Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I like MMs and PC (for my LR that can receive orders), but with the ability to rack up 8 executioner shots or 2D6 Cannon shots, HBs are looking like the better choice. It the turret can push out enough AntiTank, maybe HBs will be worth it.

 ross-128 wrote:
Yeah, I think really there's three main secondary loadouts to consider:
1: HB spam, for when you're planning to grinding advance up the board.
2: HB+LC, for when you're probably not going to move and want that extra anti-tank shot.
3: PC+LC, for when you are absolutely positively not going anywhere, want solid anti-tank out to 36" (and a LC out to 48" at least), and have a way to mitigate Gets Hot rolls.

I'll probably run HB/lascannon since that's the classic loadout but I can see a point to every combo except maybe plasma cannons. My plasmastorm executioner has them and 2d3 plasma shots that burn half your health and crap out for the rest of the game on a 1 is pretty brutal. Firing the turret twice instead is far more useful and at that point I'd just prefer heavy Bolters or Flamers to defend itself with.

They also teased the next Regiment, the Vostoyans:

Tomorrow, we’ll be looking at the Vostroyans, an army designed to defeat your enemies by outranging them – find out more tomorrow!

For Infantry, my money is on getting something similar to the Death Guard where they can Rapid Fire out to 18".

In addition, the important tidbit from the 'Form Firing Squad' part is that it's an Order, not a special ability... obviously indicates that at least one part of the Orders chart is going to have Regiment-specific Orders.

I do not know why people are getting all excited about doubletapping Russ weapons - unless GW have done something to make them not suck as much now.
Back in 5th/6th I could reliably get 4 kills with the battlecannon when firing into MEQ's, now I struggle to get 2. All this buff will be doing is restoring the cannon (statistically) back to just slightly below where it was an edition ago. You are still rolling 1d6 worth of shots, each 'firing' is still only averaging 1.4 dead MEQ's, just now you are able to do it twice over, provided you sacrifice your mobility.

The Russ needs to be putting more shots downrange (or even better an actual pieplate again) and it needs to be cheaper before it can be truly considered fixed.

 master of ordinance wrote:
I do not know why people are getting all excited about doubletapping Russ weapons - unless GW have done something to make them not suck as much now.
Back in 5th/6th I could reliably get 4 kills with the battlecannon when firing into MEQ's, now I struggle to get 2. All this buff will be doing is restoring the cannon (statistically) back to just slightly below where it was an edition ago. You are still rolling 1d6 worth of shots, each 'firing' is still only averaging 1.4 dead MEQ's, just now you are able to do it twice over, provided you sacrifice your mobility.

The Russ needs to be putting more shots downrange (or even better an actual pieplate again) and it needs to be cheaper before it can be truly considered fixed.

Wow your opponents played like ass if you got 4 marines per template. I run a tank company and was lucky to get 3 - because I could only get 3 if I didn't scatter.

And now the Leman Russ is the same as it was an edition ago (by your reckoning)... BUT...

1) has to option to sacrifice firepower to go faster
2) Does not have to snap fire its secondary weapons when it moves (seriously, -1 is not nearly as bad as snapfiring).

In addition, the important tidbit from the 'Form Firing Squad' part is that it's an Order, not a special ability... obviously indicates that at least one part of the Orders chart is going to have Regiment-specific Orders.

Thats already been mentioned by GW though, each regiment gets a single, unique order.

 master of ordinance wrote:
I do not know why people are getting all excited about doubletapping Russ weapons - unless GW have done something to make them not suck as much now.
Back in 5th/6th I could reliably get 4 kills with the battlecannon when firing into MEQ's, now I struggle to get 2. All this buff will be doing is restoring the cannon (statistically) back to just slightly below where it was an edition ago. You are still rolling 1d6 worth of shots, each 'firing' is still only averaging 1.4 dead MEQ's, just now you are able to do it twice over, provided you sacrifice your mobility.

The Russ needs to be putting more shots downrange (or even better an actual pieplate again) and it needs to be cheaper before it can be truly considered fixed.

People are getting excited about double tapping Russes because it is an amazing buff. If you've ever been on the receiving end of a Knight's rapid fire battle cannon you KNOW how painful it is. 7th Edition Russ BCs are absolutely garbage compared to a RFBC. The LRBT now effectively has a Knight level weapon on it for no additional cost, in fact it got CHEAPER. Not to mention the other LR variants which also tremendously benefit from this. I don't see how you can be cynical about this.

