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.

Lemondish wrote:

Breton wrote:

Lemondish wrote:

Breton wrote:

The tank doesn't have anything. Its all rumors and a few rumors that are called leaks.

This is the first time I've ever seen somebody claim a WarCom article is only rumour.

Smdh

Is in in a codex or a data sheet yet? Then its not fact yet, and if it's not fact, its rumor.

I've never seen somebody so damn committed to being wrong.

Wrong wrong wrong. You can feel free to call it whatever you want, but it doesn't mean we have to listen to nonsense.

Now, let's carry on the discussion as if official rules previews are a thing.

I honestly have not really decided how I feel about the plasma. I'm intrigued to say the least. But at the end of the day the new laser destroyer is pretty cool looking.

But if I can save a ton of points and play these things aggressively alongside dakka Repulsors...then the similar range band for all it's weapons, solid effectiveness against tanks and infantry alike, and transport capacity could make them pretty compelling.

Will definitely try it out.

A couple of the laser destroyer versions in a RG castle is going to be quite reliable anti tank. The cost will be the pinch point but it will be delivering something primaris marines lack in some respect, hell blaster can do the job but you really want them firing at other units and they can be squishy.

BrianDavion wrote:it's in an offical post made by GW I'd say that makes it more reliable then being just a "rumor" or do you refuse to accept release announcements as "facts" too?

We could ask the people who pre-ordered some Sylvaneth or read through a White Dwarf or two. Hey, who writes and publishes White Dwarf?

https://spikeybits.com/2019/05/every-hobbyist-to-be-affected-by-us-trade-war-with-china.html

SpikeyBits wrote: While Warhammer Community has still been steadily releasing a stream of previews, the Dominion of Sigmar was actually first spotted in May’s White Dwarf as already released.

Spikeybits wrote: This interesting document outlining recent Games Workshop imports from China to the US was spotted on Sprues & Brews. This indicates that the Sigmarite Dais, Enduring Stormvault, and Shattered temple (The Dominion of Sigmar Scenery Range) was offloaded in a US port, to be transported to GW’s Memphis TN distribution facility.


Take a close look at the dates. They arrived at some port in the US the week of Adepticon in late March /early April. By the time the White Dwarf hit stores in late April, the terrain was supposed to have already been released!

We’re not shipping and warehousing experts (aka shipologists), but three weeks seems like a pretty tight turnaround from offloading products at the port, to hitting retail store shelves for any company.

Lemondish wrote:



I've never seen somebody so damn committed to being wrong.

Wrong wrong wrong. You can feel free to call it whatever you want, but it doesn't mean we have to listen to nonsense.

Now, let's carry on the discussion as if official rules previews are a thing.

I honestly have not really decided how I feel about the plasma. I'm intrigued to say the least. But at the end of the day the new laser destroyer is pretty cool looking.

But if I can save a ton of points and play these things aggressively alongside dakka Repulsors...then the similar range band for all it's weapons, solid effectiveness against tanks and infantry alike, and transport capacity could make them pretty compelling.

Will definitely try it out.

As long as you're so polite, I won't ask about how often you see a mirror then.

Remember that time Spiderman and Ironman were flying through Queens in Spiderman: Homecoming? What's that you say? It didn't happen in the movie? But Marvel told me it would happen when they released the trailer. I've seen more than a few movie trailers using footage that was cut from the theatrical release. Things change between development and production and release. A rumor started by GW is still a rumor until they put the Datasheet out.

The Macro Plasma vs the Destroyer is pretty minimal. 3.5 shots on average (per turn/activation/halfturn/whatever you want to call the baseline of one round without the double main-gun/turret shots) S9 -4 D2 if you're supporting overcharging through rerolls and techmarine(s) vs 2 S10 -4 3-6 Damage (Average 4 based on how we're instructed to do the rolling) is likely to wash against all but the most niche comparisons. T9/10 targets. To keep the math simple I'm only going to do a couple of broad ranges - On T4/T5 or less - 3.752 wounds per turn (3.5*2*.67*.8) 4.288 (2*(3+3+3+4+5+6=24/6=4)*.67*0.8) On T5/T6-T8/T9 3.14 wounds per turn, 3.5912 for the Destroyer. At T9 and T10 the Destroyer will pull further away, at T11 to T17? it'll be closer again - Does anything have a T17? T18+?. I don't see a whole lot of T9+, but your meta mileage may vary.

