PDA

View Full Version : Why squadrons of Leman Russ?



sergentzimm
09-04-2009, 13:06
Ok so my local store got their preview codex and it is cool. My problem is with the Leman Russ, and other, squadrons of vehicles. Unless I am missing a part, but it does discuss squadrons in the front of the book.

So what is bad about squadrons you might ask? Two things. One, an imobilize result will destroy a vehicle. That means that you can glance kill a leman russ.

Two is that you now have 3 tanks that have to fire on the same unit. This is not as cool as I was hoping. Not being able to split fire kind of sucks. This is not the worst of the two issues, but it is still a problem to deal with.

So overall the codex is great, but I wanted to see if anyone else thinks this willl be a problem for the book?

sigur
09-04-2009, 13:09
I don't see any problem at all. You get the same options as in the current codex PLUS the possibility to field even more than one Leman Russ per HS slot. It's not that you're being forced to have squadrons of tanks if I remember correctly.

Mannimarco
09-04-2009, 13:10
you cant split the fire? that sucks, so now the tanks are more expensive but have the lumbering rule so we get to fire everything but it must be at the same target

does seem a waste of points buying that 3rd russ now, after all unless you are really unlucky there wont be many survivors from a squad that just got shelled by the full firepower of 2 russes

invinciblebug
09-04-2009, 13:12
How can a option be a problem, I loled at that.

You can still just take 1 Leeman russ in each slot and they wont count as squadrons. Your simply given the option of more leeman russes at the cost of less survivability and being forced to target one unit.

On the other hand 1 squadron of 3 leeman russes is only 1 KP, and against some enemies having to target the same unit isn't so much of a problem, for instance 3 battlecanons and 9 heavy bolters is pretty much the perfect average for taking out a ork mob (and that is even before counting in any KFFs and cover).

With squadrons you have 1 KP that will pretty much allways net you 1 KP per turn.

Pretty much every non IG player is complaining that 9 leeman russes is overpowered and a small minority of the IG players are complaining that it is underpowered (:wtf:) So that should mean that it at least is balanced.

MajorWesJanson
09-04-2009, 13:13
Hmm, I can imagine lots of fun with guard vs guard, squadrons of Leman Russ tanks potting away at enemy squadrons.

Are track guards still in? Those would help a lot for squadron rules.

Korras
09-04-2009, 13:14
I'm thinking of running with 2 regular russes, and 1 executioner, in a single squadron.

I do have one question regarding this, though: does hit allocation for vehicles work the same as it does for infantry, ie: different equipment / weapons is quite favourable?

Tae
09-04-2009, 13:16
Yes, as others have said you can still take them individually to split fire/avoid the immoblise=destroy problem.

Frankly if they hadn't been in squadrons the number of battlecannons firing at different targets would have made for a very unfun game for IG opponents. (As it is the thought of 8 pie-plates (max in 1500 points allowance) being split between 3 of my units is a worrying enough thought).

RCgothic
09-04-2009, 13:17
Oh for the love of...

No-one is forcing you to take more than 3 Leman Russes. Don't like squadrons, don't take them.

But personally I think squadrons have benefits which are completely worth it.
For a start you can present AV14 to a wider arc. Up to 3 tanks is a phenomenally robust 1KP. Stunned counts as shaken. If 50% is in cover all are in cover. Tanks ignore each other for Line of sight. As each squad generally has only one AT weapon, you can stack any damage result on one vehicle, so long as it isn't destroyed, leaving the other free to fire. You can take more tanks giving better armour saturation.

If those benefits don't outweigh 'additional 1/6th chance of destruction' and 'must fire at same target' I don't know what will.

Lord Damocles
09-04-2009, 13:17
Why?

MOAR TANKS!


You need more than that?

RichBlake
09-04-2009, 13:18
Oh for the love of...

If 50% of the squadron is in cover, the entire squadron is. Tanks ignore each other for Line of sight.



Wrong. Vehicles get cover seperatley.

Why are you given the option?

So you can if you want to.

I've written a 1500 point list with 3 leman russes, 3 demolsishers and 2 vanquishers.

Probably wont do very well but my opponent would crap themselves.

Griffin
09-04-2009, 13:19
MOAR TANKS!

*it's not like your forced to take squadrens - whats the problem ?

Orcboy_Phil
09-04-2009, 13:21
I can't really see a problem here. You don't need to take them as Squadrons. In fact I wouldn't really take them as such. Now Griffins and the other artillary I would, with Camo nets so they get there 6+/3+ cover saves. Also the rule if I remember corrdctly is not lumbering persay. It allows you to fire your turrent weapon and ONE additional weapon. So no 9 heavy bolters I afraid. Only 3.

RCgothic
09-04-2009, 13:25
Wrong. Vehicles get cover seperatley.

My bad. Got confused by the number of people chucking it around. Still, I think squadrons, particularly pairs of russes are well worth it.
EDIT: WOAH! I take this back. I was right to begin with. Use vehicle rules to determine if each squadron member is in cover, then normal unit rules to see if entire unit is in cover. p64 BRB.

I'd be fielding:
Pair of Russes
Pair of Eradicators or Trio of Griffons
Vanquisher with Knight Commander Pask.


Also the rule if I remember corrdctly is not lumbering persay. It allows you to fire your turrent weapon and ONE additional weapon. So no 9 heavy bolters I afraid. Only 3.
You don't. The Rule is turret in addition to other weapons. If you stay still, everything. If you move, Turret +1 main and all defensives.

Bunnahabhain
09-04-2009, 13:28
Yes, hit allocation for squadrons works the same way as wound allocation for squads ( p64 BRB " allocates the [hits] to squadron members as he would to members of a normal unit."

I feel that maybe with the increased sponson and upgrade costs, and the relatively high base costs of the tanks, apocalypse squadrons would have been more reasonable- you get a bonus for staying in coherency.
That's my gut feeling, I'll see how it actually plays within the context of the whole book.

The new Leman Russ xyz is certainly not bad, and most of the main guns look at least viable, and you always have the option of taking them as single tanks.

The squadron rules look far more use for the artillery. The reason nobody took Griffons last time they were in the main book was that one medium strength ordnance template was a waste of the FOC slot, when you could have heavy artillery or Russes.
Now, the choice of taking a couple of these cheaper tanks in one slot is much more balanced against heavier ones, and points becomes the limit again.

Of course, it does let people use, and GW sell more tanks...

Captain Micha
09-04-2009, 13:29
I think squadron rules negate the entire point of fielding a Russ myself. any roll of 4+ pops them (2+ if it's Eldar Firedragons with Exarch!)

Squadrons on Russ bad idea.

Squadrons of Bassies? Not bad idea. Bassies actually -get something- synergy wise for being in a squadron. Ontop of that, you don't use them even remotely the same as a Russ. Where a Russ you want to be able to see enemies with. That's the -last- thing you want with Bassies.

Necromancer2
09-04-2009, 13:47
I agree that squadrons are best used for artillery over tanks, Unless your enemy doesn't have much anti-tank... i.e Orks,nids.

invinciblebug
09-04-2009, 13:58
I agree that squadrons are best used for artillery over tanks, Unless your enemy doesn't have much anti-tank... i.e Orks,nids.

Actually I would be less happy to have a fex/PK in CC with my russ squad than I would be by most other anti tank weapons out there.

Rirekon
09-04-2009, 13:58
Does the last vehicle in a squadron still follow squadron rules? (i.e. being immobalised = destroyed)

Raxmei
09-04-2009, 14:00
Does the last vehicle in a squadron still follow squadron rules? (i.e. being immobalised = destroyed)No. If a squadron consists of a single vehicle at the time it is attacked it reverts to the normal vehicle damage rules.

That's another page I might have to bookmark.

Saim-Hann Lord
09-04-2009, 14:05
you cant split the fire? that sucks, so now the tanks are more expensive but have the lumbering rule so we get to fire everything but it must be at the same target

does seem a waste of points buying that 3rd russ now, after all unless you are really unlucky there wont be many survivors from a squad that just got shelled by the full firepower of 2 russes

Is this the time to hope that you actually scatter then? I spent all of last night building my third Russ in anticipation for the squadron. The immobilised being destroyed I get...because if I get an immobilised Vyper then my other one just floats round it making himself a big target.

But shooting at only one squad...I kinda get. A 10 man squad can only fire at one unit. A 3 tank squad should do the same...just seems a bit overkill really...depends what you're shooting at I guess.

ehlijen
09-04-2009, 14:05
Squadrons are in fact either all in cover or all out of cover. You use the normal vehicle rules for determining if each vehicle on its own would have been in cover (ignoring the presence of squadrons memebers even if they would provide such cover) and then if 50% or more are in cover, all get cover; otherwise no-one gets cover. It's all in the vehicle squadron 'shooting phase' rules.

Another thing about russ squadrons: all those blast weapons are resolved simultaneously, ie the enemy does not get to remove casualties in between each shot in a pattern intended to minimise the number of hits from the following shots. So 3 squadroned BCs firing at the ork mob are more likely to wipe it out than 3 BCs firing one after the other.

Griefbringer
09-04-2009, 14:08
How can a option be a problem

Some people want to both have their cake and eat it. :cool:

Of course, lemon russ is not a cake but another type of a dessert.

RCgothic
09-04-2009, 14:15
Squadrons are in fact either all in cover or all out of cover. You use the normal vehicle rules for determining if each vehicle on its own would have been in cover (ignoring the presence of squadrons memebers even if they would provide such cover) and then if 50% or more are in cover, all get cover; otherwise no-one gets cover. It's all in the vehicle squadron 'shooting phase' rules.


Thanks Ehlijen, I allowed myself to be convinced I'd got it wrong because when called out I didn't read the entire paragraph. Thanks for showing me I was right originally. BRB p64.



Of course, lemon russ is not a cake but another type of a dessert.Indeed, they are 'Just' Desserts for the enemies of mankind.

shutupSHUTUP!!!
09-04-2009, 14:45
You don't have to take a squadron of 3. If you have 3 Russes and some points spare, you might be inclined to put 2 of them in a squadron and buy a Griffon. Or a pair of Griffons in a squadron and two independant Russes. It gives you flexibility with heavy choices.

invinciblebug
09-04-2009, 14:48
Is this the time to hope that you actually scatter then? I spent all of last night building my third Russ in anticipation for the squadron. The immobilised being destroyed I get...because if I get an immobilised Vyper then my other one just floats round it making himself a big target.

But shooting at only one squad...I kinda get. A 10 man squad can only fire at one unit. A 3 tank squad should do the same...just seems a bit overkill really...depends what you're shooting at I guess.

