Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
2019/06/19 22:17:00
Subject: Re:Speculation on the Repulsor Executioner.
Elbows wrote: Honestly, the Executioner (and likely the base Repulsor in reto-fix) will probably gain the shoot-twice ability. This would serve two purposes.
1) Make the tank maybe, almost, vaguely worth taking.
2) Put the nail in the coffin of Land Raiders and Predators (which are already in a bad place). That's a desired effect as the marine swap-out continues.
I'd say it's exceedingly likely it'll happen.
Except once again it's not actually fixing the underlying issue that doubel shooting is trying to fix which is simply GW got the wounding chart wrong.
It's simply too flat with far to much access to rerolls, it's the reason why the only repulsor build you see is max shots with Gman.
Marines suck but just throing out more horrendously balanced units with OP abilities to "fix" them just indicates that GW need to go back to the drawing board for 9th.
I think you're pissing into the wind though. GW doesn't have any interest in balancing the game, only just enough so that model lines sell. We've been over this a bit. GW's goal is not a well balanced, beautifully written game. It's selling miniatures and models. To wit the goal for rules writing is merely to have it suitable enough that it continues miniature sales. What financial benefit do they get out of spending more time/resources making a beautiful game? If anything, the GW sales mentality is "survive 2-3 years...new edition = bonus sales". They'd never admit it, but they know full well the rules only have to be "good enough". That's it.
They'll take feedback from tournament organizers and their little cabal of playtesters because that's easy and cheap. It's feedback to know where the grumbling is coming from. They nerf just enough stuff to hope it keeps people from quitting the game in a rage.
I completely agree they got a couple of the fundamental rules architecture bits totally wrong (vastly over-valuing skill and armour saves vs. number of bodies + number of shots, etc.). When they release a new product they know it needs to be either A) exceptionally cool, or B) have a rules gimmick that promotes people picking it up to try (even if it doesn't make it into major tournament play).
Everyone knows we rarely see Repulsors on the table. They're not terribly good. GW is aware, but likely aware from their cabal and sales numbers. I'd imagine they're not shifting a ton of them. GW knows that a re-turreted Repulsor needs a gimmick to sell. So that'll be its weapons or its abilities/rules.
Well, they are very bad. Which is the polar opposite of bolter porn. So some are doubly disappointed. For those that didnt buy into the gladius gak show, its been a long time in the cold
Last I checked, playing Mono-Vanilla marines I didn't feel too far behind the curve of players rolling Castellans, Shield Captains and Guardsmen Batteries, or Ynnarri/Eldar Souper-soups. And since then, Ynnari took the nerf-bat, Doom took the nerf-bat, Castellans took the nerf-bat, and I got Bolter Discipline and a bunch of point cuts. Imo the outlook looks reasonably good.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/06/19 22:31:07
Insectum7 wrote: Last I checked, playing Mono-Vanilla marines I didn't feel too far behind the curve of players rolling Castellans, Shield Captains and Guardsmen Batteries, or Ynnarri/Eldar Souper-soups. And since then, Ynnari took the nerf-bat, Doom took the nerf-bat, Castellans took the nerf-bat, and I got Bolter Discipline and a bunch of point cuts. Imo the outlook looks reasonably good.
Insectum7 wrote: Last I checked, playing Mono-Vanilla marines I didn't feel too far behind the curve of players rolling Castellans, Shield Captains and Guardsmen Batteries, or Ynnarri/Eldar Souper-soups. And since then, Ynnari took the nerf-bat, Doom took the nerf-bat, Castellans took the nerf-bat, and I got Bolter Discipline and a bunch of point cuts. Imo the outlook looks reasonably good.
What kind of list do you play ?
Mostly an Old-Marine Power Armor swarm is the basic setup. UM tactics, always with Chapter Master upgrade+Lt. Haven't fully adjusted to the point changes of December. I try to only play with painted models and that slows my build-adjustments. Lots of Plasma Devastators. Sometimes the Relic Banner. I was often taking 4-6 Rhinos or Razors up until I had to stop playing regularly a month or two ago.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote: Let me know your success rate at 6 round events. Ultimately, the data will show if you are correct or not.
