Well that confirms two things I thought
Rapid Fire (X) will be (X) shots, doubled at half range
and Snipers will ignore the "can't target characters unless they're the closest" mechanic
I feel like the grammar on that sentence could have been slightly better. <-- This sentence probably also suffers from poor grammar. <-- As does this one.
Either way, another confirmed 8 Toughness
I didn't really care about Morkanaut being Toughness 8, but if even the common Leman Russ is Toughness 8. Then we are definitely going to need to focus some resources on bringing Lascannons over Missiles or Autos.
Everything said in that article got me 1000% more hyped for 8th edition.
Leman Russes being good, rough riders and bullgrins being good, snipers being more useful than ever, orders going off automatically, first rank, second rank getting a close quarters buff. Such goodness!
Now all I need to hear is that tanks can ram and I'm basically set for life
These are excellent changes. I am thrilled that my recently completed Rough Rider conversion project, which was a bit of a gamble considering they might not have existed in 8th, will be paying off!
All I've wanted from this edition is for Rough Riders to stay... yes. I started collecting Tallarn and will be happy to field cavalry in the battlefields of the 4 1st millennium. Be scared xenos and traitor scum, the Tallarn are coming.
Ultimately the Russ may actually be more fragile than they are now, despite appearing tough with 12 wounds. Given that the Russ was already mostly immune to stuff like Scatterlasers, aside from CC it was mainly big guns that will likely all do multiple damage in the new ruleset.
Looking at the example Lascannon, it absolutely will take fewer Lascannons to kill a Russ in 8E over 7E, as the wounds and save are overwhelmed by lower T (T8 is equivalent to AV12, not 14) and high Damage stats.
Lets hope cost and firepower balance this out.
Everything else looked neat, but will wait to see the final product before hoping that IG will be solid.
Vaktathi wrote: Ultimately the Russ may actually be more fragile than they are now, despite appearing tough with 12 wounds. Given that the Russ was already mostly immune to stuff like Scatterlasers, aside from CC it was mainly big guns that will likely all do multiple damage in the new ruleset.
Looking at the example Lascannon, it absolutely will take fewer Lascannons to kill a Russ in 8E over 7E, as the wounds and save are overwhelmed by lower T (T8 is equivalent to AV12, not 14) and high Damage stats.
Lets hope cost and firepower balance this out.
Everything else looked neat, but will wait to see the final product before hoping that IG will be solid.
8th edition shooting is going to see models removed from the table at a pace never before seen in a non-apocalypse game. It's going to be absolutely insane. So insane in fact that GW had to create a special rule to protect characters from the intense "uber-shooting".
If an IC like ROWBOAT needs "special protection" via rules, what hope do non protected models have!
Meh. Everything screams "people didn't buy Ogryns/Bullgryns/Sentinels, because they sucked, let's make them good, so people start buying those ugly as hell kits"
The way I'm looking at it is that in 7th edition a single lucky shot from a lascannon could take out a Rus. In 8th, you'll need a minimum of 2 lucky shots.
"The tanks of the Imperium have had a rough go of it in the current version of the Warhammer 40,000 ruleset, prone to getting destroyed in one shot or ingloriously throwing a tread going over a bush."
OMG. It's like someone at GW actually bothered to go play their own game.
Martel732 wrote: "The tanks of the Imperium have had a rough go of it in the current version of the Warhammer 40,000 ruleset, prone to getting destroyed in one shot or ingloriously throwing a tread going over a bush."
OMG. It's like someone at GW actually bothered to go play their own game.
Well, technically they got someone else to play it for them, but the fact that they appear to have listened is quite a thing indeed!
Otto von Bludd wrote: The way I'm looking at it is that in 7th edition a single lucky shot from a lascannon could take out a Rus. In 8th, you'll need a minimum of 2 lucky shots.
the issue is that it's way easier to get those 2 lucky shots in 8E than that one lucky shot in 7E
A trilas Predator for example is going to have a dramatically higher chance to outright kill a Russ in a single salvo in 8E than in 7E, which is not encouraging given how fragile Russ tanks, and vehicle in general, are in 7E.
Martel732 wrote: OMG. It's like someone at GW actually bothered to go play their own game.
Don't get ahead of yourself. If you read the start of the article you'll see that while he has clearly been brought in as a consultant for the playtesting, he is not from GW. So we can still assume no one at GW has ever played 40k before.
Otto von Bludd wrote: The way I'm looking at it is that in 7th edition a single lucky shot from a lascannon could take out a Rus. In 8th, you'll need a minimum of 2 lucky shots.
the issue is that it's way easier to get those 2 lucky shots in 8E than that one lucky shot in 7E
A trilas Predator for example is going to have a dramatically higher chance to outright kill a Russ in a single salvo in 8E than in 7E, which is not encouraging given how fragile Russ tanks, and vehicle in general, are in 7E.
Tri-las predators SHOULD be lethal to other tanks. Not the joke they currently are. Cost them appropriately.
Otto von Bludd wrote: The way I'm looking at it is that in 7th edition a single lucky shot from a lascannon could take out a Rus. In 8th, you'll need a minimum of 2 lucky shots.
the issue is that it's way easier to get those 2 lucky shots in 8E than that one lucky shot in 7E
A trilas Predator for example is going to have a dramatically higher chance to outright kill a Russ in a single salvo in 8E than in 7E, which is not encouraging given how fragile Russ tanks, and vehicle in general, are in 7E.
I do indeed see where you are coming from; a krak missile will wound a Rus on a 4+ now compared to a 6+, for example. However, I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing that a dedicated anti tank weapon is good against tanks. If my Rus dies because it was hit with a couple lucky lascannons I much much less annoyed than I would be (or rather, am, because this happens all the time in 7th) if it dies from 3 rear bolter hits or 3 space marine bro fists in melee like we see now. I think it's a good trade off to be honest. However we need to know how vehicle cover works and, like you said, how much firepower a Rus can put out now before we can make a more accurate judgement as to its worth.
Is he part of the GW marketing department now too?
He plays Guard and has often, rightly, lamented how many of the units in the codex are totally useless. He has every reason to be happy things like Rough Riders and Ratlings will be making a comeback. I think MOST Guard players would feel hyped about such a revelation.
Otto von Bludd wrote: The way I'm looking at it is that in 7th edition a single lucky shot from a lascannon could take out a Rus. In 8th, you'll need a minimum of 2 lucky shots.
the issue is that it's way easier to get those 2 lucky shots in 8E than that one lucky shot in 7E
A trilas Predator for example is going to have a dramatically higher chance to outright kill a Russ in a single salvo in 8E than in 7E, which is not encouraging given how fragile Russ tanks, and vehicle in general, are in 7E.
Tri-las predators SHOULD be lethal to other tanks. Not the joke they currently are. Cost them appropriately.
I'm not arguing that Trilas predators shouldnt be good tank killers, that wasn't a "zomg trilas preds will be broken" post, but rather using an example of something we have actual weapons stats for to show that Russ tanks are absolutely not any tougher even with the previously unheard of 12 wounds, and were already thought of as being too fragile.
A lot is still up in the air, but vehicle resiliency, from what we have seen thus far, doesnt look like its going to be getting any better except against stuff like Scatterlasers, which Russ tanks were already effectively immune to.
8th edition shooting is going to see models removed from the table at a pace never before seen in a non-apocalypse game. It's going to be absolutely insane. So insane in fact that GW had to create a special rule to protect characters from the intense "uber-shooting".
If an IC like ROWBOAT needs "special protection" via rules, what hope do non protected models have!
we'll see, not super enthused about IC's going back to 4E invisible status, we'll see how that works out.
