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.

I've always said all good Imperial Guard armys start with the models - A Leman Russ Battle Tank, a Leman Russ Demolisher, and a Basilisk.

When it comes to the Russ tanks, how do you guys arm them? What do you put on the hull, and what do you put on the sponsors?

Because the standard main-guns are so so good when paired with the innate fire-twice @ 1/2 movement, more boys > more toys (i.e. get more hulls out there before over-equipping each tank).

Combine that with the additional shooting gained from the regiments bonuses, which is typically innate re-roll 1's or the (my preferred) re-roll each and every dice for no. of shots.

The exception to that rule is where you have good synergy, lets say a source of re-roll 1, so at that point it may be worthwhile to double-down on upgrades, for (specifically) example the Plasma executioner, giving it plasma cannon sponsons.

My favourite chassis by far is the Leman Russ Conqueror, an absolute work-horse. Combine that with any source of re-roll 1 at initial ranges and close in to benefit from that juicy full re-roll @ 24".

Also hellhounds... these things are great. Brilliant brawlers, extremely fast (flamer weapons support advancing every turn) and (as Catachan) pump out an insane amount of hits-per-points.... Great tanks to field alongside Russes, IMO

Tank Commander in a Punisher with 3 heavy bolters and a stubber and a standard battle cannon Russ with 3 heavy bolters to ride shotgun. They are the meat in my take all comers list. I also run a Hellhound in my brigade and it rarely disappoints.If I run a 3rd Russ it’s another battle cannon for the range and reliable damage.

For Tank Commanders I usually use - an Executioner with 2xPC and a HB or - a Punisher with 3xHB. The Commissar Tank Strategy is pretty good on these guys.

Pask can do almost any variant so don't worry too much about what you put him in or equip him with, just make sure it's a role in your list you need help with.

For me, when I use regular HS slot Russes it's usually when I'm running a HS detatchment for ObSec on them. In that context I've found regular BC with 2xHF + HB to be a good balance when deployed in mass, 3+.

My workhorse LRs are LRBT Tank Commanders with 3 HBs. Sometimes if I have points to spare I give them hull-mounted LCs but sponson guns are almost always HBs: they are cheap, reliable and can mow down heavy infantry quite well.

My Russes are both Commander Executioner tanks with Plasma sponsons and hull Heavy Bolters.

I have enough heavy weapons scattered throughout my Guard army that the Russes are there to be a manace and attract shots, while slaying medium/heavy infantry.

For catachan -executioner + plasma sponsons

With reroll 1's from harker and rerolled number of shot dice due to catachan bonus its the most efficient varient

I've had my Russes since 6th so the loadouts are rather fixed. I tend to use a combination of the following.

- Pask + Vanquisher + Lascannon + Multimeltas (unconventional I know but I've had quite a few successes with it)
- Demolisher + Lascannon + Heavy Bolters
- LRBT + Lascannon + Heavy Bolters
- Executioner + Lascannon + Plasma Cannons

Pask punisher. LC and PC

Tank commander with BC, LC

Tank commander with HB.

Pound them to dust!!! So good.

I''ve seen arguments being made that the sponson and hull mounted weaponry should be kept as cheap as possible(that is to say no sponsons at all), unless playing Tallarn. They're expensive as it is, but get quite more so if given the full lascannon + HB complement. What's your thoughts on this?

From my experience in playing at some local tournaments, Basilisks and Manticores are far, far more efficient as anti-tank/anti-monster. Unlike the LRBT, they never have to worry about line of sight, can be placed in the furthest corner of the board in a parking lot formation, have better AP and wound common T8 stuff on 3's. I generally take 3 Basilisks in my competitive lists for this reason. The one 1850 tournament I've managed to win with IG, I had two Leman Russes as well.

So basically, if you take Leman Russes, you're best off taking them for anti-infantry. The best variant for this is the Leman Russ Executioner with Plasma Cannon sponsons and TC/Pask. Lascannon optional but recommended. Taking two of these (rather than one) is pretty much mandatory because, humorously, you need to have two so that they can mutually remind each other not to overheat and blow themselves up by issuing Gunners, Shoot On Sight.

What you get out of this build is a pair of tanks with enough firepower to wipe out annoying but important light infantry squads off the board in a single turn (i.e Guardians with HW, Tau Pathfinders), the AP and strength to do decent extra anti-tank, and enough weight of fire to seriously threaten anything else. If your Basilisk battery can't wipe out something nasty in a turn, the Executioners are usually quite capable of finishing it off.

