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.

Since Tanks have to be kept moving I wonder if its worth it to bother with sponsons. So many armies can get into contact so fast and can easily blow up guard tanks. you almost never get to shoot them.

Plasmas, Heavy bolters have range so can be used from the start but ups the price. Why not save the points and bring in another squad of guys.As long as you keep movin you can fire the turret.

Personally, my answer to that is "no".

If you're bringing AV14, it should be moving forward, throwing it's AV14 around at stuff to protect weaker targets that are advancing. Obviously, this precludes sponson shooting.

If you're sitting still to shoot your sponsons, then you really ought to replace the russ with artillery, which does the same long range shooty support thing better for cheaper.

Yea but even if you move forwards the enemy can still kill the tank. Even if you use troops to block the sides all assaults are resolved on the rear 11 so what can you protect. They'll just burn through you faster. I try to keep my tanks away with troops blocking. Troops are cheaper. I mean I dont like the ease of which guard or any other tanks are assaulted. There is no penaly for rolling 1. Like going under the tread or something.

i wasn't trying to be rude. When I said moving I mean avoiding so its not an auto hit. Your point about the artillery is TRUE but I dont think its a question of my tactics. I think its a real question of why use a tank at ALL if it can be blown away so easy by men on foot. 40k Guard tanks cant do what tanks do. I could see moving up if I could screen the back with troops but it doesnt matter.

Sponsons aren't worth it most of the time.

You want to keep moving to not get a power fist up the tailpipe so can only fire 1 sponson with lumbering behemoth.

Sponsons also have more trouble getting LOS then a turret.

You may have to expose side or rear armor to get shots with sponsons.

Heavy Bolter Sponsons can be bad vs marines because they can allow your opponent to stack the ap2/3 wounds from the battle cannon/plasma executioner main gun.

Plasma sponsons are just too expensive. They add a high cost to an already expensive tank. They can pay for themselves if you kill 1 terminator but if the tank gets blown up early your losing a lot of points. Also if your moving you only get to shoot one so aren't getting your points worth. Leman Russ Executioner with Plasma sponsons costs almost as much as a land raider.

Honestly I think that one is worth it(executioner w/sponsons) maybe 2 of them actually vs marines.

Someone posted Vanquisher w/ Pask and plasma sponsons. That seemed good too(Land Raiders).

But there again why when you can take a Manticore or multiple artillery. The AP thats what I think about. I almost always play marines (and Loose).

My only experience with russes this edition has been with an executioner with plasma sponsons. Whilst line of sight can be an issue bringing all guns to bear. I feel sponsons work if chosen to fit the role of the tank well. With the said build the executioner main gun and sponsons can destroy a fair chunk of elite infantry every turn and stand a great chance of blasting holes in any vehicles. But also as has been said you have viable alternatives this codex edition ( very viable! ) in the form of manticores or artillery batteries. Go with what you feel fits your preference best. At least were not restricted to russes and basilisks for heavy support any more!

Outside of a few select options (the primary one being Executioners w/ plasma) I would say no, they are not worth it.

You have to consider the gun options you get to select as sponsons. Multi-meltas and h. flamers are both close-ranged weapons which require movement, thus denying you the ability to fire to your maximum effectiveness anyway; plasma is a very expensive upgrade that can only really me recommended on the Executioner as it synergises exceptionally well with the main gun; heavy bolters however, may have a place on standard Russes if you wish them to act as an armoured bunker and pound away on light/medium infantry for the entire game.

The main issue with sponsons is that they almost force the tank to remain stationary in order to take advantage of the extra guns that you paid for. This in turn makes it excepetionally vulnerable to assaults by...pretty much anything with krak grenades.

L. Wrex

I find sponsons very worth it. Even when you move, they give you an extra option on the type of weapon you can fire if it's different than the hull weapon. Even if it's the same, you can fire in more directions which allow you to orient your armor facings better without losing firepower. Even if you want to keep moving, the ability to stand still and unleash more firepower is still useful. You want to move to avoid power fists and such, but you aren't always pressed to move. Battle cannons may be great against marines, but i always feel more comfortable in their annihilation when im slinging two plasma cannon shots at a squad too.

You don't "have to keep moving" depending on which tank you are using. A LRBT or even Executioner have adequate range to sit and fire. If you have to move, you can fire just one of the sponsons (so an executioner would fire 4 templates while moving and 5 templates while still).

