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.

 kurhanik wrote:
On the flip side of orders, it kind of makes little sense that the Tank Commander can give orders to the crews of other tanks, but not to their own tank crew.

If I have an elite crew, it would make sense that my crew is operating at peak efficiency and I can't just yell at them to make them work better, but I can leverage my experience to provide guidance to more average crews of other tanks.

I mean, when you have military advisers deployed from special forces to assist regular grunts, nobody asks 'why don't they just advise their own SF guys?'. They don't need to advise them; the SF already perform like SF. Their role is to pass along their expertise and help the grunts perform like SF too.

Tank Commanders perform like better tanks innately. They should be about helping basic Russes perform like better tanks too.

As it stands, being able to buff themselves means there is very rarely a situation in which it is worthwhile for a Tank Commander to be giving orders to other tanks rather than themselves. That's not right.

I will also interject another side point to this conversation.
Which is for the people saying a LR needs to do more damage output just how many points should a vehical call in a single turn?

Personally I am in the camp of output isnt the issue it's that nothing survives more than being looked at funny.

Sadly I think it's about to get worse not better with 9th, first Eradicators. Second strategums that just invalidate the wounding chart entirely or dish out MW.

Now we have an army with a 1-9 inch aura of -1 toughness, which is flat 9" on a T8 -1D 4++ flying primarch if you though T8 russes where made of cardboard try T7 MBT's were everything S4+ is a 5+ to wound. And Sx2 weapons are wounding you on 3+, not 4+.

Right now everything dies way to fast for anything to justify it's points cost.

Tank Commanders are even more fragile than regular Russ though, so I don't think fragility can explain why people take one over the other.

The problem is that the difference between 4s and 3s rerolling 1s is 14/18 versus 9/18. Therefore you should do over 50% more damage with the Tank commander ordering himself. Paying 18-22% more points (depending on sponsons etc) is therefore a no-brainer.

It also reduces your chance of massive failure, which is sort of second order mathhammer, but is the real scourge of BS4+ forces. You know the sort of thing where you roll 2 D6 shots, for 6 shots. You should get 3 hits, you get 2 hits. Inevitably one of those is one, and then the guy throws a save leaving you with nothing.

But as said - you are just as vulnerable to an opponent's melta guns, but are giving 20%~ more points up for their trouble. Which I think is the real problem of 40k, most people build into Glass Hammers, because the person who shoots first shoots last. If you get a go you at want to do something.

I think having Command Tanks that give orders or bonuses of some kind to fellow tanks can add some chrome to the game. I think the problem with Tank Commanders is the BS3+. While HQ slots are a more of a premium in 9th Ed, its not really an issue for AM armies. So if you have a primarily infantry force, why not invest a few extra points to get Tank Commanders and forgo the regular Leman Russ?

If we are worried about "realism", veteran crew commanders can make their own crew shoot and manouevre better, plus they will be better at acquiring targets. Those veteran crew commanders do not, however, have to be "officers" in command of Troops/Platoons/Squadrons. Troop Leader/Platoon Commanders etc can ensure that the tanks under their command are positioned better, but they don't make crews in other tanks shoot any better. While its been ten years since I was in the panzers, my orders to tanks under my command were about positioning and priority of targets. I wasn't encouraging them to shoot better. My own crew was hand-picked, especially when I was a Battle Captain or Squadron Commander. Although an OC's tank could engage targets, I would look for the tanks in the Troops to do most of the engagements. Anyhoo.


I think that Tank Commanders, if they exist in 9th, should be able to issue Orders that make Leman Russes under their command do cool things other than shoot more accurately. Perhaps orders that allow them to Advance and Fire or replace some of the Stratagems in For the Great Good. The tank officers should only have better ballistic skill if they are only "unlocked" by having normal Leman Russ in your force. I think that the Tank Ace stratagem is good enough at showing, well, tank aces! That Sergeant with multiple campaigns in the hatch who isn't worried about commanding other tanks - just destroying the enemy (think Feldwebel Kurt Knispel or Sgt Pool).

Does the Leman Russ need a re-working? I think so!

Ice_can wrote:
I will also interject another side point to this conversation.
Which is for the people saying a LR needs to do more damage output just how many points should a vehical call in a single turn?