Otto von Bludd wrote: The way I'm looking at it is that in 7th edition a single lucky shot from a lascannon could take out a Rus. In 8th, you'll need a minimum of 2 lucky shots.
the issue is that it's way easier to get those 2 lucky shots in 8E than that one lucky shot in 7E
A trilas Predator for example is going to have a dramatically higher chance to outright kill a Russ in a single salvo in 8E than in 7E, which is not encouraging given how fragile Russ tanks, and vehicle in general, are in 7E.
I do indeed see where you are coming from; a krak missile will wound a Rus on a 4+ now compared to a 6+, for example. However, I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing that a dedicated anti tank weapon is good against tanks. If my Rus dies because it was hit with a couple lucky lascannons I much much less annoyed than I would be (or rather, am, because this happens all the time in 7th) if it dies from 3 rear bolter hits or 3 space marine bro fists in melee like we see now.
In some ways, sure. And those CC issues definitely needed to be addressed (though Powerfists are likely to get multiple damage as well), but if heavy weapons access is not dramatically curtailed, I would expect to see tank losses occur even faster.
I think it's a good trade off to be honest. However we need to know how vehicle cover works and, like you said, how much firepower a Rus can put out now before we can make a more accurate judgement as to its worth.
aye, not the end of the world yet, but definitely vehicles are not as strong and resilient as they are being made out to be assuming current costs, heavy weapons availability, etc remains *roughly* the same.
Otto von Bludd wrote: The way I'm looking at it is that in 7th edition a single lucky shot from a lascannon could take out a Rus. In 8th, you'll need a minimum of 2 lucky shots.
the issue is that it's way easier to get those 2 lucky shots in 8E than that one lucky shot in 7E
A trilas Predator for example is going to have a dramatically higher chance to outright kill a Russ in a single salvo in 8E than in 7E, which is not encouraging given how fragile Russ tanks, and vehicle in general, are in 7E.
Tri-las predators SHOULD be lethal to other tanks. Not the joke they currently are. Cost them appropriately.
I'm not arguing that Trilas predators shouldnt be good tank killers, that wasn't a "zomg trilas preds will be broken" post, but rather using an example of something we have actual weapons stats for to show that Russ tanks are absolutely not any tougher even with the previously unheard of 12 wounds, and were already thought of as being too fragile.
A lot is still up in the air, but vehicle resiliency, from what we have seen thus far, doesnt look like its going to be getting any better except against stuff like Scatterlasers, which Russ tanks were already effectively immune to.
They are much tougher because all the AV-ignoring gimmicks are no longer an issue. T8 12W 3+ is no joke with the weapons they have posted so far. We don't what smoke will do either, for example.
They are much tougher because all the AV-ignoring gimmicks are no longer an issue. T8 12W 3+ is no joke with the weapons they have posted so far. We don't what smoke will do either, for example.
Suddenly, a double HP wraithknight is considered 'weak'?
What giggles me to the 'nth degree is the non-existence of double immobilized results. This and this alone makes the Russ viable in ways it hasn't been since 4th.
Roll on 8th, and by t'Emprah I'm looking forward to what happens to flyers.
Otto von Bludd wrote: The way I'm looking at it is that in 7th edition a single lucky shot from a lascannon could take out a Rus. In 8th, you'll need a minimum of 2 lucky shots.
the issue is that it's way easier to get those 2 lucky shots in 8E than that one lucky shot in 7E
A trilas Predator for example is going to have a dramatically higher chance to outright kill a Russ in a single salvo in 8E than in 7E, which is not encouraging given how fragile Russ tanks, and vehicle in general, are in 7E.
Tri-las predators SHOULD be lethal to other tanks. Not the joke they currently are. Cost them appropriately.
I'm not arguing that Trilas predators shouldnt be good tank killers, that wasn't a "zomg trilas preds will be broken" post, but rather using an example of something we have actual weapons stats for to show that Russ tanks are absolutely not any tougher even with the previously unheard of 12 wounds, and were already thought of as being too fragile.
A lot is still up in the air, but vehicle resiliency, from what we have seen thus far, doesnt look like its going to be getting any better except against stuff like Scatterlasers, which Russ tanks were already effectively immune to.
They are much tougher because all the AV-ignoring gimmicks are no longer an issue.
Hrm, we don't know that. Stuff like haywire and D will be translated in some way into 8th even if in different forms than in 7E. That's up in the air either way still methinks.
T8 12W 3+ is no joke with the weapons they have posted so far.
it makes the Russ vulnerable to weapons it was never vulnerable to before (like Autocannons which will wound on 5's, and may possibly have multiple damage as well), and makes most weapons it *was* vulnerable to before easier to wound with (e.g. Lascannon wounding on 3's instead of 5's), and since almost all of those will inevitably be multi Damage weapons, that W12 is very likely to average out to be pretty identical to HP3, for Lascannons this is certainly the case, except now they're also wounding twice as easily, just with no damage table.
We don't what smoke will do either, for example.
true, but if it is anything like previous iterations, it is unlikely to be of terrific use to the Russ. Hopfully that will change, but we just dont know yet.
They are much tougher because all the AV-ignoring gimmicks are no longer an issue. T8 12W 3+ is no joke with the weapons they have posted so far. We don't what smoke will do either, for example.
Suddenly, a double HP wraithknight is considered 'weak'?
What giggles me to the 'nth degree is the non-existence of double immobilized results. This and this alone makes the Russ viable in ways it hasn't been since 4th.
Roll on 8th, and by t'Emprah I'm looking forward to what happens to flyers.
well, realize that lascannon hitting a WK currently hits, then wounds on 3's then they get cover if applicable and fnp to do a single wound. now that will be D6 (if I remember the lascannon correctly)wounds done so the lascannon could in theory one shot a WK
I think it's a good trade off to be honest. However we need to know how vehicle cover works and, like you said, how much firepower a Rus can put out now before we can make a more accurate judgement as to its worth.
aye, not the end of the world yet, but definitely vehicles are not as strong and resilient as they are being made out to be assuming current costs, heavy weapons availability, etc remains *roughly* the same
Hopefully others will start to realize how UBER shooting is going to be in 8th. It wil definitely be the Shooty McShootface edition!
Otto von Bludd wrote: The way I'm looking at it is that in 7th edition a single lucky shot from a lascannon could take out a Rus. In 8th, you'll need a minimum of 2 lucky shots.
the issue is that it's way easier to get those 2 lucky shots in 8E than that one lucky shot in 7E
A trilas Predator for example is going to have a dramatically higher chance to outright kill a Russ in a single salvo in 8E than in 7E, which is not encouraging given how fragile Russ tanks, and vehicle in general, are in 7E.
A tri-las Predator is also likely going to get outranged by the Russ.
Battle Cannons are 72" range right now.
Lascannons are 48" range, now and in the new edition.
That's a difference of 24" where the Leman Russ can be blasting away with its Battle Cannon before the Predator can even fire one of its weapons.
And if you're so concerned about enemy tanks, why not bring along a Vanquisher to deal with them?
well, realize that lascannon hitting a WK currently hits, then wounds on 3's then they get cover if applicable and fnp to do a single wound. now that will be D6 (if I remember the lascannon correctly)wounds done so the lascannon could in theory one shot a WK
Which is, thematically, what lascannons should be doing anyway. If the IK is going to have 18 wounds ( if I remember that right) the WK will probably have the same - so the russ becomes, by the measure of its superiors, a pretty heavy duty vehicle.
Otto von Bludd wrote: The way I'm looking at it is that in 7th edition a single lucky shot from a lascannon could take out a Rus. In 8th, you'll need a minimum of 2 lucky shots.
the issue is that it's way easier to get those 2 lucky shots in 8E than that one lucky shot in 7E
A trilas Predator for example is going to have a dramatically higher chance to outright kill a Russ in a single salvo in 8E than in 7E, which is not encouraging given how fragile Russ tanks, and vehicle in general, are in 7E.
A tri-las Predator is also likely going to get outranged by the Russ.
Battle Cannons are 72" range right now.
