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.

Ice_can wrote:
The main issue with the predator comparison is its damage is better than a vanquisher but the Vanquisher cannon out ranges the lascannons the hull also out T and W's a predator, compair a twin lass extrrminator and it's clear GW doesn''t math hammer.

Does almost the same damage static vrs static but does more within grinding advance vrs a moving predator on a T8 12W platform vrs a T7 11W predator and could take sponsons on top.

Also as you say the predator pays an odd premium over a razorback for 1 w and the option to take sponsons.

Range advantage is hyper marginal though. Very rare cases where 48" range DOESN'T cover range.

Better advantage is T8. One wound isn't often going to be that helpful but T8 is nice help yes. But over twice the penalty? And again internal balance is out of whack. Battle cannon is simply so much better but it's not like BC is so uber good it needs nerfing so...

tneva82 wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
The main issue with the predator comparison is its damage is better than a vanquisher but the Vanquisher cannon out ranges the lascannons the hull also out T and W's a predator, compair a twin lass extrrminator and it's clear GW doesn''t math hammer.

Does almost the same damage static vrs static but does more within grinding advance vrs a moving predator on a T8 12W platform vrs a T7 11W predator and could take sponsons on top.

Also as you say the predator pays an odd premium over a razorback for 1 w and the option to take sponsons.

Range advantage is hyper marginal though. Very rare cases where 48" range DOESN'T cover range.

Better advantage is T8. One wound isn't often going to be that helpful but T8 is nice help yes. But over twice the penalty? And again internal balance is out of whack. Battle cannon is simply so much better but it's not like BC is so uber good it needs nerfing so...

(The problem here is the assumption that "1d6" makes a meaningful anti-tank weapon, because a lot of the time it doesn't and volume ends up winning, and the battle cannon offers a lot more volume than the Vanquisher cannon. Pump vehicle Wounds and change 1d6-damage to d3+3 or d6+3 or something where one melta shot actually outperforms two plasma shots and you might end up getting somewhere.)

Ice_can wrote:
The main issue with the predator comparison is its damage is better than a vanquisher but the Vanquisher cannon out ranges the lascannons the hull also out T and W's a predator, compair a twin lass extrrminator and it's clear GW doesn''t math hammer.

Does almost the same damage static vrs static but does more within grinding advance vrs a moving predator on a T8 12W platform vrs a T7 11W predator and could take sponsons on top.

Also as you say the predator pays an odd premium over a razorback for 1 w and the option to take sponsons.

I've had plenty of cases where 30/36" range was a limiting factor, but I honestly can't remember the last time I had to choose a different target for a Lascannon due to being further out than 48". LOS usually limits them before the range does.

Like, unless you camped all of your Razorbacks on the furthest back edge on Hammer and Anvil on a terrainless table, the Lascannons should be able to shoot the LR that's shooting them. Even on H&A, if you put your Lascannons on the deployment line and they put their Russes on their back edge, you're in range.

Aslong as your playing with a reasonable amount of big terrain I agree but I assume your paying a cost to offset the advantage used or not.

Also with 8th targeting rules if you can see anything you can shoot it, so might have been more of an issue with GW terrain as it rarely blocks all LOS.

Marine dex is busted has become clear but the more russ variants I math hammer it sounds like GW didn't have a clear or consistant balance point that they used to cost AM tanks against as their internal and extrenal balance is all over the shop.

A lascannon turrent twin lass exterminator is apparently the best tank hunter in the dex, not the dedicated anti tank tank.
The battle cannon to me is just too good all round make the battle can -1ap instead and a Vanquisher S9 Ap -3. The battle cannon isn't newtered but a Vanquisher is worth having how exactly the cost of the exterminator is balanced I've no idea.
But if we blance around it alot of other things need adjusted both internally and externally to the AM codex.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The Vanquisher also gets Regiment benefits. Not all of them are good on it, as to be expected like for most units nowadays, but some of them are tasty.

Which ones are tasty on the Vanquisher?

Catachan, reroll the number of shot dice on a Heavy 1 weapon?

