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.
That's about the same as 24 wounds. I guess it depends if you like to roll dice or not.
I do like the redemptor, even though it gets some hate. It stumbles around and does its thing for only about 12 points per wound. I care a lot less about T7 no invuln if I'm only paying 12 point per wound. It's great for soaking up mortals.
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.
This analysis is a little miss-leading, as a large chunk of a wave serpents protection is front loaded into its potentially -3 to hit debuff (most of the time -1). Because realistically, its almost always going to be an Alaitoc serpent, and if the user wants it to be durable, its going to be advancing with the upgrade to give it an additional -1, and if they really really want it alive, theyve got their additional -1 strat, and they can buy fnp for the thing, and still keep it in the approximately 50% cost category.
By picking bright lances we are also playing into the repulsors durability in T8, while if we picked something like a lascannon (which is a far more ubiquitous weapon), The wave serpent would also pull further ahead. Ultimately to provide a comprehensive anaylsis of durability vs weapons, we would probabaly have to have a huge sample size of weapons taken from event lists, and weight their relative 'survivability scores' vs the relative number of the weapons youre likely to face. But as we cant, its important to point out that all of the above weapons except the lasgun, favour the repulsors T8, while there are a great many anti vehicle weapons that would treat the wave serpents T7 equally to the Repulsor.
Some great points. I overreached in some cases in my response to some outlandish claims.
LasCannons do, indeed, kill a Repulsor 33% faster than a Serpent.
There's also the meta of Plasma - between Disintigrator Cannons, Starcannons, IoM Plasma, Spears, and Reapers, a great deal of AT currently used is actually S:less than 7 D2 - for which the Repulsor can be twice as vulnerable to. In those cases, the stock Repulsor approaches the 1/4th durability/pt of the stock Serpent (but doesn't quite get there).
While Serpents can be buffed up significantly for durability (>12" and Alaitoc, strat, and Engines upgrade, for instance - but not Conceal/etc), Repulsors can likewise be buffed up significantly for dakka.
My concern is all the FUD that goes on in this thread:
Upthread there's complaints about Doom always doubling the CWE force's firepower (despite only bumping it ~30%, and only doing that *~40%* of the time). In the same matchup, both Repulsors - and the Preds - are effectively doubled: most of their weapons are hitting on a 3+ or 4+ and wounding on a 5+ (shooting at vehicles). A 3+ followed by a 5+ is x2 factor. A 4+ followed by a 5+ is a x2.5 factor. In other words, the CWE's list's dakka is getting buffs bumping their dakka by about 12%, whereas the SM list is getting buffs bumping their dakka by over 100%. And the complaints are that the CWE dakka buffs are OP?
Upthread there's complaints that the Serpent is 4x as durable for the point. As shown above, it's roughly half the cost stock, and roughly as durable (wins some, loses some). It can approach twice as durable (thus hit 4x per point) in it's absolute best case, but not in most cases. The Serpent can be more durable (purchased upgrades, powers, strats, etc), but those have a cost, too.
Upthread there's complaints that the Repulsor should be much closer to the Serpent in price; there's no argument that they're close to eachother in durability per model, but the Serpent is no better a transport, and has only a fraction of the dakka.
TLDR: Yes, the Serpent is better per point. It's a flying brick. But the Repulsor is *much* better per model - so the two shouldn't be anywhere close in points.
(@secretForge - thank you for calling me out on this.)
Again, they should be closer than they are. One of the problems with paying for weapons ala carte is that units like repulsors become extremely fragile per point and simultaneously a huge target.
A Guardsman and a Phantom Titan should be closer to eachother in points. But, like Serpent and Repulsor, should still be nowhere close to eachother.
We might disagree on the magnitude. The repulsor is quite fragile at its current price point.
Honest question:
When you say "fragile" are you talking about the ease at which it can be destroyed, or the fact that it CAN be destroyed in one turn? Because aren't those sort of the same thing?
Further point, if we gave this a 5++, for no points increase, would you then lean more towards this being a good unit, or would you still be opposed? What, if I may, in list form, changes would turn this from a bad unit in your eyes, to a good unit? No restrictions.
