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.

The Leman Russ is supposed to be the main guard battletank. As I understand things, a main battle tank's main role is to hunt down enemy tanks, and only after this is accomplished, is it to be used for shock action on enemy troop formations and other such fire support tasks.

Instead of all that, the main thing the leman russ seems to do these days is fire at stuff in powered armor. I guess it's silly to call the AP3 on the high explosive blast "unrealistic", but I'd rather see the russ be given a gun with 2 fire options:

A S9 AP2 single shot (the Armor Piercing shot, basically, an ordnance lascannon, maybe giving it a reroll and/or the small blast template) and a S6 AP 5 Large Blast (the high explosive round, pinning of course). I think this would better represent how a main battle tank is supposed to work: Blast apart tanks, destroy light infantry, and suppress heavy infantry.

The current M1-A2 uses a round nicknamed the "Room Broom". It's filled with more then a thousand tungsten pellets designed for anti-personnel use. In game it would be used for wiping out troop squads, and light vehichles, armor 10 or so. I'd give it a Str 5 AP 5 Large Blast characteristic. Maybe give it a (gaurd players are gonna yell at me) the ability to ignore 5+ cover saves, since thats what it's solely designed for. Blowing through soft cover.

It uses many Anti-Armor rounds. A S9 AP2 would be good for it to simulate a tank busting round. I wouldn't go with a blast template, simply because thats not how Anti-Tank rounds are designed. One of the current ones is designed to penetrate the armor. Once it does that, a chemical reaction takes place with the shell that ignites the air inside of the tank, basicaly burning the interior out, crew and systems. There really isn't an explosion associated with it, not one that would blast through something like Power and Terminator armor like a AP2 template would do.

One option would be to use the Leman Russ antitank option in the armored company list. It can fire either a normal round or a 2d6 round similar to a Vanquisher shell (using Lema's BS 3). But it has to sit and shoot ala V3 style to do that.

Personally I would prefer vanquishers back in the regular game (without armored company or IA) with a tank ace or army commander option to get it to BS4.

Cant you get lascannons on Russes?

Yes in the hull. You have the option of either an HB or a lascannon.

Since you can put a lascannon on the Russ there's no reason for a s9 ap2 that hits on BS 3 unless you are wanting either the blast marker or the turrent arc. Really what they need is more flexibility on the main turret/sponson weapons to have the TL Autocannon or TL Lascannon turrets as options for the standard chassis instead of being Imperial Armor only. Heck I'd pay the same points for the turret options as the Battle Cannon (so a free switch to either one), and Multi-Laser and Autocannon sponsons would be cool too.

I am by no means a guard player but when a lot of the armies are MEQS having tanks that can blow away large numbers at a time helps. If you play a dark eldar army that is troop heavy or a nid army that is gaunt heavy if a tank blows away 7 models you just keep going. By changing it to Str 6 (or 5) ap 5 all it will do is make it less effective against MEQs and the same level effectiveness against troops in the smaller armor save class.

Leamun russ is the counter to MEQS. Every army has one army or thing they do not like to go up against and sometimes it comes up. Most marine players its the russ so don't change it. My army hates Heavy Bolters. Can we change that to ap 5 so my army is not effected?? You have to deal with want you do not like to come across. Not complain.

I have to agree with magine. The Russ is fine. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

BYE

I play tyranids. I don't care if the other guy has a russ, I do just fine either way. I proposed this rule because I think guard already has an anti-MEQ tank (the bassie) and the russ doesn't perform it's job as an MBT the way it's described to.

Also, if the Russ gun was S9 AP2, it still wouldn't be a lascannon. Remember, it'd roll on the ordnance table and get to roll 2 d6 and choose the highest for penetration. Much better than a lascannon.

It doesn't fit as a MBT in our warfare. 41st millenium combat is significantly different, both by fluff and by function in the rules. For example, there are no human-sized walking tanks, or giant armored bugs, or man-portable laser cannons, in our combat situations. A modern MBT is killing other vehicles, with little other application (barring special rounds), while a 40K MBT is a jack-of-all-trades, and the ability to kill large numbers of Marine-type targets is a real mission for them.

40k represents fairly close-ranged, infantry-centered (or supposedly infantry-centered) roughly company-sized fights. Russes are hardly ever rolling forward foot by foot per turn, trying to get the flank shot at 60" at an opponents armoured column. So the fact that Russes don't really work as MBTs is more a reflection of the fact that 40k doesn't really represent battles in which MBT maneuver is the main feature.

The Russ is fine, lets fix the Land Raider! .

We just need a new vehicle damage table (at least) or new vehicle rules.

The game would be much more fun if there was 'incremental damage' to vehicles. It would require a bit of bookkeeping, true, but it would be worth it.