Personally I am in the camp of output isnt the issue it's that nothing survives more than being looked at funny.

Sadly I think it's about to get worse not better with 9th, first Eradicators. Second strategums that just invalidate the wounding chart entirely or dish out MW.

Now we have an army with a 1-9 inch aura of -1 toughness, which is flat 9" on a T8 -1D 4++ flying primarch if you though T8 russes where made of cardboard try T7 MBT's were everything S4+ is a 5+ to wound. And Sx2 weapons are wounding you on 3+, not 4+.

Right now everything dies way to fast for anything to justify it's points cost.

Because a Leman Russ's main gun is weaker than a man portable AT device. More relevantly, it's drastically underperforming in terms of offensive capability at cost; if you compare it's cost to other similar vehicles, which are already not making appearances because they're not that great.

Let's take, for example, the Vindicator. The Vindicator is 130 points, and Leman Russ is 160 points out the gate.
They have similar defensive profiles, at T8 and about 12 wounds. The Vindicator can buy Sv2+ for 10 points, but we'll ignore that for now.
Downrange, the Vindicator does 1d6 shots at BS3+ S10 Ap3 D1d6. To a T7 average vehicular target that's 4.5 average damage, with a bit of a swingy distribution.
Downrange, the Leman Russ, if we assume in the best case that it's Catachan, it'll average 3.8 damage, plus about half a damage from the heavy bolter.
Uh, okay, how about MEQ Infantry, that's supposed to be the ideal target for the Leman Russ, right?
The Catachan Leman Russ puts 1.8 Space Marines down.
The Vindicator puts down 1.5.
oh. What do I get for that 30 point premium? Nothing really. And it actually gets worse if you start adding sponsons, because then while you do get more offensive power, the tank starts getting very expensive very fast.

And I'm not saying that the Vindicator is good. The Vindicator is like "okay but weakish" and underperforming by the standards of the completely ridiculous infantry AT units that exist in the game lineups

Even comparing internally, the Leman Russ isn't very good. While a lot of IG tanks have absolutely anemic main guns [Basilisk comes to mind, but I guess its IF capability counts for something], the Leman Russ is outperformed by both the Devil Dog and the Manticore, both much cheaper than the Leman Russ, and of which only the Manticore is considered good [and that's because of IF capability and the ability to spend CP to make it D3 instead of D1d3]

You can clock in a Devil Dog at 120 points, bring to the table much higher speed, 1 less toughness and 1 less wound, and a whopping 7.3 damage to average vehicle targets, almost twice that of the Leman Russ for 40 points less.
You can bring a Manticore for 145 points, trading 1 toughness and 1 wound for S10 and indirect fire capability. S10 isn't particularly valuable, but IF is a nice ability that more than offsets the toughness reduction and the entire package, plus stratagem support for +1 to hit and always being 3 damage, come for 15 points less.



There is only 1 Leman Russ with any semblance of capability, and it wasn't even an intentional buff to the Leman Russ since it was a slide down from a Space Marine buff. A quick look at the costs of the tank will tell you that everything is out of whack with the Leman Russ costs:
The Leman Russ Demolisher gets to benefit from a buff to the Vindicator about a year ago due to a shared weapon, sending it from 1d3 shots for 1d6 damage to 1d6 shots for 1d6 damage. This is the only Leman Russ with respectable damage, bringing itself up to be... just slightly worse than the Devil Dog [6.2 damage], with a bit more range while the Devil Dog is fast.
Oddly enough, even about a year and a half after the demolisher cannon buff, the Demolisher cannon is still priced exactly the same as the myriad of terrible gun options the Leman Russ can have.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
A bunch of stuff.

You are 100% correct. Thank you for doing the exact math. The Leman Russ as it is currently is either dramatically overcosted or significantly overcosted. Tank Commanders are taken because they can at least up the damage to a semi-respectable amount, even though their durability per point gets worse.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
I will also interject another side point to this conversation.
Which is for the people saying a LR needs to do more damage output just how many points should a vehical call in a single turn?

Personally I am in the camp of output isnt the issue it's that nothing survives more than being looked at funny.

Sadly I think it's about to get worse not better with 9th, first Eradicators. Second strategums that just invalidate the wounding chart entirely or dish out MW.