Less than half a wound per turn in ideal conditions with zero wounds lost on targets that didn't have enough wounds to absorb the full damage? The long and short of it is, in the extremes, there is a distinct advantage for either main gun. T3 single wound models? Macro Plasma and you don't even want to supercharge. T4 3+ 2W PrimarisMEQ? Macro Plasma and overcharge.T5 2+ GravisMEQ? My gut says Plasma Overcharged? (16% wounding difference vs ~60% shots (and 60% being 1.5) is a pretty thin margin) but the math might surprised me. T9+ 3+ wound models? Destroyer. In between there? Flip a coin, it won't make much difference in a 6 turn game.

Marvel specifically does that to avoid spoilers..
Also, film industry =/= tabletop one.

Its actually quite good for a pure DW army. Supported by 2/3 VanDreads it might help with DWs AT problem

CapRichard wrote:
Marvel specifically does that to avoid spoilers..
Also, film industry =/= tabletop one.

films also by their nature film more then they need and stuff gets cut but used for promotional images. That's not something that you see much of in tabletop gaming,.

CapRichard wrote:
Marvel specifically does that to avoid spoilers..
Also, film industry =/= tabletop one.

Only sometimes. Most of the time it's because you can't release a four hour movie, and something had to get cut.

Also - When was the Dominion of Sigmar released? One of my examples was GW itself, and one was the film industry displaying multiple reasons a leak from a company is not always - in fact - true.

I get you guys are on your high horse over calling it a rumor. I don't get why, but you guys do you. I even get that a GW started rumor is likely to prove true. But it's not guaranteed, and not worth getting any shorts in a twist over said rumor until the datasheet is in your hand and you have a real reason to.

It's not a rumour, it's a reveal. It's very different.

 Stux wrote:
It's not a rumour, it's a reveal. It's very different.

Dictionary.com wrote: rumor/ ˈru mər /PHONETIC RESPELLING
a story or statement in general circulation without confirmation or certainty as to facts:

The confirmation of what the new Repulsor can/will do is the datasheet. GW has said it will do X, Y, and Z. That is a fact. This may change between now and it's actual release. That is also a fact. Ergo, this leak/reveal is neither certain nor confirmed. Making it... a rumor.

Breton wrote:

CapRichard wrote:
Marvel specifically does that to avoid spoilers..
Also, film industry =/= tabletop one.

Only sometimes. Most of the time it's because you can't release a four hour movie, and something had to get cut.

Also - When was the Dominion of Sigmar released? One of my examples was GW itself, and one was the film industry displaying multiple reasons a leak from a company is not always - in fact - true.

I get you guys are on your high horse over calling it a rumor. I don't get why, but you guys do you. I even get that a GW started rumor is likely to prove true. But it's not guaranteed, and not worth getting any shorts in a twist over said rumor until the datasheet is in your hand and you have a real reason to.

People will have the dataslate within a week, some printed and in the box I presume. Are you suggesting that they will go back and change all those printed data slates between now and then from something that was published 2 days ago?

That would be an incredible and even by GW's standards act of incompetence as it would mean the rules printed are incorrect or someone has managed to read them so wrong they have been able to put a whole article together based on their errors and had it approved by others. Surely the actual rules writer has read the article as well and it has got past them or not been pulled down from the site by now?

You are severely clutching at straws now dude... Rather than carrying on the argument, come back on the release day to confirm if you were right or wrong and the rest of us can carry on discussing the rules we know.

endlesswaltz123 wrote:


People will have the dataslate within a week, some printed and in the box I presume. Are you suggesting that they will go back and change all those printed data slates between now and then from something that was published 2 days ago?