Lascannons are 48" range, now and in the new edition.
That's a difference of 24" where the Leman Russ can be blasting away with its Battle Cannon before the Predator can even fire one of its weapons.
And if you're so concerned about enemy tanks, why not bring along a Vanquisher to deal with them?
We can but hope we'll see variety in Russ variants from now on, especially since it's beginning to feel there is a reason to use them.
It will now take over 100 hits from Burst Cannons to take down Leman Russes, so the Tau Optimized Stealth Cadre can go and shove it.
Don't worry I'm sure they found a way to nerf everything about the Tau despite claims they are trying to make a balanced game. However I'm afraid the IG are probably still screwed from space marine nu deathstars that unwittingly created when they said characters are invincible when behind someone. Shooting armies are RIP now. The meta will be to take as much invincible melee super characters as possible and bubble wrap them and run them up the field.
It will now take over 100 hits from Burst Cannons to take down Leman Russes, so the Tau Optimized Stealth Cadre can go and shove it.
Don't worry I'm sure they found a way to nerf everything about the Tau despite claims they are trying to make a balanced game. However I'm afraid the IG are probably still screwed from space marine nu deathstars that unwittingly created when they said characters are invincible when behind someone. Shooting armies are RIP now. The meta will be to take as much invincible melee super characters as possible and bubble wrap them and run them up the field.
Are you factoring in the detail that blast weapons are going to become relevant? If unit positioning shenanigans are to be dead and gone, the guard's low ROF, high *AOE* and high strength weapons are going to do marvelous things. Consider that even if smalls blasts are just d3 with avg 1.5, that a LR Executioner is effectively armed with 9 range 36" plasma guns. Emprah only knows what nonsense the Punisher and demolisher will get up to.
Martel732 wrote: We don't what smoke will do either, for example.
We do, actually.
Warhammer Community Shooting article wrote:There are a few other factors that affect hit rolls too – smoke launchers on a vehicle, for example, have the same effect of -1 to hit.
One thing I'm excited about: automatic orders mean vox-casters can resume their role of long-range morale support. I always hated how you needed a sophisticated backpack-mounted communications array to do the equivalent of yelling "WHAT??" at a guy fifteen feet away from you.
It will now take over 100 hits from Burst Cannons to take down Leman Russes, so the Tau Optimized Stealth Cadre can go and shove it.
Don't worry I'm sure they found a way to nerf everything about the Tau despite claims they are trying to make a balanced game. However I'm afraid the IG are probably still screwed from space marine nu deathstars that unwittingly created when they said characters are invincible when behind someone. Shooting armies are RIP now. The meta will be to take as much invincible melee super characters as possible and bubble wrap them and run them up the field.
One can only hope that Tau get the nerf stick pretty hard.
Otto von Bludd wrote: The way I'm looking at it is that in 7th edition a single lucky shot from a lascannon could take out a Rus. In 8th, you'll need a minimum of 2 lucky shots.
the issue is that it's way easier to get those 2 lucky shots in 8E than that one lucky shot in 7E
A trilas Predator for example is going to have a dramatically higher chance to outright kill a Russ in a single salvo in 8E than in 7E, which is not encouraging given how fragile Russ tanks, and vehicle in general, are in 7E.
A tri-las Predator is also likely going to get outranged by the Russ.
Battle Cannons are 72" range right now.
Lascannons are 48" range, now and in the new edition.
That's a difference of 24" where the Leman Russ can be blasting away with its Battle Cannon before the Predator can even fire one of its weapons.
And if you're so concerned about enemy tanks, why not bring along a Vanquisher to deal with them?
Functionally that range differencr is going to be irrelevant unless we're talking extreme corner to extreme corner, and then LoS is likely to be an issue anyway as well. That range advantage certainly hasnt been terribly relevant in 3rd through 7th.
Ultimately however, the point wasnt to compare and contrast those two tanks in and of themselves, but to show that vehicle resiliency isn't actually going to improve for the Russ tank.
Resiliency isn't really its current problem anyway except in VERY specific cases. It's the fact that you can fire a squadron of russes at a riptide or dreadknight the whole game and never kill them. Russes need FIREPOWER, not to be invincible.
It will now take over 100 hits from Burst Cannons to take down Leman Russes, so the Tau Optimized Stealth Cadre can go and shove it.
Don't worry I'm sure they found a way to nerf everything about the Tau despite claims they are trying to make a balanced game. However I'm afraid the IG are probably still screwed from space marine nu deathstars that unwittingly created when they said characters are invincible when behind someone. Shooting armies are RIP now. The meta will be to take as much invincible melee super characters as possible and bubble wrap them and run them up the field.
I doubt it. While I'm excited about getting into melee with my Sisters and Wolves, I'm also looking forward to running ABG again. Here's hoping Battle Cannons are good. And the Tau can use a good thwacking with the nerfbat anyway.
Martel732 wrote:
One can only hope that Tau get the nerf stick pretty hard.
I don't have a problem with the rest of the Tau army. Just the Optimized Stealth Cadre and the Tideline Rig.
The former because it invalidates the entire Imperial Guard army list, whether you're Armoured Battlegroup, Mechvets, Gunline Guard, or Blob Guard.
The latter because they're like a Hammerhead, but twin-linked and indestructible.
OSC means nothing against MCs, so I'd probably never use one because vehicles are crappy enough without taking a formation to make them even crappier.
Invalidating a bad list doesn't get you anywhere in the meta, though.
honestly I just think a riptide should be unique as should a wraithknight or stormsurge. would be cool to have heavy duty units like that that are not spammable. same for imperial knights but I doubt they would ever do that.
I have never had a problem against tau when they took 1 riptide or 1 stormsurge (or 1 ghostkeel) the issue is with packs and formations to hit rear armor or jus thave a ton of wounds and allocating to closes model
G00fySmiley wrote: honestly I just think a riptide should be unique as should a wraithknight or stormsurge. would be cool to have heavy duty units like that that are not spammable. same for imperial knights but I doubt they would ever do that.
I have never had a problem against tau when they took 1 riptide or 1 stormsurge (or 1 ghostkeel) the issue is with packs and formations to hit rear armor or jus thave a ton of wounds and allocating to closes model
Otto von Bludd wrote: The way I'm looking at it is that in 7th edition a single lucky shot from a lascannon could take out a Rus. In 8th, you'll need a minimum of 2 lucky shots.
the issue is that it's way easier to get those 2 lucky shots in 8E than that one lucky shot in 7E
A trilas Predator for example is going to have a dramatically higher chance to outright kill a Russ in a single salvo in 8E than in 7E, which is not encouraging given how fragile Russ tanks, and vehicle in general, are in 7E.
A tri-las Predator is also likely going to get outranged by the Russ.
Battle Cannons are 72" range right now.
Lascannons are 48" range, now and in the new edition.
That's a difference of 24" where the Leman Russ can be blasting away with its Battle Cannon before the Predator can even fire one of its weapons.
And if you're so concerned about enemy tanks, why not bring along a Vanquisher to deal with them?
Functionally that range differencr is going to be irrelevant unless we're talking extreme corner to extreme corner, and then LoS is likely to be an issue anyway as well. That range advantage certainly hasnt been terribly relevant in 3rd through 7th.
Ultimately however, the point wasnt to compare and contrast those two tanks in and of themselves, but to show that vehicle resiliency isn't actually going to improve for the Russ tank.
To be fair, we don't know what special gubbins the Russ might have.
For all we know, there might be special rules where it can ignore a wound suffered on a D6 roll or ignore AP modifiers.
OSC means nothing against MCs, so I'd probably never use one because vehicles are crappy enough without taking a formation to make them even crappier.
Invalidating a bad list doesn't get you anywhere in the meta, though.
honestly I just think a riptide should be unique as should a wraithknight or stormsurge. would be cool to have heavy duty units like that that are not spammable. same for imperial knights but I doubt they would ever do that.
