I've been looking in the IG threads and seen a lot of people bashing on the LRBT, I know they lost their behemoth rule but I couldn't find an exact reasoning as to why people say don't take them. Tried searching for it, maybe my search-fu sucks but I couldn't find a specific discussion on it just people saying "Don't take those" in a way that the discussion has already been hashed out.

So why not take them? I run them barebones, 1-2 of them with no sponsons and just barreling forward(slowly albeit) throwing pie plates around with the Demolisher.

I've thought of changing out the LRBT's in my list for a Punisher with pask and an Executioner but.. they're cheap and drop AP3 pie plates which is awesome against all the MEQ I face in my local area as well as the non MEQ.

On another note I do not use Manticores(mostly cause I don't have the models for it), I know everyone loves them but besides lacking the models my list is themed to be like a Panzer Grenadier(Blitzkrieg) list so I have no actual artillery.

Certain users bash the battle tank because they live in a fantasyland where everyone always has perfect 2" displacement while somehow still having a cover save, making it mathematically impossible to kill more than 1 or 2 models (apparently).

The more rational argument is that the ordnance tanks are less worth it now because you lose out on the Heavy rule (you must snap fire all other weapons when shooting Ordnance). To be honest this doesn't bother me, no one used sponsons in 5th edition and there were no complaints then. Hell, if anything their killing power increased due to lower cover saves, the loss of by-unit cover, and retaining full strength against everything hit under the blast (no more partial half strength hits).

I still love the Battle Tank and the Demolisher, they're still great tanks and gained more than they lost in the edition change imo.

The LRBT has a battle cannon not a demolisher.

The demolisher is fairly popular.

The LRBT is just underwhelming. Large blast weapons are horribly underwhelming against infantry that is highly displaced (full 2" dispersion). You get max 3 hits if your are reasonably lucky which against hordes does nothing and against anything in cover is reduced by the cover saves. The sponsons also cannot be used to any real effect and they are pretty cheap on a leman russ making them a great buy on a tank that can use them. In fact in many of the tanks they are about as useful as the main gun.

Compared to the punisher with sponsons(29 S5 shots, ~15 hits, ~12 wounds(T3) or ~10 wounds(T4), ~3 dead marines(Sv3+)). You can quickly see that the punisher packs a better punch against even the typical battle cannon target and a much better punch against hordes with an increased rear AV but a slightly higher price.

People will talk about the battle cannon being versatile but the problem is that it is the missile launcher of leman russ'. It is okay against everything but just not really good against anything. So even if you give it ideal conditions it will never perform a big game changing move. They are useful for some people but a practiced veteran with a demolisher or punisher will wipe the grin right off the LRBT player's face.

The LRBT (battle cannon version), doesn't do anything aside from blasting tightly packed marines out in the open better than an exterminator can. Not only does the exterminator does basically everything that a LRBT can, but it can also do several other things, like fire its main guns and hull weapons (which can now all fire at full BS on the move), and shoot at fliers, and are much better against monstrous creatures, etc. etc.

The demolisher is a little better, what with it being a serious threat to vehicles still thanks to Ap2, but that whole "going up to 1/3rd as slow" thing really stinks on a weapon that doesn't have the most gigantic range in the world. And it still suffers from those problems with sponsons, etc.

Futhermore, russes nowadays don't really have much of an advantage for being kept cheap. I mean, compare three demolishers to two lascannon/multimelta punishers. Three shots at S10 Ap2 that may catch a few targets, or 40 S5 shots and 6 ~S9 Ap2 shots (that sometimes have melta).

The latter is way better than the former. Given that you can now fire everything with non-ordnance russes, you're just throwing points away at carrier costs by taking naked battle tanks. Meanwhile, ordnance weapons no longer play nicely with hull weapons...

Hrm... I definitely see the validity of some these arguments.

I've had my LRBTs perform well but I think comparing it so the missle launcher is definitely spot on... after I thought about it, it does feel like that.

I hesitate to kit out my Leman Russ's like Ailaros said though mostly because of the point sink. I hear what you're saying on you're throwing away 150 points on a naked Russ but it allows me to be more spammy with my MechVets, 6 squads of Vets in Chimeras with 2 more vet squads in the 2 Vendettas (or 1 if I cut down to lower point games).

I suppose it can't hurt to try it though right? I partially just didn't know what people were replacing it with and for some reason I thought the Exterminator was Heavy 2 not Heavy 4 so... maybe I'll give it a go.

Well, if you want to free up points to take more mechvets, then don't bother with russes - take artillery instead.

Russes have a HUGE carrier cost to them for that AV14. A naked exterminator is basically just a well armored autocannon HWS that costs TWICE as much.

Now, throw on multimeltas and a lascannon and you get the killing power of an autocannon HWS AND the killing power of a lascannon HWS, and you're only paying 15 points more to give the whole package AV14. 15 points is not a lot to pay. 75 points is. This problem only exacerbates itself the more naked russes that you take.

Meanwhile, we're in 6th ed, and heavy, which means you'll actually get to USE all of those extra guns you got, thanks to not being endlessly stunlocked, or being forced to snap fire half your guns most of the time.

You do have to pay a lot for russes, but they are much, much more worth it when you spend the proper amount of points on them. Russes without proper hull gear is sort of like taking vet squads and then not giving them any special weapons...

Anyways, as mentioned, if you just want a dallop of large blast at a low price, get yourself some artillery instead. A basilisk costs 25 points less than a naked russ and does much more damage, thanks to barrage.

I would suggest a Medusa or 3 behind an ADL w/ camo netting

Putting it in that contrast with the heavy weapon teams is a really good example. I'll have to fish out my sponson bits as I never even made them lol.

Guess it's a question of Manticore or Basilisk then, I lean towards Manticore.

Colossus ignores cover saves and is AP 3. Cover is actually bigger in 6th than it was in 5th because it is easier to get it (even though it is up to a 5+ instead of a 4+ base). I don't care if you have AP 1 Str 10 blasts... if you don't have clean LoS on your target, they are getting a cover save, and one probably better than the armor they are wearing. You target can also 'Go to Ground' which means they can /always/ get a cover save, even if they /are/ in the open.

Also with things like the ADL, Barrage weapons are making a comeback, so things like Griffons and Mortars are becoming popular again.

And yeah, I have to totally agree with the 'Missile Launcher' comparison for a stock LRBT. But I disagree with loading a Exterminator/Punisher down with multi-melta sponsons and a LC as Ailaros is saying... it is because Orders make a HWS twin linked and Pask is the only way to improve a Leman Russ's ability to hit that is out of the base codex. Pask can only help one tank on top of that. Maybe when IG get a new Codex, we will see Vet Vehiclesas a upgrade, but I wouldn't bet on it. If your running Chimeras as your base unit, running naked Russes, not even running Russes, or running Russes that your opponent wants to kill out of fear (Plasma-cutioners, Demolishers, maybe even Eradicators) so he shoots them instead of your Chimeras are your choices. I think most lean toward option #2 and consider #3 over #1.

On the other hand, merely by taking a model with a large blast template you start affecting the way your opponent will be moving their models. As Creeping-deth indicates, they can limit hits by spreading all their models out, but that will limit their ability to get cover saves from the rest of your army's shooting and will make their units much more unweildy and potentially more exposed to assaults . Lose-lose for your opponent.

As with most choices in this game, try them out in your own army and see if they work for you.

 BlkTom wrote:

And yeah, I have to totally agree with the 'Missile Launcher' comparison for a stock LRBT. But I disagree with loading a Exterminator/Punisher down with multi-melta sponsons and a LC as Ailaros is saying... it is because Orders make a HWS twin linked and Pask is the only way to improve a Leman Russ's ability to hit that is out of the base codex. Pask can only help one tank on top of that. Maybe when IG get a new Codex, we will see Vet Vehiclesas a upgrade, but I wouldn't bet on it. If your running Chimeras as your base unit, running naked Russes, not even running Russes, or running Russes that your opponent wants to kill out of fear (Plasma-cutioners, Demolishers, maybe even Eradicators) so he shoots them instead of your Chimeras are your choices. I think most lean toward option #2 and consider #3 over #1.

Run Mechvets without Russ support at all? *rubs chin* That seems like a totally foreign idea to me, I guess they just spam manticores?

The reason I run Russ's is not -entirely- for optimization though, there's a theme to my army for a world war 2 style Blitzkrieg of armor. I used Vendettas to represent the Stukas instead of actual artillery haha. Obviously it's bent to fit into 40k with organization and stuff but I try to theme it.

As Ive noticed its pretty hit or miss depending on an IG list. Russes are now better to run more pricey varients with lascannons and sponsons which makes them more expensive but it makes them a bit better. But if you want cheap blasts its a lot better to go with artillery. Artillery helps footguard as your probably going gunline and sitting back so you will be able to bubble wrap your artillery.

Artillery also compliments mech guard because it adds more target saturation to the list artillery and chimeras are all AV 12.

I think artillery kinda helps air cav but can get risky. You grav shut your guys and you scatter you could kill a crap ton-o-vets lol

Sadly the LRBT isn't that great, only reason I use it is because I loved them before and now gw kinda killed them and I refuse to destroy my nicely painted tanks to remodel them into other versions and I also refuse to pay more money to get other variants as well.

Ive been trying out the Vanquisher with lascannon and MM sponsons and its not bad, hit 50% of the time which is kinda sad and if your opponent isn't running vehicles then its just kinda picking 2 or 3 models off a turn, sometimes just one.

I tried the exterminator/lascannon/MM combo and wasn't impressed.

executioner(plasma death tank) is one of my favorite if I feel like spending the crazy points for it lol. This is also about the same for the punisher.

The other variants like the eradicator, and the demolisher don't really catch my eye to much. The eradicators ap4 seems to lack for a large blast and the demolishers range is a problem. With a blast main gun it has the opportunity to scatter and not even hit its target or even do very little. Even bubble wrapping probably wont help as a good player will shoot up your infantry from a distance so that you wont be able to bubble wrap fully and once the tanks close enough they will just assault it. possibly only allowing one shot from the tank.

