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.

No. The LRBT and its variants need a major buff.

I guess I was wrong. It doesn't need to be 100 points more expensive. It needs to be a 150 points more expensive

This level of imbalance is just utterly absurd. How the hell can the FW guys be this bad at this?

 Crimson wrote:
This level of imbalance is just utterly absurd. How the hell can the FW guys be this bad at this?

Because they wrote the book in 15 minutes. It's obviously a rush job to make sure that FW models technically have 8th edition rules, not a real book.

It's worth noting that comparing a Vulture to a Russ Punisher is like comparing RKO to Steven Hawking in a wrestling match.

Leman Russes are arguably the worst heavy support unit in the guard codex, at least if you believe the guard tactica threads.

Has someone done some math?
The Vulture will kill on average with its main weapon :
8.7 guardsmen (6.6 guardsmen in cover).
4.4 marines (2.2 marines in cover).
Even at bs3 when remaining immobile, it's only +16,6% of effectiveness.
I see nothing outstanding here. Just an average unit that may make its point back after turn 3.
But yes, you can compare it with LR, one of our worst units, to make it appear very good.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
It's worth noting that comparing a Vulture to a Russ Punisher is like comparing RKO to Steven Hawking in a wrestling match.

Leman Russes are arguably the worst heavy support unit in the guard codex, at least if you believe the guard tactica threads.

Then compare it to a Dakkajet. Similar cost, similar role. The vulture spits out twice the amount of damage and can absorb twice the amount of shooting.

Luckily it is a forgeworld model, and it can only be played with your opponents permission.

Yeah, the Russ tank itself needs a tremendous amount of help. Russ tanks got some of the least friendly weapons transitions to 8E (Exterminator Autocannon not doubling its shots the way most other TL guns did, Battlecannons being starkly poor weapons, Demolisher cannon having a very weak profile, etc) and the fact that they're functionally only very minorly more resilient than ostensibly far less heavily armored units (a formerly AV14 Russ tank now has grand total of +1T and +2W over a formerly AV11 Rhino) makes for a very poor unit option unfortunately.

I don't fully understand why they didn't transition AV14 to T10, or even T9.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Yeah, the Russ tank itself needs a tremendous amount of help. Russ tanks got some of the least friendly weapons transitions to 8E (Exterminator Autocannon not doubling its shots the way most other TL guns did, Battlecannons being starkly poor weapons, Demolisher cannon having a very weak profile, etc) and the fact that they're functionally only very minorly more resilient than ostensibly far less heavily armored units (a formerly AV14 Russ tank now has grand total of +1T and +2W over a formerly AV11 Rhino) makes for a very poor unit option unfortunately.

Most models or weapon profiles that fired a template in 7th is weak in 8th. It is simply something that GW needs to address down the line.

But that does not excuse the extreme brokeness of the vulture win-button.

 Blacksails wrote:
I don't fully understand why they didn't transition AV14 to T10, or even T9.

I think more resilient vehicles should have been T9. Most tanks are now either T7 or T8, but with the S9 lascannons being so common, it doesn't matter much as it wounds both with equal ease.

 Crimson wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
I don't fully understand why they didn't transition AV14 to T10, or even T9.

I think more resilient vehicles should have been T9. Most tanks are now either T7 or T8, but with the S9 lascannons being so common, it doesn't matter much as it wounds both with equal ease.

There is a LOT of S7 and especially S8 firepower out there. The difference between T7 and T8 is huge. The problem is not that Russes and baneblades are T8, it is that rhinos and vultures are T7, when they should probably have been T6 with a 4+ save on the vulture.

I look at the problem like this: for every shot it makes, 4/9 will hit and wound if it stands still. That results in about 18 wounds. Marines will save two thirds, resulting in 6 dead marines (78 points without upgrades) while 12 guardsmen will die (48 points without upgrades). So against Marines, it will earn it's points back after 2 turns of straight shooting or so. Since it might have to move some, and it might die during the game, I find that if it could earn it's points back after maybe 4 turns it could be balanced. This would mean a doubling of the cost. Against guardsmen, it takes about 3-4 turns for it to make its points back, sot it is also balanced in this way. A good solution would be a rebalance that targets its ability to fight heavier infantry (Marines etc) instead of its ability against every target. Reducing the strength to 4 would give some of this, as it deals the same damage to T3 but less to everything T4 and up. This could be coupled with an increase in points, a reduction in toughness, wounds or save, but not one as drastic as those 100+ pts people are talking about.

