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.

With the release of forgeworld's Carnodon into 40k and 8th edition making the Malcador more useful it seems the guard have a tank for every occasion. If you play as guard or renegades and have used these machines in any configuration (or a proxy using their stat lines) I'd like to hear how they performed and if you think they're worth it against a regular Russ.

In game I can't help you. But at 3 times the real money price of a Russ, they aren't worth it to me. Especially when there's a healthy secondary market for Russes, meaning actually I could probably get 6 for the price of a Malcador.

I love everything about the Carnodon with a few fatal caveats. It is a cavalry/light tank, but it is in the heavy support slot. It competes with everything else the AM have access to in that slot, and it is simply lesser for it. Secondly, unlike other AM vehicles of this role. it cannot squad up. That makes it inefficient compared to others in its slot.

If it was a FA choice with 1-3 selections per slot, it would be fantastic.

I know Stux, those prices are quite exuberant. The same with the Macharus. Nice tanks, nice stats, nice guns, price tag... still too high.

Could make Carnodons out of chimeras, for approximately the price of a Russ(to have all weapons options magnetised should cost approx the same as a russ with all options as long as you're not shy of a bit of modelling and you really wanted to field them).
I'm sure most people will not mind you fielding that.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Shane Marsh I can see why those caveats are fatal.

In a FA slot I can see a brutal tank gunline happening. Would make one nice looking tank army.
The Carnodon seems to have the potential to be very versatile firepower wise but if you can't fit it into a list...

If you could field Carnodons in heavy support in troops of three and also upgrade them with tank commanders does anyone think they'd be competative with the russ?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As with the Malcador if you could do likewise, and take them as a formation of perhaps 2-3 vehicles per heavy support slot, obviously with a higher points cost would they be competitive with the russ.

 OldMate wrote:
8th edition making the Malcador more useful

Err, what? 8th edition killed the Malcador, it's a trash unit whose sole purpose is letting you take a cool tank list while simultaneously going easy on a newbie for their first teaching games.

The basic problem with the Malcador (battle cannon version) is that it's balanced against the Index Russ (before Grinding Advance came in), which wasn't very good. It's tougher than a Russ but it's still thoroughly underarmed.

The Carnodon isn't comparable to a Russ; the Russ is a line battle tank, the Carnodon is a budget Predator. If you want to use a Carnodon be aware that it's a squishy platform (T7/10W, closer to a Chimera than a Russ) and should really be used with cheaper guns.

Well Peregrine, what I meant was the Malcador does not now break down half the time (which I can imagine being annoying on a LOS blocking dense/large sized battlefield) (on an average sized battle not as much an issue) and the fact that now the turret's and sponson's limited traverse does not matter.

I guess by the time you give it a hull demolisher and auto cannon sponsons on your Malcador its getting near the price of 2 russes, with less firepower, half the suitability, and half the battlefield presence.
Also, with the loss of templates I can see that the cost of the demolisher maybe unjustifiable.


Anomander Rake I'm aware the Carnodon is a lighter tank to the russ, but surely some of its loadouts would be more effective against certain armies such as nids or lost and damned.

But yes, I can see how giving it good weapons would be expending points on something that will die rather fast. Especially in the first turn shoot-out that 8th now seems to have become.

I do use the Carnodon, and I must say, 3 Volkites for 6 Power/108 points is not too shabby and can do some real work if you have magic hands like me.

 OldMate wrote:
...Anomander Rake I'm aware the Carnodon is a lighter tank to the russ, but surely some of its loadouts would be more effective against certain armies such as nids or lost and damned.

But yes, I can see how giving it good weapons would be expending points on something that will die rather fast. Especially in the first turn shoot-out that 8th now seems to have become.

The Guard have never and will never lack for options to deal with light infantry. All those lasguns your screening squads are carting around are very useful for clearing T3 targets, you don't need to spend a Heavy Support choice doing so as well. And even if you do find yourself needing more chaff-clearing tools a Punisher Russ is all of 150pts and packs 43 S5 shots.

