I feel as tho one way to help fix the tank commander/leman russ problems is not only to fix their points a little, but another great fix would be to make it so guard units with voice of command cannot receive orders, could also add another rule where you can only take one commander per 2 regular units, like 1 company commander per every 2 infantry squads, or 1 tank commander per every 2 regular leman russes, ugh I really want to see a new imperial guard codex soon, but who knows how long it will take
As for the tank commander prevalence over the regular LRBT, they may adjust the prices even more than the +5/-5 points we have seen in the munitorum field manual 2021.
Or simply ditch the tank commander entry from HQ's, and make it an upgrade of one tank in a squadron of 2-3 models, in heavy support (where it belongs).
Doing so, there would not be more tank commanders than regular LRBT.
Astra Militarum is a shooting army of mostly BS 4+ models, it should stay that way.
Instead of granting the tank commander a bonus BS, they should give him a tank ace trait, and also the ability to transmit orders, by a freaking RADIO VOX (like every tank since 2nd world war). Is that too difficult as a rule to write for GW ? Infantry has access to radio vox for increasing orders range. Why LRBT don't have this rule as standard? The radio vox is in every kit of leman russ ! Why the hell tank commanders need to baby sit regulars by staying 6" of them to transmit orders ???
Apart from that, the LRBT chassis itself is not durable enough...
My solution for my homebrew rewrite was to make the Tank Commander a squad upgrade that required a squad of three to unlock rather than a separate HQ choice.
AnomanderRake wrote: My solution for my homebrew rewrite was to make the Tank Commander a squad upgrade that required a squad of three to unlock rather than a separate HQ choice.
This is a great idea.
My thought was they should just put TC back at 4+ to remove the incentive to spam them.
Not sure I like the idea of nerfing a mediocre unit (Tank Commanders) to make a bad unit (Leman Russes) more viable. I think your proposed change of requiring a squadron of 3 Leman Russes with one being upgraded to a TC will result in people taking the same number of standard Russes they're taking right now. That is to say zero.
Pretty use the new AM codex will bring limitiations, just like one SM detachment cant have more than one captain and two lieutenants. I expect one tank commander per detachment.
CommunistNapkin wrote: Not sure I like the idea of nerfing a mediocre unit (Tank Commanders) to make a bad unit (Leman Russes) more viable. I think your proposed change of requiring a squadron of 3 Leman Russes with one being upgraded to a TC will result in people taking the same number of standard Russes they're taking right now. That is to say zero.
Oh, absolutely, it's a fluff/org change that I implemented along with oldhammer core rules and massively revised stats/weapons, implementing it into the 8e Guard book without any other changes wouldn't work for a long, long litany of reasons.
It's quite likely Tank Commanders will be 1 max per detachment, which has been a common theme among armies released so far.
I don't expect revolutionary changes on anything.
I would love them to have inbuilt voxes though, or at least the optional upgrade. Or just increase tank-order's range to represent an in-built vox.
If we're wish listing radical changes though;
I'd like Chimera command vehicles, able to issue two orders a turn like a Company Commander. (With a vox!)
Allowing Tank Commanders to be relegated to Elites or Heavy Support as effectively armoured Platoon Commanders
p5freak wrote: Pretty use the new AM codex will bring limitiations, just like one SM detachment cant have more than one captain and two lieutenants. I expect one tank commander per detachment.
You don't even need something like that. It just needs to not allow for "Master of Command" to be taken by a Tank Commander if it's such a big issue(spoiler: it's not).
There really aren't any "power" HQ choices in the Guard book as much as people like to complain about it. Orders are a key mechanic, move on.
True,we don't need this harsh of a limitation. But if you look at what has been done to other codices, it is the way GW forces us in list building. It has appeared since the Tau codex (Shas'O commanders), and currently since 9th dropped, it is a trend. For Astra Militarum, I'm expecting 1 max tank commander per detachment, as well as 1 max company commander.
For the Leman russ, apart from a malfunctioning order system, it is not a durable enough tank. I had run some math back in the early 8th edition days, and was disappointed by the resilience of LRBT against the anti-tank weapons available at that time. Coming from 3 HP armour 14 (equivalent of T:10) in 6th-7th editions, to toughness 8 / 12 W save 3+ was in fact not a good deal, if you consider strong AP, multi-damage weapons. The anti-tank firepower has gone up tremendously since then.
Let's face it, LRBT resilience is lacklustre, especially if you compare it to other factions main battle vehicles / monsters. And we don't even have it as a cheap main battle tank to compensate. At the same time, Astra Militarum being the bog standard army, I don't want a special, tedious (and unfair) mechanism like -1 damage, 5+++ FNP from other codices. But upgrading to 14 HP or 2+ save would be nice.
There is literally no other restriction they can put on us that will not screw the army up. Tau Commanders got a restriction because people were taking them instead of Crisis Suits, not because they were the most cost effective HQ. People still took Fireblades and Ethereals.
With Guard? That is not the case. You restrict Company Commanders and Tank Commanders--you screw the entire army up.
Max Company Commander? Who the hell else are you going to take for an infantry based Guard army? Lord Commissars? A far rarer(lorewise) character who cannot issue Orders outside of a Warlord Trait instead of a Company or Tank Commander(who only seemingly is problematic with Voice of Command)?
Primaris Psykers? Another non-Voice of Command character?
Oh, maybe a Tempestor Prime--a character that literally cannot issue orders to Regimental units and is an HQ choice that has a single Order to issue per turn unless you remove their ranged weapon for a stick that makes them better at shouting?
Any changes necessitate an entirely new overhaul to the Guard book. End of story. Discussing changes is pointless at this juncture.
CommunistNapkin wrote: Not sure I like the idea of nerfing a mediocre unit (Tank Commanders) to make a bad unit (Leman Russes) more viable. I think your proposed change of requiring a squadron of 3 Leman Russes with one being upgraded to a TC will result in people taking the same number of standard Russes they're taking right now. That is to say zero.
There are a variety of ways to make Russes more attractive, but the ongoing problem with Russes vs TCs- where they both do the exact same thing, so at any given time one or the other is a better buy- can only be resolved by differentiating their roles a bit. Making TCs only buff other tanks is one way to do it, regardless of what else is done to the TC/LR profile to jazz it up.
I think we can look at the 3 codexes we have for 9th and draw some ideas together of what MAY come about:
1 - Army-leading models are being restricted in number (SM Captains/DG Lords) This will probably happen for Company/Tank Commanders in some way
2 - Big stuff that died too early has been made more durable (Morty/dreads) This will probably happen for superheavies (like Morty they rarely got taken) and tanks (maybe T increase on LR?)
3 - GW wants your army composition to look like they think it should (poxwalker/cultist restrictions / SM scouts to elite slot) This could mean LR get rules that encourage them to be taken more, rather than just a points incentive...would also mean they might try to encourage endless Idiots-with-flashlights on the table too...
Kanluwen, I'm not saying that I want this type of limitations. Or that I would even welcome this type of rules. I'm just saying that it is a trend which may probably affect us, in line with what has been done to some other recent codices.
CommunistNapkin wrote: Not sure I like the idea of nerfing a mediocre unit (Tank Commanders) to make a bad unit (Leman Russes) more viable. I think your proposed change of requiring a squadron of 3 Leman Russes with one being upgraded to a TC will result in people taking the same number of standard Russes they're taking right now. That is to say zero.
*Buzz*, the right answer.
If people really want to see regular Russ then they need to be better - i.e. a bit cheaper. You could nerf the Tank Commander into the ground and its not going to make people take something which they judge to be not worth its points - or, if they do because you've nerfed literally everything else, the faction as a whole is just going to suck.
bat702 wrote:I feel as tho one way to help fix the tank commander/leman russ problems is not only to fix their points a little
Tyel wrote:If people really want to see regular Russ then they need to be better - i.e. a bit cheaper.
OP's suggestions are a means to differentiate regular Russes from TCs in addition to points changes, because the role overlap between Russes and TCs cannot be fixed with points alone, so saying this wouldn't work because Russes are too expensive is a rather irrelevant reply.
bat702 wrote: I feel as tho one way to help fix the tank commander/leman russ problems is not only to fix their points a little, but another great fix would be to make it so guard units with voice of command cannot receive orders, could also add another rule where you can only take one commander per 2 regular units, like 1 company commander per every 2 infantry squads, or 1 tank commander per every 2 regular leman russes, ugh I really want to see a new imperial guard codex soon, but who knows how long it will take
Nothing you list is a fix.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dai wrote: Make the Tank commander a 0-1 option? In my opinion this is something that should have never been done away with with a host of options.
bat702 wrote:I feel as tho one way to help fix the tank commander/leman russ problems is not only to fix their points a little
Tyel wrote:If people really want to see regular Russ then they need to be better - i.e. a bit cheaper.
OP's suggestions are a means to differentiate regular Russes from TCs in addition to points changes, because the role overlap between Russes and TCs cannot be fixed with points alone, so saying this wouldn't work because Russes are too expensive is a rather irrelevant reply.
Why, any change that isn't a point change will feth up both tanks and make them both worse in the end.
Not until they complete their apology tour for early 8th Conscripts issues
Sadly though, I can definitely see GW adding the 1 TC per detachment limitation since that's what they've done for other armies so far. I just hope they get better in exchange for that, because as one poster pointed out - People are taking TCs because of how BAD Russes are. I hope GW recognizes that and helps out the humble Russ a bit more.
Not until they complete their apology tour for early 8th Conscripts issues
Sadly though, I can definitely see GW adding the 1 TC per detachment limitation since that's what they've done for other armies so far. I just hope they get better in exchange for that, because as one poster pointed out - People are taking TCs because of how BAD Russes are. I hope GW recognizes that and helps out the humble Russ a bit more.
Ravajaxe wrote: Kanluwen, I'm not saying that I want this type of limitations. Or that I would even welcome this type of rules. I'm just saying that it is a trend which may probably affect us, in line with what has been done to some other recent codices.
Bluntly?
Looking at "other recent codices" is pointless. Characters that give a flat aura bonus to all keyworded units are not the same as a character with a once per turn single unit targeted bonus that can only affect a specific unit(Tank Commanders), a twice per turn single unit targeted bonus(Company Commanders and Platoon Commanders can do the same thing once) that can only affect (a) <Regiment> (b) Infantry classified units and locks them out from receiving an additional bonus the same way, or a once upgradable to twice(Tempestor Prime) per turn single unit targeted bonus that does the same thing for Militarum Tempestus units.
If we're going to see any kind of restrictions, I can almost guarantee that it will be on things like Priests.
Not until they complete their apology tour for early 8th Conscripts issues
Sadly though, I can definitely see GW adding the 1 TC per detachment limitation since that's what they've done for other armies so far. I just hope they get better in exchange for that, because as one poster pointed out - People are taking TCs because of how BAD Russes are. I hope GW recognizes that and helps out the humble Russ a bit more.
This.
The Tank Commanders issue for Guard is the same as the Commanders one for Tau. When HQ options are more efficient than the corresponding unit (Leman Russes, XV8 Crisis suits), HQs get spammed.
GW introduced the max 1 Commander per detachment limitation during early 8th for Tau, now they're expanding it to every codex. Then they gave Farsight Enclaves an expensive way to upgrade regular XV8 Crisis suits (veteran cadre stratagem) in psychic awakening.
The only hope for Guard and Tau is to receive something similar in the new codices, alongside sensible point costs.
Sorry - I was making a joke. Didn't mean imply they actually NEEDED a nerf. lol
It's fine, just that whenever these threads pop up it always feels like people are nerfing stuff and not knowing how the army works ad holding things that were by far not the strongest in the meta of the time but held like a gun behind the back to regular guard players and not soup players.
Limitations to Guard in what they can bring will only prove to be a further nerf to an army that doesn't need nerfs and needs buffs desperately.
Leman Russes should be awesome. Tank commanders should be better with appropriate points. Happy with a limitation to tank commanders under these circumstances, just for those of us who get a bit ocd when confronted with "unfluffy" armies?
Realistically, I think we probably will see a 1-per-detachment limit on Tank Commanders. I also expect them to lose the ability to issue orders to themselves/their crew. They will also have a rework or outright removal of the current Grinding Advance rule.
My final prediction is that if these are the only changes to Leman Russes/TC's, IG players will take a number of TC's equal to a number of detachments they take, and a number of Russes equal to 0.
Salt aside, I hope we do see some changes to the basic Russ stats to make them more than just paperweights. I am strongly against the idea of giving them an invulnerable save, as that does not at all fit the fluff. However, an increase to toughness would make sense (although hard to justify compared to things like the Land Raider's current toughness 8), or an increase in wounds (much more likely) to around 14 each.
Finally, I think something will have to be done in regards to their damage output. Right now, a standard Leman Russ w/ Battle Cannon effectively needs 12 shots (the absolute max) to kill a single Plague Marine in cover. That is... abysmal, for lack of a better word. Now with the change we see to the Death Guard Defiler's Battle Cannon going to 3 flat damage, maybe that's something we can expect as well. Of course in that case, we'll need a rework of nearly every other Russ weapon as well to keep them viable so it's not just full on Battle Cannon spam.
It's fine, just that whenever these threads pop up it always feels like people are nerfing stuff and not knowing how the army works ad holding things that were by far not the strongest in the meta of the time but held like a gun behind the back to regular guard players and not soup players.
Limitations to Guard in what they can bring will only prove to be a further nerf to an army that doesn't need nerfs and
Totally get it! Guard needs a lot of help in a lot of places. I think the OP misunderstands the issue. It's like I said earlier - the issue with TC's is not that they are too good. It's that Russes are terrible ...
BlackoCatto wrote:Why, any change that isn't a point change will feth up both tanks and make them both worse in the end.
OP made it clear that we're imagining a hypothetical future in which Leman Russes get the points reduction they need... which will still leave Tank Commanders and regular Russes in the same functional role, with one being better than the other depending on their relative points, just as it was for all of 8th. Hence the other suggestions along with points changes, to differentiate their roles.
Yes, this would be a mild nerf to the order-giving ability of Tank Commanders. That's why we're also talking about points changes, which could more than offset it- as an extreme example, if Tank Commanders had their price cut in half while also getting these limitations on their Orders, they'd become the best unit in the codex in spite of the 'nerf'. Please exercise just the little bit of abstract thinking necessary to contemplate a points reduction and other things being changed too.
That goes for the rest of the posters myopically hyper-focused on the Russ's current state of under-performance and telling OP they don't understand the army or that Russes don't need a nerf. Assume the units are recosted appropriately. How do you make TCs and Russes different such that they're both worth taking?
If your problem was guard players bringing tank commanders instead of vanilla russes your easiest immediate fix is to give the commanders two orders intrinsically and reiterate that no tank can be under the influence of more than one order per turn. A 'look out, sir!' mechanic allowing russes to protect their commander buddies would also bring up their value, but balancing that would be very tricky.
At the moment though, that's not the problem, even tank commanders aren't quite worth their points, and just in general the russ has the same problem that the crisis suit does: it's a pillar of the army's identity but is presently so bad that only it's more expensive 'hero' variant might possibly be worth the investment.
I'm not as resistant to the idea of an invul save as everyone else seems to be: a sufficiently expensive optional upgrade for baneblades and russes would up their survivability greatly, and in so doing would make its existing offensive output that much more effective when it can consistently put it out for more turns. It would greatly change the character of the tank though - and if guard aren't afraid of high-AP weaponry then who is?
As long as the price difference ratio stays the same - youll always include a commander over a standard russ.
Plus the tank orders just really put the commander over the top. Drop the standard russ 20 points. See what happens. There is a point where they are in balance.
Quasistellar wrote: How about they just make Leman Russ variants not degrade BS until bottom bracket? Or not degrade BS at all?
Starting on a 4+ and going up with no invuln feels pretty bad.
Hmm, I wonder if a change to Guard vehicle degradation is coming in the codex. It would explain the Death Korps' currently worthless subfaction trait, where their vehicles can fire one shot at the lowest bracket before being removed from play.
On the subject of durability, I do think they ought to have a 2+ save. They're supposed to be tough against small arms, but vulnerable to anti-tank weapons as they lack an invuln- classic WW1/WW2 armor through and through.
Quasistellar wrote: How about they just make Leman Russ variants not degrade BS until bottom bracket? Or not degrade BS at all?
Starting on a 4+ and going up with no invuln feels pretty bad.
Hmm, I wonder if a change to Guard vehicle degradation is coming in the codex. It would explain the Death Korps' currently worthless subfaction trait, where their vehicles can fire one shot at the lowest bracket before being removed from play.
On the subject of durability, I do think they ought to have a 2+ save. They're supposed to be tough against small arms, but vulnerable to anti-tank weapons as they lack an invuln- classic WW1/WW2 armor through and through.
I could see Leman Russes getting a 2+. If the formerly AV 13/12/12 Sicaran can have a 2+ then the formerly AV 14/13/12 Leman Russ should have one too (and Baneblades as well).
Xenomancers wrote: As long as the price difference ratio stays the same - youll always include a commander over a standard russ.
Plus the tank orders just really put the commander over the top. Drop the standard russ 20 points. See what happens. There is a point where they are in balance.
Pretty much this ! But let me put a perspective of Tank commander / regular LRBT costs (battle cannon + 3 HB for a stable reference) throughout recent times.
So it goes back and forth, and there is some change at each iteration meaning the matter is taken into consideration, at least.
But GW 's rules development team probably does not know how to handle the matter correctly, maybe they change their minds as the AM top builds varies.
I in no way was saying to nerf guard at all, I was just talking mostly about the fluff of seeing only tank commanders and no regular russes, ie too many chiefs not enough indians, personally I feel maybe russes need a better stratagem, like maybe a dig in one, where they get save or to hit modifiers, also more wounds, definitely cheaper russes and I also feel maybe their sponson/hull weapons should all go down by 5, to encourage more people take sponsons
I really love the look of russes with sponsons, they look more futuristic, but I have also read of people complaining that many boards in 9th are flooded with terrain and the sponsons can actually get in the way of them being able to maneuver across the board
Imo, the problem with leman russes is that they lack in firepower for their cost more than durability, particularly in their main guns which all have highly unworthy stats compared to infantry hunter teams. [Like seriously, the battle cannon, even firing twice, will struggle to kill marines when it just outright deleted them by the squad before, and statistically compares unfavorably to ~120 point tanks that have similar toughness and wound counts and better BS]. The only leman ryss with good firepower is the LR demolished, which only does so because of the demolished cannon buff a while ago applies double to it and goes to show that the whole grinding advance concept is a crappy rule and no substitute for just giving the guns appropriate stats to begin with.
As for unit alterations, I would make TC's have infinite orders range to tanks, [seriously, they have radios]. Then, and more importantly, the tank squadrons should not split up and should recieve the order as a unit. Finally, the TC is a tank company commander, so like a company commander, they should issue 2 orders.
This would encourage the TC to be fielded in a support role. Right now, they run solo because they self buff and regular leman russes are hilariously bad. Their orders are obviously more efficient on themselves than another tank. So having it apply to the squadron would make it more efficient to use it on a squadron and having him have 2 means you would always want a squadron of other tanks to get the most out of him.
Tau Players were not "taking commanders instead of Crisis suits". The issue was players "taking Tau Commanders instead of everything in the Tau List*. Because Commanders with BS2+ were clearly superior in this world of turn 1 deep strike, so why not bring along 8+ of them?
Realising what had happened GW wanted to kill it off - and would do so in the Tau Codex released in March 2018 limiting them to 1 per detachment. Realising that actually spamming anything was a problem, they would shortly after release the Rule of 3 in the April 2018 big FAQ (along with various other sensible rules changes). This would sadly prevent me running 12~ Ravagers when the DE codex was released around the same time but was probably for the best.
In any case, as we saw, restricting commanders did not increase the number of crisis suits in lists and so I suspect it would be here.
I mean you could restrict Guard to one commander for every regular Russ they bring (up to 3 obviously) - but its not going to make Guard any better as a faction. But maybe with a codex change you can make that work anyway.
I'm cynical on these limitations though that seem designed to stop people doing something that wasn't obviously happening anyway. (I.E. Death Guard players can no longer run a detachment of 3 Lords of Corruption. Clearly the terror of tables across the world...)
I don't see a big problem with preventing models that issue Orders from being able to give themselves an Order, at least - not sure if you should prevent another model with the same ability from targeting them as well, but shouting at yourself should go in general.
I mean, of the four generic choices that can do so, I can't think of a time when I'd want to Order one of the other three (CC, PC, STO), aside from maybe an emergency Move! Move! Move! - it's only the TC where the preferred use case is to order themselves instead of others.
As it stands, for 35 points you get +1 to hit and the ability to issue one of three Orders to yourself or one Russ within 6". If the self-targeting of Orders was removed, how much of a cost would you say is about right for +1 to hit and the Order?
Using the Vox system to order other tanks at a distance would be a nice feature, but presumably would mean a larger cost for the order - as would having a second one to issue, if that were the case.
Unrelated point - I do wish the MFM21 entry for the Russ and the TC was clearer as to what is included in the initial points cost. It looks like it should be the Eradicator or Executioner, but I can't tell if the 175/140 includes the default hull HB or not. Probably not, but then that's an awfully high cost for each hull/sponson weapon.
The hull bolters are not included in price. But the vanquisher, or executioner, or eradicator, are basically "free" options now, other variants are calculated above this basis.
What if it required 1 regular leman russ for each commander? Basically you have to take a tank to command in order to have the command tank. I'd also like to see a hulldown tank order that adds 1 to the tanks save.
For fluff reasons I really want to see the voice of command ability only work on units who dont have the voice of command ability, let them keep their BS skill because they naturally get the best crew available
Xenomancers wrote: As long as the price difference ratio stays the same - youll always include a commander over a standard russ.
Plus the tank orders just really put the commander over the top. Drop the standard russ 20 points. See what happens. There is a point where they are in balance.
Pretty much this ! But let me put a perspective of Tank commander / regular LRBT costs (battle cannon + 3 HB for a stable reference) throughout recent times.
So it goes back and forth, and there is some change at each iteration meaning the matter is taken into consideration, at least.
But GW 's rules development team probably does not know how to handle the matter correctly, maybe they change their minds as the AM top builds varies.
Really they tried with the tank commander when it dropped to 188 with 3 HB. They were strong at that point which is good - russ should be strong. They drop standard russ to 153...It probably was good enough to use at that point. The Commander was still prefered though. Another 10 points and I think the standard russ woulda be prefered.so190 for a standard russ right now is such a huge joke though...I mean...I redemptor dread costs less than that. All around has better quality firepower - more wounds - -amazing melee power too. It needs to come down another 20 and the commander needs to come down 10.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
evil_kiwi_60 wrote: What if it required 1 regular leman russ for each commander? Basically you have to take a tank to command in order to have the command tank. I'd also like to see a hulldown tank order that adds 1 to the tanks save.
That would be cool and fluffy but it still doesn't solve the fact that commanders are just better russ for not much more choice. While at the same time the standard russ is kinda lacking.
If you couldn't order yourself but can order another officer, you'd just take Tank Commanders in groups to all issue each other in a mini circle-jerk.
Not allowing orders to target officers would make sense and resolve that issue.
I think there is a lot of truth in the idea that the two will struggle to be balanced only by points. Any fix will definitely have to come into the ways the rules work, otherwise one will be auto-take over the other (or alternatively, both will be trash and not worth taking).
CommunistNapkin wrote: I think there is a lot of truth in the idea that the two will struggle to be balanced only by points. Any fix will definitely have to come into the ways the rules work, otherwise one will be auto-take over the other (or alternatively, both will be trash and not worth taking).
GW chronically overprices poor BS/underprices good BS, which they never had to address before 8th because BS didn't matter a lot for blasts. The poor durability of the LR chassis means it's only useful for its alpha-strike potential (where the BS matters a lot more) or if you're using the Tallarn move-shoot-move (which needs to be a Tank Commander), particularly when the shrunken tables make it much easier to charge them. You can't balance the current statlines with points, no. If the Russ were tougher it'd be easier.
evil_kiwi_60 wrote:What if it required 1 regular leman russ for each commander? Basically you have to take a tank to command in order to have the command tank. I'd also like to see a hulldown tank order that adds 1 to the tanks save.
It was this way with end of 6th edition codex. The Tank commander was a +30 points upgrade for one of the Leman Russ squadron, that must have been 2-3 models (instead of 1-3).
They kept and adapted the squadron rule for heavy support, but ditched the prerequisite for tank commanders. Hence the "spam".
AnomanderRake wrote:
CommunistNapkin wrote: I think there is a lot of truth in the idea that the two will struggle to be balanced only by points. Any fix will definitely have to come into the ways the rules work, otherwise one will be auto-take over the other (or alternatively, both will be trash and not worth taking).
GW chronically overprices poor BS/underprices good BS, which they never had to address before 8th because BS didn't matter a lot for blasts. The poor durability of the LR chassis means it's only useful for its alpha-strike potential (where the BS matters a lot more) or if you're using the Tallarn move-shoot-move (which needs to be a Tank Commander), particularly when the shrunken tables make it much easier to charge them. You can't balance the current statlines with points, no. If the Russ were tougher it'd be easier.
I agree. If you look at the slim price difference between tank commanders ans regular LRBT , I see little reason to handicap myself by taking the weaker version. Especially considering all the -1 to hit that were so prevalent in 8th edition, and that stifled BS 4+ army lists. One thing that would significantly improve Leman Russ as a whole is a nudge up to their resilience. Leman Russes are depicted as very resilient and tough tanks. While on the table they are barely more durable than a lowly Chimera or a Rhino. They desperately need at least 14-16 HP, or 2+ save, something ! Please GW make something in this regard ! Its poor durability is limiting its role to an expensive alpha strike role, that fails half the time (or worse). Bump its durability, the problem will solve itself. People I'm so tired of my Leman Russes getting blasted off the table so quickly...
Problem with GW, is that when an unit is not up to the task, they react by making it more deadly, thinking it would solve the issue. The "grinding advance" rule comes from this flawed design policy. The whole free bonus AP-1 "doctrine" to space marines comes from this same flawed design. All shoot twice / fight twice stratagems is this flawed design again. The result is a game with absurd levels of attrition we have now.
Even if Leman Russes were fairly priced they would struggle in a situation where some of the best units are melta units or are weak to melta units. Things will get better for Leman Russes as these things change, improving the armour Sv would not help much in this regard. 9th pts are still totally messed up despite a small number of good nudges in the right direction. I love nudges, they make it so that balance doesn't swing too hard back and forth but I think GW could have found more than 2-4 entries per faction to fix.
Auras are great for encouraging people to take up to one of a unit, the more powerful the aura is relative to the rest of the model's kit the less likely people will be to spam the model because the valuable aura won't stack.
Give Leman Russes within 6" of a Tank Commander BS 3+, change tank orders into stratagems. Tanks might operate further apart but I think it is fine to view the 6" as an abstract way of saying that they are staying close enough together to work as a unit within an army and not just a bunch of separate elements within an army.
Company Commanders are silly, the Move! Move! Move! order is stupid, Guardsmen should not be so quick. Even if it was a Stratagem it would be silly and out of place for AM. I could see either the Company Commander having a Move!x3 aura that increases run distance by D6" and fix bayonets to increase attacks by 1 and Platoon Commander having FRF! SRF! to add 1 to hit rolls for shooting attacks. The rest of the infantry orders could be Stratagems.
Infantry orders being auras would make voxcasters a lot more useful I think, you could cover a huge amount of units with one of each Commander type with no need to spam or save on the vox casters and get more Commanders for redundancy against assassination.
kirotheavenger wrote: If you couldn't order yourself but can order another officer, you'd just take Tank Commanders in groups to all issue each other in a mini circle-jerk.
Not allowing orders to target officers would make sense and resolve that issue.
They'll likely go with CORE, with orders only affecting CORE REGIMENT ASTRAZENICA models (and Vehicle keyword in the case of Tank Commanders). Guard tanks will (largely) be CORE and characters (including tank commanders) won't be. Done.
Though if they just abandon the BS upgrade, that would help too. Marksmanship isn't a part of command ability.
