Do 8th-ed blasts strike anyone else as underwhelming?

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.

**Ballasar**

Grimgold wrote:
Let me get up on a soapbox for a second, a lot of you are comparing the previews to 7th ed, and I have two words for you, Stop that. You will not be fighting 7th ed orks with your 8th ed space marines, the only valid comparisons are between 8th ed items. Comparing battle cannons to heavy bolters, las cannons, and some reasonable guesses of what other weapons will look like show that the battle cannon is not a bad weapon and is actually quite flexible.

The difference between the exterminator and the battle cannon is less than one additional model killed per round, far less. Let that sink, roll around in your head, and then realize the literal best gun we've seen for infantry killing will kill less than 2 MEQ per round on average. It's not that battle cannons suck for killing infantry it's that everything sucks for killing infantry and battle cannons are better at it than most. Templates were a crutch, a flamer would regularly do more damage than the shooting of a 10 man tac squad, this let 7th ed armies take small elite force with lots of templates to deal with the occasional horde army. No more, now in 8th ed if you want to kill infantry, you use infantry. Your opponent brings 120 ork boyz, your three leman Russes are not going to save you, you are going to need dudes with guns to handle that, getting all first rank second rank on their green asses. That is the new normal, vehicles suck at killing infantry, but infantry heavy weapons wreck vehicles and can fire on the move.

You want a name for this edition, call it infantry-hammer.

Actually HoardHammer is more likely. If your opponent brings 120 boys and you can only bring 30 infantry at the same points you basicly auto lose.

**BlaxicanX**

Grimgold wrote:
Let me get up on a soapbox for a second, a lot of you are comparing the previews to 7th ed, and I have two words for you, Stop that. You will not be fighting 7th ed orks with your 8th ed space marines, the only valid comparisons are between 8th ed items. Comparing battle cannons to heavy bolters, las cannons, and some reasonable guesses of what other weapons will look like show that the battle cannon is not a bad weapon and is actually quite flexible.

It doesn't though. Heavy bolters and lascannons already outstrip it by virtue of being cheaper and easier to spam in armies. I mean our discussion about the LR being 80 points was a fun mental exercise but it's highly unlikely that you'll be able to buy a battlecannon LR at even close to the value of a lascannon/heavy bolter marine or veteran.

The difference between the exterminator and the battle cannon is less than one additional model killed per round, far less. Let that sink, roll around in your head, and then realize the literal best gun we've seen for infantry killing will kill less than 2 MEQ per round on average.

What? In what world is the Exterminator the "best gun we've seen for killing infantry?" The exterminator was utter garbage in 7th edition- it was just the king of garbage by virtue of competing against other Imperial Guard tank weapons.

That is the new normal, vehicles suck at killing infantry, but infantry heavy weapons wreck vehicles and can fire on the move.

Eh, doubtful. There were plenty of vehicles/MC's that were excellent at killing infantry in the past editions- the Guard just didn't have any of them. There's nothing we've seen thus far to indicate that things will be different this time around.

I don't really understand what your argument is though. Are you trying to assert that the majority of the vehicles in the game will have similar damage output to the battlecannon Russ? Like I understand your insistence that the stats we've seen for it aren't god-awful but I don't really understand how you're reaching that conclusion.

**malamis**

Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

Models damaged now included.

In short, Battle Cannons are pretty bad now.

What are you using to model this?

**Halfpast_Yellow**

Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
I just ran 100,000 trials of a Leman Russ Battle Cannon attack against a target with a toughness between 5 and 7 and a save of 3+.

The results are not encouraging.

By percentage, the wounds distribution is as follows:

As you can see, 45% of the time, the tank fails to achieve anything at all. When it does manage to achieve something, it scores between 1 and 3 wounds.

Finally someone models this in a decent way. That mathhammer site is awful.

I disagree with your assessment, those results look very acceptable to me. 54% of the time we're doing some damage, ~28% of the time we're doing 3 or more wounds.

**Purifier**

Halfpast_Yellow wrote:
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
I just ran 100,000 trials of a Leman Russ Battle Cannon attack against a target with a toughness between 5 and 7 and a save of 3+.

The results are not encouraging.

By percentage, the wounds distribution is as follows:

As you can see, 45% of the time, the tank fails to achieve anything at all. When it does manage to achieve something, it scores between 1 and 3 wounds.

Finally someone models this in a decent way. That mathhammer site is awful.

I disagree with your assessment, those results look very acceptable to me. 54% of the time we're doing some damage, ~28% of the time we're doing 3 or more wounds.

