And W6.

It's going to take a LONG time to kill a tervigon with a battlecannon.

What I find odd about the Russ Battle Tank Love is how much worse it is against anything that isn't giving you 5 hits per template with 3+ armor in 5+ or worse cover. I think 5 hits every time you shoot is very wishful thinking, but this would be the breakdown.

TEQ: Eradicator by 1.31 wounds to .75 wounds
4+ or worse armor: Eradicator 7.91 wounds to russ 4.5
MEQ: 4+ cover: Eradicator 2.63 vs Russ 2.19
MEQ: open ground: Russ 4.27 vs Eradicator 2.63

Russ is great at popping that last hull point...
AV10: Eradicator 2.25 hull points to Russ 1.02
AV11: Eradicator 1.08 hull points to Russ .91
AV12: Russ .75 hulls points to Eradicator 0.
AV13: Russ .55
AV14: Russ .30

Yes, the bolt boat Eradicator is more expensive than the russ. But I don't drop special weapons from the whole army to upgrade, I drop a single PiS.

The mix of the Eradicators ignore cover blast with it's dakka hasn't been a problem for me. Against hordes I just focus fire. Against non-hordes I get a kill or two with the dakka and then drop the pie plate.

Bolterboats work decent without the ignore cover effect. When the ignore cover does kick in, it's really worth it.

Armored company allies is a better option, IF you are playing somewhere where forge world and allies are being used.

-Matt

And when you factor in that the russ still needs to hit, and cover saves, those stats against vehicles can start to take a pretty steep plunge in a hurry.

Plus, russes are durable, but they're not invincible. Even if the game weren't limited to 5-7 turns, you still have a time limit for how many shots you get sometimes.

Combined with the cost of even a vanilla LRBT, and you're talking about something that's a really inefficient vehicle-killer to boot.

This seems to have degenerated into a debate about Specialists vs Generalists. I've got news for everyone then. They BOTH work. Depending on your mindset, personality, and strategy 3 Specialsts, each good at either Target A, B, or C VS 3 Generalists that can do 1/3 of the job to A, B, and C that the specialist can will still get the job done.

Genralists have strength in numbers, whereas Specialists are predators. (no Alien refference intended)


About sponsons; HFs should be a good choice. Unlike the other options HFs are not in competition with the main weapon of any tank. They fill the defensive needs of most armour, and provide anti-cover options. Interesting to note, BS doesn't matter, so enjoy Ordinance enthusiasts.

*edit
What do people think about the benefits of having all HF equipped LRs (turret whatever is your fave) doing a 6" per turn gunline with major flames to push back or severely punish those who get caught or too close? It's like adding a Flame Tanks weapon to an Avatar in C&C3

 Gibblets wrote:
Interesting to note, BS doesn't matter, so enjoy Ordinance enthusiasts.

BS doesn't matter with flamers because you can't snap fire them at all, so you have to choose which gun to use. I still have LRBTs with hull flamers though, they are cheap and sometimes better than a battlecannon shot for close up work.

 Ailaros wrote:
And W6.

It's going to take a LONG time to kill a tervigon with a battlecannon.

Vanquishers with beast-hunter shells are one of the best MC killers in the entire game, as long as it doesn't have EW. You are right though, you may as well not bother firing a regular bc at a tervigon.

Why would some one use a BC to go after a Tervignon? There are better weapons in standard guard army for that job.

Basing an argument on an absurdity is kinda ridiculous. Why not say a HB is better than a Las Cannon because it is better at killing hordes?

Assuming that opponents will always be in cover is kind of absurd..as is assuming they will always be in the open. Comparing a BC to a missile launcher is also absurd.

Further...saying the BC is terrible because it doesn't have as many shots as some weapons and is not as strong as others is kinda dumb. The BC is both stronger than some weapons and better at killing vehicles than others.

ender502

 Ailaros wrote:

MajorStoffer wrote:When clearing a ruin, I find my flamer platoon command squad in a chimera with flamers will inflict a godawful number of wounds

Your opponents just let you drive up and flamer their Sv5+ units in cover?

Weird.

Clearly I just march my chimera right across the table and they ignore me.

Moving said unit at max speed, utilizing cover (which is dirt easy to get now for vehicles) and providing other, more important targets for the enemy to fire on usually means my "Mr. Fwoosh," has no issues getting a chance to roast something. Also, due to overlapping flame templates, it doesn't matter the armour value; they've knocked out MEQs reliably, as bunched up units in cover getting 6+ hits per flame template means there's just too many saves for them to make, and the enemy dies. Not usually squad wipes, unless they're getting no saves, or if they roll poorly, but still well.

This is my point, as a part of a larger army, the Eradicator is too expensive for what it does; I have other, more deficient options. For instance, when fighting units out in the open well spread out, I've got Exterminators and Punishers with as many HBs as possible, plasma vet squads, a bane wolf, and regular guard gun lines, depending on the list. If the enemy chooses cover which allows them to spread out well, like forests or the like, their cover save is not going to be very good, so I have no qualms using a battle cannon shell or other armour negating weapons, as their cover save isn't going to save many of their troops.

Unless it's an Ironbark, those things annoy the ever-living gak out of me.

 Ailaros wrote:

MajorStoffer wrote:When clearing a ruin, I find my flamer platoon command squad in a chimera with flamers will inflict a godawful number of wounds

Your opponents just let you drive up and flamer their Sv5+ units in cover?

Weird.

And your opponent is going to let your 1 eradicator live long enough to have great effect? or are you going to take 2 or 3 tanks costing about 200pts a piece where if you save the points from each of your eradicators you get melta stormes to drop in, pop a transport or tank and if theres troops alive your LRBT has a target. Not to mention if your running expensive tanks like that then you have to have them well protected.

And against W6 creatures that battle cannon is just another wound to add to that creature because I would love to see a single guard unit put out 6 solid wound to drop that creature...possible but it will sometimes require multiple targets and thats where the 1 battle cannon helps as that tank can start firing at that MC turn 1 without night fight and can wound it 2 turns mostlikely doing 2 wounds (or atleast scattering and wounding some little guys because tyranids like to sheild there bigger one) before you get additional lascannon or plasma gun fire to effectively drop it quickly.

Well here's what I'm not getting. If your fireball PCS is really such a good thing, then you must have something that's REALLY good that will be a higher priority. Since we're talking about you killing scoring units off of an objective, the only thing that's going to have a higher priority is things that kill off scoring units better or faster than a fireball PCS.

The only two things I can think of that fit this are a colossus, or an eradicator.

Either your opponents have target priority problems or fireball PCSs aren't as good as you say. Or you're already taking eradicators.

 Ailaros wrote:
Well here's what I'm not getting. If your fireball PCS is really such a good thing, then you must have something that's REALLY good that will be a higher priority. Since we're talking about you killing scoring units off of an objective, the only thing that's going to have a higher priority is things that kill off scoring units better or faster than a fireball PCS.

The only two things I can think of that fit this are a colossus, or an eradicator.

Either your opponents have target priority problems or fireball PCSs aren't as good as you say. Or you're already taking eradicators.

Fireball PCS are very effective, but I usually see them in Vendettas rather than Chimeras. I do know someone who takes two fireball PCS squads in a mostly-mech army and puts those Chimeras in front to deter some assaulters, as they can Overwatch with 4d3 flamer hits.

This is 2 pages late, but Techmarines don't improve the area terrain aspect of area terrain Ruins from 5+ to 4+. They only improve the 4+ part to 3+. If they are area terrain ruins, that leaves them at 5+ for area, and 3+ from ruins parts in the way.

The Space Marine FAQ is explicit.

As far as on-topic: Eradicator's are a fine way to get an actual versatile unit onto the field for guard.

 Ailaros wrote:
Well here's what I'm not getting. If your fireball PCS is really such a good thing, then you must have something that's REALLY good that will be a higher priority. Since we're talking about you killing scoring units off of an objective, the only thing that's going to have a higher priority is things that kill off scoring units better or faster than a fireball PCS.

The only two things I can think of that fit this are a colossus, or an eradicator.

Either your opponents have target priority problems or fireball PCSs aren't as good as you say. Or you're already taking eradicators.

In point of fact, I usually use the PCS to kill flanking units, devestators and their equivalent and so on. Provided the game last, it joins up with whatever outflankers my team has and support an assault up the table edge.

Generally speaking, people tend to target my battle cannon russes, my demolisher and my executioner; save for the executioner, they're instant death to most things, and will reduce the saves of everything they target. In fact, since we're a pretty vehicle heavy group, my Commissar Tank Vanquisher tends to get an awful lot of the attention.

Since I run an Armoured Company, the russes are the principle targets. My PCS is likely more dangerous strategically due to its ability to do horrible things to scoring units more reliably than pie plates, but a wall of Russes can't be ignore either. Only infantry horde armies tend to target the PCS first; daemons and orks and bugs, otherwise my proper tanks receive the most attention. There's also the reality that I use a banewolf; i've got two dedicated anti-cover units, effective against everything which doesn't have 2+ in abundence, and a bunch of dangerous russes.

I learned this from a Grey Knights player; always have dangerous targets for the enemy to choose between, force them into a dilemma where they can't easily eliminate your force, and it isn't clear which one is truly more powerful. You can mathhammer it out and find unit x is y percentage better at inflicting wounds based on normal probability off the table, but for most people, that has little bearing on an average game.

People see a Battle Cannon russ and go, "that thing will either give me no save if I'm in the open, or drop my save down to a 4+ at best in cover," while the PCS gets scoffed at, at first, because most units will still get an armour save...against between 25-40 wounds, depending on how well I place my templates, and how poorly they place their men.

The PCS has utility, and because it isn't very expensive, losing it is not very important, but using cover saves well, it's not hard to keep alive unless the enemy focuses on it. An eradicator is alright at its job, but it's cost vs reward ratio isn't great. There are cheaper, more effective options in that nice. Hell, consider hellhounds, being fast with their funky inferno cannon, it gives them good range, good mobility, and a low profile means lots of cover saves, and isn't penalized by BS3.

I admit, I'm not a player which spends a lot of time or effort optimizing my lists, but even I'd be reluctant to take an eradicator; it just doesn't strike me as a niche unit worth using. Its niche can be filled by other Guard units. If it's what you like, all the power to you, but I'm not seeing anything that'll convince me to build one, and I even have a spare turret I haven't decided on yet.

MajorStoffer wrote: I usually use the PCS to kill flanking units, devestators

Wait, your fireball PCSs are killing DEVASTATORS? What kind of world are you living in?

MajorStoffer wrote:Generally speaking, people tend to target my battle cannon russes... My PCS is likely more dangerous strategically due to its ability to do horrible things to scoring units

Once again, I've got to seriously question your opponents. Your PCSs are the most dangerous things, but your opponents are ignoring them to attack russes, which, by your own admission, are lower-quality targets. I feel like I have to repeat my previous question.

 Ailaros wrote:
Wait, your fireball PCSs are killing DEVASTATORS? What kind of world are you living in?

It's not completely unreasonable. To kill a 5-man MEQ unit with flamers you need an average of six hits per model, and you have five flamers (four + the Chimera). Obviously that means a complete kill requires better than average luck, but not by so much that it would be shocking if your opponent's luck with 3+ armor saves sucked and the whole squad died, and you don't always need a complete kill to consider it a success (who cares about the sergeant, and even taking out 3/4 heavy weapons is a win).

In short: it's not realistic to expect to consistently kill devastator squads, but it is realistic to expect to hurt them.

Once again, I've got to seriously question your opponents. Your PCSs are the most dangerous things, but your opponents are ignoring them to attack russes, which, by your own admission, are lower-quality targets. I feel like I have to repeat my previous question.

It's not always that simple. For example, do you kill the flamer PCS headed for your scoring units, or do you kill the Medusas that are about to reduce your terminators to a bloody mess and remove your only surviving assault element and therefore your only real hope of wiping your opponent's troops off their objectives? And then it gets even more complicated if the PCS is going after something other than a scoring unit. Do you shoot the PCS headed for your devastators, or the melta vets headed for your Vindicator? And then consider all the random other variables, do you shoot at the PCS Chimera out in the open, or the Colossus hiding behind an aegis line with camo netting? The Chimera is an easier target, but the Colossus is probably going to do more damage.

 Ailaros wrote:

Wait, your fireball PCSs are killing DEVASTATORS? What kind of world are you living in?

Not consistently, but they do enough damage to neutralize the threat. The larger the unit, the more effective the flamers become as well; tightly packed bloodletters or any such unit really doesn't appreciate just how many wounds flamers can deal to them; I force the enemy to roll buckets of dice, and probability says some are going to die, especially since flamers are one of the few weapons which, when there's 5 of them, can inflict significantly more wounds than there are models. I know one guard player who only uses flamers as special weapons; no plasma or melta, and he just roasts everything alive, and anything short of a terminator wing army tends to actually suffer quite badly at the hands of it.

 Ailaros wrote:

Once again, I've got to seriously question your opponents. Your PCSs are the most dangerous things, but your opponents are ignoring them to attack russes, which, by your own admission, are lower-quality targets. I feel like I have to repeat my previous question.

As said in the post above me, there's more variables to consider. To take my last game as an example, a SW player launched a large assault through light cover to reach my line (normal guard list, so lighter armour, only 4 russes). He had several large units of regular marines of the wolfie variety (I'm not familiar enough with SW units to tell which), lead by a terminator armoured model with a stormshield. He advanced at my Russ squadron (Dem and Punisher), but I had deployed with a banewolf on one flank, a PCS fwooshmera on another flank, and an executioner in the rear. I also had a plasma special weapon squad in a nearby ruin, and both an autocannon and missile luauncher heavy weapon team. H

is 2 rifle dreads and two long fangs with missiles had to choose targets carefully; they didn't have enough shots to kill everything about to open up on them next turn, so they had to prioritize. I've built an army reasonably effective at engaging most things that get thrown at me, I present enough targets that only a Tau or Guard list will ever have enough shooting to really neutralize my counter-attack. In the end, his rifledreads immobilized and stunned my Banewolf, it made its cover saves for everything else, and the missiles managed to knock out a standard russ further off by hitting side armour, and glance my squadron once. He didn't make awful choices, but it's impossible to eliminate everything, and when faced with lots of nasty, dangerous and expensive specialist units, the PCS tends to get ignored, which is one of its strengths.

People who've fought it before and taken nasty losses start taking it higher up the priority list, but then that means my russes aren't getting shot at, so they can demolish, punish, exterminate, execute and so on with less interference. It is only the standard russes I consider somewhat lacklustre, but provide a useful backbone which can contribute something to most combat scenarios. They've only ever been "useless" when fighting Imhotek, as they're range doesn't mean anything, and everyone and they're brother has a 2+ cover, and I'm being hit by lightning, but that's a different beast entirely.

