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.

Martel732 wrote:Since a given vehicle or weapon team can generally only fire at a single target, specialization, rather than versatility, seems more desirable.

On cheap, flimsy units that you can spam the hell out of, and don't have the opportunity to make actually good against a variety of targets, I would certainly agree with you. PCSs, SWSs, vets, and HWSs should all have the same kind of weapon.

But we're talking about something that is expensive, and durable, and CAN be outfitted to handle multiple threats. This is where you can really invest in versatility.

Plus, specialization, while good, also has its risks. If you bring a meltagun SWS and your opponent brings foot guard or a green tide, then you're only out 65 points. No big deal. A melta-las vanquisher, on the other hand, throws 200 points down that rabbit hole - a much bigger loss.

So yet again since I see the punisher with MM sponson and lascannon hull is defended heavily as best all around tank and since statistics show its a better tank whos gunna start spamming them???

As I see it there really isnt any versatile Leman russ. Each one has its own rolls at what it does and the sponsons are just added fire power that may not even compliment the targets the tank is intended for.

Any time I see a thread for a list on dakka generally each unit is spammed with 2 or even 3 of one type of unit. The tank is so heavily defended as being better than all the other then why dont people take it over others?

Back when I said most versatile unit I would also like to add that as in a competitive game the best way to win is capturing objectives with the units to get them. Heavy support is their to "support" the troops in doing what they need to do.

My answer to the original poster is that he should build an army. Look at what hes lacking and then have his leman russ be kitted to fill that roll. Because even though the punisher is what is statistically "Versatile" over other Leman russ I find it overly expensive and I guarantee It probably wont be great at its job.

Everyone also is comparing each tank to another but I have rarely seen people consider range as a factor. With the punisher only having a real threat range of 24, 30 if it advances is actually kinda poor and have found that once it is in range then the enemy most likely will probably be assaulting it too.

If your opponent is also stupid enough to just throw troops into its range without effectively trying to take the tank out then I guess good for you. But if I knew my opponent had that many points sinked into a leman russ like that I would just have my anti tank go for them because with that many point sinked into heavy support there wont be as much firepower else where. Especially in any games less than 2000pts.

Well, that's because range isn't actually that big of an issue.

Firstly, russes are heavy, which means you need to add 6" to everyone's range straight away. Even if your opponent refuses to advance, you can still shoot at stuff straight across from you turn one.

Secondly, if your opponent is constantly dancing around to keep out of a 30" range (as if they're even going to be able to do that all that well), then that's a HUGE strategic coup for you. You're going to be able to move troops off of an objective without even firing your gun, and you're going to create large areas of the board in which your opponent isn't going to be able to operate. You don't even need to fire a shot for this to be a big deal.

Of course, what's most likely is that, being faced off against a guard player, your opponent is going to be trying to close range. If your opponent is a gunline, then they're not going to be moving, so range once again is less of an issue.

I'll admit that having a shorter range isn't as good as a longer range, but 30" is still a pretty friggin big threat range. Were we talking about flamers or melta-range meltaguns, I'd be quick to concede the point, but for russes, even the shortest ranges aren't THAT short.

I dont know about you but I would rather a squad be less in numbers the closer it gets than at full strength, especially marines or anything that has assault potential to destroy that leman russ.

And dancing around the russ would be the idea to get less of its weapons to fire at you when you move in. And if you say you will just pivot then you just exposed your weaker side armor to your opponent who If smart and had anti tank weapons would take that advantage. Not hard to flank a russ, especially one with such a short range. But back where range is a factor and bringing a squad down in size... If the squad was lower in numbers then you wont have to expose weaker sides to your russ because you probably would only need a MM and the PGC to finish the job.

But competitively speaking saying your at some big tournement would you spam these punisher with MM's and lascannons with your army since they are so versatile?

tankboy145 wrote:I dont know about you but I would rather a squad be less in numbers the closer it gets than at full strength, especially marines or anything that has assault potential to destroy that leman russ.

Well, that REALLY depends, though. What's important is that you kill whatever the threat is before it gets to you, regardless of what range you kill it at. Grenade launchers have a long range, for example, but they're not as likely to kill most stuff as a meltagun, even if the meltagun doesn't get as many shots due to range restrictions.