Tallarn, move and fire a 72" gun without penalty on a turret weapon that can already move and fire without penalty? Good Stratagem though.

Vostroyan, 80" range on a 72" gun? Pass.

Valhallan, one reduced bracket profile. Kind of good, but if your Vanquisher is bracketed, you should either be thanking your opponent for having garbage target priority or you're about to get tabled.

Steel Legion, lol.

Cadian, reroll 1's to hit. Not bad, but not exactly what I'd call tasty. Least you get an amazing Stratagem to use with it.

Ice_can wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

kurhanik wrote:


Vanquishers for example are kind of garbage, but if they are buffed to true tank killers, then they'd be too strong without a big points increase. What would be a good middle ground where they are actually good at their job while also not becoming an auto-take?

S9 AP-4, done. Not amazing, still actually slightly worse than a battlecannon against T6/7, but more functional against against heavy armor (Knights, other Russ tanks, Land Raiders, etc) for its cost.

Alteratively, AP-4 and reroll failed wounds against units with the "Vehicle" keyword, makes it even more effective against tanks of all kinds than just straight S9, but not as effecient against monsters and heavy infantry as say, something like a Lascannon predator.

Either would work well for the vehicle at its current cost and relative to contemporaries like the Predator and Fire Prism.

 Grand.Master.Raziel wrote:


Chimeras are probably appropriately priced, or close to it.
The problem is that a 30pt HQ character can reliably make up to two squads move 12+2d6", and a 20pt Elite character can make one move that way. Not only is that amazing, but it also helps cheaply fill up a Brigade for CP harvesting. Against that, who needs Chimeras? They can't move as far, and they make it harder to fill a Brigade.

It's not just that, almost a hundred points for a transport that typically is carrying a unit that costs much as less, particularly when a Chimera is sporting nothing more impressive than a couple of heavy bolters that are usually going to be hitting on 5's, is why they sit on shelves this edition. Even if there were no character based mobility options, the Chimera just isn't an attractive choice. It'a too expensive for the firepower and mobility it brings to such weeny units.

I've been a fan of AP-4 and a generic Shred, so that it hits singular targets as a whole better.

The problem with all of the above is that it assumes that a russ battle cannon is balanced (different issue).

If you math hammer it out a Vanquisher actually compairs favourably with a lascannon predator and lascannon razerback, ignoring doctirins and orders which I would expect to improve the vanquishers performance.

The russ is also a T8 W12 Sv3 hull to the predators T7 W11 Sv3 hull
Making a Vanquisher S9 and Ap -4 just creates a new OP unit.
I could see Ap-4 or S9 not both.

Simply put the balancd issue isn't vanquishers being bad its a battle cannon not having a down side

Hrm, the Vanquisher cannon is still objectively bad. For a basic hull LC Vanq at 162pts, you're averaging 3.46 wounds a turn against T6/7, and 2.84 wounds a turn against T8 3+sv vehicles.

Against T7 and lower vehicles, that works out to ~47pts per wound per turn. and 57pts per wound per turn against T8.

A Quadlas predator meanwhile at 190pts, while costing more than the Vanq, is dramatically more efficient and powerful. Averaging 5.185 wounds a turn against T8 and lower, and averaging ~37pts per wound per turn.

A Fire Prism at 160pts with a shuriken catapult is averaging 3.88 wounds a turn against...anything really, coming out at 41pts per wound per turn.

So, the Russ is a bit more resilient in having an extra wound and higher T, but one wound is relatively minor and as we can see here at least in comparison to contemporary vehicles in other armies, the higher T isn't terribly relevant either. So, ok, it's a tiny bit more resilient. The problem is that it is *dramatically* less effective at killing tanks than these other two.

Making them S9 AP-4 puts them at a firepower output on par with the Fire Prism against T8 and lower vehicles, a tiny bit more resilient than either the Predator or Fire Prism, neither matching the raw efficiency or absolute firepower output of the Predator at tank killing, not as mobile or tricksy (and certainly nowhere near as flexible) as the Fire Prism, but it does put it about in the realm of where it should be in terms of performance.

making it Ap-1 keeps it usefull everywhere but makes specialised tanks better at thier specialist role than the russ.

