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.

 Dramagod2 wrote:
I would have a problem with it. The ABG is its own specific list representing a tank company. The steel host is an entirely seperate formation calling for specific units. Now I would be fine with someone bring FW leman russes as part of a steel host, but not cloning the units. The tank commander example is really a prime one. It on;y requires you to bring one tank which is a significant improvement over having to squad them. I feel like combining them is just taking an ABG and giving your warlord the PE bubble. There's nothing wrong with the ABG list, but I think trying to mash it together with the steel host is a good idea.

Again, no problem with taking FW tanks in a normal LR squadron as part of the host. But the units are simply not the same, and if you were going to argue that they count as being from codex AM then I would say that by that argument, theres nothing keeping you from taking the LR troop squadron as the troop choice for your normal CAD, afterall, its a troop choice, and counts as being from the normal AM codex.....


Automatically Appended Next Post:
i just think making those kinds of allowances opens a slippery slope

Personally, I think ABG is fine to use the Steel host formation. Fundamentally the same units. With the exception of wargear for the tanks and orders from the tank commanders. As some others have pointed out the ABG tanks usually run more higher points. Now the difference between Company Tank commander and the basic Tank commander I think is a small issue. ABG using this formation gives it extra boost it may need. A friend of mine and my self run ABG and we both have noticed that the game is becoming more fast paces and the ABG can't keep up with it on its own.

I thought you would be more up set with the 2 extra hyrdras the ABG could take in the formation that the IG codex could not.

The real issue in my mind is that you can run the formation with the ABG list for less than it requires from the AM codex. Not having to take a second tank with your commander means you can field the list for around 150 less points and while the ABG tanks are more expensive, depending on which you are running, I don't feel they take up enough points to offset that fact. Being able to field the formation for 100 points less means you can fit it into lists you otherwise couldn't. I have no problem with using FW tanks, but you still should take them under the appropriate Codex:AM units.

In casual games, it wouldn't really matter anyway, but at an event, I would have a problem with it. And thats coming from someone who routinely runs the steel host. If you want to play ABG, play ABG.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It should be noted as well, that the ABG units open up those tanks to a lot of wargear and upgrades that would otherwise not be available to a steel host. Many of which would not be available if you took those same FW tanks as subs in a LR squad.

`While I would agree that really you couldn't run the Steel Host with ABG units, I hardly think it would be particularly broken. You might net a few points by not taking the extra tank in the command squadron, but not a tremendous amount, I think with the tanks I'd normally run, I'd save a total of 50-80pts, but also have one fewer tank.

Using Pask in a cheap unit + another or two leman russes are golden units to do the dirty job, the 14 front armour is adding a lot of survivability even against lascannons (but medium against meltas), if you can hide them a bit and add a camo netting they are gonna rock for sure. Some people are using the bullgrins shield for extra cover.

Punisher pask with multimeltas & lascannon, with an executioner with plasma sponsons in his squad, is one of the best ways to run russes imo.
Pask can deal with literally anything, and the executioner gets a lot out of having prefered enemy.

The ordnance blast russes generally aren't worth it due to the lack of efficiency with other weapons.

Anti infantry tanks like the eradicator and non pask punisher lose out when compared to wyverns.

Leman russes still perform well enough on the tabletop, but the growing number of over the top new additions and D weapons make them pale in comparison.

I think a major and somewhat more base issue is with the armor rules in general - I know, dead horse, I'm beating it - but I can't help but think back to when I started playing IG and Russes were actually hard to kill, not to mention everyone else's vehicles were hardy too and couldn't get erased via paint scratches.

I also think creep has been more of a nail in the coffin for the Russ than anything else in the current edition (as people mentioned before, AV ignoring weapons, resilient in-your-face drop lists). Out of all the fixes I've seen posted, I really can't even say what I'd like to see done to the Russ, which is a shame because out of the ten I have, only three (Exterminator, Punisher, and Eradicator) are really worth taking.

 Frankenberry wrote:
I think a major and somewhat more base issue is with the armor rules in general - I know, dead horse, I'm beating it - but I can't help but think back to when I started playing IG and Russes were actually hard to kill, not to mention everyone else's vehicles were hardy too and couldn't get erased via paint scratches.

To be fair, the rules for vehicles hurt russes less than most. Being AV 14/13 on the fronts and side makes them immune to the large amounts of str 6/7 spam that has been introduced into the game.

Str D still sucks though.

