Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

In 5th Edition tanks and armored vehicles (not including walkers) have become more durable, but not much more useful. Just because a tank is hanging around the battlefield, if it can't do anything then it isn't really worth the points. With most vehicles, it isn't a big deal, such as Predators, Truks, Rhinos, Hammerhead, and the like are cheap enough and their purpose on the battlefield is to tote around a single weapon or troops. However a Battletank, such as the Leman Russ chassis, Land Raider, maxed out Predators, and other similiar vehicles are meant to fire their weapons which they have heavily paid for. Granted, some light chassis, such as the Rhino chassis that the Predator is based on, are not made for the heavy duty abuse that a Battletank is to endure. The Leman Russ, however, is a Battletank, and at this moment, with this edition of the 40k Rulebook and Imperial Guard Codex leaves the Leman Russ wanting of ability. At the moment, the vehicle may sit still and fire all of its secondary weapons or turret cannon (Demolisher, Battlecannon, Vanquisher Cannon, ect...), or move and fire only one secondary weapon or its turret cannon. Since sitting in cover grants a 4+ coversave, and movement does not, the typical function of a tank is to become a tough firing position stuck at one point on the table.

Proposed Solution :

Special Rule : Battle Tank

Affects : All Vehicles based on the Leman Russ Battletank Chassis.

Effects : Moving up to six inches the Leman Russ may fire all of its weapons in the shooting phasee, if it moves more than six inches it may fire either its main battle cannon or all weapons strength 7 or less.

Purpose : Make the Leman Russ a mobile fighting position. S7 was chosen for the Demolisher's sponson Multi-Meltas and Plasma-Cannons. Basically, S7 and below is the realm of heavy anti-infantry duty, not for busting armor really, the S8 Multi-Meltas, however, would be, and thusly there should be a restriction and point to choosing between the turret cannon and firing all the other weapons. This also makes the sponson options a viable choice, rather than just a points-limit-filler.

That's my basic starting proposition. This has been a hot subject in threads NOT meant for Russ discussion, and since no-one else seemed interested in starting a thread for it, I will start one off, as it is a subject worth discussing.

not all guns ... it just make them too overpowered ... give them a version of POMS ... scratch that give them Power of the machine spirit ... would give them the bonus of picking a different target for the main cannon

Not a bad idea, though I disagree for the points value of the Russ, being able to use all the weapons you are paying for is quite reasonable.Or up the points a bit until it is a bit more fair, say 175 + Equipment? That and Machine Spirit.

I shall expand upon Tri's thinking, at least what I feel he is thinking, as he did not explain why he felt POMS is a worthwhile upgrade.... perhaps he is just thinking seductive thoughts about a Leman Russ taking advantage of him when he is under the influence.... he did not explain why the Russ might want to pick alternative targets for the turret cannon.

The Vanquisher varient of the Leman Russ as well as the MBC on the standard Russ are good weapons for anti-tanking or knocking on the door of a some heavy infantry, while HB are not and giving them something to shoot at (since you paid for them) is decent. Alternatively, say you moved and want to use your hull mounted lascannon to knock out that pesky Ork Trukk but you also have a Tank Bustaz squad that just disembarked from the trukk the turn before. Well, now you are in a pickle, the trukk is an easy target but the orks are menacing. Normally, you can't pop both but the Russ is an epic war machine! A Main BATTLE Tank! Chop those infantry Orks down with the Heavy Bolters and Stubber up-top then slam a lasbolt into that stinking wreck of a vehicle the orks call a trukk! Cleanse the unclean!

First off, Congrats Shinnattittar on trying to fix something that needs fixing.

Second, I personally feel that 175 pts plus equipment just to move and shoot is NOT worth it. With everything else in the game moveing towards cheaper costs and armies haveing the ability to kill vehicles stupid fast (drop pod Melta marines on there turn 1) it just isnt worth spending those points on tanks. Id rather spend it on HW platoons.

