Jump to content

Recommended Posts

“I know salamander is in legends but I want it completely gone. I hate it.” Lol that’s railing. For all intents and purposes it is gone should you so choose. For others who want it, it’s there. It’s fine that’s your opinion, I was just stating I thought it an odd opinion.

and as long as its in legends it's unlikely to be directly replaced by the sort of vehicle I think would make more sense for its role, that's why I want it gone completely, which is a sentiment I believe I voiced in that same post.

also I'd like to see the exterminator get some love.

Even if it's some thing as niche as exploding 6s when shooting at fliers.

 

The Exterminator just needs more shots. In 7th edition it was Heavy 4 twin-linked. In the transition to 8th, all twin-linked weapons had their shots doubled. Except for the Exterminator for some reason. 

 

So, with the current Exterminators points cost (being more expensive than a Battle Tank or Demolisher) it should get its long overdue Heavy 8. 

 

That would let it actually fill the niche of being a light vehicle or meq killer. 

Edited by jarms48

 

also I'd like to see the exterminator get some love.

Even if it's some thing as niche as exploding 6s when shooting at fliers.

I can agree with that frater.

 

Maybe they considered grinding advance when they didn’t double the shots? It definitely needs something, as does the Eradicator and Vanquisher. For the love of Pete the Vanquisher needs some love.

 

Just seems strange considering the Annihilator variant became Heavy 2 with 4 shots on Grinding Advance, then the Punisher got 40 shots on Grinding Advance. 

Almost all Leman Russ Varients except Demolisher,Punisher and Executioner Plasma Cannon need some Love

I never pick the Nova Cannon or Exterminator Autocannon

 

My Suggestion would be:

 

Vanquisher

72" Heavy D3 S14/-4/D3+3 against Vehicale 6 Damage(Yes i know that the Vanquisher already got the new Statline in the FW Book, but even this new statline is pretty bad, so a new new Statline is needed)

 

Exterminator Autocannon

48" Heavy 8 S7/-2/2

 

Eradicator Nova Cannon

36" Heavy D6 S6/-2/2 ignores Cover, a hit enemy must halfe Movement,advanceroll and Chargeroll

 

Battlecannon

72" Heavy D6 S8/-2/2 or even Damge 3

or

HE-Shell

72" Heavy D6+3 S6/-2/1

AP-Shell

72" heavy D3 S10/-3/3

As the Battlecannon is the allround Varient it could be cool if the Rules represent this. But this would make the outer Varients even more unlikly to take

 

on a sidenote i would love to see all the D6 Shots Profils changed to D3+3, but this is highly unlikely as GW extra introduced the Blast Rule to fix this selfmade Issue.

The new Macharius (twin) Vanquisher is Heavy 2 S16 Ap-4 D9 BTW, with +1 to hit vehicles and monsters. That's exactly what I'd want for our Leman vanquishers. Single shot, 2+ to hit, incredibly high payoff.

If we stay on BS4+ on tanks though... Yuck.

Yeah i know

But as the Macharius remaind on BS 4+ so will our Leman Russ Tanks.

Thats why i think more shots are better, the best profil can't help you if you miss most of the time.

The new Macharius (twin) Vanquisher is Heavy 2 S16 Ap-4 D9 BTW, with +1 to hit vehicles and monsters. That's exactly what I'd want for our Leman vanquishers. Single shot, 2+ to hit, incredibly high payoff.

If we stay on BS4+ on tanks though... Yuck.

 

There's several things wrong with that profile:

1) FW is suggesting that a Vanquisher cannon is as powerful as a Volcano cannon. 

2) FW is suggesting that a Vanquisher cannon is more powerful than a Quake cannon. Which is S14, damage D6. 

3) It's still not good. Against anything with a 2+ save, an Invul save, a FNP type save, a -1 to Hit, or some kind of only wound on 4/5/6 the chances of actually doing damage is less than 1. Sure when you actually do damage you'll hit like a train, but the question when. It's just not reliable.

4) A Demolisher cannon is still better and more reliable. On average a Demolisher cannon will have 7 shots, with an average damage potential of 24.5. Things like Gunnery Experts, Tank Commanders, etc just make it better. 

 

Domsto is absolutely right. More shots is better. Personally, I'd just make it similar to the Ad-Mech Neutron laser. Except instead of 48 inch range you get 72, but to balance it out the Vanquisher only gets AP-3 instead of AP-4. 

Edited by jarms48

Fair points, guys!

 

I hadn't even thought to compare it to the super-heavy weapons like Volcanos. That's ridiculous of them then, haha.

 

Yeah, being a guard player I keep forgetting about all the invul saves out there. If a Vanq had 2+ to hit, effectively, minuses to hit wouldn't be too crazy, and would be fairly fluffy at least - the anti tank thing shoots slow things, not flying raiders.

 

The range of things vs the small table means that a Demolisher is barely at a disadvantage and just shoots more, heavier, harder, like you say. Guess they could make the chassis much cheaper and the good guns much more expensive as one way of trying to balance it..

Ok, if the tank had ammo that it currently does not have in rules, and the crew was much better than the 4+ would suggest, and we wanted the tank to fulfill both anti-tank and anti-air roles, then it's a tank that in-game would be a good choice for shooting super fast Eldar mini flyers, agreed!

Sure, but the Leman Russ is a fat, lumbering, kinda siege-y tank. I'd not picture it as a thing that would readily shoot at zooming flyers :)

where are you getting that from?

The exterminator in particular is noted as being a faster model used for AA work...