In 5th overkill is often a good thing as you don't want that last squad member surviving to rob you a KP or snatch a objective.

freddieyu
09-04-2009, 14:55
I like the idea with the 2 griffons..in the new dex griffons get a re-roll for scatter right? (was that rumor confirmed?). If so Griffons can become viable medium-light vehicle killers due to barrages hitting the side armor, and the double large pie plate can really cause hurt on tightly packed infantry (even MEQ's), and cause a double pinning check (or is it only 1 pin check since the unit is in a squadron? damn these details......)

Lowmans
09-04-2009, 14:58
Slightly absurd whinge this.

Either have less Tanks - 1 per Heavy Support choice people aren't happy but it's reasonably balanced

Have Squadrons - Lots of tanks, people are happy and it's reasonably balanced

Have 3 independent tanks per Heavy support choice - nobody is happy and it's horribly imbalanced.

Tough choice for the designer then....

invinciblebug
09-04-2009, 15:01
Slightly absurd whinge this.

Either have less Tanks - 1 per Heavy Support choice people aren't happy but it's reasonably balanced

Have Squadrons - Lots of tanks, people are happy and it's reasonably balanced

Have 3 independent tanks per Heavy support choice - nobody is happy and it's horribly imbalanced.

Tough choice for the designer then....

QFT

All guard players want more tanks, but giving us ''3 a slot'' without squadroning them would be horribly overpowered.

MrMojoZ
09-04-2009, 15:13
I think the rules are well balanced. Sure an IG player can get a wall of AV14 but it has a built in drawback. Also it lets me field the Armoured Company that I want to play with no questions of legality.

Rirekon
09-04-2009, 15:40
No. If a squadron consists of a single vehicle at the time it is attacked it reverts to the normal vehicle damage rules.

That's another page I might have to bookmark.

So basically if you want more than 3 tanks in your force there's no down side... yeah I see why this would be a problem :rolleyes:

(Thanks for the info Raxmei :D)

Captain Micha
09-04-2009, 15:45
I never asked for more than three russes honestly. I think that'd be too many eggs in very few baskets.

T_55
09-04-2009, 15:51
QFT

All guard players want more tanks, but giving us ''3 a slot'' without squadroning them would be horribly overpowered.

Just curious, but, how so?

RCgothic
09-04-2009, 15:55
Ability to put a S8 Large Blast on up to 9 seperate targets. Some armies don't even have that many units. It'd be a massacre.

Mannimarco
09-04-2009, 15:55
cos you get 3 heavy support slots, that means now i can have 9 russ max instaed of 3, thats where people think its overpowered


dang i got ninjad

sergentzimm
09-04-2009, 15:56
QFT

All guard players want more tanks, but giving us ''3 a slot'' without squadroning them would be horribly overpowered.

After some more thought, I believe this accounts for the necessary of the squadron. It would be a bit over the top for them all to fire separately.

I still dont like the glance kill. I know bringing in common sense hurts but I just dont see a tank following the same rules as the support vehicles, ala viper and sentinals...

invinciblebug
09-04-2009, 15:57
Just curious, but, how so?

9 Leeman russes is inherently overpowered, very few armies have the kind of anti tank fire power to deal with it, therefore it has to have some kind of drawback thus squadrons.

9 av 14 vehicles that can cover 177''≤ of the table with str 8 death and fire a total of 81 heavy bolter shots each turn isn't balanced. This can can fit into 1530pts leaving you with more than enough points to buy lots of infantry for objective grabbing in 2000pts and only forcing you to drop one tank in 1750pts

Rirekon
09-04-2009, 16:00
9 Leman Russ isn't even the problem; It's 3 Leman Russ plus 2 other HS choices that causes the problem

RCgothic
09-04-2009, 16:00
Although the immobilised-abandon result is up there with killpoints as wtf moments.

Individual vehicles don't get abandoned if they're immobilised. 4th ed had it better, the vehicle is only abandoned if the rest of the squadron moves out of coherency.

MrMojoZ
09-04-2009, 16:04
9 Leman Russ isn't even the problem; It's 3 Leman Russ plus 2 other HS choices that causes the problem

There is no problem, those three Lemans being in a squadron just isn't the same as having 3 seperate Russes + more HS choices.

Bunnahabhain
09-04-2009, 16:09
9 Leeman russes is inherently overpowered, very few armies have the kind of anti tank fire power to deal with it, therefore it has to have some kind of drawback thus squadrons.

9 av 14 vehicles that can cover 177''≤ of the table with str 8 death and fire a total of 81 heavy bolter shots each turn isn't balanced. This can can fit into 1530pts leaving you with more than enough points to buy lots of infantry for objective grabbing in 1750 or 2000pts


I totally disagree.

The Russes have no close combat power, and no ability to take objectives.
Few armies have the firepower to deal with it, except probably Dark Eldar, but just about all can take it down in close assault. Even guardsmen with frag grenades can do it.

Also, would your really say that 220 pt ( 1750-1530) is enough to buy lots of infantry, to fill both your HQ and troops sections? From what we know, that will just get you your legal minimum, assuming you go for the cheapest options.

danny-d-b
09-04-2009, 16:12
9 russ thats easy

2 landradercrusader, opsit sides of the board

turn one move up, fire smoke

guard player blasts away, might kill one, not a problem

other landraider and termanaters get out and start slamming thunder hammers in to things

freddieyu
09-04-2009, 16:16
And that is the geist of any solution.....and a chaos daemon army that gets lucky and manages to deploy everything correctly by turn 2 will cause a LOT of problems.....

kikkoman
09-04-2009, 16:22
6-10 fire dragons destroy 3 russes with the same ease of destroying 1 russ.

That's probably the biggest drawback of squadrons.

Badger[Fr]
09-04-2009, 16:34
6-10 fire dragons destroy 3 russes with the same ease of destroying 1 russ.

Not to mention any unit with enough S8+ or rending attacks, such as Terminators, Nobz, Genestealers, Arlequins, Seer Councils... Enjoy your 600-point squadron being wiped out in a single turn.

Robineng
09-04-2009, 16:51
This makes me want to start a Imperial Guard army even more. Tank squadrons seems insanely interesting. :D

Ekranoplan
09-04-2009, 17:08
;3454058']Not to mention any unit with enough S8+ or rending attacks, such as Terminators, Nobz, Genestealers, Arlequins, Seer Councils... Enjoy your 600-point squadron being wiped out in a single turn.

Deffinetly. These are the reasons why I was not to keen on tank squadrons to begin with, but the tank squadrons will only be vulnerable to massive CC death if you take 3 squadrons of 3 leman russ variants. What is really nice and convenient I that I can take 2 leman russ, easily defend them with infantry, and then have some artillery and hydras. Then you should have a enough points to defend these tanks with infantry.

If you are not doing a static gunline, I am not sure how tanks squadrons would work. I guess you could use lots of chimeras to try and block the enemy.

invinciblebug
09-04-2009, 17:10
I totally disagree.

The Russes have no close combat power, and no ability to take objectives.
Few armies have the firepower to deal with it, except probably Dark Eldar, but just about all can take it down in close assault. Even guardsmen with frag grenades can do it.


But the problem is actually reaching 9 leeman russes that can fire a battlecanon and 3 heavy bolters each plus that if you reach the leeman russes you can only kill one each turn (Unless the IG player is stupid enough to bunch them up.)

danny-d-b
09-04-2009, 17:12
well due to the fact they have to be within either 2 or 4 inchers (I can't rember now) your going to have atleast 3 tanks you can assalt

Grazzy
09-04-2009, 17:22
6 Leman Russes sounds cool - I might start a guard army.

All mech sounds great in the new codex with loads of tanks, cheap chimeras and great Fast Attack vehicles.

Firewarrior079
09-04-2009, 17:32
danny: Unit coherency for vehicle squadrons are 6" from the egdes, plenty of room to avoid having multiple tanks assaulted.

As for a 'immobilised'=destroyed in squadrons, I believe this is misinterpreted. I don't have the rules with me but isn't it that it only counts as destroyed for kp purposes and is only truly destroyed if the remainder of the squadron leaves it behind.

In other words, if 1 tank of three is immobilised but the rest stay in coherency with it, it may still operate as normal for the shooting phase.
Can anyone confirm?

danny-d-b
09-04-2009, 17:38
danny: Unit coherency for vehicle squadrons are 6" from the egdes, plenty of room to avoid having multiple tanks assaulted.
page 64, "all of its vehicles have to maintain coherecy just like other units but vehicles only need to remain within 4" rather than 2"

As for a 'immobilised'=destroyed in squadrons, I believe this is misinterpreted. I don't have the rules with me but isn't it that it only counts as destroyed for kp purposes and is only truly destroyed if the remainder of the squadron leaves it behind.
to represent this count all immobilised as destoyed

In other words, if 1 tank of three is immobilised but the rest stay in coherency with it, it may still operate as normal for the shooting phase.
Can anyone confirm?

you wrong mate
both are made very clear on page 64

MadJackMcJack
09-04-2009, 17:43
As for a 'immobilised'=destroyed in squadrons, I believe this is misinterpreted. I don't have the rules with me but isn't it that it only counts as destroyed for kp purposes and is only truly destroyed if the remainder of the squadron leaves it behind.

In other words, if 1 tank of three is immobilised but the rest stay in coherency with it, it may still operate as normal for the shooting phase.
Can anyone confirm?

That was 4th edition. Immobilised counted as immobilised, and the vehicle only blew up if the others left coherency. In 5th, immobilised = kaboom, but you get crew stunned = crew shaken as compensation.

And why are people talking like Leman Russes are easy to destroy? Sure, they have no fancy tricks like holo-fields or decoy launchers, but what they do have is lots and lots of guns. Big guns. The trick to taking down a Russ is surviving long enough to get to grips with it, and it won't make it easy!

Charistoph
09-04-2009, 17:44
...

The Russes have no close combat power, and no ability to take objectives.
Few armies have the firepower to deal with it, except probably Dark Eldar, but just about all can take it down in close assault. Even guardsmen with frag grenades can do it.

A Full Tau Broadside Squad could pop a squad a turn easily enough. Devestator Squad with Lascannons. Aforementioned Fire Dragons.

But the real question is will this trend continue with the upcoming codeci? 3 Predators, Whirlwinds, or Land Raiders per HS Slot? 3 Hammerheads or Sky Rays? 3 Carnifexes per slot? 3 Fire Prisms? Imagine the carnage that could ensue with some of these options.

Neftus
09-04-2009, 17:47
I'd imagine taking a squad of 2 can be a good idea.

You can take 1 naked Russ along with 1 tricked out Russ that has all the bells and whistles. Use the naked one to absorb damage and shaken results so your expensive, bling-bling, plasma spam Russ of Death is free to shoot at whatever it wants. Plus, when the naked one dies, the expensive one is free to act as a normal tank.