Imhotek, now there's a match for the eradicator; take your night fighting cover save and shove it.

 TheCaptain wrote:

 Kingsley wrote:


Most people don't allow those units, so discussing them is not time efficiently spent for most users.

First; that's not true. 100% of the people at my LGS allow or use FW units. Yes, this is anecdotal evidence, but more than you have provided. Saying "Most people X" is a sweeping generalization, and is fallacious unless you have proof. Furthermore, catering to a minority group, if it were true, is no less useful. Most people don't use SoB; better close all the SoB threads, right?

No.

If one person benefits from advice given, that advice has been useful. Relegating your advice to the majority is less useful, because there will be more people available to give advice on it. Most people don't play Armoured Battlegroup. Peregrine does. Therefore, he is qualified to give advice on it. I for one learned from his post that ABG makes a better choice to get guard tanks as allies than regular guard. +1 Benefit

Fallacious generalizations are no way to justify something. Nor is burying the minority opinion. I believe that is how the Civil War started.

And don't bother saying "but those units are totally legal," that's another completely dull topic. We all know what the story is on that.

The story is there is disagreement in the community; some will agree and some won't.

I have yet to play against anyone who has disallowed FW units. Maybe i'm just lucky.

Although i am thinking of calling foul on my friends project of a Death Company Contemptor Dread....but purely coz it scares the feth out of me.

Gonna agree with Peregrine and Stoffer...there are more variables than you are allowing for in your argument. 40K, as much as it is mathhammer, is not just a game of numbers.

But if we were to actually mathhammer this...even a queen can be sacrificed so a pawn can win the game.

ender502

"The game is complex" and "My opponent has to make choices" aren't panaceas. Furthermore, saying these things isn't even saying anything. You could say them for ANYTHING to shut down a conversation ("you don't use grenade launchers to handle terminators? Well, the game is complex"), but it's also meaningless in its own right. What does the fact that your opponent needs to make decisions actually support?

Furthermore, they're always true. My opponents will always have to make decisions, and, as such, it's rather a controlled variable here. I always assume that I'm playing against the most competent opponents who will always make the right decision, and then be happy when they don't. I don't PLAN on my opponents not being able to figure out what the most threatening things are in my army at any given point.

Yes, sometimes you need to sacrifice a queen for a pawn to win, but it's risible to extend that into advising chess players to make an army only of pawns.

 Ailaros wrote:
"The game is complex" and "My opponent has to make choices" aren't panaceas. Furthermore, saying these things isn't even saying anything. You could say them for ANYTHING to shut down a conversation ("you don't use grenade launchers to handle terminators? Well, the game is complex"), but it's also meaningless in its own right. What does the fact that your opponent needs to make decisions actually support?

Furthermore, they're always true. My opponents will always have to make decisions, and, as such, it's rather a controlled variable here. I always assume that I'm playing against the most competent opponents who will always make the right decision, and then be happy when they don't. I don't PLAN on my opponents not being able to figure out what the most threatening things are in my army at any given point.

Yes, sometimes you need to sacrifice a queen for a pawn to win, but it's risible to extend that into advising chess players to make an army only of pawns.

Exactly...just as silly as to suggest because one weapon is better at taking out things in cover (and nothing else) it is better. Ignoring the higher strength and vehicle kiling power of the BC is just as silly as saying "my opponents make choices." It ignores every other factor.

The difference here is that you are the one ignoring every factor so as to arrive at your desired end: that eradicators are better than battle cannons. Which, in a vacuum, and under specific circumstances..they are. Sadly, the game, as has been noted by many, is not played in a vacuum that only favors the superiority of the eradicator.

But just for giggles...lets consider a marine in 4+ cover versus an eradicator or a battle cannon.... eradicator has a ( 5/6 x 1/3) 28% chance of an unsaved wound. A battle cannon has a (5/6 x 1/2) 42% chance of an unsaved wound.

I'll take the weapon that has a better wound ratio versus opponents in cover, vehicles, and high T opponents.

ender502

I usually just go to great pains to point out that my platoon command squad is 'only XX points and are you *really* going to shoot at them?"

But then again, I don't usually send mine out into the enemy lines. My PCS is usually anchoring a flank or sitting next to a tempting deep strike location.

Maybe it's cause my games don't tend to leave wreckage about for EXPLODES results, but usual battle cannon tactics amount to.

Bring it down order on transport > Hope transport explodes > Drop battle cannon on marine squads head.

Although, I am interested in fielding an eradicator at some point due to a combination of the massive increase of necron players, defence lines and night fighting.

 Compel wrote:

Although, I am interested in fielding an eradicator at some point due to a combination of the massive increase of necron players, defence lines and night fighting.

I find the Manticore works better. It denies cover a lot of the time (damn area terrain) and IDs the Lords too. In my FLGS my opponent throws his Lord at the front of the squad with a rez orb so he can tank all the shots that aren't AP2. The Manticore gets around this and throws out some casualties around the Lord.
I've seen the Lord at the front tactic a lot, and I have to wait until turn 2 usually for my Vendettas to pick him off since those warriors make short work of my plasma vets in chimerae.

 Compel wrote:
I usually just go to great pains to point out that my platoon command squad is 'only XX points and are you *really* going to shoot at them?

Often times since you only need to devote one unit firing one time at them, and frequently with a unit that is only useful for hurting this type of target, yes.

Several million years ago, you'll find me asking Ailaros why he was using heavy weapons squads? He said no one shoots at them. I guess that has changed in his area.

ender502 wrote:Which, in a vacuum, and under specific circumstances..they are. Sadly, the game, as has been noted by many, is not played in a vacuum that only favors the superiority of the eradicator.

Read the entire rest of this thread. My whole point is that battle cannons aren't good generally, not just in fringe circumstances. Go back and look at some of the math. They're just crummy.

DarknessEternal wrote:Several million years ago, you'll find me asking Ailaros why he was using heavy weapons squads? He said no one shoots at them. I guess that has changed in his area.

Yeah, the shift of 6th ed to being more shooty, and especially the addition of first blood. Most relic games come down to secondaries, and those games that don't end in a hideously one-sided slaughter also tend to have secondaries matter.

People didn't really ever shoot at my HWSs when they were just a few crummy autocannons, but now that you get VP for sweeping them off the table right away...

Compel wrote:Although, I am interested in fielding an eradicator at some point due to a combination of the massive increase of necron players, defence lines and night fighting.

Right, and that's some of the reasons I even bothered taking a second look at the eradicator at all. Half the missions are ones where you have a bunch of objectives scattered around the field. Often, people don't waste expensive units holding said objectives (especially in their deployment zones). Therefore digging crummy units out of cover is now a real thing you have to make sure you include in your list. Before, I was doing this with 10-man flamer stormtrooper squads, but now I'm making a shift towards vehicles.

I mean, every GK player at my store nowadays is bringing coteaz so that they can deposit MSU henchmen squads on stuff, while SM players are starting to all include camo cloak scouts, and I've already seen a harkerstar from one of our guard players. As peregrine mentioned earlier, there's a pretty short list of stuff that can handle this well (and doesn't require something silly like your opponent not shooting at it for a couple of turns), which basically boils down to flamer stormies, hellhounds, vendettas with hellstrike missiles, colossuses, and eradicators.

The difference between the eradicator and those other options are few, but important. They have AV14, which means actual durability, for example, and you can take a real hull weapon and sponsons. Armed with an eradicator cannon, lascannon, and multimelta sponsons, you have a tough platform that can seriously threaten most things in the game. Seriously threaten being the pertinent thing here. As I mentioned in the OP, I only consider versatility when something is actually GOOD at various roles. MCs and TEq have to fear the hull weapons (in a local tournament recently I destroyed a draigowing because I had a pair of tanks with this setup. 6 shots per turn that ignore armor saves, FNP, and caused instant death on paladins basically won the game for me in addition to the rest of the lascannon spam in my list), while it's also got good anti-vehicle with the hull weapons, and it also has hordes pretty well mangled with the main gun.

Ironically enough, the only thing it DOESN'T handle is MEq out in the open. Presuming that one of them doesn't turn into a demon prince halfway through the game, I generally haven't found this to be that big of a problem.

I'll freely admit that I've never used an Eradicator. However, I think the main problem with the Eradicator is that it's situational, which is definitely not a problem for the good old LRBT (even if it's worse at killing armor now due to the shifted damage table). If you're facing Ork Warbikers, Eldar Pathfinders or expensive fortifications or anything else with a ridiculous cover save, sure, the Eradicator's a great tank. But alternatives also need consideration, namely the Demolisher and the Colossus Siege Mortar.
The Demolisher costs marginally more than the Eradicator, has a much higher strength, better AP, insta-kills up to T5, at the price of a shorter range. It can kill vehicles and Termies, which the Eradicator can't do. And don't underestimate the ID rule-taking the FnP away from those pesky BA, for example. The Colossus can at least punch through power armor, at the cost of much weaker armor.
All in all, I wouldn't really bring the Eradicator unless I knew for sure that my opponent would be bringing Orks, Tyranids or Eldar/DE. That said, I'll model one after reading this thread; it's worth a try.

I do agree that the demolisher is pretty good. When my next league comes up, I'm going to try both demolishers and eradicators and see how they do. I like the eradicators because they get the hull and sponson weapons making them hella killy, but the demolisher may show them up. Perhaps...

As to the eradicator being situational and the russ being able to be good against most stuff, I'd go back and actually read what has been posted in this thread.

If there's anything I'd like people to see (other than eradicators not being so bad), it's that the idea of a battlecannon russ being a good generalist is no longer an accurate thing to say.

Small correction: I never said that the LRBT is effective against everything-I just stated that it can handle everything equally well, which says nothing about how effective that handling is. I completely agree that the glory days of the LRBT are over with the changes to Ordnance and Lumbering Behemoth.

 Ailaros wrote:

If there's anything I'd like people to see (other than eradicators not being so bad), it's that the idea of a battlecannon russ being a good generalist is no longer an accurate thing to say.

And what exactly changed? The russes have to snap-fire three bolter shots now, and that's about it.

I've gone back and read the thread, but for the life of me I'm still not seeing it.

I actually think I agree with you Ailros. I am starting to think more and more that the LRBT is a poor choice and the more specific LR setups are actually pretty good now that nobody is stun locking the things. You can afford to take 3 really good tanks that can do their damage in 1-2 turns rather than taking 6 tanks so you would hopefully get a shot or two off between shaken/stunned.

I personally haven't tried the eradicator but I think I might give it a try in the next game and see how it performs. It actually seems decent at a task that the normal autotakes of the IG codex doesn't really cover. Also this vehicle would be great against night fighting, I really have started hating shrouded.

The battle cannon threatens everything but its best advantage is actually the range. So the only place I really see them being the best choice is in the back field behind an aegis line where with camo nets they become nearly invulnerable. Everywhere else a demolisher just seems to work better.

 Ailaros wrote:
I do agree that the demolisher is pretty good. When my next league comes up, I'm going to try both demolishers and eradicators and see how they do. I like the eradicators because they get the hull and sponson weapons making them hella killy, but the demolisher may show them up. Perhaps...

Demolisher has disappointed me time and time again. I wish you the best of luck with it, and think it requires a very specific build to function well and avoid getting ripped apart before it is in range.

kestril wrote:And what exactly changed?

A bunch of little things.

For example, in 6th ed, half of the games you play now have a bunch of objectives, rather than 1/3rd like in 6th ed, or the zero of 4th ed. This means that people are bringing more infantry units. Infantry units that are cheaper, generally. Infantry units that take advantage of cover better, generally.

Add to this, units getting a 2+ cover save for going to ground behind an ADL that's guarding an objective.

Also, its capabilities against vehicles have been eroding. In 4th edition, you could kill things with a glance, and any penetrating hit came with "+ crew stunned" which stopped the vehicle shooting altogether. Now, glancing doesn't do anything to stop an enemy vehicle from moving or shooting at full power, and the change to the AV rules means that a russ isn't terribly likely to wreck a vehicle outright anymore.

Furthermore, the addition of hull points has made people in my local area start up-armoring. Razorbacks are becoming predetors, artillery is becoming russes, and the like. These are the kinds of targets that battlecannons seriously struggle against.

We've also had codices flesh out more over time. Nowadays, necron has plenty of 4HP AV13 vehicles around. No longer can you use a battlecannon to target the warriors and hope for a phase out. Grey knights didn't used to have paladins or dreadknights or storm ravens, all commonplace now, but didn't even exist a few years ago. In general, codices have been giving out more options that are less LRBT-friendly than before.

Battlecannons also can't target an entire new class of units, fliers. Not that eradicators can, but still, this is a ding against the battlecannon.

Then we have heavy replacing lumbering, as you mention. It's basically not worth it to have sponsons on an LRBT. That means that you're paying a lot of points for what basically amounts to a single blast missile launcher. Sponsons are a way to greatly increase the killing power of a vehicle, for super cheap. Where else in the codex do you get a pair of plasma cannons for only 40 points? Where outside of servitors can you even GET multimeltas, much less TWO of them, for only 30 points, on an AV14 frame? Sponsons are great now, and LRBTs aren't the best way to take them.

There wasn't one big thing that came in and made LRBTs bad. It's been a slow, choking death over time for a unit that, let's not lie to ourselves, that never was THAT great to begin with. Traditional ideas are hard to let go of, but I think, for now at least, the battlecannon russ may actually be near the bottom of the heap nowadays.

TheCaptain wrote:Demolisher has disappointed me time and time again.

Really? This basically describes 4th edition for me. Dozens of games of underpreformance eventually caused me to ragequit demolishers out of my lists.

I've got to feel like they've gotten relatively better, though. The off-center scatter buff against vehicles actually helps a unit with S10 ordnance and Ap2, and I've been seeing an uptick in the number of terminators being fielded as of late (most notably paladins), as well as the heavy vehicles as said above. I feel like of all the things that hurt the LRBT, only like a third of them apply to the demolisher, and they did get better at like that one thing they always did well.

Or perhaps I'm wrong. What exactly was your problem with them?

Also, what is your specific loadout?

 Ailaros wrote:
"The game is complex" and "My opponent has to make choices" aren't panaceas. Furthermore, saying these things isn't even saying anything. You could say them for ANYTHING to shut down a conversation ("you don't use grenade launchers to handle terminators? Well, the game is complex"), but it's also meaningless in its own right. What does the fact that your opponent needs to make decisions actually support?