That doesn't sound horrible. It wouldn't be reasonable to expect one single battle cannon to regularly take out a high priority target alone every round.

**master of ordinance**

Purifier wrote:

That doesn't sound horrible. It wouldn't be reasonable to expect one single battle cannon to regularly take out a high priority target alone every round.

Nah, your right. Who would ever expect a high calibre explosive round to ever be any good against anything like Infantry?

In all honesty this feels like a sick joke on GW's behalf and at our expense. They hype up how the Guard are finally coming back and then nerf the ever living gak out of our most iconic vehicle. Or maybe it is just another frantic attempt to shift the building pile of Ogryn/Bullgryn boxes and Rough Riders that no one wants on account of them being overpriced and gak.

**malamis**

Halfpast_Yellow wrote:

Finally someone models this in a decent way. That mathhammer site is awful.

I disagree with your assessment, those results look very acceptable to me. 54% of the time we're doing some damage, ~28% of the time we're doing 3 or more wounds.

Which is a non-trivial improvement since at the moment a BC does nothing at all 55~% of the time (based on the generous assumption anything higher than a 6" scatter is a miss). The battle cannon, even with below average dice is actually going to *hit something* nearly every turn now. Folks who aren't familiar with running blast tanks won't appreciate the implications of this. Combined with meaningful sponsons, which are actually useful against marines now, the tricked out LR is something to at least consider, instead of oggling the Executioner or Punisher.

**master of ordinance**

malamis wrote:
Halfpast_Yellow wrote:

Finally someone models this in a decent way. That mathhammer site is awful.

I disagree with your assessment, those results look very acceptable to me. 54% of the time we're doing some damage, ~28% of the time we're doing 3 or more wounds.

Which is a non-trivial improvement since at the moment a BC does nothing at all 55~% of the time (based on the generous assumption anything higher than a 6" scatter is a miss). The battle cannon, even with below average dice is actually going to *hit something* nearly every turn now. Folks who aren't familiar with running blast tanks won't appreciate the implications of this. Combined with meaningful sponsons, which are actually useful against marines now, the tricked out LR is something to at least consider, instead of oggling the Executioner or Punisher.

Dont know what you where playing but I can only think of about 4 games where my Battlecannon has failed to hit something thanks to scatter.

**Inquisitor Lord Katherine**

malamis wrote:
What are you using to model this?

Excel. My computer ran out of memory after 100000 trials. If I had a nicer computer, I could probably get to 1000000 trials.

Purifier wrote:

That doesn't sound horrible. It wouldn't be reasonable to expect one single battle cannon to regularly take out a high priority target alone every round.

Halfpast_Yellow wrote:

Finally someone models this in a decent way. That mathhammer site is awful.

I disagree with your assessment, those results look very acceptable to me. 54% of the time we're doing some damage, ~28% of the time we're doing 3 or more wounds.

As it is now, targeting a Carnifex equivalent, it manages to strip a wound 60% of the time. Targeting a MEQ or worse unit, it will also almost always get at least 1, and at least 3 35% of the time, with a higher potential for a lot more. Compare to the new stats in the second chart I posted, where it gets 3 models 5% of the time, and 2 models 15%.

It's performing roughly equivalently against Carnifex equivalent. Which is terrible now, and will still be terrible, moreso if the Carnifex and things like it get buffed. It's not worse than it is, but bad is still bad, and it effectively lost any means of effective being a threat to infantry.

**Purifier**

master of ordinance wrote:
Purifier wrote:

That doesn't sound horrible. It wouldn't be reasonable to expect one single battle cannon to regularly take out a high priority target alone every round.

Nah, your right. Who would ever expect a high calibre explosive round to ever be any good against anything like Infantry?

I can't stand this line of reasoning. Don't bring in realism when the issue at hand is play balance. 40k isn't the place to try and reason what a high calibre round would or wouldn't do. You really don't see the problem with a single battle cannon deleting a unit every round? What if you buy 8 battle cannons so you can delete 8 units every round and you get first turn. Do you start to see the problem then?

**Halfpast_Yellow**

I'm still saying your expectations are out of line. If you're expecting to fire a single MBT weapon and pick up an enemy line squad off the table, 8th isn't for you. This is the edition where line infantry aren't useless gak.

Purifier wrote:

I can't stand this line of reasoning. Don't bring in realism when the issue at hand is play balance. 40k isn't the place to try and reason what a high calibre round would or wouldn't do. You really don't see the problem with a single battle cannon deleting a unit every round? What if you buy 8 battle cannons so you can delete 8 units every round and you get first turn. Do you start to see the problem then?

