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.

The battle cannon is obviously designed to be an anti-infantry weapon that can also be used with some effectiveness against vehicles, but not as much as a dedicated ant-tank weapon. Which is what S8 AP3 Ordance does.

This "it's designed to destory bunkers" thing is player projection. No it's not. It's designed to kill medium-heavy infantry..

 Battlegrinder wrote:
But would they? 40k had ordnance weapons well before it had MCs, and I don't recall hearing anything about them dominating the game then.

Hmm. The only time I remember that ordnance weapons dominated the game was in 5e with the Guard Leafblower army style.

Alcibiades wrote:
This "it's designed to destory bunkers" thing is player projection.

I think that was intended for one of the other kind of leman russ tanks, the Demolisher.

Waaaghpower wrote:

 DarkStarSabre wrote:

 mrhappyface wrote:
Spoiler - that T8 DP is taken from the DeathGuard detachment in the CSM supplement, which is why it re-rolls 1s for FnP.

Besides that the rest of your points are completely correct.

Really? As you had already said - that is completely dependant on the DP rolling 2 specific powers and successfully getting them off every single turn. And having rolled a specific Warlord trait. Not to mention the fact that a DP with those capability easily pushes above the cost of a Wraithknight

Like, I'm sorry, I don't think a 350+ model with at best a 3+/2+ cover (at the cost of being able to do anything else)/5+ invuln/ 4+ FnP rerolling 1s (only if you get the right Warlord trait and only if you're part of a specific detachment) should be less survivable than a tank that costs half its points.

It doesn't have EW and if it doesn't roll the right powers it's T5. It's bucketload of attacks depend on it not rolling a 1 in assault, otherwise it's WS1 that entire phase and taking a wound.

I'm confused - Why two specific powers AND a specific Warlord Trait? You need Iron Arm to get the T8, but to get the 4+ FNP you only need Endurance OR the right Warlord Trait.
To be effectively immune to Instant Death, you need either Iron Arm, Endurance, or the right Warlord Trait. Since you can reroll your Warlord Trait, that's 4 chances to get the right ability - The '6' result on Nurgle powers also gives +1 S and +1 T, so it's really 5 chances, since you only need T6 in order to prevent Instant Death from almost any source.
With Idyllic powers and Warlord Trait, you're getting S10, T9, 3+ FNP, and Eternal Warrior. Realistically, you won't get all of these, but you're almost garunteed to get some source of Eternal Warrior, boosted Toughness, and/or increased combat capability. Throw on that poisoned Daemon Weapon for 35 points, and he also has a crazy boatload of attacks.

Iron Arm to get T8 - that's one psychic power.
Endurance or the right Warlord trait. That's 2 psychic powers.
The 6 result on the Nurgle powers. 3 psychic powers.

So before adding in Wings or Power Armour you're sitting at 235 points.

Eternal Warrior is ONLY acheivable through Endurance or a Warlord trait. So you are literally locked into a specific detachment and fishing for rolls for the ideal power or trait. It's not guaranteed. It's like buying 50 Lottery tickets for $1 each, winning $20 and then declaring that the system works.

But wait, there's more. You have to actually get these powers off. Endurance is Warp Charge 2. Iron Arm is Warp Charge 1. Curse of the Leper is Warp Charge 2. So you are going to be wanting to generate at least 10 Warp Charge dice per turn and hoping you roll above average. For the record, that DP on his own gives you 3+D6.

When you factor in the points for everything....

You have a 330 point model.

And considering more than half the armies in the game are Imperial...here's what you to do shut it down.

Take Coteaz or anything else that gives you a bonus or reroll to Seize and Alpha-Strike the prince off the table in Turn 1 before it casts anything.
Or hilariously take a 140 point Culexus Assassin and create an effective 24 inch bubble of No Daemon Prince as every single blessing will fall off the Prince and every attack and all you have to do is happily run after the Prince or just conveniently sit where your juiciest units are, making sure that your opponent has literally pissed away 330 points.

Are you still going to harp on about this thing?

