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.

Connor MacLeod wrote:In what context are assault marines being used? against what sort of enemy and in what sort of enviroment? I have this mental image that troops that are equpped and dedicated for counterinsurgency or building to building clearing would need to haul around pocket nukes just in case the terrorists happen to have a doomsday mechabot in their inventory, so it would be nice to clarify here.

Well, he's not arguing against assault marines, for one thing. He's talking about assault terminators. You know, the big guys with the hammers?
And I think he's just hosing them in general. No scenario.

Connor MacLeod wrote:That was Ghostmaker. Although if its the bit you're talking about (Caffran's story where the gets inside the walls and defeats the enemy) I think they were Basilisks meant to blast down the wall - and they didnt do well in the water. Of course they're artillery.

Chimeras are amphibious (Cf 5th Edition IG codex) so its possible and even probable that Russes can be modified to be so.

Berzerker: I was curious if you would elaborate on this point:

Secondly, the Leman Russ is a universal vehicle, not a specialized one. Those massive treads? They may actually have an important function, increasing maneuverability (though at the cost of speed).

I'm a bit curious to see an explanation as to how the treads could be an advantage - I admit I couldn't think of one (they interefere with the the sloping of the armor, at least, so there is going to be at least a tradeoff in any event.)

I also recall mention of reactive armor and ablative armor being used for tanks. They may be an alternative (or supplement) to sloped (although reactive is only good against shpaed charges and other CE rounds, not KE ones)

The treads, being taller and having a longer underside slope than modern tanks, would allow them to crawl up steeper inclines; in addition, the belt of the tread isn't covered by a projecting lip like it is in, for instance, the M1 Abrams, so the tank won't get its 'nose' jammed in the slope. A lower proportion of tread in contact with the ground, however, would mean less acceleration than a lower-slung tank with the same engine power. Essentially, there is a trade of speed for the capability to deal with more extreme terrain.

If I've misremembered the story, I apologize. I swear there were amphibious Leman Russes, though. . . if not there, then where did I read that? Hmm.

Safor wrote:

BeRzErKeR wrote:

Assault Terminators are a good example of a SPECIALIZED unit, not a stupid one. If you're under the impression that every military unit ought to be able to do everything, then I'm afraid you've got a very odd conception of combat. Terminators, and especially Assault Terminators, have a limited role which they are VERY good at; namely, shock assault and close-combat.

Over specializing is lethal.
They could have stormbolters or some other ranged weapons in addition to their melee weapons however currently they are unable engage against an target at an longer distance .
And their success depends on the teleporter if they miss their target by 50 meters theyre already in serious trouble. They are easy to locate, their movement can be prevented with mines, and several bombs and heavy weapons can be used in close quarters. Especially close combat bazookas ( Yes I know they don't currently exist in the fluff but any weapon type that exists in 2K can also exist in 40K. ) would be ideal against assault terminators.
Plus the enemy has greater mobility

Look, you've got to remember that in the background, there is no 2+ armour save. Terminators would be almost completely impervious to small-arms fire, bazookas, grenades, mines, high calibre rifles, SAWs, whatever you've got to throw at them. They could cross 50 Metres in less time than you or I could, and wreck face when they got there with ridiculous ease.

It's a case of using the right tool for the job. Think about situations where you could deploy assault terminators.

Yeah I should have said assault terminators. Brain fart on my part sorry.

But its kinda relevant because Thunder Hammers are not exactly weak weapons, since they're giant hammers swung by terminator-assisted armor muscles by a superhuman warrior with a special and extremely powerful powergenerator added in. If they get close in it's quite possible for the Termiantor to literally beat the tank to death.

I'm also far from clear why the 'ranged' issue is so important because you don't employ your terminators (or space marines) out in an open field, unassisted, against enemy armour. IT lacks the speed and mobility even if you DID have ranged capability. They're not SUPPOSED to be fast (unless its a CS Goto novel in which case they can do backflips)

That's why Termiantors are designed to be deployed from Land Raiders or via teleport, after all.

Safor wrote: An significant unnecessary weakness that can be exploitet by the enemy.

Who's going to be shooting at them? And with what? You don't leave a unit like that sitting around in the open, and you don't even deploy it in theres a chance it will be met with dedicated AT weaponry. You save it for the opportune moment.