That would be an incredible and even by GW's standards act of incompetence as it would mean the rules printed are incorrect or someone has managed to read them so wrong they have been able to put a whole article together based on their errors and had it approved by others. Surely the actual rules writer has read the article as well and it has got past them or not been pulled down from the site by now?

You are severely clutching at straws now dude... Rather than carrying on the argument, come back on the release day to confirm if you were right or wrong and the rest of us can carry on discussing the rules we know.

Do people have one now? Will the dictionary definition of rumor change between today and next week to make me wrong? Is that why we'll have to wait until next week to see if I'm wrong that statements both unconfirmed, and uncertain are rumors? The details can be exactly what the article says they are, and I'm still right. The fact that you just admitted we'll have to come back next week to "see if I'm right" proves. The details are not confirmed, or certain until... Next Week when we have to come back with... a datasheet. I really don't understand what is so difficult about this concept. Rumors can be correct, rumors can be wrong. I didn't say the Repulsor would or wouldn't be different than stated in the article, I said we don't have confirmation of what it will be like. Which you just admitted by saying we have to come back next week.

Breton wrote:

endlesswaltz123 wrote:


People will have the dataslate within a week, some printed and in the box I presume. Are you suggesting that they will go back and change all those printed data slates between now and then from something that was published 2 days ago?

That would be an incredible and even by GW's standards act of incompetence as it would mean the rules printed are incorrect or someone has managed to read them so wrong they have been able to put a whole article together based on their errors and had it approved by others. Surely the actual rules writer has read the article as well and it has got past them or not been pulled down from the site by now?

You are severely clutching at straws now dude... Rather than carrying on the argument, come back on the release day to confirm if you were right or wrong and the rest of us can carry on discussing the rules we know.

Do people have one now? Will the dictionary definition of rumor change between today and next week to make me wrong? Is that why we'll have to wait until next week to see if I'm wrong that statements both unconfirmed, and uncertain are rumors? The details can be exactly what the article says they are, and I'm still right. The fact that you just admitted we'll have to come back next week to "see if I'm right" proves. The details are not confirmed, or certain until... Next Week when we have to come back with... a datasheet. I really don't understand what is so difficult about this concept. Rumors can be correct, rumors can be wrong. I didn't say the Repulsor would or wouldn't be different than stated in the article, I said we don't have confirmation of what it will be like. Which you just admitted by saying we have to come back next week.

Incorrect. We come back next week to see if you are right in terms of all of us are wrong... As it isn't a rumour, it is essentially confirmed rules. In fact I'll go as far as saying the only way they won't be the rules is if they FAQ them day 1. Those are the rules the model will come with.

So let's get back to discussing them as the fact they are.

endlesswaltz123 wrote:


Incorrect. We come back next week to see if you are right in terms of all of us are wrong... As it isn't a rumour, it is essentially confirmed rules. In fact I'll go as far as saying the only way they won't be the rules is if they FAQ them day 1. Those are the rules the model will come with.

So let's get back to discussing them as the fact they are.

The dictionary is incorrect? Or its incorrect to say something is unconfirmed, when you - in the next breath - say it will be confirmed next week.

if they FAQ them day 1

Uncertainty and Unconfirmed status acknowledged.

So let's get back to discussing them as the fact they are

In the Speculation thread.


I really don't understand where I'm losing you. At no time did I say what the rules would or wouldn't be. You keep telling me I'm wrong and those will be the rules, but I never said what the rules would or would not be, so I can't be wrong about that. I said it was just a rumor. That I can be right or wrong about. The Dictionary, and your own insistence that these rules will be confirmed next week when people have - the very thing I already identified as confirmation earlier - datasheets matches up with the dictionary definition of rumor. Where are you getting lost in this?

You can't argue with stupid.