Don't care about big tournaments. A: ITC is weird. B: Local gaming experience isn't determined by ITC tourneys.
It will be interesting to see how the tourney data progresses with the recent changes though.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/06/19 23:17:19
Xenomancers wrote: Marine weapons are all overcosted...how is a hurricane bolter worth 10 points and a storm bolter 2 points? How is a HB 10 points?
Hurricane Bolter: 6 shots at 24", 12 at 12", S4AP0
Shuriken Cannon: 3 shots at 24", S6 AP0 pseudorend.
Two to *four times* the shots, in exchange for 2 less S, and pseudorend.
The SC outperforms vs:
- T8+ models without invulns.
Hurricane Bolter outperforms vs:
-GEQ -MEQ -TEQ -Light vehicles (Venoms, Piranhas, etc)
-Medium vehicles (Preds, Serpents, etc)
-*anything* within 12"
Doesn't look undercosted.
Storm Bolter: RF2 24" S4 AP0
Avenger SC: A2 18" S4 AP0 Bladestorm
Again, Storm Bolter destroys the ASC vs most targets.
Don't forget the SC is assault and practically every unit that uses it can advance and shoot it with no penalty. Mobility is the name of the game.
Can take the SC:
-Serpent - penalty
-Falcon - penalty
-Prism - penalty
-Nightspinner - penalty
-Vyper - penalty
-Skyweaver - penalty
-Starweaver - penalty
-Voidweaver - penalty
-Wraithlord - penalty
-Hornet - penalty
-Wasp - penalty
-War Walker - no penalty
-Guardian Platform - no penalty
-Reaper Exarch - no penalty
-Windrider - no penalty
So, 4 of 15 units off the top of my head that can take it have that rule. Most SCs can't - either by number of options that can or by frequency of platforms they're taken on.
Plus I don't see anyone spamming SC anyways - so I'd consider it is pretty bad to begin with.
I certainly wouldn't say they're bad. They aren't the best thing in the game, but they do work.
Avernger cats should be 0 or 1 point and you know it. Dire avengers are straight trash.
Dire Avengers aren't the best, but they aren't straight trash. ASCs should in no way be 0ppm (unless their cost were absorbed by the unit).
It's easy to tell the HB is overcosted. It has the same firepower as 3 storm bolters and it costs the same as 5 storm bolters. A comparison of trash can't be made any more literally.
Well, if that's the case, lets just quadrouple the cost of a Pulse Rifle for 4x the cost. By this logic, totally fair?
Find me something that is a Space Marine and isnt overcosted compared to other armies.
Storm Bolter.
Storm Shield.
Lascannon.
But yeah without any rerolls they are quite overcosted. Its like they are priced asuming Gulliman is close to them.
It feels like almost the entire codex was costed that way.
2 point storm sheild is a joke. Too bad only DW can really utilize it. LC compared to BL is a joke. There is no reason for these weapons to have a different price point. LC should be 20 points.
S9 48" AP-3 vs S8 36" AP-4? You're trading +1S and 12" range to go from AP-3 to AP-4.
The LC wounds anything T8 on 3s instead of 4s. Huge in a meta where Knights and Russes aren't exactly rare.
The LC can touch anything midfield and half their backfield from the safety of your backfield. The BL needs to be midfield to hit their backfield. 36" vs 48" is a big deal on weapons that can't afford to move.
The BL denies targets with a 3+ the 6+ save the LC would give - provided they have no invuln. Throw in a 6++ or better, and no difference.
In summary, the BL is better for killing:
-Marines in midfield
The LC is better for killing:
-Knights
-Leman Russes
-Land Raiders
-Spears
-Guardsmen
-Anything with less than a 3+
-Anything with a 6++ or better
-Any backfielder
There's no reason a LasCannon should be as cheap as a Brightlance.
