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 was just re-reading my codex again, and something struck me. If you take an exterminator with multimeltas and lascannons, you're spending roughly the same amount of points as a lascannon HWS and an autocannon HWS. Both of these put down 3 autocannon hits and 1.5 very good anti-tank hits per turn. Then I started to note the trend. A vanquisher similarly armed costs the same as about 1 and 2/3ds lascannon HWSs, and puts down about 1 and 1/2 the amount of damage. A punisher costs 2 and 1/2 that of a heavy bolter HWS, and it puts down very nearly 2 and 1/2 times as many S5 hits per turn. Obviously this breaks down somewhat with the executioner, eradicator, and demolisher, for which there are no HWS analogues, but this still got me thinking.

It seems interesting to me that apparently the purpose of russes is to be a unit that puts out roughly the same amount of killing power per point except it loses the ability to score and take orders in order to gain AV14. Otherwise, they're exactly the same. I mean, they even both have 3 wounds to them (because, seriously, ID on HWSs...), and will instantly liquefy in close combat.

Of course, russes are obviously better (well, possibly not the LRBT) than their HWS counterparts, especially due to the whole not instantly getting blown off the board thing, plus not having to deal with leadership, etc. In any case, I've been thinking all this time of russes as being up-armored artillery, when really I should have been thinking of them as up-armored HWSs. It also really makes a case for sponsons, I suppose, as 20 points (plus the free hull heavy bolter) gives you a heavy bolter HWS in addition to whatever HWS-mimicking turret weapon you have, which is a pretty steep discount. Likewise, multimeltas and a lascannon run you only half the price of a lascannon HWS.

Interesting topic. Looking into it, you are largely correct with regards to the LRBT variants that mimic them. Obviously, anything that drops blasts is on the other end of the spectrum compared to HWSs.

This has changed the way I look at ny tanks, seeing the ones without armour as a HWS, and using them as such. Whereas the ordnance flingers are an armoured speedbump and deterrant by forcing them down my opponents throat whilst my HWS tanks chew through their targets unmulched.

Props for the nice thread

It's a decent approximation, but there's also the mobility factor to consider. A HWS is a static unit, if it's in the wrong place it's stuck there (or has to throw away all of its firepower on snap shots to move). A Leman Russ, on the other hand, can move 6" a turn and keep shooting just as effectively as if it was standing still, which helps a lot for denying cover saves, getting into side armor, etc. Add in the durability factor (which gives related benefits like being a mobile terrain piece to give cover to weaker units) and the two units play very differently, even if you can make a useful comparison in the "how much firepower do I have" aspect of list building.

And of course the Executioner/Demolisher/LRBT have their own very different roles, and thinking of them as up-armored artillery is a lot more accurate.

Leman Russes are also not vulnerable to S6 instant death and blasts and such. Yes, they mimic the firepower, but without a lot of armor, they are nothing similar.

Yet it can get instant-killed from AT guns.

In a way, most tanks in the game are an armored heavy team, that what a tank essence IS, a mobile bunker with some heavy guns.

This is slightly off-topic maybe, but does GW have a rubric or an algorithm that they use to assign costs to units? I know some of an entry is purely the writer's discression, but I can see how you would quantify a guard stat-line with a with a heavy weapon.

If such a thing were to exist it might explain some of what you are noticing.

If they do, no one here would ever see it.

It would be really interesting, actually, to see explicitly how GW balances things.

In any case, the odd man out here for me is the LRBT. Its analogue is 1 and 2/3ds of a missile launcher HWS. Both put down S8 Ap3, and both have some blast abilities against light infantry. What I don't get is the balance. Either the russ should be cheaper, or the missile HWS more expensive.

I know that, only looking at firepower, I would much rather have 5 missile launchers than 1 battlecannon. My opponents know to spread out against ordnance, so I'd be getting more hits with more shots, and the missile launchers would be much better against vehicles and monstrous creatures. The only thing the russ has better is clustered MEq out in the open, which I don't encounter very often at all.

You know, come to think of it, you can do the executioner as well. The tank costs 2 and 1/2 times as much as its points in plasma SWSs. At range, we're talking about 3 plasma cannons vs. 7.5 plasma gun shots. Obviously it's not perfect as those plasma guns have less range, but get to double tap against targets that start 18" away or closer, but it's pretty close.

