I'm hoping that in SM 2.0 they buff the chassis with either rules or point drips. (but I find this highly unlikely since Chaos got a new book and not much changed, marines are still 13ppm so I don't see Primaris dropping more)

As for the heavy laser destroyer, going off of the forgeworld laser destroyers barring invulns then the Executioner will be able to point and delete a vehicle. Just depends on what Heavy does to the weapon, like extra damage or strength or shots


Yeah, if we get a Laser Destroyer that is D3 shots and does an average of 2D6 damage per shot like a FW Destroyer, that's gonna be scary. In that case the gun will probably also cost as much as a Thermal Cannon though.
   
Made in us
Ancient Venerable Dreadnought




San Jose, CA

I really like the laser destroyer on my rapier and it has helped more than once on the tabletop. it's only downside is mobility, while it is easier to "hide" in cover, cover rules currently suck.

If I could have those stats with the mobility of a hover tank it would allow for more creative deployment/movement/use. Having the ability to flank a target, dump aggressors out and open up with dedicated anti-tank would be great.
   
Made in us
Monster-Slaying Daemonhunter





Pandabeer wrote:


Yeah, if we get a Laser Destroyer that is D3 shots and does an average of 2D6 damage per shot like a FW Destroyer, that's gonna be scary. In that case the gun will probably also cost as much as a Thermal Cannon though.


It's not really that scary. That's basically what the Repulsor does right now, with 4 shots, hitting on 3's, wounding on 3's, and doing D6 each.

This is why I feel like pointing out that a Railcannon or Vanquisher cannon should be doing 2d6 or more base, probably more, because, for example, a singly-fired Vanquisher Gun dealing 2d6 damage would actually just come close to breaking even [sort of, it's much less reliable and lacks the high-end potential, so it still doesn't actually break even] as a singly-fired Battle Cannon.


In addition, there are 1+ saves in the game, on the new Vanguard Eliminators and Characters, who have 3+ armor and +2 to their save for being in cover. I think it's pretty simple to handle.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/06/01 19:49:17


Guardsmen, hear me! Cadia may lie in ruin, but her proud people do not! For each brother and sister who gave their lives to Him as martyrs, we will reap a vengeance fiftyfold! Cadia may be no more, but will never be forgotten; our foes shall tremble in fear at the name, for their doom shall come from the barrels of Cadian guns, fired by Cadian hands! Forward, for vengeance and retribution, in His name and the names of our fallen comrades! 
   
Made in nl
Crazed Spirit of the Defiler




 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Pandabeer wrote:


Yeah, if we get a Laser Destroyer that is D3 shots and does an average of 2D6 damage per shot like a FW Destroyer, that's gonna be scary. In that case the gun will probably also cost as much as a Thermal Cannon though.


It's not really that scary. That's basically what the Repulsor does right now, with 4 shots, hitting on 3's, wounding on 3's, and doing D6 each.

This is why I feel like pointing out that a Railcannon or Vanquisher cannon should be doing 2d6 or more base, probably more, because, for example, a singly-fired Vanquisher Gun dealing 2d6 damage would actually just come close to breaking even [sort of, it's much less reliable and lacks the high-end potential, so it still doesn't actually break even] as a singly-fired Battle Cannon.


In addition, there are 1+ saves in the game, on the new Vanguard Eliminators and Characters, who have 3+ armor and +2 to their save for being in cover. I think it's pretty simple to handle.


The laser destroyer is S12 AP-4 though and has 36" range, which gives a 12" advantage over the normal version (because Lastalon is only 24").
   
Made in us
Morally-Flexible Malleus Hearing Whispers




If a vanquisher does 2D6, that might be too much. I'd say rather flat D6.
   
Made in us
Omnipotent Necron Overlord






 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
If a vanquisher does 2D6, that might be too much. I'd say rather flat D6.

Flat 6 really is a lot better than 2d6 in most situations. The number of units are you will automatically kill without even rolling is so high that an average 1 damage higher is still significantly worse because your chance of failure on kills on a lot of units. Realistically I like 2d6 better for anti tank weapons because you have the chance to 1 shot things but most of the time you wont.