The Battlecannon exists on units other than Russ tanks, and they certainly don't appear to be issues there, they generally seem to be rather "meh'. Part of the issue is that GW's blast changes didn't quite work, straight D6 shots was too low and too variable, the double-firing was an easy response but ultimately a flawed fix, and GW just doesn't want to go back and change weapons profiles. That said, to be fair, it's kinda nice that the Battlecannon is actually a functional multi-role weapon, I don't really see an issue with the Battlecannon itself, but rather just the more specialized variants don't work even if you take away the Battlecannon. The Exterminator is very expensive for what it offers (especially with Hydras as an option) and was one of the very few formerly TL weapons to not get its shots doubled (to be fair, I think had they done so, and then doubled them again with LB, that would have been broken, but it's not quite right just now). The Vanquisher has the above issues. The Demolisher is hugely expensive for what it offers with its much reduced range and volume of fire and 40pt weapon cost. The Eradicator is attempting to duplicate what the Hellhound does, but just comes off mostly as a crappy battlecannon, the reduced range and Strength not generally being worth the removal of the conditional cover bonus in 8E unless you're setting it to a task that a Hellhound or Punisher is probably better suited to, the fact that the Nova Cannon is also just a tiny bit more expensive than the Battle Cannon is just icing on the cake.

RogueApiary wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The Vanquisher also gets Regiment benefits. Not all of them are good on it, as to be expected like for most units nowadays, but some of them are tasty.

Which ones are tasty on the Vanquisher?

Catachan, reroll the number of shot dice on a Heavy 1 weapon?

Tallarn, move and fire a 72" gun without penalty on a turret weapon that can already move and fire without penalty? Good Stratagem though.

Vostroyan, 80" range on a 72" gun? Pass.

Valhallan, one reduced bracket profile. Kind of good, but if your Vanquisher is bracketed, you should either be thanking your opponent for having garbage target priority or you're about to get tabled.

Steel Legion, lol.

Cadian, reroll 1's to hit. Not bad, but not exactly what I'd call tasty. Least you get an amazing Stratagem to use with it.

Catachan one could be for the Plasma Cannon you might take. Kinda doesn't help overall though. Tallarn would be more for that extra weapon too, but once again doesn't help overall.

I'm more thinking about the Valhallan, Cadian, and Armageddon.

Sorry just realised that its a lemon Russ Annihilator I was talking about the twin lass cannon turret. Thats 5 lascannon shots with grinding advance for 182 points. Thats 4 lascannon shots a bs4 and 1 at bs 5 moving for less than a Predator with 4 las which are bs3 static and bs4 moving.

I agree that the blast into a straight number of shots thing is a crap solution, especially hitting the same model too many times it should have had a keyword that limited rehitting the same model.
I'm not saying the vanquisher doesn't need fixed, I agree its sub optimal.

I just don't want it to turn into a race to alpha strike tablings which is how 8th edition is starting to feel.

It maybe I'm baised coming from first round/amature league only uncompetitive codex, but alot of guard stuff seams barely balanced and no clear vision of how other armies would be able to interact with it.
Though same goes for most of the recent codex's

Ordana wrote:

kurhanik wrote:

Ordana wrote:
Alright to those who think that Guard are not to cost effective throughout (most) of their codex. I challenge you to this.

My planned Custodes army uses a 329 point Guard Battalion.
(2 Tempestor Prime with command rods and 1 power axe, 3x5 Scions with 2 plasma guns and 1 plasma pistol, Warlord with Grand Statagist and Kurov's Aquilla).
Find me a similar costed detachment in any codex that is remotely as effective as this. Bonus points for it being Imperial.

Nothing can come close to the point effectiveness of Guard.

