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.
You need to transport them, or deploy them out of line of sight.
I've used them in my most recent games without much problems. In a smaller game I was able to hide them and advance them. In bigger games I deploy them in a Repulsor.
If you can't hide an infantry unit in the early turns of the game you are playing with vastly insufficient terrain, I'm afraid.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/06/26 15:46:45
I've faced both. They're both moderately challenging in their own ways. Aggressors do not like suppressors. I can tell you that.
Repulsors are still pretty expensive per wound with no invuln. The castellan nerf helps, but still plenty of incidental ap out there. For their cost, repulsors needed 20+ wounds. Also, rolling instadeath for expensive ass marine units is no fun, either.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/06/26 16:33:53
Stormonu wrote: Modelwise, this is just a change to the turret, correct? Asking as I’m not in the mood to buy a whole new model just for a turret swap.
There's a whole new upper hull panel.
Guardsmen, hear me! Cadia may lie in ruin, but her proud people do not! For each brother and sister who gave their lives to Him as martyrs, we will reap a vengeance fiftyfold! Cadia may be no more, but will never be forgotten; our foes shall tremble in fear at the name, for their doom shall come from the barrels of Cadian guns, fired by Cadian hands! Forward, for vengeance and retribution, in His name and the names of our fallen comrades!
Look, I'm not going to lie, Ishagu has made a very valid point that keeps getting ignored. Diversify your offense, and your lack of invuln saves become less of a glaring issue.
If my opponent wants to waste a turn blowing up a 300pt target, let him. Meanwhile my DSers are in his backfield turn 2, or my gun line has wiped his off the board, or my custodes are in melee range of his juicy big guns, or any number of other plans are bearing fruit.
Oh well, one attack was blunted, big deal. Where are your other 1500ish points?
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Look, I'm not going to lie, Ishagu has made a very valid point that keeps getting ignored. Diversify your offense, and your lack of invuln saves become less of a glaring issue.
If my opponent wants to waste a turn blowing up a 300pt target, let him. Meanwhile my DSers are in his backfield turn 2, or my gun line has wiped his off the board, or my custodes are in melee range of his juicy big guns, or any number of other plans are bearing fruit.
Oh well, one attack was blunted, big deal. Where are your other 1500ish points?
Other armies do this better than marines, though. Anything you can think to do, so can a better codex. Also, other armies stuff has a chance of living due to invuln (IK), a cheaper cost per wound (IG), so they don't CARE if they die, or worse, a combination of both. (Drukhari)
He's pointing out an OBVIOUS tactic, which the repulsor actually leans AWAY from. Even if all I do is torch a 300+ point tank, and force death rolls for the contents, I'm still on track to cripple your army. Most lists can remove 16 T8 wounds with no invuln pretty consistently with less than 100% of their shooting, too.
How does losing your repulsor help your deep strikers? If you've got deep strikers people care about, they'll just hold anti-DS formation until you have to commit. Marine gunlines likely will not knock out an entire enemy gunline in one go. Maybe your custodes BIKES are close, but not foot Custodes. Losing a 300 pt tank to a fraction of enemy fire IS a big deal.
Marines struggle to diversify because of their cost. Lack of invuln will always be an issue, because your opponent is always getting full value from AP they purchase.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/06/26 18:33:47
You say most "lists" can take out a repulsor in one turn. Without going through 100% of their shooting. Well, ofcourse, that's a whole list.
What I'm saying is if you dedicate your entire list to shooting one target in a single turn, you have severely hurt yourself.
Lets do this by the numbers. Lets use Drukari:
What lists are there that one turn 1 can eliminate two of these, and have shooting left over? Because I don't know why you are spending all your effort wiping out 1-2 tanks when there are far more valuable targets.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: You say most "lists" can take out a repulsor in one turn. Without going through 100% of their shooting. Well, ofcourse, that's a whole list.
What I'm saying is if you dedicate your entire list to shooting one target in a single turn, you have severely hurt yourself.
Lets do this by the numbers. Lets use Drukari:
What lists are there that one turn 1 can eliminate two of these, and have shooting left over? Because I don't know why you are spending all your effort wiping out 1-2 tanks when there are far more valuable targets.
Both of my tau and Knight's lists could do that on avarage dice I'd say. Also at that point your down 600+ points and what is your return AT coming from?
