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.

 mrhappyface wrote:
Spoiler - that T8 DP is taken from the DeathGuard detachment in the CSM supplement, which is why it re-rolls 1s for FnP.

Besides that the rest of your points are completely correct.

Really? As you had already said - that is completely dependant on the DP rolling 2 specific powers and successfully getting them off every single turn. And having rolled a specific Warlord trait. Not to mention the fact that a DP with those capability easily pushes above the cost of a Wraithknight

Like, I'm sorry, I don't think a 350+ model with at best a 3+/2+ cover (at the cost of being able to do anything else)/5+ invuln/ 4+ FnP rerolling 1s (only if you get the right Warlord trait and only if you're part of a specific detachment) should be less survivable than a tank that costs half its points.

It doesn't have EW and if it doesn't roll the right powers it's T5. It's bucketload of attacks depend on it not rolling a 1 in assault, otherwise it's WS1 that entire phase and taking a wound.

 DarkStarSabre wrote:

 mrhappyface wrote:
Spoiler - that T8 DP is taken from the DeathGuard detachment in the CSM supplement, which is why it re-rolls 1s for FnP.

Besides that the rest of your points are completely correct.

Really? As you had already said - that is completely dependant on the DP rolling 2 specific powers and successfully getting them off every single turn. And having rolled a specific Warlord trait. Not to mention the fact that a DP with those capability easily pushes above the cost of a Wraithknight

Like, I'm sorry, I don't think a 350+ model with at best a 3+/2+ cover (at the cost of being able to do anything else)/5+ invuln/ 4+ FnP rerolling 1s (only if you get the right Warlord trait and only if you're part of a specific detachment) should be less survivable than a tank that costs half its points.

It doesn't have EW and if it doesn't roll the right powers it's T5. It's bucketload of attacks depend on it not rolling a 1 in assault, otherwise it's WS1 that entire phase and taking a wound.

I don't understand why your arguing: I am agreeing with you, I only corrected you that the DP the guy was talking about was from a CSM army.

Not arguing with you mate, more pointing out that the complaint about the DP was about as substantial as a Natfka rumour.

 Thousandeyes wrote:
I think that jumps Russes to being straight over powered.

They are solid as is.

I agree, with the one exeption that even as a non-Guard player I can see how it sucks that the Battle Cannon is now unable to one-hit-kill vehicles just because it's AP3 rather than 2. I think it should have reduced range (It's so stubby, why does it have the same range as a railgun?) but be AP2.... either that or just fix the damage table.

 DarkStarSabre wrote:
Not arguing with you mate, more pointing out that the complaint about the DP was about as substantial as a Natfka rumour.

Ah, all's cool then.

A tweak to the Heavy Vehicle or the Ordnance Weapons rule would be all the Russ needs to really be what it is supposed to be on the tabletop.

Well, if it could actually fire all its weapons every turn at BS3 it certainly would do a little better. But that wouldn't make it survivable.

Wait, we're trying to make anything from the Imperial Guard survivable?

Isn't that a contradiction in terms?

No. Also, that's an unfunny meme.

I don't know if it has been mentioned but the Leman Russ Conqueror needs to be added to the main codex. As a 115pt Fast AV14 Tank with a nice armament for its speed (including a built in way to twin link the main cannon) I'm pretty sure it is the best current Russ variant, albeit a relatively unknown one. It just plays so well and gives Guard something they desperately lack, mobile heavy support that can actually keep up with your Chimeras and claim objectives. The blitzkrieg is real with this tank.

Does this variant fix the problems the LR has simply by being a vehicle? Certainly not, but the utility it has combined with a very reasonable price makes it an excellent tank. As for a more standard Heavy Russ, the Beast Hunter Shell Command Russ is the standard. Put that thing in the codex.