Anyway, the 'confirmed' weapon profiles then. DW are going to get a big boost out of the super las cannon, again I think this could be a slayer of all big nasties for ultramarines with Bobby G in support. Especially is there are two or 3 of them.

The real kicker of it seems to be the support weapons, it looks like it can potentially rival a normal repulsor in terms of anti personal as well. And since it seems most people use three repulsors for firepower as it is, these could totally replace that and then add some wicked AT as well.

Breton wrote:

 Stux wrote:
It's not a rumour, it's a reveal. It's very different.

Dictionary.com wrote: rumor/ ˈru mər /PHONETIC RESPELLING
a story or statement in general circulation without confirmation or certainty as to facts:

The confirmation of what the new Repulsor can/will do is the datasheet. GW has said it will do X, Y, and Z. That is a fact. This may change between now and it's actual release. That is also a fact. Ergo, this leak/reveal is neither certain nor confirmed. Making it... a rumor.

How many model releases have there been where they showed stats then after pre-orders GW goes "haha fooled you the unit is garbage!" that's not good business practice and you're being willfully ignorant

endlesswaltz123 wrote:
You can't argue with stupid.

Anyway, the 'confirmed' weapon profiles then. DW are going to get a big boost out of the super las cannon, again I think this could be a slayer of all big nasties for ultramarines with Bobby G in support. Especially is there are two or 3 of them.

The real kicker of it seems to be the support weapons, it looks like it can potentially rival a normal repulsor in terms of anti personal as well. And since it seems most people use three repulsors for firepower as it is, these could totally replace that and then add some wicked AT as well.

While arguing with you is tedious, given how much you think I said I didn't - I wouldn't call you stupid when I could just chalk it up to enthusiasm and jumping to conclusions

Calgar + a LT will be slightly cheaper than Guilliman, provide rerolls to all failed hits and 1's to wound only falling behind in those rare cases you won't wound on a 2 plus providing two HQ's instead of a LOW for Slot filling.

The math on the two main guns is above. The difference between the two is pretty small, and I hope the price difference is as well. Hypothesizing shared weapon mounts stay the same - i.e. a TLHB can still be a TLLC as well, there's little difference between the two beyond the main gun. You trade two of the mini-turrets (rapid Fire 4, plus a HeaHow many model releases have there been where they showed stats then after pre-orders GW goes "haha fooled you the unit is garbage!" that's not good business practice and you're being willfully ignorant vy 3 Ironhail, for a Heavy 6 Onslaught Gatling.

fraser1191 wrote:How many model releases have there been where they showed stats then after pre-orders GW goes "haha fooled you the unit is garbage!" that's not good business practice and you're being willfully ignorant

How many times did I say any discrepancies between leak and eventual release would be a prank? So far my examples of how things change between production and release have been movies cutting scenes in the trailers for time, and a GW roll-out delayed by geopolitical influences on shipping logistics. Do you fantasize about a lot of geopolitical tension caused logistical pranks when you have to run by UPS or Fed Ex?

Breton wrote:

 Stux wrote:
It's not a rumour, it's a reveal. It's very different.

Dictionary.com wrote: rumor/ ˈru mər /PHONETIC RESPELLING
a story or statement in general circulation without confirmation or certainty as to facts:

The confirmation of what the new Repulsor can/will do is the datasheet. GW has said it will do X, Y, and Z. That is a fact. This may change between now and it's actual release. That is also a fact. Ergo, this leak/reveal is neither certain nor confirmed. Making it... a rumor.

It will not change between now and release, because they will have already sent the booklets in the boxes to print.

It's possible they made a mistake in the article, but that doesn't make it a rumour. It makes it a mistake, just like they could make in the printed codex too.

It is confirmed. It is not a rumour.

I don't like the dollar price hike compared to the regular repulsor, but I think I will be getting one. I have been painting up a Primaris army for a bit now, and it has been really lacking anti-armor. Not to mention I would like to field a couple of vehicles too. Plus, the executioner has does feel like more of a modern-ish tank than anything else the space marines have in plastic.