I hate to admit it but simply put 2 commander russes certainly seem a better investment of points than 1 of these.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: You say most "lists" can take out a repulsor in one turn. Without going through 100% of their shooting. Well, ofcourse, that's a whole list.
What I'm saying is if you dedicate your entire list to shooting one target in a single turn, you have severely hurt yourself.
Lets do this by the numbers. Lets use Drukari:
What lists are there that one turn 1 can eliminate two of these, and have shooting left over? Because I don't know why you are spending all your effort wiping out 1-2 tanks when there are far more valuable targets.
Are there? Repulsors are pretty damn valuable. I don't have to kill two turn one. Just one. Then fire the little guns at your infiltrators. Yes, some lists will struggle and have to get closer, which is in the favor of the marine player. CA did help the repulsor quite a bit, but giving full AP value to your foes sucks on such an expensive model.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: You say most "lists" can take out a repulsor in one turn. Without going through 100% of their shooting. Well, ofcourse, that's a whole list.
What I'm saying is if you dedicate your entire list to shooting one target in a single turn, you have severely hurt yourself.
Lets do this by the numbers. Lets use Drukari:
What lists are there that one turn 1 can eliminate two of these, and have shooting left over? Because I don't know why you are spending all your effort wiping out 1-2 tanks when there are far more valuable targets.
Both of my tau and Knight's lists could do that on avarage dice I'd say. Also at that point your down 600+ points and what is your return AT coming from?
I hate to admit it but simply put 2 commander russes certainly seem a better investment of points than 1 of these.
2 command russes is WAY better than a repulsor.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/06/26 18:51:05
Martel732 wrote:I've faced both. They're both moderately challenging in their own ways. Aggressors do not like suppressors. I can tell you that.
I haven't yet faced any Suppressors on the table, but now that you mention it that does look like a pretty great counter. Thanks for sharing the insight!
Martel732 wrote:Repulsors are still pretty expensive per wound with no invuln. The castellan nerf helps, but still plenty of incidental ap out there. For their cost, repulsors needed 20+ wounds. Also, rolling instadeath for expensive ass marine units is no fun, either.
Sure, but they have a lot more in common with the majority of armoured units in this game than they do with the
Stormonu wrote:Modelwise, this is just a change to the turret, correct? Asking as I’m not in the mood to buy a whole new model just for a turret swap.
There's a whole new top panel to hold the turret that also removes the storm bolters over the doors (and relocates them to the back of the turret). It might be possible to just swap the turret, but we won't know for sure until we get it in our hands. In any case, it does not look like the sprue will be sold separately given we've already seen the order and pricing information for all items going up on the 29th.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:Look, I'm not going to lie, Ishagu has made a very valid point that keeps getting ignored. Diversify your offense, and your lack of invuln saves become less of a glaring issue.
If my opponent wants to waste a turn blowing up a 300pt target, let him. Meanwhile my DSers are in his backfield turn 2, or my gun line has wiped his off the board, or my custodes are in melee range of his juicy big guns, or any number of other plans are bearing fruit.
Oh well, one attack was blunted, big deal. Where are your other 1500ish points?
Well put. Regarding the first point, there's a fun, beautiful off-meta Primaris list I've been following for a little while that is built on threat overload of armoured units. The core is 3 Repulsors and 2 Redemptors. On their own, Redemptors tend to be a bit too squishy to reliably make it where they really belong - punching and smashing things with that str 14 (!!!) fist. But even though the Repulsor is considered 'bad' when compared to a unit like an Imperial Knight, you still can't really allow it to fire on you for multiple turns. They still hurt, which means you might choose to prioritize them over other armoured threats, thus removing one of the biggest weaknesses of the Redemptor: it's relative lack of durability. Redundancy can mean numbers sometimes.
As for your second point, regarding the poster on the previous page who was having trouble keeping his Eliminators alive...if your opponent really wants to focus a 72 point unit so heavily, I'd say let them. In fact, maybe bring a second so they feel the need to split fire and spend far more energy focusing them over something else. The key is to make sure you have an answer somewhere else in your list to handle the job your Eliminators are there for. Which means that redundancy doesn't always have to mean numbers - it can also mean building in the capability to do the same job or handle the same threats, even if its in a completely different way.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: You say most "lists" can take out a repulsor in one turn. Without going through 100% of their shooting. Well, ofcourse, that's a whole list.