It would depend on what you want to do - a Canoness + 2 Excorcists are 315 points - 14 points for upgrades, meaning you could get a Storm Bolter for both Excorcists and a Hunter Killer Missile for one of them. That is 2d6 48" Strength 8, AP -4 D3 damage shots, as well as 2 Rapid Fire 2 24" strength 4 shots, and, unless I am missing something in the Canoness' stat block, all hit rolls of 1 can be rerolled. All 3 units have a 3+/6++ and can attempt to block psychic powers, even if it is a low chance to do so.

I don't know Sisters that well, I'm waiting for beautiful plastic to come out before I dive into them, but that seems like it could be a somewhat effective unit - not many boots on the ground, but its still clocks in at 29 3+/6++ wounds, 24 of them being T8. Admittedly you'd either need to buy a 3rd Excorcist (135 points) or a Battle Sister Squad (45 points) to make the above legal - depending on if you want a few bodies to block for the Excorcist / force Deep Strikers further away or more damage output. Still, 360 points nets you a Patrol Detachment.

If you are specifically looking for Deep Strikers, than yeah, Scions are the best that I know of, largely because they are both range focused without spending points on melee they try to avoid using, and have the ideal ranged weapon to go with it.

Except I have the same shots as the Exorcists above 12". More then double within 12 with only slightly worse AP. Also re-rolling 1's thanks to orders. The Exorcists are sturdier by a lot, but its not a legal detachment so it gives no CP, vs 3 and recycling.

Its why I was asking what you were looking for, and I said full well, for 45 points, it becomes a legal detachment. 329 vs 360 points.

That and unless you are really lucky with your suicide Scion drop, you can expect to give up a fairly easy warlord kill to your opponent. Or, if you are keeping the warlord one held back, then you can only order 2 squads of them, which makes overloading those Plasma Guns slightly riskier.

The strongest counter to your Scion list is actually bodies - 200 points of Gaunts keeping them from Deep Striking into their ideal range + 130 points of stronger bug. Or a wall of Cultists bubble wrapping a damage dealing unit. Regular Guardsmen walling them off from a Leman Russ. Once Scions have to Deep Strike more than 12" away, they lose over half of their fire power - the Plasma Guns cannot double tap and the Plasma Pistols cannot fire at all. They are forced to either fire past the screen and hope that their lessened firepower is enough, or to fire into the screen, at which point they are killing cheap bodies that were there mostly to die in the first place.

Ordana wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

Ordana wrote:
Alright to those who think that Guard are not to cost effective throughout (most) of their codex. I challenge you to this.

My planned Custodes army uses a 329 point Guard Battalion.
(2 Tempestor Prime with command rods and 1 power axe, 3x5 Scions with 2 plasma guns and 1 plasma pistol, Warlord with Grand Statagist and Kurov's Aquilla).
Find me a similar costed detachment in any codex that is remotely as effective as this. Bonus points for it being Imperial.

Nothing can come close to the point effectiveness of Guard.

So your proof that IG are too cost-effective throughout most of their codex is to post a detachment that spams a single unit (plasma scions)? Sure...

3 Company Commanders, 3 infantry squads (2 lascannon, 1 mortor), 1 Basilisk. 333 pts. Same deal.
Replace the basilisk with a Hellhound? Heavy weapon teams? Heck bring 10 ratling snipers.

Well, that list has a completely different focus than the first one - for one, unless you are Tallarn, it has to start out in the open, where it could be targeted. For Another, instead of 6 Plasma Guns and 3 Plasma Pistols blowing their load and planning to die, it is focusing on 4 weapons to deal damage in total, and a number of ablative wounds to soak it up. Considering you said it was going to be joining Custodes, it means that this is probably the majority of models in your army (I don't know the new Custodes dex much at all beyond the rumors early on and that they are expensive ppm).

Probably the main way to face your suggestion here would be to focus on degrading/destroying the Basilisk, throwing incidental fire at the Infantry, and otherwise focusing on the Custodes. If the Basilisk is out of line of sight, then the blob is probably also more spread out, as Lascannons do require line of sight, and more readily picked apart bit by bit (though the Basilisk itself would remain deadly for far longer, depending on what it is hiding behind).