Storm bolters are good - youll see no argument there. Terminators though with 1 storm bolters though? Utter garbage?
You bring up a great point. Sometimes a weapons cost is absobed by the model. Sometimes it cost 0 in 1 codex where in others it costs points.This inconsitency makes any discussion about the cost of weapons mute.
Basically the point I was making is that an ASC is not worth what you are paying for it.
AP -4 is equal to +1 str in most situations where an invun save is not relevent. Taking a 6+ to a 7+ is massive. Plus units with 2+ saves in cover. It is essentially a give and take. Plus the range is pretty insignificant. 36" is enough to do the job. Plus since we are incorperating outside influences like invun saves you have to account for the fact doom makes BL wound better than LC. In any case - BL and LC are both in a pretty bad spot right now due to the ionvun save spam that is all over the place. The is also a much bigger list of units that the LC is worse against compared to a bright lance. There is literally no reason a LC or BL should have a different cost. TLLC cost 40 or 20 per...is that breaking the game? NOPE.
Also in regaurds to SC - I said units that use it. The only popular choice that takes SC that doesn't have battle focus is a wave serpant and they can negate the effect by taking a 5 point upgrade (that no one takes because you don't need to advacne when you can move 14" and shoot 24) everyone else takes the much better prices TLSC.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
The Newman wrote: I just had this same go-around with someone else on how the Big Shoota compares to the Heavy Bolter or the Assault Bolter. The BS is a bad weapon at 5 points in an ork army, two similar but unambiguously worse weapons (one is Heavy instead of Assault, the other has half the range) cost twice as much for Marines. Better AP accounts for some of it but definitely not all of it.
What I'm getting at is that you can't compare a Bright Lance to a Lascannon point for point since you're judging their value in the context of different armies. The Stormbolter/Shurken Cannon comparison has the same problem.
The Stormbolter/Hurricane Bolter comparison is apt though since one is literally a triple-linked version of the other.
Exactly. It can't be any more plane than that.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/06/20 00:07:23
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
yeah but lots of times you are wounding on the same number....that's is the point
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
The issue is that it's probably not going to offer any form of game changing boon to marine armies. Rather just an overcosted form of getting AT for a marine army that is inferior to alternatives and doesn't even have the advantage of the 3/.2 Blood Angel Repulsor/Redemptor bumrush. What marines need is something to give them enough firepower to stop sucking arse and be peer with top armies. Instead they keep getting thrown useless tokens that doesn't take the army anywhere it wasn't already. GW could always break its tend and actually release something new for marines that actually helps them out, but I wouldn't hold your breath over it.
“There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance.”
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I dunno, if a trio of Repulsors dropped 3 squads of Hellblasters or Aggressors on my front line, I don't know how good my front lines would look after that. Also, that's not even accounting for the Executioner's attacks.
It may not be the new meta breaking ITC boss haxor l33t tactics yo, but it's still a good ability that, if the costs come back positive, will be a good look for Primaris.
Before the flaming starts about how dumb and stupid I am, I would have fun playing this way. Right or wrong, this would be an enjoyable setup for an army.
.
You think this tank Repulsor is still going to be a dedicated transport, or you’re going to have 6+ Heavy Support Options? I’m not going to flame you for optimistically thinking this is going to do what most of us are actually hoping for. But I’m also not going to pretend it’s very likely. It’s being described as more tank than transport. That hints at two things. Less transport capacity, and a slot change to Heavy Support. The 10 capacity of the current Repulsor is already too small, especially as the primary unit one would want to load into one is the Aggressors in double slot Gravis armor.
Add in a move to the Heavy Support role, already extremely crowded, and the new Repulsor has to be even better to not be even worse.
Elbows wrote: Honestly, the Executioner (and likely the base Repulsor in reto-fix) will probably gain the shoot-twice ability. This would serve two purposes.
