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.

Predator is medium tank. Leman russ heavy. They are for different purposes.

Also land raider on par with LOW? Since when? Some early space marine game early '90's? 40k 6th and 7th certainly baneblade was tougher than land raider.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
Absolutely in No way should a Leman Russ Chassis be Toughness 9.
T9 should be for LOW, not MBT'S, Landradiers being T9 makes sence as it was always in par with IG LoW and outclassed Leman Russes.
Also the lore doesn't support that a Leman russ should just straight outclass a predator. It was tougher from the front and weaker side and rear.

Exploding 6's for Imperial fists should probably be limited to non pistol bolt weapons.

Leman Russ was 14/13/10. Predator was 13/11/10. I just went by vehicle category, though. A Predator has been a medium tank, while a Leman Russ has been a heavy tank for at least a long time, with special rules relating to it's general heavy-and-slow-ness. That's also why it's T8 while other tanks are T7.

But this isn't about the Leman Russ, and whether or not it should be re-designated as a medium tank with medium-tank rules, because that's fine. this is about the difference between Razorbacks, Predators, and Land Raiders. 11/11/10 and 13/11/10 are both T7, right now, and that's an issue. I think increasing toughness of heavier vehicles is the solution, since it will also add greater purpose to heavy antitank systems like Lascannons and Railcannons, while reducing the overall utility of medium AT/Multirole systems like Plasmaguns and Missile Launcher.



With regards to the Leman Russ, making it a medium tank and adding in a heavy tank, possibly the Marcharius, would actually be pretty cool. I also think that the Leman Russ should, without a doubt, lose to shoot-twice effect on it's gun, because it's really just a patch for the fact that the Battle Cannon isn't good, and other Battle Cannon armed units will suffer as a result.

I'll except that, but a LR at is current points and rules with T9 would be the most broken thing in 8th edition.

The wording on the power armor ignoring AP has to be done in such a way so that they aren't still getting a 2+ save in cover vs AP1. But I think the general agreement is that they should not melt to AP1 as much. I think I lean more towards them always getting at least their normal save VS AP1, but not effecting AP2 or better. This let's guns that should kill Marines kill Marines, but ups their durability against things like heavy bolters and assault cannons. It also makes cover helpful against good guns but not as required against AP 1 stuff.

I think all SM models with 2 wounds (terminators, bikes, and primaris) need to reduce damage by 1. Otherwise they die too easily to high rate of fire 2 damage weapons.

Also, all is dust is very different, as it actually improves the save based on the damage of the weapon. It's definitely possible to have all is dust, ignore a point of AP, and reduce all damage taken by 1 be functional rules working together with no overlap on rubric terminators.

Most of the chapter tactics seem like improvements, but not in ways that really matter, and the iron hands one is head and shoulders above the others.

My personal thought on chapter tactics is that they should be fairly minimal buffs that give some flavor and make certain builds more effective. I think the current iron hands, space wolves, blood angels, and salamanders traits are good examples of this. They are decent buffs that tweak marine units sightly in one direction without it being too drastic a change to the base army.

So I'd much rather the traits be weak and the units themselves be powerful. This is why I think that all space Marines should be able to fall back and shoot, because it's such a good ability that most other tactics won't be able to keep up with it, and it fits the ATSKNF of previous editions.

I also think vehicles as a unit type should be fixed as a part of the core rules, not in a chapter tactic. The way I see it the following keywords should give the following bonuses:

Vehicle: this unit can shoot heavy weapons after moving with no penalty. This unit can also fall back from combat and fire it's weapons with -1 to hit.
Fly: this unit can move over terrain and models as if they were not there. They may also fall back from combat and fire their weapons normally.
Transport: this unit can hold x models of x types. Embarked models may disembark during the movement phase as long as the transport has not advanced. If they disembark before the transport has moved at all, they may disembark, move, shoot, and charge normally. If they disembark after the transport has moved, they may only disembark and shoot.
Open topped: models embarked in open topped transports can fire their weapons from inside the vehicle following the normal rules for shooting.
Assault vehicle: units embarked in assault vehicles can disembark, shoot, and charge normally even after the vehicle has moved.

I feel like these changes make all vehicles powerful and useful, while still giving each type of vehicle it's own advantages, unlike now, where the only good vehicles tend to have fly or be knights. Once vehicles are fixed in this manner, then you can tweak them with things like chapter tactics.

For marine weapons, the general issue if that they usually only have 1-2 special weapons, and then a bunch of terrible basic shots and attacks. This would be okay if a weapon like a melta did enough damage to things that it was worth the risk of rolling to hit, wound, save, and roll damage. Boosting the strength of melta is pretty meaningless IMO because invuls still laugh at it, and even if it does go through it only average 4.5 damage at half range. Las has similar issues. To me the best solution is the increase the damage of these weapons. First give the D6 roll a minimum damage value like some other weapons have now (new genestealer guys hammer for one). I think 3 is a good place to start. For melta, I'd go as far as to say at half range let it do 6 damage flat. There should be a real reward for getting that close IMO, and multi meltas should be ultimate go big or go home weapon. Keep in mind that the average damage from a melta shot against a 5++ knight would still only be 1.33, compared to the current 1 damage. It just makes it very rewarding when the damage does go through.

Grav is a weird weapon that doesn't really have much of a place IMO. I think the best thing to do would just be to scrap it, but if we had to keep it, I'd have it be S2 but always wound any model with more than 1 wound on a 4+ to make it more of the anti tough stuff gun than the anti armor gun. I'd leave the heavy profile alone and probably make the gun version assault 2.

I think any weapon that used to be a large template should get extra hits against larger units, and flamer or small blast template weapons should get twice their current value shots, but be be capped by the number of models in the target unit.

I agree with the plasma doing mortal wounds, especially on razorbacks and characters. It gets a little weird for 2 wound units because of the way wound allocation works right now, but doesn't really seem like a big deal to me.

