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.

Dark Apostle 666 wrote:Well, a leman russ vanquisher is technically a leman russ, the OP didnt specify the variant, just "leman russ", so...

I'm not arguing that the hammerheads are about to make it easy, but against 10 vanquishers? It'd be close.

If it was 10 Hammerheads against 10 Vanquishers then the Vanquishers would likely come out on top gleaming.

The stock russ loses horribly to hammerheads. I still think the railguns outclass the vanquisher just simply because of AP1 though.

i think 10 Vanquisher patterns would give a good account for themselves possibly taken 7-8 in a best case scenario but appart from that LR are too toolboxy to combat like that, they aren't dedicated armour hunters.

Snarky wrote:The stock russ loses horribly to hammerheads. I still think the railguns outclass the vanquisher just simply because of AP1 though.

The 2D6 armour pen swings things the Vanquishers way I think.

At long range, the hammerheads, no contest really. I'd be inclined to go with the Russes at their effective range. More reliable, better armoured, a lot more versatile and equipped with AT shells that would destroy a hammerhead fairly easily. The Russ has better secondary weapons that are more effective at closer range as well. Of course, it would still be a hard fought and close battle. The hammerheads are more manoeuvrable by a fair margin, and also faster. A Russ MIGHT be able to through off a frontal rail-gun hit, or glancing hit on the side, where it'll move in for the kill, but a second shot would gut the Imperial tank and it would then depend on the experience of the crews, for how long they take to re-load. If that is how a rail-gun works.

Question, why not pose this question in the already going basically Imperium versus Tau thread? Why make a whole new one to discuss the same topic?

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Snarky wrote:The stock russ loses horribly to hammerheads. I still think the railguns outclass the vanquisher just simply because of AP1 though.

The 2D6 armour pen swings things the Vanquishers way I think.

Ivan has declared that Tau cannot use game rules to argue in the Hammerhead's favour, therefore you cannot use 2D6 penetration to argue in favour of Russ.

Avatar 720 wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Snarky wrote:The stock russ loses horribly to hammerheads. I still think the railguns outclass the vanquisher just simply because of AP1 though.

The 2D6 armour pen swings things the Vanquishers way I think.

Ivan has declared that Tau cannot use game rules to argue in the Hammerhead's favour, therefore you cannot use 2D6 penetration to argue in favour of Russ.

Well that means Snarky can't mention AP1 on Hammerheads?

The point I'm making is that the Vanquisher seems to have slightly great armour piercing power.

Yes, it's an interesting mix of fluff and in-game rules to make sure they have an unbeatable argument. Either use fluff, or use the rules. Not both.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Avatar 720 wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Snarky wrote:The stock russ loses horribly to hammerheads. I still think the railguns outclass the vanquisher just simply because of AP1 though.

The 2D6 armour pen swings things the Vanquishers way I think.

Ivan has declared that Tau cannot use game rules to argue in the Hammerhead's favour, therefore you cannot use 2D6 penetration to argue in favour of Russ.

Well that means Snarky can't mention AP1 on Hammerheads?

The point I'm making is that the Vanquisher seems to have slightly great armour piercing power.

AP1 means nothing here, thems the rules apparently.

However, due to the armour piercing power suggestion stemming from a game statistic, it isn't a reliable source of evidence.

Have you got any quotes that contain Vanquishers destroying Hammerheads in a scenario similar to this?

iproxtaco wrote:Yes, it's an interesting mix of fluff and in-game rules to make sure they have an unbeatable argument. Either use fluff, or use the rules. Not both.

Where's the sense in that? You should only choose between fluff and game rules when they contradict each other, and even then you should have a reason why you made one choice over the other.

Maybe 10 Leman Russ Vanquishers can stop 10 Hammerheads, but ordinary...no, they cannot.

But again? Where is the last time you saw only 10 Leman Russ tanks? Usually on 1 Tau Hammerhead come 10 Leman Russ tanks...now who would won?