Glancing hits should have a chance to stop movement and/or firing for one turn, destroy defensive weapons only, and reduce maximum speed. But you should never get a 'destroyed' from a glance, that's just awful.

Something like:
Glancing:
1-2: Crew shaken*
3-4: defensive weapon is destroyed - if no defensive weapons remain, treat as a roll of 5-6
5-6: drive mechanism damaged** - reduce current maximum speed by 50%. Multiple results are cumulative, but once maximum speed is reduced to less than 3", the vehicle is immoblized.

Penetrating:
1: Main weapon destroyed and crew shaken
2: Immobilized** and crew shaken
3: Main weapon destroyed and Immobilized**
4: Vehicle destroyed
5: Vehicle destroyed
6: Ammo hit - vehicle explodes!

* on a crew shaken result, roll a die for the driver and a die for the main weapon crew. On a 5+, each is unaffected. The 'extra armour' vehicle upgrade gives a +1 to each roll.
- if the driver is shaken, ground vehicles that moved 6" or less last trun, may not move next turn. Ground vehicles that moved >6" last turn, as well as all skimmers, will drift d6" in the direction they last moved.
- if the main weapon crew is shaken, the vehicle's Main and/or Ordnance weapon(s) may not be fired next turn. Defensive weapons may still be fired.

** Track guards or equivalent upgrades give a 5+ save against drive mechanism damage, and will downgrade an 'immobilized' result to 'drive mechanism damage' on a 5+.

...or something like that.

Oy gevalt... Some of the people I play against have trouble keeping track of shaken, stunned, immobilized, and such. Adding all that will make their little heads explode.

Yeah, well, people should be able to read and write to play 40k. Although posts on this board sometimes make me wonder (not aimed at anyone in this thread, I was thinking of Capt Anderton and friends).

You could always magnet on different track sections and all the weapons, so that when damaged you just pull off a quarter of the vehicle's tracks/wheels...


The other option I though of was to have 'hull points' - basically make it easier to damage tanks (maybe drop AV by 1 across the board), but then have a number of 'hull points'. Basically like 'structure points' for superheavies - you have to get rid of all the hull points before you get to roll on a damage table. But any glancing hit removes a hull point, unlike with superheavies.

This would also allow one to distinguish between hard, light targets (eg skimmers) with high AV but low number of hull points, in comparison to heavy tracked vehicles like Rhinos and Chimeras which might have lower AV but higher hull points. And the Land Raider could get high AV and high hull points.

Ideally it could be done fairly, without altering point values. Ie small vehicles like sentinels and warbuggys get 1, transports all get 3 hull points, tanks get 5. Open-topped vehicles and skimmers get 1 less hull point, but drop the +1 on the damage table for open-topped. Keep the "skimmers moving fast" rule. And institute a -1 AV across the board, maximum AV = 13. And change anything that nerfs a damage result (ie extra armour etc.) to a *chance* to nerf it (ie 4+ or 5+)

That way, you'd have to hit a vehicle multiple times and it would make the first-turn kill much harder.

I still like my first 'incremental damage' damage table revision more.

Let the heads explode so that the tanks don't, I say!



What I'm annoyed by most in the current system is the whole 'glancing 6 on turn 1' thing, which destroys a big vehicle outright. It really detracts from the fun of the game.

The second thing I'm annoyed by is that there are so many upgrade nerfs to the damage table, so you get things like the invulnerable Falcon and the DP Chaos Pred that ignores half the glancing table.

What about allowing tank weaponry to target multiple units, say, as many units as there are crew on board, minus one (the driver)? If you think about it, the Leman Russ has like a crew of 5 or 6 (don't have my codex with me), so shouldn't one sponson gunner be allowed to fire at a squad on his side of the vehicle while the sponson gunner opposite is busy shooting at a different unit? While this might decrease the tank's effectiveness by encouraging players to spread their shots out over multiple squads, it would also make a tank less vulnerable to being surrounded by multiple squads.

Just a thought. Personally, I love Leman Russes, and think that they're fine the way they are.
CK

I think the variations of leman russes account for the general effectiveness. If you need AT, take a vanq or a destroyer, if you need multi shots, take an exterminator. It would be cool to split shots from sponsons.

You'd think so, wouldn't you?

In our rules we allow tanks to fire at different targets. It turns defensive weapons into defensive weapons. What's the point of a sponson machine gun that cannot protect a tank from infantry because the turret gunner wants to fire at something on the horizon?

And we have an altered damage table:

Glance:
1. No Effect  - The shot hits but literally glances off, causing superficial or even just cosmetic damage (loss of paint, scorches, a mild dent)
2. Crew Shaken on 4+
3. Crew Stunned on 4+.
4. Crew Stunned.
5. 1-3 Weapon Destroyed/4-6 Immobilised
6. Roll on the Penetrating Chart

Penetrate:
1. Crew Stunned
2. Weapon Destroyed and Crew Shaken
3. Immobilised and Crew Shaken
4. Destroyed.
5. Destroyed.
6. Explodes!

