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.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Spoiler:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Rihgu wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:


Yes...Titan level units seem to have been nerfed a bit...considering you can shoot them through walls and they cant shoot back - a lot of them went down in points though. Executioner went up. 375 for an executioner is flat out absurd. So the point remains - Gravis is a little undercosted but all their transports are madly overcosted. The net result is short ranged slow infantry aren't that great.

Just to be clear - you can shoot them through walls....if you can see them.

I think he's referring to Obscuring terrain, specifically.

Right. You still have to be able to see the model to shoot through it. So if you have a 1 foot tall 3 foot wide block of styrofoam in the middle of the table, Obscuring rule does not make you able to shoot an 18+ wound model through that wall.

Ok fine, but how often do you see giant, solid pieces of terrain like that on the table? The terrain providing the infantry-can-shoot-at-Titanic-unit-that-can't-shoot-back scenario is waaaay more common.

Infantry being able to fire at super heavys through obscuring terrain isn't the problem. The idea of relatively small troops hiding in cover to ambush heavy armour with anti-tank weapons makes sense. The problem is that the obscuring rule allows something like the aforementioned executioner to hide behind the same piece of terrain and freely target that super heavy with its heavy 2, S10, AP -4, D d3-6 weapon. That rule shouldn't apply to vehicles. Obscuring should be LOS blocking for vehicles on both sides, regardless of wounds.

Ahh, I see. Ok that's a more reasonable issue. I guess I consider most vehicles to be pretty big, and I'd think the Titanic unit would be able to shuffle to the side a bit in order to draw LOS to some point on the hull. Then again, lots of infantry units have big footprints, too.

I think the idea is that it can still be tricky to draw a bead on many vehicles in dense terrain, and that there is a certain size where that's just no longer viable. That makes sense to me. I also think for the sake of gameplay involving traditionally sized vehicles, the rules as they are wind up being better, and the game should be designed around infantry and non-Titanic vehicles at the core. The fact that theres a bit of wonkiness around superheavies is acceptable in that context.

The issue isn't that super heavys can be targeted through obscuring terrain, like I said, it makes sense for infantry. It's that they can be targeted through obscuring terrain by other vehicles. We're talking about a tank sniping through a window (or some other gap in the terrain) at another tank. That's some serious accuracy from some very big guns. It also brings up the issue of size. Compare an executioner to a Spartan, or better yet, a standard Land Raider to an Achilles. One can be shot by other vehicles, the other can't. How is a Land Raider Achilles easier to spot than a standard Land Raider?

Because FW rules have never made sense and don't suddenly start doing so in 9th?

 Jidmah wrote:
Because FW rules have never made sense and don't suddenly start doing so in 9th?

That has nothing to do with FW rules.

Here's another example:

My keeper of secrets (16 wounds) can whip a Great Unclean One (18 wounds) through obscuring terrain (say, a tiny window by her hoof), but the GUO cannot vomit back, even if the entire upper torso of my taller Keeper of Secrets is poking over the terrain.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Spoiler:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Rihgu wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:


Yes...Titan level units seem to have been nerfed a bit...considering you can shoot them through walls and they cant shoot back - a lot of them went down in points though. Executioner went up. 375 for an executioner is flat out absurd. So the point remains - Gravis is a little undercosted but all their transports are madly overcosted. The net result is short ranged slow infantry aren't that great.

Just to be clear - you can shoot them through walls....if you can see them.

I think he's referring to Obscuring terrain, specifically.

Right. You still have to be able to see the model to shoot through it. So if you have a 1 foot tall 3 foot wide block of styrofoam in the middle of the table, Obscuring rule does not make you able to shoot an 18+ wound model through that wall.

Ok fine, but how often do you see giant, solid pieces of terrain like that on the table? The terrain providing the infantry-can-shoot-at-Titanic-unit-that-can't-shoot-back scenario is waaaay more common.