This.

**torblind**

Delete this post

My question has been answered. Forgot to check beyond page 1 of thread.

**Inquisitor Lord Katherine**

Lascannon wound distribution, for those who are interested.

Also, Meltagun in Melta Range.

**Afrodactyl**

Also, bear in mind that we don't know all of the rules yet. A LRBT might be able to fire it's BC and 3 HBs at the same time. In which case, it would be good for killing infantry and pestering light vehicles.

But we don't know the rules yet, so everyone calm down, the sky isn't falling just yet.

**jhnbrg**

If a battle cannon hits 3 terminators and causes one wound on each will you end up with 3 one wound terminators?

**UncleThomson**

I think it is so interesting how all these discussions go...

someone looks at the stats and says "this thing sucks, I can prove it with math"

people say "it's not that bad and synergy and whatever"

the thing vanishes from any competetive lists and people who field it cry "it is so bad"...

and then everybody says "who could have known that?"

of course there are always those people who never ever played that unit and still claim that its not that bad...

P.S.: Someone said offensive capabilites of the Russ have been reduced to balance its increased defensive capabilities. But you can also prove with math that now it takes less Lascannon shots than before to destroy it. The offensive and defensive capabilites of a Russ have been reduced to about 65% (and there is now arguing about that, its math, and math does not lie). Also note that the offensive capabilities of a Land Raider went up 30-50%. A Land Raider still has a decent chance to kill a Russ in one turn, but even if the Russ is lucky it will probably strip only 3 hull points from the Land Raider (if you achieve more you should stop playing 40k and start winning the Lottery)

**tneva82**

jhnbrg wrote:
If a battle cannon hits 3 terminators and causes one wound on each will you end up with 3 one wound terminators?

1 dead, 1 wounded.

Other cases: wound rolls 3, 2, 1. That results in 2 dead and 1 damaged termie. The roll with 3 wounds kill 1 but doesn't spill over.

There's only 1 wouned model in a unit period.

**Lord Kragan**

UncleThomson wrote:

P.S.: Someone said offensive capabilites of the Russ have been reduced to balance its increased defensive capabilities. But you can also prove with math that now it takes less Lascannon shots than before to destroy it. The offensive and defensive capabilites of a Russ have been reduced to about 65% (and there is now arguing about that, its math, and math does not lie). Also note that the offensive capabilities of a Land Raider went up 30-50%. A Land Raider still has a decent chance to kill a Russ in one turn, but even if the Russ is lucky it will probably strip only 3 hull points from the Land Raider (if you achieve more you should stop playing 40k and start winning the Lottery)

And yet for all your "math does not lie" you don't post it. Afraid of the truth maybe or is the ass doing the research?

**UncleThomson**

Lord Kragan wrote:

And yet for all your "math does not lie" you don't post it. Afraid of the truth maybe or is the ass doing the research?

uh... someone else posted his research all over the place...

7th edition, Lascannon vs Leman Russ front armor:

needs 5+ to strip a hull point (9+1d6 >= 14). Needs double 6 to blow it up. However, since you shoot several times, this may happen before it dies by the 9 hits you usually need. Basically you need 7.6 lascannon hits in the average to kill a Russ.

8th edition:

3+ to wound T8 with S8 (2/3) , 6+ Save (3+ -3 mod, 5/6 to pass) = 0.555... x d6 hull points (avg 3.5) = 1.944... hull pts per hit. Basically you need 6 to 7 Lascannon hits to kill a Russ

After running a simulation the result is:

7th Edition: Russ needs 8.2 hits in the average
8th Edition: Russ needs 7 hits in the average.

So its survivability vs Lascannons went down compared to 7th. Also it is now vulnerable to a huge chunk of weapons which could not harm it before.