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 
   
Made in us
Morally-Flexible Malleus Hearing Whispers




 Xenomancers wrote:
 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
If a vanquisher does 2D6, that might be too much. I'd say rather flat D6.

Flat 6 really is a lot better than 2d6 in most situations. The number of units are you will automatically kill without even rolling is so high that an average 1 damage higher is still significantly worse because your chance of failure on kills on a lot of units. Realistically I like 2d6 better for anti tank weapons because you have the chance to 1 shot things but most of the time you wont.


Right, but you have to remember Russes shoot twice. So now you are talking 4D6, and you are potentially one-shotting things with 24 wounds....
   
Made in us
Omnipotent Necron Overlord






 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
If a vanquisher does 2D6, that might be too much. I'd say rather flat D6.

Flat 6 really is a lot better than 2d6 in most situations. The number of units are you will automatically kill without even rolling is so high that an average 1 damage higher is still significantly worse because your chance of failure on kills on a lot of units. Realistically I like 2d6 better for anti tank weapons because you have the chance to 1 shot things but most of the time you wont.


Right, but you have to remember Russes shoot twice. So now you are talking 4D6, and you are potentially one-shotting things with 24 wounds....

Yeah or automatically 1 shotting russes if you get 2 wounds through. It's like the dang sereptec contruct the crons just got. It's guns do flat 6 and they are so devastating. OFC it's getting 2d3 shots with it too.

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 
   
Made in ca
Steadfast Ultramarine Sergeant






So we're hoping for D3 shots with a flat 6 Damage?

Yeah I can get behind that. That being said invulns are still a thing.
   
Made in us
Morally-Flexible Malleus Hearing Whispers




My point is, Vanqs have a Vanq cannon, not a Baneblade Cannon. I am fine never touching Vanqs again. Hell, the regular Russ cannon is amazeballs at Anti-tank as is.

I am honestly confused why GW is all the sudden:

"VEHHECKLES!!! LOOK AT ALL DA SHINEY VEHHECKLES!!"

I mean, dollars, but still. I see more people buying Elites than Heavies. 8th just isn't very heavy friendly. Superheavy, sure, but not vanilla heavy.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/06/03 18:02:05


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





And just to throw more sand in the gears, if the Heavy Laser Destroyer actually is a goot anti-tank weapon then it's adding to 40k's current lethality problem.

   
Made in us
Monster-Slaying Daemonhunter





 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
If a vanquisher does 2D6, that might be too much. I'd say rather flat D6.


Flat 6 isn't good, because while it does one-shot small things without question, I feel like the potential of a high roll to wreck vehicles is important for the heavy AT guns. Fixed medium damage would be good for HE guns, like the Demolisher or the Battle Cannon, but not for the heavy antitank guns.

2d6 on the Railcannon and Vanquisher gun are fairly reasonable, [if still too low]. A 150 point Vanquisher currently gets 2d6 potential damage to vehicles. Increasing that to 4d6 potential damage would bring it to still worse than the Battle Tank. And even with improved S [which it also needs] it's not going to step on the toes of the Shadowsword, which is 425 points and had 3d3 shots for 2d6 [that's an average of 12d6 potential damage]



Anyway, back to the Repulsor... most of the speculated "ideal" stats just break even\ with what it currently does. I don't realistically see a window, barring something really unprecedented or unexpected, that leads to this thing exacerbating the issue of firepower vs. toughness.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/06/03 20:17:33


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! 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
If a vanquisher does 2D6, that might be too much. I'd say rather flat D6.


Flat 6 isn't good, because while it does one-shot small things without question, I feel like the potential of a high roll to wreck vehicles is important for the heavy AT guns. Fixed medium damage would be good for HE guns, like the Demolisher or the Battle Cannon, but not for the heavy antitank guns.

