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.

They are. Bear in mind that the FAQ corrects yeh codex, this is from the BRB. We had this argument for a looong time at my local GW store but we've checked, and double checked, and triple checked. Paladins are characters.

But thats besides the point.

The point is that the punisher simply cannot fill that role.

 Ailaros wrote:
750 points which can wipe out 10-man paladin squads and also be good against everything else in the game.

And around the circle we go again. No matter how many times you ignore all evidence that disagrees with you, MM/LC Punishers are still not good against everything in the game.

I would love for a draigowing player to spend half the game off the board and then run a serious chance of mishapping with a 10-man paladin squad. All so that he could go fishing for what is likely only a single rending result which the tanks can easily survive.

Since when does having reserves arrive on a 3+ on turn 2 mean "spending half the game off the board"?

And why do you need to hope for a single rending result when you can drop into rear armor (side armor on the Chimeras) and wipe the whole unit off the table?

I really feel at some point some of us should agree to disagree.
I feel it's perfectly alright to champion an opinion that 98% of the other posters think is bonkers.
But at some point we have to stop trying to convince everyone else to do it our way or it's not going to work.
The phrase "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink" comes to mind. You've laid out your
position, other's counter. After three pages of the back and forth, I feel it should be apparent opinions aren't going
to be swayed. Sorry, had to get that off my chest.

/

 alarmingrick wrote:
I really feel at some point some of us should agree to disagree.
I feel it's perfectly alright to champion an opinion that 98% of the other posters think is bonkers.
But at some point we have to stop trying to convince everyone else to do it our way or it's not going to work.
The phrase "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink" comes to mind. You've laid out your
position, other's counter. After three pages of the back and forth, I feel it should be apparent opinions aren't going
to be swayed. Sorry, had to get that off my chest.

/

Except we are all IG here so the horse drinks or a commissariat bullet solves the problem.

So, despite the arguing can I summarize some of the ideas that have been presented?

LRBT on its own is bad.. need 2-3, maybe 4 to make it worth taking. Barebones it since it can't fire anything else.

Punisher should take HB sponsons and hull, I know the MM/LC was discussed but I personally don't like that idea.

Executioner with full sponsons, expensive but fun/good.

Vanquisher is good for anti-tank but.. in todays troops builds it's not very useful outside of that. So don't take it?

You neglected the Demolisher (and it's little brother, the Thunderer). The Thunderer is a particularly good alternative for forming an "AV14 wall" since it is both cheap and lacks the Lumbering Behemoth rule. If you're fielding Russes as screening strategy, I"d take it over a standard Russ any day.

Otherwise, I'd say you did a pretty nice job of summing it up.

*facepalm* How I could I forget about the Demolisher?!

Hrm... I'll have to look into the Thunderer.

Corollax wrote:
You neglected the Demolisher (and it's little brother, the Thunderer). The Thunderer is a particularly good alternative for forming an "AV14 wall" since it is both cheap and lacks the Lumbering Behemoth rule. If you're fielding Russes as screening strategy, I"d take it over a standard Russ any day.

Otherwise, I'd say you did a pretty nice job of summing it up.

Who has LB anymore?

It's a cute little piece of work, honestly. It's basically a Vindicator without the crippling side armor. For a vehicle that's supposed to deliver a blast template of doom within 24", that's a pretty big deal.

If nothing else, it's nice to be able to move 18" on a turn when no target is presenting itself. Saving a few points while you're at it is just gravy.

 Atheos wrote:
LRBT on its own is bad.. need 2-3, maybe 4 to make it worth taking. Barebones it since it can't fire anything else.

Exact opposite. LRBT is maybe useful if you want a cheap marine killer, but it's rarely worth taking more than one of them.

Vanquisher is good for anti-tank but.. in todays troops builds it's not very useful outside of that. So don't take it?

Whether you take it or not depends on how many vehicles you expect to face in your metagame and how much anti-tank you have elsewhere in your list. Like most narrow-role specialists there is no universal answer that applies to all lists in all metagames.

Quite. For better or worse, the vanilla Russ is very much a case of diminishing returns. If you insist on bringing that "wall of AV14", you're probably better off doing it with something that's more generally useful. Demolisher Cannons might not be perfect, but they're probably going to contribute more than a generic Battle Cannon. Between T5 FNP/multi-wound units and vehicles in general, it's just more apt to find appropriate targets.

 Atheos wrote:
So, despite the arguing can I summarize some of the ideas that have been presented?

LRBT on its own is bad.. need 2-3, maybe 4 to make it worth taking. Barebones it since it can't fire anything else.

Punisher should take HB sponsons and hull, I know the MM/LC was discussed but I personally don't like that idea.

Executioner with full sponsons, expensive but fun/good.

Vanquisher is good for anti-tank but.. in todays troops builds it's not very useful outside of that. So don't take it?

