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'm expecting a reduction in cost for the Leman Russ Vanquisher, perhaps a slight reduction for the Leman Russ Battle Tank too

Vanquisher either needs a reduction in cost or an increase in BS to justify the high cost.

Against certain lists that Punisher goes up dramatically.

Additionally, the line between the Demolisher and the BC I think is a bit more blurred. Range has to factor in there somewhere.

Even though the vanquisher will probably pen every time vs AV 14, it still misses half the time and cover negates it half the time. Unless you really, really need to guarantee a roll on the chart for a land raider or something I don't think it will be worth it. You might get one or two pens over the course of the entire game. I haven't compared it to lascannon teams or melta gunners but overall it seems lackluster, especially when melta gunners get +1 on the chart and will most likely ignore cover.

Yes but I think the 24 inch range of the punisher limits its utility. If it had a 36inch range that matched the heavy bolters, than I would put it right up there with the battle canon and demolisher (I agree that these guns are so close togther in power that any ranking is subjective). I do however think that the nova canon is rubbish that will not be seen in most lists. The vaquisher is at the top, because in a pinch it is also a battle canon. The utility is worth the points. the next 4 i think are fairly tight in power ranking, and again the nova on the bottom of the heap.

Also the ex plasma canon I think is either near the top or near the bottom depending on how the rules work for it. If it is heavy d3, and the templates are like barrage templates in that you roll scatter for the first, and the next two touch, than I think it is on the weak side. If it is true heavy 3, where you roll scatter three times... well personally I think that is a bit more powerfull.

Hmm...I’m still skeptical it just seems to good for it to be all real. Just seems like a lot of overlap. I hope most of its real as it would be a valiant attempt at brining back the power of shooting armies in an edition that favors assaults (it would also give other shooty armies some hope).

As to the points per LR i would assume there is some base cost (should be cheap) and you then buy upgrades and guns for that. I believe most of these tanks will wind up in the 90-190 points range depending on layout.

I am more concerned about how much guardsmen will be costing. I keep hearing 4 points for guard but then what are conscripts squads 2 points per? Next thing your going to tell me is that GW will be releasing plastic trenchcoat guard that don't cost me an arm and a leg to get.

Ultimately I will be holding my judgment on the guard till I can get the new dex in my hands.

don_mondo wrote:

stonefox wrote:But Don, the spaz mariens are superhumans! they don't need 2 people to carry heavy weapons!

Phhhbbbtttttttttttttttttt You gonna be at the Rapid Fire tourney on the 7th? Maybe AI can get Matt to let me run an IG list based on the current rumors...........

Back on topic.
Seriously, since the weapon is not degraded in performance by the loss of a crew member, why didn't they take this opportunity to derail the whole two-man heavy weapon team concept and make IG heavy weapons single man items. Provides a little more vulnerability to the heavy weapon, eliminates questions about how that loader counts for wound allocation (altho the two-wound model also does this), basically simplifies and streamlines the whole thing, But nope, instead we're apparently going to get two-wound heavy weapons. 'S allright, the two models btb are the heavy weapon team. Cause I'm not rebasing all my RT-era IG heavy weapons.

You all are forgetting the upside of this 2 wound change: You can now model heavy weapon teams as a single Ogryn carrying a heavy weapon, which I think would look fantastic in a regular infantry squad.

And before anyone mentions it, you can model the ogryn with a bloody bandage to represent 2 wounds instead of 3.

foil7102 wrote:Also the ex plasma canon I think is either near the top or near the bottom depending on how the rules work for it. If it is heavy d3, and the templates are like barrage templates in that you roll scatter for the first, and the next two touch, than I think it is on the weak side. If it is true heavy 3, where you roll scatter three times... well personally I think that is a bit more powerfull.

I think it will be a true heavy 3 ( it lost 18 inchs of range from the IA one), I also have a feeling it will able to have the plasma cannon sponsons ( its on a demolisher templete {11 back armor}). All that combined with the lumbering rule and your looking at 5 plasma templetes, 3 heavy bolter shots, and 3 heavy stubber shots a turn, thats alot of killing power period, that kills orks, marines, tau, deamons, necrons, and little puppy dogs all with the same ease.

I honestly think its the best varient on the summary list , heck even if it only gets heavy bolter sponsons thats still 3 templetes of plasma goodness, 9 heavy bolter shots and 3 heavy stubber shots. the only thing that setup dosen't kill as well is marines and necrons,....... and puppies.... puppies are evil. even with cover saves thats alot of hits to role saves for.