The basic marine damage also needs to go up. I think bolters all need AP1 like the primaris have now, and primaris guns can have S5. Chainswords and knives should also be AP1. Keep in mind that Marines would be ignoring this AP, so it really only effects other armies, which don't typically rely as much on armor (expect for say, necrons, who probably also need to ignore AP). I'd also give all Marines back the +1 attack for charging. Space wolf blood claws have this now and it's not game breaking. Their rule can change to exploding 6s to hit or something.

Ultimately, Marines need to be more durable and do more damage, as the only alternative is to make them a horde army. Their vehicles also need to be useful and worth taking. Only then do things like chapter tactics start to matter.

My thoughts on chapter tactics are things like:
UM: overwatch on 5+
IH: 6+ FNP
S: current bonus is fine, since we've already buffed single shot weapons.
IF: 6s to hit with bolter weapons add a additional hit. Their strategem should buff 1-3 terrain peices to give +2 to saves instead of +1.
BT: current is fine, since we've already buffed the innate melee ability of all marines. I do think some kind of vow warlord trait would be cool. Their current strategem is actually excellent.
WS: I'd keep their current advance bonuses, but also let them shoot rapid fire weapons normally after they advance. Id get rid of the fall back and charge ability since it doesn't really fit with how Marines want to play.
RG: I'd reduce their strategem and all the others like it to 1 unit per game. Then I'd give them +1 to their armor saves if they are over 12" away. This is definitely a nerf, but I don't think army wide -1 traits should be a thing, and it's still pretty useful when you stack it with cover.
DA: I'd change their tactic to give +1 to hit if they don't move instead of re-rolls of 1 to hit, since they should have that from characters. The never losing more than 1 guy to morale thing is fine too.
SW: is fine
BA: is fine
GK: is actually pretty good, it's just the rest of their army that sucks. Id still think about changing it to something like the AP of their weapons to effect invul saves, but they really need a new while new codex so it's hard to say.

I think the warlord traits that allow CP regen are okay, but you should never be able to roll more than one dice to get CP back when you use strategems, and either make them all 5+ or 6+. Storm of fire is another really good warlord trait, so I'd try to boost the others to something near it's power, but honestly bad warlord traits isn't a giant issue to me as long as a few of them are okay, as there are really only so many things you can do.

It's also possible Marines would need to cost more after all of these changes, which I'd be fine with if they were actually good, but I suspect that they'd actually be about where they need to be at their current points.

Ice_can wrote:

Spoiler:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
Absolutely in No way should a Leman Russ Chassis be Toughness 9.
T9 should be for LOW, not MBT'S, Landradiers being T9 makes sence as it was always in par with IG LoW and outclassed Leman Russes.
Also the lore doesn't support that a Leman russ should just straight outclass a predator. It was tougher from the front and weaker side and rear.

Exploding 6's for Imperial fists should probably be limited to non pistol bolt weapons.

Leman Russ was 14/13/10. Predator was 13/11/10. I just went by vehicle category, though. A Predator has been a medium tank, while a Leman Russ has been a heavy tank for at least a long time, with special rules relating to it's general heavy-and-slow-ness. That's also why it's T8 while other tanks are T7.

But this isn't about the Leman Russ, and whether or not it should be re-designated as a medium tank with medium-tank rules, because that's fine. this is about the difference between Razorbacks, Predators, and Land Raiders. 11/11/10 and 13/11/10 are both T7, right now, and that's an issue. I think increasing toughness of heavier vehicles is the solution, since it will also add greater purpose to heavy antitank systems like Lascannons and Railcannons, while reducing the overall utility of medium AT/Multirole systems like Plasmaguns and Missile Launcher.



With regards to the Leman Russ, making it a medium tank and adding in a heavy tank, possibly the Marcharius, would actually be pretty cool. I also think that the Leman Russ should, without a doubt, lose to shoot-twice effect on it's gun, because it's really just a patch for the fact that the Battle Cannon isn't good, and other Battle Cannon armed units will suffer as a result.

I'll except that, but a LR at is current points and rules with T9 would be the most broken thing in 8th edition.

Anything that receives a rules change should also receive an appropriate points adjustment. I thought that was obvious. I mean, without points changes, I think the Vindicator change I proposed would make the Leman Russ Demolisher the most broken thing in the edition, followed by the Vindicator.

Which goes back to why the Leman Russ's shoot twice rule is awful. The guns on the Leman Russes are unimpressive, except for the Punisher cannon. GW realized this, but instead of fixing the gun, made Leman Russes shoot twice. Which doesn't fix the problem, because now if you want to address something like the Vindicator, you have to deal with the fact that any change has double the effect on some Leman Russ variant and will probably make it OP. I have ideas for the Leman Russ, but they don't belong in this thread.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Spoiler:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
Absolutely in No way should a Leman Russ Chassis be Toughness 9.
T9 should be for LOW, not MBT'S, Landradiers being T9 makes sence as it was always in par with IG LoW and outclassed Leman Russes.
Also the lore doesn't support that a Leman russ should just straight outclass a predator. It was tougher from the front and weaker side and rear.

Exploding 6's for Imperial fists should probably be limited to non pistol bolt weapons.

Leman Russ was 14/13/10. Predator was 13/11/10. I just went by vehicle category, though. A Predator has been a medium tank, while a Leman Russ has been a heavy tank for at least a long time, with special rules relating to it's general heavy-and-slow-ness. That's also why it's T8 while other tanks are T7.

But this isn't about the Leman Russ, and whether or not it should be re-designated as a medium tank with medium-tank rules, because that's fine. this is about the difference between Razorbacks, Predators, and Land Raiders. 11/11/10 and 13/11/10 are both T7, right now, and that's an issue. I think increasing toughness of heavier vehicles is the solution, since it will also add greater purpose to heavy antitank systems like Lascannons and Railcannons, while reducing the overall utility of medium AT/Multirole systems like Plasmaguns and Missile Launcher.



