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.

@DarkHound

Spot on. But:

why do you think 400p in lasguns is better than 400p in punisher tanks?

Dont forget that lasguns fire subsequently and may be out of 12" and out of range because they need much space, and that they can be locked and so on.

72 lasguns and 8 laspistols (8 infantry squads) will probably kill 6-7 Marines a turn (assuming they all get 12" range and fire in one volley...), thats about the same result.

Darkhound is dropping truth bombs all over this thread. Well done.

-Nazdreg- wrote:why do you think 400p in lasguns is better than 400p in punisher tanks?

I would say that it's because they can't be shaken or stunned, are scoring, and can be ordered to FRF/SRF and really put a hurting on infantry in ways that the Punisher can only dream about.

Did I miss anything?

I would say that it's because they can't be shaken or stunned, are scoring, and can be ordered to FRF/SRF and really put a hurting on infantry in ways that the Punisher can only dream about.

Did I miss anything?

well, shaken/stunned = locked in combat

and I said, 400p lasguns kill 6-7 marines (in a vacuum assumption of over 70 guns being in 12" to target). 2 punishers do the same.

so if we go FRFSRF we could have the correct assumption with some out of range, some in 12", some without the order (most of the time you cannot order 70 lasguns FRFSRF ).

And if you count orders, you should add a ccs to the points which will reduce the amount of lasguns.

Ah and dont forget terrain and LOS issues with so many guys...

I think in fact they are all about the same, but the punishers have the punishment coming from one spot with the drawback of being a non scoring unit and being easier to kill up close.

+1 to Darkhound

QFT

Darkhound, the thing I dispute about your entire analysis is the amount of models under a large blast. You're saying your average is 3 under a large blast.
I don't know to which extent you face conga lines all over the board, but in the game's I've played, units in cover are going to be bunched up. Units in the open are generally going to be more spaced, but I've still never had trouble getting 5+ under a large blast.

Note: My calculations now are assuming the 50% hit rate for templates you calculated. I'm using the formula of ((2 Punisher's firing on Meq)/((50%)(Chance to Wound)(Saves)))/Number of shots) to determine how many models need to be under the template to match the 2 punishers.

DarkHound wrote:
What else competes? Artillery: the Manticore is prime contender I suppose, so we'll start there. 2 Manticores fire an average of 4 templates a turn. If you're getting LoS to a model, you can still subtract your BS despite firing indirectly so their accuracy is still 50%. You can usually get 3 models under a single template, but say there's a favorable scatter in there. (3x4)/2 and I'll give you 1 for grins and giggles and you've got 7 hits. You'll drop 1.19 on your roll to wound, leaving you with 5.81 wounds (and you can't cause allocation because they're firing separately). After the armor saves, your two Manticores kill 1.92 Marines, which are guaranteed to be joes. You kill half as many Marines a turn, and you're worse off against Terminators and GEQs.

I'd say that the Manticore's focus is anti Vehicle and horde, not Meq killing, but sure.
It requires 8 models under its templates to get the same results. Unlikely, but against a horde of orks, those numbers are going to come out different
Conclusion: Using the Manticore for Meq control is not the best idea

DarkHound wrote:
3 Basilisks? 5 hits, 4.15 wounds, 2.07 kills. Even if they don't get cover, the Punishers beat them. Three Colossi gets 4.15 wounds to the Punisher's 5, and cost 60 points more.

I'm not sure what happened here with the bassies, but I think you dropped a couple of hits. Shouldn't that be 9?
Anyway, in the open, a trio of Basilisks require 3.56 hits each. I don't find that too unlikely, especially with ordnance barrage rules, since any hits you roll on the 2nd and 3rd shot significantly increase your accuracy.
In cover, that number rises up to 7.11 required. Pretty high. Then again, I have yet to see a marine squad in cover that's spaced out sufficiently to avoid a large blast. Also, indirect fire reduces the likelihood of even having to deal with cover saves in the first place.

2 Collossi require 5.33 hits to match 2 Punishers. 3 Collossi require 3.56. That's not at all unreasonable to me, and seems like a much better bet than relying on the punisher.

DarkHound wrote:
Special weapons squads? Demo-charges? How do you intend to get one into range?

Plasma Guns give it a run for it's money, perhaps?

DarkHound wrote:
You know what I'm dieing to compare it to? Two Executioners with sponsons. Say you're lucky and can get 2 models under the template. That's 10 templates, times two then divided by two, means you've got 10 hits. You'll lose nearly two to wound (8.3 left), then cover comes in and you kill 4.15 while costing 440 points to the Punisher's 360.

8.3 kills . . . and you're still arguing the Punisher is better? Why are you shooting at marines in cover in the first place?

DarkHound wrote:
Are you going to argue range? What deployment puts you more than 30" away from the enemy? Dawn of War, and that pretty much hamstrings all the contenders.

It's not that you won't be in range, it's the fact that a rear armor 11 vehicle within 24" of the enemy is going to get toasted pretty soon, no matter how much you bubblewrap it. And if you're already bubblewrapping, might as well use a useful tank and leave infantry killing to the blob around the tank.

DarkHound wrote:
Nothing competes with the Punisher pound for pound against infantry, except its weight in Guardsmen (which are the most cost effective infantry killers in game, I might add).