Now we have an army with a 1-9 inch aura of -1 toughness, which is flat 9" on a T8 -1D 4++ flying primarch if you though T8 russes where made of cardboard try T7 MBT's were everything S4+ is a 5+ to wound. And Sx2 weapons are wounding you on 3+, not 4+.

Right now everything dies way to fast for anything to justify it's points cost.

Because a Leman Russ's main gun is weaker than a man portable AT device. More relevantly, it's drastically underperforming in terms of offensive capability at cost; if you compare it's cost to other similar vehicles, which are already not making appearances because they're not that great.

Let's take, for example, the Vindicator. The Vindicator is 130 points, and Leman Russ is 160 points out the gate.
They have similar defensive profiles, at T8 and about 12 wounds. The Vindicator can buy Sv2+ for 10 points, but we'll ignore that for now.
Downrange, the Vindicator does 1d6 shots at BS3+ S10 Ap3 D1d6. To a T7 average vehicular target that's 4.5 average damage, with a bit of a swingy distribution.
Downrange, the Leman Russ, if we assume in the best case that it's Catachan, it'll average 3.8 damage, plus about half a damage from the heavy bolter.
Uh, okay, how about MEQ Infantry, that's supposed to be the ideal target for the Leman Russ, right?
The Catachan Leman Russ puts 1.8 Space Marines down.
The Vindicator puts down 1.5.
oh. What do I get for that 30 point premium? Nothing really. And it actually gets worse if you start adding sponsons, because then while you do get more offensive power, the tank starts getting very expensive very fast.

And I'm not saying that the Vindicator is good. The Vindicator is like "okay but weakish" and underperforming by the standards of the completely ridiculous infantry AT units that exist in the game lineups

Even comparing internally, the Leman Russ isn't very good. While a lot of IG tanks have absolutely anemic main guns [Basilisk comes to mind, but I guess its IF capability counts for something], the Leman Russ is outperformed by both the Devil Dog and the Manticore, both much cheaper than the Leman Russ, and of which only the Manticore is considered good [and that's because of IF capability and the ability to spend CP to make it D3 instead of D1d3]

You can clock in a Devil Dog at 120 points, bring to the table much higher speed, 1 less toughness and 1 less wound, and a whopping 7.3 damage to average vehicle targets, almost twice that of the Leman Russ for 40 points less.
You can bring a Manticore for 145 points, trading 1 toughness and 1 wound for S10 and indirect fire capability. S10 isn't particularly valuable, but IF is a nice ability that more than offsets the toughness reduction and the entire package, plus stratagem support for +1 to hit and always being 3 damage, come for 15 points less.



There is only 1 Leman Russ with any semblance of capability, and it wasn't even an intentional buff to the Leman Russ since it was a slide down from a Space Marine buff. A quick look at the costs of the tank will tell you that everything is out of whack with the Leman Russ costs:
The Leman Russ Demolisher gets to benefit from a buff to the Vindicator about a year ago due to a shared weapon, sending it from 1d3 shots for 1d6 damage to 1d6 shots for 1d6 damage. This is the only Leman Russ with respectable damage, bringing itself up to be... just slightly worse than the Devil Dog [6.2 damage], with a bit more range while the Devil Dog is fast.
Oddly enough, even about a year and a half after the demolisher cannon buff, the Demolisher cannon is still priced exactly the same as the myriad of terrible gun options the Leman Russ can have.

I don't particularly disagree with anything your saying my issue is this is another example of GW having made durability esentially worthless.

You're complaining that a Russ at 2D6 shots has bad damage output. And while I get that when you compair it to the redicoulous levels of buffs some weapons have seen, exactly how much damage should it be possible to do to a vehical in a turn?
Shoukd it really be as high as it is that means vehicals need to achieve such a rediculously high rate of return to be viable.

I'm gonna skip the weapon options since that's a mess on its own, but for a while, I've wanted a system where Russes and Tank Commanders could support eachother to there will be a good incentive to take both. I seen no reason why a tank commander shouldn't be able to order itself (it doesn't matter how "efficient" the crew is, you can still order them to take certain actions), but it also needs to be able to order at least two other tanks as well.