1) Make the tank maybe, almost, vaguely worth taking.
2) Put the nail in the coffin of Land Raiders and Predators (which are already in a bad place). That's a desired effect as the marine swap-out continues.
I'd say it's exceedingly likely it'll happen.
Except once again it's not actually fixing the underlying issue that doubel shooting is trying to fix which is simply GW got the wounding chart wrong.
It's simply too flat with far to much access to rerolls, it's the reason why the only repulsor build you see is max shots with Gman.
Marines suck but just throing out more horrendously balanced units with OP abilities to "fix" them just indicates that GW need to go back to the drawing board for 9th.
I think you're pissing into the wind though. GW doesn't have any interest in balancing the game, only just enough so that model lines sell. We've been over this a bit. GW's goal is not a well balanced, beautifully written game. It's selling miniatures and models. To wit the goal for rules writing is merely to have it suitable enough that it continues miniature sales. What financial benefit do they get out of spending more time/resources making a beautiful game? If anything, the GW sales mentality is "survive 2-3 years...new edition = bonus sales". They'd never admit it, but they know full well the rules only have to be "good enough". That's it.
They'll take feedback from tournament organizers and their little cabal of playtesters because that's easy and cheap. It's feedback to know where the grumbling is coming from. They nerf just enough stuff to hope it keeps people from quitting the game in a rage.
I completely agree they got a couple of the fundamental rules architecture bits totally wrong (vastly over-valuing skill and armour saves vs. number of bodies + number of shots, etc.). When they release a new product they know it needs to be either A) exceptionally cool, or B) have a rules gimmick that promotes people picking it up to try (even if it doesn't make it into major tournament play).
Everyone knows we rarely see Repulsors on the table. They're not terribly good. GW is aware, but likely aware from their cabal and sales numbers. I'd imagine they're not shifting a ton of them. GW knows that a re-turreted Repulsor needs a gimmick to sell. So that'll be its weapons or its abilities/rules.
It's not about rules...it's about selling minis.
I think you’re missing something as well. They make their money off the rules, not the models. You don’t have to buy a new Tactical squad every time they release a new edition, but you do need a new BRB and codexes. I’ve used the same models, in some cases, for 20 years and 7 editions. The rules rarely sell the models, the sculpts sell the models, I didn’t buy new Terminators because the rules changed in 3rd and they’ve sucked ever since. I bought new Terminators because the sculpt changed and I liked it better enough.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/06/20 07:03:35
Martel732 wrote: Let me know your success rate at 6 round events.
Why? The number of gamers who actually attend those kind of events is tiny in comparison to the overall 40k gaming population. The vast, vast majority of players couldn't care less how their armies fare at major tournaments. More balance is always a good thing, but in my experience it's simply not the case that everyone's playing top-tier tournament armies all the time. If you obsess over having that kind of army you're ultimately going to be disappointed no matter what unless you're willing to spend a lot of money to keep up as the true top-tier stuff changes all the time due to new Codices and points/FAQ changes.
Martel732 wrote: Let me know your success rate at 6 round events. Ultimately, the data will show if you are correct or not.
I recently (It was actually 6 months ago lol, time flies) took two Repulsors to a 5 round, 100+ player tournament and won 4 games.
As I said, not the very best units but good enough to put up a fight.
I'm not as insecure as you and don't need to only run the most optimum units in order to enjoy the game. Why do you impose limits on yourself that prevent you from experiencing the full range and options of the hobby?
I've recently been running AdMech but I'm looking forward to trying a Tripulsor list at a tournament once this one is released.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/06/20 09:37:39
Martel732 wrote: Let me know your success rate at 6 round events.
Why? The number of gamers who actually attend those kind of events is tiny in comparison to the overall 40k gaming population. The vast, vast majority of players couldn't care less how their armies fare at major tournaments. More balance is always a good thing, but in my experience it's simply not the case that everyone's playing top-tier tournament armies all the time. If you obsess over having that kind of army you're ultimately going to be disappointed no matter what unless you're willing to spend a lot of money to keep up as the true top-tier stuff changes all the time due to new Codices and points/FAQ changes.
