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.

I got to thinking about this yesterday as I've now heard a couple folks talking about the concept of "ablative tanks". I realize that with 5E terrain this may be difficult to implement, but I think is worth thinking about. The key, just like with any wound allocation trick, is to take different equipment on each tank.

Anyway, here's the appropriate phrases from the BBB applicable to these tactics:

- p. 25 - Complex Units: Once the number of wounds caused by the firing unit has been determined, the player controlling the target unit must decide which models have been wounded, allocating the wounds to the warriors of their choice. Remember that any model in the unit can be wounded, not just those in range or in view.
- p. 64 - Movement Phase: When a squadron moves, all of its vehicles move at the same speed.... All of its vehicles have to maintain coherency...within 4" of each other
- p. 64 - Shooting Phase: Like other units, vehicles in squadrons can see and shoot through members of their own unit, just as if they were not there... When a squadron of vehicles is fired at, roll to hit and for armour penetration against the squadron's common Armor Value.... Once all of the armour penetration rolls have been made, the player controlling the squadron allocates the glancing and penetrating hits to squadron members as he would allocate wounds to members of a normal unit. Then he takes any cover saves available to the squadron - use the rules for vehicles to determine if each squadron member is in cover (ignoring other members of the squadron, as if they were not there), and then the rules for normal units to work out if the entire squadron is in cover or not. After cover saves are taken, make the damage rolls for any remaining glancing and penetrating hits.

Okay, so - members of each squadron need to be within 4" of each other, and while individual models in a squadron may not give each other cover, models from another squadron can, right? So, I'm thinking of a formation of two tank squadrons that look like this:


1 D 1
2 1 2

1 = Leman Russ from Squadron 1
2 = Leman Russ from Squadron 2
D = Leman Russ Demolisher from Squadron 2 with plasma cannon sponsons

So, even if the two LRBTs in Squadron 1 in the front row are more than 4" apart, you've got the Squadron 1 LRBT in the back row that is 4" away from each, maintaining the unit's coherency. Same with Squadron 2 in the back row, although the Demolisher up front maintains the unit's coherency.

Here's where things start to get fun. What's the biggest threat among these tanks? The Demolisher, right? That's what your opponent wants to kill before it gets too close. So he's shooting at the Demolisher with a lascannon - it hits and penetrates or glances. But because you get to choose which tank takes the hit. So, while your Demolisher may not have been in cover, one of your back row Squadron 2 LRBTs is screened by the Squadron 1 LRBT in front of it. Take yourself a cover save! Didn't make the cover save? Okay, roll to damage for that LRBT. Immoblized? Destroyed? Too bad. But at least it didn't take out the Demolisher.

Let's extrapolate this out more - let's say your opponent hits and gets 2 pens and a glance on your Demolisher. Time to allocate wounds. Simply enough, put the pens on the LRBTs in the back and the glance on the Demolisher. If your opponent get more pens and glances than that, just allocate the pens to the LRBTs and the glances to the Demolisher.

Yes, a high enough number of penetrating hits will ruin your day. But -

1) with AV14, you're probably not getting many pens anyway,
2) with wound allocation, you can better decide where to put those pens, and
3) with the cover saves on your back row pens, you'll lose tanks at half the rate

Okay, I realize there's also a problem of the front row tanks blocking the LOS for the back row tanks. It may take some careful spacing, but by off-setting the back row slightly and choosing targets carefully, you should still be able to draw LOS through other members of that tank's squadron. That way, you're not firing through a different unit - just your own, which under the squadron rules does not affect your fire or give cover to the opponent.

This all seems pretty pie-in-the-sky to me. What am I missing to knock this tactic down? I realize that terrain will really restrict the ability to run three Leman Russ chassis side by side - but frankly, you can even do this to a more limited extent in a 2x2 block of Russes. What am I missing, folks?

First off...don't try to use "wounds" when dealing with vehicles, they don't have any, so all rules about "wounds" do not apply. yes, you spread glancing and penetrating hits around in a squadron, but there are no "wounds".

Second, this all sounds great, until one tank in the squadron gets assaulted and you lose all of them to Krak grenades, meltabombs, witchblade and powerfists, because you MUST spread all of those hits against the entire squadron.... assault is already the best way to kill tanks in 5th ed, and it just got alot easier to take out multiple IG tanks. Once people figure that out, I don't think we will see alot of squadron abuse by IG.

Alerian wrote:First off...don't try to use "wounds" when dealing with vehicles, they don't have any, so all rules about "wounds" do not apply. yes, you spread glancing and penetrating hits around in a squadron, but there are no "wounds".

Trust me, I know this. If you'll notice, I only brought up "wounds" where I was quoting the rules, and the only reason I quoted those specific rules is because the rules for vehicle squadrons requires that the player allocate glancing and penetrating hits as he would allocate wounds to members of a normal unit. That and stupid wound allocation tricks are what make Nob Bikers such as pain - Penetrating/Glancing Hit Allocation doesn't have the same ring to it.

