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:
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.

Question is, do you think they'll do that with 8th ostensibly coming soon? Fully Sigmar-ize 40k? Partially Sigmar-ize it? Or just escalate the power creep and disparity between strength of Codices even further?

Edit: Duuuude, 1111 posts!

 KommissarKiln wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
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.

Question is, do you think they'll do that with 8th ostensibly coming soon? Fully Sigmar-ize 40k? Partially Sigmar-ize it? Or just escalate the power creep and disparity between strength of Codices even further?

Edit: Duuuude, 1111 posts!

If the past is any indication, they'll cock it up like usual. I dont trust GW to put out quality rules, or even when they do, to maintain them properly.

But, whatever happens with 8th at this point, I think 7th is unsalvageable.

 Vaktathi wrote:


But, whatever happens with 8th at this point, I think 7th is unsalvageable.

I personally think 7th has reached the same point that I reached with 5th where I just gave up in disgust at how blatant the power creep was and how horrendously staggered the factions were. It's gotten to the point where I'm sick and tired of local events because half the armies are the same disgusting pieces of crap.

Last event we had - 16 different players.

3 Eldar/Corsair armies - I group these together because the armies were practically identical - jetbikes, hornets, flyer of choice, warp hunter, Wraithknight.
3 Ad-Mech War Convocations - sprinkle in the mandatory Culexus Assassin and your choice of Inquisitor Coteaz or SW Runepriest with servitors and a drop pod..

Over a third of the event was copy and past Eldar or Ad-Mech lists. And that was just miserable. I personally feel I got screwed as I ended up facing War Convocation, Tau Triptide, War Convocation for my three games with Warband Death Guard while the only other Chaos player (running World Eaters with a KDK Fist of Khorne formation) ended up facing 1 Corsair list and then getting away without anything else.

And this is in a local scene where people aren't supposed to be hyper-competitive fethers. So much so I've started adapting some of the Australian event rules to try and get some more 'friendly' events running.

Because I play to have fun. When I'm basically facing the same crap every other game it gets remarkably dull. And those lists aren't even complex. Every game is the same. Turn 1 abuse stealth and shrouded, turn 2 buff your BS, chuckle as you spam 20+ grav shots a turn at 2 units of your choice and bounce wounds allocated to them onto the 2+ save of your character babysitting them.

My first opponent I literally had to poke and goad into getting our Knights to clash in the middle of the table...

Some of they ideas in here aren't bad. Unfortunately they seem to be drowned out by one camp who want Russes to be OP and another camp who want no change at all. Let's aim for the middle ground please? I agree that core rules cause a lot of the problems but let's stay on topic also. There are plenty of 40k rewrites going on in the proposed rule forum. If your solution is to re-write the game, go and contribute to one of those threads.

I don't think a points reduction is appropriate in most cases. I'd rather make them worth their points. To those suggesting something like a 50 point reduction, please explain why they should be cheaper than a predator which has less armour and less weaponry!
BS 4 across the board, no way. BS 4 as a 'veteran' upgrade. Sure, as long as it is priced appropriately. 10 points is not enough. The number needs to be high enough that the option isn't a no-brainer. Let's try 25 points, though that may also be too low.
Increasing the rear armour to 11 I can agree with especially if it means all russes now have the same armour, thus negating the need to remember which ones are which.
4 hull points I can agree with
Making Heavy ignore the penalty of ordnance I definitely agree with (and have done in my Zeta ruleset). However, in light of my comment above, let's restore lumbering behemoth.
I quite like the movement rules of Heavy so I don't think that should change. It feels appropriate.
Granting power of the machine spirit or split fire etc, no I don't think so. At least not as an individual thing. There is nothing about the leman russ which warrants this more than any other vehicle deserves it. Far better to leave that kind of change for a major edition overhaul.
Updating vanquisher cannons in some way I can agree with, as long as it is done sensibly. Instant death is not appropriate. Monster Hunter is. Just apply that rule to the gun itself, not the whole tank. Ordnance should probably hove some bonus against monstrous creatures in general but again that's a core rule so nevermind.
Making tanks into MCs? Heck no. I'm in the camp that says dreadknight and friends should be jump-walkers.
On the topic of how russes compared to land raiders in 2nd edition, don't forget that they also had a significant chance of blowing themselves up due to the hit-and-misfire option on scatter and artillery dice. I like getting nostalgic about 2nd ed as much as the next guy but let's not pretend that everything that existed there was a great idea.


