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.

 fraser1191 wrote:
You mean the grav cannon with grav amp?

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

In the context of destroying heavy infantry four shots at S5 Ap3 D3 damage is better than any Marine special weapon by a wide margin. On any other target, not so much.

The Newman wrote:

 fraser1191 wrote:
You mean the grav cannon with grav amp?

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

In the context of destroying heavy infantry four shots at S5 Ap3 D3 damage is better than any Marine special weapon by a wide margin. On any other target, not so much.

Grav Devs Vs Hellblasters?

Grav Devs bare bones are 177 points with 16 shots.
Hellblasters are 165 points with 10 shots

Vs Primaris marines, the Gravs will do 12 wounds on average. However due to the random shots effectively 1/3 shots will be lost so we're looking at about 4 kills.

The Hellblasters will get 5.5 kills on average when overcharging and double tapping..

Range is a wash as Hellblasters can shoot further overall but need to be nearer to get both shots.

Hellblasters have a big advantage in being able to move and shoot without penalty though! Especially considering the range, you're going to really struggle to shoot the Devs at anything worthwhile without moving and that's going to severely hamper their damage output.

Overall I give it to the Hellblasters. Not by a massive margin offensively, but when you consider durability and mobility I don't see much reason to take the Grav Devs.

Whoa, hold on. We are not giving the Dev's their due in this scenario. Are they getting the Cherubim, or the whatever thing that reloads and lets them shoot twice?

Hellblasters are a great solution to a lot of situations, but I think in a fair test they loose this one.

I am likely wrong on this but don't they also hit on 2+s with their Sgt?

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Whoa, hold on. We are not giving the Dev's their due in this scenario. Are they getting the Cherubim, or the whatever thing that reloads and lets them shoot twice?

Hellblasters are a great solution to a lot of situations, but I think in a fair test they loose this one.

Armorium Cherub will bring them onto about even on kills Vs Hellblasters against Primaris statline. Slightly behind still actually, but very close.

Remember it is only once per game, and only affects one model.

Imo the other advantages the Hellblasters bring still make them a far more attractive choice, even Vs Heavy Infantry specifically.

 Stux wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Whoa, hold on. We are not giving the Dev's their due in this scenario. Are they getting the Cherubim, or the whatever thing that reloads and lets them shoot twice?

Hellblasters are a great solution to a lot of situations, but I think in a fair test they loose this one.

Armorium Cherub will bring them onto about even on kills Vs Hellblasters against Primaris statline. Slightly behind still actually, but very close.

Remember it is only once per game, and only affects one model.

Imo the other advantages the Hellblasters bring still make them a far more attractive choice, even Vs Heavy Infantry specifically.

Ok, good point

IMO the Grav has a few advantages in the sense that it's good against many non-heavy infantry targets.

For one, it brings a ton of shots, so it winds up being the most effective man-portable Heavy Weapon against any infantry.

But it also doesn't degrade against T8+ targets, like Plasma. The Grav continues to wound everything on a 5, while Plasma drops from 3+ to 4+ (or 5+ for the rare T9).

The major downside of Grav I've found in terms of effectiveness is against targets with 4+ armor. The lack of multi-wound capability against Tyranid Warriors and many Eldar vehicles can really hurt.

For Devs I've been using Plasma Cannons because they are cheeeeaaaappp. But the T8 targets make me want to switch a few back to Grav.

Given the nature of the shift in 8th towards heavy everything, It seems like Grav cannons would outperform Lascannons. Quantity over quality etc...

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Given the nature of the shift in 8th towards heavy everything, It seems like Grav cannons would outperform Lascannons. Quantity over quality etc...

Uhh... are we playing the same game?

The shift in 8th is away from heavy everything.

 fraser1191 wrote:
You mean the grav cannon with grav amp?

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

The plasma gun is better than the Grav gun, that's probably true - it gets more shots over the magic 24" rapid fire distances.