For example, a punisher is going to brutalize a horde, and be better at taking down terminators before they make it into close combat when compared to an exterminator. An exterminator may get to shoot first (once again, though, may), but the punisher shoots harder. Hard enough to make up for whatever turn it doesn't get to shoot.

tankboy145 wrote:And dancing around the russ would be the idea to get less of its weapons to fire at you when you move in.

In which case, you have a huge strategic benefit.

Plus, if your opponent is moving in, then they're in range of your guns. Plus, the idea of flanking a russ to expose side armor in order for the russ to shoot doesn't make much sense when you consider that its main gun is on a turret (and it's not too difficult to get 2 of 3 hull weapons pointing at something without exposing yourself too much).

tankboy145 wrote:But competitively speaking saying your at some big tournement would you spam these punisher with MM's and lascannons with your army since they are so versatile?

At the most recent local tournament, a las/MM punisher spammer took 2nd at a local tournament of 12 players. I took only 2 of them and came in 4th. I know that this is a ludicrously tiny data set, but it is possible to do well. Which is what the on-paper statistics say they should.

Yes but if you cant really harm your opponent at range then they will just advance quickly in the open. But if you have something like a LRBT then your opponent is going to spread out and should be in cover, in which will slow them down and means you should get more shots from the rest of your army to drop them regardless of the cover.

And melta guns have a specific roll(tank killing) that they are good at, grenade launchers are not. This relates back to my previous comment that its not how versatile one unit is at taking on multiple different units because each unit in your army should have a roll. Now if your army is seriously lacking anti tank and horde that you have to take such an expensive unit to do so then I guess thats your choice.

So to the original poster, you should build an army and find where your lacking. Then base your heavy support around that.

If your lacking anti tank get yourself some melta stormies. Maybe try vendettas as well great anti flyer and tank hunter, you know what dont just take a vendetta throw some melta vets in that vendetta and now you have a super tank hunting unit. If you lack anti horde then add more blast weapons, more flamers, most importantly more lasguns.

It is more common now that most people will take their strong points in their army instead of less troops unless troops are their strong points but Ive noticed my chaos opponents taking very cheap troops choices but maxing their stronger elite and fast attack choices. With guard I find their heavy support and troops to be their best so I wouldnt be surprised at your opponent taking that much heavy support. But if im correct didnt your opponent also run pask in 1 of those tanks? If so thats 950 or 900 points sinked into heavy support. Why not focus on the troops off the bat to atleast tie the game if anything and then try to hold off the heavy support.

tankboy145 wrote:Yes but if you cant really harm your opponent at range then they will just advance quickly in the open.

Show me a unit that can go from 31" to close combat in a single phase, and I'll show you a unit that NO russ can effectively handle.

tankboy145 wrote:So to the original poster, you should build an army and find where your lacking. Then base your heavy support around that.

But you're missing his point. He asked "what is the most versatile", not "is versatility a good thing?"

Its not about a single unit coming up against your lines. Its about a whole army that basically coming up to your lines at full strength. A blood angels army consisting of about 4-maybe 5 assault squads(usually 4) and storm ravens with dreads and other special units ready to drop out would surely tear this apart. None of the marines would have to spread out as there probably wouldnt be any blast weapons in the army so when they get to assault most of them should be in range. But if you got 3 or 4 assault squads coming at you a turn that means you are going to rely on a tank to Hopefully be effective enough to drop an assault squad in 2 turns before it reaches a tank.
You are devoting so many points in taking this amount of heavy support that its going to almost be the main part of your army. After just recently using the punisher a couple times against Meq opponents I fail to see how even with MM sponsons and a lascannon this tank could drop an assault squad in 2 turns before the tank is in melta/assault range.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

tankboy145 wrote:
Yes but if you cant really harm your opponent at range then they will just advance quickly in the open. But if you have something like a LRBT then your opponent is going to spread out and should be in cover, in which will slow them down and means you should get more shots from the rest of your army to drop them regardless of the cover.

And melta guns have a specific roll(tank killing) that they are good at, grenade launchers are not. This relates back to my previous comment that its not how versatile one unit is at taking on multiple different units because each unit in your army should have a roll. Now if your army is seriously lacking anti tank and horde that you have to take such an expensive unit to do so then I guess thats your choice.

So to the original poster, you should build an army and find where your lacking. Then base your heavy support around that.