2d6 on the Railcannon and Vanquisher gun are fairly reasonable, [if still too low]. A 150 point Vanquisher currently gets 2d6 potential damage to vehicles. Increasing that to 4d6 potential damage would bring it to still worse than the Battle Tank. And even with improved S [which it also needs] it's not going to step on the toes of the Shadowsword, which is 425 points and had 3d3 shots for 2d6 [that's an average of 12d6 potential damage]



Anyway, back to the Repulsor... most of the speculated "ideal" stats just break even\ with what it currently does. I don't realistically see a window, barring something really unprecedented or unexpected, that leads to this thing exacerbating the issue of firepower vs. toughness.

You've indirectly hit the nail on the head the current Battlecannon Russ is just too good at anti armour than it should be. Not to mention that 8th core mechanics follow the logic of more dice = better always.

Also GW allowing Blast weapons to hit single models repeatedly also eclipsed the design space for single shot high damage weapons with multi shot medium damage weapons.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/06/03 22:43:29


 
   
Made in us
Monster-Slaying Daemonhunter





Ice_can wrote:

You've indirectly hit the nail on the head the current Battlecannon Russ is just too good at anti armour than it should be. Not to mention that 8th core mechanics follow the logic of more dice = better always.

Also GW allowing Blast weapons to hit single models repeatedly also eclipsed the design space for single shot high damage weapons with multi shot medium damage weapons.


I actually feel the Battle Cannon on the Leman Russ feels mostly close to about right. Tank guns should be tank guns worthy of being mounted on tanks, and appreciably more powerful than a shoulder-fired light gun, and a Battle Cannon with Grinding Advance is somewhat more than twice as effective as a Lascannon, which is about where it should be. The AT versions need to be appreciably better, because a Vanquisher gun is basically just a worse lascannon right now, whereas it's supposed to be appreciably better than 2 Lascannons.

As far as eclipsing the design space, that's just because they seem to be fixated on nothing having more than 1d6 damage short of a titanic weapon. As I've already pointed out 3 times, a Shadowsword has 3d3 shots for 2d6 damage on a 424 point platform, a Railcannon or Vanquisher wouldn't remotely step on it's toes if they had 2d6, or even higher, damage.

As a random thought, legit towed AT guns would be cool to have in this game.

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2019/06/04 04:01:45


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! 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Ice_can wrote:

You've indirectly hit the nail on the head the current Battlecannon Russ is just too good at anti armour than it should be. Not to mention that 8th core mechanics follow the logic of more dice = better always.

Also GW allowing Blast weapons to hit single models repeatedly also eclipsed the design space for single shot high damage weapons with multi shot medium damage weapons.


I actually feel the Battle Cannon on the Leman Russ feels mostly close to about right. Tank guns should be tank guns worthy of being mounted on tanks, and appreciably more powerful than a shoulder-fired light gun, and a Battle Cannon with Grinding Advance is somewhat more than twice as effective as a Lascannon, which is about where it should be. The AT versions need to be appreciably better, because a Vanquisher gun is basically just a worse lascannon right now, whereas it's supposed to be appreciably better than 2 Lascannons.

As far as eclipsing the design space, that's just because they seem to be fixated on nothing having more than 1d6 damage short of a titanic weapon. As I've already pointed out 3 times, a Shadowsword has 3d3 shots for 2d6 damage on a 424 point platform, a Railcannon or Vanquisher wouldn't remotely step on it's toes if they had 2d6, or even higher, damage.

As a random thought, legit towed AT guns would be cool to have in this game.

I'm not saying that removing grinding advance would fix a russ, but it would highlight to GW the massive issue they have with their over crowding of design space.

So we get a proper fix that makes everyones MBT's viable and not just the generalist weapons into the kings of anti armour etc, the fact that a BC russ outshoots against armour a quad lascannon or vanquisher tank hunter loadout is a problem.

Also the band aid lead to a punisher with grinding advance, which is so unbalanced, no model should be throwing 50 something shots out for sub 170 points, maybe it didnt have enough base but the correction went too far.

