| Author |
Message |
 |
|
|
 |
|
Advert
|
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. |
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/11/05 23:45:58
Subject: Crusader vs Redeemer advice
|
 |
Painlord Titan Princeps of Slaanesh
|
I just started playing Grey Knights and I have a Crusader/Redeemer kit. I'm not experienced enough to be able to make an informed decision as to which would be better to build. I have a fairly flexible army in terms of usage but if there is some specific situation where there is a clear difference in use please feel free to offer an opinion.
Thank you for your time and information.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/11/06 06:28:19
Subject: Crusader vs Redeemer advice
|
 |
Regular Dakkanaut
|
I think the Crusader is better now in 8th. Hurricane Botlers are actually pretty good now and they match up range-wise with all the other weapons you can put on it. Not to mention a greater model carrying capacity, 16 versus 12. Personally, flamers seem less good this edition. I believe the Crusader might be cheaper as well. But I am not 100% sure on the costs of both.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/11/06 06:45:26
Subject: Crusader vs Redeemer advice
|
 |
Pious Palatine
|
Sell it, buy a stormraven
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/11/06 07:07:31
Subject: Crusader vs Redeemer advice
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Crusader is my pick personally. Don't get me wrong, I really like flamers this edition, I am not sure what people really expected from them if they don't like them now, but they are really normally used as a defensive weapon from me. If you want to charge me you know you have to do it from outside 8" or allow d6 auto hits on the charge.
Because of this I don't find flamers on land raider very good, what's going to normally charge a land raider that can take it out AND be afraid of flamers? Not much. Between that and the fact that hurricane bolters are pretty cool now, and the extra storage capacity, my vote is Crusader.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/11/06 11:02:07
Subject: Crusader vs Redeemer advice
|
 |
The Marine Standing Behind Marneus Calgar
|
The LRR does have some perks.
It’s main guns work better when damaged. When the LRC is down into the hitting on 4/5s, the flamestorm cannons are still going strong.
Auto-hits. People joke about flamers being great AA weapons, as they negate the minus to hit a lot of flyers have. Last game I fielded it, my LRR helped burn a stormraven out of the sky. Laughs on him.
Charge the LRR at your own risk.
How many bolters do you need in your army? Nothing wrong with the LRC, but it doesn’t bring anything new to the table.
I think 8th fixed a lot of the issues plaguing the LRR. Short ranged guns with bad arcs, move/shoot issues, split fire troubles, general vehicle durability. All of those have gone away. In previous editions I thought the LRC was the better call, but in 8th I’m enjoying the redeemer.
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/11/06 14:00:15
Subject: Crusader vs Redeemer advice
|
 |
Painlord Titan Princeps of Slaanesh
|
Has anyone run the numbers on how effective the 2 are, in comparison to each other, vs MEQ and GEQ?
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/11/07 10:03:04
Subject: Crusader vs Redeemer advice
|
 |
Stealthy Space Wolves Scout
|
It shouldn't bee too hard to magnetize it, then you can field it as both.
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/11/07 13:08:24
Subject: Crusader vs Redeemer advice
|
 |
Painlord Titan Princeps of Slaanesh
|
I thought about that but there is only 1 weapon base per door weapon and I'm not good enough to be able to put the magnets in the proper positions for the weapons themselves.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/11/08 13:20:43
Subject: Crusader vs Redeemer advice
|
 |
Executing Exarch
|
Leo_the_Rat wrote:I thought about that but there is only 1 weapon base per door weapon and I'm not good enough to be able to put the magnets in the proper positions for the weapons themselves.
I picked up extra mounts on eBay, the alternative seemed too fiddly.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/11/08 13:53:54
Subject: Crusader vs Redeemer advice
|
 |
Steadfast Ultramarine Sergeant
|
Nevelon wrote:The LRR does have some perks.
It’s main guns work better when damaged. When the LRC is down into the hitting on 4/5s, the flamestorm cannons are still going strong.
Auto-hits. People joke about flamers being great AA weapons, as they negate the minus to hit a lot of flyers have. Last game I fielded it, my LRR helped burn a stormraven out of the sky. Laughs on him.
Charge the LRR at your own risk.
How many bolters do you need in your army? Nothing wrong with the LRC, but it doesn’t bring anything new to the table.
I think 8th fixed a lot of the issues plaguing the LRR. Short ranged guns with bad arcs, move/shoot issues, split fire troubles, general vehicle durability. All of those have gone away. In previous editions I thought the LRC was the better call, but in 8th I’m enjoying the redeemer.
Totally agree, in 7th, the LRR are vunerable in being Immoblized by a single shot, now the old Vehicle damage chart is kaput.
In current edition, LRR / LRC and basically all tanks have trouble of being charged and silenced for the Rest of the game. That is what made the "auto hit" valuable. As long as enemy did not killed the LRR in fighting phase, just pull back, then the enemy next charging phase will be your main weapon shooting phase as long as the enemy dare to charge you again.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/11/08 13:58:40
Subject: Crusader vs Redeemer advice
|
 |
Omnipotent Necron Overlord
|
The only LR I would consider is the godhammer. 4 lascannons and a heavybolter is good firepower. It really has no purpose though - marines don't have a good unit that can use it as a first turn bunker. It's not really a bad idea to just upgrade it to a terminus ultra. Then you have 8 las cannons for about 50 more points BUT you lose transport capacity.
|
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder |
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/11/08 17:22:07
Subject: Crusader vs Redeemer advice
|
 |
Clousseau
|
If you're looking at a Land Raider for Grey Knights, there's really 2 ways to go IMHO.
Option 1: Base configuration, for the lascannons. Grey Knights don't get access to lascannons in any good way. You can also have a squad put astral aim on it, and shoot without LOS, so you get to play the imperial guard game, but at a WAY HIGHER price tag than they do.
Option 2: Land Raider Crusader, and gate of infinity. You'll get it close, and if it lives things pop out next turn. Although you still have the same problem of, it's incredibly expensive and the firepower is absolute trash for its cost, and anything that disembarks will end up fighting screening units.
Neither option is all that good. Under no circumstances should you be devoting 300+ points to a model that contributes so little.
If screening units like conscripts and brimstones weren't so cheap, and the other armies couldn't reliably blow up a land raider turn 1, it'd be a worthy inclusion. As it stands every meta army can easily deal with a landraider.
|
Galas wrote:I remember when Marmatag was a nooby, all shiney and full of joy. How playing the unbalanced mess of Warhammer40k in a ultra-competitive meta has changed you 
Bharring wrote:He'll actually *change his mind* in the presence of sufficient/sufficiently defended information. Heretic. |
|
|
 |
 |
|
|