Ignoring other issues regarding the Russ, you fix the Tank Commander by changing its rules. It needs to stop being a better LR (better BS and orders I can use on myself) and instead be a LR that makes other LR better.
It makes sense for tank commander to have better BS because their tank would have the best crew, just they shouldnt be able to receive orders, would make sense if you would need like atleast like 2 regular leman russes per every tank commander you can take, I also really like the idea of the tanks having atleast 10 inch order range, also a 2+ save would be nice vs bolters, but honestly I feel more wounds would be fluffier and also better vs all the new fusion/melta meta
I don't think so. The current rules for tank commanders inadequately depict what it should be. Currently it is more a tank ace than a commander in charge of coordinating a tank platoon or company. The crew shoots better, have access to auto-rerolls, and that is pretty much it. What we should have is issuing two orders to other tanks in the detachment. Allowing special moves, suppressing fire, improving other tanks accuracy, tricks... All of this by radio, without the current shouting range of 6", which makes zero sense, given tanks are loud machines that cover one's voice. GW really made it all wrong with this codex. It's just herohammer applied to the Guard.
In the fluff, guard tank commanders are pretty uncommon, they are one per a company of 10 Leman Russ ; or even more than 10, if other tanks are added to the basic company. So there should definitely not be given access to more of them than number of tank squadrons.
On the flip side of orders, it kind of makes little sense that the Tank Commander can give orders to the crews of other tanks, but not to their own tank crew. Really the easiest solution is to try to make them force multipliers rather than Leman Russ +1. Make the Tank Commander an upgrade to a Leman Russ squadron that can issue an order to the squadron as a whole, that and maybe create a bigger variety of Tank Orders that have more variety than "reroll 1s, move extra without shooting, and fire smoke".
That said, as others have said, the issue with the Russ and Commanders is that both are kind of not that great right now - GW deciding that T8 is for the most part maximum toughness, and that almost no vehicles get a 2+ save, combined with the ease with which certain units can throw out wounds...
I've said it before, but the easiest fix for Vehicles would be to make them beefier, then boost specialized anti tank weaponry to boot, and er away from invulnerable saves. At the moment, they have boosted some of the anti tank options but not boosted the durability of tanks.
Ravajaxe wrote: I don't think so. The current rules for tank commanders inadequately depict what it should be. Currently it is more a tank ace than a commander in charge of coordinating a tank platoon or company. The crew shoots better, have access to auto-rerolls, and that is pretty much it. What we should have is issuing two orders to other tanks in the detachment. Allowing special moves, suppressing fire, improving other tanks accuracy, tricks... All of this by radio, without the current shouting range of 6", which makes zero sense, given tanks are loud machines that cover one's voice. GW really made it all wrong with this codex. It's just herohammer applied to the Guard.
In the fluff, guard tank commanders are pretty uncommon, they are one per a company of 10 Leman Russ ; or even more than 10, if other tanks are added to the basic company. So there should definitely not be given access to more of them than number of tank squadrons.
Iv tried many times, and I find it most difficult to issue orders to my self
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: Imo, the problem with leman russes is that they lack in firepower for their cost more than durability, particularly in their main guns which all have highly unworthy stats compared to infantry hunter teams. [Like seriously, the battle cannon, even firing twice, will struggle to kill marines when it just outright deleted them by the squad before, and statistically compares unfavorably to ~120 point tanks that have similar toughness and wound counts and better BS]. The only leman ryss with good firepower is the LR demolished, which only does so because of the demolished cannon buff a while ago applies double to it and goes to show that the whole grinding advance concept is a crappy rule and no substitute for just giving the guns appropriate stats to begin with.
As for unit alterations, I would make TC's have infinite orders range to tanks, [seriously, they have radios]. Then, and more importantly, the tank squadrons should not split up and should recieve the order as a unit. Finally, the TC is a tank company commander, so like a company commander, they should issue 2 orders.
This would encourage the TC to be fielded in a support role. Right now, they run solo because they self buff and regular leman russes are hilariously bad. Their orders are obviously more efficient on themselves than another tank. So having it apply to the squadron would make it more efficient to use it on a squadron and having him have 2 means you would always want a squadron of other tanks to get the most out of him.
kurhanik wrote: On the flip side of orders, it kind of makes little sense that the Tank Commander can give orders to the crews of other tanks, but not to their own tank crew.
If I have an elite crew, it would make sense that my crew is operating at peak efficiency and I can't just yell at them to make them work better, but I can leverage my experience to provide guidance to more average crews of other tanks.
I mean, when you have military advisers deployed from special forces to assist regular grunts, nobody asks 'why don't they just advise their own SF guys?'. They don't need to advise them; the SF already perform like SF. Their role is to pass along their expertise and help the grunts perform like SF too.
Tank Commanders perform like better tanks innately. They should be about helping basic Russes perform like better tanks too.
As it stands, being able to buff themselves means there is very rarely a situation in which it is worthwhile for a Tank Commander to be giving orders to other tanks rather than themselves. That's not right.
I will also interject another side point to this conversation.
Which is for the people saying a LR needs to do more damage output just how many points should a vehical call in a single turn?
Personally I am in the camp of output isnt the issue it's that nothing survives more than being looked at funny.
Sadly I think it's about to get worse not better with 9th, first Eradicators. Second strategums that just invalidate the wounding chart entirely or dish out MW.
Now we have an army with a 1-9 inch aura of -1 toughness, which is flat 9" on a T8 -1D 4++ flying primarch if you though T8 russes where made of cardboard try T7 MBT's were everything S4+ is a 5+ to wound. And Sx2 weapons are wounding you on 3+, not 4+.
Right now everything dies way to fast for anything to justify it's points cost.
Tank Commanders are even more fragile than regular Russ though, so I don't think fragility can explain why people take one over the other.
The problem is that the difference between 4s and 3s rerolling 1s is 14/18 versus 9/18. Therefore you should do over 50% more damage with the Tank commander ordering himself. Paying 18-22% more points (depending on sponsons etc) is therefore a no-brainer.
It also reduces your chance of massive failure, which is sort of second order mathhammer, but is the real scourge of BS4+ forces. You know the sort of thing where you roll 2 D6 shots, for 6 shots. You should get 3 hits, you get 2 hits. Inevitably one of those is one, and then the guy throws a save leaving you with nothing.
But as said - you are just as vulnerable to an opponent's melta guns, but are giving 20%~ more points up for their trouble. Which I think is the real problem of 40k, most people build into Glass Hammers, because the person who shoots first shoots last. If you get a go you at want to do something.
I think having Command Tanks that give orders or bonuses of some kind to fellow tanks can add some chrome to the game. I think the problem with Tank Commanders is the BS3+. While HQ slots are a more of a premium in 9th Ed, its not really an issue for AM armies. So if you have a primarily infantry force, why not invest a few extra points to get Tank Commanders and forgo the regular Leman Russ?
If we are worried about "realism", veteran crew commanders can make their own crew shoot and manouevre better, plus they will be better at acquiring targets. Those veteran crew commanders do not, however, have to be "officers" in command of Troops/Platoons/Squadrons. Troop Leader/Platoon Commanders etc can ensure that the tanks under their command are positioned better, but they don't make crews in other tanks shoot any better. While its been ten years since I was in the panzers, my orders to tanks under my command were about positioning and priority of targets. I wasn't encouraging them to shoot better. My own crew was hand-picked, especially when I was a Battle Captain or Squadron Commander. Although an OC's tank could engage targets, I would look for the tanks in the Troops to do most of the engagements. Anyhoo.
I think that Tank Commanders, if they exist in 9th, should be able to issue Orders that make Leman Russes under their command do cool things other than shoot more accurately. Perhaps orders that allow them to Advance and Fire or replace some of the Stratagems in For the Great Good. The tank officers should only have better ballistic skill if they are only "unlocked" by having normal Leman Russ in your force. I think that the Tank Ace stratagem is good enough at showing, well, tank aces! That Sergeant with multiple campaigns in the hatch who isn't worried about commanding other tanks - just destroying the enemy (think Feldwebel Kurt Knispel or Sgt Pool).
Does the Leman Russ need a re-working? I think so!
Ice_can wrote: I will also interject another side point to this conversation.
Which is for the people saying a LR needs to do more damage output just how many points should a vehical call in a single turn?
Personally I am in the camp of output isnt the issue it's that nothing survives more than being looked at funny.
Sadly I think it's about to get worse not better with 9th, first Eradicators. Second strategums that just invalidate the wounding chart entirely or dish out MW.
Now we have an army with a 1-9 inch aura of -1 toughness, which is flat 9" on a T8 -1D 4++ flying primarch if you though T8 russes where made of cardboard try T7 MBT's were everything S4+ is a 5+ to wound. And Sx2 weapons are wounding you on 3+, not 4+.
Right now everything dies way to fast for anything to justify it's points cost.
Because a Leman Russ's main gun is weaker than a man portable AT device. More relevantly, it's drastically underperforming in terms of offensive capability at cost; if you compare it's cost to other similar vehicles, which are already not making appearances because they're not that great.
Let's take, for example, the Vindicator. The Vindicator is 130 points, and Leman Russ is 160 points out the gate.
They have similar defensive profiles, at T8 and about 12 wounds. The Vindicator can buy Sv2+ for 10 points, but we'll ignore that for now.
Downrange, the Vindicator does 1d6 shots at BS3+ S10 Ap3 D1d6. To a T7 average vehicular target that's 4.5 average damage, with a bit of a swingy distribution.
Downrange, the Leman Russ, if we assume in the best case that it's Catachan, it'll average 3.8 damage, plus about half a damage from the heavy bolter.
Uh, okay, how about MEQ Infantry, that's supposed to be the ideal target for the Leman Russ, right?
The Catachan Leman Russ puts 1.8 Space Marines down.
The Vindicator puts down 1.5.
oh. What do I get for that 30 point premium? Nothing really. And it actually gets worse if you start adding sponsons, because then while you do get more offensive power, the tank starts getting very expensive very fast.
And I'm not saying that the Vindicator is good. The Vindicator is like "okay but weakish" and underperforming by the standards of the completely ridiculous infantry AT units that exist in the game lineups
Even comparing internally, the Leman Russ isn't very good. While a lot of IG tanks have absolutely anemic main guns [Basilisk comes to mind, but I guess its IF capability counts for something], the Leman Russ is outperformed by both the Devil Dog and the Manticore, both much cheaper than the Leman Russ, and of which only the Manticore is considered good [and that's because of IF capability and the ability to spend CP to make it D3 instead of D1d3]
You can clock in a Devil Dog at 120 points, bring to the table much higher speed, 1 less toughness and 1 less wound, and a whopping 7.3 damage to average vehicle targets, almost twice that of the Leman Russ for 40 points less.
You can bring a Manticore for 145 points, trading 1 toughness and 1 wound for S10 and indirect fire capability. S10 isn't particularly valuable, but IF is a nice ability that more than offsets the toughness reduction and the entire package, plus stratagem support for +1 to hit and always being 3 damage, come for 15 points less.
There is only 1 Leman Russ with any semblance of capability, and it wasn't even an intentional buff to the Leman Russ since it was a slide down from a Space Marine buff. A quick look at the costs of the tank will tell you that everything is out of whack with the Leman Russ costs:
The Leman Russ Demolisher gets to benefit from a buff to the Vindicator about a year ago due to a shared weapon, sending it from 1d3 shots for 1d6 damage to 1d6 shots for 1d6 damage. This is the only Leman Russ with respectable damage, bringing itself up to be... just slightly worse than the Devil Dog [6.2 damage], with a bit more range while the Devil Dog is fast.
Oddly enough, even about a year and a half after the demolisher cannon buff, the Demolisher cannon is still priced exactly the same as the myriad of terrible gun options the Leman Russ can have.
You are 100% correct. Thank you for doing the exact math. The Leman Russ as it is currently is either dramatically overcosted or significantly overcosted. Tank Commanders are taken because they can at least up the damage to a semi-respectable amount, even though their durability per point gets worse.
Ice_can wrote: I will also interject another side point to this conversation.
Which is for the people saying a LR needs to do more damage output just how many points should a vehical call in a single turn?
Personally I am in the camp of output isnt the issue it's that nothing survives more than being looked at funny.
Sadly I think it's about to get worse not better with 9th, first Eradicators. Second strategums that just invalidate the wounding chart entirely or dish out MW.
Now we have an army with a 1-9 inch aura of -1 toughness, which is flat 9" on a T8 -1D 4++ flying primarch if you though T8 russes where made of cardboard try T7 MBT's were everything S4+ is a 5+ to wound. And Sx2 weapons are wounding you on 3+, not 4+.
Right now everything dies way to fast for anything to justify it's points cost.
Because a Leman Russ's main gun is weaker than a man portable AT device. More relevantly, it's drastically underperforming in terms of offensive capability at cost; if you compare it's cost to other similar vehicles, which are already not making appearances because they're not that great.
Let's take, for example, the Vindicator. The Vindicator is 130 points, and Leman Russ is 160 points out the gate.
They have similar defensive profiles, at T8 and about 12 wounds. The Vindicator can buy Sv2+ for 10 points, but we'll ignore that for now.
Downrange, the Vindicator does 1d6 shots at BS3+ S10 Ap3 D1d6. To a T7 average vehicular target that's 4.5 average damage, with a bit of a swingy distribution.
Downrange, the Leman Russ, if we assume in the best case that it's Catachan, it'll average 3.8 damage, plus about half a damage from the heavy bolter.
Uh, okay, how about MEQ Infantry, that's supposed to be the ideal target for the Leman Russ, right?
The Catachan Leman Russ puts 1.8 Space Marines down.
The Vindicator puts down 1.5.
oh. What do I get for that 30 point premium? Nothing really. And it actually gets worse if you start adding sponsons, because then while you do get more offensive power, the tank starts getting very expensive very fast.
And I'm not saying that the Vindicator is good. The Vindicator is like "okay but weakish" and underperforming by the standards of the completely ridiculous infantry AT units that exist in the game lineups
Even comparing internally, the Leman Russ isn't very good. While a lot of IG tanks have absolutely anemic main guns [Basilisk comes to mind, but I guess its IF capability counts for something], the Leman Russ is outperformed by both the Devil Dog and the Manticore, both much cheaper than the Leman Russ, and of which only the Manticore is considered good [and that's because of IF capability and the ability to spend CP to make it D3 instead of D1d3]
You can clock in a Devil Dog at 120 points, bring to the table much higher speed, 1 less toughness and 1 less wound, and a whopping 7.3 damage to average vehicle targets, almost twice that of the Leman Russ for 40 points less.
You can bring a Manticore for 145 points, trading 1 toughness and 1 wound for S10 and indirect fire capability. S10 isn't particularly valuable, but IF is a nice ability that more than offsets the toughness reduction and the entire package, plus stratagem support for +1 to hit and always being 3 damage, come for 15 points less.
There is only 1 Leman Russ with any semblance of capability, and it wasn't even an intentional buff to the Leman Russ since it was a slide down from a Space Marine buff. A quick look at the costs of the tank will tell you that everything is out of whack with the Leman Russ costs:
The Leman Russ Demolisher gets to benefit from a buff to the Vindicator about a year ago due to a shared weapon, sending it from 1d3 shots for 1d6 damage to 1d6 shots for 1d6 damage. This is the only Leman Russ with respectable damage, bringing itself up to be... just slightly worse than the Devil Dog [6.2 damage], with a bit more range while the Devil Dog is fast.
Oddly enough, even about a year and a half after the demolisher cannon buff, the Demolisher cannon is still priced exactly the same as the myriad of terrible gun options the Leman Russ can have.
I don't particularly disagree with anything your saying my issue is this is another example of GW having made durability esentially worthless.
You're complaining that a Russ at 2D6 shots has bad damage output. And while I get that when you compair it to the redicoulous levels of buffs some weapons have seen, exactly how much damage should it be possible to do to a vehical in a turn?
Shoukd it really be as high as it is that means vehicals need to achieve such a rediculously high rate of return to be viable.
I'm gonna skip the weapon options since that's a mess on its own, but for a while, I've wanted a system where Russes and Tank Commanders could support eachother to there will be a good incentive to take both. I seen no reason why a tank commander shouldn't be able to order itself (it doesn't matter how "efficient" the crew is, you can still order them to take certain actions), but it also needs to be able to order at least two other tanks as well.
Unfortunately, tank commanders are already one of the biggest bullet magnets in the codex, which is why normal Russes need a way to support the commander. I think the best way to accomplish this would be some sort of body guard rule. I don't know exactly how it would work, but allowing Russes to take wounds for the commander would immediately give a massive incentive to take both units.
Frankly, I think this makes a lot of sense. Most force multiplying characters are protected by the character targeting rules. Obviously, making them untargetable when in a sea of guardsmen would be too much, but some protection is needed.
Going way beyond Russes, GW really needs to use more of their design space for the toughness stat. I think it's kind of silly that having T9+ is almost unheard of. I would have system where light monsters/vehicles would be T6-T8, medium T9-T10, and heavy T11 and T12. This change is not intended to affect infantry.
With a system like this, you could pretty much keep plasma the same and it would still be just and good vs elite infantry still be effective against light vehicle or monsters, but it would lose some effectiveness against the heavier stuff. Things like las and melta would need to have higher strength stats like 10 or 11 (maybe melta could be S12 at half range). To help against mass small arms fire maybe give +1 armor when the toughness is twice the strength or something. There would obviously be kinks to work out, but they really shouldn't constrain themselves to the number 8.
Ice_can wrote: I will also interject another side point to this conversation.
Which is for the people saying a LR needs to do more damage output just how many points should a vehical call in a single turn?
Personally I am in the camp of output isnt the issue it's that nothing survives more than being looked at funny.
Sadly I think it's about to get worse not better with 9th, first Eradicators. Second strategums that just invalidate the wounding chart entirely or dish out MW.
Now we have an army with a 1-9 inch aura of -1 toughness, which is flat 9" on a T8 -1D 4++ flying primarch if you though T8 russes where made of cardboard try T7 MBT's were everything S4+ is a 5+ to wound. And Sx2 weapons are wounding you on 3+, not 4+.
Right now everything dies way to fast for anything to justify it's points cost.
Because a Leman Russ's main gun is weaker than a man portable AT device. More relevantly, it's drastically underperforming in terms of offensive capability at cost; if you compare it's cost to other similar vehicles, which are already not making appearances because they're not that great.
Let's take, for example, the Vindicator. The Vindicator is 130 points, and Leman Russ is 160 points out the gate.
They have similar defensive profiles, at T8 and about 12 wounds. The Vindicator can buy Sv2+ for 10 points, but we'll ignore that for now.
Downrange, the Vindicator does 1d6 shots at BS3+ S10 Ap3 D1d6. To a T7 average vehicular target that's 4.5 average damage, with a bit of a swingy distribution.
Downrange, the Leman Russ, if we assume in the best case that it's Catachan, it'll average 3.8 damage, plus about half a damage from the heavy bolter.
Uh, okay, how about MEQ Infantry, that's supposed to be the ideal target for the Leman Russ, right?
The Catachan Leman Russ puts 1.8 Space Marines down.
The Vindicator puts down 1.5.
oh. What do I get for that 30 point premium? Nothing really. And it actually gets worse if you start adding sponsons, because then while you do get more offensive power, the tank starts getting very expensive very fast.
And I'm not saying that the Vindicator is good. The Vindicator is like "okay but weakish" and underperforming by the standards of the completely ridiculous infantry AT units that exist in the game lineups
Even comparing internally, the Leman Russ isn't very good. While a lot of IG tanks have absolutely anemic main guns [Basilisk comes to mind, but I guess its IF capability counts for something], the Leman Russ is outperformed by both the Devil Dog and the Manticore, both much cheaper than the Leman Russ, and of which only the Manticore is considered good [and that's because of IF capability and the ability to spend CP to make it D3 instead of D1d3]
You can clock in a Devil Dog at 120 points, bring to the table much higher speed, 1 less toughness and 1 less wound, and a whopping 7.3 damage to average vehicle targets, almost twice that of the Leman Russ for 40 points less.
You can bring a Manticore for 145 points, trading 1 toughness and 1 wound for S10 and indirect fire capability. S10 isn't particularly valuable, but IF is a nice ability that more than offsets the toughness reduction and the entire package, plus stratagem support for +1 to hit and always being 3 damage, come for 15 points less.
There is only 1 Leman Russ with any semblance of capability, and it wasn't even an intentional buff to the Leman Russ since it was a slide down from a Space Marine buff. A quick look at the costs of the tank will tell you that everything is out of whack with the Leman Russ costs:
The Leman Russ Demolisher gets to benefit from a buff to the Vindicator about a year ago due to a shared weapon, sending it from 1d3 shots for 1d6 damage to 1d6 shots for 1d6 damage. This is the only Leman Russ with respectable damage, bringing itself up to be... just slightly worse than the Devil Dog [6.2 damage], with a bit more range while the Devil Dog is fast.
Oddly enough, even about a year and a half after the demolisher cannon buff, the Demolisher cannon is still priced exactly the same as the myriad of terrible gun options the Leman Russ can have.
I don't particularly disagree with anything your saying my issue is this is another example of GW having made durability esentially worthless.
You're complaining that a Russ at 2D6 shots has bad damage output. And while I get that when you compair it to the redicoulous levels of buffs some weapons have seen, exactly how much damage should it be possible to do to a vehical in a turn?
Shoukd it really be as high as it is that means vehicals need to achieve such a rediculously high rate of return to be viable.
That depends.
A Vanquisher, Railcannon, or other big purpose-built vehicle-mounted antitank weapon should probably be able to wreck tanks pretty well from a single hit
A Lascannon, probably quite a few shots. A Plasmagun or Heavy Bolter? Definitely shouldn't be taking vehicles down quickly.
There are a huge number of problems with the way GW has statted AT weapons in 8th and 9th, where most of them just don't work, however, the fact that the Leman Russ is outperformed by basically anything both within and without it's codex is why one doesn't see them, and only see tank commanders
kurhanik wrote: On the flip side of orders, it kind of makes little sense that the Tank Commander can give orders to the crews of other tanks, but not to their own tank crew.
If I have an elite crew, it would make sense that my crew is operating at peak efficiency and I can't just yell at them to make them work better, but I can leverage my experience to provide guidance to more average crews of other tanks.
I mean, when you have military advisers deployed from special forces to assist regular grunts, nobody asks 'why don't they just advise their own SF guys?'. They don't need to advise them; the SF already perform like SF. Their role is to pass along their expertise and help the grunts perform like SF too.
Tank Commanders perform like better tanks innately. They should be about helping basic Russes perform like better tanks too.
As it stands, being able to buff themselves means there is very rarely a situation in which it is worthwhile for a Tank Commander to be giving orders to other tanks rather than themselves. That's not right.
That is why I said it would make more sense to me personally to make it an upgrade to a squadron that can order the squadron as a whole.
Looking at the actual tank orders, and lets for the moment ignore the fact that in most circumstances you are going to be going for the reroll 1's order, does it really make sense that the commander can order other tanks to pop smoke, but not order his own crew to? Same goes for ordering the driver to hit the gas. Orders aren't yelling at the crew to make them better, it is basically tacking off a list of drilled maneuvers and coordinating the crews of the various tanks under their command to implement them.
Its why I said there should be more variety in orders, since right now there is basically the Main Order, followed by two edge case situational orders.
Personally I'd rather see the BS 3+ taken away and turned into an upgrade for the Russ in general (say "Veteran Crew"), and the Tank Commander a squadron upgrade to the unit that provides orders to the squadron as a whole. That way a player could cheap out and take a squadron of regular tanks, take a unit of regular tanks with a leader, or go all veteran tanks, or a veteran tank unit with a leader, etc.
My opinion (for those who didn't ask but have to check the new posts):
Yes, tank commanders shouldn't be able to order themselves. Yes, they should get 2 orders each just like regular commanders.
I had an idea and i think it'd work here, do like primaris do and give leman russes +1bs, straight up no cost. Then look at balancing their 'shoot under half' rules.
edit: oh crap, i meant the line troops, not the tank commanders. screw those guys.
This has been an ongoing problem for a long time, and I dont expect GW to fix it.
GW has a set number of "favourite" armies - SM, Space Elves, Space communist fishcows and Space Terminator. Everything else gets tossed by the wayside, its been a common theme since the days post-3rd. Think about it, how many times since then has an Imperial Guard army been viable? Well, okay, im being a bit disingenious here, but look at the mess. It started in late 4th when the Leafblower list (not pure guard despite what people think, it was an allied army) was feared. GW reacted by nerfing the Guard hard and 'put them in their place' and ever since then its been harder and harder to play a Guard army. Simply put; if you are an Imperial Guard player you have to accept the fact that your army is not allowed to challenge the chosen elites, and you are certainly not allowed to challenge the mighty SM players - imagine if the paypiggies actually had to fight a fair fight?!
The only exception to this was for that one month at the start of 8th and boy did we hear about it. Nonstop whining and crying about "muh op conscripts" and "muh op orders" as a few of the chosen factions players got a taste of the medicine Guard players had been forced to swallow for the past few years. Hell, it wasnt even the same medicine, it was a watered down kind as the feared Conscript Volley Block was still countered pretty easily. But hey, noone likes it when the peasants offer a challenge.
Anyway, what this boils down to is that MeQ/chosen faction players do not like Guard armies being too difficult (just look at this thread, and its calling for nerfs to an already mediocre unit) and by extension GW does not like anything that makes the paypiggies unhappy, after all you have to make them feel special or they might not buy the latest "Irussium Vegetator Phaliux" box. And so those certain armies take the hits and get to watch as the cries of the wallet wielders drive them into the dirt.
I sold my Imperial Guard army last Autumn, save for a few bits I kept. Even Lucus Caine, the Company Commander whom once felled a Primarch is gone. Im done, GW models are insanely overpriced and the only thing keeping them going are paypiggies and brand. The games are watered down and built to cater to the lowest common denominator and promote rapid spending on overpriced models and overpriced splatbooks, and heavily favour the 'popular' factions. Its similar to the DLC cancer that eats into computer games. And im out. Ive had it with the prices and ive had it with being shat on because I dare to choose an army that GW deigns an NPC faction. Im gone. Good luck to those who remain, but I advidse you cash out now.
kurhanik wrote: On the flip side of orders, it kind of makes little sense that the Tank Commander can give orders to the crews of other tanks, but not to their own tank crew.
If I have an elite crew, it would make sense that my crew is operating at peak efficiency and I can't just yell at them to make them work better, but I can leverage my experience to provide guidance to more average crews of other tanks.
I mean, when you have military advisers deployed from special forces to assist regular grunts, nobody asks 'why don't they just advise their own SF guys?'. They don't need to advise them; the SF already perform like SF. Their role is to pass along their expertise and help the grunts perform like SF too.
Tank Commanders perform like better tanks innately. They should be about helping basic Russes perform like better tanks too.
As it stands, being able to buff themselves means there is very rarely a situation in which it is worthwhile for a Tank Commander to be giving orders to other tanks rather than themselves. That's not right.
That is why I said it would make more sense to me personally to make it an upgrade to a squadron that can order the squadron as a whole.
Looking at the actual tank orders, and lets for the moment ignore the fact that in most circumstances you are going to be going for the reroll 1's order, does it really make sense that the commander can order other tanks to pop smoke, but not order his own crew to? Same goes for ordering the driver to hit the gas. Orders aren't yelling at the crew to make them better, it is basically tacking off a list of drilled maneuvers and coordinating the crews of the various tanks under their command to implement them.
Its why I said there should be more variety in orders, since right now there is basically the Main Order, followed by two edge case situational orders.
Personally I'd rather see the BS 3+ taken away and turned into an upgrade for the Russ in general (say "Veteran Crew"), and the Tank Commander a squadron upgrade to the unit that provides orders to the squadron as a whole. That way a player could cheap out and take a squadron of regular tanks, take a unit of regular tanks with a leader, or go all veteran tanks, or a veteran tank unit with a leader, etc.
