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.

oh, right. Interesting...

So, something else I just wondered. If you had 10 points and HAD to spend it on pask, would you give him a heavy stubber or a hunter-killer?

On the one hand, the stubber gives you S5 shots, and plenty of them, against lighter vehicles that is. Of course, the idea of pask firing a weapon himself seems somehow... uncivilized? Meanwhile, on the other hand, you're talking about an S9 BS4 weapon, which mitigates most of the problems with it being single-shot.

 Ailaros wrote:
oh, right. Interesting...

So, something else I just wondered. If you had 10 points and HAD to spend it on pask, would you give him a heavy stubber or a hunter-killer?

On the one hand, the stubber gives you S5 shots, and plenty of them, against lighter vehicles that is. Of course, the idea of pask firing a weapon himself seems somehow... uncivilized? Meanwhile, on the other hand, you're talking about an S9 BS4 weapon, which mitigates most of the problems with it being single-shot.

It would probably depend on what task you had for pask in the first place, but I am slightly more partial to the HK.

If your tank is loaded for Anti infantary, and the rest of your army AT, the stubber provides more dakka(great for punishers). If you need AT, the Hk missile goes good on any pask tank, considering that some russ builds will be out of range and forced to move turn 1-2 it can provide a nice extra shot(does an extra BS4 S9 krak missle benefit guard all that much?)

 Ailaros wrote:

BryllCream wrote:At >12" those multi meltas get you a chance of a roll on the damage table. As I outlined above, Pask will average out 3 hull points on AV12.

multimeltas can also strip hull points.

Plus, multimeltas will work against AV13+. And will ID paladins, etc.

And they've got a longer threat range.

To quote from my own post above, Pask gives you:

vs MEQ +33% killy power

vs AV11 +280% killy power

vs AV12 +infinite killy power

All for +25% cost.

Advocate 2 BS3 multi-meltas if you like but imo that's a clear step down in power.

 Ailaros wrote:
So, something else I just wondered. If you had 10 points and HAD to spend it on pask, would you give him a heavy stubber or a hunter-killer?

If I have to pick one I'd go with the HK missile. A heavy stubber is never going to do very much (bad against infantry, and mediocre against vehicles even with +1 STR), but another STR 9 shot has the potential to make a decent impact on the game.

BryllCream wrote:To quote from my own post above, Pask gives you:

vs MEQ +33% killy power

vs AV11 +280% killy power

vs AV12 +infinite killy power

All for +25% cost.

Advocate 2 BS3 multi-meltas if you like but imo that's a clear step down in power.

... and then you do the math.

Against marines, a pask punisher kills .84 extra MEq. A MM punisher kills an extra .84

Against AV11, a pask punisher puts down way enough glances to kill it (in fact, you're suffering from overkill), while a multimelta punisher also puts down enough glances to kill it without breaking a sweat, AND has a much better chance to kill transported dudes with a vehicle explosion, AND it can do it with a +6" threat range.

Against AV12, the pask punisher puts down 2.5 glances, while the MM punisher has a 1 in 6 chance to wreck it outright. Sure, the pask punisher is better here, but it's better at ONE thing.

Meanwhile, the MM punisher is infinitely better against AV13, and infinitely better against AV14. And it's 20 points cheaper. For something that, with one exception, is better.

Of course, you can always add sponson bolters to the punisher, but then you can also add a hull lascannon. This actually gives the non-pask option an even better spread, as it can handle AV12 better, and is even cheaper than the pask alternative.

I did the "math" last page, and you have forgotten the HB sponsons in your version.

It's interesting that you've refused to break down your maths, so I'll do it for you.

vs MEQ

Verdict - Pask inflicts +15% kills.

vs GEQ

verdict - Pask inflicts +80% more kills than the MM Russ

And you've already accepted that the Pask Punisher is better against AV10, AV11 and AV12 (it also has a far smoother bell curve, which is nice).

So the only thing the MM Punisher has in its favour is being able to take out AV13 and AV14...which it can do *very* poorly, and needs to be within 12" to do so.

Basically the Pask Punisher is great at taking out every single type of unit in the game bar flyers and heavy armour, wheras the MM Punisher...isn't. It is at best mediocre vs heavy infantry, and even that, the Pask Punisher beats hands down.