Infantry being able to fire at super heavys through obscuring terrain isn't the problem. The idea of relatively small troops hiding in cover to ambush heavy armour with anti-tank weapons makes sense. The problem is that the obscuring rule allows something like the aforementioned executioner to hide behind the same piece of terrain and freely target that super heavy with its heavy 2, S10, AP -4, D d3-6 weapon. That rule shouldn't apply to vehicles. Obscuring should be LOS blocking for vehicles on both sides, regardless of wounds.

Ahh, I see. Ok that's a more reasonable issue. I guess I consider most vehicles to be pretty big, and I'd think the Titanic unit would be able to shuffle to the side a bit in order to draw LOS to some point on the hull. Then again, lots of infantry units have big footprints, too.

I think the idea is that it can still be tricky to draw a bead on many vehicles in dense terrain, and that there is a certain size where that's just no longer viable. That makes sense to me. I also think for the sake of gameplay involving traditionally sized vehicles, the rules as they are wind up being better, and the game should be designed around infantry and non-Titanic vehicles at the core. The fact that theres a bit of wonkiness around superheavies is acceptable in that context.

The issue isn't that super heavys can be targeted through obscuring terrain, like I said, it makes sense for infantry. It's that they can be targeted through obscuring terrain by other vehicles. We're talking about a tank sniping through a window (or some other gap in the terrain) at another tank. That's some serious accuracy from some very big guns. It also brings up the issue of size. Compare an executioner to a Spartan, or better yet, a standard Land Raider to an Achilles. One can be shot by other vehicles, the other can't. How is a Land Raider Achilles easier to spot than a standard Land Raider?

Oh I get you. I just think that if vehicles didn't get the benefits of Obscuring we'd just be back to 8th in terms of table-commanding LOS. If we want vehicle maneuvering to be meaningful, Obscuring is good.

Is the wound cutoff great? Maybe not. The Land Raider vs. Achilles scenario is not great. Maybe there's a better way to do it. My point is that the game should be balanced around infantry and most vehicles, and Obscuring works for that. I also think the actual terrain you're using will have a big effect on how the rule feels. The fact that bigger units are, in general, harder to hide is fine with me. As for tank accuracy? I'm ok with that too. If a tank can accurately engage something a kilometer or more away, I'd figure it could shoot through a window that's much closer.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
Because FW rules have never made sense and don't suddenly start doing so in 9th?

That has nothing to do with FW rules.

Here's another example:

My keeper of secrets (16 wounds) can whip a Great Unclean One (18 wounds) through obscuring terrain (say, a tiny window by her hoof), but the GUO cannot vomit back, even if the entire upper torso of my taller Keeper of Secrets is poking over the terrain.

See, I'm actually ok with that example since a GUO is a much wider target with more predictable movement. I know it's awkward, rules wise, but you gotta have the cutoff somewhere. Maybe 20 W would have been better? I'm not too familiar with most high W models.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
Because FW rules have never made sense and don't suddenly start doing so in 9th?

That has nothing to do with FW rules.

Here's another example:

My keeper of secrets (16 wounds) can whip a Great Unclean One (18 wounds) through obscuring terrain (say, a tiny window by her hoof), but the GUO cannot vomit back, even if the entire upper torso of my taller Keeper of Secrets is poking over the terrain.

"Your greater daemon is so fat, it can't be hidden by obscuring terrain?"

Terrain rules are clearly an abstraction, and abstractions are going to have weird edge cases. If the wound rule didn't exist we would have morkanauts hiding out of sight behind a tiny ruin.
Last edition we had "real" terrain and everybody hated it because the vast majority of terrain simply can't hide gak.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
Because FW rules have never made sense and don't suddenly start doing so in 9th?

That has nothing to do with FW rules.

Here's another example:

My keeper of secrets (16 wounds) can whip a Great Unclean One (18 wounds) through obscuring terrain (say, a tiny window by her hoof), but the GUO cannot vomit back, even if the entire upper torso of my taller Keeper of Secrets is poking over the terrain.

"Your greater daemon is so fat, it can't be hidden by obscuring terrain?"