Tank Commanders aren't squadron leaders though, they're Company Command Tanks, so like they should be a HQ unit designed to support a tank unit; and there definitely should be a tank-HQ for the IG. If line units deserve a +1BS unit, it should be either like an Elite Slot Tank Ace or as a Tank Ace upgrade to a unit, but Tank Commanders should definitely be an HQ.
Once again changing the orders to not also benefit the command is a flat nerf that doesn't make things better at all, it just makes everything suck instead of one thing kind of not sucking.
I think we might see something like what SM dreadnoughts got with reducing damage by 1
Also it might be good to add a squadron commander upgrade (eg free upgrade if you have a full squadron) which increases all squad mates within 6" to BS3+
Tank commander then get to allow Leman Russ tanks to re-roll 1's on one selected target but from anywhere on the board
BlackoCatto wrote: Once again changing the orders to not also benefit the command is a flat nerf that doesn't make things better at all, it just makes everything suck instead of one thing kind of not sucking.
It's a move that encourages bringing the units that the Commander should be commanding so that they have something to issue Orders to - self-Ordering makes no sense.
I think someone mentioned a Tank Ace as a BS3+ Russ with no Orders as an Elite option - that might be an idea (in addition to the TC who can issue Orders).
We may get a "Chapter Command" type arrangement for aces.
Where you could upgrade units with points rather than command points. Maybe Guard Aces will be one per detachment rather than one per army.
BlackoCatto wrote: Once again changing the orders to not also benefit the command is a flat nerf that doesn't make things better at all, it just makes everything suck instead of one thing kind of not sucking.
It's a move that encourages bringing the units that the Commander should be commanding so that they have something to issue Orders to - self-Ordering makes no sense.
I think someone mentioned a Tank Ace as a BS3+ Russ with no Orders as an Elite option - that might be an idea (in addition to the TC who can issue Orders).
So now still that makes one choice worse and another still bad. It is an active nerf that doesn't help the core problem of survivability and output.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I dont get people's infatuation with changing a system that isn't broken nor in regard to the actual problem an issue.
alextroy wrote: I say follow the example of other 9th Edition Codexes:
The normal Leman Russ gains Core keyword.
The Tank Commander keeps his BS 3+.
Most Orders only work on Core Leman Russ, but are reworked so that some also work on multiple units.
Tank Commander gains rule that he cannot be targeted while within X" of 2 or more Core Leman Russ.
Now you have a worthy HQ for a Tank Spearhead, but not a great choice to splash into an Infantry Patrol/Battalion in place of normal Leman Russ.
I'd guess this is closest to what gw will do in the new Guard codex. It would help fix the problem of Tank Commanders just being a better Leman Russ, but wouldn't fix the main problems of Leman Russes in general, eg: poor survivability and firepower on the main guns. I'd give them a 2+ and make the battle cannon 2d6 shots, regardless of how far they moved, and flat 3D instead d3D.
If you want people to take a regular Russ, or in fac a Russ at all in this edition, make them cheaper for what they can do or make them stronger in regards to output at their current price. That will get more on the table.
BlackoCatto wrote: If you want people to take a regular Russ, or in fac a Russ at all in this edition, make them cheaper for what they can do or make them stronger in regards to output at their current price. That will get more on the table.
I thought that was what I just suggested. What would you propose to increase the damage output of Leman Russes?
BlackoCatto wrote: If you want people to take a regular Russ, or in fac a Russ at all in this edition, make them cheaper for what they can do or make them stronger in regards to output at their current price. That will get more on the table.
I thought that was what I just suggested. What would you propose to increase the damage output of Leman Russes?
Sorry was not referring to you. At the time of me writing it up you hadn't posted yet.
BlackoCatto wrote: If you want people to take a regular Russ, or in fac a Russ at all in this edition, make them cheaper for what they can do or make them stronger in regards to output at their current price. That will get more on the table.
I thought that was what I just suggested. What would you propose to increase the damage output of Leman Russes?
Sorry was not referring to you. At the time of me writing it up you hadn't posted yet.
Ah, understood. So do you think my proposed changes would suffice? At the very least, they would make battle cannons as effective as the most powerful sponson weapons available to Leman Russes (multi-melta).
BlackoCatto wrote: If you want people to take a regular Russ, or in fac a Russ at all in this edition, make them cheaper for what they can do or make them stronger in regards to output at their current price. That will get more on the table.
I thought that was what I just suggested. What would you propose to increase the damage output of Leman Russes?
Sorry was not referring to you. At the time of me writing it up you hadn't posted yet.
Ah, understood. So do you think my proposed changes would suffice? At the very least, they would make battle cannons as effective as the most powerful sponson weapons available to Leman Russes (multi-melta).
alextroy wrote: I say follow the example of other 9th Edition Codexes:
The normal Leman Russ gains Core keyword.
The Tank Commander keeps his BS 3+.
Most Orders only work on Core Leman Russ, but are reworked so that some also work on multiple units.
Tank Commander gains rule that he cannot be targeted while within X" of 2 or more Core Leman Russ.
Now you have a worthy HQ for a Tank Spearhead, but not a great choice to splash into an Infantry Patrol/Battalion in place of normal Leman Russ.
I'd guess this is closest to what gw will do in the new Guard codex. It would help fix the problem of Tank Commanders just being a better Leman Russ, but wouldn't fix the main problems of Leman Russes in general, eg: poor survivability and firepower on the main guns. I'd give them a 2+ and make the battle cannon 2d6 shots, regardless of how far they moved, and flat 3D instead d3D.
BlackoCatto wrote:If you want people to take a regular Russ, or in fac a Russ at all in this edition, make them cheaper for what they can do or make them stronger in regards to output at their current price. That will get more on the table.
Exactly. They are two different, but interrelated, issues. The Tank Commander being a better Russ and the normal Russ not being good enough for it's points. Just because you fix one problem doesn't mean you should ignore the other.
I'd say a cheaper if slightly worst Russ would be better than a more powerful for the same points unit. I say spike Grinding Advance, improve the bad weapons, and reduce the base points to make the value of a Demolisher Cannon Russ with no sponsons a little less than a Space Marine Vindicator.
alextroy wrote: I say follow the example of other 9th Edition Codexes:
The normal Leman Russ gains Core keyword.
The Tank Commander keeps his BS 3+.
Most Orders only work on Core Leman Russ, but are reworked so that some also work on multiple units.
Tank Commander gains rule that he cannot be targeted while within X" of 2 or more Core Leman Russ.
Now you have a worthy HQ for a Tank Spearhead, but not a great choice to splash into an Infantry Patrol/Battalion in place of normal Leman Russ.
I'd guess this is closest to what gw will do in the new Guard codex. It would help fix the problem of Tank Commanders just being a better Leman Russ, but wouldn't fix the main problems of Leman Russes in general, eg: poor survivability and firepower on the main guns. I'd give them a 2+ and make the battle cannon 2d6 shots, regardless of how far they moved, and flat 3D instead d3D.
BlackoCatto wrote:If you want people to take a regular Russ, or in fac a Russ at all in this edition, make them cheaper for what they can do or make them stronger in regards to output at their current price. That will get more on the table.
Exactly. They are two different, but interrelated, issues. The Tank Commander being a better Russ and the normal Russ not being good enough for it's points. Just because you fix one problem doesn't mean you should ignore the other.
I'd say a cheaper if slightly worst Russ would be better than a more powerful for the same points unit. I say spike Grinding Advance, improve the bad weapons, and reduce the base points to make the value of a Demolisher Cannon Russ with no sponsons a little less than a Space Marine Vindicator.
Exactly. The issue I have is that by taking the ability to order themselves away from a TC doesn't make the regular Russ better, it just makes one worse and the other the same, still leaving a TC a far better option still. Price reduction Is a good way to bring it on as it means there is a value that can be brought along side a better weapon. A TC should be better but a pricey option while the regular Russ a cheap but more numerous option .
alextroy wrote: I say follow the example of other 9th Edition Codexes:
The normal Leman Russ gains Core keyword.
The Tank Commander keeps his BS 3+.
Most Orders only work on Core Leman Russ, but are reworked so that some also work on multiple units.
Tank Commander gains rule that he cannot be targeted while within X" of 2 or more Core Leman Russ.
Now you have a worthy HQ for a Tank Spearhead, but not a great choice to splash into an Infantry Patrol/Battalion in place of normal Leman Russ.
I'd guess this is closest to what gw will do in the new Guard codex. It would help fix the problem of Tank Commanders just being a better Leman Russ, but wouldn't fix the main problems of Leman Russes in general, eg: poor survivability and firepower on the main guns. I'd give them a 2+ and make the battle cannon 2d6 shots, regardless of how far they moved, and flat 3D instead d3D.
BlackoCatto wrote:If you want people to take a regular Russ, or in fac a Russ at all in this edition, make them cheaper for what they can do or make them stronger in regards to output at their current price. That will get more on the table.
Exactly. They are two different, but interrelated, issues. The Tank Commander being a better Russ and the normal Russ not being good enough for it's points. Just because you fix one problem doesn't mean you should ignore the other.
I'd say a cheaper if slightly worst Russ would be better than a more powerful for the same points unit. I say spike Grinding Advance, improve the bad weapons, and reduce the base points to make the value of a Demolisher Cannon Russ with no sponsons a little less than a Space Marine Vindicator.
Exactly. The issue I have is that by taking the ability to order themselves away from a TC doesn't make the regular Russ better, it just makes one worse and the other the same, still leaving a TC a far better option still. Price reduction Is a good way to bring it on as it means there is a value that can be brought along side a better weapon. A TC should be better but a pricey option while the regular Russ a cheap but more numerous option .
If you take the ability to self-Order away, and don't change the points, do you really think people will continue to pay 35 points for +1 to hit (and being vulnerable to any rules that target the keyword CHARACTER)?
I think the point is there are two separate issues at play.
1. Leman Russes aren't very good.
2. Tank Commanders are just better Leman Russes rather than actual leaders.
Preventing the Commander from ordering himself solves issue 2, but does not solve issue 1.
Hence the change should be implemented alongside other changes such as increased lethality, increased durability, and/or reduced points cost.
alextroy wrote: I say follow the example of other 9th Edition Codexes:
The normal Leman Russ gains Core keyword.
The Tank Commander keeps his BS 3+.
Most Orders only work on Core Leman Russ, but are reworked so that some also work on multiple units.
Tank Commander gains rule that he cannot be targeted while within X" of 2 or more Core Leman Russ.
Now you have a worthy HQ for a Tank Spearhead, but not a great choice to splash into an Infantry Patrol/Battalion in place of normal Leman Russ.
I'd guess this is closest to what gw will do in the new Guard codex. It would help fix the problem of Tank Commanders just being a better Leman Russ, but wouldn't fix the main problems of Leman Russes in general, eg: poor survivability and firepower on the main guns. I'd give them a 2+ and make the battle cannon 2d6 shots, regardless of how far they moved, and flat 3D instead d3D.
BlackoCatto wrote:If you want people to take a regular Russ, or in fac a Russ at all in this edition, make them cheaper for what they can do or make them stronger in regards to output at their current price. That will get more on the table.
Exactly. They are two different, but interrelated, issues. The Tank Commander being a better Russ and the normal Russ not being good enough for it's points. Just because you fix one problem doesn't mean you should ignore the other.
I'd say a cheaper if slightly worst Russ would be better than a more powerful for the same points unit. I say spike Grinding Advance, improve the bad weapons, and reduce the base points to make the value of a Demolisher Cannon Russ with no sponsons a little less than a Space Marine Vindicator.
Exactly. The issue I have is that by taking the ability to order themselves away from a TC doesn't make the regular Russ better, it just makes one worse and the other the same, still leaving a TC a far better option still. Price reduction Is a good way to bring it on as it means there is a value that can be brought along side a better weapon. A TC should be better but a pricey option while the regular Russ a cheap but more numerous option .
If you take the ability to self-Order away, and don't change the points, do you really think people will continue to pay 35 points for +1 to hit (and being vulnerable to any rules that target the keyword CHARACTER)?
No, which is why TCs should keep the ability to order themselves.
BlackoCatto wrote: No, which is why TCs should keep the ability to order themselves.
I'll repeat what I said to you on page 2:
catbarf wrote: Yes, this would be a mild nerf to the order-giving ability of Tank Commanders. That's why we're also talking about points changes, which could more than offset it- as an extreme example, if Tank Commanders had their price cut in half while also getting these limitations on their Orders, they'd become the best unit in the codex in spite of the 'nerf'. Please exercise just the little bit of abstract thinking necessary to contemplate a points reduction and other things being changed too.
...you don't really get the whole "discussion" side of "discussion forum", do you?
catbarf (and anyone else who actually wants to have a discussion), we've got a 35 point differential at present - if we assume no self-Order, how much would you shrink that by, and would your answer change if a TC got the ability to Order two Leman Russ instead of one?
T8/12W/3+ is a Leman Russ, T8/16W/2+ is a Land Raider - 14/13/10 vs 14/14/14, from memory. Given the Land Raider has only just been reprinted, that doesn't leave much room to move on the Russ statline. Maybe T8/16W/3+?
Also, I can see the SMOKESCREEN keyword (and associated stratagem) coming into play when the IG book gets redone, which'll be annoying.
Maybe, maybe not on Smokescreen for Guard vehicles. It was given to CSM vehicles in the Compendium, but not to Guard vehicles. Could just be a marine thing. Would make some sense, as marines generally field fewer, more expensive vehicles, and protecting one per turn is more useful to them than the Guard, who generally have several less expensive vehicles in a list. Smokescreen is better for a single Sicaran than an entire squadron of Leman Russes.
Making Tank Aces an upgrade you pay for in points could be better for Guard vehicles. Being able to make all your Russes Up Armoured for X points could be a good option, and harken back to the old Extra Armour upgrade.
Are we seriously trying to talk about nerfing the Imperial Guard in any way shape or form? If anything they need a buff they're one of the worst armies in the game right now and tank commanders are pretty much the one thing they have going for them
gmaleron wrote: Are we seriously trying to talk about nerfing the Imperial Guard in any way shape or form? If anything they need a buff they're one of the worst armies in the game right now and tank commanders are pretty much the one thing they have going for them
Not nerf them, just some of us don't agree with the idea of a russ having 2d6 shots.
How many shots do you give a rapid fire battle cannon if a battle cannon is 2d6 shots? 4d6 shots
Sure they don't justify their 200 point cost given the lethality of 9th. But adding to the lethality isnt a good solution.
Look at the issues grinding advance caused with balancing the demolisher cannon between vehicals with and without it.
I agree that guard is doing horrible, I am in NO way saying they should be nerfed in ANY way, Im just saying bringing 3 tank commanders and no tanks is super unfluffy, also this is about ways to buff the leman russ to make them more viable
gmaleron wrote: Are we seriously trying to talk about nerfing the Imperial Guard in any way shape or form?
At this point I have to wonder if people are not reading the entirety of OP's post or are simply unable to consider the aggregate effects of buffs and nerfs applied simultaneously.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dysartes wrote: ...you don't really get the whole "discussion" side of "discussion forum", do you?
catbarf (and anyone else who actually wants to have a discussion), we've got a 35 point differential at present - if we assume no self-Order, how much would you shrink that by, and would your answer change if a TC got the ability to Order two Leman Russ instead of one?
I don't mean to cop out but I think the point differential based on the order should depend on the base cost of a Russ. Re-rolling 1s confers a 17% increase in lethality but no increase in durability, so I'd start at a baseline value of that ability of 8-10% of the cost of a Russ. A TC innately hits 33% more often than a base Russ, so I would say 15-20% premium. So, if a Russ were dropped to, say, 120pts, that implies a TC with two orders should be 165pts. That seems high, but 155pts feels more reasonable. So for 30% more than a Russ, you get +1BS and the ability to order two tanks. Does that seem reasonable?
Dysartes wrote: ...you don't really get the whole "discussion" side of "discussion forum", do you?
catbarf (and anyone else who actually wants to have a discussion), we've got a 35 point differential at present - if we assume no self-Order, how much would you shrink that by, and would your answer change if a TC got the ability to Order two Leman Russ instead of one?
I don't mean to cop out but I think the point differential based on the order should depend on the base cost of a Russ. Re-rolling 1s confers a 17% increase in lethality but no increase in durability, so I'd start at a baseline value of that ability of 8-10% of the cost of a Russ. A TC innately hits 33% more often than a base Russ, so I would say 15-20% premium. So, if a Russ were dropped to, say, 120pts, that implies a TC with two orders should be 165pts. That seems high, but 155pts feels more reasonable. So for 30% more than a Russ, you get +1BS and the ability to order two tanks. Does that seem reasonable?
Seems a reasonable logic, though I'd personally prefer the base Russ getting mild buffs to survival / damage output and making them worth their current points cost to dropping the points of them in a race to the bottom.
As I've said a few times already, I'd also prefer more tank orders that can compete with reroll 1s.
I'd prefer them to get buffs vs point drops, I want the tank to be imposing on the battlefield, not turn into a meme about how the emperor is the king of mass production
Dysartes wrote: ...you don't really get the whole "discussion" side of "discussion forum", do you?
catbarf (and anyone else who actually wants to have a discussion), we've got a 35 point differential at present - if we assume no self-Order, how much would you shrink that by, and would your answer change if a TC got the ability to Order two Leman Russ instead of one?
I don't mean to cop out but I think the point differential based on the order should depend on the base cost of a Russ. Re-rolling 1s confers a 17% increase in lethality but no increase in durability, so I'd start at a baseline value of that ability of 8-10% of the cost of a Russ. A TC innately hits 33% more often than a base Russ, so I would say 15-20% premium. So, if a Russ were dropped to, say, 120pts, that implies a TC with two orders should be 165pts. That seems high, but 155pts feels more reasonable. So for 30% more than a Russ, you get +1BS and the ability to order two tanks. Does that seem reasonable?
Seems a reasonable logic, though I'd personally prefer the base Russ getting mild buffs to survival / damage output and making them worth their current points cost to dropping the points of them in a race to the bottom.
As I've said a few times already, I'd also prefer more tank orders that can compete with reroll 1s.
Totally agreed on both counts. Just dropping the points on Russes doesn't make them feel like an MBT, just cannon fodder; and it'd be nice for orders to be useful, situational buffs rather than just re-roll 1s because that's the best you've got.
Concerning lethality, one issue is that a weapon like the battle cannon barely kills a single marine with its 1d6 shots whereas it used to blow holes in squads of them. Without the extra shots, it just lacks in lethality. The same goes for many other former ordnance weapons. That makes for a pretty disappointing tank. And it's not just marines. Even against the softest of targets it barely does anything, and against vehicles it's pretty disappointing as well. Of course, other weapons are a bit better, but even then, out of the whole list, there aren't that many that are worth it. And without the double shots, the Russ really is a joke in terms of firepower.
Add to that the rather poor survivability, and it's no surprise that no one ever takes a basic Russ. Tank Commanders make it a little more useful because of the better chances to hit paired with the order (that simply is most efficient on the more effective platform.and so will always go there).
Going further down in points isn't much of an option because, well, by that point they basically become so disposable that they won't be fun to use anymore. People want their tanks to mean something.
For the Tank Commanders, the better skill is something I don't see going away because that is how GW has always defined its characters. They have better and more heroic stats, even though I would be perfectly satisfied with having my officers having the exact same stats as regular guardsmen really. The higher skill however means that it will always be a case of one being better than the other, no matter what you do. The two units are far too similar to not compete. It's the same as with all the different power weapons for instance. They're so similar that there will always be a best option.
Of course, they could try something with special rules. Or rather, they will try something with special rules, but I don't see that gaining anything because it will be really hard to justify the standard Russ being better in some way. The Re-roll ones to hit while shooting van be justified from orders, to only apply to the basic Russ, but for instance something like Full Throttle makes no sense at all to only work on other tanks (sidestepping the whole silliness of orders in general. They're about as silly as auras of a non-technological non-magical nature).
So, the only real way to not see only commanders or standard russes I can see is making the commander a better Russ, but part of a squadron that one tank can be upgraded to once there are three Russes. That way, you will always have a ratio but people will still want to do the upgrade. Of course, that still requires something to boost the basic tank in some way.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Concerning lethality, one issue is that a weapon like the battle cannon barely kills a single marine with its 1d6 shots whereas it used to blow holes in squads of them. Without the extra shots, it just lacks in lethality. The same goes for many other former ordnance weapons. That makes for a pretty disappointing tank. And it's not just marines. Even against the softest of targets it barely does anything, and against vehicles it's pretty disappointing as well. Of course, other weapons are a bit better, but even then, out of the whole list, there aren't that many that are worth it. And without the double shots, the Russ really is a joke in terms of firepower.
Add to that the rather poor survivability, and it's no surprise that no one ever takes a basic Russ. Tank Commanders make it a little more useful because of the better chances to hit paired with the order (that simply is most efficient on the more effective platform.and so will always go there).
Going further down in points isn't much of an option because, well, by that point they basically become so disposable that they won't be fun to use anymore. People want their tanks to mean something.
For the Tank Commanders, the better skill is something I don't see going away because that is how GW has always defined its characters. They have better and more heroic stats, even though I would be perfectly satisfied with having my officers having the exact same stats as regular guardsmen really. The higher skill however means that it will always be a case of one being better than the other, no matter what you do. The two units are far too similar to not compete. It's the same as with all the different power weapons for instance. They're so similar that there will always be a best option.
Of course, they could try something with special rules. Or rather, they will try something with special rules, but I don't see that gaining anything because it will be really hard to justify the standard Russ being better in some way. The Re-roll ones to hit while shooting van be justified from orders, to only apply to the basic Russ, but for instance something like Full Throttle makes no sense at all to only work on other tanks (sidestepping the whole silliness of orders in general. They're about as silly as auras of a non-technological non-magical nature).
So, the only real way to not see only commanders or standard russes I can see is making the commander a better Russ, but part of a squadron that one tank can be upgraded to once there are three Russes. That way, you will always have a ratio but people will still want to do the upgrade. Of course, that still requires something to boost the basic tank in some way.
yeah the bc went from bane of existence for marines of any flavour to, oh 2 marines died .. anyways, time to use the two meltas on it and bracket it down and use the remaining 6 boltguns to fire 12 shots into the guardsmen next to it..
Points should be the last thing to be adjusted. Like many units in the game, the Leman Russ platform has a bunch of issues with its actual rules. Some examples being:
Internal weapon balance is a mess with some choices needing a fundamental rewrite.
Grinding advance being a sloppy fix
TC/Russ interaction and balance
Overall vehicle survivability
Once the rules allow the unit the do what it needs to do, then you go through and tweak the points.
Chris521 wrote: Points should be the last thing to be adjusted. Like many units in the game, the Leman Russ platform has a bunch of issues with its actual rules. Some examples being:
Internal weapon balance is a mess with some choices needing a fundamental rewrite.
Grinding advance being a sloppy fix
TC/Russ interaction and balance
Overall vehicle survivability
Once the rules allow the unit the do what it needs to do, then you go through and tweak the points.
I'm inclined to wonder how much we can fix the TC/Russ without fixing some of the base rules, though. For example, I recall the Vanquisher being a decent choice (never the best, perhaps, but at least something you could honestly consider as an option) back when tanks could be downed in a single hit. GW has seemed pretty resistant to changing the basic statline of the gun, however, so it would seem that the only option to make the gun worthwhile right now is some bespoke rule for it (which I'm not sure GW would do, and if they did I don't believe they would be competent to make the rule effective without being overpowered).
alextroy wrote: I think they should be a synergistic combination. A Tank Commander and a normal Russ should be better than two Tank Commanders.
Yes, this. Would be my preference.
Having a Tank Commander actually 'command' a squadron of Leman Russ tanks, making them more powerful as a whole than the sum of their parts, is both fluffy and (I feel) more interesting on the table top. Maintaining a 'command range', maybe 12" say, from the tank commander should give some bonus to each Russ as they coordinate their fire and movement. Not sure quite how t pull it off so a TC is less effective on its own, but I'm sure there's a way.
Considering the original post I see two problems to address. The first is the underperformance of the Leman Russ. Any fixes to the baseline Leman Russ would, of course, help the Tank Commander. The second problem is that we see Tank Commanders without any tanks under their command less their own panzer. This is a "fluff/feel" issue but I think it's real.
Regarding the overall Leman Russ design, I'd like to see Leman Russ have a more sensible Battle Cannon. Maybe get rid of the Vanquisher and have two profiles for the standard battle cannon: a Blast setting with a decent ROF and a "Sabot" setting with something like a better Lascannon (less variable damage perhaps: 3+D3 or something?). Second, it would be great if they were more survivable. Leman Russes don't do very well on a tabletop populated with 9th Ed Melta and Harlequins.
Looking at the TC, they should only be available if you take "line" Leman Russes. I'd like their orders to give manouevre/tactical buffs such as advancing and firing, falling back and firing and perhaps a For the Greater Good style overwatch mechanic? I would prefer this to rerolls etc. The range on their orders should be buffed up.
Unit1126PLL wrote: You know, GW used to have an armored company (eventually armored battlegroup) Army List that handled this pretty well at the time.
And to be frank, we could handle it the same way, but it would require changing the game slightly bigly.
I played back then, and I would rather not go back to pre-8th lists and rules. That is, of course, a separate argument from this thread. In any case you can have an all-Leman Russ army in 9th. You can even give those Leman Russ Obsec in a Spearhead Detachment.
Unit1126PLL wrote: You know, GW used to have an armored company (eventually armored battlegroup) Army List that handled this pretty well at the time.
And to be frank, we could handle it the same way, but it would require changing the game slightly bigly.
I played back then, and I would rather not go back to pre-8th lists and rules. That is, of course, a separate argument from this thread. In any case you can have an all-Leman Russ army in 9th. You can even give those Leman Russ Obsec in a Spearhead Detachment.
I was referring mostly to the way army building worked. You were, at most, allowed 2 tank commanders per Tank Company, given the army building rules - and that's easily sufficient for a Company CO tank and a Company 2iC tank without allowing Tank Commanders to simply take the place of regular Russes. You also had Tank Aces, which were separate and distinct Elites choices, and then tank squadrons as troops choices (1-2 tanks per troops choice, rather than 1-3, go figure).
Then there was the Aces High special rule possessed by the army list, which said that when buying Doctrines, wargear, and upgrades, the Tank Commanders had to have the most (or be tied for the most), followed by the Tank Aces, followed by regular tanks. So you could not have a regular tank more expensive or with more upgrades than a Tank Commander or Tank Ace, etc. This meant Tank Commanders were always more expensive than a basic russ, which put a slight amount of pressure to turn that Company CO/Company XO pair into just a Company CO.
I wonder if a VEHICLE version of a Vox-Caster upgrade could solve the clumping issue - give the option to give a TC and LR a 5 point upgrade that extends the range Orders can be give to/from.
Not sure whether to stick with the current Vox range of 18" or go to 24", but it'd help. And making it optional means it doesn't have to be baked into the base cost of a LR if you wanted to field one without a TC (assuming they were worth it like that, of course).
One thing that hasnt been touched on, giving the leman russ and TC a bonus to melee, maybe like a special rule that demonstrates the leman russ being a bit of a behememoth/juggernaught just running over infantry models, maybe just a flat 4+ WS 3 attacks strength 7 maybe ap -1, slight buff, and/or give it that charge rule where it can give mortal wounds on a 4+
bat702 wrote: One thing that hasnt been touched on, giving the leman russ and TC a bonus to melee, maybe like a special rule that demonstrates the leman russ being a bit of a behememoth/juggernaught just running over infantry models, maybe just a flat 4+ WS 3 attacks strength 7 maybe ap -1, slight buff, and/or give it that charge rule where it can give mortal wounds on a 4+
That would be cool and all, but it doesn't really address any of the current issues. Having an okay-ish close combat ability doesn't really make a Leman Russ better at its primary jobs, which I would assume are damage and surviving.
Although that does bring an interesting question. What should the main priority of a Leman Russ actually be? Should it be very sturdy with okay damage, or should it just have reasonable durability (probably about what it is now), but do a bunch of damage? I think I lean towards the former.
How about both durable and powerful like it used to be, and then add a point cost to match?
