How to fix tank commanders and leman russes

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.

**alextroy**

Some of the math and logic in this thread is rather painful.

catbarf wrote:Well my math was wrong because I omitted armor saves (oops), but I don't quite understand Vict0988's either.

Heavy Bolter- 3 shots, wounds on 5+, target takes 4+ save, 2 damage- 3 * 0.33 * 0.5 * 2 = 1 damage average per hit.

Lascannon- 1 shot, wounds on 3+, target takes 6+ save, 3.5 ave damage- 1 * 0.67 * 0.83 * 3.5 = 1.95 damage average per hit.

So the relative damage (95% more for lascannon) is right but I'm not clear on the 2/3 conversion factor. Assuming BS3+, I guess?

Anyways, when the lascannon costs 50% more than a heavy bolter but does less than twice as much damage, I stand by my statement- it's not sufficiently better than the heavy bolter to be worth the difference in price, when the heavy bolter is far better against infantry. Accounting for the weapon cost, it's only 30% better against a T8/3+ vehicle- that's not what I expect from a dedicated anti-tank weapon.

You also forgot the To-Hit Roll. You can't assume a Heavy Bolter will hit with all three attacks when comparing it to a one attack Lascannon. So the comparison is really:

HB (BS 3+) = 3 * (2/3 Hit * 1/3 Wound * 1/2 Save * 2 Dmg) = 0.66 Damage

HB (BS 4+) = 3 * (1/2 Hit * 1/3 Wound * 1/2 Save * 2 Dmg) = 0.5 Damage

LC (BS 3+) = (2/3 Hit * 2/3 Wound * 5/6 Save * 3.5 Dmg) = 1.3 Damage

LC (BS 4+) = (1/2 Hit * 2/3 Wound * 5/6 Save * 3.5 Dmg) = 0.97 Damage

So a Lascannon is twice as dangerous as a Heavy Bolter against T8/3+.

CommunistNapkin wrote:
Quasistellar wrote:
I guess I just disagree with the assertion that LRs die too quickly for their point cost. Remember, they can be spammed. If they can be spammed, they need to be reasonably vulnerable to fire.

My argument is not that they aren't durable enough. I argue that they aren't effective enough at shooting.

If you want to make them more durable, then suddenly you are running an imperial knight army statline with more units and cheaper. Or, you must lose the ability to take multiple in a unit.

I don't think either of those are the correct direction.

I certainly disagree that the Leman Russ is tough enough, especially when compared to something like the Death Guard Plagueburst Crawler. If we compare their stats:

First off, let's assume the Plagueburst Crawler is running 2 Entropy Cannons and the Heavy Slugger, as that seems to be the most likely build. That would bring the total points to 160. A "similarly" geared Leman Russ would be a Battle Cannon, Heavy Bolter in the hull, and Multimelta sponsons. This build runs 210 points.

-Wounds: Plagueburst Crawler: 12, Leman Russ: 12
-Toughness: Plagueburst Crawler: 8, Leman Russ: 8
-Armor Save: Plagueburst Crawler: 3+, Leman Russ: 3+
And that's where the similarities end.
-Invulnerable Save: Plagueburst Crawler: 5+, Leman Russ: N/A
-Extra rules: Plagueburst Crawler: -1 damage from all attacks at all times (Disgustingly Resilient), Leman Russ: Once per game -1 to hit at the cost of firing its weapons (Smoke Launchers)

So right there, the Plagueburst Crawler, not factoring in weapons, is cheaper (or the same points if you ONLY take the base Battle Cannon and Heavy Bolter), and significantly more survivable. Once we factor in damage output, it gets worse.

The Plagueburst Crawler shooting at a Leman Russ will do approximately...
Plagueburst Mortar: 1.67 damage
Entropy Cannons: 3.78 damage
Heavy Slugger: .33 damage
Total: 5.78 damage on average

The Leman Russ shooting at a Plagueburst Crawler will do approximately...
Battle Cannon (shooting twice w/ Grinding Advance): 1.39 damage
Multimeltas (not in half range): 1.67 damage
Multimeltas (in half range): 3 damage
Heavy Bolter: .25 damage
Total: 3.31 damage not in half range, 4.64 damage in half range.

So the Plagueburst Crawler, for 50 points fewer than the Leman Russ, is more survivable and does more damage with shooting, even when using situations favorable to the Russ. Assuming the Plagueburst Crawler is pointed correctly (which is a maybe), this means the Russ is either massively overcosted, or underpowered both in terms of defense and offensive capabilities.

Comparing damage output against each other is an Apples to Oranges comparison. You need to compare offensive firepower against the same target to see which is the more deadly vehicle. Remove the effects of Disgustingly Resilient and the Invulnerable Save from your calculation and I am sure the Leman Russ is out damaging the Plagueburst Crawler against a T8/3+ target.

**CommunistNapkin**

alextroy wrote:
Comparing damage output against each other is an Apples to Oranges comparison. You need to compare offensive firepower against the same target to see which is the more deadly vehicle. Remove the effects of Disgustingly Resilient and the Invulnerable Save from your calculation and I am sure the Leman Russ is out damaging the Plagueburst Crawler against a T8/3+ target.