In short, I think 4HP, ignoring the ordnance penalty and having rear armour 11 on all variants is enough to make them better within the context of all other vehicles in the game currently. One or two may need their guns revised or points revised, but only to a small degree.

 Vaktathi wrote:
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.

God yes. I'm with you on that 100%.

@ Zustiur

I was thinking that only the vanquisher cannon itself would have instant death to make it an mc killer, but again 40k is so broken you might as well start over.

 Future War Cultist wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
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.

God yes. I'm with you on that 100%.

@ Zustiur

I was thinking that only the vanquisher cannon itself would have instant death to make it an mc killer, but again 40k is so broken you might as well start over.

I'll third this!

AbG from IA2 gives you option for this. It's called Beast Hunter Shells.

 Hawky wrote:
AbG from IA2 gives you option for this. It's called Beast Hunter Shells.

So put it in the codex... Shouldn't have to buy another ridiculously over-priced book to get the rules for IG equipment.

It's also only available specifically to units within the ABG army list, not as a general IG equipment upgrade :(

 Vaktathi wrote:
It's also only available specifically to units within the ABG army list, not as a general IG equipment upgrade :(

Makes it even worse. Course, Hawky may have just been pointing out that the rule already exists and just needs to be included in the codex...?

Zustiur wrote:

I don't think a points reduction is appropriate in most cases. I'd rather make them worth their points. To those suggesting something like a 50 point reduction, please explain why they should be cheaper than a predator which has less armour and less weaponry!

The Predator can also gain bonuses from being taken in squadrons of 3 where as the Russ cannot. The predator is also faster and has better BS and can fire all of its weapons without penalty, and it is not the core hitting power of the Marine army. Quite frankly though, a 50 point reduction on the Russ may not be needed. 30 to 40 points should do it.

BS 4 as a 'veteran' upgrade. Sure, as long as it is priced appropriately. 10 points is not enough. The number needs to be high enough that the option isn't a no-brainer. Let's try 25 points, though that may also be too low.

This is a tough one as the benefits gained from it vary largely from tank to tank. A Veteran Punisher really feels the boost, but a veteran LRBT doesnt even notice it. 10 points feels about right though as that is the rice that basic infantry units pay to become veteran. 25 points for a +1BS boost would be far too much though.

I quite like the movement rules of Heavy so I don't think that should change. It feels appropriate.

The problem is that the LRBT can now be out run by infantry, and in this age of highly mobile 40K having a 6" movement is terrible, especially if you are looking for your tanks to spearhead your armoured columns

Granting power of the machine spirit or split fire etc, no I don't think so. At least not as an individual thing. There is nothing about the leman russ which warrants this more than any other vehicle deserves it. Far better to leave that kind of change for a major edition overhaul.

I have to disagree here. The Russ needs splitfire to allow it to make the most of its firepower. It is quite common for the Russ to be unable to engage a target with both sponsons, or have to ignore one target to fire its turret gun at another. Giving it Splitfire would allow to to function in its given role - that of a linebreaker.

Updating vanquisher cannons in some way I can agree with, as long as it is done sensibly. Instant death is not appropriate. Monster Hunter is. Just apply that rule to the gun itself, not the whole tank. Ordnance should probably hove some

I agree here, but I would also suggest that the Vanquisher does D3+1 HP on a successful penetration.

