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.

The old main guns of the Russ and Baneblade family are quite strange to me, while useful they do not seem to operate in the way artillery does. Their primary weapons seem to shoot AP and HE shells but with a mixture of both effects at once.

Perhaps splitting these profiles into something akin to the Krak and Frag missiles of a missile launcher would be within theme for the faction and could increase functionality.

For the Russ I would propose the following
Krak Shell: Heavy 1, Strength 14 AP-4 D6+2 damage, or perhaps a fixed 8 damage shot.
Frag Shell: Heavy 2d6 Strength 6, AP-1 D1 Blast

For the Baneblade I would propose the following
Krak Shell: Heavy 1, Strength 16 AP-5 D3+9 damage
Frag Shell: Heavy 4d6, Strength 6, AP-2 D2 Blast

Getting shot at by Heavy and Superheavy tank cannons should be a scary experience, but in all honesty the sheer ability of the those guns would be against non-power armored infantry or larger targets like other tanks. Sure either of those guns should in all probability kill any infantry in a single shot if they fire an AP round but their explosive rounds shouldn't be efficient against heavy and super heavy infantry as the concussion and shrapnel won't be as effective against guys wearing ceramite and thick plasteel over their entire body. Note: I also think that Guard would have dedicated anti power armor targets with things like the plasma cannon sponsons on most russes or their larger turret mounted Plasma weapons.

Hell have the Exterminator and Executioner be good against marines. With the Exterminator be biased against power armor and the Executioner be biased towards knocking out terminators.

But at the end of the day I think all Guard tanks aside from the primary variants should be biased towards a particular target group. The primary variants should be average or better than average but not exception at killing groups of infantry and other tanks.

I feel the main turret guns on the leman-russ need buffs to make other options other then the demolisher/punisher can to be taken.

If the autocannnons get a buff, the dakka russ could make a come back (3 heavy bolters and the autocannon turrets)

if the battlecannon is switched from d3 dmg to either flat 2 or 3 damage.

if the sponsons on the regular leman-russ vs the tank-commander are reduced by 5 pts would be nice.

As far as different shells for the main battle-cannon, that would be cool as the tanks definitely look cool on the table-top, and giving people encouragement to take the "main" arsenal is always cool

bat702 wrote:
I feel the main turret guns on the leman-russ need buffs to make other options other then the demolisher/punisher can to be taken.

If the autocannnons get a buff, the dakka russ could make a come back (3 heavy bolters and the autocannon turrets)

if the battlecannon is switched from d3 dmg to either flat 2 or 3 damage.

if the sponsons on the regular leman-russ vs the tank-commander are reduced by 5 pts would be nice.

As far as different shells for the main battle-cannon, that would be cool as the tanks definitely look cool on the table-top, and giving people encouragement to take the "main" arsenal is always cool

I honestly think that the Autocannons with triple heavy bolter should be the go to loadout for killing Primaris or regular space marines, I've always been of the opinion that autocannons should be divided into categories based upon size. The ones on the Hydra and Exterminator being squarely in the Medium category. That aside my proposed buff for it would be heavy 8 AP-2 Strength 8 D2. That way it is an excellent choice against Space Marine infantry.

I also have issues with the resiliency of tanks but thats another thread.

The current stats for the autocannon are pretty laughable for its points currently, either it needs to be reduced to 7 or 8 pts, or get a buff to str or ap

bat702 wrote:
The current stats for the autocannon are pretty laughable for its points currently, either it needs to be reduced to 7 or 8 pts, or get a buff to str or ap

I've always favored upping Autocannons to AP-2 to reflect their superior penetrative power to heavy bolters.

ap-2 is definitely a stronger buff, but also str 8 will give it a better profile against tanks which come in t7 and t8. Also will help its damage vs standard MEQ by wounding them on 2's, except with trans-human letting them counter this

What is the point then of the anti-tank russ (Executioner?) the one that is 1 shot of s10 ap3 d6 damage? Like a crappier lascannon? What do we make that? Honestly, a Babeblade round is to the LR round what a Bolter round is to an Auto-gun slug. One is a titan cannon, and one is a generic tank round.