But yes, something should most likely be done to the Vulture as well as other offenders.

pismakron wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
It's worth noting that comparing a Vulture to a Russ Punisher is like comparing RKO to Steven Hawking in a wrestling match.

Leman Russes are arguably the worst heavy support unit in the guard codex, at least if you believe the guard tactica threads.

Then compare it to a Dakkajet. Similar cost, similar role. The vulture spits out twice the amount of damage and can absorb twice the amount of shooting.

Luckily it is a forgeworld model, and it can only be played with your opponents permission.

The Dakkajet is also a terrible unit then? And everything in the game requires your opponent's permission. I can refuse to play against your Tactical Marines if I feel like it, and it is up to store owner's or tournament organisers whether or not to allow any models to be played. The argument that only Forge World models would require an opponent's permission is among the worst ones you could make.

T9 would have been fine, at least lascannons and their ilk would be wounding on 4s, rather than 3s. Even with the wound chart changes, I still can't shake the feeling that Russes (and by extension, most AV14 front vehicles) should have been T10.

I love that the vehicles now use same profile as other units, but I really don't understand GW's logic in assigning the stats. There could and should have been much more granularity. Most vehicles are now T7 or T8 with 3+ save. There should have been more variation. T5 to T10 and Saves from 4+ to 2+ could and should have been used.

I'm not going to say the LR is garbage, because it's not that bad, but.... yeah just about every other option in our Heavy Support section is more efficient than it to varying degrees.

For example, if you're thinking of taking one of the blast Russes, you should seriously consider taking a Basilisk or Manticore instead. You'll pay roughly 2/3 of the price, get nearly the same durability, and get way more shooting out of them at the same AP, same damage, and higher strength (9/10 vs 8).

Another thing to keep in mind when comparing the Vulture to the Punisher Russ though (and something that kind of applies to LRs in general) is it really doesn't pay all that much for any of its guns. Because it has so many turret options, every single one of its turret options is pointed... which means we know exactly how much a naked LRBT costs: 132 points.

And we know none of those turret options are splitting their cost with the hull (or at least they shouldn't be), because we can put lascannons in the turret and it doesn't get a discount on them. Note to GW: if you did split the costs of the turret weapons with the hull, you should probably undo that to avoid shafting the lascannon turret.

So while a minimally equipped Punisher Russ costs 160 points, 132 points of that is hull and only 28 points is weapons. For a mere 22 more points it can also raise its shot total from 23 to 32 (3 shots each from two heavy bolters and a heavy stubber). This shows that the cost of the Vulture's extra firepower is actually fairly small. Roughly 20-40 points, certainly not 100 or 150 (I mean come on, at 310 points it would cost almost as much as some Baneblade variants).

Though, I also note that the Vulture pays full price for each of its Punishers. A Punisher is 20 points, it pays 40 points for 2 of them. Is the Punisher itself a bit underpriced? Maybe.

I don't really know of any other S5 AP0 weapon to compare it to (because pulse rifles are 0 points, not a very useful comparison). At 20 for 20 it is 1 point per shot though, while a S5 AP-1 heavy bolter is 8 for 3, 2.7 points per shot. Depends on how much -1AP, 12" of extra range, and the ability to split-fire in groups of 3 are worth. A S4 AP0 heavy stubber is 4 for 3, 1.25 points per shot, but it has 1 less strength on the one hand and 12" more range on the other.

Or maybe the LRBT just needs its hull discounted a little bit, which would help it compare more favorably with the Basilisk and Manticore too.

We might just have to wait to see what happens when the codexes come out.

Take a Captain with a jump pack and power fist and just jump up and punch it to death. Problem solved.

I mean, in general they probably should have spent a lot more time thinking about how to balance tanks and anti-tank weapons. It's sort of bizarre that Lascannons don't care about toughness at all, that Bright/Dark Lances are better than Lascannons against T7 3+ transports and worse against T8 3+/2+ battle tanks instead of the other way around, and that Meltaguns are only marginally better than Lascannons against T8 even inside half range (and that's when there's no invulnerable save). And of course plasma is pretty silly.