I have never had a problem against tau when they took 1 riptide or 1 stormsurge (or 1 ghostkeel) the issue is with packs and formations to hit rear armor or jus thave a ton of wounds and allocating to closes model
Pretty much. One Riptide, even 3 is a solvable problem. Beast Hunter Command Tanks solve that problem nicely, or a giant pile of Lascannons.
But then you get the OSC, and the formations which are "bring 3, and ignore all cover and hit all tanks on rear armor." And you know what happens when I bring 3 tanks together? Gee, I got 3 tanks! Yay!
You can't get a pile of lascannons big enough to solve 3 Riptides. They can walk across the board and step on your tanks with impunity.
OSC is a gamblers build. If they end up against Demons or Tyranids, they accomplished nothing. Against someone like myself who primarily uses pods and rhinos, it does very little.
If you pay for AV in 7th ed, you are taking a huge risk anyway. Expect to lose your tanks.
" Beast Hunter Command Tanks solve that problem nicely"
I don't have a problem with the rest of the Tau army. Just the Optimized Stealth Cadre and the Tideline Rig.
The former because it invalidates the entire Imperial Guard army list, whether you're Armoured Battlegroup, Mechvets, Gunline Guard, or Blob Guard.
The latter because they're like a Hammerhead, but twin-linked and indestructible.
Call it a hunch, but I have a feeling that the Tidewall stuff is going to be unusable by things like suits anymore.
That's nice, but it's still an indestructible twin-linked railcannon that can move 6" a turn. New crewmen will take the place of the one I killed, or they'll hide the one that the controller is on behind a building and send the other two out to fight.
Martel732 wrote: You can't get a pile of lascannons big enough to solve 3 Riptides. They can walk across the board and step on your tanks with impunity.
OSC is a gamblers build. If they end up against Demons or Tyranids, they accomplished nothing. Against someone like myself who primarily uses pods and rhinos, it does very little.
If you pay for AV in 7th ed, you are taking a huge risk anyway. Expect to lose your tanks.
" Beast Hunter Command Tanks solve that problem nicely"
Aren't those AP 3 weapons? Try again.
Vanquisher Cannons are AP2.
Here's the thing: I'm play Imperial Guard. If I was using my Sisters, I wouldn't be seeing the OSC.
Otto von Bludd wrote: The way I'm looking at it is that in 7th edition a single lucky shot from a lascannon could take out a Rus. In 8th, you'll need a minimum of 2 lucky shots.
the issue is that it's way easier to get those 2 lucky shots in 8E than that one lucky shot in 7E
A trilas Predator for example is going to have a dramatically higher chance to outright kill a Russ in a single salvo in 8E than in 7E, which is not encouraging given how fragile Russ tanks, and vehicle in general, are in 7E.
A tri-las Predator is also likely going to get outranged by the Russ.
Battle Cannons are 72" range right now.
Lascannons are 48" range, now and in the new edition.
That's a difference of 24" where the Leman Russ can be blasting away with its Battle Cannon before the Predator can even fire one of its weapons.
And if you're so concerned about enemy tanks, why not bring along a Vanquisher to deal with them?
Functionally that range differencr is going to be irrelevant unless we're talking extreme corner to extreme corner, and then LoS is likely to be an issue anyway as well. That range advantage certainly hasnt been terribly relevant in 3rd through 7th.
Ultimately however, the point wasnt to compare and contrast those two tanks in and of themselves, but to show that vehicle resiliency isn't actually going to improve for the Russ tank.
To be fair, we don't know what special gubbins the Russ might have.
For all we know, there might be special rules where it can ignore a wound suffered on a D6 roll or ignore AP modifiers.
we can hope, but it doesnt appear isolate to just the Russ either. The Dread will also be notably easier to kill by things like Lascannons than its 7E iteration, gaining resiliency only against S6+ single damage/low ASM weapons and becoming notably easier to kill for heavier and lighter weapons that can either remove large numbers of wounds or couldnt hurt them at all before.
Hopefully there's some other changes that balance stuff out, because if not, expect Damage coupled with lower T than AV represented (as well as no upper threshold on hurting T and more weapons able to hurt at 5+ instead of 6+) to actually reduce vehicle lifespan further than 7E did.
I don't have a problem with the rest of the Tau army. Just the Optimized Stealth Cadre and the Tideline Rig.
The former because it invalidates the entire Imperial Guard army list, whether you're Armoured Battlegroup, Mechvets, Gunline Guard, or Blob Guard.
The latter because they're like a Hammerhead, but twin-linked and indestructible.
Call it a hunch, but I have a feeling that the Tidewall stuff is going to be unusable by things like suits anymore.
That's nice, but it's still an indestructible twin-linked railcannon that can move 6" a turn. New crewmen will take the place of the one I killed, or they'll hide the one that the controller is on behind a building and send the other two out to fight.
That can move 6" a turn but never within 1" of an enemy model or if enemy models are on it.
Yeah, the overhead cost on those really hurts them because non beast-hunter russes are frankly pretty bad. 7th ed has precious little ranged instant death, making MCs with layered saves basically immortal.
I think BA are better at storming than Sisters, but that's me.
" Beast Hunter Command Tanks solve that problem nicely"
Aren't those AP 3 weapons? Try again.
If you're referring to the ABG, the beast hunter shell has been S8AP2 instant death regardless since 2012.
Yep, these things. Love them. At 205 a tank, you can't go wrong with as many as you can get!
Martel732 wrote: That's better than I thought. I wonder why I never saw these things spammed.
Because they're HQ's for the Armoured Battlegroup. You can have at most 2, and you also have to have 2 other not-awesome Leman Russes to go with them.
Incorrection; you can have 5 if you include 3 commissar tanks with the same load out. Since tank orders are ... less than stellar for ABG you're as well.
I've had some pretty short games with 5 beast killer vanqs and 2 russ demolishers (at the old price) as troops
No the reason that the ABG isn't spammed... was because IA1v2 cost as much as two leman russes; and they still die to grav spam.
Martel732 wrote:Yeah, the overhead cost on those really hurts them because non beast-hunter russes are frankly pretty bad. 7th ed has precious little ranged instant death, making MCs with layered saves basically immortal.
I think BA are better at storming than Sisters, but that's me.
TC Vanq's are basically "delete an enemy model a turn", between Armourbane and Instant Death.
And Sisters are quite good a messing up the Tideline. Dominions can essentially make the front 6" of the enemy deployment zone an untenable proposition, and front 12 unsafe unless you're a Land Raider. Then, as the Dominions absorb the enemy's turn 1 firepower, you follow up with the rest of army with flamers to overrun the tideline. So far, I've found myself weaker to crisis suits and the likes, but new Celestine is awesome and helps to turn the tide. [And yes, Space Marines are probably better than Sisters. I'll acknowledge that.]
malamis wrote:
Incorrection; you can have 5 if you include 3 commissar tanks with the same load out. Since tank orders are ... less than stellar for ABG you're as well.
I've had some pretty short games with 5 beast killer vanqs and 2 russ demolishers (at the old price) as troops
No the reason that the ABG isn't spammed... was because IA1v2 cost as much as two leman russes; and they still die to grav spam.
Oh yeah, I forgot about the Commissar tanks. They get Beast Hunter shells too.
IA is expensive, and ABG isn't actually very good. It's damn fun to play though.
Well, at least this is something.
On the one hand it does seem like some notoriously bad units are going to be buffed, and orders are finally going to be reliable, not to mention Vox casters functioning like actual radios!
On the other hand:
As someone else said, this does just feel like GW trying frantically to push up the sales on underselling and ugly models.
The Leman Russ has been incredibly heavily nerfed in terms of endurance, effectively reduced to AV12 all round. As we have no news on speed or firepower I have yet to pass judgement, but unless they either dramatically lower the price or increase the firepower and manoeuvrability then I cannot see this working out well.