Terrain rules are clearly an abstraction, and abstractions are going to have weird edge cases. If the wound rule didn't exist we would have morkanauts hiding out of sight behind a tiny ruin.
Last edition we had "real" terrain and everybody hated it because the vast majority of terrain simply can't hide gak.

Here's a few abstractions that make far far more sense:
Obscuring terrain blocks LOS categorically without some cutoff or, if you think vehicles or monsters should be seen, then:
Obscuring terrain does not prevent Monsters or Vehicles from being seen by other Monsters or Vehicles. If your only concern is with big stuff, then:
Obscuring terrain does not obscure line of sight to Titanic units if they can be seen behind it normally.

I think I might need to go home early today, that took loads of effort.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
Because FW rules have never made sense and don't suddenly start doing so in 9th?

That has nothing to do with FW rules.

Here's another example:

My keeper of secrets (16 wounds) can whip a Great Unclean One (18 wounds) through obscuring terrain (say, a tiny window by her hoof), but the GUO cannot vomit back, even if the entire upper torso of my taller Keeper of Secrets is poking over the terrain.

"Your greater daemon is so fat, it can't be hidden by obscuring terrain?"

Terrain rules are clearly an abstraction, and abstractions are going to have weird edge cases. If the wound rule didn't exist we would have morkanauts hiding out of sight behind a tiny ruin.
Last edition we had "real" terrain and everybody hated it because the vast majority of terrain simply can't hide gak.

No, you wouldn't. If the terrain piece is too small to cover the Morkanaught it could still be targeted. Obscuring should simply serve to fill in any "holes" in the terrain. It should stop you shooting things through windows, which is what it basically does, just not for anything with 18+ wounds, regardless of whether or not it can actually fit behind the terrain.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Obscuring terrain does not obscure line of sight to Titanic units if they can be seen behind it normally.

I mean, that basically is the rule except the cutoff is Wounds not the keyword Titanic.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Obscuring terrain does not obscure line of sight to Titanic units if they can be seen behind it normally.

I mean, that basically is the rule except the cutoff is Wounds not the keyword Titanic.

Right. So you get weird gak like the Malcador behing unable to hide behind terrain as well as a Russ (despite being practically identical save a couple inches of length), or a Great Unclean One being less able to hide behind terrain than a gigantic flying angry Bloodthirster. Or a Land Raider Achilles being unable to hide from a Land Raider.

Which is why a size stat is something that should've been implemented a while ago so we don't have these recurring issues.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Obscuring terrain does not obscure line of sight to Titanic units if they can be seen behind it normally.

I mean, that basically is the rule except the cutoff is Wounds not the keyword Titanic.

Right. So you get weird gak like the Malcador behing unable to hide behind terrain as well as a Russ (despite being practically identical save a couple inches of length), or a Great Unclean One being less able to hide behind terrain than a gigantic flying angry Bloodthirster. Or a Land Raider Achilles being unable to hide from a Land Raider.

Like I said, the Great Unclean one I'm fine with. Honestly? I sorta don't care about the FW stuff.

But I'm be open to a different Wound cutoff, too.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Here's a few abstractions that make far far more sense:
Obscuring terrain blocks LOS categorically without some cutoff or, if you think vehicles or monsters should be seen, then:
Obscuring terrain does not prevent Monsters or Vehicles from being seen by other Monsters or Vehicles. If your only concern is with big stuff, then:
Obscuring terrain does not obscure line of sight to Titanic units if they can be seen behind it normally.

I think I might need to go home early today, that took loads of effort.

I apologize for luring you into this trap, but your suggestion actually doesn't work for the morkanaut. It would still completely be hidden from sight by this tiny ruin:



But don't worry, you are not the only one who forgot that the nauts actually aren't TITANIC models - GW clearly forgot it as well.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Obscuring terrain does not obscure line of sight to Titanic units if they can be seen behind it normally.

I mean, that basically is the rule except the cutoff is Wounds not the keyword Titanic.

Right. So you get weird gak like the Malcador behing unable to hide behind terrain as well as a Russ (despite being practically identical save a couple inches of length), or a Great Unclean One being less able to hide behind terrain than a gigantic flying angry Bloodthirster. Or a Land Raider Achilles being unable to hide from a Land Raider.