Now, 330 points of nothing but Company Commanders and Mortar Squads that are all somehow out of line of sight I have little answer to beyond Deep Striking some damage dealer in and hoping to neuter it quickly. Then again, at that point you have basically leaned in to full guard as you cannot fit this into a two full Vanguard detachments.

Ordana wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Irbis wrote:

Ordana wrote:
Alright to those who think that Guard are not to cost effective throughout (most) of their codex. I challenge you to this.

My planned Custodes army uses a 329 point Guard Battalion.
(2 Tempestor Prime with command rods and 1 power axe, 3x5 Scions with 2 plasma guns and 1 plasma pistol, Warlord with Grand Statagist and Kurov's Aquilla).
Find me a similar costed detachment in any codex that is remotely as effective as this. Bonus points for it being Imperial.

Nothing can come close to the point effectiveness of Guard.

Pre-nerf Elysians and Renegades beat this build with ridiculous ease (cue people claiming 'FW is totes fine and balanced'), even after nerf they are at least as good if you min-max them. Eldar Dark Reaper spam beats this too, with better save, range, damage, BS, literally everything. Sisters can make very strong showing, BA also have nasty alpha strike tricks, as do infiltrating RG/AL. Tau commander spam can also match this, as can at least 2-3 other books.

But everyone knows only IG is the only problematic faction in the game and 8th edition will instantly become balanced as soon as IG is banned from the tables

Who here has denied that Dark Reapers are broken and need fixing?
And lol at bringing up FW Guard as a counter argument to Guard being to cost effective.

Well, last I looked, Forge World Guard is not in the Astra Militarum Codex, unless I've been missing Elysians in the book...

Wolf_in_Human_Shape wrote:Any solid info or other rumors RE: the FAQ yet?

Nope!

Its why this thread has moved into basic Infantry Squads, over to Manticores, then to something else for a bit, and now we are on Scions.

I should also point out that Grand Strategist on a Warlord that starts off the table isn't great, since you only get the regen of CP while he is on the battlefield. If you are actually going to use that combo you really want them starting on the board somewhere safe and not dropping into the enemy's face, like it looks like they should be as they are on a Tempestor Prime.

Ice_can wrote:
Sorry just realised that its a lemon Russ Annihilator I was talking about the twin lass cannon turret. Thats 5 lascannon shots with grinding advance for 182 points.

Well that's a FW unit, not in the Codex. The rules for it were written pre-codex, when Grinding Advance just removed the penalty to hit after moving, I think it maybe already got a points increase in a FAQ or something after the current GA rules were introduced, but I'm not completely sure about that.

Panzergraf wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
Sorry just realised that its a lemon Russ Annihilator I was talking about the twin lass cannon turret. Thats 5 lascannon shots with grinding advance for 182 points.

Well that's a FW unit, not in the Codex. The rules for it were written pre-codex, when Grinding Advance just removed the penalty to hit after moving, I think it maybe already got a points increase in a FAQ or something after the current GA rules were introduced, but I'm not completely sure about that.

It was more expensive after the FAQ gave them Codex GA until CA dropped the points. Even so, 170 for four Lascannon shots that can't split fire isn't exactly making a splash in competitive. I brought one to LVO and was overall not impressed with it despite a couple shining moments. Bought a second one because I suspect two will work out better and because I think the turret looks boss, but I kind of feel like I'd be better off with a third Manticore.

RogueApiary wrote:

Panzergraf wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
Sorry just realised that its a lemon Russ Annihilator I was talking about the twin lass cannon turret. Thats 5 lascannon shots with grinding advance for 182 points.

Well that's a FW unit, not in the Codex. The rules for it were written pre-codex, when Grinding Advance just removed the penalty to hit after moving, I think it maybe already got a points increase in a FAQ or something after the current GA rules were introduced, but I'm not completely sure about that.

It was more expensive after the FAQ gave them Codex GA until CA dropped the points. Even so, 170 for four Lascannon shots that can't split fire isn't exactly making a splash in competitive. I brought one to LVO and was overall not impressed with it despite a couple shining moments. Bought a second one because I suspect two will work out better and because I think the turret looks boss, but I kind of feel like I'd be better off with a third Manticore.