That's entirely missing the point. The point is not that "it's complex" is an automatic justification for any strategy, it's just that your assumption that your opponent will always kill the flamer PCS because it's the biggest threat on the table unless you brought Eradicators is nonsense. Things aren't that simple, and there are lots of cases where the PCS isn't at the top of the target priority list and/or your opponent has to focus on a lesser threat. So you can't just arbitrarily declare that the PCS will always die first and never get to do anything.

 Ailaros wrote:
Then we have heavy replacing lumbering, as you mention. It's basically not worth it to have sponsons on an LRBT. That means that you're paying a lot of points for what basically amounts to a single blast missile launcher. Sponsons are a way to greatly increase the killing power of a vehicle, for super cheap. Where else in the codex do you get a pair of plasma cannons for only 40 points? Where outside of servitors can you even GET multimeltas, much less TWO of them, for only 30 points, on an AV14 frame? Sponsons are great now, and LRBTs aren't the best way to take them.

You're focusing way too much on the value of sponsons.

First of all, to make them useful you need weapons that share the same target type as the main gun. So, multimelta Vanquishers and plasma cannon Executioners are good, but just throwing multimeltas on an Eradicator is only wasting points. You either waste the main gun or the sponsons no matter what target you shoot at. And if you're conceding that you're going to lose the main gun to shoot the sponson multimeltas on your Erradicator at a vehicle target, well, the LRBT can take those same multimeltas and get the same result. So in that case it doesn't matter which variant you put your sponsons on.

Second, they're not even that great. Sure, they're cheap multimeltas. But they also have severe firing arc problems (you can only use both if you're perfectly lined up against a vehicle at close range), and they're mounted low enough that it's easy for your own vehicles to block their shots. Sometimes they're nice to have, but it's ridiculous to look at a 150+ point tank as nothing more than a platform for some heavy bolters.

I've got to feel like they've gotten relatively better, though. The off-center scatter buff against vehicles actually helps a unit with S10 ordnance and Ap2, and I've been seeing an uptick in the number of terminators being fielded as of late (most notably paladins), as well as the heavy vehicles as said above. I feel like of all the things that hurt the LRBT, only like a third of them apply to the demolisher, and they did get better at like that one thing they always did well.

The problem with the Demolisher is the 24" range, which gives you poor options on turn 1 (especially if you go first and your opponent deployed to avoid it) and can often cause problems later in the game. The Medusa's extra 12" of range is incredibly useful, to the point that I've stopped taking Demolishers entirely in favor of them.

 Ailaros wrote:

TheCaptain wrote:Demolisher has disappointed me time and time again.

Really? This basically describes 4th edition for me. Dozens of games of underpreformance eventually caused me to ragequit demolishers out of my lists.

I've got to feel like they've gotten relatively better, though. The off-center scatter buff against vehicles actually helps a unit with S10 ordnance and Ap2, and I've been seeing an uptick in the number of terminators being fielded as of late (most notably paladins), as well as the heavy vehicles as said above. I feel like of all the things that hurt the LRBT, only like a third of them apply to the demolisher, and they did get better at like that one thing they always did well.

Well they've definitely gotten better; there's no doubt about that. I suppose just not better at the things I need.

Also, what is your specific loadout?

Well, when it comes to me fielding tanks, it's been my weird Gunline+Vendettas and Vultures cheesy abomination of a list. Which leads me to why the Demolisher hasn't been a pleasing addition.

Or perhaps I'm wrong. What exactly was your problem with them?

My Meta is very Termie/Calvalry/Bike(nobs) so I figured "Huh, why not Demolisher?" Mind you, I'm the only Guard player at my store; (lots of powergamers, Codex-of-the-month, and tourney players, meaning Nob Bikers, Necrons, GK, Chaos (daemons and marines), and Space Wolves is pretty much every game I play) and one of the better players there, so it's kindof a "thing" to find out what TheCaptain is running, and try to beat it. Sound fun? Yeah.

Anyways, Demolisher did a good job as a 24" deathbubble around my Aegis, helping me fight off deathstars trying to crash into my blob/tanks.

Unfortunately, pretty much as soon as it started instant deathing people's stuff, everyone and their mother was bringing Meltabikes, Meltaspeeders, Sternmelta, and the other dex equivalents. Basically fast-delivery Anti-AV14. That or dumping every lascannon, missile launcher, Lance, and so forth into it.

Basically became a big bullseye and ended up not doing much.

I should digress, and say that this only shows that Gunline is not the list for the Demolisher; not at all am I saying that the Demolisher is a bad/disappointing tank. If I recall, your list is far more mobile and "take the fight to 'em". Granted, I'd bring two to scoot around HP's a bit, but overall, I can see it doing pretty well for you.

Especially if your meta is Multiwound or just Termie-heavy.

I've found my S10AP2 love in the Artillery Medusas from FW. We're a match made in...the warp? Yeah. I'll go with that.

-TheCaptain



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:


The problem with the Demolisher is the 24" range, which gives you poor options on turn 1 (especially if you go first and your opponent deployed to avoid it) and can often cause problems later in the game. The Medusa's extra 12" of range is incredibly useful, to the point that I've stopped taking Demolishers entirely in favor of them.

I gotta say, it's been a huge blessing, and sold me on the Medusa (or rather, my preferred version of it.)

About the sponsons & the Eradicator, I think it's not easy to find a weapon that's worth fitting on them. If you consider the really specialized role of the main gun (screwing cover saves), the heavy flamers are pure crap, heavy bolters have the same range and AP but don't really add to the functionality since all they add is 6 BS3 S5 shots that won't do much to anything that's worth bombarding with the Eradicator Nova cannon, and multi-meltas prefer very different targets than the main gun, as do plasma cannons. What sponsons would you add to an Eradicator anyway?

If you'll use MM as you implied, I would like to point out that a 12" effective range will probably be pretty dismal on a tank that can't ever move more than 6" per turn. The more I think about it, the better the PC sponsons look- more range, blast, good against light vehicles and all kinds of infantry including termies for just a few more points. But still not optimal IMO, as mentioned above.

LRBTs are good

 Ailaros wrote:


For example, in 6th ed, half of the games you play now have a bunch of objectives, rather than 1/3rd like in 6th ed, or the zero of 4th ed. This means that people are bringing more infantry units. Infantry units that are cheaper, generally. Infantry units that take advantage of cover better, generally.

Sure, but I find that marines will like taking their armor save over a 4+ or 5+ cover, and t3 units in cover with a low armor save can be dealt with easily by the normal stuff I bring in my list. (can anyone say first rank fire?)

Add to this, units getting a 2+ cover save for going to ground behind an ADL that's guarding an objective.

Unless they have shrouded, they won't be getting a 2+ cover save, and the ADL provides a 4+(which cannot be bolstered to a 3+ by master of the forge), which is more easily dealt with by normal guns.

But as to the 2+ cover units, yes, I have seen them more often, but I find my opponent only has one or two 2+ cover save units, and I think that's hardly a reason to dump 180 points into a bolter-sponsoned eradicator that can only contribute one thing, and not well, at that.

But yes, you're right, an eradicator is better than the LRBT at shooting units with a 2+ cover save, but so are flamer-stormtroopers, hellhounds, and helldettas which are roughly the same price as the eradicator. The thing is, the stormtroopers and helldettas can also contribute to the game outside of the eradicator's narrow role. Stormies can kill marines, deepstrike, and contest objectives, while helldettas can transport troops, fly, and strike anywhere on the map. As you like to say, since something is better than another thing, it doesn't make it good.

Also, its capabilities against vehicles have been eroding. In 4th edition, you could kill things with a glance, and any penetrating hit came with "+ crew stunned" which stopped the vehicle shooting altogether. Now, glancing doesn't do anything to stop an enemy vehicle from moving or shooting at full power, and the change to the AV rules means that a russ isn't terribly likely to wreck a vehicle outright anymore.

It still has a 2/3 chance to pen AV 12. That's actually not so bad. Immobilizing or stunning some multimelta-boat or a troop transport is helpful. Although, usually, you want to pop the transport with melta, and the battlecannon the marine squad inside, not the other way around.

Furthermore, the addition of hull points has made people in my local area start up-armoring. Razorbacks are becoming predetors, artillery is becoming russes, and the like. These are the kinds of targets that battlecannons seriously struggle against.

Yep. But to be fair, you don't want to use a battlecannon against those types of targets. If you really want to, just put multi-melta sponsons on the LRBT and you have a better tank than the sponsoned eradicator for 10 points less!

We've also had codices flesh out more over time. Nowadays, necron has plenty of 4HP AV13 vehicles around. No longer can you use a battlecannon to target the warriors and hope for a phase out. Grey knights didn't used to have paladins or dreadknights or storm ravens, all commonplace now, but didn't even exist a few years ago. In general, codices have been giving out more options that are less LRBT-friendly than before.

In your meta, sure. In mine, the focus has started to shift to tough infantry which can hold objectives. Many have revoked vehicles entirely and focused on putting as many 3+ / 2+ save, multi-wound models on the field. Which is a pain to deal with with low-strength weapons.

Battlecannons also can't target an entire new class of units, fliers. Not that eradicators can, but still, this is a ding against the battlecannon.

Still a ding against the eradicator, and I don't entierly see how this point is relevant to the leman russ/eradicator debate.

Then we have heavy replacing lumbering, as you mention. It's basically not worth it to have sponsons on an LRBT. That means that you're paying a lot of points for what basically amounts to a single blast missile launcher. Sponsons are a way to greatly increase the killing power of a vehicle, for super cheap. Where else in the codex do you get a pair of plasma cannons for only 40 points? Where outside of servitors can you even GET multimeltas, much less TWO of them, for only 30 points, on an AV14 frame? Sponsons are great now, and LRBTs aren't the best way to take them.

As peregrine said, firing arcs on sponsons are extremely limited, and the 12 inch range on a slow vehicle doesnt help. Cheap is always good, but I still don't see the eradicator or russ putting them to full use. Putting good sponsons on a situational tank doesn't suddenly make it good. The sponsons make the tank have a few more situations where it can perform decently. On the other hand, the LRBT can perform decently in any situation against a broad variety of targets, and really does damage well when it's optimum targets (space marines!) come in range (72 inches!)

There wasn't one big thing that came in and made LRBTs bad. It's been a slow, choking death over time for a unit that, let's not lie to ourselves, that never was THAT great to begin with. Traditional ideas are hard to let go of, but I think, for now at least, the battlecannon russ may actually be near the bottom of the heap nowadays.

I guess it's one of those "you get what you pay for" type dealies. I find it to be better in 6th due to the new hull point rules. But yeah, I find the more Tanks I have on the board in the late game, the more powerful they are compared to everything else that's left. With the eradicator's narrow set of targets, I'm concerned that it will fail to contribute as much over the course of the game because its primary targets have either been deployed out of it's range, or its primary targets have already been dealt with. In either case, you have 180 points of AV14 uselessness sitting on the board.

My Demolisher has actually been my biggest disappointment as of late.

The main gun remains solid, but the change to lumbering behemoth means the multimelta sponsons I gave it are now worthless.

And they're plastic cemented on there; they ain't coming off.

I may yet try the Eradicator on one of my old Russ chassis, use it when fighting non-MEQs, as I won't argue its utility in those cases, and build the spare Russ I have into a barebones battlecannon, no sponsons and such since they now have no purpose.

The nerf to ordinance russes really is inconvenient, as now what was originally the most common types of Russes are now overgunned, laden with points they can't really use anymore. Save for the executioner, which is still laughing maniacally as it murders power and terminator armour.

 MajorStoffer wrote:
My Demolisher has actually been my biggest disappointment as of late.

The main gun remains solid, but the change to lumbering behemoth means the multimelta sponsons I gave it are now worthless.

And they're plastic cemented on there; they ain't coming off.

Saw them off flush to the mount.

Haven't really ever used the eradicatir yet. Used it once back in 5th and disappointed me a bit but then again it was against a seer council on jetbikes. I'd like to try it but I'm hesitant about the whole large blast thing. Sure it looks nice but when it starts to scatter it's basically wasted shooting. I guess you'd have your sponsons but still. Loosing that large blast to scatter is why I'm not so sure about its effectiveness.

I prefer the hellhound to it. Sure it has a weaker chasis and shorter range but it has far better mobility and you can place the template. I like to keep the whole deny cover slot reserved for the hellhound so I can put other russes in my heavy slots like punishers, demolishers, or a manticore. I want to like the eradicator so maybe I'll give it a second chance. When you do try it out, i'm looking forward to see how it performed for you.

 WhiteWolf01 wrote:
I'd like to try it but I'm hesitant about the whole large blast thing. Sure it looks nice but when it starts to scatter it's basically wasted shooting.

Isn't everything wasted shooting if it misses?

 TheCaptain wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
...Waitwaitwait. When did Battle Cannons become ineffective against vehicles? They're the single most effective way of getting penetrating hits on high-AV vehicles that isn't either crippled by limited range or crippled by limited ammo/inaccuracy; even if you only blow the vehicle up on a 6 now, penetrating hits still cause damage results and knock off hull points...

What.

No, seriously. What. High-AV being AV13-14, they Pen AV13 1/3 of the time, and can't pen AV14.

The Leman Russ Annihilator is better at killing High-AV, and the Leman Russ Annihilator is garbage.

The Vanquisher is slightly less accurate than the Leman Russ Battle Tank, and doubly effective at penning armor, and doubly effective at causing Explosions.

A LRBT isn't for High-AV vehicles. It's not even for vehicles. Sure, it can damage some of them, but that's not what its for. It is for killing vehicles as much as Lascannons are for killing Space Marines

...Sorry; I seem to have missed the gigantic nerf thrown at anti-vehicle ordnance by 6e; that comment was based on a mistaken assumption that it was still 2d6 for armor penetration.

The remarks on the LRBT being a jack-of-all-trades tank that's generally a good choice in limited-resources (cash or points) games still stand, though.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Sorry; I seem to have missed the gigantic nerf thrown at anti-vehicle ordnance by 6e; that comment was based on a mistaken assumption that it was still 2d6 for armor penetration.

Err, what? Ordnance wasn't 2D6 penetration in 5th either (and probably wasn't before 5th), it was the exact same 2D6 pick the highest, which is exactly what has been said before: 50% to pen AV 12, 30% to pen AV 13, no chance to pen AV 14. The only thing 6th changed was that now there is no half strength for missing with the hole.

 Peregrine wrote:
The problem with the Demolisher is the 24" range, which gives you poor options on turn 1 (especially if you go first and your opponent deployed to avoid it) and can often cause problems later in the game. The Medusa's extra 12" of range is incredibly useful, to the point that I've stopped taking Demolishers entirely in favor of them.