If you care, here is the code of the simulation:

import java.util.Random;

public class FourtyK {

static final Random r = new Random(System.currentTimeMillis());
		
	static int d6() {
		return r.nextInt(6) + 1;
	}
	
	public static void main(String[] args) {
		
		double avgDeath7th = 0;
		double avgDeath8th = 0;
		
		final int iterations = 1000000;
		
		for (int i = 0; i< iterations; i++) {
			int hp = 3;
			int turnsToDeath = 0;
			while (hp > 0) {
				int toPenetrate = d6();
				if (toPenetrate >= 5) {
					hp--;
					if (toPenetrate  == 6 && d6() == 6) {
						hp =0;
					}
				}	
				turnsToDeath++;
			}
			
			avgDeath7th+=turnsToDeath;
			
			
			int wounds = 12;
			turnsToDeath = 0;
			while (wounds > 0) {
				int toWound = d6();
				if (toWound >= 3) {
					if (d6() < 6) {
						wounds-=d6();
					}
				}
				turnsToDeath++;
			}
			
			avgDeath8th+=turnsToDeath;
						
		}
		
		avgDeath7th/=iterations;
		avgDeath8th/=iterations;
		
		System.out.println("Avg death 7th: " + avgDeath7th );
		System.out.println("Avg death 8th: " + avgDeath8th );		
		
	}
}

The crappy performance of the battle cannon was posted several times on this thread.

**G00fySmiley**

Ballasar wrote:
Grimgold wrote:
Let me get up on a soapbox for a second, a lot of you are comparing the previews to 7th ed, and I have two words for you, Stop that. You will not be fighting 7th ed orks with your 8th ed space marines, the only valid comparisons are between 8th ed items. Comparing battle cannons to heavy bolters, las cannons, and some reasonable guesses of what other weapons will look like show that the battle cannon is not a bad weapon and is actually quite flexible.

The difference between the exterminator and the battle cannon is less than one additional model killed per round, far less. Let that sink, roll around in your head, and then realize the literal best gun we've seen for infantry killing will kill less than 2 MEQ per round on average. It's not that battle cannons suck for killing infantry it's that everything sucks for killing infantry and battle cannons are better at it than most. Templates were a crutch, a flamer would regularly do more damage than the shooting of a 10 man tac squad, this let 7th ed armies take small elite force with lots of templates to deal with the occasional horde army. No more, now in 8th ed if you want to kill infantry, you use infantry. Your opponent brings 120 ork boyz, your three leman Russes are not going to save you, you are going to need dudes with guns to handle that, getting all first rank second rank on their green asses. That is the new normal, vehicles suck at killing infantry, but infantry heavy weapons wreck vehicles and can fire on the move.

You want a name for this edition, call it infantry-hammer.

Actually HoardHammer is more likely. If your opponent brings 120 boys and you can only bring 30 infantry at the same points you basicly auto lose.

couple things...

first we have no idea how much ork boys will cost. current numbers are 6 points per boy so 120 boys would run 720 points. if you are talking infantry vs infanty that is 51 space marines or 144 guardsman. I can tell you how that would currently go... ork player would lose if play skill is equal close to 100% of the time. (not saying tac marines are Op but that ork boys are so points inefficient it is laughable.)

second we have no idea what movement values will be. if those orks are only moving 4 or 5 inches then if shooting remained as powerful orks would still be the bottom of the bottom tier never making it into combat where they can actually so something (same place they have been for 2 editions doing the same thing bringing me to my next point...)

third horde armies have not been really viable for the past 2 editions. the reason for that is pretty simple everybody gets templates all over ripping anything outside a transport without a good armor save. I welcome the changes as I want to see more playstyles be viable making for more varied and fun games. 7th feels like paper, rock, scissors, and I choose to auto lose (horde). some lists can beat some things but everything beats a horde.

**Lord Kragan**

UncleThomson wrote:
Lord Kragan wrote:

And yet for all your "math does not lie" you don't post it. Afraid of the truth maybe or is the ass doing the research?

uh... someone else posted his research all over the place...

7th edition, Lascannon vs Leman Russ front armor:

needs 5+ to strip a hull point (9+1d6 >= 14). Needs double 6 to blow it up. However, since you shoot several times, this may happen before it dies by the 9 hits you usually need. Basically you need 7.6 lascannon hits in the average to kill a Russ.

8th edition:

3+ to wound T8 with S8 (2/3) , 6+ Save (3+ -3 mod, 5/6 to pass) = 0.555... x d6 hull points (avg 3.5) = 1.944... hull pts per hit. Basically you need 6 to 7 Lascannon hits to kill a Russ

After running a simulation the result is:

7th Edition: Russ needs 7.6 hits in the average
8th Edition: Russ needs 7 hits in the average.

So its survivability vs Lascannons went down compared to 7th. Also it is now vulnerable to a huge chunk of weapons which could not harm it before.

Yeah, no one had EVER attacked a Leman Russ' rear armour. If anything battletanks are more survivable against many weapons because they won't get shagged in their rears.

As for the lascannons. That's them actually being useful, not the russ being bad. And you not considering them attacking the sides for the lascannons either. In that case you'd need just 6 lascannon hits.

