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.

Martel732 wrote:

 daedalus wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
"Space Marine tanks are more advanced"

They have sponsons. They are NOT advanced in any sense of the word. Sponsons went out of style in the 1930s.

And land wars went out of style in at least the 2010s, arguably earlier. Yet we have a game where that's the primary focus.

Land war never goes out of style. Everyone was fooled by the period between Napoleon and WWI, but it still came back.

Land war still exists the ranges just got longer and the weapons are 10 times more destructive.

Baneblades have remote controlled sponsons, at least the Mars forged ones, its possible Preds have that tech as well, but they're probably low on the priority procurement ladder.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Well in real life - tanks 1 shot each other and it's a game to acquire the target first. That's who wins the duel. I'm okay with fantasy tanks having fantasy guns. But the elite army should have more advanced weapons.

It would have been a lot cooler if marine preds got the shoot twice with the turret rule and the LR guns were just made crudely stronger (like they add +1 to wound rolls with their turret weapon because their shells are so big) or something like that.

Why would that be cool?

The LRBT is the big, slow, crude tank, whose crews are doctrinally trained to use them in grinding advances [heh] and to follow the orders of a superior officer.

The Predator is a fast, speedy, medium tank whose crews are probably riflemen first, tankers second, and who are trained to use them in lightning strike warfare and not grinding attrition warfare.

The Leman Russ is like the KV-2, and the Predator is like the Panzer IV.

The Panzer IV is a better tank than the KV-2. I'm sorry you don't see that.

Martel732 wrote:
Dunno. Someone claimed marine tanks were "advanced". They can't move and shoot effectively and have sponsons. Seems like WWI to me.

Well - whats funny is the less advanced tank is able to move and shoot with no penalty with it's main gun - while the marine tank is essentially field artillery. OFC all vehicals should be able to move and shoot without penalty...it's the reason you mount a weapon on a tank.

Clearly the LRBT is more advanced. It shoots better on the move. That's the way that works. What the fluff says doesn't mean a thing. What matters is the table performance.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Dunno. Someone claimed marine tanks were "advanced". They can't move and shoot effectively and have sponsons. Seems like WWI to me.

Well - whats funny is the less advanced tank is able to move and shoot with no penalty with it's main gun - while the marine tank is essentially field artillery. OFC all vehicals should be able to move and shoot without penalty...it's the reason you mount a weapon on a tank.

Yes, I agree, tanks should be able to move and fire with no penalty.

That said, the Predator on the move hits as well as a stationary and moving LRBT so IDK what you want. Chronus on the move hits as well as a stationary and moving Tank Commander.

Also, a -1 to hit isn't that bad. I know most modern tanks still are more accurate sitting still than on the move, even if it's a difference between like 100% hit probability and 97%.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
Clearly the LRBT is more advanced. It shoots better on the move. That's the way that works. What the fluff says doesn't mean a thing. What matters is the table performance.

Are you saying it's more advanced in the fluff because it's better on the table or are you saying fluff doesn't matter? Also, it shoots the same as a moving predator on the move, so not better.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Well in real life - tanks 1 shot each other and it's a game to acquire the target first. That's who wins the duel. I'm okay with fantasy tanks having fantasy guns. But the elite army should have more advanced weapons.

It would have been a lot cooler if marine preds got the shoot twice with the turret rule and the LR guns were just made crudely stronger (like they add +1 to wound rolls with their turret weapon because their shells are so big) or something like that.

Why would that be cool?

The LRBT is the big, slow, crude tank, whose crews are doctrinally trained to use them in grinding advances [heh] and to follow the orders of a superior officer.

The Predator is a fast, speedy, medium tank whose crews are probably riflemen first, tankers second, and who are trained to use them in lightning strike warfare and not grinding attrition warfare.

The Leman Russ is like the KV-2, and the Predator is like the Panzer IV.

The Panzer IV is a better tank than the KV-2. I'm sorry you don't see that.

I'm not even talking about the drivers or the gunners of these tanks. I'm talking about their systems. A predator has better technology inside of it - it's turrets should move faster and be able to be used on the move more effectively with computer controlled aiming systems. while a lemon is basically using analog technology. I'm talking totally from a fluff perspective here. Marines stuff is supposed to be move advanced. It would be cool to see the rules reflect this by producing a marine unit that is functionally better than it's AM counterparts but costs appropriately more.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Well in real life - tanks 1 shot each other and it's a game to acquire the target first. That's who wins the duel. I'm okay with fantasy tanks having fantasy guns. But the elite army should have more advanced weapons.