What I'm saying is if you dedicate your entire list to shooting one target in a single turn, you have severely hurt yourself.
Lets do this by the numbers. Lets use Drukari:
What lists are there that one turn 1 can eliminate two of these, and have shooting left over? Because I don't know why you are spending all your effort wiping out 1-2 tanks when there are far more valuable targets.
Both of my tau and Knight's lists could do that on avarage dice I'd say. Also at that point your down 600+ points and what is your return AT coming from?
I hate to admit it but simply put 2 commander russes certainly seem a better investment of points than 1 of these.
Yeah, just my Plasma Devs would average 27.3 wounds on a Repulsor target. It doesn't take anywhere near a whole list to knock something like that out. In my experience the big vehicle targets just don't tank hits without an invuln.
Land Raiders in cover could almost tank effectively if it werent for a few AP-4 and above weapons. They dont quite put up enough return fire though.
Are there? Repulsors are pretty damn valuable. I don't have to kill two turn one. Just one. Then fire the little guns at your infiltrators. Yes, some lists will struggle and have to get closer, which is in the favor of the marine player. CA did help the repulsor quite a bit, but giving full AP value to your foes sucks on such an expensive model.
Kind of gets a bit into the weeds, but the worst thing to happen to heavy, elite armoured units is the inclusion of invulnerable saves. The Repulsor doesn't need an invuln save. Putting Invuln saves on elite armoured units was a mistake from the beginning, but it continues to be the knob GW prefers to tweak to make these elite units more durable. I think that's a crying shame. What should be happening is that those weapons with high AP and high damage should be the exact tools you use to fight any vehicle, elite or otherwise. Lascannons and their ilk should be the weapons that kill units like Repulsors, but all an invuln does is shift the preferred and efficient weapons to things like Plasma or autocannons, or even boatloads of mid-str D1 shooting.
A better way to make these units more durable is a FNP or additional wounds. If instead of 16 T8 wounds, you had to eat through 24 (pie in the sky never going to happen suggestion just for illustrative purposes) you'd be disinclined to try and chew through it with attrition fire or plasma. You'd need actual high damage weaponry to do the job, and it will likewise survive longer than it does now even against those. You've achieved the aim of making it last longer without making the concept of the meltagun or the lascannon fundamentally worthless. Some units like Knights kind of need the invuln - the Repulsor doesn't have to be one of them.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Look, I'm not going to lie, Ishagu has made a very valid point that keeps getting ignored. Diversify your offense, and your lack of invuln saves become less of a glaring issue.
If my opponent wants to waste a turn blowing up a 300pt target, let him. Meanwhile my DSers are in his backfield turn 2, or my gun line has wiped his off the board, or my custodes are in melee range of his juicy big guns, or any number of other plans are bearing fruit.
Oh well, one attack was blunted, big deal. Where are your other 1500ish points?
yeah, this pretty much sums it up.
Why on earth would you present a target that screams SHOOT ME & not have other targets that should also need to be shot at? Just like Landsraider you need more than one. Or deploy using more of the natural cover to gain the -1 to hit(obscured) & +1 to the save(hard cover). The list that will present the most varied threats at the most optimal ranges will make your enemy shoot at what you want them not & not the other way around. I think sometimes players get stuck into a specific mode of playing and no longer notice/adapt to the the enemy's positioning, threat range, etc... More than once I've been watching my buddies playing and figured out both of their battle plans, then comment to other friend whose watching and say Steve will do X, y, a & Johnny will do C, G, & R. If you use game tactics you may win but if you use actual military tactics you should win(dice/luck dependent)
I always liked the idea of actually needed certain strength weapon or AP 3 and up to even do damage to a heavy armored vehicle. There is no earthly reason that a lasrifle can take down a titan.
Are there? Repulsors are pretty damn valuable. I don't have to kill two turn one. Just one. Then fire the little guns at your infiltrators. Yes, some lists will struggle and have to get closer, which is in the favor of the marine player. CA did help the repulsor quite a bit, but giving full AP value to your foes sucks on such an expensive model.
