Topic: Some IG Tank ideas

[Wyddr]

So far there's been a good number of valid points for the other changes suggested. The rise in rear AV comes across as more of a "it should be because we want" rather than "the rules doesn't work because xxx and needs to be changed".

Good point. Quoted for truth. Listen to this man.

AV11 is *more* than enough of a boost. Even then, if the lighter variants stuck with AV10 on the rear, I wouldn't cry. The problem with the Russ isn't that it dies in assault--it always died in assault, ever since the advent of 5th Edition--its that its guns aren't sufficient deterrent and its cost is too high to make them worth the liability. If they're cheaper, can fire more of their weapons, and have access to worthwhile tank orders, Rear AV is the least of their problems.

[Spectral Arbor]

Rear AV 12 is a rules related issue, not a want. These tanks need to move forwards. They need to move with the bulk of your forces to create significant firepower, since EVERYTHING ELSE SUCKS AS SOON AS IT MOVES. They're the only thing in the codex besides Vendettas and Armoured Sentinels that isn't immediately crippled by moving.

Because it must move forwards... everything does in 7th... they are unworkable. Rear armour shots on something that slow is painfully easy. It's a mobility game. No saves... I'm not crying about the points. They can stay the same if you Fix the Ordnance issue and give them better rear armour.

I don't care about the orders, myself. I think it would be flavourful to give them something useful, but not necessary.

[Calamity]

Thank you for all the feedback so far guys. It's all been very enlightening, and I'm surprised at how much attention this has received. 

Here's what I would definitely want for the tanks myself and the reasons why:

Points decrease.  Right now they're slightly too expensive to field in mass, and what I really want to do is field them in big(ish) numbers.  A troop at least.  Around 20-25pts should do it.  I really like the idea of a base cost of 125pts for a standard Leman Russ, because it brings it perfectly into line with the other IG mainstays like the Basilisk, Hellhound and Valkyrie.

The fix for Ordinance weapons.  Bring back Lumbering Behemoth (is the name OK or should it be changed?), and like Wyddr said, write it as something like 'a model with this special rule treats Ordinance Weapons as Heavy Weapons when determining how many weapons it can fire at full Ballistic skill in the shooting phase'.  That is a bit clumsy I think, but I'm worried that poor wording might make some people think that firing the Ordinance weapon would allow you to ignore the effects of Shaken and Stunned.  If I want this job, I am going to have to learn to write better. 

Orders!  Orders should be the IG's bread and butter, and it's sad that vehicles are falling short in this regard.  I would like to bump the total up to six.  I hope my rewrite of Gunners, Kill On Sight is OK.  With regards to Movement, I know you think the IG are too slow Spectral.  So, how about an Order to let the tank Shoot and move Flat Out in the same turn?  It could an entirely new order, letting the tank shoot then move flat out at D6 inches.  Or, it could be a reworking of Full Throttle, letting the Tank Snap Fire after moving Flat Out.  So, those 'lumbering behemoths' could move 13-18 inches in one turn and still get off a shooting attack.

I know there's a worry about Fire On My Target being way too OP.  But the Tau get cover save ignoring abilities and nobody complains.  This would be only one unit in your army, and an expensive one to boot.

I still don't know what to do with regards to the Rear Armour issue.  There's good arguments for both sides.  Only play testing will provide the answer I think.

[khaine]

Rear AV 12 is a rules related issue, not a want. These tanks need to move forwards.

No they don't need to move forwards. With the basic load out of Cannon/Hvy Bolter their shortest range is 36" and they have no close combat ability. Unless you consider tank shocking a "need" or go with heavy flamer sponsons...

You want to move them forwards and be safe without the worry of over extending.

The fix for Ordinance weapons.  Bring back Lumbering Behemoth (is the name OK or should it be changed?), and like Wyddr said, write it as something like 'a model with this special rule treats Ordinance Weapons as Heavy Weapons when determining how many weapons it can fire at full Ballistic skill in the shooting phase'.  That is a bit clumsy I think, but I'm worried that poor wording might make some people think that firing the Ordinance weapon would allow you to ignore the effects of Shaken and Stunned.  If I want this job, I am going to have to learn to write better. 