I find it they (and by they I mean plasma cannons, or heavy bolters on the occasional exterminator) are generally worth it, because without them Russes don't have a lot of firepower compared to artillery.

Plus weapons destroyed don't make it completely useless.
i used a Squadron of demolishers this last weekend w/ plasma sponsons and they were an asset.

If your LR is constantly running away from power fists (Demolisher not included) then you're doing it wrong.

I use my leman russ as base of fire, and now and then I flank around, then sit still the following turn and unleash all guns on an unsuspecting advancing enemies. At one point I caught 5 assault termies (2xLC 3xTH/SS) in the open and ended up wiping the squad with the executioner with lascannon and plasma sponsons. A rightly upgraded executioner is going to cost in excess of 250 points, but as long as it doesnt get in close with anything you have a winner. (That game happened to be my executioners premier game, killed a trygon, 5 assault termies, 5 sternguard, and a razor back)

Point being kill the stuff before it gets to you and you arent going to loose your russ. (deepstrikers not included)

Likewise, I versed a Tyranid horde on a relatively open table a long time ago and a leman russ sitting still with 3x HB do nasty things to hordes, especially ones without mycentic spoors or trygons or mawlocs.

I find the lascannon to be extraneous on the Executioner. 15 more points for just a single BS3 AP2 shot when you already have 5 templates worth seems wasteful.

only bother with hull weapon

if I wanted extra weapons I would probably just get some more guardsmen

Terminus wrote:A LRBT or even Executioner have adequate range to sit and fire... without them Russes don't have a lot of firepower compared to artillery.

Right. If it takes so many more points just to make it equal in firepower to artillery, then why not just buy artillery? Not only would you save a boatload of points, but you'd also get IF which hits side armor and situationally ignores cover.

That's the problem with russes. If you're looking for firepower, artillery is better. Instead, you're spending more points for less firepower in order to get AV14. AV14 should be used, and used aggressively, otherwise artillery is the better option. Aggressive use of AV14 usually precludes it from shooting very much.

That is the reason why the only valid russian with sponsons in normal concepts is the executioner. 5 small blasts are better than any comparative artillery. Also it has 14 front and is therefore rather impenetrable from distance.
Every other heavy tank should stay on the move and shield chimeras.

But normally the artillery gets you the same firepower or more than a russ to lower points costs, yes. But firepower is not everything
Normally I prefer careful repositioning and only a few well placed shots.

Ailaros wrote:

Terminus wrote:A LRBT or even Executioner have adequate range to sit and fire... without them Russes don't have a lot of firepower compared to artillery.

Right. If it takes so many more points just to make it equal in firepower to artillery, then why not just buy artillery? Not only would you save a boatload of points, but you'd also get IF which hits side armor and situationally ignores cover.

That's the problem with russes. If you're looking for firepower, artillery is better. Instead, you're spending more points for less firepower in order to get AV14. AV14 should be used, and used aggressively, otherwise artillery is the better option. Aggressive use of AV14 usually precludes it from shooting very much.

Artillery is not "better" if the Russ is properly equipped (except if we're talking Manticore, it's just plain better). I don't see my choice between firepower and armor as being mutually exclusive. Heavy Support slots are precious, and if I'm going to spend one on a Russ, I'm going to invest the necessary points to make it deadly as well.

Define "aggressive use" of AV14. If you mean pushing it up front to just get in the way and be shot at, then a Demolisher with a hull HF is choice for that sort of thing. Of course, pushing aggressively forward with a Leman Russ almost cancels out the armor advantage. Yes, the rearAV11 helps some against melee, and the AV14/13 helps against meltas if you look at relative risk, but if you consider the absolute risk you're going from "We're all going to die" to "We're all more than likely going to die". It's not a significant enough improvement for me to really value the extra armor in close encounters.

So I've found that the best way to "aggressively" use the AV14 is to make the tank as dangerous as possible, so the opponent can't simply ignore it in favor of more valuable targets. AV14 is at its best when the opponent is forced to deal with it at medium/long range (i.e. no meltas or combat) and through cover. A bunkered-in BT or Executioner bathing you in template death from across the table is far more aggravating than a Demolisher that's rolling right into your arms while not "shooting very much".

I agree Terminus.

Terminus wrote:AV14 is at its best when the opponent is forced to deal with it at medium/long range (i.e. no meltas or combat) and through cover. A bunkered-in BT or Executioner bathing you in template death from across the table is far more aggravating than a Demolisher that's rolling right into your arms while not "shooting very much".