For one, it costs more than a Double-D-Cannon Wraithknight.
For the second you are literally putting an entire strategy into rolling the right dice. What happens if you fail to get anything? You end up with Enfeeble, Warp Speed and Weapon Virus. Do you just instantly concede or do you realise that this was a fething awful strategy in the first place?

One should hope that a 330 point Warlord has some durability and survivability, especially if you roll exactly the right dice. Because really, that thing costs half the points cost of Magnus the Red, has far less Psychic utility and is far less durable and deadly than Magnus.

You gorram twit.

Most problems come down to the differences between MC and vehicles in core rules and could be solved by changing them:
- Split fire for MC and Vehicles (though if firing more than one weapon on a unit, you have to fire all at once)
- drop the vehicle damage table (might come true with a streamlined 8th)
- vehicles with type heavy can fire ordnance weapon without drawback when firing other weapons
- vehicles with type heavy gain an additional hull point.
- give walkers the same usr as MCs

As for the Leman Russ
- Veteran tank crews should be an option.

- Rear armor:
To be honest 10/11 at the rear only matters for cc, if attacked by the basic infantry. But then it´s my opinion, no basic should do harm in cc to any battle tank without being equipped with appropriate gear.
So as long as all cc attack are resolved against the rear armor, 11 is the value that fits.
Dedicated cc troops and anti-tank weapon would damage/destroy it anyway.

Looking at the rumors for the 8th, i can easily imagine that there will be only Chassis for the Leman Russ. Then you have to pay certain points for the turret and may be sponsons.
Though i guess that depends if GW will make a single Leman Russ box for all variants.

If a weapon should do more than one point of damage then it shouldn´t differ if it hits a MC or a Vehicle. Both should loose that amount of hp / wounds. Yes we have armourbane and fleshbane. I can image those two become one usr in 8th.

If a vehicle receive an invulnerable save, then only through equipment for extra points.
I personally would love more useful vehicle gear, especially auspexes for vehicles. Too much and too good cover (ruins again 4+), don´t talking about Tau.


Those changes would bring vehicles and MC more in line. Though MC would be still way better in CC as vehicles (except for walkers which might be as good as them). And vehicles, at least heavy battle tanks, would be better at shooting.
Which feels right to me.

PS: all my comments regarding 8th are only based on the common rumors.

 DarkStarSabre wrote:

You gorram twit.

Best insult I have ever seen, +1.

I, personally, cannot see why people are against increasing the rear armour on the LRBT to 11 across the board, as when it comes down to it having your heavy tank glanced to death by basic infantry rapid firing or assaulting with no AT weapons what so ever really feels insulting.

Whilst we are at it the Heavy Vehicle type needs removing. It is essentially a massive nerf to the Leman Russ and really makes any form of advancing painful, especially as your tank is now out run by infantry (a far cry from the "Gunheads" novels.)

Hell yes. Under the current system, 11 for the regular russes and 12 for the seige variants seems right. And take away the ordnance weapon restrictions. That applies to everyone, not just us.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Hell yes. Under the current system, 11 for the regular russes and 12 for the seige variants seems right. And take away the ordnance weapon restrictions. That applies to everyone, not just us.

Agreed.

I think the solution is just to make them considerably cheaper.

As someone said above a 50 point reduction for all types would be a good starting point and then vary it from there.

A Knight is about the equivalent of two Leman Russ with Battle Cannons. Certainly if you buy sponsons (but why would you) or other gear.

The Knight is however much much better. Its harder to kill, its got better shooting and it can fight in melee. Moving over to a Wraithknight and it becomes even more explicit.

Tyel wrote:
I think the solution is just to make them considerably cheaper.

As someone said above a 50 point reduction for all types would be a good starting point and then vary it from there.

A Knight is about the equivalent of two Leman Russ with Battle Cannons. Certainly if you buy sponsons (but why would you) or other gear.

The Knight is however much much better. Its harder to kill, its got better shooting and it can fight in melee. Moving over to a Wraithknight and it becomes even more explicit.

faster, ignores terrain when it moves, has a 'D' weapon in melee, is not insta killed if it is melee'd, can stomp, has a 4++ save against shots from any one facing of its choice a turn......

Tyel wrote:
I think the solution is just to make them considerably cheaper.