Well with any russ you should probably be taking 2+ if you choose to take russes. My reasoning is because if your opponent has any pods loaded with meltas you know exactly where they are going. And if you only have 1 or two russes no matter how many pts they are they will still die like any other russ.

In this edition Ive noticed it seems like its almost not even worth taking leman russ in this edition. They are slower now, if you take advantage of their sponsons then you put a lot of points in expensive russes that die just as easily as a barebones LRBT, The ordnance russes are best left at barebones and cant take advantage of any sponsons or weapon upgrades.

In the end I would say go with artillery, With money issues, me being a tread head, and russes being my favorite tank I am stuck using them but I would thoroughly say artillery is a much better solution than take LRBT's or any other russ variant.

Tactical_Genius wrote:
They are. Bear in mind that the FAQ corrects yeh codex, this is from the BRB. We had this argument for a looong time at my local GW store but we've checked, and double checked, and triple checked. Paladins are characters.

But thats besides the point.

The point is that the punisher simply cannot fill that role.

Last time I checked, codex trumps rulebook.

 Happygrunt wrote:

Tactical_Genius wrote:
They are. Bear in mind that the FAQ corrects yeh codex, this is from the BRB. We had this argument for a looong time at my local GW store but we've checked, and double checked, and triple checked. Paladins are characters.

But thats besides the point.

The point is that the punisher simply cannot fill that role.

Last time I checked, codex trumps rulebook.

Not that this actually matters since the CORE RULEBOOK errata removes the character type from Paladins. Paladins are not a whole unit of characters, end of discussion.

 tankboy145 wrote:


Well with any russ you should probably be taking 2+ if you choose to take russes. My reasoning is because if your opponent has any pods loaded with meltas you know exactly where they are going. And if you only have 1 or two russes no matter how many pts they are they will still die like any other russ.

In this edition Ive noticed it seems like its almost not even worth taking leman russ in this edition. They are slower now, if you take advantage of their sponsons then you put a lot of points in expensive russes that die just as easily as a barebones LRBT, The ordnance russes are best left at barebones and cant take advantage of any sponsons or weapon upgrades.

In the end I would say go with artillery, With money issues, me being a tread head, and russes being my favorite tank I am stuck using them but I would thoroughly say artillery is a much better solution than take LRBT's or any other russ variant.

Yeah I have the money issue as well, I have zero artillery models and 4 Leman Russ's to play with.

 Atheos wrote:

 tankboy145 wrote:


Well with any russ you should probably be taking 2+ if you choose to take russes. My reasoning is because if your opponent has any pods loaded with meltas you know exactly where they are going. And if you only have 1 or two russes no matter how many pts they are they will still die like any other russ.

In this edition Ive noticed it seems like its almost not even worth taking leman russ in this edition. They are slower now, if you take advantage of their sponsons then you put a lot of points in expensive russes that die just as easily as a barebones LRBT, The ordnance russes are best left at barebones and cant take advantage of any sponsons or weapon upgrades.

In the end I would say go with artillery, With money issues, me being a tread head, and russes being my favorite tank I am stuck using them but I would thoroughly say artillery is a much better solution than take LRBT's or any other russ variant.

Yeah I have the money issue as well, I have zero artillery models and 4 Leman Russ's to play with.

In that case, try to go for turrets. It could cheaper to get a turret than a whole tank.

 Atheos wrote:

Vanquisher is good for anti-tank but.. in todays troops builds it's not very useful outside of that. So don't take it?

In 2k points games I always take a Paskquisher. Under that I generally have enough anti-tank to deal with most threats. The great thing about it, is that you will destroy a Land Raider by turn 2, so think of it as insurance. It's also not useless once it's done. 4 ap2 (or better) weapons at BS4 can chip away at terminators and ID paladins. It's also good for taking out MCs if there aren't any armour units around.

I think it has a place in a TAC list, but it depends what points level you're playing. At 1500, I wouldn't touch it.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Happygrunt wrote:

Tactical_Genius wrote:
They are. Bear in mind that the FAQ corrects yeh codex, this is from the BRB. We had this argument for a looong time at my local GW store but we've checked, and double checked, and triple checked. Paladins are characters.

But thats besides the point.

The point is that the punisher simply cannot fill that role.

Last time I checked, codex trumps rulebook.

Not that this actually matters since the CORE RULEBOOK errata removes the character type from Paladins. Paladins are not a whole unit of characters, end of discussion.

Fair enough

I didn't check, but has anyone mentioned Executioners? The Heavy 3 Blast Plasma Leman Russ? I would think that that variant is pretty good, especially against all-terminator armies. Also, the Medusas are most excellent behind an ADL.

 McNinja wrote:
I didn't check, but has anyone mentioned Executioners? .

I did some quick mathammer on them above. They're OK against terminators. Their major issue is that you'll rarely hit more than 1 terminator with the blast template due to their huge base size. Only about 20% of your hits will manage to clip a second terminator which really diminishes their efficiency against TDA. They are IMO more efficacious at wiping out MEQ, but in an army of anti-MEQ they do have the bonus of actually being able to hurt terminators, which is certainly a point in their favour.
Their real use is to force people to spend their run move to get 2" apart. They can also really feth up anything that bails out of a destroyed transport.

