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.

Large blast markers may have disadvantages, but there are some advantages as well:

- The Enemy may spread out to lower the amount of models that can be hit. However, doing this also lowers the chances of missing completely. You may only get three models, but you have a good chance of hitting those three models.

- The enemy is forced to spread out. Without blasts and templates, they can bunch right up, making the best use of cover and fire lanes. Blasts can force an enemy to play differently to how they would like to, which is a good thing.

- There are occasions when the enemy is forced to bunch up; such as moving through a terrain gap, disembarking from a destroyed vehicle or after a poor consolidation roll.

Of course, like anything in 40k, there are many good and bad sides to large blast markers. However, they are not completely worthless and do make up a useful part of a force's tool kit.

1.) Yeah, it increases the BS of the firer, so to speak, but the loss in damage is much worse. I would much rather have a 1/3 chance of killing 10 models than a 100% chance to kill 1 model. It's why, in real life, soldiers don't cluster up in the face of artillery fire. Yes, if they formed little wads it does slightly reduce the chance that any particular person will get hit, but it also greatly increases the number of people that are hit when someone is hit.

2.) Yes, it does hurt force concentration (somewhat), but we're talking about the imperial guard here. Even spread out to 1.5" coherency, your opponents are still going to be out-concentrating you. I guess if you were up against another horde army you might actually notice this effect, but a demolisher/battle cannon is a terrible anti-horde weapon.

Also, I'd note that your opponent only needs to bring a single template weapon of any kind to force YOU to spread out, and thus totally negate the advantage of bringing one yourself.

3.) Poor consolidation rolls, sure. Seems a bit iffy, though, because your opponent needs to firstly take the kinds of risks involved in getting into close combat right in front of an in-tact large blast weapons, and then your opponent needs to actually roll badly. And, of course, they have to bring assault units in the first place...

The other two seem like mistakes by an opponent. The new rules for disembarkation are much more generous than the old ones, and I can't see it often coming up where bunching up in front of a demolisher is going to be worth it to possibly avoid a difficult terrain test.

And remember that we're talking about a rules edition where the most common engagement is between units spread out and in cover. In the most common situation where you're going to be fighting, the damage output is abysmal. In the case of ruins, even with a hit, you're looking at hitting roughly one model with your blast template, and then you still have to roll to wound, and they still get cover saves. I don't know if it's ever worth bringing a 165 point tank so that you can drive it close and expose side armor/get into melta/assault range just so you can spend 2 or 3 turns killing a single model.

The damage output is SO poor, that it's dubious as to if the fringe benefits come anywhere close to covering the gap. Especially once you consider the hull weapon problem.

I agree tbh, most of the time blast weapons struggle to earn their points back

(one exception is against soul grinders...big blasts can barely miss the things now. I think I played a game where a vindicator shot scattered 7 inches (roll of an 11) and still managed to hit it!)

Units like vindicators will usually only make their points back if they can get their pie plates over other expensive vehicles, or are facing very elite units (like terminators).

There are plenty of armies that are afraid of demolishers. U're not fighting only taudar, right. Demolishers are threatening av14 quite good, they frighten multi-wound models with t5 or less, they force enemies to spread which is generally a good thing to you.
Demolishers have their uses, but i'd not spam them cause there are also plenty of foes that ain't afraid of demolisher like wave serpents or monstrous creatures. It's just good to have one or two at hand.

 Ailaros wrote:
1.) Yeah, it increases the BS of the firer, so to speak, but the loss in damage is much worse. I would much rather have a 1/3 chance of killing 10 models than a 100% chance to kill 1 model. It's why, in real life, soldiers don't cluster up in the face of artillery fire. Yes, if they formed little wads it does slightly reduce the chance that any particular person will get hit, but it also greatly increases the number of people that are hit when someone is hit.

But we aren't talking about killing 10 models vs. killing 1 model. Remember, a 5" template will hit at least three models if they're at 2" coherency and you hit the center model. So you're talking about a near-100% chance of hitting 2-3 models vs. a 1/3 chance of hitting 4-5 models (since, outside of deep striking, even people who don't consciously make an effort to spread out aren't putting whole squads in base contact) and a non-trivial chance of hitting nothing at all. And demolishers tend to fire at things where killing 2-3 models is enough to justify taking them.

Also, I'd note that your opponent only needs to bring a single template weapon of any kind to force YOU to spread out, and thus totally negate the advantage of bringing one yourself.

Unless you're talking about a vehicle-heavy list. My tanks and aircraft don't care about template weapons, so I keep my advantage.

The new rules for disembarkation are much more generous than the old ones

Not really. The distance is increased to 3" instead of 2", but the model has to be entirely within 3" instead of just touching the 2" line so the end result is pretty much the same. The only way around it is emergency disembarkation if you can't place the models (no option to voluntarily do it just to avoid demolisher cannons), and that cripples the unit for a turn. And of course "explodes" results still do the same thing. End result: getting shot out of a transport still forces squads to blob up in perfect demolisher cannon formation.

and I can't see it often coming up where bunching up in front of a demolisher is going to be worth it to possibly avoid a difficult terrain test.

Ok, fine. Demolishers have a 30" threat range, so that's a pretty big area of the table where enemy units have to take extra difficult terrain tests. That's a pretty nice result from a 165 point unit that hasn't even fired a shot yet.

In the case of ruins, even with a hit, you're looking at hitting roughly one model with your blast template

You do realize that a demolisher cannon uses a large blast template, not a small one, right? Unless you have bizarre situations like a 10-level ruin you're going to have multiple models under the template.

I don't know if it's ever worth bringing a 165 point tank so that you can drive it close and expose side armor/get into melta/assault range just so you can spend 2 or 3 turns killing a single model.

So how exactly is it worth it to bring anything that isn't a cover-ignoring Riptide or Wave Serpent? After all, if the entire game is gunlines camping in ruins then why are we even talking about anything in the IG codex? It's not like your favorite LC/MM Vanquishers are going to be doing much better against infantry in ruins.

Now I've started to realize guard isn't much of a top codex anymore but what would be more effective, using 3 or 4 beefed up russes with sponsons averaging 200+ points a piece or using multiple barebones demolishers and battle tanks? I guess it depends on your list and what your lacking but it seems either way if your going for a good amount of russes you will be lacking in your scoring troops. And not just that but in your support units as well such as anti air units. That also means you will have less guardsmen able to wrap your tanks for protection.

 tankboy145 wrote:
Now I've started to realize guard isn't much of a top codex anymore but what would be more effective, using 3 or 4 beefed up russes with sponsons averaging 200+ points a piece or using multiple barebones demolishers and battle tanks? I guess it depends on your list and what your lacking but it seems either way if your going for a good amount of russes you will be lacking in your scoring troops. And not just that but in your support units as well such as anti air units. That also means you will have less guardsmen able to wrap your tanks for protection.

I use barebones Demolishers and Executioners, maybe with HB's on the latter if I'm lacking in anti-infantry.

I've seriously lost count of the number of the times the double out ability of the Demolisher has come in handy lately (killing a Warboss, Mordrak, and a souped up Necron Overlord in that order in games) and the ability to take a decent crack at killing most vehicles is a nice blessing. Against MC's and smaller heavy infantry formations its usefulness lessens though, which is where the Executioner excels more.

In a TAC environment, the Executioner is the king of the Russes IMHO.

Guardsman bubble wrap isn't what I'd call mandatory, having a defensive mechanized contingent of Vets suits me better as I have a decent counter attack when the enemy close in.

Wow ok theres been allot of responses
My meta is full of mech/lots of tanks, so which russ and loadout is best?

Vanquishers, Melta Sponsons.

Executioners (Big plasma cannon) and Exterminators (Twin TL ACs) sweep up heavy infantry and light infantry respectively. The latter is also fairly good against Flyers in a pinch. Add Pask as needed.