My conclusions so far is:

1. Ordnance rules.....
a) For big tanks: allow all weapons to fire at full BS
b)Ordnance deals 2 wounds/HP per model
c) If a roll of 6 on the damage table then give +1 to roll : ie: 6=7 (to give a chance to instant blow up a vehicle for battle cannon and Earthshaker)

2. Survivalability...
a) HP 3 is not enough for big tanks (how can a heaviest battle tank have the same amount of HP as an ork Trukk... an ordinary street car/pick-up truck!)
Therefore HP 4
b) Armour save for vehicles is nonesene for heavy vehicles, basically anything that can penetrate 14 has AP3 or 2 anyway. so adding a rule for heavy tanks;
Resilient: (4++) downgrades pen to glance, glance to nothing and (D strength becomes an ordinary penetrating hit))
c) Rear armour 11 for all Russ variants (they should not be as easy to damage in assault as a pick up truck).

3. Shooting...
a) Need to to offset the 'my tank got hit once, and now is useless this turn because of stunned/shaken'... so to allow always firing at least the main cannon (if it isn't destroyed)
Power of the machine spirit rule
b) Allow split fire at least for the main cannon located on a turret to fire independently from the other weapons, there is a reason it's on a turret.
c) Heavy stubber upgrade is mounted co-axial to turret (for twin-linking the main weapon)
d) ) veteran crew BS4 for +10p makes sense

4. Movement: Allow heavy tanks to move flat out (so that they can at least keep up with running troops if necessary..
would also make tank shock a strategy against troops....
heavy vehicles roll on the Thunderblitz table when tank shocking (small but fluffy benefit..).

Thoughts?

I don't mind Russes being slow. I think it's the Heavy vehicle type that's at fault, though.

The easiest way to fix it is to let them fire at full BS after firing Ordnance. And perhaps to give them the Split Fire rule as standard, to represent multiple crew members firing the weapons.

Makari wins wrote:
My conclusions so far is:

1. Ordnance rules.....
a) For big tanks: allow all weapons to fire at full BS
b)Ordnance deals 2 wounds/HP per model
c) If a roll of 6 on the damage table then give +1 to roll : ie: 6=7 (to give a chance to instant blow up a vehicle for battle cannon and Earthshaker)

Ok. Let's start scrapping there.

a) Heavy vehicles should be able to fire Ordnance with other weapons at full BS. That makes sense. That was probably the most sensible conclusion of the lot here and from this thread - plus if they applied Heavy to things like Defilers it would fix problems there too. That is a type change so would benefit multiple armies in the long run.
b) Nope. This is a bad idea because most Ordnance weapons are already at Strength 8+ which is Instant Death for anything short of an Ork Warboss. Monstrous Creatures are literally supposed to be the things that survive Ordnance shots. Those are the big monsters that soak the big guns - go watch a Kaiju movie or two. Ordnance is supposed to excel at killing infantry. It does that.
c) Nope. Ordnance is odd as you already get the bonus to actually penetrating the armour in rolling two dice and picking the best result and already have high base strength. This means that you will reliably penetrate armour and inflict damage most of the time. The fact you can't instant-kill a tank is unfortunate but let's not forget, that was also a buff put into place to benefit the same tanks you are trying to buff. You want to take 1 step forward and 3 steps back? Please, by all means do so.

2. Survivalability...
a) HP 3 is not enough for big tanks (how can a heaviest battle tank have the same amount of HP as an ork Trukk... an ordinary street car/pick-up truck!)
Therefore HP 4
b) Armour save for vehicles is nonesene for heavy vehicles, basically anything that can penetrate 14 has AP3 or 2 anyway. so adding a rule for heavy tanks;
Resilient: (4++) downgrades pen to glance, glance to nothing and (D strength becomes an ordinary penetrating hit))
c) Rear armour 11 for all Russ variants (they should not be as easy to damage in assault as a pick up truck).

a) HP 4 is sensible and I'd also argue that Heavy vehicles should have HP 4 by default. You may complain how can X have the same as Y but let's not forget that 40k is very broad in how it lumps things together. Your HP 3 tank already has more survivability than the average building btw.
b) Again, nope. Armour save for vehicles is sensible as it allows most other vehicles to survive the death by glancing and high AP, High Strength fire such as Autocannons, Brainleech Devourers and so on. These are what kill vehicles, not high strength, low AP weapons. Perhaps you didn't pay attention to this thread? Also, D strength becomes an ordninary penetrating hit? No. D is always going to be the special thing that kills everything. You do not negate it.
c) Nope. Rear armour is traditionally your weakness. Learn to position. That's the point. It encourages you to learn to position otherwise people can and will feth you up as punishment for your poor placement. The Russ is not intended as a front line vehicle that goes in deep to the enemy lines. You literally have a primary weapon with a 4 foot range. Land Raiders and Monoliths have transport capabilities and cost close to twice your points, hence why they're AV 14 all round. They're intended to go in that far.

3. Shooting...
a) Need to to offset the 'my tank got hit once, and now is useless this turn because of stunned/shaken'... so to allow always firing at least the main cannon (if it isn't destroyed)
Power of the machine spirit rule
b) Allow split fire at least for the main cannon located on a turret to fire independently from the other weapons, there is a reason it's on a turret.
c) Heavy stubber upgrade is mounted co-axial to turret (for twin-linking the main weapon)
d) ) veteran crew BS4 for +10p makes sense

a) No. PotMS has actually been stripped away from vehicles. Don't tell them to add it back in. Is Shaken/Stunned annoying? Yes it is. Are you complaining about it on a tank with an effective 4 foot range? Yes you are. Are you ignoring the fact that if the enemy is pouring fire into a squadron of vehicles 4 foot away that have AV 14 on the front that they're not pouring it elsewhere? Yes you are. Welcome to Distraction Carnifex territory.
b) Nope. Nope nope nope. No split fire. The reason it's on a turret is that it's your primary gun and intended to be able to fire even if you have to reposition hence the arc of fire. If you're really that upset about it not split firing then stop making Jack of All Trades Russes. Realise that Battle Cannons are anti-infantry. Equip the Russ accordingly. Realise the Vanquisher is Anti-tank. Equip the Russ accordingly. Specialist always trumps generalist in every army.
c) It's a pintle weapon. Furthermore, vehicles have been buffed since 4th and 5th so now pintle weapons count when determining weapon destroyed results (which are randomly allocated btw). Co-axial would count as being the same weapon. So, that's actually a step towards removing survivability...

4. Movement: Allow heavy tanks to move flat out (so that they can at least keep up with running troops if necessary..
would also make tank shock a strategy against troops....
heavy vehicles roll on the Thunderblitz table when tank shocking (small but fluffy benefit..).

Thoughts?

4. No. Not being able to move flat out is your penalty for being able to fire all weapons at full BS even while moving. You're not meant to be keeping up with running troops. You're not meant to be trying to tankshock. So no Thunderblitz either - you're not a Super-heavy. You're a Heavy.

Stop trying to make your backline fire brick into a frontline brick.

You say alot traditionally this and the roll that.. but you must have only been playing 40k for a few years. Russes used to have the same armour as a Land Raider, and used to hit on 3+ default and split fire all the weapons, and used to have movement speed up to 18"
And really, have you ever heared of a tank moving at half the speed of a human running? 5kph? heavy tanks move at 45-70 kph which is faster than the world record 100m sprint.
You know tank warfare strategy was to send tanks first and soldiers after them? You see Russes as artillery pieces, mobile bunkers.. not battle tanks, which is the way they used to be represented on the board.

The Earthshaker cannon would roll on he damage table (with a -) if it didnt even penetrate, this was a vehicle killing cannon, and the demolisher cannon is designed for sieging, and cracking bunkers not taking out infantry... htese cannons used to do multiple wounds per hit and were used to take out big targets not just marine squads. Being AP2 would change the meta too much so a roll of 6 on the damage table/to wound = instant death fits the weapons profile much better.

The point of rotating the turret to aim at a different target is to face your strong arour at the treat and the cannon to destroy another threat... nand you have sponsons on either side of the tank, so you will not be able to see the target with all the weapons all the time.

The point of giving Potms to tanks is to avoid nerfing MCs, but that would perhaps be better to give MCs a damage table.. i suppose the resillient rule helps with this anyway.

When did they have the same armor as a raider? Second?

IIRC they've been 14/13/10 since third edition.

I agree with most of it (the Leman Russ was once the powerful core of a highly competitive Imperial Guard army), mind you, just curious about that statement.

Makari wins wrote:
You say alot traditionally this and the roll that.. but you must have only been playing 40k for a few years. Russes used to have the same armour as a Land Raider, and used to hit on 3+ default and split fire all the weapons, and used to have movement speed up to 18"
And really, have you ever heared of a tank moving at half the speed of a human running? 5kph? heavy tanks move at 45-70 kph which is faster than the world record 100m sprint.
You know tank warfare strategy was to send tanks first and soldiers after them? You see Russes as artillery pieces, mobile bunkers.. not battle tanks, which is the way they used to be represented on the board.

You see, other than the fact your two sole posts have been bleating for Imperial Guard buffs I've figured this is someone's throw away troll account now based on the above statement.

40k =/= Real World Logic. The moment you decided to go there you pretty much threw away the thread.

You literally proposed 11 changes to fix a single unit in a single codex, without acknowledging the fact that the issues go beyond that single unit. Of those proposed changes 5 of them were unit specific, not general changes that would affect the type or other issues.

You have not addressed the super-effectiveness of Grav weapons for example.
You have not addressed the fact that certain armies are significantly undercosted in comparison to others, hence the disparity between unit types on both ends of the spectrum.

You've focused on a single unit from a single book when others have already stated 'No, the problem is bigger than this.'

Do you think that fixing the Leman Russ will magically fix the problem of vehicle survivability, grav effectiveness or the disparity between Tau and Eldar MCs/GCs and those of other factions?

You literally asked 'How do I fix X?'

People came in and told you of a number of issues, including the fact that the problems with X are not localised by spread through the system as a whole. In order to fix X you need to address other parts of the system first.

But instead you hand-picked solutions you preferred, ignored others and presented us a list that simply isn't feasible.

You want to make this vehicle with more variants than any other vehicle in the system into a special snowflake ubervehicle. You're choosing to ignore the abstract nature of 40k and now you're pulling out 'real world examples.'

In the real world we don't have psychic space elves with ghost-animated psycho-plastic constructs firing miniaturised black holes at us.
In the real world we don't have a guy in kevlar running around with a man-portable nuclear weapon that is in mass production.
In the real world we don't have to pray to a spirit to make sure a tank goes forward or that a weapon doesn't nuke us in the face.

You simply can't pull examples where it's convenient. It doesn't work like that.

Battle cannons and Demolishers should inflict D3 wounds instead of one, and have Ap 1 so they can instakill these pesky rhinos. Also all Russes must be Fast vehicles with AV15/14/13.

Lasguns should have an option to overcharge their battery and fire at 36" S7 once per game

Vanquishers should be S: D and Heavy 3

Eradicators should wound everything on 2+ with '6's being Ap2 Instand death

Creed should grant the IG player 6 additional victory points for being fielded, and also take a free SHV of any type which can Infiltrate.

Ogryns should have Feel no pain 4+ re-rollable because they don't feel pain and are immune to small arms. They also must be S7 with Rending, move like Beasts and cost 12 points per model, why are these barbaric abhumans more expensive than super-rare 'elite' marines?

Sonic Keyboard wrote:
Battle cannons and Demolishers should inflict D3 wounds instead of one, and have Ap 1 so they can instakill these pesky rhinos. Also all Russes must be Fast vehicles with AV15/14/13.

Lasguns should have an option to overcharge their battery and fire at 36" S7 once per game

Vanquishers should be S: D and Heavy 3

Eradicators should wound everything on 2+ with '6's being Ap2 Instand death

Creed should grant the IG player 6 additional victory points for being fielded, and also take a free SHV of any type which can Infiltrate.