Which is why I like the Plasma sponsons on mine. Well, pre 6th ed. anyway. Now that I can hurt myself, I just go with the HHB.

 TheCaptain wrote:

 WhiteWolf01 wrote:
I'd like to try it but I'm hesitant about the whole large blast thing. Sure it looks nice but when it starts to scatter it's basically wasted shooting.

Isn't everything wasted shooting if it misses?

Let me clarify. Basically what I was getting at is that there are better things that increases you chances to hit and do damage. Such as the hellhound or the manticore which has the potential to cover a larger amount of ground that scatter shouldn't technically hurt you as much. In the case of ordanance blasts your usual target is generally armor and with the new blast rules, once again scatter shouldn't hurt you. With the colossus you can take squads for fewer points than squads of eradicators and pull off what the manticore does to a better extent against troops in cover. The way I'm looking at it is not about durability so much as increasing your chances to do damage.

 WhiteWolf01 wrote:

Let me clarify. Basically what I was getting at is that there are better things that increases you chances to hit and do damage. Such as the hellhound or the manticore which has the potential to cover a larger amount of ground that scatter shouldn't technically hurt you as much. In the case of ordanance blasts your usual target is generally armor and with the new blast rules, once again scatter shouldn't hurt you.

Hellhound is a Chimera-Chassis flamer with a 20 inch range. Good luck getting it close.

Manticore is affected by scatter as much as anything else. Except if the initial shot scatters off, you're incredibly likely to miss with the extra blasts as well. The difference being Manticore allows armor saves for MEQ, and scatters full distance sometimes.

And Ordinance blasts should not be targeting armor at STR8, AP3. We've already discussed how poor of a choice that is. Give a look at the math on the pages previous.

Especially in guard, where we can mass lascannons like no army short of Horus Heresy books.

 TheCaptain wrote:
And Ordinance blasts should not be targeting armor at STR8, AP3.

Well, that depends on the situation. Early-game where you don't have many good infantry targets and stopping incoming vehicle threats is the most important thing? Yeah, I'll take a shot and knock off a HP instead of shooting a random tactical squad that isn't an immediate threat. Basilisk sitting out of lascannon range? A battlecannon shot has the range, and all you need is a 'shaken' result. You don't take it as a primary anti-tank weapon, but at least it has the ability to attempt the shot when you need every anti-tank shot you can get, unlike the Eradicator.

 Peregrine wrote:

 TheCaptain wrote:
And Ordinance blasts should not be targeting armor at STR8, AP3.

Well, that depends on the situation. Early-game where you don't have many good infantry targets and stopping incoming vehicle threats is the most important thing? Yeah, I'll take a shot and knock off a HP instead of shooting a random tactical squad that isn't an immediate threat. Basilisk sitting out of lascannon range? A battlecannon shot has the range, and all you need is a 'shaken' result. You don't take it as a primary anti-tank weapon, but at least it has the ability to attempt the shot when you need every anti-tank shot you can get, unlike the Eradicator.

I mean; the argument "well, if nothing else is a good target" always stands, yeah. But the same goes for just about everything. I'll shoot termies with Bolt pistols if they're the only thing in range; not really something to consider when taking said pistols though.

I can see what you mean, but my statement was moreso in counter to "[with] Ordinance blasts your usual target is armor", which struck me as ill-advised.

 TheCaptain wrote:

 WhiteWolf01 wrote:

Let me clarify. Basically what I was getting at is that there are better things that increases you chances to hit and do damage. Such as the hellhound or the manticore which has the potential to cover a larger amount of ground that scatter shouldn't technically hurt you as much. In the case of ordanance blasts your usual target is generally armor and with the new blast rules, once again scatter shouldn't hurt you.

Hellhound is a Chimera-Chassis flamer with a 20 inch range. Good luck getting it close.

Manticore is affected by scatter as much as anything else. Except if the initial shot scatters off, you're incredibly likely to miss with the extra blasts as well. The difference being Manticore allows armor saves for MEQ, and scatters full distance sometimes.

And Ordinance blasts should not be targeting armor at STR8, AP3. We've already discussed how poor of a choice that is. Give a look at the math on the pages previous.

Especially in guard, where we can mass lascannons like no army short of Horus Heresy books.

Actually, I've had a pretty easy time getting the hellhound in range. Usually driving it up the table edge to flank the enemy. It might not win its points back but it causes some helpful disruption and with the other threats on the table doesn't always take so much heat. As for the manticore sure it might scatter but you've at least got a better chance of doing more damage on the second or third blasts. A chance at something greater for less points than the eradicator is better than nothing at all. In addition to that it's str 10 and doubles most things out unlike the eradicator and since its barrage its going to ignore cover anyway. Concerning ordinance, I wasn't just talking about the LRBT, rather ordinance in general. Long story short the eradicator fills a nitch role that isn't all that impressive when you have other options at your disposal albeit on a weaker chasis. Most of which you can hide behind cover and you have the range to lob shells down field. In a world filled with gauss, doomscythes, screamers, flammers, etc all that extra armor isn't gonna help you all that much. At that point you're better off going for the glass cannons..

 TheCaptain wrote:
I mean; the argument "well, if nothing else is a good target" always stands, yeah. But the same goes for just about everything. I'll shoot termies with Bolt pistols if they're the only thing in range; not really something to consider when taking said pistols though.

I think it is worth considering, since you aren't always going to be in the ideal situation. The LRBT can do a decent job against other targets when its primary target type isn't available (or isn't a high priority threat), an Eradicator/Punisher/etc without its primary target pretty much just sits there uselessly. Or, to put it in more general terms, when I say "if nothing else is a better target" I mean settling for second best, not just throwing away shots.

The bolt pistol, on the other hand, never does anything effectively, especially not shooting at terminators.

I can see what you mean, but my statement was moreso in counter to "[with] Ordinance blasts your usual target is armor", which struck me as ill-advised.

Yeah, I don't get that either. I'll shoot at vehicles with a LRBT if it makes sense, but I'm certainly not taking the LRBT with the hope that I get to take shots at vehicles every turn.

I can see what you mean, but my statement was moreso in counter to "[with] Ordinance blasts your usual target is armor", which struck me as ill-advised.

Yeah, I don't get that either. I'll shoot at vehicles with a LRBT if it makes sense, but I'm certainly not taking the LRBT with the hope that I get to take shots at vehicles every turn.

And I get what you're saying and I agree. Perhaps I should have been more clear, but what I was getting at is that with the ordinance russes that are available to us, they at least serve a dual role. Sure the LRBT isn't going to be wrecking vehicles left and right but it has that opportunity to knock off a hull point due to the fact it IS ordinance. A demolisher, basilisk, or manticore would be far better at getting pens and doing some more lasting damage, but at least with the LRBT it can play into multiple roles even if it isn't that great at the anti-armor role. The eradicator on the other hand can't deal with armor whatsoever so we are left with its initial purpose to kill things in cover. The effectiveness of the eradicator is completely dependent on your local meta. If your meta is SM heavy, why bother? Take a russ and knock their save down to a +4 at worst. If your meta is GEQ or whatever then your decision to bring the eradicator will probably be worth it if you can weather the hail of long range anti-armor most of those armies have at their disposal.

 Peregrine wrote:
an Eradicator/Punisher/etc without its primary target pretty much just sits there uselessly

Huh? You can't just say things and mind-boggingly wrong as this and expect to get away with it.

An Eradicator has four guns that can hurt almost everything in the game. If you're choosing to do nothing with it, that's your problem, not its.

 DarknessEternal wrote:
An Eradicator has one gun that can hurt only a limited range of targets.

Fixed that for you. Sponsons are irrelevant to this discussion because you can put the same sponsons on ANY tank, and there is no target type where both the main gun and secondary weapons on an Eradicator are both firing effectively.

 Peregrine wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:
An Eradicator has one gun that can hurt only a limited range of targets.

Fixed that for you. Sponsons are irrelevant to this discussion because you can put the same sponsons on ANY tank, and there is no target type where both the main gun and secondary weapons on an Eradicator are both firing effectively.

Unless you focus fire.

-Matt

HawaiiMatt wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:
An Eradicator has one gun that can hurt only a limited range of targets.

Fixed that for you. Sponsons are irrelevant to this discussion because you can put the same sponsons on ANY tank, and there is no target type where both the main gun and secondary weapons on an Eradicator are both firing effectively.

Unless you focus fire.

-Matt

How does focus fire help?

If you're shooting the main gun at a squishy unit in cover the sponsons and hull gun aren't doing anything useful because they're just wasted against cover saves and/or hordes of bodies.

If you're shooting the sponson and hull guns at a vehicle the main gun isn't doing anything useful because a single STR 6 shot is pretty much worthless.

If you're shooting the sponson and hull guns at a MEQ unit then the main gun isn't doing anything useful because it's only AP 4.

Focus fire just doesn't help you.

Eradicators are good vs medium to light infantry and the standard LMBT has more uses,. you can shoot everything with it

 Peregrine wrote:

HawaiiMatt wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:
An Eradicator has one gun that can hurt only a limited range of targets.

Fixed that for you. Sponsons are irrelevant to this discussion because you can put the same sponsons on ANY tank, and there is no target type where both the main gun and secondary weapons on an Eradicator are both firing effectively.

Unless you focus fire.

-Matt

How does focus fire help?

If you're shooting the main gun at a squishy unit in cover the sponsons and hull gun aren't doing anything useful because they're just wasted against cover saves and/or hordes of bodies.

If you're shooting the sponson and hull guns at a vehicle the main gun isn't doing anything useful because a single STR 6 shot is pretty much worthless.

If you're shooting the sponson and hull guns at a MEQ unit then the main gun isn't doing anything useful because it's only AP 4.

Focus fire just doesn't help you.

I think what he meant was shoot the main gun at the units in Cover, then Focus Fire the other weapons at units without cover saves. Unfortunately, if I understand the rule, you can't do that

Why is that?

 Peregrine wrote:

HawaiiMatt wrote:

Unless you focus fire.

-Matt

How does focus fire help?
If you're shooting the main gun at a squishy unit in cover the sponsons and hull gun aren't doing anything useful because they're just wasted against cover saves and/or hordes of bodies.
If you're shooting the sponson and hull guns at a vehicle the main gun isn't doing anything useful because a single STR 6 shot is pretty much worthless.
If you're shooting the sponson and hull guns at a MEQ unit then the main gun isn't doing anything useful because it's only AP 4.
Focus fire just doesn't help you.

If you're shooting at a horde, odds are some are in cover, some are not. Heavy bolters plink off guys in the open, pie plate goes for maximum hits.
If you're shooting at a vehicle, the Eradicator does better vs AV10 or AV11 than a Russ.
If you're shooting at MEQ in 4+ cover, the advantage of firing at full BS does more damage than a battle cannon.

If you're shooting at MEQ in the open, then Russ is best.

how about a demolisher

 Tomten wrote:
how about a demolisher

Already been discussed pretty in depth.

 TheCaptain wrote:

 Tomten wrote:
how about a demolisher

Already been discussed pretty in depth.

I didnt know

 Tomten wrote:

 TheCaptain wrote:

 Tomten wrote:
how about a demolisher

Already been discussed pretty in depth.

I didnt know

Gotta read the thread bud. Otherwise you'll find yourself asking questions that have already been answered.

but were can i find it?

 Tomten wrote:
but were can i find it?

One page back...

Peregrine wrote:Sponsons are irrelevant to this discussion because you can put the same sponsons on ANY tank

That doesn't make sponsons equally good on them, though.

A melta-las eradicator can handle pretty much anything, thanks to its peculiar versatility. So could a melta-las punisher.

A melta-las LRBT, though, is always going to struggle against infantry in cover. That's a pretty important gap in its killing power compared to the other two. Plus, as we've been over, a LRBT can't fire its main gun and sponsons at the same time (at least, not well). You get more firepower when you can use all of your weapons than when you can use only one of them. An eradicator shooting its main cannon and its sponsons are going to do equal or more damage than an LRBT firing either its main cannon OR sponsons against most infantry targets.

It's something I'm finding really bizzare about this all. If you can't figure out how to use a russ with sponsons, you lack creativity. Making arguments like "they'll never be in range", or "the tank will be useless when it's not firing its main gun" don't make a lot of sense to me.

HawaiiMatt wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

HawaiiMatt wrote:

Unless you focus fire.

-Matt

How does focus fire help?
If you're shooting the main gun at a squishy unit in cover the sponsons and hull gun aren't doing anything useful because they're just wasted against cover saves and/or hordes of bodies.
If you're shooting the sponson and hull guns at a vehicle the main gun isn't doing anything useful because a single STR 6 shot is pretty much worthless.
If you're shooting the sponson and hull guns at a MEQ unit then the main gun isn't doing anything useful because it's only AP 4.
Focus fire just doesn't help you.

If you're shooting at a horde, odds are some are in cover, some are not. Heavy bolters plink off guys in the open, pie plate goes for maximum hits.
If you're shooting at a vehicle, the Eradicator does better vs AV10 or AV11 than a Russ.
If you're shooting at MEQ in 4+ cover, the advantage of firing at full BS does more damage than a battle cannon.

If you're shooting at MEQ in the open, then Russ is best.

How is eradicator better at av 10 or 11 than a standard russ when eradicator is s6 with 1d6 to glance or pen and the LRBT is s8 with 2d6 pick the highest to pen...wouldnt the normal russ be better as its better strength and it gets 2 d6? And if your shooting at MEQ in cover isnt MEQ's save a 3+ assuming its a marine then wouldnt the Battle tank be better as the marine has to take a 4+ cover save than where as the nova cannon allows the Marine to then take the save with his 3+ armor, think the battle tank is better as well.

Also people keep mentioning MM sponsons. Eradicator has 6inch move and the effective melta rule for the MM to kill a High AV tank(predators, land raiders and other Leman russ) then dont you have to be within 12inches??? if your that close to enemy tanks then your also mostlikely that close to other troops, In which those troops could assault the tank and kill it or the enemy tank gets to shoot at it. But what Im getting at is if you hate being close with the demolisher then why are you getting closer for MM???

 Ailaros wrote:


A melta-las LRBT, though, is always going to struggle against infantry in cover.

Not exactly true. The LRBT is better than the eradicator versus MEQs in cover. The eradicator is better at the 5+ and 4+ saves models in cover.