And have the durability and power come from the statline, rather than rules.
The old way was that the Russ was stat-line powerful; AV14 with a battlecannon was pretty intimidating. Other tanks got durability from special rules, e.g. Eldar tanks (AV12 with smaller guns). Eldar tanks had Lance and Fast Skimmer/Holofields to balance things out, but it felt like the correct dichotomy (e.g. IG achieve parity through brute force and capability, while Eldar resort to shenanigans).
Unit1126PLL wrote: How about both durable and powerful like it used to be, and then add a point cost to match?
And have the durability and power come from the statline, rather than rules.
The old way was that the Russ was stat-line powerful; AV14 with a battlecannon was pretty intimidating. Other tanks got durability from special rules, e.g. Eldar tanks (AV12 with smaller guns). Eldar tanks had Lance and Fast Skimmer/Holofields to balance things out, but it felt like the correct dichotomy (e.g. IG achieve parity through brute force and capability, while Eldar resort to shenanigans).
So what would your Leman Russ stat line look like? How about the weapon profile (for simplicity's sake, let's assume just the Battle Cannon for now)? I think that figuring out what the Russ should look in pure stats will allow you to point it, and then using that profile, you can figure out what additional rules or stats the Tank Commander should have, along with the points increase.
Unit1126PLL wrote: How about both durable and powerful like it used to be, and then add a point cost to match?
But what would that look like? As intimidating as the AV14 front arc could be, there were plenty of ways to knock the tank out with a single shot and the lower AV on the side and rear made them much more susceptible to close assault.
Unit1126PLL wrote: How about both durable and powerful like it used to be, and then add a point cost to match?
And have the durability and power come from the statline, rather than rules.
The old way was that the Russ was stat-line powerful; AV14 with a battlecannon was pretty intimidating. Other tanks got durability from special rules, e.g. Eldar tanks (AV12 with smaller guns). Eldar tanks had Lance and Fast Skimmer/Holofields to balance things out, but it felt like the correct dichotomy (e.g. IG achieve parity through brute force and capability, while Eldar resort to shenanigans).
So what would your Leman Russ stat line look like? How about the weapon profile (for simplicity's sake, let's assume just the Battle Cannon for now)? I think that figuring out what the Russ should look in pure stats will allow you to point it, and then using that profile, you can figure out what additional rules or stats the Tank Commander should have, along with the points increase.
I'm not sure you can adequately get a Leman Russ statline to where it should be in the current framework. Making it T9 could work, but heavily nerfs antitank weapons without at all touching some of the bigger threats (heavy bolter spam with RRs to wound, for example). Making it T10 would, but I am of the opinion that Lascannons shouldn't need 5s to wound a Russ. You could make the Leman Russ T16 and it would still be just as vulnerable to weapons with RR wounds or +1 to-wound access.
Conversely, you can't really thicken the armor. The only room left to expand is from a 3+ to a 2+, which is do-able but not really a very big durability improvement.
Lastly, the final lever is Wounds, which is probably the best place to make the adjustment, but you'd have to recalibrate it for many things in the game. If you give a Russ 16 wounds, how many should a Land Raider have? How many should a Baneblade have?
The current system has no "immune to small weapons, terrifically vulnerable to specific big weapons" The way the old Russ was.
Additionally, the new system doesn't allow for arcs, meaning any improvement in the Russ's durability is a flat increase no matter the situation, while the old Russ was terrifically strong from the front but there were things to which it was specifically weak (maneuver, and especially anything that hits rear armor).
Unit1126PLL wrote: You know, GW used to have an armored company (eventually armored battlegroup) Army List that handled this pretty well at the time.
And to be frank, we could handle it the same way, but it would require changing the game slightly bigly.
I played back then, and I would rather not go back to pre-8th lists and rules. That is, of course, a separate argument from this thread. In any case you can have an all-Leman Russ army in 9th. You can even give those Leman Russ Obsec in a Spearhead Detachment.
I was referring mostly to the way army building worked. You were, at most, allowed 2 tank commanders per Tank Company, given the army building rules - and that's easily sufficient for a Company CO tank and a Company 2iC tank without allowing Tank Commanders to simply take the place of regular Russes. You also had Tank Aces, which were separate and distinct Elites choices, and then tank squadrons as troops choices (1-2 tanks per troops choice, rather than 1-3, go figure).
Then there was the Aces High special rule possessed by the army list, which said that when buying Doctrines, wargear, and upgrades, the Tank Commanders had to have the most (or be tied for the most), followed by the Tank Aces, followed by regular tanks. So you could not have a regular tank more expensive or with more upgrades than a Tank Commander or Tank Ace, etc. This meant Tank Commanders were always more expensive than a basic russ, which put a slight amount of pressure to turn that Company CO/Company XO pair into just a Company CO.
I felt that the FOC was millstone around the neck of 40K from 3rd to 7th Ed. Using 8th/9th Ed Detachment rules you can make your Leman Russ Armoured Company with little fuss. Take a Spearhead with two or three Tank Commanders (Rule of 3 kicks in) and three Leman Russ Squadrons (of two tanks each probably at a 2000 point game). Add in a Tank Ace from For the Greater Good and you are there. I'm not saying it would be a particularly effective force, but you could make it.
TangoTwoBravo wrote: I felt that the FOC was millstone around the neck of 40K from 3rd to 7th Ed. Using 8th/9th Ed Detachment rules you can make your Leman Russ Armoured Company with little fuss. Take a Spearhead with two or three Tank Commanders (Rule of 3 kicks in) and three Leman Russ Squadrons (of two tanks each probably at a 2000 point game). Add in a Tank Ace from For the Greater Good and you are there. I'm not saying it would be a particularly effective force, but you could make it.
Right, but the problem here is the Too Many Tank Commanders problem. People don't take regular russes because they can take Tank Commanders. In the olden days with greater FOC limits, this wasn't a problem - and invoking the rule of 3 is funny, because it entirely exists as a fake-FOC to prevent you from taking too many of the same thing (which is what the old FOC accomplished before it was removed).
I'm not sure you can adequately get a Leman Russ statline to where it should be in the current framework. Making it T9 could work, but heavily nerfs antitank weapons without at all touching some of the bigger threats (heavy bolter spam with RRs to wound, for example). Making it T10 would, but I am of the opinion that Lascannons shouldn't need 5s to wound a Russ. You could make the Leman Russ T16 and it would still be just as vulnerable to weapons with RR wounds or +1 to-wound access.
Conversely, you can't really thicken the armor. The only room left to expand is from a 3+ to a 2+, which is do-able but not really a very big durability improvement.
Lastly, the final lever is Wounds, which is probably the best place to make the adjustment, but you'd have to recalibrate it for many things in the game. If you give a Russ 16 wounds, how many should a Land Raider have? How many should a Baneblade have?
The current system has no "immune to small weapons, terrifically vulnerable to specific big weapons" The way the old Russ was.
Additionally, the new system doesn't allow for arcs, meaning any improvement in the Russ's durability is a flat increase no matter the situation, while the old Russ was terrifically strong from the front but there were things to which it was specifically weak (maneuver, and especially anything that hits rear armor).
In the good ol' days of 5th edition, there were very, very few vehicles with any armor facings at AV14. As I recall, it was really only the Land Raider, the Monolith, and the Leman Russ (forgive me if I'm forgetting one). The Land Raider currently is T8, 16 wounds, and a 2+ save. The Monolith is T8, 24 wounds, and a 2+ save. The Leman Russ is T8, 12 wounds, and a 3+ save. Now the Russ did have weaker side armor values (13) and a weaker rear (10-11), so having lower stats than the others makes sense, but I do think it's currently too far below them. I would probably bump it up to 14 wounds and a 2+ save. I think that would help its durability issues without forcing an adjustment of the other vehicles (except possible the Baneblade, which hey! It can be changed at the same time). Then we just gotta figure out weapons.
TangoTwoBravo wrote: I felt that the FOC was millstone around the neck of 40K from 3rd to 7th Ed. Using 8th/9th Ed Detachment rules you can make your Leman Russ Armoured Company with little fuss. Take a Spearhead with two or three Tank Commanders (Rule of 3 kicks in) and three Leman Russ Squadrons (of two tanks each probably at a 2000 point game). Add in a Tank Ace from For the Greater Good and you are there. I'm not saying it would be a particularly effective force, but you could make it.
Right, but the problem here is the Too Many Tank Commanders problem. People don't take regular russes because they can take Tank Commanders. In the olden days with greater FOC limits, this wasn't a problem - and invoking the rule of 3 is funny, because it entirely exists as a fake-FOC to prevent you from taking too many of the same thing (which is what the old FOC accomplished before it was removed).
Call the Rule of Three what you want, but my point is that 8th and 9th allow you field a Leman Russ Company. Detachments were, in my view, a way to keep some sort of restriction while removing the requirements for special cases.
I think one of the two core issues being discussed in this thread is the situation of having Tank Commanders without having other Leman Russes. To some this might not be a problem - this is clear by the number people of do it!
Im not saying boosting its melee potential would fix it alone by any means, Im just saying as adding to the list of potential buffs would be cool, I think personally the best buff so far among the list of listed would be the -1 damage like deathguard and space marine dreadnoughts received, that alone, once again, I dont think would be sufficient, unfortunately I dont think the new imperial guard codex will release any time soon, I think gamesworkshop is trying to tease us with releases
Unit1126PLL wrote: How about both durable and powerful like it used to be, and then add a point cost to match?
And have the durability and power come from the statline, rather than rules.
The old way was that the Russ was stat-line powerful; AV14 with a battlecannon was pretty intimidating. Other tanks got durability from special rules, e.g. Eldar tanks (AV12 with smaller guns). Eldar tanks had Lance and Fast Skimmer/Holofields to balance things out, but it felt like the correct dichotomy (e.g. IG achieve parity through brute force and capability, while Eldar resort to shenanigans).
So what would your Leman Russ stat line look like? How about the weapon profile (for simplicity's sake, let's assume just the Battle Cannon for now)? I think that figuring out what the Russ should look in pure stats will allow you to point it, and then using that profile, you can figure out what additional rules or stats the Tank Commander should have, along with the points increase.
I'm not sure you can adequately get a Leman Russ statline to where it should be in the current framework. Making it T9 could work, but heavily nerfs antitank weapons without at all touching some of the bigger threats (heavy bolter spam with RRs to wound, for example). Making it T10 would, but I am of the opinion that Lascannons shouldn't need 5s to wound a Russ. You could make the Leman Russ T16 and it would still be just as vulnerable to weapons with RR wounds or +1 to-wound access.
Conversely, you can't really thicken the armor. The only room left to expand is from a 3+ to a 2+, which is do-able but not really a very big durability improvement.
Lastly, the final lever is Wounds, which is probably the best place to make the adjustment, but you'd have to recalibrate it for many things in the game. If you give a Russ 16 wounds, how many should a Land Raider have? How many should a Baneblade have?
The current system has no "immune to small weapons, terrifically vulnerable to specific big weapons" The way the old Russ was.
Additionally, the new system doesn't allow for arcs, meaning any improvement in the Russ's durability is a flat increase no matter the situation, while the old Russ was terrifically strong from the front but there were things to which it was specifically weak (maneuver, and especially anything that hits rear armor).
With regards to lascannnons, a Leman Russ used to require a 5 to mildly annoy and a 6 to give you a 1/6 chance of killing it with a Lascannon, so like honestly making LC's wound on 4's or 5's would be fine. I would move a lot of other vehicles toughness up. Personally, I think they really borked the vehicle design space by choosing 6/7/8 to be their toughness range, as if for some unknown reason susceptibility to small arms was a greater distinguisher of vehicle resilience than resistance to antitank weapons.
Moving to 7 for light open-topped vehicles and half-tanks like dreadnoughts, 8 for medium tanks like the predator, and 9 for heavy tanks like Land Raider or Leman Russ would at least add value to being S10 and S9 while still keeping them relatively fragile, moving to 8/9/10 would probably be most preferred.
Also, choosing to use the same save range for infantry is also bad, because basically all AT weapons are AP 2, 3, or 4; so tanks should intrinsically have a higher armor save than infantry to account.
CommunistNapkin wrote:
Unit1126PLL wrote: How about both durable and powerful like it used to be, and then add a point cost to match?
And have the durability and power come from the statline, rather than rules.
The old way was that the Russ was stat-line powerful; AV14 with a battlecannon was pretty intimidating. Other tanks got durability from special rules, e.g. Eldar tanks (AV12 with smaller guns). Eldar tanks had Lance and Fast Skimmer/Holofields to balance things out, but it felt like the correct dichotomy (e.g. IG achieve parity through brute force and capability, while Eldar resort to shenanigans).
So what would your Leman Russ stat line look like? How about the weapon profile (for simplicity's sake, let's assume just the Battle Cannon for now)? I think that figuring out what the Russ should look in pure stats will allow you to point it, and then using that profile, you can figure out what additional rules or stats the Tank Commander should have, along with the points increase.
I'll try to brainstorm something.
Assuming there isn't a universal vehicle rework and T8 is the upper limit for toughness and Sv2+ the limit for saves; and also assuming we want to keep consist close to as is without letting me mess things up:
Spoiler:
Leman Russ Tank Troop: - Heavy Support Contains - 1 Leman Russ Tank Troop Leader. May add 0-2 Leman Russ Tanks. Each model in the unit is equipped with a Turret-Mounted Battle Cannon, a Heavy Bolter, and Tank Tracks.
Leman Russ Tank Troop Leader: M10" WS6+ BS4+ S8 T8 W12 A3 Ld8 Sv2+ <This is the squad sergeant for the unit, so it has +1LD.>
Leman Russ Tank: M10" WS6+ BS4+ S8 T8 W12 A3 Ld7 Sv2+
Any models in the unit may replace it's Turret-Mounted Battle Cannon with a Turret-Mounted Vanquisher Cannon, Turret-Mounted Demolisher Cannon, Turret-Mounted Punisher Gatling Cannon, Turret-Mounted Eradicator Nova Cannon, Turret-Mounted Exterminator Twin Autocannons, or Turret-Mounted Executioner Plasma Cannon.
Any models in the unit may replace it's Heavy Bolter with a Heavy Flamer or a Lascannon
Any models in the unit may add two Heavy Bolters, two Plasma Cannons, two Heavy Flamers, or two Multi-Meltas.
Any models in the unit may add a Hunter Killer Missile
Any models in the unit may add a Pintle-Mounted Storm Bolter or Pintle-Mounted Heavy Stubber
All models in this unit may take upgrades from the Vehicle Upgrade List
Lumbering Behemoth: Each time an attack is allocated to a model in this unit, subtract 1 from the damage characteristic of that attack. <protects the vehicle from heavy bolters, autocannons, and it's own high-rate-of-fire medium-damage weapons without as strongly impacting heavy AT guns, thus calling for big hits from big guns to knock this tank out>
Steady Advance: This unit cannot advance. During the shooting phase, if all models in this unit moved 5" or less or remained stationary, add 1 to to-hit rolls with Turret-Mounted weapons. <Changed grinding advance to be like the Aquilon Optics change. This also has the added bonus of improving the Leman Russ gun firepower to be more like the TC's>
Squadron Vox: This unit is considered to be in unit coherency as long as all models are within line-of-sight of the Leman Russ Troop Leader Tank <instead of breaking up, do this, so that they can be buffed as a group>
Turret-Mounted Battle Cannon :: Heavy 3d6d1, R72", S8, AP2, D3 "Blast"
Turret-Mounted Vanquisher Cannon :: Heavy 1, R72", S8, AP4, D2d6+6, "APFSDS: This weapon always wounds VEHICLE targets on a 2+"
Turret-Mounted Demolisher Cannon :: Heavy 3d3, R24", S10, AP3, D4 "Blast"
Turret-Mounted Punisher Gatling Cannon :: Heavy 20, R24", S5, AP-, D1
Turret-Mounted Eradicator Nova Cannon :: Heavy 3d6d1, R36", S6, Ap1, D3, "Blast" "Airburst: Attacks with this weapon always hit on a 4+ regardless of modifiers, and ignore the benefits of light cover."
Turret-Mounted Exterminator Twin Autocannons :: Heavy 8, R48", S7, AP1, D3
Turret-Mounted Executioner Plasma Cannon :: Heavy 4d3, R36", S7, AP3, D2 "Supercharge: Increase the S and D of this weapons by 1; each unmodified to-hit roll of 1 results in 1 mortal wound to the firing model" "Multiple Blast: Against INFANTRY, BIKER, or CAVALRY units, this weapon has a type of Heavy 12"
Tank Tracks :: Melee, S User, AP-2, D2
<One basic objective here is to limit the number of random variable on each gun profile. Either fix damage or fix shots. Also, bake in Grinding Advance into the profiles and improve their reliability [because right now, even with Grinding Advance, they're bad], and hope the +1BS for moving slow makes up the performance deficit>
<The Battle Cannon being increased to flat 3 makes it slightly more dangerous to marines, and eliminates some rolling. 3d6b1 helps to stabilize the shot output, and is slightly better than Catachan. Most of the performance increase comes from a BS increase. I would argue that this still isn't very good, but I don't want to push it too far and wind up with a tank too expensive to field a lot of. It averages 3 dead marines or 8 damage to vehicles reliably>
<The Vanquisher Cannon is a multi-melta with a wound bonus and more range, and +2 damage, which feels like an appropriate increase over a multimelta for a tank gun. This averages 8 damage to vehicles, so it could be better to make it stand out more than the battle cannon for it's single shot, but I'm hesitant to push it too far since it's not really 8 damage per turn, but more of a 50% chance of "die" to medium vehicles>
<Punisher seems fine as is>
<Eradicator has been in an awkward place, and kind of always will be. Making it always hit on a 4+ give it a role for shooting things like Eldar Bikes, at least, but it will always be a worse battle cannon>
<Exterminator gets D3, but is in an awkward situation of waiting for some kind of general change to be affected to autocannons anyway. I don't know what to do with it>
<Exterminator Plasma Cannon is now more anti-MEQ infantry than the Battle Cannon. I did the multiple blast thing the way it is to explicitly hit marine squads>
<Tank Tracks mean that getting run over by the tank is actually deadly, assuming it hits.>
Tank Company Commander: - HQ Contains - 1 Tank Company Commander. They are equipped with a Turret-Mounted Battle Cannon, a Heavy Bolter, and Tank Tracks.
Tank Company Commander: M10" WS6+ BS4+ S8 T8 W12 A3 Ld9 Sv2+
Any models in the unit may replace it's Turret-Mounted Battle Cannon with a Turret-Mounted Vanquisher Cannon, Turret-Mounted Demolisher Cannon, Turret-Mounted Punisher Gatling Cannon, Turret-Mounted Eradicator Nova Cannon, Turret-Mounted Exterminator Twin Autocannons, or Turret-Mounted Executioner Plasma Cannon.
Any models in the unit may replace it's Heavy Bolter with a Heavy Flamer or a Lascannon
Any models in the unit may add two Heavy Bolters, two Plasma Cannons, two Heavy Flamers, or two Multi-Meltas.
Any models in the unit may add a Hunter Killer Missile
Any models in the unit may add a Pintle-Mounted Storm Bolter or Pintle-Mounted Heavy Stubber
All models in this unit may take upgrades from the Vehicle Upgrade List
LEMAN RUSS, ASTRA MILITARUM, VEHICLE, <REGIMENT>, TANK COMMANDER, CHARACTER
Lumbering Behemoth: Each time an attack is allocated to a model in this unit, subtract 1 from the damage characteristic of that attack.
Steady Advance: This unit cannot advance. During the shooting phase, if all models in this unit moved 5" or less or remained stationary, add 1 to to-hit rolls with Turret-Mounted weapons.
Tank Character: This unit is protected by Look Out Sir! as if it had less than 10 wounds if it is within 6" of a non-character <REGIMENT> LEMAN RUSS model.
Chain of Command: You may only include one Tank Commander per detachment.
Voice of Command [Armored Squadron]: During the Command Phase, this model may issue up to 2 Tank Orders to friendly <REGIMENT> ARMORED SQUADRON units anywhere on the battlefield.
Careful Aim!: If all models in this unit remain stationary, they may re-roll to-hit rolls of 1 with Turret Weapons <I'm hesitant in general to assign a re-roll ability, but I want there to be a desirable offensive order>
Defensive Fire!: Models in this unit may fire overwatch, and hit on a 4+ when firing overwatch with weapons that are not Turret-Mounted.
Full Advance!: Models in this unit may advance this turn. If they could already advance, they advance 6" and do not roll.
Overrun!: Models in this unit are considered to have a weapons skill of 2+ until the end of the turn if the unit completes a charge this turn. They may not shoot this turn.
<Hellhound troops should also gain the ARMORED SQUADRON keyword, and be valid tank company orders targets. Artillery elements and sentinels would get their own Artillery Orders from the Master of the Ordnance>
Tank Ace: - Elite Contains - 1 Tank Ace. They are equipped with a Turret-Mounted Battle Cannon, a Heavy Bolter, and Tank Tracks.
Tank Ace: M10" WS6+ BS3+ S8 T8 W12 A3 Ld8 Sv2+
Any models in the unit may replace it's Turret-Mounted Battle Cannon with a Turret-Mounted Vanquisher Cannon, Turret-Mounted Demolisher Cannon, Turret-Mounted Punisher Gatling Cannon, Turret-Mounted Eradicator Nova Cannon, Turret-Mounted Exterminator Twin Autocannons, or Turret-Mounted Executioner Plasma Cannon.
Any models in the unit may replace it's Heavy Bolter with a Heavy Flamer or a Lascannon
Any models in the unit may add two Heavy Bolters, two Plasma Cannons, two Heavy Flamers, or two Multi-Meltas.
Any models in the unit may add a Hunter Killer Missile
Any models in the unit may add a Pintle-Mounted Storm Bolter or Pintle-Mounted Heavy Stubber
All models in this unit may take upgrades from the Vehicle Upgrade List
LEMAN RUSS, ASTRA MILITARUM, VEHICLE, <REGIMENT>, TANK ACE, CHARACTER
Lumbering Behemoth: Each time an attack is allocated to a model in this unit, subtract 1 from the damage characteristic of that attack.
Steady Advance: This unit cannot advance. During the shooting phase, if all models in this unit moved 5" or less or remained stationary, add 1 to to-hit rolls with Turret-Mounted weapons.
Tank Character: This unit is protected by Look Out Sir! as if it had less than 10 wounds if it is within 6" of a non-character <REGIMENT> LEMAN RUSS model.
Ace Tanker: You may only include one Tank Ace per detachment, and only if you include at least 1 ARMORED SQUADRON unit.
<Tank Commander loses the bonus BS to have it moved to a Tank Ace, that can't be buffed with orders>
<The basic idea here would be that Tank Commanders and Tank Aces are desirable to include in a army that has a lot of tanks, but either aren't or can't be if you haven't done so. By splitting the TC's orders and BS across different units, it also avoids the issue of self-buffing being the most efficient course of action.>
Chris521 wrote: Points should be the last thing to be adjusted.
You have to be kidding, points are always the first thing to change when something is underperforming. Rules should be changed as a last resort because it will force everybody that plays with and against them to change their expectations for how the unit performs on the battlefield and cause people to look more in their rulebooks and less at the game table. Rules changes should only ever be implemented to make a unit more fun or fluffy, never to balance a unit against some artificial points level they were accidentally put on.
bat702 wrote: I'd prefer them to get buffs vs point drops, I want the tank to be imposing on the battlefield, not turn into a meme about how the emperor is the king of mass production
Except that is part of what has made Leman Russ Battle Tanks popular with the Imperial Guard, they are not knights or titans. "The tank’s rugged simplicity and ease of manufacture ensures that the Imperium can field whole companies of Leman Russ with ease, burying the outnumbered foe..."
"With a trio of lancing blasts the Aeldari incinerated an entire squadron of Leman Russ Battle Tanks while weaving deftly between the returning Imperial fire..." that is a single Fire Prism taking on several squadrons of Leman Russes. Both of these quotes are from Codex Astra Militarum.
Chris521 wrote: Points should be the last thing to be adjusted.
You have to be kidding, points are always the first thing to change when something is underperforming.
I think Chris521 was saying that they shouldn't be changed first, at least in this case. GW certainly seems to prefer changing cost to changing rules, but that doesn't always work and the LR needs more than a points drop to be worth taking.
Chris521 wrote: Points should be the last thing to be adjusted.
You have to be kidding, points are always the first thing to change when something is underperforming.
I think Chris521 was saying that they shouldn't be changed first, at least in this case. GW certainly seems to prefer changing cost to changing rules, but that doesn't always work and the LR needs more than a points drop to be worth taking.
Eh, I'd happily take nine 10-point Leman Russes.
I do agree with the general thrust of "I'd rather see the Leman Russ be cool and good, than just cheap enough to be good."
Because, sure, it's a simple tank. It's a common tank. But it's still a main battle tank.
Lastly, the final lever is Wounds, which is probably the best place to make the adjustment, but you'd have to recalibrate it for many things in the game. If you give a Russ 16 wounds, how many should a Land Raider have? How many should a Baneblade have?
In all fairness, I'd argue these also need much the same treatment as the Russ in general for many of the same reasons, particularly the Baneblade has become significantly less durable relative to other tanks compared with previous iterations and editions since the 8E switchover.
On the one hand: Y E S
On the other hand: I really hope that GW never goes so far off the rails to do something like that (not unless this is some kind of "'Power Level'? What's that? We only have 'Imperatorium Logistipoints' now." move)
Unit1126PLL wrote: How about both durable and powerful like it used to be, and then add a point cost to match?
And have the durability and power come from the statline, rather than rules.
The old way was that the Russ was stat-line powerful; AV14 with a battlecannon was pretty intimidating. Other tanks got durability from special rules, e.g. Eldar tanks (AV12 with smaller guns). Eldar tanks had Lance and Fast Skimmer/Holofields to balance things out, but it felt like the correct dichotomy (e.g. IG achieve parity through brute force and capability, while Eldar resort to shenanigans).
So what would your Leman Russ stat line look like? How about the weapon profile (for simplicity's sake, let's assume just the Battle Cannon for now)? I think that figuring out what the Russ should look in pure stats will allow you to point it, and then using that profile, you can figure out what additional rules or stats the Tank Commander should have, along with the points increase.
I'm not sure you can adequately get a Leman Russ statline to where it should be in the current framework. Making it T9 could work, but heavily nerfs antitank weapons without at all touching some of the bigger threats (heavy bolter spam with RRs to wound, for example). Making it T10 would, but I am of the opinion that Lascannons shouldn't need 5s to wound a Russ. You could make the Leman Russ T16 and it would still be just as vulnerable to weapons with RR wounds or +1 to-wound access.
Conversely, you can't really thicken the armor. The only room left to expand is from a 3+ to a 2+, which is do-able but not really a very big durability improvement.
Lastly, the final lever is Wounds, which is probably the best place to make the adjustment, but you'd have to recalibrate it for many things in the game. If you give a Russ 16 wounds, how many should a Land Raider have? How many should a Baneblade have?
The current system has no "immune to small weapons, terrifically vulnerable to specific big weapons" The way the old Russ was.
Additionally, the new system doesn't allow for arcs, meaning any improvement in the Russ's durability is a flat increase no matter the situation, while the old Russ was terrifically strong from the front but there were things to which it was specifically weak (maneuver, and especially anything that hits rear armor).
With regards to lascannnons, a Leman Russ used to require a 5 to mildly annoy and a 6 to give you a 1/6 chance of killing it with a Lascannon, so like honestly making LC's wound on 4's or 5's would be fine. I would move a lot of other vehicles toughness up. Personally, I think they really borked the vehicle design space by choosing 6/7/8 to be their toughness range, as if for some unknown reason susceptibility to small arms was a greater distinguisher of vehicle resilience than resistance to antitank weapons.
Moving to 7 for light open-topped vehicles and half-tanks like dreadnoughts, 8 for medium tanks like the predator, and 9 for heavy tanks like Land Raider or Leman Russ would at least add value to being S10 and S9 while still keeping them relatively fragile, moving to 8/9/10 would probably be most preferred.