You have something of a point about comparing them against the same target, however as they are both the main battle tanks of the two armies armies, I felt it was useful to see how they did against each other. The Invulnerable Save of the PBC never comes into effect because the Battle Cannon is only AP-2. Obviously removing Disgustingly Resilient from the PBC changes the math quite a bit and at that point the Leman Russ does slightly outdamage the PBC overall, however it is still less damage point-for-point.

**vict0988**

Canadian 5th wrote:

Is there anything that a Russ actually damage efficiently? By efficiency, I'm talking about a 40% and up ROI per round.

Leman Russ Demolisher with two multi-meltas and a lascannon. 11 damage to a Space Marines Gladiator Valiant which is 250 pts for 12 wounds. That's more than 100% ROI.

Valiants have equal firepower and durability and then pay added points for mobility (but no FLY).

**waefre_1**

vict0988 wrote:

Leman Russ Demolisher with two multi-meltas and a lascannon. 11 damage to a Space Marines Gladiator Valiant which is 250 pts for 12 wounds...

I'd be curious to see your math on this.

Edit: Not saying I think your math is wrong, mind, I'm just curious what parameters you were using (ie. range of the shots)

**Canadian 5th**

vict0988 wrote:
Canadian 5th wrote:

Is there anything that a Russ actually damage efficiently? By efficiency, I'm talking about a 40% and up ROI per round.

Leman Russ Demolisher with two multi-meltas and a lascannon. 11 damage to a Space Marines Gladiator Valiant which is 250 pts for 12 wounds. That's more than 100% ROI.

Valiants have equal firepower and durability and then pay added points for mobility (but no FLY).

So you have to pick a 24" range cannon and pair it against a vehicle so bad nobody plays it to find your return. I'd say that proves the point well enough.

I should have phrased it by asking which meta threats they do anything against.

**vict0988**

Canadian 5th wrote:
vict0988 wrote:
Canadian 5th wrote:

Is there anything that a Russ actually damage efficiently? By efficiency, I'm talking about a 40% and up ROI per round.

Leman Russ Demolisher with two multi-meltas and a lascannon. 11 damage to a Space Marines Gladiator Valiant which is 250 pts for 12 wounds. That's more than 100% ROI.

Valiants have equal firepower and durability and then pay added points for mobility (but no FLY).

I should have phrased it by asking which meta threats they do anything against.

Yep you should

I kind of thought you might have been speaking about the barebones Leman Russ with battle cannon, but I technically fulfilled your request 2,5x by finding a 100% efficiency scenario. There is no real point to me doing your request as intended because even if it is possible AM are still doing bad right now and it makes sense to buff Leman Russes in my mind, on the other hand the people that want Leman Russes to be the equivalents of Land Raiders in terms of durability are silly.

waefre_1 wrote:
vict0988 wrote:

Leman Russ Demolisher with two multi-meltas and a lascannon. 11 damage to a Space Marines Gladiator Valiant which is 250 pts for 12 wounds...

I'd be curious to see your math on this.

Edit: Not saying I think your math is wrong, mind, I'm just curious what parameters you were using (ie. range of the shots)

Everybody gets math wrong, there is never a problem with asking for proof in my opinion.

2d6 demolisher shots and 1 lascannon shot is 8 shots. 4 hits, 2,67 wounds, 2,22 unsaved wounds, 7,78 damage.

4 multi-melta shots, 2 hits, 1 wound, 3,5 damage.

(2*3,5+1)/6*3/6*4/6*5*3,5+2*2/6*3/6*3/6*6*3,5=11+ damage.

**Canadian 5th**

vict0988 wrote:
Yep you should I kind of thought you might have been speaking about the barebones Leman Russ with battle cannon, but I technically fulfilled your request 2,5x by finding a 100% efficiency scenario. There is no real point to me doing your request as intended because even if it is possible AM are still doing bad right now and it makes sense to buff Leman Russes in my mind, on the other hand the people that want Leman Russes to be the equivalents of Land Raiders in terms of durability are silly.

I was admittedly mostly thinking of baseline naked Russes, but I should have been specific in my thoughts. You've scored a fine point on me this day.

We're also on the same page with wanting Russes buffed. If you saw it what did you think of my idea for improving them?

**Inquisitor Lord Katherine**

vict0988 wrote:
it makes sense to buff Leman Russes in my mind, on the other hand the people that want Leman Russes to be the equivalents of Land Raiders in terms of durability are silly.

It used to essentially be so [outside of melee]. It was front AV14 after all. And 13 [more than most other vehicle's fronts] on the side.