Like I said, the Great Unclean one I'm fine with. Honestly? I sorta don't care about the FW stuff.

But I'm be open to a different Wound cutoff, too.

Why aren't you open to a keyword cutoff, instead? A wound cutoff will never make sense, until there is a formalized relationship between Wounds and Size, which itself doesn't make sense (a tank with more wounds isn't necessarily bigger than a tank with fewer wounds; it simply is more durable).

Essentially, what GW has done is they've used Wounds to mean both Durability of a model, and Size of a model, which essentially is saying "Size = Durability". Therefore, I can conclude that a T-64 is far easier to kill than a T-35 since it's much much smaller if you don't include the gun barrel length.
I bet you won't guess which tank I'd rather be on if a missile comes over the horizon though...

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Which is why a size stat is something that should've been implemented a while ago so we don't have these recurring issues.

Or, if it fits behind the terrain, you can't shoot it. I'm fine with super heavys not benefiting from dense cover, that makes sense, but a 16 wound tank shouldn't be sniping 18+ wound tanks through windows. Infantry, yes, because they can actually lean out of the window and take aim, but not vehicles.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Which is why a size stat is something that should've been implemented a while ago so we don't have these recurring issues.

We basically would have a size stat if GW was consistent with their keywords

INFANTRY, SWARM, BEAST < BIKE, BATTLESUIT < VEHICLE, MONSTER < TITANIC

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Obscuring terrain does not obscure line of sight to Titanic units if they can be seen behind it normally.

I mean, that basically is the rule except the cutoff is Wounds not the keyword Titanic.

Right. So you get weird gak like the Malcador behing unable to hide behind terrain as well as a Russ (despite being practically identical save a couple inches of length), or a Great Unclean One being less able to hide behind terrain than a gigantic flying angry Bloodthirster. Or a Land Raider Achilles being unable to hide from a Land Raider.

Like I said, the Great Unclean one I'm fine with. Honestly? I sorta don't care about the FW stuff.

But I'm be open to a different Wound cutoff, too.

Why aren't you open to a keyword cutoff, instead?

That'd be fine too.

I'll bet you'll find some weird cases with that as well though, like the aforementioned Gorkanaut.

The terrain that you use is going to have a big effect, so you can mitigate some of this stuff. If your ruins or whatever don't have a huge footprint, you'll be able to sneak some LOS at a bunch of these units anyways.

Yes, but it is a much less stark balance change to adjust keywords rather than wounds.

Removing the Titanic keyword from units (or adding it on) doesn't mean much except in this specific case, while removing wounds has a huge impact (god forbid if it's a character model and dips beneath 10 for some reason).

The Triumph of St. Katherine is a perfect example, requiring an FAQ to be hidden behind obscuring terrain despite being Infantry-sized. If they'd just had a keyword (heck, make a special once called nonobscurable or something) then it'd have been much better.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yes, but it is a much less stark balance change to adjust keywords rather than wounds.

Removing the Titanic keyword from units (or adding it on) doesn't mean much except in this specific case, while removing wounds has a huge impact (god forbid if it's a character model and dips beneath 10 for some reason).

The Triumph of St. Katherine is a perfect example, requiring an FAQ to be hidden behind obscuring terrain despite being Infantry-sized. If they'd just had a keyword (heck, make a special once called nonobscurable or something) then it'd have been much better.

Fair call, fair call. You might be totally right in that Titanic would have been a better cutoff. One wonders why they went the Wound route, then.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yes, but it is a much less stark balance change to adjust keywords rather than wounds.

Removing the Titanic keyword from units (or adding it on) doesn't mean much except in this specific case, while removing wounds has a huge impact (god forbid if it's a character model and dips beneath 10 for some reason).

The Triumph of St. Katherine is a perfect example, requiring an FAQ to be hidden behind obscuring terrain despite being Infantry-sized. If they'd just had a keyword (heck, make a special once called nonobscurable or something) then it'd have been much better.