Emperors Faithful wrote:

iproxtaco wrote:Yes, it's an interesting mix of fluff and in-game rules to make sure they have an unbeatable argument. Either use fluff, or use the rules. Not both.

Where's the sense in that? You should only choose between fluff and game rules when they contradict each other, and even then you should have a reason why you made one choice over the other.

The main reason being the in-game rules DO NOT represent the actual capabilities a unit has in the fluff, and the capabilities of a unit in the fluff does not work for balance purposes, hence why they are changed. So you either use in-game rules for both, in which the stats are your quotations, or you use the fluff, in which a source is preferred or just a REASONED argument, taking into account the capabilities of BOTH units.

And the main thing about Imperial tanks is that they can withstand more punishment then Tau tanks.

That means Russ can only shoot once and destroy Tau Hammerhead while this must shoot twice at LM to destroy him.

But, nevertheless - this battle scenario goes to Tau.

Brother Coa wrote:And the main thing about Imperial tanks is that they can withstand more punishment then Tau tanks.

That means Russ can only shoot once and destroy Tau Hammerhead while this must shoot twice at LM to destroy him.

But, nevertheless - this battle scenario goes to Tau.

Where have you got this statistic from; I don't see how it's possible to work out...

Probably to emphasize the difference in durability as the Tau vehicles are more fragile, hit one of those huge engines on the side and the thing's pretty screwed.

Avatar 720 wrote:

Dark Apostle 666 wrote:Well, a leman russ vanquisher is technically a leman russ, the OP didnt specify the variant, just "leman russ", so...

I'm not arguing that the hammerheads are about to make it easy, but against 10 vanquishers? It'd be close.

In That case, this scenario could not happen, since there is only a single Leman Russ and he is currently lost in the warp. There was nothing specifying that the OP meant the tank, since Russ also wears armour made by the Imperium, which is therefore 'Imperial Armour'.

Sir, you win at the internet.

iproxtaco wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

iproxtaco wrote:Yes, it's an interesting mix of fluff and in-game rules to make sure they have an unbeatable argument. Either use fluff, or use the rules. Not both.

Where's the sense in that? You should only choose between fluff and game rules when they contradict each other, and even then you should have a reason why you made one choice over the other.

The main reason being the in-game rules DO NOT represent the actual capabilities a unit has in the fluff, and the capabilities of a unit in the fluff does not work for balance purposes, hence why they are changed. So you either use in-game rules for both, in which the stats are your quotations, or you use the fluff, in which a source is preferred or just a REASONED argument, taking into account the capabilities of BOTH units.

But what about this case? Where fluff and game stats seem to agree with one another?

It's not as clear cut as that. In close range the Leman Russ is generally better, but at medium and long the hammerhead has no competition. At close range, the Leman Russ is more durable, versatile, reliable and has better secondary weapons. The Hammerhead is just faster and more manoeuvrable, it's long range advantage is reduced at close range.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

iproxtaco wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

iproxtaco wrote:Yes, it's an interesting mix of fluff and in-game rules to make sure they have an unbeatable argument. Either use fluff, or use the rules. Not both.

Where's the sense in that? You should only choose between fluff and game rules when they contradict each other, and even then you should have a reason why you made one choice over the other.

The main reason being the in-game rules DO NOT represent the actual capabilities a unit has in the fluff, and the capabilities of a unit in the fluff does not work for balance purposes, hence why they are changed. So you either use in-game rules for both, in which the stats are your quotations, or you use the fluff, in which a source is preferred or just a REASONED argument, taking into account the capabilities of BOTH units.

But what about this case? Where fluff and game stats seem to agree with one another?

There's obviously certain places where the rules are closer to the fluff, but the two are still entirely separate. Is their any rules which reflect the tank crews experience or the Russes reliability? Or the hammerheads much greater manoeuvrability?

IvanTih wrote:The same novel where Tau Hammerheads get stomped by the Imperial armor(especially by a Baneblade).

