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:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
But the two Lazorbacks are also 70 points more expensive.

I don't know the exact cost of the Contemptor, but looking at CA it appears to be 88 base, plus two twin Lascannons for 168 total. The two Lazorbacks are 232, for a difference of 64 points. It's true they are more expensive in total.

Advantages for the Razors that matter to me.
A: double the wounds
B: More guns for the Alpha strike
C: can carry guys, synergyzing well with my "lots of power armor" armies. Good for missions where you're looking for fewer drops.
D: can block LOS for my guys, which is something I wind up doing a bunch.
E: Faster speed for the occasions when I want to pre-empt a charge, which is also something I do fairly often.

The Contemptor has two twin Lascannons, so same firepower (discounting two Storm Bolters because come on). The 64 points also almost gets you a Rhino, which can also carry people and equalizes the wounds and can do all that other stuff the Razorbacks can, except it's not sacrificing damage output for doing so.

^The Razorbacks I'm taking bring HK missiles.

 Insectum7 wrote:
^The Razorbacks I'm taking bring HK missiles.

Dude pretty much if I played a game and brought 3-4 of these guys. The firepower would be okay. But After turn 2. I likely wouldn't be shooting any of them again. They will ether be locked in CC - or dead. They also don't contribute to CP.

I see no reason to ever bring a Razor over a dread with a twin las in literally any situation. Then again. I don't bring a single tac or dev in my list EVER. Even though I have over 120 tactical marines with assorted weapons.

This new tank though - if it can put out essentially 6 lascannons for around 280 points and still move 5 inches. Plus all its supporting dakka. It will probably take over that roll.

I got this piece of info about the repulsor, don't know if it's true but he implied it is:



72" / heavy 2 / S10 / AP-4 / Damage D6 (minimum 3)
Can shoot twice if it didn't move or only half of its movement value.

315 pts

I guess we will soon know

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
^The Razorbacks I'm taking bring HK missiles.

Dude pretty much if I played a game and brought 3-4 of these guys. The firepower would be okay. But After turn 2. I likely wouldn't be shooting any of them again. They will ether be locked in CC - or dead. They also don't contribute to CP.

Yeah well, it's not like the Dreds are particularly tougher. They'd die just as easy. Imo easier point for point in most cases.

That's not a terrible profile, but still very weak vs invuln. Sure will be great at bullying around other marines. Maybe -2 AP ignores invulns would have been better.

Martel732 wrote:

The rest of us dont get to play with long fangs. Changes the picture. For 110 pts, you dont get much compared to xenos or ig.

A Razorback with twinlas or twin assault cannons is pretty damn solid compared to a Chimera or Taurox. The Chimera is absolutely terrible; without even confronting the problem of what should ride in it. Even unloaded though, a Razorback is a pretty adequate tank. I really like, and am generally really happy with, the performance of my Razorbacks, Rhinos, and Immolators [which are Razorbacks by another name].

I havent seen a chimera or taurox all edition. I have seen russes, commander russes, manticores, basilisks, wyvern, and hellhounds. All of which are far superior to a razorback. Slots dont matter in 8th as much as what you can get for your point. Compared to ig, marines get damn little.

Razors are trash. You're just fooling yourself.

Martel732 wrote:
None of the marine equipment has the brutal efficiency necessary in 8th, unfortunately. No plague crawler, no ravager, no wave serpent.

translation: GW hasn't massivly undercosted something for marines in 8th so they can't spam their way to victory

That does seem to be criterion doesnt it? Who gets the most problem units that gw wont fix? Meet the new edition, same as the old edition.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
^The Razorbacks I'm taking bring HK missiles.

Dude pretty much if I played a game and brought 3-4 of these guys. The firepower would be okay. But After turn 2. I likely wouldn't be shooting any of them again. They will ether be locked in CC - or dead. They also don't contribute to CP.

Yeah well, it's not like the Dreds are particularly tougher. They'd die just as easy. Imo easier point for point in most cases.

I think what you get from the dreads are: Chapter Tactic, so either rerolls one failed hit and wound, get -1 to hit protection, or fall back and shoot. Plus, the Ven Dread can reposition itself and still hit on 3s, and have a 6+++. It is well worth the ~20pts over a Razorback with twin las and HK.

^Maybe. I'm building out for 3 Dreds so I get to choose or mix and match.

Honestly I'm more inclined to go normal Dred with the same loadout. The 20 point upgrade for BS2+ and a 6+++ seems steep.

 Insectum7 wrote:
^Maybe. I'm building out for 3 Dreds so I get to choose or mix and match.

Honestly I'm more inclined to go normal Dred with the same loadout. The 20 point upgrade for BS2+ and a 6+++ seems steep.