Unfortunately, tank commanders are already one of the biggest bullet magnets in the codex, which is why normal Russes need a way to support the commander. I think the best way to accomplish this would be some sort of body guard rule. I don't know exactly how it would work, but allowing Russes to take wounds for the commander would immediately give a massive incentive to take both units.

Frankly, I think this makes a lot of sense. Most force multiplying characters are protected by the character targeting rules. Obviously, making them untargetable when in a sea of guardsmen would be too much, but some protection is needed.



Going way beyond Russes, GW really needs to use more of their design space for the toughness stat. I think it's kind of silly that having T9+ is almost unheard of. I would have system where light monsters/vehicles would be T6-T8, medium T9-T10, and heavy T11 and T12. This change is not intended to affect infantry.

With a system like this, you could pretty much keep plasma the same and it would still be just and good vs elite infantry still be effective against light vehicle or monsters, but it would lose some effectiveness against the heavier stuff. Things like las and melta would need to have higher strength stats like 10 or 11 (maybe melta could be S12 at half range). To help against mass small arms fire maybe give +1 armor when the toughness is twice the strength or something. There would obviously be kinks to work out, but they really shouldn't constrain themselves to the number 8.

Ice_can wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
I will also interject another side point to this conversation.
Which is for the people saying a LR needs to do more damage output just how many points should a vehical call in a single turn?

Personally I am in the camp of output isnt the issue it's that nothing survives more than being looked at funny.

Sadly I think it's about to get worse not better with 9th, first Eradicators. Second strategums that just invalidate the wounding chart entirely or dish out MW.

Now we have an army with a 1-9 inch aura of -1 toughness, which is flat 9" on a T8 -1D 4++ flying primarch if you though T8 russes where made of cardboard try T7 MBT's were everything S4+ is a 5+ to wound. And Sx2 weapons are wounding you on 3+, not 4+.

Right now everything dies way to fast for anything to justify it's points cost.

Because a Leman Russ's main gun is weaker than a man portable AT device. More relevantly, it's drastically underperforming in terms of offensive capability at cost; if you compare it's cost to other similar vehicles, which are already not making appearances because they're not that great.

Let's take, for example, the Vindicator. The Vindicator is 130 points, and Leman Russ is 160 points out the gate.
They have similar defensive profiles, at T8 and about 12 wounds. The Vindicator can buy Sv2+ for 10 points, but we'll ignore that for now.
Downrange, the Vindicator does 1d6 shots at BS3+ S10 Ap3 D1d6. To a T7 average vehicular target that's 4.5 average damage, with a bit of a swingy distribution.
Downrange, the Leman Russ, if we assume in the best case that it's Catachan, it'll average 3.8 damage, plus about half a damage from the heavy bolter.
Uh, okay, how about MEQ Infantry, that's supposed to be the ideal target for the Leman Russ, right?
The Catachan Leman Russ puts 1.8 Space Marines down.
The Vindicator puts down 1.5.
oh. What do I get for that 30 point premium? Nothing really. And it actually gets worse if you start adding sponsons, because then while you do get more offensive power, the tank starts getting very expensive very fast.

And I'm not saying that the Vindicator is good. The Vindicator is like "okay but weakish" and underperforming by the standards of the completely ridiculous infantry AT units that exist in the game lineups

Even comparing internally, the Leman Russ isn't very good. While a lot of IG tanks have absolutely anemic main guns [Basilisk comes to mind, but I guess its IF capability counts for something], the Leman Russ is outperformed by both the Devil Dog and the Manticore, both much cheaper than the Leman Russ, and of which only the Manticore is considered good [and that's because of IF capability and the ability to spend CP to make it D3 instead of D1d3]

You can clock in a Devil Dog at 120 points, bring to the table much higher speed, 1 less toughness and 1 less wound, and a whopping 7.3 damage to average vehicle targets, almost twice that of the Leman Russ for 40 points less.
You can bring a Manticore for 145 points, trading 1 toughness and 1 wound for S10 and indirect fire capability. S10 isn't particularly valuable, but IF is a nice ability that more than offsets the toughness reduction and the entire package, plus stratagem support for +1 to hit and always being 3 damage, come for 15 points less.