Once again, though, this makes the executioner seem way overcosted when you compare it to other tanks on the tank-to-infantry metric.

You are looking at it purely from a points.perspective. there are other things that go along with armor. People fixate on the big ugly tanks, sometimes to the exclusion of actual objectives. While they waste firepower on your tanks, what are your troops doing? Sitting idle? Shouldn't be. They should be grabbing objectives.

There is a lot more to strategy and tactics than just the points.

I know.

In this case, I'm comparing the two by the metric of firepower. It has been customary to think of russes as being up-armored versions of artillery pieces. Russes are basilisks, demolishers are medusas, exterminators are hydras, etc. Now that we're in a world of heavy, rather than lumbering russes, though, it's never quite sat right. I think this is a better way of thinking about them, and it also jives better with my feelings that sponsons are usually worth taking.

Of course if all things are otherwise equal, then it does come to a question of which to take, HWSs or russes. In this case, I think I'd pick the russ every time. HWSs are little more than first blood bait in my experience. They're very, very easy to kill, and when you don't kill them, they have a pretty decent chance of running away. The fact that they are scoring is pretty irrelevant to me, firstly because they only score when they survive (and they'll always be a high-priority target), and the fact that they're scoring doesn't matter on half the missions (purge, obviously, but also big guns where russes also score, and emperor's will (where you'll already have a giant wad of them)).

Meanwhile, russes offer much better force concentration, and are a LOT harder to kill than even a pair of HWSs in most circumstances, especially when you consider efficiency of cover.

The other thing to remember about a LRB or a demolisher is they have AP3/2 large blasts - these SCARE people, they have to play differentely when there is the risk of squads of marines or terminators being one shotted. Thats not something a HWS can give you.

As GW has said ... there is no across dex balancing. Point costs are "balanced" within an individual dex. Basically, there is NO math. It is all just.."uh, that seems right."

Using firepower is certainly interesting but as others have noted, mobility and survivability have to be a factor. If you don't you are essentially comparing a HWS (standard) versus a more expensive HWS (tank). You might as well compare a HWS versus a vendetta at that point.

ender502

Drummerboy wrote:
This is slightly off-topic maybe, but does GW have a rubric or an algorithm that they use to assign costs to units? I know some of an entry is purely the writer's discression, but I can see how you would quantify a guard stat-line with a with a heavy weapon.

If such a thing were to exist it might explain some of what you are noticing.

Considering it was Cruddace who wrote it, he probably picked them out of a hat.

ender502 wrote: You might as well compare a HWS versus a vendetta at that point.

Feel free.

Andilus Greatsword wrote:Considering it was Cruddace who wrote it, he probably picked them out of a hat.

Well... that's one of the points of this thread. The points costs for russes AREN'T random. They actually track with something else in the codex.

Just because vendettas are priced strangely doesn't meant the rest of the codex is. As ender notes, most things in most codices are internally balanced rather well, even if they're not compared to things in other codices.

 Ailaros wrote:
My opponents know to spread out against ordnance...

That can sometimes be an advantage. If you have no blast/template weapons in your force, then the enemy is free to group up and make much better use of cover and firing lanes. I know that when I see an enemy with no blasts that I am very thankful for it and use the opportunity to bunch up my infantry and vehicles. Also, spreading out more means that they are pushed back more by front line casualties.

Uhm, and what about the Eradicators, Demolishers and the Executioners? Their HWS counterparts are -???-

Otherwise:

I mean wow, Russes as armoured HWS-s? That explains why they took out my beloved Heavy Weapon Platoons !

AtoMaki wrote:Uhm, and what about the Eradicators, Demolishers and the Executioners? Their HWS counterparts are -???-

Right, as mentioned before, they dont' have them.

The closest I can figure is that they're up-armored SWSs (flamer, demo charge, and plasma, respectively), but this is a harder analogy to make given that the ranges of the weapons are just so different.

Trickstick wrote:If you have no blast/template weapons in your force, then the enemy is free to group up and make much better use of cover and firing lanes.

Well, marines can't exactly walk rank and file against missile launchers. They still have a blast option after all.

The only difference, then is against opponents who have a narrow band of displacenemt between very close together, and reasonably spread out. For pretty much everything else, having lots of missile launcher shots would be better, it seems.