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.

So, I was sitting down and looking at the russ part of my codex, and I noticed something. I was thinking about the regular russ, and what it does well.

Or, rather, what it doesn't. Against MCs and vehicles, a battlecannon is basically a super-expensive missile launcher. A single-shot BS3 weapon leaves a lot to be desired, especially when a battlecannon isn't even that good against vehicles (Even with ordnance, only being S8 isn't great, and with the new Ap rules for vehicles, they just got half as likely to blow something up outright), and MCs (where the worst have a 2+ save, or lots and lots of wounds (or both)). And then they're not good against terminators, and they're not really good against anything that's getting a cover save.

In fact, really, all that a russ is good for nowadays is nailing non-displaced MEq out in the open. That's not nothing, but that's not, you know, a lot either.

So then I started thinking about a regular russ in comparison to a eradicator. Both tanks wound T4 on 2's, and neither will break open terminator armor saves. Meanwhile, the difference between a 3+ armor save and a 4+ (or possibly better) cover save against MEq isn't very big. And both are crummy against vehicles. Except then you add that the eradicator will actually kill stuff off of objectives that's Sv4+ or worse (of which there is still a fair amount), and eradicators also aren't ordnance, so they work with the new heavy rule, rather than against it. It seems like a bolter boat eradicator would actually be good now, in a 6th ed, post FAQ world, and a las/melta eradicator would be able to handle basically any target in the game.

Even opening it up to all russes, it somehow strikes me as more favorable, what with not needing to spend a few turns driving into suicide range before it gets to fire (demolisher, punisher), or being stuck with only autocannons (exterminator), or blast autocannons (executioner), or being a complete and horrible waste of time (vanquisher). It feels like it has a more strategic impact (vis a vis objectives) than the others, and jives really well with the other things that are going on with current rules.

Not to say it's not worth it to have the other russes for their other reasons, but I'm seriously starting to consider adding an eradicator to a list that already has other russes in it. Am I seeing something new, or just delusions of armored flamer stormies?

Put simply; its a meta thing. Loads of cover, and not a lot of PA? Sure, it could be pretty good.

It's just really specific. Wipes non-PA/TA guys out of cover, and nothing else really. Sure, it can put wounds on MEQ, but not too well, nor will it cause ID.

Also doesn't have any (or any reliable) anti-armor capability worthy of note.

So yeah; it fits a very specific meta. Fits it well, mind you, but not much else.

Sadly, seems like Leman Russes in general leave quite a bit to be desired these days.

There are three problems with the LR Eradicator:

1) It's just too expensive. A Griffon or Colossus can clear objectives just as well, but for fewer points (half as much for the Griffon!), and with AP 3 in the case of the Colossus. You're spending a lot of points on getting AV 14 for a unit that really wants to just sit back and throw pie plates at objectives.

2) It's too narrow in purpose but isn't dominating at it. The basic LRBT might not always be awesome, but it's decent at doing a lot of things, and it has high damage potential (disembarked troops, forcing your opponent to spread out to negate the blast and get focus fired by the plasma vets next to it, etc). The Eradicator, on the other hand, has a single role and is borderline worthless at anything else, while still not being very impressive even at its one role of killing 4+ save infantry in cover.

3) If you want cover-ignoring shells you can get an armored battlegroup company command LRBT with infernus shells. Same STR 6 AP 4, but with longer range, and you still keep the ability to fire standard battlecannon shots. The only drawback is that it's ordnance, but who really cares about the missing sponson guns? At least the LR Eradicator isn't alone in this problem, pretty much every Leman Russ variant just got killed off in favor of allied armored battlegroup units.

I agree with Peregrine-- I think there's not a hugely compelling reason to take an Eradicator when Barrage weapons can do similar (and in the case of the Colossus, strictly better) things for much cheaper. Taking Leman Russes for sponsons is also worthless.

Is the Eradicator underrated? Sure. Is the Eradicator good? I'm not so sure.

Also, Peregrine-- I'd like it if you'd stop wasting time with FW remarks in threads not about FW, especially when you know the poster doesn't play with FW units. Besides, even when FW rules are allowed, FW army lists often aren't.