Alerian wrote:Second, this all sounds great, until one tank in the squadron gets assaulted and you lose all of them to Krak grenades, meltabombs, witchblade and powerfists, because you MUST spread all of those hits against the entire squadron.... assault is already the best way to kill tanks in 5th ed, and it just got alot easier to take out multiple IG tanks. Once people figure that out, I don't think we will see alot of squadron abuse by IG.

Hm. That's a fairly solid point, as you don't get cover saves for assault. The ability to choose which tanks get which types of hits, though, still helps you determine the survivability of certain tanks. Let's say you assault the Demolisher - I can still shunt twice as many penetrating hits to the other two tanks in the squadron as the Demolisher has to take. And if it's one of the other LRBTs getting assaulted, I'll allocate the hits the same way - as many glances to the Demolisher as possible. The Lumbering Behemoth rule will help this, too, though - at least for Leman Russes. You can still fire the turret at combat speed - might as well do it to make sure that any assaulting models have to hit on a 4+. You're very right, though, in that assaulting will still be the best way to kill tanks. And assault will allow you to kill more tanks than just the one you're in B2B with. But I don't know that it will necessarily be enough to deter squadron use and abuse. Maybe it will - I need to see it tested to see, though.

I think the better tactic will be to put the expensive tank in a squadron with a naked russ with camo cloak. The back tank, in cover, will give the tank out in the open a 3+ save. No need to use a 3rd tank at all in squadron tricks.

Ooh. I forgot about the camo netting. Can Leman Russes get camo netting? <checks list rumors> Hm. You sure can. But it only works if you're not on the move.

Hmmm, interesting post DBM.

I am also thinking that a nakid LRBT paired with a more expensive tank (LRD+, LRExec, LRPun, ect) will be interesting.

The only way to actually hurt the more expensive tank would be to fire a unit that had *multiple* anti tank weapons, or to assault the squad.

Assaulting should not be that much of a threat, because we should always be surrounding our tank squads w/ at least 1 platoon of infantry.

And even units w/ more than 1 anti tank gun (devs, 3lc preds, HWS, vend, ect) will have a hard time scoring 2 hits on AV14! Your biggest worry here is again, letting units get close w/ meltaguns, but the infantry should stop that.

So a LRBT in cover, and a LRD+ outside of cover, you can take the 4+ cover regardless Very cool.

Also, that blocker squadron can be cheap chimeras or even sentinels, though pulling off obscured from sentinels is probably not going to work.

So, a Ra-Pattern Executioner (all plas), a Bare-Bone LRBT and another Russ might be a pretty efficient build for this.

Also, a block of firepower like this might make assault... difficult... especially if you screen with a platoon. Might as well put a moat around your castle, eh?

Recklessfable wrote:Also, that blocker squadron can be cheap chimeras or even sentinels, though pulling off obscured from sentinels is probably not going to work.

Yeah, Chimera would certainly work - I mean, the turret will have a clear shot over them, but yeah, I think the sentinels would be a little spindly for this type of work.

Recklessfable wrote:So, a Ra-Pattern Executioner (all plas), a Bare-Bone LRBT and another Russ might be a pretty efficient build for this.

"Ra-Pattern"? Where was that name coined? I mean, it's not bad, it's just the first time I've heard it.

Recklessfable wrote:Also, a block of firepower like this might make assault... difficult... especially if you screen with a platoon. Might as well put a moat around your castle, eh?

And I also agree with both you and BoxANT as far as infantry being the way to go for deterring those pesky assault troops, but here's the problem I see - a 2x3 block of Leman Russes will run you a minimum of 900 points (that's with no LR variants or accessories). You start buying platoons to defend against assault troops and pretty soon you're left with the quandary of dwindling points for anti-tank, anti-light vehicle, and component grabbing units.

Any tactical thoughts on making this work? How does one get the balance right?

Considering a 1750 list, I think 6 LRBT is pushing it.

Personally I think 4 LRBT + 2 griffions is a better choice.

Perhaps a LRD+LRBT x 2.

Put the LRD forward out of cover, and the LRBT back in cover. It would be interesting if you gave the LRBT camo

Then just surround the whole lot with infantry.


I am not keen on grouping up *all* my tanks together. Of course it depends on the board really. But usually I find that there are two good deployment areas to maximize firelanes. I plan on running w/ 2 tank squads and each covered by a 45man platoon.

You know, after reading another thread and realizing that Griffons have a 48"-inch range (for some reason I was thinking it was less - think I was confusing it with the Medusa), I'm thinking you're right that the LRBT/Griffon combo looks pretty solid.

BoxANT wrote:I am not keen on grouping up *all* my tanks together. Of course it depends on the board really. But usually I find that there are two good deployment areas to maximize firelanes. I plan on running w/ 2 tank squads and each covered by a 45man platoon.

<whistle> You do want to protect those tank squads, don't you? That's a lot of bodies. I don't know that I'd go with quite that many, but then I'm thinking that I want to try a more mobile list with this codex.

What are your thoughts with the Eradicator with a tactic like this? After another discussion about the terrain-rich 5E environment, I'm wondering if the 72" range of the LRBT is overkill and that the 36" range of the Eradicator, Executioner, and other plasma may be more appropriate for this environment (albeit, more expensive).