Im just hopeing its under 180 points or around there so i can fit it into the 1000 point build.

BrookM wrote:Vanquisher either needs a reduction in cost or an increase in BS to justify the high cost.

There is the upside of now being able to fire the Lascannon alongside the Vanquisher cannon, since it is no longer an Ordinance weapon.

don_mondo wrote:

Mahu wrote:

I would rather have consistency across the game, modeling and base wise, even at the expense of a few gamers that have to adapt. I have seen too many gamers use their old base sizes to their advantage.

Like it or not, the single base is the way GW has gone. It looks cool.

But, am I the only one that sees the benefits of a two wound base that is immune to instant death (if that is the case)? You essentially get to "hide" the loader from the wound allocation rules. Blasts will only cause a single wound to the base. Hell, those things are true even if they aren't immune to instant death.

I also would like to see consistency across the game. So as soon as Marines, Dark Eldar, Eldar, Chaos, etc etc all have to base their heavy weapons as two wound models on a single large base, then we'll have consistency. Until then, they're throwing in a needless complication and a modelling pain in the butt for those of us with hundreds of old-school miniatures.

Yeah, as soon as your imperial guard are 750 pound genetically engineered superhumans in powered armor who have been training non stop for war for the last 200 years they will get to carry their heavy weapons by themselves. Or maybe when they become a 2 million year old civilization with technology so advanced they were blowing up suns before humans crawled out of their caves. Or when they become 600 lbs of genetically engineered psychic warfungus.


They require 2 dudes because of consistency.

ShumaGorath wrote:Yeah, as soon as your imperial guard are 750 pound genetically engineered superhumans in powered armor who have been training non stop for war for the last 200 years they will get to carry their heavy weapons by themselves. Or maybe when they become a 2 million year old civilization with technology so advanced they were blowing up suns before humans crawled out of their caves. Or when they become 600 lbs of genetically engineered psychic warfungus.

They require 2 dudes because of consistency.

Umm, most of my heavy weapons are on self-propelled carriages. No one has to carry them - they drive them around like go-karts. Except, of course, for the missile launchers, but soldiers carry those around by themselves right now.

Ooooh, it's a fluff battle now eh?

Guard have servitors that have no problems chugging along carrying heavy bolters in one arm.


edit: But yeah, modelling 2-wound Ogryns would be pretty cool. That is, until the next edition when they'll change it up again and you'll need to remind everyone that those auto- and lascannons are are really ripper guns. But modelling them would be cool initially.

Janthkin wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:Yeah, as soon as your imperial guard are 750 pound genetically engineered superhumans in powered armor who have been training non stop for war for the last 200 years they will get to carry their heavy weapons by themselves. Or maybe when they become a 2 million year old civilization with technology so advanced they were blowing up suns before humans crawled out of their caves. Or when they become 600 lbs of genetically engineered psychic warfungus.

They require 2 dudes because of consistency.

Umm, most of my heavy weapons are on self-propelled carriages. No one has to carry them - they drive them around like go-karts. Except, of course, for the missile launchers, but soldiers carry those around by themselves right now.

Well your carriage has a wound then.

Guard have servitors that have no problems chugging along carrying heavy bolters in one arm.

So do the space marines, they're overexpensive and stupid. You can have them.

ShumaGorath wrote:

don_mondo wrote:

Mahu wrote:

I would rather have consistency across the game, modeling and base wise, even at the expense of a few gamers that have to adapt. I have seen too many gamers use their old base sizes to their advantage.

Like it or not, the single base is the way GW has gone. It looks cool.

But, am I the only one that sees the benefits of a two wound base that is immune to instant death (if that is the case)? You essentially get to "hide" the loader from the wound allocation rules. Blasts will only cause a single wound to the base. Hell, those things are true even if they aren't immune to instant death.

I also would like to see consistency across the game. So as soon as Marines, Dark Eldar, Eldar, Chaos, etc etc all have to base their heavy weapons as two wound models on a single large base, then we'll have consistency. Until then, they're throwing in a needless complication and a modelling pain in the butt for those of us with hundreds of old-school miniatures.

Yeah, as soon as your imperial guard are 750 pound genetically engineered superhumans in powered armor who have been training non stop for war for the last 200 years they will get to carry their heavy weapons by themselves. Or maybe when they become a 2 million year old civilization with technology so advanced they were blowing up suns before humans crawled out of their caves. Or when they become 600 lbs of genetically engineered psychic warfungus.


They require 2 dudes because of consistency.

You've lost me on that one. Yeah, let's make their rules different from everyone else (rules, mind you, not fluff) and you call that consistent?