 TheCaptain wrote:

Inquisitor Jex wrote:

 TheLionOfTheForest wrote:
If the tank with pask in it stayed stationary then it adds +1 to the strength of all shots fired from the tank for the purposes of armor penetration, or when firing at monstrous creatures Pask allows you rerolls to wound.

The Crack shot rules means all shots adds +1 to any armour penetration roll, not to the weapon's strength.

Literally the same thing. (for purposes of armor penetration)

No, since your lascannon can't instakill, let's say, plague marine, despite being "Str10" with Pask as people are claiming.

His +1 is to the d6 you roll for armour pen, not added to the weapon's strength.

BryllCream wrote:Right. Punisher with Pask is only better against MEQ, hordes, AV10, AV11, AV12 and MCs.

But what does "better" mean if we're already in the world of overkill? It just means that you're wasting more points.

A bolter boat pasquisher isn't better against MEq, and MCs, and they're practically equal (as in, it's dead either way) against AV10 and 11. And the MM/las punisher has better range.

So, to recap, if you need to spend 250 points on a single tank to kill GEq, and you're constantly inundated by AV12 that floods into the 18"-24" range, then take pask with a punisher. For everything else, the las/MM loadout without pask does it better.

The reason I wouldn't put MM on a Pask Punisher is that it doesn't complement the tank's purpose.

I run a Las/MM Exterminator regularly, as it's a good anti-tank/heavy infantry setup, as those secondary weapons enhance the main gun's use against light/medium vehicles, and medium infantry, you'll never have wasted shots when using that tank, except against AV14.

The Punisher, however, can only hurt AV12 with Pask; MM/Las will make it able to hurt AV 13 and 14, but at that point you're wasting the main gun, which you paid a premium for originally. HB, by having the same strength value, have identical utility as the main gun, so provided you're using the Punisher against its intended targets, there are no wasted shots.

The other setup isn't bad, but it isn't what I would consider using. The Guard offers enough dedicated AT that you don't need to reduce the crowd-control capacity of the Punisher. The only reason one would really consider a punisher with las/MM would be if that was your only tank, and you needed a generalist tank. But even so, if you're only taking one tank, and you're putting Pask in it, take the Exterminator with Las/MM. It's cheaper, better AT killyness, and easily wounds and kills most infantry.

Why are we treating this as an either/or situation? The correct answer is LC/MM AND Pask.

But that's 275 points. On a single russ. Seems unlikely that it will have that big of an impact on the game before its wrecked.

Plus, I think that this crosses the fine line between versatility and multi-specialization.

Are you guys sure that Pask's BS buff works with the HK missile? Because it's a set value from the codex entry, which says "...which are fired at BS3." without any reference to the tank's ballistic skill. His extra penetration should work, but it may be concluded that the tank's BS doesn't matter concerning the HK missile, and due to the wording "Pask's tank can use his BS of 4", he may not fire it at BS4. Not sure about it though.

 Hedkrakka wrote:
Are you guys sure that Pask's BS buff works with the HK missile? Because it's a set value from the codex entry, which says "...which are fired at BS3." without any reference to the tank's ballistic skill. His extra penetration should work, but it may be concluded that the tank's BS doesn't matter concerning the HK missile, and due to the wording "Pask's tank can use his BS of 4", he may not fire it at BS4. Not sure about it though.

Core rulebook overrules it.

 Ailaros wrote:

BryllCream wrote:Basically the Pask Punisher is great at taking out every single type of unit in the game bar flyers and heavy armour, wheras the MM Punisher...isn't. It is at best mediocre vs heavy infantry, and even that, the Pask Punisher beats hands down.

Except it isn't.

All this math has shown is that if you pay 25 point more, you can get a tank that's better against GEq, better against AV12 between the ranges of 24" and 28", and is practically equal in everything else. Meanwhile, if you go the other way, you've got an extra 25 points, and trade in some of your anti-GEq in order to be better against terminators, AV12 outside of 24", and AV13 and 14.

