Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

hello
this is probably the wrong place for this. if so, sorry and please place it accordingly.
back to the topic. i've never really been a fan of the Conqueror rules wise. but personaly
i love the way the turret looks. would it be a good for "counts as" a Eradicator or standard
Leman Russ? or neither for that matter?
thanks for any input.

Because the Conqueror does not have rules in the IG codex, I see no problem in having it represent a Eradicator or standard LRBT. Just make sure you are consistent.

thanks for the feedback.
which role do you think Would be a better fit for it?

An eradicator sounds appropriate.
The conqueror was a novel idea that was never implemented well, worse still that the Autocannon is superior. Well, enough of my ramblings, as I said, the eradicator seems the best fit.

The conqueror was made during the time that ordinance weapons could not move and fire. Shame it was made redundant about 15 minutes (slight exaggeration) after FW released it by a main rules change.

Back at the start of 3rd ed, it was fine. A tank with a blast that could move and fire.

I have one on order that I'm planning on using as an Eradicator turret.