If I had the money for artillery or other russ variants I would go for it but Im stuck with the good old LRBT! lol

 BlkTom wrote:
Colossus ignores cover saves and is AP 3. Cover is actually bigger in 6th than it was in 5th because it is easier to get it (even though it is up to a 5+ instead of a 4+ base). I don't care if you have AP 1 Str 10 blasts... if you don't have clean LoS on your target, they are getting a cover save, and one probably better than the armor they are wearing. You target can also 'Go to Ground' which means they can /always/ get a cover save, even if they /are/ in the open.

Also with things like the ADL, Barrage weapons are making a comeback, so things like Griffons and Mortars are becoming popular again.

And yeah, I have to totally agree with the 'Missile Launcher' comparison for a stock LRBT. But I disagree with loading a Exterminator/Punisher down with multi-melta sponsons and a LC as Ailaros is saying... it is because Orders make a HWS twin linked and Pask is the only way to improve a Leman Russ's ability to hit that is out of the base codex. Pask can only help one tank on top of that. Maybe when IG get a new Codex, we will see Vet Vehiclesas a upgrade, but I wouldn't bet on it. If your running Chimeras as your base unit, running naked Russes, not even running Russes, or running Russes that your opponent wants to kill out of fear (Plasma-cutioners, Demolishers, maybe even Eradicators) so he shoots them instead of your Chimeras are your choices. I think most lean toward option #2 and consider #3 over #1.

Cover saves are most definitely not easier to get in 6th edition. In 5th edition, if you had half a unit in cover, the entire unit got a cover save. This is no longer the case, now only the models actually in cover get that cover save (and as you mentioned, it's usually a worse save than last edition). Also going to ground existed in 5th edition, so I'm not sure why you threw that in there. Also at leadership 7, your HWS are not going to be passing many orders so it's not a favourable comparison to the Exterminator.

Not trying to call you out or anything, just clearing up some points.

 creeping-deth87 wrote:

Cover saves are most definitely not easier to get in 6th edition.

A 50pt 4+ cover purchase disagrees with you.

Also at leadership 7, your HWS are not going to be passing many orders so it's not a favourable comparison to the Exterminator.

Eh, 50%.

 Griddlelol wrote:

 creeping-deth87 wrote:

Cover saves are most definitely not easier to get in 6th edition.

A 50pt 4+ cover purchase disagrees with you.

Also at leadership 7, your HWS are not going to be passing many orders so it's not a favourable comparison to the Exterminator.

Eh, 50%.

That's ONE section of the board for that defense line save. 4+ cover was pretty much everywhere in 5th, and a 50% chance to pass your orders isn't nearly reliable enough to seriously use in a comparison with another unit like the Exterminator.

One area that you can choose, and quite easily generate a 2+ save.

Although I agree with you on the orders, I was just pointing out that it's 50%, your post seemed to imply that they'd fail more than they'd pass.

Atheos wrote:The reason I run Russ's is not -entirely- for optimization though, there's a theme to my army for a world war 2 style Blitzkrieg of armor.

6" movement per turn does not a blitzkreig make. What you want is hellhounds and devil dogs...

 Ailaros wrote:

Atheos wrote:The reason I run Russ's is not -entirely- for optimization though, there's a theme to my army for a world war 2 style Blitzkrieg of armor.

6" movement per turn does not a blitzkreig make. What you want is hellhounds and devil dogs...

A month ago I might have disagreed but after seeing your battle reports you may just be right. It certainly seems more fun to play.

The artillery/mechvet/vendetta (or as ailros pointed out hellhound types) combo "feels" much more "blitzkrieg" than the leman russ as "lightning" anything just does not apply to the leman russ. Though honestly blitzkrieg just doesn't really work for such a small engagement as what we play in a 40K game as mechanized leman russ are no faster than ground troops.

The one thing leman russ' do in a 3+ vendetta list is keep you on the board until your vendetta's show up. Though you are not running that type of list rather you have a "traditional" mechvet list with a vendetta or two put in so you probably don't need the help staying on the board 2-3 turns.

 Flinty wrote:
On the other hand, merely by taking a model with a large blast template you start affecting the way your opponent will be moving their models. As Creeping-deth indicates, they can limit hits by spreading all their models out, but that will limit their ability to get cover saves from the rest of your army's shooting and will make their units much more unweildy and potentially more exposed to assaults . Lose-lose for your opponent.

As with most choices in this game, try them out in your own army and see if they work for you.

Wiser words were never spoken. Everyone's meta is different. I'd try it out for a few games and see how they work for you. You never can tell. I personally hate playing against them (of any variety really).

If you're taking Leman Russ Battle tanks, you're not taking them solely for their gun. It's a good weapon, despite what the haters say, but it's not the main reason you take them.

Look at every piece of fluff you've ever seen about the Imperial Guard when it comes to tanks. Codex, Black Library, whatever.

Now I want you to tell me how many times you see the words "only a single tank was needed" pop up. Take your time.

You take Leman Russes because they're stupid cheap. You can field an obscene amount of them. You field a friggin wall of AV 14, and then dare your opponent to try to kill them. Use them as bullet magnets. Run them off to the side and bait your opponent to go after them instead of killing your guardsmen on the objective like he should be doing. Use them as glorified walls to protect easy kill points. Park them on top of objective to deny your enemy. Park them at a checkpoint to inconvenience them. When their gun gets disabled, ram them into things because SCREW YOU MY TANK COSTS 150PTS. But most importantly, you pound them turn after turn with pieplate after pieplate. One Leman Russ Battle Cannon will do very little to affect a game. But 6, firing every turn, hammering you from literally anywhere on the board they can see you, is another thing entirely. Unfortunately, losing the ability to fire a lascannon and the battlecannon at the same time really hurt them. Back when Lumbering Behemoth was still around the humble LRBT with a lascannon was the ultimate swiss army in our codex at the start of 6th. I'd field 6 of them and those monsters could kill anything that wasn't flying with terrifying ease. Nowadays I usually field one or two "specialist" tanks like an Executioner or Exterminator, and then fill in the rest of my slots with regular battle tanks.

Remember kids, LRBT's are like cheap beer. One is crap, 3 is ok, and every one you get after that is better than the last.

I love my LRBT. It's the workhorse of my army. The Demolisher is awesome but it can be out of targets at times. My LRBT can put a blast template anywhere.

That said, it doesn't do anything amazing. Cover saves take away from it's killing power and it can scatter horribly but it'll always do something. Take more for more pleasure.

I'd say experiment and make your own conclusions, I came to this site hoping to get some decent advice but most of it is just the usual 'get a helldrake and a guard blob', although for you that's probably more like 'get valks'. Like you've seen here as well, people swore black and blue that pie-plates never catch more than 2 models and all things considered are largely useless.

On the weekend I destroyed 9 Deathwing + Belial with a Vindicator supported by a single psyker - to hold them in their deepstrike deployment pattern. Sure I won't get that result every time, but in that one game I learned it's usually better to experiment for yourself than have your opinions/ideas rubbished by some net-list junkie.

Also a missed pieplate sometimes hits something, a missed AC/HB shot does nothing.

With vehicles only needing 25% LoS blockage to get a cover save, it is easier to get cover saves for them. Focused Fire has the problem of if you fire on the guys in the open and you do more wounds than guys exposed, you lose the excess (you fire on 3 guys, do 5 wounds and he fails 4, you kill only the 3 guys). As for HWSs, there are ways to get around Ld 7 problems, such as Kell and or a Lord Commissar. It is the same with a lot of things in the codex, you can do it cheap and pray it pays off, or you can pay the points and do it right. I personally like the Lord because he mans my ADL gun, as he is one of the few guys in the codex with BS 5.

Atheos, as mentioned, the big problem is that your LRBTs are slow and they can be ignored to shoot the Chimeras. I suppose it depends on what you consider 'supporting' and what your looking to do with them. If you just want them out there for theme and to toss some pie-plates as they snap fire the other gun(s), you have what your looking for. If you want your opponent to go, 'I have to take out those LRBTs first', you will have to spend some points... either with gear or with more tanks. And then at the end of the day, you have to ask if this could have been another Vet Squad or a Platoon mounted in Chimeras and your Vendettas. Because that is your real killing power, your Vets.

As a side note, half-tracks with mortars make great Griffons and I think a Hummel makes a great Basilisk. I have also kinda kicked around the idea of using a Ferdinand as a Basilisk with an enclosed canopy. Some good stuff out there to model or even kit-bash up to maybe save some cash.

I've found my Russes got killed almost straight away - they become an immediate target but then mine are plain-janes and so far have proved highly ineffective.

I have bad luck with the dice so I have massive scatter with them that misses their target.

On the other hand I have found my Exterminator has proved quite deadly. A pair of these has managed to annihilate an entire squad of Necron Warriors in one turn with combined fire from the main guns and the hull gun.

it's been said earlier that we can't use lumbering behemoth. Why? I don't have my codex on me, so I don't know the rule exactly, but didn't it mean we could fire ordinance weapons as a normal weapon? I usually have a squadron of LRBT's because I generally get lucky with my scatter dice . I think the AP 3 does it for most players - it's basically a large blast krak missile - who wouldn't take that for 150 points (or 130, I forgot the value)

General Annoyance wrote:
it's been said earlier that we can't use lumbering behemoth. Why? I don't have my codex on me, so I don't know the rule exactly, but didn't it mean we could fire ordinance weapons as a normal weapon? I usually have a squadron of LRBT's because I generally get lucky with my scatter dice . I think the AP 3 does it for most players - it's basically a large blast krak missile - who wouldn't take that for 150 points (or 130, I forgot the value)

What it use to mean was that we could fire a Ordnance weapon and a single weapon (plus defensive weapons)and move 6". Now all we can do is move 6" and snap fire all other weapons. If we have a non-ordnance weapon, we can move 6" and fire all weapons at full BS because of the Heavy Vehicle rule (pg 83 BRB). But this rule also means we can /only/ move 6", where before it was 6" +d6" to Cruise. Ordnance rule is on pg 71, BRB.

 Ailaros wrote:
Well, if you want to free up points to take more mechvets, then don't bother with russes - take artillery instead.

Russes have a HUGE carrier cost to them for that AV14. A naked exterminator is basically just a well armored autocannon HWS that costs TWICE as much.

Now, throw on multimeltas and a lascannon and you get the killing power of an autocannon HWS AND the killing power of a lascannon HWS, and you're only paying 15 points more to give the whole package AV14. 15 points is not a lot to pay. 75 points is. This problem only exacerbates itself the more naked russes that you take.