The Repulsor is quite easily eliminated by anti tank firepower. Pretty much everyone I have used it against has eliminated it in a turn. I think a berserker list is the exception. In part I blame knights. Everyone has been rocking around with a pile of firepower to eliminate a knight and has been since 7th, and it you can kill a knight, a Repulsor May as well not be there.
And it rarely carries its own weight in firepower for the turn it has to live. I’ve had it die to Eldar, admech, sisters, more admech, deldar, some admech, knights, admech, and guard. An invul won’t save the Repulsor sadly. But it might make three at once a better bet
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.
This analysis is a little miss-leading, as a large chunk of a wave serpents protection is front loaded into its potentially -3 to hit debuff (most of the time -1). Because realistically, its almost always going to be an Alaitoc serpent, and if the user wants it to be durable, its going to be advancing with the upgrade to give it an additional -1, and if they really really want it alive, theyve got their additional -1 strat, and they can buy fnp for the thing, and still keep it in the approximately 50% cost category.
By picking bright lances we are also playing into the repulsors durability in T8, while if we picked something like a lascannon (which is a far more ubiquitous weapon), The wave serpent would also pull further ahead. Ultimately to provide a comprehensive anaylsis of durability vs weapons, we would probabaly have to have a huge sample size of weapons taken from event lists, and weight their relative 'survivability scores' vs the relative number of the weapons youre likely to face. But as we cant, its important to point out that all of the above weapons except the lasgun, favour the repulsors T8, while there are a great many anti vehicle weapons that would treat the wave serpents T7 equally to the Repulsor.
Some great points. I overreached in some cases in my response to some outlandish claims.
LasCannons do, indeed, kill a Repulsor 33% faster than a Serpent.
There's also the meta of Plasma - between Disintigrator Cannons, Starcannons, IoM Plasma, Spears, and Reapers, a great deal of AT currently used is actually S:less than 7 D2 - for which the Repulsor can be twice as vulnerable to. In those cases, the stock Repulsor approaches the 1/4th durability/pt of the stock Serpent (but doesn't quite get there).
While Serpents can be buffed up significantly for durability (>12" and Alaitoc, strat, and Engines upgrade, for instance - but not Conceal/etc), Repulsors can likewise be buffed up significantly for dakka.
My concern is all the FUD that goes on in this thread:
Upthread there's complaints about Doom always doubling the CWE force's firepower (despite only bumping it ~30%, and only doing that *~40%* of the time). In the same matchup, both Repulsors - and the Preds - are effectively doubled: most of their weapons are hitting on a 3+ or 4+ and wounding on a 5+ (shooting at vehicles). A 3+ followed by a 5+ is x2 factor. A 4+ followed by a 5+ is a x2.5 factor. In other words, the CWE's list's dakka is getting buffs bumping their dakka by about 12%, whereas the SM list is getting buffs bumping their dakka by over 100%. And the complaints are that the CWE dakka buffs are OP?
Upthread there's complaints that the Serpent is 4x as durable for the point. As shown above, it's roughly half the cost stock, and roughly as durable (wins some, loses some). It can approach twice as durable (thus hit 4x per point) in it's absolute best case, but not in most cases. The Serpent can be more durable (purchased upgrades, powers, strats, etc), but those have a cost, too.
Upthread there's complaints that the Repulsor should be much closer to the Serpent in price; there's no argument that they're close to eachother in durability per model, but the Serpent is no better a transport, and has only a fraction of the dakka.
TLDR: Yes, the Serpent is better per point. It's a flying brick. But the Repulsor is *much* better per model - so the two shouldn't be anywhere close in points.
(@secretForge - thank you for calling me out on this.)
Again, they should be closer than they are. One of the problems with paying for weapons ala carte is that units like repulsors become extremely fragile per point and simultaneously a huge target.
A Guardsman and a Phantom Titan should be closer to eachother in points. But, like Serpent and Repulsor, should still be nowhere close to eachother.
We might disagree on the magnitude. The repulsor is quite fragile at its current price point.