 Otto von Bludd wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:
I do not know why people are getting all excited about doubletapping Russ weapons - unless GW have done something to make them not suck as much now.
Back in 5th/6th I could reliably get 4 kills with the battlecannon when firing into MEQ's, now I struggle to get 2. All this buff will be doing is restoring the cannon (statistically) back to just slightly below where it was an edition ago. You are still rolling 1d6 worth of shots, each 'firing' is still only averaging 1.4 dead MEQ's, just now you are able to do it twice over, provided you sacrifice your mobility.

The Russ needs to be putting more shots downrange (or even better an actual pieplate again) and it needs to be cheaper before it can be truly considered fixed.

People are getting excited about double tapping Russes because it is an amazing buff. If you've ever been on the receiving end of a Knight's rapid fire battle cannon you KNOW how painful it is. 7th Edition Russ BCs are absolutely garbage compared to a RFBC. The LRBT now effectively has a Knight level weapon on it for no additional cost, in fact it got CHEAPER. Not to mention the other LR variants which also tremendously benefit from this. I don't see how you can be cynical about this.

This! 8 shot exterminator cannon, 2d6 shot eradicator, 40 shot punisher, 2d6 shot demolisher? Sure its random but can you imagine the amount of pain you can hand out with 8-12 (Catachan) Battle cannon shots? Or 8-12 Executioner shots? 40 f-ing punisher shots????????? Heck even 2 shots from the once great Vanquisher seems ok, (lets hope it becomes D3 shots, because seriously, its awful). The real fun comes from running Leman Russ annihilators from FW, they are pricey but thats 5 lascannon shots from a platform thats cheaper and tougher than a predator.

Sadly even the Leman Russ Annihilator can´t take lascannons in the sponsons.

Firefox1 wrote:
Sadly even the Leman Russ Annihilator can´t take lascannons in the sponsons.

Yeah then it would be 7 shots per shooting phase *PFFFFT*

 generalchaos34 wrote:

 Otto von Bludd wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:
I do not know why people are getting all excited about doubletapping Russ weapons - unless GW have done something to make them not suck as much now.
Back in 5th/6th I could reliably get 4 kills with the battlecannon when firing into MEQ's, now I struggle to get 2. All this buff will be doing is restoring the cannon (statistically) back to just slightly below where it was an edition ago. You are still rolling 1d6 worth of shots, each 'firing' is still only averaging 1.4 dead MEQ's, just now you are able to do it twice over, provided you sacrifice your mobility.

The Russ needs to be putting more shots downrange (or even better an actual pieplate again) and it needs to be cheaper before it can be truly considered fixed.

People are getting excited about double tapping Russes because it is an amazing buff. If you've ever been on the receiving end of a Knight's rapid fire battle cannon you KNOW how painful it is. 7th Edition Russ BCs are absolutely garbage compared to a RFBC. The LRBT now effectively has a Knight level weapon on it for no additional cost, in fact it got CHEAPER. Not to mention the other LR variants which also tremendously benefit from this. I don't see how you can be cynical about this.

This! 8 shot exterminator cannon, 2d6 shot eradicator, 40 shot punisher, 2d6 shot demolisher? Sure its random but can you imagine the amount of pain you can hand out with 8-12 (Catachan) Battle cannon shots? Or 8-12 Executioner shots? 40 f-ing punisher shots????????? Heck even 2 shots from the once great Vanquisher seems ok, (lets hope it becomes D3 shots, because seriously, its awful). The real fun comes from running Leman Russ annihilators from FW, they are pricey but thats 5 lascannon shots from a platform thats cheaper and tougher than a predator.

Well, I'm still waiting to see if they changed any of the turret profiles. Yes, they did double the strength of the Vanquisher, Eradicator, and Exterminator, but since every option was doubled they are still just plane worse. I would still take a battle cannon over any of those 3.



Another note on the internal balance of the Russ is the relationship between the tank commander and a normal tank. From what we know, the issue of the commander usually being the superior choice is still there. I wonder if that price reduction will include the commanders?. If not, that could help the internal balance. 35 points for better bs is a typically a no brainier. 40-50, maybe not.

 Otto von Bludd wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:
I do not know why people are getting all excited about doubletapping Russ weapons - unless GW have done something to make them not suck as much now.
Back in 5th/6th I could reliably get 4 kills with the battlecannon when firing into MEQ's, now I struggle to get 2. All this buff will be doing is restoring the cannon (statistically) back to just slightly below where it was an edition ago. You are still rolling 1d6 worth of shots, each 'firing' is still only averaging 1.4 dead MEQ's, just now you are able to do it twice over, provided you sacrifice your mobility.

The Russ needs to be putting more shots downrange (or even better an actual pieplate again) and it needs to be cheaper before it can be truly considered fixed.