There is only 1 Leman Russ with any semblance of capability, and it wasn't even an intentional buff to the Leman Russ since it was a slide down from a Space Marine buff. A quick look at the costs of the tank will tell you that everything is out of whack with the Leman Russ costs:
The Leman Russ Demolisher gets to benefit from a buff to the Vindicator about a year ago due to a shared weapon, sending it from 1d3 shots for 1d6 damage to 1d6 shots for 1d6 damage. This is the only Leman Russ with respectable damage, bringing itself up to be... just slightly worse than the Devil Dog [6.2 damage], with a bit more range while the Devil Dog is fast.
Oddly enough, even about a year and a half after the demolisher cannon buff, the Demolisher cannon is still priced exactly the same as the myriad of terrible gun options the Leman Russ can have.

I don't particularly disagree with anything your saying my issue is this is another example of GW having made durability esentially worthless.

You're complaining that a Russ at 2D6 shots has bad damage output. And while I get that when you compair it to the redicoulous levels of buffs some weapons have seen, exactly how much damage should it be possible to do to a vehical in a turn?
Shoukd it really be as high as it is that means vehicals need to achieve such a rediculously high rate of return to be viable.

That depends.

A Vanquisher, Railcannon, or other big purpose-built vehicle-mounted antitank weapon should probably be able to wreck tanks pretty well from a single hit

A Lascannon, probably quite a few shots. A Plasmagun or Heavy Bolter? Definitely shouldn't be taking vehicles down quickly.


There are a huge number of problems with the way GW has statted AT weapons in 8th and 9th, where most of them just don't work, however, the fact that the Leman Russ is outperformed by basically anything both within and without it's codex is why one doesn't see them, and only see tank commanders

 catbarf wrote:

 kurhanik wrote:
On the flip side of orders, it kind of makes little sense that the Tank Commander can give orders to the crews of other tanks, but not to their own tank crew.

If I have an elite crew, it would make sense that my crew is operating at peak efficiency and I can't just yell at them to make them work better, but I can leverage my experience to provide guidance to more average crews of other tanks.

I mean, when you have military advisers deployed from special forces to assist regular grunts, nobody asks 'why don't they just advise their own SF guys?'. They don't need to advise them; the SF already perform like SF. Their role is to pass along their expertise and help the grunts perform like SF too.

Tank Commanders perform like better tanks innately. They should be about helping basic Russes perform like better tanks too.

As it stands, being able to buff themselves means there is very rarely a situation in which it is worthwhile for a Tank Commander to be giving orders to other tanks rather than themselves. That's not right.

That is why I said it would make more sense to me personally to make it an upgrade to a squadron that can order the squadron as a whole.

Looking at the actual tank orders, and lets for the moment ignore the fact that in most circumstances you are going to be going for the reroll 1's order, does it really make sense that the commander can order other tanks to pop smoke, but not order his own crew to? Same goes for ordering the driver to hit the gas. Orders aren't yelling at the crew to make them better, it is basically tacking off a list of drilled maneuvers and coordinating the crews of the various tanks under their command to implement them.

Its why I said there should be more variety in orders, since right now there is basically the Main Order, followed by two edge case situational orders.

Personally I'd rather see the BS 3+ taken away and turned into an upgrade for the Russ in general (say "Veteran Crew"), and the Tank Commander a squadron upgrade to the unit that provides orders to the squadron as a whole. That way a player could cheap out and take a squadron of regular tanks, take a unit of regular tanks with a leader, or go all veteran tanks, or a veteran tank unit with a leader, etc.

I say follow the example of other 9th Edition Codexes:

The normal Leman Russ gains Core keyword.

The Tank Commander keeps his BS 3+.

Most Orders only work on Core Leman Russ, but are reworked so that some also work on multiple units.

Tank Commander gains rule that he cannot be targeted while within X" of 2 or more Core Leman Russ.

Now you have a worthy HQ for a Tank Spearhead, but not a great choice to splash into an Infantry Patrol/Battalion in place of normal Leman Russ.

My opinion (for those who didn't ask but have to check the new posts):

Yes, tank commanders shouldn't be able to order themselves. Yes, they should get 2 orders each just like regular commanders.