Kind of gets a bit into the weeds, but the worst thing to happen to heavy, elite armoured units is the inclusion of invulnerable saves. The Repulsor doesn't need an invuln save. Putting Invuln saves on elite armoured units was a mistake from the beginning, but it continues to be the knob GW prefers to tweak to make these elite units more durable. I think that's a crying shame. What should be happening is that those weapons with high AP and high damage should be the exact tools you use to fight any vehicle, elite or otherwise. Lascannons and their ilk should be the weapons that kill units like Repulsors, but all an invuln does is shift the preferred and efficient weapons to things like Plasma or autocannons, or even boatloads of mid-str D1 shooting.
A better way to make these units more durable is a FNP or additional wounds. If instead of 16 T8 wounds, you had to eat through 24 (pie in the sky never going to happen suggestion just for illustrative purposes) you'd be disinclined to try and chew through it with attrition fire or plasma. You'd need actual high damage weaponry to do the job, and it will likewise survive longer than it does now even against those. You've achieved the aim of making it last longer without making the concept of the meltagun or the lascannon fundamentally worthless. Some units like Knights kind of need the invuln - the Repulsor doesn't have to be one of them.
I agree, but pandora's box is open. The reality is that bringing high ap is a huge risk.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I always liked the idea of actually needed certain strength weapon or AP 3 and up to even do damage to a heavy armored vehicle. There is no earthly reason that a lasrifle can take down a titan.
Not this silly argument again. You realise it takes an average of over 6,000 Lasgun shots from Guardsmen to down a Warlord Titan right?
That is for all practical purposes an immunity to being killed by Lasguns.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Look, I'm not going to lie, Ishagu has made a very valid point that keeps getting ignored. Diversify your offense, and your lack of invuln saves become less of a glaring issue.
If my opponent wants to waste a turn blowing up a 300pt target, let him. Meanwhile my DSers are in his backfield turn 2, or my gun line has wiped his off the board, or my custodes are in melee range of his juicy big guns, or any number of other plans are bearing fruit.
Oh well, one attack was blunted, big deal. Where are your other 1500ish points?
yeah, this pretty much sums it up.
Why on earth would you present a target that screams SHOOT ME & not have other targets that should also need to be shot at? Just like Landsraider you need more than one. Or deploy using more of the natural cover to gain the -1 to hit(obscured) & +1 to the save(hard cover). The list that will present the most varied threats at the most optimal ranges will make your enemy shoot at what you want them not & not the other way around. I think sometimes players get stuck into a specific mode of playing and no longer notice/adapt to the the enemy's positioning, threat range, etc... More than once I've been watching my buddies playing and figured out both of their battle plans, then comment to other friend whose watching and say Steve will do X, y, a & Johnny will do C, G, & R. If you use game tactics you may win but if you use actual military tactics you should win(dice/luck dependent)
This doesnt work well vs good players with good target priority. One of the strengths of shooting is that the shooting list chooses what dies. As opposed to assault where your opponent chooses.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I always liked the idea of actually needed certain strength weapon or AP 3 and up to even do damage to a heavy armored vehicle. There is no earthly reason that a lasrifle can take down a titan.
Not this silly argument again. You realise it takes an average of over 6,000 Lasgun shots from Guardsmen to down a Warlord Titan right?
That is for all practical purposes an immunity to being killed by Lasguns.
True, although I do think there's something to the spirit of the argument. Personally I am not against a hard limit for being able to wound something. When I was looking at potential ways for Tyranids to take out a Castellan, one of the most effective alpha strikes was a single unit of Temagants with Devourers, which - when firing twice, could put 6-7 wounds on it. That was both fun and a little irksome.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I always liked the idea of actually needed certain strength weapon or AP 3 and up to even do damage to a heavy armored vehicle. There is no earthly reason that a lasrifle can take down a titan.
Not this silly argument again. You realise it takes an average of over 6,000 Lasgun shots from Guardsmen to down a Warlord Titan right?
That is for all practical purposes an immunity to being killed by Lasguns.
True, although I do think there's something to the spirit of the argument. Personally I am not against a hard limit for being able to wound something. When I was looking at potential ways for Tyranids to take out a Castellan, one of the most effective alpha strikes was a single unit of Temagants with Devourers, which - when firing twice, could put 6-7 wounds on it. That was both fun and a little irksome.
