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.

I personally like the look of a heavy stubber on top of a LR. And they seem to be an intelligent choice. Another anti infantry gun on a tank for 10 points, (correct me if I'm mistaken). Its a heavy 3 S4 AP6 mounted on the hatch above the turret. With AP6 that would mean any penetrating hit on an enemy vehicles would an explosion, correct? Not sure what the average armour value of a enemy tank is, but thats 6's to glance on LR's rear armour, 3 shots a turn (at the same target of course). Of course I believe their main goal is another anti-infantry gun, which makes it more adatable. So why don't we see more of them? PersonnalyI think they look pretty awesome as well.

Also, since I use IAV1E2 for my formation, is it worth it using those rules?

Some Leman Russes have rear AV 11.

In addition, AP6 means any pen cannot explode. And, at S4, it can never pen anyway.

Finally, if you're using a Battle Cannon, that's ordnance, so all other guns must snapfire.

Wait so (yes I'm a noob, forgive me) AP is better the lower it gets?

Again being a noob I figured, well Imperial tanks are meant to be big and tough, so something like Eldar would be destroyed in one or two hits (which tends to be the case in DoW)

Then again, stubbers do look more like 50 cals (at least to a history novice like me, always did prefer the Great War, and the WW2 Eastern Front over the western) so I would suspect that would make them more anti-infantry, are they any good in that field?

Ah yes, the Seige Tank LRs do heavy AV 11, tend to forget of those LRs

Finnaly on something like the destroyer tank hunter, would it be worth it, to deal with anyone who gets too close?

CommanderRednaxela wrote:
Wait so (yes I'm a noob, forgive me) AP is better the lower it gets?

Again being a noob I figured, well Imperial tanks are meant to be big and tough, so something like Eldar would be destroyed in one or two hits (which tends to be the case in DoW)

Then again, stubbers do look more like 50 cals (at least to a history novice like me, always did prefer the Great War, and the WW2 Eastern Front over the western) so I would suspect that would make them more anti-infantry, are they any good in that field?

Ah yes, the Seige Tank LRs do heavy AV 11, tend to forget of those LRs

Finnaly on something like the destroyer tank hunter, would it be worth it, to deal with anyone who gets too close?

Yes, AP is better the lower it gets (AP 6 ignores armor saves of 6+ and worse, AP 5 ignores armor saves of 5+ and worse, AP 4 ignores armor saves of 4+ and worse, AP 3 ignores armor saves of 3+ and worse, AP 2 ignores armor saves AND adds +1 to Vehicle Damage Roll, AP1 ignores armor saves AND +2 to Vehicle Damage Roll)

Stubbers are really only worthwhile for volume of fire. If you can't drown the targeted enemy unit in raw number of shots (both of the vehicle's and whatever unit is also providing firepower), it's really not worth taking. I think it's something like one heavy stubber has less than a 10% chance of wounding a Space Marine in power armor.

So IMO, heavy stubbers aren't really worth it unless you're either: playing in a meta that has a lot of armies with low toughness, weak armor saves, or both; OR using them in assisting your army in drowning the opponent in sheer volume of firepower.

(I don’t play guard, so this is general advice)

The AP value is mostly vs. infantry, and lower is better. The value is the level of the armor it ignores. So AP3 will wipe marines off the table, AP2 denies any non-invulnerable armor save, etc. Vs. vehicular targets, the very low AP values give you bonuses on the damage chart (to see if they explode) With AP2 giving a +1, and AP1 a +2.

So a heavy stubber is not going to do a whole lot to any but the lightest of vehicles. It can do a glancing hit to soft weak armor, or things like Land Speeders and Vypers. But unless someone is doing a 180 to show the back of their tank to you, the odds of guard tanks getting that angle are low.

Another thing to consider is that each vehicle needs to shoot all it’s guns at one target (exception is superheavies like baneblades) So if your tank if packing stuff that wants to shoot other tanks, the stubber is just going to flatten light rounds off the armor. But if you are loaded up for anti-troop work, it is a little more dakka. Wether or not it’s a good use of the points, I don’t know.