Meanwhile, we're in 6th ed, and heavy, which means you'll actually get to USE all of those extra guns you got, thanks to not being endlessly stunlocked, or being forced to snap fire half your guns most of the time.

You do have to pay a lot for russes, but they are much, much more worth it when you spend the proper amount of points on them. Russes without proper hull gear is sort of like taking vet squads and then not giving them any special weapons...

Anyways, as mentioned, if you just want a dallop of large blast at a low price, get yourself some artillery instead. A basilisk costs 25 points less than a naked russ and does much more damage, thanks to barrage.

Is that punisher really worth 225p? For that price I could have a Colossus and a Hydra.

General Annoyance wrote:
it's been said earlier that we can't use lumbering behemoth. Why? I don't have my codex on me, so I don't know the rule exactly, but didn't it mean we could fire ordinance weapons as a normal weapon? I usually have a squadron of LRBT's because I generally get lucky with my scatter dice . I think the AP 3 does it for most players - it's basically a large blast krak missile - who wouldn't take that for 150 points (or 130, I forgot the value)

The Guard FAQ replaced the Lumbering Behemoth rule with the Heavy special rule from the main rulebook. They are similar, but Heavy gives no benefits to Ordnance weapons, unlike the old rule.

Also @MrMoustaffa I don't think you can ram with Russ' anymore. I thought the ram rules say you must move cruising speed at least. IIRC (No book on me of course.)

I go for the Blitzkrieg tank list with my little troopas huddling behind the tanks as we slowly move up. I've always had good luck with the regular LRMBT. Like it has been mentioned many times in many forums it depends on your meta, terrain, opponent.

Me for instance, we have lots of terrain (so people feel safe not spredding out due to cover), most people are casual (so won't spend too much time trying to get every model 2" apart), And my meta sees quite a lot of troops on the table. (So the LRMBT is good where i'm at).

 portugus wrote:
Also @MrMoustaffa I don't think you can ram with Russ' anymore. I thought the ram rules say you must move cruising speed at least. IIRC (No book on me of course.)

I go for the Blitzkrieg tank list with my little troopas huddling behind the tanks as we slowly move up. I've always had good luck with the regular LRMBT. Like it has been mentioned many times in many forums it depends on your meta, terrain, opponent.

Me for instance, we have lots of terrain (so people feel safe not spredding out due to cover), most people are casual (so won't spend too much time trying to get every model 2" apart), And my meta sees quite a lot of troops on the table. (So the LRMBT is good where i'm at).

Thanks for the heads up, I need to look into that.

< Taken by the void dragon. >

MrMoustaffa wrote:You take Leman Russes because they're stupid cheap. etc.

Yes, but an exterminator costs the same price, and does more damage to basically everything.

Plus, I've found that there is actually somewhat of a diminishing return when it comes to AV14, having spammed 5 of them at 1850 point games. If you don't give them a lot of firepower, though, then they something far, far worse - ignorable.

Spending 450 points for basically 3 autocannon HWSs of firepower is a lot of points spent on not very much killing power. Basically, you're spending ogryn-like points for worse than ogryn-like firepower, on a unit that can't even get into close combat, like ogryn.

ph34r wrote:Is that punisher really worth 225p? For that price I could have a Colossus and a Hydra.

Neither of which are a serious threat to vehicles (well, except AV10 skimmers), terminators, or monstrous creatures. It's not even all that good against hordes either.

In any case, there are serious gaps in that setup's killing power. A multimelta/lascannon punisher can handle anything.

It is also extremely slow, short ranged, and all its weapons have different range bands and preferred targets. I understand you are an experienced IG player but I have a hard time believing that is truly a powerful unit; it seems expensive, unfocused, slow, and short ranged. Why not get your anti vehicle firepower from lascannons and meltas? Why not get your anti terminator/MC from plasma guns? Those seem like preferred options to 3 "wounds on 2+, no armor" shots that can't benefit from orders on a 225p body.

 Ailaros wrote:
Yes, but an exterminator costs the same price, and does more damage to basically everything.

But you aren't shooting at everything. Being mediocre at lots of different things (which the LR Exterminator is) just means that no matter what you're shooting at you're not contributing much. The LRBT is mediocre at most things but at least it has situations where it's useful.

Basically, you're spending ogryn-like points for worse than ogryn-like firepower, on a unit that can't even get into close combat, like ogryn.

Who cares about close combat? You want to avoid close combat, paying points for a paper-thin unit instead of an AV 14 one because it sucks a bit less in close combat is hardly a good idea.

A multimelta/lascannon punisher can handle anything.

If by "handle" you mean "roll dice against" then sure. If you mean "be effective against" then not really. The MM/LC Punisher is mediocre against hordes (since you threw away half your shots compared to the HB/HB setup), awful against vehicles, and awful against elite infantry. IG win games by picking a role and specializing in it, not by taking generalist units that always waste half their weapons when they shoot.

I'd like to note that it's particularly bad against T5 multi-wound units like Biker Nobz, Grotesques or Chaos Spawn. (The latter are especially problematic if they can claim a cover save). In short, your high strength weapons aren't sufficient to inflict instant death, and your moderate strength weapons aren't inflicting enough wounds to be meaningful -- much less enough to justify a 225 point investment.

MATH
(Assumptions: Target within 24", Hull/Sponson weapons can draw LoS to target. Naturally, turrets can rotate freely.)

Punisher Cannon: 20 shots, 4+ hit, 4+ wound, 4+ save, FNP.
20*(1/2)*(1/2)*(1/2)*(2/3) = 5/3
LC+2xMM: 3 shots, 4+ hit, 2+ wound, 4+ save, FNP.
3*(1/2)*(5/6)*(1/2)*(2/3) = 5/12

Sum = 5/3 + 5/12 = 2.08 wounds. One dead nob.

Russes, by design, aren't really fantastic generalists. The ones that throw pie plates aren't firing their sponsons effectively, their turret weapons are mostly geared toward one type of threat, and the hull weapons are a crapshoot. The only Russ that I'd argue really does the generalist thing is the Executioner with bolters, but it's just too many damn points if there aren't Terminators to aim it at.

If you want a true generalist unit, you want a Manticore. 1-3 pie plates a turn, S10 will ID T5 multiwound models and strip hull points nicely, and you can hide the thing.

Peregrine wrote:The LRBT is mediocre at most things but at least it has situations where it's useful.

Exactly one situation - marines clustered in the open.

The exterminator cannon is better or equal for everything else. Battlecannons are just crappy in this edition.

Peregrine wrote:IG win games by picking a role and specializing in it, not by taking generalist units that always waste half their weapons when they shoot.

That's because most guard units can't be truly versatile. Russes can.

Peregrine wrote:The MM/LC Punisher is mediocre against hordes (since you threw away half your shots compared to the HB/HB setup), awful against vehicles, and awful against elite infantry.

ph34r wrote:It is also extremely slow, short ranged, and all its weapons have different range bands and preferred targets.

But then you do the math. Yes, they're bad against biker nobz, but look at everything else.

Against terminators you have both weight of fire, AND 3 AP2 or better weapons. Not only does this mean that you've got a lot going against terminators, but you also have different Ap types, so you can have your opponent take armor saves on storm shield models first. Against marines, they're likewise really not bad, killing roughly 4 a turn, and the punisher cannon means that those cover saves that the long fangs were relying on doesn't matter. Against light vehicles, you have 20 S10 shots AND lascannons and multimeltas. Against heavier stuff, you have multimeltas and a lascannon. Against hordes, the punisher cannon is still the best option, and it's not like multimeltas can't hurt them either, and monstrous creatures fall into the same category as terminators.

The multimetla-lascannon punisher is a very rare thing in the guard codex - it can do many things well. On an AV14 chassis. With lower carrier costs.

 Ailaros wrote:
Exactly one situation - marines clustered in the open.

The exterminator cannon is better or equal for everything else. Battlecannons are just crappy in this edition.

Equal or better doesn't mean good. LRBTs are bad at most things but occasionally really good. LR Exterminators are bad at all things. The fact that they're slightly less bad at most of those things doesn't make up for the fact that they're never good.

That's because most guard units can't be truly versatile. Russes can.

Being versatile doesn't mean being mediocre at several things, it means being awesome at several things. Vendettas are versatile. MM/LC Punishers are just mediocre.

Against terminators you have both weight of fire, AND 3 AP2 or better weapons.

This isn't a good thing.

Not only does this mean that you've got a lot going against terminators, but you also have different Ap types, so you can have your opponent take armor saves on storm shield models first.

Considering how rare mixed TH/SS terminator units are this is highly overrated.

Against marines, they're likewise really not bad, killing roughly 4 a turn

Err, no. Please stop rounding up your numbers to "justify" your choices. You average 3.47 dead MEQs in the open, or 3.05 in 5+ cover.

And considering the fact that the punisher cannon Vulture averages 4.4 dead MEQs for 70 points less this is pathetic firepower.

and the punisher cannon means that those cover saves that the long fangs were relying on doesn't matter.

Who cares? Long fangs have 48" weapons and deploy at the back of the table, LR Punishers have 24" weapons. By the time you're able to get into range of them the game is already over.

Against heavier stuff, you have multimeltas and a lascannon.

At BS 3. For 225 points. IF you can get both sponsons to fire at the same target.

Meanwhile the Vendetta costs 130 points, has similar firepower, better accuracy, hits tanks from across the table, shoots down aircraft just as well as ground targets, and carries a squad to an objective while it's doing that. And did I mention the fact that it costs 95 points less?

^I have to agree with Peregrine. I ran my buddies Space Wolf army (because I was interested in trying them out) and I play an IG player 3 times (best out of three). He had a punisher in his list, similar to how you suggest running it.

First game, it snuck up and killed a couple (3 I think) Grey Hunters before being melted apart by my Long Fangs.