Oh, I'm sorry your right. You know what? Lets take the tyranids biomorphs away too. No one else has those. Ork mob rule? Thats out. They shall know no fear? Well that ones totally unfair. Daemons? Gone!

You've lost me on that one. Yeah, let's make their rules different from everyone else (rules, mind you, not fluff) and you call that consistent?

I'm talking fluff consistency. If everything was consistent model and rulewise there would be one army. Two man weapon teams is a realistic portrayal of a heavy weapon. Otherwise why not just give every trooper a heavy bolter, since clearly he can iron man it all by himself.

ubermosher wrote:And before anyone mentions it, you can model the ogryn with a bloody bandage to represent 2 wounds instead of 3.

it is a cool modelling idea (and would work well with catachans IMHO) but you'd also have to model the ogryn toothless with bowed legs to indicate his scurvy and rickets (justifying his drop to t3) and possibly a stephen hawking-like wheelchair for his MD/MS (dropping his strength to 3).

edit:
what i am excited about is to finagle my why into having a legal ogryn "command squad" that is viable (but not necessarily great) on the table and not just a conversion. ogryn squad including bonehead, attached commissar, nork (with commissar), and kell for the standard.

H.B.M.C. wrote:Yes. Not use the models I've spent lots of money on. That's an excellent solution.

Well, seriously, H.B.M.C., how many games do you really get to use all your models that you've spent money on anyway?

foil7102 wrote:Well instead of female dogging about what we dont know, I would rather female dog about what we do. Just looking at the sheets I would have to rate to russ's in the following order of power.

Vanquisher Cannon
Demolisher Cannon
Battle Cannon
Exicutioner Plasma cannon
Punisher Gattling Cannon
Eradicator Nova.

However I do not see the points costs supporing this list

Well, considering we don't know what the points cost for these will be I don't know how much we can really make a solid comparison of these yet either. That said, I think there's one thing that people are forgetting about the Vanquisher. All we know about the Vanquisher's cannon is that it is Heavy 1, S8 AP2 with some special rule for Armor Pen. I think folks are assuming that because Vanquishers under FW and the AC rules used to either be able to use Vanquisher shells or regular Battle Cannon shells that you could still use it for a Battle Cannon. If that's still the case with this new addition, then, yes, Vanquishers will be where its at. But we don't know that. GW could just give them Vanquisher shells and nothing else, making them dedicated Anti-Tank. If that's the case, they'll still have some use, for sure, but not nearly as much as if they can also throw pie-plates. Because really, what you want is to be able to use Vanquisher rounds in the early game while you get rid of tanks and pie-plates in the late game for getting rid of pesky infantry.

I used to think that Demolishers had it over LRBTs. But that 24" range for the Demolisher cannon is really limiting - particularly compared to the 72 inches of a Battle cannon. Don't get me wrong, I think Demolishers have a place - particularly against Deep Striking opponents. But if the rumors about LRBT squadrons are true, I'd rather take 3 LRBTs and 2 Demolishers than 3 Demolishers. Heck, I might prefer to take 5 LRBTS over 3 LRBTs and 2 Demolishers simply for the number of pies I can hit the other side of the board with on Round 1.

What does everyone think is better vs termies; the demolisher or whatever variation of executioner(plas) that could be in the new dex?

Death By Monkeys wrote:

H.B.M.C. wrote:Yes. Not use the models I've spent lots of money on. That's an excellent solution.

Well, seriously, H.B.M.C., how many games do you really get to use all your models that you've spent money on anyway?

He could do it in Apocalypse!!!


p.s. I can't believe you're still talking about the whole base issue.

foil7102 wrote:
Vanquisher Cannon
Demolisher Cannon
Battle Cannon
Exicutioner Plasma cannon
Punisher Gattling Cannon
Eradicator Nova.

What sort of weapon is the Eradicator Nova? Is it an energy weapon of some kind? A projectile? Could it have some kind of special rule we're not aware of?

At this point, I'm happy with the LRBTs and Demolishers I currently have, but I'd be interested in adding a Executioner or two to the mix if the turret looks good.

As for the Chimera chassis weapons, I really like the idea of missile weapons. I think those and the Melta Cannon would look ace along side my Witch-Hunters, my Sisters' Melta-Weaponry and their Exorcist missile launchers. I'll probably sign up for a few Deathstrikes and Manticores.

How would you rank the Chimera chassis weapons?

MikeK wrote:What does everyone think is better vs termies; the demolisher or whatever variation of executioner(plas) that could be in the new dex?

