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.

Wouldn't Bolter-Punisher be decent (maybe even with Pask)? Sure, Vulture is better, but they go into different slots so they don't directly compete. You could even have both.

But I do think GW should seriously nerf IG flyers and veterans. It is sad that clearly the most effective way to play IG resembles some sort of Imperial Navy elite landing team more than traditional Imperial Guard. Tanks and incompetent and expendable guardsmen should be the backbone of the guard, not flyers and veterans.

I think they should seriously buff the other stuff. Instead of ruining a play style because it's good (and vets are the reason I picked guard in the first place) they should actually make the foot horde viable.

They really cannot buff rest of the IG stuff on the level of Vendettas. The codex would be so brokenly OP it would make the Necrons cry.

Well I meant troops, not vehicles. Vendettas are too cheap, no argument there. The fact that vets can take 3 BS4 special weapons is why I love them. Don't really want to change my play style, and vets are a fairly new addition IIRC (I missed 4th ed) so I doubt they'll be gone.
It's more of an equalisation that's needed. Buff the PISs a little, nerf the vets a little.

 Griddlelol wrote:
Well I meant troops, not vehicles. Vendettas are too cheap, no argument there. The fact that vets can take 3 BS4 special weapons is why I love them. Don't really want to change my play style, and vets are a fairly new addition IIRC (I missed 4th ed) so I doubt they'll be gone.
It's more of an equalisation that's needed. Buff the PISs a little, nerf the vets a little.

I don't get why they're troops. Veterans are obviously elites. Other armies at least need a tax character to move their elites into troops.

 Crimson wrote:

 Griddlelol wrote:
Well I meant troops, not vehicles. Vendettas are too cheap, no argument there. The fact that vets can take 3 BS4 special weapons is why I love them. Don't really want to change my play style, and vets are a fairly new addition IIRC (I missed 4th ed) so I doubt they'll be gone.
It's more of an equalisation that's needed. Buff the PISs a little, nerf the vets a little.

I don't get why they're troops. Veterans are obviously elites. Other armies at least need a tax character to move their elites into troops.

Yep, those damn elites that fall over just as easy as any other stinkin' guardsman.

Why should they be elites? They're not different from normal guardsmen, except they've survived more than a couple of fights.
If you lose vets as troops, then there's one choice: platoons (or the pseudo-PIS that is a penal legion squad - but why should I be forced to use a bunch of criminals in my army?)

Why are Sternguard Elites? They die just as easily as normal tacticals.

I suppose the special ammunition, increased leadership, increased attacks and combi-weapons for all that has something to do with it.

Comparing sternguard and tacs to vets and platoons is pretty silly (but so was the previous poster's argument).

 Crimson wrote:
Why are Sternguard Elites? They die just as easily as normal tacticals.

Sternguard have Special Ammo, higher leadership, better at CQC, everyone can take special weapons, etc.

The only thing the vets have that normal PIS don't have is BS4 and 3 Special weapons instead of 1. That's it.

Also an important point that I forgot to mention: imperial guard should rely on troops. If vets were elites then you'd see people taking the absolute minimum amount of troops with the elite, HS and FA slots doing all the hard work.
That's not how the imperial guard should be organised. The troops must be attractive, or you'll start seeing the elite fighting forces that you're so against.

[quote=Griddlelol .elites then you'd see people taking the absolute minimum amount of troops with the elite, HS and FA slots doing all the hard work.
That's not how the imperial guard should be organized. The troops must be attractive, or you'll start seeing the elite fighting forces that you're so against.

< Taken by the void dragon. >

4 edition codex I thought the last one prior to the one we have now was a weird 3.5 limbo codex. But truthfully I agree wholeheartedly about the doctrines thing gave some uniqueness to each person's regiment.