Alot of people argue that giving Ig Tanks this option or takeing them in squads of 3 for 1 Heavy choice is broken, well I say that haveing half your army rounded up drop podding into my lines on your turn one without any risk of terrain is brokenly stupid, but guess what? It makes marines different from every other army, so therefore let the guard get something that makes them different from everyone else.

ah yes was a bit cryptic, ok i'll explain

Lets take a look at a Land Raider (250):-

It has 2 jobs ... transport and weapons platform ... to work well it has to get up close (ymmv).
It has armour 14 all round comes with PotMS 10man Transport TL-HB, 2 TL lascannons, search light and smoke launchers

and now lets look at Leman Russ Battle Tank (155 with LC)

It has one job ... ranged fire support ... to work best it wants to be no where near the fighting
It has front armour 14 side 12 rear 11 ... Battle Cannon and lascannon...

and the Leman Russ Demolisher (155 with HB)(yes i am matching the points)

It has one job ... Mid ranged fire support ... to work best it needs to be just out of charge range (19"-25")
It has front armour 14 side 13 rear 11 ... Demolisher Cannon and HB...

Leman Russ given PotMS, could have a go at poping open a transport and then shooting the unit diving out (or any 2 targets ... DP's and SM's) ... and in this situation it looks like a fair cost ... it can move 6" and still shoot both guns or move 12" and fire one

ok given side sponsons it gets more complicated the LRBT would work more or less the same with a pair of heavy bolters it would move to the best spot and sit there ... The LRD on the other hand fires off its long ranged weapons while moving up then waits for the enemy to move in range next turn (when it fires all its weapons) then falls back next turn if anythings still moving (or just shoots them sum more)

oh, forgot they could take heavy flamers ... additional rule, can always fire template weapons at anything in range (how can you miss with a flamer? when even a conscript can shoot them)

and the melta guns should drop to 15pts ...they're just too pricey to use an this tank unless they fired as a pair (so you only count as firing one gun)

also Outflank as a vehical upgrade would be some thing to make IG different (not just russes but hellhounds and chimera as well)

Making the IG armor more mobile and still usefull is my goal, I would like to see their infantry move more too, but that's just too many models moving and would unduly slow down the game. However cheap Chimeras and Command Squad Razorback style Chimeras would solve that problem. Bringing in heavy armor that can do its job as it should will make an IG force that can actually use tactics AFTER setup, moving from a pure static lasgun-wall to an army where unit detachment assault troops (see my Imperial Guard Munitorum thread) makes the IG a plausible assault army. Lasguns are affective when they double-tap their Rapid Fire option, so they would need a double tap in assault to be just as affective.

To make something like the Russ a mobile platform that isn't the first target of the enemy and at least one knocked out in Turn 2 (usually mine are, even when in cover) means it needs to be able to move and shoot affectively.

well with a bit of luck Chimeras will drop to 30+weapons, to match rinos and razorbacks

Tri wrote:well with a bit of luck Chimeras will drop to 30+weapons, to match rinos and razorbacks

They're 55 with weapons, smoke and a Searchlight.

BYE

Ick..
Hopefully for that price it will be BS 4......

21st century main battle tanks can charge at full speed across the roughest terrain on this planet, and intelligent aiming and guidance systems will keep the main gun precisely on target at all times. Tanks set in the future need to be at least as technologically advanced as our modern day equivalents. The idea of the imperial guard stalwart main battle tank not being able to fire it's heavy bolter sponsons at troops attempting to assault it whilst firing it's main gun at a target on the other side of the battlefield whilst moving is really stupid. What do all the crew in one of those things do, read magazines and scratch themselves all the time the tank commander isn't shouting and pointing directly at them?

Nuclear brings up a good point, however that same logic would allow the Eldar, Tau, and Necrons far superior options. That is a slippery slope we don't need. However...

Fully Crewed : Each weapon on the Leman Russ has a dedicated crewman, the actions of other crewman do not affect their actions, each weapon acts independantly of the others.

Gyroptic Sighting : While other weapons on the Leman Russ are dependant upon their crew operating them, the main cannon in the turret operates using mechanical assistance and guidance, it may fire regardless of the vehicles movement.