The new executioner has 3 shots, albeit at a smaller blast, but has a longer range, triple the number of shots, and can fire it's main gun in addition to the sponson and hull weapons, and if the Executioner can get Plasma cannon sponsons, thats a potential 5 S7 AP2 small blasts plus a lascannon against a termi squad as opposed to either a single S10 Ap2 large blast or 2 plasma cannons and a lascannon.

I think it's a no-brainer, especially with the same armor.

George Spiggott wrote:I'm expecting a reduction in cost for the Leman Russ Vanquisher, perhaps a slight reduction for the Leman Russ Battle Tank too

If they get that rule that allows them to move and fire everything, combined with the AV13, I can see their cost going up. If the move-and-fire rule is still trumped by firing Ordnance (ie. firing the Battlecannon still stops you from using your HBs) then the price will probably still go up, 'cause GW usually doesn't think these sorts of things through. On the other hand, I do expect some level of consistent pointing with these new tanks (other than the Executioner, which will be OMGWTFBBQOVERPRICED!) because GW still isn't FW, and, for the most part, understands comparative pricing.

BYE

ph34r wrote:Even though the vanquisher will probably pen every time vs AV 14, it still misses half the time and cover negates it half the time. Unless you really, really need to guarantee a roll on the chart for a land raider or something I don't think it will be worth it. You might get one or two pens over the course of the entire game. I haven't compared it to lascannon teams or melta gunners but overall it seems lackluster, especially when melta gunners get +1 on the chart and will most likely ignore cover.

Well put. A BS3 Vanquisher is bloody pathetic and will be surpassed in efficiency by just about any other anti-tank the IG has.

I'm hoping that the rumored Inquisitor HQ choice is still in there somewhere.

I really don't want to start another army, but if I can play with some of the new units by adding them to my existing Inquisition force (sort of), then it will be all good!

Especially as I'll probably be able to field the 4 squads of Stormtroopers to help do this...

Alpharius wrote:I'm hoping that the rumored Inquisitor HQ choice is still in there somewhere.

He'd be in the summary if he was.

BYE

don_mondo wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:
Yeah, as soon as your imperial guard are 750 pound genetically engineered superhumans in powered armor who have been training non stop for war for the last 200 years they will get to carry their heavy weapons by themselves. Or maybe when they become a 2 million year old civilization with technology so advanced they were blowing up suns before humans crawled out of their caves. Or when they become 600 lbs of genetically engineered psychic warfungus.


They require 2 dudes because of consistency.

You've lost me on that one. Yeah, let's make their rules different from everyone else (rules, mind you, not fluff) and you call that consistent?

Could it be possible that future 'weapons teams' (even for other races) will be based in a similar fashion - and IG are the first to receive such treatment? I mean, could be a wild guess, but it is possible.

As for the result of such a move by GW - I guess it really just needs to be looked at in perspective. I would guess that most people won't have an issue with folks continuing to use the old HW versions they use now. It would seem that the only time this would become a real issue, is in a tournament setting - at which point, you just have to ask yourself, "is it important enough to me to participate"? If it is - you'll probably get the new HW's, paint 'em up, and press on. I guess I just don't see it as a big deal as others do.

The only issue I really have so far, based on what we've seen, are 4pt Guardsmen. To me, that seems too low. Just a first impression, tho. Not really a whine or complaint, but more a concern than anything. Time and lot of table-play will tell if its unfounded or not.

I am not an IG player, but have several in the area I play in. I am always very excited for folks to get their new codex books - it's like Christmas, and seeing friends energetic and excited about their army of choice is very cool to me. That feeling of contentment is echoed here, seeing a lot of you IG folks excited about your new book. I truly am happy for you guys.

Thinking less about the logistics of the two wounds or rebasing aspect of the HW team, how do we think this is going to work as an option in the codex? Will it just be a (rather awkward) choice of dropping two guard for one HW, keeping the 10 man squad we have now (even though technically it's only 9 models)? Will GW down the route of having them as a add on to a 10 man unit, in a similar fashion to advisors, giving you 10 guard and one heavy weapon thing?

If you think about the simplest way for GW to make the new infantry squad box (if it happens), it's using current sprues, which means a box would have 10 Cadians and a HW option, so it would make some sort of sense to let you use all the options you get in the box.

Just a thought.

And if they do that every Guard player has to go out and buy more Lasgunners to make their squads legal again, or reorganise everything to make it legal. Same thing applies if HW squads are 10-men each (or 7 really, with 3 of the models having 2 wounds each).

BYE