 Frankenberry wrote:
I think a major and somewhat more base issue is with the armor rules in general - I know, dead horse, I'm beating it - but I can't help but think back to when I started playing IG and Russes were actually hard to kill, not to mention everyone else's vehicles were hardy too and couldn't get erased via paint scratches.

I also think creep has been more of a nail in the coffin for the Russ than anything else in the current edition (as people mentioned before, AV ignoring weapons, resilient in-your-face drop lists). Out of all the fixes I've seen posted, I really can't even say what I'd like to see done to the Russ, which is a shame because out of the ten I have, only three (Exterminator, Punisher, and Eradicator) are really worth taking.

I think an extra hull point and getting lumbering behemoth back would be a huge step in the right direction.

LR's really need at least another hull point and probably lumbering behemoth back. Sure, the points efficiency of a Paskecutioner or Paskisher is effective, but that's like the one somewhat cheesy combo in the codex. It would be nice if its competitiveness didn't rest entirely on making that a staple.

 Big Blind Bill wrote:

 Frankenberry wrote:
I think a major and somewhat more base issue is with the armor rules in general - I know, dead horse, I'm beating it - but I can't help but think back to when I started playing IG and Russes were actually hard to kill, not to mention everyone else's vehicles were hardy too and couldn't get erased via paint scratches.

To be fair, the rules for vehicles hurt russes less than most. Being AV 14/13 on the fronts and side makes them immune to the large amounts of str 6/7 spam that has been introduced into the game.

Str D still sucks though.

The big problem being that, much like D weapons, there's more stuff out there than ever before, and in larger quantities and more effective platforms, that simply ignores AV entirely, Gauss, Grav, Haywire, etc.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Big Blind Bill wrote:

 Frankenberry wrote:
I think a major and somewhat more base issue is with the armor rules in general - I know, dead horse, I'm beating it - but I can't help but think back to when I started playing IG and Russes were actually hard to kill, not to mention everyone else's vehicles were hardy too and couldn't get erased via paint scratches.

To be fair, the rules for vehicles hurt russes less than most. Being AV 14/13 on the fronts and side makes them immune to the large amounts of str 6/7 spam that has been introduced into the game.

Str D still sucks though.

The big problem being that, much like D weapons, there's more stuff out there than ever before, and in larger quantities and more effective platforms, that simply ignores AV entirely, Gauss, Grav, Haywire, etc.

Grav isn't all that effective, unless someone cheesed it up on a biker command squad. Did a few test runs of grav devastators in a drop pod. Costs a fair bit, has short range, and takes about two turns to take out your average vehicle. Pointed at high-durability troops and MC's however...

But yea, there's so much stuff made to kill tanks, that it's a pain in the ass to be paying this much for a LRBT.

 Selym wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Big Blind Bill wrote:

 Frankenberry wrote:
I think a major and somewhat more base issue is with the armor rules in general - I know, dead horse, I'm beating it - but I can't help but think back to when I started playing IG and Russes were actually hard to kill, not to mention everyone else's vehicles were hardy too and couldn't get erased via paint scratches.

To be fair, the rules for vehicles hurt russes less than most. Being AV 14/13 on the fronts and side makes them immune to the large amounts of str 6/7 spam that has been introduced into the game.

Str D still sucks though.

The big problem being that, much like D weapons, there's more stuff out there than ever before, and in larger quantities and more effective platforms, that simply ignores AV entirely, Gauss, Grav, Haywire, etc.

Grav isn't all that effective, unless someone cheesed it up on a biker command squad. Did a few test runs of grav devastators in a drop pod. Costs a fair bit, has short range, and takes about two turns to take out your average vehicle. Pointed at high-durability troops and MC's however...

But yea, there's so much stuff made to kill tanks, that it's a pain in the ass to be paying this much for a LRBT.

See, I get that the game is trying to convey, at least in part, that the future is a scary place with lots of technology that can simply erase a terrifying unit like a MBT. My problem is that having played decent armor rules, I find it hard to wrap my head around the reason behind the way armor is treated now. Tanks, whether they be tracked, wheeled, or hover are SUPPOSED to be scary. They're supposed to be these engines of destruction that the enemy has to dedicate a plan and resources to dealing with or run the risk of having that scary tank run around and collapse a flank or blow up their shiny stuff in the back.