Second game, it didn't last past turn 2

Third game, it managed to get to my LF's, killed 1 of them, and died next turn. The sponsons, while good on paper, weren't capable of bringing enough concentrated fire to be worth his points and it just died too fast to be worth it

Meaning, while the MM/LC Punisher looks good on paper, it brings pretty meh things to the table that can be done by other units better for cheaper (AT using a Vendetta, which you should probably be taking already, and the Punisher by a Vulture)

Peregrine wrote:Equal or better doesn't mean good. LRBTs are bad at most things but occasionally really good. LR Exterminators are bad at all things. The fact that they're slightly less bad at most of those things doesn't make up for the fact that they're never good.

But the battlecannon is only good in one extremely specific situation. I mean, ratlings are good in a tiny range of situations, but nobody takes ratlings, because ratlings are excruciatingly overspecialized. Like the battlecannon.

You can fish for those rare circumstances all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that against basically everything else you shoot at, the exterminator is better. If you want to make the argument that they're still crappy, then that's fine, but you would still be stuck with the fact that the battlecannon is crappier than crap.

Which isn't much of a reason to take one.

Peregrine wrote:Being versatile doesn't mean being mediocre at several things, it means being awesome at several things. Vendettas are versatile. MM/LC Punishers are just mediocre.

I agree on your definition of versatility, but you have it completely backwards. Three lascannons are good against some things, while three lascannons and a punisher cannon are good against everything. If the multimelta-lascannon punisher has mediocre firepower, and it has more firepower than the vendetta, then that means that the vendetta is REALLY awful.

 Ailaros wrote:
But the battlecannon is only good in one extremely specific situation.

Yeah, that "extreme" situation of the most common army type not spread out at maximum coherency (getting blown out of a transport, trying to maximize cover against your plasma vets, etc). That never happens...

And I never said the LRBT was awesome. It's not, and I don't use them. But the LRBT has a purpose, being a cheap MEQ killer, even if it's not a specialist I want in my list right now. The LR Exterminator just sucks at everything.

I agree on your definition of versatility, but you have it completely backwards. Three lascannons are good against some things, while three lascannons and a punisher cannon are good against everything. If the multimelta-lascannon punisher has mediocre firepower, and it has more firepower than the vendetta, then that means that the vendetta is REALLY awful.

That's complete nonsense.

1) The Vendetta's guns are twin-linked, so you can't just say "they both have three guns".

2) The Vendetta is 130 points, compared to 225 for the MM/LC Punisher. If you even the points the Vendetta is actually bringing 5.2 TL lascannons, or the equivalent of 7.8 single lascannons. This is FAR more firepower against vehicles/MCs, and the same firepower against elite infantry. The only situation where the MM/LC punisher has an advantage is against hordes, and you don't even take a proper anti-horde setup since you're wasting the hull and sponson guns.

3) You're ignoring the Vendetta's other advantages. The MM/LC Punisher sucks against aircraft, the Vendetta slaughters them. The MM/LC Punisher can't transport troops, the Vendetta can. The MM/LC Punisher is limited to 24" range and 6" a turn of movement, the Vendetta has cross-table range and 18-36" movement.

In short, in pretty much every situation you can think of spending equal points on Vendettas and punisher cannon Vultures will give you far, far better results than MM/LC LR Punishers. The only reason to take the tank is if you're playing a special game of Ailaros 40k where Vendettas and Vultures are banned.

You are neglecting the fact that point cost matters.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and let you pretend that a multi-melta is as good as a lascannon. In reality, they're not even close -- but it makes my analysis easier. So your cute little Russ has three "lascannons." Meanwhile, a Vendetta also gets three lascannons. But they're twin-linked, so I get 50% more firepower for my purchase. Or more, since a Vendetta has a reasonable chance at hitting side armor. But let's call it 50%.

Likewise, a Punisher turret gets 20 S5 shots at BS3. So 10 hits. A Vulture gets 20 twin-linked shots, plus an additional heavy bolter, all at BS4 (strafing run). That's 19.8 hits (with a little AP4 thrown in). So I'm getting 100% more firepower for that purchase. And as a nice extra, they also have the Pinning USR.

Your Russ costs 225 points. These fliers cost 285 points, or about 27% more. For that investment, they get:

Over 50% more anti-tank firepower.

100% more anti-infantry firepower.

Selective Skyfire USR, so your weaponry actually has a reasonable chance of doing something to an enemy flyer.

Hard to Hit USR, which reduces most firepower by 67-75%.

The Jink USR during evasive maneuvers.

Complete immunity to blast and template weaponry.

Complete immunity to close combat.

The durability of having two units instead of one. Twice as many hull points, not completely disabled by stun effects, etc.

The ability to move 18-36" instead of 0-6". You know, so their 24" weapons can get in range.

Transport capacity, complete with both hover and grav chute deployment.

Vector Dancer for their punisher turret -- so if you insist on using that S5 weaponry on vehicles, it will actually hit rear armor and do some good.

The ability to split-fire and shoot anti-tank weapons at tanks, and anti-infantry weapons at infantry.

They lose:

AV14-13-11 for AV12-12-10.

Smoke launchers.

Tank USR (but no ramming).

But hey, at least you could spend another 50 points on Pask. He'll totally make up the difference!

I fail to understand why anyone is arguing that two of the most cost efficient units in the game are well...cost efficient.

You guys must love banging your heads against brick walls.

Wait the exterminator is good against one enemy...D Eldar skimmers. Not as good as a hydra but still pretty good.

Moving on the exterminator is not a great tank and neither is the battle tank. The entire argument spins down to the best of squarely mediocre. It is fun to read but ultimately of little use.

The specialist tanks are pretty good but the leman russ' in general suffer from a low fire power to pts ratio due to the price they pay for front AV14.

Has anyone here actually used the MM/Las punisher tank with at least 2x in the list? As we all know 1x anything in guard is terrible and will die before you can use it.

Now after all this I will put forward a point in favor for the LRBT. Under the conditions of; If you are only going to add one in, you do not have an exact idea of what you want from it, and you are in a MEQ/razorback heavy meta. Under one or more of those conditions the LRBT may work out. Under all of those conditions it could actually be a really good tank.

Peregrine wrote:In short, in pretty much every situation you can think of spending equal points on Vendettas and punisher cannon Vultures will give you far, far better results than MM/LC LR Punishers.

Punishers score on 1/6ths of the missions while vendettas don't (without going into hover mode and being easily destroyed, or ejecting a squishy squad to its fate). And they start the game on the table, while fliers may not be showing up at all until way after it's too late. And they don't care about weapons with skyfire, and don't have to worry about interceptor. And they can shove things off of an objective with tank shock, and provide cover saves to other vehicles. And they can draw off your opponent's higher strength guns from your other stuff. And they don't have the same movement restrictions, and aren't forced to fly off the board to avoid going into hover mode.

Russes are a solid unit that starts on the table, kills stuff right away, has actual board control abilities, and synergizes well with other things in the codex. Vendettas are nothing more than a few lascannon shots that show up late, leave early, and can be easily handled with skyfire wepaons (not that you even need them, I've taken plenty down with other stuff). They throw around some nuisance lascannon fire, but are otherwise ignorable.

And that's all before you consider that some people don't play with forgeworld expansions and modules. Even if your gaming group allows for that, they're still not strictly better.

ansacs wrote:Has anyone here actually used the MM/Las punisher tank with at least 2x in the list? As we all know 1x anything in guard is terrible and will die before you can use it.

Yes, I've been to a local tournament where the winner was a guard player who spammed these. In that same tournament, I brought a pair of them and tabled a draigo wing, almost entirely thanks to the punishers.

 Ailaros wrote:
Russes are a solid unit that starts on the table, kills stuff right away.

You are talking about a tank that moves no more than 6" per turn, with only a single weapon that shoots farther than 24." (One BS3 lascannon.)

 Ailaros wrote:
[Vendettas] throw around some nuisance lascannon fire, but are otherwise ignorable.

Those "nuissance lascannons" have 4.5 times the firepower of your tank outside its 24" range. If you're calling that a "nuissance," I'm calling your first-turn lascannon shot a peashooter.

 Ailaros wrote:
And they don't have the same movement restrictions, and aren't forced to fly off the board to avoid going into hover mode.

It's not my fault you can't plan ahead to avoid flying off the board. And as I pointed out in my previous post, Vultures have Vector Dancer.

 Ailaros wrote:
Russes are a solid unit that ... has actual board control abilities.

A 6" tank shock does not make for "board control." Try again.

Vendettas are nothing more than a few lascannon shots that show up late

A comms relay will give you 89% arrival by turn 2. Considering your Russ would be lucky to get within shooting range by then, anyway...

 Ailaros wrote:
In that same tournament, I brought a pair of them and tabled a draigo wing, almost entirely thanks to the punishers.

A Vendetta will kill more Paladins per shooting phase than your Russ will. And costs 42% less.

 Ailaros wrote:

Peregrine wrote:The LRBT is mediocre at most things but at least it has situations where it's useful.

Exactly one situation - marines clustered in the open.

Surely its good against pretty much anything clustered in the open... or indeed anything clustered at all, except for 2+ saves, which are on the increase but still aren't everywhere by a long shot.

Comparing vendetta and leman russ' is kind of strange guys. There are totally different units and actually compliment each other reasonably well as the LR can act to keep you on the board turn 1 which is the tough turn for aircav.

Actually a punisher with melta/las might not be a bad mix with an aircav list as they are pretty dangerous within 24".

The vendetta without a doubt is the better purchase in a vacuum. It is considered the best unit in the game for pts/quality by most players so anything in comparison is not worth it when considered in a vacuum.

 ansacs wrote:
Comparing vendetta and leman russ' is kind of strange guys. There are totally different units and actually compliment each other reasonably well as the LR can act to keep you on the board turn 1 which is the tough turn for aircav.

Your common sense has no place in this thread!

 Ailaros wrote:
Punishers score on 1/6ths of the missions while vendettas don't (without going into hover mode and being easily destroyed, or ejecting a squishy squad to its fate).

So what? I'd much rather have a huge increase in firepower and wipe my opponent's scoring units out than a 1/6 chance to be scoring.

And they start the game on the table, while fliers may not be showing up at all until way after it's too late.

But they start the game out of range, so they have the exact same problem.

Vendettas are nothing more than a few lascannon shots that show up late, leave early, and can be easily handled with skyfire wepaons (not that you even need them, I've taken plenty down with other stuff). They throw around some nuisance lascannon fire, but are otherwise ignorable.