 Ailaros wrote:
That's a pretty important gap in its killing power compared to the other two. Plus, as we've been over, a LRBT can't fire its main gun and sponsons at the same time (at least, not well). You get more firepower when you can use all of your weapons than when you can use only one of them. An eradicator shooting its main cannon and its sponsons are going to do equal or more damage than an LRBT firing either its main cannon OR sponsons against most infantry targets.

It's something I'm finding really bizzare about this all. If you can't figure out how to use a russ with sponsons, you lack creativity. Making arguments like "they'll never be in range", or "the tank will be useless when it's not firing its main gun" don't make a lot of sense to me.

I usually don't put sponsons on my LRBT. It's always seemed a bit of a waste. But no matter what LR type you take you do need to try to create a synergy of effect. The LRBT is a generalist vehicle. It does quite a bit pretty decently. Not great..but not bad..as we've seen itis even better than the eradicator at killing some infantry types in cover. IMO the LR chassis do not make good mobile fire platforms for the price. I think guard have better options. The LR chassis work best when they are stationary or move very little. Does this make sponsons useless? No. But they do lack the mobility that makes shorter ranged weaponry more effective...a MM on a speeder is way better, in general, than on a LR chassis. So if you are going with sponsone i'd say go cheap and go with heavy bolters. They are inexpensive and will force arnor saves on MEQs and help thin out hordes if necessary.

The eradicator does have some nice advantages over the LRBT (better versus some armor saves in cover and better synergy with sponsons) but I think the advantages are narrow and not worth the loss of the battle cannon. Also, the areas where the eradicator do have advantages are usually such that guard armies have better ways to do the same things already. And is the battle cannon as terrible as some would have us believe? Long range, decent chance to hit, ID and better at killing MEQs in cover.

I'll take the LRBT in non-COD games.

ender502

ender502 wrote:

Ailaros wrote:A melta-las LRBT, though, is always going to struggle against infantry in cover.

Not exactly true. The LRBT is better than the eradicator versus MEQs in cover. The eradicator is better at the 5+ and 4+ saves models in cover.

But it still struggles. Just because something is better doesn't make it good.

And, as has already been mentioned, a bolter boat eradicator will kill MEq better than a bolter boat LRBT. The more heavy bolter hits make up for the -1 cover save (depending on the situation. It may not even be less, in which case the eradicator is better).

ender502 wrote:IMO the LR chassis do not make good mobile fire platforms for the price. I think guard have better options.

This is actually a pattern that I've been noticing. People who are disliking the eradicator also tend not to like russes at all. Don't let the dislike for a chassis or unit type skew the choice of weapons.

I'll admit that russes are certainly enigmatic, but they do have a bunch of subtle advantages. If you don't see the advantages of the russ (like sponson weapons), then you're not going to like russes in general, much less any specific pattern.

 Ailaros wrote:
And, as has already been mentioned, a bolter boat eradicator will kill MEq better than a bolter boat LRBT. The more heavy bolter hits make up for the -1 cover save (depending on the situation. It may not even be less, in which case the eradicator is better).

And that's a stupid comparison because you don't take a bolter boat LRBT. If you remove the overpriced sponsons from the LRBT you find that the LRBT kills marines in cover about 40% more efficiently (points per kill). And this is based on your own math.

This is actually a pattern that I've been noticing. People who are disliking the eradicator also tend not to like russes at all. Don't let the dislike for a chassis or unit type skew the choice of weapons.

Actually I like them in general. The LRBT is useful, the Demolisher is very good, and the Executioner is awesome as long as you can get your anti-tank from somewhere else in the FOC. The Eradicator is garbage.

The eradicator needs to be ap3 ignores cover s6 for it to be useful. It is not. A colossus does a better job for less.

 Red Corsair wrote:
The eradicator needs to be ap3 ignores cover s6 for it to be useful. It is not. A colossus does a better job for less.

Nevermind that the colossus can fire without line of sight and the barrage rule lets you manipulate wound allocation.

Exactly, which gets to my previous point.

If all you're doing is looking at up-front splat cannon killing power, then russes are terrible. They were in the past, and still are now. Why take a terrible battlecannon when you can take a much better earthshaker cannon? Why take a demolisher when a medusa is killier, and can take BB shells? Why bother with exterminators when you can take a pair of hydras for the same price (even in 6th ed)?

The plain fact is, point-for-point, russes have never been straight-up killier than their points in other HS slots. As mentioned, though, russes are still worth taking, but the reasons are a lot more subtle and difficult to see. A first-run pass of killing power efficiency will always miss them.

But the point of russes isn't to compare them to how artillery does the same killing for better or cheaper (or both), because it always does. The point of russes is exactly those other things. It's the AV14, it's the hull and sponson options, and it's the better on-the-move firepower, and the myriad of little things these general principles represent.

The point of this all is that russes don't HAVE to be as killy per point as artillery. That's not their job. Their job is to be russes.

I used the colossus as an example for comparison of why the nova canon falls flat for me, whether you take a colossus or not.

I take demolishers because they have multiple impacts on the game.

1. They terrify death stars
2. The are a Russ so they block LOS well
3. They soke up AT


By comparison yhe eradicator really only accomplishes roll 2. because a smart opponent will know better then to waste shots dealing with it. Its a dreadfully slow chassis with a short ranged non threatening canon. At least a LRBT will keep them out of my DZ and hugging cover.

Stating that they there job is to just be a Russ if foolish to me. Your investing not only a lot of points but a HS slot. That is an important slot, it needs to be killy or else it's not a threat, which doesn't sound Russ like to me. I like the exterminator more then the Eradicator for Pete's sake!

 Ailaros wrote:
Exactly, which gets to my previous point.

If all you're doing is looking at up-front splat cannon killing power, then russes are terrible. They were in the past, and still are now. Why take a terrible battlecannon when you can take a much better earthshaker cannon? Why take a demolisher when a medusa is killier, and can take BB shells? Why bother with exterminators when you can take a pair of hydras for the same price (even in 6th ed)?

The plain fact is, point-for-point, russes have never been straight-up killier than their points in other HS slots. As mentioned, though, russes are still worth taking, but the reasons are a lot more subtle and difficult to see. A first-run pass of killing power efficiency will always miss them.

But the point of russes isn't to compare them to how artillery does the same killing for better or cheaper (or both), because it always does. The point of russes is exactly those other things. It's the AV14, it's the hull and sponson options, and it's the better on-the-move firepower, and the myriad of little things these general principles represent.

The point of this all is that russes don't HAVE to be as killy per point as artillery. That's not their job. Their job is to be russes.

Of course, better armor has a price. You're right about the fact that Russes have more staying power, so they simply get more shots off than artillery. That's exactly why you take them. They also force the enemy to try and get behind them-they dictate your opponent's play. It's exactly that what makes them a big threat and totally worth their points (unless you take an Eradicator). Even if you're not up against MEQ, no ID against T4 really takes off a lot of psychological threat from the Russ.

I believe the rule changes are making all of us look to non-ordnance russes for maximum volume of fire, but does it really work? An Eradicator with HB sponsons costs 20% more than a LRBT, one with MM sponsons (only one of which will be able to fire every turn the tank fires most of the time, due to the firing arc) costs even more, and I'd much rather get two more lascannons or other upgrades/more bodies than an increase in killing power against units in cover. Add a hull LC and it becomes even more ridiculously expensive. I'm sorry, but even if the BC "sucks", I'd rather get two LRBT or two Demolishers and other units/upgrades instead of two melta/LC Eradicators, EXACTLY because Russes are meant to be Russes (i.e. bring armor onto the field).

Sponsons work if they help your main gun AND complement your equipment. I believe the lack of synergy between the main gun and any sponsons on an Eradicator has been covered in a satisfactory way by Peregrine. Concerning equipment, first-generation Russes (rear AV10) are simply too susceptible to being charged or jumped behind to be able to use short ranged weapons effectively. Trust me, I've had a Russ destroyed late game by charging Lootas. LOOTAS. It was only supposed to block LOS so that they couldn't kill a battered PIS sitting on an objective (Yeah, I was unlucky enough that the game continued into Turn 7, the Lootas slaughtered the PIS after killing the Russ and the game ended in a draw. It's a painful memory). If you really want to make short ranged weapons work well with a Russ, I'd say go for the rear AV11 ones. Isn't their shorter range the reason for having rear AV11 anyway?

For the record, I love Russes. LRBTs, Exterminators, a Vanquisher, Demolishers and an Executioner are a proud part of my collection, and more are under construction. It's quite rare that I bring no Russes in any game over 750 pts. I converted the Eradicator I modeled into an Exterminator after a single playtest. I just don't have the patience to make it work.

 Ailaros wrote:
The point of russes is exactly those other things. It's the AV14, it's the hull and sponson options, and it's the better on-the-move firepower, and the myriad of little things these general principles represent.

Yes, but you don't have to use all of those things at once. The fact that you are willing to pay extra for AV 14 on your "Basilisk" doesn't mean that you're also obligated to "make use" of the sponson options even when they eat up a lot of points without contributing much. You're trying way too hard to make the sponsons fit just because they're an option, instead of asking yourself what you need to add to the unit to make it do its job.

To weigh in, the eradicator has 2 functions. One, its a heavy tank. 2, it kills 2+ cover save units.

Both 1 and 2 are meta game considerations. Because of this,I feel the eradicator is too specialized for its roll.

First, lets talk about the tank aspect. The av14 is nice, there it no doubt, but it is not impervious. As guard tend to lack counter assault elements, and assault is the easiest way to get around the av14, the heavy tank is not good in a meta game including fast tough assault elements. Wraiths led by a 2+ destroyer lord, nurgle spawn, ect. If you are worried about these units, then the heavy tanks trade off in killing power for toughness is wasted, making any heavy tank a poor choice.

Now for the main gun. 2+ cover seems to come from 3 places for the most part. First is the aegis with units going to ground behind it. Second is from units behind some cover with night fighting applied, either from necrons or by rolling it on turn 1 or 5+. Third is from stealthy units in terrain like stealth snipers, stealth suits, harlequins, ect. For the aegis, any barrage weapon would also strip their save, and barrages ability to fire from beyond Los coupled with the cheap cost makes barrage weapons superior. For night fighting, if you have unused search lights then you can get around the bonus cover save. Thus the Russ variant is not needed as much provided you have other vehicles that can search light for you. Finally we come to the stealthy units. Stealthy units can be a real pain if you are un prepared, but they are not that common. Thus, in a take all comers list, you probably don't need to worry about them. Guard do have good access to transports and flamers, which handle night fight with search lights and stealthy units with deposited flamers, so only if you have none of those will you need to consider the Russ variant.

In conclusion, the combination of a tank that tries to fill two different specific meta games at once creates an over specialized choice. This applies to most of the Russ variants but it is most profound with the eradicator, with no cover saves being such a specialized role that clashes with the role of a heavy tank. While cheap henchmen getting a 3+ cover save when going to ground in area terrain is an issue, dealing 9 wounds to t3 infantry is not so difficult, and the eradicator only counts for 6 more wounds in that case, which can easily be made up for with other units considering the premium paid. It truly takes a 2+ cover save stealthy unit before the eradicator begins to shine offensively, and units that get such saves on their own are few and far between. For everything else you have mortars, griffins, and searchlights.

 Ailaros wrote:
Exactly, which gets to my previous point.

If all you're doing is looking at up-front splat cannon killing power, then russes are terrible. They were in the past, and still are now.

Disagree. a s8 ap3 weapon witha a very long range is not terrible. The range alone makes it very effective. The ability terrify MEQs is probably worth the points all by itself.

 Ailaros wrote:


The plain fact is, point-for-point, russes have never been straight-up killier than their points in other HS slots. As mentioned, though, russes are still worth taking, but the reasons are a lot more subtle and difficult to see. A first-run pass of killing power efficiency will always miss them.

But the point of russes isn't to compare them to how artillery does the same killing for better or cheaper (or both), because it always does. The point of russes is exactly those other things. It's the AV14, it's the hull and sponson options, and it's the better on-the-move firepower, and the myriad of little things these general principles represent.

The point of this all is that russes don't HAVE to be as killy per point as artillery. That's not their job. Their job is to be russes.

Agree. Though I do like to play my russes as stationary (like arty) they do have a greta advantage over arty...no need to hide the russ. I generally play with 2 naked russes and then 2 arty vehicles.

ender502

Basilisks have a long range

LRBT are supposed to make MEQ's hide in cover and waste their potential, so why take a variant that encourages them out of cover and into your lines with little repercussion?

Hedkrakka wrote: one with MM sponsons (only one of which will be able to fire every turn the tank fires most of the time, due to the firing arc)

I don't understand where this misconception is coming from. If you look at page 72 of the rulebook, you can clearly see that the line of sight for russ sponsons converge.

I just busted out a russ, and, from the points they say to measure from, could see a single 20mm-based infantry model from 6" away with both sponsons. If there was a unit of infantry, the sponsons just need to be able to see one of the models. Against larger targets, you can see them at any range.

This idea of sponsons having some sort of blind spot are greatly exaggerated

Hedkrakka wrote:the lack of synergy between the main gun and any sponsons ... has been covered in a satisfactory way

Covered and rebutted. Russes are one of the few places in the guard codex where you can get genuine versatility. You don't need to have all of the weapons on a russ serve the same purpose.

Hedkrakka wrote: I'd much rather get two more lascannons or other upgrades/more bodies than an increase in killing power against units in cover.

This seems really strange to me. Do people use cover at your local gaming group?

They do at mine, and I can certainly say that lascannons are insufficient for removing gone to ground scoring units off of objectives.

ender502 wrote:a s8 ap3 weapon witha a very long range is not terrible.

The math has already been over this. I fail to see how a weapon that takes more turns than there are in a game to break open a transport or that only kills a marine a turn on average qualifies for the definition of "not terrible".

DevianID wrote:the combination of a tank that tries to fill two different specific meta games at once creates an over specialized choice.

The two niches that a las-MM eradicator can handle are

1.) Infantry units that use cover.

2.) Armies that include vehicles, terminators, or monstrous creatures.

How does that make the tank "overspecialized"?

OK here is a misconception you keep having, how is the small chance of exploding a vehicle with a battle canon making it terrible? It can hit multiple transports in one go, will easily pen which means the transport and the crew are at worst not shooting and probably not moving. I'll take two of those effects all game thank you very much.

 Ailaros wrote:

ender502 wrote:a s8 ap3 weapon witha a very long range is not terrible.

The math has already been over this. I fail to see how a weapon that takes more turns than there are in a game to break open a transport or that only kills a marine a turn on average qualifies for the definition of "not terrible".

