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.

 Vaktathi wrote:

morgoth wrote:

Skimmers should be improved so that instead of "getting a free cover save in exchange for all their damage output", they are actually comparable to high AV IoM tanks.

Hrm, skimmers have had a marked advantage over non-skimmers in every edition except 5th, and have a gigantic edge in viability over non-skimmer vehicles now, the only non-skimmer vehicle heavy armies you see in competitive play are those that are either superheavies or get their vehicles for free, while armies like Tau, Necrons and Eldar can and do function very effectively as mechanized and tank heavy forces at the highest levels of competitive play, and, in most cases, aren't at any AV disadvantage except in the case of main battle tanks, their APC's, IFV's, medium tanks and utility vehicles are equal to or exceed the AV of their tracked counterparts, while skimmer army main battle tanks are generally much more mobile and more capable generalist units than Russ tanks (e.g. a Fire Prism does in one package what the Russ breaks out into two or three different variants, same with the Tau Hammerhead) which would be fine if AV meant something, but on-demand cover saves make a huge difference there and the number of weapons that simply don't care about AV (Gauss, D, Grav, Haywire, etc) has exploded over the last several years in availability and commonality as has the ability to bypass high frontal armor (side and rear armor on Imperial & Ork vehicles is generally equal to or worse than armies like Necrons, Eldar and Tau) through various special rules or deployment methods. High AV isn't winning many games.

I'm not telling you your Leman Russ doesn't suck, I'm telling you that you vastly overestimate the durability "bonus" conferred by Jink.

If you're half a decent player, it's almost impossible to have a tank without cover, especially when playing Imperial Guard.
So what are you whining about? The fact that some Space Elf gets the same save as you do except he loses all firepower for that?


High AV isn't winning many games, but it makes a solid difference on the tabletop, where being threatened by anything S6+ is very different to being only afraid of Gauss, D, Grav, Haywire and Melta.

In my opinion, AV14 is a lot more resilient than AV12 w/ jink, and that's something you can feel when you play against AV13, suddenly it's not that easy to break.
Many armies have to hit the Imperial Knight on the sides because AV13 is too hard for many weapons.


There are literally ZERO competitive builds based on vehicles since Codex Craftworlds and there will not be any EVEN with a vehicle rules change, simply because none of these have nearly the damage output of competitive units.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 master of ordinance wrote:

Is this really an Eldar player whining about his army being underpowered? Please tell me I am hallucinating?

Having a few overpowered units doesn't make the whole codex or army overpowered.

It's quite obvious that without Warp Spiders and Scatbikes, Eldar wouldn't even be top 3, so why react like this?

morgoth wrote:
.

It's quite obvious that without Warp Spiders and Scatbikes, Eldar wouldn't even be top 3, so why react like this?

Well.. warp spiders, scat bikes, wraithknights and their variants, wraithguard with D-1 template weapons, swooping hawks, fire dragons, the wave serpent as a dedicated transport... D-Scythes.. i mean.. more than just warp spiders and scat bikes

And yes pot, i realize i am the kettle, but that doesn't stop you from being the pot

 pumaman1 wrote:

morgoth wrote:
.

It's quite obvious that without Warp Spiders and Scatbikes, Eldar wouldn't even be top 3, so why react like this?

Well.. warp spiders, scat bikes, wraithknights and their variants, wraithguard with D-1 template weapons, swooping hawks, fire dragons, the wave serpent as a dedicated transport... D-Scythes.. i mean.. more than just warp spiders and scat bikes

And yes pot, i realize i am the kettle, but that doesn't stop you from being the pot

You're missing the point entirely.

You should try making a competitive Eldar army without warp spiders and scat bikes.

I'd be mightily impressed if you managed for that list to even manage 0.4 win ratio against real competitive lists.


I mean come on, you're mentioning the Wave Serpent and the swooping hawks as OP.... that's just so far from competitive play it doesn't even make sense.

In the scheme in 7th eldar vehicles are fair. The fw thing is a little iffy but even it is manageable.

The leman russ has several issues working against it at once. That's why a fix is hard. Is the durability really the problem or is imperial weaponry being poor the real problem?

