PDA

View Full Version : Guard Tanks in the new Codex



Reece
30-12-2008, 01:17
Does anyone have any clue on which Tanks they'll include in the new Guard Codex?

I'm hoping for, at the very least, the reintroduction of the Griffon and the Exterminator. The Vanqisher wouldn't really hurt either. :)

Wishful thinking has me hoping for the Executioner and maybe the Conqueror. :)

What do you guys think... or maybe even know?

-Reece

ehlijen
30-12-2008, 02:38
All the current ones will stay I'd think, but I do not see them reintroducing any older ones. There is rumour that there will be a completely new russ variant (mostly fueled by the thumbnails on p142 of the rulebook).

The exterminator and griffon were apparantly not popular enough the first time round to continue the model in favour of whatever would have to make room on the shelves for it, so I'm not sure why they'd try again.
The vanquisher could be an overcosted upgrade to the normal russ (much like the new venerables for SM) but in the end it's just a russ with a bigger gun, ie same ol' same ol.

If anything I'd expect to see the salamander, ie something that is actually different from what's there already.

I mean you've got:
Long range tough: Russ
Short range devestating: demolisher
budget tank: Hellhound
artillery: basilisk
cheap scouts: sentinels
new shiny wow thing: valkyrie (rumoured)

a new tank would need to do something other than those.

Khornies & milk
30-12-2008, 03:09
A Salamander would suit me nicely as it'd be nice to have a 'fast' autocannon on something other than Sentinels, plus I could fill in my Armoured Battlegroup list with an AF Company HQ and/or a Forward Artillery Observer.

vladsimpaler
30-12-2008, 03:54
There's what looks like a new tank in the Rule Book, and there has also been a CAD image for what looks like an Executioner turret. (That's the one with the plasma cannon, IIRC)

victorpofa
30-12-2008, 04:18
A while back the book's author was quoted as saying there would be lots of tanks, and the number mentioned requires the return of some old favorites. Many tank variants were taken out of the 3E codex purely due to laziness. I hope to see the return of the Exterminator and Griffon with all plastic bits. A plastic executioner would also be sweet.

tstreet21
30-12-2008, 04:30
back when the deathworld veterens/jungle fighting book came out, I painted up an original exterminator for my Catachan army (complete with the guy sitting on the back even) and was kind of watching the rumors to see if it would be brought back before I decided if I would get back into guard.

does anybody still use them anymore just with the old rules? its not like it requires a lot of special rules to be able field it.

Ianos
30-12-2008, 04:30
All the current ones will stay I'd think, but I do not see them reintroducing any older ones. There is rumour that there will be a completely new russ variant (mostly fueled by the thumbnails on p142 of the rulebook).

The exterminator and griffon were apparantly not popular enough the first time round to continue the model in favour of whatever would have to make room on the shelves for it, so I'm not sure why they'd try again.
The vanquisher could be an overcosted upgrade to the normal russ (much like the new venerables for SM) but in the end it's just a russ with a bigger gun, ie same ol' same ol.

If anything I'd expect to see the salamander, ie something that is actually different from what's there already.

I mean you've got:
Long range tough: Russ
Short range devestating: demolisher
budget tank: Hellhound
artillery: basilisk
cheap scouts: sentinels
new shiny wow thing: valkyrie (rumoured)

a new tank would need to do something other than those.

That can hardly be enough for a versatile totally human army IMHO a few examples:

AA tanks that have bonus vs skimmers
Fast ground vehicles like jeeps
Missile barrage carriers like the hammerhead only more Anti-Infantry
Comm-Repair vehicles
Turrets
An all out assault vehicle
Mortar carriers
Dedicated tank hunting vehicles

and much more...

505
30-12-2008, 04:31
I would like a salamander or something that go's fast 6" fast attack is still funny to me

BoxANT
30-12-2008, 04:36
The notion that they will not bring back old variants does not take into consideration the new plastic kits they are (hopefully) going to release. A Chimera kit that allows for variants (hellhound, salamander?), perhaps a bassie kit that allows for griffon as well, and of course the Leman Russ kit (MBT, Demolisher, exterminator, ect ect).