Lol. Have you even done the math, or is this just more of your stubborn refusal to use Vendettas?

(Hint: I did the math, and posted it for you. Vendettas are far more than "a few ignorable lascannon shots", they outgun your MM/LC Punishers by a HUGE margin. In one turn a Vendetta probably does more per-point tank killing than your MM/LC Punisher does in an entire game.)

And that's all before you consider that some people don't play with forgeworld expansions and modules. Even if your gaming group allows for that, they're still not strictly better.

Yes, we get the point, you refuse to play with good units. However, this is not Ailaros40k.com, discussions here need to be about 40k for the average player, not weird variants full of self-imposed limits.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ansacs wrote:
Comparing vendetta and leman russ' is kind of strange guys. There are totally different units and actually compliment each other reasonably well as the LR can act to keep you on the board turn 1 which is the tough turn for aircav.

The best way to stay on the board turn 1 is Sabre platoons and artillery. They keep you on the board, and hold your "home" objectives so the flyers and veterans are free to smash your opponent's half of the table. The MM/LC Punisher is actually a pretty bad way of staying on the table because it has to get up close to do anything, which puts it into an exposed position where it can take focused fire from all of your opponent's anti-tank weapons (and of course if you just want AV 14 to sit in the corner out of range a basic LRBT 70 points cheaper and even gets to shoot from that corner).

LOL I think it is great even the IG is getting nerfed by the "Well take a Vendetta instead..." While I'll agree that Vendettas/Valkyries will do more than a LRBT for less, I find it laughable that both of these cost so little that they are the panacea to all the ills of every list.

Me thinks that GW - if it had any sense - would look at this and nerf the heck out of vendettas/valkyries to up their sales of other things...

DAaddict wrote:
Me thinks that GW - if it had any sense - would look at this and nerf the heck out of vendettas/valkyries to up their sales of other things...

Or just increase the price on Vendettas. Why bother paying your artists to design new IG miniatures when you can raise the price of the Vendetta to $150?

Glad to see my thread is so popular lol.

As an alternative, is there a LR variant that is not considered mediocre and really worth taking? I have 4 Leman Russ's I try to fit a lot of them in my lists.

LRBT is getting bashed, along with the Exterminator and Punisher here lol.

Anyways, in regards to the original question.

Leman Russ Battle Tank with the Battle Cannon has performed wonderfully for me. Poor rolls effect it only so far as anything else in the game. There have been some times where I've landed clean shots smack in the middle of some marines right where I want them. Sure, it misses but when it destroys a squad of marines in one shot or even over the course of a game, always a great feeling.

I tried the exterminator for a while. I really enjoy rolling all those dice. It puts hits on most things but doesn't cause too many dangerous wounds. Its more of an annoying fly. They did pretty good against bikers for me on a couple of occasions. Most of the time its meh. Fun, though.

Anyways, I see a lot of power armor on foot in my meta, so I'm gonna go back to battle tanks. Just my 2 cents.

 Atheos wrote:
As an alternative, is there a LR variant that is not considered mediocre and really worth taking? I have 4 Leman Russ's I try to fit a lot of them in my lists.

The basic LR Demolisher (no upgrades) is cheap and efficient, and STR 10 AP 2 draws a lot of attention away from squishier things.

The LR Executioner with plasma sponsons and hull LC is expensive but amazing against elite infantry and MCs.

The LR Vanquisher with Pask, hull LCs and sponson MMs is a lethal tank killer if you really need a specialized anti-Land Raider tool.

The Thunderer is a nice alternative to the Leman Russ Demolisher, should you have the option of fielding Forgeworld units. It's a nice way to ditch that troublesome Heavy vehicle USR and save yourself some points in the process.

Peregrine might have some justification for taking the Demolisher Russ, proper. But the only stuff I can think of off-hand is the loss of turret-LoS for the demolisher cannon and increased vulnerability to weapon destroyed results.

Corollax wrote:
Peregrine might have some justification for taking the Demolisher Russ, proper. But the only stuff I can think of off-hand is the loss of turret-LoS for the demolisher cannon and increased vulnerability to weapon destroyed results.

Well, the turret and the fact that I forgot about the Thunderer when I was posting that. TBH it can go either way, 25 points off the price of a LR Demolisher might make the difference in bringing something better elsewhere in your list, but spending the extra 25 points to get the turret and not auto-die to 'weapon destroyed' is a reasonable thing to do.

< Taken by the void dragon. >

Atheos wrote:LRBT is getting bashed, along with the Exterminator and Punisher here lol.

The punisher, as mentioned, kitted properly, can handle any target in the game, and on an AV14 chassis. The exterminator is the poor man's version of said punisher. The only russ that I really care for other than these two (not that the others (other than the LRBT) are bad per se...) is the vanquisher. You get four very serious heavy-hitting weapons on a chassis that other heavy-hitting weapons will struggle to handle.

I ran vanquisher spam to pretty decent success. Examples can be found here, here, and here.

That much serious killing power on that much durability can be pretty difficult to cope with. The sheer weight of high strength, low-Ap firepower means that you've also got what it takes to handle less-optimal targets like fliers, terminators, and the like. The only thing it lacks is the ability to handle large hordes, but that's what you've got the rest of your army for.

 Ailaros wrote:
The punisher, as mentioned, kitted properly, can handle any target in the game, and on an AV14 chassis.

Except, as mentioned, the Punisher can't handle any target in the game. We just keep going around in circles here, you make this ridiculous claim, we point out that the Punisher is awful (per point) at dealing with many common target types, and then you post the same claim again as if it never happened.

(And let's be honest here, you'll never break the circle because you can't admit that Vendettas are better and belong in your army.)

That much serious killing power on that much durability can be pretty difficult to cope with.

Unless of course you happen to bring a no-vehicle list, in which case you laugh at the Vanquishers. Vanquishers are good in their specific role, but they are NOT a generalist tank you can just throw into a list.

The sheer weight of high strength, low-Ap firepower means that you've also got what it takes to handle less-optimal targets like fliers, terminators, and the like.

What "sheer weight"? You're spending 200 points for 4x BS 3 shots IF you have both sponson weapons in arc and in range. Sure, if they hit they tend to hurt something, but you don't really have the volume of fire to handle terminators and you certainly don't have effective AA firepower*. Obviously it's better than nothing, but if you don't need long-range tank killing from the main gun Vanquishers don't belong in your list.


*Unless of course you refuse to accept the existence of Vendettas and FW units, in which case I guess they're one of the less-bad AA options in the codex.

Wouldn't Bolter-Punisher be decent (maybe even with Pask)? Sure, Vulture is better, but they go into different slots so they don't directly compete. You could even have both.

But I do think GW should seriously nerf IG flyers and veterans. It is sad that clearly the most effective way to play IG resembles some sort of Imperial Navy elite landing team more than traditional Imperial Guard. Tanks and incompetent and expendable guardsmen should be the backbone of the guard, not flyers and veterans.

I think they should seriously buff the other stuff. Instead of ruining a play style because it's good (and vets are the reason I picked guard in the first place) they should actually make the foot horde viable.

They really cannot buff rest of the IG stuff on the level of Vendettas. The codex would be so brokenly OP it would make the Necrons cry.

Well I meant troops, not vehicles. Vendettas are too cheap, no argument there. The fact that vets can take 3 BS4 special weapons is why I love them. Don't really want to change my play style, and vets are a fairly new addition IIRC (I missed 4th ed) so I doubt they'll be gone.
It's more of an equalisation that's needed. Buff the PISs a little, nerf the vets a little.

 Griddlelol wrote:
Well I meant troops, not vehicles. Vendettas are too cheap, no argument there. The fact that vets can take 3 BS4 special weapons is why I love them. Don't really want to change my play style, and vets are a fairly new addition IIRC (I missed 4th ed) so I doubt they'll be gone.
It's more of an equalisation that's needed. Buff the PISs a little, nerf the vets a little.

I don't get why they're troops. Veterans are obviously elites. Other armies at least need a tax character to move their elites into troops.

 Crimson wrote:

 Griddlelol wrote:
Well I meant troops, not vehicles. Vendettas are too cheap, no argument there. The fact that vets can take 3 BS4 special weapons is why I love them. Don't really want to change my play style, and vets are a fairly new addition IIRC (I missed 4th ed) so I doubt they'll be gone.
It's more of an equalisation that's needed. Buff the PISs a little, nerf the vets a little.

I don't get why they're troops. Veterans are obviously elites. Other armies at least need a tax character to move their elites into troops.

Yep, those damn elites that fall over just as easy as any other stinkin' guardsman.

Why should they be elites? They're not different from normal guardsmen, except they've survived more than a couple of fights.
If you lose vets as troops, then there's one choice: platoons (or the pseudo-PIS that is a penal legion squad - but why should I be forced to use a bunch of criminals in my army?)

Why are Sternguard Elites? They die just as easily as normal tacticals.

I suppose the special ammunition, increased leadership, increased attacks and combi-weapons for all that has something to do with it.

Comparing sternguard and tacs to vets and platoons is pretty silly (but so was the previous poster's argument).

 Crimson wrote:
Why are Sternguard Elites? They die just as easily as normal tacticals.

Sternguard have Special Ammo, higher leadership, better at CQC, everyone can take special weapons, etc.

The only thing the vets have that normal PIS don't have is BS4 and 3 Special weapons instead of 1. That's it.

Also an important point that I forgot to mention: imperial guard should rely on troops. If vets were elites then you'd see people taking the absolute minimum amount of troops with the elite, HS and FA slots doing all the hard work.
That's not how the imperial guard should be organised. The troops must be attractive, or you'll start seeing the elite fighting forces that you're so against.

[quote=Griddlelol .elites then you'd see people taking the absolute minimum amount of troops with the elite, HS and FA slots doing all the hard work.
That's not how the imperial guard should be organized. The troops must be attractive, or you'll start seeing the elite fighting forces that you're so against.

< Taken by the void dragon. >

4 edition codex I thought the last one prior to the one we have now was a weird 3.5 limbo codex. But truthfully I agree wholeheartedly about the doctrines thing gave some uniqueness to each person's regiment.