The band aid they threw at IG has left most other factions MBT's lacklustre performance at best in comparison.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/06/04 09:19:17


 
   
Made in us
Morally-Flexible Malleus Hearing Whispers




I would submit the Russ and all it's variants needs a re-do. Right now there are 7? And they all pretty much suck compared to the do all battle cannon? I mean the Punisher is the Punisher, but still.

We don't need the Nova cannon, the demo cannon, the Auto cannon, the plasma cannon, the Vanquisher cannon....It should just be the battle cannon and the Punisher. And revise both of those...I don't even want to go into the FW stuff.
   
Made in us
Monster-Slaying Daemonhunter





Ice_can wrote:
 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Ice_can wrote:

You've indirectly hit the nail on the head the current Battlecannon Russ is just too good at anti armour than it should be. Not to mention that 8th core mechanics follow the logic of more dice = better always.

Also GW allowing Blast weapons to hit single models repeatedly also eclipsed the design space for single shot high damage weapons with multi shot medium damage weapons.


I actually feel the Battle Cannon on the Leman Russ feels mostly close to about right. Tank guns should be tank guns worthy of being mounted on tanks, and appreciably more powerful than a shoulder-fired light gun, and a Battle Cannon with Grinding Advance is somewhat more than twice as effective as a Lascannon, which is about where it should be. The AT versions need to be appreciably better, because a Vanquisher gun is basically just a worse lascannon right now, whereas it's supposed to be appreciably better than 2 Lascannons.

As far as eclipsing the design space, that's just because they seem to be fixated on nothing having more than 1d6 damage short of a titanic weapon. As I've already pointed out 3 times, a Shadowsword has 3d3 shots for 2d6 damage on a 424 point platform, a Railcannon or Vanquisher wouldn't remotely step on it's toes if they had 2d6, or even higher, damage.

As a random thought, legit towed AT guns would be cool to have in this game.

I'm not saying that removing grinding advance would fix a russ, but it would highlight to GW the massive issue they have with their over crowding of design space.

So we get a proper fix that makes everyones MBT's viable and not just the generalist weapons into the kings of anti armour etc, the fact that a BC russ outshoots against armour a quad lascannon or vanquisher tank hunter loadout is a problem.

Also the band aid lead to a punisher with grinding advance, which is so unbalanced, no model should be throwing 50 something shots out for sub 170 points, maybe it didnt have enough base but the correction went too far.

The band aid they threw at IG has left most other factions MBT's lacklustre performance at best in comparison.


Grinding Advance is a bad solution to the fact that the battle cannon is intrinsically terrible as a tank gun, since it's not appreciably more dangerous than something that can be carted around by an infantry dude. Unfortunately, Grinding Advance addresses the problem at the top level: that virtually all the actual tank guns GW implemented suck badly in their original incarnation, because somebody on initial release decided that infantry-carried light AT weapons and their ilk should be counted as among the more effective antitank option [short form: lascannons are little guns in the world of Battle Cannons, Prism Lasers, and Demolishers]. And rather than addressing the problem at the source, they added an ability to double-fire the gun to the Leman Russ, Fire Prism, [and Gunwagon]. However, that's neither here nor there, because we're talking about tank breakers.

And the problem carried down. Because GW decided that, short of a Titan, as Lascannon or Missile Launcher would be a "good gun", and therefore that the Railcannon and Vanquisher gun would still do 1d6 damage, while multishot weapons could easily eclipse that because nobody thought about it in comparison. It's not necessarily that the multishot weapons are more efficient because they're multishot, it's that no single shot weapon does more than D6+1, while multishot weapons can easily have 4 to 10+ shots for multiple damage each. If a Vanquisher did 2d6 damage, it would "break even" with a Battle Cannon in terms of average out, and if it did 3d6, or 2d6+Headshot, or something like that, it would be a better tank breaker.

