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.

UncleThomson wrote:

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

I didn't factor in explodes results in 7th, just for the sake of it, tbh.

I had a slight error. Here are the full numbers for Melta short and long and for Lascannon:

Melta long Range:
Avg turns to death vs Front 7th: 18.0
Avg turns to death vs Side 7th: 7.58
Avg turns to death vs Rear 11 7th: 2.63
Avg turns to death vs Rear 10 7th: 1.73

Avg turns to death 8th: 7.81

Melta short Range:
Avg turns to death vs Front 7th: 3.137324
Avg turns to death vs Side 7th: 2.66
Avg turns to death vs Rear 11 7th: 2.21
Avg turns to death vs Rear 10 7th: 2.13

Avg turns to death 8th: 6.28

Lascannon:
Avg turns to death vs Front 7th: 8.2
Avg turns to death vs Side 7th: 5.36
Avg turns to death vs Rear 11 7th: 3.14
Avg turns to death vs Rear 10 7th: 2.6

Avg turns to death 8th: 7.03

To be honest, they don't look bad.

P.S.: Biggest difference where it is worse is Melta to the front at long range by far. Lascannon to the front is worse, but not extremely worse. And I must admit I never ever saw someone firing melta at long range vs AV 14...

P.P.S: Battle cannon would be 7.65. But remember you have to figure in the ballistic skill in all of this. So a guard heavy weapons team without any boosts needs 14 turns to kill a russ, while a Devastator needs 10 turns, and a Russ needs 15.3 turns to kill an other russ just with its battle cannon.


P.P.P.S: And there we are back to point costs. A Russ with a lascannon will basically double its fire power vs vehicles, while one with a heavy bolter doubles it vs infantry. This could become interesting if they don't stick to its current 150 pts price tag.

 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.

A 7th ed marine kills 2/3 * 1/2 with a bolter per shot, so it takes 3 bolter shots to down an Ork, on board so far? 51 space marines shooting bolters is 17 dead orks per round. It will take the orks 2 rounds to get a charge which we will call 3 to reflect one of those is rapid fire. They will have 69 boyz when they hit the space marine lines, which with charge and pistol shots on the way in is more than enough to crump 51 marines. That's not counting transports, cover, or any possible smart moves on the orks part, so a literal worst case scenario. This never happened in 7th ed because of templates, heavy weapons, free transports for the marines, etc.

in 8th ed, it gets much more grim for the space marines, because the orks now get their t-shirt saves, and get to use their sluggas in CC as pistols. Worse All of the old standbys marines used to deal with hordes are gimped, flamers, missile launchers, demolisher cannons, whirlwind launchers, thunderfire cannons, etc. all do a fraction of their prior damage to hordes. You will have to plan for horde armies in 8th, it will no longer be an autowin.

Another consideration here: as far as we can tell, Crew Shaken/Stunned is no longer a thing in 8e. In 6/7e, a Russ with a blast-based gun getting shaken or stunned meant that gun couldn't even try to shoot (the sponsons and hull gun could at least fire some snap-peas that might do something on a lucky roll). So, while the 8e Russ might be easier to kill, it'll be at least somewhat useful right up until it dies, while the current one can be effectively neutralized by anything that can penetrate it (which is, admittedly, not much from the front, but more from the side and nigh unto everything from the rear).

 auticus wrote:
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.

Well my man, have I got some news for you!

The battlecannon... is terrible against other armor!

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 auticus wrote:
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.

Well my man, have I got some news for you!

The battlecannon... is terrible against other armor!

No, it isn't, I swear I could throw up a gakky excel chart on this board with no axis labels claiming they sky was falling and that would create a run on umbrellas.

Las cannon vs Leman Russ
1/2 * 2/3 *5/6 * 3.5 = .97 damage per round

battle cannon vs. Leman Russ
1/2 * 1/2 * 2/3 * 3.5 * 2 = 1.17 damage per round

A battle cannon is better at hurting a Leman russ than a las cannon, and way better at hurting a dread than a las cannon. Seriously do the G-damn before you post, rather than parroting the mystery chart. we've had five pages of people quoting something that's as mathematically sound as north koreas rocket program.

 Grimgold wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 auticus wrote:
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.

Well my man, have I got some news for you!