I agree with the majority of your points upto this one. Whlst I agree that a long-range Executioner is very threatening due in part to the sheer volume of templates it throws out, I don't think you can attribute the same qualities to a standard BT, the single large template + BS3 doesn't really guarantee much damage.

You may argue that long-range firepower is aggravating, I have no doubt that it is; however, I use my Demolishers not just for out and out destruction but as a psychological weapon as well as board denial. No-one ever wants to get smashed by a demolisher cannon and most people will stay well out of range of that 24". I use my Demolishers aggressively, and by that I mean I drive at the enemy, forcing hm to either silence the gun or face the consequences. As this is my style of play I would not argue for the inclusion of sponsons, as I won't be firing them due to my desire for manouverability. However, when I expand my army I will include a squadron of BTs with HB sponsons purely to act as armoured bunkers and hose the enemy down with plenty of med-high S firepower.

I guess the original question is a bit too open-ended to answer accurately. If the OP had asked 'What Imperial Guard Tanks should I put sponsons on?' I think the vast majority would rule that BTs and Executioners are the variants that warrant sponsons the most, whilst Demolishers and (heaven forbid) Punishers are the variants that warrant them the least.

L. Wrex

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:I agree with the majority of your points upto this one. Whlst I agree that a long-range Executioner is very threatening due in part to the sheer volume of templates it throws out, I don't think you can attribute the same qualities to a standard BT, the single large template + BS3 doesn't really guarantee much damage.

For the cost of a bare-bones Executioner (throwing out 3 plasma templates) you can purchase a Russ with plasma sponsons (2 plasma templates, 1 battle cannon template). If you have the extra 40 points, certainly go for the pimped out Executioner, but a LRBT configured as a cheap man's Executioner of sorts can be almost as lethal. You can even add a hull lascannon, so you give up some anti-infantry ability, but are better against armor/multiwound T4 and save 25 points. It's not a bad setup at all, and should not be underestimated.

You may argue that long-range firepower is aggravating, I have no doubt that it is; however, I use my Demolishers not just for out and out destruction but as a psychological weapon as well as board denial. No-one ever wants to get smashed by a demolisher cannon and most people will stay well out of range of that 24". I use my Demolishers aggressively, and by that I mean I drive at the enemy, forcing hm to either silence the gun or face the consequences.

As far as psychological ploys go, this one doesn't seem to hold much water. It doesn't take a tactical genius to realize that a Space Marine won't die any harder to a S10 AP2 hit than a S8 AP3 hit (even terminators usually just go down to a 3++), and as you yourself stated, "the single large template + BS3 doesn't really guarantee much damage", so I'm not sure where your opponents' fear of the demolisher cannon is stemming from. I agree with the sentiment of forcing the opponent to silence the gun or face the consequences, but what you're doing here is minimizing the consequences while making silencing the gun as easy as possible.

For example, an Executioner/PlasmaRuss is a serious threat from the first turn. Since it has multiple shots, a single weapon destroyed result doesn't completely neutralize its threat. Since it is more difficult to target with meltas and melee, if your opponent wants to silence it he has to rely on missiles/lascannons/etc, which are unreliable at best against AV14 in cover. So here your opponent is faced with the unenviable choice of dealing with devastating firepower every turn, or trying to kill it against the odds at long range.

The demolisher on the other hand will skip at least one turn of shooting, and when it does get in range, it could very well do nothing with its "single large template + BS3". And on the flip side, silencing the gun is no big trouble either since it will be a lot closer and a single weapon destroyed result (or hell, even an immobilize) turns the 165 point tank into a glorified heavy flamer platform. So now he's free to point those missiles/lascannons at your chimeras and vendettas.

So we have "serious consequences, difficult solution" vs. "minor consequences, easy solution".

Terminus wrote: Heavy Support slots are precious, and if I'm going to spend one on a Russ, I'm going to invest the necessary points to make it deadly as well.

Or you could buy artillery which is already deadly and then invest the points somewhere else...

Terminus wrote:So I've found that the best way to "aggressively" use the AV14 is to make the tank as dangerous as possible, so the opponent can't simply ignore it in favor of more valuable targets.

Right, by aggressively, I was referring to movement.

The problem with this statement is a problem of opportunity cost. Yes, you get something that does damage. Yes, that something is harder to kill. More importantly, though, you're doing LESS damage than if you had spent your points more efficiently on gaining firepower, and over the entire list can actually make your list EASIER to destroy as a whole as you were forced to take fewer chimeras or fewer infantrymen in order to spend on a small amount more firepower.