Rough Riders will still need new models (but lets face it, why produce anything other than Marines GW, after all everyone faps to bolter porn).
12 wounds on a Russ... Sorry, but this is just laughable. Have fun watching massed SM Devastators shred Russ's like no tomorrow.
So, I remain to be convinced people. But at least some of this stuff is a step in the right direction.
Otto von Bludd wrote: The way I'm looking at it is that in 7th edition a single lucky shot from a lascannon could take out a Rus. In 8th, you'll need a minimum of 2 lucky shots.
the issue is that it's way easier to get those 2 lucky shots in 8E than that one lucky shot in 7E
A trilas Predator for example is going to have a dramatically higher chance to outright kill a Russ in a single salvo in 8E than in 7E, which is not encouraging given how fragile Russ tanks, and vehicle in general, are in 7E.
A tri-las Predator is also likely going to get outranged by the Russ.
Battle Cannons are 72" range right now.
Lascannons are 48" range, now and in the new edition.
That's a difference of 24" where the Leman Russ can be blasting away with its Battle Cannon before the Predator can even fire one of its weapons.
And if you're so concerned about enemy tanks, why not bring along a Vanquisher to deal with them?
Functionally that range differencr is going to be irrelevant unless we're talking extreme corner to extreme corner, and then LoS is likely to be an issue anyway as well. That range advantage certainly hasnt been terribly relevant in 3rd through 7th.
Ultimately however, the point wasnt to compare and contrast those two tanks in and of themselves, but to show that vehicle resiliency isn't actually going to improve for the Russ tank.
To be fair, we don't know what special gubbins the Russ might have.
For all we know, there might be special rules where it can ignore a wound suffered on a D6 roll or ignore AP modifiers.
we can hope, but it doesnt appear isolate to just the Russ either. The Dread will also be notably easier to kill by things like Lascannons than its 7E iteration, gaining resiliency only against S6+ single damage/low ASM weapons and becoming notably easier to kill for heavier and lighter weapons that can either remove large numbers of wounds or couldnt hurt them at all before.
Hopefully there's some other changes that balance stuff out, because if not, expect Damage coupled with lower T than AV represented (as well as no upper threshold on hurting T and more weapons able to hurt at 5+ instead of 6+) to actually reduce vehicle lifespan further than 7E did.
Vehicle lifespan in 7th was 1 shot. I don't think it gets much shorter than that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
master of ordinance wrote: Well, at least this is something.
On the one hand it does seem like some notoriously bad units are going to be buffed, and orders are finally going to be reliable, not to mention Vox casters functioning like actual radios!
On the other hand:
As someone else said, this does just feel like GW trying frantically to push up the sales on underselling and ugly models.
The Leman Russ has been incredibly heavily nerfed in terms of endurance, effectively reduced to AV12 all round. As we have no news on speed or firepower I have yet to pass judgement, but unless they either dramatically lower the price or increase the firepower and manoeuvrability then I cannot see this working out well.
Rough Riders will still need new models (but lets face it, why produce anything other than Marines GW, after all everyone faps to bolter porn).
12 wounds on a Russ... Sorry, but this is just laughable. Have fun watching massed SM Devastators shred Russ's like no tomorrow.
So, I remain to be convinced people. But at least some of this stuff is a step in the right direction.
Massed sm devastators kill russes now. Any dev squad with splitfire is more than capable of killing 2 russes a turn.
I'm happy to see rough riders getting some support. There is something about hundreds of soldiers with armour in the streets bombers in the air and cavalry on the fields that makes me giddy.
Well I mean LRs could have shorter lifespans with this new rule, "If a 'large model' is used in a game that is not a monstrous creature or used by the numarines, it instantly dies"
In all seriousness, LRs should live a bit longer. Hopefully.
Sentinels are amazing and I'm glad for their return.
The one thing is all they said is that Orders auto-pass (meaning vox may become more useful, which is cool), and that LRs have T8 W12 and start responding to damage after 6 wounds. Everything else was just, what if rough riders were actually good?
As for the chance of a SM with lascannon killing a LR in two shots would be
1/2 * 1/2 * 1/6 * 1/2 *1/2 * 1/6
Means a 1/576 (I think I did something wrong, that seems low) chance. So the chances of it taking two shots are pretty low.
Vehicle lifespan in 7th was 1 shot. I don't think it gets much shorter than that.
While I have been harping on vehicle survivability for years with 6E and 7E, it was not *that* bad. It could happen, but was hardly anything near routine. HP's were by far the bigger issue than oneshot Explosions. A BS4 Lascannon had a 1/54 chance to Explode a Russ tank.
Either way, looking at the average amount of Lascannon fire needed to kill a Russ, this has definitely dropped with 8E, making them even squishier if most other stuff holds equal. Now, other stuff may not hold equal, and there are absolutely things we may not have seen yet that may mitigate this,, but otherwise it looks like tanks and vehicles are going to see a net decrease in resiliency, at least against heavy and light weapons.
Massed sm devastators kill russes now. Any dev squad with splitfire is more than capable of killing 2 russes a turn.
Capable? Yes. Likely? No. Any single BS4 Lascannon had a 1/54 chance to one shot a Russ, and while thats no longer possible, between lowering the "wound" value needed (from 5+ to 3+) and Damage, such weapons will, on average, chew through tanks much faster.
I find Leman Russes to be reasonably resilient against shooting. There are some guns that just smash the without effort, but I think the problem is those guns being too good, not the Russ being too soft, as it survives just fine against 'normal' guns like lascannon and railguns.
Where I find tanks to be waaaaaay too vulnerable is against assault. I basically count my tanks as dead as soon as any squad contacts them, and I'm almost always right. If 8th edition tones down some of the dumb guns and makes assault much less deadly for tanks then I think Leman Russes should be reasonably survivable.
If they make it so you can actually get any value whatsoever out of the hull and sponson guns I'll be really happy. (Honestly, how freaking stupid are the rules writers that they make 3/4s of the tank's guns unuseable? Drives me batty.)
Vehicle lifespan in 7th was 1 shot. I don't think it gets much shorter than that.
While I have been harping on vehicle survivability for years with 6E and 7E, it was not *that* bad. It could happen, but was hardly anything near routine. HP's were by far the bigger issue than oneshot Explosions. A BS4 Lascannon had a 1/54 chance to Explode a Russ tank.
Either way, looking at the average amount of Lascannon fire needed to kill a Russ, this has definitely dropped with 8E, making them even squishier if most other stuff holds equal. Now, other stuff may not hold equal, and there are absolutely things we may not have seen yet that may mitigate this,, but otherwise it looks like tanks and vehicles are going to see a net decrease in resiliency, at least against heavy and light weapons.
Massed sm devastators kill russes now. Any dev squad with splitfire is more than capable of killing 2 russes a turn.
Capable? Yes. Likely? No. Any single BS4 Lascannon had a 1/54 chance to one shot a Russ, and while thats no longer possible, between lowering the "wound" value needed (from 5+ to 3+) and Damage, such weapons will, on average, chew through tanks much faster.
Which is what they should do. So long as grav and other alternatives don't remain all purpose murder tape, i'm happy to accept this. Heavy, anti tank weapons should be the choice to fill anti heavy tank roles. Not Smurf Death Beams.
I'm not arguing that Lascannons and the like shouldnt be effective AT guns. That said, if heavy weapons access isnt curtailed or Russ tanks made cheaper, they're not going to be any more useable than in 7E if heavy weapons are able to kill them that quickly.
We also still have no idea if things like Grav, Gauss or Haywire will be any less effective.
Massed sm devastators kill russes now. Any dev squad with splitfire is more than capable of killing 2 russes a turn.