The battlecannon... is terrible against other armor!

No, it isn't, I swear I could throw up a gakky excel chart on this board with no axis labels claiming they sky was falling and that would create a run on umbrellas.

Las cannon vs Leman Russ
1/2 * 2/3 *5/6 * 3.5 = .97 damage per round

battle cannon vs. Leman Russ
1/2 * 1/2 * 2/3 * 3.5 * 2 = 1.17 damage per round

A battle cannon is better at hurting a Leman russ than a las cannon, and way better at hurting a dread than a las cannon. Seriously do the G-damn before you post, rather than parroting the mystery chart. we've had five pages of people quoting something that's as mathematically sound as north koreas rocket program.

At this point I'm just going to quote the posts I've made addressing this argument. It really isn't worth my time typing it over and over, just for you to quietly slip out of the thread without addressing it and then come back later repeating this tired line of thinking.

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 Ronin_eX wrote:
The numbers bear this out. It is a better anti-infantry weapon than a single heavy bolter (in fact, it's about twice as good). It is a better anti-vehicle weapon than the lascannon (which is actually pretty good this edition for anti-vehicle work). It hits its niche versus small units of multi-wound units with good saves (units likely to become much more common in 8th).

The numbers don't bear it out because you're failing to calculate points-per-wound. It may put out twice as many wounds as a heavy bolter but it isn't "twice as good" unless it's less than twice the cost, and the same is true for the lascannon comparison.

There is no way for you to spin the battlecannon as being "a jack of all trades" so long as it's averaging only one to two wounds on every unit type in the game. That isn't a jack-of-all-trades, that's being terrible at everything.

 BlaxicanX 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.

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.

As someone who got into 40K because of the Leman Russ Battle Tank, let me chime in...

tneva82 wrote:

Spoiler:

 BunkhouseBuster wrote:
Considering that several rules are ported over from or inspired b Age of Sigmar, I can tell you that there are some "blast" AOE attacks in that game that work in different ways:

- Nominate a point on the battlefield as the target, and each unit takes an amount of hits or damage.

- If a shot misses its target, it has a chance to divert (or "scatter") its shot onto another target.

- If the enemy unit contains so many models, then the shot gets a bonus to the Hit, Wound, or Damage to represent higher casualties on a mass of bodies.

Not yet everything is released. Hold off on speculation and be glad that GW is including its customers's input in new releases.

Yes not everything is released. But battle cannon is. Those rules don't help much BATTLE CANNON since we know it's rules already.

But we don't have the rules for the Leman Russ itself, do we? The Datasheet for the Leman Russ may include a special rule that gives it a bonus for firing its battle cannon at a large infantry, and a different bonus for shooting at a vehicle or monstrous creature.

 Afrodactyl wrote:
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.

By the Emperor, yes! Until GW releases more information through their teasers or the actual new books themselves, this is all speculation. Until we get the rules in their entirety, we won't know how everything works together.

Anyone seen the new Datasheet released that covers the Thousand Sons Rubric Marines unit? That has 3 special Abilities on the unit that we were not aware of existing beforehand, and special section about the Sorceror having a modified version of a standard Psychic power. There is more to come, and we don't know it all yet. Have we even seen how the rest of the army performs that may give it synergy? What if it gets a +1 to hit for each other Leman Russ in the squad? I might be rambling about what is to come, but so are many others with these 8th edition change threads.

 auticus wrote:
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.

Cool to hear that you actually served in the armed forces, didn't know that about you, Auticus.

Anyways, we can play with numbers and do math all day long to figure out "optimized" and "efficient for points" lists. But I will tell you exactly what I told some of the local players in my area: I don't care about that. What drew me into the game of 40K was aesthetics of the Leman Russ and Baneblade tanks. They and the other tanks of the Imperium are literally the reason I have invested so much time and money into this wonderful hobby. And I don't care about playing in tournaments or any sort of competitive environment. I have been immensely enjoying Age of Sigmar and its approach to the gaming aspects of Open, Narrative, and Matched Play options, which to me is AoS's biggest strength.

Knowing that every army has been completely re-written is the best part of this edition change. Sure, the Leman Russ might not kill very many models in a single volley, but it might not get blasted away for several turns itself. Based on that information alone gives me heart and courage to finish painting up my Guardsmen and tanks that have been sitting in storage for several years, waiting for a chance to play again.