Both ends of the spectrum leave something to be desired - it’s annoying when you’re otherwise out of antitank weapons and the enemy is now immune to your units, but at the same time it’s annoying that a lasgun does more than chip the paint on a vehicle or Titan. Scale creep in 40K has caused this issue, and there’s just no good answer - though the upcoming Apocalypse Rules May help alleviate some of the issues.
As an aside, I watched a 2K point game between Eldar and Primaris yesterday, and the Repulsor in that game survived a 1st round beating to return fire (and drop the Wraithknight to 1/2 wounds). While the Eldar player *could* have dropped the Repulsor in one go, that would have been nearly 1.5K - 2K points shooting at it, and I don’t expect much of anything would have survived that sort of onslaught. Likewise, focusing fire on it would have left a lot of other dangerous units free to cause havoc on the enemy army. I think, overall, it will be fine to bring to most games, and with the laser destroyers will pump out some impressive firepower that can’t be ignored.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/06/26 21:31:19
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I always liked the idea of actually needed certain strength weapon or AP 3 and up to even do damage to a heavy armored vehicle. There is no earthly reason that a lasrifle can take down a titan.
Not this silly argument again. You realise it takes an average of over 6,000 Lasgun shots from Guardsmen to down a Warlord Titan right?
That is for all practical purposes an immunity to being killed by Lasguns.
True, although I do think there's something to the spirit of the argument. Personally I am not against a hard limit for being able to wound something. When I was looking at potential ways for Tyranids to take out a Castellan, one of the most effective alpha strikes was a single unit of Temagants with Devourers, which - when firing twice, could put 6-7 wounds on it. That was both fun and a little irksome.
Both ends of the spectrum leave something to be desired - it’s annoying when you’re otherwise out of antitank weapons and the enemy is now immune to your units, but at the same time it’s annoying that a lasgun does more than chip the paint on a vehicle or Titan. Scale creep in 40K has caused this issue, and there’s just no good answer - though the upcoming Apocalypse Rules May help alleviate some of the issues.
As an aside, I watched a 2K point game between Eldar and Primaris yesterday, and the Repulsor in that game survived a 1st round beating to return fire (and drop the Wraithknight to 1/2 wounds). While the Eldar player *could* have dropped the Repulsor in one go, that would have been nearly 1.5K - 2K points shooting at it, and I don’t expect much of anything would have survived that sort of onslaught. Likewise, focusing fire on it would have left a lot of other dangerous units free to cause havoc on the enemy army. I think, overall, it will be fine to bring to most games, and with the laser destroyers will pump out some impressive firepower that can’t be ignored.
You know, I don't think it has to do with the scale of the game. I think it actually has more to do with the lack of unit restrictions in army building. If you're capable of bringing a huge skew list of all knights, you really want to make sure that the other army can hurt them. Thus, every weapon can be effective to at least some degree.
Ishagu wrote: If you find the same unit in your list is always destroyed on turn 1, then your list or deployments are not balanced and you're making your opponent's choices for him.
You need to present multiple threats, maybe units that are cheaper but in more pressing positions that can soak up attention, or multiple units that draw attention.
Also, you need more redundancy. You can't expect anything to change if you make no changes.
Not really sure that is the case here. I have to set them up in range to shoot and their best round is heavy so -1 to hit if they move. Pretty much have to set them up in the line of fire within 36 inches. So everything in their army that hurts them can likely shoot them. It's just if your opponent has things like shadowseers or farseers that are core to their army - they have to kill them. At least with a transport I could protect them turn 1 and still take the best positions. It still likely wont make this repulsor destructor that great for it's points though. The mega plasma seems to be quite good though when it shoots twice. Will probably be best to take the cheapest load out. Forgo taking extra bolters and triple stubber as well with twin HB. So you'd be putting out decent anti tank and infantry at 30-36".
9 str 4 ap-1
18 str 5ap-1
2d6str 9 ap-4 falt 2 damage
In the Gman bubble that will do a lot of damage and way cheaper than a big hellblaster squad. Tiggy will make it -1 to hit and t9 if we get to go first.
Really not great units to put in there though. Maybe a 3 man Agressor that you advance with - will give you a basically a 9 inch move with a d6 advance - can probably get into a nice position and shoot turn 1 with like 28ish bolter shots.
Or you could put 6 eliminators in there. You can even use the +2 to hit round with ignore cover and try to snipe tau drones or something.
