So I'm playing Salamanders at the weekend and I want to sort out the last remaining unit, the Redeemer. (E&C keeps refering to the agreed stats but I just can't find them anywhere.)

I hate the 15cm range, but then BL pointed out an apocalpyse rule saying they can combine fire for a longer ranged template, on par with the Hellhound.
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/forums....y314980

I think 1 30cm attack over two 15cm ones is great. It makes it more useful and removes fears about landing and shooting them with a landing craft.

So how about

Move 25cm
AV4+
CC5+
FF4+  
Frag Launchers (base contact), Assault Weapons
Twin assault cannon, 30cm, AP4+/AT4+
Hellstorm attack, 30cm, AP3+, Ignore Cover
Multi-melta, 15cm, MW5+, Macro-weapon
AND (15cm), Small Arms, Macro-weapon
Notes: Reinforced Armour, Thick Rear Armour, Transport (may carry one Terminator unit OR two of the following units: Tactical, Devastator & Scout). The Multi-melta can shoot and be used to confer the macro-weapon ability to the unit’s firefight value.

_________________
If using E-Bay use this link to support Tac Com!
'Abolish red trousers?! Never! Red trousers are France!' – Eugene Etienne, War Minister, 1913
"Gentlemen, we may not make history tomorrow, but we shall certainly change the geography."
General Plumer, 191x

It's been commonly agreed that the Multi-Melta should be dropped as it's an optional upgrade for Land Raiders.

The Redeemer should have a better FF stat than the Crusader, but worse transport capacity (standard Land Raider capacity instead of extra like the Crusader).



So something like:

LAND RAIDER REDEEMER
Move 25cm
AV4+
CC5+
FF3+  
Frag Launchers (base contact), Assault Weapons
Twin assault cannon, 30cm, AP4+/AT4+
Flamestorm cannons, (15cm), Small Arms, Extra Attacks (+1)
Notes: Reinforced Armour, Thick Rear Armour, Transport (may carry one Terminator unit OR two of the following units: Tactical, Devastator & Scout).



With the Crusader something like:

LAND RAIDER CRUSADER
Move 25cm
AV4+
CC5+
FF4+  
Frag Launchers (base contact), Assault Weapons
Twin assault cannon, 30cm, AP4+/AT4+
Hurricane Bolters, (15cm), Small Arms, Extra Attacks (+1)
Notes: Reinforced Armour, Thick Rear Armour, Transport (may carry two Terminator unit OR three of the following units: Tactical, Devastator & Scout).

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Well the above then is the Salamander version then (because it is still very sub par compared to the normal raider without - I can swap the 2 twin lascannon and twin heavy bolter for what??). And FFMW4+ is quite good.
I'm surprised you would drop it for the crusader (if you are) as it was always part of the iconic weapons fit.

_________________
If using E-Bay use this link to support Tac Com!
'Abolish red trousers?! Never! Red trousers are France!' – Eugene Etienne, War Minister, 1913
"Gentlemen, we may not make history tomorrow, but we shall certainly change the geography."
General Plumer, 191x

It was agreed to drop it for the crusder for two reasons. Firstly it's no longer mandatory in 40k, and secondly because of the significant internal balance issue between the crusader and normal land raider. There was basically no reason to ever take a normal raider if crusaders were available, due to the 3 base transport allowing less points to be spend on crusaders. Plus, 3 FF attacks was considered unneccesary.

The redeemer however seems somewhat underpowered compared to a normal land raider without the multi-melta.

Shrug, personally I really don't see the need to represent the redeemer at epic scale; the crusader is almost identical in role.

_________________
http://www.troublemakergames.co.uk/
Epic: Hive Development Thread

I can swap the 2 twin lascannon and twin heavy bolter for what?

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

I think it should a maximum of 15cm range, but be nasty in that range - Crusader deadly FF, Redeemer less good at FF but very nasty at short range.

I dislike basing things on silly Apocalypse rules where having multiple of the same weapon somehow magically makes it much longer ranged. Where next - adding rules for earthquakes on our tables because Apocalypse lets you do that if you have a few Ork Stompaz walking about in W40k?

The multi-melta originally was standard, but is now just an optional upgrade in current W40k and if dropping it better balances the units I'm fine with that.

I'd probably just use the same stats on Redeemer as Crusader. The do essentially same and am really unsure why separate stats are needed. I think it's not good to make stats for everything in 40k to epic.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

But, from someone who has used them lots and lots they are crap in epic with range 15cm. They are slow. You will assault once with them on average in a game against someone who knows what he is doing.
It makes it a... Landing craft tank. And that sucks.

I've got the sponsons from my 3rd ed Predators, though they aren't that hot.

_________________
If using E-Bay use this link to support Tac Com!
'Abolish red trousers?! Never! Red trousers are France!' – Eugene Etienne, War Minister, 1913
"Gentlemen, we may not make history tomorrow, but we shall certainly change the geography."
General Plumer, 191x

If they're crap then drop the points some or slightly tweak them, don't change them too much from how they should be.

Edited to add: predator flamer sponsons would be too small to be a truly good proxy, but they could work ok.

TRC: The Crusader is also an Assault tank in the same vein.

Edited to add: predator flamer sponsons would be too small to be a truly good proxy, but they could work ok.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

With the Crusader, two FF4+ attacks instead of one FF5+ attack, and extra transport space.
With the Redeemer, two FF3+ attacks instead of one FF5+ attack.

It's a very powerful FF tank, and on a Landing Craft or Thawk Transporter is brutal. I know because I've faced Pulsar's Crusaders a lot.

_________________
If using E-Bay use this link to support Tac Com!
'Abolish red trousers?! Never! Red trousers are France!' – Eugene Etienne, War Minister, 1913
"Gentlemen, we may not make history tomorrow, but we shall certainly change the geography."
General Plumer, 191x

Can't do it Glyn because of the landing craft, get to cheap and its ground attack heaven. And how they should be? Arguably all three versions are how they should be (the very tested Salamander existing one which I'm still not happy about, primarily in relation to viability over land raider and the potential use in the air, and the sallies list makes this more expensive than normal lists), the BA air assault tank, or the above close support tank.

_________________
If using E-Bay use this link to support Tac Com!
'Abolish red trousers?! Never! Red trousers are France!' – Eugene Etienne, War Minister, 1913
"Gentlemen, we may not make history tomorrow, but we shall certainly change the geography."
General Plumer, 191x

I feel the Crusader should have the superior FF ability. Its got masses of bolters, thats total coverage supression fire wise. Have you seen the modern equivalent (the electrically fired stacked ammo Australian gun) fire? The crusader is the assault tank.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Off topic there is if you wish to model something that has problems with troops in cover or firing on the move (so 3x5+ shows it better than 2x4+), but yes in assault the less dice the better.

And no, haven't used it in 40k, just play epic and other 6mm games, especially WWII stuff. Then again since Epic 40k is fought at assault range I wouldn't see any problem with such a weapon fit (everyone knows though what happens when such things move to Epic scale, with all the attendant problems for marines).

_________________
If using E-Bay use this link to support Tac Com!
'Abolish red trousers?! Never! Red trousers are France!' – Eugene Etienne, War Minister, 1913
"Gentlemen, we may not make history tomorrow, but we shall certainly change the geography."
General Plumer, 191x