People don't recommend taking deathstars for a reason. Just because it does a lot of damage and is hard to kill doesnt' actually make it worth the points expenditure.

Well, my older lists used sponson equipped Russes and artillery together, and it worked OK. However, that list was practically a gun line outside of the fast attack choices I took. I think there is no "right" answer to the sponson question; it all depends on your play style and the type of army you are going for.

Terminus wrote:For the cost of a bare-bones Executioner (throwing out 3 plasma templates) you can purchase a Russ with plasma sponsons (2 plasma templates, 1 battle cannon template). If you have the extra 40 points, certainly go for the pimped out Executioner, but a LRBT configured as a cheap man's Executioner of sorts can be almost as lethal. You can even add a hull lascannon, so you give up some anti-infantry ability, but are better against armor/multiwound T4 and save 25 points. It's not a bad setup at all, and should not be underestimated.

Except now your putting a lot of guns and a lot of points onto a single tank. As long as your opponent gets even one *Shaken* result thats one very expensive LOS blocker which, due to its lack of speed, would fiind it quite difficult to re-position or avoid further attention in subsequent shooting/assault phases.

Terminus wrote:As far as psychological ploys go, this one doesn't seem to hold much water. It doesn't take a tactical genius to realize that a Space Marine won't die any harder to a S10 AP2 hit than a S8 AP3 hit (even terminators usually just go down to a 3++), and as you yourself stated, "the single large template + BS3 doesn't really guarantee much damage", so I'm not sure where your opponents' fear of the demolisher cannon is stemming from. I agree with the sentiment of forcing the opponent to silence the gun or face the consequences, but what you're doing here is minimizing the consequences while making silencing the gun as easy as possible.

I disagree. I don't particularly see how driving to a 24" range is silencing the gun 'as easy as possible'. 24" is one hell of a threat bubble; 30" even more so, just ask Vindicators.

At that range it's safe from 2D6 meltas and power fists. It forces the enemy to concentrate their fire upon it. Sure they could ignore it and gun for my plasma CCS/melta Vet Chimera instead, but they'd best be damned sure that they shut it down. Also, I'm not shooting Marines with it! I'm shooting Command Squads, (Nob)Bikers, Tyranid synapse creatures, where the extra two points of S come into much greater play by forcing ID. Also, in the world of mech, S10 is much, much better than S8. You have to be more selective with your targets rather than just throwing templates down left and right. Finally, if it does suffer a weapon destroyed, it can keep pace with my other armour whilst blocking LOS/forcing hull down a lot better than a BT on the backfield.

Terminus wrote:The demolisher on the other hand will skip at least one turn of shooting, and when it does get in range, it could very well do nothing with its "single large template + BS3". And on the flip side, silencing the gun is no big trouble either since it will be a lot closer and a single weapon destroyed result (or hell, even an immobilize) turns the 165 point tank into a glorified heavy flamer platform. So now he's free to point those missiles/lascannons at your chimeras and vendettas.

See the above about a 30" threat range. On a standard table there's very little difference between an 82" range and a 30" range, especially if you consider LOS/terrain/positioning. As soon as I'm within reach I can start lobbing shells or retreating 6" a turn, basically forcing the opponent to deal with an AV14 tank that is now sitting in its midfield throwing S10 all over the place. Whats more, I may be able to lure his meltas into a killing zone as they try and knock the tank out as lascannons vs AV14, as you stated, is nowhere near a certainty.

Terminus wrote:So we have "serious consequences, difficult solution" vs. "minor consequences, easy solution".

I would say 'serious consequences' all-round. Just because I move around with my tanks does not make AV14 any easier to deal with than if it was sat on the backfield all game.

L. Wrex

It really depends on what sponsons you take, vs what enemy you're fighting- heavy bolters will be useful vs orks, but may only kill a marine in the entire battle. I tend to take a LRDM w/ pask and plasma cannons. I mostly play MEQ armies, and it a winning combo.

I always play my tanks in the back surrounded by infantry. Prevents easy assaults, especially from deepstrikers; the rest of thier army has to hoof it to my tanks to end the barrage of at least str8 gunfire. As for artillery, I find it unreliable, and weak against anti tank- a missle launcher will blow holes in a bassie, but even a standard Russ can ignore it fairly easily. Artillery has its place, behind my other AV14 tanks throwing indirect fire at whatever it feels like.