With regards to the Leman Russ, making it a medium tank and adding in a heavy tank, possibly the Marcharius, would actually be pretty cool. I also think that the Leman Russ should, without a doubt, lose to shoot-twice effect on it's gun, because it's really just a patch for the fact that the Battle Cannon isn't good, and other Battle Cannon armed units will suffer as a result.

I'll except that, but a LR at is current points and rules with T9 would be the most broken thing in 8th edition.

Anything that receives a rules change should also receive an appropriate points adjustment. I thought that was obvious. I mean, without points changes, I think the Vindicator change I proposed would make the Leman Russ Demolisher the most broken thing in the edition, followed by the Vindicator.

Which goes back to why the Leman Russ's shoot twice rule is awful. The guns on the Leman Russes are unimpressive, except for the Punisher cannon. GW realized this, but instead of fixing the gun, made Leman Russes shoot twice. Which doesn't fix the problem, because now if you want to address something like the Vindicator, you have to deal with the fact that any change has double the effect on some Leman Russ variant and will probably make it OP.

Well your at odds with the OP's rules without points changes possition. Also I maybe was a bit over zealous as I always found ways to shoot rear armour so to me a Leman Russ Chassis was no tougher than a predator but a Landraider was a way tougher opponent.
The annoying thing is Battlecannons aren't actually a bad weapon, knights are paying 100 points for a double shooting battlecannon and people take those. Dooble shooting was a garbage "fix" that made it OP.

Also old lore which has probably been retconed to heck as marines arn't allowed to fight wars unsupported, said massed landradiers could take on titans, but IG needed and used Shadowswords instead.

I think T8 should be reserved for only the toughest vehicles like knights and landraiders. Give predator types T7 and a 2+ armor save or just a couple more wounds and call it a day IMO.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I actually think double shooting is okay, but the guns should also be fixed for other platforms and the double shoot ability then pointed correctly.

jcd386 wrote:I think T8 should be reserved for only the toughest vehicles like knights and landraiders. Give predator types T7 and a 2+ armor save or just a couple more wounds and call it a day IMO.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
I actually think double shooting is okay, but the guns should also be fixed for other platforms and the double shoot ability then pointed correctly.

I'd rather make the tanks tougher, so that there's a difference between a missile launcher, a lascannon, and a railcannon. Tougher tanks, with more variation in their toughness, in turn means you have can more variation in antitank weapons. In addition, T9 is the ticket to actually being tough, T8 isn't really all that resilient, since Battle Cannons and Missile Launchers are S8 and Lascannons are S9, but few weapons are S10.

I mean, the ability isn't an inherently awful ability, but implementing it as a fix for the really bad guns doesn't fix the problem.

Ice_can wrote:

Spoiler:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
[spoiler]

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
Absolutely in No way should a Leman Russ Chassis be Toughness 9.
T9 should be for LOW, not MBT'S, Landradiers being T9 makes sence as it was always in par with IG LoW and outclassed Leman Russes.
Also the lore doesn't support that a Leman russ should just straight outclass a predator. It was tougher from the front and weaker side and rear.

Exploding 6's for Imperial fists should probably be limited to non pistol bolt weapons.

Leman Russ was 14/13/10. Predator was 13/11/10. I just went by vehicle category, though. A Predator has been a medium tank, while a Leman Russ has been a heavy tank for at least a long time, with special rules relating to it's general heavy-and-slow-ness. That's also why it's T8 while other tanks are T7.

But this isn't about the Leman Russ, and whether or not it should be re-designated as a medium tank with medium-tank rules, because that's fine. this is about the difference between Razorbacks, Predators, and Land Raiders. 11/11/10 and 13/11/10 are both T7, right now, and that's an issue. I think increasing toughness of heavier vehicles is the solution, since it will also add greater purpose to heavy antitank systems like Lascannons and Railcannons, while reducing the overall utility of medium AT/Multirole systems like Plasmaguns and Missile Launcher.



With regards to the Leman Russ, making it a medium tank and adding in a heavy tank, possibly the Marcharius, would actually be pretty cool. I also think that the Leman Russ should, without a doubt, lose to shoot-twice effect on it's gun, because it's really just a patch for the fact that the Battle Cannon isn't good, and other Battle Cannon armed units will suffer as a result.

I'll except that, but a LR at is current points and rules with T9 would be the most broken thing in 8th edition.

Anything that receives a rules change should also receive an appropriate points adjustment. I thought that was obvious. I mean, without points changes, I think the Vindicator change I proposed would make the Leman Russ Demolisher the most broken thing in the edition, followed by the Vindicator.

Which goes back to why the Leman Russ's shoot twice rule is awful. The guns on the Leman Russes are unimpressive, except for the Punisher cannon. GW realized this, but instead of fixing the gun, made Leman Russes shoot twice. Which doesn't fix the problem, because now if you want to address something like the Vindicator, you have to deal with the fact that any change has double the effect on some Leman Russ variant and will probably make it OP.

Well your at odds with the OP's rules without points changes possition. Also I maybe was a bit over zealous as I always found ways to shoot rear armour so to me a Leman Russ Chassis was no tougher than a predator but a Landraider was a way tougher opponent.
The annoying thing is Battlecannons aren't actually a bad weapon, knights are paying 100 points for a double shooting battlecannon and people take those. Dooble shooting was a garbage "fix" that made it OP.

Also old lore which has probably been retconed to heck as marines arn't allowed to fight wars unsupported, said massed landradiers could take on titans, but IG needed and used Shadowswords instead.

He said "Let's leave point changes off the table since those are likely coming in Chapter Approved." I don't think I'm at odds with him. We know these things will need points changes, we're not trying to make rules to make them good at their current cost, we need rules alterations that address deficiencies like the Vindicator not really being good at anything at all and just being sort of half a Predator, or a fancy Razorback with bad range.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

jcd386 wrote:I think T8 should be reserved for only the toughest vehicles like knights and landraiders. Give predator types T7 and a 2+ armor save or just a couple more wounds and call it a day IMO.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
I actually think double shooting is okay, but the guns should also be fixed for other platforms and the double shoot ability then pointed correctly.

I'd rather make the tanks tougher, so that there's a difference between a missile launcher, a lascannon, and a railcannon. Tougher tanks, with more variation in their toughness, in turn means you have can more variation in antitank weapons. In addition, T9 is the ticket to actually being tough, T8 isn't really all that resilient, since Battle Cannons and Missile Launchers are S8 and Lascannons are S9, but few weapons are S10.

I mean, the ability isn't an inherently awful ability, but implementing it as a fix for the really bad guns doesn't fix the problem.

Ice_can wrote:

Spoiler:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
[spoiler]

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
Absolutely in No way should a Leman Russ Chassis be Toughness 9.
T9 should be for LOW, not MBT'S, Landradiers being T9 makes sence as it was always in par with IG LoW and outclassed Leman Russes.
Also the lore doesn't support that a Leman russ should just straight outclass a predator. It was tougher from the front and weaker side and rear.

Exploding 6's for Imperial fists should probably be limited to non pistol bolt weapons.

Leman Russ was 14/13/10. Predator was 13/11/10. I just went by vehicle category, though. A Predator has been a medium tank, while a Leman Russ has been a heavy tank for at least a long time, with special rules relating to it's general heavy-and-slow-ness. That's also why it's T8 while other tanks are T7.

But this isn't about the Leman Russ, and whether or not it should be re-designated as a medium tank with medium-tank rules, because that's fine. this is about the difference between Razorbacks, Predators, and Land Raiders. 11/11/10 and 13/11/10 are both T7, right now, and that's an issue. I think increasing toughness of heavier vehicles is the solution, since it will also add greater purpose to heavy antitank systems like Lascannons and Railcannons, while reducing the overall utility of medium AT/Multirole systems like Plasmaguns and Missile Launcher.



With regards to the Leman Russ, making it a medium tank and adding in a heavy tank, possibly the Marcharius, would actually be pretty cool. I also think that the Leman Russ should, without a doubt, lose to shoot-twice effect on it's gun, because it's really just a patch for the fact that the Battle Cannon isn't good, and other Battle Cannon armed units will suffer as a result.

I'll except that, but a LR at is current points and rules with T9 would be the most broken thing in 8th edition.

Anything that receives a rules change should also receive an appropriate points adjustment. I thought that was obvious. I mean, without points changes, I think the Vindicator change I proposed would make the Leman Russ Demolisher the most broken thing in the edition, followed by the Vindicator.

Which goes back to why the Leman Russ's shoot twice rule is awful. The guns on the Leman Russes are unimpressive, except for the Punisher cannon. GW realized this, but instead of fixing the gun, made Leman Russes shoot twice. Which doesn't fix the problem, because now if you want to address something like the Vindicator, you have to deal with the fact that any change has double the effect on some Leman Russ variant and will probably make it OP.

Well your at odds with the OP's rules without points changes possition. Also I maybe was a bit over zealous as I always found ways to shoot rear armour so to me a Leman Russ Chassis was no tougher than a predator but a Landraider was a way tougher opponent.
The annoying thing is Battlecannons aren't actually a bad weapon, knights are paying 100 points for a double shooting battlecannon and people take those. Dooble shooting was a garbage "fix" that made it OP.

Also old lore which has probably been retconed to heck as marines arn't allowed to fight wars unsupported, said massed landradiers could take on titans, but IG needed and used Shadowswords instead.

He said "Let's leave point changes off the table since those are likely coming in Chapter Approved." I don't think I'm at odds with him. We know these things will need points changes, we're not trying to make rules to make them good at their current cost, we need rules alterations that address deficiencies like the Vindicator not really being good at anything at all and just being sort of half a Predator, or a fancy Razorback with bad range.

T8 is very tough compared to T7. It reduces damage from S4 by 50%, S7 by 33%, and S8 by 25%. S9 is uneffected, but S9 represents some of the most powerful weapons in the game.

Going from 8 to 9 reduces damage from S9 by 25% and S8 by 33% which I feel is too much. I think better armor and more wounds are better options for giving vehicles durability until you get to the truly gigantic units.

jcd386 wrote:

Spoiler:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

jcd386 wrote:I think T8 should be reserved for only the toughest vehicles like knights and landraiders. Give predator types T7 and a 2+ armor save or just a couple more wounds and call it a day IMO.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
I actually think double shooting is okay, but the guns should also be fixed for other platforms and the double shoot ability then pointed correctly.

I'd rather make the tanks tougher, so that there's a difference between a missile launcher, a lascannon, and a railcannon. Tougher tanks, with more variation in their toughness, in turn means you have can more variation in antitank weapons. In addition, T9 is the ticket to actually being tough, T8 isn't really all that resilient, since Battle Cannons and Missile Launchers are S8 and Lascannons are S9, but few weapons are S10.

I mean, the ability isn't an inherently awful ability, but implementing it as a fix for the really bad guns doesn't fix the problem.

Ice_can wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
Absolutely in No way should a Leman Russ Chassis be Toughness 9.
T9 should be for LOW, not MBT'S, Landradiers being T9 makes sence as it was always in par with IG LoW and outclassed Leman Russes.
Also the lore doesn't support that a Leman russ should just straight outclass a predator. It was tougher from the front and weaker side and rear.

Exploding 6's for Imperial fists should probably be limited to non pistol bolt weapons.

Leman Russ was 14/13/10. Predator was 13/11/10. I just went by vehicle category, though. A Predator has been a medium tank, while a Leman Russ has been a heavy tank for at least a long time, with special rules relating to it's general heavy-and-slow-ness. That's also why it's T8 while other tanks are T7.