Drop pods don't make russes bad. A lot of drop lists are just noob checks. If you set up well, they just drop to their doom. Don't fail at deployment.

morgoth wrote:



I mean come on, you're mentioning the Wave Serpent and the swooping hawks as OP.... that's just so far from competitive play it doesn't even make sense.

The wave serpent is excellent. Most codecs would kill for a vehicle that versatile and survivable. Same with swooping hawks, tryanids and orks dream of something so reliable

Morgoth: Are you actually arguing the Wave Serpent is weak?

 Melissia wrote:
Morgoth: Are you actually arguing the Wave Serpent is weak?

Luckily we have a full spectrum of power levels between OP and weak.

Having experience in metas where most armies have been brought to a similar power level (as confirmed by tournament results), I can tell you that Wave Serpents are simply not strong, in a way that bringing 3 war walkers often achieves a lot more for example.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 pumaman1 wrote:

morgoth wrote:



I mean come on, you're mentioning the Wave Serpent and the swooping hawks as OP.... that's just so far from competitive play it doesn't even make sense.

The wave serpent is excellent. Most codecs would kill for a vehicle that versatile and survivable. Same with swooping hawks, tryanids and orks dream of something so reliable

All codexes would kill to have drop pods and most codexes would kill to have trukks and rhinos long before they would even consider Wave Serpents.

Wave serpent just doesn't have nearly the firepower/pt of the scatbike or warp spider. That's why it's fair. It's an expensive transport that transports expensive units usually.

most codexes would kill to have trukks

What. As a Chaos Player, just What?

BA would certainly prefer Trukks.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

most codexes would kill to have trukks

What. As a Chaos Player, just What?

Wow. And here, I was merely JOKING about "alternative facts" before...

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

most codexes would kill to have trukks

What. As a Chaos Player, just What?

Right? I'd love to trade the devil fish for a wave serpent, a fast transport is better than a normal speed one, a fast skimmer, more so, downgrading the first Pen to a glance 83% of the time, great. 12 transport capacity, which can carry bulky or extremely bulky, and freaking bladestorm, 12-12-10 and 3HP.

Compared to other options, why take a good option when you have great or overwhelming. But don't pretend that eldar only have scat bikes and warp spiders.

Again, my primary army is tau, so I also have overwhelming units, but to pretend like crisis suits are bad because they aren't at riptide level.. that's silly

I'm sorry, I didn't realize this thread was about straw man arguments.

My bad, I wouldn't have answered at all if I had known.

morgoth wrote:
I'm sorry, I didn't realize this thread was about straw man arguments.

People are responding to what you actually posted. It's not their fault that what you posted was really silly.

I know leman russes would love to downgrade the first pen to a glance 83% of the time, or move more than 6" without a special order.
Chimera would pay tons of points to buy an upgrade to let you move, disembark then pivot again (which is an upgrade) from a "bad" unit.

Would allowing each weapon to fire at any target in its field of view, and dropping each sponson upgrade price by 5 points be enough of an upgrade? Except for vanilla leman russ, this would greatly improve the power. Vanilla leman russ needs more help, Ordnance battle cannon....

morgoth wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

morgoth wrote:

Skimmers should be improved so that instead of "getting a free cover save in exchange for all their damage output", they are actually comparable to high AV IoM tanks.

Hrm, skimmers have had a marked advantage over non-skimmers in every edition except 5th, and have a gigantic edge in viability over non-skimmer vehicles now, the only non-skimmer vehicle heavy armies you see in competitive play are those that are either superheavies or get their vehicles for free, while armies like Tau, Necrons and Eldar can and do function very effectively as mechanized and tank heavy forces at the highest levels of competitive play, and, in most cases, aren't at any AV disadvantage except in the case of main battle tanks, their APC's, IFV's, medium tanks and utility vehicles are equal to or exceed the AV of their tracked counterparts, while skimmer army main battle tanks are generally much more mobile and more capable generalist units than Russ tanks (e.g. a Fire Prism does in one package what the Russ breaks out into two or three different variants, same with the Tau Hammerhead) which would be fine if AV meant something, but on-demand cover saves make a huge difference there and the number of weapons that simply don't care about AV (Gauss, D, Grav, Haywire, etc) has exploded over the last several years in availability and commonality as has the ability to bypass high frontal armor (side and rear armor on Imperial & Ork vehicles is generally equal to or worse than armies like Necrons, Eldar and Tau) through various special rules or deployment methods. High AV isn't winning many games.