Well, considering the eradicator is even worse at it killing transports or killing marines.... kinda rebuts your position. By your logic, the eradicator is even worse than the battle cannon.

ender502

 Red Corsair wrote:
OK here is a misconception you keep having, how is the small chance of exploding a vehicle with a battle canon making it terrible? It can hit multiple transports in one go, will easily pen which means the transport and the crew are at worst not shooting and probably not moving. I'll take two of those effects all game thank you very much.

You're over-estimating the ability of a blast to hit >1 target. That's not reliable or common. The small chance of it exploding means you shot your single battle cannon blast per turn at removing 1 HP, something that an AC could do.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ender502 wrote:


Well, considering the eradicator is even worse at it killing transports or killing marines.... kinda rebuts your position. By your logic, the eradicator is even worse than the battle cannon.

ender502

I'm playing devil's advocate here, but you're wrong. The vanilla Russ is fire battle cannon and chance those other weapons, the eradicator is use all 4 weapons in one go. Even if you took 2 PCs, Hull LC and the main cannon, you've got a far better chance of removing a rhino in one turn than the vanilla Russ. You also kill more MEQ, GEQ and TEQ per turn. It's more expensive, but it has a multi-role ability the vanilla russ wishes it had.

I'm late to the debate but I'm gonna have to come in on the pro-LRBT side. I'd like to open by saying I don't understand why ANYONE thinks a S8 AP3 72" range weapon is bad. What is bad about this weapon? It breaks marine armour saves, doubles out T4 to cancel out FNP, and the range on the weapon means you can fire it anywhere which, among other things, allows you to throw some killing power on the other end of the table if you have a weak flank there. It also means that, unlike the Demolisher, the Battle Tank does NOT need to be in the threat range of everything that specializes in wrecking AV14 (melta guns or pretty much any assaulting unit) to do its job. I also don't understand the notion that the Battle Tank sucks at hurting vehicles and struggles at AV12. Having Ordnance means you're glancing or penetrating AV12 more often than not, and the ability to hit multiple vehicles with the full strength of the blast also forces your opponent to space out their vehicles more which opens up side armour and in general causes them to think twice about how they deploy and move.

Now, if you're taking a Russ just to throw the sponson weapons on it, I can SORT OF see the appeal for the Eradicator (although it still seems counter-intuitive since your main gun doesn't jive with any of the sponson weapons) cause you're still getting a large blast weapon that doesn't nerf your other guns to BS1. But... honestly, S6 AP4 isn't all that terrifying unless your meta has a LOT of xenos and Guard running around. I personally don't come across a lot of opponents with 2+ cover saves like Ailaros has apparently, so maybe the advantage of the Eradicator is lost on me. It just seems like that in an edition of MOSTLY 5+ cover saves, the Eradicator doesn't strike me as particularly good. Frankly I think if you're gonna take a Russ to throw sponsons on, the Exterminator is a much better choice because its main gun works very well with sponsons (imo).

Just FYI I'm playing devil's advocate, I'm still sitting on the fence here, (leaning towards the Vanilla Russ) but I think Ailaros has some good points, so I'm throwing my thoughts in...

 creeping-deth87 wrote:
It breaks marine armour saves

As established, the LRBT is better in the one situation where Marines are standing in the open. Not exactly common since most lists pack plenty of plasma and melta.

the range on the weapon means you can fire it anywhere which, among other things, allows you to throw some killing power on the other end of the table if you have a weak flank there

.
The range is excessive. Most things that it is worth shooting at won't be >48" away, in which case there are plenty of other weapons able to manage this. I mean, on tables I play on the 72" range means I just don't bother measuring.

It also means that, unlike the Demolisher, the Battle Tank does NOT need to be in the threat range of everything that specializes in wrecking AV14 (melta guns or pretty much any assaulting unit) to do its job.

Neither does the Eradicator...you know the one we're comparing it to. Bringing up the Demolisher is a thinly veiled Straw Man.

I also don't understand the notion that the Battle Tank sucks at hurting vehicles and struggles at AV12. Having Ordnance means you're glancing or penetrating AV12 more often than not, and the ability to hit multiple vehicles with the full strength of the blast also forces your opponent to space out their vehicles more which opens up side armour and in general causes them to think twice about how they deploy and move.

Well I've mentioned this already, pen =/= wreck. Yes it can pen more often than the eradicator, but you still only have a 2/6 chance of doing anything worth while to the transport (read explode or immobilize). The Eradicator has the advantage of being able to ping off all the HPs or if using MM pretty much guaranteeing the explode result.

Now, if you're taking a Russ just to throw the sponson weapons on it, I can SORT OF see the appeal for the Eradicator (although it still seems counter-intuitive since your main gun doesn't jive with any of the sponson weapons) cause you're still getting a large blast weapon that doesn't nerf your other guns to BS1. But... honestly, S6 AP4 isn't all that terrifying unless your meta has a LOT of xenos and Guard running around.

People don't take sponsons on vanilla Russes, that's why this comes up. It's basically a single shot tank that only beats the Eradicator's main cannon drastically when Marines are in the open. If the marines are in cover the results are pretty similar. In fact the Eradicator pulls ahead if you kit it with PC sponsons.

I personally don't come across a lot of opponents with 2+ cover saves like Ailaros has apparently, so maybe the advantage of the Eradicator is lost on me. It just seems like that in an edition of MOSTLY 5+ cover saves, the Eradicator doesn't strike me as particularly good.

A lot of people see 2+. A lot of people see GEQ or Xenos. The Eradicator can handle a lot of things well. The Vanilla Russ can do one thing very well, but take away marines in the open and it's actually not that great.

Eradicators are good ok?

 Red Corsair wrote:
I used the colossus as an example for comparison of why the nova canon falls flat for me, whether you take a colossus or not.

I take demolishers because they have multiple impacts on the game.

1. They terrify death stars
2. The are a Russ so they block LOS well
3. They soke up AT


By comparison yhe eradicator really only accomplishes roll 2. because a smart opponent will know better then to waste shots dealing with it. Its a dreadfully slow chassis with a short ranged non threatening canon. At least a LRBT will keep them out of my DZ and hugging cover.

Stating that they there job is to just be a Russ if foolish to me. Your investing not only a lot of points but a HS slot. That is an important slot, it needs to be killy or else it's not a threat, which doesn't sound Russ like to me. I like the exterminator more then the Eradicator for Pete's sake!

Right. If I took Eradicators my opponents would just ignore them. If I had vanilla Russes or Demolishers, they'd be top priorities.

And if I bought 3 Executioners with plasma sponsons, my opponents would brown their pants

 Tomten wrote:
Eradicators are good ok?

They're mediocre and niche.

 TheCaptain wrote:

 Tomten wrote:
Eradicators are good ok?

They're mediocre and niche.

It all depends on what you are fighting.

 Tomten wrote:

 TheCaptain wrote:

 Tomten wrote:
Eradicators are good ok?

They're mediocre and niche.

It all depends on what you are fighting.

Good V. Some targets. Crap V. Others

That's the mark of a mediocre unit.

exactly.

 TheCaptain wrote:

 Tomten wrote:
Eradicators are good ok?

They're mediocre and niche.

I'm starting to think neither of those statements are fair. Or at least, if TheCaptain's statement is true, it's also true for the Vanilla Russ.

 Griddlelol wrote:

 TheCaptain wrote:

 Tomten wrote:
Eradicators are good ok?

They're mediocre and niche.

I'm starting to think neither of those statements are fair. Or at least, if TheCaptain's statement is true, it's also true for the Vanilla Russ.

Why not?

 Griddlelol wrote:


As established, the LRBT is better in the one situation where Marines are standing in the open.

...and when they're not. You want those MEQs taking 5+ or 4+ cover saves (far less common in 6th but still) rather than 3+ armour saves, no?

Lanrak wrote:

Neither does the Eradicator...you know the one we're comparing it to. Bringing up the Demolisher is a thinly veiled Straw Man.

It's not. The Demolisher can smash AV14, and will piss all over AV 11 or 12. The Eradicator simply cannot touch anything with an armour value.

Lanrak wrote:

Well I've mentioned this already, pen =/= wreck. Yes it can pen more often than the eradicator, but you still only have a 2/6 chance of doing anything worth while to the transport (read explode or immobilize). The Eradicator has the advantage of being able to ping off all the HPs or if using MM pretty much guaranteeing the explode result.

So the Eradicator's anti-tank consists of two BS3 Multi-Meltas? Good luck with that.

Lanrak wrote:

People don't take sponsons on vanilla Russes, that's why this comes up. It's basically a single shot tank that only beats the Eradicator's main cannon drastically when Marines are in the open. If the marines are in cover the results are pretty similar. In fact the Eradicator pulls ahead if you kit it with PC sponsons.

Vanilla Russ vs MEQ in the open:
83% chance to wound
83% chance to kill
Instant Death

Eradicator vs MEQ in the open:
83% chance to wound
27% chance to kill
No Instant Death

So it's 1/3 as effective, like you'd expect.

Vanilla Russ vs MEQ in 5+ cover
83% chance to wound
55% chance to kill

Eradicator - as above

So in 5+ cover the vanilla Russ is still twice as effective.

Vanilla Russ vs 4+ cover is 41%, again compared to 27% chance for the Eradicator.

So the Eradicator reaches parity when you play with 3+ cover table-wild...except it can't instant death, so it doesn't. And it still can't hurt vehicles, and you better hope your opponent doesn't have nobs or bikers or ogryns.

Lanrak wrote:

A lot of people see 2+. A lot of people see GEQ or Xenos. The Eradicator can handle a lot of things well. The Vanilla Russ can do one thing very well, but take away marines in the open and it's actually not that great.

You don't need pie plates to kill GEQ, you need dice. No army in the game struggles to mow down guardsmen or guardians, almost without trying. But the vanilla russ will wound almost everything on a 2+ and can harm (though being AP3 likely not destroy) vehicles, and ID marines to boot.

 Testify wrote:

 Griddlelol wrote:


As established, the LRBT is better in the one situation where Marines are standing in the open.

...and when they're not. You want those MEQs taking 5+ or 4+ cover saves (far less common in 6th but still) rather than 3+ armour saves, no?

Lanrak wrote:

Neither does the Eradicator...you know the one we're comparing it to. Bringing up the Demolisher is a thinly veiled Straw Man.

It's not. The Demolisher can smash AV14, and will piss all over AV 11 or 12. The Eradicator simply cannot touch anything with an armour value.

Lanrak wrote:

Well I've mentioned this already, pen =/= wreck. Yes it can pen more often than the eradicator, but you still only have a 2/6 chance of doing anything worth while to the transport (read explode or immobilize). The Eradicator has the advantage of being able to ping off all the HPs or if using MM pretty much guaranteeing the explode result.

So the Eradicator's anti-tank consists of two BS3 Multi-Meltas? Good luck with that.

Lanrak wrote:

People don't take sponsons on vanilla Russes, that's why this comes up. It's basically a single shot tank that only beats the Eradicator's main cannon drastically when Marines are in the open. If the marines are in cover the results are pretty similar. In fact the Eradicator pulls ahead if you kit it with PC sponsons.

Vanilla Russ vs MEQ in the open:
83% chance to wound
83% chance to kill
Instant Death

Eradicator vs MEQ in the open:
83% chance to wound
27% chance to kill
No Instant Death

So it's 1/3 as effective, like you'd expect.

Vanilla Russ vs MEQ in 5+ cover
83% chance to wound
55% chance to kill

Eradicator - as above

So in 5+ cover the vanilla Russ is still twice as effective.

Vanilla Russ vs 4+ cover is 41%, again compared to 27% chance for the Eradicator.

So the Eradicator reaches parity when you play with 3+ cover table-wild...except it can't instant death, so it doesn't. And it still can't hurt vehicles, and you better hope your opponent doesn't have nobs or bikers or ogryns.

Lanrak wrote:

A lot of people see 2+. A lot of people see GEQ or Xenos. The Eradicator can handle a lot of things well. The Vanilla Russ can do one thing very well, but take away marines in the open and it's actually not that great.

You don't need pie plates to kill GEQ, you need dice. No army in the game struggles to mow down guardsmen or guardians, almost without trying. But the vanilla russ will wound almost everything on a 2+ and can harm (though being AP3 likely not destroy) vehicles, and ID marines to boot.

You dont take Eradicators if you fight Meqs

But a question I had earlier in the thread that was unanswered is are you going to spam eradicators then. Because If your playing against good opponents(assuming you do as you are saying how your having trouble with lists) and you only have 1 eradicator then what makes you think your opponent will let that tank live long to even do its job. But then if you spam them your using many points on sponsons and if your opponent doesnt have those horde type units that rely on cover to get a better save then your eradicators are almost useless as they wont have great targets.

I dont see why people also believe the MM are great on russes as you have to be within 12inches to get the melta rule, and if you say to stop a death star from crashing into your lines, then if its already that close its probably already killed your tanks.

A land raider moves 6 inches and the troops disembarking get a 6 inch move and they can assault up to 12 inches(although maximum range is unlikely) this just gives those units a better chance at destroying your tanks before they get to use their MM sponsons. I could see PC sponsons for the additional range s7 ap 2 shots but that still doesnt help kill high AV enemy armor.

 Griddlelol wrote:

 TheCaptain wrote:

 Tomten wrote:
Eradicators are good ok?

They're mediocre and niche.

I'm starting to think neither of those statements are fair. Or at least, if TheCaptain's statement is true, it's also true for the Vanilla Russ.

My statement IS true, and its true for the Vanilla russ too.

Eradicator: Excels at stuff in cover.

Vanilla Russ: Excels at stuff outside cover.

Both have their niche, and both are pretty decent at it. But as soon as they're outside that niche, they're an unremarkable unit.

Tl;dr Russes are mediocre.

Only one that impresses me, though I haven't used it yet, is the Plasmaboat Russ.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tankboy145 wrote:

I dont see why people also believe the MM are great on russes as you have to be within 12inches to get the melta rule, and if you say to stop a death star from crashing into your lines, then if its already that close its probably already killed your tanks.

Multimeltas are still good (well, decent.) outside melta range.

They're still Str8 AP1 guns with 24" range.

Why is the Plasma LRBT so popular?

 Tomten wrote:
Why is the Plasma LRBT so popular?

Because 5 plasma plates on an AV 14 chassis is bloody amazing. Three of them covers your anti-MEQ in a reasonable points limit.

But those small blast only hit like 2 or 3 then the MEQs get cover.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
and it can scatter and miss completly.

 Tomten wrote:
But those small blast only hit like 2 or 3 then the MEQs get cover.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
and it can scatter and miss completly.

You have 5 scatters to miss, though.

 Testify wrote:

...and when they're not. You want those MEQs taking 5+ or 4+ cover saves (far less common in 6th but still) rather than 3+ armour saves, no?