So I ask of you, my fellow wargamers, try not to worry and speculate too much. Whatever happens will happen, and if we don't like it, we can communicate with GW directly about it now, and give them feedback on what is wrong or not based on our experiences.

Halfpast_Yellow wrote:
I think people are looking at the 7th ed large blast scatters compared to an 8th ed D6 mechanic with the rosiest of rose-tinted glasses.

Sure at one time or another everyone over their life of 40k has hit a grouped up marine squad out in the open with a battlecannon(or equivalent) and effectively taken the unit off the table.

But there is a reason that Vindicators, Monoliths, LRBTs and Doomsday guns weren't highly prioritised weapons and remained on the shelf. Generally at most they'd take one wound off an monstrous creature, miss, flub against the AV or cover save of a vehicle, and even on a direct hit on an infantry squad they'd take 3+ or 4+ cover saves.

Now you have a high variance weapon that certainly can punch though saves to deal multiple damage against single model targets. Yes, Marines will get 4+ or 5+ saves against it, but Marines will almost always get *some* save this edition. The nature of AP has totally changed from all or nothing(and then you take a cover save) to almost always something. There is no longer big gulfs between 2+ and 3+ and 4+, and cover is always going to give a benefit to infantry regardless of whether its a Marine or a Guardsman. Conversely, heavy weaponry is always going to have some effect on saving throws, regardless of whether it's a Terminator or a Dire Avenger.

The Battle cannon seems to be in a much better place, especially if a Russ can add sponson and hull weaponry downrange on the same turn. It's still a bit swingy like the old ~2/3 chance to scatter off target, but 1/3 of the time you're rolling out a 5 or 6 shot weapon that wounds Marines (or Terminators or Nobs) on a 2+, an 8th ed rarity and has -2 armour shred which is no slouch either.

Unless you have ignore cover earthshakers.....

I'm kinda miffed tbh, my earthshaker artillery carriages don't seem like that attractive an option now.

 BunkhouseBuster wrote:
But I will tell you exactly what I told some of the local players in my area: I don't care about that.

. . .

Knowing that every army has been completely re-written is the best part of this edition change.

Why? If you don't care about the rules then what difference do the various editions make to you? It's a paradoxical statement to say "dude the rules don't matter lol it's just a game you play for fun" and then follow that up with "but I'm really excited that we're getting a rules change". If all you care about is the aesthetic then the Russ could be turned into a melee jet-pack infantry unit and it wouldn't matter to you so long as it still has the aesthetic of a cool tank, no?

So I ask of you, my fellow wargamers, try not to worry and speculate too much.

This is a discussion board centered around Warhammer 40,000. Why wouldn't we speculate and have in-depth discussions about Warhammer 40,000?

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 BunkhouseBuster wrote:
But I will tell you exactly what I told some of the local players in my area: I don't care about that.

. . .

Knowing that every army has been completely re-written is the best part of this edition change.

Why? If you don't care about the rules then what difference do the various editions make to you? It's a paradoxical statement to say "dude the rules don't matter lol it's just a game you play for fun" and then follow that up with "but I'm really excited that we're getting a rules change". If all you care about is the aesthetic then the Russ could be turned into a melee jet-pack infantry unit and it wouldn't matter to you so long as it still has the aesthetic of a cool tank, no?

I don't care about the "mathhammer" and finding "optimized" and "points efficient" units, or the ultra-competitive nature of many players in my local area. This particular group of players had literally criticized me for bringing a less-than-optimal Space Marine list instead of one more optimized when playing at a casual tournament. I have no interest in playing the game the same way as them, and they keep trying to convince me and others that I should be playing their way, in with telling me "Oh, you need to buy these particular books, but it still isn't very points efficient." That type of gaming is not fun to me, even if I could afford all the models and books to stay competitive.

When I said I didn't care, it was in reference to metagaming and the ultra competitive playstyle that nearly drove me and several others from the hobby, not the rules of the game. The rules themselves are there to facilitate the game and give an abstract, yet understandable method for how a model will perform on the table. To use your example of the Leman Russ representing a unit of Jump Infantry, that is up to GW, though it would be silly and break my and others's suspension of disbelief and would likely have a negative effect on our experience.