Honest question:
When you say "fragile" are you talking about the ease at which it can be destroyed, or the fact that it CAN be destroyed in one turn? Because aren't those sort of the same thing?
Further point, if we gave this a 5++, for no points increase, would you then lean more towards this being a good unit, or would you still be opposed? What, if I may, in list form, changes would turn this from a bad unit in your eyes, to a good unit? No restrictions.
The Repulsor is quite easily eliminated by anti tank firepower. Pretty much everyone I have used it against has eliminated it in a turn. I think a berserker list is the exception. In part I blame knights. Everyone has been rocking around with a pile of firepower to eliminate a knight and has been since 7th, and it you can kill a knight, a Repulsor May as well not be there.
And it rarely carries its own weight in firepower for the turn it has to live. I’ve had it die to Eldar, admech, sisters, more admech, deldar, some admech, knights, admech, and guard. An invul won’t save the Repulsor sadly. But it might make three at once a better bet
Great point. The Repulsor is a request to a pre-knights question. Give us a transport for our Primaris! Then Knights came along and prison raped the meta, and GW backlashed by giving everything 3/4++ and super tank deleting weapons.
That should have been answered by "What idiot said Primaris can't hop in a Rhino? Did we stop selling them or something?"
I'd much rather see something like the Repulsor have 24W than a FNP. It might math out the same, but it's a very different feel. And please no more Invulns to represent "This tank is super tanky!". AP is *supposed* to screw stuff like tanks.
Bharring wrote: That should have been answered by "What idiot said Primaris can't hop in a Rhino? Did we stop selling them or something?"
I'd much rather see something like the Repulsor have 24W than a FNP. It might math out the same, but it's a very different feel. And please no more Invulns to represent "This tank is super tanky!". AP is *supposed* to screw stuff like tanks.
Yeah, the invulns being thrown around willy nilly is getting old. Why do grotesques have 4++? Insanity.
Bharring wrote: That should have been answered by "What idiot said Primaris can't hop in a Rhino? Did we stop selling them or something?"
I'd much rather see something like the Repulsor have 24W than a FNP. It might math out the same, but it's a very different feel. And please no more Invulns to represent "This tank is super tanky!". AP is *supposed* to screw stuff like tanks.
Yeah, the invulns being thrown around willy nilly is getting old. Why do grotesques have 4++? Insanity.
Yeah, and not enough weapons ignore them. Like this Heavy Laser Destroyer. It should blast through damn near everything. But WOO! minimum three damage is its claim to fame.
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.
This analysis is a little miss-leading, as a large chunk of a wave serpents protection is front loaded into its potentially -3 to hit debuff (most of the time -1). Because realistically, its almost always going to be an Alaitoc serpent, and if the user wants it to be durable, its going to be advancing with the upgrade to give it an additional -1, and if they really really want it alive, theyve got their additional -1 strat, and they can buy fnp for the thing, and still keep it in the approximately 50% cost category.
By picking bright lances we are also playing into the repulsors durability in T8, while if we picked something like a lascannon (which is a far more ubiquitous weapon), The wave serpent would also pull further ahead. Ultimately to provide a comprehensive anaylsis of durability vs weapons, we would probabaly have to have a huge sample size of weapons taken from event lists, and weight their relative 'survivability scores' vs the relative number of the weapons youre likely to face. But as we cant, its important to point out that all of the above weapons except the lasgun, favour the repulsors T8, while there are a great many anti vehicle weapons that would treat the wave serpents T7 equally to the Repulsor.
Some great points. I overreached in some cases in my response to some outlandish claims.
LasCannons do, indeed, kill a Repulsor 33% faster than a Serpent.
There's also the meta of Plasma - between Disintigrator Cannons, Starcannons, IoM Plasma, Spears, and Reapers, a great deal of AT currently used is actually S:less than 7 D2 - for which the Repulsor can be twice as vulnerable to. In those cases, the stock Repulsor approaches the 1/4th durability/pt of the stock Serpent (but doesn't quite get there).
While Serpents can be buffed up significantly for durability (>12" and Alaitoc, strat, and Engines upgrade, for instance - but not Conceal/etc), Repulsors can likewise be buffed up significantly for dakka.