Another reason to take a pintle weapon is not for the damage it can do, but to help absorb some. Weapon destroyed results are random. So if you have a tank with single big gun on it, adding the extra stubber lets you go from a 100% of the main gun being blown off due to damage, to a 50%, as the stubber might eat the hit. On something like a Russ with sponsons, it might not be worth it, as you will already have the main, hull, and 2xsponsons. But on something like a SM vindicator, which only has a hull mounted battle cannon, it can be a big deal.

 Nevelon wrote:


Another thing to consider is that each vehicle needs to shoot all it’s guns at one target (exception is superheavies like baneblades) So if your tank if packing stuff that wants to shoot other tanks, the stubber is just going to flatten light rounds off the armor. But if you are loaded up for anti-troop work, it is a little more dakka. Wether or not it’s a good use of the points, I don’t know.

Doesn't IG have access to PotMS? so they could have one weapon fire at a different target than the rest.

 King Pariah wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:


Another thing to consider is that each vehicle needs to shoot all it’s guns at one target (exception is superheavies like baneblades) So if your tank if packing stuff that wants to shoot other tanks, the stubber is just going to flatten light rounds off the armor. But if you are loaded up for anti-troop work, it is a little more dakka. Wether or not it’s a good use of the points, I don’t know.

Doesn't IG have access to PotMS? so they could have one weapon fire at a different target than the rest.

I think if they have an engineseer babysitting the tank they can give it PotMS. But even if that’s the case, it only lets you shoot one weapon at a separate target, and I’m sure there are better options the the stubber.

(Again, I’m not a guard player. Take army specific stuff I say with a grain of salt)

They look cool on the model, but pretty useless as a weapon.

Stubbers are worthwhile on any tank you have the spare points to put them on(as an afterthought when the rest of your list is put together).

There are some tanks in which they are an absolute include. These are Chimera of any armament(although multilaser and heavy flamer are the best choices for a mobile ifv, heavy bolter, multilaser, and stubber make for a great semi-mobile bunker).

Stubbers add a weapon for weapon destroyed results(potentially saving your main gun).

The heavy 3 means snap firing either with moving, after taking a crew shaken, or firing ordnance means you have a higher chance of hitting with an extra shot(the laser+flamer chimera moving up but out of template range can fire the multilaser at full bs and snapshot the stubber) this is also why heavy bolter sponsons on a LRMBT, while not optimal, are not useless.

Finally: if you are going to add any pintle weapon to a guard tank it should always be a stubber, never a storm bolter. For the same cost you increase the range, add a shot, and only lose out on 1 AP

35 pts. worth of heavy stubbers seem ok, I've got basically everthing I need in my list (minus the baneblade, but its quite hard to fit in an 1850 point army)?

Is it worth giving to my bassies as it reduces it from 50 to 33.3 % chance of losing the earthshaker cannon

Currently have my list with all 4 LRs (2 CCT vanquishers, 1 exterminator, 1 excutioner, all with heavy bolters), my DTH, and my 2 basilisks having heavy stubbers (that just leaves the punisher vulture, vendetta with sposnon bolters, and banewolf with mutliy melta left, but they can't take it). Any of these I should get rid of the heavy stubber (personally like the loom of the DTH with dozer blade and heavy bolter the most, and it reduces from 100 to 50 chance of losing its main gun)

If you are using IA 2 ed I suggest you upgrade the main gun of the Vanquishers with a coaxial H.Stubber. It adds 3 shots and if it hits it makes the main gun twin linked.
I use H. Stubbers on my Punishers. 36 shots for the win!

i did, just remebering I've done that, that means I have two heavy stubbers!(is that too much?)

Hm, 36 shots, well 1. MORE DAKKA, 2. Might be worth switchting my excutioner for a punisher, currently all my tanks are really good at anti tank (except the Banewolf, Vulture with punisher, and LR exterminator, which is 3/10 units)

EDIT:
Dozers vs stubbers, which is more useful?

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
Stubbers are worthwhile on any tank you have the spare points to put them on(as an afterthought when the rest of your list is put together).

There are some tanks in which they are an absolute include. These are Chimera of any armament(although multilaser and heavy flamer are the best choices for a mobile ifv, heavy bolter, multilaser, and stubber make for a great semi-mobile bunker).

Stubbers add a weapon for weapon destroyed results(potentially saving your main gun).