Martel732 wrote:

 commander dante wrote:
You cant just "Remove" the Rear Armour 10/11

Weak Rear Armour is iconic on the russ, and it allowed weapons of all types to be able to destroy it

This is what makes Russes fair, they have God Tier Front armour, OK Side and weak rear, so you know that you HAVE to flank the russ to destroy it

And then Grav came out....Remove the vehicle destroying capabilities of Grav, and Russes will be good again

I disagree because their firepower is still kinda marginal.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jaxler wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 DarkStarSabre wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
So we are back to total rewrite. Grav can't be nerfed until mcs are. I guess one could lessen their effects on vehicles. Does anyone really think grav is the russes biggest problem?.

And the problem with straight up nerfing MCs is that it's a hard, hard nerf to Tyranids, Dark Eldar, Daemons and partially toward CSM and KDK.

3/4 of those armies aren't really screaming for hard nerfs. They really aren't.

So if you want to fix the old Grav - MC/GC chestnut might I suggest instead looking at Tau and Eldar in particular?

We can start with them for sure. And the damn Dreadknight. But Imperial weapons aren't getting it done against most MCs because of cover, etc anymore. No damage table is a serious problem, among others.

But then there's quasi MCs like TWC. You can fire battle cannons at them all day and get nowhere. There's so much nerfing to be done that the it's just easier to make the guard even more numerous.

One good change would be to make deathstrike missiles functional, as well as STR D, and give them a +2 to the D table for anything directly under a small blast template. Oh, you have a super tough thing? We nuke you. Moving on....

I'd give the IG a couple Str D hunter killers per 1K pts as well to represent Davy Crockett type nukes as well. I'd very much like to see the IG become an anti-death star list via liberal use of nukes. Because that's what would likely become the doctrine.

Dreadknights aren't even spooky anymore, why do people even seem afraid of these anymore. Before you take into account grav, they already just die to most armies with all the multiwound/ap2 going around.

Because T6 2+/4++ W4 is still brutal to face.

Lol, grav, riptides, melta, power klaws in an ork boy blob, flyrants, str D, and shield/hammer termies all rek dreadknights. Idk what your on about. "Oh no it's a unit that my mighty bolter can't kill in a single round of shooting!" Dreadknights are chump change compared to modern 40k cheese. TBH they aren't good, they rarely get off that 4+ they don't have FNP, they have no high ap shooting and take two turns to reach CC, and in that amount of time they'll die or get charged by something nastier.

DKs are never chump chance. T6 2+ is amazing.

 master of ordinance wrote:

Zustiur wrote:

I don't think a points reduction is appropriate in most cases. I'd rather make them worth their points. To those suggesting something like a 50 point reduction, please explain why they should be cheaper than a predator which has less armour and less weaponry!

The Predator can also gain bonuses from being taken in squadrons of 3 where as the Russ cannot. The predator is also faster and has better BS and can fire all of its weapons without penalty, and it is not the core hitting power of the Marine army. Quite frankly though, a 50 point reduction on the Russ may not be needed. 30 to 40 points should do it.

I wouldn't go down this line. The answer is that Predators are poor too (i.e. overcosted).

If they were not presumably you would see them in games. You don't. There are better choices for anything you would want them to do in the Codex.

With that said I don't see why there has to be a beggar thy neighbour approach on this. Which faction uses tanks in any number?
Its certainly not Marines (beyond the mass razorbacks you get for free).
Grav tanks are no better. You don't see Fire Prisms, Hammer Heads or Doomsday Arks in serious competitive lists.

I like the idea of veteran tank crews. Maybe take them as an elite choice where you only get a single tank and no option to put them in a squadron? It would also be cool if there were options other than BS 4.

Like, pick one:
- BS 4
- Tank Hunter + Monster Hunter
- Scout + Always pass difficult terrain tests
- IWND
- 5+ Jink when tank shocking + WS 3 when being attacked in close combat

These options would probably have to be costed differently, and I'm not sure what a fair point value for each would be.

This wouldn't fix the problems with LRBT or vehicles in general, but I think they would be fun.