On the topic of leman russ battle tanks well they still serve a purpose as peregrine has stated, just not a very good one. The punisher with the anti-tank sponsons and hull-mount seems like such a waste. It's never been at all effective for me as it tries to to cover to much and the variance in range is silly. If I was going to put lascan/MM on a chasis it would be the exterminator (has worked wonders for me, being a generalist mediocre killing platform). Sure lacks the H20 but the range increment on the main gun meshes a bit better IMHO.

< Taken by the void dragon. >

 Ailaros wrote:

ph34r wrote:It is also extremely slow, short ranged, and all its weapons have different range bands and preferred targets.

But then you do the math. Yes, they're bad against biker nobz, but look at everything else.

Against terminators you have both weight of fire

I know this whole post has been going in circles with this, but I thought I'd join in anyway...

So, Ailaros, you say do the math(s) (I'm English, so I use an "s"), so I will.

Most will agree that competitively it is TH/SS termies or paladins that are seen the most? I'll work for both then.

Paladins-
Ok so 20 shots 4+/3+/1s/1-4s
So 0.74 wounds so far
3 more at 4+/2+/1-4s
So 0.83 more... 1.57 wounds so 1 dead paladin... Hooray.

TH/SS -
20 at 4+/3+/1s
1.11 wounds
3 at 4+/2+/1-2s
So another 0.83 wounds... 1.94 in all, two dead terms.
All assuming you are in range, and have suffered no damage results besides immobilised.

Case closed?

Tactical_Genius wrote:

Case closed?

Not quite. While I agree that those numbers are pretty pathetic. I ran some numbers for an executioner, using the assumption that the hit rate on terminators is 75% (to hit one base) and 20% of those hits would hit 2 bases, while at maximum coherence.

Against assault terminators, I got 1.09 wounds.
Against Paladins, I got 1.8 wounds.

Worse than the punisher with all the trimmings, but still pretty gakky. So I mean; shock horror! Two of the most resilient infantry units are resilient? Never would have guessed.

Compare that to the executioners cost in plasma vets (convenient because they're half the price) at 24" (12"):

Assault terminators: 1.57 (3.14)
Paladins: 2.7 (5.4)

The difference is that plasma vets are clearly a glass cannon and not on an AV:14 frame (also I didn't include the chimera they're likely going to be in). Damaging those two units isn't easy. Once you start comparing them to other things, you see that actually the wounds that the punisher puts out aren't as bad as they seem. However, I'd never take a punisher to do that. Doesn't seem worth it.

As is the LRBT has several issues. As others have noted, the change in Lumbering Behemoth to Heavy has made sponson/hull weapons largely pointless on a Battlecannon russ. On top of that, the Battlecannon isn't stupendously effective as an anti-tank weapon (lacking the rate of fire to take advantage of the hull point weakness and lacking the AP to make good use of the Vehicle Damage Chart), so it's largely there to kill heavy infantry at long ranges. In that role, it's great, but it's not necessarily a critical role, as heavy infantry can oten be engaged safely from medium distances and there's other units that can do the same thing. It also doesn't help that vehicles in general are less effective now in 6th than they were in 5th, but that's not unique to the LRBT.


Others have for some reason espoused the Punisher as a better alternative. I'm do not believe I agree with this, as the Punisher has 1/3rd the range with its primary weapon and isn't exactly particularly stupendous against heavy infantry either, and costs a lot more.

Is the basic LRBT awful? No, just not particularly good. It does one thing well, kill clumped up heavy infantry at long ranges. This has a psychological aspect on more players than it has a functional aspect in many cases, but isn't really something an army *needs* to be effective, and as a result the LRBT ends up being a jack of all-trades-but-good-at-nothing-but-one.

I'll note it again. The basic LRBT is good against every type of infantry in a clump down to a 3+ save which is the vast majority of infantry in the game. It is also effective against bikes of all descriptions as the high weapon strength isn't affected by the toughness bump and its pretty good against light vehicle squadrons with a good strength and 2 dice to penetrate. Squadrons are also pretty hard to miss entirely given the vehicle size and spacing compared to the template size. So to list the things its pretty rubbish at you end up with 2+save infantry, flyers, heavy tanks and monstrous crearures, all of which are typically support and HQ type units rather than the backbone of an army. Of course you get the exceptions like GKs and nidzilla lists, but the whole of the game does not revolve around these armies.

Also the long range gives the player a bit of leeway in terms of target choice allowing a single tank to support any part of your line if needs be. All that for a low low price on a nice robust chassis.

Against paladins, you're causing an average of 1.1 failed armor saves with the punisher cannon, and then .84 with the hull weapons WHICH CAUSE INSTANT DEATH. The most likely result from one round of shooting is a dead paladin and a wounded one. The most likely result from two rounds of shooting is three dead paladins. From just one of your tanks. A pair of these punishers along with a couple of melta mechvet squads can chump a 10-man paladin squad before it has a chance to do anything particularly useful.

As for taking out infantry at range, I agree that it's not the most necessary role, but even in this role, the LRBT still loses out - to the eradicator. The eradicator is straight away better against anything with a 4+, 5+ or 6+ save, because they don't get to make cover saves. The eradicator is also equal to the LRBT against terminators, or anything with a 2+ save because they're just making the armor save.

So, you start with the eradicator being equal to, or better than the LRBT against 84% of the possible armor types, leaving it with only Sv3+. Even here, it's shockingly not much better.

For example, if marines go to ground behind an aegis, the eradicator is actually BETTER than the LRBT, because it forces the marines to use their armor saves. Against marines that have gone to ground in ruins, the two are exactly the same. Against marines who are just regularly behind an aegis or in ruins, the two are equal.

That means that the LRBT is only better against 1/6th of the armor types in 1/3rd of the cover saves possible. Yes, not all armor and cover saves are equally likely to be present, but still, this is a pretty narrow range where the LRBT is better AT ALL. Add to it the fact that the battlecannon isn't that much better in 5+ cover, and really, you've got a single situation - marines out in the open - that the LRBT does better.

Throw in some displacement (which is easier to do when out in the open), and they're not even all that terribly good at that either.

 Ailaros wrote:


For example, if marines go to ground behind an aegis, the eradicator is actually BETTER than the LRBT, because it forces the marines to use their armor saves. Against marines that have gone to ground in ruins, the two are exactly the same. Against marines who are just regularly behind an aegis or in ruins, the two are equal.

This isn't really fair. The Eradicator wouldn't force the marines to GTG whereas the LRBT would, meaning that they'd at least have to snap fire the next turn.

Fine, but they COULD be shot at by something else that would make them go to ground, so it's not a completely impossible scenario.

And, wait, doesn't ATSKNF basically cancel all of the penalties of going to ground anyways?

 Ailaros wrote:
Against paladins, you're causing an average of 1.1 failed armor saves with the punisher cannon, and then .84 with the hull weapons WHICH CAUSE INSTANT DEATH. The most likely result from one round of shooting is a dead paladin and a wounded one. The most likely result from two rounds of shooting is three dead paladins. From just one of your tanks. A pair of these punishers along with a couple of melta mechvet squads can chump a 10-man paladin squad before it has a chance to do anything particularly useful.

Well I should hope so given that a pair of Punishers and a couple melta vet Chimeras is over 750 points...

Also, those numbers are pathetic. A Vendetta does 1.25 wounds, all instant death, to paladins, for 130 points. Adjust that to compensate for the Vendetta's much cheaper price tag and the Vendetta is doing 2.16 wounds, all instant death. And of course the LR Demolisher is even better, but I know you'll just find a way to make the math "prove" that the demolisher cannon only hits 0.5 paladins every time it fires.

So, you start with the eradicator being equal to, or better than the LRBT against 84% of the possible armor types, leaving it with only Sv3+.

That's absolute nonsense. Calling it 84% of the possible armor types is incredibly misleading because not all armor types are equally common. 3+ armor saves might only be one of six possible types, but they can easily make up half the potential targets (or more) since marines are by far the most common army.

Add to it the fact that the battlecannon isn't that much better in 5+ cover, and really, you've got a single situation - marines out in the open - that the LRBT does better.

Err, lol? In what bizarre world is "twice as likely to fail a save" considered "not that much better"?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ailaros wrote:
And, wait, doesn't ATSKNF basically cancel all of the penalties of going to ground anyways?

No.

 Ailaros wrote:

And, wait, doesn't ATSKNF basically cancel all of the penalties of going to ground anyways?

This has caused a few arguments at my FLGS. GTG has nothing about "regrouping" so I don't see why it would be affected by ATSKNF. Some people house rule it to the SM can do everything normally but must snap shoot, but I've always pushed that as there is no regrouping and no tests to pass, ATSKNF has no interaction with GTG.

 Griddlelol wrote:
This has caused a few arguments at my FLGS. GTG has nothing about "regrouping" so I don't see why it would be affected by ATSKNF. Some people house rule it to the SM can do everything normally but must snap shoot, but I've always pushed that as there is no regrouping and no tests to pass, ATSKNF has no interaction with GTG.

Yeah, those people are just cheating. There's absolutely nothing in ATSKNF that has anything to do with going to ground, so that house rule is just another bit of "my army needs to be overpowered" nonsense and should be ignored just like everyone who wants a "house rule" that lasguns are STR 10 AP 1.

 Peregrine wrote:

There's absolutely nothing in ATSKNF that has anything to do with going to ground

I don't think they're cheating, they're just not very bright. It's barely worth arguing rules because I just get the same incorrect arguments back. They can GTG and move 9" if it keeps the peace.

But yeah, ATSKNF has no interaction with GTG.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Ailaros wrote:
Against paladins, you're causing an average of 1.1 failed armor saves with the punisher cannon, and then .84 with the hull weapons WHICH CAUSE INSTANT DEATH. The most likely result from one round of shooting is a dead paladin and a wounded one. The most likely result from two rounds of shooting is three dead paladins. From just one of your tanks. A pair of these punishers along with a couple of melta mechvet squads can chump a 10-man paladin squad before it has a chance to do anything particularly useful.

Well I should hope so given that a pair of Punishers and a couple melta vet Chimeras is over 750 points

And that's before you factor in a couple of things...

1) no intelligent paladins player is going to footslog, which means those paladins will land right next to you, and psycannon the hell out of at least one punisher.

2) those "instant death"s have a 50/50 chance to be look out sir-ed onto a guy with one wound left anyway, so it's more like 2 dead paladins in 2 turns per tank.