Also, choosing to use the same save range for infantry is also bad, because basically all AT weapons are AP 2, 3, or 4; so tanks should intrinsically have a higher armor save than infantry to account.
CommunistNapkin wrote:
Unit1126PLL wrote: How about both durable and powerful like it used to be, and then add a point cost to match?
And have the durability and power come from the statline, rather than rules.
The old way was that the Russ was stat-line powerful; AV14 with a battlecannon was pretty intimidating. Other tanks got durability from special rules, e.g. Eldar tanks (AV12 with smaller guns). Eldar tanks had Lance and Fast Skimmer/Holofields to balance things out, but it felt like the correct dichotomy (e.g. IG achieve parity through brute force and capability, while Eldar resort to shenanigans).
So what would your Leman Russ stat line look like? How about the weapon profile (for simplicity's sake, let's assume just the Battle Cannon for now)? I think that figuring out what the Russ should look in pure stats will allow you to point it, and then using that profile, you can figure out what additional rules or stats the Tank Commander should have, along with the points increase.
I'll try to brainstorm something.
Assuming there isn't a universal vehicle rework and T8 is the upper limit for toughness and Sv2+ the limit for saves; and also assuming we want to keep consist close to as is without letting me mess things up:
Spoiler:
Leman Russ Tank Troop: - Heavy Support Contains - 1 Leman Russ Tank Troop Leader. May add 0-2 Leman Russ Tanks. Each model in the unit is equipped with a Turret-Mounted Battle Cannon, a Heavy Bolter, and Tank Tracks.
Leman Russ Tank Troop Leader: M10" WS6+ BS4+ S8 T8 W12 A3 Ld8 Sv2+ <This is the squad sergeant for the unit, so it has +1LD.>
Leman Russ Tank: M10" WS6+ BS4+ S8 T8 W12 A3 Ld7 Sv2+
Any models in the unit may replace it's Turret-Mounted Battle Cannon with a Turret-Mounted Vanquisher Cannon, Turret-Mounted Demolisher Cannon, Turret-Mounted Punisher Gatling Cannon, Turret-Mounted Eradicator Nova Cannon, Turret-Mounted Exterminator Twin Autocannons, or Turret-Mounted Executioner Plasma Cannon.
Any models in the unit may replace it's Heavy Bolter with a Heavy Flamer or a Lascannon
Any models in the unit may add two Heavy Bolters, two Plasma Cannons, two Heavy Flamers, or two Multi-Meltas.
Any models in the unit may add a Hunter Killer Missile
Any models in the unit may add a Pintle-Mounted Storm Bolter or Pintle-Mounted Heavy Stubber
All models in this unit may take upgrades from the Vehicle Upgrade List
Lumbering Behemoth: Each time an attack is allocated to a model in this unit, subtract 1 from the damage characteristic of that attack. <protects the vehicle from heavy bolters, autocannons, and it's own high-rate-of-fire medium-damage weapons without as strongly impacting heavy AT guns, thus calling for big hits from big guns to knock this tank out>
Steady Advance: This unit cannot advance. During the shooting phase, if all models in this unit moved 5" or less or remained stationary, add 1 to to-hit rolls with Turret-Mounted weapons. <Changed grinding advance to be like the Aquilon Optics change. This also has the added bonus of improving the Leman Russ gun firepower to be more like the TC's>
Squadron Vox: This unit is considered to be in unit coherency as long as all models are within line-of-sight of the Leman Russ Troop Leader Tank <instead of breaking up, do this, so that they can be buffed as a group>
Turret-Mounted Battle Cannon :: Heavy 3d6b1, R72", S8, AP2, D3 "Blast"
Turret-Mounted Vanquisher Cannon :: Heavy 1, R72", S8, AP4, D2d6+6, "APFSDS: This weapon always wounds VEHICLE targets on a 2+"
Turret-Mounted Demolisher Cannon :: Heavy 3d3, R24", S10, AP3, D4 "Blast"
Turret-Mounted Punisher Gatling Cannon :: Heavy 20, R24", S5, AP-, D1
Turret-Mounted Eradicator Nova Cannon :: Heavy 3d6b1, R36", S6, Ap1, D3, "Blast" "Airburst: Attacks with this weapon always hit on a 4+ regardless of modifiers, and ignore the benefits of light cover."
Turret-Mounted Exterminator Twin Autocannons :: Heavy 8, R48", S7, AP1, D3
Turret-Mounted Executioner Plasma Cannon :: Heavy 4d3, R36", S7, AP3, D2 "Supercharge: Increase the S and D of this weapons by 1; each unmodified to-hit roll of 1 results in 1 mortal wound to the firing model" "Multiple Blast: Against INFANTRY, BIKER, or CAVALRY units, this weapon has a type of Heavy 12"
Tank Tracks :: Melee, S User, AP-2, D2
<One basic objective here is to limit the number of random variable on each gun profile. Either fix damage or fix shots. Also, bake in Grinding Advance into the profiles and improve their reliability [because right now, even with Grinding Advance, they're bad], and hope the +1BS for moving slow makes up the performance deficit>
<The Battle Cannon being increased to flat 3 makes it slightly more dangerous to marines, and eliminates some rolling. 3d6b1 helps to stabilize the shot output, and is slightly better than Catachan. Most of the performance increase comes from a BS increase. I would argue that this still isn't very good, but I don't want to push it too far and wind up with a tank too expensive to field a lot of. It averages 3 dead marines or 8 damage to vehicles reliably>
<The Vanquisher Cannon is a multi-melta with a wound bonus and more range, and +2 damage, which feels like an appropriate increase over a multimelta for a tank gun. This averages 8 damage to vehicles, so it could be better to make it stand out more than the battle cannon for it's single shot, but I'm hesitant to push it too far since it's not really 8 damage per turn, but more of a 50% chance of "die" to medium vehicles>
<Punisher seems fine as is>
<Eradicator has been in an awkward place, and kind of always will be. Making it always hit on a 4+ give it a role for shooting things like Eldar Bikes, at least, but it will always be a worse battle cannon>
<Exterminator gets D3, but is in an awkward situation of waiting for some kind of general change to be affected to autocannons anyway. I don't know what to do with it>
<Exterminator Plasma Cannon is now more anti-MEQ infantry than the Battle Cannon. I did the multiple blast thing the way it is to explicitly hit marine squads>
<Tank Tracks mean that getting run over by the tank is actually deadly, assuming it hits.>
Tank Company Commander: - HQ Contains - 1 Tank Company Commander. They are equipped with a Turret-Mounted Battle Cannon, a Heavy Bolter, and Tank Tracks.
Tank Company Commander: M10" WS6+ BS4+ S8 T8 W12 A3 Ld9 Sv2+
Any models in the unit may replace it's Turret-Mounted Battle Cannon with a Turret-Mounted Vanquisher Cannon, Turret-Mounted Demolisher Cannon, Turret-Mounted Punisher Gatling Cannon, Turret-Mounted Eradicator Nova Cannon, Turret-Mounted Exterminator Twin Autocannons, or Turret-Mounted Executioner Plasma Cannon.
Any models in the unit may replace it's Heavy Bolter with a Heavy Flamer or a Lascannon
Any models in the unit may add two Heavy Bolters, two Plasma Cannons, two Heavy Flamers, or two Multi-Meltas.
Any models in the unit may add a Hunter Killer Missile
Any models in the unit may add a Pintle-Mounted Storm Bolter or Pintle-Mounted Heavy Stubber
All models in this unit may take upgrades from the Vehicle Upgrade List
LEMAN RUSS, ASTRA MILITARUM, VEHICLE, <REGIMENT>, TANK COMMANDER, CHARACTER
Lumbering Behemoth: Each time an attack is allocated to a model in this unit, subtract 1 from the damage characteristic of that attack.
Steady Advance: This unit cannot advance. During the shooting phase, if all models in this unit moved 5" or less or remained stationary, add 1 to to-hit rolls with Turret-Mounted weapons.
Tank Character: This unit is protected by Look Out Sir! as if it had less than 10 wounds if it is within 6" of a non-character <REGIMENT> LEMAN RUSS model.
Chain of Command: You may only include one Tank Commander per detachment.
Voice of Command [Armored Squadron]: During the Command Phase, this model may issue up to 2 Tank Orders to friendly <REGIMENT> ARMORED SQUADRON units anywhere on the battlefield.
Careful Aim!: If all models in this unit remain stationary, they may re-roll to-hit rolls of 1 with Turret Weapons <I'm hesitant in general to assign a re-roll ability, but I want there to be a desirable offensive order>
Defensive Fire!: Models in this unit may fire overwatch, and hit on a 4+ when firing overwatch with weapons that are not Turret-Mounted.
Full Advance!: Models in this unit may advance this turn. If they could already advance, they advance 6" and do not roll.
Overrun!: Models in this unit are considered to have a weapons skill of 2+ until the end of the turn if the unit completes a charge this turn. They may not shoot this turn.
<Hellhound troops should also gain the ARMORED SQUADRON keyword, and be valid tank company orders targets. Artillery elements and sentinels would get their own Artillery Orders from the Master of the Ordnance>
Tank Ace: - Elite Contains - 1 Tank Ace. They are equipped with a Turret-Mounted Battle Cannon, a Heavy Bolter, and Tank Tracks.
Tank Ace: M10" WS6+ BS3+ S8 T8 W12 A3 Ld8 Sv2+
Any models in the unit may replace it's Turret-Mounted Battle Cannon with a Turret-Mounted Vanquisher Cannon, Turret-Mounted Demolisher Cannon, Turret-Mounted Punisher Gatling Cannon, Turret-Mounted Eradicator Nova Cannon, Turret-Mounted Exterminator Twin Autocannons, or Turret-Mounted Executioner Plasma Cannon.
Any models in the unit may replace it's Heavy Bolter with a Heavy Flamer or a Lascannon
Any models in the unit may add two Heavy Bolters, two Plasma Cannons, two Heavy Flamers, or two Multi-Meltas.
Any models in the unit may add a Hunter Killer Missile
Any models in the unit may add a Pintle-Mounted Storm Bolter or Pintle-Mounted Heavy Stubber
All models in this unit may take upgrades from the Vehicle Upgrade List
LEMAN RUSS, ASTRA MILITARUM, VEHICLE, <REGIMENT>, TANK ACE, CHARACTER
Lumbering Behemoth: Each time an attack is allocated to a model in this unit, subtract 1 from the damage characteristic of that attack.
Steady Advance: This unit cannot advance. During the shooting phase, if all models in this unit moved 5" or less or remained stationary, add 1 to to-hit rolls with Turret-Mounted weapons.
Tank Character: This unit is protected by Look Out Sir! as if it had less than 10 wounds if it is within 6" of a non-character <REGIMENT> LEMAN RUSS model.
Ace Tanker: You may only include one Tank Ace per detachment, and only if you include at least 1 ARMORED SQUADRON unit.
<Tank Commander loses the bonus BS to have it moved to a Tank Ace, that can't be buffed with orders>
<The basic idea here would be that Tank Commanders and Tank Aces are desirable to include in a army that has a lot of tanks, but either aren't or can't be if you haven't done so. By splitting the TC's orders and BS across different units, it also avoids the issue of self-buffing being the most efficient course of action.>
All I can say is WOW are you in for a point's increase and then some.
you've just described a 150 point weapon profile right there thats 1.5 RFBC FFS.
Heck bolting that onto a chimera results in a 220 point model before you even consider paying for the T8 vrs T7 and the +2W and that you're adding a 2+ save.
Adding that level of firepower to a 160 point model with 2+ save -1 damage and you'll break the game.
what is 3d6b1 supposed to be then? Heavy 3? I can't seen many guard players being pro that they've got used to an avarage of 4 shots twice.
Heavy d6?
Or Heavy 3d6?
what is 3d6b1 supposed to be then? Heavy 3? I can't seen many guard players being pro that they've got used to an avarage of 4 shots twice.
Heavy d6?
Or Heavy 3d6?
Pretty sure it means roll 3d6 toss the lowest. Like the old melta half range damage rule. I'm sure Inquisitor Lord Katherine or JNAPRODUCTIONS will correct me if I'm wrong.
what is 3d6b1 supposed to be then? Heavy 3? I can't seen many guard players being pro that they've got used to an avarage of 4 shots twice.
Heavy d6?
Or Heavy 3d6?
Pretty sure it means roll 3d6 toss the lowest. Like the old melta half range damage rule. I'm sure Inquisitor Lord Katherine or JNAPRODUCTIONS will correct me if I'm wrong.
Edit: And JNA did.
Yeah. I've also seen XdYkZ, for roll X dice of Y sides and keep Z of them. XdYklZ if you get rid of higher numbers.
Unit1126PLL wrote: How about both durable and powerful like it used to be, and then add a point cost to match?
And have the durability and power come from the statline, rather than rules.
The old way was that the Russ was stat-line powerful; AV14 with a battlecannon was pretty intimidating. Other tanks got durability from special rules, e.g. Eldar tanks (AV12 with smaller guns). Eldar tanks had Lance and Fast Skimmer/Holofields to balance things out, but it felt like the correct dichotomy (e.g. IG achieve parity through brute force and capability, while Eldar resort to shenanigans).
So what would your Leman Russ stat line look like? How about the weapon profile (for simplicity's sake, let's assume just the Battle Cannon for now)? I think that figuring out what the Russ should look in pure stats will allow you to point it, and then using that profile, you can figure out what additional rules or stats the Tank Commander should have, along with the points increase.
I'm not sure you can adequately get a Leman Russ statline to where it should be in the current framework. Making it T9 could work, but heavily nerfs antitank weapons without at all touching some of the bigger threats (heavy bolter spam with RRs to wound, for example). Making it T10 would, but I am of the opinion that Lascannons shouldn't need 5s to wound a Russ. You could make the Leman Russ T16 and it would still be just as vulnerable to weapons with RR wounds or +1 to-wound access.
Conversely, you can't really thicken the armor. The only room left to expand is from a 3+ to a 2+, which is do-able but not really a very big durability improvement.
Lastly, the final lever is Wounds, which is probably the best place to make the adjustment, but you'd have to recalibrate it for many things in the game. If you give a Russ 16 wounds, how many should a Land Raider have? How many should a Baneblade have?
The current system has no "immune to small weapons, terrifically vulnerable to specific big weapons" The way the old Russ was.
Additionally, the new system doesn't allow for arcs, meaning any improvement in the Russ's durability is a flat increase no matter the situation, while the old Russ was terrifically strong from the front but there were things to which it was specifically weak (maneuver, and especially anything that hits rear armor).
Yeah, without a full redo of how vehicles and anti tank weapons work with a higher baseline than T 6/7/8 for vehicles and higher strength for anti tank, there is somewhat little design space to maneuver.
In terms of durability, and assuming GW keeps the T8 maximum still.
2+ save, bump wounds to 15.
After that, I can only really think of special rules in order to show its toughness. The -1 damage one is boring and is a nerf to the weapons that should do best verses it. Plus it has been given to a bunch of units already and if it just keeps getting handed out like candy, it no longer feels special. An invulnerable save is a bandaid fix and just makes anti tank even worse in general, we should be seeing less of them, not more.
For the Russ, I'd say maybe a special rule that reads something like "Reduce the AP of weapons with AP -1 or AP -2 by 1, if it already has a trait that reduces AP, reduce it by 2 (to a max of AP 0)"
That way, anti tank weapons can still put the hurt on with their AP -3 and -4, while incidental fire from weaker arms are more likely to bounce off of it. The handful of extra wounds and 2+ save means the Russ means it will survive an extra shot or two from the big guns, while reducing the effectiveness of Heavy Bolters, and Autocannons and the like means chip damage is harder.
A perfect fix? Not at all, but it at least makes it more durable in general while still weak vs the type of weapons that should counter it.
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: Assuming there isn't a universal vehicle rework and T8 is the upper limit for toughness and Sv2+ the limit for saves; and also assuming we want to keep consist close to as is without letting me mess things up:
Spoiler:
Leman Russ Tank Troop: - Heavy Support Contains - 1 Leman Russ Tank Troop Leader. May add 0-2 Leman Russ Tanks. Each model in the unit is equipped with a Turret-Mounted Battle Cannon, a Heavy Bolter, and Tank Tracks.
Leman Russ Tank Troop Leader: M10" WS6+ BS4+ S8 T8 W12 A3 Ld8 Sv2+ <This is the squad sergeant for the unit, so it has +1LD.>
Leman Russ Tank: M10" WS6+ BS4+ S8 T8 W12 A3 Ld7 Sv2+
Any models in the unit may replace it's Turret-Mounted Battle Cannon with a Turret-Mounted Vanquisher Cannon, Turret-Mounted Demolisher Cannon, Turret-Mounted Punisher Gatling Cannon, Turret-Mounted Eradicator Nova Cannon, Turret-Mounted Exterminator Twin Autocannons, or Turret-Mounted Executioner Plasma Cannon.
Any models in the unit may replace it's Heavy Bolter with a Heavy Flamer or a Lascannon
Any models in the unit may add two Heavy Bolters, two Plasma Cannons, two Heavy Flamers, or two Multi-Meltas.
Any models in the unit may add a Hunter Killer Missile
Any models in the unit may add a Pintle-Mounted Storm Bolter or Pintle-Mounted Heavy Stubber
All models in this unit may take upgrades from the Vehicle Upgrade List
Lumbering Behemoth: Each time an attack is allocated to a model in this unit, subtract 1 from the damage characteristic of that attack. <protects the vehicle from heavy bolters, autocannons, and it's own high-rate-of-fire medium-damage weapons without as strongly impacting heavy AT guns, thus calling for big hits from big guns to knock this tank out>
Steady Advance: This unit cannot advance. During the shooting phase, if all models in this unit moved 5" or less or remained stationary, add 1 to to-hit rolls with Turret-Mounted weapons. <Changed grinding advance to be like the Aquilon Optics change. This also has the added bonus of improving the Leman Russ gun firepower to be more like the TC's>
Squadron Vox: This unit is considered to be in unit coherency as long as all models are within line-of-sight of the Leman Russ Troop Leader Tank <instead of breaking up, do this, so that they can be buffed as a group>
Turret-Mounted Battle Cannon :: Heavy 3d6b1, R72", S8, AP2, D3 "Blast"
Turret-Mounted Vanquisher Cannon :: Heavy 1, R72", S8, AP4, D2d6+6, "APFSDS: This weapon always wounds VEHICLE targets on a 2+"
Turret-Mounted Demolisher Cannon :: Heavy 3d3, R24", S10, AP3, D4 "Blast"
Turret-Mounted Punisher Gatling Cannon :: Heavy 20, R24", S5, AP-, D1
Turret-Mounted Eradicator Nova Cannon :: Heavy 3d6b1, R36", S6, Ap1, D3, "Blast" "Airburst: Attacks with this weapon always hit on a 4+ regardless of modifiers, and ignore the benefits of light cover."
Turret-Mounted Exterminator Twin Autocannons :: Heavy 8, R48", S7, AP1, D3
Turret-Mounted Executioner Plasma Cannon :: Heavy 4d3, R36", S7, AP3, D2 "Supercharge: Increase the S and D of this weapons by 1; each unmodified to-hit roll of 1 results in 1 mortal wound to the firing model" "Multiple Blast: Against INFANTRY, BIKER, or CAVALRY units, this weapon has a type of Heavy 12"
Tank Tracks :: Melee, S User, AP-2, D2
<One basic objective here is to limit the number of random variable on each gun profile. Either fix damage or fix shots. Also, bake in Grinding Advance into the profiles and improve their reliability [because right now, even with Grinding Advance, they're bad], and hope the +1BS for moving slow makes up the performance deficit>
<The Battle Cannon being increased to flat 3 makes it slightly more dangerous to marines, and eliminates some rolling. 3d6b1 helps to stabilize the shot output, and is slightly better than Catachan. Most of the performance increase comes from a BS increase. I would argue that this still isn't very good, but I don't want to push it too far and wind up with a tank too expensive to field a lot of. It averages 3 dead marines or 8 damage to vehicles reliably>
<The Vanquisher Cannon is a multi-melta with a wound bonus and more range, and +2 damage, which feels like an appropriate increase over a multimelta for a tank gun. This averages 8 damage to vehicles, so it could be better to make it stand out more than the battle cannon for it's single shot, but I'm hesitant to push it too far since it's not really 8 damage per turn, but more of a 50% chance of "die" to medium vehicles>
<Punisher seems fine as is>
<Eradicator has been in an awkward place, and kind of always will be. Making it always hit on a 4+ give it a role for shooting things like Eldar Bikes, at least, but it will always be a worse battle cannon>
<Exterminator gets D3, but is in an awkward situation of waiting for some kind of general change to be affected to autocannons anyway. I don't know what to do with it>
<Exterminator Plasma Cannon is now more anti-MEQ infantry than the Battle Cannon. I did the multiple blast thing the way it is to explicitly hit marine squads>
<Tank Tracks mean that getting run over by the tank is actually deadly, assuming it hits.>
Tank Company Commander: - HQ Contains - 1 Tank Company Commander. They are equipped with a Turret-Mounted Battle Cannon, a Heavy Bolter, and Tank Tracks.
Tank Company Commander: M10" WS6+ BS4+ S8 T8 W12 A3 Ld9 Sv2+
Any models in the unit may replace it's Turret-Mounted Battle Cannon with a Turret-Mounted Vanquisher Cannon, Turret-Mounted Demolisher Cannon, Turret-Mounted Punisher Gatling Cannon, Turret-Mounted Eradicator Nova Cannon, Turret-Mounted Exterminator Twin Autocannons, or Turret-Mounted Executioner Plasma Cannon.
Any models in the unit may replace it's Heavy Bolter with a Heavy Flamer or a Lascannon
Any models in the unit may add two Heavy Bolters, two Plasma Cannons, two Heavy Flamers, or two Multi-Meltas.
Any models in the unit may add a Hunter Killer Missile
Any models in the unit may add a Pintle-Mounted Storm Bolter or Pintle-Mounted Heavy Stubber
All models in this unit may take upgrades from the Vehicle Upgrade List
LEMAN RUSS, ASTRA MILITARUM, VEHICLE, <REGIMENT>, TANK COMMANDER, CHARACTER
Lumbering Behemoth: Each time an attack is allocated to a model in this unit, subtract 1 from the damage characteristic of that attack.
Steady Advance: This unit cannot advance. During the shooting phase, if all models in this unit moved 5" or less or remained stationary, add 1 to to-hit rolls with Turret-Mounted weapons.
Tank Character: This unit is protected by Look Out Sir! as if it had less than 10 wounds if it is within 6" of a non-character <REGIMENT> LEMAN RUSS model.
Chain of Command: You may only include one Tank Commander per detachment.
Voice of Command [Armored Squadron]: During the Command Phase, this model may issue up to 2 Tank Orders to friendly <REGIMENT> ARMORED SQUADRON units anywhere on the battlefield.
Careful Aim!: If all models in this unit remain stationary, they may re-roll to-hit rolls of 1 with Turret Weapons <I'm hesitant in general to assign a re-roll ability, but I want there to be a desirable offensive order>
Defensive Fire!: Models in this unit may fire overwatch, and hit on a 4+ when firing overwatch with weapons that are not Turret-Mounted.
Full Advance!: Models in this unit may advance this turn. If they could already advance, they advance 6" and do not roll.
Overrun!: Models in this unit are considered to have a weapons skill of 2+ until the end of the turn if the unit completes a charge this turn. They may not shoot this turn.
<Hellhound troops should also gain the ARMORED SQUADRON keyword, and be valid tank company orders targets. Artillery elements and sentinels would get their own Artillery Orders from the Master of the Ordnance>
Tank Ace: - Elite Contains - 1 Tank Ace. They are equipped with a Turret-Mounted Battle Cannon, a Heavy Bolter, and Tank Tracks.
Tank Ace: M10" WS6+ BS3+ S8 T8 W12 A3 Ld8 Sv2+
Any models in the unit may replace it's Turret-Mounted Battle Cannon with a Turret-Mounted Vanquisher Cannon, Turret-Mounted Demolisher Cannon, Turret-Mounted Punisher Gatling Cannon, Turret-Mounted Eradicator Nova Cannon, Turret-Mounted Exterminator Twin Autocannons, or Turret-Mounted Executioner Plasma Cannon.
Any models in the unit may replace it's Heavy Bolter with a Heavy Flamer or a Lascannon
Any models in the unit may add two Heavy Bolters, two Plasma Cannons, two Heavy Flamers, or two Multi-Meltas.
Any models in the unit may add a Hunter Killer Missile
Any models in the unit may add a Pintle-Mounted Storm Bolter or Pintle-Mounted Heavy Stubber
All models in this unit may take upgrades from the Vehicle Upgrade List
LEMAN RUSS, ASTRA MILITARUM, VEHICLE, <REGIMENT>, TANK ACE, CHARACTER
Lumbering Behemoth: Each time an attack is allocated to a model in this unit, subtract 1 from the damage characteristic of that attack.
Steady Advance: This unit cannot advance. During the shooting phase, if all models in this unit moved 5" or less or remained stationary, add 1 to to-hit rolls with Turret-Mounted weapons.
Tank Character: This unit is protected by Look Out Sir! as if it had less than 10 wounds if it is within 6" of a non-character <REGIMENT> LEMAN RUSS model.
Ace Tanker: You may only include one Tank Ace per detachment, and only if you include at least 1 ARMORED SQUADRON unit.
<Tank Commander loses the bonus BS to have it moved to a Tank Ace, that can't be buffed with orders>
<The basic idea here would be that Tank Commanders and Tank Aces are desirable to include in a army that has a lot of tanks, but either aren't or can't be if you haven't done so. By splitting the TC's orders and BS across different units, it also avoids the issue of self-buffing being the most efficient course of action.>
Interesting, but a bit radical for my taste. I think enough changes can be made without going this far. Basic ideas from my brainstorm:
Leave the base Leman Russ unit as it is except:
Grinding Advance: This unit cannot Advance and ignores the movement modifier for Difficult Ground.
Main Battle TankThis model has a +1 Save Modifier against attacks with Damage Characteristic of 1 or 2.
[list]Gain Core Keyword.
Weapon Updates:
[/list]Battle Cannon: Damage is 3 rather than D3.
Eradicator Nova Cannon is Damage 2 rather than D3
Executioner Plasma Cannon is Heavy 3D3
Vanquisher Battle Cannon is Damage D3+3 and it's Ability is "When targeting Monstrous Creatures or Vehicle this weapon is Heavy 2 and may reroll To-Hit and To-Wound roles.
The Tank Commander get the same updates as the Russ, but Tank Orders are changed:
Tank Orders: This model can issue one order each turn that affect up to two friendly <Regiment> Leman Russ at the start of the Shooting Phase. Pick one order form the Tank Order list and issue that order to two Leman Russ models within 9" of this model. Each Leman Russ can only be the target of one Tank Order per turn.
Full Throttle!: Instead of shooting this phase, the ordered model may immediately move as if it were the Movement Phase. It cannot declare a charge this turn.
On My Target!: The ordered model is +1 on Hit rolls against the target of the Tank Commander's Turret weapon until the end of the phase.
Defensive Fire!: The ordered model is +1 to Hit with non-Turret weapons against targets within 12". If firing a Heavy Flamer, it may reroll the number of shots.
JNAProductions wrote: Note, Alextroy: The Keyword is MONSTER, not MONSTROUS CREATURE.
I'd also make the Vanquisher at LEAST Strength 9, so it can wound on 3+ against most things.
I'm betting that the Vanquisher will go to: Heavy 1, S16, AP-4, D9. Exactly like the Macharius Vanquisher, but half the shots, because it has half the number of barrels.
The special ability will be: Each time an attack is made with this weapon against a VEHICLE or MONSTER unit, add 1 to the attack's hit roll.
Gadzilla666 wrote: ...I'm betting that the Vanquisher will go to: Heavy 1, S16, AP-4, D9. Exactly like the Macharius Vanquisher, but half the shots, because it has half the number of barrels...
