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 LRBT main battle cannon is terrible.

In its stead, I propose:

72 inch range, Heavy 3, S8, AP -2, D6 damage.

And obviously, all LRBTs should have a 2+ armor save.

What say you guys?

It's definitely an improvement, but I'd say either

Heavy 4 Damage 3
or
Heavy 3 Damage 4

Why, because I wince everytime I see D6/3/ shot/damage rolls.

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

It's definitely an improvement, but I'd say either

Heavy 4 Damage 3
or
Heavy 3 Damage 4

Why, because I wince everytime I see D6/3/ shot/damage rolls.

I'm fine with either of those.

Are we in agreement on the 2+ armor save?

I say bring back blasts, reworked to speed things up.

Place a blast down, anywhere in range and with the center in line of fire. For each model under the blast, roll to hit that model's unit. If the "hole" of the blast is directly over a model, make an extra d3 attacks against that model's unit (this part would minimize the "spacing out" slowplay and keep it useful vs big models).

It's a blast, so it should be d3 or d6 under the new rules. It just should be cheaper than it currently costs. Also, 2+ armor save is not the way to go. It's not a landraider. It's durability is perfectly fine. Just the battle cannon doesn't compare too well with other weapons for the cost.

 MagicJuggler wrote:
I say bring back blasts, reworked to speed things up.

Place a blast down, anywhere in range and with the center in line of fire. For each model under the blast, roll to hit that model's unit. If the "hole" of the blast is directly over a model, make an extra d3 attacks against that model's unit (this part would minimize the "spacing out" slowplay and keep it useful vs big models).

I think that's how it worked in 3rd edition? Either way I like this idea.

Zustiur wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:
I say bring back blasts, reworked to speed things up.

Place a blast down, anywhere in range and with the center in line of fire. For each model under the blast, roll to hit that model's unit. If the "hole" of the blast is directly over a model, make an extra d3 attacks against that model's unit (this part would minimize the "spacing out" slowplay and keep it useful vs big models).

I think that's how it worked in 3rd edition? Either way I like this idea.

In 3rd and 4th, you rolled to hit. If you hit, you placed a blast over an enemy unit. Models "completely under" the template were auto hit, while models that were "partially under" were hit on 4+. Ordnance scattered only d6, and used partials.

I like just placing a "no scatter" blast for aoe weapons, rolling to hit each model under, with an extra "d3 for centering the blast" as an insurance against people going "well I'm going to spread out all my models, neenerneener."

I might suggest bumping the Russes up to 14W as well. It seems extremely odd to me that they're stuck with 12W while all the big airplanes (Valkyries, Blackstars, Stormravens...) are 14W.

...as long as GW doesn't have Matt Ward write rules for a flying Leman Russ...

 MagicJuggler wrote:
...as long as GW doesn't have Matt Ward write rules for a flying Leman Russ...

Pft. The Marauder hasn't been updated since the original Imperial Armour, why should they start now?

(And if they did given that the "flying Land Raider" has lower armour, lower Toughness, and fewer wounds than the real one even after making these changes (bumping the Russ from 12W/3+ to 14W/2+) you're asking for a Valkyrie with -2HP. Though...the Vulture is a slightly smaller vehicle on a similar chassis...)

 MagicJuggler wrote:
...as long as GW doesn't have Matt Ward write rules for a flying Leman Russ...

StormRaven is literally a flying Leman Russ...

 Talamare wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:
...as long as GW doesn't have Matt Ward write rules for a flying Leman Russ...

StormRaven is literally a flying Leman Russ...

I thought it was a flying Land Raider Crusader?

 MagicJuggler wrote:

 Talamare wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:
...as long as GW doesn't have Matt Ward write rules for a flying Leman Russ...

StormRaven is literally a flying Leman Russ...

I thought it was a flying Land Raider Crusader?

...With more transport capacity and an extra turret?