But this isn't about the Leman Russ, and whether or not it should be re-designated as a medium tank with medium-tank rules, because that's fine. this is about the difference between Razorbacks, Predators, and Land Raiders. 11/11/10 and 13/11/10 are both T7, right now, and that's an issue. I think increasing toughness of heavier vehicles is the solution, since it will also add greater purpose to heavy antitank systems like Lascannons and Railcannons, while reducing the overall utility of medium AT/Multirole systems like Plasmaguns and Missile Launcher.

With regards to the Leman Russ, making it a medium tank and adding in a heavy tank, possibly the Marcharius, would actually be pretty cool. I also think that the Leman Russ should, without a doubt, lose to shoot-twice effect on it's gun, because it's really just a patch for the fact that the Battle Cannon isn't good, and other Battle Cannon armed units will suffer as a result.

I'll except that, but a LR at is current points and rules with T9 would be the most broken thing in 8th edition.

Anything that receives a rules change should also receive an appropriate points adjustment. I thought that was obvious. I mean, without points changes, I think the Vindicator change I proposed would make the Leman Russ Demolisher the most broken thing in the edition, followed by the Vindicator.

Which goes back to why the Leman Russ's shoot twice rule is awful. The guns on the Leman Russes are unimpressive, except for the Punisher cannon. GW realized this, but instead of fixing the gun, made Leman Russes shoot twice. Which doesn't fix the problem, because now if you want to address something like the Vindicator, you have to deal with the fact that any change has double the effect on some Leman Russ variant and will probably make it OP.

Well your at odds with the OP's rules without points changes possition. Also I maybe was a bit over zealous as I always found ways to shoot rear armour so to me a Leman Russ Chassis was no tougher than a predator but a Landraider was a way tougher opponent.
The annoying thing is Battlecannons aren't actually a bad weapon, knights are paying 100 points for a double shooting battlecannon and people take those. Dooble shooting was a garbage "fix" that made it OP.

Also old lore which has probably been retconed to heck as marines arn't allowed to fight wars unsupported, said massed landradiers could take on titans, but IG needed and used Shadowswords instead.

He said "Let's leave point changes off the table since those are likely coming in Chapter Approved." I don't think I'm at odds with him. We know these things will need points changes, we're not trying to make rules to make them good at their current cost, we need rules alterations that address deficiencies like the Vindicator not really being good at anything at all and just being sort of half a Predator, or a fancy Razorback with bad range.

T8 is very tough compared to T7. It reduces damage from S4 by 50%, S7 by 33%, and S8 by 25%. S9 is uneffected, but S9 represents some of the most powerful weapons in the game.

Going from 8 to 9 reduces damage from S9 by 25% and S8 by 33% which I feel is too much. I think better armor and more wounds are better options for giving vehicles durability until you get to the truly gigantic units.

The other issue is many armies don't have much S8, 9 and fewer have s10 weapons access.
Not to mention that the points cost of some of these weapons and the units they are mounted on means a tac list is going to top out at being able to take 2 maybe 3 of these tops at 2k.
Thats a problem as most of them are D6 damage so even 2 or 3 of them is not guaranteed to even bracket a leman Russ as its current rediculous 150 points.

Three shots have a 95% chance of bracketing a Russ, a 74% chance of bracketing it down to the lowest, and a 37.5% chance of killing it outright.

Two shots still have a 72% chance of bracketing, a 28% chance of bracketing twice, though only a paltry 3% chance of killing.

In other words... Yes, it's POSSIBLE for a Russ to avoid being bracketed by three Lascannon wounds. But then again, it's possible for 24 Grots to kill a Knight Titan in a single round.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Three shots have a 95% chance of bracketing a Russ, a 74% chance of bracketing it down to the lowest, and a 37.5% chance of killing it outright.

Two shots still have a 72% chance of bracketing, a 28% chance of bracketing twice, though only a paltry 3% chance of killing.

In other words... Yes, it's POSSIBLE for a Russ to avoid being bracketed by three Lascannon wounds. But then again, it's possible for 24 Grots to kill a Knight Titan in a single round.

With what BS? And is that at T8 or T9?

That also doesn't adress the issue of being able to take 2 or more Russes for the points cost of of that firepower

Ice_can wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Three shots have a 95% chance of bracketing a Russ, a 74% chance of bracketing it down to the lowest, and a 37.5% chance of killing it outright.

Two shots still have a 72% chance of bracketing, a 28% chance of bracketing twice, though only a paltry 3% chance of killing.

In other words... Yes, it's POSSIBLE for a Russ to avoid being bracketed by three Lascannon wounds. But then again, it's possible for 24 Grots to kill a Knight Titan in a single round.

With what BS? And is that at T8 or T9?

I thought you were talking Lascannon WOUNDS. As in, once everything is said and done and it's just time to roll damage.

Because once you factor in hitting, wounding, and saves, of course the odds are gonna drop.

4 shots
8/3 hits
16/9 wounds
40/27 unsaved
140/27 damage, on average, or 5.19

That's a Quad-Las Pred or a Quad-Las Devastator team against a Predator or a (T8) Russ. I can run the odds on various specific things, if you like, such as odds of bracketing or whatnot.

Okay, you might've noticed the math changed. I multiplied a denominator by 3 instead of 6 at one point.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Three shots have a 95% chance of bracketing a Russ, a 74% chance of bracketing it down to the lowest, and a 37.5% chance of killing it outright.

Two shots still have a 72% chance of bracketing, a 28% chance of bracketing twice, though only a paltry 3% chance of killing.

In other words... Yes, it's POSSIBLE for a Russ to avoid being bracketed by three Lascannon wounds. But then again, it's possible for 24 Grots to kill a Knight Titan in a single round.

Considering you have to shoot 8-9 BS3 Las cannons at a T8 Russ to even get 3 unsaved wounds, that seems okay to me.

With an average of 3.5 damage you currently need 10 Las cannons or 15-16 missiles to kill a 3+ armor 12w Russ with average rolls. Making them T9 makes that 13 las or 23 missiles, which is simply too many.

jcd386 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Three shots have a 95% chance of bracketing a Russ, a 74% chance of bracketing it down to the lowest, and a 37.5% chance of killing it outright.