It would have been a lot cooler if marine preds got the shoot twice with the turret rule and the LR guns were just made crudely stronger (like they add +1 to wound rolls with their turret weapon because their shells are so big) or something like that.

Why would that be cool?

The LRBT is the big, slow, crude tank, whose crews are doctrinally trained to use them in grinding advances [heh] and to follow the orders of a superior officer.

The Predator is a fast, speedy, medium tank whose crews are probably riflemen first, tankers second, and who are trained to use them in lightning strike warfare and not grinding attrition warfare.

The Leman Russ is like the KV-2, and the Predator is like the Panzer IV.

The Panzer IV is a better tank than the KV-2. I'm sorry you don't see that.

I'm not even talking about the drivers or the gunners of these tanks. I'm talking about their systems. A predator has better technology inside of it - it's turrets should move faster and be able to be used on the move more effectively with computer controlled aiming systems. while a lemon is basically using analog technology. I'm talking totally from a fluff perspective here. Marines stuff is supposed to be move advanced. It would be cool to see the rules reflect this by producing a marine unit that is functionally better than it's AM counterparts but costs appropriately more.

The problem is ... well, you're wrong.

Kinda.

Sometimes.

Leman Russes do use analog systems. Sometimes. Other times (e.g., the novel Baneblade) they use laser data-communication nets that automatically input and compute fire control data transmitted by nearby tanks such as Baneblades or other LRBTs. Other times (e.g. the novel Necropolis) they have FOF transponders that prevent the computerized fire-control from selecting another Leman Russ as a target (implying they do, in fact, have target selection FCSs).

So no, the Predator is not necessarily that much better in a computer sense. Though sometimes it is. *shrug*

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Dunno. Someone claimed marine tanks were "advanced". They can't move and shoot effectively and have sponsons. Seems like WWI to me.

Well - whats funny is the less advanced tank is able to move and shoot with no penalty with it's main gun - while the marine tank is essentially field artillery. OFC all vehicals should be able to move and shoot without penalty...it's the reason you mount a weapon on a tank.

Yes, I agree, tanks should be able to move and fire with no penalty.

That said, the Predator on the move hits as well as a stationary and moving LRBT so IDK what you want. Chronus on the move hits as well as a stationary and moving Tank Commander.

Also, a -1 to hit isn't that bad. I know most modern tanks still are more accurate sitting still than on the move, even if it's a difference between like 100% hit probability and 97%.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
Clearly the LRBT is more advanced. It shoots better on the move. That's the way that works. What the fluff says doesn't mean a thing. What matters is the table performance.

Are you saying it's more advanced in the fluff because it's better on the table or are you saying fluff doesn't matter? Also, it shoots the same as a moving predator on the move, so not better.

I'm really not sure how much more accurate modern tanks are while stationary. It removes some variables for sure. It's probably much less than a 3% difference though. I know what the abrams is capable of doing on the move though so I think it's silly to think that tanks 40000 years in the future are having these problems lol.

 Xenomancers wrote:

I'm really not sure how much more accurate modern tanks are while stationary. It removes some variables for sure. It's probably much less than a 3% difference though. I know what the abrams is capable of doing on the move though so I think it's silly to think that tanks 40000 years in the future are having these problems lol.

Yeah, but grimdark.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Dunno. Someone claimed marine tanks were "advanced". They can't move and shoot effectively and have sponsons. Seems like WWI to me.

Well - whats funny is the less advanced tank is able to move and shoot with no penalty with it's main gun - while the marine tank is essentially field artillery. OFC all vehicals should be able to move and shoot without penalty...it's the reason you mount a weapon on a tank.

Yes, I agree, tanks should be able to move and fire with no penalty.

That said, the Predator on the move hits as well as a stationary and moving LRBT so IDK what you want. Chronus on the move hits as well as a stationary and moving Tank Commander.

Also, a -1 to hit isn't that bad. I know most modern tanks still are more accurate sitting still than on the move, even if it's a difference between like 100% hit probability and 97%.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
Clearly the LRBT is more advanced. It shoots better on the move. That's the way that works. What the fluff says doesn't mean a thing. What matters is the table performance.

