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.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Spoiler:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
This edition is the first edition where a Lascannon doesn't have a chance to blow up most tanks in a single hit, I think. That's a funny counterpoint to the theory of "everything can hut everything".

But it's also the first edition where tanks are also legitimately scared of Lascannons.

In the past, a Lascannon had a 1/6 chance of penetrating and then a 1/3 chance of wrecking or exploding the vehicle. If the vehicle was in cover, it had an additional 4+ save.

This edition, Lascannons have been promoted to premier tank breaker tier, and wound all non-titans 2/3 of the time, and going through the save 5/6 of the time to deal damage.

That depends wildly on which edition and which vehicles you're referring too. In 3rd and 4th, a Lascannon had a 50% chance to Pen armor 12, then a 50% chance to blow it up with that, iirc. A "glance" in 3rd. (merely rolling Pen equal to the armor value) had a 1 in 6 of a kill. Earlier editions were also a 5+ cover, rather than a 4+.

Not to mention that any Penetrating Hit had a "cant fire next turn" result. A.k. a. suppression of tanks firing with good AT power. . . rather than running up and touching it.

In fact most damage results, even on the Glance damage table, resulted in a "can't fire next turn". "Suppressing" lots of vehicles was pretty easy to do, especially if you flanked them.

. . .

Also, meaningful distinction between the Razorback and Predator Chassis, as one had front armor 11, and one had front armor 13.

AV12 is a light vehicle like a Chimera, not really a tank. Predators and Hammerheads were AV13, and Leman Russes and Battlewagons were AV14.

I started playing in 5th Edition: at that time, from the front, a missile launcher basically didn't do anything; and a lascannon was hoping on a prayer. Flanking a tank was neccessary for infantry to achieve success in any capacity [and of course, that's what infantry protection for tanks are for]. A Railcannon or a Vanquisher or a Meltagun, though, could perforate a tank and was a neccessary tank killer.


Also, suppression by intense fire of small antitank weapons seems fair.

^IMO "light" is 10 and 11. A lot of Ork and DE vehicles were 10 or 11 and Open Topped. 12 was a Dreadnought and Wave Serpent, and I'd definitely call that "medium".

It's true, the Vehicle Damage Chart changed for 5th edition, and part of why I remember 5th as being the beginning of "parking lot 40K". For the the 4 editions prior, however, the balance was more towards infantry.

During 4th, I ran a "Veteran" Devastator Squad with "Tank Hunters", meaning their Lascannons basically counted as S10. Those guys did serious work for me.


Edit: Also during 4th, the Rending rule on the Assault Cannon gave an extra D6 of armor penetration on a 6 to hit, iirc, and Terminators could get two Assault Cannons per 5-man unit. I could teleport them in and fire at the side or rear of a Leman Russ and have if not a destroyed tank, at the very least a tank that couldn't fire next turn, allowing my troops to advance over open ground against those Battle Cannons. It was $$$!

So, are Executioners worth the points? Or are they worth far more than the projected cost?

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So, are Executioners worth the points? Or are they worth far more than the projected cost?

Have they even come out with a points cost yet?

 JNAProductions wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So, are Executioners worth the points? Or are they worth far more than the projected cost?

Have they even come out with a points cost yet?

I don't think so, I was more talking about the projected costs. People have said roughly 220-320. Which is a mighty big margin of error. I would see this fairly priced at 330, fully kitted out. Which makes it at least partially synonymous with the idea that it's the 2020 Landraider XLK edition. Heated seats, Positraction, etc.

Knowing GW,and it being a “marine” release, my pessimistic streak says it will be costed towards the low end, to encourage sales. Then repointed to more sane levels 3+ months down the road.


<EDIT; Blasted autocorrect>

 Stormonu wrote:
Knowing GW,and it being a “marine” release, my pessimistic streak says it will be costed towards the low end, to encourage sales. Then repointed to more sane levels 3+ months down the road.


<EDIT; Blasted autocorrect>

...have you paid any attention whatsoever to the Primaris releases?

Because that's not what has really been happening.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Stormonu wrote:
Knowing GW,and it being a “marine” release, my pessimistic streak says it will be costed towards the low end, to encourage sales. Then repointed to more sane levels 3+ months down the road.