Safor wrote:
Over specializing is lethal.
They could have stormbolters or some other ranged weapons in addition to their melee weapons however currently they are unable engage against an target at an longer distance .
And their success depends on the teleporter if they miss their target by 50 meters theyre already in serious trouble. They are easy to locate, their movement can be prevented with mines, and several bombs and heavy weapons can be used in close quarters. Especially close combat bazookas ( Yes I know they don't currently exist in the fluff but any weapon type that exists in 2K can also exist in 40K. ) would be ideal against assault terminators.
Plus the enemy has greater mobility.
Whats the point of making your troops more vulnerable on purpose? Even Imperial Guard has all sort of weapons termies could have in addition to their melee weapons don't me tell that its too expensive.
Not to mention that they should have smoke/grenade launchers.

"Having storm bolters in addition to their melee weapons" is exactly what Tactical Terminators do. And, as I said;

BeRzErKeR wrote:Point five; To speak specifically about Assault Terminators, this is an even MORE specialized loadout than regular Terminators, and deployed in even fewer situations; namely, if you have a rock-hard target that absolutely, positively must be taken by storm, or if you have to fight in EXTREMELY close quarters, like a naval boarding action. In literally any other circumstance, regular storm bolter and power fist Terminators, with a couple of support weapons, will do the job excellently. But when you need to smash into that fortress, oh look, suddenly Assault Terminators in the command bunker. Whack, crunch, bam. When you need to cripple that Chaos cruiser now, suddenly Terminators breaking open the hatch to the command bridge. Or Terminators in the engineering section, smashing the controls for the reactor and killing the tech-magi. Or Terminators in the life support section, venting all the stored oxygen into space and wrecking the recycling systems. Good luck shooting them down, with all those powerful long-range weapons you don't have and couldn't use anyway in such cramped conditions.

Precise specialization is dangerous when you cannot use your specialists in the role they are designed for. But when you CAN, you end up with a HUGE advantage. All Terminators are Tactical Terminators; some are armed as Assault Terminators when the situation calls for that particular use. Please remember, Space Marines simply do not fight in battles where they don't have tactical control. When a Space Marine force deploys, 99% of the time they have orbital superiority, near-perfect information about their target, a specific objective to accomplish, and the massive advantage of overwhelming speed and surprise. For their style of warfare, a high degree of specialization is EXACTLY what is called for.

BeRzErKeR wrote:
The treads, being taller and having a longer underside slope than modern tanks, would allow them to crawl up steeper inclines; in addition, the belt of the tread isn't covered by a projecting lip like it is in, for instance, the M1 Abrams, so the tank won't get its 'nose' jammed in the slope.

Makes sense.

A lower proportion of tread in contact with the ground, however, would mean less acceleration than a lower-slung tank with the same engine power. Essentially, there is a trade of speed for the capability to deal with more extreme terrain.

Again, makes sense. They tend to optimize the engine for versatility and durability (fuel source, etc.) so top acceleration probably isn't important for most russes (if you use them as the Krieg do, or as a defensive emplacement speed won't matter I imagine.) On the other hand those same engines get some ludicrously good fuel efficiency and range. The short story 'Defixio' had a Russ going 1500 km in 3 days without refuelling or attachment to a supply line, for example.

It's also not fixed as far as the engine go. then 2nd edition chaos Codex had Russes pulling upwards of 70 kph offroad (although they were much more upteched back then) and various novels (honour Guard and Gunheads) have them routinely pulling 30+ kph offroad. Heck, we know from a gAv thorpe short story in one of the old Imperial armour books (predating the 'current' IA books) that noted that Leman Russ engines can be modified for greater speed (and its not difficult to do, it just ticks off the AdMech.)

so clearly there's alot of room for variation there. I wonder if the Russ designs can fiddle with the track configuration or shape to improve performance too? Something more along the lines of a Chimera or Macharius, or the Malcadors.

Also now that I think about it I reclal some mention of sloped armor in one of the Leman Russ based novels, I forget which (or both!) - tech level is something you really have to remember here. What a high end tank regiment like the Narmenians or Pardus have for Russes isnt the same thing as a lower tier regiment (or a siege regiment like the Krieg) would have.