The Eradicator and Exterminator have meh firepower. They're nowhere near as good as the Executioner at anti-infantry duty.
The Punisher and Demolisher's range is too short and easily places you in a position where fast melee units can reach you.
The Vanquisher is point for point probably the worst anti-tank option in the entire codex.
The LRBT is almost a straight downgrade from the Executioner save for the range and loss of the iffy potential third point of damage per wound. Basilisks solve the range problem anyway.

I think executioners and conquerors are probably the best. The conqueror's improved accuracy mostly makes up for the better AP and more reliable 2 damage of the executioner - though the executioner is cheaper.

I think I'd propose a catachan spearhead featuring a commander in an executioner with plasma sponsons and a squadron 3 conquerors - maybe with no sponsons at all. Then add basilisks/manticores for flavour, and Harker.

Note that by my reading a tank commander is allowed to give himself orders. He should probably use fire and fade on turn 1, while sticking near Harker. Plasma sponsons definitely look like the best option here.

 Mr.Omega wrote:
From my experience in playing at some local tournaments, Basilisks and Manticores are far, far more efficient as anti-tank/anti-monster.

There are some problems with Basiliscs:
1. They have BS 4+ which cannot be improved in any way. With Russes you can have BS 3+ and even one BS 2+ tank.
2. Basiliscs are basically immobile: if you have to move them they are hitting on 5+ that is pathetic. Especially if the target has some negative to-hit modifier as well (that is so common today).
3. They are too big. You almost never have a LOS-block large enough to hide that huge cannon so the enemy will have no difficulty shooting at them (you can try to outrange enemy of course, but most shooty armies have their ways to control table with fire). Russes are much easier to hide for the first turn.
4. Russes can shoot twice. It is a HUGE advantage.

So according to my experience and calculations (I made some mathhammer a month ago), Russes are always better damage dealers per point spent. The only case when Basiliscs are better is when you have a VERY dense terrain with plenty of large LOS-blocking features. I have yet to see a table like this.

For me its all about the Leman Russ conqueror with just an extra stormbolter. They are cheap and very, very point efficient for the damage they do and damage they take. They are my favorite unit in the game and always a consistently strong performer. I am in the camp of keeping everything you can cheap as possible and opting for more boys over toys so a line of 6+ leman russ conquerors (bare minimum) all with just stock loadout and a storm bolter (Which IMO is an auto take on everything ever) makes me a happy camper.

AstraVlad wrote:

 Mr.Omega wrote:
From my experience in playing at some local tournaments, Basilisks and Manticores are far, far more efficient as anti-tank/anti-monster.

There are some problems with Basiliscs:
1. They have BS 4+ which cannot be improved in any way. With Russes you can have BS 3+ and even one BS 2+ tank.
2. Basiliscs are basically immobile: if you have to move them they are hitting on 5+ that is pathetic. Especially if the target has some negative to-hit modifier as well (that is so common today).
3. They are too big. You almost never have a LOS-block large enough to hide that huge cannon so the enemy will have no difficulty shooting at them (you can try to outrange enemy of course, but most shooty armies have their ways to control table with fire). Russes are much easier to hide for the first turn.
4. Russes can shoot twice. It is a HUGE advantage.

So according to my experience and calculations (I made some mathhammer a month ago), Russes are always better damage dealers per point spent. The only case when Basiliscs are better is when you have a VERY dense terrain with plenty of large LOS-blocking features. I have yet to see a table like this.

1) I make heavy use of the Cadian strategem "Overlapping Fields of Fire" to compensate for lacking accuracy. Combined with re-rolls of 1 to hit, my Basilisks are pretty accurate. For other regiments, I would suggest planning around having 2 Basilisks and 1 or more Manticores so that the artillery spotter strategem can be exploited with decent returns when needed. Alternatively, just field 2-3 Manticores.

2) In the last four tournaments I've been to, on only one occasion did I ever consider moving my Basilisks, and that was on the last turn of a Maelstorm game where the firepower was no longer relevant and I was just trying to reduce my opponent's number of scored objectives. This is basically because IG have plentiful access to bubblewrap infantry and Basilisks have effectively infinite range, allowing you to castle in one quarter of the board. If your opponent is forcing your Basilisks to move and you still need the firepower, you've probably already lost.

3) You don't need to count on having a huge LOS blocker. I usually don't have one, its a convenience at best if you can get one, and even partial LOS obstruction is decent. What you have is a massive amount of distance. A Basilisk battery is only really vulnerable to deepstriking units, flyers and long range AT. Deepstriking units can be easily mitigated using our abundantly cheap bubblewrap infantry in line formation. I've found long range AT is rarely taken because it usually provides less weight of fire overall. Even if it does show up, you can obliterate it first turn with your artillery. That only leaves very rare instances where your opponent is spamming flyers with AT weapons. That's the worst possible counter you can come up against.