So your HS slots can look like this:

Russ Squad:
-Naked Russ
- Executioner $$$ (Die Plague Marines Die)

Single Russ

Arty Squad:
-3 griffon or bassy or w/e

The only disadvantage the squadron brings is in the case against Fire Dragons or AT melee troops, as people mentioned earlier. However, as long as you don't play like an idiot you can avoid those things with the help of the rest of your army. The point isn't to spam Russ squadrons so your opponent can easily exploit their weaknesses, but to employ them in such a way that the advantages justify their use.

danny-d-b
09-04-2009, 17:49
I'd imagine taking a squad of 2 can be a good idea.

You can take 1 naked Russ along with 1 tricked out Russ that has all the bells and whistles. Use the naked one to absorb damage and shaken results so your expensive, bling-bling, plasma spam Russ of Death is free to shoot at whatever it wants. Plus, when the naked one dies, the expensive one is free to act as a normal tank.

So your HS slots can look like this:

Russ Squad:
-Naked Russ
- Executioner $$$ (Die Plague Marines Die)

Single Russ

Arty Squad:
-3 griffon or bassy or w/e

The only disadvantage the squadron brings is in the case against Fire Dragons or AT melee troops. However, as long as you don't play like an idiot you can avoid those things with the help of the rest of your army. The point isn't to spam Russ squadrons so your opponent can easily exploit their weaknesses, but to employ them in such a way that the advantages justify their use.


the problem is the dammage is randomised between the tanks!

MrBims
09-04-2009, 18:04
the problem is the dammage is randomised between the tanks!

Damage isn't "randomized". You allocate glancing and penetrating results equally across tanks: if a squadron of two tanks takes 1 glance and 2 pens, the defending player may put both penetrations on one tank and the glance on another. If the squadron had three tanks, then two would have 1 pen and one would have 1 glance.

Raxmei
09-04-2009, 18:12
Hits on vehicle squadrons in an assault are distributed among the squadron as a whole, just like with shooting. One tank gets assaulted and the whole squadron is vulnerable.

Neftus
09-04-2009, 18:27
Damage isn't "randomized". You allocate glancing and penetrating results equally across tanks: if a squadron of two tanks takes 1 glance and 2 pens, the defending player may put both penetrations on one tank and the glance on another. If the squadron had three tanks, then two would have 1 pen and one would have 1 glance.

Yes.

Plus, most of the time squads will only put out 1 glance or pen against an AV 14 Tank. The exception is fire dragons, MM bikes and other heavy AT squads that managed to get too close for comfort.

But those are avoidable if played right

Additionally, I think people are underestimating how effective using "cover tricks" in vehical squads of 2 can be.

Such as positioning the tanks on opposite sides of a barricade or wall, so any angled shot gives the squad a cover save.

Or if one tank gets shaken, drive it behind a wall or chimera for a turn so that the other tank blazing away in the open gets a cover save. Camo netting makes this even more annoying.

invinciblebug
09-04-2009, 18:27
well due to the fact they have to be within either 2 or 4 inchers (I can't rember now) your going to have atleast 3 tanks you can assalt

If you had checked the last page you would have noticed we were discussing whether it would be over powered if you could take 9 russes without taking them in squadrons.

RCgothic
09-04-2009, 18:41
Hits on vehicle squadrons in an assault are distributed among the squadron as a whole, just like with shooting. One tank gets assaulted and the whole squadron is vulnerable.

Most squads only have one AT weapon, such as 1 lascannon or missile launcher. Hits are resolved by squad, so if five successive squads cause penetrating hits, you can keep giving them to the same tank, and its squadron mates will be completely unaffected.

Vaktathi
09-04-2009, 18:48
Leman Russ squadrons definitely have some disadvantages, they are much more vulnerable than I think they should be, the current vehicle squadron rules are much more punitive than they should be overall for just about every type of squadron.


That said, I think they are still viable *if* you build the army around them. For a 2000pt list, if you've got 3 squads of 2 LR's, 3 single Vendetta's, and 2 kitted 35man platoons and an HQ command squad, you've got 6 pie-plates that are also firing 54 heavy bolter shots, 7 infantry, and 3 AV 12 fast skimmers firing 9 TL lascannons. Use the infantry to screen the tanks, the skimmers to kill enemy tanks, and your tanks to paste enemy infantry.

Putting out such firepower can cripple many opponents in one or two turns of shooting rather easily.

MVBrandt
09-04-2009, 18:52
Aye, all sorta been mentioned, but the squadrons have value if you're spamming Russes, or trying to fit artillery in w/ some Russes, etc.

LordofWar1986
09-04-2009, 18:55
For a 2000pt list, if you've got 3 squads of 2 LR's, 3 single Vendetta's, and 2 kitted 35man platoons and an HQ command squad, you've got 6 pie-plates that are also firing 54 heavy bolter shots, 7 infantry, and 3 AV 12 fast skimmers firing 9 TL lascannons. Use the infantry to screen the tanks, the skimmers to kill enemy tanks, and your tanks to paste enemy infantry.

Trying to fit in some chimeras into that list would make it a very good all-rounder type of guard list. Being with how cheap chimeras are now.

noobzilla
09-04-2009, 18:57
Putting out such firepower can cripple many opponents in one or two turns of shooting rather easily.


No offense at all, but isn't that the point of Guard? They are supposed to be a shooty army not a CC army. :)

I'll probably end up taking a squadron consisting of 2 LR + 1 Demolisher myself, with a squadron of 2 Basilisks.

Toss in a sqaudron of 2 Hellhounds and a Valkyrie and I think my Guard is really hard to beat, considering I have 70 more guys! :)

AllisterCaine
09-04-2009, 19:21
Trying to fit in some chimeras into that list would make it a very good all-rounder type of guard list. Being with how cheap chimeras are now.

Cheaper doesn't mean its better. If you're just going to squeeze in chimeras just because they're cheap...well that's stupid. They have to serve a purpose, and frankly that purpose can be better served by other units in the codex right now.

As squadrons go, it simply follows the rule "less is more". The more tanks you have, the less effective each individual tank will be. That doesn't mean they're bad though, because each LR is still pretty damn effective. Pair them up to complement each other, IE a normal Russ with an Exterminator. Pie plate to thin their ranks, followed by 18 HB shots and 4 TLAC shots.

Marneus Calgar
09-04-2009, 19:29
Cheaper doesn't mean its better. If you're just going to squeeze in chimeras just because they're cheap...well that's stupid. They have to serve a purpose, and frankly that purpose can be better served by other units in the codex right now.

As squadrons go, it simply follows the rule "less is more". The more tanks you have, the less effective each individual tank will be. That doesn't mean they're bad though, because each LR is still pretty damn effective. Pair them up to complement each other, IE a normal Russ with an Exterminator. Pie plate to thin their ranks, followed by 18 HB shots and 4 TLAC shots.

I thought that all shots are worked at the same time in 5th Edition. This means that if you do acheive a lot of wounds from the battle cannon shot, the opponent can allocate the AP3 wounds on as few as possible.

Maine
09-04-2009, 19:42
I still dont like the glance kill. I know bringing in common sense hurts but I just dont see a tank following the same rules as the support vehicles, ala viper and sentinals...

With 14/13/10 armor, the chances of an actual kill are relatively low. Assuming a hit (so these chances are even lower given BS/scatter), the percentage chances of an actual hit on front or side armor of a squadroned Russ being a kill are:

First number is regular weapon, second is Ordnance. This doesn't take into consideration AP1



Str Front (Ord) Side (Ord)
7 -- 2.8 (5.1)
8 2.8 (5.1) 11.1 (19.5)
9 11.1 (19.5) 19.4 (30.2)


For comparison, a non squadroned Russ:



Str Front (Ord) Side (Ord)
7 -- ---
8 --- 5.6 (10.2)
9 5.6 (10.2) 11.1 (18.5)


Russes are already pretty resilient. The increase in side armor from 12 to 13 will significantly imrpove their survivability. As you can see above, a Lascannon only has a 1/5 chance of popping a Russ from the side, and another Russ' battlecannon only has a 1/3 chance against the side. A non squadroned Russ is roughly twice as survivable against those shots, but the numbers were already pretty low.

Additionally, you can allocate wounds. Taking only 1 hit at a time? Keep dropping it on the same tank until it is killed.

Neftus
09-04-2009, 19:47
I thought that all shots are worked at the same time in 5th Edition. This means that if you do acheive a lot of wounds from the battle cannon shot, the opponent can allocate the AP3 wounds on as few as possible.

Yeah, which is why you'd want to be careful with which Russes you pair up, plus it gives another reason not to take expensive sponsons.

However, keep in mind wound allocation only works in complex units like devastators, nobs, or Chaos Terminators. Against a big mob of Orks or a Tac squad it probably won't matter. Iíve had people so used to the Ork Biker Nob nonsense that they start trying to use wound allocation "abuse" between identical armed models.

Blinder
09-04-2009, 19:47
While true, that actually works in favor of that combo, because your Extermnator will never thin out the BC target pool (of course, you could always just shoot the BC first anyway). I think a better example of that pairing would be that depending on if you're firing at mobs or MCs one tank can soak up shakes for the other so you have a better chance of being able to fire the "best" of the two, where it's easier in *most* cases to keep two separate tanks shaken rather than the squadron (especially if one's granting cover to boot). Overkill AT units eat the squadron in one turn rather than two, but you get more choice about what gets stopped/popped against most early-game stuff.

Basically, squadrons make it easier for your opponent to kill *a* tank, but harder for them to silence/kill the one they're more afraid of.

Raxmei
09-04-2009, 19:50
Most squads only have one AT weapon, such as 1 lascannon or missile launcher. Hits are resolved by squad, so if five successive squads cause penetrating hits, you can keep giving them to the same tank, and its squadron mates will be completely unaffected.That's nice and true but has little, if anything, to do with what I said.

It's pretty easy to equip a whole squad with weapons that can defeat rear armor in assault. Some troops even come with them by default. This is a known vulnerability of tanks. This goes double for squadrons since those attacks will be resolved against the squadron as a whole. Somebody mistakenly believed that you could shelter vehicles against assaults by using coherency to leave them unengaged. That is incorrect, and that is why I made the post that you were attempting to respond to.

There are also some units that can do the same thing with shooting, but everyone already knows about them.

darker4308
09-04-2009, 19:51
I don't know if this is going to be true so bare with me. Can orders be given to squadrons. If so .... just like eldar dropping guide ... you could drop the twin link all guns trick on 3 tanks at once as opposed to just one. This could be huge.

Raxmei
09-04-2009, 19:53
I don't know if this is going to be true so bare with me. Can orders be given to squadrons. If so .... just like eldar dropping guide ... you could drop the twin link all guns trick on 3 tanks at once as opposed to just one. This could be huge.No. Orders can not be given to vehicles or units mounted in vehicles.