Capable? Yes. Likely? No. Any single BS4 Lascannon had a 1/54 chance to one shot a Russ, and while thats no longer possible, between lowering the "wound" value needed (from 5+ to 3+) and Damage, such weapons will, on average, chew through tanks much faster.
This is mathematically false. How can you even say this with a straight face?
Leman Russ Toughness: 8 Wounds: 12 Save: 3+
Lascannon Strength: 9 Wounds: D6 Save: -3
So a lascannon devastator marine hits on 3+, wounds on 3+, and the wound is saved on 6s. If it gets through it deals D6 damage. We'll calculate the damage, after we calculate the wounds. Since, damage is D6, and wounds are still 0 or 1.
A dev squad of 4 marines, firing at a Russ with no cover. Probability 0 wounds: 15.72% Probability exactly 1 wound: 36.98% Probability exactly 2 wounds: 32.62% Probability exactly 3 wounds: 12.79% Probability exactly 4 wounds: 1.88%
Now, 0 wounds does 0 damage. 0% chance to kill. 1 wound does D6 damage. 0% chance to kill. 2 wounds does 2D6 damage. 1/36 chance to kill, for a net probability of 0.91%
To model out the chance of dealing 12+ damage on ND6, I had to use a generating function and expand a polynomial. I've done this off-screen.
3 wounds does 3D6 damage. 81/216 chance to kill, for a net probability of 4.8% 4 wounds does 4D6 damage. 986/1296 chance to kill, for a net probability of 1.43%
So you could deal 2 wounds and kill it, or 3 wounds and kill it, or 4 wounds and kill it.
Meaning, your Lascannon Devastator Squad has a 7.14% chance to kill a Russ outright in 1 round of shooting.
Massed sm devastators kill russes now. Any dev squad with splitfire is more than capable of killing 2 russes a turn.
Capable? Yes. Likely? No. Any single BS4 Lascannon had a 1/54 chance to one shot a Russ, and while thats no longer possible, between lowering the "wound" value needed (from 5+ to 3+) and Damage, such weapons will, on average, chew through tanks much faster.
This is mathematically false. How can you even say this with a straight face?
Leman Russ Toughness: 8
Wounds: 12
Save: 3+
Lascannon Strength: 9
Wounds: D6 Save: -3
So a lascannon devastator marine hits on 3+, wounds on 3+, and the wound is saved on 6s. If it gets through it deals D6 wounds. We'll calculate the damage, after we calculate the wounds. Since, damage is D6, and wounds are still 0 or 1.
A dev squad of 4 marines, firing at a Russ with no cover.
Probability 0 wounds: 15.72%
Probability exactly 1 wound: 36.98%
Probability exactly 2 wounds: 32.62%
Probability exactly 3 wounds: 12.79%
Probability exactly 4 wounds: 1.88%
Now, 0 wounds does 0 damage. 0% chance to kill.
1 wound does D6 damage. 0% chance to kill.
2 wounds does 2D6 damage. 1/36 chance to kill, for a net probability of 0.91%
To model out the chance of dealing 12+ damage on ND6, I had to use a generating function and expand a polynomial. I've done this off-screen.
3 wounds does 3D6 damage. 81/216 chance to kill, for a net probability of 4.8%
4 wounds does 4D6 damage. 986/1296 chance to kill, for a net probability of 1.43%
So you could deal 2 wounds and kill it, or 3 wounds and kill it, or 4 wounds and kill it.
Meaning, your Lascannon Devastator Squad has a 7.14% chance to kill a Russ outright in 1 round of shooting.
This is why it's silly to apply 'feelings' to a math game.
Massed sm devastators kill russes now. Any dev squad with splitfire is more than capable of killing 2 russes a turn.
Capable? Yes. Likely? No. Any single BS4 Lascannon had a 1/54 chance to one shot a Russ, and while thats no longer possible, between lowering the "wound" value needed (from 5+ to 3+) and Damage, such weapons will, on average, chew through tanks much faster.
This is mathematically false. How can you even say this with a straight face?
Leman Russ Toughness: 8
Wounds: 12
Save: 3+
Lascannon Strength: 9
Wounds: D6 Save: -3
So a lascannon devastator marine hits on 3+, wounds on 3+, and the wound is saved on 6s. If it gets through it deals D6 damage. We'll calculate the damage, after we calculate the wounds. Since, damage is D6, and wounds are still 0 or 1.
A dev squad of 4 marines, firing at a Russ with no cover.
Probability 0 wounds: 15.72%
Probability exactly 1 wound: 36.98%
Probability exactly 2 wounds: 32.62%
Probability exactly 3 wounds: 12.79%
Probability exactly 4 wounds: 1.88%
Now, 0 wounds does 0 damage. 0% chance to kill.
1 wound does D6 damage. 0% chance to kill.
2 wounds does 2D6 damage. 1/36 chance to kill, for a net probability of 0.91%
To model out the chance of dealing 12+ damage on ND6, I had to use a generating function and expand a polynomial. I've done this off-screen.
3 wounds does 3D6 damage. 81/216 chance to kill, for a net probability of 4.8%
4 wounds does 4D6 damage. 986/1296 chance to kill, for a net probability of 1.43%
So you could deal 2 wounds and kill it, or 3 wounds and kill it, or 4 wounds and kill it.
Meaning, your Lascannon Devastator Squad has a 7.14% chance to kill a Russ outright in 1 round of shooting.
Thank you this was both reassuring and enlightening. I would be curious, if you were interested, to see how that % kill chance compares to the % kill chance under 7th edition rules.
Vaktathi wrote: Ultimately the Russ may actually be more fragile than they are now
There is no situation in which the old Leman Russ is more durable then the new one. Against 7E lascannons it would take 40 lascannon shots at BS4 to kill a the new Russ, vs 14 for the old one, not counting the explodes chance. Against new lascannons only a single glancing hit will strip an old Russ to death versus 10 glances 10 needed for the new one with average rolls. Against mid-strength shooting the disparity becomes even more massive. You're being intellectually dishonest for the sake of negativity here. I can pull up a million quotes from you complaining about MC's being more durable then vehicles due to them getting saves.
JNAProductions wrote: Against Bolters. AV 14/12/10 means that, unless you get into its butt, you can't hurt it.
Or what about Lasguns? They can never hurt the old Russ.
So statistically small that it's meaningless to even bring up. It takes on average 432 las shots at BS3 to put 12 wounds on a T8 3+ model. 860 shots if camo-netting still gives +1 to saves.
So yes, please do spend 6 turns pouring literally every single anti-infantry weapon your army has into this single leman russ that I have. Please let me beat you every single time because you're trying to kill a tank with lasguns.
It's very interesting to me that Guard players whine about fighting Tau more then anybody else. Why complain? You can apparently just kill their Riptides with your lasguns dude!
Massed sm devastators kill russes now. Any dev squad with splitfire is more than capable of killing 2 russes a turn.
Capable? Yes. Likely? No. Any single BS4 Lascannon had a 1/54 chance to one shot a Russ, and while thats no longer possible, between lowering the "wound" value needed (from 5+ to 3+) and Damage, such weapons will, on average, chew through tanks much faster.
This is mathematically false. How can you even say this with a straight face?
Leman Russ Toughness: 8
Wounds: 12
Save: 3+
Lascannon Strength: 9
Wounds: D6 Save: -3
So a lascannon devastator marine hits on 3+, wounds on 3+, and the wound is saved on 6s. If it gets through it deals D6 damage. We'll calculate the damage, after we calculate the wounds. Since, damage is D6, and wounds are still 0 or 1.
A dev squad of 4 marines, firing at a Russ with no cover.
Probability 0 wounds: 15.72%
Probability exactly 1 wound: 36.98%
Probability exactly 2 wounds: 32.62%
Probability exactly 3 wounds: 12.79%
Probability exactly 4 wounds: 1.88%
Now, 0 wounds does 0 damage. 0% chance to kill.