Two shots still have a 72% chance of bracketing, a 28% chance of bracketing twice, though only a paltry 3% chance of killing.

In other words... Yes, it's POSSIBLE for a Russ to avoid being bracketed by three Lascannon wounds. But then again, it's possible for 24 Grots to kill a Knight Titan in a single round.

Considering you have to shoot 8-9 BS3 Las cannons at a T8 Russ to even get 3 unsaved wounds, that seems okay to me.

I was about to say that's dead wrong, then I realized my math was completely wrong. I've edited the post above, to fix it.

And let's see...

3 unsaved
18/5 wounds
54/10 hits
81/10 shots

Yeah, just over eight.

 JNAProductions wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Three shots have a 95% chance of bracketing a Russ, a 74% chance of bracketing it down to the lowest, and a 37.5% chance of killing it outright.

Two shots still have a 72% chance of bracketing, a 28% chance of bracketing twice, though only a paltry 3% chance of killing.

In other words... Yes, it's POSSIBLE for a Russ to avoid being bracketed by three Lascannon wounds. But then again, it's possible for 24 Grots to kill a Knight Titan in a single round.

With what BS? And is that at T8 or T9?

I thought you were talking Lascannon WOUNDS. As in, once everything is said and done and it's just time to roll damage.

Because once you factor in hitting, wounding, and saves, of course the odds are gonna drop.

4 shots
8/3 hits
16/9 wounds
40/27 unsaved
140/27 damage, on average, or 5.19

That's a Quad-Las Pred or a Quad-Las Devastator team against a Predator or a (T8) Russ. I can run the odds on various specific things, if you like, such as odds of bracketing or whatnot.

Okay, you might've noticed the math changed. I multiplied a denominator by 3 instead of 6 at one point.

No I'm talking how many lascannons etc would it take to braket a T9 russ. I suspect that number is too high for what Lascannon or similar weapons cost.

With an average of 3.5 damage you currently need 10 Las cannons or 15-16 missiles to kill a 3+ armor 12w Russ with average rolls. Making them T9 makes that 13 las or 23 missiles, which is simply too many.

I could run the math, but isn't it most people's consensus that a Russ is already undercosted?

If that's the case, wouldn't it make more sense to just cost the Russ right, and then see if T9 is okay (with a points increase)?

You need half those numbers to bracket one with average rolls.

jcd386 wrote:

Spoiler:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

jcd386 wrote:I think T8 should be reserved for only the toughest vehicles like knights and landraiders. Give predator types T7 and a 2+ armor save or just a couple more wounds and call it a day IMO.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
I actually think double shooting is okay, but the guns should also be fixed for other platforms and the double shoot ability then pointed correctly.

I'd rather make the tanks tougher, so that there's a difference between a missile launcher, a lascannon, and a railcannon. Tougher tanks, with more variation in their toughness, in turn means you have can more variation in antitank weapons. In addition, T9 is the ticket to actually being tough, T8 isn't really all that resilient, since Battle Cannons and Missile Launchers are S8 and Lascannons are S9, but few weapons are S10.

I mean, the ability isn't an inherently awful ability, but implementing it as a fix for the really bad guns doesn't fix the problem.

Ice_can wrote:[spoiler]

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
[spoiler]

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
Absolutely in No way should a Leman Russ Chassis be Toughness 9.
T9 should be for LOW, not MBT'S, Landradiers being T9 makes sence as it was always in par with IG LoW and outclassed Leman Russes.
Also the lore doesn't support that a Leman russ should just straight outclass a predator. It was tougher from the front and weaker side and rear.

Exploding 6's for Imperial fists should probably be limited to non pistol bolt weapons.

Leman Russ was 14/13/10. Predator was 13/11/10. I just went by vehicle category, though. A Predator has been a medium tank, while a Leman Russ has been a heavy tank for at least a long time, with special rules relating to it's general heavy-and-slow-ness. That's also why it's T8 while other tanks are T7.

But this isn't about the Leman Russ, and whether or not it should be re-designated as a medium tank with medium-tank rules, because that's fine. this is about the difference between Razorbacks, Predators, and Land Raiders. 11/11/10 and 13/11/10 are both T7, right now, and that's an issue. I think increasing toughness of heavier vehicles is the solution, since it will also add greater purpose to heavy antitank systems like Lascannons and Railcannons, while reducing the overall utility of medium AT/Multirole systems like Plasmaguns and Missile Launcher.



With regards to the Leman Russ, making it a medium tank and adding in a heavy tank, possibly the Marcharius, would actually be pretty cool. I also think that the Leman Russ should, without a doubt, lose to shoot-twice effect on it's gun, because it's really just a patch for the fact that the Battle Cannon isn't good, and other Battle Cannon armed units will suffer as a result.

I'll except that, but a LR at is current points and rules with T9 would be the most broken thing in 8th edition.

Anything that receives a rules change should also receive an appropriate points adjustment. I thought that was obvious. I mean, without points changes, I think the Vindicator change I proposed would make the Leman Russ Demolisher the most broken thing in the edition, followed by the Vindicator.

Which goes back to why the Leman Russ's shoot twice rule is awful. The guns on the Leman Russes are unimpressive, except for the Punisher cannon. GW realized this, but instead of fixing the gun, made Leman Russes shoot twice. Which doesn't fix the problem, because now if you want to address something like the Vindicator, you have to deal with the fact that any change has double the effect on some Leman Russ variant and will probably make it OP.

Well your at odds with the OP's rules without points changes possition. Also I maybe was a bit over zealous as I always found ways to shoot rear armour so to me a Leman Russ Chassis was no tougher than a predator but a Landraider was a way tougher opponent.
The annoying thing is Battlecannons aren't actually a bad weapon, knights are paying 100 points for a double shooting battlecannon and people take those. Dooble shooting was a garbage "fix" that made it OP.