RCgothic
09-04-2009, 19:54
Except the chimera, which has a special rule that allows it to send/recieve orders.

Saim-Hann Lord
09-04-2009, 20:17
Except the chimera, which has a special rule that allows it to send/recieve orders.

Yeah its the mobile command rule that allows that isn't it?

kaimarion
09-04-2009, 20:51
One question how are CC armies like nids going to cope against guard as nids can neither out gun or out number them? Oh and since we can no longer consolidate into a new combat then how are we to beat gunline guard?

As for taking why you should take squadrons of LRBTs it allows you to take more HS choices and you also have the possibility to take up 9 LRBT!

Vaktathi
09-04-2009, 20:58
One question how are CC armies like nids going to cope against guard as nids can neither out gun or out number them? Oh and since we can no longer consolidate into a new combat then how are we to beat gunline guard? multiple assaults work wonderfully, hit 2 or 3 squads at once with your huge units, and screen your killy dudes with your big weeny units for cover saves.

That's how you beat them now, that's how you will continue to do so.

Saim-Hann Lord
09-04-2009, 21:20
multiple assaults work wonderfully, hit 2 or 3 squads at once with your huge units, and screen your killy dudes with your big weeny units for cover saves.

That's how you beat them now, that's how you will continue to do so.

But if, for example, you IG opponent is fielding...say...9 mortars. Then you'll have to keep your case open for the casulaties.

I found aiming for the back of the weeny fodder allows the chance of hitting the Genestealer units behind ;)

What fun that was!!!

Jernmajoren
09-04-2009, 22:01
Squadroned LRs gets some benefits vs shooting, but is more vulnerable against assaults.
Shooting attacks always uses the facing of the nearest model in the squad (p64), so by good positioning a player could have a LR squadron effectively having AV 14 against all shooting that does not come from someone materializing behind it (whether by DS or dropped from a transport).
Armored sentinels will be able to make use of that as well.
So there will be some benefits from squadrons.
Also against complex units, the chances of important members having to make saves increases because of the increased number of shots, something that will have a impact. As an example a squadron of two Demolishers with DC, 2MM, LC could potentially kill of an entire Nob biker unit, or kill the PB through hitting every member of the unit and him failing his 4+ save, leaving it much more vulnerable to other shooting.
Overall IMO LR squadrons will be a great improvement in overall killingness of the guard while only leaving minor drawbacks that can be avoided by careful deployment and other tactics.

Decius
09-04-2009, 22:33
I think the fact that I can now have more than 3 LRMBT makes up for the disadvantages of the squadron rules. In any case, I'll find out more when I game next week with the new rules. So what if they're a little more vulnerable to assault? That just makes for a more interesting game. :p

JoeGuardsman
09-04-2009, 22:38
PROs:

1)* Wound allocation when shooting. All of you hits are counted at once making your template weapons more effective and you roll sponson/hull weapon wound rolls at the same time. This can cause the killing of special models.

2)* You can protect more important tanks in the squadron by allocating the damage rolls to cheaper vehicles.

3) Only takes up one Force Organization slot.

4) Only considered one Kill Point.

5)* One reserve roll gives you 3 tanks, instead of them trickling in.

All of the points with an asterisk have a counter point that works against it. It is going to depend on how you design your armored elements to compliment your army.

Strikerkc
09-04-2009, 22:41
I think it would have just been better to allow you to take two russes as a single heavy support. limits you to 6, but would keep them seperate vehicles.

RCgothic
09-04-2009, 22:42
Except three is more fluffy.

Strikerkc
09-04-2009, 22:48
Except three is more fluffy.

lol. fair enough. But three as a single heavy, operating seperatly, would be quite the nightmare in my opinion. Two independant tanks filling a single choice would have seemed a fair median to me ;).

invinciblebug
09-04-2009, 22:54
lol. fair enough. But three as a single heavy, operating seperatly, would be quite the nightmare in my opinion. Two independant tanks filling a single choice would have seemed a fair median to me ;).

Why not 3 in one slot but 1 only. That would mean a max of 5 russes while keeping with the fluffy 3.

Eldoriath
09-04-2009, 23:18
*sigh* Another one that doesn't realize that it's an option, you can always field them one by one as before if you wish. No one forces you to squadron them, and there actually are some perks to squadroning them. I e you can get more AV14 facing all round, you can allocate multiple single hits against the same vehicle, allowing one russ to still being able to fire even though the squadron has suffered totally 2 crew stunned and three crew shaken. Two pie plates collecting hits at the same time is also very usefull which means you could quite easily allocate 14 hits on a unit instead of 7 and 3 if you were to fire them separately.

Both options have their perks, you can choose wich you like most.

Marneus Calgar
10-04-2009, 00:36
*sigh* Another one that doesn't realize that it's an option, you can always field them one by one as before if you wish. No one forces you to squadron them, and there actually are some perks to squadroning them. I e you can get more AV14 facing all round, you can allocate multiple single hits against the same vehicle, allowing one russ to still being able to fire even though the squadron has suffered totally 2 crew stunned and three crew shaken. Two pie plates collecting hits at the same time is also very usefull which means you could quite easily allocate 14 hits on a unit instead of 7 and 3 if you were to fire them separately.

Both options have their perks, you can choose wich you like most.

Aye, it has potential. I personally like to take my Leman Russ's seperately. I like inflicting wounds on two seperate squads and have my troops go on clean up duty. Since the firepower of my Leman Russ's have increased, the clean up duty have just became easier for my troops.

Maine
10-04-2009, 00:41
I e you can get more AV14 facing all round

Yep, I plan to run in pairs and move in an outward V formation, this will give me a much larger AV14 frontage, as all shots use the AV of the facing of the nearest tank... Likewise, if your enemy is to either side, you can position them in the center facing:



Enemy <-tank1 tank2-> Enemy


and get AV13-14 on both without worrying about being maneuvered around and taking a hit in the rear.

Godgolden
10-04-2009, 00:58
squadron rule makes for some uggly battlefields.. a battlefield with the rear of lemans everywhere but still having 14 armour because one of the squadron members is closer with front armour..

and a single daemon prince can wipe out 3 lemans in one round of combat.

a battlefield where you ignore leman russes for LOS... a strange wonderous if not deadly battlefield.

but any battlefield with 9 main battle tanks and many... many chimeras... is a good battlefield.

Legionary
10-04-2009, 01:15
It would be a serious waste of points to pay for Leman Russes that can be wrecked on an immobilize. I think that squadrons of LRs are a bad idea, and I think it would've been more sensible to allow Imperial Guard one additional Heavy Support slot.

Strikerkc
10-04-2009, 01:27
Why not 3 in one slot but 1 only. That would mean a max of 5 russes while keeping with the fluffy 3.

I thought of that, but it sort of complicates things. Two per force org is simple and uniform. And in the grand scheeme of things, we're not going to actualy see more than about to 5 russes. And two per slot would still make the choice to include more than 4 account for your entire heavy support selection.

Any ways, kind of a moot point, they come in squadrons of three.

ehlijen
10-04-2009, 01:29
Do people remeber the old 3.5 Iron warriors? Do you remember how much complaining occurred because of their 4 HS slots (backed up by HS-like units in other slots)?

The game is built around 3 HS slots. Letting the IG take more than one unit per slot and having them act as seperate units breaks that, just like the IW did.

With vendettas, hellhounds et al and ludicrous amounts of infantry heavy weapons, the IG is already stretching the FO chart concept to its breaking limit. More than 3 individual russes are just not feasible while maintaining some sort of game balance.

Strikerkc
10-04-2009, 01:37
Do people remeber the old 3.5 Iron warriors? Do you remember how much complaining occurred because of their 4 HS slots (backed up by HS-like units in other slots)?

The game is built around 3 HS slots. Letting the IG take more than one unit per slot and having them act as seperate units breaks that, just like the IW did.

With vendettas, hellhounds et al and ludicrous amounts of infantry heavy weapons, the IG is already stretching the FO chart concept to its breaking limit. More than 3 individual russes are just not feasible while maintaining some sort of game balance.

Good points, but I'm not sure it's a direct comparison. The really tough part about the 4 heavies is that two of them could be tanks that the chaos army list wasn't really designed to work with in a fair way. Along with some of the best troops in the game (MOU Chaos marines) and with up to 9 oblitorators, lead by a chaos lord of awesome killy power and doom.

The presence of 4 heavies was not the problem, all of it together was the annoying bit.

freddieyu
10-04-2009, 01:40
Very interesting thread, but vehicle squadrons is what we get, so we live with it, and I expect that we shall have the experiences of several of our fellow guardsmen (as well as opponents) shared soon, with actual (maybe dramatic?) instances of the pros and cons of russes and artillery in squadrons....

kaimarion
10-04-2009, 01:44
multiple assaults work wonderfully, hit 2 or 3 squads at once with your huge units, and screen your killy dudes with your big weeny units for cover saves.

That's how you beat them now, that's how you will continue to do so.

All gaunts are going to be good for going up against a normal guard army is screening the fexs as it is very unlikely they will make it into combat and even when the fexs get there IF they get there they are going to be doing all the work and I doubt they will be able to do too much after they finish combat as every lascannon on the field will have a nice big target to put holes in :(.
As for DS unit like ravs and lictors they are going to be fire magnets for colse by units if they survive from DS in between all the tightly packed troops and scenery. Also I haven't forgot Gargoyles but they are generally over costed money and points wise.


Sorry about the premature rant by the way.

tacoo
10-04-2009, 01:44
i think in the BRB that they should have made the option of having a immoblisied tank just count as destroyed instead of forcing them to count as destroyed that way if you dont mind having your tanks sitting in one spot and fire then go on ahead. if you want that stuff to be mobile then sure it couns as destroyed. that would seem to solve alot of problems

Blinder
10-04-2009, 01:51
but, again, the counter to "wrecked on immobilized" is that *you* can pick which tank might get wrecked (by immobilization or otherwise) against most shooting rather than your opponent. And really, once a DP or the like is slicing up your squadrons it isn't saving your opponent THAT much effort. Insane shooty units have it easy, but by the time most of the really scary melee stuff is playing the tanks were probably looking at one more shot (I doubt many people are going to run a lot of trios, and even if they do chances are one will be smoking by then anyway). In return, you can do things Russes never could do before, namely be pretty reliable at forcing wound allocation since now a pair of regular MBTs present up to *two* pie-plates, 18 heavy bolter shots, and 6 stubber shots if you go for an AI loadout (and didn't want to splurge on plasma). Even without the pie-plates you have a reasonable chance of forcing a full marine squad to plunk wounds onto weapons-carriers and sarge, add them in and suddenly all sorts of units are having to roll saves for special members. Even if they're regular 3+/2+/fortuned saves on the specials because all the pie/lascannon hits go to regulars, it's a chance to hurt them MUCH earlier than your tanks ever could before. Even big ork units can start having to wound the nob by the second turn...