I'm not in favor of reducing the cost of a Russ. I would rather see it get better for its current points cost, there's already been several good suggestions for that in this thread

 master of ordinance wrote:

Granting power of the machine spirit or split fire etc, no I don't think so. At least not as an individual thing. There is nothing about the leman russ which warrants this more than any other vehicle deserves it. Far better to leave that kind of change for a major edition overhaul.

I have to disagree here. The Russ needs splitfire to allow it to make the most of its firepower. It is quite common for the Russ to be unable to engage a target with both sponsons, or have to ignore one target to fire its turret gun at another. Giving it Splitfire would allow to to function in its given role - that of a linebreaker.

The same could be said of predators and some other vehicles. And many infantry units for that matter.
The leman Russ is not a special case. I don't see any reason for it to gain split fire when other similar units miss out. Either change that as a core rule or leave it alone.

Zustiur wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:

Granting power of the machine spirit or split fire etc, no I don't think so. At least not as an individual thing. There is nothing about the leman russ which warrants this more than any other vehicle deserves it. Far better to leave that kind of change for a major edition overhaul.

I have to disagree here. The Russ needs splitfire to allow it to make the most of its firepower. It is quite common for the Russ to be unable to engage a target with both sponsons, or have to ignore one target to fire its turret gun at another. Giving it Splitfire would allow to to function in its given role - that of a linebreaker.

The same could be said of predators and some other vehicles. And many infantry units for that matter.
The leman Russ is not a special case. I don't see any reason for it to gain split fire when other similar units miss out. Either change that as a core rule or leave it alone.

The Leman Russ has individual gun crew for all those weapons, for fluff justification at least, other tanks do not. The russ also has worse firing arcs than every other vehicle I can think of for its secondary weapons. Predators have more than twice the arc of fire for their sponsons, Eldar and Tau vehicle secondary weapons have turret mounts with dramatically more open firing arcs. Other vehicles don't have quite the possible mismatches between primary and secondary weapons systems (e.g. having sponson flamers and a heavy single shot AT turret weapon).

Martel732 wrote:
DKs are never chump chance. T6 2+ is amazing.

I can kill like, 3 a turn with my tau list, and about 4-5 if they jump in close enough for me to have everything in range when I double tap the riptides.

I saw Space marine grav spam can kill like, 6 in two turns

Eldar just make them eat the D or scat lasers and laugh.

They're a good unit but every army has some option that makes them a non threat, and if you can't kill a dreadknight than what are you going to do about a riptide or a wraith knight?

 Jaxler wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
DKs are never chump chance. T6 2+ is amazing.

I can kill like, 3 a turn with my tau list, and about 4-5 if they jump in close enough for me to have everything in range when I double tap the riptides.

I saw Space marine grav spam can kill like, 6 in two turns

Eldar just make them eat the D or scat lasers and laugh.

They're a good unit but every army has some option that makes them a non threat, and if you can't kill a dreadknight than what are you going to do about a riptide or a wraith knight?

So your reason for a strong unit not being that strong is the fact that your even stronger undercosted units kill it?

Really?

REAAAAAAALLY?

How many can you kill with Orks or DE?

 DarkStarSabre wrote:

 Jaxler wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
DKs are never chump chance. T6 2+ is amazing.

I can kill like, 3 a turn with my tau list, and about 4-5 if they jump in close enough for me to have everything in range when I double tap the riptides.

I saw Space marine grav spam can kill like, 6 in two turns

Eldar just make them eat the D or scat lasers and laugh.

They're a good unit but every army has some option that makes them a non threat, and if you can't kill a dreadknight than what are you going to do about a riptide or a wraith knight?

So your reason for a strong unit not being that strong is the fact that your even stronger undercosted units kill it?

Really?

REAAAAAAALLY?

Yes. Exactly. You hit the nail right on the head. See, things get worse because other things get better, every time a better thing comes out it's mere existence nerfs other things. Why bring dreadknight spam when you can ally in a riptide wing?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
How many can you kill with Orks or DE?

I do not play these armies but if your spamming boys you could probably table a grey Knights player just by charging them when they close the gap. A dreadknight only kills like, 4 boys a turn on CC, so make him eat a power klaw.