No it's completely worth it as it enables marching fire. The issue with 3+ BS is that, unless your board is devoid of terrain, it's shooting at a 4+ most of the time. Venerables and Contemptors are good specifically because they can be aggressive and remain lethal.

I think we are missing a key part of what has happened in 8th. There was a fundamental and critical change to how 8th worked, about half way through.

They changed how Deep Strikes work. Right there you invalidated half the units, tactics, and strategies in the game. Drop pods are now worthless, as are Terminators. A lot of Space Marine units took a massive nerf on that day.

Whats worse, up to that point, a lot of the armies had been designed to compete with those abilities in mind. Grey knights, assault armies, etc. So then GW started building NEW armies with this new direction, and never changed their now fundamentally flawed armies.

This new Exectutioner is an attempt, I think, to fix that. Giving the SMs a hard hitting heavy armor answer to a lot of the meta out there currently.

I'm really hoping this tank is a viable option, I love my repulsor and I wanted second one anyway.

Rules confirmed for it on WHC. No idea on points for hvy laser destroyer but assume plasma will be same as redemptor since it's the same weapon.

 godardc wrote:
I got this piece of info about the repulsor, don't know if it's true but he implied it is:



72" / heavy 2 / S10 / AP-4 / Damage D6 (minimum 3)
Can shoot twice if it didn't move or only half of its movement value.

315 pts

I guess we will soon know

Confirmed. Two of these plus captain and lt are in Castellan range.

8 * .777 * .777 * .5 * 4 = 9.7 damage to any 4++

A Raven volcano can put almost 13 on to a Repulsor, so these will still limp behind the Castellan, but not terrible overall.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 godardc wrote:
I got this piece of info about the repulsor, don't know if it's true but he implied it is:



72" / heavy 2 / S10 / AP-4 / Damage D6 (minimum 3)
Can shoot twice if it didn't move or only half of its movement value.

315 pts

I guess we will soon know

Confirmed. Two of these plus captain and lt are in Castellan range.

8 * .777 * .777 * .5 * 4 = 9.7 damage to any 4++

A Raven volcano can put almost 13 on to a Repulsor, so these will still limp behind the Castellan, but not terrible overall.

The question is, Does that 315 pint price mark include any of the weapons? if it does, that feels mighty cheap IMO...

I dunno. In an army full of expensive troops it wouldn't hurt to have an above average vehicle

So now that we know the stats of it's two weapons which do you guys think will be the pic?

Laser: 72 Heavy 2 72 S10 Ap-4 D6 minimum 3 damage

Plasma option: 36 Heavy D6 s8/s9 ap-4 D1/2 1s hurt you.

So with the ability to fire twice we effectively are looking at 2d6 for the plasma and 4 for the cannon. Plasma of course has the on average advantage of 7 shots compared to 4, but of course there is that variability of going lower or higher along with vulnerability to negative to hit penalties in the form of hurting yourself if you overcharge (which if you are using it for anti heavy you will be).

In raw damage I'd say the laser would win out due to being reliable. You can always count on four damaging shots that do a minimum three damage. You can put it in your list and know it will do it's job. The plasma on the other hand is more variable. You can't count on it to do it's anti tank job because you have no idea what the 2d6 will be, but it has the on average advantage of superior rate of fire which is huge plus when you run into negative to hit you will be seriously nerfed where as the laser just chugs along. Though points to the plasma for being an overall more versatile weapon overall as with it's rate of fire and damage output it's not BAD at taking out infantry.

I'm definitely going to get it. Been waiting for a dedicated gun platform for my Space Wolves that slots nicely in between a Predator and a Questoris Knight since I started playing them. Will be a very nice Distraction Carnifex for my Razorbacks while they carry Blood Claws (of the Stalker Pack get-5-ThunderHammer-attacks-if-you-play-it-right variety) up the field. Love the design of the Skorpius as well, almost a pity I don't play AdMech

Tristanleo wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 godardc wrote:
I got this piece of info about the repulsor, don't know if it's true but he implied it is:



72" / heavy 2 / S10 / AP-4 / Damage D6 (minimum 3)
Can shoot twice if it didn't move or only half of its movement value.

315 pts

I guess we will soon know

Confirmed. Two of these plus captain and lt are in Castellan range.

8 * .777 * .777 * .5 * 4 = 9.7 damage to any 4++

A Raven volcano can put almost 13 on to a Repulsor, so these will still limp behind the Castellan, but not terrible overall.

The question is, Does that 315 pint price mark include any of the weapons? if it does, that feels mighty cheap IMO...

You still only have T8 W16 3+ without any sort of invul or FNP though, which is kinda flimsy for 315 points. Especially considering that for about 450 you have a Baneblade or Questoris Knight. I agree it sounds cheap, but in the current 40k landscape it really isn't.