And everyone and their mother went for the sides/rear. Your model isn't really that valid because it assumes an irrational suposit that is the shooter going for a sub-optimal placement.

**UncleThomson**

Lord Kragan wrote:

Yeah, no one had EVER attacked a Leman Russ' rear armour. If anything battletanks are more survivable against many weapons because they won't get shagged in their rears.

As for the lascannons. That's them actually being useful, not the russ being bad.

When someone gets to the rear of a Russ you did something terribly wrong - except in close combat where you hit it even if you're standing right in front of it - but if anybody gets into close combat with your Russ things are so bad it doesn't matter anyways.

Side armor is a different matter, and yes vs AV 13 las cannons are much better in 7th than vs AV 14, so I will admit it is tougher now if shots come from its sides (if vehicles don't get a penalty on toughness if attacked from the sides, but that is pure speculation right now).

And Lascannons where extremely useful in 7th. I never had problems with my Lascannons. They where good vs basically everything besides AV 14.
They still are good in 8th, and it seems that footslogging guardsmen may be a thing there. But Leman Russ tanks? I would almost bet that they won't see any action in any competive environment in 8th. There is still the chance that they get some special rules which will boost their performance - or their point value will be reduced to something in the ballpark of 5 or 6 marines. Then they will be interesting.

**Lord Kragan**

Hell, just for the sake of it, let's compare it to melta guns, another anti tank weapon.

Vs 7th edition russ.

Front side:

-Full range. 1/6 wound, no pens. 18 shots.

-Half range. 72,2% wounds. So give or take 4 hits.

Laterals:

-Full range. 1/3 wounds. 9 shots, though you may be lucky and blow it. Not counting on it though.

-Half range. 5/6 wounds. 3.6 hits.

Rear side:

-Full range. 5/6 wounds. 3.6 hits

-Half range. The land raider is dead in 3 hits.

It could as well blow up if there was a pen with just one shot.

Now vs 8th edition leman russ.

Wounds on 4s and doesn't have saves and suffers an average of 3.5 wounds per hit. On average, at full range that means you need 8 melta shots to ensure its demise while you may need like half a dozen shots to kill him.

ON ANY SIDE. Not just the front side.

And this is made better once you consider that a leman russ cannot be instantaneously killed.

**Inquisitor Lord Katherine**

Lord Kragan wrote:

Yeah, no one had EVER attacked a Leman Russ' rear armour. If anything battletanks are more survivable against many weapons because they won't get shagged in their rears.

As for the lascannons. That's them actually being useful, not the russ being bad. And you not considering them attacking the sides for the lascannons either. In that case you'd need just 6 lascannon hits.

And everyone and their mother went for the sides/rear. Your model isn't really that valid because it assumes an irrational suposit that is the shooter going for a sub-optimal placement.

Hahahahaha.... I don't think my tanks have taken a hit on their AV14 since the God-Emperor only knows when. It's the Optimized Stealth Cadre every day, all day.

Seriously. It's either Gauss Guns, that don't care which facing they're shooting, or the OSC, which ignores cover and always hits vehicles on their rear armour.

G00fySmiley wrote:
couple things...

first we have no idea how much ork boys will cost. current numbers are 6 points per boy so 120 boys would run 720 points. if you are talking infantry vs infanty that is 51 space marines or 144 guardsman. I can tell you how that would currently go... ork player would lose if play skill is equal close to 100% of the time. (not saying tac marines are Op but that ork boys are so points inefficient it is laughable.)

second we have no idea what movement values will be. if those orks are only moving 4 or 5 inches then if shooting remained as powerful orks would still be the bottom of the bottom tier never making it into combat where they can actually so something (same place they have been for 2 editions doing the same thing bringing me to my next point...)

third horde armies have not been really viable for the past 2 editions. the reason for that is pretty simple everybody gets templates all over ripping anything outside a transport without a good armor save. I welcome the changes as I want to see more playstyles be viable making for more varied and fun games. 7th feels like paper, rock, scissors, and I choose to auto lose (horde). some lists can beat some things but everything beats a horde.

I would disagree. Having a lot of guardsmen worked out fine for me. I brought a large number of Lascannons and a fair number of guys, supported by a Basilisk, Wyvern, and Manticore in that battery formation that lets them receive orders. Then I put all the guys and the artillery behind an Aegis Barricade, and shoot at the enemy. I also bring everything I can get to ensure I go first, so I get to shoot at them more.