Dark eldar suck, ally in some str D.

I can't give exact numbers here, but you've means of killing dreadknights with both armies, and TBH your using the bottom 2 codexes to kill them, anyone with a decadent dex will having a laughably easy time. Please stop using DE and orks as a base line they're horrible codexes with huge flaws. it's like using The Vatacin city's military as a base line for judging what is and isn't a strong military.

 Vaktathi wrote:

Zustiur wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:

Granting power of the machine spirit or split fire etc, no I don't think so. At least not as an individual thing. There is nothing about the leman russ which warrants this more than any other vehicle deserves it. Far better to leave that kind of change for a major edition overhaul.

I have to disagree here. The Russ needs splitfire to allow it to make the most of its firepower. It is quite common for the Russ to be unable to engage a target with both sponsons, or have to ignore one target to fire its turret gun at another. Giving it Splitfire would allow to to function in its given role - that of a linebreaker.

The same could be said of predators and some other vehicles. And many infantry units for that matter.
The leman Russ is not a special case. I don't see any reason for it to gain split fire when other similar units miss out. Either change that as a core rule or leave it alone.

The Leman Russ has individual gun crew for all those weapons, for fluff justification at least, other tanks do not. The russ also has worse firing arcs than every other vehicle I can think of for its secondary weapons. Predators have more than twice the arc of fire for their sponsons, Eldar and Tau vehicle secondary weapons have turret mounts with dramatically more open firing arcs. Other vehicles don't have quite the possible mismatches between primary and secondary weapons systems (e.g. having sponson flamers and a heavy single shot AT turret weapon).

This times a thousand. We have a reason for these weapons to be able to split fire. Other armies do not (computer targeting system/a single superhuman bod trying to use two seperate weapons at the same time) have the advantage of one gunner per gun, unlike the Guard. And as Vaktathi said, the Leman Russ frequently has its sponson/hull weapons in place to do a completely different job to the main gun, such as acting as close in defence. Their arc of fire is also massively limited.

This is going back a ways into the thread, but in regards to the standard Leman Russ Battle Tank being a bunker killer or an infantry killer, I thought the standard LRBT was supposed to be kind of a "jack of all trades, master of none" type of tank? Specialization was for the variants, not the main tank.

I'm not saying I'm definitely right about this, it's just what I thought.

Different types of shells, like the frag and krak options of missile launchers and ork kannons, could be interesting, as long as they were sized up to ordinance levels of effectiveness.

Yes, let other more high tech armies get better BS etc. Our advantage should be the ability to spread our fire out to multiple on account of multiple gunners. Incidentally, Orks should get this too.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Yes, let other more high tech armies get better BS etc. Our advantage should be the ability to spread our fire out to multiple on account of multiple gunners. Incidentally, Orks should get this too.

Let us pay for a good BS, we have Veteran Infantry, we should have Veteran tank crews too. Besides, BS4 would make some tanks (such as the Punisher [which really needs Rending]) actually semi useable again.
Splitfire is a must though.

 master of ordinance wrote:
The Predator can also gain bonuses from being taken in squadrons of 3 where as the Russ cannot. The predator is also faster and has better BS and can fire all of its weapons without penalty, and it is not the core hitting power of the Marine army. Quite frankly though, a 50 point reduction on the Russ may not be needed. 30 to 40 points should do it.

This is a tough one as the benefits gained from it vary largely from tank to tank. A Veteran Punisher really feels the boost, but a veteran LRBT doesnt even notice it. 10 points feels about right though as that is the price that basic infantry units pay to become veteran. 25 points for a +1BS boost would be far too much though.

Let's just examine those two things together shall we?
A base predator costs 75 points with an autocannon. AV 13, 11, 10. BS 4
A base leman russ exterminator costs 130 with twin-linked 4 shot autocannon and a heavy bolter. AV 14, 13, 10. BS 3
If we subtract the 40 points you're talking about it's now 90. So for 15 points it's gaining 2 shots, at better than BS 4 accuracy, much better armour and an extra gun.
For 100 points you're saying it should get BS 4 as well?