Ogryns should have Feel no pain 4+ re-rollable because they don't feel pain and are immune to small arms. They also must be S7 with Rending, move like Beasts and cost 12 points per model, why are these barbaric abhumans more expensive than super-rare 'elite' marines?

This has to be a troll, right?

The last point, for what it's worth, I'll bite - it's for game balance. Not fluff accuracy. If the game were fluff accurate, I'd be able to take a squad or two of Space Marines and wipe out an Imperial Guard, Ork or Tyranid army.

 Melissia wrote:
When did they have the same armor as a raider? Second?

IIRC they've been 14/13/10 since third edition.

I agree with most of it (the Leman Russ was once the powerful core of a highly competitive Imperial Guard army), mind you, just curious about that statement.

I can't speak for RT and 2nd eras, but in 3rd (& 4th too iirc) the standard Russ was 14/12/10. I believe it got the side armor buffed in 5th. Or was it 4th?

 Melissia wrote:
When did they have the same armor as a raider? Second?

IIRC they've been 14/13/10 since third edition.

In 2E Russ tanks had better armor than Land Raiders, but were actually side AV12 from 3rd's introduction in 1998 up through 5th with the 2009 IG codex.

EDIT: Found the 2E armor values.

Land Raider
Track: 17 Front and Side/Rear
Hull: 22 Front and 20 Side/Rear
Lascannons: Front 18 and Side/Rear

Leman Russ
Track: 16 Front and Side/Rear
Hull: 22 Front and 18 Side/Rear
Heavy Bolter: 17 Front and Side/Rear
Turret: 25 Front 22 Side/Rear

Leman Russ Demolisher
Track: 17 Front and Side/Rear
Hull: 22 Front and 20 Side/Rear
Side Sponsons: 18 Front and Side/Rear
Turret: 25 Front 22 Side/Rear

So the Land Raider has slightly better track, sponson, and hull rear armor than the basic Russ, while the basic Russ has a dramatically more armored section in the case of the turret (that a Land Raider lacks, given the way hit location was rolled this gives the Russ a notable a survivability advantage, a Land Raider from the front was only getting to use that 22 hull armor on 50% of hits while a Russ would get 22 or 25 on 66% of hits), while the Demolisher is demonstrably equal or superior in every way (thanks to the turret and hit location rules).

This was also back when a Demolisher cannon had an armor pen of 3d6+10, a Battle Cannon had an armor pen of 3D6+8, a Lascannon an armor pen of 3D6+9 and a Multi-Melta an armor pen of D6+2D12+8 and a 2" blast marker.

The 5th edition codex was every treadhead's dream come true

I think that most of the fixes for the Rus are global fixes for the issues around vehicles, heavy vehicles and ordnance weapons. Fix all of those and the Russ, which is victim to the shortcomings in all 3 sets of rules benefits considerably more than most other vehicles/heavy vehicles/ordnance weapon carriers.

The problem with that is you'd need to tone down some of the overpowered vehicles for things like eldar if you were to just generally fix vehicles.

 Melissia wrote:
The problem with that is you'd need to tone down some of the overpowered vehicles for things like eldar if you were to just generally fix vehicles.

Well, they should probably do that either way, and some changes to the core vehicle mechanics that don't make Skimmers flat out better than non-skimmers "just because" should probably be incorporated into that.

Well I'm thinking...

Vehicle Fixes:
1. Let them shoot at multiple targets with their different weapons
2. Get rid of glances - though add a wrecked option back to the damage chart.

Heavy Vehicle Fixes
1. Fire other weapons at full BS even if they are firing an ordnance weapon

Ordnance Weapons Fixes
1. Make them more lethal against high toughness MCs by giving them a multi-wound capability
2. Give them a bonus on the vehicle and building damage tables

Multi-wound to Ordnance is a little over the top. What if they could "stun" infantry instead? A high explosive round covering a squad in shrapnel wound definitely rattle them a little. If a unit takes a wound from an ordnance weapon they count as being in difficult terrain until the beginning of their next turn.

 cuda1179 wrote:
Multi-wound to Ordnance is a little over the top. What if they could "stun" infantry instead? A high explosive round covering a squad in shrapnel wound definitely rattle them a little. If a unit takes a wound from an ordnance weapon they count as being in difficult terrain until the beginning of their next turn.