And don't bother talking about how FW units are official and legal, just start acting like a normal person.

 Kingsley wrote:
Also, Peregrine-- I'd like it if you'd stop wasting time with FW remarks in threads not about FW, especially when you know the poster doesn't play with FW units. Besides, even when FW rules are allowed, FW army lists often aren't.

Well, you aren't going to get what you want. I will continue to discuss strategy involving ALL relevant options, not merely those available under a particular set of house rules. The OP may not like FW units, but other people reading and/or participating in the discussion may not share that policy and would find the discussion entirely relevant.

 Kingsley wrote:

Also, Peregrine-- I'd like it if you'd stop wasting time with FW remarks in threads not about FW, especially when you know the poster doesn't play with FW units. Besides, even when FW rules are allowed, FW army lists often aren't.

And don't bother talking about how FW units are official and legal, just start acting like a normal person.

I'm not sure why you think you can tell another poster what to and what not to post, but I can assure you that you have no such power.

As is stated, sure Ailaros doesn't play with FW, but Dakkadakka isn't Ailaros' talk show. It's a forum where thousands of players congregate to give and receive advice. So even if Ailaros doesn't use FW, someone will happen across this thread who does. Providing the insight that Armoured Battlegroup tanks are better is assuredly helping someone more than lecturing someone on their posting habits.

I see nothing abnormal about understanding this.

TheCaptain wrote: As is stated, sure Ailaros doesn't play with FW, but Dakkadakka isn't Ailaros' talk show. It's a forum where thousands of players congregate to give and receive advice. So even if Ailaros doesn't use FW, someone will happen across this thread who does. Providing the insight that Armoured Battlegroup tanks are better is assuredly helping someone more than lecturing someone on their posting habits.

Well, it's simple. Most people don't allow those units, so discussing them is not time efficiently spent for most users. I advocate keeping FW discussion to FW threads (or at worst to asides in non-FW threads) to avoid diluting the forum for others.

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.

 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.

 Ailaros wrote:

Or, rather, what it doesn't. Against MCs and vehicles, a battlecannon is basically a super-expensive missile launcher. A single-shot BS3 weapon leaves a lot to be desired, especially when a battlecannon isn't even that good against vehicles (Even with ordnance, only being S8 isn't great, and with the new Ap rules for vehicles, they just got half as likely to blow something up outright), and MCs (where the worst have a 2+ save, or lots and lots of wounds (or both)). And then they're not good against terminators, and they're not really good against anything that's getting a cover save.

You might be right about Eradicators, but I don't think you're right about this part, especially against vehicles. Having the large blast marker makes it much more reliable than missile launchers in terms of hits, especially now you don't need to get the hole over the target to get full strength hits. Against vehicles you have to roll pretty poorly to miss entirely, compared to a 50-50 chance with a normal Guard AT weapon. Its only really against AV14 that the battlecannon has difficulty and the blast size makes it really dangerous to densely packed vehicles, especially light vehicle squadrons.

Flinty wrote: You might be right about Eradicators, but I don't think you're right about this part, especially against vehicles. Having the large blast marker makes it much more reliable than missile launchers in terms of hits, especially now you don't need to get the hole over the target to get full strength hits. Against vehicles you have to roll pretty poorly to miss entirely, compared to a 50-50 chance with a normal Guard AT weapon. Its only really against AV14 that the battlecannon has difficulty and the blast size makes it really dangerous to densely packed vehicles, especially light vehicle squadrons.

Good points, Flinty-- I myself have noticed Ordnance rarely misses the mark completely these days. That said, I think the battlecannon does suffer from the whole "one shot, AP 3" issue. A single ap3 hit, even if it penetrates armor, is somewhat underwhelming in 6th edition, as evidenced by the widespread drop in the number of missile launchers fielded these days.

Drop the FW arguments. Mentioning FW alternatives is a valid contribution to the thread. Arguing if it is legal is not. Also telling another posted what they can or cannot post is not.