If I've misremembered the story, I apologize. I swear there were amphibious Leman Russes, though. . . if not there, then where did I read that. Hmm.

Maybe you were thinking Honour Guard? That was the big Guard Tank novel. Or maybe it was Gunheads *shrugs* Those are the only big tank novels I can think of and my memory isn't obscure about details. I'll try hunting around though

Defending the LR's design and the prominent role of melee combat in 40k in a single thread?

*head explodes*

going off topic again people o.o this is about the feasability of the LR's functional design in a warzone not about terminators and there fighting abilities, but it as far as ive seen the OP has been answered o.o with some debate and overall (reasonable for the most part) discussion, cheep tractor unit turned tank using future materials with cheep and expenable troops to shove inside, as well as being simple to fix and patch up when damaged o.o now where do terminators come into this?

Ronin-Sage wrote:Defending the LR's design and the prominent role of melee combat in 40k in a single thread?

*head explodes*

I am a master of the impossible.

Also, is this 'LR is actually a tractor-turned-battle-tank' fluff even valid?

Ronin-Sage wrote:Also, is this 'LR is actually a tractor-turned-battle-tank' fluff even valid?

I'd also like an answer to that, honestly; I vaguely remember seeing something about Rhinos being repurposed utility vehicle STC constructs, but I'd never heard that about Leman Russes. Can we get a source?

iirc it was 3rd ed rule book, not sure ill check later once i have the time to dig it out in the morning

Ronin-Sage wrote:Also, is this 'LR is actually a tractor-turned-battle-tank' fluff even valid?

Closest I ever got was the 'Land Crawler' from Epic 40K Swordwind, which was a tank adapted from agricultural vehicles for use in siege regiments more as a cheap effective stopgap. I've never seen any fluff about the Leman Russ actually being a tractor. It's not *impossible* mind - or it may have originally served as a nonmilitary vehicle of some kind (There are the Atlas) but that just underscores the intention to have the Russ hull (like the Chimera hull) be highly adaptable - you can make it into almost anything if you need to, which is a big asset for the Guard to have.

Bear in mind that saying that there might be reasons behind why the LR is how it is is not saying that its the greatest tank ever or even a well designed one. Given equal technology for both sides a LR tank will lose to an M1 Abrams (hell even given slightly better tech it still probably would lose.) but the point is there is a wide range of capabilities that one can build into the Russ, and that leads to differeitng levels of performance. But its far different than just 'good/bad'. I've seen 'whose tank is the best' threads on the Net which go along similar lines here and suffer similar problems, because not everyone builds the same way or to the same priorities or capabilities or accepts the same tradeoffs. Even the almighty M1 Abrams has some pretty hefty flaws in its design that can be a problme other tanks wouldnt neccesarily suffer from)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ronin-Sage wrote:Defending the LR's design and the prominent role of melee combat in 40k in a single thread?

*head explodes*

More like clarifying a poorly defined reference to a particular example/case of close in combat. Again its not saying that Melee combat is approved IRL - but at the same time (and I'm sure people have brought up examples) stuff we do see in 40K sometimes still happens IRL. Alot of it stems from circumstance.

Didn't a UN building get stormed the other year by a load of guys with no fire arms? From what I remember they pretty much killed everyone sadly. I guess theres a big psycalogical effect of a dude running at you from the other side of the room with a sword

Leman Russ - A good design.

I want to put forward a different opinion. With exception of one feature the Leman Russ is a good design. Sure there are problems with hull down etc because of ites height but I do not count this amongst the downsides as there are corresponding benefits but I will start with the negative feature:

There is nowhere for the breech block. The Commanders hatch is right behind the barrel leaving no recoil length and frankly no breech. GW might have noticed if their tank commander figures actually had lower boedies and legs, but as they dont they can slump like an ornament right above the main gun.
As a note there is no room for a loader either so the battlecannon must be a semi automatic weapon fed from a hopper below the gun breech. I suppose this is possible.

My take is that the commanders hatch is actually an escape hatch, and the heavy stubber and searchlight are wire controlled from inside the tank. I moved mine from the hatch ring to avoid confusion. I could see the commander also being main gunner.



Ok this aside why is the Leman Russ a good design.