On the topic of leman russ battle tanks well they still serve a purpose as peregrine has stated, just not a very good one. The punisher with the anti-tank sponsons and hull-mount seems like such a waste. It's never been at all effective for me as it tries to to cover to much and the variance in range is silly. If I was going to put lascan/MM on a chasis it would be the exterminator (has worked wonders for me, being a generalist mediocre killing platform). Sure lacks the H20 but the range increment on the main gun meshes a bit better IMHO.

< Taken by the void dragon. >

 Ailaros wrote:

ph34r wrote:It is also extremely slow, short ranged, and all its weapons have different range bands and preferred targets.

But then you do the math. Yes, they're bad against biker nobz, but look at everything else.

Against terminators you have both weight of fire

I know this whole post has been going in circles with this, but I thought I'd join in anyway...

So, Ailaros, you say do the math(s) (I'm English, so I use an "s"), so I will.

Most will agree that competitively it is TH/SS termies or paladins that are seen the most? I'll work for both then.

Paladins-
Ok so 20 shots 4+/3+/1s/1-4s
So 0.74 wounds so far
3 more at 4+/2+/1-4s
So 0.83 more... 1.57 wounds so 1 dead paladin... Hooray.

TH/SS -
20 at 4+/3+/1s
1.11 wounds
3 at 4+/2+/1-2s
So another 0.83 wounds... 1.94 in all, two dead terms.
All assuming you are in range, and have suffered no damage results besides immobilised.

Case closed?

Tactical_Genius wrote:

Case closed?

Not quite. While I agree that those numbers are pretty pathetic. I ran some numbers for an executioner, using the assumption that the hit rate on terminators is 75% (to hit one base) and 20% of those hits would hit 2 bases, while at maximum coherence.

Against assault terminators, I got 1.09 wounds.
Against Paladins, I got 1.8 wounds.

Worse than the punisher with all the trimmings, but still pretty gakky. So I mean; shock horror! Two of the most resilient infantry units are resilient? Never would have guessed.

Compare that to the executioners cost in plasma vets (convenient because they're half the price) at 24" (12"):

Assault terminators: 1.57 (3.14)
Paladins: 2.7 (5.4)

The difference is that plasma vets are clearly a glass cannon and not on an AV:14 frame (also I didn't include the chimera they're likely going to be in). Damaging those two units isn't easy. Once you start comparing them to other things, you see that actually the wounds that the punisher puts out aren't as bad as they seem. However, I'd never take a punisher to do that. Doesn't seem worth it.

As is the LRBT has several issues. As others have noted, the change in Lumbering Behemoth to Heavy has made sponson/hull weapons largely pointless on a Battlecannon russ. On top of that, the Battlecannon isn't stupendously effective as an anti-tank weapon (lacking the rate of fire to take advantage of the hull point weakness and lacking the AP to make good use of the Vehicle Damage Chart), so it's largely there to kill heavy infantry at long ranges. In that role, it's great, but it's not necessarily a critical role, as heavy infantry can oten be engaged safely from medium distances and there's other units that can do the same thing. It also doesn't help that vehicles in general are less effective now in 6th than they were in 5th, but that's not unique to the LRBT.


Others have for some reason espoused the Punisher as a better alternative. I'm do not believe I agree with this, as the Punisher has 1/3rd the range with its primary weapon and isn't exactly particularly stupendous against heavy infantry either, and costs a lot more.

Is the basic LRBT awful? No, just not particularly good. It does one thing well, kill clumped up heavy infantry at long ranges. This has a psychological aspect on more players than it has a functional aspect in many cases, but isn't really something an army *needs* to be effective, and as a result the LRBT ends up being a jack of all-trades-but-good-at-nothing-but-one.

I'll note it again. The basic LRBT is good against every type of infantry in a clump down to a 3+ save which is the vast majority of infantry in the game. It is also effective against bikes of all descriptions as the high weapon strength isn't affected by the toughness bump and its pretty good against light vehicle squadrons with a good strength and 2 dice to penetrate. Squadrons are also pretty hard to miss entirely given the vehicle size and spacing compared to the template size. So to list the things its pretty rubbish at you end up with 2+save infantry, flyers, heavy tanks and monstrous crearures, all of which are typically support and HQ type units rather than the backbone of an army. Of course you get the exceptions like GKs and nidzilla lists, but the whole of the game does not revolve around these armies.