Personally I'd like to see the Leman Russ be changed in three ways:

Lumbering (i.e. may only ever move up to 6 inches, shoots as if stationary)
Available in squadrons of 1-3
Able to fire its battlecannon independantly of its other weapons

I think all of this fits the fluff (its not better then the land raider or Tau Hammerhead, but different), without rendering it overpowered.

Jack

Jack, I dont say this often bud...

Buuuuuuut...

I actually like that. And the Lumbering is a bad enough handicap to justify the other two perks.

Also you forgot to add:
4: Reduction in Points overall.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Tri wrote:well with a bit of luck Chimeras will drop to 30+weapons, to match rinos and razorbacks

They're 55 with weapons, smoke and a Searchlight.

BYE

with weapons? ... my guess is 6pts out then ... can't wait to see the codex

Nuclear Mekanik wrote:21st century main battle tanks can charge at full speed across the roughest terrain on this planet, and intelligent aiming and guidance systems will keep the main gun precisely on target at all times. Tanks set in the future need to be at least as technologically advanced as our modern day equivalents. The idea of the imperial guard stalwart main battle tank not being able to fire it's heavy bolter sponsons at troops attempting to assault it whilst firing it's main gun at a target on the other side of the battlefield whilst moving is really stupid. What do all the crew in one of those things do, read magazines and scratch themselves all the time the tank commander isn't shouting and pointing directly at them?

Don't forget though that the Guard are more based around WW1 and WW2 in both tactics and weapons....Massed infantry, armoured Divisions, even light Cavalry!

I agree about the Heavy Bolters being able to fire, but *everything* is a bit much. In 2nd Edition, the Demolisher was the only tank that couldn't move and fire it's primary weapon, on account the thing was likely to flip from the recoil!

@ Grotsnik : And the Eldar and Orks were based off of Warhammer Fantasy Elves and Orcs, but they have greatly diverged and advanced (I can't entirely be TOO sure how different Orks are from Orcs, and Eldar are from Elves, I've never played fantasy, but that's how it looks to me listening to the Fantasy players at my hobby shop). During WWII artillery pieces didn't make an appearance on the front line, nor did armored personell vehicles, nor did a lot of things that the Imerial Guard has now, but who's counting. The Leman Russ was actually loosely based upon a French WWI tank, the Chimera seems to be completely original. IG Infantry wasn't necessarily based upon WWII infantry tactics, but on infantry tactics in general. Most of the tactics we still use today was developed during WWII, not much has changed since then since there hasn't been a major infantry engagement since the Korean War and Vietnam, neither nearly so large as the Second World War.

I think that most vehicles should be able to move and fire it's weapons. Look at modern tanks (M1 Abrams), top speeds in excess of 40 mph (a lot faster than infantry) and can fire everything they want. The shooting is computer aided and the tanks weighs like 60 tons..it's not going to roll over and is fully capable of using everything it has. Yes, I understand there are no sponsons on modern tanks (most in production anyways) but this is the year 2000. Add 38000 years to the technology that is available and to think that tanks won't be able to move and fire everything is ridiculous.

Right now infantry move 6 and shoot, and then assault. To think a tank moves 6 and fires one weapon...that's just dumb. Tanks are easy to pop open in 40k with a couple exceptions (Monolith, LR), that is their weakness. That and they are typically somewhat expensive. I think the vehicle rules should be rewritten nearly entirely. I like the fact that in close combat you always get the rear armor, but other than that, the vehicle rules have no logic behind their rules.

I don't even use tanks (other than Rhinos in my BA) but I think they could use a boost and make them more realistic. Terminators are a more mobile gun platform than tanks...and a lot tougher.

Actually there's quite a bit of logic behind the vehicle rules, just not the logic you're looking for. First, is that the game tries to stress the infantry models to a large degree, hard to do if armor is as strong as it 'should' be. Addionally, given gravity manipulation, which lots of the fluff says is prevalent for some of the races at least, and not unknown to the others, tanks of the far future would be vastly different, and the battlefield changing so quickly that infantry couldn't keep up.