I had an idea and i think it'd work here, do like primaris do and give leman russes +1bs, straight up no cost. Then look at balancing their 'shoot under half' rules.

edit: oh crap, i meant the line troops, not the tank commanders. screw those guys.

This has been an ongoing problem for a long time, and I dont expect GW to fix it.
GW has a set number of "favourite" armies - SM, Space Elves, Space communist fishcows and Space Terminator. Everything else gets tossed by the wayside, its been a common theme since the days post-3rd. Think about it, how many times since then has an Imperial Guard army been viable? Well, okay, im being a bit disingenious here, but look at the mess. It started in late 4th when the Leafblower list (not pure guard despite what people think, it was an allied army) was feared. GW reacted by nerfing the Guard hard and 'put them in their place' and ever since then its been harder and harder to play a Guard army. Simply put; if you are an Imperial Guard player you have to accept the fact that your army is not allowed to challenge the chosen elites, and you are certainly not allowed to challenge the mighty SM players - imagine if the paypiggies actually had to fight a fair fight?!
The only exception to this was for that one month at the start of 8th and boy did we hear about it. Nonstop whining and crying about "muh op conscripts" and "muh op orders" as a few of the chosen factions players got a taste of the medicine Guard players had been forced to swallow for the past few years. Hell, it wasnt even the same medicine, it was a watered down kind as the feared Conscript Volley Block was still countered pretty easily. But hey, noone likes it when the peasants offer a challenge.
Anyway, what this boils down to is that MeQ/chosen faction players do not like Guard armies being too difficult (just look at this thread, and its calling for nerfs to an already mediocre unit) and by extension GW does not like anything that makes the paypiggies unhappy, after all you have to make them feel special or they might not buy the latest "Irussium Vegetator Phaliux" box. And so those certain armies take the hits and get to watch as the cries of the wallet wielders drive them into the dirt.
I sold my Imperial Guard army last Autumn, save for a few bits I kept. Even Lucus Caine, the Company Commander whom once felled a Primarch is gone. Im done, GW models are insanely overpriced and the only thing keeping them going are paypiggies and brand. The games are watered down and built to cater to the lowest common denominator and promote rapid spending on overpriced models and overpriced splatbooks, and heavily favour the 'popular' factions. Its similar to the DLC cancer that eats into computer games. And im out. Ive had it with the prices and ive had it with being shat on because I dare to choose an army that GW deigns an NPC faction. Im gone. Good luck to those who remain, but I advidse you cash out now.

yoink!

 kurhanik wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

 kurhanik wrote:
On the flip side of orders, it kind of makes little sense that the Tank Commander can give orders to the crews of other tanks, but not to their own tank crew.

If I have an elite crew, it would make sense that my crew is operating at peak efficiency and I can't just yell at them to make them work better, but I can leverage my experience to provide guidance to more average crews of other tanks.

I mean, when you have military advisers deployed from special forces to assist regular grunts, nobody asks 'why don't they just advise their own SF guys?'. They don't need to advise them; the SF already perform like SF. Their role is to pass along their expertise and help the grunts perform like SF too.

Tank Commanders perform like better tanks innately. They should be about helping basic Russes perform like better tanks too.

As it stands, being able to buff themselves means there is very rarely a situation in which it is worthwhile for a Tank Commander to be giving orders to other tanks rather than themselves. That's not right.

That is why I said it would make more sense to me personally to make it an upgrade to a squadron that can order the squadron as a whole.

Looking at the actual tank orders, and lets for the moment ignore the fact that in most circumstances you are going to be going for the reroll 1's order, does it really make sense that the commander can order other tanks to pop smoke, but not order his own crew to? Same goes for ordering the driver to hit the gas. Orders aren't yelling at the crew to make them better, it is basically tacking off a list of drilled maneuvers and coordinating the crews of the various tanks under their command to implement them.

Its why I said there should be more variety in orders, since right now there is basically the Main Order, followed by two edge case situational orders.

Personally I'd rather see the BS 3+ taken away and turned into an upgrade for the Russ in general (say "Veteran Crew"), and the Tank Commander a squadron upgrade to the unit that provides orders to the squadron as a whole. That way a player could cheap out and take a squadron of regular tanks, take a unit of regular tanks with a leader, or go all veteran tanks, or a veteran tank unit with a leader, etc.