Are you saying it's more advanced in the fluff because it's better on the table or are you saying fluff doesn't matter? Also, it shoots the same as a moving predator on the move, so not better.

I'm really not sure how much more accurate modern tanks are while stationary. It removes some variables for sure. It's probably much less than a 3% difference though. I know what the abrams is capable of doing on the move though so I think it's silly to think that tanks 40000 years in the future are having these problems lol.

Don't forget this is 40,000 years past the present, but only 12,000 years or so after humanity recovered from a regression back to a medieval technology level in most places, and in the last 10,000 of that 12,000, technological innovation was illegal.

"you saying fluff doesn't matter?"

I'm saying that, yes. Because it really doesn't.

I still maintain a LRBT is better at shooting on the move because it fires a single weapon twice that at full BS. To get two shots, the marines have to pay for two actual weapons. So the more point-starved list has to pay extra to do the same thing. That sounds less advanced to me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blacksails wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

I'm really not sure how much more accurate modern tanks are while stationary. It removes some variables for sure. It's probably much less than a 3% difference though. I know what the abrams is capable of doing on the move though so I think it's silly to think that tanks 40000 years in the future are having these problems lol.

Yeah, but grimdark.

Grimdark is so 80s. But hey, a new Blade Runner movie just came out! Maybe it's coming back!

That movie was amazing.

And Stranger Things is literally set in the 80s.

All I need is a cocaine addiction now.

Martel732 wrote:
"you saying fluff doesn't matter?"

I'm saying that, yes. Because it really doesn't.

I still maintain a LRBT is better at shooting on the move because it fires a single weapon twice that at full BS. To get two shots, the marines have to pay for two actual weapons. So the more point-starved list has to pay extra to do the same thing. That sounds less advanced to me.

It doesn't sound less advanced, it sounds like the loaders and gunners for the IG tank are better trained at tank warfare.

You do realize that "more advanced" can sometimes mean a "lower rate of fire" right? I mean, the Russian automatic loading systems are, at the first stages of an engagement, slower than a human loader, for example.

Spin it however you want. Preds are garbage compared to Russes atm. And that's not likely to change.

Martel732 wrote:
Spin it however you want. Preds are garbage compared to Russes atm. And that's not likely to change.

Yes, that's true. Preds are worse than Russes. I wasn't arguing that point at all.

That's the only point that really matters to me in the end. Worse can be explained by less advanced, less skilled, less whatever. But then, you should charge less points, and that doesn't happen.

Martel732 wrote:
That's the only point that really matters to me in the end. Worse can be explained by less advanced, less skilled, less whatever. But then, you should charge less points, and that doesn't happen.

So why did you get involved in a fluff discussion if you're arguing rules?

Because someone used the word "advanced" in association with a marine tank. They clearly are not, both by modern standards and my perceived in-game standards.

Martel732 wrote:
Because someone used the word "advanced" in association with a marine tank. They clearly are not, both by modern standards and my perceived in-game standards.

But they are from the fluff standards, which is what we are talking about.

I don't think you can really tell anything like that from GW's fluff, which is why I ignore it. But if you think so, carry on.

Martel732 wrote:
I don't think you can really tell anything like that from GW's fluff, which is why I ignore it. But if you think so, carry on.

I mean, I don't actually think so. As mentioned before, the fluff of the LRBT is so schitzophrenic that it's simultaneously both more and less advanced in the fluff.

But yeah, I don't get why you got involved about a fluff discussion, haha.

Also, sarcasm doesn't translate well in typing. Almost everything I say is sarcastic. Because that's my level of respect for GW.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Most the AM army traits have a bonus to their tanks. None of the space marine ones do.

Thats also a difference in emphasis. SM's have always been an army of super soldiers, occasionally supported by tanks. The tanks are there for fire support while the infantry does most of the work. IG have always been a tank heavy army and have had entire tank based army lists for most of the game's existence.

They can even give their tanks orders

This isn't exactly new, and for an army built so heavily around its vehicles, there needs to be some way to incorporate the army special mechanic.

and put commanders to make them shoot as good/better than a space marine - in every LR.

when we say "every LR"...we mean one unit with different weapons options.

You can't have a tank commander Valkyrie, Chimera, Taurox, Hellhound, Basilisk, Manticore, etc. You cant issue orders to any of these units either.