If you really like a Carnodon by all means go for it, but recognize that it's more akin to a Salamander than an actual tank and keep it around a hundred points (Volkite load as AtoMaki suggests or HBs/autocannons for a more flexible load, possibly with the 5pt extra pintle multi-laser for the ability to poke the occasional screening unit).

 OldMate wrote:
I guess by the time you give it a hull demolisher and auto cannon sponsons on your Malcador its getting near the price of 2 russes, with less firepower, half the suitability, and half the battlefield presence.

And this is why it is trash in 8th. None of those minor buffs matter when the LRBT's shoot twice rule makes the Malcador have much worse firepower at double the point cost. It's an index unit trying to compete in a codex world, and it does not succeed.

I know what you mean Peregrine, some codex tanks can't even compete in a codex world! (Predator I'm looking at you.)

I have a Valdor I occasionally use and it's a pretty decent tank. Not excellent or game breaking in the slightest, but not bad at all.

To dust this off a bit: I'm building a (rules wise) Tallarn force and really like the idea of the Carnodon. I already bought one (that still waits to be build and painted) and plan on getting a total of 2-3. I have not used them yet but with the Tallarn doctrine being able to fire at full BS at full Speed they should be fun.

Regarding loadout I will magnetize them and try them out with volkites just because they look cool. But I think the other loadout options also look interesting. It might be a squishy tank compared with the LR, that also has much more firepower, but compared with other guards weapons platforms it seems not to bad to bring for example lascannons on something more sturdy than heavy weapons squads or a Sentinel.
Getting the model I was also surprised on its size, since it is not much smaller than a LR. I don't now yet if that is good or bad. On the one hand the Carnodon will be harder to hide than I would have expected, on the other hand this means he is large enough to block some line of sight for cheap.

Regarding the point of occupying a heavy support instead of a fast attack slot: That is a very, very subjective view, but I'm actually quite thankful for it. The Carnodon seems much more suited for its role running as Tallarn, were he acts as a faster, cheaper, squishier alternative to the LRs. If you want to build a fluffy Tallarn force centered on speed your fast attack slots are already quite packed with Sentinels, Devil Dogs (both function much better as Tallarn), Hellhounds and maybe Rough Riders. While (at least in my case) the Heavy Support Slot was kind of a head scratcher. The artillery does not really seem that suited for driving around like crazy (and would profit much more from being Cadian or Catachan), the standard LR have to drive slow to be real effective and Heavy weapons squads don't profit from the Tallarn doctrine at all. The Carnodon on the other hand profits enormously from firing all his four heavy weapons without penalty.


On the same line this makes the Malcador at least a bit more competetive on the same basis: as long as it can fire all its weapons without movement penalty, it... sucks a bit less compared to the Leman Russ variants. At least when you prefer zipping around at full Speed.

Nice take on it Pyroalchi, looking forward to seeing those models!

I like the image of faster lighter tanks roaring out of the desert unleashing a ton of firepower onto enemy positions.

I can see this working well with ambush to strike where you can make the most damage.

It will take some months until I get there, but I would be happy to show you the models OldMate


Another thing that sprang in my mind: If you (for one reason or the other) like to employ Sentinels, the Carnodon is also a very attractive alternative since he costs as much as 2 Sentinels Base with 4 x the weapons (and not very different weapon options). The sentinels are easier to hide and don't degrade, but the Carnodon starts faster and is sturdier. Also when you look on the costs/Lascannonshot of the different Guard platforms (factoring in the better BS of Command and Veteran Squads)

26: HWS
33: Command Squad
35: Carnodon (4 LCs)
37: Leman Russ Annihilator (3 LCs, doupletapping):
43: Tauros Venator
50: Sentinel
53: Veteran Squad
60: Malcador Annihilator (5 LCs)
60: Infantry Squad
61: Leman Russ Annihilator (without doubletap)

It seems to be one of the cheapest options on the market to bring as much LCs as possible. So if you think about taking squishy Heavy weapons Squads to get some Lascannons, the Carnodon is a real alternative being almost as cost efficient, but much sturdier and occupying the same single heavy support slot but with one additional LC.