Outside of those 2 options there really isn't anything great for them to hold.
The other thing...compared to a levithan dread which costs like 303 (likely less than the repulsor) It just doesn't compete I dont think. The levi has a 4++ with a 2+ and only 2 less wounds. It is about twice as survivable and does comparable damage (probably better in a lot of cases where AP and str doesn't mater so much)
IMO this tank with the discribed set up needs to cost in the 240-260 range to be competitive with the levi. Taking both is kinda meh also because you can only really buff 1 tanks durability with tiggy.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: You say most "lists" can take out a repulsor in one turn. Without going through 100% of their shooting. Well, ofcourse, that's a whole list.
What I'm saying is if you dedicate your entire list to shooting one target in a single turn, you have severely hurt yourself.
Lets do this by the numbers. Lets use Drukari:
What lists are there that one turn 1 can eliminate two of these, and have shooting left over? Because I don't know why you are spending all your effort wiping out 1-2 tanks when there are far more valuable targets.
Both of my tau and Knight's lists could do that on avarage dice I'd say. Also at that point your down 600+ points and what is your return AT coming from?
I hate to admit it but simply put 2 commander russes certainly seem a better investment of points than 1 of these.
Yeah, just my Plasma Devs would average 27.3 wounds on a Repulsor target. It doesn't take anywhere near a whole list to knock something like that out. In my experience the big vehicle targets just don't tank hits without an invuln.
Land Raiders in cover could almost tank effectively if it werent for a few AP-4 and above weapons. They dont quite put up enough return fire though.
I think your math is off a bit there unless you are talking 3 squads. Assuming 10 shots with the cherub. You average about 8-9 hits with rerolls and wound about 5 times with reroll 1's. Plus he still gets a 6+ so probably averages about 8 damage. It still a lot but far from 1 shooting it. Ironically the double shooting plasma will average about the same damage because it wounds on 3's and is ap-4.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I always liked the idea of actually needed certain strength weapon or AP 3 and up to even do damage to a heavy armored vehicle. There is no earthly reason that a lasrifle can take down a titan.
Not this silly argument again. You realise it takes an average of over 6,000 Lasgun shots from Guardsmen to down a Warlord Titan right?
That is for all practical purposes an immunity to being killed by Lasguns.
True, although I do think there's something to the spirit of the argument. Personally I am not against a hard limit for being able to wound something. When I was looking at potential ways for Tyranids to take out a Castellan, one of the most effective alpha strikes was a single unit of Temagants with Devourers, which - when firing twice, could put 6-7 wounds on it. That was both fun and a little irksome.
Both ends of the spectrum leave something to be desired - it’s annoying when you’re otherwise out of antitank weapons and the enemy is now immune to your units, but at the same time it’s annoying that a lasgun does more than chip the paint on a vehicle or Titan. Scale creep in 40K has caused this issue, and there’s just no good answer - though the upcoming Apocalypse Rules May help alleviate some of the issues.
As an aside, I watched a 2K point game between Eldar and Primaris yesterday, and the Repulsor in that game survived a 1st round beating to return fire (and drop the Wraithknight to 1/2 wounds). While the Eldar player *could* have dropped the Repulsor in one go, that would have been nearly 1.5K - 2K points shooting at it, and I don’t expect much of anything would have survived that sort of onslaught. Likewise, focusing fire on it would have left a lot of other dangerous units free to cause havoc on the enemy army. I think, overall, it will be fine to bring to most games, and with the laser destroyers will pump out some impressive firepower that can’t be ignored.
Eh. Repuslors die really quick to eldar. If it's doomed - it's dying so freaking fast. I can't even play my repulsors for this reason now. Basically because it has no invun save it is very unable vs just about any army that brings guns.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/06/27 00:16:30
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
2019/06/27 01:40:52
Subject: Re:Speculation on the Repulsor Executioner.
IMHO the biggest issue is that blast weapons are better then concentrated damage weapons.
1D6 attacks 1 damage is intended to be a weapon you use to clear infantry, but it's straight up better then 1 attack 1d6 damage, which is clearly INTENDED to be your heavy punch weapons, GW needs to fix that IMHO
Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: You say most "lists" can take out a repulsor in one turn. Without going through 100% of their shooting. Well, ofcourse, that's a whole list.