Hard to Hit T7 is basically always going to be better than regular T8. Even against BS3+, HtH is like a 25% save, so HtH T7 is just as good as T8 against BS3+ S8. It's 12% more vulnerable to S7 and more durable against all other strengths.

 Crimson wrote:
I love that the vehicles now use same profile as other units, but I really don't understand GW's logic in assigning the stats. There could and should have been much more granularity. Most vehicles are now T7 or T8 with 3+ save. There should have been more variation. T5 to T10 and Saves from 4+ to 2+ could and should have been used.

I've been thinking about this a lot since 8th dropped. My best conclusion is that GW was a bit hesitant to go too crazy out of the gate. We know that things go over 10 now for values, but how many weapons or statlines do we have that actually take advantage of that fact?

Most of the "over 10" values have been Wounds with a smattering of weapons here and there. I can't help but think that maybe GW was playing it safe at launch but as codices come out and they've had a chance to see feedback/the game "out in the wild" things will change.

I would not be surprised to see, with the example of the Leman Russ, things like Extra Armour or Reinforced Hulls making a comeback and bumping up their Toughness or Save values.

 ross-128 wrote:
Text

Well, a lot of the problems comes with how weirdly the Leman Russ turrets have been gives stats. The Twin Lascannon is 40 points and slightly better than a Battle Cannon against vehicles, but the weapon costs almost double the points, so it results in it only being a few percent more efficient when you include hull costs etc. The Vanquisher is just terrible and worse than both in all metrics. But things get weird, because not only is the Battle Cannon one of the best against vehicles, it's dramatically worse against infantry. Against Marines, every shot it gets will result in an unsaved wound less than a third of the time. So even if it gets 6 shots, it would result in about 2 dead marines/turn and it could perhaps just make its points cost back in 6 turns of standing still and shooting a unit of them. The Punisher deals more than double the damage against MEQ-targets, because even though it has a 1/9 chance of dealing the same number of wounds, on average it has more than five times the amount of shots the Leman Russ has. But even that it barely makes its cost back in the best case scenario, barring extreme rolling!

I think they might need to go back to the drawing board entirely with the Leman Russ weapons and actually try to make each them efficient in its own niche. Make the Twin Lascannon and Vanquisher good against vehicles, make the Punisher good at killing lighter infantry (and decent at medium-heavy). Make the Battle Cannon a real jack of all trades, with more shots but perhaps less damage per shot.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:


I would not be surprised to see, with the example of the Leman Russ, things like Extra Armour or Reinforced Hulls making a comeback and bumping up their Toughness or Save values.

The Mars-Alpha has a rule giving it 2+Sv against S4 or lower weapons. That's the kind of things they should add.

 Blacksails wrote:
I don't fully understand why they didn't transition AV14 to T10, or even T9.

Its probably because a lot of not impirum armies cap out at ST8 or have very limited access to higher ST weapons.

tons of wounds + only 5s to wound is going to be a nightmare to balance for every single army.

I do think a T9 LRBT would be a good idea though. Half the point of a LRBT is to be a pain for anything below S9 in the first place.

 Aenarian wrote:


The Mars-Alpha has a rule giving it 2+Sv against S4 or lower weapons. That's the kind of things they should add.

No. That's exactly the sort of pointless and overly complicated FW rule that I don't want to see.

 Crimson wrote:

 Aenarian wrote:


The Mars-Alpha has a rule giving it 2+Sv against S4 or lower weapons. That's the kind of things they should add.

No. That's exactly the sort of pointless and overly complicated FW rule that I don't want to see.

It's not really any different from TSons getting a 2+Sv against D1 weapons.

I would like to see Extra Armor become a way to buy extra T or Sv. It's exactly what it says on the tin! And maybe Dozer Blade can cover whichever one Extra Armor doesn't, since difficult terrain (its former purpose) doesn't exist anymore. Alternatively, I wouldn't mind Dozer Blade being +1WS and a melee weapon.