Then there's the Railcannon, which is an even better example of the problem where GW just didn't stop and think about what an AT gun should be capable of, and the kinds of things it would shoot at. It does a mortal wound when it rolls a 6; which, when you think about it, is meaningless to any of its targets, a poor ability for something that's supposed to be the second most, or most, devastating tank-mounted AT gun in the GW line. It should be something like Headshot or the Thundercoil Harpoon's extra D3, which helps to cinch a kill or at least a degrade against a vehicle crippled by the main gun.

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! 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




I think we're agreeing for the most part.
My only concer with going straight to giving things like railguns and vanquishers 2D6 or 3D6 damage is that they become able to oneshot vehicals without invulnerable saves at a rediculous rate and we go back to having medium Vehicals without invulnerable saves vanish from tables like they did against CP rage raven Castellen.

Now if vehicals had way more wounds that would be less of an issue and would expand the design space for MEW/TEQ killing weapons which arn't automatically destroying tanks as well.
While pointing AT weapons at infantry would be blatantly obvious overkill.
   
Made in us
Omnipotent Necron Overlord






Ice_can wrote:
I think we're agreeing for the most part.
My only concer with going straight to giving things like railguns and vanquishers 2D6 or 3D6 damage is that they become able to oneshot vehicals without invulnerable saves at a rediculous rate and we go back to having medium Vehicals without invulnerable saves vanish from tables like they did against CP rage raven Castellen.

Now if vehicals had way more wounds that would be less of an issue and would expand the design space for MEW/TEQ killing weapons which arn't automatically destroying tanks as well.
While pointing AT weapons at infantry would be blatantly obvious overkill.

There is 1 solution to this problem. Give all vehicals invo saves (because the weapons that get shot at them almost always ignore armor) Or remove invo saves across the board on a large variety of units.

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 
   
Made in us
Morally-Flexible Malleus Hearing Whispers




I always thought it was weird how Baneblades are easier to kill than other Superheavy units.
   
Made in us
Monster-Slaying Daemonhunter





 Xenomancers wrote:
Ice_can wrote:
I think we're agreeing for the most part.
My only concer with going straight to giving things like railguns and vanquishers 2D6 or 3D6 damage is that they become able to oneshot vehicals without invulnerable saves at a rediculous rate and we go back to having medium Vehicals without invulnerable saves vanish from tables like they did against CP rage raven Castellen.

Now if vehicals had way more wounds that would be less of an issue and would expand the design space for MEW/TEQ killing weapons which arn't automatically destroying tanks as well.
While pointing AT weapons at infantry would be blatantly obvious overkill.

There is 1 solution to this problem. Give all vehicals invo saves (because the weapons that get shot at them almost always ignore armor) Or remove invo saves across the board on a large variety of units.


Well, alternatively, give them 2+, 1+ and 0+ armor saves. That way, the relative penetrative difference between a Missile Launcher and a Meltagun is important in your selection of AT weapons, and AP isn't meaningless, and vehicle armor isn't also meaningless.

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! 
   
Made in us
Omnipotent Necron Overlord






 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
Ice_can wrote:
I think we're agreeing for the most part.
My only concer with going straight to giving things like railguns and vanquishers 2D6 or 3D6 damage is that they become able to oneshot vehicals without invulnerable saves at a rediculous rate and we go back to having medium Vehicals without invulnerable saves vanish from tables like they did against CP rage raven Castellen.

Now if vehicals had way more wounds that would be less of an issue and would expand the design space for MEW/TEQ killing weapons which arn't automatically destroying tanks as well.
While pointing AT weapons at infantry would be blatantly obvious overkill.

There is 1 solution to this problem. Give all vehicals invo saves (because the weapons that get shot at them almost always ignore armor) Or remove invo saves across the board on a large variety of units.


Well, alternatively, give them 2+, 1+ and 0+ armor saves. That way, the relative penetrative difference between a Missile Launcher and a Meltagun is important in your selection of AT weapons, and AP isn't meaningless, and vehicle armor isn't also meaningless.

Personally I'd prefer a game where there were no Invo saves - or at least where invo saves are really rare. Then we could go to a system like you are proposing. It would be a lot easier to balance the game when all the stats you pay for have actual value in game.

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 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: