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.

Why I ask is because I have a friend starting ig, and was thinking of going mech. Does 9 russes even work? Any one used this to success? And if so what type is best to use?
Thanks guys

It has its negatives but yes. I fielded 6 standard with no sponsons and 3 demolishers. Its entertaining to say the least the first time you do it. I don't know how effective it would be in a tourney as mine were just fun games fielded because I could. With the leftover points I fielded all the basic infantry I could and some heavy weapon teams. to fill in the gaps between tanks. Note this was last edition. The second fight was sheer chaos and pandemonium as they played a tailored drop pod list and I bubble wrapped everything. Was a blast to see all the explosions

I haven't ever myself. The main problem with doing this is carrier cost. You have to pay 150+ points for the amount of killing power you find in a 60+ point HWS. That's just not enough killing power per point. Thankfully, you can fix this problem with a number of great hull weapons, but that makes the tank more expensive.

Properly outfitted, a russ will cost you, at bare minimum, 195 points, but can easily get more expensive than that. If we take 210 as the average for a russ, then 9 russes costs 1890 points, which means, with using properly upgraded minimum troops, you need to play games of at least 2270 points.

I've never played a game that big, so I haven't played 9 russes. For a few months, all of my games were played with 5 russes, and, honestly, I was already starting to get the feeling that I was overinvesting in russes. Once you get to the point where there's no possible way that your opponent can handle the amount of AV14 you're bringing, then bringing more is sort of a waste.

Would be cool to see, though.

My Dark Eldar Lances would love to see this!

 Ailaros wrote:
I haven't ever myself. The main problem with doing this is carrier cost. You have to pay 150+ points for the amount of killing power you find in a 60+ point HWS. That's just not enough killing power per point. Thankfully, you can fix this problem with a number of great hull weapons, but that makes the tank more expensive.

Properly outfitted, a russ will cost you, at bare minimum, 195 points, but can easily get more expensive than that. If we take 210 as the average for a russ, then 9 russes costs 1890 points, which means, with using properly upgraded minimum troops, you need to play games of at least 2270 points.

I've never played a game that big, so I haven't played 9 russes. For a few months, all of my games were played with 5 russes, and, honestly, I was already starting to get the feeling that I was overinvesting in russes. Once you get to the point where there's no possible way that your opponent can handle the amount of AV14 you're bringing, then bringing more is sort of a waste.

Would be cool to see, though.

thats true, i was juse able to glance at the codex and saw the bare minimum points. What upgrades/type of leman russ would be recommended (9 idea is kind of gone)

Hull lascannon and sponson multimeltas or plasma cannons, depending on local meta and cost concerns.

I could maybe see a hull lascannon and sponson heavy bolters, but that would be extremely meta-dependent, as heavy bolters don't have the oomph to kill very much these days. It's the same reason I wouldn't bother with a hull heavy bolter when you can get a lascannon at such a good price, relative to the durability of the carrier.

Definitely no to heavy flamers, though. You'll never get to fire them on a slow tank like a russ, and even, if by some miracle, you do, you're not going to get to fire both of them at the same time.

Yep, 1 guy used 6 leman russes on a tourney with nice results.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/571419.page#6399573

In apoc I had used the Emperors Fist tank company , nothing like 10 leman russes laying down some awesome firepower!

But in standard games Ive used I think 6-7 at one time I think?

Lately I havent been using as many russes as Ive found the fully kitted out ones can really throw down some killing power.

Cost is the reason I personally fielded no upgrades. Bare 165 pt tanks was enough. AV14 target saturation was enough, especially the first game. The chump basic troops did their job as well stopping drop pods from landing in bad locations on the sides.

I have but as Ailros states you don't have the firepower or scoring to win most games. You just sort of kill stuff and don't get killed.

if you want to run something like this you should really use the ABG list in Imperial Armour 1 second edition. You can take special upgrades for the tanks, HQ tanks, and the tanks as individual units in your troops slots. This helps considerably and makes it so your only failing is the almost utter lack of scoring units and somewhat soft AA abilities.

I suppose the problem with that, though, is that if you're going to have to add a couple of small scoring units in chimeras to get some scoring, then you're not, structurally, better off than taking a few small scoring units and a bunch of tanks from the guard codex itself.

The only thing a no-scoring ABG gets you is a funsies list that lets you play with forgeworld fromage.

 Ailaros wrote:
The only thing a no-scoring ABG gets you is a funsies list that lets you play with forgeworld fromage.

Do you ever stop whining? I mean, you just simultaneously claimed that the ABG list doesn't offer you very much and is "forgeworld cheese".

 Peregrine wrote:

 Ailaros wrote:
The only thing a no-scoring ABG gets you is a funsies list that lets you play with forgeworld fromage.