Again, the horse is back, but having a system that rewards the least amount of effort when dealing with some of the (supposed) most terrifying units the game just seems so...I don't know, lame? I mean c'mon, with the sudden inclusion of grav weapons in every SM codex that's a level of spam that is starting to get silly. Gauss? I was always ok with the whole 'alien' aspect to it, hence the glancing on 6's never really bugging me. Now, we have D strength flamers. FLAMERS. So, in essence, some giant clay-mation looking walker-thing mosies over to a formation of tanks, points his 'magic-totally-not-magic' flamer-not-flamer thing at them and *poof*, 450-600 points just disappears. I'm not going to bitch about the Wraithknight, because, well everyone does.

I've never taken issue with suicide melta squads, despite now most codexes that offer this option make it STUPIDLY cheap, so cheap it'd be insane NOT take to take at least one just in case. And lets not even talk about the whole hullpoint thing, it's a stupid system that should have remained solely under the purview of super-heavies and never should have been cast onto my poor Russes. Three hull points ladies and gents, Three. Hull. Points. On a tank that's designed to end sieges, to fight in war torn close-quarters (lets face it, that's basically suicide for ANY tank), and now...it's got the same durability as a Wave Serpent - but wait, the WS can DODGE incoming fire, so in effect, Russes are actually worse.

Edit: Perhaps even more annoying is that when I started this army I used minimal infantry in order to get a more mechanized force together. Now, my Chimeras compete with my Russes for who lasts longer - which isn't a contest I should be having. Sadly, I'll be moving towards a more infantry-centric deployment now, given the remarkably easy ways to give everything a cover save that 95% of the game doesn't have a response to. And hey, since the whole 'random objectives are super cool and no one would deploy to a warzone knowing what they were there to do' crap that Maelstrom is, I can totally get away with spamming cheap squads and not evening TRYING to kill my opponent. Just slow them down long enough and the game wins itself. Thank GOD I have all these tanks.

I don't use suicide melta often. Three melta shots is very unreliable.

The fact that none of our vehicles can jink isn't a matter of game balance it's a matter of fluff, the Imperium doesn't have skimmer tanks. The closest thing is the land speeder.

But yeah, 3 hull points is pretty stupid IMO.

 ultimentra wrote:
The fact that none of our vehicles can jink isn't a matter of game balance it's a matter of fluff, the Imperium doesn't have skimmer tanks. The closest thing is the land speeder.

But yeah, 3 hull points is pretty stupid IMO.

The point wasn't that it was unbalanced and should be changed, it's simply that a 'battle tank' of another army not only sports nearly the same firepower and stat line, but comes with an inherently uncounterable defensive measure that is replicated in nearly every codex.

Save, y'know, AM.

And before anyone loses their minds and starts talking about how 'amazing' AV 14/13 is - Lance weapons called, they laughed for twenty minutes and then hung up.

Lance is sufficiently rare that you shouldn't consider it an issue.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Lance is sufficiently rare that you shouldn't consider it an issue.

It's pretty rare, but less so now than in previous editions, where it used to be unique to Eldar & Dark Eldar "lascannon" equivalents. It's available now in at least some for or fashion to Eldar, Dark Eldar, Space Wolves, Blood Angels, Tyranids, Harlequins, and the Inquisition.

 Selym wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Big Blind Bill wrote:

 Frankenberry wrote:
I think a major and somewhat more base issue is with the armor rules in general - I know, dead horse, I'm beating it - but I can't help but think back to when I started playing IG and Russes were actually hard to kill, not to mention everyone else's vehicles were hardy too and couldn't get erased via paint scratches.

To be fair, the rules for vehicles hurt russes less than most. Being AV 14/13 on the fronts and side makes them immune to the large amounts of str 6/7 spam that has been introduced into the game.

Str D still sucks though.

The big problem being that, much like D weapons, there's more stuff out there than ever before, and in larger quantities and more effective platforms, that simply ignores AV entirely, Gauss, Grav, Haywire, etc.

Grav isn't all that effective, unless someone cheesed it up on a biker command squad. Did a few test runs of grav devastators in a drop pod. Costs a fair bit, has short range, and takes about two turns to take out your average vehicle.

It's not outrageously effective on things like Grav Guns in Tac Squads, but on other platforms it becomes much more capable. On average, you need about 18 Grav shots assuming BS4. If you add in a Grav Amp, you can drop that to ~10 shots at BS4, which then makes them more effective than Lascannons shot for shot, and when you've got 3-5x as many shots from a Grav cannon as a Lascannon, they become very effective indeed.

Even of all of those Codices were regularly fielding several Lance weapons (and they're generally not), it's not really that different from Lascannon. Except that the Eldar versions have less range, so are proportionally less threatening.