If your lacking anti tank get yourself some melta stormies. Maybe try vendettas as well great anti flyer and tank hunter, you know what dont just take a vendetta throw some melta vets in that vendetta and now you have a super tank hunting unit. If you lack anti horde then add more blast weapons, more flamers, most importantly more lasguns.

It is more common now that most people will take their strong points in their army instead of less troops unless troops are their strong points but Ive noticed my chaos opponents taking very cheap troops choices but maxing their stronger elite and fast attack choices. With guard I find their heavy support and troops to be their best so I wouldnt be surprised at your opponent taking that much heavy support. But if im correct didnt your opponent also run pask in 1 of those tanks? If so thats 950 or 900 points sinked into heavy support. Why not focus on the troops off the bat to atleast tie the game if anything and then try to hold off the heavy support.

Thank you, I will build my lists like this in the future.

Your very much welcome. In guard as other will also note its not how versatile each unit should be but more so how well a certian unit is at doing a specific job. Like melta vets are great at tank hunting so you use them for anti armor, you would think twice about throwing them at a horde. But as I mentioned build a list and find your weak points and then try to see if you can have your heavy support fill that role.

tankboy145 wrote:
Its not about a single unit coming up against your lines. Its about a whole army that basically coming up to your lines at full strength. A blood angels army consisting of about 4-maybe 5 assault squads(usually 4) and storm ravens with dreads and other special units ready to drop out would surely tear this apart. None of the marines would have to spread out as there probably wouldnt be any blast weapons in the army so when they get to assault most of them should be in range. But if you got 3 or 4 assault squads coming at you a turn that means you are going to rely on a tank to Hopefully be effective enough to drop an assault squad in 2 turns before it reaches a tank.
You are devoting so many points in taking this amount of heavy support that its going to almost be the main part of your army. After just recently using the punisher a couple times against Meq opponents I fail to see how even with MM sponsons and a lascannon this tank could drop an assault squad in 2 turns before the tank is in melta/assault range.

But if you are testing a single Punisher against multiple units, that makes it an unfair test. Plus which, a kitted out Punisher costs 225 points. That's only slightly more than a up-gunned assault squad of 10 men. Plus if the Russ is smart/Survival concious it'll get 3 turns of shooting which may not necessarily kill the squad but it'll certainly hurt them a lot. And a Exterminator would almost certainly do just as bad if not worse because of the ROF of the autocannon.

It has been said that each has their own particular forte. I think the LRBT excels at being average at damn near everything. The Vanquisher: killing heavy armour, albeit sporadically. The Exterminators forte is killing light Armour and MC's at a push. The punisher is an anti horde/MEQ tank which would make it a good choice depending on one's meta.

The only way the Exterminator would be able to compete with the punisher would be to become a bolter-boat to crank out as many shots as possible. Likewise the punisher would have to become an AT armed tank.Thus armed the only area an Exterminator would excel would be against AV12 & 13 and again, 11 at a push depending on dice. One will never truly become more versatile because it depends on what you face most often. If you play against a lot of light to heavy armour, go for the Exterminator. If MEQ, go punisher.

tankboy145 wrote:But if you got 3 or 4 assault squads coming at you a turn that means you are going to rely on a tank to Hopefully be effective enough to drop an assault squad in 2 turns before it reaches a tank.

The argument you're making is similar to the one made when people complain about rough riders because they only get to use their lances once.

In this case, what matters is the damage that you do, and that you do said damage before its too late. In this particular case, whether you do it a lot all at once a few turns from now, or a little bit over the first few turns isn't all that terribly important here. It's like how meltaguns are still useful, even if you don't get to shoot them for the first couple of turns of the game.

tankboy145 wrote:I fail to see how even with MM sponsons and a lascannon this tank could drop an assault squad in 2 turns before the tank is in melta/assault range.

Well, against regular marines, a las/melta punisher is putting down 4 marines per turn of shooting. That's better than you're going to get with a splat cannon unless they're literally balled up out in the open. Of course the russ would do better then, but that situation is pretty rare.

Now, if you want to bring blood angels into this, of course, things do change a bit. The russes extra range is largely negated by everything being fast (it's not going to be too hard for assault marines to move forward to a place that's difficult to engage them and then strike you on turn two, for example). On the other hand, the punisher does get a bit worse (more like 3.5 killed) when you throw FNP into the mix.