T_55
10-04-2009, 01:59
9 Leeman russes is inherently overpowered, very few armies have the kind of anti tank fire power to deal with it, therefore it has to have some kind of drawback thus squadrons.

9 av 14 vehicles that can cover 177''≤ of the table with str 8 death and fire a total of 81 heavy bolter shots each turn isn't balanced. This can can fit into 1530pts leaving you with more than enough points to buy lots of infantry for objective grabbing in 2000pts and only forcing you to drop one tank in 1750pts



Well, i guess in theory i could agree, but i wonder why there wasn't this much commotion about armored company...

Maine
10-04-2009, 02:02
Very interesting thread, but vehicle squadrons is what we get, so we live with it, and I expect that we shall have the experiences of several of our fellow guardsmen (as well as opponents) shared soon, with actual (maybe dramatic?) instances of the pros and cons of russes and artillery in squadrons....

Definitely have to agree.

If they only gave us 2-3 new Russ variants, and there was never a hint of squadrons, more than 1 independent per slot, or an extra slot, then I doubt you would hear much complaining.

Yet we get the return of 2 variants, the official addition of 2 Imperial Armour variants, and a brand new variant... we get side armor increased to 13... the Lumbering rule... the option of taking more than 1 Russ as a squadrons... and this doesn't even touch the additional artillery options now officially in the 'dex...

and look at all the whining that commences! I'd bet good money that, if they were independent tanks, these same people would now be complaining that they can't have tanks as troops choices.

freddieyu
10-04-2009, 02:12
Definitely have to agree.

If they only gave us 2-3 new Russ variants, and there was never a hint of squadrons, more than 1 independent per slot, or an extra slot, then I doubt you would hear much complaining.

Yet we get the return of 2 variants, the official addition of 2 Imperial Armour variants, and a brand new variant... we get side armor increased to 13... the Lumbering rule... the option of taking more than 1 Russ as a squadrons... and this doesn't even touch the additional artillery options now officially in the 'dex...

and look at all the whining that commences! I'd bet good money that, if they were independent tanks, these same people would now be complaining that they can't have tanks as troops choices.

hahaha correct...so how do you look at a glass that is halfway filled? Do you look at it as half full or half empty? In this case the glass is definitely 3/4 full!!!! You can only play with the cards dealt to you, and the ones we have now can easily make a full house!

Strikerkc
10-04-2009, 02:17
hahaha correct...so how do you look at a glass that is halfway filled? Do you look at it as half full or half empty? In this case the glass is definitely 3/4 full!!!! You can only play with the cards dealt to you, and the ones we have now can easily make a full house!

I see it more like us complaining about what's actualy in the cup, and not how full it is :p

freddieyu
10-04-2009, 02:22
I see it more like us complaining about what's actualy in the cup, and not how full it is :p

Aha, but taste is a suggestive thing! What could be delicious to one would be foul to the other.....

Luckily I have broad tastes.....and AM WILLING TO TRY ANYTHING at least once......

So, once the codex comes out, we will see what will suit the tastes of the players, and things will settle down...

Warforger
10-04-2009, 02:23
You know what I've always wondered? Why don't the tanks in vehicle squadrons that you get after the first cost less? Its a real nerf.

There hasn't been any confirmation on this rumor, so there's pretty good case it doesn't exist.

freddieyu
10-04-2009, 02:25
You know what I've always wondered? Why don't the tanks in vehicle squadrons that you get after the first cost less? Its a real nerf.

There hasn't been any confirmation on this rumor, so there's pretty good case it doesn't exist.

It won't be that way, since that would be unfair to orks (who get squadrons too)....the squadron rules now make sense for me.....it is not perfect, but then what is?

jason_sation
10-04-2009, 02:26
I'm curious if this will set a precedent and we will see other armies which wil have the option of fielding more of their vehicles in squadrons.

freddieyu
10-04-2009, 02:31
I'm curious if this will set a precedent and we will see other armies which wil have the option of fielding more of their vehicles in squadrons.

Actually there is precedent already, with the ork buggies and killa kans in squadrons, as well as the eldar vypers and SM speeders too.....it's just that the IG has the HEAVIEST options as squadrons, so far, which makes sense since the IG is THE tank army of 40K...so it's in the fluff...

But then, we'll see as the other dexes come out (Tau, necrons, DE etc...)

RichBlake
10-04-2009, 03:19
My bad. Got confused by the number of people chucking it around. Still, I think squadrons, particularly pairs of russes are well worth it.
EDIT: WOAH! I take this back. I was right to begin with. Use vehicle rules to determine if each squadron member is in cover, then normal unit rules to see if entire unit is in cover. p64 BRB.


Hmm you're right, I take it back!


Hits on vehicle squadrons in an assault are distributed among the squadron as a whole, just like with shooting. One tank gets assaulted and the whole squadron is vulnerable.

This will be a major downside to me. With every single Marine coming with Krak grenades as standard a 190 point Tactical Squad can take out a 450 point Squadron of 3 leman russes in one turn :/

Saying that though I'm willing to give anything a try once. I've always said if I used squadrons I'd use two leman russes in a squad. It means that it adds more firepower to the slot then usual and it means i get to keep at least oen leman russ for longer and for 150 points if the secondary russ does get destroyed it's not TOO bad, at which point my only leman russ becomes a normal tank again.

fluffstalker
10-04-2009, 04:12
Agreed- russes in this way are just insanely vulnerable unless one treats them like Eldar falcons, which they are NOT. They are also not unicorns, Plexus, :P. I would to have to shelter my squadrons of Russes away from the front lines because of the silly squadron rules.

I think Im going to only get squadrons of lesser, cheaper vehicles like devil dog tank hunting teams.

On larger maps and larger points, I would perhaps get two Basis in a squadron to make sure whatever they shoot at is really screwed over, and minimize the effect of indirect.

kultz
10-04-2009, 04:27
Here are my two paranoid pennies:

- Russes coming in squads. Is option, not mandatory. Not a problem.

- Squads ignore stunned, allows for more tanks, is compensated by 4+ destruction and difficulty in spreading fire.

All fine and dandy.

Then I remembered Lanchester's laws.

The nice formula boils down to this idea:
Say you have a knight that takes eight jabs from a pike before dying.
Say you have five pikemen, each taking two swipes before dying.

Now, suppose you send the pikemen one by one to fight the knight. The knight would take down four of them before dying.

Now suppose you send the whole mob in at once. The knight would die after just taking a single pikeman down.

Let us, just for a moment, pretend that not all Guard players are wonderful people who will only play fluffy and fair lists. ("Unthinkable!")

Let's say there are six leman russes. At say, 1500 points.

There are going to be an EXTREMELY small amount of folks that can survive the barrage long enough to win.

Those tanks don't magically get destroyed the moment your units hit the Guard's lines. Chances are, if your list is not horribly off-balance, you wouldn't have enough stuff to reach the russes to annihilate them all in two turns.

"Let us take shelter by hiding in multiple combat against these Russes!".

Vehicle rules, assaulting vehicles. Read it, laugh at the above line, cry a little inside. All in good humor, of course.

Now back to playing games, not neckbearding on the intertubes.

Bookwrak
10-04-2009, 04:27
Dead tanks don't shoot back as much. Or you multiple unit assault against tanks, and infantry. Or you know that even if the tanks survive combat, scatter rolls with your models mixed in right there with the tanks can make things more than a little complicated if he wants to set off the big guns.


You know what I've always wondered? Why don't the tanks in vehicle squadrons that you get after the first cost less? Its a real nerf.
It's really not. There has to be an appropriate downside to balance out getting access to even more heavy units by squadroning vehicles. The problem with Iron Warriors was that the 'cost' of their extra heavy options was the lost of Fast Attack slots, which were completly unnecessary anyways. Your squadroned tanks are more vulnerable to assault, all fire must be to the same target, heavy anti-tank fire can damage multiple vehicles; it's the price you pay for being able to field 3 of them, and then two more HS choices.

kultz
10-04-2009, 04:42
Oh, and let us not forget the lumbering behemoth rule.

May not be as bad as I think, but I do believe that's going to make shooting back a heck of alot easier.

SanguinaryDan
10-04-2009, 04:42
Although the immobilised-abandon result is up there with killpoints as wtf moments.

Individual vehicles don't get abandoned if they're immobilised. 4th ed had it better, the vehicle is only abandoned if the rest of the squadron moves out of coherency.

I know I'll regret this but... Having the crew bailout of an immobilized vehicle is probably pretty damned realistic. From everything I've read and heard over the years if your track gets blown off you get the hell out. Think about it. You've gone from a highly mobile weapon of thundering death to a big ass'd target just waiting for some untrained slob with a demo charge to sneak up and blow you into little tiny pieces.

Is it May 2nd yet?:(

Vaktathi
10-04-2009, 05:08
I know I'll regret this but... Having the crew bailout of an immobilized vehicle is probably pretty damned realistic. From everything I've read and heard over the years if your track gets blown off you get the hell out. Think about it. You've gone from a highly mobile weapon of thundering death to a big ass'd target just waiting for some untrained slob with a demo charge to sneak up and blow you into little tiny pieces.
This is all true sure, but it's a bit much for 40k games, especially where pinning is practically nonexistent regardless of weight of fire, defensive fire against assaults doesn't exist, where even the mightiest anti-tank weapons will fail to kill a truck 33% of the time, where even the weeniest unit will assault a heavy battle tank without hesitation, where tank shells can scatter back onto themselves, etc...

Robineng
10-04-2009, 06:56
Is it May 2nd yet?:(

Just over 3 weeks of agonising waiting left... :(

danny-d-b
10-04-2009, 08:04
looking at it leman russes are doing what they should be
there incredibly hard to take down with shooting, but a single infantry unit (plus anything above it) (with grenades of some veriety) will take it down quite easly

yes its puts out a lot of fire power, but as I said before, 2 land raidercrusaders, with 7 termantors with TH/ and a chaplin (or even drop the chaplin) and even 9 leamon russes may struggle to take out 2 landraides with smoke lanchers in a single turn of fireing

darius-god-of-biscuits
10-04-2009, 08:16
Some people want to both have their cake and eat it. :cool:

Of course, lemon russ is not a cake but another type of a dessert.

... which is why I will be giving my Tallarn dessert raiders (Tiramisu company and Trifle Brigade) a squadron or two. They are doomed by a tragic spelling mistake to fight banoffi wherever they find it.