To be fair, we'll be getting a new codex shortly, if rumours are to be believed, so the advice on offer here is of limited time use, at best, for all we know,
Hopefully, LB will make our ordnance Russes useful again. Well, the stock LRBT anyway. The Demolisher is actually alright-ish.

ABG
HQ
Company Command Tank
-Vanquisher, Hull Lascannon, Sponson Mulit-meltas
Company Command Tank
-Eradicator, Heavy Bolter

Troops
Siege Tank Squadron
-1x Demolisher, Hull Heavy Bolter
Siege Tank Squadron
-1x Demolisher, Hull Heavy Bolter
Battle Tank Squadron
-1x Exterminator, Hull Lascannon, Sponson Multi-meltas
Battle Tank Squadron
-1x Exterminator, Hull Lascannon, Sponson Multi-meltas
-Seige Tank Squadron
-1x Executioner, Hull Heavy Bolter

Imperial Guard Allies
HQ
Lord Commissar

Troops
Platoon
-Platoon Command Squad (3x Flamers)
-3x Infantry Squad
-3x Chimera

Fast Attack
Vendetta (carrying the Lord Commissar and Platoon Command Squad)

This is my ABG's goal. A nice variety of firepower via Russes, and a (relatively) healthy amount of scoring. It isn't 9 Russes, but you need some scoring.

Most competitive lists run very few, if any, russes. Most of the heavy support will be taken up by artillery, which point for point does much more damage than a russ.

With the new fortifications it is very easy to make a parking lot with a 4+ cover save for your vehicles, or even hide them out of LoS completely, so durability of the leman russ does not give much of an advantage for its points cost.

I like russes though, and I'd have to say the executioner , vanquisher and exterminator are my favourites.

 Mr.Omega wrote:

 tankboy145 wrote:
Now I've started to realize guard isn't much of a top codex anymore but what would be more effective, using 3 or 4 beefed up russes with sponsons averaging 200+ points a piece or using multiple barebones demolishers and battle tanks? I guess it depends on your list and what your lacking but it seems either way if your going for a good amount of russes you will be lacking in your scoring troops. And not just that but in your support units as well such as anti air units. That also means you will have less guardsmen able to wrap your tanks for protection.

I use barebones Demolishers and Executioners, maybe with HB's on the latter if I'm lacking in anti-infantry.

I've seriously lost count of the number of the times the double out ability of the Demolisher has come in handy lately (killing a Warboss, Mordrak, and a souped up Necron Overlord in that order in games) and the ability to take a decent crack at killing most vehicles is a nice blessing. Against MC's and smaller heavy infantry formations its usefulness lessens though, which is where the Executioner excels more.

In a TAC environment, the Executioner is the king of the Russes IMHO.

Guardsman bubble wrap isn't what I'd call mandatory, having a defensive mechanized contingent of Vets suits me better as I have a decent counter attack when the enemy close in.

Yea I havent used demolishers lately so I will have to build my newest russ into one to give it a go. But I can never really decide what I like more, usually I will run standard LRBT's with no upgrades or I will run a mix of vanquishers, executioners and eradicators upgraded with sponsons and whatever weapons I need. But I will have to give the demolisher another go, just was never a fan of the short range. I also usually run mech and have some vets that chill back to spring forward to intercept before the enemy gets to the russes

I've played AGAINSt nine LeMan Russ's. I outflanked and Deep Striked them to death. But if the enemy has no such deployment niceties then it could be a long day for anyone who faces nine of them.

Iver personally found the Artillery batteris as a less expensive way to get similar effect, so i would maybe not spend so many points on 9, but thats just me.

 Big Blind Bill wrote:
Most competitive lists run very few, if any, russes. Most of the heavy support will be taken up by artillery, which point for point does much more damage than a russ.

With the new fortifications it is very easy to make a parking lot with a 4+ cover save for your vehicles, or even hide them out of LoS completely, so durability of the leman russ does not give much of an advantage for its points cost.

I like russes though, and I'd have to say the executioner , vanquisher and exterminator are my favourites.

As a complete tanker and someone who doesn't understand why anyone bothers with the Ordnance battery at all I completely disagree.

In a competitive environment, if you take an AV12 vehicle with AV10 sides and your opponent can see its going to die, very quickly might I add. A 4+ cover save requires either A) a parking lot or B) exceptional circumstances if you can still fire that turn anyway, and AV14/13 for 30-40~ points is a bargain.

A parking lot is not a reliable strategy because of the growing number of ignores cover weapons in competitive lists- have fun auto-losing against a Wave Serpent spam list that pops all those artillery tanks on turn one.

Often Heavy Support can pull the weight of an entire IG list, so that 30-40~ points per tank can easily make the difference between life and death for your HS fire support. You may choose to, and somehow (and good luck with this) hide your ordnance battery out of LOS for a turn or two, using indirect fire, so that 30-40 points also becomes a contribution to a considerable accuracy boost.

By placing your Russes in front of your Chimeras in a Mech Vet list which most people run, you're far increasing their chances of reaching the front lines with mobile hard cover where shooting them is even an option. With an ordnance battery, you're instead taking a huge gamble in hoping that a couple of AV12/10 vehicles carrying weeds will get anywhere before being blown to smithereens.

In addition, the ability to move and shoot the heavy gun is a priceless ability. If an ordnance battery is double-flanked, you have a choice between firing and dying, or moving and losing your shot. A Russ can move 6'' and close the lane of fire from one attacker and still fire, or go around corners and fire at targets the Ordnance Battery wouldn't get the -3 scatter buff on.

Artillery can move and fire their ordnance.

Well, it's not a new phenominon. Artillery has always given guard better firepower per point, and russes have always given guard firepower that lasts longer on the table. In theory, it all evens out - You bring an extra artillery piece over the russ, and you do more damage turns 1-2, but then there are more russes still firing turns 4-5. And, generally speaking, I feel like it works out as it was designed to work.

The main reason I've been running russes instead of artillery in 6th edition is because there is exactly one non-russ option that doesn't rely on a blast weapon to do damage, and that option is stuck with autocannons and skyfire without interceptor. The small gain that artillery got from being able to "snipe" models doesn't really make up for the fact that large blast weapons are just so much worse than their multi-shot direct-fire alternatives. Especially since you also have to deal with barrage weapons bouncing off rooftops...

If they made an AV12 vehicle that could fire decent direct-fire weapons, and cushioned the durability problem of artillery with more HP and not being open topped, then I'd take them.

Oh wait, they're armored sentinel squads, and I do.

 Mr.Omega wrote:

 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 am posting because I can't understand why you have to be insulting to a newish member of Dakka.
Brochtree was explaining his opinion on the survivability of armour in 6th.
Like all of us he has more than a handful of brain cells!
I play in his group and he mostly meets bike heavy, DS speeder heavy, Tau or Dark Eldar, tank survival in most of these cases depends on terrain and first move.
9 DS mm/mm speeders and 6 scouting bike squads with mmattack bikes make those Russ evaporate.
Before insulting people you should give people the benefit of the doubt.

Kramanal wrote:

 Mr.Omega wrote:

 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 am posting because I can't understand why you have to be insulting to a newish member of Dakka.
Brochtree was explaining his opinion on the survivability of armour in 6th.
Like all of us he has more than a handful of brain cells!
I play in his group and he mostly meets bike heavy, DS speeder heavy, Tau or Dark Eldar, tank survival in most of these cases depends on terrain and first move.
9 DS mm/mm speeders and 6 scouting bike squads with mmattack bikes make those Russ evaporate.
Before insulting people you should give people the benefit of the doubt.

If that is your meta then I wouldnt want to use more than 3 russes. My meta used to be largely bikes or deepstriking pods with melta and when first started I didnt know much about other armies and I wanted to use a lot of russes but over time I learned that it just wasnt going to work. My meta did indeed start to change and most people play more for fun lists so Occasionally I will drop a couple russes on the board. Last week I played a 3k battle using the stronghold book and who woulda thought IG would ever be an attacker against a fortified position lol. But a 7 russ charge worked pretty well. Sponson MM and PC worked great!

 Mr.Omega wrote:

 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 am posting because I can't understand why you have to be insulting to a newish member of Dakka.
Brochtree was explaining his opinion on the survivability of armour in 6th.
Like all of us he has more than a handful of brain cells!
I play in his group and he mostly meets bike heavy, DS speeder heavy, Tau or Dark Eldar, tank survival in most of these cases depends on terrain and first move.
9 DS mm/mm speeders and 6 scouting bike squads with mmattack bikes make those Russ evaporate.
Before insulting people you should give people the benefit of the doubt.

Well sure, if you want to be weak and play semantics games that can be taken as an insult, it wasn't intended as one.

Against all of those lists the instant easy counter is to put your tanks into reserve, have an Astropath/reserve buffer on hand and then alpha strike them into oblivion instead, letting you always get the first move.

Really, was that so hard?

Back in 5th I did a 2v2 1500 points each we both brought 5 leman russes for a total of 10. The douche we played on dawn of war daisy chained bikes giving us a 6 inch deployment zone versus 2 blob guard list. We got wrecked but the leman russes had no chance. I own 6, 2 punishers with 3 heavy bolters, 3 LRBT with lascannon and heavybolter sides, and a vanquisher with lascannon. I love the leman russes more than any of the heavy supports. Out of all the guard stuff there the main staple in my list. Always bring minimum 2.

 Ailaros wrote:
If they made an AV12 vehicle that could fire decent direct-fire weapons, and cushioned the durability problem of artillery with more HP and not being open topped, then I'd take them.

Oh wait, they're armored sentinel squads, and I do.

Oh wait, they're Vendettas and Vultures, and they make Sentinels look like a cruel joke. But I guess you're too busy complaining that flyers are simultaneously too cheesy to use and so weak that you'll never win if you take them.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Ailaros wrote:
If they made an AV12 vehicle that could fire decent direct-fire weapons, and cushioned the durability problem of artillery with more HP and not being open topped, then I'd take them.

Oh wait, they're armored sentinel squads, and I do.

Oh wait, they're Vendettas and Vultures, and they make Sentinels look like a cruel joke. But I guess you're too busy complaining that flyers are simultaneously too cheesy to use and so weak that you'll never win if you take them.

1) For someone that never settles for having anything less than the divine unquestionable authority on everything, you should probably endeavour to not commit Ad Hominem if you want to make an argument that can be taken seriously.

Especially when the person in question is so tired of your gak that they no longer feel obligated to respond, probably because of knowledge of the above. Consider the following as an observation: this results in you looking like a complete child.

2) You ignore that the Sentinel can do other things beside just shoot that are useful (the Vendetta is completely irrelevant and fallacious to claim as significant when using it in all three FOC slots is by no means mandatory and it performs a different role) like provide 5+ cover for a unit, tie up units in melee, outflank and bully units, or only expose itself to a select group of enemies when firing where the Vulture can be hit by everything on the board, and up the tail pipe in AV10 If Vector Dancer is used.

In addition, because I'm a big fan of the way you always pretend with the fallacious claim that the possible will always happen, and because the odd opponent might do it you shouldn't bother, every game your Vulture will be blown out of the sky after one turn, or better yet, before even firing by Interceptor AA like the HYMP Broadside selection you'll find in pretty much every Tau tournament list.

 Mr.Omega wrote:

1) For someone that never settles for having anything less than the divine unquestionable authority on everything, you should probably endeavour to not commit Ad Hominem if you want to make an argument that can be taken seriously.

Especially when the person in question is so tired of your gak that they no longer feel obligated to respond, probably because of knowledge of the above. Consider the following as an observation: this results in you looking like a complete child.

I'm getting tired of it too. It poisons the forums and makes reading about my favorite hobby very unenjoyable.
Major, major points to Ailaros for how he conducts himself despite unnecessary backlash and thinking outside the box.
It is extremely refreshing to see somebody like him in our hobby.

I don't think Hydras are a complete waste. A mere 150 points adds armor saturation and a hefty amount of skyfire, both of which an army rolling as many as Russes as possible can use.

 Mr.Omega wrote:
you should probably endeavour to not commit Ad Hominem if you want to make an argument that can be taken seriously.

Hypocrisy, thy name is Mr.Omega.

Also, you should learn what an ad hominem is before complaining about them. It's an argument of the form "you suck, therefore X". Just saying "you suck" is an insult, not an ad hominem.

2) You ignore that the Sentinel can do other things beside just shoot that are useful (the Vendetta is completely irrelevant and fallacious to claim as significant when using it in all three FOC slots is by no means mandatory and it performs a different role) like provide 5+ cover for a unit, tie up units in melee, outflank and bully units, or only expose itself to a select group of enemies when firing where the Vulture can be hit by everything on the board, and up the tail pipe in AV10 If Vector Dancer is used.

Lol, no. None of those things come even remotely close to justifying a unit with such a laughably bad firepower to cost ratio. I'd much rather get vastly superior firepower and durability from my units and use cover (which should be easy to get) for a 5+ cover save. And melee Sentinels stopped working when grenades started hitting on WS instead of on 6s.

In addition, because I'm a big fan of the way you always pretend with the fallacious claim that the possible will always happen, and because the odd opponent might do it you shouldn't bother, every game your Vulture will be blown out of the sky after one turn, or better yet, before even firing by Interceptor AA like the HYMP Broadside selection you'll find in pretty much every Tau tournament list.

Here's a tip for you: if those HYMP Broadsides are killing Vultures, what do you think they're going to do to Sentinels that they get to shoot at with full BS?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

UnadoptedPuppy wrote:
Major, major points to Ailaros for how he conducts himself despite unnecessary backlash and thinking outside the box.

The problem with Ailaros is that he doesn't think outside the box, he's just constructed his own Ailaros-40k box and everyone who doesn't join him it it is TFG. Seriously, he's openly stated that Tau players who use JSJ are WAAC sociopaths, people who use FW rules are just looking for "cheese", anyone who "netlists" is playing 40k on easy mode and is taking a "silly dice game" too seriously, anyone who takes a "gunline" (which includes Eldar lists that move 12" a turn) is a WAAC player who ruins the game, etc.

Booooring. Nuff already. Lol. Inferiority andsuperiority complexes are common among us.

Seems like over kill to me, as it'd have to be in squadrons and you'd have 3 leman russes firing at one unit each time.

Whats bad about squadrons is that when my Pathfinders slam into the unit, they can kill the whole unit! I've done it. that is a definite achilles heel.

I outflanked, shot one in the butt and Stunned it. The other two wanted to continue firing on my Rip[tide (which they did) but in so doing, couldn't escape the Pathfinders and they all went "poof" the next round, having klilled nothing.

other units can do this too, though they rarely get so close as easily. there's nowehre to back up to when the unit charging you pops up from behind! And the bodies of those tanks are so big they screen MY Pathfinders from his OWN troops. The geometry of 40K can easily be overlooked on forums but I can assure you in practce that it matters.

Never used lehman russes before, I have used up to 6 leman russes though. its fun for a laugh and catches some armies out, but like spamming anything it will lose to a well balanced list.

 EmilCrane wrote:
Never used lehman russes before, I have used up to 6 leman russes though. its fun for a laugh and catches some armies out, but like spamming anything it will lose to a well balanced list.

Your statement is so confusing lol. You've never used them before, but you've used 6?

Dalymiddleboro wrote:

 EmilCrane wrote:
Never used lehman russes before, I have used up to 6 leman russes though. its fun for a laugh and catches some armies out, but like spamming anything it will lose to a well balanced list.

Your statement is so confusing lol. You've never used them before, but you've used 6?

I detect a joke here. Lehman vs Leman...