There's actualuy a bigger issue here. Ord' weapons do need fixing on a number of platforms, not just LRs. That said this is about the Leman Russ so... I'd be tempted to give 2 versions of that rule a try, the basic:

'a model with this special rule treats Ordinance Weapons as Heavy Weapons when determining how many weapons it can fire at full Ballistic skill in the shooting phase'

and also try:

'a model with this special rule that remains stationary treats Ordinance Weapons as Heavy Weapons when determining how many weapons it can fire at full Ballistic skill in the shooting phase'

Second version tones Alpha strike down a little and makes people think about if they want the full firepower or want to make a tactical move.

[Calamity]

No they don't need to move forwards. With the basic load out of Cannon/Hvy Bolter their shortest range is 36" and they have no close combat ability. Unless you consider tank shocking a "need" or go with heavy flamer sponsons...

You want to move them forwards and be safe without the worry of over extending.

I think I know where he's coming from.  In this game you do need to move forward to take objectives if you want to win.  And right now that's difficult for the IG to do because it reduces our firepower and puts us to within assault range, where we really don't want to be.  Other armies have units that can smash into the enemy, drive them back and take ground (if not objectives).  Things like Dreadnoughts, Monstrous Creatures, Terminators etc.  And we don't really have anything like that, especially since Ogyrns are too expensive and lack an effective delivery method.  So if our MBTs (which in real life perform these roles), especially the siege variants, could do that then we might be onto something.  They should still be vulnerable in assault though, no question.

There's actualuy a bigger issue here. Ord' weapons do need fixing on a number of platforms, not just LRs. That said this is about the Leman Russ so... I'd be tempted to give 2 versions of that rule a try, the basic:

'a model with this special rule treats Ordinance Weapons as Heavy Weapons when determining how many weapons it can fire at full Ballistic skill in the shooting phase'

and also try:

'a model with this special rule that remains stationary treats Ordinance Weapons as Heavy Weapons when determining how many weapons it can fire at full Ballistic skill in the shooting phase'

Second version tones Alpha strike down a little and makes people think about if they want the full firepower or want to make a tactical move.

I prefer the first one myself, since as I was saying before, the IG could use a bit of Aplha Strike power.  And they still move pretty damn slow.  But I am game for play testing the both of them.

[Spectral Arbor]

No they don't need to move forwards. With the basic load out of Cannon/Hvy Bolter their shortest range is 36" and they have no close combat ability. Unless you consider tank shocking a "need" or go with heavy flamer sponsons...

You want to move them forwards and be safe without the worry of over extending.

Well, let's say I'm a clever opponent, and I realize that in most games, there's no way to ensure that you have an objective in your deployment zone. Let's further assume, that this game is one of those situations. You, as the IG player, have no objectives in your DZ.

So how are you, as IG going to win the game? Wipe me off the board? When I can determine whether or not I give you LOS, due to your limited mobility, and unwillingness to move forward? That seems unlikely.

So instead, you're going to send your... Vets in Chimera forward? While your battle tanks sit back, right?

Ok, so I can see half your army advancing out of your DZ. As they advance, they have dick-all for damage output. In the meanwhile, your battle tanks are poking along, without the ability to improve their target selection through improving their firing arcs. How am I going to win the game?

Simple.

I'm going to wreck anything that leaves your DZ, because I can focus my entire forces, designed to be mobile and capable of unleashing damage. Those wrecked units aren't going to be able to apply significant damage in return, so are simply going to sponge damage until they're eliminated. Your battle tanks will have poor target selection, and due to poor LOS options will be a non-factor for the most part. In essence, I will be fighting an equal value of points that can only generate 25% of it's potential damage output, due to limited firepower while mobile, or an inability to gain effective targets. I will win, hands down.