It's still an advantage to the punisher, though. A splat cannon is only going to hit every other time it shoots, and then you've still got to not roll 1's to wound. In order for a battlecannon (or colossus, or whatever) to equal the damage of a punisher, they've got to be able to cover TEN MODELS per shot. That doesn't seem very likely.

Even if you assume an extra round of shooting for the battlecannon, things still don't look well for it. If we're talking about the colossus, then you have to take into account the fact that it's only an AV12 vehicle.

In any case, against opponents with any semblance of dispersion, the battlecannon's killing power is going into the toilet, while the punisher's damage profile remains the same.

Ailaros, there are two major problems with your analysis:

1) Cost. You're comparing a cheaper Exterminator to a more expensive Punisher. You either need to compare them at equal price, which means an Exterminator with sponsons vs. a base Punisher, or you need to reduce the Punisher's firepower numbers proportional to the difference in base price between the two. Otherwise it's just a flawed comparison, like arguing that a Sentinel is a better AA unit than a Vendetta because you brought 10,000 points worth of Sentinels against a single Vendetta.

2) Range. Yes, 24" means that you'll usually, but not always, be in range of something. However, it does NOT mean that you'll be in range of the ideal target. A 30" threat range means that you will sometimes have to settle for shooting the target you can reach instead of the target you want to kill, while 48" range almost always gets you the ideal target. Similarly a 24" gun means that you have limited room for movement to stay out of melta range, avoid assault units, keep your tank behind cover, etc. You'll often have to move straight towards your target, even if it means being out in the open with a melta squad within range next turn. On the other hand with 48" range you have a lot of flexibility in your movement options, you can move back out of range, move around cover instead of risking a dangerous terrain test by driving through it, keep your tank behind an aegis line at all times, etc. Does it mean that you never take 24" range weapons? Of course not, but you need to be aware that you have a major drawback attached to that gun.

 The Crusader wrote:

tankboy145 wrote:
Its not about a single unit coming up against your lines. Its about a whole army that basically coming up to your lines at full strength. A blood angels army consisting of about 4-maybe 5 assault squads(usually 4) and storm ravens with dreads and other special units ready to drop out would surely tear this apart. None of the marines would have to spread out as there probably wouldnt be any blast weapons in the army so when they get to assault most of them should be in range. But if you got 3 or 4 assault squads coming at you a turn that means you are going to rely on a tank to Hopefully be effective enough to drop an assault squad in 2 turns before it reaches a tank.
You are devoting so many points in taking this amount of heavy support that its going to almost be the main part of your army. After just recently using the punisher a couple times against Meq opponents I fail to see how even with MM sponsons and a lascannon this tank could drop an assault squad in 2 turns before the tank is in melta/assault range.

But if you are testing a single Punisher against multiple units, that makes it an unfair test. Plus which, a kitted out Punisher costs 225 points. That's only slightly more than a up-gunned assault squad of 10 men. Plus if the Russ is smart/Survival concious it'll get 3 turns of shooting which may not necessarily kill the squad but it'll certainly hurt them a lot. And a Exterminator would almost certainly do just as bad if not worse because of the ROF of the autocannon.

It has been said that each has their own particular forte. I think the LRBT excels at being average at damn near everything. The Vanquisher: killing heavy armour, albeit sporadically. The Exterminators forte is killing light Armour and MC's at a push. The punisher is an anti horde/MEQ tank which would make it a good choice depending on one's meta.

The only way the Exterminator would be able to compete with the punisher would be to become a bolter-boat to crank out as many shots as possible. Likewise the punisher would have to become an AT armed tank.Thus armed the only area an Exterminator would excel would be against AV12 & 13 and again, 11 at a push depending on dice. One will never truly become more versatile because it depends on what you face most often. If you play against a lot of light to heavy armour, go for the Exterminator. If MEQ, go punisher.

Yes but generally a good IG armor spams its units. So if your are going to take this 225 russ then you should be spamming 2 or 3 of them and if you take 3 then thats 675pts in 3 tanks which can be killed the same was as a LRBT. Now if you dont spam them your opponent will and should be smart enough to focus anti tank weapons on that one tank and make you lose out on such an expensive tank.

I also understand each leman russ has its own forte. Exactly why I said the original poster should build an army and find his weak spots and get the appropriate heavy support for the job instead of trying to base his army around heavy support.