<EDIT; Blasted autocorrect>

...have you paid any attention whatsoever to the Primaris releases?

Because that's not what has really been happening.

I hadn’t been following Primaris releases beyond the Suppresors - my pessimism is based on mostly pre-Roundtree habits, so if they’ve changed - I guess that’s good?

 Stormonu wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Stormonu wrote:
Knowing GW,and it being a “marine” release, my pessimistic streak says it will be costed towards the low end, to encourage sales. Then repointed to more sane levels 3+ months down the road.


<EDIT; Blasted autocorrect>

...have you paid any attention whatsoever to the Primaris releases?

Because that's not what has really been happening.

I hadn’t been following Primaris releases beyond the Suppresors - my pessimism is based on mostly pre-Roundtree habits, so if they’ve changed - I guess that’s good?

every primaris release to date has been on the high end of acceptable to outright over costed. it's been dropped over time, but remember back when they first came out intercessors where what, 20 PPM?

 Stormonu wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Stormonu wrote:
Knowing GW,and it being a “marine” release, my pessimistic streak says it will be costed towards the low end, to encourage sales. Then repointed to more sane levels 3+ months down the road.


<EDIT; Blasted autocorrect>

...have you paid any attention whatsoever to the Primaris releases?

Because that's not what has really been happening.

I hadn’t been following Primaris releases beyond the Suppresors - my pessimism is based on mostly pre-Roundtree habits, so if they’ve changed - I guess that’s good?

It's basically the opposite. On drop, Primaris were basically worthless. Only after 3 rounds of mechanical buffs, cost reductions, and a splatbook are they appreciably viable.

Overcosted and adding largely nothing.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Overcosted and adding largely nothing.

Which is my speculation on the Executioner.

I suspect the base hull’s points are going to be identical to the stock repulser.

The main plasma turret mount, if the same as the one on the dread, will be 31 points (if battlescribe isn’t lying to me) I suspect that’s going to be the budget gun. The gatling cannon looks fixed. The tertiary guns look to be found in the same numbers as on the stock tank, with a few new options, which might push the points up 2-4 per slot. Although not being able to just slap a stubber on the turret, and without the option for a gatling on the coupla, that will keep a few points down.

The other gun depends a lot on its stats. If it’s a TLLC+, I suspect it will run in the 60-75 point range.

I think the low end price is going to be a hair over 300 points. Kitted out, pushing 400.

YMMV, just my guess.

I absolutely love my Repulsor and it's really been excellent each time I use it so will 100 percent be adding this to my army along with another squad of intercessors when the time comes.

One thing I'm curious about is the transport capacity.

So far I've had my best luck with 2 repulsors. One with intercessors and hellblasters, and one with calgar, an ancient, a lieutenant, and 3 aggressors.

So if the Executioner can only hold 6 I'm probably gonna have to leave behind the hellblasters and give them the heavy variant so the interssors can hold an objective then stuff the ancient in there too

 fraser1191 wrote:
One thing I'm curious about is the transport capacity.

So far I've had my best luck with 2 repulsors. One with intercessors and hellblasters, and one with calgar, an ancient, a lieutenant, and 3 aggressors.

So if the Executioner can only hold 6 I'm probably gonna have to leave behind the hellblasters and give them the heavy variant so the interssors can hold an objective then stuff the ancient in there too

I think 6 is likely. Same as Razorback, and means you can still carry minimum squad Gravis dudes, or combat squad of normal guys plus a character.

If it's less, it'll be significantly worse.

That's what I was thinking. Min squad of gravis units at least. I can't see GW going lower than that

So, interesting question, What do people think the bare minimum costs will be? If this is going to be a dedicated transport, it doesn't make sense to have it be a tank buster. Because if fully decked out it's 400+, but with the cheapest guns it's 300+, I think that's a good bargain. Allows the flexibility that Primaris seem to be striving for. That being said, If you go all out Primaris, this is their sole dedicated Anti-tank platform correct?

No.

Even with the Executioner Primaris still won't have a dedicated AT platform. A Repulsor with hull Lascannons and Lastalon doesn't count because it also has transport capacity and a bunch of anti-infantry guns, and the same goes for the Executioner. The closest thing is probably Hellblasters but they aren't great at that job.