I'm not telling you your Leman Russ doesn't suck, I'm telling you that you vastly overestimate the durability "bonus" conferred by Jink.

I get that, but my remark were more on the gap between skimmers and nonskimmers in general that has been a consistent issue with 40k for many editions. Jink in its current guise is really a huge ability that displays a marked difference in the capability between skimmers and non skimmers, on top of skimmers other innate bonuses like ignoring terrain

If you're half a decent player, it's almost impossible to have a tank without cover, especially when playing Imperial Guard.

That depends on the terrain, angle of attack, and what all you brought. People make it out like every IG army has, and indeed must be based around, having gobs of expendable meatshields for armor, neither of which are true and even when true is often easily worked around. One will notice having gobs of Boys doesnt necesssrily do much fo keeping Battlewagons alive either.

So what are you whining about? The fact that some Space Elf gets the same save as you do except he loses all firepower for that?

The issue is that the Skimmer can freely manuver and advance and take advantage of cover wherever and whenever, with far greater freedom of movement, than non skimmer vehicles. They can be played far more aggressively and survive. This isnt Eldar specific, it equally applies to Tau and Necrons, Eldar just get the most out of it for being Fast to boot.

Compare the walker and tracked equivalent of Jink, Smoke Launchers. They force forfeiture of all shooting, not just snapshots. They prevent all shooting from passengers (again, not jus snapshots) while Jink has no effect on passengers. They are one use only while Jink is not. Smoke offers only a 5+ cover while Jink offers a 4+. Jink is universal on Skimmers, smoke launchers are not universal basic equipment or even available to all nonskimmers. Units like Hellhounds, Battlewagons, Killa Kans, Sentinels, etc must either buy them as an upgrade or dont have access to them at all. Additionally, one must think ahead and be proactive with smoke launchers, they are a preemptive system, and can be wasted and telegraphs to the opponent that you're actively defending these units, while with Jink it is a reactive measure that does not need to be preplanned with the same care nor does it give away anything. Finally, smoke prevents moving flat out, Jink does not.

High AV isn't winning many games, but it makes a solid difference on the tabletop, where being threatened by anything S6+ is very different to being only afraid of Gauss, D, Grav, Haywire and Melta.

sure, its different, but, as noted, not particularly effective. Between CC, the quantity and availability of S7-10 firepower and armor pen bonus special rules, and those AV ignoring attacks or weapons that enhance HP infliction, high AV, on its own, doesnt mean much anymore. Not that AV14 is useless, but it's not what it was either.

In my opinion, AV14 is a lot more resilient than AV12 w/ jink,

If this were true, then Russ companies an Land Raiders would be viable (or at least moreso), but they are not. On an individual level one can make this case against certain types of weapons, but on the whole, as a unit type and as elements of more coherent armies the AV12 4+ just works so much better over the long haul against the full spectrum of threats. Every tournament for the last almost 5 years since 6E has borne out that damage mitigation through saves or quantity is superior to AV. What kinds of Imperial armies do best with armor? AV11/12 spam, getting as many of those hulls onto the field as possible. The Russ tanks and Land Raiders usually sit on the shelf.

and that's something you can feel when you play against AV13, suddenly it's not that easy to break.
Many armies have to hit the Imperial Knight on the sides because AV13 is too hard for many weapons.

Knights also have a directional shield that only works from one angle, which necessitates manuver and is part of why they are as capable as they are, without it the AV13, while obviously better than 12, would not be as capable. Having high AV and a save obviously is nice.

There are literally ZERO competitive builds based on vehicles since Codex Craftworlds and there will not be any EVEN with a vehicle rules change, simply because none of these have nearly the damage output of competitive units.

even if we accept this as true for the sake of argument, comparing mechanized infantry builds, which Eldar do quite well with, shows a dramatic capability gap relative to an equivalent army based on non skimmer vehicles. Mechanized Eldar, or Tau or Necrons, even without "power" units, are going to be notably more capable then mechanized IG or Trukk running Orks or an SM army that has to pay for its transports.