Eldorad
10-04-2009, 08:29
I'd imagine taking a squad of 2 can be a good idea.

You can take 1 naked Russ along with 1 tricked out Russ that has all the bells and whistles. Use the naked one to absorb damage and shaken results so your expensive, bling-bling, plasma spam Russ of Death is free to shoot at whatever it wants. Plus, when the naked one dies, the expensive one is free to act as a normal tank.

So your HS slots can look like this:

Russ Squad:
-Naked Russ
- Executioner $$$ (Die Plague Marines Die)

Single Russ

Arty Squad:
-3 griffon or bassy or w/e



This is the set up I was thinking.

Nobody who wants to play competitively is going to take 9 russes anyway, so this is purely academic. Much more sensible to take squads of two tanks eac.

shin'keiro
10-04-2009, 08:55
I'm thinking of running with 2 regular russes, and 1 executioner, in a single squadron.

I do have one question regarding this, though: does hit allocation for vehicles work the same as it does for infantry, ie: different equipment / weapons is quite favourable?

read rules for squadrons.. you have to allocate wounds BEFORE rolling on vehicle table.

RichBlake
10-04-2009, 09:20
This is all true sure, but it's a bit much for 40k games, especially where pinning is practically nonexistent regardless of weight of fire, defensive fire against assaults doesn't exist, where even the mightiest anti-tank weapons will fail to kill a truck 33% of the time, where even the weeniest unit will assault a heavy battle tank without hesitation, where tank shells can scatter back onto themselves, etc...


In a weird coincidence I just listened to the first GW podcast and the reason given for the "crews ditching imobilsed vehicles" was the explanation that the tank crews join other vehicles or return to base. It seemed though that the immobilised = destroyed came before the ignore stunned results though, with the latter being added to balance it.

Also remember that a lascannon failing to destroy a trukk doesn't mean "HAH you hit my trukk with that lascannon bolt and it lived" it could simply mean the shot caused the trukk to swerve, hit a rock and dislodge it's wheel or perhaps more believeably just skim the trukk and just slip the weapon/engine/power system. Shaken/Stunned simply represents your crew's reaction to the shot, again could just represent the driver slamming on the brakes and cowering inside his vehicle till he has the guts to move again.

Tyron
10-04-2009, 10:55
With all these ideas of people advocating 6 russes in a 1500pt game I will be very suprised if any army other thank another IG army could win against them.

This will make 40k games very one sided.

Vaktathi
10-04-2009, 10:56
With all these ideas of people advocating 6 russes in a 1500pt game I will be very suprised if any army other thank another IG army could win against them.

This will make 40k games very one sided.

Just bring 6 Vendettas.

danny-d-b
10-04-2009, 11:03
With all these ideas of people advocating 6 russes in a 1500pt game I will be very suprised if any army other thank another IG army could win against them.

This will make 40k games very one sided.


erm the twin landraider crusader+ termantors list?

Tyron
10-04-2009, 11:12
Just bring 6 Vendettas.

I use Space Marines though.

erm the twin landraider crusader+ termantors list?

Which leaves me with 500/750 points to get very few scoring units which will most likely die from the rest of the army. And the IG will have infantry units with heavy weapons also which could take out the LRC.

The only way to defeat IG with SM I believe will is with drop podded/transported units hoping to survive a turn of shooting before assaulting and whiping them out. But then here you are left with an even smaller army.

mughi3
10-04-2009, 11:30
With squadroned russ's and other units perhaps the IG will have a reason to take tech engineseers in their lists.


P.S. i want squadrons of venerable dreads!

Bunnahabhain
10-04-2009, 11:44
Well, now they fix things in the shooting phase, and on a better chance, and don't use up a doctrine, they're worth thinking about.

The fact you (effectively) had to spend two turns, to have a poor chance of fixing stuff before, made them utterly dire, and never to be seen outside Ad. Mech armies.

invinciblebug
10-04-2009, 12:13
erm the twin landraider crusader+ termantors list?

Which leaves me with 500/750 points to get very few scoring units which will most likely die from the rest of the army. And the IG will have infantry units with heavy weapons also which could take out the LRC.


And 6 leeeman russes doesn't leave the IG with few points for scoring units? :wtf:

Mannimarco
10-04-2009, 12:17
true the tanks are going to be more expensive but 6 stripped down russes will still leave a few points for some troops

im actually toying with the idea of maxing out my heavy support section with basilisk squadrons, might not be up to much but will scare the hell out of everybody

invinciblebug
10-04-2009, 12:20
true the tanks are going to be more expensive but 6 stripped down russes will still leave a few points for some troops

im actually toying with the idea of maxing out my heavy support section with basilisk squadrons, might not be up to much but will scare the hell out of everybody

9 Griffons would be very scary+scarily cheap, so would 9 hydras. I mean 675pts for 9 big blasts, that's pretty damn nice.

Tyron
10-04-2009, 12:23
And 6 leeeman russes doesn't leave the IG with few points for scoring units? :wtf:

How much would 6 LR cost?

And let us pretend the player is smart and has 1 naked one, per squadron.

invinciblebug
10-04-2009, 12:26
How much would 6 LR cost?

And let us pretend the player is smart and has 1 naked one, per squadron.

960pts

But still, in squadrons leeman russes are very vulnerable and lascanon armed devastator squads/melta armed DSing marines or even a simple marine squad with their kraks assaulting a squad will mean it is in big trouble.

Tyron
10-04-2009, 12:33
540 points will get you a load of IG.

LR squadrons if placed correctly behind cover can counter devastator squads which can be killed very quickly. DP marines can also be countered by placing IG next to the tanks to deny the pod landing close by.

If you are letting them get into close combat with the tanks then you are doing something very wrong.

danny-d-b
10-04-2009, 12:34
true, its not hard to surround a leman russ with 10 guardsmen, and go to ground round it!

Treadhead_1st
10-04-2009, 12:41
Well, my solution to Squadrons is a Manticore. I mentioned it in Tactica: Imperium, but might as well say it again here:

If you roll a 2 or 3 for the large blast templates, and then get a hit/small scatter (it can fire directly in LOS so not unlikely) then you stand a good chance of getting the hole of one template over one of the vehicles. At Str10 that isn't going to be too healthy for the squadron. And Str5 shrapnel versus Rear Armour 10 might do something as well, potentially taking out all 3 tanks in one single (lucky and unlikely) shot.

Likewise (more expensive, less powerful, more reliable) squadrons of Basilisks can do the same.

However, I don't think Russ Squadrons will be heavily utilised. Yes, they are nice and Marine players will struggle against them (as, IMO, they should - surgical strike force vs armoured company...), but many armies such as Eldar, Orks, Tyranids and Chaos can assault one vehicle in the squadron and kill all 3, or do the same with shooting (Dark Eldar, Guard, Chaos, Tau). 4+ to kill on a glancing hit means the squadrons are going down fast. I think once this becomes realised people will switch to taking Russes singly (like 2x Russ of some description) and a squadron of Artillery, or with squadrons of Light Tanks to make up for lost firepower.

But if I'm wrong and they do become prolific, even Marines can do it - Land Speeder Typhoons, Drop-Pods, Terminators (Deepstrike + Cyclone Missiles), infiltrating Scouts/Bikers with Krak Grenades, Devastator Squads with Lascannon and so on.

SanguinaryDan
10-04-2009, 13:17
There are a ton of ways to counter a single squadron of 3 Russ, it's when you have to face 2 or 3 squadrons that things will get dicey. But that's why Marines have Drop Pods, Assault Squads and Bikes.

And if I ever get a VDCF into CC with them.... :evilgrin:

freddieyu
10-04-2009, 13:24
I agree. LR squadrons will be more a novelty in actual games. Maybe we shall see 1 squadron, but 3 squadrons? Doubt it..there are a lot of goodies in the new dex, and I betcha players will want to use a lot of them (I for one like the devil dog (the one with the melta blast template)
So you need the points for those...and it would be a waste to not capitalize on the infantry. Remember it is the infantry that got cheaper, so it would make sense to take advantage of that, as well as the order system of the+command+squads.+In+the+end+it+will+be+how+you+ use+the+grunts+which+will+dictate+the+continuous+s uccess+of+the+army.+It+always+has+been+that+way+fo r+me,+and+will+always+continue+to+be.

RCgothic
10-04-2009, 13:28
I will be using squadrons.

Probably a pair of normal Russes, a Demolisher and an Eradicator, and a trio of Griffons in a 2k list.

freddieyu
10-04-2009, 13:51
I will be using squadrons. Probably a pair of normal Russes, a Demolisher and an Eradicator, and a trio of Griffons in a 2k list.

Nice mix. Better than 9 russes! 2K though is multiple flying greater daemon and multiple flying daemon prince territory too. Tell us how the sqaudrons work...

Grand Master Raziel
10-04-2009, 16:25
Personally, I can just manage to wrap my head around the idea of squadrons of Leman Russes. I'm not overjoyed with the notion, but the fact that the individual tanks will be more expensive (currently, Russes are a little cheap for what they do), the squadron can only fire on single targets, and they'll be counting Immobilized results as Destroyed results are all balancing factors. It remains to be seen if they are sufficient balancing factors, but at least some thinking on that matter appears to have been made. Applying the squadron rules to ground tanks is a little strange, though. I think they were written more with skimmers in mind (Vypers, Land Speeders).

I'm not too happy about the Lumbering Behemoth rule, though. The main balancing factor to ordnance is supposed to be that an ordnance-bearing tank can either fire the big gun or its other weapons, but not both. Lumbering Behemoth allows the biggest users of ordnance-bearing tanks to ignore one of the core rules regarding ordnance. From a game-balance perspective, how does that make sense? If IG are going to get to ignore the rules regarding shooting ordnance+other weapons in the same turn, why even have the rule in the main book? Outside of IG, the most common ordnance-toter is the SM/CSM Vindicator, and all that thing can tote as secondary weapons are a couple of storm bolters and a HK-missile, which most people don't take because it's such a waste of points.

Anyhow, my current main beef with the upcoming IG dex is that Valkyrie variant with the three TLLCs - the Vendetta, I think it's called. That thing compares favorably or is outright superior to the SM Predator in almost every way. It has roughly equivalent armor (12/12/10 vs 13/11/10), almost exactly the same tank-killing firepower (3 BS3 TLLCs generating almost exactly the same number of hits as 2 BS4 LCs+1 BS4 TLLC), is faster, can go over terrain instead of around it, can actually move and fire all its guns, has a troop-carrying capacity, and is over 30pts cheaper than the Pred! :wtf: Balance apparently stepped out to use the bathroom when they came up with that one.

tuebor
10-04-2009, 16:42
The big problem with the Vendetta is that it's so monstrously huge that it will be extremely difficult to block LOS to it.