People are getting excited about double tapping Russes because it is an amazing buff. If you've ever been on the receiving end of a Knight's rapid fire battle cannon you KNOW how painful it is. 7th Edition Russ BCs are absolutely garbage compared to a RFBC. The LRBT now effectively has a Knight level weapon on it for no additional cost, in fact it got CHEAPER. Not to mention the other LR variants which also tremendously benefit from this. I don't see how you can be cynical about this.

Its a buff but is it enough? The Russ is still expensive, and its main gun is still underperforming. A major complaing for any Guard players in the old codex was the lack of mobility, meaning that Guard units where forced back to defensive gunlines. When the codex got updated the Russ went from being a bad tank to a waste of points, especially as artillery units are almost as tough, but hit harder and do not need line of sight. Now the Russ is finally getting a buff, but at what cost? To gain any benefit it has to drop its speed dramatically.
In my opinion the Russ would have been better served with a points reduction, an increase in the number of 'shots' for blast weapons and an increase in BS.

LR Annihilator was definitely on my mind when I saw these changes. It's going to be savage now.

 Otto von Bludd wrote:
LR Annihilator was definitely on my mind when I saw these changes. It's going to be savage now.

as much as I dislike Catachan (purely a looks thing and product of being stuck with them for my initial guard army, I have nothing against their fluff) I will have to run Harker in a spearhead and having him shadow some heavy hitter Russes like annihilators and punishers for that magical reroll 1s

 Otto von Bludd wrote:
LR Annihilator was definitely on my mind when I saw these changes. It's going to be savage now.

5 lascannons isn't awful, but remember a space marine Mortis Dreadnought has 4 lascannons that are all more accurate and could even be Venerable. Not a great comparison IMO.

 ph34r wrote:

 Otto von Bludd wrote:
LR Annihilator was definitely on my mind when I saw these changes. It's going to be savage now.

5 lascannons isn't awful, but remember a space marine Mortis Dreadnought has 4 lascannons that are all more accurate and could even be Venerable. Not a great comparison IMO.

Land Raider has better lascannons too, but we are talking about guard stuff. The cost, availability, AND the ability to spam the hell out of it are whats up for consideration, not to mention regiment rules. And lets not forget with a little psyker support those russes become 2+.

 generalchaos34 wrote:

 ph34r wrote:

 Otto von Bludd wrote:
LR Annihilator was definitely on my mind when I saw these changes. It's going to be savage now.

5 lascannons isn't awful, but remember a space marine Mortis Dreadnought has 4 lascannons that are all more accurate and could even be Venerable. Not a great comparison IMO.

Land Raider has better lascannons too, but we are talking about guard stuff. The cost, availability, AND the ability to spam the hell out of it are whats up for consideration, not to mention regiment rules. And lets not forget with a little psyker support those russes become 2+.

Presumably that poster brought up Mortis Dreadnoughts, instead of Land Raiders, because they're comparable in these respects.

A Contemptor Mortis Dreadnought with two twin lascannons is 206 points to the 3-las Annihilator's minimum 192. It's T7 W10 3+/5++ compared to the Russ' T8 W12 3+, so they're about equally durable in the face of lascannon fire with the Russ being more durable in general. It hits on a 2+ if it doesn't move, or a 3+ if it does, which is 33% or 7% more hits than the Annihilator firing 5 shots at BS4+. We don't know anything about other regiment rules yet, but we do know that the Dreadnought gets access to the incredible Salamanders' tactic that buffs its anti-tank output by about 56% and protects it from degrading BS, or could be an Ultramarine buffed by Guilliman, etc. Or we could compare to the Xiphon which for 210 points gets 4 lascannons and an additional 3 S6 AP-2 D:3 shots, is Hard to Hit, and hits flyers on a 3+.

The point is that even if you assume Grinding Advance benefits the Annihilator, it's not notably better than other big Imperium lascannon platforms. It seems pretty good, and in line with or maybe a bit weaker than the good options available to Space Marines. It seems pretty important to contextualize this stuff when trying to work out how strong something is.

Dionysodorus wrote:

 generalchaos34 wrote:

 ph34r wrote:

 Otto von Bludd wrote:
LR Annihilator was definitely on my mind when I saw these changes. It's going to be savage now.

5 lascannons isn't awful, but remember a space marine Mortis Dreadnought has 4 lascannons that are all more accurate and could even be Venerable. Not a great comparison IMO.

Land Raider has better lascannons too, but we are talking about guard stuff. The cost, availability, AND the ability to spam the hell out of it are whats up for consideration, not to mention regiment rules. And lets not forget with a little psyker support those russes become 2+.