So to sum up, sponsons are worth it if you sit back and pour it on. Artillery does not do it better for cheaper i find, the two classes serve different purposes. If you charge your tanks forward, dont take them. Simple.

liquidjoshi wrote:So to sum up, sponsons are worth it if you sit back and pour it on. Artillery does not do it better for cheaper i find, the two classes serve different purposes. If you charge your tanks forward, dont take them. Simple.

Again, why not? I have moved my tanks aggressively in pretty much every game I've played and they reliably act either as the fire magnet I intend for them, leaving my Vendettas/Chimeras free to wreak havoc, or cannot be shut down before wrecking something important with their S10 blast.

Just because you CAN buy sponsons on a tank doesn't mean you SHOULD. Much like the Vendetta debate, it purely depends upon what you want your tank to do on the table.

Some people like using their Russes as AV14 bunkers to anchor their lines, I like to use mine in an advancing role, lending AV14/hull down to my Chimeras whilst threatening everything with their cannon. Should I just not take a Russ because I move them forward? No, they work perfectly well in the manner that I took them for and in the list that I built to accomodate them.

L. Wrex

liquidjoshi wrote:Artillery does not do it better for cheaper i find

Ah, a little education is in order, then.

Compare a bare LRBT to a bare basilisk.

The bassie costs 25 points less (those points could be spent on weapons upgrades elsewhere), thus making it cheaper straight away.

As for "better", there are two main camps. One of the ways to define "better" is by durability. Yes, AV14 will do better than AV12 out in the open. In cover, it still does better, however it doesn't do MUCH better. For example, take a super lascannon predetor. Against AV14, the pred will do ANYTHING about a sixth of the time it shoots. Against AV12, this rises to about 1 in 3. Yes, the AV14 is twice as good, but in both cases the pred is unlikely to do any damage whatsoever. Furthermore, artillery can hide completely out of LOS, thereby making it infinitely more durable against long range shooting than a russ. Of course, both also get eaten pretty much as hard in close combat.

The other facet of "better" is damage. Compare the battle cannon to the earthshaker cannon. The former has no advantage over the latter. Meanwhile the earthshaker...

- can shoot targets it cannot see
- has +1 S, making it better against vehicles
- hits side armor when firing indirectly
- ignores cover for troops sitting behind cover

Clearly, this means that the basilisk is better in firepower.

Therefore, costing 25 points less, and being slightly less durable, but still being roughly equally as durable, and doing more damage, artillery clearly can be described as "cheaper and better" than russes when it comes to parking in your end zone and shooting stuff.

liquidjoshi wrote:If you charge your tanks forward, dont take them. Simple.

I agree with wrex on this one. If russes are worse at ranged combat, then why would you ever take one?

That has to do with the advantage of AV14 over AV12. This advantage in durability is really only seen in one place - when you're out in the open (note that the better side armor also greatly helps for this). As such, AV14 is good for when you want to have something durable out in the middle of the field.

When would you ever want this? As far as I can tell, the best time for this is when you have a lot of OTHER vehicles also out in the open that have much worse armor. As such, russes would work well with a mechanized list, getting your opponents to throw their AT at your tanks instead of your transports. Of course, if you're transport rushing, that means that the russes are going to have to lumber forward as fast as they can in order to keep up. This, of course, precludes sponson shooting.

If you can think of another reason to have AV14 out in the open that doesn't involve moving it, I guess sponsons might be worthwhile for that role, but as of yet I can't think of one.

Ailaros wrote:

Terminus wrote: Heavy Support slots are precious, and if I'm going to spend one on a Russ, I'm going to invest the necessary points to make it deadly as well.

Or you could buy artillery which is already deadly and then invest the points somewhere else...

The problem with this statement is a problem of opportunity cost. Yes, you get something that does damage. Yes, that something is harder to kill. More importantly, though, you're doing LESS damage than if you had spent your points more efficiently on gaining firepower, and over the entire list can actually make your list EASIER to destroy as a whole as you were forced to take fewer chimeras or fewer infantrymen in order to spend on a small amount more firepower.

You are overstating the points discrepancy. The difference is at most 30 if we're talking about the probably-underpriced Manticore. If we're talking about other artillery pieces, they need to be fielded in pairs to match or exceed the firepower of a plasma Russ, in which case you're actually paying more points than you would even for a sponsoned Executioner. So yes, you could have spent that 30 points towards another chimera, but if your opponent sends even just a handful of missiles or las shots in its direction, the difference quickly becomes moot. Did you expect to get AV14/13 for free?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:Except now your putting a lot of guns and a lot of points onto a single tank. As long as your opponent gets even one *Shaken* result thats one very expensive LOS blocker which, due to its lack of speed, would fiind it quite difficult to re-position or avoid further attention in subsequent shooting/assault phases.