Also the long range gives the player a bit of leeway in terms of target choice allowing a single tank to support any part of your line if needs be. All that for a low low price on a nice robust chassis.

Against paladins, you're causing an average of 1.1 failed armor saves with the punisher cannon, and then .84 with the hull weapons WHICH CAUSE INSTANT DEATH. The most likely result from one round of shooting is a dead paladin and a wounded one. The most likely result from two rounds of shooting is three dead paladins. From just one of your tanks. A pair of these punishers along with a couple of melta mechvet squads can chump a 10-man paladin squad before it has a chance to do anything particularly useful.

As for taking out infantry at range, I agree that it's not the most necessary role, but even in this role, the LRBT still loses out - to the eradicator. The eradicator is straight away better against anything with a 4+, 5+ or 6+ save, because they don't get to make cover saves. The eradicator is also equal to the LRBT against terminators, or anything with a 2+ save because they're just making the armor save.

So, you start with the eradicator being equal to, or better than the LRBT against 84% of the possible armor types, leaving it with only Sv3+. Even here, it's shockingly not much better.

For example, if marines go to ground behind an aegis, the eradicator is actually BETTER than the LRBT, because it forces the marines to use their armor saves. Against marines that have gone to ground in ruins, the two are exactly the same. Against marines who are just regularly behind an aegis or in ruins, the two are equal.

That means that the LRBT is only better against 1/6th of the armor types in 1/3rd of the cover saves possible. Yes, not all armor and cover saves are equally likely to be present, but still, this is a pretty narrow range where the LRBT is better AT ALL. Add to it the fact that the battlecannon isn't that much better in 5+ cover, and really, you've got a single situation - marines out in the open - that the LRBT does better.

Throw in some displacement (which is easier to do when out in the open), and they're not even all that terribly good at that either.

 Ailaros wrote:


For example, if marines go to ground behind an aegis, the eradicator is actually BETTER than the LRBT, because it forces the marines to use their armor saves. Against marines that have gone to ground in ruins, the two are exactly the same. Against marines who are just regularly behind an aegis or in ruins, the two are equal.

This isn't really fair. The Eradicator wouldn't force the marines to GTG whereas the LRBT would, meaning that they'd at least have to snap fire the next turn.

Fine, but they COULD be shot at by something else that would make them go to ground, so it's not a completely impossible scenario.

And, wait, doesn't ATSKNF basically cancel all of the penalties of going to ground anyways?

 Ailaros wrote:
Against paladins, you're causing an average of 1.1 failed armor saves with the punisher cannon, and then .84 with the hull weapons WHICH CAUSE INSTANT DEATH. The most likely result from one round of shooting is a dead paladin and a wounded one. The most likely result from two rounds of shooting is three dead paladins. From just one of your tanks. A pair of these punishers along with a couple of melta mechvet squads can chump a 10-man paladin squad before it has a chance to do anything particularly useful.

Well I should hope so given that a pair of Punishers and a couple melta vet Chimeras is over 750 points...

Also, those numbers are pathetic. A Vendetta does 1.25 wounds, all instant death, to paladins, for 130 points. Adjust that to compensate for the Vendetta's much cheaper price tag and the Vendetta is doing 2.16 wounds, all instant death. And of course the LR Demolisher is even better, but I know you'll just find a way to make the math "prove" that the demolisher cannon only hits 0.5 paladins every time it fires.

So, you start with the eradicator being equal to, or better than the LRBT against 84% of the possible armor types, leaving it with only Sv3+.

That's absolute nonsense. Calling it 84% of the possible armor types is incredibly misleading because not all armor types are equally common. 3+ armor saves might only be one of six possible types, but they can easily make up half the potential targets (or more) since marines are by far the most common army.