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 BunkhouseBuster wrote:
So I ask of you, my fellow wargamers, try not to worry and speculate too much.

This is a discussion board centered around Warhammer 40,000. Why wouldn't we speculate and have in-depth discussions about Warhammer 40,000?

My apologies for not being a bit more clear on this one. Speculating and theorizing is not my problem, but I am tired of seeing negativity in any forum or Facebook group related to 40K. I have seen too many flaming posts and rants and fear-mongering about what the changes might be to 40K once 8th edition hits. I am super excited for the changes coming, and glad to see things getting the complete, all at once overhaul that it was needing, and I am tired of the hate vitriol being spewed forth from others. I was pleading with someone, but maybe not anyone on this thread. I am having some serious familial issues in real life at the moment, and it is so emotionally draining that it is becoming hard to concentrate on anything.



ANYWAYS... On the topic of how blasts now work, I am okay with it. I will kinda miss having the templates themselves to measure out what gets hit or not, but a simplified mechanic that doesn't require having more items to carry and possibly lose during games is going to be nice to try out. Plus it removes the potential for shenanigans of trying to fit in more models under the blast, directionality of the attack, centering the blast over a model, or someone not being honest with how they move the template when it scatters.

Sounds like the stats for BCannons just changed too much for some.

The gun functions differently now, and it being such an iconic weapon on such an iconic unit, there's a decent amount of consternation as a result. There's an expectation in the minds of some that the Battle Cannon was something it's not anymore, and in my opinion maybe never was. They want a large blast template to put over the battlefield, smash a big hole in a large unit, kill lots of models with their big blasty tank gun. Now that it's basically been changed to be a run-of-the-mill tank-mounted cannon that's made for shooting at beefy targets and has less of a big, visual boom, the feels are flying.

 Jambles wrote:
Sounds like the stats for BCannons just changed too much for some. The gun functions differently now, and it being such an iconic weapon on such an iconic unit, there's a decent amount of consternation as a result. There's an expectation in the minds of some that the Battle Cannon was something it's not anymore, and in my opinion maybe never was. They want a large blast template to put over the battlefield, smash a big hole in a large unit, kill lots of models with their big blasty tank gun. Now that it's basically been changed to be a run-of-the-mill tank-mounted cannon that's made for shooting at beefy targets and has less of a big, visual boom, the feels are flying.

Being points-inefficient and weak against all targets is "run of the mill"?

So, from what I can gather so far, the Leman Russ is now AV12 equivalent all round with a debatable save, a vast nerf to its main guns firepower, and a bloat in "wounds" that does not actually mean anything because now even a grot can hurt it, and dedicated heavy weapons will tear it a new one thanks to multiple wounds and save modifiers....
But some people are delusional to see this as a buff?

 BunkhouseBuster wrote:
I don't care about the "mathhammer" and finding "optimized" and "points efficient" units, or the ultra-competitive nature of many players in my local area. This particular group of players had literally criticized me for bringing a less-than-optimal Space Marine list instead of one more optimized when playing at a casual tournament. I have no interest in playing the game the same way as them, and they keep trying to convince me and others that I should be playing their way, in with telling me "Oh, you need to buy these particular books, but it still isn't very points efficient." That type of gaming is not fun to me, even if I could afford all the models and books to stay competitive.

When I said I didn't care, it was in reference to metagaming and the ultra competitive playstyle that nearly drove me and several others from the hobby, not the rules of the game. The rules themselves are there to facilitate the game and give an abstract, yet understandable method for how a model will perform on the table. To use your example of the Leman Russ representing a unit of Jump Infantry, that is up to GW, though it would be silly and break my and others's suspension of disbelief and would likely have a negative effect on our experience.

Uhhhh, well I'm sorry if WAAC players ruined your gaming experience. Few people like WAAC behavior.

I haven't noticed any WAAC behavior in this thread, though. Being a competitive player doesn't make you WAAC and wanting the rules to properly represent the unit's described capabilities doesn't make you WAAC either.