Tank Commanders aren't squadron leaders though, they're Company Command Tanks, so like they should be a HQ unit designed to support a tank unit; and there definitely should be a tank-HQ for the IG. If line units deserve a +1BS unit, it should be either like an Elite Slot Tank Ace or as a Tank Ace upgrade to a unit, but Tank Commanders should definitely be an HQ.

Once again changing the orders to not also benefit the command is a flat nerf that doesn't make things better at all, it just makes everything suck instead of one thing kind of not sucking.

I think we might see something like what SM dreadnoughts got with reducing damage by 1

Also it might be good to add a squadron commander upgrade (eg free upgrade if you have a full squadron) which increases all squad mates within 6" to BS3+

Tank commander then get to allow Leman Russ tanks to re-roll 1's on one selected target but from anywhere on the board

 BlackoCatto wrote:
Once again changing the orders to not also benefit the command is a flat nerf that doesn't make things better at all, it just makes everything suck instead of one thing kind of not sucking.

It's a move that encourages bringing the units that the Commander should be commanding so that they have something to issue Orders to - self-Ordering makes no sense.

I think someone mentioned a Tank Ace as a BS3+ Russ with no Orders as an Elite option - that might be an idea (in addition to the TC who can issue Orders).

We may get a "Chapter Command" type arrangement for aces.
Where you could upgrade units with points rather than command points. Maybe Guard Aces will be one per detachment rather than one per army.

 Dysartes wrote:

 BlackoCatto wrote:
Once again changing the orders to not also benefit the command is a flat nerf that doesn't make things better at all, it just makes everything suck instead of one thing kind of not sucking.

It's a move that encourages bringing the units that the Commander should be commanding so that they have something to issue Orders to - self-Ordering makes no sense.

I think someone mentioned a Tank Ace as a BS3+ Russ with no Orders as an Elite option - that might be an idea (in addition to the TC who can issue Orders).

So now still that makes one choice worse and another still bad. It is an active nerf that doesn't help the core problem of survivability and output.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I dont get people's infatuation with changing a system that isn't broken nor in regard to the actual problem an issue.

 alextroy wrote:
I say follow the example of other 9th Edition Codexes:

The normal Leman Russ gains Core keyword.

The Tank Commander keeps his BS 3+.

Most Orders only work on Core Leman Russ, but are reworked so that some also work on multiple units.

Tank Commander gains rule that he cannot be targeted while within X" of 2 or more Core Leman Russ.

Now you have a worthy HQ for a Tank Spearhead, but not a great choice to splash into an Infantry Patrol/Battalion in place of normal Leman Russ.

I'd guess this is closest to what gw will do in the new Guard codex. It would help fix the problem of Tank Commanders just being a better Leman Russ, but wouldn't fix the main problems of Leman Russes in general, eg: poor survivability and firepower on the main guns. I'd give them a 2+ and make the battle cannon 2d6 shots, regardless of how far they moved, and flat 3D instead d3D.

If you want people to take a regular Russ, or in fac a Russ at all in this edition, make them cheaper for what they can do or make them stronger in regards to output at their current price. That will get more on the table.

I really like the idea of giving them -1 damage like the spacemarine dreadnoughts got

 BlackoCatto wrote:
If you want people to take a regular Russ, or in fac a Russ at all in this edition, make them cheaper for what they can do or make them stronger in regards to output at their current price. That will get more on the table.

I thought that was what I just suggested. What would you propose to increase the damage output of Leman Russes?

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 BlackoCatto wrote:
If you want people to take a regular Russ, or in fac a Russ at all in this edition, make them cheaper for what they can do or make them stronger in regards to output at their current price. That will get more on the table.

I thought that was what I just suggested. What would you propose to increase the damage output of Leman Russes?

Sorry was not referring to you. At the time of me writing it up you hadn't posted yet.

 BlackoCatto wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Spoiler:

 BlackoCatto wrote:
If you want people to take a regular Russ, or in fac a Russ at all in this edition, make them cheaper for what they can do or make them stronger in regards to output at their current price. That will get more on the table.

I thought that was what I just suggested. What would you propose to increase the damage output of Leman Russes?

Sorry was not referring to you. At the time of me writing it up you hadn't posted yet.

