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.

Those are exactly the same results as I've been having.

The two games the tank died I lost and it was due to a last, potentially game, winning salvo.

Punisher kitted out with heavy bolters and a top mounted gun too.

Or the eradicator with it's strength 6 and ignore cover blast.

Thanks everyone

After careful consideration of all the points made I'm now thinking of going with an eradicator with heavy bolter sponsons as long as nobody thinks that that's a terrible idea.

 Satan's Little Helper wrote:
Thanks everyone

After careful consideration of all the points made I'm now thinking of going with an eradicator with heavy bolter sponsons as long as nobody thinks that that's a terrible idea.

A colossus is better for Anti-Infantry Ignoring Cover Blast, thanks to AP3 and like 10x the range.

Colossus has no grey zone anymore either. It just will full scatter.

Possibly a bit late to the party, but there is a point in putting HB sponsons on a standard russ and that is redundancy. It makes it 50% less likely that a weapon destroyed result will bin your main armament, and even if it does you're left with 3 HBs that can still do some good. And all for 10pts IIRC.

 Flinty wrote:
Possibly a bit late to the party, but there is a point in putting HB sponsons on a standard russ and that is redundancy. It makes it 50% less likely that a weapon destroyed result will bin your main armament, and even if it does you're left with 3 HBs that can still do some good. And all for 10pts IIRC.

But 'weapon destroyed' is already only a 1/12 chance, and with hull points you're more likely to lose the entire tank before you lose the main gun. Spending 20 points to make an unlikely outcome a bit more unlikely just doesn't make any sense.

If nothing else, Eradicator has a cool looking cannon.

Awestrn wrote:
Colossus has no grey zone anymore either. It just will full scatter.

You lose 15% accuracy, and gain AP3, much longer range, and the ability to fire out of LoS at stinky objective campers.

 TheCaptain wrote:

Awestrn wrote:
Colossus has no grey zone anymore either. It just will full scatter.

You lose 15% accuracy, and gain AP3, much longer range, and the ability to fire out of LoS at stinky objective campers.

You also loose AV-14. and nine str5 rounds. A colossus isn't any good if it's dead. Every little blolter round helps.

Plus, the OP's target was hordes. You don't really have hordes of space marines running around.

 kestril wrote:

Awestrn wrote:
Colossus has no grey zone anymore either. It just will full scatter.

Plus, the OP's target was hordes. You don't really have hordes of space marines running around.

Why settle for being good against Hordes when you can be good against Hordes and something else?

What happens when OP faces a non-horde MEQ army? Give your Eradicator a cigarette and tell it to enjoy the show?

 TheCaptain wrote:

 kestril wrote:

Awestrn wrote:
Colossus has no grey zone anymore either. It just will full scatter.

Plus, the OP's target was hordes. You don't really have hordes of space marines running around.

Why settle for being good against Hordes when you can be good against Hordes and something else?

What happens when OP faces a non-horde MEQ army? Give your Eradicator a cigarette and tell it to enjoy the show?

Actually, you say Fire Everything because

Usually you have enough firepower to concentrate on the few TAC or scout squads since you don't have a horde rushing you down. And you've still got melta, plasma, lascannons, excetera in your troop squadrons. Unless they've got a 2+ save, you can chew through the armor with concentrated weight-of-fire at little cost to you. It's only when things get a 2+ or they bring a big mob that I start to reconsider the Imperial guard's firepower.


Edit: And the colossus isn't that good against hordes, at least, no more than the standard LRBT. One large blast is still one large blast.

 kestril wrote:


Usually you have enough firepower to concentrate on the few TAC or scout squads since you don't have a horde rushing you down. And you've still got melta, plasma, lascannons, excetera in your troop squadrons. Unless they've got a 2+ save, you can chew through the armor with concentrated weight-of-fire at little cost to you. It's only when things get a 2+ or they bring a big mob that I start to reconsider the Imperial guard's firepower.

This logic still doesn't stand out as a good reason to forsake AP3 for AP4, as well as 240" range for 36" range.

 TheCaptain wrote:

This logic still doesn't stand out as a good reason to forsake AP3 for AP4, as well as 240[" range for 36" range.

Could you explain to me where your coming from for a second? How will a Colossus serve you better against horde armies than a Nova Cannon and nine bolter shots?