The problem is, the Baneblade variants run the gamut of S values, everything from 8-16. So you can't really muck around with one value or they all have to shift, then you get S17-20 Shadowswords, and who wants that?

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
What is the point then of the anti-tank russ (Executioner?) the one that is 1 shot of s10 ap3 d6 damage? Like a crappier lascannon? What do we make that? Honestly, a Babeblade round is to the LR round what a Bolter round is to an Auto-gun slug. One is a titan cannon, and one is a generic tank round.

The problem is, the Baneblade variants run the gamut of S values, everything from 8-16. So you can't really muck around with one value or they all have to shift, then you get S17-20 Shadowswords, and who wants that?

I honestly expect the Vanquisher Russ to get the Forge Statline found on the Macharius's Vanquisher Cannon which is Strength 16, AP-4 and 9 damage. That would reliably one shot Dreads and put the hurt on most tanks from across the board, which both it and the Tau Hammerhead should.

panzerfront14 wrote:
For the Baneblade I would propose the following
Krak Shell: Heavy 1, Strength 16 AP-5 D3+9 damage
Frag Shell: Heavy 4d6, Strength 6, AP-2 D2 Blast

This just turns the Baneblade Cannon into a cut-rate Fellblade Accelerator Cannon (which already averages less damage than a Baneblade Cannon against most targets). Frag profile would be ok for hordes of T3 infantry, but a 1 shot all or nothing AT weapon would be bad for a unit with BS4 and a degrading stat line. On the top profile you'd be hitting 50% of the time, then you have to wound, then hope your target doesn't have an invul. At the middle profile you miss 66% of the time, at the bottom profile you miss 84% of the time. That's why the Baneblade needs lots of shots.

The current profile is fine. Baneblades are just significantly overpriced, in both points and CP.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

panzerfront14 wrote:
For the Baneblade I would propose the following
Krak Shell: Heavy 1, Strength 16 AP-5 D3+9 damage
Frag Shell: Heavy 4d6, Strength 6, AP-2 D2 Blast

This just turns the Baneblade Cannon into a cut-rate Fellblade Accelerator Cannon (which already averages less damage than a Baneblade Cannon against most targets). Frag profile would be ok for hordes of T3 infantry, but a 1 shot all or nothing AT weapon would be bad for a unit with BS4 and a degrading stat line. On the top profile you'd be hitting 50% of the time, then you have to wound, then hope your target doesn't have an invul. At the middle profile you miss 66% of the time, at the bottom profile you miss 84% of the time. That's why the Baneblade needs lots of shots.

The current profile is fine. Baneblades are just significantly overpriced, in both points and CP.

I did overlook the Ballistic skill of Guard Tanks, I do not understand why they have such low BS. Perhaps all Tanks with large caliber single shot weapons should have higher BS to show, BS3+ with options for better gunnery crews or AI/Psyker assistance for Tau and Eldar to bring them to BS 2+.

Though I am curious, with this profile the Baneblade Cannon would on a single successful wound would average 11 damage, The Fellblade's AP Shells for its cannons would if both successfully wound get 12 damage. The Baneblade would lose slightly less to -1 damage abilities that are becoming more common, perhaps a flat 12 damage shot would be more appropriate.

panzerfront14 wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

panzerfront14 wrote:
For the Baneblade I would propose the following
Krak Shell: Heavy 1, Strength 16 AP-5 D3+9 damage
Frag Shell: Heavy 4d6, Strength 6, AP-2 D2 Blast

This just turns the Baneblade Cannon into a cut-rate Fellblade Accelerator Cannon (which already averages less damage than a Baneblade Cannon against most targets). Frag profile would be ok for hordes of T3 infantry, but a 1 shot all or nothing AT weapon would be bad for a unit with BS4 and a degrading stat line. On the top profile you'd be hitting 50% of the time, then you have to wound, then hope your target doesn't have an invul. At the middle profile you miss 66% of the time, at the bottom profile you miss 84% of the time. That's why the Baneblade needs lots of shots.

The current profile is fine. Baneblades are just significantly overpriced, in both points and CP.

