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.

First of all, I love the model, I love the fluff, almost everything about it. I would really like to use one eventually.

But it just seems lackluster to me. One S6 AP4 large blast cover ignoring shot at 36".

I guess it can be useful in 5th with the abundance of cover. but I'm not sure. It would wound marines on 2's, but it still is only AP4. I really think it needs AP3 to have consideration.

Thoughts?

It has the same problem any tank that fires a single blast does (even a 5" one), in that it can easily miss with that one shot and accomplish nothing. Plus the short-ish range and rear AV10 make the proposition of exposing it to the enemy a risky one.

Heavy support should be reserved for heavy firepower. If you want to torch models in cover, we have Hellhounds or even the hull heavy flamers of regular chimeras, which can all perform the same task just as well or better.

I agree that if it was AP3, it would be equitable to the Battle Tank. Those who face a lot of Tyranid Warriors, Ork Nobs, Plague Marines or FNP Blood Angels would still prefer the Battle Tank, while those who face regular MEQs and everything else would reach for the Eradicator.

The executioner fulfills all of the eradicator's roles better(but for slightly more points)

The eradicator is only really good against Eldar Pathfinders and ratling Snipers; but again a Hellhound does it better for cheaper

The Executioner is the best at Anti-MEQ (all of them) and FNP models

and the MBT is just a great, Cheap All-rounder

I am going to jump in on the other side on this one.

I used to run two LRBT w/ HB all around in a squad. My other HS is an Executioner w/ PC sponsons and a hydra.

I moved away from the two LRBT in favor of two Eradicators. Here's why....

My LRBT would almost always fire into marines in cover. People would see that Executioner and toss any infantry they had into cover, knowing that any other choice was not a good choice.

At the same time I was realizing that massed chimeras were not the anti GEq that they used to be, mostly because of all the cover on the table, or from KFF or Venomthropes or other ways to get cover. Plus my guard lost 2 chimeras in favor of the new skimmers I was using.

So I was tempted to try the Eradicator for two reasons. First, even with the LRBT most MEq were taking 4+ saves, only a slight decrease then their standard 3+ save. So I think the switch had minimal impact overall when facing MEq armies, in particular the infantry. Second, the increase in effectiveness against GEq armies is just silly. The Eradicator is just naughty in that regard, hordes of orks, gaunts or guardsmen....

What I did notice is that Str 8 pie plates (with Ordnance rule) are not horrible against the numerous transports we face in 5th edition. That first turn you could shoot the battlecannon at a variety of targets. The Eradicator is significantly less "all around" and if your opponent is all mech, the tank loses a lot of effectiveness.

So what I had to do was alter the rest of my list slightly to be able to tackle AV 11 and 12 a bit better...

But, in the end, the Eradicator is clearly a match up tank. Against certain armies it will rock, against others you will be paying more points for a less effective tank. This is what you have to consider when you build your entire force, not just a snap shot.

+1

You can shoot your battle tank and do nothing because of cover, or shoot eradicator and be sure to kill something.
And 2+ scouts or gaunts/boyz in cover always get on my nerves.

Yeah, Hell hound is cool, but 12 armor means that only one lame rocket ends your day.

As others have stated already, it is only viable when facing horde armies, or defensive armies with only a 4+ save. This makes it a niche tank, like a lot of the other LR variants and you need to use it that way. I would equip it with only a hull heavy flamer and perhaps a dozer blade because it needs to close the range, even through cover. It would be viable this way IMHO, and against the right armies, it would be very dangerous and make a HUGE target.
On the other hand, it doesn't force MEq to find cover, which enable them to move freely around on the table, and with the lower strength, it is a much worse choice than the LRBT against anything else than T-4, 4+ troops.

It is incapable of harming power armor. That's a big problem.

Yes, if you field a normal Russ or Executioner and they put stuff in cover.

BUT, if you just field Eradicators they will ignore cover and do whatever they please where they please. I'd rather pin them in cover and eat cover saves than watch them walk around wherever.

It is pretty devastating against everybody else though.

Why not get a collossus? IIRC same range, same str, ap 3 and ignores cover. That screws up marines regardless of what they do.

Same range?

It has a 240" range IIRC, S6, AP3, ignore cover.

You forget it has 12 AV on the front, I believe 12 AV on the side, and 10 AV in the rear.

While a eradicator is 14/13/10

Can't be compared.

Karon wrote:Same range?

It has a 240" range IIRC, S6, AP3, ignore cover.

You forget it has 12 AV on the front, I believe 12 AV on the side, and 10 AV in the rear.

While a eradicator is 14/13/10

Can't be compared.

Can't be compared?

Same army.
Same slot.
Both able to be taken in multiples.

1 has superior ap and range and can indirect fire (but can't move).
the other has superior armour values mitigated somehwat by the fact that the collossus can indirect fire and can move.

I can't remember which is cheaper though.

There you go I just compared them. Collossus looks like the superior tank to me for killing things. Eradicator will live longer and can survive a weapon destroyed result.

The Eradicator is 20 points more...

bravelybravesirrobin wrote:There you go I just compared them. Collossus looks like the superior tank to me for killing things. Eradicator will live longer and can survive a weapon destroyed result.

that sums it up pretty well.

I don't favor artillery tanks because they die/are rendered useless very easily, the other soaks tons of fire. In 5th edition unless your local meta has lots of LoS blocking terrain the colossus is not the way to go, IMO. Its like an Executioner, a giant target that needs to be neutralized, that doesn't have AV 14 to hide behind.

The Colossus cannot fire on the move, and has a wide minimum range (24" or so). Many Marine armies are meant to operate at close ranges, or are designed in a manner that any disembarked infantry is expendable.

bravelybravesirrobin wrote:

Karon wrote:Same range?

It has a 240" range IIRC, S6, AP3, ignore cover.

You forget it has 12 AV on the front, I believe 12 AV on the side, and 10 AV in the rear.

While a eradicator is 14/13/10

Can't be compared.

Can't be compared?

Same army.
Same slot.
Both able to be taken in multiples.

1 has superior ap and range and can indirect fire (but can't move).
the other has superior armour values mitigated somehwat by the fact that the collossus can indirect fire and can move.

I can't remember which is cheaper though.

There you go I just compared them. Collossus looks like the superior tank to me for killing things. Eradicator will live longer and can survive a weapon destroyed result.

Eradicator can actually move and fire.
The Eradicator can survive some hits.
The Eradicator can spearhead your infantry, making a big psychological factor in your face.
Eradicator can take sponsons.
Eradicator has a 360 degree turret weapon.
Eradicator doesn't have to stand in the back of the lines and fear infiltrators or outflanker's to come over and rape your investment.

And most importantly, the Eradicator is *not* that much more expensive than the Colossus. The reason one doesn't take Exterminators for this reason is Hydras are *far* more price-efficient, their vulnerability to being outflanked or otherwise punked, compensated for by being more economical in the long run.

The Colossus doesn't really offer this.

Plus you can yell "Eeeeeeradicator!" when you put the Leman Russ on the table.

Karon wrote:Eradicator doesn't have to stand in the back of the lines and fear infiltrators or outflanker's to come over and rape your investment.

Actually, the Eradicator has just as much to fear from rape-happy infiltrators and outflankers as the Colossus, since both have rear AV10.

But the biggest problem with the Colossus is that it cannot fire directly. So as soon as your opponent is "under the guns", it becomes quite useless. But if you stick it in a corner, it's not so bad.