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.

I would say (if this post is about buying and then playing 9 russes) just take 9 vendettas instead.

 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.

Editted

 ninjafiredragon wrote:
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

What your friend is thinking of running is armored guard, mech guard involves vets in chimera with air support and manticores, and maybe some armor. I don't want to be pedantic but mech is short for mechanized infantry, IE infantry in either APCs or IFVs. Armored is tanks.

If he does want to spam russes I recommend the armored battlegroup list. That way you can have all the imperial steel you want without silly things like infantry getting in your way.

 EmilCrane wrote:

 ninjafiredragon wrote:
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

What your friend is thinking of running is armored guard, mech guard involves vets in chimera with air support and manticores, and maybe some armor. I don't want to be pedantic but mech is short for mechanized infantry, IE infantry in either APCs or IFVs. Armored is tanks.

If he does want to spam russes I recommend the armored battlegroup list. That way you can have all the imperial steel you want without silly things like infantry getting in your way.

I would agree with this, mech is more of chimeras with vets or platoons inside them with a little air and armor or artillery support. If you are going the russ route with a little bit of support from platoons or vets in chimeras then thats more of armored guard.

Its more of a for fun list to play if you arent going into a competitive environment.

I run an Imperial Armoured Armoured Company list, with 8 russes. Its pretty fun, the main problem you'll have is when the bad guys get close, as dropping a demo shell at some deepstriking obliterators next to your command tank is not ideal. I run a lot of the varients, 3 demos, 2 vanqs, 1 LRBT, 1 plasmacutioner and an 1 exterminator. A lack of scoring units is also an issue as russes as troops leaves less room for scoring troops. I just posted a batrep with them on a slightly modified list with 7 russes and a load of infantry in chimeras.

It's...pretty staggering how easily some of you guys discard Peregrine's very true and fact-based input just because "you don't like his tone"

Demolishers are the only feasible Leman Russ (barring very specific metas) because a hit will almost always kill 3 guys even at full spacing, and an ordinance Str10AP2 Large Blast will either kill vehicles it hits reliably, or at the very least provide you with a 30" bubble of deterrence wherever you like it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr.Omega wrote:

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.

I hate to say it man, but I feel like your assessment is missing a little bit of crucial information.

Ailaros was a clutch resource for IG advice in 5th edition. He ran a power blobs to a good deal of success, and he was in fact the first guy I came to when I started guard. My core blob is largely still a result of his initial advice, with modifications.

That said, 6th came around and he expressed great issue with a bunch of the game's mechanics. Namely Allies, Forge World inclusion, Flyers, and gunlines. He's pretty vehement that these things are cheese, no matter what degree or capacity they are used in, and he himself refuses to even consider using them, which is pretty crippling when facing lists that themself don't self-impose the same limits.

Now, I don't follow those limitations, but I don't think he's a bad player for doing so. I see it as making the game harder on yourself, which is fine. However, this is a tactics forum, and I don't believe it's right to offer tactical advice to players within your limits when the players receiving the advice might not follow said limits. If Ailaros told a new guy the best choice for Anti-Armor in the Fast Attack slot was a squad of Lascannon Sentinels, the new guy might spend 75 dollars on Lascannon sentinels, only to find out down the road that the "no-limits" best choice would have been a vendetta. I don't think that's fair.

My only other qualm with some of his advice in a tactical capacity is that he insists 40k is purely luck based and requires no skill. I disagree, and think that's an unfair claim that detracts from tactical discussion as a whole.

Inversely, Peregrine uses whatever IG has access to, and as a result can speak from an experience-point of view regarding an "unlimited" IG list. (Albeit sometimes his fervor way get the best of him, his advice is still quality)

Tl;dr: People are discarding good advice, I want to clear up what's going on. Both guys can have good advice, but sometimes a grain of salt is needed

TheCaptain wrote:It's...pretty staggering how easily some of you guys discard Peregrine's very true and fact-based input just because "you don't like his tone"

Demolishers are the only feasible Leman Russ (barring very specific metas) because a hit will almost always kill 3 guys even at full spacing, and an ordinance Str10AP2 Large Blast will either kill vehicles it hits reliably, or at the very least provide you with a 30" bubble of deterrence wherever you like it.

Most of your input here was very fair and good advice. Each has valuable input to give and they often give interesting and useful input. However people really should take any advise on the internet with a huge grain of salt.

I would however disagree with demolishers being the only feasible choice.

If you are going to take a single LR in a list without any information on the list or on the meta then the demolisher is probably the best overall choice. It is really only bad against flyers and is good or great against anything else. However if you are going to take ~8 LR and do not have to spam the same choice then a mixture of different LR is more effective. Especially if you are actually not playing under self imposed restrictions and can take thunderers, coaxial stubbers, and prescience inquisitors.

From a purely spamming demolishers aspect thunderers can do it better as they are both faster and cheaper. Their main disadvantage of being hull mounted doesn't matter much when you are talking about putting down 6-10 of them on the table. At that point you can't protect your demolishers rear and sides either as you don't have the pts to bubble wrap or bring significant retaliation in mech vets.

With prescience or coax stubbers added the vanquisher (escpecially command tank) is a pretty great antivehicle and will really help when you need to kill something tough. It is a niche vehicle though so you need to balance the list to account for it.

Executioners are much better infantry killing and light vehicle killing. They will average closer to 4.5 hits with the main gun rather than the 2.5ish of the large blast on infantry and the possible 3 hits is much more important against light armour than 1 really big hit.

LRBT I would not take unless playing as ABG with inferno shells. They are pretty bad against most targets and their main advantage is they are easy to keep alive.

Wen playing 8 LR lists your biggest weakness is usually your ability to kill hordes before they hit melee and AA. A good trick to help in the AA department is quadd las vengeance battery for 150 pts. It is enough AA to even the odds a bit and it is AV14 with no need of troops to man it.

For horde the undisputed champ is definitely the punisher if given access to prescience or given BS4 (several ways to do this in the ABG list). This is important as a savy player can just rush a demolisher based list and expect a significant portion of their krak grenades/Str 4 boyz/etc. to make it to melee (well if even half decent terrain is used).

A great example (just the most popular list that happens to be on the top of my head as I play it fairly often lately) of why executioners and punishers should be considered in such a list is a white scars bike list. Against any tank heavy list without significant speed bumps a squad of white scars will take less than 2 turns to charge you no matter where you are on the board. A battle cannon or demolisher will inflict an average of 1 wound or less on the WS bikers. This is not even a moral test and even with luck (it is very possible for the WS player to charge turn 1) you will find it difficult to inflict significant casualties before you get charged en mass. With a punisher with BS4 or prescience you inflict 2 casualties a turn on average. These also don't care about cover as they are already going against 3+ saves. With 2 turns the punisher actually has the possibility to wipe a squad of 5. The big problem with the ordnance type tanks is that their max damage is capped at essentially their main gun. The non ordnance tanks can be upgraded to put out significantly more damage with sponsons, etc. but at the cost of decreasing RPP (resiliency). It is all a balance and stating a blanket statement is not necessarily helpful.

 ansacs wrote:
For horde the undisputed champ is definitely the punisher if given access to prescience or given BS4 (several ways to do this in the ABG list).

The main problem with the LR Punisher is that the Vulture with punisher cannons is just so much better for fewer points. You really want your tanks to be doing something that you can't do with other units, so that makes it a bad choice IMO.

 Peregrine wrote:

 ansacs wrote:
For horde the undisputed champ is definitely the punisher if given access to prescience or given BS4 (several ways to do this in the ABG list).

The main problem with the LR Punisher is that the Vulture with punisher cannons is just so much better for fewer points. You really want your tanks to be doing something that you can't do with other units, so that makes it a bad choice IMO.

Isn't that also true for the demolisher? The thunderer is a cheaper option so you're better off with thunderers rather than demolishers?

One tank I can highly recommend is the executioner. It simply makes units not there anymore however its got the price tag to match.

 EmilCrane wrote:
Isn't that also true for the demolisher? The thunderer is a cheaper option so you're better off with thunderers rather than demolishers?

Not really the same, since IMO it's not a case of one being clearly better than the other. The Thunderer is cheaper and a nice tank, but you could also argue that the LR Demolisher's turret and second weapon (to protect against "weapon destroyed" results) are worth the extra 25 points. It's not like the LR Punisher vs. the Vulture, where the entire anti-Vulture argument consists of "I don't play with FW and/or flyers in my version of 40k".

 TheCaptain wrote:
It's...pretty staggering how easily some of you guys discard Peregrine's very true and fact-based input just because "you don't like his tone"

If he dislikes having his opinion discarded, perhaps he should consider the irony in it.

 Jancoran wrote:

 TheCaptain wrote:
It's...pretty staggering how easily some of you guys discard Peregrine's very true and fact-based input just because "you don't like his tone"

If he dislikes having his opinion discarded, perhaps he should consider the irony in it.

Firstly, it's not a matter of someone not liking having their opinion discarded. It's a matter of me pointing out that it's foolish to do so.

Secondly, there is no irony; there is only the folly that is ignoring sound advice because you value politeness over reason.

-TheCaptain

 TheCaptain wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:

 TheCaptain wrote:
It's...pretty staggering how easily some of you guys discard Peregrine's very true and fact-based input just because "you don't like his tone"

If he dislikes having his opinion discarded, perhaps he should consider the irony in it.

Firstly, it's not a matter of someone not liking having their opinion discarded. It's a matter of me pointing out that it's foolish to do so.

Secondly, there is no irony; there is only the folly that is ignoring sound advice because you value politeness over reason.

-TheCaptain

There is...irony. Actually. He won't listen and is upset that others won't listen (or I should say, you are feeling abused by the lack of interest in his opinion). That, my friend is the definition of irony.

Look. If he's right or wrong is irrelvant anyways (to me) because there are nine nicer and more eloquent people who can express Peregrines opinion that I'd rather discuss it with. So even if he's right, what good does it do him? People disagree with me often. And i am fine with that. But there is a certain percentage of the internet that views arguements as zero sum games meaning that Peregrine and his ilk feel that for them to be right, I have to be wrong. That toggle switch thinking is anathema to me. Possibilities get completely overlooked by people who think that way and frankly, its not just lacking in wisdom to ignore possibilities, its also what usually leads one to underestimate an opponent and lose.

I used to have a mentor in business who referred to this as "Stinking thinking". I don't know where the phrase was coined but it is appropriate. People who cannot see possibilities, only limitations, are negative people. Why spend time with them? They can't help you get to the next level. At anything. Too busy pontificating on why things will "never work out".

How did this become about Peregrine anyways? Lol.

 Jancoran wrote:


How did this become about Peregrine anyways? Lol.

You kinda intentionally missed my point in order to condescend to me, man. Might wanna reassess why I might deserve your wordy rebuttal.

Nothing I said was wrong, nor unreasonable. To voice dissent towards my statements is completely unnecessary, and only further detracts from the discussion at hand.

Trouble is rules change in different ways and models are left behind.

6th ed hurt guard tanks a bit in some ways, and 7th is around the corner (apparently) as is a new Guard codex (apparently). So I would hold off remodeling Russes to take account of the ordnance nerf until the next codex comes. I suspect they may get a specific exemption back, and if not then you will know the state of the meta for enough years to make the transition worthwhile.

 TheCaptain wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:


How did this become about Peregrine anyways? Lol.

You kinda intentionally missed my point in order to condescend to me, man. Might wanna reassess why I might deserve your wordy rebuttal.

Nothing I said was wrong, nor unreasonable. To voice dissent towards my statements is completely unnecessary, and only further detracts from the discussion at hand.

I didn't say you were unreasonable. those are your words, not mine friend. I was only addressing part of what you said. Obviously. And i already told you that Peregrine could even be right but...

I love Leman Russ spam. Those tanks will be the star of any battlefield they take to. The only issue I find with them is that if they go up against things they can't kill within a turn or two the battle starts to go sour real quick. If you do go with a bunch of Russ spam I recommend getting ABG allies for Beast hunter shells. They may not wipe out penta-riptide lists but they will certainly put a hurting on a tau player who thinks too highly of himself.

LRBTs aren't the best tanks for one important reason: Ordnance rules. Leman Russ tanks get heavy weapons for a steal but LRBTs make those heavy weapons crap. However, the Demolisher solves that problem through sheer balls to the walls firepower. S10 AP 2 large blast is scary. Bring them in pairs, though, since a single Demolisher is just a big "Shoot this" sign.

well the original postr is talking about NINE of those beasts. I faced six plus artillery recently and pretty much tabled it. i think you need to have a little more balance. 9 is really mean and its a BEAR of a matchup against some forces though. Trouble in tournies though is you often find yourself (eventually if you do well) facign an army that probably CAN handle it.

In the game I played most recently against spammed tanks, outflankers took an entire squadron out at a time with help from the peanut gallery, using grenades. The tanks took up so much space that there really was nowhere to run to for them. They had to try and kill outflankers and they got in their own way trying. Lines of sight are a REAL issue when playing with massed armor.

Oh, no, he won't win with that many points sunk into the things unless he goes up against... maybe Tau if he has Beast Hunter shells. Maybe Eldar too.

Leman Russ tanks need to be supported or else they are easy to take out. My favorite thing to do is to slap Plasma Vets in the back in Chimeras to keep up with the Russes. That way any Deep Striking meanies will face a ton of plasma if they get into threat range. I've taken out so many Terminators that way. Vendettas are also really good because they can hit things the Russes can't in addition to being able to vomit a squad anywhere on the table.

I also like Manticores. For one FOC slot you get a lot firepower.

Something I've found from experience with my ABG is that the Russ can be tricked out to deal with pretty much anything. So I'd advise going for a balanced approach, going entirely ordnance isn't always the best idea. For example I run 3 demolishers at the core of my list, but the amount of times they've all missed or failed to do anything in a turn is surprisingly high, either due to short range or bad luck. When this happens you want something to fall back on. Exterminators will guarantee hits, whack heavy bolter sponsons on for full effect, they may not do the damage of some varients but they are ever reliable. They are also outstanding at dealing with swarms, lots of mid power weapons, my command tank fires 16 shots a turn at bs4, that will cut any swarm down to size. Executioners will put down T5 and 2+ like they were grots, but suck against heavy vehicles. ABG Vanquishers stand a good chance of wiping out major armour and monstrous creatures, but I always run 2 as 1 usually misses, good range too. LRBTs are probably one of the less useful russes, but with fancy cover ignoring shells they can deal with most fortified units and has good range. Demolishers are scary, they'll draw a lot of fire and are a good distraction, and they pack a punch that no unit can afford to ignore, but are a big target so russes with longer range weps can be used to distract while they move up. Punishers aren't really worth it IMO, you might as well get a vulture, they do it better. That being said again good anti-swarm, with a potential 32 shots if you put a heavy stubber on there too. Conquerors I've never used but look pretty poor rules wise.

Each Russ has a purpose, demos are your best all rounders IMO but I'd say its worth mixing it up for best results.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Oh, no, he won't win with that many points sunk into the things unless he goes up against... maybe Tau if he has Beast Hunter shells. Maybe Eldar too.

Leman Russ tanks need to be supported or else they are easy to take out. My favorite thing to do is to slap Plasma Vets in the back in Chimeras to keep up with the Russes. That way any Deep Striking meanies will face a ton of plasma if they get into threat range. I've taken out so many Terminators that way. Vendettas are also really good because they can hit things the Russes can't in addition to being able to vomit a squad anywhere on the table.

I also like Manticores. For one FOC slot you get a lot firepower.

I was playing Tau when i rolled him.

This thread has become a joke.

ya... thanks for the advise everyone.
I think were done here

-Deleted for Irrelevance-

 Peregrine wrote:

 EmilCrane wrote:
Isn't that also true for the demolisher? The thunderer is a cheaper option so you're better off with thunderers rather than demolishers?

Not really the same, since IMO it's not a case of one being clearly better than the other. The Thunderer is cheaper and a nice tank, but you could also argue that the LR Demolisher's turret and second weapon (to protect against "weapon destroyed" results) are worth the extra 25 points. It's not like the LR Punisher vs. the Vulture, where the entire anti-Vulture argument consists of "I don't play with FW and/or flyers in my version of 40k".

The Lumbering Behemoth (AKA heavy) rule is also a factor to consider. Thunderers don't have it, which lets you forgo shooting for a turn to get yourself into better position. It's a fairly big deal for a gun limited to 24" range. This is enough to make me prefer Thunderers, but not enough difference to justify calling one better than the other.

I've been using the thunderer for a while now and I have no regrets. I love that its 140 points and that it can move 12'' no problem. Even though it only has one weapon has not been a issues because weapon destroyed rarely happens.