My apologies for not being a bit more clear on this one. Speculating and theorizing is not my problem, but I am tired of seeing negativity in any forum or Facebook group related to 40K. I have seen too many flaming posts and rants and fear-mongering about what the changes might be to 40K once 8th edition hits. I am super excited for the changes coming, and glad to see things getting the complete, all at once overhaul that it was needing, and I am tired of the hate vitriol being spewed forth from others. I was pleading with someone, but maybe not anyone on this thread. I am having some serious familial issues in real life at the moment, and it is so emotionally draining that it is becoming hard to concentrate on anything.

I'm sorry to hear that m8. If it'd make you feel better, you could always make a "what are you excited about/what do you like about 8th edition" thread, if there isn't one already. You'll probably find a lot of like-minded people in such a thread.

 master of ordinance wrote:
So, from what I can gather so far, the Leman Russ is now AV12 equivalent all round with a debatable save, a vast nerf to its main guns firepower, and a bloat in "wounds" that does not actually mean anything because now even a grot can hurt it, and dedicated heavy weapons will tear it a new one thanks to multiple wounds and save modifiers....
But some people are delusional to see this as a buff?

Well, the durability isn't I think much of an issue. It may be AV12 equivalent in toughness, but it getting a save and no longer having exploitable rear/side arcs gives it a much needed buff. If camo-netting still exists then it has a de facto 2+ armor save- even against melta guns you're still getting like a 6+. It's basically four times as durable as the current Riptide.

The firepower is what I'm worried about. All Leman Russ have had god awful firepower for multiple editions, and that's really been the deciding factor on why no one wants to take them, rather then the durability. If the Russ is tough that's nice, but nobody wants to pay hundreds of points for unkillable boxes that can only just sit there and plink away at things...

There needs to be something that makes your opponent want to shoot at them, otherwise they're pointless.

 master of ordinance wrote:
So, from what I can gather so far, the Leman Russ is now AV12 equivalent all round with a debatable save, a vast nerf to its main guns firepower, and a bloat in "wounds" that does not actually mean anything because now even a grot can hurt it, and dedicated heavy weapons will tear it a new one thanks to multiple wounds and save modifiers....
But some people are delusional to see this as a buff?

Yeah, it's getting a buff in 8th ed. The fact that you don't understand doesn't change that.

 master of ordinance wrote:
So, from what I can gather so far, the Leman Russ is now AV12 equivalent all round with a debatable save, a vast nerf to its main guns firepower, and a bloat in "wounds" that does not actually mean anything because now even a grot can hurt it, and dedicated heavy weapons will tear it a new one thanks to multiple wounds and save modifiers....
But some people are delusional to see this as a buff?

Apparently being able to tank twice the melta guns is a nerf, or needing more lascannon shots on the sides and rear. Or not getting annhilated in a combat phase the moment they get to meelee. Or not actually being wounded by a grot since he, most likely would need 30+`compatriots to even come close. Or being able to fire the side-weapons normally (as opposed to 6s all day!) and quite possibly a price reduction. Getting a GOOD save (because, let's remember only a 2+ could beat what it has) is also terrible.

But well, comming from you I didn't expect any meaningulf conversation beyond the usual: we are slapped down again, this is bad.

Firing all weapons with split fire with no chance of getting exploded or self immobilized is amazing.

Martel732 wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:
So, from what I can gather so far, the Leman Russ is now AV12 equivalent all round with a debatable save, a vast nerf to its main guns firepower, and a bloat in "wounds" that does not actually mean anything because now even a grot can hurt it, and dedicated heavy weapons will tear it a new one thanks to multiple wounds and save modifiers....
But some people are delusional to see this as a buff?

Yeah, it's getting a buff in 8th ed. The fact that you don't understand doesn't change that.

How is it being buffed? It is losing armour, losing firepower fro its main cannon and can be smacked by basic infantry from all round? Is that really a buff?

I thought the battle cannon was kind of an all around gun. Sorta high strength, low-ish AP, blast. Doesn't the Russ have a bunch of weapon options for more specialized tactics? Maybe if you want something good for heavy armor you would want to take the Vanquisher. There might be a reason to take the other weapons now. Maybe they'll make the Eradicator better suited to take out large hordes of infantry.


edit: Please stop saying grots can hurt things. I play with grots, they do gak all die when you look at them. I barely kill Space Marines with them. They won't touch leman russes.