Add to it the fact that the battlecannon isn't that much better in 5+ cover, and really, you've got a single situation - marines out in the open - that the LRBT does better.

Err, lol? In what bizarre world is "twice as likely to fail a save" considered "not that much better"?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ailaros wrote:
And, wait, doesn't ATSKNF basically cancel all of the penalties of going to ground anyways?

No.

 Ailaros wrote:

And, wait, doesn't ATSKNF basically cancel all of the penalties of going to ground anyways?

This has caused a few arguments at my FLGS. GTG has nothing about "regrouping" so I don't see why it would be affected by ATSKNF. Some people house rule it to the SM can do everything normally but must snap shoot, but I've always pushed that as there is no regrouping and no tests to pass, ATSKNF has no interaction with GTG.

 Griddlelol wrote:
This has caused a few arguments at my FLGS. GTG has nothing about "regrouping" so I don't see why it would be affected by ATSKNF. Some people house rule it to the SM can do everything normally but must snap shoot, but I've always pushed that as there is no regrouping and no tests to pass, ATSKNF has no interaction with GTG.

Yeah, those people are just cheating. There's absolutely nothing in ATSKNF that has anything to do with going to ground, so that house rule is just another bit of "my army needs to be overpowered" nonsense and should be ignored just like everyone who wants a "house rule" that lasguns are STR 10 AP 1.

 Peregrine wrote:

There's absolutely nothing in ATSKNF that has anything to do with going to ground

I don't think they're cheating, they're just not very bright. It's barely worth arguing rules because I just get the same incorrect arguments back. They can GTG and move 9" if it keeps the peace.

But yeah, ATSKNF has no interaction with GTG.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Ailaros wrote:
Against paladins, you're causing an average of 1.1 failed armor saves with the punisher cannon, and then .84 with the hull weapons WHICH CAUSE INSTANT DEATH. The most likely result from one round of shooting is a dead paladin and a wounded one. The most likely result from two rounds of shooting is three dead paladins. From just one of your tanks. A pair of these punishers along with a couple of melta mechvet squads can chump a 10-man paladin squad before it has a chance to do anything particularly useful.

Well I should hope so given that a pair of Punishers and a couple melta vet Chimeras is over 750 points

And that's before you factor in a couple of things...

1) no intelligent paladins player is going to footslog, which means those paladins will land right next to you, and psycannon the hell out of at least one punisher.

2) those "instant death"s have a 50/50 chance to be look out sir-ed onto a guy with one wound left anyway, so it's more like 2 dead paladins in 2 turns per tank.

3) the executioner stats are in no way believable, primarily because very rarely will you see maximum dispersion of units, particularly units that tend to be deep striked.

Peregrine wrote:Well I should hope so given that a pair of Punishers and a couple melta vet Chimeras is over 750 points.

750 points which can wipe out 10-man paladin squads and also be good against everything else in the game.

Tactical_Genius wrote:no intelligent paladins player is going to footslog, which means those paladins will land right next to you, and psycannon the he'll out of at least one punisher.

I would love for a draigowing player to spend half the game off the board and then run a serious chance of mishapping with a 10-man paladin squad. All so that he could go fishing for what is likely only a single rending result which the tanks can easily survive.

Tactical_Genius wrote:those "instant death"s have a 50/50 chance to be look out sir-ed onto a guy with one wound left anyway, so it's more like 2 dead paladins in 2 turns per tank.

Paladins aren't characters.

 Ailaros wrote:

Tactical_Genius wrote:those "instant death"s have a 50/50 chance to be look out sir-ed onto a guy with one wound left anyway, so it's more like 2 dead paladins in 2 turns per tank.

Paladins aren't characters.

Wrong.

Yes they are.

If you check their unit type in the appendix of the BRB it says I (Ch) - or infantry (character).

I played grey knights for a long time...

You haven't played since the FAQ that made them not characters, apparently.