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.

For those of you that don't know it, I have a fascination for plasma weaponry. And from the first time I looked through the old paperback Imperial Armour, I've wanted to field a Leman Russ Executioner. However, as people have pointed out, it is ridiculosly overpriced. So, using VDR rules (http://www.ageofstrife.com/tools/vdr/) I tried to put together a version of the Executioner that might actually work. Here's what I came up with:

Leman Russ Executioner (*revised*)

Points: 120 + weapons
Armour: F-14, S-12, R-10
BS: 3
Type: Tank

Weapons:
This version of the Executioner is armed with a standard pattern Plasma cannon (not plasma destroyer as the IA version)
- Must add either hull-mounted lascannon (+15) or hull-mounted heavy bolter (+5)
- May add sponsons with either heavy bolters (+10) or heavy flamers (+10)

Options:
Regular options available to Imperial Guard tanks

The base point value for this tank came from VDR. The cost of upgrades I took from the standard IG tank options.

In my eyes, this makes the Executioner *revised* a viable tank. It has the range of it's main weapon reduced to 36" which, if fitted
with heavy bolters, makes it a moveable heavy weapon platform that can move 6" and still fire ALL of its weapons. And that's at 135p
+ upgrades.

However, this puts the Executioner at the same base point cost as the Exterminator (twin-linked autocannons ++). Which has me wondering
if it turned out too cheap to be realistic. Should 'R 48"- S7 - AP 4 - Heavy 2, twin-linked' and 'R 36" - S7 - AP 2 - Heavy 1/Blast' cost the same?

al-Majid Agandhjin bin Ahfal al-Rashid

I think that it's reasonable. The Exterminator isn't really overpowered at all for its cost. Twin-Linked makes a difference at BS3 and the range trade-off is also significant.

The Exterminator also has the synergy of all its guns being AP4, whereas with your Executioner the AP2 is wasted against Fire Warriors and the Heavy Bolters won't be particularly effective against Terminators.

I'd have no problem playing against this tank.

I never had any problem with the Executioner, this seems about right though. Maybe you should have a go at the Conqueror, now that is over priced.

Dull and largley useless. Who wants to pay that much for a BS3 Plasma Cannon when for 20 more points you can get a Battlecannon, or for the same cost you can get an Exterminator that hits more often and is more reliable.

The Exterminator should have a Plasma Destructor, it should be a 160-170 point tank (base), probably S8 AP2 Heavy 2/Blast. It's weapon options should include a Hull Plasma Cannon and Sponson Plasma Cannons (like the Executioner that I have), and if you roll 1's on everything, the tank explodes from the overheat.

BYE

I would definitely give it hull and sponson plasma cannons. I don't know about the destructor, but there is no reason to go between plasma and bolter really.

4 plasma cannons :O my god man

what would be the point cost on that thing? if it wasn't more than 170 id happily snap one up for my boys
some cool special rules be nice too like the crew can burn their hands or sprinklers go off ^^

think exploding be a little harsh

Honestly, for 4 plasma cannons I wouldn't price it more than 160. Against vehicles it isn't too exciting as HBMC pointed out, and against most troops it isn't super duper either.
Though, a rule saying on all ones you get a glancing hit might make it go down smoother for your group.

I think there just plain need to be more energy weapon russ variants.
Maybe one with twin lascannons and lascannon sponsons?

Skorpion wrote:I think there just plain need to be more energy weapon russ variants.
Maybe one with twin lascannons and lascannon sponsons?

There used to be one: it was called a "Chaos Predator with Mutated Hull".

Sounds like a reasonable varient. I doubt that many other people would find it to be that useful of a tank, but I also doubt they would make exception to you useing it. The benifit I see for it over the standar russ is that it actualy gets to use all its weapons. The normal russ just fires the battle cannon every round where as this one would have 1 main weapon and up to 3 secondary weapons that could all fire both on the same turn and while moving 6" a turn. All in all not bad.

I would definitely let you play with your version of the Executioner. It's not overpowered in my book.

Furthermore, I am with H.B.M.C on his view on how the Executioner should really look. I was quite disappointed when I bought the first IA, and disappointed again with the hardback.

The Executioner should absolutely have hull mounted and sponson mounted Plasma Cannons, and the main weapon should be something more powerful than an standard Plasma Cannon. Also, I agree that there should be some kind of either overheat, or a huge explosion when it blows up. It even is mentioned in the fluff that other IG prefers to stay away from the Executioner due to its lethality to surrounding troops when they happen to blow up.

That's why we have the 'Four 1's' thing. Sure, it's rare, but it's funny when it happens (roll four 1's, instant detonation!).

It's death to Sv2+ types... but that's about it. Stock Russes are just always going to be more useful. I use my Executioner as a command stank for my 2nd Armoured Company, and that's it. Beyond that, like my Russ Annihilator, it's there for flavour more than for power.

BYE

Thanks for the input, everyone.

Sadly, I'll have to agree with your take on the Executioner pattern. It should be better. My reason for fielding it is simply because it fits the theme of my Imperial Guard force to have mobile tanks instead of stationary Battlecannons. And with plasma/missile launchers being the favoured weapons of tallarns (who I base my force on), it seemed a nice way to go.

al-Majid Agandhjin bin Ahfal al-Rashid

Why not just count it as a Demolisher?

The standard cannon has been replaced with a modified plasma cannon that has been given vastly increased destructive power at the cost of losing 33% of it's range due to the high power blast becoming unstable as it travels.

Arstahd wrote:Why not just count it as a Demolisher?

Yes. 'Cause that's loads of fun.

This is a proposed rules forum. 'Count As' isn't proposing rules, it's just saying 'use something else'.

BYE

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Arstahd wrote:Why not just count it as a Demolisher?

Yes. 'Cause that's loads of fun.

This is a proposed rules forum. 'Count As' isn't proposing rules, it's just saying 'use something else'.

BYE

True enough.

OK, how about same stats, cost, and options as a Demolisher but drop the main gun Str by 2 and increase range to 36". The trade off seems fair to me and should make for an easy sell to opponents. What would you rather face: S10 at 24" or S8 at 36"?

Arstahd wrote:OK, how about same stats, cost, and options as a Demolisher but drop the main gun Str by 2 and increase range to 36". The trade off seems fair to me and should make for an easy sell to opponents. What would you rather face: S10 at 24" or S8 at 36"?

Or S8 at 72" with a regular Russ.

The only benefit would be if it kept the AP2.

BYE

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Arstahd wrote:Why not just count it as a Demolisher?

Yes. 'Cause that's loads of fun.

This is a proposed rules forum.

How about when it explodes a S10 AP1 flamer template scatters 2d6 inches?

BOOOOM!!!

H.B.M.C wrote:The only benefit would be if it kept the AP2.

AP2 is exactly the benefit. It's like a plasma cannon with the blast and mega upgrades.