 Crimson wrote:

 Aenarian wrote:


The Mars-Alpha has a rule giving it 2+Sv against S4 or lower weapons. That's the kind of things they should add.

No. That's exactly the sort of pointless and overly complicated FW rule that I don't want to see.

As mentioned, it's already a rule for the Thousand Sons.

It wouldn't be a big deal to see something like this on the Leman Russ chassis:

Lumbering Behemoth--Models with this special rule add +1 to their saves against weapons with a save value of 4 or lower and ignore their AP values.

People who think that LR's (or heavy vehicles in general) should get T9 and/or T10 probably only play Imperium-armies, where you can easily get access to S9 AP3 in the form of Lascannons.

Not only that, but Missile Launchers (who are already worse than Lascannons at dealing with heavy armour) would be pretty much useless. Very few shots, wounding on *5+* and often leaving a decent armoursave? Very impressive...

I play IG and SM myself, and if Russes and/or Landraiders went to T9 (let alone T10) I would stop using them.
They'd be close to unkillable in regular games, especially if you spammed them, and alot of (non-imperium) armies wouldn't be able to handle them.

 Crimson wrote:

 Aenarian wrote:


The Mars-Alpha has a rule giving it 2+Sv against S4 or lower weapons. That's the kind of things they should add.

No. That's exactly the sort of pointless and overly complicated FW rule that I don't want to see.

"We want more flavour!" "We want less flavour!" "This model's rules are overly complicated!" "This model's rules are too bland!"

I will never understand people. The rule itself seems fine, it halves all damage done to it by light weapons, seemingly addressing the issue some folk had with lasguns being able to penetrate heavy armour. It's way better than extra toughness for those cases. Do you want everything to have no rules and a set statline which cannot be modified in any way?

 MinscS2 wrote:
People who think that LR's (or heavy vehicles in general) should get T9 and/or T10 probably only play Imperium-armies, where you can easily get access to S9 AP3 in the form of Lascannons.

Or maybe they just feel that since GW saw fit not to use bespoke rules to add survivability, they'd rather see the easy route of higher Toughness taken?

Not only that, but Missile Launchers (who are already worse than Lascannons at dealing with heavy armour) would be pretty much useless. Very few shots, wounding on *5+* and often leaving a decent armoursave? Very impressive...

Let's be brutally honest here. Missile Launchers have always been worse than Lascannons at dealing with armour, be it heavy or light. It's the "jack of all trades" weapon with the variable ammo types it has access to.

If we want Missile Launchers to be better, they need a points bump. Sorry.

I play IG and SM myself, and if Russes and/or Landraiders went to T9 (let alone T10) I would stop using them.
They'd be close to unkillable in regular games, especially if you spammed them, and alot of (non-imperium) armies wouldn't be able to handle them.

You can't really compare Russes to Land Raiders aside from AV though. Land Raiders are one-shot choices, while Leman Russes get squadroned. Russes are meant to destroy things while Raiders are meant to carry things and provide fire support to boot.

 Aenarian wrote:


"We want more flavour!" "We want less flavour!" "This model's rules are overly complicated!" "This model's rules are too bland!"

I will never understand people. The rule itself seems fine, it halves all damage done to it by light weapons, seemingly addressing the issue some folk had with lasguns being able to penetrate heavy armour. It's way better than extra toughness for those cases. Do you want everything to have no rules and a set statline which cannot be modified in any way?

I frankly don't want FW try to add flavour rules, they're bad at it. Lasguns killing Russes is not a problem to begin with, so it doesn't need fixing. And why would this one type of Russ be twice as resilient agains small arms anyway? The chassis do not seem that much different.

Now, that is quite harmless 'flavour' rule, but look at FW's traitor guard rules. By adding their 'flavour rules' (the random LD being the worst offender) they have managed to turn one of the most solid factions (IG) into nigh unplayable mess.

 Crimson wrote:
I love that the vehicles now use same profile as other units, but I really don't understand GW's logic in assigning the stats. There could and should have been much more granularity. Most vehicles are now T7 or T8 with 3+ save. There should have been more variation. T5 to T10 and Saves from 4+ to 2+ could and should have been used.

Those values have been used. Look at the other armies...