Perhaps your metagame is less... cruel... but that is the true and effective way to defeat Guard.

So as an alternative, you decide to move forward in a big ole' parking lot. This way, you're able to at least gain LOS to the units that will be attacking your advancing units. Your entire army puts up a sign that says, "If you can get behind me, you win" and every army in 7th that's worth a competitive turd will say, "Ok. I can do that". and proceeds to do so.

That's the necessity for higher rear [Russ] and side [Chimera] armours. The core rules force you to play a style of game the codex is designed to lose at. The codex has been created to hold ground. They pulled any unit / rule that let you quickly gain ground to then hold. The core rules are designed to reward gaining ground, and that's impractical given the value of IG units is based on their potential damage output from cover, not their actual damage output while moving into areas of high threat.

Higher Russ rear AV doesn't fix it entirely, that needs the support of AV 12 down the sides of Chimera, as well, but at least you'd be somewhat enduring to then survive the inevitable first strike against your units. Yes, you'll still lose a unit or two to the initial strike, but at least you aren't losing 3 or 4 units to that initial strike.

Again, this is just one thing that's needed to cope with the 7th ed core rules.

[Calamity]

You make a compelling case Spectral.  I was actually hoping to address the issue of Chimera side armor as well, but only after the Russ was 'sorted'.  I firmly believe that all chimera based vehicles should have SAV 12.  They should be like mobile pillboxes for the small squishy squad inside.

And I think Sentinels need to move faster as well.  +3 inches to their Movement and Run distances.  That why they are actually...fast.  Like a unit within the Fast Attack section should be.    When you then take an Emperor's Talon Recon Company, your walkers can move up to 18 inches and still make a shooting attack at full BS.

P.S: Should normal Tauroxes  be fast as well?  I feel like they should be faster than the big tanks. 

[Wyddr]

Well, let's say I'm a clever opponent, and I realize that in most games, there's no way to ensure that you have an objective in your deployment zone. Let's further assume, that this game is one of those situations. You, as the IG player, have no objectives in your DZ.

I find this an odd statement, since *every* mission (Eternal War or Maelstrom) should allow for you to set up at least 1 if not more objectives in your DZ with the exception of The Relic, regardless of who wins a roll-off.

The only instances in which this is not true is for custom scenarios (such as you see at tournaments) where the objectives are fixed. If you play in a group that consistently does this, your metagame is the exception rather than the rule.

More to the point: certainly the Russ should move. It isn't so fast, though, that "claiming objectives" is its role. It just needs to move fast enough to support infantry with its guns. That currently isn't much of a problem, honestly. If you have trouble knocking down fast movers before they krump your tanks in assault, I think that has a lot less to do with the rear armor of the tank and a lot more to do with the fact that the IG lack sufficient firepower to stop or deter such an advance (a problem I readily agree with). *That* however should be solved by increasing Guard firepower, both on the Leman Russ chassis and elsewhere. Rear Armor 12 is unnecessary, as it doesn't solve the *actual* problem, merely the perceived one. 

[khaine]

Ok, so I can see half your army advancing out of your DZ. As they advance, they have dick-all for damage output. In the meanwhile, your battle tanks are poking along, without the ability to improve their target selection through improving their firing arcs. How am I going to win the game?

Simple...

A unit can move to improve LOS and target options without wading into the middle of the enemy. As I said, it's not about not moving forwards it's about over stretching your reach and not wanting to have any consequences for that action. We're playing a multi directional combined arms game, not a 1980s on rails shoot 'em up.

My Slaanesh Daemon army has 1 ranged attack in 2000pts, everything has to be done up close and personal. My units have to get close to the enemy, but this does not mean I move blindly forwards.

As I said there is a difference between broken rules and rules that people want to change because it feels right to them. You mentioned "my meta" so you are clearly aware that meta changes by area, but want to balance a unit based on your Meta and how you want to use unit X. A broken rule is broken where ever and who ever you play against, it has nothing at all to do with meta game.

