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.

Chris521 wrote:
The knight pages were leaked. As expected, the rapid fire battle cannon is a 2D6 version of ours. Unfortunately, they seem to think that its worth 100 points which isn't promising for the Russ

I wonder if the Russ chassis is 100 points then, and the battlecannon is 50

I do wonder though if medics will be able to heal squads other than the command squad, considering the change to apothecaries. Of course, getting a single Guardsman back on a 4+ isn't too big a deal, but it is something. And arguably more than they did in previous editions, where they only affected five models out of your whole whole army (and one of those models was the medic).

Though I wouldn't mind being able to just make my command squad project a FNP bubble either...

The Vanquisher's always been an awful gun to put on a lone BS3 model. I think it was a bit optimistic to expect otherwise. Give it to a tank commander and maybe it can do some work.

It's important to keep in mind that Russes have likely gained a decent amount of mobility and firepower with the changes to ordnance and movement rules, and are no longer paper in assault either. Looking at them as just a platform for their turret may not be the best way to think about them any more.

FunJohn wrote:

Chris521 wrote:
The knight pages were leaked. As expected, the rapid fire battle cannon is a 2D6 version of ours. Unfortunately, they seem to think that its worth 100 points which isn't promising for the Russ

I wonder if the Russ chassis is 100 points then, and the battlecannon is 50

Well a predator is already 102 base, so I could see the base russ being 120+. We could be looking at 200 points for one of these when you add in the front bolter and sponsons

Seems like the LRBT in 8th is going to be like, "This is a story all about how my loadout got flipped-turned upside down..."

Because suddenly the autocannon is its best turret option.

Also one will notice that the now AV13 Knight and AV14 Russ will have the same T valur of 8, in just about every conceivable respect the Russ is losing out on resiliency relative to other vehicles.

Carnifex are ~70 points, so maybe the base Russ will be ~80 points?

 Trickstick wrote:
Let's hope that the keywords don't let medics heal tanks. That would be silly.

Medics would probably say something along the lines of "restore a wound to a model without the Vehicle keyword" while something like the enginseer would be "restore a wound to a model with the Vehicle keyword".

Let's not forget what a Russ can get away with under the new rule set. And I don't just mean gaining firepower the loss of Ordnance.

T8 W12 Sv3+ may be equivalent to AV14 HP3 in 7th in terms of raw survivability, but no more vehicle damage table means that a single penetrating hit won't cause a lost turn at best and a totally incapacitated vehicle in the majority of situations. So you'll get more turns of use out of the main gun, even if it's less effective by raw power.

No rear armor, krak grenades/meltabombs no longer being melee weapons, and the new statlines means that a Russ can shoot and then charge a squad that will only wound it on 6s, while throwing back a few inaccurate but decent-strength attacks of its own. What would be a suicide tactic before is now a decent delaying strategy.

 ross-128 wrote:
Seems like the LRBT in 8th is going to be like, "This is a story all about how my loadout got flipped-turned upside down..."

Because suddenly the autocannon is its best turret option.

The autocannon turret was good in 7th, as well. Just many IG players didn't like it.

I don't mind the Russ' durability, personally- I think it's fine. But it will be dead in the water if its shooting isn't very good.

Like today's 40K. The Russ isn't particularly hard to kill, but even as fragile as the Russ is right now it's often easier to just ignore them altogether. Why bother focusing any firepower at all on a unit that's only going to be killing two or three models a turn, or plinking a few points off a MC/vehicle each turn?

What makes a tank a tank (in RPG terms) is its ability to attract damage in addition to surviving it.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Also one will notice that the now AV13 Knight and AV14 Russ will have the same T valur of 8, in just about every conceivable respect the Russ is losing out on resiliency relative to other vehicles.

Knights should have been more durable than a Russ anyway. Especially for what they cost. The predator should never have had AV 11 sides, either. That's not a tank at that point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SeraphimXIX wrote:
I don't mind the Russ' durability, personally- I think it's fine. But it will be dead in the water if its shooting isn't very good.

Like today's 40K. The Russ isn't particularly hard to kill, but even as fragile as the Russ is right now it's often easier to just ignore them altogether. Why bother focusing any firepower at all on a unit that's only going to be killing two or three models a turn, or plinking a few points off a MC/vehicle each turn?

