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.

 catbarf wrote:

vict0988 wrote:

 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:

Heavy bolter: 3 shots,,wounds on 5+, target gets 3+ save, 2 damage: 3 * .033 * .33 * 2 = .6534 damage.

Lascannon: 1 shot, wounds on 3+, target gets a 5+ save, 3.5 damage: 1 * .667 * .667 * 3.5 = 1.557 damage.

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.

Gadzilla666 wrote:MBTs should have 2+ saves.

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.

 catbarf wrote:


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.

 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:

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.

Quasistellar wrote:
How many PBCs can you take in a list?

How many LRs can you take in a list?

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.

Quasistellar wrote:

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.

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 PBCs would you take in a list? Probably 2 or 3
How many Leman Russes would I take in a list? Zero

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Quasistellar wrote:
How many PBCs can you take in a list?

How many LRs can you take in a list?

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.

Quasistellar wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Quasistellar wrote:
How many PBCs can you take in a list?

How many LRs can you take in a list?

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:

Battle Cannon: 3.5 shots, 1.75 hits, 1.46 wounds, 0.98 unsaved wounds
Heavy Bolter: 3 shots, 1.5 hits, 1 wound, 1 unsaved wound

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.

Quasistellar wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Quasistellar wrote:
How many PBCs can you take in a list?

How many LRs can you take in a list?

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.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

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.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

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.

Also, doublecheck your math.

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.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Also, doublecheck your math.

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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Also, doublecheck your math.

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!