I plan to deploy as a tank destroyer. I don't have high hopes for it getting much out of it other than as a damage magnet. Which is fine, my opponent has to shoot at something.

As for the weapons, I think there really aren't than many more than modern tanks. It is just that the way the rules work allowing all of them fire makes repulsors a little more points than players want to spend. Only the rear AA gun seems a unnecessary to me as conceptually that is what the pintle mounted stubber would be used for. It would make far more sense as a anti-infantry weapon to prevent rear armor attacks, but that is what the point defense grenades or coaxial should be in my opinion. Otherwise the executioner has the usual tank guns even if they a 40k-ed. It has the main gun, coaxial gun, hull gun, and pintle mounted gun. The anti-infantry grenade point defense like weapon doesn't seem too outlandish either. All-in-all, fairly reasonable armaments for 40k. I think them fair more than side sponson weapons that a many other 40k vehicles have.

To keep points cost down, I would prefer the repulsor line of vehicles had limits on which weapons can be used. I am always a big fan of main gun or the coaxial gun choice which seems like it would work well with the Executioner (not so much with the regular repulsor). I also would have liked to see the grenade launchers as more of an Overwatch only weapon again to keep point costs down. Of course I am looking at these vehicles more as tanks, especially the executioner, and less and transports.

Breton wrote:

 Stux wrote:
It's not a rumour, it's a reveal. It's very different.

Dictionary.com wrote: rumor/ ˈru mər /PHONETIC RESPELLING
a story or statement in general circulation without confirmation or certainty as to facts:

The confirmation of what the new Repulsor can/will do is the datasheet. GW has said it will do X, Y, and Z. That is a fact. This may change between now and it's actual release. That is also a fact. Ergo, this leak/reveal is neither certain nor confirmed. Making it... a rumor.

A whole lot of appeal to definition fallacy going on here.

 Apple Peel wrote:

Breton wrote:

 Stux wrote:
It's not a rumour, it's a reveal. It's very different.

Dictionary.com wrote: rumor/ ˈru mər /PHONETIC RESPELLING
a story or statement in general circulation without confirmation or certainty as to facts:

The confirmation of what the new Repulsor can/will do is the datasheet. GW has said it will do X, Y, and Z. That is a fact. This may change between now and it's actual release. That is also a fact. Ergo, this leak/reveal is neither certain nor confirmed. Making it... a rumor.

A whole lot of appeal to definition fallacy going on here.

I know right, Sem meet antic.


It doesnt really matter anyway, none of this really matters. In the grim darkness of the 42nd millennium there is only war(just not a flame war over which definition defines a specific word)!

Breton wrote:

 Stux wrote:
It's not a rumour, it's a reveal. It's very different.

Dictionary.com wrote: rumor/ ˈru mər /PHONETIC RESPELLING
a story or statement in general circulation without confirmation or certainty as to facts:

The confirmation of what the new Repulsor can/will do is the datasheet. GW has said it will do X, Y, and Z. That is a fact. This may change between now and it's actual release. That is also a fact. Ergo, this leak/reveal is neither certain nor confirmed. Making it... a rumor.

Alright, you've derailed this thread enough. Feel free to go chat about your definition of rumours and what marvel does somewhere else, mate. It's got zero place here.

Now, let's try and get back to the real topic, yeah?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:
I don't like the dollar price hike compared to the regular repulsor, but I think I will be getting one. I have been painting up a Primaris army for a bit now, and it has been really lacking anti-armor. Not to mention I would like to field a couple of vehicles too. Plus, the executioner has does feel like more of a modern-ish tank than anything else the space marines have in plastic.

I plan to deploy as a tank destroyer. I don't have high hopes for it getting much out of it other than as a damage magnet. Which is fine, my opponent has to shoot at something.