What makes a tank a tank (in RPG terms) is its ability to attract damage in addition to surviving it.

Autocannon turrret + lascannon + multi melta sponsons = OUCH in 8th.

Depends on the points. Below 150 for that set-up and things are looking good. Rumors are putting the lascannon sponsons at 60-70 alone though. When you start hitting around the 200 point mark for a single vehicle that isn't even superheavy-tier I start to think you might be better off with something else.

EDIT- I am very optimistic about the exterminator though. Assuming it ends up with 8 shots that thing is going to be a beast. Due to how pen works it really shreds anything below T7. It doesn't have the volume of fire to be a real horde-clearer but it does really decent damage against single models, like MC's and transports.

The only thing I'm worried about is GW jacking up its points cost due to how popular it was (for a Russ) in the prior editions.

 SeraphimXIX wrote:
Depends on the points. Below 150 for that set-up and things are looking good. Rumors are putting the lascannon sponsons at 60-70 alone though. When you start hitting around the 200 point mark for a single vehicle that isn't even superheavy-tier I start to think you might be better off with something else.

Be prepare to many many vehicles costing more than 200 points in 8th edition. A Rhino is 70 points, a Droppod 103.

Yeah, that definitely seems to be the trend. In general almost everything seems to be getting more expensive.

... Unless it's a tyranid. Almost everything in the tyranids codex got big points reductions.

I like the point increase on vehicles, the whole "cheapening" of vehicles from 4th to 5th was what cause the whole debacle in the first place.

jaxor1983 wrote:
The annihilator variant would be simply better than the vanquisher variant at all times, especially with orders. This vanquisher with these rules would need to be the cheapest one to warrant its existence.

Also, what's the deal with the exorcist becoming better both offensively and defensively than a leman russ battle tank?

The Exorcist has been better than the Leman Russ for a long time. Not something new, really.

The only Leman Russ, IMO, that actually might be better than the Exorcist is the Tank Commander Vanquisher, because it has Instant Death and Armorbane, but it also costs 200 points compared to 125.

Martel732 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Also one will notice that the now AV13 Knight and AV14 Russ will have the same T valur of 8, in just about every conceivable respect the Russ is losing out on resiliency relative to other vehicles.

Knights should have been more durable than a Russ anyway.

Thats not my point, I have no problems with a Knight being more durable than a Russ, as you noted, it should be. I have a problem with the Russ, already not known for being terribly hardy, becoming even weaker in a relative sense, unless they are getting a massive relative cost discount. Particularly as the Russ originally started out when introduced being as well or better armored as a Land Raider all around, the Demolisher even moreso.

Especially for what they cost. The predator should never have had AV 11 sides, either. That's not a tank at that point.

To be fair, the Predator is an APC with a turret stuck to it, it was never designed from the ground up as a main battle tank, but rather as a logistically simple fire support option to back up power armored super soldiers. The AV11 made perfect sense from that perspective at least.

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
I like the point increase on vehicles, the whole "cheapening" of vehicles from 4th to 5th was what cause the whole debacle in the first place.

Yes, I'm in love to. After all this years where a 2k point army of 3rd was more like 1,2k points in 7th we are gonna correct that! Battles with 30 infantry models and 2 vehicles in the 1,500-1850 point range without being full Terminators? yes please.

 Vaktathi wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Also one will notice that the now AV13 Knight and AV14 Russ will have the same T valur of 8, in just about every conceivable respect the Russ is losing out on resiliency relative to other vehicles.

Knights should have been more durable than a Russ anyway.

Thats not my point, I have no problems with a Knight being more durable than a Russ, as you noted, it should be. I have a problem with the Russ, already not known for being terribly hardy, becoming even weaker in a relative sense, unless they are getting a massive relative cost discount. Particularly as the Russ originally started out when introduced being as well or better armored as a Land Raider all around, the Demolisher even moreso.

There was an age, where the Carnifex was the biggest thing out there, with his 10 strenght, killing things in droves. Now is 6 strenght, because compared with all the other new, bigger and maner Tyranids monsters, he has lost his site in the podium as the Big Bug out there. The same has happen to the Leman Russ.

I think the IG may be the exception to this, which may also be why the Battle Cannon ended up looking underwhelming.