Mkay. Some maths, because mathammer is worshiped around here.

I'm assuming 1 blast with full scatter hits 4 models 40% of the time. I gave it a 7% chance to still hit more models with the scatter, because I'm feeling generous.

I'm also assuming that 1 blast with BS 3 hits 4 models 66% of the time.


So, unless the marines are more than 24 inches away, you're gonna have a bad time. Against everything else, the eradicator does better, especially, you know, hordes which is what the OP asked about.

You're missing the cost factor.

The Colossus costs 140 points compared to the HB Eradicator at 180, a 28% increase. If you increase the damage of the Colossus by 28% to reflect this and equalize the point costs the Colossus is killing 1.7 inside 24" and 2.8 outside 24". So the best-case scenario for the Eradicator is that it matches the Colossus, and anywhere outside that best-case scenario the Colossus wins by a huge margin.

I gave it a 7% chance to still hit more models with the scatter, because I'm feeling generous.

No. If you accept that 4" scatter will still be good enough (it often is) you have a 17% chance of hitting on a shot that scatters, and if 5" is good enough that goes up to 28%. Assuming a mere 7% chance to hit anything on a scattered shot is a very harsh assumption, not a generous one.

In reality you're looking at at least a 45% chance (if you need 4") to hit with each shot ignoring BS even without getting to subtract the unit's BS from the distance. And if you're outside minimum range that goes up to at least 72%.

 Peregrine wrote:
You're missing the cost factor.

The Colossus costs 140 points compared to the HB Eradicator at 180, a 28% increase. If you increase the damage of the Colossus by 28% to reflect this and equalize the point costs the Colossus is killing 1.7 inside 24" and 2.8 outside 24". So the best-case scenario for the Eradicator is that it matches the Colossus, and anywhere outside that best-case scenario the Colossus wins by a huge margin.

I gave it a 7% chance to still hit more models with the scatter, because I'm feeling generous.

No. If you accept that 4" scatter will still be good enough (it often is) you have a 17% chance of hitting on a shot that scatters, and if 5" is good enough that goes up to 28%. Assuming a mere 7% chance to hit anything on a scattered shot is a very harsh assumption, not a generous one.

In reality you're looking at at least a 45% chance (if you need 4") to hit with each shot ignoring BS even without getting to subtract the unit's BS from the distance. And if you're outside minimum range that goes up to at least 72%.

All of this.

The eradicator has two things going for it, though.

1.) AV14, closed top. This makes it MUCH more durable.

2.) It has better overall dakka. Yeah, the splat cannon on the colossus is better, but having a unit with 9 heavy bolter shots (that it gets to fire at full BS, as it's not ordnance), means that there are things that it can do better than just a single blast. Furthermore, for not many more points, you could give the eradicator multimelta sponsons, which will make it much better than a colossus against vehicles and other hard targets like terminators and monstrous creatures.

As others have said, if all you want to do is kill marines in specific for the cheapest price possible, then the colossus is better. Outside of this role, the eradicator compares well to the artillery piece.

If I had to take a Leman Russ variant purely for anti-horde duty, I would go with the Eradicator every time. If you face off against an army with a 4+ save, it will be worth it's weight in gold and attract a lot of attention. The only thing I have been wondering about if it would be worth giving it 3x heavy flamers instead of HB's. I know that you waste the range of the main cannon, but you will get a tank that noone with less than a 3+ woulden't go near in their right mind. it can still move 6" and fire 3 flamer templates and 1 large blast, surely that would be able to kill off a horde pretty effectively.

The minimum range hurts the colossus.

I'd be more inclined to go for Medusa or Executioner for MEQ. Big Ex has worked wonders against MEQ for me.

Puscifer wrote:
The minimum range hurts the colossus.

Not that much. It is only 3" more scatter. If enemy units are at full coherency, their footprint can be large enough that it is hard to miss them.

Squadrons of Hellhounds with bolter boat Eradicators.

It all comes down to what your meta is at the end of the day.
I myself prefer basilisks for horde control because my meta is more teq and meq and the bassies can serve dual roles.

The problem I have with the eradicator is in my opinion it only does one thing well, horde control. Which is fine if that's the only reason it's on your list. I like units that can serve more than one purpose.
Ie punisher las and melta sponson which will likely put wounds into alot of different targets.