Also I wouldn't use game mechanics as they aren't a good indicator of someone's abilities.

First...This is a game. The vehicles have stats. The Hammerhand's stats are better than the leman russes (as someone else has already listed). That's all the tools we have to compare these opposing forces.

Sure, luck can influence this encounter. Weather could play a part. But, all things being equal, 10 hammerheads would crush 10 Leman Russes 9 times out of 10.

Secondly, was the encounter you described 10 Leman Russes against 10 Hammerheads? No. In fact, those Imperial forces had a super heavy by your own admission. That's not the encounter being discussed, is it?

IvanTih wrote:Until I get quotes I don't care.I know what is a Hammerhead,but when you make a claim you must provide a proof.

Well, considering there is no book that has put 10 hammerheads against 10 leman russes, you aren't going to get any quotes. Now, go find out who pissed in your cereal and take your frustrations out on them, dude.

iproxtaco wrote:
There's obviously certain places where the rules are closer to the fluff, but the two are still entirely separate. Is their any rules which reflect the tank crews experience or the Russes reliability? Or the hammerheads much greater manoeuvrability?

No. But neither did I say there was.

Avatar 720 wrote:
Where have you got this statistic from; I don't see how it's possible to work out...

Because LR is made to be withstand a lot of punishment?
Every LR has reinforced front and rear armors. Tau Hammerhead have Medium armor at best ( can't be to heavy for the anti-gravitacinal )
Leman Russ have 60-62 tones, Hammerhead have 24 tones ( means more armor protection for LR ).
Leman Russ speed is 21-35 kph, Hammerhead can go 70 kph.

Leman Russ: FA 14, SA 12, RA 10, BS 3
HammerHead: FA 13, SA 12, RA 10, BS 3 (4)

And Vanquesher have range 96" with S 8, AP 3, Ordinance blast
Tau Hammerhead have a max. range of 72"...

So Vanquishers would own them, as they would own the LRBT.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BeefCakeSoup wrote:Who do you think would win between 10 Leman Russes coming into contact with 10 Hammerheads?

The setting is an open landscape a few miles wide. With some rolling hills for cover.

This is the same thing like comparing American M1 Sherman tanks ( worst tank in ww2) with German Tiger Tank.
Go figure....

The only thing I'm going on is game stats as there's been to fair comparison of one v the other in the fluff.

Railguns beat EVERYTHING at ranged anti-tank, by the way. Except possibly for the Conversion Beamer...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Brother Coa wrote:Because LR is made to be withstand a lot of punishment?
Every LR has reinforced front and rear armors. Tau Hammerhead have Medium armor at best ( can't be to heavy for the anti-gravitacinal )
Leman Russ have 60-62 tones, Hammerhead have 24 tones ( means more armor protection for LR ).
Leman Russ speed is 21-35 kph, Hammerhead can go 70 kph.

Leman Russ: FA 14, SA 12, RA 10, BS 3
HammerHead: FA 13, SA 12, RA 10, BS 3 (4

And Vanquesher have range 96" with S 8, AP 3, Ordinance blast
Tau Hammerhead have a max. range of 72"...

So Vanquishers would own them, as they would own the LRBT.

Except that blast weapons, if they scatter off the vehicle and the centre spot isn't on the model, hit at half strength. So most of the time it's going to be an S4 AP3 hit so, unless it hits the rear armour where it could glance it to death, it's going to bounce off without crinkling the paintwork on the nano-crystalline armour...

And even then, the 4+ cover save from the D-Pods is going to help it out...

And that's why you have quantity to make up for that...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Miraclefish wrote:xcept that blast weapons, if they scatter off the vehicle and the centre spot isn't on the model, hit at half strength. So most of the time it's going to be an S4 AP3 hit so, unless it hits the rear armour where it could glance it to death, it's going to bounce off without crinkling the paintwork on the nano-crystalline armour...

And even then, the 4+ cover save from the D-Pods is going to help it out...