I don't think so. Imagine if the predator got +1 front AV, +2 side AV, upgrade autocannon to exterminator autocannon, gain a heavy bolter. Would that just be a 25 point upgrade? No, I don't think so.
And that's before we consider the speed vs firing all weapons factor.

 Vaktathi wrote:
The Leman Russ has individual gun crew for all those weapons, for fluff justification at least, other tanks do not. The russ also has worse firing arcs than every other vehicle I can think of for its secondary weapons. Predators have more than twice the arc of fire for their sponsons, Eldar and Tau vehicle secondary weapons have turret mounts with dramatically more open firing arcs. Other vehicles don't have quite the possible mismatches between primary and secondary weapons systems (e.g. having sponson flamers and a heavy single shot AT turret weapon).

Again, I say this is a thing which affects many if not all battle tanks. The Leman Russ is not the special case you're all making it out to be. The Fire Prism, Vyper and Wave Serpent each have 2 crew and 2 guns. The Hammerhead has two guns and two crew. I dug out the datafax cards from 2nd edition just to check. Guess what. The predator had 1 driver and 3 gunners
There is no basis for the Leman Russ gaining split fire when other units do not. Again, compare to an infantry unit. A heavy weapon squad can have mortar, heavy bolter and lascannon in one unit. Are you seriously saying that this unit should not be able to split fire when a leman russ can???

Zustiur wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
The Leman Russ has individual gun crew for all those weapons, for fluff justification at least, other tanks do not. The russ also has worse firing arcs than every other vehicle I can think of for its secondary weapons. Predators have more than twice the arc of fire for their sponsons, Eldar and Tau vehicle secondary weapons have turret mounts with dramatically more open firing arcs. Other vehicles don't have quite the possible mismatches between primary and secondary weapons systems (e.g. having sponson flamers and a heavy single shot AT turret weapon).

Again, I say this is a thing which affects many if not all battle tanks. The Leman Russ is not the special case you're all making it out to be. The Fire Prism, Vyper and Wave Serpent each have 2 crew and 2 guns. The Hammerhead has two guns and two crew.

These vehicles have a driver and gunner and one of these pulls double duty as the vehicle commander as well. The Leman Russ has a crew of up to 6, including a dedicated commander and multiple dedicated gunners.

I dug out the datafax cards from 2nd edition just to check. Guess what. The predator had 1 driver and 3 gunners

Which would be 23 years out of date with current fluff from their initial release

There is no basis for the Leman Russ gaining split fire when other units do not. Again, compare to an infantry unit. A heavy weapon squad can have mortar, heavy bolter and lascannon in one unit. Are you seriously saying that this unit should not be able to split fire when a leman russ can???

Comparing between unit types in this way doesn't work. Different unit types have different abilities. Infantry can go to ground to enhance a cover save, tanks can't be affected by morale, etc. And, ultimately, we're talking about an exception, not a rule for all vehicles, and there are infantry units with split fire ability or ways they can gain it.

A Leman Russ with split fire would hardly be overpowered in the current metagame. A Leman Russ with 6 crew and 4 independent gunners, awkward firing arcs, slow seed, and potentially grossly mismatched weapons systems, is a vehicle on which having split fire could make sense, and in fact for many configurations be almost mandatory for any functionality, relative to say, a Hammerhead of Fire Prism or Predator.

This would hardly break the game or make these tanks overpowered, there's some good gameplay reasons that would make sense given the tank's configuration and options, and it could easily be made to fit the fluff. Not seeing the reason for the vociferous opposition to the idea.

Zustiur wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:
The Predator can also gain bonuses from being taken in squadrons of 3 where as the Russ cannot. The predator is also faster and has better BS and can fire all of its weapons without penalty, and it is not the core hitting power of the Marine army. Quite frankly though, a 50 point reduction on the Russ may not be needed. 30 to 40 points should do it.