The heavy 3 means snap firing either with moving, after taking a crew shaken, or firing ordnance means you have a higher chance of hitting with an extra shot(the laser+flamer chimera moving up but out of template range can fire the multilaser at full bs and snapshot the stubber) this is also why heavy bolter sponsons on a LRMBT, while not optimal, are not useless.

Finally: if you are going to add any pintle weapon to a guard tank it should always be a stubber, never a storm bolter. For the same cost you increase the range, add a shot, and only lose out on 1 AP

This pretty much.

One other thought, in terms of economy, a Heavy Stubber costs 5 points - the same as a guardsman - but gives you three shots that are both more powerful and longer range.

I typically mount heavy Stubbers in two cases: 1. An anti-infantry focused tank/vehicle, as the synergy with the rest of the armament is perfect, and 2. A cheap way to decrease the chances of a weapon destroyed result on a vehicle with an important main gun.

I need to mount more Heavy Stubbers on my stuff. Frankly I just forget to.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

CommanderRednaxela wrote:
i did, just remebering I've done that, that means I have two heavy stubbers!(is that too much?)

Hm, 36 shots, well 1. MORE DAKKA, 2. Might be worth switchting my excutioner for a punisher, currently all my tanks are really good at anti tank (except the Banewolf, Vulture with punisher, and LR exterminator, which is 3/10 units)

EDIT:
Dozers vs stubbers, which is more useful?

...and I just saw this question of yours, Dozers vs Stubbers.

Frankly I'd prioritize based on your planned tactics. Dozer Blades for equipment that you plan on moving forward as fast as possible (APCs, Hellhounds, Russ's that you want to get up close and personal with.) Heavy Stubbers for slower, more meandering vehicles and/or equipment that you simply don't plan on moving much.

Personally I'm a fan.

Benefits over a stormbolter: more range, same Str, more shots. Against most targets (marines, Tau, eldar) that you'll run into, the weaker AP really isn't going to matter much. AP 5 vs 6 when both are still giving saves.

I like to put these one pretty much every vehicle that can take them for a variety of reasons.

Anti-infantry tank: 5 pts for three more shots (LR: Punisher, Exterminator, Executioner, Eradicator, Chimera's, Hell Hounds (all types)). An extra plus for shorter ranged tanks like HH's is that the range is longer than their main gun's. For Chimera's it matches the thanks common other weapons well. For the LR's It's cheap extra shots, and an extra gun to help keep the main gun intact.

AT tanks: 5 pts for an extra gun to shield the main weapon, and not everyone has a target worth using a Vanquisher on, so for just a few more points your LRV with H: LC and SP: MM's is now getting 7 shots rather than 4.

Multi-role tanks: LR: Exterminator, Punishers. I like loading exterminators out with MM's and A heavy flamer, lets them do a bit of everything (anti-light armor: Turret autocannons/multi-meltas), anti-heavy armor: Multi-meltas, anti-infantry: Autocannons, hvy flamer. The PMHS adds a large bump in volume of fire to the autocannons at similar range, and is still strong enough to be useful against marines, especially in bulk.

So: five points to add: Insurance, versatility, and fire power. And in most cases, outfitting every tank that can have one will still be cheaper than a basic squad AND provide more fire power.

Also, they don't snap fire when fired by russ's unless you use ordnance weapons.

I'm pretty sure that the Storm Bolter and Heavy Stubber wound 5+ infantry exactly the same, so there's basically no reason to ever use a Storm Bolter if you have the option.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I'm pretty sure that the Storm Bolter and Heavy Stubber wound 5+ infantry exactly the same, so there's basically no reason to ever use a Storm Bolter if you have the option.

Unless they have 5+ re-rollable vs shooting. But i'm not sure you're gona meet this in a game very often.

Kommisar Kel and Cathonian hit the nail on the head. They're a cheap way to mitigate weapon destroyed, and they allow some cheap shots vs horde armies/light infantry. AP is better the lower it goes, with only ap 2 and ap1 causing more damage to enemy armor. They are far from being powerful, but they have their own niche.

Very well, glad to know about the AP, and how it works.