Returning to a system built around penetrations rather than HP's and addressing the issues with CC, as well as minimizing the inconsistencies between Jink/Smoke and Skimmers vs Non Skimmers would do a lot to level vehicles as a whole and make them more viable as a unit type. And I say that as someone with ~20 skimmer tanks on my gaming shelves.

morgoth wrote:


With regards to Dark Eldar, you have no fething idea what it means to have AV10 on a vehicle, it's unplayable these days.

You're right.

A fast skimmer transport that can go 18" in a straight line over intervening terrain while carrying an assault or specialist tank busting unit clearly needs to be buffed to be on the same survivability level of a mainline battle tank or something in a similar niche.

My bad. I mean, you only pay half the points of a mainline battle tank for that, so I guess you should be buffed in survivability too.

In fact new rules.

This thread is no longer about russes or vehicles in general.

This is a DE thread now.

DE Raiders, being AV 10 are in desperate need of a buff now. So let's halve their points, make them AV 14 vehicles, add overcharged engines and let the unit on them assault even if they move flat out, right? And give then a 2++ rerollable invuln save.

I can't remember the cost of the individual variants and my codex is in storage, but if they improved the tanks as we discussed (ordnance and higher rear armour) but without slashing the price of the tanks, would a price drop for the sponsons themselves be justified? I still think that the tanks would be overpriced, even with those improvements. They're too slow, but I can't justify increasing their speed outside of orders.

Speaking of orders, the tank commanders could use an improvement. I'd say full throttle should just let the tanks move an extra D6", whilst still being able to shoot. And gunners kill on sight should just let each tank aim 1 weapon at a different target. Like a sort of power of the machine spirit lite.

The raider is bad because the DE have nothing to put inside it. Grotesques are okay I guess but not tournament tier. They do get shot down, they do detonate and then half the unit inside dies.

Venoms by contrast are good because you buy them for their guns rather than their transport ability.

Anyway the thread has moved on a bit but when I said two Russ were equivalent to a Knight I meant in terms of points rather than power.

The fact is that a basic Leman Russ with a Battle Cannon is not worth 150 points in the modern game. Throw on some equipment and sponsons and you are pushing 170-180. Would you rather have a Russ or a Riptide?

Would a 100 point Battle Cannon Russ be broken? I feel it would be quite good in casual games but suspect it still wouldn't be great in tournaments. Although maybe I am underestimating it.

A 90 point Punisher? I guess it would be good - but amazing? Its a bit over 2 Meq kills a turn. 3 Scat-bikes do the same damage vs Meq and are nearly 10 points cheaper. I guess you would say (with a certain degree of fairness) that they are considerably easier to kill - although they can lurk at 36" range, jump behind terrain and easily grab objectives.

Whether it is fair to always compare things to the best units int he game is questionable but what else are you going to use?

I have to agree with others though that I cannot see how the rear armour of the Russ is a problem. If you are regularly losing them to S4 stuff then... well, you shouldn't be. I just don't believe you. If you then say its the power fist or krak grenade that is doing the work the thing to say is that it is meant to. That is what they are there for.

Assault versus non-assault is always an arms race and I don't think this is a good way of doing it.

The way I see it you would still have a very expensive slow moving gun which will die to high tier assault units and has the same lack of impact on games.

Vehicles suffer from legacy issues. I feel in the old days (possibly since inception, I forget vehicle rules back in 2nd) tanks were meant to be (and originally were) hard to kill without specialist weapons. The fear was that this meant anyone who didn't bring anti-tank weapons would have a very disappointing game where they could do nothing. To avoid this you moved to today where a penetrating hit can ruin your day. Subsequently (perhaps indicating how unnecessary this was) there now has to be bags of special rules to avoid the effect of this rule.

Unfortunately sometime in 5-6th GW abandoned this fear of skews (they were possible but less blatant) and such became a fact of life.

Today you can bring along wraithknights and riptides and know you will spend five turns trying to table your opponent while 80% of their army is completely worthless (beyond dying slowly on objectives). Unless they have a similarly optimised list.

At the very least scrap the ordnance rule and allow tanks to fire guns at different targets (or even just the main turret).

The other view is that MCs and GCs need a universal nerf but I don't see that happening.

Tyel wrote:

The other view is that MCs and GCs need a universal nerf but I don't see that happening.