It's not losing armor. It's gaining armor that matters and losing armor that doesn't. Do you play against anyone who is any good? AV is usually meaningless in 7th ed. The cannon is much better vs mcs and weaker vs clumped infantry. And it can hurt 2+ armor now.

Lord Kragan wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:
So, from what I can gather so far, the Leman Russ is now AV12 equivalent all round with a debatable save, a vast nerf to its main guns firepower, and a bloat in "wounds" that does not actually mean anything because now even a grot can hurt it, and dedicated heavy weapons will tear it a new one thanks to multiple wounds and save modifiers....
But some people are delusional to see this as a buff?

Apparently being able to tank twice the melta guns is a nerf, or needing more lascannon shots on the sides and rear. Or not getting annhilated in a combat phase the moment they get to meelee. Or not actually being wounded by a grot since he, most likely would need 30+`compatriots to even come close. Or being able to fire the side-weapons normally (as opposed to 6s all day!) and quite possibly a price reduction. Getting a GOOD save (because, let's remember only a 2+ could beat what it has) is also terrible.

But well, comming from you I didn't expect any meaningulf conversation beyond the usual: we are slapped down again, this is bad.

Oh its okay, I am really sorry that I do not buy into the ZOMG GW! circle jerk when I see my army being handed a mixed bag once again. Of course I may be wrong but from my position becoming AV12 AND vulnerabe to every single weapon on the board whilst losing firepower on the main gun is a big thing.
Sure, splitfiring is good and do not get me wrong, it has been needed for ages now, but GW is looking dangerously close to putting out a fire by pouring fuel onto it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
It's not losing armor. It's gaining armor that matters and losing armor that doesn't. Do you play against anyone who is any good? AV is usually meaningless in 7th ed.

It used to be immune to small arms fire on three out of four sides, now it isnt?

There is no av 12 in 8th. Just stop with that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
No one is going to kill your russ with small arms in 8th. Do the math.

Also small arms are mostly crap in 7th. Grav and d weapons make your armor moot.

Well, even needing '6's to wound, enough shooting will hurt a big thing.
Perhaps it is just my history buff side, or my treadhead side coming out, but seeing tanks damaged by small arms fire just hurts me somwhere deep.

 master of ordinance wrote:

Lord Kragan wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:
So, from what I can gather so far, the Leman Russ is now AV12 equivalent all round with a debatable save, a vast nerf to its main guns firepower, and a bloat in "wounds" that does not actually mean anything because now even a grot can hurt it, and dedicated heavy weapons will tear it a new one thanks to multiple wounds and save modifiers....
But some people are delusional to see this as a buff?

Apparently being able to tank twice the melta guns is a nerf, or needing more lascannon shots on the sides and rear. Or not getting annhilated in a combat phase the moment they get to meelee. Or not actually being wounded by a grot since he, most likely would need 30+`compatriots to even come close. Or being able to fire the side-weapons normally (as opposed to 6s all day!) and quite possibly a price reduction. Getting a GOOD save (because, let's remember only a 2+ could beat what it has) is also terrible.

But well, comming from you I didn't expect any meaningulf conversation beyond the usual: we are slapped down again, this is bad.

Oh its okay, I am really sorry that I do not buy into the ZOMG GW! circle jerk when I see my army being handed a mixed bag once again. Of course I may be wrong but from my position becoming AV12 AND vulnerabe to every single weapon on the board whilst losing firepower on the main gun is a big thing.
Sure, splitfiring is good and do not get me wrong, it has been needed for ages now, but GW is looking dangerously close to putting out a fire by pouring fuel onto it.

I understand the immediate reaction, but once you delve into the math of it all, you'd actually be overjoyed if your opponent was focus firing wound-on-6s fire on your tanks. Consider the following:

1. Any infantry unit shooting at a tank isn't shooting something else that they could actually kill with some measure of certainty.

2. Infantry units don't have a really long range. Anything in range to shoot at your tanks has moved a considerable amount of distance or exposed itself to the brunt of your gunlines.

3. While tanks are vulnerable to every weapon, all in all, they're less vulnerable to the weapons that killed them easily in 7th edition. Meltaguns, for instance, won't have an effective 1in3 chance to flat out explodes a vehicle. Additionally, the vehicle damage table is gone - in addition to survivability increase from this, you also get the benefit of usability. No more shaken, stunned, etc.