I did overlook the Ballistic skill of Guard Tanks, I do not understand why they have such low BS. Perhaps all Tanks with large caliber single shot weapons should have higher BS to show, BS3+ with options for better gunnery crews or AI/Psyker assistance for Tau and Eldar to bring them to BS 2+.

Though I am curious, with this profile the Baneblade Cannon would on a single successful wound would average 11 damage, The Fellblade's AP Shells for its cannons would if both successfully wound get 12 damage. The Baneblade would lose slightly less to -1 damage abilities that are becoming more common, perhaps a flat 12 damage shot would be more appropriate.

Even if you crank it up to D12 you'll run into problems. Most Necron vehicles have Quantum Shielding. That means you'll only wound 50% of the time even with S16, then their 5++ saves 33% of those wounds. And you still have to hit, even if you can find a reason for a Guard tank to hit on 2s. Knights will Rotate Ion Shields every time you point it at them and save 50% of the time. More shots = more chances to hit, wound, and for those successful wounds to cause failed save rolls. The Accelerator Cannon AE profile works (sort of) because it has twice the shots of your proposal and marines, both spikey and loyalist, have ways to get +1 to hit. And even then the sponson weapons usually do more actual damage. Take it from someone who actually uses a Fellblade.

The Russ Exterminator always puzzled me. It had a 4-shot Twin-Linked Autocannon, yet when nearly every other Twin-Linked weapon simply doubled its shots in 9th, this one stayed at 4.

I do wish it could be upped, then it'd be a more reliable output than a D6 Battlecannon. However it's already 4 shots compared to D6. I would personally make it Ap-2 and leave it at that.

I don't think the Baneblade weapons need changing, but I think it could do with BS3, either by default or as an upgrade. It's a bloody superheavy tank, you think it'd have targeters, auspexes etc that'd make its firepower more accurate than your standard Guardsman.

 Valkyrie wrote:
The Russ Exterminator always puzzled me. It had a 4-shot Twin-Linked Autocannon, yet when nearly every other Twin-Linked weapon simply doubled its shots in 9th, this one stayed at 4.

I do wish it could be upped, then it'd be a more reliable output than a D6 Battlecannon. However it's already 4 shots compared to D6. I would personally make it Ap-2 and leave it at that.

I don't think the Baneblade weapons need changing, but I think it could do with BS3, either by default or as an upgrade. It's a bloody superheavy tank, you think it'd have targeters, auspexes etc that'd make its firepower more accurate than your standard Guardsman.

I personally think the turret weapons on all Guard tanks should be BS 3+ be default and the heavy AT guns should have options for BS 2+.

panzerfront14 wrote:


One of the things I prefer about this is that it makes those vehicles more resilient but you have a point regarding Ion shields and the like along with the points and unneeded CP tax. Perhaps if they dropped a LOW slot in Battalions and Brigades* would help with that issue. Have 1 in a battalion and 1-3 slots in the Brigade for LOWs.

*with the caveat that LOWs with the Supreme Commander rule cannot use it.

It makes sense you'd rotate Ion Shields to face the Baneblade, its a huge tank, but if you were smart, you'd bait it out with what seems to be the new Vanquisher Cannon, as seen on the Macharius Vanquisher which is a 9 damage weapon. If Guard get several sources of powerful AT weapons then shielding that one knight should be a fools errand, as they just direct fire towards on of the other Knights.

Also having 8 lascannons makes it seem like a Fellblade could do serious damage with those weapons alone. Thats as many shots as two fully kitted Predator annihilators.

Well, if you want to make the Baneblade Cannon less deadly that would work.

Agreed they need to do something about the CP cost of bringing a LoW. I personally prefer refunding the 3CP price of the SHAD and giving the LoW faction traits if it's from the same faction as your warlord over adding a LoW slot to Battalions and Brigades because it would make it harder to bring a LoW in lower points games due to their detachment restrictions. But your idea could work as well.

And yes, 8 lascannons are good, but swapping them for 2 Laser Destroyers for 20 points is better.

Well, if you want to make the Baneblade Cannon less deadly that would work.

Agreed they need to do something about the CP cost of bringing a LoW. I personally prefer refunding the 3CP price of the SHAD and giving the LoW faction traits if it's from the same faction as your warlord over adding a LoW slot to Battalions and Brigades because it would make it harder to bring a LoW in lower points games due to their detachment restrictions. But your idea could work as well.