1. High block profile. Yes this means no hull down, but it also means that the box like tank is easy to store in laagers or on ships and the large slab sides allow for sponsons. The additional height means its harder to go hull down, but also means far superior gun depression. If crersted on a hilltop a Leman Russ can look straight down the slope, especially with the front lascannon. A modern tank will have difficulties with that.

2. External track assembly. Second major benefit, so long as track guards are in place. The Leman Russ does not expose its road wheels the hull extends right to the ground. With regards to mechanical efficiency its not, which is why we don't build tanks like this anymore, not since the 20's. However the Imperium doesn't suffer energy shortages due to the level of tech they have, high powered batteries for laser weaponry is commonplace so the extra energy needed for this type of transmission is chump change. For this reason the Leman Russ doesnt need conventional transmission either it can work with fully electric transmission. a belching engine is needed to generate electricity for the lascannon and transmission not for driving a camshaft.

3. More Dakka. You get four major gun systems on a Russ turret and three restricted arc hardpoints, with room for three gunners behind them. The weapons systems are quite disparate, at a default an anti-tank laser and two heavy machine guns. Not bad really. The only thing missing is AAA and you get the Hydra for that. Between the Russ Hydra and Basilisk and a handful of specialist siege vehicles the Imperium does a solid job of providing a credible armoured threat.

4. Keep it simple. Laser weaponry is complex but thats all standard subcomponentry. The tank itself is made of slabs of metal put together with nuts and bolts. Easy to assemble, easy to salvage bits for another tank.

5. Superior movement profile. Here is where you get the main payoff for the Russ shape. The Russ is an all terrain engine. Let us compare with obsolete designed like the Abrams and Challenger 2. A good modern battle tank will be able to cross a two and a half metre trench or scale a metre high verticle obstacle. Pretty good yes, thats the advantage of tracks.. Actually figures for an Abrams are 274cm unsupported horizontal traverse and 120cm verticle traverse, the Challenger is similar.
But when ity comes to traversing trenches and verticle obstacles do you know which is the best tank in the world. Its been on this thread already.
Its this one:



The mk1 from the first world war can cross verticle obstacles better than any subsequent design, because of its track arrangement. IIRC the Mk1 had a verticle traverse of 9ft a modern tank will be lucky to traverse 4ft! Now the Mk1 is longer than a Russ but even so part of the benefits will be there, verticle traverse will be superior and probably by a considerable margin compared to a conventional track design.

The Leman Russ copies this success, and laughs off the mechanical efficiency problems of the design with electric transmission and energy technologies greatly in advance of our own. The mechanical efficiency of the design is ignored, the physical capability is wanted, so the Imperium uses it.

It may have been an accident, but I think GW got it right with the Russ. All it needs is a turret redesign with offset command cupola.

Sigh. You guys are like officers arguing that pilots don't need pistols.

I chose assault terminators as an example because the troop has an obivious flaw that could be easily corrected.
If everything goes according to the plan assault terminators don't need any long range weapons. However theres the fog of war. Sure against an poorly equipped enemy something going wrong is not much of an problem. But when planning your troop organization and tactics in general. You shouldn't count on enemy weakness.

What if the land raider gets shot before the dismount point or the drop pod gets shot and lands at an unfavorable position or the target has an jamming beacon messing with the teleport? They don't have the option of using fire and movement or engaging in an fire fight.
What if the corridor they have to pass through has melta mines with an directed effect and two lascannons on the other side?
What if they are fighting in an large engine room when suddenly two terminators fall dead on the floor and the rest of the squad realises that there are snipers on the upper levels armed with weapons that penetrate their armor?

Not to mention that installing the ranged weapons properly would make them function as CC weapons as well. Like think about two laspistols they can fire without using their hands installed on their helmets.

Safor wrote:Sigh. You guys are like officers arguing that pilots don't need pistols.

I chose assault terminators as an example because the troop has an obivious flaw that could be easily corrected.
If everything goes according to the plan assault terminators don't need any long range weapons. However theres the fog of war. Sure against an poorly equipped enemy something going wrong is not much of an problem. But when planning your troop organization and tactics in general. You shouldn't count on enemy weakness.