**auticus**

Having served as an actual tank crewman in the army... tanks are not anti-infantry platforms. Main battle cannons are meant for taking out structures and other armor. Not infantry.

These changes are fine with me.

What I am hearing is the desire for a tank model to be really good at killing any type of target so that they are a must take instead of situationally being good at taking out some things making them a situational take.

If you're powergaming, then yeah tanks aren't going to give you 100% utility that you are searching for.

**Lord Kragan**

UncleThomson wrote:
Lord Kragan wrote:

Yeah, no one had EVER attacked a Leman Russ' rear armour. If anything battletanks are more survivable against many weapons because they won't get shagged in their rears.

As for the lascannons. That's them actually being useful, not the russ being bad.

When someone gets to the rear of a Russ you did something terribly wrong

Drop pods. Cult insurrection. Tau or any other faction deepstriking. Outflanking. Optimized stealth cadre.

Do I need to go on?

And as for the lascannons, that's why everyone and their mother took them for competitive, right?

**Martel732**

UncleThomson wrote:
Lord Kragan wrote:

Yeah, no one had EVER attacked a Leman Russ' rear armour. If anything battletanks are more survivable against many weapons because they won't get shagged in their rears.

As for the lascannons. That's them actually being useful, not the russ being bad.

When someone gets to the rear of a Russ you did something terribly wrong - except in close combat where you hit it even if you're standing right in front of it - but if anybody gets into close combat with your Russ things are so bad it doesn't matter anyways.

Side armor is a different matter, and yes vs AV 13 las cannons are much better in 7th than vs AV 14, so I will admit it is tougher now if shots come from its sides (if vehicles don't get a penalty on toughness if attacked from the sides, but that is pure speculation right now).

And Lascannons where extremely useful in 7th. I never had problems with my Lascannons. They where good vs basically everything besides AV 14.
They still are good in 8th, and it seems that footslogging guardsmen may be a thing there. But Leman Russ tanks? I would almost bet that they won't see any action in any competive environment in 8th. There is still the chance that they get some special rules which will boost their performance - or their point value will be reduced to something in the ballpark of 5 or 6 marines. Then they will be interesting.

Lascannons were trash in 7th. Play some Tau or Eldar and tell me otherwise.

"When someone gets to the rear of a Russ you did something terribly wrong"

A Dante-led angel's wing with archangel demi company can deepstrike 2/3 of the list with zero scatter turn 1, and all can have melta weapons. GG Russes.

**UncleThomson**

Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

Hahahahaha.... I don't think my tanks have taken a hit on their AV14 since the God-Emperor only knows when. It's the Optimized Stealth Cadre every day, all day.

Well... Tau where cheating... and Eldar had D weapons.

We have no idea what they are doing now. Maybe Tau Weapons treat the Toughness of all vehicles as 2...

I am just looking on what we know, and that does not look nice.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lord Kragan wrote:

Drop pods. Cult insurrection. Tau or any other faction deepstriking. Outflanking. Optimized stealth cadre.

Yeah the optimized stealth cadre is IMO silly. All the other things can't attack from off board, or get into unpassable terrain, or drop right on enemy models.

**Lord Kragan**

UncleThomson wrote:
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

Hahahahaha.... I don't think my tanks have taken a hit on their AV14 since the God-Emperor only knows when. It's the Optimized Stealth Cadre every day, all day.

Well... Tau where cheating... and Eldar had D weapons.

We have no idea what they are doing now. Maybe Tau Weapons treat the Toughness of all vehicles as 2...

I am just looking on what we know, and that does not look nice.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lord Kragan wrote:

Drop pods. Cult insurrection. Tau or any other faction deepstriking. Outflanking. Optimized stealth cadre.

Yeah the optimized stealth cadre is IMO silly. All the other things can't attack from off board, or get into unpassable terrain, or drop right on enemy models.

And at that moment you're operating outside a vacuum, and thus this math-hammering is pointless.

**UncleThomson**

Lord Kragan wrote:

And at that moment you're operating outside a vacuum, and thus this math-hammering is pointless.

Well, that of course is true. I was just saying from what we know the Russ is worse than it has been before, and I agree we don't know much.
However, if there are some things we don't know which improve the durability of the Leman Russ tank, or things that boost the performance of its turret weapons, I think it wasn't wise to use just its toughness, save and wounds or the stats of the weapon to make an argument about how awesome it is.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
P.S.: The numbers for Melta at short range:

vs front 7th: 3.137 hits
vs side 7th: 2.66

in 8th: 5.65

So yes, vs Melta its tougher, or Melta got worse