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.

Quite so, let's stay on target please.

Simply put if your going to start labeling things as pay to win, then surely the new repulsive fits squarely into the pay to win box of buy this new expensive primaris model that gets the same broken rules as Astra Militarum.

Having this magical line that GW = not cheating, FW = Pay to Win Cheating is absolutely not an acceptable attitude to have.

By the simple fact that it requires an additional codex and models surely the 32 or 17 are by definition pay to win options by the same measures.

If this thing is as cheap as people are claiming in points with access to rerolls and more rerolls it's going to be just the next round of power creep.

Ice_can wrote:

If this thing is as cheap as people are claiming in points with access to rerolls and more rerolls it's going to be just the next round of power creep.

Two of them with a captain and lt cost the same (assuming 315) as a Castellan and do not outperform it, so I can't see where you get the idea of power creep. Is it just the fashionable thing to say when people don't have a clear picture of the issue at hand?

Seriously, the thing likely costs more than a Landraider, which outperforms it in every respect other than ability to transport Primaris and FLY, both are worth the bump in points.

This model is in NO WAY broken, and anyone who says otherwise is intentionally being argumentative or has never really researched the game. Because this at best is a solid addition to a weak army, and at worst a useless overcosted AT platform that won't see tables that much.

On my side, I would field at least 2 of these, if I played SMs still. My only question is will DW see them? Any word on that?

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
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.

...

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.

Right so there's a huge problem with this post, and that is that you are focusing on one of the best Forgeworld units and not looking at Forgeworld as a whole. Yes, Relic Contemptors are great. Leviathans are very good, and Deredeos are pretty good. Regular marine dreadnoughts are mostly poor. That doesn't mean FW is cheating or pay to win. It means Contemptors are strong and normal Dreadnoughts are not. This really highlights issues with Marines far more so than issues with FW. There's a huge range of power in FW and that is exactly the same as regular GW. You saw a heck of a lot more Castellans in competitive lists than Contemptors.

It is my contention that the mean power in FW is no higher and is indeed probably lower than core GW, and that the peak outliers in FW are generally outperformed by some lists that run no FW at all.

Would a DW Repulsor be an effective tool for dropping a squad of HTH Vets in close range? That would be scary.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Would a DW Repulsor be an effective tool for dropping a squad of HTH Vets in close range? That would be scary.

Don't Repulsors only carry Primaris? If so there's not really a good HtH unit they can transport.

Slipspace wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Would a DW Repulsor be an effective tool for dropping a squad of HTH Vets in close range? That would be scary.

Don't Repulsors only carry Primaris? If so there's not really a good HtH unit they can transport.

Oh jeez, I'm getting my Vet loadouts confused. Thank you. You are right. I somehow melded the Vet's rules with the primaris rules.

What about Repulsors dropping off Reivers at 8", and they all unleashing Vengence rounds, and one tossing the "No overwatch grenade". Followed up by other charges?

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Would a DW Repulsor be an effective tool for dropping a squad of HTH Vets in close range? That would be scary.

Don't Repulsors only carry Primaris? If so there's not really a good HtH unit they can transport.

Oh jeez, I'm getting my Vet loadouts confused. Thank you. You are right. I somehow melded the Vet's rules with the primaris rules.

What about Repulsors dropping off Reivers at 8", and they all unleashing Vengence rounds, and one tossing the "No overwatch grenade". Followed up by other charges?

Assuming you can safely get to 8" away you get to engage in some thoroughly mediocre combat with your overpriced Primaris. You'd be better off dropping Intercessors off at a longer distance, probably in cover, and unloading with them. The real benefit of Repulsor/Executioner transport capacity is the ability to keep expensive but fragile units like Hellblasters off the table for a turn to protect them from shooting. It's not good at delivering units into the enemy's face, because there aren't too many units you'd really want to do that with.