Death By Monkeys wrote:

<whistle> You do want to protect those tank squads, don't you? That's a lot of bodies. I don't know that I'd go with quite that many, but then I'm thinking that I want to try a more mobile list with this codex.

What are your thoughts with the Eradicator with a tactic like this? After another discussion about the terrain-rich 5E environment, I'm wondering if the 72" range of the LRBT is overkill and that the 36" range of the Eradicator, Executioner, and other plasma may be more appropriate for this environment (albeit, more expensive).

I think the Eradicator is an awesome tank, blowing up Orks behind their grot screen is going to be awesome.

But I do have some concerns.


If you don't take enough ap3 ordnance then the MEQ will not be motivated to hide in cover. Everyone says that all units get 4+ cover saves in 5ed, but if there is no reason to be in that cover, than MEQ players can be much more aggressive. So although there is a lot of 4+ cover in 5ed, we can't loose all of our ap3 ordnance or else risk uber aggressive MEQ.

but depending on my setup, i can see fitting one or two Erads in my list...

Perhaps LRD+ & LRBT, and a 2xLRErad ?


edit*

as for the amount of bodies needed to screen two groups of tanks.

I plan on using 1 platoon as a firebase, with longer ranged tanks at the center. and the second platoon will be more aggressive pushing for objectives, with some tanks at their center... it's worked for me currently, and will only get better w/ the new codex

BoxANT wrote:Perhaps LRD+ & LRBT, and a 2xLRErad ?

Hm. I'd thought about the Eradicator vs. LRBT issue in terms of saves before, but I hadn't thought about how it my affect the aggressiveness of the Meqs - that's a really good point. My problem with the Eradicators is that because they have similar ranges to the Demolisher, I'd be tempted to put them in a squadron with them. But your pairings also point out that you don't necessarily want to be firing Eradicators at the same units that you're firing your Battle Cannon/Demolisher Cannons.

LRBT w/ Camo+Demolisher w/ Plasma Sponsons and 2x Eradicators might not be a bad build. I think, though, that it may be one of those nit-picky things that could be very metagame detpendent as well as personal preference.

It is highly metagame dependent unfortunately. If you only fight MEQ, then Erads are a waste, but if you are fighting increasingly large numbers of Orks, then Erads are worth their weight in gold

It really depends on what you face more of. If you face a good deal of Eldar, Tau, IG, Orks, Nids, DE, ect, then Erads will be worth it.

Personally, I think IG's cover denying ordnance will be the key to our success in tournies, but only if we keep enough ap3 to get past marines...

I played two games tonight with the rules from the new codex. In both I had an executioner with plasma sponsons in a squadron with a naked russ w/ camo cloak. In the first game, against mechanized chaos i was able to weather the fire from 2 units of obliterators the whole game. The executioner fired every turn and was never shaken b/c of the save and ablative tank. In the 2nd game I played space wolves and he was never even able to bring any of his short ranged melta weaponry to bear on the two tanks.

You won't believe how deadly the executioner is. Yes its bad on paper, but this thing is dynomite.

I think this 2 tank squadron probably killed 1200 points between them in the two games. Well worth it.

Hokey smokes, Bullwinkle. That is the hotness! You get a chance to try out the Eradicator, you let us know the results on that, too!

Why does anyone say the executioner is bad on paper? It looks vicious on paper, I can't imagine not taking one. It will be the new Bassilisk.

I'm glad to see the ablative tank theory functions.

That camo-netting trick sounds beastly - can't wait to try it out.

As for the originally posted idea of mixing squadrons to benefit from cover saves, I am reminded of a guy who tried to give all of his marines 4+ cover saves by "checkering" two squads of infantry together just as you are doing with those 6 tanks. Yes, it was technically legal, but judges looked down on it in tournaments.

Death By Monkeys wrote:

Recklessfable wrote:So, a Ra-Pattern Executioner (all plas), a Bare-Bone LRBT and another Russ might be a pretty efficient build for this.

"Ra-Pattern"? Where was that name coined? I mean, it's not bad, it's just the first time I've heard it.

It is what I'm calling it, seems like a descriptive, intuitive name.

I think the real downside to this tactic is that you are pairing tanks with different target profiles. In my experience, Demolishers tend to fire at different things than LRBTs. I'm not sure that the extra survivability is worth the suboptimal offense. I've not tried the tactic, personally, however, so that might cause my opinion to change.

Well if you pair an Executioner w/ a camo LRBT, you can fire at most the same targets. Exe does well against MEQ and hordes, and so does the LRBT. In addition, if the LRBT is back in cover, it's extra range will allow it to still hit targets.

Only a unit of 2+ saves would make this not work well. But I think the Exe alone would handle that squad

230points is a lot of points for one tank, but I think when paired w/ a camo LRBT, it will get a lot of shots off

I am REALLY looking forward to trying this out!!



PS.

The more I think about this, I think this is the ideal way to run sponsons. Pair a sponson tank with a nakid tank (camo'ed?).

What do you guys think about a Punisher w/ HB sponsons, paired with a nakid Erad w/ camo?
Or perhaps an Erad w/ sponsons, paired w/ a nakid LRBT w/ camo?