Also if you take so many points in these tanks you also have to make sure you can save enough points to have infantry troops to be able to move out and capture objectives on your opponents side of the table. Also why you should build your army and with what points youve got get your heavy support to fill where your lacking.

tankboy145 wrote:
Yes but generally a good IG armor spams its units. So if your are going to take this 225 russ then you should be spamming 2 or 3 of them and if you take 3 then thats 675pts in 3 tanks which can be killed the same was as a LRBT.

That's not necessarily true. You want to spam the same TYPE of unit (AV 12, AV 14, infantry hordes) and you want to have redundancy in every role, but not necessarily the exact same unit. So, for example, if you already have a punisher cannon Vulture or two you might be content with only adding one more punisher cannon to your list, and then spend the other two heavy support slots on LR Demolishers.

Now if you dont spam them your opponent will and should be smart enough to focus anti tank weapons on that one tank and make you lose out on such an expensive tank.

It's not that simple. It's an easy choice if you only have one vehicle on the table and therefore a clear target for every railgun/LC/melta/etc in their army, but can you really say that you always shoot the LR Punisher instead of the LR Demolishers next to it, the Chimera full of plasma vets on the other side, etc? Of course not.

Also, anyone who makes target priority decisions based on how many points the target costs is a bad player.

 Hedkrakka wrote:

vs. AV11 (say, a Rhino)
Range: 24"
The Punisher w/HB sponsons gets 29 shots, 14.5 hits, 2.08 glances.
The Exterminator w/HB sponsons gets 4 S7 & 9 S5 shots, 3 S7 & 4.5 S5 hits, 1.0 pen, 1.25 glances.

*snip*

Performance: Even at optimum range, the Punisher loses to the Exterminator. 0:3

I think that's a miss-type. What you actually meant was "The Punisher is 60% more effective than the Exterminator at <24".

 Hedkrakka wrote:

Performance: The Punisher is better when its cannon is in range, but loses heavily if it isn't. 1:5

You mean it's not very good when it's not in range? Well blow me down.

The Exterminator sucks, and the maths backs this up.

tankboy145 wrote:

 The Crusader wrote:

tankboy145 wrote:
Its not about a single unit coming up against your lines. Its about a whole army that basically coming up to your lines at full strength. A blood angels army consisting of about 4-maybe 5 assault squads(usually 4) and storm ravens with dreads and other special units ready to drop out would surely tear this apart. None of the marines would have to spread out as there probably wouldnt be any blast weapons in the army so when they get to assault most of them should be in range. But if you got 3 or 4 assault squads coming at you a turn that means you are going to rely on a tank to Hopefully be effective enough to drop an assault squad in 2 turns before it reaches a tank.
You are devoting so many points in taking this amount of heavy support that its going to almost be the main part of your army. After just recently using the punisher a couple times against Meq opponents I fail to see how even with MM sponsons and a lascannon this tank could drop an assault squad in 2 turns before the tank is in melta/assault range.

But if you are testing a single Punisher against multiple units, that makes it an unfair test. Plus which, a kitted out Punisher costs 225 points. That's only slightly more than a up-gunned assault squad of 10 men. Plus if the Russ is smart/Survival concious it'll get 3 turns of shooting which may not necessarily kill the squad but it'll certainly hurt them a lot. And a Exterminator would almost certainly do just as bad if not worse because of the ROF of the autocannon.

It has been said that each has their own particular forte. I think the LRBT excels at being average at damn near everything. The Vanquisher: killing heavy armour, albeit sporadically. The Exterminators forte is killing light Armour and MC's at a push. The punisher is an anti horde/MEQ tank which would make it a good choice depending on one's meta.

The only way the Exterminator would be able to compete with the punisher would be to become a bolter-boat to crank out as many shots as possible. Likewise the punisher would have to become an AT armed tank.Thus armed the only area an Exterminator would excel would be against AV12 & 13 and again, 11 at a push depending on dice. One will never truly become more versatile because it depends on what you face most often. If you play against a lot of light to heavy armour, go for the Exterminator. If MEQ, go punisher.

Yes but generally a good IG armor spams its units. So if your are going to take this 225 russ then you should be spamming 2 or 3 of them and if you take 3 then thats 675pts in 3 tanks which can be killed the same was as a LRBT. Now if you dont spam them your opponent will and should be smart enough to focus anti tank weapons on that one tank and make you lose out on such an expensive tank.