As for the weapons, I think there really aren't than many more than modern tanks. It is just that the way the rules work allowing all of them fire makes repulsors a little more points than players want to spend. Only the rear AA gun seems a unnecessary to me as conceptually that is what the pintle mounted stubber would be used for. It would make far more sense as a anti-infantry weapon to prevent rear armor attacks, but that is what the point defense grenades or coaxial should be in my opinion. Otherwise the executioner has the usual tank guns even if they a 40k-ed. It has the main gun, coaxial gun, hull gun, and pintle mounted gun. The anti-infantry grenade point defense like weapon doesn't seem too outlandish either. All-in-all, fairly reasonable armaments for 40k. I think them fair more than side sponson weapons that a many other 40k vehicles have.

To keep points cost down, I would prefer the repulsor line of vehicles had limits on which weapons can be used. I am always a big fan of main gun or the coaxial gun choice which seems like it would work well with the Executioner (not so much with the regular repulsor). I also would have liked to see the grenade launchers as more of an Overwatch only weapon again to keep point costs down. Of course I am looking at these vehicles more as tanks, especially the executioner, and less and transports.

I kind of like what this might mean for the standard Repulsor in general. For many Primaris players the platform stood in for two things - transport and the only source of anti-tank.

Now with suppressors being great for T6 and T7 and Hellblasters always being solid, maybe we don't need the lascannons on normal Repulsors and can run them at like 250 points all dakka.

Wait, a second...is Breton some bizarre twin of BCB?

 Elbows wrote:
Wait, a second...is Breton some bizarre twin of BCB?

I don't find them particularly similar. One relentlessly applies logic, the other simply doesn't seem to understand the definition of a word.

Anywho, we should probably get off this as it's a fast track to a locked thread!

Edit: you know what, not worth it

 Apple Peel wrote:

Breton wrote:

 Stux wrote:
It's not a rumour, it's a reveal. It's very different.

Dictionary.com wrote: rumor/ ˈru mər /PHONETIC RESPELLING
a story or statement in general circulation without confirmation or certainty as to facts:

The confirmation of what the new Repulsor can/will do is the datasheet. GW has said it will do X, Y, and Z. That is a fact. This may change between now and it's actual release. That is also a fact. Ergo, this leak/reveal is neither certain nor confirmed. Making it... a rumor.

A whole lot of appeal to definition fallacy going on here.

A whole lot of fallacy fallacy going on here. When one argues what something is or isn't: the criteria of, the definition of what something is - is relevant. But then, we've also seen straw men, poisoning the well, and ad hom.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lemondish wrote:


Alright, you've derailed this thread enough. Feel free to go chat about your definition of rumours and what marvel does somewhere else, mate. It's got zero place here.

Now, let's try and get back to the real topic, yeah?

I'm not the one calling people stupid for using a word as it's actually defined, and continuing to argue the definition is wrong. I've also been more than happy to provide on topic feedback - see the number crunching of the two main gun options, the comparison of the two vs infantry - when someone isn't calling me stupid for pointing out bits and pieces of information that might not make it into the end product we don't even have yet aren't yet important enough to get shorts in a twist calling this thing a failure or the best thing since sliced bread.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lemondish wrote:


I kind of like what this might mean for the standard Repulsor in general. For many Primaris players the platform stood in for two things - transport and the only source of anti-tank.

Now with suppressors being great for T6 and T7 and Hellblasters always being solid, maybe we don't need the lascannons on normal Repulsors and can run them at like 250 points all dakka.