How would the multiple small blasts from the executioner compare to the eradicator as far as model coverage?

 minigun762 wrote:
How would the multiple small blasts from the executioner compare to the eradicator as far as model coverage?

No idea on the mathhammer, but I like it over a single large blast because 5 small blasts means you're guaranteed to get a direct hit at least once or twice each volley. If you can find a good spot where your opponent bunched up, that will get you a good amount of hits. The shots that scatter tend to pick up a few guys as well, depending on how big the unit is and where you were shooting at. With a single large blast, you either hit and win big, or scatter and whiff (either entirely or far less hits). The Executioner just seems to be more consistent, i.e. I can tell roughly how many hits I'm going to get every time I shoot it.

However, I have literally no math hammer to back this up. This is purely practical experience and what I've noticed on the table. Take it with a grain of salt, etc.

This is the thing with the Executioner... it's good against all forms of single wound infantry and fair against light vechicles in a pinch.

After seeing the sheer destruction that mine has dealt in test games, I don't plan to leave home without it.

I'm assuming that there is no point in taking more than one?

Puscifer wrote:
I'm assuming that there is no point in taking more than one?

Until it gets popped!

Puscifer wrote:
This is the thing with the Executioner... it's good against all forms of single wound infantry and fair against light vechicles in a pinch.

After seeing the sheer destruction that mine has dealt in test games, I don't plan to leave home without it.

I'm assuming that there is no point in taking more than one?

I'm assuming that there is no point in taking more than one?

I'm assuming that there is no point in taking more than one?

*twitch*

You know, the orks have a saying. I believe it goes along the lines of there never being quite enough firepower, and that one should always strive for the most firepower they can bring. Something about dakka and never having enough or something.

Imperial Guard, whether they'll admit or not, also follow this rule. It may as well be on the great testament for IG, right beside "you can never have enough tanks" and "if it ain't melta, plasma, autocannons, or lascannons, you dun goofed." One of IG's greatest strengths is that while most armies are only able to take one or 2 of their strong units, we can spam ours. When building a list and looking at any unit in the codex, keep that in mind. (aka, if one Executioner wrecks face, wait till you see what 3 can do )

That said, if you can only bring literally 1 leman russ (as in, you only have one tank, but can outfit it however you want) a decked out Executioner will pull it's weight and impact a game far more than any other russ variant (except for possibly a punisher with pask in it, as that tank can tackle dang near everything as well for roughly the same points). It's one of the few Russ variants that doesn't just rely on strength of numbers to be scary. However, this is also why it's the most expensive tank we can take. It costs so much for a reason after all.

I've usually had best results when taking one of it and a few others of another cheaper variant like exterminators and LRBT's, to be honest. I think punishers and Executioners would make a good combo as well, if you absolutely wanted to just annihilate anything that got close to your line. Play around with the numbers of each tank you take and see what works best for you. Ever since Leman Russes got the heavy rule, I've seen people fielding almost every single variant and coming up with good reasons to do so. It really depends more on the rest of your list now, whereas before you either picked normal russes or demolishers and called it a day.

(and by the way I mean a lot of this in jest, I'm not upset or anything)

 MrMoustaffa wrote:

No idea on the mathhammer, but I like it over a single large blast because 5 small blasts means you're guaranteed to get a direct hit at least once or twice each volley .

Well if we look at it in terms of area coverage, we see that:

5" large blast = 3.14 (2.5x2.5) = 19.6"
3" small blast = 3.14 (1.5x1.5) = 7.1"

So 5" blast gives you the maximum coverage of roughly 2.5-3 small blasts.

The small blasts also have a better chance of landing on target, which is a bonus.

I put them about the same. The minimum you can get with a large blast is three, and the small blast one. In addition his case you get three small blasts, so...

They're not the same beast, of course, though. 30 points more for better Ap, but no cover ignoring.

Going to try the two Executioners tonight in a squadron, then on their own.

In regards to the cover ignoring of the Eradicator, I just don't see the point of it.

Most cover tends to be 5+, unless something has stealth or has gone to ground or both. Most of the armies I play against are MEQ or a a mix in the case of CSM, so all I usually see is 3+ everywhere.

If this works, I can see a lot of marine players going to ground on objectives at my flgs. If they do that, I'll just send in the Bane Hounds.

This is starting to come together for me.

Btw... love the twitch comment.