Also old lore which has probably been retconed to heck as marines arn't allowed to fight wars unsupported, said massed landradiers could take on titans, but IG needed and used Shadowswords instead.

He said "Let's leave point changes off the table since those are likely coming in Chapter Approved." I don't think I'm at odds with him. We know these things will need points changes, we're not trying to make rules to make them good at their current cost, we need rules alterations that address deficiencies like the Vindicator not really being good at anything at all and just being sort of half a Predator, or a fancy Razorback with bad range.

T8 is very tough compared to T7. It reduces damage from S4 by 50%, S7 by 33%, and S8 by 25%. S9 is uneffected, but S9 represents some of the most powerful weapons in the game.

Going from 8 to 9 reduces damage from S9 by 25% and S8 by 33% which I feel is too much. I think better armor and more wounds are better options for giving vehicles durability until you get to the truly gigantic units.

To be fair, S9 doesn't represent some of the most powerful mortal weapons in the game. Like, there are dreadnought CCW's, Railcannons, Demolishers, etc. which are supposed to be big heavy antitank weapons, but not titan scale weapons. Right now, with heavy tanks at T8, there's no real difference between them and a Lascannon.

Lascannons are kind of the "premier AT weapon" class, Missiles are the sort of "decent AT weapon". A heavy tank, like a Land Raider, should generally bounce missiles without much of a problem, and be built to be hard for lascannons to destroy. That's what Railcannons are for, after all, for making a mockery of vehicles that go above the ordinary in terms of protection.

jcd386 wrote:
With an average of 3.5 damage you currently need 10 Las cannons or 15-16 missiles to kill a 3+ armor 12w Russ with average rolls. Making them T9 makes that 13 las or 23 missiles, which is simply too many.

12 missile launchers to bracket it then or 7 lascannons.
Damn thats 300 points of missile launchers alone without anyone to carry them just to braket a T9 russ. Or over 600 points to 1 round a 150 point tank
Or 175 points of lascannons to bracket and 325 points of lascannons to one round a 150 point tank. Again you still need to add the cost of the units to carry those weapons.

Ice_can wrote:

jcd386 wrote:
With an average of 3.5 damage you currently need 10 Las cannons or 15-16 missiles to kill a 3+ armor 12w Russ with average rolls. Making them T9 makes that 13 las or 23 missiles, which is simply too many.

12 missile launchers to bracket it then or 7 lascannons.
Damn thats 300 points of missile launchers alone without anyone to carry them just to braket a T9 russ. Or over 600 points to 1 round a 150 point tank
Or 175 points of lascannons to bracket and 325 points of lascannons to one round a 150 point tank. Again you still need to add the cost of the units to carry those weapons.

Missile Launchers should be a bad option for knocking out heavy tanks. Lascannons should be an okay option. Demolisher Cannons and Railcannons should be a good option.

Anyway, though, if we want to change things without also adjusting their points cost, there's nothing really to do.

If anything I think the defensive nature of most SM and IG tanks is fine as is. They have decent wounds, decent armor, and generally require standard anti tank weapons with high S and AP to hurt them.

The main reason they seem weak right now in my opinion is the prevalence and likely undercosting of invul saves and -1 to hit on other faction's vehicles makes them significantly more resistant to typical anti tank weapons, so that the difference between them is night and day.

jcd386 wrote:
If anything I think the defensive nature of most SM and IG tanks is fine as is. They have decent wounds, decent armor, and generally require standard anti tank weapons with high S and AP to hurt them.

The main reason they seem weak right now in my opinion is the prevalence and likely undercosting of invul saves and -1 to hit on other faction's vehicles makes them significantly more resistant to typical anti tank weapons, so that the difference between them is night and day.

I disagree. Land raiders and predators which are supposed to be the space marines heavy tanks die from a plasma gun more times than any (With relative ease as well) if they increased the toughness count, decreased the points cost they would be worth taking.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

jcd386 wrote:
With an average of 3.5 damage you currently need 10 Las cannons or 15-16 missiles to kill a 3+ armor 12w Russ with average rolls. Making them T9 makes that 13 las or 23 missiles, which is simply too many.

12 missile launchers to bracket it then or 7 lascannons.
Damn thats 300 points of missile launchers alone without anyone to carry them just to braket a T9 russ. Or over 600 points to 1 round a 150 point tank
Or 175 points of lascannons to bracket and 325 points of lascannons to one round a 150 point tank. Again you still need to add the cost of the units to carry those weapons.

Missile Launchers should be a bad option for knocking out heavy tanks. Lascannons should be an okay option. Demolisher Cannons and Railcannons should be a good option.

Anyway, though, if we want to change things without also adjusting their points cost, there's nothing really to do.

Missile launchers already are a bad option against T8 when you compare them to Las, Melta, and railguns.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Asherian Command wrote:

jcd386 wrote:
If anything I think the defensive nature of most SM and IG tanks is fine as is. They have decent wounds, decent armor, and generally require standard anti tank weapons with high S and AP to hurt them.

The main reason they seem weak right now in my opinion is the prevalence and likely undercosting of invul saves and -1 to hit on other faction's vehicles makes them significantly more resistant to typical anti tank weapons, so that the difference between them is night and day.

I disagree. Land raiders and predators which are supposed to be the space marines heavy tanks die from a plasma gun more times than any (With relative ease as well) if they increased the toughness count, decreased the points cost they would be worth taking.

I understand where you are coming from, but that seems like more of a problem with plasma than with the tanks. I'd argue that overcharged plasma probably doesn't need to be S8 before I'd say russes need to be T9.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also you need 27 BS3 plasma shots to kill a Russ with average rolls. So I actually don't think that happens too often.

6 unsaved wounds
36/5 wounds
72/5 hits
216/10 shots

How do you get 27?

Looking at dark angels I would remove a lot of the psychology redundancy in the book, there are about 7 ways to either ignore morale etc. Totally or make it less damaging, that’s too many, 1 is needed at most.