And yes, 8 lascannons are good, but swapping them for 2 Laser Destroyers for 20 points is better.

They need to make the heavy-bolter only cost 10 pts on BS 4 platforms. that would make the sponsons 10 pts cheaper. Currently I wouldnt run any baneblade chasis tank with ANY sponsons, as at that point they are just becoming bullet magnets

All Leman Russ tanks get 14 wounds base.

Leman Russ (all variants):
- All Leman Russ tanks get 14 wounds base.
- Drop all sponson costs by 10 points. Heavy bolter or heavy flamer 10 points per sponson, plasma cannon 15 points per sponson, etc.

We also split the lighter variants into a separate datasheet.

Leman Russ Cruiser Tank:
All cruiser tank variants get a 12 inch move (6 inch grinding advance).

- Annihilator: 140 points. Damage changed to D3 + 3.
- Conqueror: 150 points. Damage changed to 2. Comes with free storm bolter.
- Exterminator: 150 points. Increased to heavy 6.

Leman Russ Battle Tank:

- Battle Tank: 150 points. Damage changed to 3.
- Demolisher: 160 points.
- Eradicator: 140 points. Damage changed to 2. If a unit is hit by this weapon, in their following Movement phase they must halve their Move characteristic and cannot Advance.
- Executioner: 145 points. Damage changed to 2 on standard or 3 on overcharge.
- Punisher: 160 points.
- Vanquisher: 160 points. Increase to heavy D3. Change strength to 12. Change damage to D3 + 3. Remove current ability and replace it with blast, and +1 to hit against vehicles and monsters.

Tank Commander: 40 points + Cost of Vehicle
- Increase to 2 orders.
- Tank order range increased to minimum 18 inch. Same as the current voxcasters.
- Change Knight Commander to one free tank ace (Pask only).

bat702 wrote:
They need to make the heavy-bolter only cost 10 pts on BS 4 platforms. that would make the sponsons 10 pts cheaper. Currently I wouldnt run any baneblade chasis tank with ANY sponsons, as at that point they are just becoming bullet magnets

You got a point, why do Guard HBs cost the same as Space Marine ones. Now I understood that the gun is the same but the guardsman is a worse shot, and is far easier to kill, comparing a HWS to a Devastator. It would be a nice way to drop the cost of the entire range of Guard Tanks.

panzerfront14 wrote:

bat702 wrote:
They need to make the heavy-bolter only cost 10 pts on BS 4 platforms. that would make the sponsons 10 pts cheaper. Currently I wouldnt run any baneblade chasis tank with ANY sponsons, as at that point they are just becoming bullet magnets

You got a point, why do Guard HBs cost the same as Space Marine ones. Now I understood that the gun is the same but the guardsman is a worse shot, and is far easier to kill, comparing a HWS to a Devastator. It would be a nice way to drop the cost of the entire range of Guard Tanks.

I completely agree with this, I’d like heavy weapons to be priced off of BS like plasma and melta. So, a BS4+ heavy bolter would be 10 points for infantry or tank. While a B3+ heavy bolter should still be 15. That would also add another difference between standard Russ tanks and tank commanders.

Jarms48 wrote:

panzerfront14 wrote:

bat702 wrote:
They need to make the heavy-bolter only cost 10 pts on BS 4 platforms. that would make the sponsons 10 pts cheaper. Currently I wouldnt run any baneblade chasis tank with ANY sponsons, as at that point they are just becoming bullet magnets

You got a point, why do Guard HBs cost the same as Space Marine ones. Now I understood that the gun is the same but the guardsman is a worse shot, and is far easier to kill, comparing a HWS to a Devastator. It would be a nice way to drop the cost of the entire range of Guard Tanks.

I completely agree with this, I’d like heavy weapons to be priced off of BS like plasma and melta. So, a BS4+ heavy bolter would be 10 points for infantry or tank. While a B3+ heavy bolter should still be 15. That would also add another difference between standard Russ tanks and tank commanders.