OldMate wrote:With the release of forgeworld's Carnodon into 40k and 8th edition making the Malcador more useful it seems the guard have a tank for every occasion. If you play as guard or renegades and have used these machines in any configuration (or a proxy using their stat lines) I'd like to hear how they performed and if you think they're worth it against a regular Russ.

The guard does have a tank for every occasion... and it's Battle Cannon [now possibly Demolisher Cannon] Tank Commander or Punisher Cannon Tank Commander.

The Forgeworld IG battle tanks are really just kind of neat models for modelling projects and not serious units.
The Malcador is a Leman Russ without Grinding Advance for more points. Half the firepower, increased cost? Your call.
The Macharius is a Leman Russ with 1.66 times the wounds and Steel Behemoth for twice the points. Twice the cost of a Leman Russ, with still less toughness than the pair and the firepower of only one? Your call.
The Macharius Vulcan does have a point. It's got a Vulcan Mega Bolter, which at S6 AP-2 D2 is at least pretty awesome at doing something more efficiently than a Leman Russ. It is basically stationary though, and good luck keeping it alive.

The Carnodon is a IG Predator. To be fair, it costs a lot less than a Predator, but the Predator is also hilariously overcosted compared to everything else.

Pyroalchi wrote:To dust this off a bit: I'm building a (rules wise) Tallarn force and really like the idea of the Carnodon. I already bought one (that still waits to be build and painted) and plan on getting a total of 2-3. I have not used them yet but with the Tallarn doctrine being able to fire at full BS at full Speed they should be fun.

Regarding loadout I will magnetize them and try them out with volkites just because they look cool. But I think the other loadout options also look interesting. It might be a squishy tank compared with the LR, that also has much more firepower, but compared with other guards weapons platforms it seems not to bad to bring for example lascannons on something more sturdy than heavy weapons squads or a Sentinel.
Getting the model I was also surprised on its size, since it is not much smaller than a LR. I don't now yet if that is good or bad. On the one hand the Carnodon will be harder to hide than I would have expected, on the other hand this means he is large enough to block some line of sight for cheap.

Regarding the point of occupying a heavy support instead of a fast attack slot: That is a very, very subjective view, but I'm actually quite thankful for it. The Carnodon seems much more suited for its role running as Tallarn, were he acts as a faster, cheaper, squishier alternative to the LRs. If you want to build a fluffy Tallarn force centered on speed your fast attack slots are already quite packed with Sentinels, Devil Dogs (both function much better as Tallarn), Hellhounds and maybe Rough Riders. While (at least in my case) the Heavy Support Slot was kind of a head scratcher. The artillery does not really seem that suited for driving around like crazy (and would profit much more from being Cadian or Catachan), the standard LR have to drive slow to be real effective and Heavy weapons squads don't profit from the Tallarn doctrine at all. The Carnodon on the other hand profits enormously from firing all his four heavy weapons without penalty.

On the same line this makes the Malcador at least a bit more competetive on the same basis: as long as it can fire all its weapons without movement penalty, it... sucks a bit less compared to the Leman Russ variants. At least when you prefer zipping around at full Speed.

Here's my 2c:
Moving 10" on a Leman Russ is a pointless exercise most of the time since you don't need to go that fast to make range [and you don't want to get close to the enemy and get tagged]. In addition, as Tallarn, if you do need to go fast to clear a firing lane or something you can use "Get Around Behind Them!" to get up to 11" of move and still get Grinding Advance, and you can use the tank detachment stratagem so that you qualify for Grinding Advance no matter how far you move and go either 16" and get Grinding Advance or go 10" and then duck back 6". In any case, "Get Around Behind Them!" can also be used to duck back into cover, and can only be used on Leman Russes [Commanders], so that's immediately a point against literally anything else being able to take advantage of Tallarn. Moving for the sake of being fast isn't and shouldn't be an end goal anyway; high movement lets you clear firing lines and make range so the tank can get shots on the target it needs to, and do so from an optimal position.