Do you usually need to split 4 Lascannon shots though?

So, it looks like we are returning to the good old days of 7th, with IG being rapidly nerfed back to the bottom of the pecking order, just where they should be
After all, we cant have any competition for our power armoured mary sues can we?

 master of ordinance wrote:
So, it looks like we are returning to the good old days of 7th, with IG being rapidly nerfed back to the bottom of the pecking order, just where they should be
After all, we cant have any competition for our power armoured mary sues can we?

I don't think they're at risk of that at all. The hyperbole is not useful.

 master of ordinance wrote:
So, it looks like we are returning to the good old days of 7th, with IG being rapidly nerfed back to the bottom of the pecking order, just where they should be
After all, we cant have any competition for our power armoured mary sues can we?

While IG has been bad since 6th (although not ork levels of bad, or 'nid level) the nerfs are far from dragging them from being a top tier army, especially when manticores, guardsmen, and scions are all still incredibly powerful. Hell Guardsmen are probably the best troop in the game, and scions are the cheapest possible platform for mass plasma guns possible AND get to RF the plasma guns onto anything they wish.

Not entirely up to date on all of IG, but nothing seems as bad as it was (except maybe regular battle cannon LRs or the Vanquisher I guess) and a lot of stuff became good, if not the best in it's category.

 master of ordinance wrote:
So, it looks like we are returning to the good old days of 7th, with IG being rapidly nerfed back to the bottom of the pecking order, just where they should be
After all, we cant have any competition for our power armoured mary sues can we?

Argument in favor of nerf: Guard Infantry are worth 5 ppm.
Your counter argument: Marine players are whiners.

k

I willl find a way to crush all the enemies of the imperium. It's only a matter of will.

One might still ask if this is enough? Wasn't the last time actually enough? Will the next time be enough? When it will be enough?

... Will the other factions have to ever ask when it will be enough?

IG weren't bottom in 7th. Quit spreading that lie.

Martel732 wrote:
IG weren't bottom in 7th. Quit spreading that lie.

Why be honest when those durn marine players are just a bunch of mary sue loving whiners, who want to keep the honest, upright guard players down?

Its not like Marines have pretty much never been the top, with the rare exception of GK and BA in 5th right before 6th dropped... amd evne then, leafblower and guard parking lots were better!

You forgot 3rd ed.

 Crazyterran wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
IG weren't bottom in 7th. Quit spreading that lie.

Why be honest when those durn marine players are just a bunch of mary sue loving whiners, who want to keep the honest, upright guard players down?

Its not like Marines have pretty much never been the top, with the rare exception of GK and BA in 5th right before 6th dropped... amd evne then, leafblower and guard parking lots were better!

No love for the Age of Free Razorbacks?

RogueApiary wrote:

Panzergraf wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
Sorry just realised that its a lemon Russ Annihilator I was talking about the twin lass cannon turret. Thats 5 lascannon shots with grinding advance for 182 points.

Well that's a FW unit, not in the Codex. The rules for it were written pre-codex, when Grinding Advance just removed the penalty to hit after moving, I think it maybe already got a points increase in a FAQ or something after the current GA rules were introduced, but I'm not completely sure about that.

It was more expensive after the FAQ gave them Codex GA until CA dropped the points. Even so, 170 for four Lascannon shots that can't split fire isn't exactly making a splash in competitive. I brought one to LVO and was overall not impressed with it despite a couple shining moments. Bought a second one because I suspect two will work out better and because I think the turret looks boss, but I kind of feel like I'd be better off with a third Manticore.

I would be interested to know what did/didn't work for it as math says its better than a predator and if it's not working thinks are more unbalanced than I thought.

Ice_can wrote:

RogueApiary wrote:

Panzergraf wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
Sorry just realised that its a lemon Russ Annihilator I was talking about the twin lass cannon turret. Thats 5 lascannon shots with grinding advance for 182 points.