Honestly, I am still of the opinion that tank commanders should be force multipliers and not just better Russes. As in they help coordinate group interactions of Russes instead of issuing single orders, they can pick an enemy unit in the command phase and grant reroll 1s against it, to coordinate fires on a target, or too do other functions that helped groups of Russes work together well.

But besides the point the rules designers seem to be of the opinion that the guy in charge of a military group must be the strongest guy in it. This works for some armies, like CSM, Orks and maybe Dark Eldar. In all honesty they should be the best at commanding which is more than just being the best swordsman or the guy with the highest score of the Bolter Qualification.

panzerfront14 wrote:
Honestly, I am still of the opinion that tank commanders should be force multipliers and not just better Russes. As in they help coordinate group interactions of Russes instead of issuing single orders, they can pick an enemy unit in the command phase and grant reroll 1s against it, to coordinate fires on a target, or too do other functions that helped groups of Russes work together well.

I also agree with this, in my above post where I stated what I'd price the Russ tanks point wise and what I'd do with the turret weapons I also mentioned what I'd do with Tank Commanders.

I do think Tank Commanders need a minimum of 2 orders, and a minimum of 18 inch order range. Vehicles would presumably have voxes already installed it seems silly that rules as written makes me believe the Tank Commander is screaming orders from his cupola or waving signal flags.

I mean the thread has shifted a little, but the general problem with commanders in 40k at all is the lack of a C2 mechanic. Commanders exist IRL because controlling lots of men and machines in a coordinated fashion is something that takes skill, talent, training, and most of the effort of an individual and his staff.

But if 40k let you take detachments without HQs, I am not sure how often they would really get filled.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I mean the thread has shifted a little, but the general problem with commanders in 40k at all is the lack of a C2 mechanic. Commanders exist IRL because controlling lots of men and machines in a coordinated fashion is something that takes skill, talent, training, and most of the effort of an individual and his staff.

But if 40k let you take detachments without HQs, I am not sure how often they would really get filled.

You have a point, commanders in 40k often become champions rather than officers because of how wargear, statlines and frankly the Lore push the game.

But to bring the thread back to its point, I am honestly at a loss at how to properly represent large caliber AT rounds like the AP shells for Battlecannons, Baneblade Cannons and things like Tau Railguns, the Lance profile of a Fire Prism, and the main gun on a Gladiator Lancer. They should have tremendous damage when those shots hit unless you're using them against something large enough to shrug them off. The issue is the commonality of invulns to represent all sorts of durability in this game. Perhaps if it was something like an Evasion save you could take to separate the Dark Eldar Venom phasing into another reality before you shell connects and returning after it has passed the skimmer from the Imperial Knight who use its Ion shield to stop the shot cold before it can impact its armor.

Make it a rule for some vehicles and models and save Invulns for forcefields and the like. Make an Evasion Save and only have some models have it, like the better Eldar (as an entire group, including Dark and Harlies) all flyers, and some other Xenos vehicles use to showcase the different methods of durability in the 42nd Millennium.

Or just have a separate stat called "penetrating power" or something and have it be the amount by which it reduces ALL saves, rather than just armor? Idk

I think it would be easier to perhaps just give some weapons (especially a main turret like weapon) to do bonus damage vs vehicles/monsters

panzerfront14 wrote:

But to bring the thread back to its point, I am honestly at a loss at how to properly represent large caliber AT rounds like the AP shells for Battlecannons, Baneblade Cannons and things like Tau.

The simplest way would be similar to how plasma guns work. Something like HE current profile, AT removes blast while the profile gets +1 AP and +1 damage, maybe +1 to hit against vehicles and monsters.

That way a battle cannon becomes Heavy 1 S8, AP-3, D3+1, +1 to hit against vehicles and monsters.

I don't think that's incredibly interesting or viable though. As D6 shots is simply far better than a single improved shot.

Jarms48 wrote:

panzerfront14 wrote:

But to bring the thread back to its point, I am honestly at a loss at how to properly represent large caliber AT rounds like the AP shells for Battlecannons, Baneblade Cannons and things like Tau.

The simplest way would be similar to how plasma guns work. Something like HE current profile, AT removes blast while the profile gets +1 AP and +1 damage, maybe +1 to hit against vehicles and monsters.