[edit]
That's not necessarily a flaw. Having AT capacity spread through a force instead of centralized in dedicated AT units makes it harder for an opponent to delete all your AT guns and then have free reign with his armor. Primaris don't have that going on either unfortunately.
[/edit]

So then, redemptors? It just confuses me why there isn't a single dedicated anti-tank ranged primaris unit.

Frankly, if it's anything like the Destroyer Tank Hunter from FW? It'll be dedicated AT.

60" Heavy D3 S9 AP-3 D6 damage--with "Tank Hunter"(attacking a Vehicle with the heavy laser destroyer array means you roll 2 dice when inflicting damage and discard the lowest).

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So then, redemptors? It just confuses me why there isn't a single dedicated anti-tank ranged primaris unit.

Nah, Redemptors stink for anti-tank work too. Even overcharging it the Plasma Annihilator isn't any better than a twin Lascannon (and a lot harder to use effectively with the shorter range) and even then it still has a bunch of anti-infantry guns.

If I had to guess I'd say it's because mini-marines have a bunch of AT options and GW doesn't want to completely obsolete them while the molds are still good.

The Newman wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So then, redemptors? It just confuses me why there isn't a single dedicated anti-tank ranged primaris unit.

Nah, Redemptors stink for anti-tank work too. Even overcharging it the Plasma Annihilator isn't any better than a twin Lascannon (and a lot harder to use effectively with the shorter range) and even then it still has a bunch of anti-infantry guns.

If I had to guess I'd say it's because mini-marines have a bunch of AT options and GW doesn't want to completely obsolete them while the molds are still good.

I agree, when I take a redemptor I always kit him with onslaughts.

If I want similar plasma I'll take hellblasters, granted I don't play anyone with a T8 model.

The macro plasma really needs a base D2 to even be considered in my opinion. I know overcharging gives it that but I haven't had much luck with it

primaris definatly need an anti-tank option. if when supressors get their full kit they come with a lascanon option that'd be about perfect

I'd bet money that the Suppressors alternate weapon load won't be a Lascannon. In fact, I'd bet the Supressors don't get an alternate weapon load at all, the kit will probably build a completely different unit similar to the Electro Priest and Kataphron boxes.

If pressed to take a guess at what the alternate weapon is likely to be I'd point at either the Heavy Plasma Annihilator, some variant on the Melta gun, or the Onslaught Gattling Cannon, depending on how cynical I'm feeling at the moment. Mostly because none of those would be a good fit for the unit.

 fraser1191 wrote:

The Newman wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So then, redemptors? It just confuses me why there isn't a single dedicated anti-tank ranged primaris unit.

Nah, Redemptors stink for anti-tank work too. Even overcharging it the Plasma Annihilator isn't any better than a twin Lascannon (and a lot harder to use effectively with the shorter range) and even then it still has a bunch of anti-infantry guns.

If I had to guess I'd say it's because mini-marines have a bunch of AT options and GW doesn't want to completely obsolete them while the molds are still good.

I agree, when I take a redemptor I always kit him with onslaughts.

If I want similar plasma I'll take hellblasters, granted I don't play anyone with a T8 model.

The macro plasma really needs a base D2 to even be considered in my opinion. I know overcharging gives it that but I haven't had much luck with it

Macro Plasma needs fixed to only overheat on an unmodified one just like every other plasma gun in the game so that overcharging isn't suicidal against 95% of the field. Everyone who has access to it takes the -1 to be hit trait and stacks it if they can because armor is worthless.

Macro plasma also needs more shots, full stop. D6 plasma shots just isn't good enough when compared to the Heavy Onslaught Cannon.

The Newman wrote:
I'd bet money that the Suppressors alternate weapon load won't be a Lascannon. In fact, I'd bet the Supressors don't get an alternate weapon load at all, the kit will probably build a completely different unit similar to the Electro Priest and Kataphron boxes.

If pressed to take a guess at what the alternate weapon is likely to be I'd point at either the Heavy Plasma Annihilator, some variant on the Melta gun, or the Onslaught Gattling Cannon, depending on how cynical I'm feeling at the moment. Mostly because none of those would be a good fit for the unit.

 fraser1191 wrote:

The Newman wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So then, redemptors? It just confuses me why there isn't a single dedicated anti-tank ranged primaris unit.