It's a better source of validation than beating up the local yahoos.
2019/06/20 13:53:40
Subject: Re:Speculation on the Repulsor Executioner.
fraser1191 wrote: 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
Not sure if the point was made, but the Repulsor is a transport. It is not the MBT and it never was. It is a rhino and razorback mix.
Martel732 wrote: Let me know your success rate at 6 round events. Ultimately, the data will show if you are correct or not.
Is that even relevant for 95% of players?
Most players do not play in tournaments. Of those that do play in tournaments most only play one tournament local to them per year - usually an RTT. Of those that go to GTs most are 5 games not 6.
So really you are looking at the number of players who happen to attend a handful of events in the world per year. Miniscule compared to the overall player base.
You may as well ask how well they do in City Fight. I reckon there are a lot more city fight games played in a year worldwide than games played in singles tournaments with 6+ rounds in them.
I am just finishing up my Primaris force. Do I believe it is as hard-hitting as the T'au force I have been playing? No it is not. Do I think I still have a good chance of winning with it in the sort of tournaments I prefer to enter? Yes I do. Does it therefore make the slightest difference in outcome if one is a theoretically a bit more optimal than the other? Only if I am playing badly.
Ohhh. You're calling me out. Marines are bad. Good look at 40kstats.com. It's all right there. Someone else already did all the work on that one, chief.
"things" being terrible marine units, yes. Get a grip.
40kstats is a meta analysis. It tells us nothing about what is in the lists and what they faced. It does not differentiate between new players and experienced. Use it as a guide at your own peril.
You should get some real facts. You are dismissing units you don't own and have never used.
You don't see me lecturing GSC players on how to play because I don't own the models or the army.
How many Repulsors do you have? Show me your Primaris army or stop talking about things you don't know. You can't understand how something can function fully unless you've used it multiple times.
Here's two of mine:
Xenomancers wrote: yeah but lots of times you are wounding on the same number....that's is the point
Far more frequently, you're saving on the same.
Unless you spam Lascannons to kill Marines, you're better off bringing the weapons that wounds the big stuff at +1 over weapons that drop a 3+ to a 7+ instead of a 6+.
Why would you think having your AT kill Marines 16% faster is anywhere near as useful as having your AT kill the big stuff 33% faster?
And if you *are* bringing heavy weapons to kill marines, the Plasma Cannon does it better than the Brightlance by a lot.
As for 36" range vs 48" range, it's kinda a big deal. A 48" weapon can sit in your backfield with good board coverage (if you position right). A 36" range can only touch the midfield unless it moves up to the midfield. And staying in the backfield is very important for weapons that suffer a to-hit penalty on the move and/or aren't that durable. Look at it this way: a backfield unit with Lascannons will be at +1S *and* relative +1BS vs the Brightlance unit going after it (at least for the first round).
Once again, it's a case of "Marine good, Space Elf bad" bias.
2019/06/20 14:43:02
Subject: Re:Speculation on the Repulsor Executioner.
I think you're pissing into the wind though. GW doesn't have any interest in balancing the game, only just enough so that model lines sell. We've been over this a bit. GW's goal is not a well balanced, beautifully written game. It's selling miniatures and models. To wit the goal for rules writing is merely to have it suitable enough that it continues miniature sales. What financial benefit do they get out of spending more time/resources making a beautiful game? If anything, the GW sales mentality is "survive 2-3 years...new edition = bonus sales". They'd never admit it, but they know full well the rules only have to be "good enough". That's it.
They'll take feedback from tournament organizers and their little cabal of playtesters because that's easy and cheap. It's feedback to know where the grumbling is coming from. They nerf just enough stuff to hope it keeps people from quitting the game in a rage.