How is a shaken Leman Russ any less mobile than a shaken Demolisher? And how does a Leman Russ in the backfield have more trouble avoiding assault than a Demolisher in the mid-field? And then there's cover making getting that shaken result a lot more difficult in the first place.

At that range it's safe from 2D6 meltas and power fists. It forces the enemy to concentrate their fire upon it.

A squad with a transport has a 26" threat with their meltas. They won't get the extra die, but it's still an AP1 weapon that could very well be firing into your side armor. A squad of IG veterans, for example, has a 30% chance of destroying the turret or the whole tank in that scenario, and that's without orders. Power fists in assault vehicles have a threat range of 20", while Thunderwolves threaten 18+d6", so you have very little room for error. Against lance weaponry, again we have cover making all the difference in the world.

Also, I'm not shooting Marines with it! I'm shooting Command Squads, (Nob)Bikers, Tyranid synapse creatures, where the extra two points of S come into much greater play by forcing ID. Also, in the world of mech, S10 is much, much better than S8. You have to be more selective with your targets rather than just throwing templates down left and right. Finally, if it does suffer a weapon destroyed, it can keep pace with my other armour whilst blocking LOS/forcing hull down a lot better than a BT on the backfield.

Command Squads are T4, Nob Bikers are T4, and with the single exception of the Tyranid Prime, all synapse creatures are T4 or T6. So against those targets, the extra 2 points of S does absolutely nothing, while the plasma cannons contribute additional wounds. I'm surprised you didn't mention Thunderwolves, since then you could have had at least somewhat of an argument.

In the world of mech, S10 is NOT "much, much better than S8". Against Land Raiders, sure, but there are far better ways to deal with Land Raiders. Against pretty much all other vehicles, a S8 and two S7 shots will outperform a single S10. As for blocking LOS

As for your last point, I guess we just have to agree to disagree since we use our heavy tanks very differently. I don't need my heavy tanks to keep pace with my other armor (they'll just get in the way), nor to block LOS (blocked LOS goes both ways). I need them to kill stuff, be scary enough to draw enemy firepower, and perhaps more importantly, be able to survive that firepower. There's very little point in drawing the enemy's attention if it just gets the tank killed.

As soon as I'm within reach I can start lobbing shells or retreating 6" a turn, basically forcing the opponent to deal with an AV14 tank that is now sitting in its midfield throwing S10 all over the place. Whats more, I may be able to lure his meltas into a killing zone as they try and knock the tank out as lascannons vs AV14, as you stated, is nowhere near a certainty.

Again, we'll just have to agree to disagree. You like to "lure" meltas by presenting them their optimal target, while freeing up long-range AT elements to focus on their optimal targets (chimeras/vendettas/artillery). I prefer to have those longfangs (or whatever) bouncing off AV14/4++, while their meltas/powerfists are overkilling AV10 (the latter scenario having the wonderful advantage of clustering their unit for my templates). Maybe it's the Warmachine player in me, but I prefer to maximize my strengths rather than try to shore up my weaknesses.

I would say 'serious consequences' all-round. Just because I move around with my tanks does not make AV14 any easier to deal with than if it was sat on the backfield all game.

Fair enough, but I would consider having more guns and more range to be more serious, and distance and cover to be more difficult to overcome than proximity and no cover. In any case, I'm glad your tactics work for you, the IG codex would be a lot less interesting and these threads a lot less lively if my way was the only way to play it.

I shall try to retort as best I can..

Terminus wrote:How is a shaken Leman Russ any less mobile than a shaken Demolisher? And how does a Leman Russ in the backfield have more trouble avoiding assault than a Demolisher in the mid-field? And then there's cover making getting that shaken result a lot more difficult in the first place.

Your shaken Russ, assuming (as you are) your hull down wiill have to, not only take a DT test, but then forgoe the shooting with its sponsons that you paid points for; points that could have been attributed elsewhere n the army. Whilst I'm not arguing *againist* sponsons, I think that the deciding factor as to whether to spend the points on them or not, comes from how/what variant of LR you choose to field in your list.

Terminus wrote:A squad with a transport has a 26" threat with their meltas.