Bunnahabhain
10-04-2009, 17:02
;3457207']It also allows IG players to use properly a vehicule that was designed with 2nd Edition rules in mind (or was it Epic?). Still, considering how expensive sponson weapons are, most peope will field naked Russes anyway.

Actually, it doesn't, but goes some way towards doing so.

Back in 2nd ed, which is when the russ was designed, not only could you fire the battle cannon and everything else, you could do so on the move, and split fire, so mixed set ups were fine, with the lascannon able to hit the dread, the heavy bolters the oncoming Mob, and the ordnance killing just about anything.

Now, that would be so powerful in 5th ed, we'd have to pay a silly amount for it, which would mean the enemy can neutralise 250-300pts of russ with a simple stunned result....

EDIT. What just happened with he time stamps on these posts? I don't normally manage to reply before the comment I'm replying to is posted. If this keeps up, I'm going to find a horse race to bet on....

Badger[Fr]
10-04-2009, 17:02
Lumbering Behemoth allows the biggest users of ordnance-bearing tanks to ignore one of the core rules regarding ordnance.
It also allows IG players to use properly a vehicule that was designed with 2nd Edition rules in mind (or was it Epic?). Still, considering how expensive sponson weapons are, most peope will field naked Russes anyway.


With all these ideas of people advocating 6 russes in a 1500pt game I will be very suprised if any army other thank another IG army could win against them.
Remember Armoured Companies? They could field independent, cheaper Russes as Troops, and their rear armour wasn't an issue back in those days. And yet, they got badly mauled by Nidzillas or Flying Circus armies. Anyway, what can your 9 Leman Russes do against a Seer Council on Jetbikes, Fire Dragons in a Falcon, or turbo-boosting Nobz Bikers?

Grand Master Raziel
10-04-2009, 17:22
The big problem with the Vendetta is that it's so monstrously huge that it will be extremely difficult to block LOS to it.

I really don't consider that much of a balancing factor. With 3 TLLCs, I doubt many players are going to be hiding the thing. It's got decent all-around protection, which means that to stand a reasonable chance of dowing it, you'll have to target it with a fairly serious anti-tank weapon, which draws that kind of fire away from the Leman Russes. Either that, or the Russes draw that fire from the Vendetta, leaving it able to waddle around popping off tanks with relative impunity. In any other list, the thing would be a heavy support choice.

Also, there's the possibility that there will be advantage-takers who will be willing to convert their Vendettas or scratch-build their own Vendettas to give themselves smaller footprints than the existing model. I don't think there's any rule that says a scratch-build has to be the same size as the model it's standing in for, only that all its gear be WYSIWYG, and that it use the same base. If the Valkyrie-chassis models use flying bases, then that'll give converters a lot of leeway regarding the actual model itself.

Also, I thought that all Imperial aircraft fell under the domain of the Imperial Navy, not the Imperial Guard. Thematically, that would mean that SM armies have just as much right to be able to call on Valkyrie support as IG armies. I'd like to have Valkyries and Vendettas as Fast Attack options!



;3457238']It also allows IG players to use properly a vehicule that was designed with 2nd Edition rules in mind (or was it Epic?). Still, considering how expensive sponson weapons are, most peope will field naked Russes anyway.

Hey man, except for Tau players, everybody's vehicles were designed in 2nd edition. I'd sure like my Predators to be able to move and fire their main guns and their sponson-mounts in the same turn. All they're packing in the turrets are autocannons or TLLCs, neither of which you'd think would have anywhere near the recoil of a battle cannon, plus Space Marines are supposed to be trusted with far superior technology than the IG, and yet somehow IG tanks get better move-and-fire capability? :wtf: Thematically, that's ass-backwards.

tuebor
10-04-2009, 17:41
I really don't consider that much of a balancing factor. With 3 TLLCs, I doubt many players are going to be hiding the thing. It's got decent all-around protection, which means that to stand a reasonable chance of dowing it, you'll have to target it with a fairly serious anti-tank weapon, which draws that kind of fire away from the Leman Russes. Either that, or the Russes draw that fire from the Vendetta, leaving it able to waddle around popping off tanks with relative impunity. In any other list, the thing would be a heavy support choice.

Also, there's the possibility that there will be advantage-takers who will be willing to convert their Vendettas or scratch-build their own Vendettas to give themselves smaller footprints than the existing model. I don't think there's any rule that says a scratch-build has to be the same size as the model it's standing in for, only that all its gear be WYSIWYG, and that it use the same base. If the Valkyrie-chassis models use flying bases, then that'll give converters a lot of leeway regarding the actual model itself.

I see their huge size as a huge liability. In my gaming club Vendettas won't survive more than a turn in LOS unscathed. We've got several mech Eldar players and Trukk mounted Orks so autocannons and their equivalents are pretty common. They may not down my Vendetta immediately but I'll be shocked if it fires more than one or two turns.

Yes, Vendettas would be heavy support in any other list in the same way Eldar jetbikes would be fast attack in any other list. Speed is the Eldar "thing" and vehicles are the IG "thing". Similarly, regarding Lumbering Behemoth, IG will be vehicle rules that ignore the main rules in the same way Space Marines have infantry that ignore the main leadership rules (Combat Tactics and ATSKNF). I personally don't like this method of differentiating armies either, but that seems to be how 5th Edition is shaping up.

As for theme and IG tanks vs SM tanks I don't see the issue. Thematically Marines are a infantry-focused quick strike force. Their vehicles are quick (definitely quicker than a Russ with Lumbering) and made to support their infantry. Guard tanks are slow, heavy, and put out enough firepower to hopefully compensate for our below-average infantry.

Blinder
10-04-2009, 17:48
The valk models use their own extra-big bases and most people/tourneys take exception to "modeling for advantage," which a significantly smaller/lower scratch-build of an existing (and readily available in stores, rather than FW) kit would certainly be. So anyone doing that is also going to have crawling troops and micro-machines tanks, not something to really worry about.

Armor-wise, yeah, it's not AV10. It's also not AV14, which means all the stuff that's not worth throwing at the Russes (and most armies have plenty of S6/7 laying around and often don't bother throwing S8 at the front of a Russ unless they're desperate or it gets a bonus) is now picking between chims and valks/vends, rather than just picking between chims. They're tough, and powerful, but still aren't going to be too hard for a reasonably well-written list to handle.

MrMojoZ
10-04-2009, 18:02
They're tough, and powerful, but still aren't going to be too hard for a reasonably well-written list to handle.

That seems to be theme for the new IG codex, aside from a few oddities like ST pricing etc. The people complaining don't seem to understand how fragile things like a Russ squadron or the new skimmers really are.

Loki73
10-04-2009, 18:08
Ok seriously you all that are complaining need to stop the guard just got 8+ cool tanks of which you can have up to 9 not counting fast attack. The G codex is vastly superior to its predecessor. OMG all my tanks in the this squadron have to shoot at one target OMG the world is gonna end. Give your guard to me ill make it work.

Raxmei
10-04-2009, 18:35
Except the chimera, which has a special rule that allows it to send/recieve orders.Just send, not receive. Mobile command allows an officer to issue orders while in a chimera. That's all it does. It does not allow you to issue orders to units mounted in chimeras or to the chimera itself.

Lovejoy
10-04-2009, 20:21
I've been a Guard player for longer than I'd like to remember, and I'm really looking forward to the squadrons thing. I've used infantry armies in the past, but always preferred playing Armoured Companies.
Armoured companies have always had some balancing factor included, the '50% destroyed - game over' rule in the first version, and the 'lucky glancing hit' rule in the second - but have never been proper, Tournament legal lists.

This new Codex will let me do something close to an Armoured company, but with the squadron rules as a balancing factor; I reckon it should be enough to keep everyone happy. Only gaming will tell, though...

Khornate Fireball (Ork)
11-04-2009, 00:02
Hey man, except for Tau players, everybody's vehicles were designed in 2nd edition. I'd sure like my Predators to be able to move and fire their main guns and their sponson-mounts in the same turn. All they're packing in the turrets are autocannons or TLLCs, neither of which you'd think would have anywhere near the recoil of a battle cannon, plus Space Marines are supposed to be trusted with far superior technology than the IG, and yet somehow IG tanks get better move-and-fire capability? :wtf: Thematically, that's ass-backwards.

I'd like to write a strongly-worded post about how you're a whiny marine player who thinks marines should be better than everyone, and how realism and plausibility only enter the picture to keep Guard down... But I wouldn't feel quite right doing so. I'll try anyway:

Guard is about tanks. Lots of them. And good ones. Marines don't have to be the best at every damn thing. In fact, they should be the best at nothing. That's what you get for playing a generalist army. Now stay the hell away from the Guard and their treadheadedness! The marines may have the most advanced tech... But the Guard should get bigger guns, plain and simple. The Imperial Guard are a ponderous leviathan that crushes all beneath its treads and boots...

Vaktathi
11-04-2009, 00:16
Hey man, except for Tau players, everybody's vehicles were designed in 2nd edition. I'd sure like my Predators to be able to move and fire their main guns and their sponson-mounts in the same turn. All they're packing in the turrets are autocannons or TLLCs, neither of which you'd think would have anywhere near the recoil of a battle cannon, plus Space Marines are supposed to be trusted with far superior technology than the IG, and yet somehow IG tanks get better move-and-fire capability? :wtf: Thematically, that's ass-backwards.

Marines have *never* had better tanks than the IG. Imperial Guard tanks have always been better because that is the strength of the army and because SM's don't need them. Space Marines are walking tanks themselves, guardsmen are wet paper bags.

The vehicle fire rules are retarded, but given that IG vehicles are the only ones with individual crew for each weapon and the best braced, heaviest non-superheavy tanks in the game, it makes the most sense of any army. They aren't more advanced per se, but are more capable. Space Marine tanks have auto-targeters, computers to move the tank and fire the weapons, etc.

In a guard tank, there is a human being doing each task.

kultz
11-04-2009, 01:03
Agree: Guard tanks are supposed to be powerhouses.

Disagree: "Stupid marine noob, stop whining and let the real men decide what's fair and what is not."


Agree: "Nine leman russes? Anyone who isn't expecting that is going to get shafted by the new 'brilliant tactic'."

Disagree: "How come stupid guard gets better tanks? Mehrens are soo much better"

Agree: "Sure, Armour Company type lists get trumped on by nidzilla and whatnot, but is your average kid going to magically summon these Carnifexes into his marine army?"

Disagree: "Hey, this is totally not overpowered, see? That list there, known to be overpowered, defeats this list. Now stop complaining."