Well, if the capacity rumors are true, 6 bodies max, half for terms, then that doesn't leave a lot for consideration. 6 man intercessor squads, or 6 man hellblasters, or 2 Reiver squads(are they still 3 man?). I think the Reivers can shut down quite a bit, that before they couldn't with their deep strike rules.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Well, if the capacity rumors are true, 6 bodies max, half for terms, then that doesn't leave a lot for consideration. 6 man intercessor squads, or 6 man hellblasters, or 2 Reiver squads(are they still 3 man?). I think the Reivers can shut down quite a bit, that before they couldn't with their deep strike rules.

Or 6 character/ single model units. Freeing up space in the other Repulsors.

So, with the exception of maybe Hellblasters, it looks like Aggressors would be the go-to squad loadouts for these. 2x Repulsors with 3x Aggressors, 1x repulsor W/ 1x captain and 5 Hellblasters.

That's some pretty ugly Dakka, especially if the Aggressors are flamer version, and you get them within 8". Then you are right toast.

I’m thinking the best use for this tank would be to transport troops to an objective whilst sniping another enemy unit elsewhere on the board. At best, it will provide light or pinpoint support for the disembarking troops.

If deepstriking wasn’t so prevalent/encouraged, this and other transports would be a lot more useful.

<EDIT; Thinking about it, deepstriking a unit should cost 3 CP; arriving by transport should cost 1 CP, and stop baking both into the units points - at least, that’s my opinion)>

I agree. DS'ing for non-elite armies should cost something.

Even my Custodes have to pay a tax for FGTC. They could overnight really make transports viable again by making DS'ing less easy.

I really hope this has a high (12) transport capacity.

Looks like those infiltrators are looking good now then. Have the tank on one flank and infiltrators to scramble stuff from dropping within 9"

Wont stop Tau commanders with fusion though which is my biggest problem

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I agree. DS'ing for non-elite armies should cost something.

Even my Custodes have to pay a tax for FGTC. They could overnight really make transports viable again by making DS'ing less easy.

I really hope this has a high (12) transport capacity.

Not that this is the right place for this, but I think any weapon that has AT capability should be considered a heavy weapon and subject to penalties when DS is used for positioning. Maybe you do have a gun that can wreck a landraider, but I garuntee you it's going to be hard to aim and fire when you materialized 50 FT from the enemy.

 Togusa wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I agree. DS'ing for non-elite armies should cost something.

Even my Custodes have to pay a tax for FGTC. They could overnight really make transports viable again by making DS'ing less easy.

I really hope this has a high (12) transport capacity.

Not that this is the right place for this, but I think any weapon that has AT capability should be considered a heavy weapon and subject to penalties when DS is used for positioning. Maybe you do have a gun that can wreck a landraider, but I garuntee you it's going to be hard to aim and fire when you materialized 50 FT from the enemy.

Maybe we've been playing that wrong, but we've always taken the movement penalty on the turn a unit DSes.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
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.

Huh. Not really.

There's like a handful of good things courtesy of FW, and the rest of it basically just accumulates shelf space.


That said, I liked it better when they focused on making new [and sometimes strange] units instead of contemptor dreadnoughts with pre-cast details for every legion, since in some ways new and different units and unit options add something to the game, another legion dreadnought does not.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
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.

Huh. Not really.

There's like a handful of good things courtesy of FW, and the rest of it basically just accumulates shelf space.


That said, I liked it better when they focused on making new [and sometimes strange] units instead of contemptor dreadnoughts with pre-cast details for every legion, since in some ways new and different units and unit options add something to the game, another legion dreadnought does not.

Not to mention, EVERYONE has access to FW. It's not something that only certain people can purchase.

I'll agree that the dude rocking up to your casual gaming table with Bobby G and three Leviathan Dreadnoughts is being a jerk, but so is the guy showing up with a Knight Lance of a Castellan and two Gallants or something.

FW has some good models, and a lot of duds. GW has some good models, and a lot of duds.

So, are we done here? Because I think we are done here.

Thought has just occurred... will standard repulsors get the double shot turret weapon rule? Probably not but I think it should be justified by GW why they do not other than them being not equipped with the optics... It seems a no brained they should also have them

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
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.

Huh. Not really.

There's like a handful of good things courtesy of FW, and the rest of it basically just accumulates shelf space.


That said, I liked it better when they focused on making new [and sometimes strange] units instead of contemptor dreadnoughts with pre-cast details for every legion, since in some ways new and different units and unit options add something to the game, another legion dreadnought does not.

Not to mention, EVERYONE has access to FW. It's not something that only certain people can purchase.

I'll agree that the dude rocking up to your casual gaming table with Bobby G and three Leviathan Dreadnoughts is being a jerk, but so is the guy showing up with a Knight Lance of a Castellan and two Gallants or something.

FW has some good models, and a lot of duds. GW has some good models, and a lot of duds.

Most of the commonly selected and successful units in the last year of tourney results are all plastic GW, beyond the weird Don list for chaos atm there aren't any FW units placing high I can think of.

Apocalypse data sheets are up on the website. Two things of note for the Executioner that almost certainly will carry over to 40k.

1. The pintle mounted heavy stubber is optional, unlike for the Repulsor itself.

2. Transport capacity is 6 (woohoo!)

I'm not sure it's worth trying to glean any kind of insight into the power level comparison, but since wild speculation is so much damn fun let's just dig into it a bit.

The power level of the standard Repulsor equipped with las-talon, stubber, twin heavy bolters, "icarus weapons", and "defensive weapon systems" is 13. Icarus is the anti-air shenanigans and defensive weapon systems are likely to be the stormbolters/fragstorm/krakstorm launchers. A current Repulsor in 40k with this loadout (assuming fragstorms) would be about 270 points.

It can upgrade to the heavy onslaught for +3 power rating and replace the stubber with the onslaught for a +1 power rating, and replace the twin heavy bolters for lascannons for free bringing the power rating to 17 but reflecting a unit just 1 point shy of 300.

In comparison, the Executioner starts with a heavy onslaught, icarus weapons, macro plasma, twin heavy bolter, and defensive weapon systems for 24 power rating.

I certainly hope it isn't that big of a gap in 40k.

The Newman wrote:

 Togusa wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I agree. DS'ing for non-elite armies should cost something.

Even my Custodes have to pay a tax for FGTC. They could overnight really make transports viable again by making DS'ing less easy.

I really hope this has a high (12) transport capacity.

Not that this is the right place for this, but I think any weapon that has AT capability should be considered a heavy weapon and subject to penalties when DS is used for positioning. Maybe you do have a gun that can wreck a landraider, but I garuntee you it's going to be hard to aim and fire when you materialized 50 FT from the enemy.

Maybe we've been playing that wrong, but we've always taken the movement penalty on the turn a unit DSes.

Some AT are Assault or Rapidfire, therefore incurring no penalty. I'm arguing everything should be treated as Heavy when DS occurs.

Lemondish wrote:
Apocalypse data sheets are up on the website. Two things of note for the Executioner that almost certainly will carry over to 40k.

1. The pintle mounted heavy stubber is optional, unlike for the Repulsor itself.

2. Transport capacity is 6 (woohoo!)

I'm not sure it's worth trying to glean any kind of insight into the power level comparison, but since wild speculation is so much damn fun let's just dig into it a bit.

The power level of the standard Repulsor equipped with las-talon, stubber, twin heavy bolters, "icarus weapons", and "defensive weapon systems" is 13. Icarus is the anti-air shenanigans and defensive weapon systems are likely to be the stormbolters/fragstorm/krakstorm launchers. A current Repulsor in 40k with this loadout (assuming fragstorms) would be about 270 points.

It can upgrade to the heavy onslaught for +3 power rating and replace the stubber with the onslaught for a +1 power rating, and replace the twin heavy bolters for lascannons for free bringing the power rating to 17 but reflecting a unit just 1 point shy of 300.

In comparison, the Executioner starts with a heavy onslaught, icarus weapons, macro plasma, twin heavy bolter, and defensive weapon systems for 24 power rating.

I certainly hope it isn't that big of a gap in 40k.

The 24 PL on the Apoc Executioner makes zero sense, and if its even remotely an indication of points costing it'll be beyond DoA in 40k.

Sterling191 wrote:


The 24 PL on the Apoc Executioner makes zero sense, and if its even remotely an indication of points costing it'll be beyond DoA in 40k.

My concern as well. I mean, it puts the Executioner in the same power level range as Knights. I'm hoping that 315 points with the HLD rumour to be true...

drbored wrote:

redboi wrote:
I have zero interest in using repulsors simply because I can't be hassled to fire a dozen slightly different weapon profiles for a single vehicle

This. Even Imperial Knights, fully kitted out, have fewer weapons than the Repulsor. It's such a pain to figure out all the different itty bitty forms of dakka the Repulsor has.

Are the points for apocalypse the same as normal 40k?

Ice_can wrote:
Simply put if your going to start labeling things as pay to win, then surely the new repulsive fits squarely into the pay to win box of buy this new expensive primaris model that gets the same broken rules as Astra Militarum.

Having this magical line that GW = not cheating, FW = Pay to Win Cheating is absolutely not an acceptable attitude to have.

By the simple fact that it requires an additional codex and models surely the 32 or 17 are by definition pay to win options by the same measures.

If this thing is as cheap as people are claiming in points with access to rerolls and more rerolls it's going to be just the next round of power creep.

Tyrannofex, Exocrine, Fire Prism, and Gunwagons also have Grinding Advance-equivalent rules. I'm more surprised than the Hammerhead doesn't have it, but that's presumably because the Riptide has Novacharge to achieve a similar end and they don't care about eh Hammerhead because the Riptide is the new Tau "core" tank.

It seems to be the standard patch for "this unit is your tank".

IMO, it's good that the Executioner has it, but the Predator needs to get it.

As far as the power of this thing vs the regular Repulsor, I sincerely hope it isn't particularly more expensive. Its average damage is a short improvement and it has no more potential, but has to move at half speed to keep output parity [it also has less offensive flexibility, since all 4 shots hit the same thing]. It does have range, but that's it.

Lemondish wrote:

Sterling191 wrote:


The 24 PL on the Apoc Executioner makes zero sense, and if its even remotely an indication of points costing it'll be beyond DoA in 40k.

My concern as well. I mean, it puts the Executioner in the same power level range as Knights. I'm hoping that 315 points with the HLD rumour to be true...

It's not comparable. In 40K a S10 gun means nothing for typically fielded units - it already wounds it wants to hit everything on a 3+. In apoc it wounds vehicles better than a lascannon including knights then you add on double tap. It will be really formidable in that system.

Something that focus fires, rerolls 1s to hit - so 2s rerolling 1s - and then wounds on 4s on a D12 with reroll 1s to wound...is going to hurt a LOT.

I mean a primaris captain is barely different in apoc than a regular captain, but they're the same cost. Comparing the two systems is a fools errand.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Lemondish wrote:

Sterling191 wrote:


The 24 PL on the Apoc Executioner makes zero sense, and if its even remotely an indication of points costing it'll be beyond DoA in 40k.

My concern as well. I mean, it puts the Executioner in the same power level range as Knights. I'm hoping that 315 points with the HLD rumour to be true...

It's not comparable. In 40K a S10 gun means nothing for typically fielded units - it already wounds it wants to hit everything on a 3+. In apoc it wounds vehicles better than a lascannon including knights then you add on double tap. It will be really formidable in that system.

Something that focus fires, rerolls 1s to hit - so 2s rerolling 1s - and then wounds on 4s on a D12 with reroll 1s to wound...is going to hurt a LOT.

I mean a primaris captain is barely different in apoc than a regular captain, but they're the same cost. Comparing the two systems is a fools errand.

Apoc also doesn't have invul saves. So space marine tanks start to look good again.