The Grav Cannon with Amp is usually better enough than the Plasma Canon - against heavy infantry (i.e. TEQ, the context of this sideroad - to justify its points. A reliable 4 shots at 24" wounding on 3's vs a random D3 shots at up to 36" wounding on 3's is much better. Vs say.. Gravis Equivalent 4 shots wounding on 4's vs D3 wounding on 3's is closer, but I'd still rather have the 4 shots. Gets Hot with +1S/+1D vs D3D is probably a wash.

Heavy Onslaught TEQ 12 shots, 6 hits, 4 wounds, 2.68 saves = 1.32 wounds, .66 dead.
Macro Plasma D6 shots, 3.5 shots, 2.345 hits, 1.95 wounds, .97 dead

Plasma Cannon D3 = 2 shots, 1.34 hits .8978 wounds,
PC Gets Hot D3= 2 shots, 1.34 hits, .33 Self inflicted, 1.116 wounding shots each doing D2, 1.116 dead per turn
Grav Amp 4 shots, 2.68 hits , 1.79 wounding shots, each wounding shot is D3 - average 2, 1.79 dead per turn.

The only way PlasmaC beats GravC is if you work the 12 inches Plasma outranges Grav, which is going to require a silly or very cooperative opponent.

Vs Gravis - say Inceptors -

PC D3 shots, 1.34 hits, .8978 wounds.
PC Gets Hot D3 shots, 2 shots, 1.34 hits, .33 self inflicted, .8978 wounding 2D shots shots
Grav Amp 4 shots, 2.68 hits, 1.34 wounding D3/Average 2 shots per turn

The Grav Amp - even wounding on 4's - still beats out a Hot Plasma Canon. In theory.

Can you factor the relative point costs of the unit into that?

Plasma Devs are going to be 48pts per unit cheaper than Gravs.

Simple enough...

On a 6 turn game, the Grav Dev is going to theoretically get 24 shots per game, 21.48 wounds per game, .767 wounds per point.

On a 6 turn game, the Plasma Dev will get 12/6 Gets Hot shots per game= 5.3868 wounds per 6 turns - = .33 wounds per point with either 6 turns of regular Plas, or 3 turns and a self inflicted death of Gets Hot Plas.

Edit to fix the Grav math - forgot their Multi-wound.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Of course, remember this is all math hammer. Who's going to have 11 terminators within 24/36" of Grav or Plasma.

This is the same theory that prefers 10 rapid firing lasguns over 1 lascanon vs Terminators - the D6 flaw.

10 Guard, rapid fire 20 shots, 10 hits, 5 wounds 4.1665 saves, .8333 wounds after saves
1 Lascannon 1 shot, .5 hits, .33 wounds - .2211 wound in shots after invuln, about .09 dead terminators per turn given the D6 wounds.

Bare in mind there's a reasonable chance you don't get to shoot turn one with the Grav, at least without moving. That 12" difference in range is way more significant than you're giving credit for on a unit that doesn't want to move.

Still, Plasma Devs are somewhat redundant to Hellblasters anyway.

 Stux wrote:
Bare in mind there's a reasonable chance you don't get to shoot turn one with the Grav, at least without moving. That 12" difference in range is way more significant than you're giving credit for on a unit that doesn't want to move.

Still, Plasma Devs are somewhat redundant to Hellblasters anyway.

There's a reasonable chance you don't get to shoot with the Plasma Devs either.

I made the same assumptions for both groups - they have enough purpose fulfilling targets to shoot as as they can handle because we're comparing wargear not units. For a fair comparison one can't assume your opponent will line up the terminators 1" out of range for the Grav and 11 inches in range for the Plasma especially as the Plasma range isn't board edge long. The numbers change when you're talking about "worse" than MEQ But then, neither of these are "purposed" for worse than MEQ. Its also not entirely relevant to the new Repulsor speculation. There isn't a Heavy Laser Destroyer in Imperial Armor I can find, but there are a couple Laser Destroyer variants. Both are Low Volume High Strength. In this case worse than the Macro Plasma at TEQ/MEQ removal.

The Onslaught Gatling Canon 6 shots, 4 hits, 3+ wounds, 1+ unsaved is also not going to be reliably effective at MEQ/TEQ removal.