As someone said above a 50 point reduction for all types would be a good starting point and then vary it from there.

A Knight is about the equivalent of two Leman Russ with Battle Cannons. Certainly if you buy sponsons (but why would you) or other gear.

The Knight is however much much better. Its harder to kill, its got better shooting and it can fight in melee. Moving over to a Wraithknight and it becomes even more explicit.

I agree with a points reduction but a Knight is far more powerful than two Leman russes. As it should be. A knight is like the equivalent of an entire company of russes.

In addition to the improvement to heavy and extra rear armour, they should slash the price of each tank by 30-50pts. Along with some improvements to the vanquisher and eradicator cannon that I think I mentioned before.

Oh, and five tank squadrons please.

Make all vehicles MCs and be done with it. Vehicle rules are garbage. MC/GC rules are OP.

 Future War Cultist wrote:

Tyel wrote:
I think the solution is just to make them considerably cheaper.

As someone said above a 50 point reduction for all types would be a good starting point and then vary it from there.

A Knight is about the equivalent of two Leman Russ with Battle Cannons. Certainly if you buy sponsons (but why would you) or other gear.

The Knight is however much much better. Its harder to kill, its got better shooting and it can fight in melee. Moving over to a Wraithknight and it becomes even more explicit.

I agree with a points reduction but a Knight is far more powerful than two Leman russes. As it should be. A knight is like the equivalent of an entire company of russes.

In addition to the improvement to heavy and extra rear armour, they should slash the price of each tank by 30-50pts. Along with some improvements to the vanquisher and eradicator cannon that I think I mentioned before.

Oh, and five tank squadrons please.

That's the opposite of where I'd like to see it go. Three tank squadrons are already silly on a typical 6x4 or 8x4 table. 5 tank squadrons start to require you to have a polo field to play on.

I'd rather have the tanks be good than be cheap. A tank in 40K should be a fiercesome strong point. Tank squadrons belong in Epic.

 Asmodai wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:

Tyel wrote:
I think the solution is just to make them considerably cheaper.

As someone said above a 50 point reduction for all types would be a good starting point and then vary it from there.

A Knight is about the equivalent of two Leman Russ with Battle Cannons. Certainly if you buy sponsons (but why would you) or other gear.

The Knight is however much much better. Its harder to kill, its got better shooting and it can fight in melee. Moving over to a Wraithknight and it becomes even more explicit.

I agree with a points reduction but a Knight is far more powerful than two Leman russes. As it should be. A knight is like the equivalent of an entire company of russes.

In addition to the improvement to heavy and extra rear armour, they should slash the price of each tank by 30-50pts. Along with some improvements to the vanquisher and eradicator cannon that I think I mentioned before.

Oh, and five tank squadrons please.

That's the opposite of where I'd like to see it go. Three tank squadrons are already silly on a typical 6x4 or 8x4 table. 5 tank squadrons start to require you to have a polo field to play on.

I'd rather have the tanks be good than be cheap. A tank in 40K should be a fiercesome strong point. Tank squadrons belong in Epic.

To be fair, the Imperial guard would work well on a Polo field.... Provided the enemy could not Deep Strike.

Drop them all by 20pts. Allow them to ignore Ordnance rule. Extra Armour free of charge. Allow them to split fire in squadrons. Replace the split fire tank commander order with increase BS by 1.
Now they become very good.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also a 50pt drop is absolutely crazy. A 90point punisher? What are people smoking :-p?

 master of ordinance wrote:
I, personally, cannot see why people are against increasing the rear armour on the LRBT to 11 across the board, as when it comes down to it having your heavy tank glanced to death by basic infantry rapid firing or assaulting with no AT weapons what so ever really feels insulting.

Whilst we are at it the Heavy Vehicle type needs removing. It is essentially a massive nerf to the Leman Russ and really makes any form of advancing painful, especially as your tank is now out run by infantry (a far cry from the "Gunheads" novels.)

The problem is there's no real need to buff the Russ's weak rear armor, and a pressing need not to (it's supposed to be an exploitable weakness that lets your enemy have a way to kill it and force you to play it smart). The Russ's problems are due to overall rules for vehicles and the current meta in general, not it's armor layout. Buffing it's rear armor is a solution in search of a problem.