My concern is all the FUD that goes on in this thread:
Upthread there's complaints about Doom always doubling the CWE force's firepower (despite only bumping it ~30%, and only doing that *~40%* of the time). In the same matchup, both Repulsors - and the Preds - are effectively doubled: most of their weapons are hitting on a 3+ or 4+ and wounding on a 5+ (shooting at vehicles). A 3+ followed by a 5+ is x2 factor. A 4+ followed by a 5+ is a x2.5 factor. In other words, the CWE's list's dakka is getting buffs bumping their dakka by about 12%, whereas the SM list is getting buffs bumping their dakka by over 100%. And the complaints are that the CWE dakka buffs are OP?
Upthread there's complaints that the Serpent is 4x as durable for the point. As shown above, it's roughly half the cost stock, and roughly as durable (wins some, loses some). It can approach twice as durable (thus hit 4x per point) in it's absolute best case, but not in most cases. The Serpent can be more durable (purchased upgrades, powers, strats, etc), but those have a cost, too.
Upthread there's complaints that the Repulsor should be much closer to the Serpent in price; there's no argument that they're close to eachother in durability per model, but the Serpent is no better a transport, and has only a fraction of the dakka.
TLDR: Yes, the Serpent is better per point. It's a flying brick. But the Repulsor is *much* better per model - so the two shouldn't be anywhere close in points.
(@secretForge - thank you for calling me out on this.)
Again, they should be closer than they are. One of the problems with paying for weapons ala carte is that units like repulsors become extremely fragile per point and simultaneously a huge target.
A Guardsman and a Phantom Titan should be closer to eachother in points. But, like Serpent and Repulsor, should still be nowhere close to eachother.
We might disagree on the magnitude. The repulsor is quite fragile at its current price point.
Honest question:
When you say "fragile" are you talking about the ease at which it can be destroyed, or the fact that it CAN be destroyed in one turn? Because aren't those sort of the same thing?
Further point, if we gave this a 5++, for no points increase, would you then lean more towards this being a good unit, or would you still be opposed? What, if I may, in list form, changes would turn this from a bad unit in your eyes, to a good unit? No restrictions.
The Repulsor is quite easily eliminated by anti tank firepower. Pretty much everyone I have used it against has eliminated it in a turn. I think a berserker list is the exception. In part I blame knights. Everyone has been rocking around with a pile of firepower to eliminate a knight and has been since 7th, and it you can kill a knight, a Repulsor May as well not be there.
And it rarely carries its own weight in firepower for the turn it has to live. I’ve had it die to Eldar, admech, sisters, more admech, deldar, some admech, knights, admech, and guard. An invul won’t save the Repulsor sadly. But it might make three at once a better bet
Great point. The Repulsor is a request to a pre-knights question. Give us a transport for our Primaris! Then Knights came along and prison raped the meta, and GW backlashed by giving everything 3/4++ and super tank deleting weapons.
The knight problem predates primaris marines. The consequence of putting super heavies in standard play is everyone upguns their lists (not everyone everyone, if the read on the meta is all hordes and you’re tailoring to it, then You’d struggle to kill a knight but are hoping to not face one).
A unit like the Repulsor simply can’t thrive in a world where super heavies are common. It’ll be too costly until it suddenly isn’t and then everyone takes five. You can’t really justify making it as survivable as a knight, but if it isn’t, it will always be a turn away from death against even casual anti armor firepower, and the only redemption would come in redundancy, which has its own issues as we all saw with the g man Razorback parking lot of early 8th
Martel732 wrote: That's about the same as 24 wounds. I guess it depends if you like to roll dice or not.
I do like the redemptor, even though it gets some hate. It stumbles around and does its thing for only about 12 points per wound. I care a lot less about T7 no invuln if I'm only paying 12 point per wound. It's great for soaking up mortals.
I'd like the Redemptor a lot better if GW would get around to fixing Plasma so it only explodes on a natural one. Having the Redemptor chewing up it's own wounds because the Plasma gun doesn't have enough range to not move and also doesn't hit hard enough to not overcharge it is bad under the best of circumstances, it's suicidal when you're also playing Cities Of Death and everyone in your meta that has a -1 to-be-hit trait uses it. MWing itself on a 4 is crazy.