I've already fit stubbers as a basic part of 227th's tanks fore fluff reasons (227th is my personal regiment, I making the 5th armoured company to be exact)

So I think I shall go with heavy stubbers on my tanks (which just leaves out my air support, because obiously they can't have it, can they?), all of my tanks, the idea of saving POTENITALLY my main gun sounds nice, as well as having another anti-infantry gun, seeing how much anti-tank my list has (Vendetta, 2 Vanquishers, DTH, hydra kind of since it deals with air) I wouldn't want my list prone to waves of infantry, of course I got the punisher, and banewolf to help deal with them. Anways thanks for the help, and may the Emperor bless you.

Pre-Hull Points, extra weapons meant more "wounds", as each weapon was one more weapon to disable on the damage chart before any additional weapons result would automatically upgrade to Wrecked.

Post-Hull Points, extra weapons aren't as useful to reduce a Wrecked result as simply glancing a vehicle to death is the easier option.

Potential future use? Point defense weapons like the Stubber as well as sponsons and other secondary weapons should be able to target separate enemy units from the main gun or each other. Maybe one day GW will realize that and include rules fir it in the future.

Stylistically, they should be there even if tge fules are conducive to them being useful.

SJ

Pre-hull points? Post hull points?

CommanderRednaxela wrote:
Pre-hull points? Post hull points?

get a rulebook. HPs are 'wounds' for vehicles. They were introduced between 5th and 6th. Every glance or pen your vehicles suffer, you lose one automatically. As Leman Russes can field, ! HK Missile, 1 pintle mounted weapon, 1 hull mounted weapon, 1 turret weapon, and 2 sponson weapons, worrying about losing a weapon on a HP3 chassis is kinda laughable.

They might just be confused because they started in an edition with HP.

Older editions didn't have them-they had SP, I think. (I started in 7th, so.)

All of my Chimeras & Hellhounds should be fitted with HS...

For 5 pts, it's worth it.

But I've not (yet) gotten around to it.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Older editions didn't have them-they had SP, I think. (I started in 7th, so.)

6th. SP stood for Structure Points. It was a way to keep the first wreck or destroy roll to kill your expensive vehicle. And before anyone asks another old term was 'Primary Weapon' which was essentially a 4++ for your big gun to avoid it being destroyed to a Weapon Destroyed roll. Today though, it means something completely different.

It's buried in the comments earlier, but worth reiterating:

They are worth it, if only for the cheap insurance v. weapon destroyed results.

So, if you have a LR with just a battle cannon, and you get a weapon destroyed result, the battle cannon is gone. If you had spent 10 points on 2x heavy stubbers, now you've got a 1 in 3 chance of losing the BC, as weapon destroyed results are random.

That's probably the best reason for them, honestly, but in general, snap shots are still shots, and can still do damage.

 Kap'n Krump wrote:
So, if you have a LR with just a battle cannon, and you get a weapon destroyed result, the battle cannon is gone.

If you had spent 10 points on 2x heavy stubbers, now you've got a 1 in 3 chance of losing the BC, as weapon destroyed results are random.

Hold on, guys.

A Leman Russ, of any sort, has a minimum of 2 weapons:
* main gun (in turret); and
* secondary gun (in hull).

At worst, it is looking at a 50% chance of losing the main gun to a Weapon Destroyed result.

Adding a Heavy Stubber drops that from 50% down to 33% (1/3).

Adding a pair of sponsons drops it to 20% (1/5).

Tacking on a HKM drops it to 17% (1/6).

Ah, several things
1. I know what hull points are, and I have a rulebook, and codex, IAV1E2 is coming
2. So pre-hull points are when they weren't in the rulebook, and now we are in the post hull points editions
3. In the Imperial Armour they are 10 pts, not 5
4. I think I'll give them to all my tanks, just for the extra insurance, a few more dice on the table, and the looks.

Put them on Russ variants that don't use ordinance weapons. The STR 6 AP 4 ignore cover cannon is quite nice.

I wouldn't even field Russes with ordinance weapons myself. They're a waste.

Martel732 wrote:
Put them on Russ variants that don't use ordinance weapons. The STR 6 AP 4 ignore cover cannon is quite nice.

I wouldn't even field Russes with ordinance weapons myself. They're a waste.

The replaces Hellhound is arguably the best Russ. Certainly, it's easily the best Hellhound. By far.

I still play Codex: Imperial Guard, and Ordnance Russes are fine. No clue how they fare under other Codices....

When I play against guard, they are only secondary targets. Their damage output per point is quite poor packing an ordinance gun. That's why I'd never use those russes.