Surely not, it'll be Heavy 2 and still get Grinding Advance. They can't possibly consider making a FW unit in any way cost-effective. (I read the Fellblade profile this morning, it's got twice the barrels of a Baneblade and only 2/3rds the shots.)
This had already come up in this thread, but until they re-balance vehicle toughness across all armies fixing the Leman Russ will be difficult.
I think it should go to T10 with 15-16 wounds and give it a 1+ armor save (a Land Raider would then be something like T10, 18-20 wounds, 1+ armor save). I believe durability is the factor that needs fixed with the Leman Russ. The T10, extra wounds, and 1+ armor save will help it a lot against massed small arms fire. This would probably also need to coincide with a small increase to the strength of some anti-tank weapons. For example, T'au railguns could go to S12 and melta could be S12 at half range perhaps (melta is sort of a mess right now though). If you really wanted to you could even increase anti-tank AP to -5 to get the same AP effects with it while the 1+ save still helps against small arms a bit.
Needless to say, I feel like there will need to be changes across more than just the Imperial Guard book to get the Leman Russ to where it should be.
Mud Turkey 13 wrote: This had already come up in this thread, but until they re-balance vehicle toughness across all armies fixing the Leman Russ will be difficult.
I think it should go to T10 with 15-16 wounds and give it a 1+ armor save (a Land Raider would then be something like T10, 18-20 wounds, 1+ armor save). I believe durability is the factor that needs fixed with the Leman Russ. The T10, extra wounds, and 1+ armor save will help it a lot against massed small arms fire. This would probably also need to coincide with a small increase to the strength of some anti-tank weapons. For example, T'au railguns could go to S12 and melta could be S12 at half range perhaps (melta is sort of a mess right now though). If you really wanted to you could even increase anti-tank AP to -5 to get the same AP effects with it while the 1+ save still helps against small arms a bit.
Needless to say, I feel like there will need to be changes across more than just the Imperial Guard book to get the Leman Russ to where it should be.
Important note-as currently written, by RAW a 1+ never fails except on a natural 1. This is because you can't modify a result below 1, so if you roll a 2 through 6, no matter how much the AP mod is, it can't go below a 1.
Obviously, if we're talking about rejiggering every vehicle in the game, making 1+, 0+, and so on saves actually work isn't a huge deal. But it should be noted, at least.
Gadzilla666 wrote: ...I'm betting that the Vanquisher will go to: Heavy 1, S16, AP-4, D9. Exactly like the Macharius Vanquisher, but half the shots, because it has half the number of barrels...
Surely not, it'll be Heavy 2 and still get Grinding Advance. They can't possibly consider making a FW unit in any way cost-effective. (I read the Fellblade profile this morning, it's got twice the barrels of a Baneblade and only 2/3rds the shots.)
Twice the barrels, but not the same gun. That's the HE profile, which is an alternate fire option for anti-personel. For anti-armour it has the AE profile, which is: Heavy 2, S14, AP-4, D6. Add that to the 8 lascannons, demolisher cannon, and twin heavy bolter, and it will out damage a two sponson Baneblade by about 4 wounds against T8 3+ at 21.573 total wounds vs the Baneblade's 17.43 total. Considering the Fellblade's added durability from its 2+ save vs the Baneblade's 3+ and the availability of the Smokescreen strategem I'd say it's worth the extra 50 PPM.
But this thread is about Leman Russes, you want to talk fw, I'm game, but this isn't the place. Feel free to start a thread, and I'll join in.
alextroy wrote:Interesting, but a bit radical for my taste. I think enough changes can be made without going this far. Basic ideas from my brainstorm:
Leave the base Leman Russ unit as it is except:
Grinding Advance: This unit cannot Advance and ignores the movement modifier for Difficult Ground.
Main Battle TankThis model has a +1 Save Modifier against attacks with Damage Characteristic of 1 or 2.
[list]Gain Core Keyword.
Weapon Updates:
[/list]Battle Cannon: Damage is 3 rather than D3.
Eradicator Nova Cannon is Damage 2 rather than D3
Executioner Plasma Cannon is Heavy 3D3
Vanquisher Battle Cannon is Damage D3+3 and it's Ability is "When targeting Monstrous Creatures or Vehicle this weapon is Heavy 2 and may reroll To-Hit and To-Wound roles.
The Tank Commander get the same updates as the Russ, but Tank Orders are changed:
Tank Orders: This model can issue one order each turn that affect up to two friendly <Regiment> Leman Russ at the start of the Shooting Phase. Pick one order form the Tank Order list and issue that order to two Leman Russ models within 9" of this model. Each Leman Russ can only be the target of one Tank Order per turn.
Full Throttle!: Instead of shooting this phase, the ordered model may immediately move as if it were the Movement Phase. It cannot declare a charge this turn.
On My Target!: The ordered model is +1 on Hit rolls against the target of the Tank Commander's Turret weapon until the end of the phase.
Defensive Fire!: The ordered model is +1 to Hit with non-Turret weapons against targets within 12". If firing a Heavy Flamer, it may reroll the number of shots.
The Vanquisher gun would still need a lot of work, particularly with the Battle Cannon going to damage 3. 3+1d3 is not comparable to 2d6*3; even with an AP and S improvement for the Vanquisher.
IMO, I think I needs to at least be equivalent to a Multimelta, preferably slightly better sign multimeltas are what it can take for secondary weapons; which is how I got 2d6+6 for 1 shot.
what is 3d6b1 supposed to be then? Heavy 3? I can't seen many guard players being pro that they've got used to an avarage of 4 shots twice.
Heavy d6?
Or Heavy 3d6?
Pretty sure it means roll 3d6 toss the lowest. Like the old melta half range damage rule. I'm sure Inquisitor Lord Katherine or JNAPRODUCTIONS will correct me if I'm wrong.
Edit: And JNA did.
Yeah, though I actually meant 3d6d1. I messed that up. 3d6b1 might as well just read "6".
Ice_can wrote:
All I can say is WOW are you in for a point's increase and then some.
you've just described a 150 point weapon profile right there thats 1.5 RFBC FFS.
Heck bolting that onto a chimera results in a 220 point model before you even consider paying for the T8 vrs T7 and the +2W and that you're adding a 2+ save.
Adding that level of firepower to a 160 point model with 2+ save -1 damage and you'll break the game.
First of all, why does it matter what a knight RFBC is; because the Leman Russ is already using the same thing as a RFBC and is decidedly absolutely terrible! That's literally why we're having this thread. When trying to brainstorm ideas for improving a bad unit, you want to make the unit good, so compare it to known good units, not "oh, this would be better than terrible unit X".
Second of all, on the numbers, Heavy 3d6d1, R72", S8, AP2, D3 on a BS3+ platform would give an average of 2.6 dead marines or 8 wounds to T7 vehicles. This would be looking at essentially the equivalent to a tank commander without re-rolls of 1 to hit, which is like okay but not great. Right now, the best tank commander you can get brings you 11.3 damage to T7 vehicles in a 195 points platform, and it isn't anything close to meta defining or brokenly good; so I think looking at 160-170 points for 8 wounds to vehicles or 2.6 dead marines is a pretty fair price. 8 wounds to vehicles seems a little higher than I want, and 2.6 dead marines is lower than I'd really want to see, relative to where it stood in the past, but I don't really want to drop it back to 2 damage with more shots, because then it's approaching automatic weapons range.
3d6d1 essentially bakes Catachan into the profile more seamlessly, and incorporates the fire bonus grinding advance presently gives so that I can do away with firing twice. With grinding advance now giving +1 BS for driving slow, this turns regular tanks into discount tank commanders. I would estimate that it should be around 160-170 out the gate before upgrades.
Alternatively, you can look at it as a Full Payload Manticore with +1T, +1Sv, and DR in exchange for losing IF and going to S8 from S10. Either way, I would estimate it around 170 points.
Anyway, my proposal was just kind of brainstorming a response to somebody's "how would you fix it" question.
The initial proposal of the thread was "how do we change the IG paradigm of using only Tank Commanders and no regular tanks?" It's not because the TC is too good; it's because the regular Leman Russ is hilariously bad.
As I mentioned before, a Leman Russ is offensively and defensively worse than a Vindicator [much worse offensively], and actually also much worse than a 130 point Devil Dog or a Manticore. And at 160 points, it's 30 points more expensive than the Vindi or Devil Dog. That's why there are no Leman Russes, because they're astoundingly bad.
Tank Commanders, for their part, aren't actually that great either; but in the codex, the only thing they're actually competing with is the Full Payload Manticore.
So, if we want to make a list look like a single tank commander leading a few squadrons of russes, we need to do three things:
Make Leman Russ sufficiently good to want to bring multiple of them
Make Tank Commanders not strictly better Leman Russes
Make Tank Commander orders more effective on the regular units than themselves.
I have attempted to do 1 by effectively porting the most desirable parts of the TC profile to the regular Leman Russ, increasing survivability slightly, and dropping the icing on the cake. This, coupled with a cost reduction, would be decent and fieldable in a vacuum, and competitive with Manticores and rival options.
I have attempted to do 2 by removing their ability to self-order, and making them not have an improvement over regular russes.
I have attempted to do 3 by making the squadrons not split up, so even if it weren't not allowed, you still wouldn't want to give yourself the order over giving it to a line squadron.
1Just get rid of grinding advance.
price a battle cannon / triple heavy flamer bs4+ tank at about 120
price a battle cannon / triple heavy flamer tank commander at abotu 150.
i fail to see what a nerf to the meh BC would accomplish.
As someone that owns a defieler i can tell you right now, that the premium you pay for the privilege of a BC isn't very fun, and Daemon engines have been buffed countless times WHILEST having the advantage of actual synergy and invul over the Leman russ and you'd still not field a defieler in any semi comp meta if you didn't want to lower your power
Part of the problem is blasts are horrifically implemented at the moment.
They're functionally indistinguishable from automatic weapons, which means there's not really any middle ground between "powerful explosive" and "effective anti-tank weapon".
Incidentally, this is also why the Vanquisher is struggling so much.
Additionally, changing the Leman Russ's firepower in a vacuum is difficult because the turret weapons are already shared by a number of different units in a number of different armies.
You can't noticably buff the Battle Cannon without running into Defilers or Knights. You can't buff the Demolisher Cannon without running into Vindicators. Which then limits the scope to change other guns as well.
Grinding Advance seems to have been an attempt to increase the firepower of the Leman Russ whilst avoiding this issue. But thematically I don't really like it, it doesn't feel quite right.
I like the idea of Grinding Advance being +1 to-hit instead.
I like the idea of Leman Russes getting -1 damage. It seems this is a patch GW is implementing more to overcome the abundance of damage 2 light/medium arms fire that's being flung around.
Vanquishers used to be just like a melta weapon, but at much longer range. Of course that's when a single penetration could reliably knock out a tank. The ability to reroll hits and wounds makes sense. But you can't go too far, the Volcano Cannon is only Damage 2d6.
The fix is pretty straightforward, imho:
- make regular LRBT slightly more point-efficient than Tank Commanders
- make Tank Commanders 0-1 per detachment and give them some good buffing abilities that you actually want to have in your tank army. Whether these buffs works on them as well or not, the important thing is that even when buffed the Tank Commander is not more efficient than a regular, buffed LRBT.
Result: you get at least 1 Tank Commander for the buffs and the rest of points you dedicate to tanks go to regular LRBT because they are more efficient.
They should do the same with Tau Commanders and XV8 Crisis suits.
Aenar wrote: The fix is pretty straightforward, imho:
- make regular LRBT slightly more point-efficient than Tank Commanders
- make Tank Commanders 0-1 per detachment and give them some good buffing abilities that you actually want to have in your tank army. Whether these buffs works on them as well or not, the important thing is that even when buffed the Tank Commander is not more efficient than a regular, buffed LRBT.
Result: you get at least 1 Tank Commander for the buffs and the rest of points you dedicate to tanks go to regular LRBT because they are more efficient.
They should do the same with Tau Commanders and XV8 Crisis suits.
Commander's are already 0-1 per detachment and guess what has a once per battle buff only. Xv8's suck becuase GW has them cost more than gravis bodies yet having worse stats.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The reason I keep questioning what people are planning for Russes is a number of people seem to have ideas that while in isolation seem fine have these massive knock on impacts as the weapons and defensive profiles trip over each other.
I suspect the vanquisher will go to Heavy 2 s10 damage d3/d6 +X
Similar to the changes I am expecting for railguns based on the FW index.
Really not sure if the -1 damage is actually a great answer or not. It's either going to become so common everyone will have it or it's not and a lot of people are going to feel cheated.
Hoqever grinding advance does 100% need to change to make balancong their weapons possible.
Aenar wrote: The fix is pretty straightforward, imho:
- make regular LRBT slightly more point-efficient than Tank Commanders
- make Tank Commanders 0-1 per detachment and give them some good buffing abilities that you actually want to have in your tank army. Whether these buffs works on them as well or not, the important thing is that even when buffed the Tank Commander is not more efficient than a regular, buffed LRBT.
Result: you get at least 1 Tank Commander for the buffs and the rest of points you dedicate to tanks go to regular LRBT because they are more efficient.
They should do the same with Tau Commanders and XV8 Crisis suits.
Commander's are already 0-1 per detachment and guess what has a once per battle buff only. Xv8's suck becuase GW has them cost more than gravis bodies yet having worse stats.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The reason I keep questioning what people are planning for Russes is a number of people seem to have ideas that while in isolation seem fine have these massive knock on impacts as the weapons and defensive profiles trip over each other.
I suspect the vanquisher will go to Heavy 2 s10 damage d3/d6 +X
Similar to the changes I am expecting for railguns based on the FW index.
Really not sure if the -1 damage is actually a great answer or not. It's either going to become so common everyone will have it or it's not and a lot of people are going to feel cheated.
Hoqever grinding advance does 100% need to change to make balancong their weapons possible.
-1 damage is a boring and kind of band aid fix to the issue of toughness. It makes dedicated weaponry vs the target worse at its job while doing nothing to stop chip damage.
Its why my suggested fix for durability was 2+ save, +3 hit points, and reducing the ap of incoming ap -1/-2 fire by 1. It still gains a bit of durability vs anti tank (more wounds, and actually getting a 5+/6+ to its save when hit by ap -3/4 fire), but it gains a lot of durability vs medium and low strength weapons with worse ap values.
This too is a baind aid fix considering the issue is more that GW for some reason refuses to use toughness values higher than 8. If toughness for vehicles ranged from 14 on up, there is much more room for both anti tank weapons and anti heavy infantry weapons while making it harder for them to fill the same niche.
kirotheavenger wrote: Part of the problem is blasts are horrifically implemented at the moment.
They're functionally indistinguishable from automatic weapons, which means there's not really any middle ground between "powerful explosive" and "effective anti-tank weapon".
Incidentally, this is also why the Vanquisher is struggling so much.
Additionally, changing the Leman Russ's firepower in a vacuum is difficult because the turret weapons are already shared by a number of different units in a number of different armies.
You can't noticably buff the Battle Cannon without running into Defilers or Knights. You can't buff the Demolisher Cannon without running into Vindicators. Which then limits the scope to change other guns as well.
Grinding Advance seems to have been an attempt to increase the firepower of the Leman Russ whilst avoiding this issue. But thematically I don't really like it, it doesn't feel quite right.
I like the idea of Grinding Advance being +1 to-hit instead.
I like the idea of Leman Russes getting -1 damage. It seems this is a patch GW is implementing more to overcome the abundance of damage 2 light/medium arms fire that's being flung around.
Vanquishers used to be just like a melta weapon, but at much longer range. Of course that's when a single penetration could reliably knock out a tank. The ability to reroll hits and wounds makes sense. But you can't go too far, the Volcano Cannon is only Damage 2d6.
I don't think we have to worry about changes to the Leman Russes battle cannon crossing over to other platforms. Knights have a Rapid Fire Battle Cannon, while as of the new Death Guard codex Defilers are armed with a DEFILER CANNON, instead of a battle cannon (heavy d6, S8, AP-2 D3, for the record). Demolisher Cannons are still: Heavy d6, S10, AP-3, Dd6 for Vindicators in the loyalist codex, so I'd say that isn't changing.
The Macharius Twin Battle Cannon is now: Heavy 2d6, S8, AP-2, Dd6 in the Compendium. So maybe that's what they're going to do with Battle Cannons? Only with half the shots?
kirotheavenger wrote: Part of the problem is blasts are horrifically implemented at the moment.
They're functionally indistinguishable from automatic weapons, which means there's not really any middle ground between "powerful explosive" and "effective anti-tank weapon".
Incidentally, this is also why the Vanquisher is struggling so much.
Additionally, changing the Leman Russ's firepower in a vacuum is difficult because the turret weapons are already shared by a number of different units in a number of different armies.
You can't noticably buff the Battle Cannon without running into Defilers or Knights. You can't buff the Demolisher Cannon without running into Vindicators. Which then limits the scope to change other guns as well.
Grinding Advance seems to have been an attempt to increase the firepower of the Leman Russ whilst avoiding this issue. But thematically I don't really like it, it doesn't feel quite right.
I like the idea of Grinding Advance being +1 to-hit instead.
I like the idea of Leman Russes getting -1 damage. It seems this is a patch GW is implementing more to overcome the abundance of damage 2 light/medium arms fire that's being flung around.
Vanquishers used to be just like a melta weapon, but at much longer range. Of course that's when a single penetration could reliably knock out a tank. The ability to reroll hits and wounds makes sense. But you can't go too far, the Volcano Cannon is only Damage 2d6.
Volcano cannon is a while 3d3 shots, 6 average, at 2d6. A vanquisher gun doing a single shot at 2d6+6 or something wouldn't be close to stepping on a shadowswords toes. After all, 1 shot for 2d6+4 would be literally just having a multimelta
Aenar wrote: The fix is pretty straightforward, imho:
- make regular LRBT slightly more point-efficient than Tank Commanders
- make Tank Commanders 0-1 per detachment and give them some good buffing abilities that you actually want to have in your tank army. Whether these buffs works on them as well or not, the important thing is that even when buffed the Tank Commander is not more efficient than a regular, buffed LRBT.
Result: you get at least 1 Tank Commander for the buffs and the rest of points you dedicate to tanks go to regular LRBT because they are more efficient.
They should do the same with Tau Commanders and XV8 Crisis suits.
Commander's are already 0-1 per detachment and guess what has a once per battle buff only. Xv8's suck becuase GW has them cost more than gravis bodies yet having worse stats.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The reason I keep questioning what people are planning for Russes is a number of people seem to have ideas that while in isolation seem fine have these massive knock on impacts as the weapons and defensive profiles trip over each other.
I suspect the vanquisher will go to Heavy 2 s10 damage d3/d6 +X
Similar to the changes I am expecting for railguns based on the FW index.
Really not sure if the -1 damage is actually a great answer or not. It's either going to become so common everyone will have it or it's not and a lot of people are going to feel cheated.
Hoqever grinding advance does 100% need to change to make balancong their weapons possible.
-1 damage is a boring and kind of band aid fix to the issue of toughness. It makes dedicated weaponry vs the target worse at its job while doing nothing to stop chip damage.
Its why my suggested fix for durability was 2+ save, +3 hit points, and reducing the ap of incoming ap -1/-2 fire by 1. It still gains a bit of durability vs anti tank (more wounds, and actually getting a 5+/6+ to its save when hit by ap -3/4 fire), but it gains a lot of durability vs medium and low strength weapons with worse ap values.
This too is a baind aid fix considering the issue is more that GW for some reason refuses to use toughness values higher than 8. If toughness for vehicles ranged from 14 on up, there is much more room for both anti tank weapons and anti heavy infantry weapons while making it harder for them to fill the same niche.
I would say it is actually a really good solution, because it inhibits chip damage far more efficiently than it inhibits big hits.
Cutting the slew of D2 and D3 to being 1 and 2 effectively doubles the survivability of the tank against things that shouldn't be killing it, like heavy bolters; without seriously impacting more significant hits like those from a meltagun.
I really like the -1 damage rule, because I dont want to hurt new players with an absolute onslaught of rules, they can be like "oh hey it has the deathguard/space marine dreadnought buff" I really dont like this whole new approach where models like mortarion have a literal 2 dozen rules all to it self, that being said I would like to see the battle cannon go to flat 3 damage, maybe make the demolisher cannon d6+1 damage, and then various other buffs to other turret weapons, like reduced points for punisher gattling cannon
bat702 wrote: I really like the -1 damage rule, because I dont want to hurt new players with an absolute onslaught of rules, they can be like "oh hey it has the deathguard/space marine dreadnought buff" I really dont like this whole new approach where models like mortarion have a literal 2 dozen rules all to it self, that being said I would like to see the battle cannon go to flat 3 damage, maybe make the demolisher cannon d6+1 damage, and then various other buffs to other turret weapons, like reduced points for punisher gattling cannon
Simply put the demolisher cannons stats can't change without having massive knock on impacts to even 9th edition codex's.
It's pretty much a given IMHO that a battle cannon is going to be Heavy d6 S8 AP-2, D3 to mirror the defiler cannon.
There's enough scope in the weapon profiles to have them significantly different from one another to make them specialised and fulfilling of a more specific role which isn't the case currently.
Demolishers could be 24" D6, S12, -3Ap, D6 damage with a +2D at under half range (like a melta in ways) but fluffy due to them being a close range tank.
Battlecannons could stay at 48" D6, S8, -2Ap, D3 blast (and also with a special overspill damage rule against infantry if you really wanted it to be good, but not necessary, or this could be a rule for the conquerer cannon etc)
Vanquishers could be 72" D6, S9, -4AP, D3+3 damage against a vehicle (-4AP to represent it is a dedicated anti-tank shell, and extra damage vs vehicles for the same reason)
Like I said, loads of scope for variation if they stretched weapon profiles more and included more special rules for each cannon.
These suggestions may not even be enough or too much but you get the idea, GW needs to be more adventurous with weapon profile variations of battle cannons rather than just adjusting 1x of the stats and expecting it to be fine.
In regards to invalidating weapons from other codex's, you can just state that the lemun russ demolisher cannon is the lemun russ patter D cannon and thus a different weapon.
The initial proposal of the thread was "how do we change the IG paradigm of using only Tank Commanders and no regular tanks?" It's not because the TC is too good; it's because the regular Leman Russ is hilariously bad.
I think you are combining the two issues in the thread to the point of conflation. People take Tank Commanders because if they were only going to take a couple of Leman Russ anyway, for a small bump in points they get a better Leman Russ, especially the BS 3+. Just making Leman Russes "better" will leave the same issue of players taking only TCs, assuming those TCs also get the LR buffs and retain a Ballistic Skill advantage.
Yes, the baseline Leman Russ could use help, but the issue of the "simply better" TC will remain. I think we could look at having TC's unlocked by taking a Sqn of normal Russes. That is a separate problem than the weakness of the Leman Russ.
I will say again that there is nothing stopping someone taking a Leman Russ Company with the current lists. It will not be very effective, but they can absolutely do so. Should we expect an all-Leman Russ list to do well competitively? I would argue that an all-tank list should expect to run into some terrible matchups!
We are deep into Proposed Rules sub-forum territory. The Leman Russ might be helped by ignoring AP-1. It might be helped by reigning-in Melta and Haywire. At my next tourney (once our latest lockdown lifts) one of the Harlies will be running 15 Skyweavers...
I don't like Guard armies where the only tanks are Tank Commanders. Thematically it doesn't make any sense.
That said, I figure GW will fix that in the next Guard Codex. Hopefully they'll fix it in the way they fixed Marine Captains, and not in the way that they fethed over the Death Guard.
Mmmpi wrote: I was under the impression that the problem with TCs/LRs was that they died too fast.
endlesswaltz123 wrote:There's enough scope in the weapon profiles to have them significantly different from one another to make them specialised and fulfilling of a more specific role which isn't the case currently.
Demolishers could be 24" D6, S12, -3Ap, D6 damage with a +2D at under half range (like a melta in ways) but fluffy due to them being a close range tank.
Battlecannons could stay at 48" D6, S8, -2Ap, D3 blast (and also with a special overspill damage rule against infantry if you really wanted it to be good, but not necessary, or this could be a rule for the conquerer cannon etc)
Vanquishers could be 72" D6, S9, -4AP, D3+3 damage against a vehicle (-4AP to represent it is a dedicated anti-tank shell, and extra damage vs vehicles for the same reason)
Like I said, loads of scope for variation if they stretched weapon profiles more and included more special rules for each cannon.
These suggestions may not even be enough or too much but you get the idea, GW needs to be more adventurous with weapon profile variations of battle cannons rather than just adjusting 1x of the stats and expecting it to be fine.
In regards to invalidating weapons from other codex's, you can just state that the lemun russ demolisher cannon is the lemun russ patter D cannon and thus a different weapon.
Battle Cannons are currently 1d6 R72" S8 Ap2 D1d3 firing twice. So if we want to clear GA, it would be 2d6 R72" S8 Ap2 D1d3; though I think moving to D3 would be a needed improvement if only to reduce the amount of rolling.
The initial proposal of the thread was "how do we change the IG paradigm of using only Tank Commanders and no regular tanks?" It's not because the TC is too good; it's because the regular Leman Russ is hilariously bad.
I think you are combining the two issues in the thread to the point of conflation. People take Tank Commanders because if they were only going to take a couple of Leman Russ anyway, for a small bump in points they get a better Leman Russ, especially the BS 3+. Just making Leman Russes "better" will leave the same issue of players taking only TCs, assuming those TCs also get the LR buffs and retain a Ballistic Skill advantage.
Yes, the baseline Leman Russ could use help, but the issue of the "simply better" TC will remain. I think we could look at having TC's unlocked by taking a Sqn of normal Russes. That is a separate problem than the weakness of the Leman Russ.
I will say again that there is nothing stopping someone taking a Leman Russ Company with the current lists. It will not be very effective, but they can absolutely do so. Should we expect an all-Leman Russ list to do well competitively? I would argue that an all-tank list should expect to run into some terrible matchups!
We are deep into Proposed Rules sub-forum territory. The Leman Russ might be helped by ignoring AP-1. It might be helped by reigning-in Melta and Haywire. At my next tourney (once our latest lockdown lifts) one of the Harlies will be running 15 Skyweavers...
If Leman Russ tanks weren't terrible, and TC's only efficient if they had Leman Russ tanks to buff, I think that would solve the problem. And for Guard, a list with 8 tanks still has more than 100 infantry!
There are some other design spaces that are not used at the moment. To increase the toughness of the Leman Russ, there could be something like Big Block of Iron and Steel: Reroll failed Armor Saves.
This would increase the toughness against smaller calibres while doing nothing against anything with ap4.
Or there could be "Reroll successfull wound rolls against this modell.", also increasing the resilience of the tank.
Both come, of course, at the price of increasing the numbers of rolls and, thus, slowing the game.
For increased output of the gun, I just wished, they had made "Blast"-weapons overflow their damage. So no wasted rolls of 3 against 2 wound marines, as another marine would los one HP too. Surely, there would be some adjustments needed for other blast weapons, but for the battle cannon, it would slightly increase the damage potential against light and heavy infantry.
I find the armor save to be slightly under-powered in the current melta/eradicator meta which basically denies all armor saves, I think either add more wounds or give them the dreadnoughts -1 damage rule to make them more durable, and ofc giving them an invuln is very unfluffy
bat702 wrote: I find the armor save to be slightly under-powered in the current melta/eradicator meta which basically denies all armor saves, I think either add more wounds or give them the dreadnoughts -1 damage rule to make them more durable, and ofc giving them an invuln is very unfluffy
Infantry armor isn't underpowered [if anything its pretty strong right now], but vehicle armor is highly underpowered. This is essentially because any weapon designed to kill tanks also has good AP and is good at killing infantry-the armor of even a light armored vehicle is reasonably tougher than power armor. So while a lasguns is ap-0, its antitank-equivalent, something like a missile launcher [which might be an overstatement considering that a missile launcher basically couldn't kill a Leman Russ and could only mildly annoy it before], still punches mostly right through tank armor and vehicles wind up with a 5+ or worse.