Well that's a FW unit, not in the Codex. The rules for it were written pre-codex, when Grinding Advance just removed the penalty to hit after moving, I think it maybe already got a points increase in a FAQ or something after the current GA rules were introduced, but I'm not completely sure about that.

It was more expensive after the FAQ gave them Codex GA until CA dropped the points. Even so, 170 for four Lascannon shots that can't split fire isn't exactly making a splash in competitive. I brought one to LVO and was overall not impressed with it despite a couple shining moments. Bought a second one because I suspect two will work out better and because I think the turret looks boss, but I kind of feel like I'd be better off with a third Manticore.

I would be interested to know what did/didn't work for it as math says its better than a predator and if it's not working thinks are more unbalanced than I thought.

It's 6 total shots, right? Twin-las fires twice and the two sponsons? I can't see how that wouldn't perform well especially on a T8 chassis unless it just gets outshone by other stuff.

2 rounds from the twin turret and one hull mounted, russ can only take heavy bolter, flamer or plasma sponsons. But yeah maths says its a cheap way to do lots of lascannon damage.

And multi-meltas. But yeah no lascannons

Martel732 wrote:
IG weren't bottom in 7th. Quit spreading that lie.

By "bottom" are we insisting on that meaning being "the absolute worst" or does "objectively bad at competitive play" work? Because while the former may be false, the latter is absolutely true.

Ice_can wrote:
Sorry just realised that its a lemon Russ Annihilator I was talking about the twin lass cannon turret. Thats 5 lascannon shots with grinding advance for 182 points. Thats 4 lascannon shots a bs4 and 1 at bs 5 moving for less than a Predator with 4 las which are bs3 static and bs4 moving.

Sure, it works about to being about as cost efficient as a Predator (both come in at about ~37pts per wound per turn). The Russ is a little more resilient, a little better moving slowly, a bit lower absolute average damage output and dramatically lower max speed damage output. One could argue the relative merits there, but they're not too out of sync, and the Annihilator can't be taken as a Tank Commander.

I agree that the blast into a straight number of shots thing is a crap solution, especially hitting the same model too many times it should have had a keyword that limited rehitting the same model.
I'm not saying the vanquisher doesn't need fixed, I agree its sub optimal.

I just don't want it to turn into a race to alpha strike tablings which is how 8th edition is starting to feel.

That seems to be the direction GW is going, killier stuff, faster games. I agree that the alpha strikiness of the game in general is disconcerting,

It maybe I'm baised coming from first round/amature league only uncompetitive codex, but alot of guard stuff seams barely balanced and no clear vision of how other armies would be able to interact with it.
Though same goes for most of the recent codex's

There's a lot of wonkiness in general. GW is famously bad at balance. The power level of stuff within the IG codex swings wildly, there's some golden gems and abuseable options (looking at you auto-delete-any-non-LoW-tank Shadowsword) and some absolute stinkers (yay deathstrikes!).

Yes, I meant absolute worst.

Martel732 wrote:
You forgot 3rd ed.

I'm pretty sure the kings of 3rd were the Chaos Space Marines, or my brothers Iron Warriors turning my stuff into paste was a fever dream...

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Crazyterran wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
IG weren't bottom in 7th. Quit spreading that lie.

Why be honest when those durn marine players are just a bunch of mary sue loving whiners, who want to keep the honest, upright guard players down?

Its not like Marines have pretty much never been the top, with the rare exception of GK and BA in 5th right before 6th dropped... amd evne then, leafblower and guard parking lots were better!

No love for the Age of Free Razorbacks?

I would share the love for that, if they were not overshadowed in power by Eldar, Daemon Summoning, and various Deathstars.

 Vaktathi wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
IG weren't bottom in 7th. Quit spreading that lie.

By "bottom" are we insisting on that meaning being "the absolute worst" or does "objectively bad at competitive play" work? Because while the former may be false, the latter is absolutely true.

All this talk about performance in previous editions is a bit pointless isn't it? It doesn't affect us now and right now IG are NOT bad and will NOT be bad with 5 point IS.