I completely agree they got a couple of the fundamental rules architecture bits totally wrong (vastly over-valuing skill and armour saves vs. number of bodies + number of shots, etc.). When they release a new product they know it needs to be either A) exceptionally cool, or B) have a rules gimmick that promotes people picking it up to try (even if it doesn't make it into major tournament play).
Everyone knows we rarely see Repulsors on the table. They're not terribly good. GW is aware, but likely aware from their cabal and sales numbers. I'd imagine they're not shifting a ton of them. GW knows that a re-turreted Repulsor needs a gimmick to sell. So that'll be its weapons or its abilities/rules.
It's not about rules...it's about selling minis.
While I agree to a point that they won't fully balance the game you're trying to have your cake and eat it too on this one.
It won't be fully balanced, because it's a HUGE game and they keep adding factions and other systems to play in. A unit that is only 5% worse than others is not a bad unit despite attempts to mathhammer it out of existence.
You're tkaing the position that any rules GW adds to this thing is purely for sales and not balance, but if it didn't have those rules it would likely fall flat and need a rules adjustment later on anyway. They're just finally getting it more right on release than wrong instead of having to fix it later.
2019/06/20 15:11:10
Subject: Re:Speculation on the Repulsor Executioner.
What financial benefit do they get out of spending more time/resources making a beautiful game?
Gee. I dunno, more sales? Happy customers = more profit?
You're talking about a game that has way too many factions, way too many sub factions, rules spread across 30 different books, FAQ's, Chapter Approved, White Dwarf, and even in BL books. 8th Edition has gone a long way to fixing some of the most glaring issues with the game, however it's not hit critical mass yet. I think a lot of people underestimate the damage the previous CEO did to the company, and massive (in years) lead time on things currently coming out. Heck, a lot of the recent releases were probably planned over 6 years ago, under a different corporate structure with a different philosophy. It takes a massive amount of time to work on something this big, and I am thinking that 9th edition will take the next step towards more balance and army composition.
2019/06/20 15:30:27
Subject: Re:Speculation on the Repulsor Executioner.
What financial benefit do they get out of spending more time/resources making a beautiful game?
Gee. I dunno, more sales? Happy customers = more profit?
You're talking about a game that has way too many factions, way too many sub factions, rules spread across 30 different books, FAQ's, Chapter Approved, White Dwarf, and even in BL books. 8th Edition has gone a long way to fixing some of the most glaring issues with the game, however it's not hit critical mass yet. I think a lot of people underestimate the damage the previous CEO did to the company, and massive (in years) lead time on things currently coming out. Heck, a lot of the recent releases were probably planned over 6 years ago, under a different corporate structure with a different philosophy. It takes a massive amount of time to work on something this big, and I am thinking that 9th edition will take the next step towards more balance and army composition.
Yea, i'm actually quite optimistic. If they carry over the damage phase from Apocalypse it could go a long way to eliminating alpha strike concerns.
2019/06/20 15:33:06
Subject: Re:Speculation on the Repulsor Executioner.
What financial benefit do they get out of spending more time/resources making a beautiful game?
Gee. I dunno, more sales? Happy customers = more profit?
You're talking about a game that has way too many factions, way too many sub factions, rules spread across 30 different books, FAQ's, Chapter Approved, White Dwarf, and even in BL books. 8th Edition has gone a long way to fixing some of the most glaring issues with the game, however it's not hit critical mass yet. I think a lot of people underestimate the damage the previous CEO did to the company, and massive (in years) lead time on things currently coming out. Heck, a lot of the recent releases were probably planned over 6 years ago, under a different corporate structure with a different philosophy. It takes a massive amount of time to work on something this big, and I am thinking that 9th edition will take the next step towards more balance and army composition.
Yea, i'm actually quite optimistic. If they carry over the damage phase from Apocalypse it could go a long way to eliminating alpha strike concerns.