Hellblaster plasma is different than Plasma Cannon - the additional -1 to save will make a difference vs MEQ, but not TEQ. TEQ vs PC/GravAmp were already 5+ either way, the Incinerator still leaves them at 5+ invulns. There's a 5 point difference between Hellblasters and PC Devs and Rapid Fire 1 vs Heavy D3 (Average 2).

A Centurion Dev with Heavy Bolter and Hurricane Bolter 6 shots 4 hits 2 wounds + 6/12 shots ~9 shots 6 hits, 3 wounds is 5 total wounds a turn x 6 turns = .57 wounds per point (wargear + difference between a Centurion and Dev Marine in points per model)

Aggressor 12 or 24 shots. 8 or 16 hits. 4 or 8 wounds. 1+ to not quite 3 unsaved + 3.5-7 shots 1+ to 3 wounds, about a third of an unsaved wound. 2 to just over 3 unsaved. Split the moving vs standing still in half - 8 wounds per turn .979 wounds per point assuming 6 turns of shooting in a 6 turn game.

To bring this all back around to speculation about the Repulsor variant - it probably will be unable to win its points back by defending itself from Tank Killing MEQ+ units. Its main gun is - as far as we know - not MEQ+ purposed, the auxilliary weapons do not have enough rate of fire without a MEQ+ purposed main gun. To keep pace with a Grav Amp Dev, it would need to generate... - using a current Repulsor as a ballpark - 39 wounds per turn. assuming wounds on 3's that's 58 hits, assuming hits on 3's about 86 shots. (I think. Its starting to get a little crowded doing the math hammer juggling) - to keep pace with a Plasma Dev - its about 100 wounds per game 16 per turn. 24 hits, 36 shots.

Some of that wounds/per/point value-return has to be figured as the shots the tank will absorb of course because it is so much more durable than a MEQ infantry. But I think we all know it isn't THAT much more durable than some heavy weapon infantry when it's Target #1 on the board.

36" is by and large "enough range" most of the time.

It's enough to fire from within your deploy area across the no-man's land and across a good chunk [generally about 1/3-2/3] of the enemy deploy area.

24" on the other hand, does not have that flexibility, and generally cannot reach units in the enemy deploy area, odd deployments like the arrowhead deployments notwithstanding.

48" is enough that the leading cause of not being able to hit things will be line of sight, not range.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
36" is by and large "enough range" most of the time.

It's enough to fire from within your deploy area across the no-man's land and across a good chunk [generally about 1/3-2/3] of the enemy deploy area.

24" on the other hand, does not have that flexibility, and generally cannot reach units in the enemy deploy area, odd deployments like the arrowhead deployments notwithstanding.

48" is enough that the leading cause of not being able to hit things will be line of sight, not range.

Agreed. 36" makes a huge difference over 24" much of the time.

Not that I'm saying Plasma Devs are a 'good' unit. The opposite in fact, that they are sub standard and Gravs are only situationally a bit better, and in some instances worse.

It's kinda odd then, because a missile launcher is 48" right? I can't remember. In any event, that leads to the conclusion, that is false, that a missile launcher is a more effective first turn weapon than a Plasma Cannon.

 Stux wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
36" is by and large "enough range" most of the time.

It's enough to fire from within your deploy area across the no-man's land and across a good chunk [generally about 1/3-2/3] of the enemy deploy area.

24" on the other hand, does not have that flexibility, and generally cannot reach units in the enemy deploy area, odd deployments like the arrowhead deployments notwithstanding.

48" is enough that the leading cause of not being able to hit things will be line of sight, not range.

Agreed. 36" makes a huge difference over 24" much of the time.

Not that I'm saying Plasma Devs are a 'good' unit. The opposite in fact, that they are sub standard and Gravs are only situationally a bit better, and in some instances worse.

I'm curious as to what you're comparing the Plasma Devs too. They're a mainstay of most of my builds.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
It's kinda odd then, because a missile launcher is 48" right? I can't remember. In any event, that leads to the conclusion, that is false, that a missile launcher is a more effective first turn weapon than a Plasma Cannon.