Second, don't just look at the tank, but the battlefield role of everything. Mobility and information are key now to taking things. World war 2 style combats just aren't practical when you can get your enemies location relayed to you via satellite feed, and send the right amount of doom and destruction at them from so far over the horizon that you have to figure things like planetary rotation and curve of earth into your targetting, and hit with such accuracy and precision that you can eliminate the target and leave nearby buildings and bystanders relatively untouched. And that's today. As you say, add in 38000 years, and it's not unlikely that something as large as a single tank, or small unit of infantry, isn't identified and targetted using several different methods from a minor onboard system of a hovering spaceship, and some form of weapon getting a signal that immediately annihilates the target from orbit. With the addition of man portable smart weapons, anti-tank weaponry, and special training, it's more likely that most of the conflicts that far in the future are either space battles, or commando raids against specific targets, and there is no battlefield. Realistically, that far in the future if you see a tank, it should be in a museum, or so immensely powerful and invulnerable that just having it means you win.

I think the lumbering solution is really the best option to achieve what is needed out Leman Russ'. Lumbering is one of the standard rules that doesn't apply to anything in a standard 40k game, only in apocalypse. Seems like some vehicle should have it and it fits the IG more than any other race.

The 40k universe is purposefully anachronistic. The leman russ while a battle tank is not equivalent to an Abrahms, if its equivalent to anything modern it would be a T90, which doesn't have any of the fancy targeting systems mentioned. Also, if the leman russ did it begs the question, why does it need the number of crew members it does. Its very apparent that the battle tank is fired manually, though some assist might be present.

@ Mythos : To answer your question, the Abrams still has a full crew compliment, just because you have a scope doesn't mean you still don't have a loader and a gunner. The Abrams doesn't have a hull mount and sponsons. It has the turret mount 105mm or 120mm with a co-axial M240 and a pintle-mounted M240 and a crew of four.

The Russ; Turret mount Battle Cannon (and varients), lascannon/heavy bolter hull mount, left and right heavy bolter/heavy flamer sponsons (and varients), pintle mounted stormbolter/heavy stubber, and hunter-killer missile and in the fluff has a crew of five to eight, depending on sponsons, and whether or not your source includes an engineer/tac/nav/support tanker.

Differences? Russ has one to three more weapons so has one to three more tankers, with a possible extra for other purposes depending on your sources.

My point was more to the fact that the Leman Russ is not a pinnacle of technology. The type of systems that were described would make it such, for the imperium in the 40k universe. It is the massed produced tank with the best technology that can be afforded by the imperium with the lowest investment. Which is why I drew a parallel to a T90. An Abrams tank is what you would get if you vested as much effort as a Land Raider is afforded into making a battle tank.

Nuclear Mekanik wrote:21st century main battle tanks can charge at full speed across the roughest terrain on this planet, and intelligent aiming and guidance systems will keep the main gun precisely on target at all times.

Tanks set in the future need to be at least as technologically advanced as our modern day equivalents.

And that is why RL and 40k don't mix.

As I have posited before, a 40k Tank incorporates a level of technology that is beyond anything that we could imagine today.

However, 40k Imperial anti-Technologocial Doctrine means that they don't use any of this capability. Instead of using fully-compensated auto-targeting, auto-aiming, auto-tracking systems, Imperial training doctrine says: ignore all those buttons and use the optical sights. Instead of using smart auto-selected auto-fused, auto-loaded ammunition , they treat the whole thing as just a bunch of ammo hoppers and do it manually. I imagine any action has a lot of systems disgengage-reengage nonsense that would have the Dark Age designers of the STCs rolling in their graves.

I other words, your Leopard 2A6 tank is piloted by a WW1 tank crew, so it never performs anywhere near its potential.

it might also have something to do with the fact that their AI rebeled and tryed to kill them ... now where is that fluff so i can quote it

Tanks are harder to kill in this edition, but so has everything.