How? 12"+2"+6"=...20". You may be including the 12"range of the melta-gun, in which case I'd argue: good luck getting that '6' to glance...Something that *may* happen, but you shouldn't be hedgng your bets against it. If they fire from the hatch then that threat range is reduced by 2"or more, dependant upon the army in question.

Terminus wrote:They won't get the extra die, but it's still an AP1 weapon that could very well be firing into your side armor.

You are still under the assumption that I will a) present my side armour to melta-vets and b) suffer a 5-6 on the penetration roll. Both of which are highly unlikely if I even have a modicum of common sense when it comes to the movement phase...

Terminus wrote:A squad of IG veterans, for example, has a 30% chance of destroying the turret or the whole tank in that scenario, and that's without orders. Power fists in assault vehicles have a threat range of 20", while Thunderwolves threaten 18+d6", so you have very little room for error. Against lance weaponry, again we have cover making all the difference in the world.

In which case my Demolidser has either averted your Vets from the 4 ML/HF Chimeras that will now bear down upon that unt, or indeed the HF on the Demolisher itself. Either way, its achieved its goal yes? Thunderwolves I have yet to face, as they are far too timid to enter that 24"radius (what with ID and all...) Lances are...lances...I don't think your 4+ from bubble wrap nor my 4+ from smoke launchers grant any particular advantage to either camp.

Terminus wrote:In the world of mech, S10 is NOT "much, much better than S8". Against Land Raiders, sure, but there are far better ways to deal with Land Raiders. Against pretty much all other vehicles, a S8 and two S7 shots will outperform a single S10.

I disagree. My Demolishers need mere 3s to penetrate your Chimeras, whlst your BTs need at best 5s-6s. Your Executioners' need even more outlandish odds to do any damage (that is not to mention the chance that their blast does not scatter completely and hit at 50% S.) Once more, I do not intend to dissuade people from taking Exectioners, just be certain as to the role they will fulfill in your army.

Terminus wrote:As for your last point, I guess we just have to agree to disagree since we use our heavy tanks very differently. I don't need my heavy tanks to keep pace with my other armor (they'll just get in the way), nor to block LOS (blocked LOS goes both ways). I need them to kill stuff, be scary enough to draw enemy firepower, and perhaps more importantly, be able to survive that firepower. There's very little point in drawing the enemy's attention if it just gets the tank killed.

I think that's our major point of disagreement. I would glady throw an AV14 rather than an AV12 vehicle at a meltagun if it insured that the AV12 (with the aforementioned 30" destrucution range) could tag an enemy Land Raider. 165pts is a fi-ine price to pay for a 250pt Raider (not taking into account the unit inside the transport).

Terminus wrote:Again, we'll just have to agree to disagree. You like to "lure" meltas by presenting them their optimal target, while freeing up long-range AT elements to focus on their optimal targets (chimeras/vendettas/artillery). I prefer to have those longfangs (or whatever) bouncing off AV14/4++, while their meltas/powerfists are overkilling AV10 (the latter scenario having the wonderful advantage of clustering their unit for my templates). Maybe it's the Warmachine player in me, but I prefer to maximize my strengths rather than try to shore up my weaknesses.

Never played Warmachine so can't really construct an arguement based upon their ruleset. Also, I don't mean to be obtuse, but if a 5-man Combat Squad w/ power fist knocks out a Vendetta, I don't care how clustered they are for my templates, I'm still going to be pretty pissed off....and would much rather they make the choice between 'Demolisher vs Vendetta' than 'Vendettas vs nothing I could reliably kill anyway'.

Terminus wrote:Fair enough, but I would consider having more guns and more range to be more serious, and distance and cover to be more difficult to overcome than proximity and no cover.

More guns may indeed provde more threat, but your enemy are making just as much use of that excess of cover as you are. What I am doing is forcing my enemy to come out of his cover (as anything other than 6"melta doesn't stand overwhelming odds vs AV14) and risking his forces to counter merely a single aspect of mine.

L. Wrex

Lycaeus Wrex wrote: Whilst I'm not arguing *againist* sponsons, I think that the deciding factor as to whether to spend the points on them or not, comes from how/what variant of LR you choose to field in your list.

Well of course, we're entirely in agreement on that point. I'm mostly voicing my hate for the Demolisher, because I find their damage output too anemic and their survivability too questionable for their points cost. They are a glorified vindicator, and vindicators suck even more. I hate expensive single-shot models in general.