They could keep the amount of shelf space taken up by IG the same, but still allow for many more tanks :)


Well, that is my hope at least.

ehlijen
30-12-2008, 04:44
Tanos:

AA tank: just like flyers they are outside the scope of the game of 40k. Look for hydras in apocalypse
Fast ground vehicles: sentinels, rough riders. That's as fast as the guard is supposed to be in GW's eyes.
Missle barrage: what do you need a missle barrage for if your basilisk kicks the stuffing out of any whirlwind (the imperiums premium missle barrage weapon)?
Comm/repair: outside the scope of battles. Otherwise a tech priest's chimera fills that role.
Turrets: outside the scope of 40k for all races. There's plenty in apoc though.
All out assault: Demolisher, Hellhound
Mortar carrier: what for? A basilisk is a super mortar carrier.
Dedicated tank hunters: LC sentinels, LC+MM demolishers, LC+HK russes...

All those roles are either outside the scope of a 40k battle or filled by existing vehicles.

Sure, I wouldn't mind seeing new tanks (either actually new or rehashed), but I honestly don't think they'd be necessary.

Thud
30-12-2008, 05:43
A little birdie told me there'll be 21 different tanks including variants.

starlight
30-12-2008, 05:47
Depending on your definition of *tank* and *variant*, there are already that many...

Are we (your birdie;)) talking about *just* Leman Russ chassis? Does that include Chimera variants (designated as Tanks in the rules)?

Is a *variant* counted separately for each hull weapon/sponson combo?

Thud
30-12-2008, 06:08
Depending on your definition of *tank* and *variant*, there are already that many...

Are we (your birdie;)) talking about *just* Leman Russ chassis? Does that include Chimera variants (designated as Tanks in the rules)?

Is a *variant* counted separately for each hull weapon/sponson combo?

LR Exterminator would be one variant, while Demolisher would be another. An Exterminator with a hull lascannon would not be different to one with a heavy bolter. Includes Chimera chassis tanks.

Though, it's up to you if you want to believe the wildlife. You'll know for sure soon enough, anyway. :)

laudarkul
30-12-2008, 08:56
Why did GW expunged all tanks (except LRBT and LRD) from the last Codex? Was an explanation provided for their choice?

athamas
30-12-2008, 09:11
last i heard there would be ~6 main different Russ hull tanks.. each with a different main turret!

mughi3
30-12-2008, 10:42
AA tanks that have bonus vs skimmers-hydra use with IA rules found in the older books for non-apocalypse games(as they were intended)

Fast ground vehicles like jeeps-DKOK centaurs, open topped carries 5 guardsman has a stubber and hull mounts whatever heavy or special weapon the squad is carrying.

Missile barrage carriers like the hammerhead only more Anti-Infantry-manticore

Comm-Repair vehicles-trojan support vehicle

Turrets-tarantula turret and drop turret platforms, sabre defense platforms

An all out assault vehicle-gorgon is a superheavy but it's the only one


Dedicated tank hunting vehicles thats pretty much what the vanquisher is, a 72" range melta gun that gets 2d6 armor pen if you use the AT round.

FW pretty much makes everything you can think of, keep your fingers crossed that they import some of it like they did with the tau skyray and Paraná.



new shiny wow thing: valkyrie (rumoured)

Plastic yes please! but i will continue to use the IA flyer rules for it, making it a skimmer seriously handicaps it.

Scorpion
30-12-2008, 14:15
Please, Leman Russ Anihilator!

Col. Dash
30-12-2008, 14:57
I would very much love to see a griffen again. I miss the old thing. Executioners are something else I would like to see but if I have my choice between them, bring on the griffen.

electricblooz
30-12-2008, 15:26
the Conqueror would be a nice addition given 5th eds. nerf to defensive weps. As the only non-ord, blast LR, it fills a vital role in mobile anti-infantry.

starlight
30-12-2008, 17:08
Why did GW expunged all tanks (except LRBT and LRD) from the last Codex? Was an explanation provided for their choice?

Shelf space. They weren't prepared to bundle Tanks back then, so the worst sellers got the boot. Now that they're okay with bundling, and they're prepared to do plastic sprues, I'm betting we'll see boxes that let you build multiple variants. :D Buy a bunch of rare earth magnets and you get all your tanks in one box. :D

Necrotyr18
30-12-2008, 17:12
I really want the "Destroyer Tank Hunter" shooting it's "Laser Destroyer."