I wouldn't be at all surprised is both Apoc and KT are test beds for what will eventually be 9th Edition. Charging in the movement phase is brilliant, reactions to being charged, max/min range penalties, move even if charge is failed. Good stuff.
Xenomancers wrote: yeah but lots of times you are wounding on the same number....that's is the point
Far more frequently, you're saving on the same.
Unless you spam Lascannons to kill Marines, you're better off bringing the weapons that wounds the big stuff at +1 over weapons that drop a 3+ to a 7+ instead of a 6+.
Why would you think having your AT kill Marines 16% faster is anywhere near as useful as having your AT kill the big stuff 33% faster?
And if you *are* bringing heavy weapons to kill marines, the Plasma Cannon does it better than the Brightlance by a lot.
As for 36" range vs 48" range, it's kinda a big deal. A 48" weapon can sit in your backfield with good board coverage (if you position right). A 36" range can only touch the midfield unless it moves up to the midfield. And staying in the backfield is very important for weapons that suffer a to-hit penalty on the move and/or aren't that durable. Look at it this way: a backfield unit with Lascannons will be at +1S *and* relative +1BS vs the Brightlance unit going after it (at least for the first round).
Once again, it's a case of "Marine good, Space Elf bad" bias.
That is just not that case. The competitive meta is not representative of all the units in the game you can face. Your average tank is a t7 3+ profile. That profile sucks. So people don't use it. The most common infantry profile is t4 3+ save or less. Bright lance is better against both those profiles. There is literally 0 reason it should cost less than a las cannon.
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
At the expense of sound dumb, again, I just want to point out that saying things like "The Repulsor isn't the MBT of the Marines" is essentially saying you know what is coming in the future. You very likely don't. There is no fluff around the repulsor, and no fluff around the Predator/Land Raiders. Therefor, this very well could be the MBT and who could dispute it? Just because it's a transport doesn't make it a tank. The armor and weapons make it a tank.
That is just not that case. The competitive meta is not representative of all the units in the game you can face. Your average tank is a t7 3+ profile. That profile sucks. So people don't use it. The most common infantry profile is t4 3+ save or less. Bright lance is better against both those profiles. There is literally 0 reason it should cost less than a las cannon.
The average Knight is T8, and all Leman Russ Chassis are T8, the step fro S8 to 9 for AT weapons is a big one.
Also, if 25 point Lascannons is too rich for you, just take Twin Lascannons. Then they're 20.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/06/20 16:36:26
Xenomancers wrote: yeah but lots of times you are wounding on the same number....that's is the point
Far more frequently, you're saving on the same.
Unless you spam Lascannons to kill Marines, you're better off bringing the weapons that wounds the big stuff at +1 over weapons that drop a 3+ to a 7+ instead of a 6+.
Why would you think having your AT kill Marines 16% faster is anywhere near as useful as having your AT kill the big stuff 33% faster?
And if you *are* bringing heavy weapons to kill marines, the Plasma Cannon does it better than the Brightlance by a lot.
As for 36" range vs 48" range, it's kinda a big deal. A 48" weapon can sit in your backfield with good board coverage (if you position right). A 36" range can only touch the midfield unless it moves up to the midfield. And staying in the backfield is very important for weapons that suffer a to-hit penalty on the move and/or aren't that durable. Look at it this way: a backfield unit with Lascannons will be at +1S *and* relative +1BS vs the Brightlance unit going after it (at least for the first round).
Once again, it's a case of "Marine good, Space Elf bad" bias.
That is just not that case. The competitive meta is not representative of all the units in the game you can face. Your average tank is a t7 3+ profile. That profile sucks. So people don't use it. The most common infantry profile is t4 3+ save or less. Bright lance is better against both those profiles. There is literally 0 reason it should cost less than a las cannon.
yeah except GW bases their points etc around everythin, not the dozen or so units you only see at a toruny. if a gun has more value against harder targets then yes it has more value, even if those harder targets aren't "in favor with the meta right now"
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/06/20 16:41:10
Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two