Suppresors are great for T6 and T7? Outside of price, they're not even good. They're cheaper than plasma inceptors, but Plasma Inceptors are much better. Potentially at least as much better as their cost. Heavy Deep Strike-able Jump Infantry is a little mismatched, while the Plasma Inceptors are Assault Deep Strike-able Jump Infantry. They're also expandable beyond 3- which isn't AS big of a deal in the FA slot as opposed to Heavy Support, but could still matter. Suppressor/Inceptor math - which was more or less even until you got to extremes like T3 1W, or T9/T10 3+W - will begin similar to, but then diverge drastically from Destroyer/Macro Plasma math with more advantages going to the Inceptors/Plasma - Suppressors and Inceptors will have roughly the same shots per activation - though only the Inceptors get to activate/fire twice(being two-gunned). The Inceptors won't get the -1 to shoot the Supressors after moving (and when they do (advancing), the Supressors won't even get to shoot at all) The Inceptors have a significant threshold-crossing Toughness stat advantage.

Inceptors (.67(BS3)*4 (Average D3*2)*.67 (S7/T6)/59 .03 wounds per point (or 1.79) -3 AP per round
Overcharged (.67(BS3)*4(Average D3*2)*.67 (S8/T6) .03 wounding shots that will do 2 wounds if the model has two wounds (or 3.59), and kill the intercessor after two turns without reroll support
Overcharged Yadda Yadda .67 (S8/T7) yadda yadda .03 wounding shots that will do 2 wounds if the model has two wounds , and kill the intercessor after two turns without reroll support
Suppressors (.67(BS3- no move and fire)*2*.67(S7/T6)/35 .026 Wounding shots per round (Or 1.79) -2AP that will do 2 wounds if the model has two wounds.
Suppressors Yadda Yadda *.5 (S7/T7) 0.0128 Yadda Yadda.



At T5 you're talking Gravis/Very Large infatry(or Very small MC's) Landspeeders/DeffKoptas/Bikes and Buggies, etc.
T6 Wraithguard/Wartrakks/light vehicles/MC's
T7 Dreads, Rhino Chassis/medium vehicles/MC's
T8 Heavy LR/Repulsor type Vehicles/MC's

For One Turn, On the T7 Rhino chassis:
the overcharged Intercessor will do 3.598 wounds, 2.998 after 6+ saves
The Suppressor will do .4498 wounds or .3748 after 5+ saves

The Range + moving and firing (both the benefits and drawbacks) have to feed into that value judgement at as well of course. Inceptors have shorter range. But both units can Alpha Strike on the Deep Strike. Inceptors can just do it better, the same way they can move and shoot better. Using Supressors for that Alpha/Deep strike faces two issues. They're stuck at lower model count with a lower fire rate per model. They will have a -1 for moving once terrain interferes with LOS - the primary response to long ranged high strength dakka - because it's usually easier and faster to cut off LOS, than march over and take them out while they shoot at you.

Edit to Add: This is subject to change when/if the Suppressors get their own box with an alternate weapon. With the Autocannon being a hybrid/compromise options I'm not sure what they'll do for an option, they could go High Dakka, or High AT. I wouldn't be surprised to see the High AT being LasTalons. High Dakka might be an Onslaught Gatling Cannon though I'm not sure that's different enough from the Autocannon. Something else entirely new is also possible, while retooling an existing 1.0 weapon platform like Grav, heavy bolters, missile launchers, and the like feels unlikely - even their Autocannon is new - neither the Predator nor CSM autocannons have the same stat line.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
Take some Mortis Contemptors

A las cannon on a Tactical squad is really not ideal in any situation. You'd need 4 squads to bring 4 shots, and that's costing you at minimum more points than a Repulsor and is on a t4 model that is punished for moving.

TO be fair, I really hate it when people tell other people "Go buy some forgeworld models!"

All I see is this:

A FW Contemptor is around €70. That's a little more expensive point for point than what you'd normally get in GW plastic but it's hardly something for the Privileged Few or Pay to Win. For as far as 40k isn't Pay to Win anyway if you're serious about competitive play and you're not in the hobby long enough yet to literally have multiple units of every codex entry of all the armies that you play.

Pandabeer wrote:

A FW Contemptor is around €70. That's a little more expensive point for point than what you'd normally get in GW plastic but it's hardly something for the Privileged Few or Pay to Win. For as far as 40k isn't Pay to Win anyway if you're serious about competitive play and you're not in the hobby long enough yet to literally have multiple units of every codex entry of all the armies that you play.