 

Sure, but the Leman Russ is a fat, lumbering, kinda siege-y tank. I'd not picture it as a thing that would readily shoot at zooming flyers :)

where are you getting that from?

The exterminator in particular is noted as being a faster model used for AA work...

40k also includes a ton of low flying threats we don’t have in real life. Skimmers, winged infantry, and what amounts to basically dragons some rapid fire auto cannons would work great against those type of threats

 

Sure, but the Leman Russ is a fat, lumbering, kinda siege-y tank. I'd not picture it as a thing that would readily shoot at zooming flyers :smile.:

where are you getting that from?

The exterminator in particular is noted as being a faster model used for AA work...

 

Right here:

 

Imperial Armour 1, 2nd edition, page 16-17:

"The Leman Russ is not a sophisticated vehicle and contains little in the way of advanced targeting or control systems"

"Although it is a slow, lumbering vehicle..."

"In particular by surrendering its anti-tank effectiveness for increased anti-infantry firewpoer, the Exterminator..."

"its rapid firing weapons, for example, are often used as a stopgap measure for anti-aircraft defence. Whilst lacking the elevation and advanced targeters to fulfil this role effectively, when needed tank commanders have used Exterminators to throw up a wall of fire against enemy air attacks with some success. Most commanders would still look to Hydras..."

 

My fault was apparently in mentioning that the Vanquisher anti-tank option might not be everyones first choice for anti-air, and then a horde of "actually" people came running in a huff.

Edited by bristlybadger

After my last game against the AM I hope tank commanders are either moved to a HQ slot or in some way limited in number. I feel it is a little reticules to have 3 tank commanders in a list with not other tanks for them to command. Hopefully there is a tank tax added in the next codex. 

Tank Commanders are HQs...they used to be squadrons back in 7th.

 

But honestly, they should just be called Veteran tanks as they are generally just buffing themselves. To be proper command units they'd need to be able to buff more than just one unit.

Edited by sairence

Tank Commanders are HQs...they used to be squadrons back in 7th.

 

But honestly, they should just be called Veteran tanks as they are generally just buffing themselves. To be proper command units they'd need to be able to buff more than just one unit.

D'OH! 

 

I was misremembering my opponents army he had an astropath but the model was a primaris psyker. I haven't even considered fielding a tank commander for some reason thought they were elites. I guess I should rephrase my previous post to say something more like I hope they enforce theme with mandatory tanks to unlock a tank commander.  

Tank Commanders are HQs...they used to be squadrons back in 7th.

 

But honestly, they should just be called Veteran tanks as they are generally just buffing themselves. To be proper command units they'd need to be able to buff more than just one unit.

 

Honestly, I really do see GW making Orders not effect officers. Meaning Tank Commanders will be forced to use their orders on other vehicles.  

Sadly Tank Commanders are the only way you can field a Leman Russ these days...

The normal Leman Russ isn't worth his points now.

 

but as sairence said. The Tank Commander should be renamed Veteran Leman Russ as he isn't really a commander.

or maybe buff the Command ability of the TC. let him give 2 Orders and extend the Range of the Order.

I mean 6"? Is he opening his Hatch and screams at another Tank?

Tanks should have buildin Vox and therefore should have 18" Range for Orders

 

 

 

Sure, but the Leman Russ is a fat, lumbering, kinda siege-y tank. I'd not picture it as a thing that would readily shoot at zooming flyers :smile.:

where are you getting that from?

The exterminator in particular is noted as being a faster model used for AA work...

Right here:

 

Imperial Armour 1, 2nd edition, page 16-17:

"The Leman Russ is not a sophisticated vehicle and contains little in the way of advanced targeting or control systems"

"Although it is a slow, lumbering vehicle..."

"In particular by surrendering its anti-tank effectiveness for increased anti-infantry firewpoer, the Exterminator..."

"its rapid firing weapons, for example, are often used as a stopgap measure for anti-aircraft defence. Whilst lacking the elevation and advanced targeters to fulfil this role effectively, when needed tank commanders have used Exterminators to throw up a wall of fire against enemy air attacks with some success. Most commanders would still look to Hydras..."

 

My fault was apparently in mentioning that the Vanquisher anti-tank option might not be everyones first choice for anti-air, and then a horde of "actually" people came running in a huff.

not "actually"

 

You simply said leman Russ tanks were lumbering seige-y tanks, that couldn't shoot at fliers...you were being corrected for either being wrong or over generalizing.

 

not "actually"

 

You simply said leman Russ tanks were lumbering seige-y tanks, that couldn't shoot at fliers...you were being corrected for either being wrong or over generalizing.

 

 

The Leman Russ is a lumbering siege tank which isn't designed to shoot flyers. While it can shoot at flyers in a pinch it's certainly not proficient at it. 

 

Just read bristlybadger's source, which I have as well, the keywords being "with some success." Implying that while can work if required is nowhere near effective as the dedicated option. The Exterminator is not an AA vehicle. It is a tank that's designed to kill infantry, that can put a wall of lead in the sky if needed. The Exterminator is about as good at shooting down aircraft as the Space Marine Predator would be.

 

Ironically, at least in the lore, the Punisher variant would actually be better at tactical AA defence. Just like a modern day Phalanx CIWS.

 

Here's some more sources on the Russ:

 

"While slow in comparison to other Guard vehicles and lacking in advanced technology, its ruggedness and reliability are the tank's defining attribute."

 

"A minimum of four crew are required to operate the Leman Russ, with two more needed to man the sponson weapons if mounted, though they must do so without comfort in a cramped, hot and noisy environment."

Edited by jarms48
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.