3) the executioner stats are in no way believable, primarily because very rarely will you see maximum dispersion of units, particularly units that tend to be deep striked.

Peregrine wrote:Well I should hope so given that a pair of Punishers and a couple melta vet Chimeras is over 750 points.

750 points which can wipe out 10-man paladin squads and also be good against everything else in the game.

Tactical_Genius wrote:no intelligent paladins player is going to footslog, which means those paladins will land right next to you, and psycannon the he'll out of at least one punisher.

I would love for a draigowing player to spend half the game off the board and then run a serious chance of mishapping with a 10-man paladin squad. All so that he could go fishing for what is likely only a single rending result which the tanks can easily survive.

Tactical_Genius wrote:those "instant death"s have a 50/50 chance to be look out sir-ed onto a guy with one wound left anyway, so it's more like 2 dead paladins in 2 turns per tank.

Paladins aren't characters.

 Ailaros wrote:

Tactical_Genius wrote:those "instant death"s have a 50/50 chance to be look out sir-ed onto a guy with one wound left anyway, so it's more like 2 dead paladins in 2 turns per tank.

Paladins aren't characters.

Wrong.

Yes they are.

If you check their unit type in the appendix of the BRB it says I (Ch) - or infantry (character).

I played grey knights for a long time...

You haven't played since the FAQ that made them not characters, apparently.

They are. Bear in mind that the FAQ corrects yeh codex, this is from the BRB. We had this argument for a looong time at my local GW store but we've checked, and double checked, and triple checked. Paladins are characters.

But thats besides the point.

The point is that the punisher simply cannot fill that role.

 Ailaros wrote:
750 points which can wipe out 10-man paladin squads and also be good against everything else in the game.

And around the circle we go again. No matter how many times you ignore all evidence that disagrees with you, MM/LC Punishers are still not good against everything in the game.

I would love for a draigowing player to spend half the game off the board and then run a serious chance of mishapping with a 10-man paladin squad. All so that he could go fishing for what is likely only a single rending result which the tanks can easily survive.

Since when does having reserves arrive on a 3+ on turn 2 mean "spending half the game off the board"?

And why do you need to hope for a single rending result when you can drop into rear armor (side armor on the Chimeras) and wipe the whole unit off the table?

I really feel at some point some of us should agree to disagree.
I feel it's perfectly alright to champion an opinion that 98% of the other posters think is bonkers.
But at some point we have to stop trying to convince everyone else to do it our way or it's not going to work.
The phrase "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink" comes to mind. You've laid out your
position, other's counter. After three pages of the back and forth, I feel it should be apparent opinions aren't going
to be swayed. Sorry, had to get that off my chest.

/

 alarmingrick wrote:
I really feel at some point some of us should agree to disagree.
I feel it's perfectly alright to champion an opinion that 98% of the other posters think is bonkers.
But at some point we have to stop trying to convince everyone else to do it our way or it's not going to work.
The phrase "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink" comes to mind. You've laid out your
position, other's counter. After three pages of the back and forth, I feel it should be apparent opinions aren't going
to be swayed. Sorry, had to get that off my chest.

/

Except we are all IG here so the horse drinks or a commissariat bullet solves the problem.

So, despite the arguing can I summarize some of the ideas that have been presented?

LRBT on its own is bad.. need 2-3, maybe 4 to make it worth taking. Barebones it since it can't fire anything else.

Punisher should take HB sponsons and hull, I know the MM/LC was discussed but I personally don't like that idea.

Executioner with full sponsons, expensive but fun/good.

Vanquisher is good for anti-tank but.. in todays troops builds it's not very useful outside of that. So don't take it?

You neglected the Demolisher (and it's little brother, the Thunderer). The Thunderer is a particularly good alternative for forming an "AV14 wall" since it is both cheap and lacks the Lumbering Behemoth rule. If you're fielding Russes as screening strategy, I"d take it over a standard Russ any day.

Otherwise, I'd say you did a pretty nice job of summing it up.

*facepalm* How I could I forget about the Demolisher?!

Hrm... I'll have to look into the Thunderer.

Corollax wrote:
You neglected the Demolisher (and it's little brother, the Thunderer). The Thunderer is a particularly good alternative for forming an "AV14 wall" since it is both cheap and lacks the Lumbering Behemoth rule. If you're fielding Russes as screening strategy, I"d take it over a standard Russ any day.

Otherwise, I'd say you did a pretty nice job of summing it up.

Who has LB anymore?

It's a cute little piece of work, honestly. It's basically a Vindicator without the crippling side armor. For a vehicle that's supposed to deliver a blast template of doom within 24", that's a pretty big deal.

If nothing else, it's nice to be able to move 18" on a turn when no target is presenting itself. Saving a few points while you're at it is just gravy.

 Atheos wrote:
LRBT on its own is bad.. need 2-3, maybe 4 to make it worth taking. Barebones it since it can't fire anything else.

Exact opposite. LRBT is maybe useful if you want a cheap marine killer, but it's rarely worth taking more than one of them.

Vanquisher is good for anti-tank but.. in todays troops builds it's not very useful outside of that. So don't take it?

Whether you take it or not depends on how many vehicles you expect to face in your metagame and how much anti-tank you have elsewhere in your list. Like most narrow-role specialists there is no universal answer that applies to all lists in all metagames.

Quite. For better or worse, the vanilla Russ is very much a case of diminishing returns. If you insist on bringing that "wall of AV14", you're probably better off doing it with something that's more generally useful. Demolisher Cannons might not be perfect, but they're probably going to contribute more than a generic Battle Cannon. Between T5 FNP/multi-wound units and vehicles in general, it's just more apt to find appropriate targets.

 Atheos wrote:
So, despite the arguing can I summarize some of the ideas that have been presented?

LRBT on its own is bad.. need 2-3, maybe 4 to make it worth taking. Barebones it since it can't fire anything else.

Punisher should take HB sponsons and hull, I know the MM/LC was discussed but I personally don't like that idea.

Executioner with full sponsons, expensive but fun/good.

Vanquisher is good for anti-tank but.. in todays troops builds it's not very useful outside of that. So don't take it?

Well with any russ you should probably be taking 2+ if you choose to take russes. My reasoning is because if your opponent has any pods loaded with meltas you know exactly where they are going. And if you only have 1 or two russes no matter how many pts they are they will still die like any other russ.

In this edition Ive noticed it seems like its almost not even worth taking leman russ in this edition. They are slower now, if you take advantage of their sponsons then you put a lot of points in expensive russes that die just as easily as a barebones LRBT, The ordnance russes are best left at barebones and cant take advantage of any sponsons or weapon upgrades.

In the end I would say go with artillery, With money issues, me being a tread head, and russes being my favorite tank I am stuck using them but I would thoroughly say artillery is a much better solution than take LRBT's or any other russ variant.

Tactical_Genius wrote:
They are. Bear in mind that the FAQ corrects yeh codex, this is from the BRB. We had this argument for a looong time at my local GW store but we've checked, and double checked, and triple checked. Paladins are characters.

But thats besides the point.

The point is that the punisher simply cannot fill that role.

Last time I checked, codex trumps rulebook.

 Happygrunt wrote:

Tactical_Genius wrote:
They are. Bear in mind that the FAQ corrects yeh codex, this is from the BRB. We had this argument for a looong time at my local GW store but we've checked, and double checked, and triple checked. Paladins are characters.

But thats besides the point.

The point is that the punisher simply cannot fill that role.

Last time I checked, codex trumps rulebook.

Not that this actually matters since the CORE RULEBOOK errata removes the character type from Paladins. Paladins are not a whole unit of characters, end of discussion.

 tankboy145 wrote:


Well with any russ you should probably be taking 2+ if you choose to take russes. My reasoning is because if your opponent has any pods loaded with meltas you know exactly where they are going. And if you only have 1 or two russes no matter how many pts they are they will still die like any other russ.

In this edition Ive noticed it seems like its almost not even worth taking leman russ in this edition. They are slower now, if you take advantage of their sponsons then you put a lot of points in expensive russes that die just as easily as a barebones LRBT, The ordnance russes are best left at barebones and cant take advantage of any sponsons or weapon upgrades.

In the end I would say go with artillery, With money issues, me being a tread head, and russes being my favorite tank I am stuck using them but I would thoroughly say artillery is a much better solution than take LRBT's or any other russ variant.

Yeah I have the money issue as well, I have zero artillery models and 4 Leman Russ's to play with.

 Atheos wrote:

 tankboy145 wrote:


Well with any russ you should probably be taking 2+ if you choose to take russes. My reasoning is because if your opponent has any pods loaded with meltas you know exactly where they are going. And if you only have 1 or two russes no matter how many pts they are they will still die like any other russ.

In this edition Ive noticed it seems like its almost not even worth taking leman russ in this edition. They are slower now, if you take advantage of their sponsons then you put a lot of points in expensive russes that die just as easily as a barebones LRBT, The ordnance russes are best left at barebones and cant take advantage of any sponsons or weapon upgrades.

In the end I would say go with artillery, With money issues, me being a tread head, and russes being my favorite tank I am stuck using them but I would thoroughly say artillery is a much better solution than take LRBT's or any other russ variant.

Yeah I have the money issue as well, I have zero artillery models and 4 Leman Russ's to play with.

In that case, try to go for turrets. It could cheaper to get a turret than a whole tank.

 Atheos wrote:

Vanquisher is good for anti-tank but.. in todays troops builds it's not very useful outside of that. So don't take it?

In 2k points games I always take a Paskquisher. Under that I generally have enough anti-tank to deal with most threats. The great thing about it, is that you will destroy a Land Raider by turn 2, so think of it as insurance. It's also not useless once it's done. 4 ap2 (or better) weapons at BS4 can chip away at terminators and ID paladins. It's also good for taking out MCs if there aren't any armour units around.

I think it has a place in a TAC list, but it depends what points level you're playing. At 1500, I wouldn't touch it.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Happygrunt wrote:

Tactical_Genius wrote:
They are. Bear in mind that the FAQ corrects yeh codex, this is from the BRB. We had this argument for a looong time at my local GW store but we've checked, and double checked, and triple checked. Paladins are characters.

But thats besides the point.

The point is that the punisher simply cannot fill that role.