The rear armor is a problem, as it makes them absurdly easy to kill through assault for an MBT, and as an AV14 Heavy slow moving battle tank, it shouldnt be as easy to kill as a 35pt Rhino or 50pt Taurox, both of which can avoid assaults far easier with speed if they so desire.

Given that we're still dealing with sponsons here, I don't think 40K is using the MBT doctrine. The tanks are just slow boxes with guns on them.

Either way, its supposed to be a very heavily armored box , and in previous eras had Land Raider level armor or better, until they decided to make rear armor AV10 for everything and then several editions later changed how CC attacks engaged armor without readjusting armor values.

It wouldn't be the craziest thing to give them rear AV 12.

Aye, especially given that they cant move more than 6" a turn, that makes escaping CC range quite difficult, and the only other "heavy" vehicle that comes to mind is AV14 all around.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Aye, especially given that they cant move more than 6" a turn, that makes escaping CC range quite difficult, and the only other "heavy" vehicle that comes to mind is AV14 all around.

And is still a joke.

 Vaktathi wrote:
The rear armor is a problem, as it makes them absurdly easy to kill through assault for an MBT, and as an AV14 Heavy slow moving battle tank, it shouldnt be as easy to kill as a 35pt Rhino or 50pt Taurox, both of which can avoid assaults far easier with speed if they so desire.

I have no idea what your local meta is like, but how dozens of point blank S4 attacks are being dealt to your russes frequently enough for you to rage about it is beyond me. If you are having this issue, you need to adapt and keep enemy troops away from your mbts. If you are taking Russes and having this issue, you need to be screening for them with expendable units like guardsmen.

Your screens won't last vs real assault units.

Martel732 wrote:
Your screens won't last vs real assault units.

And neither will rear armour 11

Martel732 wrote:
It wouldn't be the craziest thing to give them rear AV 12.

If this happened, I would take minimum infantry and maximum LRBTS every game. Not only that, but I would roll just one up the field backwards just to taunt my opponent. 11 is as far as it should go, and only then if it is truly necessary.

Nor does av 14 really, but we do what we can. We can't wish away twc or wraiths.

CplPunishment wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
The rear armor is a problem, as it makes them absurdly easy to kill through assault for an MBT, and as an AV14 Heavy slow moving battle tank, it shouldnt be as easy to kill as a 35pt Rhino or 50pt Taurox, both of which can avoid assaults far easier with speed if they so desire.

I have no idea what your local meta is like, but how dozens of point blank S4 attacks are being dealt to your russes frequently enough for you to rage about it is beyond me. If you are having this issue, you need to adapt and keep enemy troops away from your mbts. If you are taking Russes and having this issue, you need to be screening for them with expendable units like guardsmen.

It's not just S4 thats the issue. A single powerfist and a krak grenade are usually sufficient to kill a Russ in CC, and doesnt exactly take a Napoleon to achieve that kind of an assault by any means.

In the age of 7E, bubblewrap has...very little effectiveness against many forces and can be easily workee around, particularly with so many safe and effective ways to enter into and IG players backfield. It is exceedingly easy to work around bubblewrap, and there's a reason Russ tanks arent generally big components of competitive IG armies (and why IG armies arent generally competitive anyway).

And, not every IG build is going to have gobs of expendable guardsmen, nor should they be required to just to keep Russ tanks alive, just as Space Marines should not have to field Scouts or Terminators in every army.

A friend of mine once described it perfectly. Every army in 40k needs a bully. This is a unit that's tough enough and powerful enough to push right into enemy territory and force them back. Marines have dreadnaughts and similar units deploying from drop pods for example. We need our tanks (and ogyrns) to be our bullies. And at present our battle tanks can't be bullies because they're too vulnerable at close range. They should be a little vulnerable in cc, but not as much as they currently are. Sure you can surround them with infantry but they're easily driven away. And the tank is too slow to get to safety once the enemy are on it. I hope I'm making sense here.

Dreads are not an effective bully unit. They are far too fragile.

I agree with your point though. This is actually one of the failings of ba sadly. And de.