On a side note did a 3 year old name this tank.

DartzIRL
30-12-2008, 20:59
/me has an original Exterminator, and is making a new one using spare heavy weapons team Autocannon. What can I say? I've always liked the combination. In 4th ed, the 3 heavy bolters and Autocannon where a potent combination, especially for an armoured company which used it as a Command tank. Even if not, it could still throw up one wall of firepower. And looked cool to boot. Aside from needing a quick bodge to get the gun barrels to sit right, it was a good model. I only ever saw the one in my LGS, and when I did I snarfled it up for myself. It's one of maybe five of my old armoured company vehicles I'm going to salvage, and definitely the oldest of the lot...

Although it is missing a half a hatch cover.... Which is of the old kind, the kind that stopped being made about whenever the last guard codex came out.

commander of the marines
30-12-2008, 21:08
the Conqueror would be a nice addition given 5th eds. nerf to defensive weps. As the only non-ord, blast LR, it fills a vital role in mobile anti-infantry.

yeah a conquer would indeed be great it's a way better anti horde tank than the normal LRBT

I alsow would like it to see the exterminator comming back, so that that dam turret is usefull for once (yeah I got an original exterminator)

DartzIRL
30-12-2008, 21:27
These things are pretty easy to convert mind.

I have made the following:
Destroyer Tank hunter.... using half an Earthshaker left from a Salamander conversion, and some spare tank wheels. Just chopped the Lascannon down, smoothed it off... glued the cannon on. Put a searchlight where the original battlecannon used to be. It was nice. It got sold.
Leman Russ Vanquisher: Using the other half of the Earthshaker Barrel, spliced into a Battle Cannon barrel. Chopped it right before the muzzle break, glued in the Earthshaker bit, then added the brake onto that. Looked okay, even if the joint was rough. Sold with the Destroyer.
Salamander: Basilisk chassis with Autocannon from a heavy weapons team and some crew for it. Kept this one.

Those are pretty easy.
3 tank kits and a heavy weapons team gave me enough to do all that. And I made a slight profit.

Now then, getting a bit theoretical....

Leman Russ Conqueror: Chop down the barrel of the battle cannon. Use only the mid section and muzzle brake.
Leman Russ Annihilator: Two spare Lascannon... chopped a bit, mounted to the battle cannon mount.
Leman Russ Exterminator: The same and in progress.... right now. I literally just started doing it a half hour before I posted above. Results in the Treadhead thread when it's finished.

EDIT: Got the guns in the Exterminator a different way... pics pending when I find a camera. But it really does look good.

It's not hard. Just needs a bit of gumptering, and a nice sized bit-box.
Though you do need goggles if your snipping the back of autocannon.... ouch.

Ianos
31-12-2008, 00:26
AA tanks that have bonus vs skimmers-hydra use with IA rules found in the older books for non-apocalypse games(as they were intended)

Fast ground vehicles like jeeps-DKOK centaurs, open topped carries 5 guardsman has a stubber and hull mounts whatever heavy or special weapon the squad is carrying.

Missile barrage carriers like the hammerhead only more Anti-Infantry-manticore

Comm-Repair vehicles-trojan support vehicle

Turrets-tarantula turret and drop turret platforms, sabre defense platforms

An all out assault vehicle-gorgon is a superheavy but it's the only one


Dedicated tank hunting vehicles thats pretty much what the vanquisher is, a 72" range melta gun that gets 2d6 armor pen if you use the AT round.

FW pretty much makes everything you can think of, keep your fingers crossed that they import some of it like they did with the tau skyray and Paraná.



Plastic yes please! but i will continue to use the IA flyer rules for it, making it a skimmer seriously handicaps it.

Yes i am aware that such vehicles exist in IA i was just trying to emphasize on codex IG import for 40k

@ehlijen: Its Ianos :p

Ozeor
31-12-2008, 05:17
yeah a conquer would indeed be great it's a way better anti horde tank than the normal LRBT

I alsow would like it to see the exterminator comming back, so that that dam turret is usefull for once (yeah I got an original exterminator)

How is the Conqueror better then the LRBT? The conqueror has a S7 ap4 while the LRBT has a S8 AP3, also the range on the LRBT is 72" while the conqueror is 48"

The only thing the conqueror has extra is the free coaxial storm bolter, the conqueror costs 5 more points then the LRBT.