Last time I checked, codex trumps rulebook.

Not that this actually matters since the CORE RULEBOOK errata removes the character type from Paladins. Paladins are not a whole unit of characters, end of discussion.

Fair enough

I didn't check, but has anyone mentioned Executioners? The Heavy 3 Blast Plasma Leman Russ? I would think that that variant is pretty good, especially against all-terminator armies. Also, the Medusas are most excellent behind an ADL.

 McNinja wrote:
I didn't check, but has anyone mentioned Executioners? .

I did some quick mathammer on them above. They're OK against terminators. Their major issue is that you'll rarely hit more than 1 terminator with the blast template due to their huge base size. Only about 20% of your hits will manage to clip a second terminator which really diminishes their efficiency against TDA. They are IMO more efficacious at wiping out MEQ, but in an army of anti-MEQ they do have the bonus of actually being able to hurt terminators, which is certainly a point in their favour.
Their real use is to force people to spend their run move to get 2" apart. They can also really feth up anything that bails out of a destroyed transport.

The best option for killing terminators is the plasma vet squad. Followed closely by the Vendetta.

Atheos wrote:Vanquisher is good for anti-tank but.. in todays troops builds it's not very useful outside of that. So don't take it?

I'd consider myself lucky if my opponents didn't bring anything that a vanquisher wasn't able to handle. Really, properly kitted, the vanquisher's only weakness is hordes. If your opponents ever bring vehicles or terminators or monstrous creatures, or any other kind of hard target, the vanquisher will have work to do.

With a lascannon and multimeltas (or possibly plasma cannons), the vanquisher is a toybreaker unit. They point at your opponent's strongest, most expensive unit and kill it.

 Ailaros wrote:
If your opponents ever bring vehicles or terminators or monstrous creatures, or any other kind of hard target, the vanquisher will have work to do.

But not efficient work. The only time the MM/LC Vanquisher is more point-efficient than the alternatives is when it's killing heavy vehicles.

I for one like to bring at one or two barebone LRBT.

I won't argue it is the best tank but what it does for me is keep enemy infantry (2+ saves excluded) in cover at 72". Being a moderate threat with AV 14 hull, parked safely near my table edge also means it tends to survive. It's not spectacular, but then again it is only 150 pts.

zoat wrote:
It's not spectacular, but then again it is only 150 pts.

Why are you content with taking 150-300pts worth of mediocrity?

 Griddlelol wrote:

zoat wrote:
It's not spectacular, but then again it is only 150 pts.

Why are you content with taking 150-300pts worth of mediocrity?

Because they want to? Are you the IG list building police? Do they receive a warning or a fine for the first offense?
Just because you see it as mediocre, doesn't mean it is to them, or their meta.

Well, this is rather a tactics forum, wherein we can debate things, including the usefulness of things in the codex. It's not designed to be merely a showcase of opinion, where we all say what we think is good and then go home.

Also, it would be nice to be able to make comments without constantly needing to refer to our local meta every time we say something. I'd also like to think that it's possible to think about things abstractly, rather than purely in the context of our own subjective experiences.

Really, local meta should be the personal exceptions to the rules, not the thing on which dialogue is based, as without a common frame of reference, communication itself is rather difficult.

 alarmingrick wrote:

Because they want to? Are you the IG list building police? Do they receive a warning or a fine for the first offense?
Just because you see it as mediocre, doesn't mean it is to them, or their meta.

Well done on missing the point. Ailaros pretty much explained why, I don't think I need to repeat exactly what he said.

 Ailaros wrote:
#1 : Well, this is rather a tactics forum, wherein we can debate things, including the usefulness of things in the codex. It's not designed to be merely a showcase of opinion, where we all say what we think is good and then go home.

#2: Also, it would be nice to be able to make comments without constantly needing to refer to our local meta every time we say something. I'd also like to think that it's possible to think about things abstractly, rather than purely in the context of our own subjective experiences.

Really, local meta should be the personal exceptions to the rules, not the thing on which dialogue is based, as without a common frame of reference, communication itself is rather difficult.

#1: I know what this is A-man. Been here awhile longer than you.

#2: You can't look at things in a vacuum. The local meta can have a lot of affect on the tactics used or suggested. Why load out on flamers when all you see are SM?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Griddlelol wrote:

 alarmingrick wrote:

Because they want to? Are you the IG list building police? Do they receive a warning or a fine for the first offense?
Just because you see it as mediocre, doesn't mean it is to them, or their meta.

Well done on missing the point. Ailaros pretty much explained why, I don't think I need to repeat exactly what he said.

I'm slow. Try me anyway? What point?

@Griddlelol

For the record I feel it was a polite and justified question.

As for why:

what it does for me is keep enemy infantry (2+ saves excluded) in cover at 72"

This primarily, but also this

it tends to survive

I guess the last point is a bit meta dependent, but I won't blame the meta. I blame my army strategy!

I'm not very experienced (yet), but there seems to be good synergy between large blasts making opponent spread out and veterans/stormtroopers/vendettas/more expensive tanks that are good at bringing a lot of firepower to a small part of the table. This is what I'm experimenting with at the moment.

I was also carefully trying to steer the discussion away from Vendettas, veterans etc and back into the Heavy Support slot...

I do rather question the idea that you're going to be forcing your opponent into cover with a battlecannon. Either the unit was going to be in cover anyways, or it's still going to be the best thing for your opponent to move up, battlecannon on the other side of the table or no.

I mean, I'm scratching my head trying to think of a unit that your opponent brought that he would want to rush forward with that instead he could sit back and be nearly as effective with while shooting from cover.

Because if your opponent is bringing units that need to be attacking, but he doesn't because he's scared of the battlecannon, that has much, much more to say about your opponent, than about the battlecannon.

 Ailaros wrote:
I mean, I'm scratching my head trying to think of a unit that your opponent brought that he would want to rush forward with that instead he could sit back and be nearly as effective with while shooting from cover.

You're scratching your head because you've created a false dilemma here. A unit might have to choose between, say, moving 6" and not having cover or moving 4-5" and having cover. Or the unit might move 6" into cover with another in-cover position 5" away. Now if they run and roll a 4 their player has to choose between moving the 4" into the open between cover or staying in their current cover and throwing away their run move. In this kind of case the unit is still moving up to engage you, the only question is speed vs. safety.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

zoat wrote:
I was also carefully trying to steer the discussion away from Vendettas, veterans etc and back into the Heavy Support slot...

But that's a very relevant discussion. If you have a heavy support choice that is trying to do the same things as a Vendetta but does them much less efficiently it's probably a sign that you need to find a better heavy support choice.

 Peregrine wrote:

But that's a very relevant discussion. If you have a heavy support choice that is trying to do the same things as a Vendetta but does them much less efficiently it's probably a sign that you need to find a better heavy support choice.

Vendetta is the best unit in the game. You cannot put anything that is better than Vendetta in your HS slots. However, since you cannot put Vendettas in your HS slots either, this doesn't matter.

 Crimson wrote:
Vendetta is the best unit in the game. You cannot put anything that is better than Vendetta in your HS slots. However, since you cannot put Vendettas in your HS slots either, this doesn't matter.

You're missing the point. If you're taking a LR to kill tanks and do very little else that's competing directly with the Vendetta and it's a bad option if it can't match the Vendetta's efficiency in that role. That doesn't mean heavy support is worthless, it just means that you need to find a different role for your heavy support. For example, Vendettas aren't good at removing infantry from cover so a Colossus is a perfectly valid choice that doesn't get compared to the Vendetta.

Do you not feel that the same things can be achieved for cheaper and better with other choices - like artillery?
I mean, my basilisk can do everything the LRBT does in terms of offence but also ignore directional cover. Whilst also being a lot stronger against vehicles.

As for bringing something that will survive and contribute, do you not feel that another Russ variant would do the same, but contribute in a more meaningful way?

The point of the question was to open the discussion on the topic. I was curious why zoat was willing to bring something that they know the weakness of. Your knee-jerk reaction was silly.

@Ailaros

Peregrine got it about right. I think there are also situations when two potential battle cannon hits wiping the squad is enough make you wait that extra turn to coordinate your movement or wait for your deepstrikers/flankers etc to arrive.

@Griddlelol

I do not own any artillery (yet)... Hypothetically I agree that artillery could replace at least one LRBT. I think in most games the terrain here would probably allow me to hide one piece of artillery out of sight, but apart from that aren't artillery really easy to kill?

As for other russ variants, what would you suggest for the same role?

What I like with the LRBT is its durability and range. Artillery can provide similar capabilities (if hidden), but I'm not sure about another russ.


Again, big disclaimer. I'm far better at mathhammering than actually playing the game, so if you are here for advice listen to the other guys!

 Griddlelol wrote:
Do you not feel that the same things can be achieved for cheaper and better with other choices - like artillery?
I mean, my basilisk can do everything the LRBT does in terms of offence but also ignore directional cover. Whilst also being a lot stronger against vehicles.

As for bringing something that will survive and contribute, do you not feel that another Russ variant would do the same, but contribute in a more meaningful way?

The point of the question was to open the discussion on the topic. I was curious why zoat was willing to bring something that they know the weakness of. Your knee-jerk reaction was silly.

First and formost, my apologizes to Griddelol. I wasn't trying to bash or start a fight. I just feel we need more in our replies at times in this section. It's not like zoat said "I have every model made for the IG X3, but choose to run a pair of Russes." If he had, then Mr. G's comments would have fit better. I remember first starting out and wishing I had all the suggested units. Again, sorry.

 Crimson wrote:

 Griddlelol wrote:
Well I meant troops, not vehicles. Vendettas are too cheap, no argument there. The fact that vets can take 3 BS4 special weapons is why I love them. Don't really want to change my play style, and vets are a fairly new addition IIRC (I missed 4th ed) so I doubt they'll be gone.
It's more of an equalisation that's needed. Buff the PISs a little, nerf the vets a little.

I don't get why they're troops. Veterans are obviously elites. Other armies at least need a tax character to move their elites into troops.

Yeah...perhaps making Vets Elites, and unlock them as Troops choices with the inclusion of Harker and/or some other IC, would be appropriate.

They're fine as is. Not sure how they can be considered as "bad" as a troop choice? I feel they are pretty balanced.