Ah, understood. So do you think my proposed changes would suffice? At the very least, they would make battle cannons as effective as the most powerful sponson weapons available to Leman Russes (multi-melta).

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 BlackoCatto wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Spoiler:

 BlackoCatto wrote:
If you want people to take a regular Russ, or in fac a Russ at all in this edition, make them cheaper for what they can do or make them stronger in regards to output at their current price. That will get more on the table.

I thought that was what I just suggested. What would you propose to increase the damage output of Leman Russes?

Sorry was not referring to you. At the time of me writing it up you hadn't posted yet.

Ah, understood. So do you think my proposed changes would suffice? At the very least, they would make battle cannons as effective as the most powerful sponson weapons available to Leman Russes (multi-melta).

Yeah that'd be pretty cool

Gadzilla666 wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
I say follow the example of other 9th Edition Codexes:

The normal Leman Russ gains Core keyword.

The Tank Commander keeps his BS 3+.

Most Orders only work on Core Leman Russ, but are reworked so that some also work on multiple units.

Tank Commander gains rule that he cannot be targeted while within X" of 2 or more Core Leman Russ.

Now you have a worthy HQ for a Tank Spearhead, but not a great choice to splash into an Infantry Patrol/Battalion in place of normal Leman Russ.

I'd guess this is closest to what gw will do in the new Guard codex. It would help fix the problem of Tank Commanders just being a better Leman Russ, but wouldn't fix the main problems of Leman Russes in general, eg: poor survivability and firepower on the main guns. I'd give them a 2+ and make the battle cannon 2d6 shots, regardless of how far they moved, and flat 3D instead d3D.

BlackoCatto wrote:If you want people to take a regular Russ, or in fac a Russ at all in this edition, make them cheaper for what they can do or make them stronger in regards to output at their current price. That will get more on the table.

Exactly. They are two different, but interrelated, issues. The Tank Commander being a better Russ and the normal Russ not being good enough for it's points. Just because you fix one problem doesn't mean you should ignore the other.

I'd say a cheaper if slightly worst Russ would be better than a more powerful for the same points unit. I say spike Grinding Advance, improve the bad weapons, and reduce the base points to make the value of a Demolisher Cannon Russ with no sponsons a little less than a Space Marine Vindicator.

 alextroy wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
I say follow the example of other 9th Edition Codexes:

The normal Leman Russ gains Core keyword.

The Tank Commander keeps his BS 3+.

Most Orders only work on Core Leman Russ, but are reworked so that some also work on multiple units.

Tank Commander gains rule that he cannot be targeted while within X" of 2 or more Core Leman Russ.

Now you have a worthy HQ for a Tank Spearhead, but not a great choice to splash into an Infantry Patrol/Battalion in place of normal Leman Russ.

I'd guess this is closest to what gw will do in the new Guard codex. It would help fix the problem of Tank Commanders just being a better Leman Russ, but wouldn't fix the main problems of Leman Russes in general, eg: poor survivability and firepower on the main guns. I'd give them a 2+ and make the battle cannon 2d6 shots, regardless of how far they moved, and flat 3D instead d3D.

BlackoCatto wrote:If you want people to take a regular Russ, or in fac a Russ at all in this edition, make them cheaper for what they can do or make them stronger in regards to output at their current price. That will get more on the table.

Exactly. They are two different, but interrelated, issues. The Tank Commander being a better Russ and the normal Russ not being good enough for it's points. Just because you fix one problem doesn't mean you should ignore the other.

I'd say a cheaper if slightly worst Russ would be better than a more powerful for the same points unit. I say spike Grinding Advance, improve the bad weapons, and reduce the base points to make the value of a Demolisher Cannon Russ with no sponsons a little less than a Space Marine Vindicator.

Exactly. The issue I have is that by taking the ability to order themselves away from a TC doesn't make the regular Russ better, it just makes one worse and the other the same, still leaving a TC a far better option still. Price reduction Is a good way to bring it on as it means there is a value that can be brought along side a better weapon. A TC should be better but a pricey option while the regular Russ a cheap but more numerous option .

I think they should be a synergistic combination. A Tank Commander and a normal Russ should be better than two Tank Commanders.