As for the Carnodon, I think it should definitely be run cheap, because that's the only thing it's got going for it. If you load it up, it still lacks in firepower and toughness [especially the latter], and in useful support options [which is a bigger deal-breaker]. But if you keep it cheap, you can get it with Multilasers for as little as 90 points, or probably most preferable, Volkites or Autocannons as a makes-marines-unhappy machine for only 108. At that cost, it's not comparable with a Leman Russ, it's comparable with a Basilisk, and will do better at zonking Intercessors [and has pretty good AT odds too] than the Basilisk by a fair margin.


[Also, "fluffy Tallarn" isn't tank NASCAR, it's outflanking via fast road march, swift re-deployment for concentrated force in defense, and combat by maneuver. They're Lawrence of Arabia and the Arab-Israeli Wars In Space!. They definitely have artillery [and dismounted infantry] units. Also, Basilisks and Manticores are self-propelled artillery pieces, which are by definition mobile units [since they're mechanized so that they can keep up with the armored formation they support during exploitation and swift maneuver], so they definitely have a place in the Tallarnian Armored Regiment's TO&E anyway.]

I agree with you on the Malcadors and Macharius.

Regarding the Carnodon: I agree with you, that the additional speed is irrelevant when Tallarn Leman Russes can use "Get around behind them". Yet the carnodon does not have to stay within 6'' of a tank commander (or be a TC himself). But of course this is verrryyy situational.

Besides from that I would be interested on your opinion on seeing the 4 x LC Carnodon as alternative to Heavy Weapons Squads. For 234 points you get 9 LCs with 9 x 2 T3 5+ wounds in HWS vs. 280 points for 8 LCs on 2 x 10 T7, 3+ in Carnodons. While the former can profit from orders, the latter don't die like flies as soon as a heavy bolter looks their way

@ your thought on artillery in fluffy Tallarn forces: you are right, that they fit in well from a fluff perspective. My comment on them was more meant from the direction that (in my opinion) the artillery pieces are not really what comes in mind, when you think about filling the heavy support slots of a Tallarn Brigade, since they would get much more mileage out of being Cadian or Catachan. But that is obviously a very subjective take on that matter.

@ your comment on fluffy Tallarn not being NASCAR: again, I agree. I just think that the fact that a lot of the speedier IG vehicles that normally get -1 to hit on the move and are therefore either not taken (e.g. Salamander Scout tank, Carnodon) or used stationary (Plasma Sentinel) contrary to their intended role gain a lot of use from being Tallarn. And due to that I personally think it might be worth it to look for speed in units to use it for the fast redeployments of force you mentioned. But I lack experience and might well be wrong.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
The Macharius is a Leman Russ with 1.66 times the wounds and Steel Behemoth for twice the points. Twice the cost of a Leman Russ, with still less toughness than the pair and the firepower of only one? Your call.

Nitpick: The Macharius battle cannon does D6 damage, rather than D3 on the Russ. So with two guns, it's actually close to double the average damage of a Grinding Advance Leman Russ. Less useful against low-wound models obviously.

 catbarf wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
The Macharius is a Leman Russ with 1.66 times the wounds and Steel Behemoth for twice the points. Twice the cost of a Leman Russ, with still less toughness than the pair and the firepower of only one? Your call.

Nitpick: The Macharius battle cannon does D6 damage, rather than D3 on the Russ. So with two guns, it's actually close to double the average damage of a Grinding Advance Leman Russ. Less useful against low-wound models obviously.

Ah, yeah, missed that. It's still basically 2 Leman Russes glued together in a Lord of War slot. I guess you could do worse, though it ain't exactly stellar. And now that Leman Russ Demolishers are 2d6 shots for D1d6, well...

Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
The Macharius is a Leman Russ with 1.66 times the wounds and Steel Behemoth for twice the points. Twice the cost of a Leman Russ, with still less toughness than the pair and the firepower of only one? Your call.
The Macharius Vulcan does have a point. It's got a Vulcan Mega Bolter, which at S6 AP-2 D2 is at least pretty awesome at doing something more efficiently than a Leman Russ. It is basically stationary though, and good luck keeping it alive.

Macharius vanquisher is not mentioned? Surely its collossal vanquisher cannons should be handy and better than a russ vanquisher. (if a scarier target) But then again it has the range on most AT units. So use it as center of mass like a weaker but further hitting baneblade.

Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
[Also, "fluffy Tallarn" isn't tank NASCAR, it's outflanking via fast road march, swift re-deployment for concentrated force in defense, and combat by maneuver. They're Lawrence of Arabia and the Arab-Israeli Wars In Space!. They definitely have artillery [and dismounted infantry] units. Also, Basilisks and Manticores are self-propelled artillery pieces, which are by definition mobile units [since they're mechanized so that they can keep up with the armored formation they support during exploitation and swift maneuver], so they definitely have a place in the Tallarnian Armored Regiment's TO&E anyway.]

I'm going to nit-pick the comment about mobile artillery and say that both in the fluff and feel of the unit Tallarns generally seem to prefer the Griffon (who isn't getting much love at the moment) for fast mobile artillery(perhaps if only in their mechanized/armoured units(as it is meant to be faster and fires faster))(I can see their infantry units which are neither mechanised, armoured or even motorised(at least from what I can descern from the lore) making use of towed earth shakers( becasue they only have to keep up with foot-sloggers), but it's sorta falling fast from the main stream, also not sure if it gets slick loader any more :(.

 OldMate wrote:


Macharius vanquisher is not mentioned? Surely its collossal vanquisher cannons should be handy and better than a russ vanquisher. (if a scarier target) But then again it has the range on most AT units. So use it as center of mass like a weaker but further hitting baneblade.

It has +1 Strength on a Vanquisher. Otherwise, it has the same fire power as a Vanquisher with grinding advance. Given that the Vanquisher Cannon is among the worst weapons in the game, I wouldn't call a 371 point model with that fire power handy.

OldMate wrote:

Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
The Macharius is a Leman Russ with 1.66 times the wounds and Steel Behemoth for twice the points. Twice the cost of a Leman Russ, with still less toughness than the pair and the firepower of only one? Your call.
The Macharius Vulcan does have a point. It's got a Vulcan Mega Bolter, which at S6 AP-2 D2 is at least pretty awesome at doing something more efficiently than a Leman Russ. It is basically stationary though, and good luck keeping it alive.

Macharius vanquisher is not mentioned? Surely its collossal vanquisher cannons should be handy and better than a russ vanquisher. (if a scarier target) But then again it has the range on most AT units. So use it as center of mass like a weaker but further hitting baneblade.

Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
[Also, "fluffy Tallarn" isn't tank NASCAR, it's outflanking via fast road march, swift re-deployment for concentrated force in defense, and combat by maneuver. They're Lawrence of Arabia and the Arab-Israeli Wars In Space!. They definitely have artillery [and dismounted infantry] units. Also, Basilisks and Manticores are self-propelled artillery pieces, which are by definition mobile units [since they're mechanized so that they can keep up with the armored formation they support during exploitation and swift maneuver], so they definitely have a place in the Tallarnian Armored Regiment's TO&E anyway.]

I'm going to nit-pick the comment about mobile artillery and say that both in the fluff and feel of the unit Tallarns generally seem to prefer the Griffon (who isn't getting much love at the moment) for fast mobile artillery(perhaps if only in their mechanized/armoured units(as it is meant to be faster and fires faster))(I can see their infantry units which are neither mechanised, armoured or even motorised(at least from what I can descern from the lore) making use of towed earth shakers( becasue they only have to keep up with foot-sloggers), but it's sorta falling fast from the main stream, also not sure if it gets slick loader any more :(.