Fair call, fair call. You might be totally right in that Titanic would have been a better cutoff. One wonders why they went the Wound route, then.

because GW are bad game designers I have no idea but I'm sure they have their reasons.

To be fair as most of the things that are barred from shooting through but not barred from being shot at are in the 20 w or more range with High toughness it's not a relevant equation untill Marine AT is rebalanced again as so far they have Eradicators their new 2 shot potentially 16 wound multi Melta and frankly this widely touted Vehical meta is already dead. Titanic units would all have to see either buffed Toughness Values or wound counts or significant points decreased to be part of the meta any time soon.

So far the only vehicals I expect to see in 9th will be the lastest broken marine BS and laughably everyone else just swerving 9th untill marines are fixed.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yes, but it is a much less stark balance change to adjust keywords rather than wounds.

Removing the Titanic keyword from units (or adding it on) doesn't mean much except in this specific case, while removing wounds has a huge impact (god forbid if it's a character model and dips beneath 10 for some reason).

The Triumph of St. Katherine is a perfect example, requiring an FAQ to be hidden behind obscuring terrain despite being Infantry-sized. If they'd just had a keyword (heck, make a special once called nonobscurable or something) then it'd have been much better.

Fair call, fair call. You might be totally right in that Titanic would have been a better cutoff. One wonders why they went the Wound route, then.

because GW are bad game designers I have no idea but I'm sure they have their reasons.

Suspiciously, the cutoff is that of a Land Raider/Repulsor. They could have simply figured "anything bigger than a Land Raider" and called it a day.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yes, but it is a much less stark balance change to adjust keywords rather than wounds.

Removing the Titanic keyword from units (or adding it on) doesn't mean much except in this specific case, while removing wounds has a huge impact (god forbid if it's a character model and dips beneath 10 for some reason).

The Triumph of St. Katherine is a perfect example, requiring an FAQ to be hidden behind obscuring terrain despite being Infantry-sized. If they'd just had a keyword (heck, make a special once called nonobscurable or something) then it'd have been much better.

Fair call, fair call. You might be totally right in that Titanic would have been a better cutoff. One wonders why they went the Wound route, then.

because GW are bad game designers I have no idea but I'm sure they have their reasons.

Suspiciously, the cutoff is that of a Land Raider/Repulsor. They could have simply figured "anything bigger than a Land Raider" and called it a day.

But a malcador is smaller than a land raider, and I know you don't care but GW's design studio absolutely should not just be outright ignoring models in their own game when designing rules. Otherwise, they'd be bad game designers

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

But a malcador is smaller than a land raider, and I know you don't care but GW's design studio absolutely should not just be outright ignoring models in their own game when designing rules. Otherwise, they'd be bad game designers

I think my counter to that is; wtf is the Malcador doing running around with 18 wounds then? THAT also sounds a bit like bad game design. It's like a bigger Leman Russ, but not the size of a Land Raider. I would think 14 wounds would be more proper for a tank like that.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

But a malcador is smaller than a land raider, and I know you don't care but GW's design studio absolutely should not just be outright ignoring models in their own game when designing rules. Otherwise, they'd be bad game designers

I think my counter to that is; wtf is the Malcador doing running around with 18 wounds then? THAT also sounds a bit like bad game design. It's like a bigger Leman Russ, but not the size of a Land Raider. I would think 14 wounds would be more proper for a tank like that.

Gaining durability through redundant internal systems and compartmentalization (wounds) rather than through armored protection (3+ save unlike the Land Raider). If that was FW's vision, why doesn't 18 wounds make sense? I can conceive of a tank with thinner armor than a Land Raider but with more internal bracings and improved system redundancy. I can also conceive of it being smaller, due to not needing a transport bay that can hold Terminators.

I don't think the Malcador's statline is unreasonable. I think the terrain rules are.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

But a malcador is smaller than a land raider, and I know you don't care but GW's design studio absolutely should not just be outright ignoring models in their own game when designing rules. Otherwise, they'd be bad game designers

I think my counter to that is; wtf is the Malcador doing running around with 18 wounds then? THAT also sounds a bit like bad game design. It's like a bigger Leman Russ, but not the size of a Land Raider. I would think 14 wounds would be more proper for a tank like that.