How? 12"+2"+6"=...20". You may be including the 12"range of the melta-gun, in which case I'd argue: good luck getting that '6' to glance...Something that *may* happen, but you shouldn't be hedgng your bets against it. If they fire from the hatch then that threat range is reduced by 2"or more, dependant upon the army in question. You are still under the assumption that I will a) present my side armour to melta-vets and b) suffer a 5-6 on the penetration roll. Both of which are highly unlikely if I even have a modicum of common sense when it comes to the movement phase.

In which case my Demolisher has either averted your Vets from the 4 ML/HF Chimeras that will now bear down upon that unt, or indeed the HF on the Demolisher itself. Either way, its achieved its goal yes?

A 12" move, a pivot and a 2" disembark makes getting side shots relatively easy. That is to say, if I was threatened by a demolisher in the first place. I would likely just ignore it, or if need be, just drive forward 12" and pop smoke and watch it flail impotently against me, only to die next turn. Anyway, we're getting into real hypothetical stuff here that is difficult to discuss without it turning into an argument of who's got the most wizard armor on, so I'll leave it at that. Maybe we can test our respective philosophies/theories on Vassal sometime.

I will say though that sacrificing a 155-point unit to destroy a 165-point primary target and divert up to 600+ points of additional forces from their original intent seems like a pretty awesome trade. I don't usually use melta-vets to kill light transports anyway, I have vendettas and autocannons (don't you start, Ailaros) for that.

My Demolishers need mere 3s to penetrate your Chimeras, whlst your BTs need at best 5s-6s.

Assuming a 50% hit rate for all weapons, a Demolisher will generate 0.42 pens (and 0.08 glances), whereas the BT with plasma sponsons will generate... 0.42 pens (and .13 glances).

I think that's our major point of disagreement. I would glady throw an AV14 rather than an AV12 vehicle at a meltagun if it insured that the AV12 (with the aforementioned 30" destrucution range) could tag an enemy Land Raider. 165pts is a fi-ine price to pay for a 250pt Raider (not taking into account the unit inside the transport).

Fair enough. I'd rather throw an empty 55-point chimera at that meltagun, use the other chimera (it's not like we have a shortage of them) to tag the Land Raider, and then use the Russ to melt the occupants.

But we're getting into hypotheticals again.

Also, I don't mean to be obtuse, but if a 5-man Combat Squad w/ power fist knocks out a Vendetta, I don't care how clustered they are for my templates, I'm still going to be pretty pissed off....and would much rather they make the choice between 'Demolisher vs Vendetta' than 'Vendettas vs nothing I could reliably kill anyway'.

Not meaning to be obtuse either, I still wonder why you're letting combat squads charge Vendettas, who have plenty of range to avoid such threats and are difficult to tag in melee anyway (~30% chance to get a pen from three power fist attacks).

More guns may indeed provde more threat, but your enemy are making just as much use of that excess of cover as you are.

Of course they are, that's why I need more guns.

What I am doing is forcing my enemy to come out of his cover (as anything other than 6"melta doesn't stand overwhelming odds vs AV14) and risking his forces to counter merely a single aspect of mine.

Rhinos are mobile cover, so you're really not forcing your enemy to do anything they weren't already doing. In any case, if my opponent wants to stick to cover and trade shots with me all game, I'll be their huckleberry. Added bonus if it's one of these oh-so-dreaded razorback spam lists.

I think the right question is: how often do you have a Russ sans main gun sitting there wishing it had sponsons?

This is a timely thread because I am about to build an Eradicator and I couldn't decide which sponson options to include on the tank (or if I should include sponsons at all).

My gut was telling me to have the Eradicator (160 points) with a hull mounted Heavy Bolter (free) and Heavy Bolter sponsons (20 points) which would potentially give me 9 Heavy Bolter shots and 1 cover ignoring Large Blast all at 36 inches.

Is this line of reasoning wrought with folly? 180 points seems like a decent price to pay for so much (potential) damage output. The arguments against sponsons are compelling, but my regular opponent and I typically have rather static battles after turn 2 or 3 so it is common for my tanks not move for a few turns and maximize their fire potential. I am definitely leaning towards the Eradicator with HB sponsons unless someone can point out how utterly silly that would be.

And as an aside, which has no bearing on the thread's topic, I think a Leman Russ looks better with sponsons on it. It is just one guy's opinion but the model does look more intimidating with those boxy protrusions thrusting out of its hull.