Risk vs Reward is a core part of Wargame design, you want to get the really good shots in you risk your Russ by moving it forward, if you want to keep it safe you park it behind a building where nothing can see it (And it can see nothing). Or you can find the middle ground; all 3 are viable options depending on the game.

[Spectral Arbor]

I find this an odd statement, since *every* mission (Eternal War or Maelstrom) should allow for you to set up at least 1 if not more objectives in your DZ with the exception of The Relic, regardless of who wins a roll-off.

More to the point: certainly the Russ should move. It isn't so fast, though, that "claiming objectives" is its role. It just needs to move fast enough to support infantry with its guns. That currently isn't much of a problem, honestly. If you have trouble knocking down fast movers before they krump your tanks in assault, I think that has a lot less to do with the rear armor of the tank and a lot more to do with the fact that the IG lack sufficient firepower to stop or deter such an advance (a problem I readily agree with). *That* however should be solved by increasing Guard firepower, both on the Leman Russ chassis and elsewhere. Rear Armor 12 is unnecessary, as it doesn't solve the *actual* problem, merely the perceived one.

You would find the statement odd, because you are probably using the 6th edition setup rules.

In 7th edition, you roll for mission, set up objectives for that mission if not specifically Relic, the two-objective mission, or kill points, and then you roll for what the deployment type will be, then for which side you get to choose.

So in that scenario, it is very possible to not have any objectives in your deployment zone. Very possible.

We've also previously discussed your maintained metagame, while my experience is that being surrounded happens on a regular basis.

@Khaine

Of course we need to move carefully. You yourself have noted that a mobile enemy is capable of closing the gap on a shooty foe. Presumably one more mobile than Guard. Your argument is that I need to learn to play, while you're capable of assaulting and presumably winning against a dedicated shooting army that isn't coming up to meet you.

I'm well aware of risk vs reward in wargames, thank you kindly. That's how I used to be able to win with Guard. Carefully choosing which resources to allocate to given goals while maximising my resource exchanges. I was quite good at that, which is a thematically appropriate way to win with Guard.

If you're going to summarily dismiss my rule suggestion as being my petty desire to gain dominance in my metagame, you're welcome to do so. If you think that the rule is broken... why I don't know... but let's say you think it's broken in your metagame, why would my suggestion, based on my metagame be any less relevant? My meta is quite competitive. We aren't fluff players. We're beat down players. I'm facing armies that are designed to win. Played by excellent generals. I know what these armies are capable of, and I have a thorough understanding of how the Guard need to be altered in order to compete.

I believe I've read every detailed account of your vast knowledge of the Imperial Guard on this site. Multiple treatises on how to win with them, yes? Thoroughly detailed accounts of means and strategies, yes? Well reasoned, backed by statistics, personally observed through over a decade of using them successfully as a main army, yes? Hmm... I can't seem to find them now, but I'm sure they're there.

My argument is that there's no option between sending it forward, and keeping it back. Any strategy that involves "static gun lines" is doomed to eventual failure as a TAC concept. That's the way the game is built now. Why hasn't "Leafblower" strategy had success, anywhere? Because it can kill, given the opportunity, but without that opportunity given, or due to anything being able to get to the weak point these days, it's without value as a strategy. You can't guarantee objectives [RTFM] so you can't even guarantee ground to hold. Face off against, again, a clever opponent that places all their objectives in the centre of the board. No matter where you place 2 objectives, there's no way to guarantee their presence in your own random board edge. Even if there are 2 objectives in 2 different DZ's, you have to roll a deployment type where you could have that DZ, then win the roll vs your opponent to actually choose that DZ.

Because a wise opponent knows that the sit-back units are a non-issue. You just avoid their LOS, and they're neutered. You've said it yourself!