What if the land raider gets shot before the dismount point or the drop pod gets shot and lands at an unfavorable position or the target has an jamming beacon messing with the teleport? They don't have the option of using fire and movement or engaging in an fire fight.
What if the corridor they have to pass through has melta mines with an directed effect and two lascannons on the other side?
What if they are fighting in an large engine room when suddenly two terminators fall dead on the floor and the rest of the squad realises that there are snipers on the upper levels armed with weapons that penetrate their armor?

Not to mention that installing the ranged weapons properly would make them function as CC weapons as well. Like think about two laspistols they can fire without using their hands installed on their helmets.

Well it's possible to think of "what ifs" and potential scenarios until the cows come home. But any marine commander worth his salt knows that using such a highly specialised unit is a calculated risk. Basically, there could be any number of anti-terminator mines in a corridor, with remote lascannon turrets and a tripwire that pulls the pin off a vortex grenade. Any of those would be lethal to a terminator of any description, but nor would giving them stormbolters make any difference. Assault terminators have a set role, which they perform very well when deployed with care.

As to vehicles being destroyed or similar, well, that's just a fact of warfare really, there is no way even a tactical genius (CREEEEED!) can plan for every possible eventuality. Sure, the assault terminators could be given a ranged weapon without much compromise on their effectiveness, but on the other hand, if the tactical situation calls for it, why not go all out?

Safor wrote:Sigh. You guys are like officers arguing that pilots don't need pistols.

I chose assault terminators as an example because the troop has an obivious flaw that could be easily corrected.
If everything goes according to the plan assault terminators don't need any long range weapons. However theres the fog of war. Sure against an poorly equipped enemy something going wrong is not much of an problem. But when planning your troop organization and tactics in general. You shouldn't count on enemy weakness.

What if the land raider gets shot before the dismount point or the drop pod gets shot and lands at an unfavorable position or the target has an jamming beacon messing with the teleport? They don't have the option of using fire and movement or engaging in an fire fight.
What if the corridor they have to pass through has melta mines with an directed effect and two lascannons on the other side?
What if they are fighting in an large engine room when suddenly two terminators fall dead on the floor and the rest of the squad realises that there are snipers on the upper levels armed with weapons that penetrate their armor?

Not to mention that installing the ranged weapons properly would make them function as CC weapons as well. Like think about two laspistols they can fire without using their hands installed on their helmets.

See, this is what's wrong. Assault Terminators DO NOT have an obvious flaw that could be easily corrected. They simply have a highly specific, specialized use.

Have you noticed that there is in fact a unit that does exactly what you're talking about? Tactical Terminators. Powerful close-combat weapon, powerful ranged weapon, heavy support weapons in the squad. They are the generalist. If you need to clear a hive, you mostly use them. In most ASSAULTS, you use them. And please remember, these are the EXACT SAME GUYS as your Assault Terminators, they just left their hammers in the armory that day because their particular mission didn't call for them.

You deploy a Terminator Assault squad when you need THOSE PARTICULAR SKILLS, and you use them for THOSE PARTICULAR MISSIONS which require, or will benefit from, the application of overwhelming destructive power at close-combat range. If the mission doesn't call for that, then what you do is, you leave the thunder hammers and storm shields hanging on the wall, and go in with storm bolters instead.

Are there plenty of situations in which they won't work well? Oh, absolutely. Of course, exactly the same is true of, for instance, helicopters. Or tanks. Oh, no, of course you shouldn't bring TANKS to a war; what if your enemy is in a built-up urban environment, where the tanks can easily be ambushed and can't use their long-range weapons to good advantage? Well. . . then you use something ELSE, and use the tanks to do what they're good at.

You appear to be under the impression that specialization is a weakness. That simply is not true, particularly when you're talking about an elite, self-sufficient strike force like Space Marines.

BeRzErKeR wrote:Please remember, Space Marines simply do not fight in battles where they don't have tactical control. When a Space Marine force deploys, 99% of the time they have orbital superiority, near-perfect information about their target, a specific objective to accomplish, and the massive advantage of overwhelming speed and surprise. For their style of warfare, a high degree of specialization is EXACTLY what is called for.

Personally I wouldn't disagree that there are improvements to be made. And interestingly, in the fluff and other 40k based games you often don't see them deployed in assault squads as they are in the tabletop. Look at the various iterations of space hulk. You have a few CC experts thrown in with a more generalist squad. You shouldn't take the tabletop rules as the definitive guide on how 40k warfare is waged. For many factions (SM, Eldar, IG) they actually function very differently from their tabletop incarnations. But the game needs to be 'fair and balanced', at least for a given definition.