This very much depends on how you look at it/

Is the theoretical Nurgle Daemon Prince incredibly powerful? Why yes, yes he is. However he's a 330 point HQ choice that requires you to roll spot on for psychic powers and a warlord trait and somehow get every power off each turn to keep him that strong. The moment this perfect rolls plan falls apart or fails a key part that Daemon Prince splats relatively quickly. Is it undercosted? No. Would I say it's power is comparable to its points? Yes - it's literally 1/5th of your army at 1500 points lol.

Then you look at Eldar and Tau - WKs, Riptides. Are they powerful? Yes. And somehow they're cheaper than this Daemon Prince and have better survivability too. And the same amount of mobility. And can be taken in greater numbers. However, these are MCs and GCs in books known to be underpointed. Are they strong? Yes. Are they undercosted - hell yes. (Compare the WK to a Hierodule. Go on.)

Then look at Tyranid MCs outside of the Hive Tyrant - those hideously overpointed and pathetic MCs in a book that is floundering on its own. Are these things that need nerfs? Not really. If you nerfed Tyranid MCs anymore then you may as well go kick a puppy for shiggles.

Wow. An Eldar player lecturing IG players. That takes stones. Or gall. Or both.

Or just arrogance and a lack of knowledge of the game. The idea that "most armies would love to have Trucks or the Rhino" is pretty amusing.

 Melissia wrote:
Or just arrogance and a lack of knowledge of the game. The idea that "most armies would love to have Trucks or the Rhino" is pretty amusing.

For once we agree.

Even Orks don't want Trukks. And the Rhino literally is nothing more than a metal box.

Every argument about 'why Russes are bad! Rawr! Rawr!' sort of applies straight to that damn Rhino.

But hey, if the DE player doesn't want his Raiders....

My Death Guard would sure as hell love to have those. Fast moving open topped transport for me to assault out of? That can even jink for an insane cover save while letting me fire happily from it? Okay. Let's go!

 DarkStarSabre wrote:

Tyel wrote:

The other view is that MCs and GCs need a universal nerf but I don't see that happening.

This very much depends on how you look at it/

Then look at Tyranid MCs outside of the Hive Tyrant - those hideously overpointed and pathetic MCs in a book that is floundering on its own. Are these things that need nerfs? Not really. If you nerfed Tyranid MCs anymore then you may as well go kick a puppy for shiggles.

This is probably true but I would have thought the solution is to re-assign point costs for the weaker options.

Not sure what to say on the daemon prince. I don't think its worth 330 points but when it works it works.

The problem with Codex Flyrants with Brainleech worms is that almost everything else is costed around 10-20% too high. Its the same for most entries in CSM, Orks, DE and Imperial Guard.
There is also the fact they tend to be slower than the upsetting units. Take away flying/jump/jet pack and force them to trudge 6" a turn and it might have an impact.

140 points would still be too much for many of the chassis that we have today - hell the vanilla russ is only worth about 135.

Fair point. The range I threw out yesterday was just the first gak that came to mind.

That said I'm always leery about reducing point costs because the figures suggested tend to be made in a vacuum, and using that methodology tends to result in things being costed less then they're actually worth in the grand scheme of things.

For example, one could suggest that the standard LRBT is only worth around 135, but then you have to consider that the standard dreadnought is 100. Is 14/13/10 with a 72'' str8 AP3 large blast really only worth 35 points more than a 12/12/10 walker armed with a PF and multi-melta? Maybe it is, maybe it's not. If not, you could make the argument that the Dreadnought is also overpriced and should get a cost-reduction as well, but now you start to see how this sort of thing turns into a slippery-slope.

Rather than dish out hefty price-reductions I always prefer to figure out what mechanics are making the unit non-functional in the first place and fix those. A tall order, but ultimately better for the game's health.

But at the very least if you do decide to just slap point reductions onto a unit and call it day, you should first establish what unit is fairly priced, and then use that as the standard that you gauge everything else. Dunno. What tank would you put fourth as a fairly-costed unit?

 master of ordinance wrote:
Additionally I would also like to point out that we can have Veteran infantry sections with BS4, so how come we cannot have veteran tank crews with BS4?

I have no problem with veteran Russ crews, in fact it boggles my mind that you can't purchase a tank ace rule that gives your Russ' a BS boost.

