Salamander Land Raider Redeemers in 9th

[L30n1d4s]

Anyone else see the possibility that Redeemers (Salamanders ones in particular) will get some life breathed into them in 9th edition?

 

 

With the ability to shoot into combat and hit automatically in both shooting and Overwatch, a Salamander Redeemer can pop the Strat to do automatic 12 shots (instead of 2D6), meaning that you could move up, kill a full squad of Primaris with 12 S6 AP-2 Dmg 2 shots, be charged by the enemy and Overwatch with 2D6 S6 AP-2 Dmg 2 shots, and then next turn shooting into combat and auto hit with ANOTHER 12 S6 AP-2 Dmg 2 shots.

 

If you happen to be in the Tactical Doctrine, then you are getting +1 to Wound with all those hits and you still also still get to use your 12 Assault Cannon shots every time (with no penalty for moving and shooting) and you also still benefit from the Salamander Chapter tactic of ignoring AP-1 (so 2+ save remains intact against the numerous Heavy Bolters, Autocannon, Bolt Rifles, Astartes Chainswords, Bolters using Tactical Doctrine, etc. etc. that are out there).

 

Finally, with the Obsidian Aquila relic nearby you can get a 6+++ (making your 16 wounds go a lot further) and you can gain either +1T (so T9) from the Drakeskin Psychic power or -1 to Hit from the Flameshield Psychic power, making it quite challenging for even dedicated anti-tank weapons to take the vehicle down.

[chapter master 454]

Not bad, you could also throw in a lord of fire warlord to help out if you decide to bring more than one which I would think would be quite the sight. Even against other armoured targets they would be quite potent with the damage 2 being the big winner there, would almost say that a Vox Espiritum Primaris Lieutenant Lord of Fire might be a good pick, 9" bubble of re-roll wound rolls of 1 and re-roll flame weapon attack dice would be pretty nasty and help keep CP. Back that up with your Psyker giving a buff each land raider or both to one as you see fit and you could run away with that gimmick, wouldn't be hard ether for the primaris to keep up ether (again, 9" bubble and can advance, he ain't there for the shooting!).

 

I would think both redeemers may benefit from some token tacticals put in both, just to help ether grab objectives or deal with any enemies that survive such hellfire

 

...Emperor forsake you Loen! Don't make me get ANOTHER land raider...but more never hurts...

[sal of manders]

 I haven't done the math for it, but I think salamanders and their successors would be the only ones bothering with the redeemer.  I suspect damage output is too unreliable for other chapters compared to a crusader.  It also helps that terminators are cheaper now compared to other things that might otherwise do their job, so we may see more landraider variants in general.

[Medicinal Carrots]

While in the Tactical doctrine, a Crusader badly outdamages a Redeemer vs GEQ (52% more) and MEQ (29% more). For Salamanders, it pulls about even vs MEQ while in tactical, and it's better vs MEQ outside of tactical for every chapter (by about 16%). The Redeemer is superior vs anything with 2+ wounds. The Crusader also has longer range, higher potential damage to hordes, and more transport capacity. The Redeemer is better at deterring charges due to being worth spending a CP to overwatch.

 

I don't see the Redeemer supplanting the Crusader as best Land Raider overall, but with the boost to flamer wounding and it's compatibility with our stratagems, I think it works better for Salamanders.

[SirVulkan]

A 22" threat range on the flamestorm cannon on a smaller map is pretty good so I would disagree with you there.  For Salamanders the Redeemer is superior in just about every way except for transport capacity. 

 

All that being said, it still suffers from not having an invulnerable save.  So you have to either out flank it or hide it well.  I would certainly give it a try in some lists.  What you put inside of it is equally important as the Redeemer itself. 

 

I do believe 9th edition has made it much more viable than 8th edition, how much is yet to be determined.  I would actually charge units with this vehicle with the 4+ for D3 mortal wounds and shooting in combat.  It is meant to be a bully in the midfield which is where the game is now.  After a few games of 9th

Edited July 21, 2020 by SirVulkan

[RyanT2112]

Anyone else see the possibility that Redeemers (Salamanders ones in particular) will get some life breathed into them in 9th edition?

 

 

With the ability to shoot into combat and hit automatically in both shooting and Overwatch, a Salamander Redeemer can pop the Strat to do automatic 12 shots (instead of 2D6), meaning that you could move up, kill a full squad of Primaris with 12 S6 AP-2 Dmg 2 shots, be charged by the enemy and Overwatch with 2D6 S6 AP-2 Dmg 2 shots, and then next turn shooting into combat and auto hit with ANOTHER 12 S6 AP-2 Dmg 2 shots.