The only verdict here is that if you need to spend 250 points on a single tank to kill GEq, and you're constantly inundated by AV12 that's flooding straight into your stuff, then take pask with a punisher. For everything else, the las/MM loadout without pask does better.

Right. Punisher with Pask is only better against MEQ, hordes, AV10, AV11, AV12 and MCs.

 Ailaros wrote:
But that's 275 points. On a single russ. Seems unlikely that it will have that big of an impact on the game before its wrecked.

If the 275 point version with Pask can't have a 275 point impact then the 225 point version without Pask also can't have a 225 point impact. Pask adds a greater percentage increase to the tank's firepower than to the tank's cost, so the 275 point tank will always do better relative to its own point cost than the 225 point version.

Inquisitor Jex wrote:

 TheCaptain wrote:

Inquisitor Jex wrote:

 TheLionOfTheForest wrote:
If the tank with pask in it stayed stationary then it adds +1 to the strength of all shots fired from the tank for the purposes of armor penetration, or when firing at monstrous creatures Pask allows you rerolls to wound.

The Crack shot rules means all shots adds +1 to any armour penetration roll, not to the weapon's strength.

Literally the same thing. (for purposes of armor penetration)

No, since your lascannon can't instakill, let's say, plague marine, despite being "Str10" with Pask as people are claiming.

His +1 is to the d6 you roll for armour pen, not added to the weapon's strength.

Let me quote TheLionOfTheForest directly.

"it adds +1 to the strength of all shots fired from the tank for the purposes of armor penetration"

Then I said "Literally the same thing. for purposes of armor penetration"

You're agreeing with both of us, you just don't realize it.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Hedkrakka wrote:
Are you guys sure that Pask's BS buff works with the HK missile? Because it's a set value from the codex entry, which says "...which are fired at BS3." without any reference to the tank's ballistic skill. His extra penetration should work, but it may be concluded that the tank's BS doesn't matter concerning the HK missile, and due to the wording "Pask's tank can use his BS of 4", he may not fire it at BS4. Not sure about it though.

Core rulebook overrules it.

Thanks. I keep failing to remember a lot of weapons got changed by the BRB.

BryllCream wrote:Right. Punisher with Pask is only better against MEQ, hordes, AV10, AV11, AV12 and MCs.

But what does "better" mean if we're already in the world of overkill? It just means that you're wasting more points.

A bolter boat pasquisher isn't better against MEq, and MCs, and they're practically equal (as in, it's dead either way) against AV10 and 11. And the MM/las punisher has better range.

So, to recap, if you need to spend 250 points on a single tank to kill GEq, and you're constantly inundated by AV12 that floods into the 18"-24" range, then take pask with a punisher. For everything else, the las/MM loadout without pask does it better.

 Ailaros wrote:
For everything else, the las/MM loadout without pask does it better.

And LC/MM with Pask does it even better.

Sure, but,

Ailaros wrote:But that's 275 points. On a single russ. Seems unlikely that it will have that big of an impact on the game before its wrecked.

Plus, I think that this crosses the fine line between versatility and multi-specialization.

Spending 45 points worth of anti-tank on an anti-infantry weapon is one thing, spending 95 points on anti-tank for an anti-infantry weapon is another.

At some point, the "eggs in basket" problem and the fact that you can only ever shoot at one thing at once makes things cross over from versatility to just plain waste.

And, as I said before, Pask adds a higher percentage to the tank's firepower than he does to the tank's cost. If you aren't making a 275 point impact with it then you aren't making a 225 point impact with the no-Pask version.

 Ailaros wrote:

Peregrine wrote:If you're willing to risk that many points in a single model vs. a slightly less effective but safer strategy of taking multiple weaker units. Deciding whether to upgrade to Pask or not should be treated no differently than deciding whether to upgrade to a hull LC or add sponsons, you do the math and decide whether you get enough for your points

Hmm.

I suppose that pask is less risky than other character upgrades. With straken, for example, said points basket is only being protected by a CCS, while pask is protected by 3HP of AV14.

and more, if you squadron up.

Are LR considered to be heavy? I didn't think they were

zhutch wrote:
Are LR considered to be heavy? I didn't think they were

Yup; FAQ swapped in heavy for Lumbering Behemoth.