Standard Russ units are not veterans however, just like the regular 50 point Guardsman squad does not represent veterans.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Very little suggested, aside from Leman Russes, has been for BS4 at no cost.

What an amazing coincidence it is that this thread is explicitly about the Leman Russ and that the opening post is explicitly a suggestion that the Russ be bumped up to BS4 for no cost.

Ok while doing the "Oh don't mind me, I'm just here for the comments while eating popcorn" thing; It brought me back to a custom Dataslate I created basing off of the LR and the movie Fury.
Armor
BS Front Side Rear HP Unit Type:
Fury 5 13 11 10 5 (Tank, Fast)

Special Rules:
• Art of War
• Capacity loss
• Last Tank Standing
• Extra Armor
• Evac Protocol
• Multi-Shooting

Wargear:
• Hull mounted Stubber
• Co-axel Stubber
• Commander Stubber
• Shell loader stubber (inside tank turrent .45mm)
• Smoke Launchers
• Battle cannon

Special Rules for "Fury"
Art of War: If the tank can’t see the enemy, it can fire a single indirect shot (Regardless of a direct hit) for the chance of hitting the enemy somewhere else. If a Direct hit is rolled, -3 from the roll and place the template that many inches away from its original position.
If the tank can see the enemy, and if the enemy its firing at is a tank; It will gain the Armor-bane special Rule. Otherwise, resolve hits and wounds as normal.

Capacity Loss: For every Hull Point (HP) taken off the tank; The Ballistic Skill (BS) of the tank will go down. This means that a crew member has been lost and the rest will have to suffice without that member. Thus making the tank harder to use.
However, if the tank regains a Hull Point back during battle, its Ballistic Skill will go back up.

Last Tank Standing: If the tank loses all of its Tank Mates (aka other tanks in the squad), the speed of the tank will double the original speed. And it can still fire at full speed.

Evac Protocol: If the tank suffers an Immobilization result while moving through terrain; No negative modifiers of Hull Points are distributed. The tank cannot fire any weapons in the shooting phase. It will have to wait till the Immobilization result is repaired. If the crew of the vehicle is provoked, they can shoot normally.

Multi-Shooting: The Vehicle can fire all of its weapons at different targets, if it can see the units. If it can’t see the enemy, ignore this rule.


I did a test battle with this against another player and it was worth it. the rules are reasonable and easy to follow. For Evac Protocol, you place 5 guys next to the tank for repairs. if they get shot at by infantry, the crew can fire back. Capacity Loss means when it loses a hull point, the BS will go down to a BS of 4 and so forth. thus you need a 3+ to hit with the tank and not a 2+. Now if it hits 1 HP, that means you need to hit on a 6. for Art of war, when you roll a direct hit while using Indirect fire, you only take 3 off the 2 D6 combined. now if you roll a 3 with 2 D6, you still scatter the full 3 inches Regardless because its indirect fire.
Now for the Fast rule, the tank can only move 12 inches and fire normally untill Last Tank Standing comes into effect.

 DarkStarSabre wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
Or just arrogance and a lack of knowledge of the game. The idea that "most armies would love to have Trucks or the Rhino" is pretty amusing.

For once we agree.

Even Orks don't want Trukks. And the Rhino literally is nothing more than a metal box.

Every argument about 'why Russes are bad! Rawr! Rawr!' sort of applies straight to that damn Rhino.

But hey, if the DE player doesn't want his Raiders....

My Death Guard would sure as hell love to have those. Fast moving open topped transport for me to assault out of? That can even jink for an insane cover save while letting me fire happily from it? Okay. Let's go!

My Sisters of Silence and their Xenos Inquisitor friends would also be in the market for a fast moving open topped skimmer with all those abilities.
Ill take three.

Unless of course the Eldar are selling off their "useless" Wave Serpents?

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Dunno. What tank would you put fourth as a fairly-costed unit? .

Thissss. It grinds my gears to see people complain that X unit is broken and then trying to break their own toys as well.

It's gonna take a lot to break the Russ in 7th.

Honestly, I dont think there's any salvaging this edition, 40k really does need a clean slate reboot with a complete reassessment of every unit and weapon from scratch under a new paradigm.