When Lance weapons start filling the metagame, then I'd start to worry. Otherwise, it's just the occasional bad luck of the draw, which one can live with.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Even of all of those Codices were regularly fielding several Lance weapons (and they're generally not), it's not really that different from Lascannon. Except that the Eldar versions have less range, so are proportionally less threatening.

When Lance weapons start filling the metagame, then I'd start to worry. Otherwise, it's just the occasional bad luck of the draw, which one can live with.

Right, and I wouldn't overall disagree with that assessment, it's just one more thing on that growing list of things that really puts a damper on high-AV non-superheavy tanks like Russ's and Land Raiders that has grown more expanded in use of late than it used to be

Don't worry guys, in some places high-av vehicles are still considered OP:

rowboatjellyfanxiii wrote:
We have a house rule on Land Raiders;
-Front 14
-Side 12 if it's Crusader or Redeemer
-Side 13 of it's a standard.
-Rear 12 no matter what.

 Selym wrote:
Don't worry guys, in some places high-av vehicles are still considered OP:

rowboatjellyfanxiii wrote:
We have a house rule on Land Raiders;
-Front 14
-Side 12 if it's Crusader or Redeemer
-Side 13 of it's a standard.
-Rear 12 no matter what.

If that's what his group thinks is fair, I can't comment on that - outside of my confusion as to why the Land Raider is considered OP.

As to the comments about lance weapons, you're right, they're not really prevalent at all, but as Vaktathi pointed out: it's just one more thing that adds to already massive list of things that simply negates an AV14/13 platform.

Of course Lance has been around for awhile now, and I really don't take issue with it, I was merely using the WS armed with Lances as an example.

See, giving Lumbering Behemoth back to Leman Russes sort of fixes the problem, just like giving them another HP. I think the problem lies on a more fundamental level: Tanks aren't supposed to be made out of paper mache. Before anyone goes off on how durable the tanks in any army are, take a look at what actually makes them durable; jink saves, tech marine passengers, or exceedingly modified cover saves. NONE of those actually denotes how tough or durable an armored vehicle is, it only gives the illusion that the tank is hard to kill simply because of the different special rules made available by spending points on addons.

Do I think a Land Raider is a hearty, beefy tank? I do. 4 HP and AV/14 throughout is really nothing to scoff at even in this edition. However, previous editions the Land Raider was a true terror to see on the battle field BECAUSE of it's AV/14 throughout - the immune to melta variant even more so. The problem lies with how glancing hits can lead to a mission kill of a tank, when in every instance of the word 'glancing' yields no actual danger to an armored vehicle. Stun/scare the crew, yep. Blow weapons off? Definitely? Immobilize the vehicle? Hell yeah. Cause a tank to explode? Yeah, not really. It's poor rules design and it really hamstrings those that want to go a more mechanized route - of course, you could always buy holofields- wait, can't get them. Ok, what about adding a tech priest crew member - nope, he's got to foot slog and will probably eat a pie plate or sniper fire. Oh? Camo gear? Ok, that should work, wait- 5+ save in the open? 4+ behind cover? But I can't move out of this cover otherwise I'll lose what poor save I already have.

I really think tanks on the whole need to be reworked, shoot me for saying it.

Give LRBT and LR a 5+ invuln. Boosted toughness right there.

In my opinion your russes should be able to deal with any enemy they come across, knock off the whole battle cannon rubbish because ordnance ruins anybodies game, get an eradicator for 30(?) points less and still wounding marines on twos and taking most other units off the board-insta-killing enemy IG commanders for a start if you get past that 5++
But taking ap2 weaponry on your tanks is always good for TEQs and the chance to pop tanks in a turn, if you have trouble with anti-tank weaponry targeting your (shock) tanks then buy the camo netting, bubble wrap with conscripts etc. and you should be okay; aside from D weapons (boo-hiss) there's very little that can damage your front armour straight up and even then you have at least a 6+ save in the open with cam nets.
As a side note, don't bother too much targeting enemy tanks with your russes, a 20/30 guard squad with three lascannons and ignores cover has a much greater chance of popping an enemy tank than a single leman russ and is much harder to shift. Throw in meltaguns/meltabombs etc. and you're gravy
Just my humble opinion, dissect it as you will

ABG is pretty old. Has it been updated recently?

 Billagio wrote:
ABG is pretty old. Has it been updated recently?

Unfortunately no

Not really. It's essentially Imperial Armour 1 with hullpoints.

And Warlord Traits.

wrong thread...