I'm looking forward to everyone's articles on how to win with Astra Militarum. I know there's a reason I'm not writing them, right now. Probably has something to do with them being painfully underwhelming. Russes having ANY AV 10 facing is their key failure. IG win through attrition. They are a reactive army. It's built straight into their codex. It is very difficult to "gain the initiative" against a skilled opponent, nearly impossible before mid-game even in a good situation. They need to be able to endure longer, to more efficiently trade their resources. They're wiped out too quickly, for an army that needs to trade casualties in order to win. They simply can't jump to an objective and camp it like they once could. They need to slog it 6" at a time, to maintain any semblance of damage output. You CAN'T suddenly move 24+ inches in one turn, with anything but the Fliers... and they're far from amazing. At least, the codex fliers aren't.

Necrons have the durability to slog it to objectives. Guard don't. Necrons are top teir. Guard aren't. I mean, what more is there to say? If Guard are going to be kept deliberately slow, they need to be tougher to reach their objectives and then hold them. This is one way to do so, and one that happens to fit the background and in-game purpose of this unit. Firepower that supports infantry / lighter tank advance.

[Grand Master Lomandalis]

Russes having ANY AV 10 facing is their key failure. IG win through attrition

Which is why we are advocating to boost even the basic Russ to RAV 11.  Going beyond RAV 11, though is going too far.  Which non-flyer / non-super-heavy vehicles have a rear armour value greater than 10?  Land Raiders, Soul Grinder, Siege Variant Leman Russes, Necron vehicles, Skitarii vehicles.  So that's, what, 4 or 5 Necron vehicles plus 2 or 3 Skitarii, and an additional 7 if you are counting variants?  Bumping the standard Russ to have 11 in the rear puts it in relatively rare company.

Rear armour 11 makes marines incapable of damaging it in combat without grenades, and it reduces the chance of a model armed with a Krak grenade from causing damage from 33% to 22%.  If you increase the armour value to 12, it now drops to a 11% chance to only glance.  The only vehicle that is better for rear armour is a Land Raider, and the Leman Russ isn't even close to comparable for points to warrant that.  You want to increase the rear armour for a Leman Russ to 12, then you are going to have to increase the point cost; at the very least a twenty point increase.  That would put the Demolisher at 190pts.

Armour 11 is reasonable.  Armour 12 is not.  The Leman Russ is not a Land Raider, nor should it be close to that level of survivability.  It is a tough nut to crack as it is, making it armour 11 will make it even more so.  Making it armour 12, in addition to the other changes people are talking about (Lumbering Behemoth and price reductions) is going to far.  Now, if you want to increase to armour 12, but not include Lumbering Behemoth or a price reduction, then I am fine with that.  That would be a large enough change to warrant the price of the vehicle as it is now.  But you can't have everything.

[Wyddr]

@SpectralArbor
Even in 7th Editon you ought to wind up with at least one objective in your DZ (or very near to it) if you want to. It just isn't that hard to manage. You get to place half the objectives.

And none of this provides any reason rear armor 12 should be required.

[Calamity]

I had a lot of thought about this issue, and here's what I got; a krak grenade or it's equivalent should be able to score a penetrating hit on a Leman Russ, even the siege variants.  Because there's always a chance you can stick it down an open hatch or up the tail pipe, destroying the inside of it.  So, I would say the tank's Rear Armour needs to be capped at 11.  This leads onto another matter.  I really think that the siege variants should have better rear armor than the standard variants.  It's always been that way, and the models themselves strongly suggest it.  So, my final suggestion is...lets leave the armor values as they are.  Of course I'm not an authority on this matter though, so you can disagree with me all day. 

About Orders; is my rewrite of Gunners OK?  And is FOMT and BID out of the question?

[Spectral Arbor]

I'd advocate for a 20 point reduction to both LRBT and Demolisher Variants, but just those tanks, the rest are fine.

I'd advocate for Lumbering Behemoth coming back, because it makes the LRBT and Demolisher next to worthless without. The sponsons are what make the tank, at their current pricing. Not being able to take advantage of those is a tank that's not going to see the field.