Do you ever stop whining? I mean, you just simultaneously claimed that the ABG list doesn't offer you very much and is "forgeworld cheese".

Do you ever think about what an uptight git you're being before you post? Seriously, the guy makes one comment and you feel the need to spit your worthless bile all over.

In fact, you're just being a huge hypocrit. Oh no, some articles of paper have been insulted. Great arduous calamity.

_______________________________________________________

9 barebones Leman Russes at 1850 is possible, but nothing something I'd suggest at all. You'd auto-lose or have stalemates pretty frequently I'd imagine, and its neither going to be fun to play or fun to play against.

I'd use max 4 at 1850 if you wanted to be competitive so the rest of the elements in your army aren't adversely affected. Executioners are probably the best generalists being effective against anything other vehicles, Exterminators and Demolishers being tied for second place TAC effectiveness. The former isn't so great against heavy infantry/MC's but pretty good for its cost against everything else, while the Demolisher sucks at killing/shaving MC's but is otherwise great.

The most I've used is 6, and it was quite fun. I took a mix of Demolishers, Exterminators, and Eradicators, but I reckon Executioners are up there with them.

If you put that many points into these tanks, you better have some other points protecting them (quality AA, bubble wrap).

As someone else mentioned, do yourself a favor and run an ABG. Ally in IG for scoring, or more flyers.

There are a few places the ABG list helps to make this sort of list functional in actual games. The biggest of which is that it allows them to be independent units. This is absolutely huge as squadrons of 3 leman russ' are pretty unwieldy.

Any more that 5+ leman russ' should really have some forewarning for the opponent and some careful though about how to make it fun. Games where it is not well thought out are usually games where the players hide from each other and do very little actual "playing". They tend to be either frustrating or boring unless both players know what they are getting into.

 Mr.Omega wrote:
Seriously, the guy makes one comment and you feel the need to spit your worthless bile all over.

No, this is just more of his habit of whining about "forgeworld cheese" because people who don't play codex-only 40k aren't playing the game the way he wants them to play it. And so everything FW publishes is "cheese", even when it's something as weak as the ABG list.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ansacs wrote:
Any more that 5+ leman russ' should really have some forewarning for the opponent and some careful though about how to make it fun.

Well, depends on your metagame. If you play against a bunch of "casual" players with random battleforce lists then yeah, you'd better give them some advance warning that you're going to have a lot of tanks (whether ABG or just a codex list). If you play against people who regularly bring top-tier tournament lists then no, you don't need to give them any warning. Unless of course you'd like to ask them to bring a less powerful list so that you at least have a chance.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Ailaros wrote:
The only thing a no-scoring ABG gets you is a funsies list that lets you play with forgeworld fromage.

Do you ever stop whining? I mean, you just simultaneously claimed that the ABG list doesn't offer you very much and is "forgeworld cheese".

Vendettas are simultaneously cheesy and worthless as well. This is nothing new.

8 Russ's but that was a forge world armored company list. the thing is in the current rules tanks are a bit iffy as there way to easy to kill. especially with all the grav guns marines get in there new codex. but well the look when all your russ main guns table your friends army turn one can be epic.

 brochtree wrote:
8 Russ's but that was a forge world armored company list. the thing is in the current rules tanks are a bit iffy as there way to easy to kill. especially with all the grav guns marines get in there new codex. but well the look when all your russ main guns table your friends army turn one can be epic.

If you have a handful of brain cells its far from easy for your opponent to kill your Russes. I follow 4 rules and I rarely lose mine, typically to atrocious luck as well.

1) Never give your opponent your side armour. If its impossible to avoid it, give the side armour infantry bubble wrap for a 5+ cover. Put two LR's together side by side to make it harder for him to flank and get the side armour.

2) If your opponent has an overwhelming alpha strike including AT that is reliable, you probably should not put your tanks on the field in deployment.

3) Always try to grab the 5+ cover from 25% obstruction in LOS or by bubble wrapping tanks with infantry.

4) Never put your tank within melta/charge threat range distance.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Mr.Omega wrote:
Seriously, the guy makes one comment and you feel the need to spit your worthless bile all over.

No, this is just more of his habit of whining about "forgeworld cheese" because people who don't play codex-only 40k aren't playing the game the way he wants them to play it.

This is just more of your habit of whining about Forgeworld objections because people who don't play FW rules aren't playing the game the way you want them to play it.

I would definitely agree that AV14 tanks that can fire across a board are not flimsy in any way. HP in many ways benefited Leman Russ' as before you could be stun locked by lascannons or long fangs relatively reliably. Now it is very hard to stun lock a leman russ.

Additionally if your tanks are in melta range or charged your army is probably decimated anyways.

Now if we are talking about short range leman russ' and they are not thoroughly bubble wrapped then that is a basic strategy or list building problem.

Yeah, which was my problem with russ spam.

I played several games in a row where my army got completely slaughtered, except all of my russes were still on the table, practically unhurt. It definitely caused this nagging doubt that perhaps I don't need that many russes, especially if I could put those points into making it so that they weren't nearly the only survivors at the end of the game...

Its an interesting thing to think that hull points made high-AV less necessary, rather than more.

 Ailaros wrote:
Yeah, which was my problem with russ spam.

I played several games in a row where my army got completely slaughtered, except all of my russes were still on the table, practically unhurt. It definitely caused this nagging doubt that perhaps I don't need that many russes, especially if I could put those points into making it so that they weren't nearly the only survivors at the end of the game...

Its an interesting thing to think that hull points made high-AV less necessary, rather than more.

In some ways I agree with what you're saying - why worry about getting glanced if all you're losing is a hull point?

There's definitely a sweet spot though...Kanz get roflstomped in 6th edition due to the low number of hull points (2), whereas they used to be able to abuse the squadron rules and laugh off glancing hits.

What we probably have nowadays is a tradeoff of sorts where low AV leaves you more vulnerable to getting glanced to death by the ubiquitous S6 and S7 spam, but you are simultaneously less susceptible to stunlocking. This is probably the biggest deal with AV12 and AV13 since AV11 and below generally gets penetrated fairly easily.

 Ailaros wrote:
Hull lascannon and sponson multimeltas or plasma cannons, depending on local meta and cost concerns.

I could maybe see a hull lascannon and sponson heavy bolters, but that would be extremely meta-dependent, as heavy bolters don't have the oomph to kill very much these days. It's the same reason I wouldn't bother with a hull heavy bolter when you can get a lascannon at such a good price, relative to the durability of the carrier.

Definitely no to heavy flamers, though. You'll never get to fire them on a slow tank like a russ, and even, if by some miracle, you do, you're not going to get to fire both of them at the same time.

This really depends on what kind of russ you are running. Sticking a lascannon and HBs on a standard tank is a waste, as they will only ever be firing snapshots due to the ordnance rule. I would run them base, as the battlecannon is what you are buying them for.

The non-ordnance tanks have a much more freedom when it comes to making efficient equipment choices, as they get to fire all the weapons with equal efficiency. A vanquisher with pask might well be served by getting a lascannon and maybe plasma cannons.
An executioner also benefits from extra plasma sponsons, whereas the exterminator and punisher work very well by adding more HBs and heavy stubbers.

Rule of thumb: if its got ordnance, leave the extras off. If not, then stick more guns on it.

Well yeah, but that's assuming that you're taking ordnance russes... which...

... why?

 Ailaros wrote:
Well yeah, but that's assuming that you're taking ordnance russes... which...

... why?

Because demolisher cannons are cheap and effective.

I have done super large apoc battles of 18 plus leman russes with bassies and griffons. I couldn't hold any objectives but I did do a ton of damage from the back.

 Ailaros wrote:
Well yeah, but that's assuming that you're taking ordnance russes... which...

... why?

Well you didn't say this before. I agree with the above poster though, demolishers can be fun. Standard leman russes can be cheap (although of course their damage output can be much exceeded by using artillery).

OP: Overall I like the executioner the most, for its plasma cannon spam.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Ailaros wrote:
Well yeah, but that's assuming that you're taking ordnance russes... which...

... why?

Because demolisher cannons are cheap and effective.

Quite. And if you want to save 25 points, you can drop the heavy bolter and the lumbering behemoth rule, then mount the demolisher cannon on the hull instead of the turret. Then you call it a Thunderer.

Whether that's a good idea will vary from circumstance to circumstance. I like doing it, but there's many good reasons not to.

Big Blind Bill wrote:Well you didn't say this before.

Oh, sorry. It was implied.

Big Blind Bill wrote:demolishers can be fun. Standard leman russes can be cheap

Certainly. If only either could be effective. A 6" move tank with a 24" gun would be forgivable (like in the case of the punisher) if it weren't for just how awful large blast weapons are. It's also so sad to see just how bad battlecannons are.

 Ailaros wrote:
A 6" move tank with a 24" gun would be forgivable (like in the case of the punisher) if it weren't for just how awful large blast weapons are.

Once again I'm not sure if you're playing the same game as the rest of us. Yes, you can space out to avoid the worst damage from blast weapons but you tend to shoot demolisher cannons at vehicles (where spacing is irrelevant and large blasts are very accurate) or elite infantry (where even if you only hit three models you're still doing plenty of damage). Try not to get confused and think too much about the problems with small blasts.