And while I know this isn’t a popular opinion I would also remove chapter tactics from primaris marines for them, as a alternative I would give them the heresy chapter tactic of +1 to hit with sword weapons.

 JNAProductions wrote:
6 unsaved wounds
36/5 wounds
72/5 hits
216/10 shots

How do you get 27?

22, my bad. I had the armor as 2+.

Independent of the Leman Russ, which can be un-made a heavy vehicles or re-costed if it wants to stay a heavy vehicle...

Does:
Rhino/Razorback [11/11/10] at T7
Predator/Vindicator [13/11/10] at T8
Land Raider [14/14/14] at T9

Sound like to would be a positive move in bring definition and purpose that was generally lost to the options in the Space Marine motor pool? I think it does, and that's the point.

The Leman Russ can be revisited later in an Imperial Guard thread, or something, because I think it has a bunch of problems and needs re-works anyway too.


Right now, I think the fact that the Predator has the same toughness as the Razorback is a factor that should be addressed with rules, because it feels wrong. Once you get the units to feel right, you re-point them.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Independent of the Leman Russ, which can be un-made a heavy vehicles or re-costed if it wants to stay a heavy vehicle...

Does:
Rhino/Razorback [11/11/10] at T7
Predator/Vindicator [13/11/10] at T8
Land Raider [14/14/14] at T9

Sound like to would be a positive move in bring definition and purpose that was generally lost to the options in the Space Marine motor pool? I think it does, and that's the point.

The Leman Russ can be revisited later in an Imperial Guard thread, or something, because I think it has a bunch of problems and needs re-works anyway too.


Right now, I think the fact that the Predator has the same toughness as the Razorback is a factor that should be addressed with rules, because it feels wrong. Once you get the units to fell right, you re-point them.

To me, I don't mind if they are the same toughness as long as there is some overall difference in their durability. And there currently is a slight difference in wounds, but I think we'd agree that it's not enough.

When you look at durability, there are three default ways of making a unit harder to kill: toughness, armor saves, and wounds. Then you can also add special rules like FNP, invuls, or something else.

I'd say that the jump from T7 to T8 is too powerful, and the jump from T8 to T9 definitely is. I've already laid out the math for this.

The easiest fix is to add wounds. The nice things about giving tanks more wounds is that it generally increases their durability against everything . Right now you need 9 Las cannons to kill a predator. Each wound you add requires a bit less than one more Las cannon to kill it, so 12 or 13 wounds would be a decent increase in durability (9 to 18% against all targets).

Another buff could be to the armor save. A 2+ save reduces Las cannon damage by 20%, missile damage by 25%, and melta damage by 16%. It also reduces the damage from AP 1 by 33% and AP0 by 50%. This seems pretty reasonable to me.

I also think a special rule could also work. Since we're also taking about giving Marines ignore 1AP, let's give it to their tanks too. This ups their durability against anything but AP0, which seems okay to me. Then I'd give them 1 more wound to be at 12 and see how the felt. The number of Las needed to kill a predator would then go from there current 9 to 12, meaning we increased their durability against Las cannons by 33%. Weapons with lower AP would see larger reductions in damage, which feels okay. I think that would be a good place to start.

jcd386 wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Independent of the Leman Russ, which can be un-made a heavy vehicles or re-costed if it wants to stay a heavy vehicle...

Does:
Rhino/Razorback [11/11/10] at T7
Predator/Vindicator [13/11/10] at T8
Land Raider [14/14/14] at T9

Sound like to would be a positive move in bring definition and purpose that was generally lost to the options in the Space Marine motor pool? I think it does, and that's the point.

The Leman Russ can be revisited later in an Imperial Guard thread, or something, because I think it has a bunch of problems and needs re-works anyway too.


Right now, I think the fact that the Predator has the same toughness as the Razorback is a factor that should be addressed with rules, because it feels wrong. Once you get the units to fell right, you re-point them.

To me, I don't mind if they are the same toughness as long as there is some overall difference in their durability. And there currently is a slight difference in wounds, but I think we'd agree that it's not enough.

When you look at durability, there are three default ways of making a unit harder to kill: toughness, armor saves, and wounds. Then you can also add special rules like FNP, invuls, or something else.

I'd say that the jump from T7 to T8 is too powerful, and the jump from T8 to T9 definitely is. I've already laid out the math for this.

The easiest fix is to add wounds. The nice things about giving tanks more wounds is that it generally increases their durability against everything . Right now you need 9 Las cannons to kill a predator. Each wound you add requires a bit less than one more Las cannon to kill it, so 12 or 13 wounds would be a decent increase in durability (9 to 18% against all targets).

Another buff could be to the armor save. A 2+ save reduces Las cannon damage by 20%, missile damage by 25%, and melta damage by 16%. It also reduces the damage from AP 1 by 33% and AP0 by 50%. This seems pretty reasonable to me.

I also think a special rule could also work. Since we're also taking about giving Marines ignore 1AP, let's give it to their tanks too. This ups their durability against anything but AP0, which seems okay to me. Then I'd give them 1 more wound to be at 12 and see how the felt. The number of Las needed to kill a predator would then go from there current 9 to 12, meaning we increased their durability against Las cannons by 33%. Weapons with lower AP would see larger reductions in damage, which feels okay. I think that would be a good place to start.

I don't like Marines ignoring 1 AP. Like they don't need to be tougher at 13ppm, they need to keep their current performance at like 11 ppm.

I also don't like the idea of adding wounds. The tanks shouldn't get tougher against Railcannons and Storm Eagle Rockets and Dreadnought CCW's, but they should be harder to kill with missile launchers. Razorbacks should go down to the weapons infantry can carry. Predators might be somewhat threatened, but mostly concerned about larger weapons meant for cracking open tanks. Land Raiders should shrug off anything less than a tank-mount "big gun".

I think the math seems fairly fine with 7/8/9 to that respect. Re-point afterwords based on the results.


I absolutely don't think things just need "more wounds." The idea isn't to require more hits to destroy, it's to require better hits.