Unlike say...Chronus who can go in everything. Yes I know he's very different, but thats also part of the point. IG have things SM's dont. SM's have stuff IG does not.

From a fluff perspective, that also works. Being a genetically engineered super soldier is great for infantry combat, but doesn't do a tremendous amount for one's ability to command and fight from a tank (probably the opposite...especially imagining a Space Marine on armor attempting to *fit* in a tank ). Having IG experienced tank commanders that can match Space Marine tanks on BS3+ isnt so outrageous from that point of view.

It really just seems like the elite army has less elite stuff than mass produced one. It's a dang joke. Space marine tanks are supposed to be more advanced than imperial guard tanks.

Hrm, yes and no. Technologically, yes, raw firepower or resiliency, no.

Space Marine tanks are generally APC's or a fire support platform made from said APC's. A Predator is not really an MBT, it's a Rhino that's had a turret and a bit of extra armor slapped on. More advanced than a Russ tank? In some ways. You dont need 7 dudes to fully man a Predator. You can keep logistics simpler with everything on the same base vehicle platform. That doesnr mean the Predator is intended to be a superior MBT to a Russ. Likewise, Guard have always had superior artillery to Space Marines. Space Marines have never had anything on par with something like a Basilisk.

That said, take a Quadlas predator, and no Leman Russ is going match it for long range tank hunting ability in 8E, it's going to generally handily win any long range tank battle with any Russ (and most short range battles too), especially given how garbage the Vanquisher is.


Lets also address the root issue of Grinding Advance. GW borked the Russ and many Blast weapons when translating to 8E. They were garbage in the Index. The doubleshots was added because GW likes special rules for patches instead of statline fixes, and that's what they chose to go with. Even with the new Grinding Advance and other changrs, about the only versions youre ever going to see on a table are the Punisher, Battle Tank, and Executioner.

My comparison is accurate.

Infantry squad gets 3 hits, where SM gets 4. Infantry squad in even numbers is 3/4 as accurate. 6 Guardsmen shoot, 3 hit. 6 Marines shoot, 4 hit. Guardsmen are 3/4 as effective at hitting a target.

Of those hits, 2/6 wound, compared to 3/6 wound. Guardsmen are 2/3 damage on successful hits. A single guardsman has 0.75 * 0.67 the offensive output as a Marine. Roughly 50% offensive output. My bad.

In terms of being hit, a Guardsman is typically wounded 4 times out of 6, a Marine is wounded 3 times out of 6. Therefore, a Guardsman is 3/4 as Tough as a Marine. Marines save 4/6, while G saves 2/6. Therefore the save is 2/4 as good. 0.75 * 0.5 = 38% as valuable when defending.

0.5 + 0.38 /2 = 0.44 the average offensive / defensive capabilities of a Guardsman vs a Marine. Again, this disregards CC potential, but realistically, 0.41 is a completely reasonable comparison of combined offensive / defensive capability.

Simple evaluation of relative effect. Again, I admit that this does not reflect the benefit of board control, etc, but if we took 50 Guardsmen and 20 Marines, and had them simultaneously shoot each other and resolve casualties in a vacuum [assuming each model takes an equal number of attacks] you'd find that each group wins 50 to 55 % of the time. Less than a 5% difference, between them. Likely a 55% win rate for the Guardsmen.

Try it out! Someone out there can build a program that can compare 2"X" Marines vs 5"X" Guardsmen. Keep the ratios the same, and it works out. Resolve attacks simultaneously.

So guardsmen should be 5 points relative to Marines, by your math, but your math ignores close combat...

...and that's okay?

Why should close combat be ignored?

And don't say "because it's not the focus of the units in question" - I agree it's not IG's focus, but for tactical marines, well, they don't have a focus. CC is as much their focus as shooting.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Last I checked...My chapter tactics don't affect my tanks...So it's hardly a wash. Orders are just free BS AM gets for no freaking reason...army traits are capter tactics but better.

Orders require a character to issue them.

The characters might be cheaper than dirt, but if the characters aren't within their Voice of Command radius or 3" of a Vox-Caster and being issued to a unit with a Vox-Caster? They're not doing anything.

Tanks require a specific type of character(Tank Commander) to be issued Orders and even then it only applies to Leman Russ variants.