4) Yes, but Russes are 44 pts more expensive, so the point is basically null. 3 Basilisks is 324 pts, 2 basic LRBT's is 304 pts, 2 basic TC LRBT's are 394 pts. The non-TC LRBT's have less firepower than the Basilisk under Overlapping Fields of Fire, and unlike the Basilisks, don't get pretty much guaranteed re-rolls of 1 to hit. LRBT firepower is subject to the game-changing problems of positioning mistakes on your part and good positioning from your opponent. The LRBT is the only competitor in the AT department from Russes as the Demolisher's range makes it an order of magnitude less flexible than even the LRBT. A Basilisk will always be able to target any unit on the board. That is huge.

 Mr.Omega wrote:

1) I make heavy use of the Cadian strategem "Overlapping Fields of Fire" to compensate for lacking accuracy.

It is one of the solutions, but Russes can benefit from this stratagem as well.

 Mr.Omega wrote:

If your opponent is forcing your Basilisks to move and you still need the firepower, you've probably already lost.

There are a couple of armies able to just jump into your backfield and start slaughtering everyone left and right (BA being the most obvious example). In this case, you might want to reposition your artillery to make it harder to charge.

 Mr.Omega wrote:

What you have is a massive amount of distance. A Basilisk battery is only really vulnerable to deepstriking units, flyers and long range AT.

Tau have long range AT, Eldar can move their Reapers and shoot without penalty at 48'', CSM can drop Obliterators and shoot you from 24'' (it can be difficult to deny deep strike at 24'' especially if you play 1000-1500 pts game), another IG player can shoot you across the table all day long, etc. Even Custodes have now access to long-range AT with Caladius Grav-Tank.

 Mr.Omega wrote:

4) Yes, but Russes are 44 pts more expensive, so the point is basically null.

No, it is not. As I've said before I made a calculation on this topic comparing LRBT Tank Commander (main gun only) with Basilisc and Manticore, using Cadian doctrine and order for re-rolling amount of shots at LRBT. Against T7 3+ target you pay 39.1 points per the inflicted wound with Command LRBT, 48 points with Manticore and 48.6 points with Basilisc that makes it the least cost-effective of all three.

AstraVlad wrote:

 Mr.Omega wrote:

1) I make heavy use of the Cadian strategem "Overlapping Fields of Fire" to compensate for lacking accuracy.

It is one of the solutions, but Russes can benefit from this stratagem as well.

 Mr.Omega wrote:

If your opponent is forcing your Basilisks to move and you still need the firepower, you've probably already lost.

There are a couple of armies able to just jump into your backfield and start slaughtering everyone left and right (BA being the most obvious example). In this case, you might want to reposition your artillery to make it harder to charge.

 Mr.Omega wrote:

What you have is a massive amount of distance. A Basilisk battery is only really vulnerable to deepstriking units, flyers and long range AT.

Tau have long range AT, Eldar can move their Reapers and shoot without penalty at 48'', CSM can drop Obliterators and shoot you from 24'' (it can be difficult to deny deep strike at 24'' especially if you play 1000-1500 pts game), another IG player can shoot you across the table all day long, etc. Even Custodes have now access to long-range AT with Caladius Grav-Tank.

 Mr.Omega wrote:

4) Yes, but Russes are 44 pts more expensive, so the point is basically null.

No, it is not. As I've said before I made a calculation on this topic comparing LRBT Tank Commander (main gun only) with Basilisc and Manticore, using Cadian doctrine and order for re-rolling amount of shots at LRBT. Against T7 3+ target you pay 39.1 points per the inflicted wound with Command LRBT, 48 points with Manticore and 48.6 points with Basilisc that makes it the least cost-effective of all three.

With Obliterators, my most successful list (3 Basilisks, 2 TC LRBT) includes 2 barebones Scout Sentinels for disruption. Now that Brigades give more CP I would probably include 3 Scout Sentinels. Especially once taking into account the deepstrike nerf that means they can only come in at earliest on turn 2, I think it would be pretty doable to make a big enough deepstrike denial net with them. At worst, you put a decent speedbump between a melee army and your guys, or you force your opponent's remaining AT assets to focus on the sentinels turn 1. Obliterators are pretty much one of the biggest threats though.

Eldar Dark Reapers are also a big threat, granted, but they suffer from some hefty constraints. They can't take ablative wound models, so every killed model is a reduction in their firepower. Because they're usually small model count units they're also quite vulnerable to fire from the Basilisks. Tau do have long range AT, but in terms of efficiency and damage potential their long range stuff is pretty lackluster from what I've seen. I wouldn't be too worried about playing a Tau list with long range assets.

Should be noted that in the lucky event you do have decent enough LOS blocking terrain, the Basilisk is far better off than the Russ against all three.

As for the aptly timed and much appreciated injection of Maths into the debate, I'd like to point out two things.

1) The gulf in points per wound isn't that large, and I'm not convinced it makes up for getting to ignore LOS. Its also narrowed I'd imagine considerably once you take into account shooting T8 10W 3+ save stuff where the Basilisk will excel due to S9 and the fact that the Leman Russ may have to adjust its position to gain line of sight, in which case it won't have re-rolls of 1 to hit from Cadian doctrine.

2) If you take TC LRBT's over Basilisks for anti-tank, you're concentrating your reserves of AT firepower into fewer models and have less redundancy in your list. In the event you do come against nasty AT units like, for instance, Dark Reapers or Obliterators, they're going to have an easier time killing or crippling two Leman Russes than three Basilisks. This is because you've got around 33%~ more wounds. As for arguing whether the Basilisks or the Leman Russes are losing points-per-wound effectiveness faster with every sustained wound in that scenario, I couldn't tell you right now, but If I had to guess the Russes would lose effectiveness faster.

4) funnilly enough as a catachan player my russes all have reroll 1's to hit thank you harker.

With reroles on the number of shots LR executioner are more cost/damage efficient especially once sponsons are factored in

Ive had a lot of luck with the standard Battle cannon and heavy bolters all around, adding a Lascannon onto the Tank Commander if I have the points. Its a good all rounder that can take on infantry, tanks, and anything in between with no problem, plus its on a tough platform. I play Valhallan so I rarely have to worry about my degrading profiles so if you take several russes it works out quite nice because they have to concentrate a lot of firepower on my tanks to kill them as opposed to simply crippling them.

 Giant Moth wrote:
I''ve seen arguments being made that the sponson and hull mounted weaponry should be kept as cheap as possible(that is to say no sponsons at all), unless playing Tallarn. They're expensive as it is, but get quite more so if given the full lascannon + HB complement. What's your thoughts on this?

I agree with the consensus. Look at how often people run infantry squads without a heavy. I don’t see why they get excited to buy the same weapons at the same price just cause it’s on a tank. I get that it’s more durable, but long range anti tank is a thing!

I run mine stock, although I’m thinking hard about trying executioners bare with harker.

 Mr.Omega wrote:

Eldar Dark Reapers are also a big threat, granted, but they suffer from some hefty constraints. They can't take ablative wound models, so every killed model is a reduction in their firepower. Because they're usually small model count units they're also quite vulnerable to fire from the Basilisks.

That's why our Eldar player loves to hide them in the Wave Serpent for a first turn. Also, he usually takes them as Alaitoc to have that -1 to-hit modifier that can be increased to -2 using stratagem (if I'm not mistaken). Good luck hitting on 6+.

 Mr.Omega wrote:
Its also narrowed I'd imagine considerably once you take into account shooting T8 10W 3+ save stuff where the Basilisk will excel due to S9

You are totally right here: Basiliscs and Manticore have their edge against T8 compared to LRBT but if you meet a lot of T8 targets it usually means you are fighting another IG army . While there is no another IG player in my group I do not bother with making my army able to kill T8. T7 tanks are much more widely used.

 Mr.Omega wrote:

2) If you take TC LRBT's over Basilisks for anti-tank, you're concentrating your reserves of AT firepower into fewer models and have less redundancy in your list. In the event you do come against nasty AT units like, for instance, Dark Reapers or Obliterators, they're going to have an easier time killing or crippling two Leman Russes than three Basilisks. This is because you've got around 33%~ more wounds. As for arguing whether the Basilisks or the Leman Russes are losing points-per-wound effectiveness faster with every sustained wound in that scenario, I couldn't tell you right now, but If I had to guess the Russes would lose effectiveness faster.

You have to drop to the third damage bracket on LR Commander (losing 9 wounds) to not be able to shoot Eldars with -2 to-hit modifier, while with Basilisk you'll start to hit at 7+ in the second one (6 wounds lost). You will also never be unable to hit a unit with -1 to-hit modifier with Command LR, while with Basilisk it will be impossible to hit after 9 lost wounds. Considering how widely available that to-hit modifiers now, I always plan my list to be able to deal with them.

Also, LR is a good generalist unit while Basilisk is a one-trick-pony. Imagine you face a list having no tanks or monsters bur hordes of troops and a bunch of hard-hitting characters advancing behind them (Orks, Daemons, Tiranids, DeathGuard etc.). Basilisk will be totally useless due to its low hit count, while LRBT with 2D6 shots from the main gun AND 9 HB shots hitting at 3+ rerolling 1s, is a nightmare of any infantry without decent invulnerable save.

If Basilisks were able to shoot twice like LRs do, they would be a must-have unit in every IG army. But now they are situational at best.