Cost differential between the two main guns is gonna play into things. Macro-plas clocks in at 31 points (if it keeps the Redemptor pricing). I seriously doubt the Laser option is that cheap.

Sterling191 wrote:
Cost differential between the two main guns is gonna play into things. Macro-plas clocks in at 31 points (if it keeps the Redemptor pricing). I seriously doubt the Laser option is that cheap.

Better not be. It's a turbo-Twin Lascannon, so I'm guessing minimum 50-60 pts.

Edit: Looking at the 72" range I'm betting at least 60.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Sterling191 wrote:
Cost differential between the two main guns is gonna play into things. Macro-plas clocks in at 31 points (if it keeps the Redemptor pricing). I seriously doubt the Laser option is that cheap.

Better not be. It's a turbo-Twin Lascannon, so I'm guessing minimum 50-60 pts.

That would be my guess as well.

Tristanleo wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 godardc wrote:
I got this piece of info about the repulsor, don't know if it's true but he implied it is:



72" / heavy 2 / S10 / AP-4 / Damage D6 (minimum 3)
Can shoot twice if it didn't move or only half of its movement value.

315 pts

I guess we will soon know

Confirmed. Two of these plus captain and lt are in Castellan range.

8 * .777 * .777 * .5 * 4 = 9.7 damage to any 4++

A Raven volcano can put almost 13 on to a Repulsor, so these will still limp behind the Castellan, but not terrible overall.

The question is, Does that 315 pint price mark include any of the weapons? if it does, that feels mighty cheap IMO...

Well we've seen a few things already assuming the following...

185 for chassis
30 for heavy onslaught
17 for twin heavy bolter
12? for the back twin stubber
8 for krakstorm
6 for pintle heavy stubber
4 for two storm bolters
0 for auto launchers

Base 262 for the unit, with the macro plasma as 31 bringing that to 293. Rumour of 315 makes the laser destroyer 50+ points. The closest comparison is the neutron laser at 48" with 1D3 shots and a stubber for 47 points. I think that kind of fits.

Lemondish wrote:

Well we've seen a few things already assuming the following...

185 for chassis
30 for heavy onslaught
17 for twin heavy bolter
12? for the back twin stubber
8 for krakstorm
6 for pintle heavy stubber
4 for two storm bolters
0 for auto launchers

Base 262 for the unit, with the macro plasma as 31 bringing that to 293. Rumour of 315 makes the laser destroyer 50+ points. The closest comparison is the neutron laser at 48" with 1D3 shots and a stubber for 47 points. I think that kind of fits.

I'd asterisk the chassis price point. Executioner doesnt have the same transport capacity, and should (I know, I know, applying logic to GW at my own peril) be somewhat less expensive as a result.

Sterling191 wrote:

Lemondish wrote:

Well we've seen a few things already assuming the following...

185 for chassis
30 for heavy onslaught
17 for twin heavy bolter
12? for the back twin stubber
8 for krakstorm
6 for pintle heavy stubber
4 for two storm bolters
0 for auto launchers

Base 262 for the unit, with the macro plasma as 31 bringing that to 293. Rumour of 315 makes the laser destroyer 50+ points. The closest comparison is the neutron laser at 48" with 1D3 shots and a stubber for 47 points. I think that kind of fits.

I'd asterisk the chassis price point. Executioner doesnt have the same transport capacity, and should (I know, I know, applying logic to GW at my own peril) be somewhat less expensive as a result.

Land Raider and Crusader have the same hull price, even though they have different transport capacity. Same with Rhinos and Razorbacks.

 godardc wrote:
I got this piece of info about the repulsor, don't know if it's true but he implied it is:



72" / heavy 2 / S10 / AP-4 / Damage D6 (minimum 3)
Can shoot twice if it didn't move or only half of its movement value.

315 pts

I guess we will soon know

That's basically a Neutron Laser with an extra two feet of range. One of my regular opponents plays AdMech and that gun is awful to have shooting at your stuff, the minimum 3 damage is really good.

I really wish that at least with this version we can leave most of the grenade launchers and other extra weapons off. They serve even less purpose than on the standard Repulsor.

So two things:

What is the point of a 70+" shot on a unit that transports troops CLOSER to the battle?

What good is a transport that hangs back at range?

I would fall in love with this if they mounted a Inferno Cannon and you could replace the HBs with Heavy Flamers.

Get that vehicle up close, drop troops, and unleash a ton of D6 auto-hitting shots, with good AP. Then this thing becomes instantly auto-take. It's great for obliterating chaff, and it can even somehow threaten heavy armor.