This is a tough one as the benefits gained from it vary largely from tank to tank. A Veteran Punisher really feels the boost, but a veteran LRBT doesnt even notice it. 10 points feels about right though as that is the price that basic infantry units pay to become veteran. 25 points for a +1BS boost would be far too much though.

Let's just examine those two things together shall we?
A base predator costs 75 points with an autocannon. AV 13, 11, 10. BS 4
A base leman russ exterminator costs 130 with twin-linked 4 shot autocannon and a heavy bolter. AV 14, 13, 10. BS 3
If we subtract the 40 points you're talking about it's now 90. So for 15 points it's gaining 2 shots, at better than BS 4 accuracy, much better armour and an extra gun.
For 100 points you're saying it should get BS 4 as well?

I don't think so. Imagine if the predator got +1 front AV, +2 side AV, upgrade autocannon to exterminator autocannon, gain a heavy bolter. Would that just be a 25 point upgrade? No, I don't think so.
And that's before we consider the speed vs firing all weapons factor.

You are comparing two terrible units and wondering whether one terrible unit is more or less terrible than another.

A stationary predator with heavy bolter sponsons (95 points) will do on average 1.3333 wounds to MEQ a turn. By contrast your exterminator will do just 1.16 despite costing 35 more points. Buying the executioner more heavy bolters does help but now you have an even more expensive vehicle. You pay 58% more for 37.5% more damage.
The exterminator (without sponsons) will however do 1.75 hull points to armour 11 compared with the predator's 1.333. The exterminator has a considerably higher chance of getting a penetrating hit which may get you a useful result (stunned, immobilised, explodes on open topped vehicles etc) but this is still fairly marginal.

I'll take 4 Scat bikes costing 108 points. I do 2.96 wounds to MEQ and 3.555 hull points to armour 11.

So that is nearly 3 times the damage output on marines and nearly twice as much on rhinos or razorbacks.

So you have believe that substantially reduced damage output is justified by the armour value (and the speed trade off etc). It isn't which is why tanks are not used in competitive games.

Zustiur wrote:

Let's just examine those two things together shall we?

Yeas, lets

A base predator costs 75 points with an autocannon. AV 13, 11, 10. BS 4

Yep

A base leman russ exterminator costs 130 with twin-linked 4 shot autocannon and a heavy bolter. AV 14, 13, 10. BS 3

My my, so it does

If we subtract the 40 points you're talking about it's now 90. So for 15 points it's gaining 2 shots, at better than BS 4 accuracy, much better armour and an extra gun.

15 points on a slower chassis for an army that specialises and is indeed known to be the tank army. versus a cheaper, faster chassis on an army where the tanks are a footnote

For 100 points you're saying it should get BS 4 as well?

Why not, it would hardly be overpowered

I don't think so. Imagine if the predator got +1 front AV, +2 side AV, upgrade autocannon to exterminator autocannon, gain a heavy bolter. Would that just be a 25 point upgrade? No, I don't think so.

Because the Predator is built to do something completely different to the Leman Russ, and is also not built as the core integral unit to the army it is present within

And that's before we consider the speed vs firing all weapons factor.

You mean the Predator is faster, and can choose between moving and firing some weapons, or moving fast and not firing them very well or moving even faster and not firing at all. Or hell, you can just stay still and fire them all, unlike most Russ variants, which have an Ordnance cannon. On the other hand the Russ is incredibly slow, cannot boost its movement, has quite a few ordnance variants........

There is no basis for the Leman Russ gaining split fire when other units do not. Again, compare to an infantry unit. A heavy weapon squad can have mortar, heavy bolter and lascannon in one unit. Are you seriously saying that this unit should not be able to split fire when a leman russ can???

Apart from the fact that the Predator is listed as having a crew of three? And assuming one of those is operating the sponson weapons that leaves one to act as gunner/loader/commander. Or alternatively one is the Gunner/Loader, another the Commander and so that leaves the Driver or Commander to direct the sponson weapons.....