Nah, Redemptors stink for anti-tank work too. Even overcharging it the Plasma Annihilator isn't any better than a twin Lascannon (and a lot harder to use effectively with the shorter range) and even then it still has a bunch of anti-infantry guns.

If I had to guess I'd say it's because mini-marines have a bunch of AT options and GW doesn't want to completely obsolete them while the molds are still good.

I agree, when I take a redemptor I always kit him with onslaughts.

If I want similar plasma I'll take hellblasters, granted I don't play anyone with a T8 model.

The macro plasma really needs a base D2 to even be considered in my opinion. I know overcharging gives it that but I haven't had much luck with it

Macro Plasma needs fixed to only overheat on an unmodified one just like every other plasma gun in the game so that overcharging isn't suicidal against 95% of the field. Everyone who has access to it takes the -1 to be hit trait and stacks it if they can because armor is worthless.

... Pretty sure all overcharging plasma gets worse with modifiers. Not just the Macro one. Maybe there are niche examples that don't, but Plasma Pistols, Plasma Cannons, Plasmaguns all suffer horribly from negative modifiers.

 Stux wrote:

The Newman wrote:
I'd bet money that the Suppressors alternate weapon load won't be a Lascannon. In fact, I'd bet the Supressors don't get an alternate weapon load at all, the kit will probably build a completely different unit similar to the Electro Priest and Kataphron boxes.

If pressed to take a guess at what the alternate weapon is likely to be I'd point at either the Heavy Plasma Annihilator, some variant on the Melta gun, or the Onslaught Gattling Cannon, depending on how cynical I'm feeling at the moment. Mostly because none of those would be a good fit for the unit.

 fraser1191 wrote:

The Newman wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So then, redemptors? It just confuses me why there isn't a single dedicated anti-tank ranged primaris unit.

Nah, Redemptors stink for anti-tank work too. Even overcharging it the Plasma Annihilator isn't any better than a twin Lascannon (and a lot harder to use effectively with the shorter range) and even then it still has a bunch of anti-infantry guns.

If I had to guess I'd say it's because mini-marines have a bunch of AT options and GW doesn't want to completely obsolete them while the molds are still good.

I agree, when I take a redemptor I always kit him with onslaughts.

If I want similar plasma I'll take hellblasters, granted I don't play anyone with a T8 model.

The macro plasma really needs a base D2 to even be considered in my opinion. I know overcharging gives it that but I haven't had much luck with it

Macro Plasma needs fixed to only overheat on an unmodified one just like every other plasma gun in the game so that overcharging isn't suicidal against 95% of the field. Everyone who has access to it takes the -1 to be hit trait and stacks it if they can because armor is worthless.

... Pretty sure all overcharging plasma gets worse with modifiers. Not just the Macro one. Maybe there are niche examples that don't, but Plasma Pistols, Plasma Cannons, Plasmaguns all suffer horribly from negative modifiers.

No no, it's "Macro Plasma needs the same fix all the other plasma weapons need", not "Macro Plasma needs to work like all the other plasma weapons do".

Oh sorry, misunderstood you.

I guess my question is, to quote Drax, WHY IS MACRO PLASMA?

Regular plasma shooters, get that. You need to give infantry the ability to take down heavy infantry. Great. But what is the point of mounted Plasma cannons and their ilk? Surely tank weaponry and the overwhelming firepower of the heavy onslaught cannon can do the work better? What role does Heavy Plasma weapons fill?

Light vehicles? Autocannons. Besides, what light vehicles are in the game? Almost everything is pretty much a medium tank or has an invuln so the point of "high ap weapons" is moot there.

Heavy vehicles? See lascannons.

Regular Infantry? Onslaught guns.

What is the purpose of plasma beyond the plasma rifles? What role does it perform better than any other weapon?

In all honesty if you want to take down heavy infantry the Plasma Gun is only marginally better than the Gravgun. Sure S7/S8 is better than S5, but the Gravgun doesn't risk blowing up to do more damage and that matters on heavy infantry.

Really it's just the extra 6" of range and all the special weapon prices being laughably wrong that even has the Plasma Gun in the discussion.

(And really, the Heavy Grav gun is worth the extra points over any of them.)

You mean the grav cannon with grav amp?

If that's the case we must be playing different editions