MajorWesJanson
31-12-2008, 06:54
I really want the "Destroyer Tank Hunter" shooting it's "Laser Destroyer."

On a side note did a 3 year old name this tank.

I always figured the tank was named for it's gun, as opposed to some sort of Demolisher armed tank hunter or a Lascannon armed Tank hunter.

Reece
31-12-2008, 11:52
How is the Conqueror better then the LRBT? The conqueror has a S7 ap4 while the LRBT has a S8 AP3, also the range on the LRBT is 72" while the conqueror is 48"

The only thing the conqueror has extra is the free coaxial storm bolter, the conqueror costs 5 more points then the LRBT.
Well... with the Conqueror, you can fire the small blast template in addition to the three heavy bolters, coaxial storm bolter and the pintle stubber. :)

As far as better... eh, it just has a different role. :)

-Reece

Ozeor
31-12-2008, 12:28
Well... with the Conqueror, you can fire the small blast template in addition to the three heavy bolters, coaxial storm bolter and the pintle stubber. :)

As far as better... eh, it just has a different role. :)

-Reece


Ahh so your saying the conqueror's rule allows it to trump the 5th and fire everything on the move even though its def weapons are higher then S4?

MrP
31-12-2008, 13:02
Ahh so your saying the conqueror's rule allows it to trump the 5th and fire everything on the move even though its def weapons are higher then S4?

Well, that was its benefit last ed. But as far as I can see, he didn't mention it moving and firing, just firing.

Makes a mess of the fluff not to have it move and fire, of course. Fingers crossed the coming codex will do summat about that.

ehlijen
31-12-2008, 13:24
The qonqueror still gets more shots on the move than any other russ: 2 SB, 3 PHS and 3 HB shots. No other russ can get that by virtue of not being able to take both a stubber and a SB.

MrP
31-12-2008, 14:15
The qonqueror still gets more shots on the move than any other russ: 2 SB, 3 PHS and 3 HB shots. No other russ can get that by virtue of not being able to take both a stubber and a SB.

Well, not "on the move". That was the point of Ozeor's post.

Ozeor
31-12-2008, 20:54
Yeah the conqueror I believe has lost it's identity, It can now only fire it's big gun on the move, and even then i would rather have a LRBT doing that for me. Also the executioner is a much better anti horde unit in 5th now in my opinion, For only 147 points your getting 14 shots a turn sitting still, It works out to be 2 twin linked s7 ap4 shots, 9 str s5 ap4 and 3 s6 ap 4 shots. So executioner=14 shots 147pts, Conqueror=14shots plus the battle cannon for 175pts.

In my opinion the extra 28pts isnt worth it, Better to take a LRBT or executioner for anti horde.

Colonel_Kreitz
31-12-2008, 21:19
The Exterminator has taken a hit in 5th edition, too. In fact... most of the Russ variants have.

In 4th edition, the Exterminator, Executioner, and Conqueror were characterized by their ability to lay down vast amounts of fire on the move (main weapon, 3 heavy bolters, plus stubber/storm bolters). These days, however, the mobility is gone and the tanks are fairly overpriced in my opinion.

All 3 have been reduced in effectiveness and, by comparison, the standard Leman Russ is better than ever; there are no longer partials or move & shoot penalties on Ordnance. Granted, the Russ will probably kill fewer enemy swarm-models with a single battlecannon shot than most variants would with their massed fire, but the Battlecannon is vastly superior against MEQs and the Russ performs better on the move for fewer points.

Good deal if you ask me...

DartzIRL
31-12-2008, 21:27
Yeah, but a bit boring, and lacking the satisfaction of a handful of dice... Variety is the spice of life after all, especially with Imperial Guard tanks. And sometimes, ordnance is boring.

Reece
01-01-2009, 03:30
I've played a few games of Armored Company in 5th. Let me say that not being able to move... SUCKS. Exterminators (I don't use Conquerors) aren't worthless, they're just much harder to use now.

I get in trouble from Space Marine Scouts... Drop Podding Dreads and Fleeting Defilers?? Forget it.