What I'm saying is if you dedicate your entire list to shooting one target in a single turn, you have severely hurt yourself.
Lets do this by the numbers. Lets use Drukari:
What lists are there that one turn 1 can eliminate two of these, and have shooting left over? Because I don't know why you are spending all your effort wiping out 1-2 tanks when there are far more valuable targets.
Both of my tau and Knight's lists could do that on avarage dice I'd say. Also at that point your down 600+ points and what is your return AT coming from?
I hate to admit it but simply put 2 commander russes certainly seem a better investment of points than 1 of these.
Yeah, just my Plasma Devs would average 27.3 wounds on a Repulsor target. It doesn't take anywhere near a whole list to knock something like that out. In my experience the big vehicle targets just don't tank hits without an invuln.
Land Raiders in cover could almost tank effectively if it werent for a few AP-4 and above weapons. They dont quite put up enough return fire though.
I think your math is off a bit there unless you are talking 3 squads. Assuming 10 shots with the cherub. You average about 8-9 hits with rerolls and wound about 5 times with reroll 1's. Plus he still gets a 6+ so probably averages about 8 damage. It still a lot but far from 1 shooting it. Ironically the double shooting plasma will average about the same damage because it wounds on 3's and is ap-4.
3 squads, Cherubs, Chapter Master + Lt. Rerolls.
Point is that it hardly takes an army to take one down. 8 Lascannons on a BS3+ platform with the same rerolls average 16 wounds.
Haha, Terminus Ultra.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BrianDavion wrote: IMHO the biggest issue is that blast weapons are better then concentrated damage weapons.
1D6 attacks 1 damage is intended to be a weapon you use to clear infantry, but it's straight up better then 1 attack 1d6 damage, which is clearly INTENDED to be your heavy punch weapons, GW needs to fix that IMHO
All else being equal (S and AP) it doesn't matter where the D6 is in the equation. A D6 shot 1D Lascannon is as effective as a 1 shot D6D Lascannon.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/06/27 02:35:21
Point is that it hardly takes an army to take one down. 8 Lascannons on a BS3+ platform with the same rerolls average 16 wounds.
thaty's 387 points of devestators, assuming you don't run with ANY Abalative wounds (assuming you run with 5 abalative wounds in each squad thats another 195 points) meanwhile a repulsor clocks in at what 290?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/06/27 03:32:01
Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two
2019/06/27 04:08:55
Subject: Re:Speculation on the Repulsor Executioner.
Point is that it hardly takes an army to take one down. 8 Lascannons on a BS3+ platform with the same rerolls average 16 wounds.
thaty's 387 points of devestators, assuming you don't run with ANY Abalative wounds (assuming you run with 5 abalative wounds in each squad thats another 195 points) meanwhile a repulsor clocks in at what 290?
Cheap dakka Repulsors (which I think we might see a bit more of for Primaris forces) can come in at just over 250.
2019/06/27 05:01:12
Subject: Re:Speculation on the Repulsor Executioner.
BrianDavion wrote: IMHO the biggest issue is that blast weapons are better then concentrated damage weapons.
1D6 attacks 1 damage is intended to be a weapon you use to clear infantry, but it's straight up better then 1 attack 1d6 damage, which is clearly INTENDED to be your heavy punch weapons, GW needs to fix that IMHO
Well, that assumes they have the same strength and AP. I think the problem is that because tanks are T7, and sometimes T8, and infantry and infantry-killers are between S4 and S7 with sometimes good AP, high RoF, low damage weapons can wound tanks reliably and efficiently.
I would imagine that a weapon dealing multiple shots at AT-gun grade strength would represent an artillery piece or other high-caliber high-explosive shell [like a Demolisher Cannon], which are certainly at good as most AT guns at wrecking tanks.
I think the big loss of this edition is the failure to fully exploit the potential of the uncapped S and T scales. Also, the making of tanks T7.
Guardsmen, hear me! Cadia may lie in ruin, but her proud people do not! For each brother and sister who gave their lives to Him as martyrs, we will reap a vengeance fiftyfold! Cadia may be no more, but will never be forgotten; our foes shall tremble in fear at the name, for their doom shall come from the barrels of Cadian guns, fired by Cadian hands! Forward, for vengeance and retribution, in His name and the names of our fallen comrades!