I also understand each leman russ has its own forte. Exactly why I said the original poster should build an army and find his weak spots and get the appropriate heavy support for the job instead of trying to base his army around heavy support.

Also if you take so many points in these tanks you also have to make sure you can save enough points to have infantry troops to be able to move out and capture objectives on your opponents side of the table. Also why you should build your army and with what points youve got get your heavy support to fill where your lacking.

Not necessarily. A good IG armoured list will have a large amount of tanks (Surprise, surprise.) So if the Russ does become a massive bullet-magnet, that's all firepower that won't be directed at troops/troop transports that are getting closer to objectives. If the enemy focuses on the transports and such that gives the Russ to cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war

Why is the executioner so popular? Yes it can kill terminators but its expensive and only has three small blasts (five if you take sponsons).

 Tomten wrote:
Why is the executioner so popular? Yes it can kill terminators but its expensive and only has three small blasts (five if you take sponsons).

AP2 is a huge deal.

Being a heavy weapon is almost equally huge.

 TheCaptain wrote:

 Tomten wrote:
Why is the executioner so popular? Yes it can kill terminators but its expensive and only has three small blasts (five if you take sponsons).

AP2 is a huge deal.

Being a heavy weapon is almost equally huge.

It doesnt matter when the enemy is in cover.

Replacing their 2+ armor with a 5+ cover is nice. Forcing an assault unit to hug terrain rather than advance is nice. All in all, I call it a win.

tankboy145 wrote:

As i dont really have forgeworld Im not familiar with that type of russ variant, what does it have?

Its bascially a turretless and unable to take sponsons variant of the Demolisher. Its also cheaper than a normal Russ at 140 points AFAIK.

This

So far, its proved to be my most effective Russ variant and I have used four or five variants in my games (normally at least a pair plus the lone Thunderer).

Might just be the way its luck runs though, it seems to get ingored and the normal Russes targetted first.

DaddyWarcrimes wrote:
Replacing their 2+ armor with a 5+ cover is nice. Forcing an assault unit to hug terrain rather than advance is nice. All in all, I call it a win.

I am usually gentlemanly enough to point out that terminators have an invulnerable save, so they don't need to hug cover. My opponents nearly always forget this.

DaddyWarcrimes wrote:
Replacing their 2+ armor with a 5+ cover is nice. Forcing an assault unit to hug terrain rather than advance is nice. All in all, I call it a win.

Most models which have a 2+ save also have at least a 5+ invul save. Terminators dont need cover they are cover if they not are in a LR

 Tomten wrote:

DaddyWarcrimes wrote:
Replacing their 2+ armor with a 5+ cover is nice. Forcing an assault unit to hug terrain rather than advance is nice. All in all, I call it a win.

Most models which have a 2+ save also have at least a 5+ invul save. Terminators dont need cover they are cover if they not are in a LR

And reducing them from that 2+ to a 5+ is why the executioner is nice.

This whole debate has highlighted why cracking LRs is more important that toting plasma. If you can get the terminators on foot before they get where they're going, you can torrent them down with practically anything if you have it en masse. This is why, in my mind, melta is still king. Hail to the king, baby.

Martel732 wrote:
This whole debate has highlighted why cracking LRs is more important that toting plasma. If you can get the terminators on foot before they get where they're going, you can torrent them down with practically anything if you have it en masse. This is why, in my mind, melta is still king. Hail to the king, baby.

Las.

Cannons.

As much as I love the lascannon, I can't rely on them to stop a LR in a timely manner. Someone has to have the balls to get within melta range of the LR and go for it. This is why I love attack bikes so much in 6th. Give em FNP, and they are actually hard to stop enroute even taking concentrated fire.

But for something like the vindicator or LR demolisher, lascannon is the king.

 TheCaptain wrote:

 Tomten wrote:

DaddyWarcrimes wrote:
Replacing their 2+ armor with a 5+ cover is nice. Forcing an assault unit to hug terrain rather than advance is nice. All in all, I call it a win.

Most models which have a 2+ save also have at least a 5+ invul save. Terminators dont need cover they are cover if they not are in a LR

And reducing them from that 2+ to a 5+ is why the executioner is nice.

When i fight terminators they usually have a 3+ invul save and FNP.

BA terminators? TH/SS? Again, crack the LR and torrent them to death. Takes a bit longer with FNP, but same thing applies.