[In fact, IIRC the only the Leman Russ, Land Raider, and Battlewagon were AV14, and of them the Leman Russ was also unquestionably the best armed, offset by average ballistic skill and no transport]

**waefre_1**

Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

[In fact, IIRC the only the Leman Russ, Land Raider, and Battlewagon were AV14, and of them the Leman Russ was also unquestionably the best armed, offset by average ballistic skill and no transport]

The Monolith was AV 14 all around in the first codex, but I never saw the 5e rework so I can't say if it stayed there

**Inquisitor Lord Katherine**

waefre_1 wrote:
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

[In fact, IIRC the only the Leman Russ, Land Raider, and Battlewagon were AV14, and of them the Leman Russ was also unquestionably the best armed, offset by average ballistic skill and no transport]

The Monolith was AV 14 all around in the first codex, but I never saw the 5e rework so I can't say if it stayed there

Yeah, the monolith was also AV14. I kind of forgot it existed since I haven't seen it since 5e!

Either way, that's not that many AV14 vehicles, one of which was the Leman Russ, so it's not hyperbole to say that the Leman Russ could be considered to be reasonably as resilient as a Land Raider.

That said, I wouldn't want to pay an excessive premium for toughness alone.

**Insectum7**

Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
vict0988 wrote:
it makes sense to buff Leman Russes in my mind, on the other hand the people that want Leman Russes to be the equivalents of Land Raiders in terms of durability are silly.

It used to essentially be so [outside of melee]. It was front AV14 after all. And 13 [more than most other vehicle's fronts] on the side.

[In fact, IIRC the only the Leman Russ, Land Raider, and Battlewagon were AV14, and of them the Leman Russ was also unquestionably the best armed, offset by average ballistic skill and no transport]

Wasnt the Leman Russ 14 - 12 -10 (F, S, R) and the Demolisher 14 - 13 - 11? I feel like the many S6 Eldar weapons could glance the Russ from the flank.

**CommunistNapkin**

Insectum7 wrote:

Wasnt the Leman Russ 14 - 12 -10 (F, S, R) and the Demolisher 14 - 13 - 11? I feel like the many S6 Eldar weapons could glance the Russ from the flank.

Leman Russes were 14 -13 - 10/11. Demolisher/Executioner/Punisher were 11 on the rear, the other variants were 10.

**Insectum7**

CommunistNapkin wrote:
Insectum7 wrote:

Wasnt the Leman Russ 14 - 12 -10 (F, S, R) and the Demolisher 14 - 13 - 11? I feel like the many S6 Eldar weapons could glance the Russ from the flank.

Leman Russes were 14 -13 - 10/11. Demolisher/Executioner/Punisher were 11 on the rear, the other variants were 10.

Must have changed at some point then, since I'm now looking at the 4th ed book and the Russ is 14, 12, 10 in there. I dont have a Guard book from editions 5-7.

**waefre_1**

CommunistNapkin wrote:
Insectum7 wrote:

Wasnt the Leman Russ 14 - 12 -10 (F, S, R) and the Demolisher 14 - 13 - 11? I feel like the many S6 Eldar weapons could glance the Russ from the flank.

Leman Russes were 14 -13 - 10/11. Demolisher/Executioner/Punisher were 11 on the rear, the other variants were 10.

Technically you're both right - 3e/3.5e the Russ was 14/12/10 and Demolisher was 14/13/11, then 5e/6e the 'battle' Russes (Battle Tank, Vanquisher, Exterminator, Eradicator) were bumped to 14/13/10 and the 'siege' Russes (Demolisher, Punisher, Executioner) were kept at 14/13/11.

**Poly Ranger**

One way around making the Tank Commander + Russ being better than a TC + TC, whilst also having a choice of increasing damage output or durability could be the following:
1. Keep TC as HQ but only 1 TC per Russ squadron.
2. Change the Orders to affect the whole squadron + TC
3. Order range becomes at least 18"
4. New Orders could be
-Load Armour Piercing ammo: Squadrons turret weapons get -1ap
-Load High Demolition shells: Squadrons turret weapons get +1S (or could be rerolls for shot amounts)
-Fire and smoke: Squadrons tanks gain +1 save (or could be a 5++ if that is too weak)
-Use autonautica targetting data: Squadron rerolls 1 to hit.
-Full Throtle: Can advance and shoot as if it hadn't advanced
5. Adjust points appropriately if needed.

TC can still order itself but to get the optimum out of the orders the player would be better ordering a squadron of 2-3 tanks. You could still take 3 TCs and order themselves, but to do so you will have to take 3 base Russes as tax that won't be receiving orders.

**Ice_can**

I would highly advise against playing with +strength or even worse to wound roll buffs as they stand a significant chance of rendering them OP or significantly over priced.

Assuming 9th edition stats I expect a russ will have
D6 72" S8 AP-2 D3 shots and 9 36" S5 AP-1 D2 shots for 5.917 wounds to a marine aka 3 dead marines so 60 points

And 3.25 wounds to a T8 3+Sv unit, which is about what I would say is inline with what I expect to be the Vanquisher statline.

Realistically the space to change the wepaon profiles has gone fiddling with save and toughness I don't see happening.

I do think the orders probably do need adressed but realistically points are probably the basic russes biggest issue.
35 points just isn't a big enough difference for +1BS skill and orders.