 

If you happen to be in the Tactical Doctrine, then you are getting +1 to Wound with all those hits and you still also still get to use your 12 Assault Cannon shots every time (with no penalty for moving and shooting) and you also still benefit from the Salamander Chapter tactic of ignoring AP-1 (so 2+ save remains intact against the numerous Heavy Bolters, Autocannon, Bolt Rifles, Astartes Chainswords, Bolters using Tactical Doctrine, etc. etc. that are out there).

 

Finally, with the Obsidian Aquila relic nearby you can get a 6+++ (making your 16 wounds go a lot further) and you can gain either +1T (so T9) from the Drakeskin Psychic power or -1 to Hit from the Flameshield Psychic power, making it quite challenging for even dedicated anti-tank weapons to take the vehicle down.

Let's not forget that when LAND RAIDERS charge they do mortal wounds to things that they hit... meaning you're going to want to flame things and then charge. Not caring if you're in melee.

[Charlo]

It's also a very big box that you can take up board space with. Pretty awesome in the regard.

[Minsc]

I've tried the Redeemer a few times in 9th and found it to be a solid pick.

It doesn't break the bank, it's pretty resilient and that 22" threat range is nothing to scoff at.
Most things think twice before assaulting it, and very few things want to stay in melee with it - then add the Salamander-specific perks and you have one mean, deadly tank. 

As for the Redeemer vs. Crusader-part, there's nothing for me to think twice about; Not only does the Redeemer fit in way better with the Salamanders, it's also much (65 pts) cheaper. 
 

 

[Medicinal Carrots]

I've tried the Redeemer a few times in 9th and found it to be a solid pick.

 

It doesn't break the bank, it's pretty resilient and that 22" threat range is nothing to scoff at.

Most things think twice before assaulting it, and very few things want to stay in melee with it - then add the Salamander-specific perks and you have one mean, deadly tank. 

 

As for the Redeemer vs. Crusader-part, there's nothing for me to think twice about; Not only does the Redeemer fit in way better with the Salamanders, it's also much (65 pts) cheaper. 

The Crusader is only 5 points more than a Redeemer.

[Minsc]

 

I've tried the Redeemer a few times in 9th and found it to be a solid pick.

 

It doesn't break the bank, it's pretty resilient and that 22" threat range is nothing to scoff at.

Most things think twice before assaulting it, and very few things want to stay in melee with it - then add the Salamander-specific perks and you have one mean, deadly tank. 

 

As for the Redeemer vs. Crusader-part, there's nothing for me to think twice about; Not only does the Redeemer fit in way better with the Salamanders, it's also much (65 pts) cheaper. 

The Crusader is only 5 points more than a Redeemer.

 

Interesting, because then there's something very wrong with Battlescribe (latest version), because it lists the Redeemer (with 2x Flamestorm and Twin Assault Cannons) as 220 pts and the Crusader (with 2x Hurricane Bolters and Twin Assault Cannons) as 285 pts. 

 

Edit: Wow, there's nothing right about the Redeemers cost in Battlescribe, neither the basecost nor the weaponcosts. :o

Guess I owe my opponent an apology.

Edited August 8, 2020 by Minsc

[Medicinal Carrots]

 

 

I've tried the Redeemer a few times in 9th and found it to be a solid pick.

 

It doesn't break the bank, it's pretty resilient and that 22" threat range is nothing to scoff at.

Most things think twice before assaulting it, and very few things want to stay in melee with it - then add the Salamander-specific perks and you have one mean, deadly tank. 

 

As for the Redeemer vs. Crusader-part, there's nothing for me to think twice about; Not only does the Redeemer fit in way better with the Salamanders, it's also much (65 pts) cheaper. 

The Crusader is only 5 points more than a Redeemer.

 

Interesting, because then there's something very wrong with Battlescribe (latest version), because it lists the Redeemer (with 2x Flamestorm and Twin Assault Cannons) as 220 pts and the Crusader (with 2x Hurricane Bolters and Twin Assault Cannons) as 285 pts. 

 

Edit: Wow, there's nothing right about the Redeemers cost in Battlescribe, neither the basecost nor the weaponcosts.

Guess I owe my opponent an apology.

 

 

The Redeemer cost was fixed about a week ago in Battlescribe. Be sure to update your data regularly and double check things, especially with so much new stuff coming out.

[Medicinal Carrots]

And the Redeemer now costs the same as the Crusader.

 

With Firstborn going to 2W, the Flamestorm seems even more appealing, by a tiny bit. If 2W becomes standard for other armies, that'd be a bigger boost to it as well. 3W Terminators boosts the usability of their transports also.

[FormelyKnownAsSmashyPants]

The Redeemer and the Achilles seem to be the best two variants for Sallies.