The missile launcher has the problem of it cost all most as much as a lascannon and it is much weaker in all most all situations you want to use them in.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Stux wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
36" is by and large "enough range" most of the time.

It's enough to fire from within your deploy area across the no-man's land and across a good chunk [generally about 1/3-2/3] of the enemy deploy area.

24" on the other hand, does not have that flexibility, and generally cannot reach units in the enemy deploy area, odd deployments like the arrowhead deployments notwithstanding.

48" is enough that the leading cause of not being able to hit things will be line of sight, not range.

Agreed. 36" makes a huge difference over 24" much of the time.

Not that I'm saying Plasma Devs are a 'good' unit. The opposite in fact, that they are sub standard and Gravs are only situationally a bit better, and in some instances worse.

I'm curious as to what you're comparing the Plasma Devs too. They're a mainstay of most of my builds.

Well, depends what you're using them for. But personally I don't really see any reason to take Plasma Devs over Hellblasters. Yeah, you lose 6" of range, but your threat range is still 36" because you can move and fire without penalty. Also the Sgt isn't wasted, you can control the battlefield better moving every turn, you're more durable with the extra wounds, and you have more AP - which does make a difference against 3+ saves if there's no invuln.

Well, some interesting information just came out courtesy of Apocalypse previews.

Notably, it all but confirms that the Repulsor Executioner will have a Grinding Advance rule.

Less can be read into from it possessing 2 attacks, but that does give a fair prediction that it will probably have a d3 or similar number of shots.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 mew28 wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
It's kinda odd then, because a missile launcher is 48" right? I can't remember. In any event, that leads to the conclusion, that is false, that a missile launcher is a more effective first turn weapon than a Plasma Cannon.

The missile launcher has the problem of it cost all most as much as a lascannon and it is much weaker in all most all situations you want to use them in.

I generally pick Missile Launchers for my Long Fangs over Lascannons, actually.

When push comes to shove, there's not a lot of T8 out there, and even less of that is going to see the light of day. I'd rather save the points. My Razorback[s] generally are adequate numbers of Lascannons, and the extra 20 points in an already vulnerable and expensive squad doesn't sit well when it's not neccessary.

 Stux wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Stux wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
36" is by and large "enough range" most of the time.

It's enough to fire from within your deploy area across the no-man's land and across a good chunk [generally about 1/3-2/3] of the enemy deploy area.

24" on the other hand, does not have that flexibility, and generally cannot reach units in the enemy deploy area, odd deployments like the arrowhead deployments notwithstanding.

48" is enough that the leading cause of not being able to hit things will be line of sight, not range.

Agreed. 36" makes a huge difference over 24" much of the time.

Not that I'm saying Plasma Devs are a 'good' unit. The opposite in fact, that they are sub standard and Gravs are only situationally a bit better, and in some instances worse.

I'm curious as to what you're comparing the Plasma Devs too. They're a mainstay of most of my builds.

Well, depends what you're using them for. But personally I don't really see any reason to take Plasma Devs over Hellblasters. Yeah, you lose 6" of range, but your threat range is still 36" because you can move and fire without penalty. Also the Sgt isn't wasted, you can control the battlefield better moving every turn, you're more durable with the extra wounds, and you have more AP - which does make a difference against 3+ saves if there's no invuln.

Wait, how is the SGT wasted in a Dev squad? He's got the same gun right? Also, the Reloading Cherub. But yeah, Hellblasters are better at pretty much every target up to and including tanks, which irks me. Their inclusion nullified over half the SM units. There is no more cost effective shooter in the whole SM infantry list, outside of characters.

No. They don’t. For either.

 Stux wrote:

Well, depends what you're using them for. But personally I don't really see any reason to take Plasma Devs over Hellblasters. Yeah, you lose 6" of range, but your threat range is still 36" because you can move and fire without penalty. Also the Sgt isn't wasted, you can control the battlefield better moving every turn, you're more durable with the extra wounds, and you have more AP - which does make a difference against 3+ saves if there's no invuln.