1 wound does D6 damage. 0% chance to kill.
2 wounds does 2D6 damage. 1/36 chance to kill, for a net probability of 0.91%
To model out the chance of dealing 12+ damage on ND6, I had to use a generating function and expand a polynomial. I've done this off-screen.
3 wounds does 3D6 damage. 81/216 chance to kill, for a net probability of 4.8%
4 wounds does 4D6 damage. 986/1296 chance to kill, for a net probability of 1.43%
So you could deal 2 wounds and kill it, or 3 wounds and kill it, or 4 wounds and kill it.
Meaning, your Lascannon Devastator Squad has a 7.14% chance to kill a Russ outright in 1 round of shooting.
I'm not even entirely sure if we're arguing the same thing here, particularly as I didn't touch on the probabilities of killing something in one round but rather the average number of shots required (which is not necessarily the same thing) and you've done no comparison to the 7E probabilities, which you'll find, does not support 4 lascannons in a split dev squad routinely killing 2 Russ tanks a turn.
While I don't have the time to crunch probabilities, looking at the averages
7E
4 BS4 Lascannons average 0.88 HP's (4x 2/3 x 1/3) & 0.074 Explodes results (4x2/3/6/6).
So, on average, it'll require 13.5 BS4 Lascanon to get the kill through HP's, and 54 through Explodes alone. Together you're looking at ~11 BS4 Lascannon shots to average 1 dead Russ in 7E through either method.
8E
4 BS4 Lascannons average 5.19 wounds (4x2/3x2/3x5/6x3.5), 0 Explodes results.
Thus, on average 1 kill requires 9.25 BS4 Lascannon shots, or about 16% fewer shots over the long term in general with AP2 Lascannons.
Although I think that the AoS-like manages it reasonably well <<1%, even though that's an obvious change from 3E-7E at absolute no chance for S3/4 v AV11+.
This is why it's silly to apply 'feelings' to a math game.
and where did we do this?
BlaxicanX wrote: There is no situation in which the old Leman Russ is more durable then the new one. Against 7E lascannons it would take 40 lascannon shots at BS4 to kill a the new Russ
Sure, but that's because 7E Lascannons aren't doing D6 wound's apiece like the new ones. Why are we comparing the 8E Russ to 7E lascannons here? I'm not seeing the application as they won't face each other. In my posts I as comparing 8E tank and gun together to 7E tank and gun together, not 7E gun to 8E tank and 8E gun to 7E tank.
, vs 14 for the old one, not counting the explodes chance. Against new lascannons only a single glancing hit will strip an old Russ to death versus 10 glances 10 needed for the new one with average rolls.
Sure...but again, why are we comparing new Lascannons to old Russ tanks? It's an irrelevant comparison.
Against mid-strength shooting the disparity becomes even more massive.
Well, except that the old Russ was effectively immune to mid Strength (and low strength) shooting, except from the rear arc which wasn't terribly common, and the new one is not, which, to your earlier point, very much is a situation where the old Russ is more durable, but not one I'm terribly upset about in and of itself.
You're being intellectually dishonest for the sake of negativity here.
Wat? Ok, no, we're putting a stop to this sort of accusation right here, and right now.
I have been dramatically more optimistic about this edition than anything GW related in years. My complaints thus far have been relatively minimal and limited to select specific mechanics, and acknowledged that there are things we may be unaware of that may change the shape of things throughout this thread.
I'm not the one comparing I can pull up a million quotes from you complaining about MC's being more durable then vehicles due to them getting saves.
Right, in previous editions where weapons were doing 1 wound apiece, not up to 6. And these same concerns may apply to MC's as well, we just haven't been given the stats to play around with them.
Again, just as with the Dreadnought, people is talking like, if the tank/unit can't wistand a absurd amount of anti-tank weaponry is bad.
No! A tank should die fast to anti-tank weaponry. It will come to the offensive capabilities of Dreadnoughts and Tanks and their costs in relation to the cost of those anti tank weapons that make or broke them.
If a Leman Russ is equally vulnerable to Lasscannons or Meltas in 8th than in 7th, but the cost of those two weapons goes up, the cost of the Leman Russ goes down, and his damage output goes up, for example, then it will be very viable. It is not only about how much damage it can soak.
Forgive lascannons for being able to do their job. I know its been a long time or never for many of you. T8 3+ W12 is brutal vs most weapon systems i bet.
I think a big difference is the durabilityboost in CC. Old russes would die like flies to almost anything that reached them. The new ones will hold out a lot longer.
Marmatag wrote: Lascannons are total crap in 7th. They needed a buff, badly.
Was this an issue with Lascannons as a weapon, or problems with the platforms and alternative weapons simply being more capable than they should have been? I would argue that the Lascannon itself was not fundamentally an issue, rather overcapable alternatives and issues with some lascannon platforms were.
More to the point, it's not about Lascannons specifically. We could stand in Meltaguns, Railguns, or anything else, Lascannons are just the one weapon we happen to have stats for really (unless I missed something). If heavy weapons Damage stats are that high, you're not gaining much with W12 over HP3, particularly when going from AV14 to T8 (roughly equivalent to old AV12).
They *are* anti tank weaponry.
Yes, no argument from me.
You made the claim that lascannon devs are going to be blowing up multiple Russes a turn. That's just not true.
I don't recall making that claim. I said they would chew through them fast than 7E, but if you go back and re-read the thread, I was not the one that made the claim that they will routinely blow up multiple Russ tanks a turn. ERJAK made the claim that "Massed sm devastators kill russes now. Any dev squad with splitfire is more than capable of killing 2 russes a turn." which I refuted, but argued that the average number of shots required to kill a Russ (not the same thing) would be lower.
Also this talk is forgetting the fact that lascannons were so terribly un-deadly that no one took them before, which means that other weapons were far deadlier, which if no longer true also represents a giant boost in survivability.
That may be true, but we just don't know yet. Other weapons may get toned down, they may not, or something else may get way overbalanced and be the new broken. All possibilities, we just have Lascannons, Bolters, Lasguns, flamers, Dreads and Russ tanks to go on for right now so that's all we can attempt to analyze.
OSC means nothing against MCs, so I'd probably never use one because vehicles are crappy enough without taking a formation to make them even crappier.
Invalidating a bad list doesn't get you anywhere in the meta, though.
honestly I just think a riptide should be unique as should a wraithknight or stormsurge. would be cool to have heavy duty units like that that are not spammable. same for imperial knights but I doubt they would ever do that.
I have never had a problem against tau when they took 1 riptide or 1 stormsurge (or 1 ghostkeel) the issue is with packs and formations to hit rear armor or jus thave a ton of wounds and allocating to closes model
Pretty much. One Riptide, even 3 is a solvable problem. Beast Hunter Command Tanks solve that problem nicely, or a giant pile of Lascannons.
But then you get the OSC, and the formations which are "bring 3, and ignore all cover and hit all tanks on rear armor." And you know what happens when I bring 3 tanks together? Gee, I got 3 tanks! Yay!
hopefully that'll be addressed in 8th edition, I know with the 87th edition marine codex when marines started getting bonuses for having a full squadron I always thought that guard needed that more then marines
I will agree that it won't be good for the Russ if the krak missile also gets D6 damage. But it shouldn't. The lascannon should be THE premiere ranged anti-tank imperial weapon. It's cost should also reflect that depending on how competent other weapons are.
I think krak missiles deserve to be -3 AP so they can bust heavy infantry. They should just do less damage. Terminators boucing krak is nonsense.
why is termies bouncing kark nonsense? the armor is noted, repeatedly, as being able to protect against even anti tank weaponry. being -3 AP etc is a bad idea, IMHO kark should have a lower AP threshhold then las canons, and a lower strength. so kark missiles are good against light vehicles, but for truely heavy armor, you wanna bring out the lascanon. this is the big issue with weapon varity in 40k over all, has always been weather or not there is ample differance to make taking differant weapons worth it. consider plasmaguns vs grav guns. grav basicly replaced plasma
Because I think single shot weapons like krak and lascannons should have sufficient punch to knock out terminators. They should be equal to lascannons for this task, and be inferior vs actual tanks. Ie, less damage.