Ailaros has already demonstrated that the LRBT isn't that much more effective when there's a 4+ cover save. Go back and read. Similarly your math doesn't take into account sponson weapons, and more importantly it focuses entirely on marines. I don't know if you've missed the discussion, but no one has said the Eradicator is better at killing marines (unless of course there are PC sponsons and the marines are in cover) but is decent at multiple roles.
You're tailoring the argument to fit "but it doesn't kill marines as well" which isn't the discussion here. It's whether the LRBT is a better all rounder or the Eradicator is a better all rounder. The discussion over marine killing is important to the all round debate, as it's a role to fill. However as the Eradicator doesn't fall that far behind the LRBT in marine killing and is better at destroying vehicles, 2+ and MCs than the LRBT the conclusion is that the Eradicator is better. I feel like this paragraph should be my conclusion because everyone seems to be missing this gigantic point that Ailaros is making.

It's not. The Demolisher can smash AV14, and will piss all over AV 11 or 12. The Eradicator simply cannot touch anything with an armour value.

The Demolisher is not being discussed here. Bringing it up is only ignoring the argument. Pretty much the definition of Straw Man.

So the Eradicator's anti-tank consists of two BS3 Multi-Meltas? Good luck with that.

Two BS3 MM is more accurate than 1 BS4 MM, and has a higher potential damage ceiling. Not to mention you're ignoring the hull LC and the ability of the main cannon to glance. I doubt you'd say "A Tac squad's anti-tank consists of 1 BS4 MM? Good luck with that."

You don't need pie plates to kill GEQ, you need dice. No army in the game struggles to mow down guardsmen or guardians, almost without trying. But the vanilla russ will wound almost everything on a 2+ and can harm (though being AP3 likely not destroy) vehicles, and ID marines to boot.

I take it you don't come across ADL humping GEQ. Ignoring cover is far superior to making them roll 2+ saves.

As I said before, I like the LRBT because it's so incredibly cheap and it is a work horse. It's just not the all-rounder people think it is. It's actually rather specialised, but specialised in a way that other units can easily out-shine it. For the Eradicator to be a good all-rounder it's going to be 200+ points, whereas for 150pts you can get a decent av:14 tank.

One of the blasts will miss. the only downside with plasma LRBT is that it cant kill AV 14 and its very expansive.

 Tomten wrote:
One of the blasts will miss. the only downside with plasma LRBT is that it cant kill AV 14 and its very expansive.

Practically everything else worth taking in the IG codex can kill AV 14.

If you don't have that covered, you shouldn't be looking to the LRBT chassis to begin with.

Haha I will try the Plasma LRBT

 Tomten wrote:
Haha I will try the Plasma LRBT

The Exterminator.

Have anyone tried 3 Plasma LRBTs?

 Griddlelol wrote:

Ailaros has already demonstrated that the LRBT isn't that much more effective when there's a 4+ cover save. Go back and read. Similarly your math doesn't take into account sponson weapons, and more importantly it focuses entirely on marines. I don't know if you've missed the discussion, but no one has said the Eradicator is better at killing marines (unless of course there are PC sponsons and the marines are in cover) but is decent at multiple roles.
You're tailoring the argument to fit "but it doesn't kill marines as well" which isn't the discussion here. It's whether the LRBT is a better all rounder or the Eradicator is a better all rounder. The discussion over marine killing is important to the all round debate, as it's a role to fill. However as the Eradicator doesn't fall that far behind the LRBT in marine killing and is better at destroying vehicles, 2+ and MCs than the LRBT the conclusion is that the Eradicator is better. I feel like this paragraph should be my conclusion because everyone seems to be missing this gigantic point that Ailaros is making.

So you want to discuss which is the best all-rounder, without regarding the overwealmingly most popular infantry type, as well as the only infantry type that doesn't drop like flies anyway?
I don't know what fantasy universe you live in where everyone either has army-wide terminators or mysteriously durable guardsmen/fire warriors but I don't recognise it.

 Griddlelol wrote:

The Demolisher is not being discussed here. Bringing it up is only ignoring the argument. Pretty much the definition of Straw Man.

Oh, you!

 Griddlelol wrote:

Two BS3 MM is more accurate than 1 BS4 MM, and has a higher potential damage ceiling. Not to mention you're ignoring the hull LC and the ability of the main cannon to glance. I doubt you'd say "A Tac squad's anti-tank consists of 1 BS4 MM? Good luck with that."

If you're happy with Multi Meltas on an expensive AV14 for your anti-tank, that's fine by me.

 Griddlelol wrote:

I take it you don't come across ADL humping GEQ. Ignoring cover is far superior to making them roll 2+ saves.

Then run up to them and kill them.

 Griddlelol wrote:

As I said before, I like the LRBT because it's so incredibly cheap and it is a work horse. It's just not the all-rounder people think it is. It's actually rather specialised, but specialised in a way that other units can easily out-shine it. For the Eradicator to be a good all-rounder it's going to be 200+ points, whereas for 150pts you can get a decent av:14 tank.

Actually what you've proved is that the Eradicator is only useful in a list specifically tailored against certain opponents. In that case obviously it's going to be superior to the Russ.

But most people a)can't tailor their lists in this way and b)regard it as unsporting. I eventually gave up blob guard because I was sick of my opponent turning up with 3 Thunderfire Cannons *every single game*. This is what you're advocating.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheCaptain wrote:

 Tomten wrote:
Haha I will try the Plasma LRBT

The Exterminator.

You mean the Executioner. The Exterminator is the autocannon one.

 Testify wrote:

So you want to discuss which is the best all-rounder, without regarding the overwhelmingly most popular infantry type, as well as the only infantry type that doesn't drop like flies anyway?
I don't know what fantasy universe you live in where everyone either has army-wide terminators or mysteriously durable guardsmen/fire warriors but I don't recognise it.

Again, I refer you back to page 1 or 2. The LRBT doesn't pull that much further ahead.

Oh, you!

It's very easy to be dismissive. If I said "Demolishers are irrelevant to the discussion between LRBT and Eradicator" would that be considered the same as pointing out the logical fallacy in your argument?

If you're happy with Multi Meltas on an expensive AV14 for your anti-tank, that's fine by me.

Again, dismissive without addressing the main issue. I'm am not advocating using it for the only anti-tank in a list. When you look at Ailaros' list you'll see why an Eradicator with such things would be very useful.

You know what, I was considering responding to your points, but you're overall tone is sarcastic and frankly ignoring the points I've raised. I'm not going to continue this discussion, but I hope I've added to it as a whole.

 Griddlelol wrote:

Again, I refer you back to page 1 or 2. The LRBT doesn't pull that much further ahead.

Except it does. It's three times as effective in the open, twice as effective in 5+ cover, and still a lot more effective in 4+ cover, and can instant death, and can hurt vehicles.

 Griddlelol wrote:

It's very easy to be dismissive. If I said "Demolishers are irrelevant to the discussion between LRBT and Eradicator" would that be considered the same as pointing out the logical fallacy in your argument?

I think you should leave phrases like "straw man" and "logical fallacy" to your sociology tutorials.

 Griddlelol wrote:

Again, dismissive without addressing the main issue. I'm am not advocating using it for the only anti-tank in a list. When you look at Ailaros' list you'll see why an Eradicator with such things would be very useful.

Yeah, Ailaros seems to think that something that can be a pitiful anti-tank OR anti-light infantry (albeit somewhat effective), but not both at the same time, is a good use of points. He's been cracked ever since 6th killed blobs.

 Testify wrote:


If you're happy with Multi Meltas on an expensive AV14 for your anti-tank, that's fine

"Expensive AV14."

Hah. What.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Testify wrote:
6th killed blobs.

Hah. What.

 TheCaptain wrote:

 Testify wrote:


If you're happy with Multi Meltas on an expensive AV14 for your anti-tank, that's fine

"Expensive AV14."

Hah. What.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Testify wrote:
6th killed blobs.

Hah. What.

An eradicator with lascannon and sponsons is 205. For something can fire a S6 AP4 pie plate, and BS3 Multi-Meltas and a lascannon, yeah I regard that as too much.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheCaptain wrote:

Hah. What.

5+ cover and focus fire killed blobs. If you have evidence to the contrary I'd like to see it.

 Testify wrote:

5+ cover and focus fire killed blobs. If you have evidence to the contrary I'd like to see it.

Blobs are plenty competitive. Even in the larger tournaments. Aegis line + divination. Blobs aren't dead, just different.

 Griddlelol wrote:
Just FYI I'm playing devil's advocate, I'm still sitting on the fence here, (leaning towards the Vanilla Russ) but I think Ailaros has some good points, so I'm throwing my thoughts in...

 creeping-deth87 wrote:
It breaks marine armour saves

As established, the LRBT is better in the one situation where Marines are standing in the open. Not exactly common since most lists pack plenty of plasma and melta.

the range on the weapon means you can fire it anywhere which, among other things, allows you to throw some killing power on the other end of the table if you have a weak flank there

.
The range is excessive. Most things that it is worth shooting at won't be >48" away, in which case there are plenty of other weapons able to manage this. I mean, on tables I play on the 72" range means I just don't bother measuring.

It also means that, unlike the Demolisher, the Battle Tank does NOT need to be in the threat range of everything that specializes in wrecking AV14 (melta guns or pretty much any assaulting unit) to do its job.

Neither does the Eradicator...you know the one we're comparing it to. Bringing up the Demolisher is a thinly veiled Straw Man.

I also don't understand the notion that the Battle Tank sucks at hurting vehicles and struggles at AV12. Having Ordnance means you're glancing or penetrating AV12 more often than not, and the ability to hit multiple vehicles with the full strength of the blast also forces your opponent to space out their vehicles more which opens up side armour and in general causes them to think twice about how they deploy and move.

Well I've mentioned this already, pen =/= wreck. Yes it can pen more often than the eradicator, but you still only have a 2/6 chance of doing anything worth while to the transport (read explode or immobilize). The Eradicator has the advantage of being able to ping off all the HPs or if using MM pretty much guaranteeing the explode result.

Now, if you're taking a Russ just to throw the sponson weapons on it, I can SORT OF see the appeal for the Eradicator (although it still seems counter-intuitive since your main gun doesn't jive with any of the sponson weapons) cause you're still getting a large blast weapon that doesn't nerf your other guns to BS1. But... honestly, S6 AP4 isn't all that terrifying unless your meta has a LOT of xenos and Guard running around.

People don't take sponsons on vanilla Russes, that's why this comes up. It's basically a single shot tank that only beats the Eradicator's main cannon drastically when Marines are in the open. If the marines are in cover the results are pretty similar. In fact the Eradicator pulls ahead if you kit it with PC sponsons.

I personally don't come across a lot of opponents with 2+ cover saves like Ailaros has apparently, so maybe the advantage of the Eradicator is lost on me. It just seems like that in an edition of MOSTLY 5+ cover saves, the Eradicator doesn't strike me as particularly good.

A lot of people see 2+. A lot of people see GEQ or Xenos. The Eradicator can handle a lot of things well. The Vanilla Russ can do one thing very well, but take away marines in the open and it's actually not that great.

Well said, but I have to disagree with you on a number of points.

I don't see how the Eradicator is better at killing marines in cover, unless of course you're factoring in plasma cannon sponsons and a las cannon upgrade, inflating the cost of the tank to well beyond that of the Battle Tank (at which point it's no longer a fair comparison). I also disagree with the notion that the Battle Tank's range is 'excessive' and that anything further than 48" is not worth shooting at. Long Fangs, Havocs, guard artillery, hell pretty much ANY backfield unit that has reach is hardly what I would consider 'not worth shooting at.' Units babysitting home objectives would also be a good target.

The Demolisher comparison was not meant to be a straw man, that was not my intent. I was simply listing the merits of the Battle Tank after several allegations of it being a 'crummy' vehicle. In terms of anti-transport, the Battle Tank still wins unless you're throwing multi-melta sponsons on your tank in which case, again, it's no longer a fair comparison because you're looking at a substantial points differential (well, substantial for IG players). Also I have to disagree with the assertion that the only worthwhile results on a transport are explodes or immobilized. In my opinion, anything that strips a hull point is a favourable result.

Again though, if you see a lot of units in your area with a 2+ cover save I can totally see the appeal behind the Eradicator. Having to deal with that would piss me off too, but as an all-rounder I would still prefer the Battle Tank as a cheap unit that doesn't need any fancy upgrades to do its job.

 Griddlelol wrote:
Ailaros has already demonstrated that the LRBT isn't that much more effective when there's a 4+ cover save. Go back and read.

Err, no. According to Ailaros' own math the Eradicator is horrible. Unless you consider paying 40% more points per marine death "not much less effective", of course, but then I'll have to seriously question your understanding of the game.

However as the Eradicator doesn't fall that far behind the LRBT in marine killing and is better at destroying vehicles, 2+ and MCs than the LRBT the conclusion is that the Eradicator is better.

No. The Eradicator is not better than a LRBT at killing vehicles because the Eradicator's only anti-vehicle weapons are the same MM/LC that the LRBT can ALSO take. Therefore both units are equally good at destroying vehicles in situations where you can use the MM/LC, while the LRBT is far better at destroying them in situations where you can't.

I doubt you'd say "A Tac squad's anti-tank consists of 1 BS4 MM? Good luck with that."

Except nobody considers a single tactical squad MM to be sufficient anti-tank, which is why they also have a melta gun and combi-melta in the squad.


========================================

 Ailaros wrote:
This idea of sponsons having some sort of blind spot are greatly exaggerated

Not true at all. You can only hit something with both sponsons if it's directly in front of the tank, and nothing blocks LOS from the low-mounted gun. For example, if you rotate the hull away from the target to keep AV 14 against your opponent's biggest anti-tank threat you can only shoot with one sponson. Or let's say you do well with shooting and the target dies before the Eradicator gets to fire. You try to pick the tank next to it as a target and find that one sponson is out of arc, while the other is blocked by a Chimera sitting next to your tank.

Is it a fatal problem, and you should never take sponsons? Of course not. But you have to be aware of the fact that while the turret gun has a 360* arc from high enough to shoot over pretty much any other unit, the sponsons are not guaranteed to be able to shoot.

Covered and rebutted. Russes are one of the few places in the guard codex where you can get genuine versatility. You don't need to have all of the weapons on a russ serve the same purpose.

But if you don't take them with the same purpose then your entire pro-Eradicator argument falls apart. If the sponsons are independent of the main gun then sponsons do not favor one type of Leman Russ over another.