Presumably that poster brought up Mortis Dreadnoughts, instead of Land Raiders, because they're comparable in these respects.

A Contemptor Mortis Dreadnought with two twin lascannons is 206 points to the 3-las Annihilator's minimum 192. It's T7 W10 3+/5++ compared to the Russ' T8 W12 3+, so they're about equally durable in the face of lascannon fire with the Russ being more durable in general. It hits on a 2+ if it doesn't move, or a 3+ if it does, which is 33% or 7% more hits than the Annihilator firing 5 shots at BS4+. We don't know anything about other regiment rules yet, but we do know that the Dreadnought gets access to the incredible Salamanders' tactic that buffs its anti-tank output by about 56% and protects it from degrading BS, or could be an Ultramarine buffed by Guilliman, etc. Or we could compare to the Xiphon which for 210 points gets 4 lascannons and an additional 3 S6 AP-2 D:3 shots, is Hard to Hit, and hits flyers on a 3+.

The point is that even if you assume Grinding Advance benefits the Annihilator, it's not notably better than other big Imperium lascannon platforms. It seems pretty good, and in line with or maybe a bit weaker than the good options available to Space Marines. It seems pretty important to contextualize this stuff when trying to work out how strong something is.

You're still comparing it to other items from other codexes, when the emphasis with these new codexes is to take mono army lists. It would be better to compare it to options available in each army to give a better idea instead of cherry picking the much better unit from another army means you need to also account for the inevitable HQ tax required to field them vs. something already present in the army (and the potential for lost CPs and stratagems). Thats what I was going for.

If the Mortis Contemptor (or other non guard unit) is that much better why I am playing Gaurd in the first place instead of just taking space marines?

 generalchaos34 wrote:

Dionysodorus wrote:

 generalchaos34 wrote:

 ph34r wrote:

 Otto von Bludd wrote:
LR Annihilator was definitely on my mind when I saw these changes. It's going to be savage now.

5 lascannons isn't awful, but remember a space marine Mortis Dreadnought has 4 lascannons that are all more accurate and could even be Venerable. Not a great comparison IMO.

Land Raider has better lascannons too, but we are talking about guard stuff. The cost, availability, AND the ability to spam the hell out of it are whats up for consideration, not to mention regiment rules. And lets not forget with a little psyker support those russes become 2+.

Presumably that poster brought up Mortis Dreadnoughts, instead of Land Raiders, because they're comparable in these respects.

A Contemptor Mortis Dreadnought with two twin lascannons is 206 points to the 3-las Annihilator's minimum 192. It's T7 W10 3+/5++ compared to the Russ' T8 W12 3+, so they're about equally durable in the face of lascannon fire with the Russ being more durable in general. It hits on a 2+ if it doesn't move, or a 3+ if it does, which is 33% or 7% more hits than the Annihilator firing 5 shots at BS4+. We don't know anything about other regiment rules yet, but we do know that the Dreadnought gets access to the incredible Salamanders' tactic that buffs its anti-tank output by about 56% and protects it from degrading BS, or could be an Ultramarine buffed by Guilliman, etc. Or we could compare to the Xiphon which for 210 points gets 4 lascannons and an additional 3 S6 AP-2 D:3 shots, is Hard to Hit, and hits flyers on a 3+.

The point is that even if you assume Grinding Advance benefits the Annihilator, it's not notably better than other big Imperium lascannon platforms. It seems pretty good, and in line with or maybe a bit weaker than the good options available to Space Marines. It seems pretty important to contextualize this stuff when trying to work out how strong something is.

You're still comparing it to other items from other codexes, when the emphasis with these new codexes is to take mono army lists. It would be better to compare it to options available in each army to give a better idea instead of cherry picking the much better unit from another army means you need to also account for the inevitable HQ tax required to field them vs. something already present in the army (and the potential for lost CPs and stratagems). Thats what I was going for.

If the Mortis Contemptor (or other non guard unit) is that much better why I am playing Gaurd in the first place instead of just taking space marines?

The exact same question Guard players have been asking for years now.
The point is though, that this Mortis Contemptor is better than the Russ Annihilator, and for only 8 more points. It is slightly less durable when facing massed low S fire, but against dedicated AT weapons its 5++ makes up for that. It is shooting with incredible accuracy, even when it moves. All in all it massively outperforms the Annihilator, so what does the Russ have to make up for it? Movement? Sure, but if it moves faster than 5" it loses shots, so the Contemptor is better there as well. In the end the Russ loses out heavily to a unit only 8 points more than it.

