Best type of Leman Russ against horde armies

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.

**MrMoustaffa**

Overkill, thy name is Executioner squadron.

I need to try that now just to see how hilarious it would be in action. Thanks to scatter everything within 6" of the aiming point would die a very painful death.

Of course, that's nothing compared to a guy I know who ran a x3 punisher squadron with prescience on it in a tournament.

He said it was like a death ray. You just pointed it at things and no matter what happened they would go away

**Bonde**

I have loved my Executioner with plasma cannon sponsons every time I have run it. The only reason why I haven't used it lately is because I have been experimenting a lot with lists since 6th edition hit, but I'll probably begin using it a lot again, since it never lets me down.

**liam0404**

Random Question - Doesn't Lumbeing Behemoth mean your Leman Russ always counts as stationary?

Shouldn't that allow Pask in a Punisher to move and still gain the benefits of his Special Rule?

**Bonde**

As far as I remember, something in Pask's rules say that the tank has to remain stationary to use his special ability, while the heavy rule states that the vehicle counts as stationary when shooting its weapons. I don't have the book right now, but I'm pretty sure that there was detail making that little trick not doable.

**Flinty**

Lumbering behemoth has been replaced by the heavy tank special rule. Regardless, its the actual movement that matters for Pask, not the counts-as movement for firing weapons.

**Puscifer**

MrMoustaffa wrote:
Puscifer wrote:
This is the thing with the Executioner... it's good against all forms of single wound infantry and fair against light vechicles in a pinch.

After seeing the sheer destruction that mine has dealt in test games, I don't plan to leave home without it.

I'm assuming that there is no point in taking more than one?

I'm assuming that there is no point in taking more than one?

I'm assuming that there is no point in taking more than one?

*twitch*

You know, the orks have a saying. I believe it goes along the lines of there never being quite enough firepower, and that one should always strive for the most firepower they can bring. Something about dakka and never having enough or something.

Imperial Guard, whether they'll admit or not, also follow this rule. It may as well be on the great testament for IG, right beside "you can never have enough tanks" and "if it ain't melta, plasma, autocannons, or lascannons, you dun goofed." One of IG's greatest strengths is that while most armies are only able to take one or 2 of their strong units, we can spam ours. When building a list and looking at any unit in the codex, keep that in mind. (aka, if one Executioner wrecks face, wait till you see what 3 can do )

That said, if you can only bring literally 1 leman russ (as in, you only have one tank, but can outfit it however you want) a decked out Executioner will pull it's weight and impact a game far more than any other russ variant (except for possibly a punisher with pask in it, as that tank can tackle dang near everything as well for roughly the same points). It's one of the few Russ variants that doesn't just rely on strength of numbers to be scary. However, this is also why it's the most expensive tank we can take. It costs so much for a reason after all.

I've usually had best results when taking one of it and a few others of another cheaper variant like exterminators and LRBT's, to be honest. I think punishers and Executioners would make a good combo as well, if you absolutely wanted to just annihilate anything that got close to your line. Play around with the numbers of each tank you take and see what works best for you. Ever since Leman Russes got the heavy rule, I've seen people fielding almost every single variant and coming up with good reasons to do so. It really depends more on the rest of your list now, whereas before you either picked normal russes or demolishers and called it a day.

(and by the way I mean a lot of this in jest, I'm not upset or anything)

Two Executioners works. It's a massive points investment, but it works. It's a little wasted on Gants from Tervigons, but it smashes heavy infantry apart. I'm still taking two over any other tank in the list just as it can take out lots of different things and puts the fear of Jeebus in your opponent.

I'm thinking that it might work better as two separate tanks and taking my 2 Vanquishers with Pask in a Exterminator as one Squadron.

**alarmingrick**

Puscifer wrote:
Going to try the two Executioners tonight in a squadron, then on their own.

In regards to the cover ignoring of the Eradicator, I just don't see the point of it.

Most cover tends to be 5+, unless something has stealth or has gone to ground or both. Most of the armies I play against are MEQ or a a mix in the case of CSM, so all I usually see is 3+ everywhere.

If this works, I can see a lot of marine players going to ground on objectives at my flgs. If they do that, I'll just send in the Bane Hounds.

This is starting to come together for me.

Btw... love the twitch comment.

I'd suggest splitting them up, but that's just me and may be hard to pull off depending on the rest of your HS choices.
Best of luck, let us know how it went!