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.

jp400 wrote:considering how badly it sucks.

maybe it is a little over priced but the tank itself is sound... maybe the tactics employed by the user are what sucks?

Don't shoot me (20 times) its just a plain fact that I've used it many times, always against marines and it always does well.

geordie09 wrote:

jp400 wrote:considering how badly it sucks.

maybe it is a little over priced but the tank itself is sound... maybe the tactics employed by the user are what sucks?

Don't shoot me (20 times) its just a plain fact that I've used it many times, always against marines and it always does well.

So you play against MEQ with it and it does well for you? Then you are the exception to the rule.

Kudos.

The "Punisher" only lives up to it's name in the fact that the only person it punishes is the owner in points cost. Even more so if you stick Pask on him.

The tank costs near as much as a land raider, and isn't near as good. And as for the weapon itself, the bad AP mixed in with BS3 makes it lack luster at its best. Bottom line is that you can spend those points elsewhere in the codex and do a better job then what the Punisher offers.

jp400 wrote:

geordie09 wrote:

jp400 wrote:considering how badly it sucks.

maybe it is a little over priced but the tank itself is sound... maybe the tactics employed by the user are what sucks?

Don't shoot me (20 times) its just a plain fact that I've used it many times, always against marines and it always does well.

So you play against MEQ with it and it does well for you? Then you are the exception to the rule.

Kudos.

The "Punisher" only lives up to it's name in the fact that the only person it punishes is the owner in points cost. Even more so if you stick Pask on him.

The tank costs near as much as a land raider, and isn't near as good. And as for the weapon itself, the bad AP mixed in with BS3 makes it lack luster at its best. Bottom line is that you can spend those points elsewhere in the codex and do a better job then what the Punisher offers.

I conceed that its over priced but the benefits are there. Land Raiders are excellent, the Cursader is the only varient that can come close to matching it as a horde killer though. The Redeemer needs to get to close and the standard variant would be wasting its armoury if it shot at massed troops! Personally I prefer to take a Hydra Squadron, you get to re-roll and the autocannons pack a punch that the punisher doesn't. 225 points for three?

I enjoy using the Punisher... and my regular oppo hates it! Thats enough justification for me...

BS 3 bad? I love when I get BS 3. And 20 shots? That's brutal for one model.

the_ferrett wrote:BS 3 bad? I love when I get BS 3. And 20 shots? That's brutal for one model.

Which is about ten hits-->eight wounds multiplied by armor save (ten if you include some heavy bolters). Which means that even on a good day, you're unlikely to score more than about 40-60 pts worth of enemy models.

I'm sorry. I want to love the punisher. I really so. Who doesn't like fielding a unit that's basically a big ol' Gatling Gun sticking out of an armored vehicle? It just doesn't hit enough.

I maintain: twin-link it. Then for an extra 50 points throw Pask in it and watch it wreak all the havoc it deserves to.

Jackmojo wrote:The punisher should be the budget Russ, rather then the current price point.

I really like the idea as well. Like, have a seperate HS type of "medium tank" Take the punisher, eradicator and exterminator out of the regular russ pool, give them 13/11/10 and start them out at 130 points.

I don't like the idea of an av13 punisher. It would just be too east to pop by all of those man-portable weapons out there.

russes are already plenty poppable by short ranged weapons (and especially close combat). Really, it would be a slight hit against long range shooting. Of course, it would also be a huge price break.

Plus, if the AV14 were that specifically important, you could always just buy a regular russ.

A lighter version of the Russ would lose the 'Lumbering Behemoth' rule, but thats a fair trade too. I would take eradicators if they were cheaper. AV 13 is still solid, and the price break would make BS 3 Heasvy 20 seem like a somewhat competitive choice in the HS slots.

Ailaros wrote:russes are already plenty poppable by short ranged weapons (and especially close combat). Really, it would be a slight hit against long range shooting. Of course, it would also be a huge price break.

Plus, if the AV14 were that specifically important, you could always just buy a regular russ.

Have to agree to this. Haveing all attacks hit against the rear (Av10) no matter where you attack from is frigging stupid. Personally I feel that in light of this, all LRBT's should have had the rear upgraded from 10 to 11. At least then you might be able to justify the base price increase.

Things id like to see:

* Slight price drop for all tanks
* Slight price drop for all sponson upgrades
* Buy in squads of 1-3, but have the ability to move/shoot/act/count independently
* Tank specific upgrades (Ala the old AC codex) brought back

Blacksails wrote:A lighter version of the Russ would lose the 'Lumbering Behemoth' rule, but thats a fair trade too. I would take eradicators if they were cheaper. AV 13 is still solid, and the price break would make BS 3 Heasvy 20 seem like a somewhat competitive choice in the HS slots.

You mean the Conquerer? Wait, no you don't, nobody loves that tank :(

I am of the opinion that the Lumbering Behemoth rule is kinda lame.

M.

I was thinking of writing some rules for the conqueror in the Proposed Section. The only thing is, I'm not sure there's a call for a separate Imperial tank.

The way I'm looking at it (since I've loved them since 3rd when that book came out), it'd be a Russ with a Conquerer cannon and no lumbering behemoth. It's advantage back in 3rd (and maybe 4th, I don't know) was that it cost less than a Russ and could fire it's blast weapon on the move (as it wasn't Ord.). This edition, however...LB removes that advantage really. It moves 12" more reliably, however that's not really worth it.

M.

I like the way FW did it.

They gave the Conq a Co-axle weapon... so long as 1 shot HITS the target, the main gun gets to re-roll the scatter die.

Conq Cannon: Str 8 Ap 3 Heavy1/blast

I don't remember how the Coax worked, but I don't think it let you reroll any scatter die. I think it just had to target the same thing as the main gun (which, IIRC in 3rd you could target different things with different guns on the tanks).

M.

Nah he's right, they upgraded the co-ax rules to give you a conditional re-roll.

In regard to the suggestions about the Punisher, I would not want it to get lighter and faster, just cheaper.

As to the conqueror, I would probably make it heavy two and lose the lumbering rule.

Jack