4. Ditching blasts means your tanks can hunt 1 big model if you want. You could, potentially, deliver 18 wounds to 1 nasty creature with 1 Leman Russ. Suddenly the Tau aren't auto-winning against your tanks and you can respond to Riptides with some measure of force.

Truthfully, when looking at the numbers, tanks are most vulnerable to assault. When it comes to shooting, they're fairly durable.

 master of ordinance wrote:
Well, even needing '6's to wound, enough shooting will hurt a big thing.
Perhaps it is just my history buff side, or my treadhead side coming out, but seeing tanks damaged by small arms fire just hurts me somwhere deep.

No one is going to be able to spare those shots vs guard. I predict their infantry is brutal in 8th.

I hope so too. As I said I will wait to see before passing final judgement, but I dont have my hopes up.

Martel732 wrote: No one is going to kill your russ with small arms in 8th. Do the math.

Just like Grots won't kill a Terminator unit?

Marmatag wrote:1. Any infantry unit shooting at a tank isn't shooting something else that they could actually kill with some measure of certainty.

Models of a unit do not have to target the same thing. Those Lascannons in the Blob Squad (if that remains a thing) can all fire at the Leman Russ while the Flashlights focus on the other Flashlight Carriers.

Marmatag wrote:2. Infantry units don't have a really long range. Anything in range to shoot at your tanks has moved a considerable amount of distance or exposed itself to the brunt of your gunlines.

It depends on how you define really long range. Sure, Grots don't right now, but those Lascannons and Rokkit Launchas do have some range. And if they are sitting in cover with that long range, then they still have cover without being as exposed.

Really, this line is no more relevant in 8th than it is in 7th, 6th, or 5th.

Marmatag wrote:3. While tanks are vulnerable to every weapon, all in all, they're less vulnerable to the weapons that killed them easily in 7th edition. Meltaguns, for instance, won't have an effective 1in3 chance to flat out explodes a vehicle. Additionally, the vehicle damage table is gone - in addition to survivability increase from this, you also get the benefit of usability. No more shaken, stunned, etc.

An assumption based on null data. In fact, they have mentioned that there are ways to instant-kill tanks still, I believe.

Marmatag wrote:4. Ditching blasts means your tanks can hunt 1 big model if you want. You could, potentially, deliver 18 wounds to 1 nasty creature with 1 Leman Russ. Suddenly the Tau aren't auto-winning against your tanks and you can respond to Riptides with some measure of force.

Tau are one of those forces which rely on big long range guns that you mentioned do not exist in point 2. A Leman Russ is just as likely to survive a Riptide's opening salvo in 8th and it is in 7th. This is especially an agregious point as we don't know the Riptide's Weapon capabilities or the special rules that either unit will be employing.

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 Jambles wrote:
Sounds like the stats for BCannons just changed too much for some. The gun functions differently now, and it being such an iconic weapon on such an iconic unit, there's a decent amount of consternation as a result. There's an expectation in the minds of some that the Battle Cannon was something it's not anymore, and in my opinion maybe never was. They want a large blast template to put over the battlefield, smash a big hole in a large unit, kill lots of models with their big blasty tank gun. Now that it's basically been changed to be a run-of-the-mill tank-mounted cannon that's made for shooting at beefy targets and has less of a big, visual boom, the feels are flying.

Being points-inefficient and weak against all targets is "run of the mill"?

You have no idea how much a battle cannon costs in 8th ed. so any argument where you call them points inefficient is literally just making stuff up. It's also not weak compared with other 8th ed weapons (the only valid comparison frame), it's better than a las cannon at anti-vehicle work and as good as two heavy bolters at anti-infantry work. That sounds like a flexible weapon, and if it's priced appropriately (which we still don't know) it will be a real asset to the IG.

 master of ordinance wrote:
losing firepower on the main gun is a big thing.

Your main gun is now a big monster/tank/small elite units hunter, that is not a loss of fire power it's a change of target priority. If you want to blast infantry again I am sure the punisher will step up and do remember this is the base Russ model i.e. the cheapest, so the gun shouldn't be able to auto kill everything.