Even though the Devs average double the shots per model at long range? IMO the extra range and the extra shot is a clear win in my book. Plus they get the option of different weapons (like a Missile Launcher for the Flakk Strat), Cherub, Signum, etc. Not to mention access to cheap Transports. The two-shot Hellblaster with the Assault version is enticing, but the drop in Strength is a big factor.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

 Stux wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Stux wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
36" is by and large "enough range" most of the time.

It's enough to fire from within your deploy area across the no-man's land and across a good chunk [generally about 1/3-2/3] of the enemy deploy area.

24" on the other hand, does not have that flexibility, and generally cannot reach units in the enemy deploy area, odd deployments like the arrowhead deployments notwithstanding.

48" is enough that the leading cause of not being able to hit things will be line of sight, not range.

Agreed. 36" makes a huge difference over 24" much of the time.

Not that I'm saying Plasma Devs are a 'good' unit. The opposite in fact, that they are sub standard and Gravs are only situationally a bit better, and in some instances worse.

I'm curious as to what you're comparing the Plasma Devs too. They're a mainstay of most of my builds.

Well, depends what you're using them for. But personally I don't really see any reason to take Plasma Devs over Hellblasters. Yeah, you lose 6" of range, but your threat range is still 36" because you can move and fire without penalty. Also the Sgt isn't wasted, you can control the battlefield better moving every turn, you're more durable with the extra wounds, and you have more AP - which does make a difference against 3+ saves if there's no invuln.

Wait, how is the SGT wasted in a Dev squad? He's got the same gun right? Also, the Reloading Cherub. But yeah, Hellblasters are better at pretty much every target up to and including tanks, which irks me. Their inclusion nullified over half the SM units. There is no more cost effective shooter in the whole SM infantry list, outside of characters.

Because he can't take a heavy weapon. You're getting 4 weapons to the Hellblasters 5+. Hellblasters also have the advantage you can add a couple more Plasma Incinerators on if you have the points spare without needing to afford a whole squad.

I'll admit Devs let you take ablative wounds which is somewhat useful. Cherub is nice to have, but it's not as good as some people seem to think. In a plasma squad you're averaging 2 extra shots, and that is once per game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Stux wrote:

Well, depends what you're using them for. But personally I don't really see any reason to take Plasma Devs over Hellblasters. Yeah, you lose 6" of range, but your threat range is still 36" because you can move and fire without penalty. Also the Sgt isn't wasted, you can control the battlefield better moving every turn, you're more durable with the extra wounds, and you have more AP - which does make a difference against 3+ saves if there's no invuln.

Even though the Devs average double the shots per model at long range? IMO the extra range and the extra shot is a clear win in my book. Plus they get the option of different weapons (like a Missile Launcher for the Flakk Strat), Cherub, Signum, etc. Not to mention access to cheap Transports. The two-shot Hellblaster with the Assault version is enticing, but the drop in Strength is a big factor.

That's fair, they aren't by any means strictly better. But I'd always pick the tactical flexibility of Hellblasters.

As for other weapons, sure - I'd love Primaris to get access to Lascannons or equivalent.

So, double shot turret for the executioner in 40k too?

CapRichard wrote:
So, double shot turret for the executioner in 40k too?

If that doesn’t port over 40k, I’ll be shocked.

Nice way to bump it’s AV potential as a MBT without going crazy.

Now to see it on all the other marine tanks that need it...

CapRichard wrote:
So, double shot turret for the executioner in 40k too?

If it's true I wonder if it's going to be for the Gatling Cannon as well. That would be... painful.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Well, some interesting information just came out courtesy of Apocalypse previews.

Notably, it all but confirms that the Repulsor Executioner will have a Grinding Advance rule.

Less can be read into from it possessing 2 attacks, but that does give a fair prediction that it will probably have a d3 or similar number of shots.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 mew28 wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
It's kinda odd then, because a missile launcher is 48" right? I can't remember. In any event, that leads to the conclusion, that is false, that a missile launcher is a more effective first turn weapon than a Plasma Cannon.

The missile launcher has the problem of it cost all most as much as a lascannon and it is much weaker in all most all situations you want to use them in.

I generally pick Missile Launchers for my Long Fangs over Lascannons, actually.