I'd advocate for regular variants having Rear AV 11, Seige Varients Rear AV 12. I'm aware that standard marines couldn't hurt it without krak grenades but since I'm not aware of a single Marine that doesn't have Krak Grenades, I'm pretty ok with that. Truthfully, the idea that a battle tank would not put some kind of protection on it's exhaust port. I mean, I could weld some expanded metal on the ports in about 10 minutes...

http://www.google.ca/search?newwindow=1&biw=1440&bih=752&tbm=isch&q=expanded+metal+mesh+texture&revid=578084434&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjT8vn4xtrKAhXMxIMKHRgqCpUQ1QIIJA

and I could similarly cover any view port or ANY EMPEROR-DAMNED PLACE A KRAK GRENADE WOULD GO. I mean, even the outer edges of the tracks could be covered up so you couldn't get in without losing an arm. It's not Star Wars, most people don't leave unprotected exhaust ports. It would lead to people tossing explosives into them!

And yes, I do believe that the rear of a Siege Russ would be as tough as the rear of a Storm Raven, Tougher than the rear end of a Flying Croissant [It's just jet engines, for the love of the Emperor] and probably as tough as the rear armour on a Knight. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that yes, the main battle tank of the Imperium should be at least as tough as that silly crab-tank the Mechanicus has. I'm not sure what that is off the top of my head.

AV 10 used to be standard. That was when movement capped out at, what? 24" a turn, unless you were specifically an Eldar Jetbike? When it was hard to get to the rear armour? AV 11 was somewhat impressive. It's a hold over, and one that should be altered. These tanks need to be altered to be significantly more capable of resisting assault because nothing else can spear-head in the IG. Not our Vets in Chimera [Though that new formation looks tasty...] and not Rough Riders, not Ogryns, not Scions. Nothing can push an enemy unit out of cover. We need something that can gain ground. A Russ with Rear AV 12 is a good starting point, supported by Chims with side AV 12. It needs to happen, in my opinion, or some other tremendous alterations to the rest of the codex. These two AV alterations are quick, appropriate, and useful to the traditional play-style of IG.

@Wyddr: Do you need me to run the maths, or is the following thought experiment sufficient? Presume that your opponent knows that Guard have the mobility of molasses in the arctic, and decides to place all of their available objectives as close to the centre of the board as possible. Because they will be more able to deal with close-range combat than Guard are. Be it most armies's ability to outshine Guard in CC, or the remaining armies's abilities to gain access to Ignores Cover / Invisible / Shrouded units that can pretty much wreck IG through shooting / stomping. Emphasis on STOMPING. I hates me a WK and IK with near-equal passion.

For the record, I believe this argument shows the validity of the necessity of raising Guard AV's, due to the necessity of moving forwards into harms way. It would be the first of many steps to make getting up close a non-suicide mission.

In any multi-objectives scenario in which the IG player gets multiple objectives to place, I believe it is wise to spread the objectives around rather than load one side or the other. In the "loaded up" DZ scenario, assuming the opponent loads the centre with their objectives, the Guardsman needs to place objectives before knowing his deployment zone. By loading "one corner" to maximize the possibility of having multiple objectives regardless of deployment type, he runs the 50% risk that his opponent will take that DZ, and utterly screw him. Even in a good scenario, this strategy is only at optimal efficiency in games in which the Guardsman gets more objectives to place. That occurs in 1/3 missions [1/3 less, 1/3 equal, 1/3 more] in 2/6 Eternal War missions, and 0/6 Maelstrom missions, and 1/2 chance to win the right to choose table half. Despite my overall dislike of Maelstrom, it must be factored into balance issues as a legal way to play, thus 2/12 missions. 0.33 x 0.17 x 0.5= 0.03. 3% of completely randomized missions allow the IG player to load a corner [one 2'x2' corner-board section, assuming one exists with decent LOS] and win that corner to deploy in. Such rare occurrence is not a major factor. Even in the Maelstrom missions, a Guardsman that manages to place all 3 in a corner and then win that coin-toss to take it, must contend with his opponent being well capable of claiming the central objectives and then sniping any necessary objectives out of the IG's camp with a speedy ObSec unit. Or whatever they can use. Really, it's not hard to clear Guardsmen from cover these days.