I like it a lot better with the Heavy Onslaught, but I miss the AP.
I always liked the idea of not telling the opponent what is in the transport.
Are my squad of guys in the Repulsor on the left, the repulsor on the right, or the teleportarium? It should have to be somehow declared before the game starts, but it shouldn't have to be told to your opponent.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/06/28 17:16:33
And be a fantastic way to cheat your way to an advantage.
After all, if you don't have to tell someone what's in your transports nobody can hold you accountable for what eventually disembarks from them. Unless you record it somewhere, then it remains ultimately amorphous to both you and your opponent until the time comes to decide to pile out of it. As such, choose the unit you think is the best for that moment and claim that was what was in there all along. Hardly an upstanding move.
And be a fantastic way to cheat your way to an advantage.
After all, if you don't have to tell someone what's in your transports nobody can hold you accountable for what eventually disembarks from them. Unless you record it somewhere, then it remains ultimately amorphous to both you and your opponent until the time comes to decide to pile out of it. As such, choose the unit you think is the best for that moment and claim that was what was in there all along. Hardly an upstanding move.
Hi, did you see the point where I said you have to declare them somehow before fielding them? I don't know how, but maybe on your list you have to write down where your reserves are?
Point being, this game is all about integrity. I have no fething clue what the stats and rules are regarding GSC, because I don't see them often. But I believe the people I play with because they have integrity. If your argument is that everyone is a liar, you might want to find a new hobby group.
I am totally fine with writing down which units not on the table are where, saying I HAVE them, and placing my list face down on the table. There. Fair.
And be a fantastic way to cheat your way to an advantage.
After all, if you don't have to tell someone what's in your transports nobody can hold you accountable for what eventually disembarks from them. Unless you record it somewhere, then it remains ultimately amorphous to both you and your opponent until the time comes to decide to pile out of it. As such, choose the unit you think is the best for that moment and claim that was what was in there all along. Hardly an upstanding move.
You could do it with counters with a hidden side or something. It wouldn't be that hard.
Sure, it would be possible to cheat. But that's true of a bunch of things in the game already, and outside of a tournament if someone wants to cheat that badly then they clearly need a win more than I do!
Hi, did you see the point where I said you have to declare them somehow before fielding them? I don't know how, but maybe on your list you have to write down where your reserves are?
No, sorry - I didn't understand what you were saying because right now you do 100% declare that when you deploy. Otherwise you have to deploy the unit on the board or declare it will be in reserves for deep strike. Not really sure what the point of the discussion is though so I'd say we leave that there and get back to the speculation on the Repulsor because we have a potential leak...
Take with a grain of salt because 290 would be pretty good and even though I expect a 6 July pdf like the initial Intercessor launch describing the use in other chapters, the point about the other astartes armies still seems a bit awkward.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/06/28 17:57:10
Bharring wrote: That should have been answered by "What idiot said Primaris can't hop in a Rhino? Did we stop selling them or something?"
I'd much rather see something like the Repulsor have 24W than a FNP. It might math out the same, but it's a very different feel. And please no more Invulns to represent "This tank is super tanky!". AP is *supposed* to screw stuff like tanks.
Yeah, the invulns being thrown around willy nilly is getting old. Why do grotesques have 4++? Insanity.
Yeah, and not enough weapons ignore them. Like this Heavy Laser Destroyer. It should blast through damn near everything. But WOO! minimum three damage is its claim to fame.
Absolutely. More weapons should ignore invun saves. Some armor types should only get saves against low AP weapons (like a protoss immortal).
The more diversity of targets there are the more people are forced to bring balanced lists. Right now you spam invune saves and ap-2 ROF and multi damage weapons and you have such a huge advantage it's not funny. Invul saves are literally my least favorite part of the game. Which is why I am excited for Apoc.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/06/28 18:11:44
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
Hi, did you see the point where I said you have to declare them somehow before fielding them? I don't know how, but maybe on your list you have to write down where your reserves are?