Nothing competes with the Punisher against extremly spread out Meq in cover. Against normally spread out meq's in cover, 2 Collosi will do just fine.

Irdiumstern wrote:Darkhound, the thing I dispute about your entire analysis is the amount of models under a large blast. You're saying your average is 3 under a large blast.
I don't know to which extent you face conga lines all over the board, but in the game's I've played, units in cover are going to be bunched up. Units in the open are generally going to be more spaced, but I've still never had trouble getting 5+ under a large blast.

Note: My calculations now are assuming the 50% hit rate for templates you calculated. I'm using the formula of ((2 Punisher's firing on Meq)/((50%)(Chance to Wound)(Saves)))/Number of shots) to determine how many models need to be under the template to match the 2 punishers.

Can you walk us through the formula? Maybe I'm stupid, but I can't get it to work.

Now, to your contention of my template estimates; if a Marine player sees 3 Colossi or Basilisks, hell even a couple of Executioners, he is going to be careful. Any MEQ player I know takes the extra minute to space his troops in the presence of pie plates from space. The only time you get more than 5 models under a template is when Guardsmen fall out the back of a Chimera. Otherwise, even disembarking from a Rhino, you can spread the Marines across all the access points. I can't think of a situation where the rules keep a player from neutering blast templates by spacing out his models.

I'll let the above stand as a rebuttal to your calculations regarding artillery.

DarkHound wrote:Special weapons squads? Demo-charges? How do you intend to get one into range?

Plasma Guns give it a run for it's money, perhaps?

DarkHound wrote:You know what I'm dieing to compare it to? Two Executioners with sponsons. Say you're lucky and can get 2 models under the template. That's 10 templates, times two then divided by two, means you've got 10 hits. You'll lose nearly two to wound (8.3 left), then cover comes in and you kill 4.15 while costing 440 points to the Punisher's 360.

8.3 kills . . . and you're still arguing the Punisher is better? Why are you shooting at marines in cover in the first place?

I honestly didn't calculate how effective the SWs were, because I don't know how you'd get them close to the enemy. I mean, if you take two Vet squads with Plasma in Chimeras (320 points), you can irk out 4 joes at 12" using the Plasmaguns and Multilaser, if they have cover. The downside? You'll lose a Vet and a half, and two of your six guns in that first volley and they are only as durable as two Chimeras.

Why am I shooting at Marines in cover? When are Marines not in cover? If 4 of my Plague Marines are touching area terrain, or are behind my Rhino, I've got cover. Regardless of the terrain on the board, their transports will always be able to give them cover.

Irdiumstern wrote:It's not that you won't be in range, it's the fact that a rear armor 11 vehicle within 24" of the enemy is going to get toasted pretty soon, no matter how much you bubblewrap it. And if you're already bubblewrapping, might as well use a useful tank and leave infantry killing to the blob around the tank.

There are few things that can take down a Russ at 24". 3 MM Speeders can do it. Infantry can't move far enough to get within charge or Melta range (Cavalry can technically do it on a Fleet roll of 6, but Fiends are the only cavalry strong enough to hurt them). I still don't have the Dark Eldar book, but their Heat Lance can do it; I just don't know how it could be cost effective deployed. So, maybe in 2 turns, but being within 24" is not a move your opponent can punish you for immediately. I'm not going to consider Deepstriking antics because everything is vulnerable to them.

The formula gives me how many models I need under the templates to equal the amount of Meq killed by the 2 Punishers. Basically, at what point is the large blast more effective than the Punisher. I didn't phrase it very clearly, sorry.

I guess our metagames just differ in the amount of spread, then.
I'm saying, if you can get around 5 models under a large blast regularly, the Punisher is not as effective as artillery/vanilla russes.

That wasn't quite what I was asking, but in explaining what I meant I solved the problem myself. Thanks for the formula, that'll prove useful.

I'm just saying is there are no rules that actually keep one from spreading out, and the cover rules are so lenient it almost doesn't matter where one puts his models. When one's regular opponents all suddenly figure that out, it makes one appreciate Heavy Bolters.

I was going to read the text wall of theoryhammer where every unit is perfectly spaced out and your dice roll like hotcakes and no one attacks the tank sitting less than 2 feet from their lines, but it's Christmas and I don't care.

Multiple trials have verified the paper analysis: punisher sucks. Enjoy your argument, folks, and have a Merry X-mas.

As a Space Marine player, I can verify that when there are pie plates inbound my models are at exactly 2" coherency thanks to my handy dandy Gale Force 9 template.

You shouldn't base your strategy around playing people who don't know what they're doing.

Said the pot to the kettle ...

A pair of basilisks would be just as effective, while being 150 points cheaper and not having to skirt the edge of rhino-melta range. Stuff bunches up all the time, especially on tables with proper amounts of terrain and considering the prevalence of transports.

Even if we allow that punishers are the bomb-diggity when it comes to killing fully spaced out space marines in cover, that's still a horrendous point-sink for a very niche application. Don't see the point, sorry.

Terminus wrote:Said the pot to the kettle ...

Not really, no. You said people have difficulty spacing out their infantry. This is false.

Try playing 40k not on a table meant for fantasy, then we'll talk.

What does that even mean?