No, the rule said that you don't use scatter dice, you are rolling to hit using crew BS. And if you hit, roll 2D6 for AP and add the scores...
Imperial Armory 1 page 46.

Brother Coa wrote:And that's why you have quantity to make up for that...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Miraclefish wrote:xcept that blast weapons, if they scatter off the vehicle and the centre spot isn't on the model, hit at half strength. So most of the time it's going to be an S4 AP3 hit so, unless it hits the rear armour where it could glance it to death, it's going to bounce off without crinkling the paintwork on the nano-crystalline armour...

And even then, the 4+ cover save from the D-Pods is going to help it out...

No, the rule said that you don't use scatter dice, you are rolling to hit using crew BS. And if you hit, roll 2D6 for AP and add the scores...
Imperial Armory 1 page 46.

If it's an Ordnance weapon, you roll 2D6 and take the highest and add that to eight. So you have a max AV penetration of 14. And if it's a Blast weapon, it scatters.

Are there special new rules for the Vanquisher I've not seen?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Either way, the Hammerhead has a max AV penetration of 16, it has a greater chance to hit and it has AP1. It's a damn good tank killer.

Miraclefish wrote: It's a damn good tank killer.

Leman Russ is not a Tank Hunter...Destroyer is...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Miraclefish wrote:And if it's a Blast weapon, it scatters.

No, in Vanquisher special rule - it hits every time. No matter it is blast weapon...

Vanquisher is a single, BS based shot. A lot like the railgun.

In my experience as an IG Tank Company commander Tau tactics did not take advantage of their speed and mobility in the attack once in an engagement. It would seem that they may have since adjusted their tactics as seen in the Taros campaign. However, I have still voted for the Russ. For example Tau doctrine would have those 10 hammer heads in close formations of three where scattering tank shells hit squad mates or have other, perhaps psychological effects. While my 10 tanks would operate in a more flexible company. Lastly, I have had such contacts with the Tau, and they are UNLUCKY. For example, one Veteran LR Exterminator moves into an open position and starts destroying a squad every time it fires it's collection of weapons. Three broadsides are tasked with it's destruction, and fail. Clearly the Emperor does protect the faithful.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Emperors Faithful wrote:Vanquisher is a single, BS based shot. A lot like the railgun.

The IG codex and IA update, trump the old list. So it is a lower range non scatter weapon (heavy 1) that rolls 2d6 for Pen.
Got confused with editions,

In a straight up fight? Of course the hammerheads.

Now, put 10 Vanquishers equipped with Lascannons against Hammerheads (assuming no 5pt cover save wargear) then the Vanquishers win. However, with the 5pt cover save wargear, the Hammerheads still win.

Get some vanquishers out there STAT!

Avatar 720 wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Avatar 720 wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Snarky wrote:The stock russ loses horribly to hammerheads. I still think the railguns outclass the vanquisher just simply because of AP1 though.

The 2D6 armour pen swings things the Vanquishers way I think.

Ivan has declared that Tau cannot use game rules to argue in the Hammerhead's favour, therefore you cannot use 2D6 penetration to argue in favour of Russ.

Well that means Snarky can't mention AP1 on Hammerheads?

The point I'm making is that the Vanquisher seems to have slightly great armour piercing power.

AP1 means nothing here, thems the rules apparently.

However, due to the armour piercing power suggestion stemming from a game statistic, it isn't a reliable source of evidence.

Have you got any quotes that contain Vanquishers destroying Hammerheads in a scenario similar to this?

Ok so no fluff? Anyway, I would have mentioned that hammerheads can be upgraded to be BS4, meaning that the railguns would probably hit more often, also they can take the vehicle obscure wargear meaning that half the shots would just bounce off...

Anyway, fluffwise? The Vanquisher is reportedly equal to the Hammerhead when facing off at a tank duel as mentioned in IA3: Taros Campaign, where the commanders lamented the fact that they did not have enough vanquishers due to the fact that they could not find the Krieg Armoured company to reinforce them.