When push comes to shove, there's not a lot of T8 out there, and even less of that is going to see the light of day. I'd rather save the points. My Razorback[s] generally are adequate numbers of Lascannons, and the extra 20 points in an already vulnerable and expensive squad doesn't sit well when it's not neccessary.

T8 is literally everywhere. Rockets are gartbage for their cost. At least Ap-3 comes in handy sometimes when the str difference doesn't matter - plus - it's almost always better to shot a an ap-2 str 8 over d6 str 4 0 AP anyways so just forget about the frag rule. turns out though both weapons are overcosted


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Nevelon wrote:

CapRichard wrote:
So, double shot turret for the executioner in 40k too?

If that doesn’t port over 40k, I’ll be shocked.

Nice way to bump it’s AV potential as a MBT without going crazy.

Now to see it on all the other marine tanks that need it...

So the plasma version becomes 2d6 shots? With str 9 ap-4. Manking stronger than the standard version opf the castellans plasmacannon and only slightly worse than the relic version. Yes - this tank will see play with this rule. Kinda weird if the standard repulsor does not get access to this rule as well.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Stux wrote:

Well, depends what you're using them for. But personally I don't really see any reason to take Plasma Devs over Hellblasters. Yeah, you lose 6" of range, but your threat range is still 36" because you can move and fire without penalty. Also the Sgt isn't wasted, you can control the battlefield better moving every turn, you're more durable with the extra wounds, and you have more AP - which does make a difference against 3+ saves if there's no invuln.

Even though the Devs average double the shots per model at long range? IMO the extra range and the extra shot is a clear win in my book. Plus they get the option of different weapons (like a Missile Launcher for the Flakk Strat), Cherub, Signum, etc. Not to mention access to cheap Transports. The two-shot Hellblaster with the Assault version is enticing, but the drop in Strength is a big factor.

I agree - plasma devs are superior to hellblasters at range and unfortunately. Without being DW to deep strike. Hellblasters will NEVER make it into that range without repulsors.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Well, some interesting information just came out courtesy of Apocalypse previews.

Notably, it all but confirms that the Repulsor Executioner will have a Grinding Advance rule.

Less can be read into from it possessing 2 attacks, but that does give a fair prediction that it will probably have a d3 or similar number of shots.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 mew28 wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
It's kinda odd then, because a missile launcher is 48" right? I can't remember. In any event, that leads to the conclusion, that is false, that a missile launcher is a more effective first turn weapon than a Plasma Cannon.

The missile launcher has the problem of it cost all most as much as a lascannon and it is much weaker in all most all situations you want to use them in.

I generally pick Missile Launchers for my Long Fangs over Lascannons, actually.

When push comes to shove, there's not a lot of T8 out there, and even less of that is going to see the light of day. I'd rather save the points. My Razorback[s] generally are adequate numbers of Lascannons, and the extra 20 points in an already vulnerable and expensive squad doesn't sit well when it's not neccessary.

T8 is literally everywhere. Rockets are gartbage for their cost. At least Ap-3 comes in handy sometimes when the str difference doesn't matter - plus - it's almost always better to shot a an ap-2 str 8 over d6 str 4 0 AP anyways so just forget about the frag rule. turns out though both weapons are overcosted

I have no problems with my rocket launcher long fangs. As for T8, it's basically just Knights, which AP higher than 1 basically is irrelevant against. Fundamentally, only one of the Lascannon's advantages will be in play at any given time: either the S9 matters and the AP is on Invul, or the AP matters and you'd be on 3+ to wound anyway. In addition, Lascannons are 5 points more than Missile Launchers, and I'd rather not put 20 more points into an already fragile and expensive unit.

I don't think Lascannons are universally bad, since I equip my Razorback with them, but I don't feel they're worth the upgrade for Long Fangs over Missile Launchers; and I do actually find myself firing frag a lot at Genestealers, Guardsmen, and Boyz if tank targets are unavailable.

There could be multiple reasons for the repulsor to not gain grinding advance, like not wanting to draw fire from enemies, or maybe not having extra ammo since it's got more crew capacity, etc