That way a battle cannon becomes Heavy 1 S8, AP-3, D3+1, +1 to hit against vehicles and monsters.

I don't think that's incredibly interesting or viable though. As D6 shots is simply far better than a single improved shot.

I think its better represented by a missile launcher like split profile. But I honestly a bit more interested in how would one give the regular Russ a AP profile, similar but weaker to a Vanquisher Cannon (using the Macharius Vanquisher's guns as a basis not the slightly buffed Lascannon as currently exists) As stated in the OP something like this could work, and pushing the majority of russes in specific roles would be helpful.
Krak Shell: Heavy 1, Strength 14 AP-3 D6+2 damage, or perhaps a fixed 8 damage shot. Perhaps this could be modified to d3+5 damage.
Frag Shell: Heavy 2d6 Strength 6, AP-1 D1 Blast

In addition, perhaps the costs of regular Russes should be lowered across the board, and give them an option to take a Veteran crew who can get BS3 across the board.

panzerfront14 wrote:

Krak Shell: Heavy 1, Strength 14 AP-3 D6+2 damage, or perhaps a fixed 8 damage shot. Perhaps this could be modified to d3+5 damage.
Frag Shell: Heavy 2d6 Strength 6, AP-1 D1 Blast

In addition, perhaps the costs of regular Russes should be lowered across the board, and give them an option to take a Veteran crew who can get BS3 across the board.

Even with a veteran crew, it would still be better taking the D6 shots over the single shot. It's always better to do some damage than the potential to do no damage.

This is pretty evident in something like the Macharius Vanquisher. It looks good, but just isn't reliable. Any kind of -1 to hit, -1 to wound, can only wound on 4/5/6, FNP, or even invuls just ruin it. A demolisher cannon will always do more or at the very least something (unless you're incredibly unlucky).

I posted earlier what I'd do with the Russes. Below is 100% what I'd do, anything else is just brainstorming.

Jarms48 wrote:


Leman Russ (all variants):
- All Leman Russ tanks get 14 wounds base.
- Drop all sponson costs by 10 points. Heavy bolter or heavy flamer 10 points per sponson, plasma cannon 15 points per sponson, etc.

We also split the lighter variants into a separate datasheet.

Leman Russ Cruiser Tank:
All cruiser tank variants get a 12 inch move (6 inch grinding advance).

- Annihilator: 140 points. Damage changed to D3 + 3.
- Conqueror: 150 points. Damage changed to 2. Comes with free storm bolter.
- Exterminator: 150 points. Increased to heavy 6.

Leman Russ Battle Tank:

- Battle Tank: 150 points. Damage changed to 3.
- Demolisher: 160 points.
- Eradicator: 140 points. Damage changed to 2. If a unit is hit by this weapon, in their following Movement phase they must halve their Move characteristic and cannot Advance.
- Executioner: 145 points. Damage changed to 2 on standard or 3 on overcharge.
- Punisher: 160 points.
- Vanquisher: 160 points. Increase to heavy D3. Change strength to 12. Change damage to D3 + 3. Remove current ability and replace it with blast, and +1 to hit against vehicles and monsters.

Tank Commander: 40 points + Cost of Vehicle
- Increase to 2 orders.
- Tank order range increased to minimum 18 inch. Same as the current voxcasters.
- Change Knight Commander to one free tank ace (Pask only).

The Baneblades are more difficult, I don't think I'd change many of their actual weapons. They're all fairly unique

Baneblade (all variants):

- Increase Wounds characteristic to 28.
- Increase Save to 2+ against shooting attacks.
- Increase to BS3+.
- Drop all sponson costs by 15 points. 35 points per sponson.

Baneblades:
- Baneblade: 430 points.
- Banesword: 400 points.
- Banehammer: 400 points.
- Doomhammer: 400 points. Update Magma cannon to match current Melta rules.
- Hellhammer: 450 points.
- Shadowsword: 430 points. Change to 6 damage.
- Stormblade: 400 points.
- Stormlord: 430 points.
- Stormsword: 420 points. The Stormsword Siege Cannon buff to Heavy 3D6.

So did they ever address the wording with the Sponsons, allowing up to 3 per side? So 6 total twin HBs, and LCs?