The Macharius Vanquisher has what is effectively a twin lascannon as the only weapon of note on a model with the size and cost of a knight.

As for tallarn artillery, you can presumably pick any artillery you want. The Manticore might be a good pick, since a rocket launcher can deliver the intensity of fire of a battery of tube artillery with greater responsiveness, haste, and reduced preparation, at the expensve of limited ammunition and need to reload, which seems like a good thematic fit for a flexible and mobile force. That said, any of the IG Self Propelled Guns can keep up with [or outrun] the tanks and other vehicles on the march, so no matter which guns you pick for your regimental and battalion artillery groups to be equipped with, they're not going to be the elements slowing you down.


As far as what the TO&E of your IG regiment is, that's entirely at your discretion. It's also worth mention that historical armored units generally still had towed artillery and truck-borne infantry, since halftracks and self-propelled artillery are more expensive and harder to produce than trucks and split-trail guns and limbers and for the most part just as good. While there are some notable instances of mobile units abandoning their slower infantry and artillery during the exploitation, most of the time the towed artillery and truck borne infantry would be able to keep up just fine since the front [and the fuel and munitions the tanks need to keep attacking] was actually still mostly moving at the speed of the non-motorized infantry and their artillery that plodded along with them.

On the other hand, the Imperium has staggering levels of industrial and logistics capability, and it might be entirely possible that the Imperium makes enough self propelled guns and armored personnel carriers for even non-motorized units to be allocated self-propelled guns. Considering that the prime movers for the towed guns share the chassis with the Basilisk anyway, it's not unreasonable to claim that the Imperium supplies a lot of infantry regiments with self propelled guns.

@ Inquisitor Lord Katherine:
an honest thank you for all this information. I have not seen it like that before and you make a really compelling argument fluffwise. Guess I will take a second look at the IG artillery pieces on the market and see if there are any models that I would like to include in my army.

As to the topic here: above I also asked for your opinion on using the Carnodon as not much more expensive but much sturdier alternativ to HWS for bringing lascannons, which might have went under:

Besides from that I would be interested on your opinion on seeing the 4 x LC Carnodon as alternative to Heavy Weapons Squads. For 234 points you get 9 LCs with 9 x 2 T3 5+ wounds in HWS vs. 280 points for 8 LCs on 2 x 10 T7, 3+ in Carnodons. While the former can profit from orders, the latter don't die like flies as soon as a heavy bolter looks their way

What is your take on that?


@ Macharius Vanquisher: another thing I don't understand in this tanks armament: I don't see any instance were it makes any sense compared with the standard twin Battlecannons. The Blastshells are the same as the Battlecannon but with only D3 instead of D6 damage and the Armor piercing shells are only better if you expect to roll low on the number of Battlecannon shots. (Since on average 2 x 9/-3/2D6H has a hard time being better than 2D6 8/-2/D6.)
As I see it even against a theorethical target were all balls are in the Armor piercing vanquishers field (T9, 4+, I don't know if that exists), the expected damage would be 2.26 for the Vanquisher and 3.40 for the Macharius Battlecannon. The Vanquisher would only be better if you roll 4 or less shots on the 2D6
And versus a normal tank (T8, 3+) its even worse with the Vanquisher doing 2.48 and the BC doing 4.08 (and again only being worse when rolling 4 or less on the number of shots)
But I guess thats just the same as the LR Vanquisher cannon that is also odd in being not really good at anti-Tank duty.

Pyroalchi wrote:
@ Inquisitor Lord Katherine:
an honest thank you for all this information. I have not seen it like that before and you make a really compelling argument fluffwise. Guess I will take a second look at the IG artillery pieces on the market and see if there are any models that I would like to include in my army.

I would say that "fluffwise", you're free to include basically whatever you want in your army .