Also, they used to be the same as lascannons back in 2nd and that's something they should have never changed, because it ruined the missile launcher.
Personally, I'll like if Terminators were actually more durable than tanks, at least in the Armour thing... but thats me, wanting Space Marines to cost 200 points each
Galas wrote: Personally, I'll like if Terminators were actually more durable than tanks, at least in the Armour thing... but thats me, wanting Space Marines to cost 200 points each
Martel732 wrote: Because I think single shot weapons like krak and lascannons should have sufficient punch to knock out terminators. They should be equal to lascannons for this task, and be inferior vs actual tanks. Ie, less damage.
Also, they used to be the same as lascannons back in 2nd and that's something they should have never changed, because it ruined the missile launcher.
if MLs where just as good as lascanons, did anyone take lascannons?
I'm interested to see the stats on battlecannons and demolishers. With the removal of templates they may become very effective at taking out marines. They should no longer suffer from the "hit 2 marines in cover and do nothing" problem they used to have.
Sure, lascannons may rip them apart (as they should). It does seem like damage is going up across the board though. I can see another Russ remodeling project in my future, if the rules bring back the fully loaded sponson russ as a cheap, high damage and reasonably durable unit.
The thing I am mostly looking forward to is that with templates gone I can just push around huge blobs of infantry, not having to worry about 2" spacing against flamers and thunderfires. My much loved "advancing blob-tank wall of death" may actually be fun and not a waste of time.
Bear in mind, I have only glanced at much of the info there is, after being out of the game for a year from apathy and dissatisfaction.
well Terminators would save vs krak/lascannon shots 28% of the time in 2nd edition with a -6 save. So coupled with to wound you had a 1 in 3 chance or so of surviving.
Since this is the return of modifiers and multi wound and have not been seen since 2nd ed.....here are some 2nd ed stats for those who may want to see a possible root base the devs may have used as a starting point when playtesting
Lascannon 2d6 wounds -6 save
Krak Missile d10 -6
Assault cannon d10 -3
Auto Cannon d10 -3
Multi Melta 2d12 -4
Rapier laser 2d10 -6
Battle Cannon 2d6 -3
Hvy Plasma max power d10 -6
PowerFist 1 wound -6
ThunderHammer d6 -5
Notice that a Multi Melta is a SIGNIFICANT part of the devs desire to fix 2nd ed. That weapon was awesome vs vehicles but not so good vs terminators/carnifexes, and many weapons were the reverse and they wished for comparable parity.
Thus in citadel journal we had alternate 2nd ed rules that got rid of datafax penetration rolls with RT style toughness and hit points.
Then came 3rd edition that got rid of multiple wounding weapons to impact vehicles.
Finally 8th ed is bringing RT style toughness and hit points back.
I'm going to have to echo Vaktathi again and agree that a lot of these changes are nice, but Russes might still be in a bit of a tight spot, point cost and other abilities dependent of course. I question the T8 decision, seeing as they were AV14 before. I personally feel that T9 or even T10 would be perfectly fine for the vehicle to represent their durability.
All that said, I'll be waiting on full judgement for when the point costs and full weapon profiles are released.
I am looking forward to all the other changes with the faction. Sounds like they actually play tested everything and leveraged the tournament scene to create a force that functions in multiple ways where all units are valid options with the right support.
This is another solid point in favour of the new edition for me, up there with the removal of formations.
I'm going to wait & see what they do to Ogryn before I get excited. Their strength is supposed to be legendary in the Imperium. Capable of tearing chaos space marines in half with their bare hands. Ripper guns are specifically designed to be used as blunt melee instruments & firearms. Ogryn's thick skin is known to completely shrug off & ignore small arms fire. None of that is reflected on the tabletop. If they can address all of the above, without making them 33% more expensive per model than Wolfen...maybe we will see them this edition.
As an ork player I can only welcome these changes. The green guys having a good chance of doing something about the battle tanks in the first turns. Every other faction, bar nids, got some sort of unique weapon for dealing with them anyways. That's a big sign of the design not holding water.
Funny stuff is I plan to do some of my early 8th games with an army based on a handful of battletanks. They won't get shredded by modern AT weapons like gauss or grav weapons, and that's not even touching the subject of of a shooty IG army compared to shooty eldar or tau.
All this comparing Lascannons to Russ' and we don't know the points for either.
What if a Russ is 150pts and Lascannons are 40pts
Well now 4 Lascannons are 160pts (and that is without a unit to shoot them), suddenly a Russ is better.
Hell even if Lascannons are 25-30pts, plus the cost of a Unit, the Russ doesn't look that bad even if they can kill it one turn (or end up doing less than half wounds!)
The one thing I'm banking on is that 8th edition was actually playtested, and by outsiders. If they never ran a Leman Russ against a tri-plas predator or devestator squad, than 8th edition might be rough. However, I'm guessing that there is some rule we haven't seen yet, or as mentioned lascannons simply cost a lot.
Or hell, 40k could be going to more of a warmachine playstyle, where if you can get a weapons systems onto their ideal target, they are going to wreck it quickly.
I suspect a little from column A, a little from column B.
The external playtesting and feedback can only help open GW's eyes to what players are actually doing with their stuff, things they likely couldn't fully consider in their Ivory Tower due to the inherent complexity of the game.
The increased model count suggests that an increased lethality needs to figure. I think GW likes the mayhem of things dying.
I'm not too excited after seeing the Tau focus, especially not with the under performing battle cannon that we now have. It will all come down to cost of the units. Hopefully Ogryn/Bullgryns will receive a wound buff and a massive point decrease or they'll be as useless as ever without formations.
JohnHwangDD wrote: I suspect a little from column A, a little from column B.
The external playtesting and feedback can only help open GW's eyes to what players are actually doing with their stuff, things they likely couldn't fully consider in their Ivory Tower due to the inherent complexity of the game.
The increased model count suggests that an increased lethality needs to figure. I think GW likes the mayhem of things dying.
As long as they don´t repeat the WFB-8th-Edition-Fail.....
Considering that they placed the Multi-melta cost at 27 points for marines....I have reason to believe that Lascannons will not be cheap, and barring predators will often be mounted on squishy infantry platforms. This is pretty good because even if those devastators ARE as killer as you all think they are, that means your opponent is sinking a lot of points to hopefully kill tanks and they wont be very effective at all against massed infantry
The fact that the guard have a hard swing in unit types will help them immensely. You have piles of grunts, and piles of big heavy tanks with very little in between.
If your opponent loads up too much one way or another they will be at a severe tactical disadvantage. Considering guardsmen will be more survivable against every weapon in the game from ap4-6 due to them not simply removing your save you should see an improvement in general.
As for the Russ, 9 shots at str5 ap-1 and d6 shots at str8 ap-2 can put a lot of hurt downfield. Not only are your sponsons not invalidated by the cannon, but can be fired at different targets as well. In regards to Lehman Russ survivability, how many times have you lost one due to drop pods with meltas or bolters from behind? That's how I always kill them with my wolves, and now I am not certain I want to try that as a tactic.
I might hurt the tank a bit, and them be mowed down by the squads around it without finishing the job. A tried and true counter completely negated while the tank does more damage than before can only be a buff.
Consider that in regards to rolling a d6 for damage would happen at the same instance as a d6 for the damage chart. If your armor got penetrated that 6 would kill it anyway. Also, the idea that a Russ should base all of its durability on the front armor is a bit nuts.
You simply move threats to two sides and kill it from there if you can't get close or behind. And if the guard aren't moving up then they're losing the game anyway.