Most the AM army traits have a bonus to their tanks. None of the space marine ones do. They can even give their tanks orders and put commanders to make them shoot as good/better than a space marine - in every LR. It really just seems like the elite army has less elite stuff than mass produced one. It's a dang joke. Space marine tanks are supposed to be more advanced than imperial guard tanks.

Space Marine tanks are more advanced. If you look at the pure profile, the SM tanks are faster and have more firepower (4 lascannons vs 1 Vanquisher Cannon, 1 Hull Lascannon, 2 Heavy Bolter Sponsons for the tank destroyer versions of each tank).

The difference is in Doctrine. For the SM, the tanks are just sorta there (I guess. Every time I want to field a Space Marine tank company I get yelled at by SM players that they always have infantry and never field pure tank formations), while the Imperium actively fields massed tank units.

This is reflected in Grinding Advance, where the Leman Russ slows the pace of its advance to enable the gunner to fire more accurately and therefore more often, and in Tank Commanders who can command tanks.

It's worth noting that the SM have a tank commander too - Sgt. Chronus.

Can only take 1 chronus. You can take a supreme command of LR commander and have each tank buff the other with reroll 1's. Plus the LR turret is equal to 3 las cannons and you can take hull las cannon. So the lemon clearly has more firepower in commander form. This isn't even factoring in catachen trait or the other one that makes you degrade slower or the 2 plasma cannons or heavy bolters you can add in. Or the +1 toughness. Again. The russ is clearly better than a predator. If marine chapter tactics affected our tanks though it would be a much closer comparison.

I mean you can take a supreme command of tank commanders but since none of them have the knight commander rule they can't issue each other orders unless I'm missing something.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
So guardsmen should be 5 points relative to Marines, by your math, but your math ignores close combat...

...and that's okay?

Why should close combat be ignored?

And don't say "because it's not the focus of the units in question" - I agree it's not IG's focus, but for tactical marines, well, they don't have a focus. CC is as much their focus as shooting.

I think guardsmen should be 5 pts, but for reasons other than this particular disagreement. Tac marine CC might as well not exist, so I'd call them a shooting focused unit.

 greatbigtree wrote:

Try it out! Someone out there can build a program that can compare 2"X" Marines vs 5"X" Guardsmen. Keep the ratios the same, and it works out. Resolve attacks simultaneously.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying, but I think you're saying have 50 guard shoot at 20 marines and vice versa, right? Do you want rapid fire or single fire range? I guess I'll assume rapid fire for both?

Well, here's the guard:

A: 100 S: 3 AP: 0 D: 1 @ BS or WS: 4+
vs T: 4 sv 3+
Damage Outcomes percent
0 36 0.4%
1 207 2.1%
2 605 6.0%
3 1134 11.3%
4 1496 15.0%
5 1773 17.7%
6 1581 15.8%
7 1327 13.3%
8 864 8.6%
9 494 4.9%
10 238 2.4%
11 146 1.5%
12 61 0.6%
13 30 0.3%
14 7 0.1%
16 1 0.0%

Here's the marines:

A: 40 S: 4 AP: 0 D: 1 @ BS or WS: 3+
vs T: 3 sv 5+
Damage Outcomes percent
3 5 0.1%
4 25 0.2%
5 61 0.6%
6 172 1.7%
7 318 3.2%
8 636 6.4%
9 864 8.6%
10 1151 11.5%
11 1386 13.9%
12 1349 13.5%
13 1232 12.3%
14 1020 10.2%
15 740 7.4%
16 489 4.9%
17 265 2.6%
18 153 1.5%
19 90 0.9%
20 31 0.3%
21 8 0.1%
22 4 0.0%
25 1 0.0%

Martel732 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
So guardsmen should be 5 points relative to Marines, by your math, but your math ignores close combat...

...and that's okay?

Why should close combat be ignored?

And don't say "because it's not the focus of the units in question" - I agree it's not IG's focus, but for tactical marines, well, they don't have a focus. CC is as much their focus as shooting.

I think guardsmen should be 5 pts, but for reasons other than this particular disagreement. Tac marine CC might as well not exist, so I'd call them a shooting focused unit.

I'd disagree. BS3 S4 means Tac Marines are above average CC units. Add the 3+ armor save and they can tie up and chew through gaunts and guardsmen alike with horrifying effectiness. Forcing Tac Marines away from their generalist role and using them as a pure shooting unit is foolish.