This is why I've proposed expanding the toughness scale for vehicles and monsters. Something like plasma can remain decent against elite infantry but falls off in effectiveness when facing medium to heavy vehicles. Meanwhile, things like Lascannons and melta would receive a strength buff to go up against these heavy vehicles. While these weapons would still be decent on a per shot basis against elite infantry (like they should), they would ideally be priced so they aren't as efficient.
On the other end of things when considering weak high rate of fire weapons against the heavy stuff, you could add other bonuses. Like if the toughness is twice the Strength of the incoming attack, add to the armor save or perhaps even an a reroll on the save.
I want to reiterate that while there are some units that may blue the line here, this change is not intended to apply to infantry. I not looking for space gravis or termis to go up in toughness or anything.
-1 damage is a boring and kind of band aid fix to the issue of toughness. It makes dedicated weaponry vs the target worse at its job while doing nothing to stop chip damage.
Its why my suggested fix for durability was 2+ save, +3 hit points, and reducing the ap of incoming ap -1/-2 fire by 1. It still gains a bit of durability vs anti tank (more wounds, and actually getting a 5+/6+ to its save when hit by ap -3/4 fire), but it gains a lot of durability vs medium and low strength weapons with worse ap values.
This too is a baind aid fix considering the issue is more that GW for some reason refuses to use toughness values higher than 8. If toughness for vehicles ranged from 14 on up, there is much more room for both anti tank weapons and anti heavy infantry weapons while making it harder for them to fill the same niche.
I would say it is actually a really good solution, because it inhibits chip damage far more efficiently than it inhibits big hits.
Cutting the slew of D2 and D3 to being 1 and 2 effectively doubles the survivability of the tank against things that shouldn't be killing it, like heavy bolters; without seriously impacting more significant hits like those from a meltagun.
I dunno, a lot of anti tank weapons never got the nice melta buffs - lascannons still do 1d6, and hunter killer missiles are d6 and just got their strength bumped up. -1 damage means that dedicated anti tank weaponry such as these deal 1-5 damage, with 1/3 chance of dealing 1. Its why I personally would go for just making it harder for non dedicated anti tank weaponry from hurting it in general via a better save and ap reduction.
bat702 wrote:I find the armor save to be slightly under-powered in the current melta/eradicator meta which basically denies all armor saves, I think either add more wounds or give them the dreadnoughts -1 damage rule to make them more durable, and ofc giving them an invuln is very unfluffy
One note here is that balancing something against eradicators, which are one of the more out there units, seems like a terrible idea. Eradicators should be nudged down while things underperforming should be bumped up. More wounds only works to an extent as well - if the Russ gets bumped up to 18 wounds, it then hits the arbitrary wound limit for not being able to stay behind cover.
A few extra wounds + a boost to its defenses in general though combined would definitely help.
Chris521 wrote:This is why I've proposed expanding the toughness scale for vehicles and monsters. Something like plasma can remain decent against elite infantry but falls off in effectiveness when facing medium to heavy vehicles. Meanwhile, things like Lascannons and melta would receive a strength buff to go up against these heavy vehicles. While these weapons would still be decent on a per shot basis against elite infantry (like they should), they would ideally be priced so they aren't as efficient.
On the other end of things when considering weak high rate of fire weapons against the heavy stuff, you could add other bonuses. Like if the toughness is twice the Strength of the incoming attack, add to the armor save or perhaps even an a reroll on the save.
I want to reiterate that while there are some units that may blue the line here, this change is not intended to apply to infantry. I not looking for space gravis or termis to go up in toughness or anything.
I mean yes, this is true, but the soonest we'll see anything like this will be in 10th edition.
Really toughness 10 should be the bottom line low end for vehicles and it should scale up from there with like T16 Russ and Land Raiders, T18 Baneblades, and like T20 Stompas, with anti tank weaponry given boosts to match (S20 melta, s30 lascannon, etc). Make vehicles and monstrous creatures have decent sized wound pools so that heavy weapons with their high strength and damage are the primary means of taking them down efficiently. Unless GW decides to make a rapid fire sniper lascannon (which to be fair, they probably would in this case...), its not like anti tank weapons would suddenly become the premier anti infantry / character weapons.
-1 damage is a boring and kind of band aid fix to the issue of toughness. It makes dedicated weaponry vs the target worse at its job while doing nothing to stop chip damage.
Its why my suggested fix for durability was 2+ save, +3 hit points, and reducing the ap of incoming ap -1/-2 fire by 1. It still gains a bit of durability vs anti tank (more wounds, and actually getting a 5+/6+ to its save when hit by ap -3/4 fire), but it gains a lot of durability vs medium and low strength weapons with worse ap values.
This too is a baind aid fix considering the issue is more that GW for some reason refuses to use toughness values higher than 8. If toughness for vehicles ranged from 14 on up, there is much more room for both anti tank weapons and anti heavy infantry weapons while making it harder for them to fill the same niche.
I would say it is actually a really good solution, because it inhibits chip damage far more efficiently than it inhibits big hits.
Cutting the slew of D2 and D3 to being 1 and 2 effectively doubles the survivability of the tank against things that shouldn't be killing it, like heavy bolters; without seriously impacting more significant hits like those from a meltagun.
I dunno, a lot of anti tank weapons never got the nice melta buffs - lascannons still do 1d6, and hunter killer missiles are d6 and just got their strength bumped up. -1 damage means that dedicated anti tank weaponry such as these deal 1-5 damage, with 1/3 chance of dealing 1. Its why I personally would go for just making it harder for non dedicated anti tank weaponry from hurting it in general via a better save and ap reduction.
A Plasgun or Heavy Bolters suffers a 50% loss of power against DR1, a Lascannon suffers an average of 25%. That's already a significant bias towards desiring a Lascannon over repeatedly shooting it with plasguns, and would be even better if Railcannons and Vanquishers could be pushed beyond the dismal 1d6 damage paradigm to a reasonable number; which would make heavy AT weapons definitively desirable.
Tanks are not really particularly vulnerable to being chipped away by Lasgun fire; it's the anti-marine D2 weapons with moderate AP and Strength that are upsetting the balance, which a DR1 would help to alleviate in lieu of expanded armor save ranges.
-1 damage is a boring and kind of band aid fix to the issue of toughness. It makes dedicated weaponry vs the target worse at its job while doing nothing to stop chip damage.
Its why my suggested fix for durability was 2+ save, +3 hit points, and reducing the ap of incoming ap -1/-2 fire by 1. It still gains a bit of durability vs anti tank (more wounds, and actually getting a 5+/6+ to its save when hit by ap -3/4 fire), but it gains a lot of durability vs medium and low strength weapons with worse ap values.
This too is a baind aid fix considering the issue is more that GW for some reason refuses to use toughness values higher than 8. If toughness for vehicles ranged from 14 on up, there is much more room for both anti tank weapons and anti heavy infantry weapons while making it harder for them to fill the same niche.
I would say it is actually a really good solution, because it inhibits chip damage far more efficiently than it inhibits big hits.
Cutting the slew of D2 and D3 to being 1 and 2 effectively doubles the survivability of the tank against things that shouldn't be killing it, like heavy bolters; without seriously impacting more significant hits like those from a meltagun.
I dunno, a lot of anti tank weapons never got the nice melta buffs - lascannons still do 1d6, and hunter killer missiles are d6 and just got their strength bumped up. -1 damage means that dedicated anti tank weaponry such as these deal 1-5 damage, with 1/3 chance of dealing 1. Its why I personally would go for just making it harder for non dedicated anti tank weaponry from hurting it in general via a better save and ap reduction.
A Plasgun or Heavy Bolters suffers a 50% loss of power against DR1, a Lascannon suffers an average of 25%. That's already a significant bias towards desiring a Lascannon over repeatedly shooting it with plasguns, and would be even better if Railcannons and Vanquishers could be pushed beyond the dismal 1d6 damage paradigm to a reasonable number; which would make heavy AT weapons definitively desirable.
Tanks are not really particularly vulnerable to being chipped away by Lasgun fire; it's the anti-marine D2 weapons with moderate AP and Strength that are upsetting the balance, which a DR1 would help to alleviate in lieu of expanded armor save ranges.
I see where you are coming from, I was actually thinking more autocannon and heavy bolters over plasma myself.
Looking at the math (via a mathhammer app since I would be far slower at math), my solution would only increase number of plasma hits needed from 15 on average to 18, but on the flip side, things like heavy bolters and autocannons would have a far larger deduction in damage, going from 36 hits on average to down up to 108 for both. Weapons like missile launchers would go from an average of 10/11 hits to 20/21. Meanwhile, melta (at half range for the +2) would go from 5 hits on average to 6 to kill.
Noting the above still assumes 12 hit points.
Still, that said, I see where you are coming from, and I'll admit I didn't factor in high ap, low damage weapons like plasma in my thought process, instead focusing on low ap weapons with mid to high strength. I guess my perspective is that the game would be a bit more interesting if durability were measured in slightly different fashions, instead of just every faction getting a -1 to wound unit or two. You've at least turned me around that I won't be disappointed if that is the fix GW uses.
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: Infantry armor isn't underpowered [if anything its pretty strong right now], but vehicle armor is highly underpowered. This is essentially because any weapon designed to kill tanks also has good AP and is good at killing infantry-the armor of even a light armored vehicle is reasonably tougher than power armor.
I think the issue with vehicle durability compared to infantry is pretty basic: Vehicles have the same armor save as the most common infantry profile in the game, and the toughness table/system means that having high toughness generally only cuts incoming damage in half compared to something with very low toughness.
So anything with the AP to kill Marines can also beat the armor on tanks, and they don't have enough wounds for the toughness system to matter.
Against a T8/3+ vehicle, a heavy bolter currently gets 3 hits, 1 wound, 2 damage, while a lascannon gets 1 hit, 0.67 wounds, 2.35 damage. The basic heavy bolter costs about half as much and is dramatically better against infantry, so not much point spamming lascannons when heavy bolters do the job.
GW saw people not using dedicated AT weapons and decided the solution was to buff melta, and now those poor tanks die to anti-infantry weapons and melta extraordinarily quickly.
catbarf wrote: Against a T8/3+ vehicle, a heavy bolter currently gets 3
hits, 1 wound, 2 damage, while a lascannon gets 1 hit, 0.67 wounds, 2.35 damage.
=3/6*4/6*2/6*3*2=0,67
=1/6*4/6*4/6*5*3,5=1,3
94% more damage on average with a lascannon vs a T8 3+ vehicle.
Adjust some tanks toughness, too T9 for example, and reintroduce the rule that if a targets toughness is over double the weapons strength, it cannot damage it, however make that rule vehicle only. However, with an adjustment to T9, I'd argue some weapon profile will need to go up in strength also.
It gives a nice little buff to vehicles over monstrous creatures that on the whole should be able to be harmed by mass bolter fire etc due to fleshy soft bits.
H.B.M.C. wrote: It's like you read his math and stopped reading.
I don't understand what you mean or in what context his math was not wrong. I read the entire thing I just chose to correct the math because I thought that might change his opinion on the matter.
endlesswaltz123 wrote: Adjust some tanks toughness, too T9 for example, and reintroduce the rule that if a targets toughness is over double the weapons strength, it cannot damage it, however make that rule vehicle only. However, with an adjustment to T9, I'd argue some weapon profile will need to go up in strength also.
It makes melta into an anti-light weapon which it shouldn't be and doesn't help curb S5-7 AP-1/-2 weapons. If anything should be changed it is Sv in my opinion. You could change melta to S10 and then nerf multi-meltas back down to Heavy 1, what does T9 Leman Russes solve other than making their own gun worse in a mirror match? T9 is a breakpoint for S8 and 9, it has no impact on infantry weapons.
What about giving it -1 to wound against ranged weapons with a Strength lower than the vehicle's Toughness?
Pushing D2 weapons like S5 HBs and S7 ACs from 5+ to wound to 6+ to wound is generally the same as giving it a -1D reduction, it works equally well on 1D weapons and it won't affect the actual anti-tank guns.
As for Tank Commanders, I'd also like to see them being spammed less and require taking regular LRs, but I get that 1 TC simply becomes a priority target and dies. I don't like the idea of a bodyguard rule for tanks, it's crude and leads to unfun situations.
But what about giving the TC a chance to escape his knocked out vehicle and on say 4+ take over a nearby regular tank? That would give his player a decent chance to get more out of his precious commander, and there could also be an epic deed stratagem boosting it to 2+.
Kitane wrote: As for Tank Commanders, I'd also like to see them being spammed less and require taking regular LRs, but I get that 1 TC simply becomes a priority target and dies. I don't like the idea of a bodyguard rule for tanks, it's crude and leads to unfun situations.
But what about giving the TC a chance to escape his knocked out vehicle and on say 4+ take over a nearby regular tank? That would give his player a decent chance to get more out of his precious commander, and there could also be an epic deed stratagem boosting it to 2+.
Moving the Tank Commander to a new tank is a unique and fluffy idea, I am not sure how fun or confusing it would be in practice, as far as I understand Tank Commanders have the little guy popping out of the hatch to make them easier to identify, I also think that perhaps it should just be a Stratagem on a 4+ similar to the Necron Stratagem Resurrection Protocols, jumping from one tank to the next to the next in the same phase seems a little extreme.
It could also be something as simple as a 6+ FNP while within 6" of a Core Astra Militarum Vehicle, I think that is small enough of a bodyguard rule that it isn't going to be unfun although it certainly is crude. Just a small incentive to focus down the regular tanks first, depending on how many are within 6". If you made Tank Commander orders (or their Aura buff if you prefer) 18" to represent them using voxes there would then be the choice of whether you want to move in a tight formation to protect the Tank Commander or a loose formation for better sightlines and board presence or perhaps even keeping the Tank Commander safe out of sight to provide buffs in a Company Commander style.
catbarf wrote: Against a T8/3+ vehicle, a heavy bolter currently gets 3
hits, 1 wound, 2 damage, while a lascannon gets 1 hit, 0.67 wounds, 2.35 damage.
=3/6*4/6*2/6*3*2=0,67
=1/6*4/6*4/6*5*3,5=1,3
94% more damage on average with a lascannon vs a T8 3+ vehicle.
H.B.M.C. wrote:It's like you read his math and stopped reading.
Well my math was wrong because I omitted armor saves (oops), but I don't quite understand Vict0988's either.
Heavy Bolter- 3 shots, wounds on 5+, target takes 4+ save, 2 damage- 3 * 0.33 * 0.5 * 2 = 1 damage average per hit.
Lascannon- 1 shot, wounds on 3+, target takes 6+ save, 3.5 ave damage- 1 * 0.67 * 0.83 * 3.5 = 1.95 damage average per hit.
So the relative damage (95% more for lascannon) is right but I'm not clear on the 2/3 conversion factor. Assuming BS3+, I guess?
Anyways, when the lascannon costs 50% more than a heavy bolter but does less than twice as much damage, I stand by my statement- it's not sufficiently better than the heavy bolter to be worth the difference in price, when the heavy bolter is far better against infantry. Accounting for the weapon cost, it's only 30% better against a T8/3+ vehicle- that's not what I expect from a dedicated anti-tank weapon.
Which is why I said what I said to him. Wrong math or not, the overall point (that the Lascannon isn't significantly more effective as an AT weapon) stands.
I'd also add that the Heavy Bolter isn't too powerful either. It's that tanks are too squishy.
catbarf wrote: Against a T8/3+ vehicle, a heavy bolter currently gets 3
hits, 1 wound, 2 damage, while a lascannon gets 1 hit, 0.67 wounds, 2.35 damage.
=3/6*4/6*2/6*3*2=0,67
=1/6*4/6*4/6*5*3,5=1,3
94% more damage on average with a lascannon vs a T8 3+ vehicle.
H.B.M.C. wrote:It's like you read his math and stopped reading.
Well my math was wrong because I omitted armor saves (oops), but I don't quite understand Vict0988's either.
Heavy Bolter- 3 shots, wounds on 5+, target takes 4+ save, 2 damage- 3 * 0.33 * 0.5 * 2 = 1 damage average per hit.
Lascannon- 1 shot, wounds on 3+, target takes 6+ save, 3.5 ave damage- 1 * 0.67 * 0.83 * 3.5 = 1.95 damage average per hit.
So the relative damage (95% more for lascannon) is right but I'm not clear on the 2/3 conversion factor. Assuming BS3+, I guess?
Anyways, when the lascannon costs 50% more than a heavy bolter but does less than twice as much damage, I stand by my statement- it's not sufficiently better than the heavy bolter to be worth the difference in price, when the heavy bolter is far better against infantry. Accounting for the weapon cost, it's only 30% better against a T8/3+ vehicle- that's not what I expect from a dedicated anti-tank weapon.
MBTs should have 2+ saves. Let's see how that changes things:
That's 138% more damage. Not sure what that does for your efficiency by cost, as I'm not sure how you're calculating that, but that can be handled with points.
Every tank I use currently has a 2+ save, if you want to try to kill them with nothing but unbuffed heavy bolters, be my guest. You don't need fancy bespoke rules to make tanks durable against anti-heavy infantry weapons.
Another alternative, or compliment to just doing saves, T boosts etc would be to bring back some element of armour facings.
Make it fairly simple, with only a difference on rear value and make the rules super simple and just state you must be able to draw true line of site to any part of the rear facing of the vehicle.
You could then have a boosted profile for the front facing with 2+ sv, more toughness, -1 damage, whatever you please but then leave it normal on the back with a different save.
Or even, 2+ save all round, but also -1 damage if attacking the front.
Gives the enemy options etc to make an easier kill (making the game more strategic/tactical is always a good thing) or they can chip away from the front.
There's many options to do it, all will have their pros and cons, anything that encourages clever movement and out thinking an opponent, or having to make complex choices I personally think is always better than a straight nerf/buff though.
There is no such thing as super simple rules with facings anymore. There used to be a full page on how to handle vehicle facings and arcs of fire in 5-6-7-th editions. Given the simplification of the game since 8th, this would be tricky. Also think of all the bizarre xenos / primaris vehicles where defining facings is far from obvious : such rules will not return.
To give a boost to Leman Russ , nothing fancy or sophisticated is needed. As proposed by Gadzilla666, others, and myself, a simple but effective 2+ save goes a long way into making the Leman Russ a reliably tough tank against medium firepower, without rendering anti-tank weak.
The more I think about a 2+ save, the more I disagree personally, a lascannon shouldn't have a 33% of just bouncing off the armour.
Maybe a version of the it will be dust special rule, where save is improved by 1 for damage 1 and 2 weapons, whilst not for D3, 3, 4 etc etc.
Lascannons and melta should penetrate the armour with a very high probability if they wound. Heavy bolters and auto cannons and the like should be more likely to bounce off the armour.
Back in the old AV14 rules a lascannon had a 67% chance of just bouncing off the armour. And only 1/6 if the time did it deal significant damage*
With T8/2+ it's 2/3 chance to wound and 2/3 to armour pierce, so a 55% chance to bounce off if you include both wounding and saving.
*Granted this penetration would likely result in a crippled or killed tank.
And remember, back in the days of AV14, it was also extremely easy to get a 4+ cover save (with camo netting to make it a 3+ cover save). So a lascannon hit had a 67% chance of just bouncing off the AV, then had a 33% chance of getting through the cover save.
Meh, I am going to stick with my ideas being based in the 8th-9th edition stats/ruleset.
I still go back to the degrading profile thing. Just either add more wounds to the top profile, or don't let the BS degrade as quickly or at all.
Just picture yourself using your LR and it's down to 2 wounds. Normally that tank is pretty much as good as destroyed, but if its BS doesn't degrade, it's still able to do some damage.
I'm not really going to get into addressing the different variant weapon strengths, as that is its own separate issue.
I think the ballistic skill of the tank has to degrade, but I do agree that maybe it should degrade slower. Going from 4+ in the top bracket, 4+ in the middle bracket, and 5+ in the final bracket seems a bit more fair.
100% agreed and I'm pretty sure I said as much on a previous page. It's a simple, straightforward way to address the problem of tanks being too vulnerable to small arms. Lighter vehicles can stay at 3+ so they they are somewhat vulnerable to things like autocannons.
Ravajaxe wrote:There is no such thing as super simple rules with facings anymore.
Sure there is, it's just not the one GW ever did.
Draw a line across the front of the vehicle's hull. Are you in front of the line? Front armor. Are you behind it or on it? Side armor. No rear armor, just front and side.
Super simple and 100% doable with even things like Falcons that were historically very difficult to work out facings on.
Flames of War makes it work at a significantly smaller scale with more tanks on the board.
endlesswaltz123 wrote:The more I think about a 2+ save, the more I disagree personally, a lascannon shouldn't have a 33% of just bouncing off the armour.
Well I don't think a plasma cannon should have a 17% chance of bouncing off a Space Marine, but here we are. And if a bolt shell can have a 33% chance of bouncing off a Guardsman now I don't think it's an insurmountable issue for tanks to sometimes eat lascannon shots.
Draw a line across the front of the vehicle's hull. Are you in front of the line? Front armor. Are you behind it or on it? Side armor. No rear armor, just front and side.
Super simple and 100% doable with even things like Falcons that were historically very difficult to work out facings on.
Flames of War makes it work at a significantly smaller scale with more tanks on the board.
While I sometimes miss the old armor values and facings system, I think we can safely assume at this point that it will not be returning any time soon. As people have said in many, many forums before this one, facings are very easy on square or rectangular tanks, and a lot more difficult on things that are not square at all, such as many Xenos vehicles.
CommunistNapkin wrote: I think the ballistic skill of the tank has to degrade, but I do agree that maybe it should degrade slower. Going from 4+ in the top bracket, 4+ in the middle bracket, and 5+ in the final bracket seems a bit more fair.
That does seem reasonable. If it can't shoot effectively, then it can't earn its points back. Even at T8, a 3+ save makes it too easy (IMO) to plink it down to ineffectiveness.
What about giving them a way to mitigate lower S weapons (To steal a name from DocFoots)
Big Block of Iron and Steel Weapons below strength "X" (ie 5 or 6, maybe 7) are counted as having AP 0 and D1 after all other modifiers.
This would not nerf these weapons vs other things and allow higher S anti-tank weapons to still threaten them. It's essentally giving the LR a invul vs low S weapons.
I guess I just disagree with the assertion that LRs die too quickly for their point cost. Remember, they can be spammed. If they can be spammed, they need to be reasonably vulnerable to fire.
My argument is not that they aren't durable enough. I argue that they aren't effective enough at shooting.
If you want to make them more durable, then suddenly you are running an imperial knight army statline with more units and cheaper. Or, you must lose the ability to take multiple in a unit.
I don't think either of those are the correct direction.
CommunistNapkin wrote: While I sometimes miss the old armor values and facings system, I think we can safely assume at this point that it will not be returning any time soon. As people have said in many, many forums before this one, facings are very easy on square or rectangular tanks, and a lot more difficult on things that are not square at all, such as many Xenos vehicles.
Just give all the non-square vehicles clearly marked bases and bam, problem solved.
-----
My take on the Leman Russ is that for 160 points they're going to have a tough time beating many tournament viable units in terms of impact on a game. They have trouble moving well on a crowded board, are too slow and too costly to use as a screening unit, don't fill the role of a cheap backfield objective holder, and have a main gun that isn't sure what it actually wants to be shooting at.
For just about the same points, you could have:
-4x RW Black Knights, and for +20 points they can have +1 S, -1 AP, +1 Damage melee weapons. These have 12 T5, 3+, conditional 4++ wounds.
-5x DW Terminators with Lightning Claws. Even bone stock these guys can easily control space and have 15 T4, 2+, 5++ wounds that can't be wounded on better than a 4+.
-19x Boyz with a Nob. Even the humble unit of Boyz gives 21 T4 wounds that can take up a large chunk of space on the board and be sent far forward by a Psyker.
The Russ needs to be tougher because I don't think just making it shoot better will be enough to make them worth using. Maybe give them something like 'Beasts of Iron: These tanks seem to have a will to survive and protect their crews. While reduced to 6 or fewer wounds a Leman Russ gains a 2+ armor save.' This makes them harder to kill while being fairly easy to reduce in effectiveness while giving the Russ a bit of character.
Quasistellar wrote: I guess I just disagree with the assertion that LRs die too quickly for their point cost. Remember, they can be spammed. If they can be spammed, they need to be reasonably vulnerable to fire.
My argument is not that they aren't durable enough. I argue that they aren't effective enough at shooting.
If you want to make them more durable, then suddenly you are running an imperial knight army statline with more units and cheaper. Or, you must lose the ability to take multiple in a unit.
I don't think either of those are the correct direction.
I certainly disagree that the Leman Russ is tough enough, especially when compared to something like the Death Guard Plagueburst Crawler. If we compare their stats:
First off, let's assume the Plagueburst Crawler is running 2 Entropy Cannons and the Heavy Slugger, as that seems to be the most likely build. That would bring the total points to 160. A "similarly" geared Leman Russ would be a Battle Cannon, Heavy Bolter in the hull, and Multimelta sponsons. This build runs 210 points.
-Wounds: Plagueburst Crawler: 12, Leman Russ: 12
-Toughness: Plagueburst Crawler: 8, Leman Russ: 8
-Armor Save: Plagueburst Crawler: 3+, Leman Russ: 3+
And that's where the similarities end.
-Invulnerable Save: Plagueburst Crawler: 5+, Leman Russ: N/A
-Extra rules: Plagueburst Crawler: -1 damage from all attacks at all times (Disgustingly Resilient), Leman Russ: Once per game -1 to hit at the cost of firing its weapons (Smoke Launchers)
So right there, the Plagueburst Crawler, not factoring in weapons, is cheaper (or the same points if you ONLY take the base Battle Cannon and Heavy Bolter), and significantly more survivable. Once we factor in damage output, it gets worse.
The Plagueburst Crawler shooting at a Leman Russ will do approximately...
Plagueburst Mortar: 1.67 damage
Entropy Cannons: 3.78 damage
Heavy Slugger: .33 damage
Total: 5.78 damage on average
The Leman Russ shooting at a Plagueburst Crawler will do approximately...
Battle Cannon (shooting twice w/ Grinding Advance): 1.39 damage
Multimeltas (not in half range): 1.67 damage
Multimeltas (in half range): 3 damage
Heavy Bolter: .25 damage
Total: 3.31 damage not in half range, 4.64 damage in half range.
So the Plagueburst Crawler, for 50 points fewer than the Leman Russ, is more survivable and does more damage with shooting, even when using situations favorable to the Russ. Assuming the Plagueburst Crawler is pointed correctly (which is a maybe), this means the Russ is either massively overcosted, or underpowered both in terms of defense and offensive capabilities.
Quasistellar wrote: I guess I just disagree with the assertion that LRs die too quickly for their point cost. Remember, they can be spammed. If they can be spammed, they need to be reasonably vulnerable to fire.
My argument is not that they aren't durable enough. I argue that they aren't effective enough at shooting.
If you want to make them more durable, then suddenly you are running an imperial knight army statline with more units and cheaper. Or, you must lose the ability to take multiple in a unit.
I don't think either of those are the correct direction.
I certainly disagree that the Leman Russ is tough enough, especially when compared to something like the Death Guard Plagueburst Crawler. If we compare their stats:
Spoiler:
First off, let's assume the Plagueburst Crawler is running 2 Entropy Cannons and the Heavy Slugger, as that seems to be the most likely build. That would bring the total points to 160. A "similarly" geared Leman Russ would be a Battle Cannon, Heavy Bolter in the hull, and Multimelta sponsons. This build runs 210 points.
-Wounds: Plagueburst Crawler: 12, Leman Russ: 12
-Toughness: Plagueburst Crawler: 8, Leman Russ: 8
-Armor Save: Plagueburst Crawler: 3+, Leman Russ: 3+
And that's where the similarities end.
-Invulnerable Save: Plagueburst Crawler: 5+, Leman Russ: N/A
-Extra rules: Plagueburst Crawler: -1 damage from all attacks at all times (Disgustingly Resilient), Leman Russ: Once per game -1 to hit at the cost of firing its weapons (Smoke Launchers)
So right there, the Plagueburst Crawler, not factoring in weapons, is cheaper (or the same points if you ONLY take the base Battle Cannon and Heavy Bolter), and significantly more survivable. Once we factor in damage output, it gets worse.