People are just trying to point out there is a reason various things exist, assault troops included, and in many circumstances their use makes sense, though not necessarily in the way you are forced to deploy them on the tabletop. Heavily armed CC units with little to no ranged weaponry has it's uses, and when applied correctly can be very useful. They are specialist units, not generalists, we can see in the fluff they typically are not deployed the way they are on the tabletop.

And, again, yes there is room for improvements, but that is even true of todays militaries. Militaries, by their nature, are hidebound traditionalists. For example, m-16 was junk for the first 10-15 years of its service. It was originally a great weapon utilizing, if I remember correctly, a low spin round driven by a certain type of powder that would tumble upon hitting the target, and was extremely reliable. When the Army got their hands on it they insisted on increasing the rotation and changing the powder to better match traditional weapon design, which transformed it from a reliable gun with high stopping powder to a finicky piece of crap that would wont enemies without putting them down. It took twenty years for the US army to fix the problems they introduced, and they are still working on it today.

No one disagrees that there is room for improvement, they are just trying to point out things aren't nearly as farfetched as some make them out to be, and there is internally consistent reasons things are the way they are.

I thought we were talking about tanks?
As much as i love them, Russ's wouldn't make much sense IRL.
But it's not real life, so they are unstoppab- well, they do die every now and then, don't they? So, Stoppable killing machines.

Remember that the Lemun Russ model doesn't have the proper dimensions.


It is actualy a little longer and wider with the gun being the same size with a larger turret.

This will lead to an overall flattening of its profile, which will give it a better slope to its armor plating.

Combine this with super space armor for it being a semi-practical vehicle.

Uller II wrote:I thought we were talking about tanks?
As much as i love them, Russ's wouldn't make much sense IRL.
But it's not real life, so they are unstoppab- well, they do die every now and then, don't they? So, Stoppable killing machines.

But as has been brought up numerous times, it DOES make sense for the IG's method of warfare. They aren't necessarily the best possible design, but they are a good design. They fit the IG's battle paradigm perfectly: easily maintainable, easily reparable, all terrain, and they work well in formation. Their main drawback, the crew being especially vulnerable due to a high profile and bad deflection surfaces, really anymore of a drawback to IG than modern tanks lackluster performance at traversing trenches compared to WWI tank designs. It isn't a drawback if you just don't care.

We don't care about trench warfare. The IG doesn't care about crew survival. They care than it can be easily patched up and new crew stuffed inside. Which the LR's design accomplishes quite well.

Or the best tank design ever, is my response

Safor wrote:Sigh. You guys are like officers arguing that pilots don't need pistols.

It's more like a bunch of people arguing the usefulness of a chocolate teapot.

The Leman Russ has been designed by a group of miniature designers with the chief aims of producing a model whuch can be easily cast moulded, assembled, painted and look good enough on the shelf to sell. Qualifying or disqualifying it's usefulness as an actual tank is therefore floored on the base of it. Most positives and negatives in said arguments will be purely coincidental to the inspiration of the model.

...though I'm sure that wont stop you.

Yes, obviously they are incidental, that is almost always the case when discussing fluff. That doesn't negate it's value as an intellectual excersize or as entertainment.

Why bother coming to a fluff board if you are just going to take the stance "because they wrote it that way" on everything?

And that is one of the worst comparisons I have ever heard. I mean, I get you are trying to say its silly, but the comparison itself makes no sense. You in fact could discuss the benefits of creating a teapot from chocolate, likely discussing the merits of the material and comparing the drawbacks of the low melting point to whatever other benifits you could come up with, likely coming to the conclusion chocolate is a substandard construction material for the heating of liquids, but may have utility in novelty situations (milk tea parties with edible cookware).

I'm not sure how that is anything like discussing the ramifications and justifications of vehicle design in a fictional universe.

You in fact could discuss the benefits of creating a teapot from chocolate, likely discussing the merits of the material and comparing the drawbacks of the low melting point to whatever other benifits you could come up with, likely coming to the conclusion chocolate is a substandard construction material for the heating of liquids, but may have utility in novelty situations (milk tea parties with edible cookware).