The Eradicator simply lacks versatility. LRB deals with multi wound IC or squads, PA or PA equivalent, tanks, and T5+. Eradicator deals with 4+ armor saves which are generally less common are often in transports that the eradicator cant deal with. Guard is about alpha strike before your opponent can assault you. Relying on another unit to pop the transport prior to your vendettas arriving means HWS with las cannons, which really isnt a good use of points. Better to have the option to deal with everything on the board than to have a perfect counter to less common units.

Eradicator makes marines save on a 3+
LRB makes marines save on a 5+.
Thats pretty huge. LRB is twice as effective vs the most common save in the game. Throw in the rest of the stuff and LRB is almost always better. An argument for colossus can be made for much the same reasons you stated, but thats another argument

I honestly can't put together how it's comparable to the standard russ with cover being nerfed to 5+ and all. Unless ruins are absolutely everywhere, or you you don't play against MEQ, then I guess you could take it.

Plus, marines will take that 3+ armor save over their 4+ or 5+ cover every day of the week. While the russ may not get rid of saves entirely, it will force your MEQ player to take a lower save. That's HUGE! MEQ players pay out the nose for that power armor.
Lets look at the targets:


MEQ (Both in and out of cover): Leman Russ Battle Tank
Vehicles: Leman Russ Battle Tank (although you don't want to be shooting at AV 13- 14 with either)
GEQ in cover: Leman Russ Eradicator Tank
GEQ out of cover: Both are equally effective.
Monstrous creatures: Leman Russ Battle Tank
T4, multi-wound stuff: Leman Russ Battle Tank


I think you may be missing part of the point of the battle tank. It's meant to survive more than to throw out massive amounts of firepower. Although, the battlecannon is decent, and can engage a wide variety of targets. In fact, I find the LRBT actually has more impact on the game as the game goes on, due to that long-range versatile shell. Everything is still in range, and it can deal a respectable amount of damage to whatever targets are left in turns 3-4-5.

If you want stuff that ignores cover, I'd recommend artillery, or a vendetta with hellfury missiles.

Another thing to consider is the Battle Cannon has a really long range. It will be able to contribute to the battle on turn one. An Eradicator may not.

Plus the Battle Cannon can pop transports fairly reliably, unlike the Eradicator.

My issue with Leman Russes with the Heavy rule is that I want more than a single shot per turn from my Russes. I'm playing 150 points base for my tank and for it to be at the mercy of a single BS3 shot really runs against what Guard are all about.

If you want ordnance now, go with the artillery versions of your Russ ord tanks. Cheaper, you either get barrage or increased range or both.

You have gone crazy. It's not so much that eradicators aren't bad now, it's that the bar has been lowered to the point where they seem a viable option. I'd say that they'd be good if they retained the AP3 of the Colossus. Otherwise I'd rather take a LRBT, an Executioner or an Exterminator w/LC and MMs

 Kingsley wrote:
Well, it's simple. Most people don't allow those units, so discussing them is not time efficiently spent for most users. I advocate keeping FW discussion to FW threads (or at worst to asides in non-FW threads) to avoid diluting the forum for others.

Which is just a self-fulfilling prophecy. By keeping FW locked away in special FW threads you reinforce the idea that FW is something separate from the game that shouldn't be used normally. "Most people" might not allow it, but they're certainly not going to start allowing it if nobody ever tries to correct that impression of "something separate".

 kestril wrote:
I honestly can't put together how it's comparable to the standard russ with cover being nerfed to 5+ and all. Unless ruins are absolutely everywhere, or you you don't play against MEQ, then I guess you could take it.

Well, the problem that the OP is trying to fix is a legitimate problem. Standard cover might be 5+, but there are various units that get a much better save than that. Eldar pathfinders, Harker squads with camo cloaks, anything that goes to ground in area terrain or behind an aegis line (usually a weak-firepower scoring unit that you don't care about snap firing), etc, are all scoring units that can get 2+/3+ saves while sitting on top of an objective. Since the units that can get 2+ cover saves tend to have nonexistent armor saves a cover-ignoring blast weapon goes from 2+ save to no save at all and starts to get up to squad-wiping firepower.

Of course the Eradicator approach is still bad, but at least it's trying to address a real problem.

zephoid wrote:
Drop the FW arguments. Mentioning FW alternatives is a valid contribution to the thread. Arguing if it is legal is not. Also telling another posted what they can or cannot post is not.