Still though if any army deserves to be the tank spammers, it should be the IG. Just like how Nids are finally getting back the title of THE Monstrous Creature Army (even if Monstrous Creatures might no longer be a thing).

On principle I have no problem with vehicles being expensive either. They're vehicles, they inherently shouldn't be spammy like infantry.

But on the other hand vehicles should also have the respect that a war-machine commands. If Leman Russ are so expensive that having more then three or four is impractical outside of huge battles, then they should also be terrifying.

 SeraphimXIX wrote:
On principle I have no problem with vehicles being expensive either. They're vehicles, they inherently shouldn't be spammy like infantry.

But on the other hand vehicles should also have the respect that a war-machine commands. If Leman Russ are so expensive that having more then three or four is impractical outside of huge battles, then they should also be terrifying.

I always felt that tanks should come in squadrons of 3-5 tanks and deployed by the company.

There should be lots of tanks and even more foot soldiers supporting them.

When you have a 'Heavy Tank' that is barely more survivable than a Medium, or a 'Breakthrough Tank' that will struggle to shoot the skin off a rice pudding you have a problem too.

 master of ordinance wrote:
When you have a 'Heavy Tank' that is barely more survivable than a Medium, or a 'Breakthrough Tank' that will struggle to shoot the skin off a rice pudding you have a problem too.

I always thought of the Leman Russ as a medium tank and the Baneblade as a heavy/breakthrough tank.

Baneblades are extremely rare vehicles and are very much "Superheavy". Macharius tanks and stuff of that size, roughly in the neighborhood of a Knight, are "Heavy" tanks, but those are also rather rare. Leman Russ tanks have always been something of the "Heavy" tank as far as what one would expect to ser in most 40k games.

Funny enough, older fluff hints that the Baneblade was originally designed as a Light Tank. What constituted a Heavy Tank is probably something the size of the Leviathan.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

 SeraphimXIX wrote:
On principle I have no problem with vehicles being expensive either. They're vehicles, they inherently shouldn't be spammy like infantry.

But on the other hand vehicles should also have the respect that a war-machine commands. If Leman Russ are so expensive that having more then three or four is impractical outside of huge battles, then they should also be terrifying.

I always felt that tanks should come in squadrons of 3-5 tanks and deployed by the company.

There should be lots of tanks and even more foot soldiers supporting them.

For that you have Apocalypse!

It's also definitely going to be a tricky thing to consider with infantry seeming to get slightly cheaper, heavy/special weapons getting more expensive, and lasguns being able to hurt anything.

A lasgun may not be very scary compared to a battle cannon, but if I can get 40+ of them for the price of one tank and then drop some major buffs on them like re-rolls to hit and/or wound...

 Vaktathi wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Also one will notice that the now AV13 Knight and AV14 Russ will have the same T valur of 8, in just about every conceivable respect the Russ is losing out on resiliency relative to other vehicles.

Knights should have been more durable than a Russ anyway.

Thats not my point, I have no problems with a Knight being more durable than a Russ, as you noted, it should be. I have a problem with the Russ, already not known for being terribly hardy, becoming even weaker in a relative sense, unless they are getting a massive relative cost discount. Particularly as the Russ originally started out when introduced being as well or better armored as a Land Raider all around, the Demolisher even moreso.

Especially for what they cost. The predator should never have had AV 11 sides, either. That's not a tank at that point.

To be fair, the Predator is an APC with a turret stuck to it, it was never designed from the ground up as a main battle tank, but rather as a logistically simple fire support option to back up power armored super soldiers. The AV11 made perfect sense from that perspective at least.

Maybe it's weaker in a relative sense, but it's stronger overall. No single shot grav shenanigans, and drop melta has been crumped hard. And no immobilization on a shrub.

One should not make a tank by putting a turret on an APC. Going to T7 W11 makes the pred far more playable than it ever has been before.

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
Funny enough, older fluff hints that the Baneblade was originally designed as a Light Tank. What constituted a Heavy Tank is probably something the size of the Leviathan.

I somehow don't think so. [Not that I don't think that such older fluff exists, I just can't see a Baneblade being by any means being able to perform the tasks expected of a light or medium tank].

Though, on Baneblades, I wonder what the chassis stats and the Volcano Cannon stats will look like.