Most units with heavy weapons don't plan to move though. Is it really that much a selling point that it fired Lascannons better on the move?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Most units with heavy weapons don't plan to move though. Is it really that much a selling point that it fired Lascannons better on the move?

I mean, if they're stationary the Mortis Contemptor beats the pants off of the Russ. The Russ only looks competitive with it when we suppose that the two want to move and fire, so it seems useful to point out that, even then, the Dreadnought does more damage.

nevermind

Dionysodorus wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Most units with heavy weapons don't plan to move though. Is it really that much a selling point that it fired Lascannons better on the move?

I mean, if they're stationary the Mortis Contemptor beats the pants off of the Russ. The Russ only looks competitive with it when we suppose that the two want to move and fire, so it seems useful to point out that, even then, the Dreadnought does more damage.

So, based on mathhammer, if neither moves and just shoots each other, the Mortis will do 6.481 dmg to the Russ while the Russ will only do 3.889. (if catachan it'd be around 4.8 damage from the Russ)

Lets talk about those vostroyans! 30" lasguns? Thats a hell of a lot of FRFSRF and 30" plasma guns! the extra range on heavy bolters wont hurt either. I am wondering though if this will apply at all to vehicles? 30" range multi-meltas sound pretty great! so does the Devil Dog melta cannon or the eradicator cannon!

Their order isnt too shabby either, seeing a lascannon atomize that big bad that tied up my squad to avoid fire will be extra hilarious!

 generalchaos34 wrote:
Lets talk about those vostroyans! 30" lasguns? Thats a hell of a lot of FRFSRF and 30" plasma guns! the extra range on heavy bolters wont hurt either. I am wondering though if this will apply at all to vehicles? 30" range multi-meltas sound pretty great! so does the Devil Dog melta cannon or the eradicator cannon!

Their order isnt too shabby either, seeing a lascannon atomize that big bad that tied up my squad to avoid fire will be extra hilarious!

It does apply to vehicles.

But I don't think it is that great on vehicles. The 24" range weapons, sure, but I'm just not sure. My superheavies are more excited about the Catachan doctrine than the Vostroyan one I think.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 generalchaos34 wrote:
Lets talk about those vostroyans! 30" lasguns? Thats a hell of a lot of FRFSRF and 30" plasma guns! the extra range on heavy bolters wont hurt either. I am wondering though if this will apply at all to vehicles? 30" range multi-meltas sound pretty great! so does the Devil Dog melta cannon or the eradicator cannon!

Their order isnt too shabby either, seeing a lascannon atomize that big bad that tied up my squad to avoid fire will be extra hilarious!

It does apply to vehicles.

But I don't think it is that great on vehicles. The 24" range weapons, sure, but I'm just not sure. My superheavies are more excited about the Catachan doctrine than the Vostroyan one I think.

excellent point, this doctrine helps the infantry far more than it does anything else. Its nice to see that these choices really change how each army plays. Catachan want to get into combat with heavy support, Mordians want to lock step in tight formations nut to butt with their vehicles, and vostroyans want to fire and fall back to take advantage of superior range.

Leman Russ Battle Tank, with a hull heavy flamer (to be fair I'd still stick with a H.Bolter).

With Grinding Advance.

In a catachan army.

1d6 shots with a free re-roll on how many shots!

Twice.

Also now more accurate and has more shots than that lethal RFBC.

Simple, but effective. I'd say the greatest benefit is seen on 24" and 36" weapons. 48" sees some benefit as well, mostly by allowing a back-line unit to sit further back while still hitting most of the enemy deployment zone. So it's great for most infantry weapons, while on vehicles it mostly benefits plasma cannons, heavy bolters, heavy stubbers, storm bolters, and the 24" Russ weapons.

30" demolisher cannons and punisher cannons might be a fun time.

Oh god Punisher Russes with HBs are the real winners of this strategem. a threat range of 30" with 49 shots.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/09/27/regiment-focus-vostroyan-sep27gw-homepage-post-2/

Vostroyans are up!

So getting an extra 6" on heavy and rapid fire weapons is pretty awesome. Lasguns can now rapid fire up to 15", and it gives a little extra range to lascannons and the like (not that you can't almost hit anything with 48" range)

Repel the enemy seems pretty cool to think I can blast a lascannon shot into close combat, but given how guardsmen usually die to a stiff breeze I don't see his really being realistic. Unless I'm reading it wrong and it means you can fire into another close combat, which is amazing.

The little CP trick with the scout move seems kind of meh.

Tomorrow we will see Valhallans and they hint at showing us the conscript nerf.