Thus, it is reasonable to assume that in most cases, the Guard player will have an equal number of objectives in their deployment zone, possibly one more than their opponent's, though in ALMOST all cases, there will be more objectives located centrally than in their own DZ.

The opponent controls the strategy the Guardsman needs to use, in order to be successful. Because if the Guardsman can't move, take, and hold the clustered central objectives, they will lose, because their opponent will control a greater density of objectives. Presuming the spread-objectives strategy on the part of the Guardsman, they will also likely have an objective in their own DZ to further tip the balance, forcing the Guardsman to drive for the centre in order to outscore them. Linebreaker is impossible without it, really. So right there, a more mobile opponent is +1 on you, but more on that later.

In the Relic, The Scouring, every Maelstrom mission, and 2/3 of both Crusade and Big Guns Never tire, there will be more central objectives than their are "single DZ" objectives, if your opponent wants. 78% of missions, if your opponent choses to do so. Being able to move to centre, clear enemies [presumably from cover] and then hold against retaliation is the key to victory. If your army is better at that, then your opponent's is, you can force them to play the game on your terms 78% of the time. Even if you're playing pure EW missions, your opponent can force this scenario 55% of the time. If that isn't forced, how often could your opponent instead completely spread objectives to the ends of the board? Could the IG make it to the spread out objectives, much less hold them? I'm not sure of the math, but I don't need to bother, the strategy is already the PROBABLE scenario in either case, but a ballpark would put 90% of Maelstrom and 75% of EW missions, in which the IG is flat-out screwed during the objective placement phase, if they have any strategy involving significant sit'n'shoot units. Again, as a clever opponent I know that those sit'n'shoot units aren't going to press for the centre, and if they do, they forgo their shooting or expose themselves to incredible risk.

Any strategy that does not focus on the ability to gain and hold ground, is doomed to fail in a TAC scenario, in which the opponent is clever / cruel enough to centrally cluster the objectives, or, if that scenario can't be worked due to lack of objective control, spread the objectives so far and wide as to prevent the IG player from being able to reach them without completely forfeiting their offensive capabilities. We either lose to "Deathstars" in the centre, or fast MSU on the fringes. Pretty much every army does that better than we do, without any kind of conscious effort. Everyone does melee better than us, and everyone is faster than us. It's simply in the strength of every other army's builds. It's the way 7th edition's win conditions simply are.

So, no, Wyddr. It's not that easy to position objectives to that sit'n'shoot armies can play on even footing. MOST of the time, even in pure EW missions, your opponent can force you to leave your DZ if you want to win. Considering that 1st blood almost always goes to the more mobile army [assuming sufficient LOS blocking terrain] and linebreaker is a pipe-dream for the AM, we're well on the back foot even in scenarios in which we aren't forced into the drive-for-centre strategy. Our Warlords are, I'm confident, the easiest Warlords to slay, even. So a mobile army is likely to score 1st Blood assuming a somewhat defensive initial deployment [Why not? they move fast!] are much more likely to score Linebreaker, and if they can't get StWl, they aren't trying. Too much back-foot. Too little control in the ability to secure objectives within the DZ.

Tougher rear armour would be one solution to allow us to drive the necessary firepower and toughness into that amphetamine parrot-storm. Presuming no higher AV's, how do you suggest that the Guardsman that's forced to play that game 78% of the time whether he likes it or not, succeed?