A base Russ with no sponsons though... they aren't too bad. No penalty for moving anymore and blast templates are a bit nastier than before.

Anyway... they need to do something with the Tanks. Drop the price or make em move and fire. :)

Back on topic for a sec... :) I've got the first 3rd Ed IG Dex and the Griffon, Exterminator and Vanquisher are all in there. I hope at the very least we get those three back. :)

-Reece

AngryAngel
01-01-2009, 04:52
Well I am hopping the new IG are tank heavy. If they are, watch out I'll be all over the battlefield with a brand new IG tank heavy army. I use tons of troops with all my other armies. Would be nice to drop ord a plenty and just live on the luck.

electricblooz
01-01-2009, 16:41
How is the Conqueror better then the LRBT? The conqueror has a S7 ap4 while the LRBT has a S8 AP3, also the range on the LRBT is 72" while the conqueror is 48"

The only thing the conqueror has extra is the free coaxial storm bolter, the conqueror costs 5 more points then the LRBT.

The only relative bonus of the LRBT is the AP3 v. AP4 (which, of course, is only important if you're playing marines). the additional range is nominal on a normal table and the difference between S7 and S8 is nominal except against MC's.

As a trade off, the Conqueror is the only MBT with a blast weapon in the IG arsenal that can fire all it's weapons when it sits still. Since the Conqueror cannon is not ord, it can fire both it's main gun and 3 HB's plus the coaxe SB and the Pintel SB/HS. I know you won't believe me, but the total potential output of a Conqueror dwarfs an LRBT against any target with less than a +3 Sv. The only comparable is the LR with the twinlinked autocannons (I forget the name) - I just think that particular tank looks goofy.

the1stpip
01-01-2009, 17:08
Shelf space isn't a problem, as they will combine kits.

So the Salamander would come as part of a Chimera and maybe Hellhound kit.

Chem-Dog
01-01-2009, 17:13
There's what looks like a new tank in the Rule Book, and there has also been a CAD image for what looks like an Executioner turret. (That's the one with the plasma cannon, IIRC)

The CAD team have stated that the appearance of a CAD schematic is not a guarantee of an actual model.


Why did GW expunged all tanks (except LRBT and LRD) from the last Codex? Was an explanation provided for their choice?

It was 99% shelf space issue, it also happened about the time that GW first started to dislike hybrid kits, all of the dropped kits were hybrid although that could be down to their not selling so well due to increased cost and reduced ease of assembly associated with metal kits.

Personally, I think that most of the abandoned oldies will be back, Russ Variants with different turret weapons something that's eminently doable nowadays.
The Current WD mentions the release of a "Direct Only" Plastic Ork Vehicle accessory sprue (including Deff Rolla) so an equivalent IG kit with some of the less common weapons on it seems likely.

Newer (or at least never before properly covered in a 40K kit) additions could be Chimera Variants, The Chimerax, Chimerro and Chimedon would be welcome additions, offering a little more flexibility in transport armaments.

Colonel_Kreitz
02-01-2009, 04:46
I know you won't believe me, but the total potential output of a Conqueror dwarfs an LRBT against any target with less than a +3 Sv. The only comparable is the LR with the twinlinked autocannons (I forget the name) - I just think that particular tank looks goofy.

I do agree that against anything other than MEQ or better, the Conqueror/Exterminator/Executioner is superior when stationary (doubly so because of the prevalence of cover saves, where they can equal a LRBT engaging targets in cover).

The problem, though, is that lack of mobility is a massive problem. 5th Edition permits far greater mobility than 4th edition, due to running. Additionally, real LOS (at least in most games I've played) adversely impacts targetting opportunities for my "gun-line" units. The net effect of this is that most of my tanks have fewer kill-zones from their deployment zones and enemy units tend to move through my kill-zones very quickly. Mobility therefore tends to be very important and the LRBT wins out in this regard.

Still like to use my Executioner though... it's a fun tank!

Dangersaurus
02-01-2009, 06:05
Ahh so your saying the conqueror's rule allows it to trump the 5th and fire everything on the move even though its def weapons are higher then S4?

I think he's pointing out that with the standard Russ you can't fire anything along with the battle cannon (even defensive weapons)... thus the Conqueror can lay down more fire whether it's moving or not.