Part of the issue was also caused by GW in GW in their infinite wisdom limiting Toughness values by making a Landraider T8 instead of the 10 it ahould have been.

Which would have given some more design space for light tanks transports and MBT's and SMBT's and TMBT's etc but nope wer are stuck trying to cram everything int the game into the 5 toughness values FFS.

Ice_can wrote:
To be fair as most of the things that are barred from shooting through but not barred from being shot at are in the 20 w or more range with High toughness it's not a relevant equation untill Marine AT is rebalanced again as so far they have Eradicators their new 2 shot potentially 16 wound multi Melta and frankly this widely touted Vehical meta is already dead. Titanic units would all have to see either buffed Toughness Values or wound counts or significant points decreased to be part of the meta any time soon.

So far the only vehicals I expect to see in 9th will be the lastest broken marine BS and laughably everyone else just swerving 9th untill marines are fixed.

...what the heck is a "Vehical" meant to be?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

But a malcador is smaller than a land raider, and I know you don't care but GW's design studio absolutely should not just be outright ignoring models in their own game when designing rules. Otherwise, they'd be bad game designers

I think my counter to that is; wtf is the Malcador doing running around with 18 wounds then? THAT also sounds a bit like bad game design. It's like a bigger Leman Russ, but not the size of a Land Raider. I would think 14 wounds would be more proper for a tank like that.

Gaining durability through redundant internal systems and compartmentalization (wounds) rather than through armored protection (3+ save unlike the Land Raider). If that was FW's vision, why doesn't 18 wounds make sense? I can conceive of a tank with thinner armor than a Land Raider but with more internal bracings and improved system redundancy. I can also conceive of it being smaller, due to not needing a transport bay that can hold Terminators.

I don't think the Malcador's statline is unreasonable. I think the terrain rules are.

Ehhh. . . I dunno man. Given the revered nature of the technology and the status of the Land Raider, 18 Wounds for a special Leman Russ deployed in the Guard sounds a bit high to me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ice_can wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

But a malcador is smaller than a land raider, and I know you don't care but GW's design studio absolutely should not just be outright ignoring models in their own game when designing rules. Otherwise, they'd be bad game designers

I think my counter to that is; wtf is the Malcador doing running around with 18 wounds then? THAT also sounds a bit like bad game design. It's like a bigger Leman Russ, but not the size of a Land Raider. I would think 14 wounds would be more proper for a tank like that.

Part of the issue was also caused by GW in GW in their infinite wisdom limiting Toughness values by making a Landraider T8 instead of the 10 it ahould have been.

Which would have given some more design space for light tanks transports and MBT's and SMBT's and TMBT's etc but nope wer are stuck trying to cram everything int the game into the 5 toughness values FFS.

You know what the stupid part of that is? Bolters would still be wounding it on 6's. Imo the wound chart is more at fault in a lot of cases. T9 would have been great though.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Ehhh. . . I dunno man. Given the revered nature of the technology and the status of the Land Raider, 18 Wounds for a special Leman Russ deployed in the Guard sounds a bit high to me.

A special Leman Russ? It's a far, far more ancient design than the Leman Russ and arguably the Land Raider (since the Land Raider's provenance is unknown). Malcadors fought at the Eternity Gate in the HH, and were used in the Unification Wars on Terra. Just because you don't think it's revered doesn't mean it isn't.

It's far older than the Russ, and far higher tech - in fact, so high-tech that the Adeptus Mechanicus has forgotten altogether how to make the engine and drive-train, which is why it no longer has energy shields or a blisteringly high speed (the Fast special rule) like it does in the HH game.

Malcadors are also significantly bigger than Russes, FWIW.

All this talk is useless.
Apparently GW has decided that eradicators are fine and all the new AT models, both SM and Necron, are much more efficient than the previous ones, so tanks and monsters are out of the game.
9th edition is infantry hammer now.