The Plagueburst Crawler shooting at a Leman Russ will do approximately...
Plagueburst Mortar: 1.67 damage
Entropy Cannons: 3.78 damage
Heavy Slugger: .33 damage
Total: 5.78 damage on average
The Leman Russ shooting at a Plagueburst Crawler will do approximately...
Battle Cannon (shooting twice w/ Grinding Advance): 1.39 damage
Multimeltas (not in half range): 1.67 damage
Multimeltas (in half range): 3 damage
Heavy Bolter: .25 damage
Total: 3.31 damage not in half range, 4.64 damage in half range.
So the Plagueburst Crawler, for 50 points fewer than the Leman Russ, is more survivable and does more damage with shooting, even when using situations favorable to the Russ. Assuming the Plagueburst Crawler is pointed correctly (which is a maybe), this means the Russ is either massively overcosted, or underpowered both in terms of defense and offensive capabilities.
How many PBCs can you take in a list?
How many LRs can you take in a list?
If you make a LR as durable as a PBC, I would argue that with their current rules, it would be bad for the game as a whole. I won't argue that a LR is pointed correctly now--that's basically why we're having the discussion. They clearly aren't good for their points.
I'm fine with the PBC being possibly one of the most durable tanks for its cost because it's Death Guard. Are PBC maybe a little too good right now? IDK it remains to be seen.
You can make an entire army of LRs, but you can't do that with PBCs. Gotta take this into account.
If we assume that a post buff Russ maintains its current cost you could attempt to skew with 9 naked Russes but that is 3/4ths of your points (1,440) for 9 models that aren't OBSec. Those 9 tanks only put out 9d6 Battlecannon shots and 27 Heavy Bolter shots at 4+ to hit per shooting phase with zero additional threat which isn't a lot of damage. This list will be terrible as there isn't enough left over for the volume of infantry needed to play the mission. If you want to cut the Russes down to 6 it's still half your list for extremely limited utility.
The list may frustrate some casual players but even adding an invulnerable save, FNP, and -1 damage to Russes may not be enough to fix them given the role they need to play in an IG list.
If you make a LR as durable as a PBC, I would argue that with their current rules, it would be bad for the game as a whole. I won't argue that a LR is pointed correctly now--that's basically why we're having the discussion. They clearly aren't good for their points.
I'm fine with the PBC being possibly one of the most durable tanks for its cost because it's Death Guard. Are PBC maybe a little too good right now? IDK it remains to be seen.
You can make an entire army of LRs, but you can't do that with PBCs. Gotta take this into account.
I'm not necessarily arguing that the LR should be just as durable as a PBC, and I certainly don't want it to be durable in the same ways (I think more wounds and a 2+ save would be more fitting than special rules and an invulnerable save). However, the problem is when the PBC is cheaper, more durable, offers better firepower (and melee for what that's worth), and is realistically quicker than the Russ, because of the way Grinding Advance works (in a pinch, a LR can go 10" to a PBC's 9", but then you're losing Grinding Advance. Not to mention that as the tanks get bracketed, their maximum movement values become the same). There is something to be said about the unit's context in its army, so a slight variation in points and performance could be acceptable in the right situations. But clearly what we're seeing right now is not okay. The better questions might be...
How many PBCswould you take in a list? Probably 2 or 3
How many Leman Russes would I take in a list? Zero
If we assume that a post buff Russ maintains its current cost you could attempt to skew with 9 naked Russes but that is 3/4ths of your points (1,440) for 9 models that aren't OBSec. Those 9 tanks only put out 9d6 Battlecannon shots and 27 Heavy Bolter shots at 4+ to hit per shooting phase with zero additional threat which isn't a lot of damage. This list will be terrible as there isn't enough left over for the volume of infantry needed to play the mission. If you want to cut the Russes down to 6 it's still half your list for extremely limited utility.
The list may frustrate some casual players but even adding an invulnerable save, FNP, and -1 damage to Russes may not be enough to fix them given the role they need to play in an IG list.
You're kinda helping me make my point. LRs need more consistent damage over the course of a match IMO. Let's say you have 6 LRs. Removing 72 T8 3+ wounds is actually quite a bit to chew through.
I did just have another thought, though: What if they gave LRs some utility? Something like infantry squads getting a cover save for being wholly within 6" of a LR to encourage some thematic play/army construction? Encourages and rewards moving troop screens forward with armor. Or some sort of Tau-like combined overwatch when charging infantry wholly within 6" of a LR.
Would guard players prefer the LR be tougher at the cost of being more expensive and being able to take fewer? I always thought part of the appeal of guard was being able to take lots of tanks.
If we assume that a post buff Russ maintains its current cost you could attempt to skew with 9 naked Russes but that is 3/4ths of your points (1,440) for 9 models that aren't OBSec. Those 9 tanks only put out 9d6 Battlecannon shots and 27 Heavy Bolter shots at 4+ to hit per shooting phase with zero additional threat which isn't a lot of damage. This list will be terrible as there isn't enough left over for the volume of infantry needed to play the mission. If you want to cut the Russes down to 6 it's still half your list for extremely limited utility.
The list may frustrate some casual players but even adding an invulnerable save, FNP, and -1 damage to Russes may not be enough to fix them given the role they need to play in an IG list.
You're kinda helping me make my point. LRs need more consistent damage over the course of a match IMO. Let's say you have 6 LRs. Removing 72 T8 3+ wounds is actually quite a bit to chew through.
I did just have another thought, though: What if they gave LRs some utility? Something like infantry squads getting a cover save for being wholly within 6" of a LR to encourage some thematic play/army construction? Encourages and rewards moving troop screens forward with armor. Or some sort of Tau-like combined overwatch when charging infantry wholly within 6" of a LR.
Would guard players prefer the LR be tougher at the cost of being more expensive and being able to take fewer? I always thought part of the appeal of guard was being able to take lots of tanks.
Well, yes. The 150-170 price point is basically ideal for the Leman Russ [stock].
That said, the present Leman Russ has a lot of room for buffs to be worth that 150-170 price point; since as observed, it's substantially worse than 130 point tanks and worse, even in it's own codex.
Quasistellar wrote: You're kinda helping me make my point. LRs need more consistent damage over the course of a match IMO. Let's say you have 6 LRs. Removing 72 T8 3+ wounds is actually quite a bit to chew through.
Indeed it is. So ask yourself why this isn't currently seeing any play? It almost as if merely being tough and providing next to no utility isn't a winning move in the current meta with missions that ask players to take and hold ground.
The other thing is that Russes have a very poor damage output for what they cost.
Shooting at a good target like unit of PEQs out of cover a Russ will average the following:
If you round that up that's 6 Russes killing 6 PEQ models per turn. If we make those PEQs Heavy Intercessors giving up 28 points per model that's a return of 168 points from 960 points worth of Russes. That is putrid and shows that there is a lot of room to buff a model as poor as Leman Russ before it becomes oppressive.
If we assume that a post buff Russ maintains its current cost you could attempt to skew with 9 naked Russes but that is 3/4ths of your points (1,440) for 9 models that aren't OBSec. Those 9 tanks only put out 9d6 Battlecannon shots and 27 Heavy Bolter shots at 4+ to hit per shooting phase with zero additional threat which isn't a lot of damage. This list will be terrible as there isn't enough left over for the volume of infantry needed to play the mission. If you want to cut the Russes down to 6 it's still half your list for extremely limited utility.
The list may frustrate some casual players but even adding an invulnerable save, FNP, and -1 damage to Russes may not be enough to fix them given the role they need to play in an IG list.
You're kinda helping me make my point. LRs need more consistent damage over the course of a match IMO. Let's say you have 6 LRs. Removing 72 T8 3+ wounds is actually quite a bit to chew through.
I did just have another thought, though: What if they gave LRs some utility? Something like infantry squads getting a cover save for being wholly within 6" of a LR to encourage some thematic play/army construction? Encourages and rewards moving troop screens forward with armor. Or some sort of Tau-like combined overwatch when charging infantry wholly within 6" of a LR.
Would guard players prefer the LR be tougher at the cost of being more expensive and being able to take fewer? I always thought part of the appeal of guard was being able to take lots of tanks.
I will point out that their is some erroneous information in that post Russes can be obsec just currently Gaurd players are not interested in paying the 3CP for the privilege especially when both infantry squads are cheap as chip and you have scions for deepstrike adding some mobility.
Part of the issue is GW has made marines redicoulous durable per point compaired to multiple troop unit's and vehicals especially.
So to achieve a decent return on points spent against the most common codex most units now need a significant buff to their damage output. However that will feed back into making all the vehicals in the game even weaker which frankly very few of them will survive as being playable.
One small buff it the leman russ could use, is giving vehicles with BS 4+, give them the point cost of BS 4+ infantry, ie 10 pts per heavy bolter, 15 for las cannon, instead of 15 and 20, also I really prefer to the leman russ aesthetically with side sponsons
Ice_can wrote: I will point out that their is some erroneous information in that post Russes can be obsec just currently Gaurd players are not interested in paying the 3CP for the privilege especially when both infantry squads are cheap as chip and you have scions for deepstrike adding some mobility.
Saying Russes can have OBSec (at a heavy CP cost) is just as dumb as saying Battle Cannons fire 6 shots because they can pay 2CP to do that. Yes, they could do that, but there's a reason nobody does. Even with some heavy buffs, I'm having a hard time seeing a Russ skew list working any better than a monster mash Nidzilla list does. Which is to say that it won't work, like, at all.
Part of the issue is GW has made marines redicoulous durable per point compaired to multiple troop unit's and vehicals especially.
So to achieve a decent return on points spent against the most common codex most units now need a significant buff to their damage output. However that will feed back into making all the vehicals in the game even weaker which frankly very few of them will survive as being playable.
Is there anything that a Russ actually damage efficiently? By efficiency, I'm talking about a 40% and up ROI per round.
Ice_can wrote: I will point out that their is some erroneous information in that post Russes can be obsec just currently Gaurd players are not interested in paying the 3CP for the privilege especially when both infantry squads are cheap as chip and you have scions for deepstrike adding some mobility.
Saying Russes can have OBSec (at a heavy CP cost) is just as dumb as saying Battle Cannons fire 6 shots because they can pay 2CP to do that. Yes, they could do that, but there's a reason nobody does. Even with some heavy buffs, I'm having a hard time seeing a Russ skew list working any better than a monster mash Nidzilla list does. Which is to say that it won't work, like, at all.
Part of the issue is GW has made marines redicoulous durable per point compaired to multiple troop unit's and vehicals especially.
So to achieve a decent return on points spent against the most common codex most units now need a significant buff to their damage output. However that will feed back into making all the vehicals in the game even weaker which frankly very few of them will survive as being playable.
Is there anything that a Russ actually damage efficiently? By efficiency, I'm talking about a 40% and up ROI per round.
Counterpoint-is 40% or more ROI a good benchmark for a ranged unit?
That would mean, in a 2k game, a primarily shooty force can kill around 800 points before you can do ANYTHING. Just because Marines had lethality cranked to 11 doesn't mean it's good.
JNAProductions wrote: Counterpoint-is 40% or more ROI a good benchmark for a ranged unit?
That would mean, in a 2k game, a primarily shooty force can kill around 800 points before you can do ANYTHING. Just because Marines had lethality cranked to 11 doesn't mean it's good.
Against a preferred target, unbuffed, out of cover - which is what I calculated for my PEQ example - why shouldn't a unit manage those kinds of numbers? Heck, name a new army or a current tournament topper that doesn't have at least a unit or two that can do exactly that.
Ice_can wrote: I will point out that their is some erroneous information in that post Russes can be obsec just currently Gaurd players are not interested in paying the 3CP for the privilege especially when both infantry squads are cheap as chip and you have scions for deepstrike adding some mobility.
Saying Russes can have OBSec (at a heavy CP cost) is just as dumb as saying Battle Cannons fire 6 shots because they can pay 2CP to do that. Yes, they could do that, but there's a reason nobody does. Even with some heavy buffs, I'm having a hard time seeing a Russ skew list working any better than a monster mash Nidzilla list does. Which is to say that it won't work, like, at all.
Part of the issue is GW has made marines redicoulous durable per point compaired to multiple troop unit's and vehicals especially.
So to achieve a decent return on points spent against the most common codex most units now need a significant buff to their damage output. However that will feed back into making all the vehicals in the game even weaker which frankly very few of them will survive as being playable.
Is there anything that a Russ actually damage efficiently? By efficiency, I'm talking about a 40% and up ROI per round.
Paying 2CP to take 2 less shots than my regular guard playing opponent manages with every Russ he puts on the table seems like a step backwards. As 2x 4avarage is 8 shots per turn.
I would also say being able to put 9 russes plus 3 commanders on the table each achieving an 40% return in a single round of shooting is not the direction the game needs to go.
Your saying an opponent should loose 800 points turn 1.
7 Battlecannon shots
7/2 hits
35/12 wounds
70/36 or 35/18 failed saves, for 3.24 damage on average
3 Heavy Bolter shots
3/2 hits
6/6 or 1 wound
1/2 failed saves, for 1 damage on average
Each Russ kills two MEQ on average, without sponsons.
Assuming intercessors thats 40 points from a 160 point unit or 25%. Yet adding 2 heavy bolters costs 30 points but kills another marine changing that to 60 points killed for 190 point unit or a 31% return.
Ice_can wrote: Paying 2CP to take 2 less shots than my regular guard playing opponent manages with every Russ he puts on the table seems like a step backwards. As 2x 4avarage is 8 shots per turn.
A Battle Cannon doesn't average 4 shots though, it averages 3.5 unless it's hitting a 10 man unit, but its 1d3 damage is pretty bad against the kinds of units that people are actually running in groups of 6+ and 11+. As for the 6 Battle Cannon shots, I was referring to the Hail of Fire strat. I'm not super familiar with guard to know if they have better Russ buffs tucked away that they just aren't using.
I would also say being able to put 9 russes plus 3 commanders on the table each achieving an 40% return in a single round of shooting is not the direction the game needs to go.
Your saying an opponent should loose 800 points turn 1.
That's 12 tanks, no infantry, low starting CP if they want to give something OBSec. If they can't do heavy damage they just lose every game.
Also, that 40% number would assume that the entire enemy army is unbuffed, out of cover, and the optimal target and it's very unlikely that anybody would take such a list and play on that empty a table.
7 Battlecannon shots
7/2 hits
35/12 wounds
70/36 or 35/18 failed saves, for 3.24 damage on average
3 Heavy Bolter shots
3/2 hits
6/6 or 1 wound
1/2 failed saves, for 1 damage on average
Each Russ kills two MEQ on average, without sponsons.
If they move at 5" or less and give away the entire board to the enemy. You can't win the game if you try to maximize grinding advance every turn which is why it wasn't in my math.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ice_can wrote: Assuming intercessors thats 40 points from a 160 point unit or 25%. Yet adding 2 heavy bolters costs 30 points but kills another marine changing that to 60 points killed for 190 point unit or a 31% return.
So a 5" moving 190 point model can annoy another faction's basic units. I can't see why people aren't spamming these things!
Some of the math and logic in this thread is rather painful.
catbarf wrote:Well my math was wrong because I omitted armor saves (oops), but I don't quite understand Vict0988's either.
Heavy Bolter- 3 shots, wounds on 5+, target takes 4+ save, 2 damage- 3 * 0.33 * 0.5 * 2 = 1 damage average per hit.
Lascannon- 1 shot, wounds on 3+, target takes 6+ save, 3.5 ave damage- 1 * 0.67 * 0.83 * 3.5 = 1.95 damage average per hit.
So the relative damage (95% more for lascannon) is right but I'm not clear on the 2/3 conversion factor. Assuming BS3+, I guess?
Anyways, when the lascannon costs 50% more than a heavy bolter but does less than twice as much damage, I stand by my statement- it's not sufficiently better than the heavy bolter to be worth the difference in price, when the heavy bolter is far better against infantry. Accounting for the weapon cost, it's only 30% better against a T8/3+ vehicle- that's not what I expect from a dedicated anti-tank weapon.
You also forgot the To-Hit Roll. You can't assume a Heavy Bolter will hit with all three attacks when comparing it to a one attack Lascannon. So the comparison is really:
HB (BS 3+) = 3 * (2/3 Hit * 1/3 Wound * 1/2 Save * 2 Dmg) = 0.66 Damage
HB (BS 4+) = 3 * (1/2 Hit * 1/3 Wound * 1/2 Save * 2 Dmg) = 0.5 Damage
LC (BS 3+) = (2/3 Hit * 2/3 Wound * 5/6 Save * 3.5 Dmg) = 1.3 Damage
LC (BS 4+) = (1/2 Hit * 2/3 Wound * 5/6 Save * 3.5 Dmg) = 0.97 Damage
So a Lascannon is twice as dangerous as a Heavy Bolter against T8/3+.
CommunistNapkin wrote:
Quasistellar wrote: I guess I just disagree with the assertion that LRs die too quickly for their point cost. Remember, they can be spammed. If they can be spammed, they need to be reasonably vulnerable to fire.
My argument is not that they aren't durable enough. I argue that they aren't effective enough at shooting.
If you want to make them more durable, then suddenly you are running an imperial knight army statline with more units and cheaper. Or, you must lose the ability to take multiple in a unit.
I don't think either of those are the correct direction.
I certainly disagree that the Leman Russ is tough enough, especially when compared to something like the Death Guard Plagueburst Crawler. If we compare their stats:
First off, let's assume the Plagueburst Crawler is running 2 Entropy Cannons and the Heavy Slugger, as that seems to be the most likely build. That would bring the total points to 160. A "similarly" geared Leman Russ would be a Battle Cannon, Heavy Bolter in the hull, and Multimelta sponsons. This build runs 210 points.
-Wounds: Plagueburst Crawler: 12, Leman Russ: 12
-Toughness: Plagueburst Crawler: 8, Leman Russ: 8
-Armor Save: Plagueburst Crawler: 3+, Leman Russ: 3+
And that's where the similarities end.
-Invulnerable Save: Plagueburst Crawler: 5+, Leman Russ: N/A
-Extra rules: Plagueburst Crawler: -1 damage from all attacks at all times (Disgustingly Resilient), Leman Russ: Once per game -1 to hit at the cost of firing its weapons (Smoke Launchers)
So right there, the Plagueburst Crawler, not factoring in weapons, is cheaper (or the same points if you ONLY take the base Battle Cannon and Heavy Bolter), and significantly more survivable. Once we factor in damage output, it gets worse.
The Plagueburst Crawler shooting at a Leman Russ will do approximately...
Plagueburst Mortar: 1.67 damage
Entropy Cannons: 3.78 damage
Heavy Slugger: .33 damage
Total: 5.78 damage on average
The Leman Russ shooting at a Plagueburst Crawler will do approximately...
Battle Cannon (shooting twice w/ Grinding Advance): 1.39 damage
Multimeltas (not in half range): 1.67 damage
Multimeltas (in half range): 3 damage
Heavy Bolter: .25 damage
Total: 3.31 damage not in half range, 4.64 damage in half range.
So the Plagueburst Crawler, for 50 points fewer than the Leman Russ, is more survivable and does more damage with shooting, even when using situations favorable to the Russ. Assuming the Plagueburst Crawler is pointed correctly (which is a maybe), this means the Russ is either massively overcosted, or underpowered both in terms of defense and offensive capabilities.
Comparing damage output against each other is an Apples to Oranges comparison. You need to compare offensive firepower against the same target to see which is the more deadly vehicle. Remove the effects of Disgustingly Resilient and the Invulnerable Save from your calculation and I am sure the Leman Russ is out damaging the Plagueburst Crawler against a T8/3+ target.
alextroy wrote: Comparing damage output against each other is an Apples to Oranges comparison. You need to compare offensive firepower against the same target to see which is the more deadly vehicle. Remove the effects of Disgustingly Resilient and the Invulnerable Save from your calculation and I am sure the Leman Russ is out damaging the Plagueburst Crawler against a T8/3+ target.
You have something of a point about comparing them against the same target, however as they are both the main battle tanks of the two armies armies, I felt it was useful to see how they did against each other. The Invulnerable Save of the PBC never comes into effect because the Battle Cannon is only AP-2. Obviously removing Disgustingly Resilient from the PBC changes the math quite a bit and at that point the Leman Russ does slightly outdamage the PBC overall, however it is still less damage point-for-point.
Is there anything that a Russ actually damage efficiently? By efficiency, I'm talking about a 40% and up ROI per round.
Leman Russ Demolisher with two multi-meltas and a lascannon. 11 damage to a Space Marines Gladiator Valiant which is 250 pts for 12 wounds. That's more than 100% ROI.
Valiants have equal firepower and durability and then pay added points for mobility (but no FLY).
Is there anything that a Russ actually damage efficiently? By efficiency, I'm talking about a 40% and up ROI per round.
Leman Russ Demolisher with two multi-meltas and a lascannon. 11 damage to a Space Marines Gladiator Valiant which is 250 pts for 12 wounds. That's more than 100% ROI.
Valiants have equal firepower and durability and then pay added points for mobility (but no FLY).
So you have to pick a 24" range cannon and pair it against a vehicle so bad nobody plays it to find your return. I'd say that proves the point well enough.
I should have phrased it by asking which meta threats they do anything against.
Is there anything that a Russ actually damage efficiently? By efficiency, I'm talking about a 40% and up ROI per round.
Leman Russ Demolisher with two multi-meltas and a lascannon. 11 damage to a Space Marines Gladiator Valiant which is 250 pts for 12 wounds. That's more than 100% ROI.
Valiants have equal firepower and durability and then pay added points for mobility (but no FLY).
I should have phrased it by asking which meta threats they do anything against.
Yep you should I kind of thought you might have been speaking about the barebones Leman Russ with battle cannon, but I technically fulfilled your request 2,5x by finding a 100% efficiency scenario. There is no real point to me doing your request as intended because even if it is possible AM are still doing bad right now and it makes sense to buff Leman Russes in my mind, on the other hand the people that want Leman Russes to be the equivalents of Land Raiders in terms of durability are silly.
vict0988 wrote: Yep you should I kind of thought you might have been speaking about the barebones Leman Russ with battle cannon, but I technically fulfilled your request 2,5x by finding a 100% efficiency scenario. There is no real point to me doing your request as intended because even if it is possible AM are still doing bad right now and it makes sense to buff Leman Russes in my mind, on the other hand the people that want Leman Russes to be the equivalents of Land Raiders in terms of durability are silly.
I was admittedly mostly thinking of baseline naked Russes, but I should have been specific in my thoughts. You've scored a fine point on me this day.
We're also on the same page with wanting Russes buffed. If you saw it what did you think of my idea for improving them?
vict0988 wrote: it makes sense to buff Leman Russes in my mind, on the other hand the people that want Leman Russes to be the equivalents of Land Raiders in terms of durability are silly.
It used to essentially be so [outside of melee]. It was front AV14 after all. And 13 [more than most other vehicle's fronts] on the side.
[In fact, IIRC the only the Leman Russ, Land Raider, and Battlewagon were AV14, and of them the Leman Russ was also unquestionably the best armed, offset by average ballistic skill and no transport]
[In fact, IIRC the only the Leman Russ, Land Raider, and Battlewagon were AV14, and of them the Leman Russ was also unquestionably the best armed, offset by average ballistic skill and no transport]
The Monolith was AV 14 all around in the first codex, but I never saw the 5e rework so I can't say if it stayed there
[In fact, IIRC the only the Leman Russ, Land Raider, and Battlewagon were AV14, and of them the Leman Russ was also unquestionably the best armed, offset by average ballistic skill and no transport]
The Monolith was AV 14 all around in the first codex, but I never saw the 5e rework so I can't say if it stayed there
Yeah, the monolith was also AV14. I kind of forgot it existed since I haven't seen it since 5e!
Either way, that's not that many AV14 vehicles, one of which was the Leman Russ, so it's not hyperbole to say that the Leman Russ could be considered to be reasonably as resilient as a Land Raider.
That said, I wouldn't want to pay an excessive premium for toughness alone.
vict0988 wrote: it makes sense to buff Leman Russes in my mind, on the other hand the people that want Leman Russes to be the equivalents of Land Raiders in terms of durability are silly.
It used to essentially be so [outside of melee]. It was front AV14 after all. And 13 [more than most other vehicle's fronts] on the side.
[In fact, IIRC the only the Leman Russ, Land Raider, and Battlewagon were AV14, and of them the Leman Russ was also unquestionably the best armed, offset by average ballistic skill and no transport]
Wasnt the Leman Russ 14 - 12 -10 (F, S, R) and the Demolisher 14 - 13 - 11? I feel like the many S6 Eldar weapons could glance the Russ from the flank.
Wasnt the Leman Russ 14 - 12 -10 (F, S, R) and the Demolisher 14 - 13 - 11? I feel like the many S6 Eldar weapons could glance the Russ from the flank.
Leman Russes were 14 -13 - 10/11. Demolisher/Executioner/Punisher were 11 on the rear, the other variants were 10.
Wasnt the Leman Russ 14 - 12 -10 (F, S, R) and the Demolisher 14 - 13 - 11? I feel like the many S6 Eldar weapons could glance the Russ from the flank.
Leman Russes were 14 -13 - 10/11. Demolisher/Executioner/Punisher were 11 on the rear, the other variants were 10.
Must have changed at some point then, since I'm now looking at the 4th ed book and the Russ is 14, 12, 10 in there. I dont have a Guard book from editions 5-7.
Wasnt the Leman Russ 14 - 12 -10 (F, S, R) and the Demolisher 14 - 13 - 11? I feel like the many S6 Eldar weapons could glance the Russ from the flank.
Leman Russes were 14 -13 - 10/11. Demolisher/Executioner/Punisher were 11 on the rear, the other variants were 10.
Technically you're both right - 3e/3.5e the Russ was 14/12/10 and Demolisher was 14/13/11, then 5e/6e the 'battle' Russes (Battle Tank, Vanquisher, Exterminator, Eradicator) were bumped to 14/13/10 and the 'siege' Russes (Demolisher, Punisher, Executioner) were kept at 14/13/11.
One way around making the Tank Commander + Russ being better than a TC + TC, whilst also having a choice of increasing damage output or durability could be the following:
1. Keep TC as HQ but only 1 TC per Russ squadron.
2. Change the Orders to affect the whole squadron + TC 3. Order range becomes at least 18"
4. New Orders could be
-Load Armour Piercing ammo: Squadrons turret weapons get -1ap
-Load High Demolition shells: Squadrons turret weapons get +1S (or could be rerolls for shot amounts)
-Fire and smoke: Squadrons tanks gain +1 save (or could be a 5++ if that is too weak)
-Use autonautica targetting data: Squadron rerolls 1 to hit.
-Full Throtle: Can advance and shoot as if it hadn't advanced
5. Adjust points appropriately if needed.
TC can still order itself but to get the optimum out of the orders the player would be better ordering a squadron of 2-3 tanks. You could still take 3 TCs and order themselves, but to do so you will have to take 3 base Russes as tax that won't be receiving orders.
I would highly advise against playing with +strength or even worse to wound roll buffs as they stand a significant chance of rendering them OP or significantly over priced.
Assuming 9th edition stats I expect a russ will have
D6 72" S8 AP-2 D3 shots and 9 36" S5 AP-1 D2 shots for 5.917 wounds to a marine aka 3 dead marines so 60 points
And 3.25 wounds to a T8 3+Sv unit, which is about what I would say is inline with what I expect to be the Vanquisher statline.
Realistically the space to change the wepaon profiles has gone fiddling with save and toughness I don't see happening.
I do think the orders probably do need adressed but realistically points are probably the basic russes biggest issue.
35 points just isn't a big enough difference for +1BS skill and orders.
hell tank commanders need to baby sit regulars by staying 6" of them to transmit orders ??? 
A typo, well, I still have 
Didn't mean imply they actually NEEDED a nerf. 
I thought that was what I just suggested. What would you propose to increase the damage output of Leman Russes?