BYE

I like that alternate chart HBMC.

The big problem with altering the damage table is that you have to take into account skimmer tanks. Anyone who has ever faced one will tell you that a hammerhead or a falcon is harder to take down than a land raider. Add in the fact that they are fast as anything, and it appears that they have no downside. A tank that can move and fire, use terrain and tactics to its advantage should be easier to destroy when targetable than an armored monstrosity that lumbers foward on treads. I propose a seperate skimmer glancing damage table.

1.Shaken
2.Stunned
3.Heavily Stunned (no upgrades may negate this stunned result)
4.Immobilised
5.Weapon Destroyed
6.Destroyed

As for all other tanks, I like HBMC's comments.

How do you propose tyranids will take down tanks with this new "glances don't do anything" chart?

That's a nice alternate damage table. I'll have to try it out myself when I get back home in November.

As for the sponsons, I like it. It makes sense.

CK

The major difference in our rules is that 'Fast Moving Skimmers' and 'Hull Down' are not absolutes. If you fire a weapon that could normally penetrate the vehicle's armour at a vehicle that is moving fast/hull down, and roll a 6, you penetrate it.

For example, a Falcon (AV12), is moving fast. I fire a Lascannon (S9) at it. A Lascannon, on any other occasion, would penetrate AV12 on 4+. As the skimmer is moving fast, the hits count as glancing. However, as I can penetrate normally, if I roll a 6, I do penetrate, and roll on the penetration chart. If I fired at the same Falcon with, say, a Multi-Laser (S6), and rolled a 6, I would only glance, as the Multi-Laser cannot normally penetrate AV12.

The simple reason why we made these changes were:

1. The 4th Ed damage tables are just too dangerous. I don't think glancing hits should be able to destroy vehicles that easily. They're glancing after all.
2. 3rd Ed Hull Down/Skimmers Moving Fast was pretty bad, being an absolute - most shots fired at vehicles could only ever glance as everyone kept their tanks behind cover, or kept skimmers moving the whole game. There needed to be a way to 'beat' Hull Down/Skimmers Moving Fast. The 6 to penetrate does that without making cover/movement redundant.
3. 4th Ed obscurement is a joke, and is yet another dice roll/test to be made for every single shot. The benefit of the 3rd Ed Hull Down system was that it either happened all the time, or didn't happen. You were either Hull Down, or your weren't. Your state of Hull Down-ed-ness didn't depend on whether you could roll a 4+ every time someone shot at you.

So we kept Hull Down and skimmer movement as it is in 3rd Ed, but added the ability to Penetrate these vehicles. It is a good middle ground, although it did make Razorbacks all that more fragile for some reason...

BYE

I kind of like this armor penetration tables. I think our group will try them out at some point.

@ H.B.M.C. - do you simply let sponson weapons fire at other targets or did your group implement some sort of defensive fire rule a la Flames of War?

Our vehicles rules actually have a lot of differences. Our ruleset is virtually identicle to 3rd Ed in a lot of ways, with just added things we thought were needed (like squads being able to split fire occasionally, revamped Sniper Rifle rules, small things like that), but the vehicle section is the most different.

Vehicles are faster than they are currently, so 8/16/24 instead of 6/12/24. It means fast vehicles haven't got any faster, but vehicles, overall, are faster than infantry. Armour values and all that haven't changed. Types of vehicles haven't really changed either. Vehicles can fire all their weapons at different targets (other than co-axial weapons, which must fire at the same target as the gun they're attached to fired at).

We defined fire arcs, and types of weapons (Fixed, Hull, Sponson, Co-Axial, Pintle, Turret). Main and Defensive are the same. Ordnance doesn't impede the firing of other guns. And we have those damage tables combined with the new Hull Down/Skimmer rules.

It makes vehicles far more mobile without making them into glass hammers like 4th Ed did.

BYE

Wow, more vehicle movement is what I always want. 6" is so frustrating.

H.B.M.C. are your rules variant published online anywhere that we could take a look at the whole thing? I like what I am hearing (but then I play mech guard ....)

Nice stuff.

Did your group retain 6" maximum for firing weapons or did that increase to 8" as well?

Would you mind compiling your new variant vehicle rules?  My gaming group seems interested in trying them out.

As does mine. I won't get a chance to use them for a while, but we're all interested in how they'll work. We each have a couple tanks that will play differently as a result (my Russ and SM Pred, a friend's trio of Russes and a Basilisk, my brother's Railhead).

CK

No we increased the move & fire range to 8" as well. Wouldn't make any sense to have 8/16/24 movement but limit firing for multiples of 6.

BYE