Badger[Fr]
11-04-2009, 01:46
Hey man, except for Tau players, everybody's vehicles were designed in 2nd edition. I'd sure like my Predators to be able to move and fire their main guns and their sponson-mounts in the same turn. All they're packing in the turrets are autocannons or TLLCs, neither of which you'd think would have anywhere near the recoil of a battle cannon, plus Space Marines are supposed to be trusted with far superior technology than the IG, and yet somehow IG tanks get better move-and-fire capability? Thematically, that's ass-backwards.
What I meant was that the Leman Russ is the only tank featuring both Ordnance and non-Ordnance weapons on the same chassis, which, given the Third (or Fourth, or Fifth, for that matter) Edition ruleset, is plain retarded, as, without the Lulbering Behemot rule, a Leman Russ wil never be able to fire both its hull and turret weapons at the same time, whereas a Predator can fire its three guns as long as it stands still.



Agree: "Sure, Armour Company type lists get trumped on by nidzilla and whatnot, but is your average kid going to magically summon these Carnifexes into his marine army?"
My point was that spamming Ordnance had never won any game. Haven't you noticed how the most broken lists often favour mobility, adaptability, and survivability, over Ordnance / Template spam? And it has also been pointed out several times that even the humble Tactical squad can easily destroy a Leman Russ if it manages to reach it in close combat (not to mention the heavier stuff, such as Terminators).

wartorngetahroun74
11-04-2009, 07:40
Im looking forward to 9 of the leman russes with the Heavy 20 guns. Cant recall the name right now. But add HBs to them, as well as Heavy Stubbers and thats 288 shots a turn. THats gonna hurt some infantry, and should be enought to even wipe out termies, DPs and the like!! Squadron rules be damned!

Vaktathi
11-04-2009, 07:50
Im looking forward to 9 of the leman russes with the Heavy 20 guns. Cant recall the name right now. But add HBs to them, as well as Heavy Stubbers and thats 288 shots a turn. THats gonna hurt some infantry, and should be enought to even wipe out termies, DPs and the like!! Squadron rules be damned!

That's also going to be 1900pts.:p

Solar_Eclipse
11-04-2009, 08:06
now This is my thoughts on how most Guard Players will end up.

LRBT: will probably be single, or perhaps a squadron, it works both ways
Demolisher: Same as above
Eradicator: Will work best single, but squadron will help it against MEQ's and better
Vanquishers: Squadrons, definately. A squadron of Vanquishers has a great chance of killing any tank as well as still doing some damage to heavy infantry squads.
Executioners; Their expense and power means a squadron isnt really necessary
Exterminators: Squadrons, definately, the lack of any Ap3 or better weapons means mass fire works better with more.
Punishers: Possibly alone because of its points cost, but i think considering a squadron of 2 or 3 would be quite interesting since it does but out 93 shots a turn, even with Guard BS that will do ALOT of damage and take alot of fire, this is best against Orks and Nids, who lack AT options.

Also, the rumours for Planetstrike (well, May WD, so confirmations of Planetstrike!) say that the attacker will get more Elites and Fast attack choices (so Stormies and Valks) and the defender will get 6 Heavy support choices (so a possible 24 Leman Russes!)

silentsmoke
11-04-2009, 08:22
The guard codex rocks, but the Krig codex surpasses that one!!

So I'm happy...

RCgothic
11-04-2009, 11:16
Vanquishers: Squadrons, definitely. A squadron of Vanquishers has a great chance of killing any tank as well as still doing some damage to heavy infantry squads.

Vanquishers are rubbish anti-tank next to anything with a meltgun. Taking more of them just increases the amount of points sunk into a 155 point unit with little more than 2 lascannons.

Solar_Eclipse
11-04-2009, 13:40
Vanquishers are rubbish anti-tank next to anything with a meltgun. Taking more of them just increases the amount of points sunk into a 155 point unit with little more than 2 lascannons.

yes, and the Vanquishers range is 72" while the Meltaguns is 12" for worse, 6" for the same

The AP difference is big, yes, but so is the range. Vanquishers can also blow away tanks from a range that doesnt immediately mean death to the vanquisher.

Hell, on a hit its Average roll beats Land Raider armour, i would definately take 1 or 2 of them

RCgothic
11-04-2009, 13:50
but it hits only half the time. The main cannon will take out a vehicle less than once every 6 turns. Wow. Solid anti-tank that. [/sarcasm]

The_Outsider
11-04-2009, 14:17
Dark eldar was here, LR squadrons are losers!

Seriously though, 9 LR without a downside is a bit much to deal with, getting into CC without outflanking or DSing with a russ means taking on a wall of infantry - you don't just laugh at 100 guardsmen.

The squadron rule will only matter at 1500 for the artillery vehicles, for russes squadrons only comes into play when you start hitting 2K and up (even though I doubt at 2K it matters then) because the FoC starts to becoem restrictive.

I mostly see the squadron rules in the IG codex as a fluff thing rather than a raw power thing - though ironically IG FA tanks are the ones that can truly use the squadron rules (the same applies to land speeders, piranha, vypers etc).

HS and squadrons only really matters if you can sit around pummelling anything that moves without the need for mobility yourself (hence why a whirlwind would love squadrons, but a predator would not - the exact same issue the russ has).

Solar_Eclipse
11-04-2009, 14:55
but it hits only half the time. The main cannon will take out a vehicle less than once every 6 turns. Wow. Solid anti-tank that. [/sarcasm]

Which is why upgrades such as pask are good as well as taking multiple vanquishers.

If you take a single meltagun and expect it to be your anti tank, then your deluded, just like any other form of anti tank such as vanquishers

Grand Master Raziel
11-04-2009, 15:15
Yes, Vendettas would be heavy support in any other list in the same way Eldar jetbikes would be fast attack in any other list. Speed is the Eldar "thing" and vehicles are the IG "thing".

There are other armies that can conditionally get bikes as Troops, so Eldar Jetbikes don't stand out quite so much. Also, Eldar Jetbikes don't step so directly on the toes of another army as Vendettas do on SM/CSM armies. For that matter, I'd imagine Eldar players would be raising their eyebrows over all the Valkyrie variants, as they seem to do exactly the same things as their hovertanks, but with a lot more firepower. The closest they can come to the Vendetta is a Falcon with it's stock pulse laser and a bright lance - all BS3 and S8, and yet the two vehicles cost almost exactly the same amount of points. Falcons only start to win out in the durability department if they have the Holofield upgrade, and that ups the expense by quite a bit.


Similarly, regarding Lumbering Behemoth, IG will be vehicle rules that ignore the main rules in the same way Space Marines have infantry that ignore the main leadership rules (Combat Tactics and ATSKNF).

Even if I accepted your comparison as valid, it fails because Space Marines are not the only army that take Leadership tests. IG, however, are practically the only army that uses vehicles that have both ordnance and significant other armaments on the same chassis. As far as that particular aspect of the rules go, they are practically the only army it applies to, but now they get a special rule which negates that aspect of the main rules. That makes it nonsensical to have that particular main rule in the main book in the first place.


As for theme and IG tanks vs SM tanks I don't see the issue. Thematically Marines are a infantry-focused quick strike force. Their vehicles are quick (definitely quicker than a Russ with Lumbering) and made to support their infantry. Guard tanks are slow, heavy, and put out enough firepower to hopefully compensate for our below-average infantry.

Maybe I missed something in the IG rumors, but I don't recall reading anything that states that Russes have any less overall movement than any other non-fast ground vehicles. If so, then fair enough. However, all I recall reading was the part where Russes can fire other weapons along with ordnance. As it happens, I agree with your thematic assessment, it's just that the rules do not portray that relationship well at all. To be fair, that's more an issue with the main rules than with the upcoming IG dex. The 5th edition rules gave ordnance tanks a huge de-facto boost by nerfing what constitutes a Defensive Weapon, hobbling the move-and-fire abilities of all non-ordnance bearing vehicles, but hardly affecting at all the ability of ordnance vehicles to move and fire. This is why SM/CSM players are tending to shelve Predators and field Vindicators. SM tanks aren't actually any faster than IG tanks, and there's a vast gulf of difference between getting to move and fire an autocannon or a single lascannon and getting to move and sling a S8 AP3 pie plate. For a while, I've been thinking that SM vehicles should get the Agile rule from the VDR. That would be a thematic fit. Lately, though, I've been thinking that a better solution would be for the main rules to not define what counts as a main or secondary weapon at all. Instead, the main rules could state that a vehicle that moves X amount can fire one main weapon and it's secondary weapons, and then what constitutes main and secondary weapons can be defined in each individual vehicle's entry.

Anyhow, at this point I don't think you should recklessly disparage Guard infantry, either. The new platoon rules and orders system make the PBI a hell of a lot more capable than they've been in the past. It's not like IG tanks are going to be carrying the battle solo - unless, of course, IG players start min-maxing their armies to cram in as many tanks as possible at the expense of their infantry, that is.

Bunnahabhain
11-04-2009, 15:54
GM Raziel,

If I may parapharse the above, your main complain appears to be that the standard rules for vehicles firing are not awfully good, and if GW are not going to fix the main rules, they shouldn't fix them for one army, who happen to particularly badly effected by them.

I agree with your point, but not the conclusion you draw from it.

The rules currently penalise shooting vehicles heavily- there are lots of upgrades for transports to remain mobile, and so able to deliver their passengers, as well as using cover saves. To remain firing, you have cover saves, or hoping for weapon destroyed/immobilised result. Why else would the upgrades and options that allow you to ignore both stunned and shaken be so popular?

Cane
11-04-2009, 16:05
I personally love that the IG's main focus is tanks supported by hundreds of infantry and love the direction the new codex is going. However squadrons didn't even work for me in third edition of 40k when I played Armored Company and with the reduction in price for our infantry squads there's going to be even less space on the tabletop for good placement.

I can't see a situation where three Leman Russ tanks in a single squadron would be more beneficial than not other than to just have the three tanks on the table. Artillery squadrons on the other hand may have some use especially since some of them are about half the price of the standard LRBT.






Maybe I missed something in the IG rumors, but I don't recall reading anything that states that Russes have any less overall movement than any other non-fast ground vehicles. If so, then fair enough. However, all I recall reading was the part where Russes can fire other weapons along with ordnance. As it happens, I agree with your thematic assessment, it's just that the rules do not portray that relationship well at all.

At the price of having the Lumbering Behemoth Rule, Leman Russ Battle Tanks trying to move at cruising speed have to roll a D6 + 6" for their movement.

wartorngetahroun74
11-04-2009, 17:21
I & the people I play with tend to play big games. So 1900 points is usually around half of what we play. And that is non-apocalypse games. I plan on finally making a tank company.

noobzor
11-04-2009, 19:39
You realize how broken it would be if the LR could act independently? Having them as a squadron just balances them. Besides, you can always just stick with three tanks, one in each slot, like it is now. :rolleyes: