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.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Lemondish wrote:
Okay, I definitely think the negativity here from Xeno and Martel has been somewhat useful to highlight the unit's weaknesses. Thanks, guys - but we got the message, no need to keep repeating the same things over again

It's not a weakness. If the unit was properly pointed it would still have a weakness against ap-4 multi damage weapons. It's a glaring oversight in rules writing. It is a unit that is supposed to be durable that is not. I can not reiterate this enough. The unit is not durable at all. It's like trying to argue that a space marine is not durable to you people. IT IS NOT. The way the game is played you are just paying points for nothing of value.

Okay, understood - I'm still going to buy it because it looks cool, it fits my list design and how I like to play, my local meta will have trouble handling multiple armoured threats like this, and I'm eager to slap some paint on it. Can we move on now before we just repeat the last page over again? I'm trying not to be rude here but I don't think you're getting the message that you're coming off as a broken record with information that is fundamentally irrelevant - we're still going to seek ways to make it work in a real game. You've said your bit - no need to rehash it over and over again

It's too fat to fit in a deredeo shield, so i see the marine player options as limited. Some tables might have a los blocker that you can fly over on your turn. Other than that, its about how your foe is built.

Bharring wrote:
In what world is losing a Repulsor because you felt it should eat Smites a better idea than losing some Eliminators or Servitors?

I was running numbers for the generic case, but sure, lets get specific. The CWE list had:
-3 CHEs with Starcannons
3xPL: 4 wounds
6xStarCannons: 11 wounds
-3 Razorwings
12xDisintigrators: 4 wounds
3x Missiles: Might get another 2 wounds?
2xSC/SC Serpents + 3xSC/SL Serpents
7xSC: Less than 1 wound
3xSL: Less than 1 wound

Add it all together? I'm counting 23W. Not even close to wiping 2 Repulsors.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
T8 3+ 16W is actually very durable.

Doom comes very close to doubling that damage. It is not in the least bit durable. A wave serpant is almost 4 times as durable per point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
"T8 3+ 16W is actually very durable."

Not for its cost. If it cost 190 points, I'd agree. Russes are durable because of their cheap T8 hulls. At the repulsor price point and wound count, you need more tricks.

Repulsors are ideal smite targets. You need to make your schmoes take the smites.

3 squads of 3 marines cant block 2 repulsors from smites on 3 hemlocks. It's impossible. Plus - protecting Gman is probably of higher concern.

Why would the eldar player need to kill both repulsors. Kill one and one-two preds and then kill the second repulsor turn 2?

I have no idea how that gulliman list deals with GSC. Kellermorph kills both units of eliminators. bikes pop up and demo charge the repulsors to death. Rock saws and abberants kill whatever's left and then guilliman tries to solo an entire army?

I don't think pointing out that this army won a tourney proves that repulsors are fine but it does show they aren't as bad as some of us claim. Again, not trash tier but match-up/opponent dependent.

Either way, if the new tank costs more than the existing repulsor I don't think I could justify buying it much less playing it. Even with a double shooting main gun you'd have to give up so much to squeeze it in your army and it's main gun suffers from the same weakness vs invuln saves as most marine big guns.

If it had a mortal wound mechanic (WAACK!!) or greater ROF (Heavy 8-10, s8, -2 ap, 2d 36" please!!! Let that thing shoot twice if you move less than 5" and we might be talking).

"Again, not trash tier but match-up/opponent dependent. "

Exactly what I said above.

bananathug wrote:

Spoiler:

Why would the eldar player need to kill both repulsors. Kill one and one-two preds and then kill the second repulsor turn 2?

I have no idea how that gulliman list deals with GSC. Kellermorph kills both units of eliminators. bikes pop up and demo charge the repulsors to death. Rock saws and abberants kill whatever's left and then guilliman tries to solo an entire army?

I don't think pointing out that this army won a tourney proves that repulsors are fine but it does show they aren't as bad as some of us claim. Again, not trash tier but match-up/opponent dependent.

Either way, if the new tank costs more than the existing repulsor I don't think I could justify buying it much less playing it. Even with a double shooting main gun you'd have to give up so much to squeeze it in your army and it's main gun suffers from the same weakness vs invuln saves as most marine big guns.

If it had a mortal wound mechanic (WAACK!!) or greater ROF (Heavy 8-10, s8, -2 ap, 2d 36" please!!! Let that thing shoot twice if you move less than 5" and we might be talking).

No the last thing the game needs right now is more race to the bottom with overpowered offence, especially not when it can be gicen re-roll everything aura buffing.

Lemondish wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Lemondish wrote:
Okay, I definitely think the negativity here from Xeno and Martel has been somewhat useful to highlight the unit's weaknesses. Thanks, guys - but we got the message, no need to keep repeating the same things over again

It's not a weakness. If the unit was properly pointed it would still have a weakness against ap-4 multi damage weapons. It's a glaring oversight in rules writing. It is a unit that is supposed to be durable that is not. I can not reiterate this enough. The unit is not durable at all. It's like trying to argue that a space marine is not durable to you people. IT IS NOT. The way the game is played you are just paying points for nothing of value.

Okay, understood - I'm still going to buy it because it looks cool, it fits my list design and how I like to play, my local meta will have trouble handling multiple armoured threats like this, and I'm eager to slap some paint on it. Can we move on now before we just repeat the last page over again? I'm trying not to be rude here but I don't think you're getting the message that you're coming off as a broken record with information that is fundamentally irrelevant - we're still going to seek ways to make it work in a real game. You've said your bit - no need to rehash it over and over again

Happy to discuss it's potential uses. Merely responding to comments about marines winning tournaments and why they doesn't mean a repulsor is actually a good unit. I do think this New destructor repulsor is going to be marginally better than the current repulsor. It actually has a realistically good main weapon with a double shooting d6 plasma str 9 ap -4.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ice_can wrote:

bananathug wrote:

Spoiler:

Why would the eldar player need to kill both repulsors. Kill one and one-two preds and then kill the second repulsor turn 2?

I have no idea how that gulliman list deals with GSC. Kellermorph kills both units of eliminators. bikes pop up and demo charge the repulsors to death. Rock saws and abberants kill whatever's left and then guilliman tries to solo an entire army?

I don't think pointing out that this army won a tourney proves that repulsors are fine but it does show they aren't as bad as some of us claim. Again, not trash tier but match-up/opponent dependent.

Either way, if the new tank costs more than the existing repulsor I don't think I could justify buying it much less playing it. Even with a double shooting main gun you'd have to give up so much to squeeze it in your army and it's main gun suffers from the same weakness vs invuln saves as most marine big guns.

If it had a mortal wound mechanic (WAACK!!) or greater ROF (Heavy 8-10, s8, -2 ap, 2d 36" please!!! Let that thing shoot twice if you move less than 5" and we might be talking).

No the last thing the game needs right now is more race to the bottom with overpowered offence, especially not when it can be gicen re-roll everything aura buffing.

It it only matches the current top units it wont be a problem. A Levi dread does that almost - 20 str 7 ap-2 flat 2 damage. Cost 303 points. I don't autowin games when I play a levi ether. It just gives me a tool to compete with. It has significant draw backs with only 24" range - no ignore movement penalties and being forced to bring 2 useless heavy flamers. It does have a 4++ though and decent wounds. So if an opponent shoots at it - there is a big chance of doing minimal damage. Shooting at a repulsor with something like a Neutron Laser is like....okay - it's dead - just hope it takes 3 neutron lasers and not 2.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Lemondish wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Lemondish wrote:
Okay, I definitely think the negativity here from Xeno and Martel has been somewhat useful to highlight the unit's weaknesses. Thanks, guys - but we got the message, no need to keep repeating the same things over again

It's not a weakness. If the unit was properly pointed it would still have a weakness against ap-4 multi damage weapons. It's a glaring oversight in rules writing. It is a unit that is supposed to be durable that is not. I can not reiterate this enough. The unit is not durable at all. It's like trying to argue that a space marine is not durable to you people. IT IS NOT. The way the game is played you are just paying points for nothing of value.

Okay, understood - I'm still going to buy it because it looks cool, it fits my list design and how I like to play, my local meta will have trouble handling multiple armoured threats like this, and I'm eager to slap some paint on it. Can we move on now before we just repeat the last page over again? I'm trying not to be rude here but I don't think you're getting the message that you're coming off as a broken record with information that is fundamentally irrelevant - we're still going to seek ways to make it work in a real game. You've said your bit - no need to rehash it over and over again

Happy to discuss it's potential uses. Merely responding to comments about marines winning tournaments and why they doesn't mean a repulsor is actually a good unit. I do think this New destructor repulsor is going to be marginally better than the current repulsor. It actually has a realistically good main weapon with a double shooting d6 plasma str 9 ap -4.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ice_can wrote:

bananathug wrote:

Spoiler:

Why would the eldar player need to kill both repulsors. Kill one and one-two preds and then kill the second repulsor turn 2?

I have no idea how that gulliman list deals with GSC. Kellermorph kills both units of eliminators. bikes pop up and demo charge the repulsors to death. Rock saws and abberants kill whatever's left and then guilliman tries to solo an entire army?

I don't think pointing out that this army won a tourney proves that repulsors are fine but it does show they aren't as bad as some of us claim. Again, not trash tier but match-up/opponent dependent.

Either way, if the new tank costs more than the existing repulsor I don't think I could justify buying it much less playing it. Even with a double shooting main gun you'd have to give up so much to squeeze it in your army and it's main gun suffers from the same weakness vs invuln saves as most marine big guns.

If it had a mortal wound mechanic (WAACK!!) or greater ROF (Heavy 8-10, s8, -2 ap, 2d 36" please!!! Let that thing shoot twice if you move less than 5" and we might be talking).

No the last thing the game needs right now is more race to the bottom with overpowered offence, especially not when it can be gicen re-roll everything aura buffing.

It it only matches the current top units it wont be a problem. A Levi dread does that almost - 20 str 7 ap-2 flat 2 damage. Cost 303 points. I don't autowin games when I play a levi ether. It just gives me a tool to compete with. It has significant draw backs with only 24" range - no ignore movement penalties and being forced to bring 2 useless heavy flamers. It does have a 4++ though and decent wounds. So if an opponent shoots at it - there is a big chance of doing minimal damage. Shooting at a repulsor with something like a Neutron Laser is like....okay - it's dead - just hope it takes 3 neutron lasers and not 2.

8 to 10 shots of S8 -2Ap 2d makes marines worse not better as thats a statline that destroys primaris units rediculous well. The leviathan may only be 303 poi nt but your forgetting that it also need a tax unit to be played ok it's heavy support so you were probably taking one anyway but it does limit the amount of them you can cram into a list.

Also your compairing all the shots from a leviathan for 303 vrs a transport that still has how much extra stick on dakka and transport ability to pay points for? Repulsors might not be meta defining but tuning everything to be the next OP won't make a better game.

Transport capacity is worth next to nothing. GW highly overvalues it.

Your argument isn't invalid it's just highly opinionated. You'd rather balance to the middle rather than the top. It makes no difference to me. The units we talk about in the competitive scene are really the only units that we have any data on - it's the easiest way to gauge actual power.

 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.

. Not exactly. The hull is missing the mini turrets over the doors. Chances are you could just as easily pull them, and probably turret swap and be the same with an empty mini turret thing.

I think you could easily manage to convert this model without destroying any models.

Buy a redemptor dread and a regular repulsor. That gives you the one unique weapon to the repulsor destructor plasma or for the super las you could easily convert the mega lascannon out of some legos. They have cylindrical peices that would do really well for the barrel with some green stuff.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Transport capacity is worth next to nothing. GW highly overvalues it.

Your argument isn't invalid it's just highly opinionated. You'd rather balance to the middle rather than the top. It makes no difference to me. The units we talk about in the competitive scene are really the only units that we have any data on - it's the easiest way to gauge actual power.

Maybe I'm not conveying it well, my issue with balancing to the most killy is the most kill everything edition becomes even more hyper aplah strike.
2 or 3 of the stats somepeople want with Gman going first your losing 40-50%of your list to turn 1 alpha strike. No point in even continuing the game outside of the -2 to hit cheese lists.

-2 to hit is not cheese. It's the game working as GW intended. Clearly.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
The problem as I see it is the reliance on the d6 system. If at max odds, your best chance is still almost 20% likely to go off, that is not hard to achieve, especially in armies where you get to roll 30-60 d6. Guard, Daemons, Chaos, Zerg, etc. Yeah, my telemon is hard to take down, but a squad of buffed up bloodletters scare the crap out of it. They can, by sheer dice averages, get enough 6s to just drop the thing in one go.

Now, if we were to go to D10, or d12, ala what Apoc is doing, it makes the entire game MUCH more dynamic. That squad of blood letters likely won't kill my telemon, and they will go after a better target they can actually influence.

Hence, why I see Apoc is going to be 40k 9th ed, and they are moving to a D12. Or did I read that wrong on Bell of Lost souls?

they used to have people grab their dungeons and dragons dice for armor pen, and terminator armor used to be 3+ on 2D6. Going to a D10+ based system would definitely be beneficial with all the new races all being sandwiched on T4 3+

And terminators still sucked.

Martel732 wrote:
And terminators still sucked.

Terminators were awesome in 2nd.

LOL. No. Lists with loyalist terminators were typically tabled by turn 3. CSM terminators on the other hand, were insane.

Martel732 wrote:
LOL. No. Lists with loyalist terminators were typically tabled by turn 3. CSM terminators on the other hand, were insane.

Your lists maybe. I won two tournaments using them.

I don't believe you, and I wasn't using the terminators. I was killing them. They were really, really bad.

It doesn't matter. They are bad now.

Martel732 wrote:
I don't believe you, and I wasn't using the terminators. I was killing them. They were really, really bad.

It doesn't matter. They are bad now.

Believe whatever you want. I'm just posting contrary so that others don't believe you, and to counter your pathological negativity.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Bharring wrote:
In what world is losing a Repulsor because you felt it should eat Smites a better idea than losing some Eliminators or Servitors?