No, sorry - I didn't understand what you were saying because right now you do 100% declare that when you deploy. Otherwise you have to deploy the unit on the board or declare it will be in reserves for deep strike. Not really sure what the point of the discussion is though so I'd say we leave that there and get back to the speculation on the Repulsor because we have a potential leak...
Take with a grain of salt because 290 would be pretty good and even though I expect a 6 July pdf like the initial Intercessor launch describing the use in other chapters, the point about the other astartes armies still seems a bit awkward.
About 50 points overcosted is about standard for a marine unit. Maybe the Plasma will be cheaper than the las?
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
You are in flat denial about the value of things. Compare it to a plasma commander. 187 points
You get
2d6str 8 ap-3 flat 2 damage
2d3 str 8 ap-3 flat 2 damage
A heavy bolter
Plus a storm bolter.
You get tank orders.
So what does the repulsor get? for roughly 100 more points?
Pros
Fly Keyword
slightly better plasma
15 str 5ap-1
6 ap-1 str 4 shots
4 str 4 ap0 shots -
2 str 6 ap-1 d3 shots
+4 wounds
Transport 6 units
Cons
-2 2d3 plasma shots
No tank orders
No army traits
Summary - you trade about 25 chaff shots for 2 plasma cannons and gain fly keyword and some transport and 4 wounds. Maybe a 50-60 points increase (being generous) not even close to 100.
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
Because you say it isn't - automatically means it's in a decent spot. Rule #732 of Dakka - if Martel complains heavily about something by repeating the same complaint across at least 4 pages of a thread, then the unit is pretty close to being viable, therefore for 90% of the game's players it'll be fine. I mean, it's a marine unit, so by even going with marines you've already thrown efficiency out in favour of model preference or things you think are cool. Maybe it's this concept you can't reconcile which makes you so salty I kid
I mean, you don't complain about lost causes, you complain the most about units that are right there on the edge, and you never, ever stop.
Thus, surely it's in a good spot.
Rule #733 is that Xeno will jump on the bandwagon in the most condescending way possible
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/06/28 18:46:25
You are in flat denial about the value of things. Compare it to a plasma commander. 187 points
You get
2d6str 8 ap-3 flat 2 damage
2d3 str 8 ap-3 flat 2 damage
A heavy bolter
Plus a storm bolter.
You get tank orders.
So what does the repulsor get? for roughly 100 more points?
Pros
Fly Keyword
slightly better plasma
15 str 5ap-1
6 ap-1 str 4 shots
4 str 4 ap0 shots -
2 str 6 ap-1 d3 shots
+4 wounds
Transport 6 units
Cons
-2 2d3 plasma shots
No tank orders
No army traits
Summary - you trade about 25 chaff shots for 2 plasma cannons and gain fly keyword and some transport and 4 wounds. Maybe a 50-60 points increase (being generous) not even close to 100.
25 chaff shots *and Fly* should be only 50-60 points?
SC Serpents get 9 chaff shots (and fly). And you complain about *their* dakka.
The Bajillion "chaff shots" and the Fly keyword are quite valuable, imo. Particularly that Fly Keyword.
At the moment it looks very close to a flying Landraider with more AT capability, and way more defensive-fire capability. That's why less-than-a-Land-Raider seems very good.
Because you say it isn't - automatically means it's in a decent spot. Rule #732 of Dakka - if Martel complains heavily about something by repeating the same complaint across at least 4 pages of a thread, then the unit is pretty close to being viable, therefore for 90% of the game's players it'll be fine. I mean, it's a marine unit, so by even going with marines you've already thrown efficiency out in favour of model preference or things you think are cool. Maybe it's this concept you can't reconcile which makes you so salty I kid
I mean, you don't complain about lost causes, you complain the most about units that are right there on the edge, and you never, ever stop.
Thus, surely it's in a good spot.
Rule #733 is that Xeno will jump on the bandwagon in the most condescending way possible
Cute, but incorrect. 18 pts/w is too high for the way 8th plays currently.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/06/28 18:56:48
5250 pts
3850 pts
2500 pts 
I kid 