The best option for killing terminators is the plasma vet squad. Followed closely by the Vendetta.

Atheos wrote:Vanquisher is good for anti-tank but.. in todays troops builds it's not very useful outside of that. So don't take it?

I'd consider myself lucky if my opponents didn't bring anything that a vanquisher wasn't able to handle. Really, properly kitted, the vanquisher's only weakness is hordes. If your opponents ever bring vehicles or terminators or monstrous creatures, or any other kind of hard target, the vanquisher will have work to do.

With a lascannon and multimeltas (or possibly plasma cannons), the vanquisher is a toybreaker unit. They point at your opponent's strongest, most expensive unit and kill it.

 Ailaros wrote:
If your opponents ever bring vehicles or terminators or monstrous creatures, or any other kind of hard target, the vanquisher will have work to do.

But not efficient work. The only time the MM/LC Vanquisher is more point-efficient than the alternatives is when it's killing heavy vehicles.

I for one like to bring at one or two barebone LRBT.

I won't argue it is the best tank but what it does for me is keep enemy infantry (2+ saves excluded) in cover at 72". Being a moderate threat with AV 14 hull, parked safely near my table edge also means it tends to survive. It's not spectacular, but then again it is only 150 pts.

zoat wrote:
It's not spectacular, but then again it is only 150 pts.

Why are you content with taking 150-300pts worth of mediocrity?

 Griddlelol wrote:

zoat wrote:
It's not spectacular, but then again it is only 150 pts.

Why are you content with taking 150-300pts worth of mediocrity?

Because they want to? Are you the IG list building police? Do they receive a warning or a fine for the first offense?
Just because you see it as mediocre, doesn't mean it is to them, or their meta.

Well, this is rather a tactics forum, wherein we can debate things, including the usefulness of things in the codex. It's not designed to be merely a showcase of opinion, where we all say what we think is good and then go home.

Also, it would be nice to be able to make comments without constantly needing to refer to our local meta every time we say something. I'd also like to think that it's possible to think about things abstractly, rather than purely in the context of our own subjective experiences.

Really, local meta should be the personal exceptions to the rules, not the thing on which dialogue is based, as without a common frame of reference, communication itself is rather difficult.

 alarmingrick wrote:

Because they want to? Are you the IG list building police? Do they receive a warning or a fine for the first offense?
Just because you see it as mediocre, doesn't mean it is to them, or their meta.

Well done on missing the point. Ailaros pretty much explained why, I don't think I need to repeat exactly what he said.

 Ailaros wrote:
#1 : Well, this is rather a tactics forum, wherein we can debate things, including the usefulness of things in the codex. It's not designed to be merely a showcase of opinion, where we all say what we think is good and then go home.

#2: Also, it would be nice to be able to make comments without constantly needing to refer to our local meta every time we say something. I'd also like to think that it's possible to think about things abstractly, rather than purely in the context of our own subjective experiences.

Really, local meta should be the personal exceptions to the rules, not the thing on which dialogue is based, as without a common frame of reference, communication itself is rather difficult.

#1: I know what this is A-man. Been here awhile longer than you.

#2: You can't look at things in a vacuum. The local meta can have a lot of affect on the tactics used or suggested. Why load out on flamers when all you see are SM?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Griddlelol wrote:

 alarmingrick wrote:

Because they want to? Are you the IG list building police? Do they receive a warning or a fine for the first offense?
Just because you see it as mediocre, doesn't mean it is to them, or their meta.

Well done on missing the point. Ailaros pretty much explained why, I don't think I need to repeat exactly what he said.

I'm slow. Try me anyway? What point?

@Griddlelol

For the record I feel it was a polite and justified question.

As for why:

what it does for me is keep enemy infantry (2+ saves excluded) in cover at 72"

This primarily, but also this

it tends to survive

I guess the last point is a bit meta dependent, but I won't blame the meta. I blame my army strategy!

I'm not very experienced (yet), but there seems to be good synergy between large blasts making opponent spread out and veterans/stormtroopers/vendettas/more expensive tanks that are good at bringing a lot of firepower to a small part of the table. This is what I'm experimenting with at the moment.

I was also carefully trying to steer the discussion away from Vendettas, veterans etc and back into the Heavy Support slot...

I do rather question the idea that you're going to be forcing your opponent into cover with a battlecannon. Either the unit was going to be in cover anyways, or it's still going to be the best thing for your opponent to move up, battlecannon on the other side of the table or no.

I mean, I'm scratching my head trying to think of a unit that your opponent brought that he would want to rush forward with that instead he could sit back and be nearly as effective with while shooting from cover.

Because if your opponent is bringing units that need to be attacking, but he doesn't because he's scared of the battlecannon, that has much, much more to say about your opponent, than about the battlecannon.