Everyone with heavy bolters got the defensive weapon nerf. It'll be interesting to see what this new codex brings.

Battlecannons are still one the best damned things out there - the scatter is a bit worse, but they've always been the absolute bane of Meqs basically wherever they can get LOS. It always annoyed me, frankly, that _Defilers_ got them for their points value. If you feed that pie to a Command Squad, the tank will probably have just about paid for itself, Feel No Pain be damned.

My BS4 Space Wolf Leman Russ Exterminator on the other hand... if I could move that 6" and still fire everything, then I'd still be laughing. They're slightly better vs. armour, with two S7 shots off the top, though at 185 pts minimum they're pricey too... though arguably better value than IG gets.

Reduction inthe cost of armour seems to be a running theme, so I should not be suprised to see a couple of significant price drops.

But as nice as it would be to lower the cost AND have it fire all of its weapons whenever possible, that's just too good. The Lumbering suggestion is nice, but it's probably not fitting for game balance. I'm sure IG will get their long deserved plate of cheese in some form or another.

@ Firangi : You seem to forget that GW has had the chance to give the IG cheese a half dozen times now but have only made things WORSE! The most desparing fact of all this is that the IG is actually quite popular so making it worthwhile to play would only increase their sales of Imperial Guard. Not to say that I want my Guard to become vanilla as Space Marines, but giving my army variety and the chance to NOT be completely static would be very nice.

Lumbering would solve HALF the problems the Russ has, but no all, armor would also have to be upgraded on the sides and rear (14-13-12?) because it wouldn't help to move your tank around the battlefield only to expose that delicate 12 side armor and even easier to destroy 10 on the butt plate. A new model would also be neat (though it would never happen), everyone else has had one since 1985 except for the Imperial Guard.

My solution :
Armor; 14-13-12
Heavy Battle Tank; May fire all weapons when moving less than 6", either the main battle cannon or all other weapons if moved more than 6", no weapons if it moves up to or more than 12".
Heavily Crewed; The Battle Cannon/Turret Crew acts independantly of the other weapons and may choose seperate targets, all other weapons work together to identify and engage targets.

I'm actually OK the way that Chaos got their Battlecannon - it's AV12, so much easier to kill. Walker, so it can be locked in HtH.


If GW would fix the points costs on Platoons (~45 pts base) and Chimeras (~45 pts total), and then just fix the KPs (1/2 KP per squad), that would be far more of a help than cutting a few points on my Russes.

In fact, just making all of the Russes, Bassies, and Hellhounds squadronable would be enough that I'd be happy with them at current points.

I really don't think so many imperial vehicle should be squadronable. The vehicles that function in a platoon support role shouldn't be organized into squadrons, a hellhound would need to function more autonomously from other hellhounds and be more in the command authority of the platoon its supporting.

Bassies and Russes would make sense as they'd both likely be formations taken from an armored company to support the infantry company. I also think that such 3 tank formations would be 0-1 options.

Squadrons = Restrictive to players who DON'T battle like you do. I just can't think of how making that mandatory would be beneficial..... Perhaps if they could be bought like a platoon with each tank being independant of eachother, I don't see a problem with that.

@Aka: All of the vehicles I mention are currently able to be taken as Apocalypse Squadrons. And besides, as the Squadron size will be 1-3 Tanks, then players would still have the option to take individual units.

The point is that Tank squadrons reinforce the heirarchical organization of the IG that starts with Infantry Platoons, and carries over into Sentinel, Hellhound, Russ, Demolisher, and Basilisk Squadrons.

Practically, this represents little concern. Supposing someone took the full set of Tank Squadrons, that's:
- 465+ pts in Demolishers
- 435+ pts in Russes
- 300+ pts in Basilisks
- 345+ pts in Hellhounds
= 1545 pts in Tanks

It's not even playable in 1500 pts, and 1850 pts means a maximum of 305 pts for 1 HQ (Command Squad) and 2 Troops (Grenadiers). With a 2 squishy Troops for Scoring, Objectives missions would be very tough, I think.