Two GW Venerable SM Dreads on Ebay are about $70 (about 61.5 Euro right now) - its more than a little more expensive. But you're right about 40K not really being pay to win beyond the fact that you have to pay to get the models for your army whatever models those are. And you're right that a Contemptor isn't really a Privileged Few purchase like a Legio Titanicus Titan Maniple (about 4100 Euro). But it is more pricey, and it is Forgeworld instead of GW Proper which will "feel" like cheating to some.

Breton wrote:

Pandabeer wrote:

A FW Contemptor is around €70. That's a little more expensive point for point than what you'd normally get in GW plastic but it's hardly something for the Privileged Few or Pay to Win. For as far as 40k isn't Pay to Win anyway if you're serious about competitive play and you're not in the hobby long enough yet to literally have multiple units of every codex entry of all the armies that you play.

Two GW Venerable SM Dreads on Ebay are about $70 (about 61.5 Euro right now) - its more than a little more expensive. But you're right about 40K not really being pay to win beyond the fact that you have to pay to get the models for your army whatever models those are. And you're right that a Contemptor isn't really a Privileged Few purchase like a Legio Titanicus Titan Maniple (about 4100 Euro). But it is more pricey, and it is Forgeworld instead of GW Proper which will "feel" like cheating to some.

That's a huge part of the problem with 40k right now that people can equate I bought X or Y cool model with cheating shows a very broken state of the hobby.
Yeah the power of the game is all over the shop both FW and GW but that shouldn't mean someone is a cheat because they have certain models.

Ice_can wrote:

That's a huge part of the problem with 40k right now that people can equate I bought X or Y cool model with cheating shows a very broken state of the hobby.
Yeah the power of the game is all over the shop both FW and GW but that shouldn't mean someone is a cheat because they have certain models.

Meh, I probably should have put cheating in "air quotes" too. Its not Look at my Aura HQ on a Warlord Titan base while I roll my loaded dice coming up 6's cheating. Its the first guy who figured out how magnetize so you don't have to buy two models kind of "cheating" - the kind where there's nothing wrong with it, but I just bought two kits and now I'm kicking myself while already making a shopping list for rare earth magnets. Although to some I supposed it will feel like that kind of cheating for any number of reasons - not realizing how related GW and FW are, not feeling like they have the same access. Feeling like FW is an expansion that's being sprung on them by surprise. When it comes down to it, FW like GW has some clunkers and some gems. Some of the same human nature that gives you soup lists gives you people picking up a FW model at times. (I happen to have a Thunderhawk so I know it's not always the case). And some people will just forever see anything outside of how it's SUPPOSED to be done, however that is, as cheating.

I think a lot of that sentiment stems from previous editions where FW actually was often much more powerful than GW stuff. The feeling is still somewhat strong in some communities though. As you say, these days it's not really any different in power level to standard GW. Sure there's a few units that are well above the curve, but that's true of GW just as much.

The rumour is that FW is moving away from making content for core GW games though, that it's being refocused to concentrate eventually solely on specialist games like HH, Necromunda and Blood Bowl. Even assuming that is true though, we don't know what that means for existing 40k content, and presumably some future HH stuff would still 40k rules.

What does any of this have to do with the Repulsor?

And yes, FW is "cheating" because you are fully allowed to use them, but they should have their own subdivision in ITC. Their rules are MARKEDLY better than anything GW puts out, by a large factor. Comparing ANY dreadnaught GW puts out to the Dreadnaughts FW put out isn't even the same level. FW ones are mini knights, and the GW ones are utter trash. So, yeah.

If you want to win as Custodes, you have to either spam bikes or be the FW guy with Telemons, Aquillons, and Calliduses. There isn't even competition.

So yeah, FW isn't cheating by definition, it's cheating by spirit. You are taking a strong pay to win advantage over any opponent not using their models.