I applaud you riplikash, for actually justifying the existence of a chocolate teapot within one short paragraph - thereby rendering one of my favourite expressions moot...

Well played Sir! Well played!

riplikash wrote:Yes, obviously they are incidental, that is almost always the case when discussing fluff. That doesn't negate it's value as an intellectual excersize or as entertainment.

Why bother coming to a fluff board if you are just going to take the stance "because they wrote it that way" on everything?

And that is one of the worst comparisons I have ever heard. I mean, I get you are trying to say its silly, but the comparison itself makes no sense. You in fact could discuss the benefits of creating a teapot from chocolate, likely discussing the merits of the material and comparing the drawbacks of the low melting point to whatever other benifits you could come up with, likely coming to the conclusion chocolate is a substandard construction material for the heating of liquids, but may have utility in novelty situations (milk tea parties with edible cookware).

I'm not sure how that is anything like discussing the ramifications and justifications of vehicle design in a fictional universe.

You can't liken what I just said to: "because they wrote it that way". I don't believe fluff arguments are pointless. For example discussing which is the most powerful marine chapter is a perfectly decent topic for discussion. You can reference the written background for things like that. Most of the arguments being made here are only referencing a 1/35th scale model's appearance....which, for the resons I have already said, is not designed to stand up to this sort of scrutiny.

And the "comparison" was more along the lines of if anyone made a chocolate teapot it would probably be for eating rather than holding hot beverages. Like a tank which is made to paint and be moved around a table where dice is thrown is not made for waging war.

And as far as practicality is concerned,

The Lemun Russ is, first and formost, extremely cheap and easy to produce, runs on just about any combustable liquid, has impressive firepower, and is easy to operate and maintain.


It doesn't matter if it has relativly poor sloping on its armor and has the subtlety of an atom bomb, if you throw thousands of them at the enemy they will simply overwhealm them.

Compare them to Shermans in WW2. Those things had horribly sloping and were very difficult to hide behind obsticles. yet it carried a fairly impressive gun for taking on Panzer IVs and Stugs(and could be given better ones for taking out Tigers and Panthers) and there were thousands of them.

"Quantity has a quality all its own" -Joseph Stalin


"Cheap and Good Enough" will always beat "Expensive and No Complaints"

Grey Templar wrote:And as far as practicality is concerned,

The Lemun Russ is, first and formost, extremely cheap and easy to produce, runs on just about any combustable liquid, has impressive firepower, and is easy to operate and maintain.


It doesn't matter if it has relativly poor sloping on its armor and has the subtlety of an atom bomb, if you throw thousands of them at the enemy they will simply overwhealm them.

Compare them to Shermans in WW2. Those things had horribly sloping and were very difficult to hide behind obsticles. yet it carried a fairly impressive gun for taking on Panzer IVs and Stugs(and could be given better ones for taking out Tigers and Panthers) and there were thousands of them.

"Quantity has a quality all its own" -Joseph Stalin


"Cheap and Good Enough" will always beat "Expensive and No Complaints"

Now that I think about it, a sherman basically looks like an anorexic Leman Russ. Although I'd have to argue that they had terrible guns until late in the war. It wasn't unheard of for German tanks to shrug off 30 to 40 Sherman rounds. They literally had to keep shooting the panzers until they fell apart. That said, you can see how this strategy works with IG too. Yeah, their tanks may not be top of the line, but they can bring them in rediculous numbers, they're reliable, have good firepower, and are almost unstoppable in force.

Want to look at the strengths of the Leman Russ? Watch an IG player field between 6 and 9 of them in a 1850 game, and watch the opponent break out in a cold sweat. Yeah, he's going to lose a few, maybe even over half, but they'll take out over half your army with them. Not to mention the pure psychological fear factor these things dish out. They just look imposing. Eldar have the fancy crafted grav tanks, Tau have minimalistic grav tanks, space marines have dumpsters on tracks. What do the IG have? They have a tank that looks for all intensive purposes, like its designed to grind you into the dust. And you know why? Because that's exactly what it's made to do. It's not fancy, it's not some ancestral relic, it's a giant friggin tank made to kill things dead.

Which is the theme behind just about everything in IG. It's not flashy, but it gets the job done.