I was running numbers for the generic case, but sure, lets get specific. The CWE list had:
-3 CHEs with Starcannons
3xPL: 4 wounds
6xStarCannons: 11 wounds
-3 Razorwings
12xDisintigrators: 4 wounds
3x Missiles: Might get another 2 wounds?
2xSC/SC Serpents + 3xSC/SL Serpents
7xSC: Less than 1 wound
3xSL: Less than 1 wound

Add it all together? I'm counting 23W. Not even close to wiping 2 Repulsors.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
T8 3+ 16W is actually very durable.

Doom comes very close to doubling that damage.

Without doom: 23W
With doom:
-3 CHEs with Starcannons
3xPL: Doom increases wounds taken on a 4+ by 50%. So that's +2W.
6xStarCannons: Doom increases wounds taken on a 5+ by 66%. So that's roughly +8W
-3 Razorwings
12xDisintigrators: A 5+ so another +2W
3x Missiles: 5+ so another +1W
2xSC/SC Serpents + 3xSC/SL Serpents
7xSC + 3SL: another +1W
Rounding up (significantly) gives us +14W with full rerolls. Only one of the two repulsors can be Doomed, so only half the dakka gets it, making it (liberally) +7W.
Assuming Doom, which is a roughly 40% chance, brings you to *30*W. Still short of killing two Repulsors.
So not only does Doom only increase firepower by ~60% on the target affected - it only increases firepower vs the pair of Repulsors by *30%*.

And that's being very generous with the rounding.

Try running numbers before spouting nonsense. Doom is always less than *double* damage. And more often not in play in this situation.

It is not in the least bit durable. A wave serpant is almost 4 times as durable per point.

Really? Lets see how that works!
Vs Brightlances:
Repulsor: Roughly 9 Brightlance hits to kill it (50% wound average 3.5D/W)
Wave Serpent: Roughly 9 Brightlance hits to kill it (2/3 wound average 2.66D/W)
Roughly the same per model. The Serpent doesn't cost 4x the Repulsor.

Vs Boltguns:
Repulsor: Roughly 288 hits to kill
Serpent: 144 hits to kill
Repusor takes twice as many Boltgun rounds to kill

Lasguns:
Both take 288 hits to kill. Same here.

Plasma Guns (non-OCed)
Repulsor: 72 hits to kill
Serpent: 48 hits to kill
Again, Repulsor is much better off

Plasma Guns (OCed)
This is the weapon Serpents are best at tanking.
Repulsor: 24 hits
Serpent: 36 hits
The Serpent takes 50% more firepower *against the weapons it's best designed to take*

So in a few cases, the Serpent takes 50% more firepower. In a few cases, they're the same. But in most cases, the Repulsor takes much more firepower to put down - even double, in extreme cases!

This "The Serpent takes 4x the firepower to kill per point" argument is another one of those sounds-good-in-your-head arguments that doesn't pan out. I'm sure fully supported, while not paying for the buffs, being shot by OC PGs inside Rapid Fire range, while outside 12" (why does that even come up?), in cover, etc a Serpent takes 4x the firepower to kill than a fully debuffed Repulsor at point blank in the open. But generally, not even close. The Serpent is more durable per point, generally, sure. But not 4x.

Serpent is a LOT cheaper, though. Repulsor problem is costing more than rules.

Martel732 wrote:
Serpent is a LOT cheaper, though. Repulsor problem is costing more than rules.

Both in terms of money and points.

I should hope so. Much less firepower. Worse defensive statline. The Repulsor a the Serpent price point would be OP as gak. The Serpent at the Repulsor price point would never see play.

They should be closer is my point. Repulsor is still way too expensive. For how 8th is played, i think serpent has better defensive tricks.

Maybe closer, but certainly not close. The Repulsor outclasses the Serpent in nearly every way beyond pricepoint; it should certainly cost a lot more. Not as much more as it does today, though.

Theres a lot of numbers between the two costs.

Martel732 wrote:
LOL. No. Lists with loyalist terminators were typically tabled by turn 3. CSM terminators on the other hand, were insane.

especially back then Loyalist and CSM terminators were practically the same. Suggesting loyalist lists were being tabled is probably more about the rest of the list than anything else.

Their weapon options were very different. You'd probably have to see the massacres i guess. Marine lists in 2nd frequently died in 2 turns and sometimes didnt get to move at all bc of chain pulsa rokkit

Bharring wrote:
Maybe closer, but certainly not close. The Repulsor outclasses the Serpent in nearly every way beyond pricepoint; it should certainly cost a lot more. Not as much more as it does today, though.

Cost to power ratio is all that matters. Vs the majority of weapons the WS is More durable it costs well under half. Plus it actually is an effective transport. Flys far with assault weapons so you can actually get things places. It can also carry more unit types and carry more of them. Clearly the Repulsor has more power than a wave serpent so it should cost more...It shouldn't cost anywhere near double though which is about where it sits depending on the build.