The math has already been over this. I fail to see how a weapon that takes more turns than there are in a game to break open a transport or that only kills a marine a turn on average qualifies for the definition of "not terrible".

First of all, "more turns than there are in a game" is ridiculously false.

Second, it's a bad argument anyway, since all it means is that the weapon has a single shot. If you calculate how many turns it takes for a single lascannon to kill a transport you aren't going to like those numbers either.

Finally, "kills a marine a turn on average" is also ridiculous. You're only getting kill numbers that bad if you assume unrealistically low numbers of hits per template.

Red Corsair wrote:how is the small chance of exploding a vehicle with a battle canon making it terrible?

Because it's small.

You have to hit, then pen, then roll a 6 to explode it.

I mean, a single lascannon is going to do this job better, and you don't have to spend 150 points for it.

Red Corsair wrote: It can hit multiple transports in one go

If my opponents cram vehicles into close order drill.

If people can spread infantry out, they can certainly spread vehicles out.

ender502 wrote:Well, considering the eradicator is even worse at it killing transports or killing marines.... kinda rebuts your position.

Except it doesn't.

On the one hand, the eradicator isn't necessarily supposed to be good against those targets, while the russ is. Given that a russ is crappy against these targets, the ones it's supposed to do well, it means don't take the russ. On the other hand, the eradicator can fire sponsons at full BS along with the cannon. This makes it equal to, or better than a battlecannon at killing marines in cover. Then on top of this, you get to paste lighter infantry, often in a highly strategic way (removing scoring units from objectives).

Put another way, there is a group of things that neither the battlecannon nor the exterminator do particularly well, and then the exterminator goes and does at least one thing really well. Therefore, take eradicators rather than russes.

creeping-deth87 wrote:What is bad about this weapon?

It's expensive and doesn't kill very much. Just look at the math.

Tomten wrote:It all depends on what you are fighting.

Except it doesn't. This is rather the whole point of the thread.

TheCaptain wrote:Good V. Some targets. Crap V. Others

That's the mark of a mediocre unit.

I'm sorry, but which units are good against everything? By your definition, everything is mediocre.

That said, a las/melta eradicator or punisher is pretty good against a pretty huge slice of the pie.

Testify wrote:You want those MEQs taking 5+ or 4+ cover saves (far less common in 6th but still) rather than 3+ armour saves, no?

So, this is something else I don't get. Let's bring this down into the real world for a second. How often is your opponent actually going to be hiding their MEq in cover but then not hide them in cover if you fail to bring a russ?

I mean, really. If the MEq in question is hiding on an objective as a scoring unit, then they're going to go to ground regardless of what you shoot at them, giving them somewhere between a 2+ and a 4+ cover save, depending on what they're hiding behind. At best, you're talking about the difference between a 3+ armor save and a 4+ cover save, which isn't very pronounced, while if we're talking about MEq behind an aegis, then the eradicator is BETTER, requiring them to use the 3+ save, rather than the 2+.

So if they're not hiding on an objective, then what are they doing? If they're devestators, then they're going to be in the best cover on the board, most like, which once again largely defeats the advantage of the battlecannon. If they're not a gunline unit then they are therefore a unit that is going to be charging forward. In this case, the lack of battlecannon would only be a problem if I didn't have other units in my army that carried guns that hurt space marines. Which is not the case for me at least. In my particular case, marines are already hiding in cover so as to not get annihilated by lascannon or meltagun fire, but I can imagine that others have their own solutions.

Finally, the last real category is for marines that want to be charging, but the above statement for some reason does not apply to them. If my opponent is bringing a dedicated charging unit and decides he'd rather have the unit sit in cover doing nothing just because I brought a russ, then I'm probably winning anyways.

This whole idea that russes are actually going to have a psychological or killing power advantage against marines is silly. The only time it will ever actually make a difference is against tightly clustered MEq out on the open. Not likely to happen, people.

Testify wrote:If you're happy with Multi Meltas on an expensive AV14 for your anti-tank, that's fine by me.

45 points is a STEAL for two multimeltas and a lascannon. And they come on an AV14 chassis, unlike, say, HWSs, which blow away like a fart on the wind whenever they get shot at.

Peregrine wrote:You can only hit something with both sponsons if it's directly in front of the tank, and nothing blocks LOS from the low-mounted gun.

If only russes could move during the movement phase...

Peregrine wrote:If the sponsons are independent of the main gun then sponsons do not favor one type of Leman Russ over another.

Except for when the main gun causes the other guns to snap fire.

Peregrine wrote:Finally, "kills a marine a turn on average" is also ridiculous. You're only getting kill numbers that bad if you assume unrealistically low numbers of hits per template.

Well, let's look at an example.

Turn 1, the shot misses. Turn 2, the shot hits 4 marines in cover, all of them wound, cover saves two. Turn 3, the shot misses. Turn 4, the shot hits three, one of which fails to wound, and another is blocked by cover.

This is not far from the kind of results you should expect. In this scenario, assuming the russ has survived until turn 5, you have spent almost the entire game, and all you have to show for it is three dead marines.

One kill per turn may even be generous to the battlecannon. And, of course, that's not assuming that marines are going to ground or anything...

While we are in the real world please explain to me which moron opponent of your would go to ground with marines if you fired an eradicator? You play guard but not marines so I'll assume your ignorance here, you don't intentionally pin a marine unit from a nova canon haha.

In fact, that only strengthens the case for the battle canon which would make them go to ground and remove them from the fight.

Also why are you insisting that a battle canon won't get solid hits when neither will an eradicator. They use the EXACT same template. GEQ can spread out and insure that nova canon isn't killing more then a couple a turn anyway.

BTW:
Heres a game with the nova canon, turn one its out of range. Turn two it misses. Turn three it hits 3 properly spaced GEQ's and wounds all three. Turn four it misses. All the meanwhile that 45 points worth of AT you love to brag about is wasted.

Red Corsair wrote:In fact, that only strengthens the case for the battle canon which would make them go to ground and remove them from the fight.

But, read what I just wrote. When is this ever going to happen? Either they're holding an objective, and the point will be to hold it as much as possible, so going to ground won't matter as they'll be doing it anyways (or won't have very much firepower anyways), or they're not, and the battlecannon still won't matter.

Red Corsair wrote:Heres a game with the nova canon, turn one its out of range. Turn two it misses. Turn three it hits 3 properly spaced GEQ's and wounds all three. Turn four it misses. All the meanwhile that 45 points worth of AT you love to brag about is wasted.

Firstly, an eradicator has a 40" threat range. Why wouldn't it be in range turn 1?

Secondly, If there isn't an infantry target worth shooting at, then you don't waste the anti-tank, because you shoot the anti-tank weapons. What you're making is an argument against sponsons, not against eradicators.

It does happen plenty. Most units and especially marines have duality. A MEQ squad is good because it can do multiple rolls WHILE holding an objective. If they are running 'grot' squads then they will reserve and run them onto the objective in their backfield later on in the game anyway.

Why wouldn't it be in range? Easy to start 33% of games are hammer and anvil. Then factor in that half the time your opponent will deploy second and can easily counter its limiting range.

No, what your making is an argument FOR sponsons NOT the eradicator. There are 4 other variants that all can use sponsons and their turret.

 Ailaros wrote:

TheCaptain wrote:Good V. Some targets. Crap V. Others

That's the mark of a mediocre unit.

I'm sorry, but which units are good against everything? By your definition, everything is mediocre.

That said, a las/melta eradicator or punisher is pretty good against a pretty huge slice of the pie.

By my definition, every unit is mediocre, because every unit is mediocre.

It's up to us to choose which mediocrity we need, and choose other mediocrity to balance the previous.

Infantry Blobs are mediocre. Tanks/Artillery are mediocre. Synergy allows them to perform above their usual ability.

Unit synergy is everything. Find me a unit that can win a game on its own, and I'll believe it is a good unit.

That said, some units are more/less mediocre than others. Those units with less weaknesses are less mediocre, and naturally deserve more consideration.

Red Corsair wrote:No, what your making is an argument FOR sponsons NOT the eradicator. There are 4 other variants that all can use sponsons and their turret.

But the exterminator doesn't kill infantry as well, the punisher is much more expensive (and has an ACTUALLY short range), and the exterminator is very expensive, and is stuck with small pie plates.

And none of them ignore cover saves against anything.

Yes, the eradicator doesn't handle vehicles very well, but neither does any russ that isn't either a demolisher or a vanquisher (and even then...), so you're not really losing much. Arguing over which russ is at the bottom of the barrel against most vehicles is largely pointless.

Meanwhile, the eradicator is as good or better against marines most of the time than most russes, and is way, way better against lower-armored cheap scoring units, especially those kind that get bonuses to cover saves, making it a highly strategic option.

 Ailaros wrote:

Red Corsair wrote:No, what your making is an argument FOR sponsons NOT the eradicator. There are 4 other variants that all can use sponsons and their turret.

But the exterminator doesn't kill infantry as well, the punisher is much more expensive (and has an ACTUALLY short range), and the exterminator is very expensive, and is stuck with small pie plates.

And none of them ignore cover saves against anything.

Yes, the eradicator doesn't handle vehicles very well, but neither does any russ that isn't either a demolisher or a vanquisher (and even then...), so you're not really losing much. Arguing over which russ is at the bottom of the barrel against most vehicles is largely pointless.

Meanwhile, the eradicator is as good or better against marines most of the time than most russes, and is way, way better against lower-armored cheap scoring units, especially those kind that get bonuses to cover saves, making it a highly strategic option.

The Eradicator is not better then a LRBT at killing MEQ, I don't know why you continue to claim this. In the open a LRBT is better, and in area terrain it's still better. You are claiming that the sponsons make up the slack, that's not making an argument for the Eradicator, it's making an argument for sponsons. Now, the nova canon is better for GEQ but not your variation that pushes the 200pt mark and will still require MULTIPLE turns of direct hits to clear even a modest 10 man unit and doesn't even cause pinning, meaning they can react. It will not make up its cost.

Against marines with a 2+ save, say by going to ground behind an ADL, or by going to ground in a reinforced ruin, an eradicator is better than a battle cannon, because the marines will be forced to use their armor save, which allows twice as many wounds though. Against marines with a 3+ save, say, by going to ground in a ruins, the eradicator and the battlecannon are the same. Ignoring sponsons, in the world of a 4+ save for being behind an ALD, in a ruin, or gone to ground behind practically anything, the russ is a little bit better, indeed.

And then you add the sponsons. The LRBT snap fires sponsons. The Eradicator doesn't. The extra damage therefrom makes the eradicator better against marines in 4+ cover.

If you're going to set up the only scenario for an exterminator wherein everything is both in cover and at maximum dispersion, then, as you mention, you have to apply it equally. NO large blast weapon is going to kill off infantry all that well in this one specific scenario. I'd note, though, that the eradicator is still doing it better than other large blast options, what with still ignoring cover saves. I'd also note that it's only 200 points because it can also take down a land raider in those instances where sufficient infantry targets can't be found (though, by that point, I've already won the game).

This is all pretty funny. Know why everyone is all on about sponsosn? not because they are great...it's because eradicators suck without them.

The argument for eradicators is "Hey, as long as you spend more points on unit A, then it will be better than unit B." So, the eradicator doesn't get "better" than the terrible russ unless you pump even more points into an already expensive unit. That's like saying a $5 bill is more valuable than a $10 bill as long as you add 6 $1 bills to the $5.

ender502

The math will never bear out your assertions, ender.

Furthermore, to say that eradicators suck without sponsons is like saying that vets suck without special weapons.

So?

 Ailaros wrote:
The math will never bear out your assertions, ender.

Furthermore, to say that eradicators suck without sponsons is like saying that vets suck without special weapons.

So?

This is a true assessment. Vets do suck without special weapons.

So? Lots of things aren't very good if you don't arm them properly. Failing to arm them properly does not make the unit intrinsically bad. It's the player's fault, not he unit's.

You know, and there's another thing I'm not getting. People around here seem to fall over themselves when talking about how good a griffon is. Compare a pair of griffons to an eradicator, and the former is an option that does somewhere between slightly more to much less damage (depending on the circumstances of cover saves), can never be made to be good against vehicles, and comes on a much more fragile frame.

That people can love the griffon and hate the eradicator seems strange to me, given that the latter is better than the former at everything the former is good at, and is then better in other ways as well.

 Ailaros wrote:
The math will never bear out your assertions, ender.

Furthermore, to say that eradicators suck without sponsons is like saying that vets suck without special weapons.

So?

A 205 point Eradicator is better than a 150 point naked russ.... Ummm...yeah. It costs 33% mor ethan the russ. It ought to be at least 33% more effective. The more interesting comparison is the same load out of a battle cannon russ with las and MM for 195 vesus the 205 eradicator. That russ is still better and cheaper.

Also, your basic assumption that marines are always in cover is simply false. How do they get there? Oh, yeah...right. By a transport. The transport that is less vulnerable to the nova cannon than the battle cannon. But wait! I'm forgetting about the lascannon upgrade that is necesary for the eradicator to be even comparable to the naked russ. But is that really a difference? No..because the standard russ can take that too.

The entire conversation about sponsons is flawed because both russ chasis can take all the same options. It's like saying that car A is better because it can get rims and ignoring the fact that car B can get the exact same rims for the same price.

The only way to compare the russ and eradicator is based upon their differences, not their shared options. Talking about sponsons is just a way to mask the relative weakness of the nova cannon in comparison to the battle cannon.

ender502

^This, this over and over.

Also people like griffons because they are none threatening, hide at the rear, also get past the ADL and at 75 pts you get a pair for CHEAPER. Heck for the cost of that abomination you like, you can almost get 3 or better yet pair one with a colossus and guide your rounds! You keep forgetting that the Nova canon doesn't cause pinning either, which for me seals it.

Russes are meant to act like line backers who hold back the line so the arty can kill stuff. The Eradicator is awful for its cost and don't discourage MEQ from crossing no mans land.

ender502 wrote:A 205 point Eradicator is better than a 150 point naked russ.... Ummm...yeah. It costs 33% more than the russ. It ought to be at least 33% more effective.

And a 115 point plasma vet squad is better than a 70 point naked vet squad. So?

What you should deduce from this is that you should give your vets plasma guns, not that vets are weak units.

ender502 wrote:Also, your basic assumption that marines are always in cover is simply false.

And the idea that marines are going to be clustered out in the open is absurd. At my local store, players know when things are threatening, and know how to use cover accordingly.

The entire conversation about sponsons is flawed because both russ chasis can take all the same options. It's like saying that car A is better because it can get rims and ignoring the fact that car B can get the exact same rims for the same price.