A Regiment is a military formation much larger than what you have on the table, with a lot of stuff in it; and while it has engineers, artillery, antiaircraft guns, supply trucks, and all that stuff, most of it isn't on the table [if you regiment had to represent it's TO&E by percentage on the tabletop, everybody would have half an army of trucks! ]. If you bring your whole list as leman russ tanks, you'll have about a company of tanks [1 command and 3 squadrons of 3 tanks for 10 total around 1800 points], of which a Battalion has 3-4 of [and a tank regiment usually has along the lines of 1-3 battalions of tanks and 0-1 of infantry, depending on time period, nation, and the evolution of doctrine, though nowadays I think its like 2 tanks and 1 infantry]. Thus, an armor regiment could be looking at between 30 and 120 tanks, probably safely centering on around 80, before even getting to the battalion and regimental command, recon, support, infantry, artillery, etc.

If you want to have an army of all light tanks, nothing fluff wise stops you from doing so. If you want an army of all light tanks, nothing says you have to bring infantry and artillery: you could be the recon company ranging ahead and skirmishing with enemy units, or a light tank battalion engaging the enemy during a rapid exploitation leaving your infantry and artillery somewhere behind while you race ahead deep into enemy lines, or maybe your infantry and artillery was overrun and your light tanks are trying to get back to friendly lines, or pretty much anything.

I was just opining that if your theme was was mobile armored force, that doesn't mean you can't have artillery, and that the Imperial Guard's codex artillery unit options are actually those that were generally characteristic of mobile armored forces.

Here, have a Org Chart for a tank battalion I found on Wikipedia:

That's a lot of stuff, and a Regiment would be a parent to this formation. I tend to interpret this as essentially free reign to have whatever on the tabletop.

Pyroalchi wrote:

As to the topic here: above I also asked for your opinion on using the Carnodon as not much more expensive but much sturdier alternativ to HWS for bringing lascannons, which might have went under:

Besides from that I would be interested on your opinion on seeing the 4 x LC Carnodon as alternative to Heavy Weapons Squads. For 234 points you get 9 LCs with 9 x 2 T3 5+ wounds in HWS vs. 280 points for 8 LCs on 2 x 10 T7, 3+ in Carnodons. While the former can profit from orders, the latter don't die like flies as soon as a heavy bolter looks their way

What is your take on that?


@ Macharius Vanquisher: another thing I don't understand in this tanks armament: I don't see any instance were it makes any sense compared with the standard twin Battlecannons. The Blastshells are the same as the Battlecannon but with only D3 instead of D6 damage and the Armor piercing shells are only better if you expect to roll low on the number of Battlecannon shots. (Since on average 2 x 9/-3/2D6H has a hard time being better than 2D6 8/-2/D6.)
As I see it even against a theorethical target were all balls are in the Armor piercing vanquishers field (T9, 4+, I don't know if that exists), the expected damage would be 2.26 for the Vanquisher and 3.40 for the Macharius Battlecannon. The Vanquisher would only be better if you roll 4 or less shots on the 2D6
And versus a normal tank (T8, 3+) its even worse with the Vanquisher doing 2.48 and the BC doing 4.08 (and again only being worse when rolling 4 or less on the number of shots)
But I guess thats just the same as the LR Vanquisher cannon that is also odd in being not really good at anti-Tank duty.

A Carnodon with 4 Lascannons is a 140 points. 3 Lascannons in a Heavy Weapons Squad is 78, 6 would be 156 [a hypothetical 4 would be 104 points]. That said, I wouldn't really consider bringing a Heavy Weapons Squad with Lascannons, since as you observe yourself: they die like wingless flies and are expensive. But you can always compare a average option to a bad option and have it look good. In cost and performance it's roughly comparable with a Leman Russ [which is another average/below average option], sidegrading firepower for toughness with a stock Battle Tank, and is appreciably worse than the Demolisher [which might hesitantly be called competitive or at least above average post-buff] having only threat range in exchange for significant disadvantages in T and firepower.
However, a Carnodon with 4 Autocannons or 4 Volkites is 104-108 points. This is comparable with a 93 point Hydra [which also has 8 D2 shots at S7 AP1] or a 108 point Basilisk [which has 2d6b1 S9 AP3 D1d3 shots], both of which are appreciably more "fragile" than the Carnodon [though the Basilisk is NLoS]. It compares fairly favorably with them in it's cheap loadout, and both of them are competitive options.


As for the Vanquisher, that's because GW sees no problem with high rate of fire weapons with multiple damage stacking up to a ridiculous level of potential damage, but balks at the idea of anything less than a super-heavy doing more than 1d6 damage on a hit even if it only has 1 or 2 shots. And the Macharius is just 2 Leman Russes stuck together, and has basically always been, so it's got basically the same gun as the Leman Russ Vanquisher.

A last word on the whole "army composition" stuff: Of course I can build whatever I like. It's just that I'm new to Warhammer and I really want to build a fluff consistend army. Up until now I thought (!) including artillery in a light mobile regiment would not be background consistent. Therefore I really value your input and the Org Chart you provided, as well as your examples for what instances could lead to a pure light-tank force on the table since it provides great insight to enjoy expanding my range of models and still immerse in the story. Especially since I really like all kind of missile launchers and the Manticore looks really great.


Back to the topic at hand: as stated in other posts I have not played yet, since I still building my army and lack experience, but what I really find interesting that there seem to be as many people saying the Leman Russ is average/below average as there are people saying the LR and the rest of the IG motor pool is too strong.
What you said regarding comparing the Autocannon/Volkite Carnodon to a more ground focussed Hydra or a "LOS needed" Basilisk also sounds compelling.

Yet I somehow have still not given up on the Lascannon Carnodon. The Lascannon is an effective anti-tank weapon (even if the buffed Demolisher now seems much stronger for the same price), but it seems to me that most platforms you can take them on are either flimsy (HWS, Command/Infantry/Veteran Squads), quite expensive (Malcador Annihilator) or have better loadout options (LR Conquerer, Battletank, Demolisher). Leaving (in my personal opinion) the Tauros Venator (OOP), Sentinels and Carnodons. Out of this lot, the Carnodon is the cheapest/Lascannon and sturdier. But I guess I will just have to collect some experience over time to see, if this assumption stands the test of reality

 Peregrine wrote:

 OldMate wrote:
I guess by the time you give it a hull demolisher and auto cannon sponsons on your Malcador its getting near the price of 2 russes, with less firepower, half the suitability, and half the battlefield presence.

And this is why it is trash in 8th. None of those minor buffs matter when the LRBT's shoot twice rule makes the Malcador have much worse firepower at double the point cost. It's an index unit trying to compete in a codex world, and it does not succeed.

Is anyone else left with the feeling that giving the Leman Russ the shoot twice rule was a totally idiotic thing to do? That one change totally invalidated so many units it's hilarious.

Man the carnodon is such an aesthetic, grimdark Imperial tank. If I ever wanted run a list with tank commanders, I'd use carnodons.

 Agamemnon2 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 OldMate wrote:
I guess by the time you give it a hull demolisher and auto cannon sponsons on your Malcador its getting near the price of 2 russes, with less firepower, half the suitability, and half the battlefield presence.

And this is why it is trash in 8th. None of those minor buffs matter when the LRBT's shoot twice rule makes the Malcador have much worse firepower at double the point cost. It's an index unit trying to compete in a codex world, and it does not succeed.

Is anyone else left with the feeling that giving the Leman Russ the shoot twice rule was a totally idiotic thing to do? That one change totally invalidated so many units it's hilarious.

Nope it was necessary kinda, however if the main guns would've been decent from the start the thing would not need shoot twice.

...

Thanks gw i guess

So rather than fix the weapons in the codex they introduced blanket rule that causes all sort of side effects. Typical GW really.