Balance must revolve around the most cruel of scenarios, and that's what I've faced. My buddies and I play to win, and I wouldn't have it any other way. I'm all ears. How do I drive to a central cluster of objectives to win the game with IG? I face Necrons, Marines, Eldar, Tau, Imperial Knights, and Dark Angels [biker heavy].


@Anyone Reading: Please take a moment and think about it. If you build an army that can drive for centre, clear it out, and then hold ground while potentially taking a run at one other objective, and it was better at it than your opponent's army, you could predictably enforce the game to be played on your terms. A scenario that you're probably going to win. If you want a TAC strategy, that's it, if you play completely random missions. That's 7th edition. It's why WK's supported by the rest of the Eldar codex is so effective. It's why Necrons can bludgeon their way to centre through sheer toughness, with a few fast units to snake out and steal objectives. It's why Biker Marines with IK allies are so effective. It's why Tau, with Ignore Cover everywhere can counter-meta and focus fire so effectively against top builds. Thunderwolf Cav and Friends drives for centre, and then support units follow to claim where they were, then chase the next objective. Good luck rooting them out.

Playing to a predictable strategy, at the very least a mostly predictable strategy, is what makes these builds so powerful. Russ and Chimera with higher AV help to counter them... except for the Knights, of course. It's something of a step in the right direction, anyhow. This is the definitive TAC strategy, that you can enforce 78% of the time. Centrally clustered objectives.

[khaine]

I had a lot of thought about this issue, and here's what I got; a krak grenade or it's equivalent should be able to score a penetrating hit on a Leman Russ, even the siege variants.  Because there's always a chance you can stick it down an open hatch or up the tail pipe, destroying the inside of it.  So, I would say the tank's Rear Armour needs to be capped at 11.

At the risk of going overly complex on the rules you could set both at AV11 and then allow the Siege tanks to down grade a penetrating hit from close combat to a glancing on a X+ dice roll. It would give them more protection against higher strength weapons as well.


I'm not sure it's something I'd do personally but it would open the option of AV11 on a basic Russ and still allow the siege tanks to be better protected if that was what you wanted.

[The GrimSqueaker]

Call it something like Reactive Armour, may be used for any hits within one turn (so CC and shooting phase), downgrade pen to glance on a 4+, for example.

[Calamity]

My concern with the idea of an extra rule along the lines of this reactive armor thing, like a lot of the things with the guard, is that I would keep wondering, 'why don't the Marines have this?'

Let's face it.  They're the Imperium's favorites, and have first dibs on all of their best stuff.  It's why we don't have widespread boltguns, grav weapons or power armor.  The rule is OK in theory but for me it creates a small problem with the fluff.

And it makes things a little complicated too.  Increased armor is very simple to implement and play with.  The only issue is the wide implications for the game itself.  Which is...not simple.   

I have to say though, I think Spectral made a pretty passionate and logical case for RA 11/12 for the tanks.  I just don't know which side to support!  I thought I did but it's never that easy is it? 

[The GrimSqueaker]

The Marines have basically a love affair with their equipment and I can't see them being overly fond of large chunks of the armour exploding off them everytime someone hits it with a shaped charge or RPG. Now the Guard, they're much more along the lines of "I DON'T WANT TO DIE" and could suffer the indignities of scorch marks and hammering the bits back together each night. 

[Wyddr]

You also don't *have* to call it "reactive armor." Make it a 6+ or 5+ save to downgrade a pen, but not one use only (see the Ork Trukk "Ramshackle" Rule) and call it "Built to Last" or "Redundant Systems" or something.

[Calamity]

Would it be possible to combine the ordinance weapon bonus with this special armor save under one rule?  Something like:

When a model with this special rule suffers a penetrating hit, it may roll a D6.  If the result is a 6, the penetrating hit is reduced to a glancing hit.  In addition, a model with this special rule counts Ordinance Weapons as Heavy Weapons when determining how many weapons it can fire at full Ballistic Skill when making a shooting attack.

Something that suggests how unstoppable a Leman Russ is?

I fear that this is complicating things a lot though.