Because it is still not really reflecting the sheer impact of a big cannon designed to bring down bunkers?

 master of ordinance wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
Multi-wound to Ordnance is a little over the top. What if they could "stun" infantry instead? A high explosive round covering a squad in shrapnel wound definitely rattle them a little. If a unit takes a wound from an ordnance weapon they count as being in difficult terrain until the beginning of their next turn.

Because it is still not really reflecting the sheer impact of a big cannon designed to bring down bunkers?

That's what the two dice, picking the highest for armour penetration is intended to represent.
That's what a large template at S8+ with Ap 3 or lower is intended to represent.

Ordnance is plenty lethal to most units in the game. If anything MCs are the one thing it cannot potentially obliterate.

I think a bonus to the damage table for vehicles makes sense but I think, in an abstract sense MCs are meant to be the counter to Ordnance. We don't want Ordnance to become the new Grav people. You don't fix a problem by making something else just as much of a problem for effectiveness.

 master of ordinance wrote:

Because it is still not really reflecting the sheer impact of a big cannon designed to bring down bunkers?

Well, realism is going to be a bit tricky on that aspect no matter what, since the same shell should be either effective on infantry formations or armor, not both. I'm not totally sure, but I recall that modern APFSDS rounds (used for killing hostile tanks and other heavily armored targets) are not effective if used to fire on infantry formations, and I know that HE and HEAT rounds are no longer effective against modern tanks (hence the switch to APFSDS) even though they do a number on infantry and light vehicles. And as anyone who's played world of tanks knows, this has generally been the case since tanks were really a thing. Letting Russes fire one type of shell or the other with different profiles might help out in that regard.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DarkStarSabre wrote:
I think a bonus to the damage table for vehicles makes sense but I think, in an abstract sense MCs are meant to be the counter to Ordnance. We don't want Ordnance to become the new Grav people. You don't fix a problem by making something else just as much of a problem for effectiveness.

But would they? 40k had ordnance weapons well before it had MCs, and I don't recall hearing anything about them dominating the game then.

 DarkStarSabre wrote:

 mrhappyface wrote:
Spoiler - that T8 DP is taken from the DeathGuard detachment in the CSM supplement, which is why it re-rolls 1s for FnP.

Besides that the rest of your points are completely correct.

Really? As you had already said - that is completely dependant on the DP rolling 2 specific powers and successfully getting them off every single turn. And having rolled a specific Warlord trait. Not to mention the fact that a DP with those capability easily pushes above the cost of a Wraithknight

Like, I'm sorry, I don't think a 350+ model with at best a 3+/2+ cover (at the cost of being able to do anything else)/5+ invuln/ 4+ FnP rerolling 1s (only if you get the right Warlord trait and only if you're part of a specific detachment) should be less survivable than a tank that costs half its points.

It doesn't have EW and if it doesn't roll the right powers it's T5. It's bucketload of attacks depend on it not rolling a 1 in assault, otherwise it's WS1 that entire phase and taking a wound.

I'm confused - Why two specific powers AND a specific Warlord Trait? You need Iron Arm to get the T8, but to get the 4+ FNP you only need Endurance OR the right Warlord Trait.
To be effectively immune to Instant Death, you need either Iron Arm, Endurance, or the right Warlord Trait. Since you can reroll your Warlord Trait, that's 4 chances to get the right ability - The '6' result on Nurgle powers also gives +1 S and +1 T, so it's really 5 chances, since you only need T6 in order to prevent Instant Death from almost any source.
With Idyllic powers and Warlord Trait, you're getting S10, T9, 3+ FNP, and Eternal Warrior. Realistically, you won't get all of these, but you're almost garunteed to get some source of Eternal Warrior, boosted Toughness, and/or increased combat capability. Throw on that poisoned Daemon Weapon for 35 points, and he also has a crazy boatload of attacks.