Welcome to Librarium Online!
Join our community of 80,000+ members and take part in the number one resource for Warhammer and Warhammer 40K discussion!
Registering gives you full access to take part in discussions, upload pictures, contact other members and search everything!
Recently I used a Leman Russ Conqueror in a 750 point game and I was truly surprised at how effective the tank can be when it is able to fire all of its guns. I thought that without the battle cannon the tank would be a total waste but it can really clean up troops/light vehicles with the mass of shots it dishes out. This got me thinking about the other tanks and whether they are as effective. Does anyone have any experience with the other Imperial Armour tanks such as the; Conqueror, Thunderer, Destroyer Tank Hunter, Vanquisher, Executioner, Hydra, Manticore, Medusa or the Salamander Command and Scout variants. Any feedback on the actual performance of these tanks would be appreciated as I am currently playing in a campaign and I cannot afford to take a lemon even in a single battle.
Feel free to discuss any tanktics you feel are appropriate/needed as they all have their own specific roles to play on the table top.
Thanks all. :w
IG since '95.
I have experience with both the vanquisher and the exterminator. I really like the vanquisher in armored company armies, but I'm not too fond of it in a regular IG army; too many points.
The exterminator on the other hand, is just crazy good in retular battles, especially if you are going up against "squishy" armies. It just eats them up and you can move and fire all weapons on it with the new rules. I love that tank.
Hmm. There all good, but a lot are too specialized for guard. I used a proxy (griffon) for a Medusa and was amazed at the effectiveness, probably worth the points. Super-Heavies are devestating, but I find them to chew up to many points.
<img src='http://www.imageshack.us/files/DI-IG.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
Thanks for the input guys.
I will definitely try out a Leman Russ Exterminator in my next game vs Ork, Eldar or Tyranid (they are squishy right :unsure: )... it looks great! I may even use a Medusa against the next SM army that i play.
Based purely on statistics the Leman Russ Executioner appears to fry marines with ease. I will use one and report back on how it does after the weekend. If i know i am going to defend i WILL use a Thunderer :ph34r: and see how it performs.
I dare someone to use a Trojan :rolleyes:
IG since '95.
Pffft Reavered you know those Tanks despise the likes of Predator Anihilator's and Land Raider's. ;P
Yeah, well... well... :unsure: ... they sure will bury Wreath!
IG since '95.
Laser destroyer tank hunter. Oh..yeah...watch the marine player crap himself when the Land Raider takes a kill shot in the first turn. It's comparable to the Vanquisher except fewer points and more scenario specific. Downside: BS of 3 applies. For those who doubt me, chapter approved 2003 listed the laser destroyer as having the main-gun count as ord. in terms of damage.
I have found a platoon of LR conquerers to be useful in the old ArmCo. rules as a lighter, more mobile tank. I have also applied many German tactics to the use of these tanks; the Vanquisher being the KingTiger, the LR BT the Tiger, the Conquerer the Panther and the Demolisher the SturmTiger. The Hydra is just great fun, especially against horde-armies, though I've never shot down any aircraft with it. The Medusa has served well by throwing off people who are too intimidated by the basalisk, or who hide in holes and bunkers with heavy weapons. The Salamander Command is a very scenario specific unit, I have 1, but only used it as a cheap, improved-comms tank. The Salamander scout, with armoured crew compartment makes an excellant light tank for flanking attackes when in groups of three. The Thunderer is only good in cityfight, the seige armour makes a difference and it has a low profile; never used a executioner, looks like fun. The Trojan is, once again a scenario-specific tank. "Protect the convoy" games or "defend the ammunition" games are about its only use. The Manticore sucks, real, real bad. It looks cool, but is really just a point burden, save you money, buy a basalisk.
*Fart* "Keep talking sir, we'll find you!"
Thanks, panzerjeager, thats what i was looking for. But could you describe some of these "German tactics" for me because i am not familar with German Armoured tactics.
IG since '95.
yeh well...i got a baneblade ordered from forge world.... am gonna keep it until later..
I am a big fan of tanks, and like Panzerjeager I like to use them well. Though I haven't played a game of WH40K yet (a bit pricey at the moment money-wise, and the fact no one lives near me with any type of force) I have gone to the trouble of establishing some tactics to use.
I picture I.G tanks as such:
Super heavies - Heavies (1950's like designs, slow and tough as nails)
Normal I.G Tanks - Main Battle Tanks
Lighter vehciles (chimeras, basilisks etc) - support weaponary
I have a good book in my hands at the moment that goes into fair detail about armour assaults. A few points it states are:
1. Without infantry support, MBT's are unable to command ground, and are vulnerable to enemy assault
2. MBT's should make maximum use of large terrain features, and should use these so as they can best utilize their main armament
3. The unit should attempt to deliver a mass fire engagement on a single target to maximize the intial destructive effect
4. Armour is only viable in an urban conflict with extensive infantry support. While armour attacks strongpoints, the infantry hold off anti-tank teams.
That's my little speal, not too much that isn't really 'common sense' but all in all, it's a little something just to keep things going.
<a href="http://www.liquidgeneration.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.liquidgeneration.com/quiz...hief.jpg" border="0"></a>