This.

 Peregrine wrote:


Well, the problem that the OP is trying to fix is a legitimate problem. Standard cover might be 5+, but there are various units that get a much better save than that. Eldar pathfinders, Harker squads with camo cloaks, anything that goes to ground in area terrain or behind an aegis line (usually a weak-firepower scoring unit that you don't care about snap firing), etc, are all scoring units that can get 2+/3+ saves while sitting on top of an objective. Since the units that can get 2+ cover saves tend to have nonexistent armor saves a cover-ignoring blast weapon goes from 2+ save to no save at all and starts to get up to squad-wiping firepower.

Of course the Eradicator approach is still bad, but at least it's trying to address a real problem.

Ah, alright. I gotcha.

I've been using the Vendetta with hellfury missiles to deal with those sorts of squads, but since Ailaros doesn't care for vendettas, the options I see are the colossus, deep-striking stormie flamers, hellhouds, or the eradicator, and out of all of these, I think the eradicator would put out the most damage to its intended targets over the course of the game. The problem is that it won't damage much else. I don't think the tank is particularly good compared to the others, but it may fit in his list, because Ailaros packs more meltaguns and lascannons than your mama.

I prefer the helldetta for those sort of tasks, because usually my opponents only have one or two 2+ cover save squads, and the helldetta can go and damage some other stuff and/or drop off troops on the objective it just nuked after it's done, and it brightens my opponent's day when I say the thing doesn't have three twin-linked lascannons. Maybe just try the thing once? On the tabletop the helldetta feels more like calling in a strategic air-strike then queuing up flight of the Valkyries on the stereo.

So, I suppose what I'm trying to refute is the idea that "LRBTs are good all-rounder tanks, and eradicators are just some niche weapon"

To the first, that LRBTs are good generalists, this seems to me to be tragically false. In order for something to be a generalist in my book, it needs to actually be GOOD at a bunch of things. What are battlecannons good for?

Not vehicles, for starters. Single-shot BS3 weapons don't have the volume of fire to handle lighter vehicles, and S8 Ap3 doesn't have the punch to knock out heavier vehicles. They don't even do AV12 well, what with only having about a 1 in 3 chance of causing a penetrating hit WHEN YOU HIT. Throw cover in there, and a russ may take all game before they break a vehicle open. Basically, it's the same reason why people take autocannons and lascannons to handle vehicles, but not missile launchers.

So, if not vehicles, then what? Not monstrous creatures, as it doesn't have the AP to handle 2+, and it doesn't have the shots to handle W6. Not terminators (of course). Marines in cover are either going to be getting a 3+ or a 4+ cover save, depending on where they are and if they're going to ground or not. Meanwhile, using the battlecannon to dig 5 point models out of cover isn't going to make it great against hordes (who will disperse once they leave cover).

As such, the battle cannon is actually a terrible weapon. Pretty much the only thing it does well is to hammer expensive infantry that don't have either a 2+ or a ++, and aren't in cover. It's the LRBT that's actually the niche weapon, not because it can't target stuff, but because it doesn't target them WELL.

Coming from here, we look at the eradicator. Yeah, there isn't a lot that the eradicator does well, but we're comparing it against the russ, which also doesn't do very much all that well.

The question, then, is which has a wider niche, hitting space marines out of cover or digging Sv4+ units out of it? It seems the latter is going to be more useful (especially since things tend to bunch up more when they're in cover), and it's going to be more strategic (objectives tend to be in or near cover).

Furthermore, the eradicator has the potential for higher damage output, thanks to the new heavy rules. Let's compare a bolter boat russ against a bolter boat eradicator against marines chilling behind an aegis or some devs in some ruins (or whatever). Let's say that the splat cannon on both of them hits 5. The russ then adds 1.5 heavy bolter hits, while the eradicator adds 4.5. Assuming that the squad doesn't go to ground, the LRBT is killing 2.4 marines, while the eradicator is doing 2.3. That's right, basically the same damage. Against marines - the one thing the battlecannon is supposed to be good for.

But the sponson thing doesn't stop there. You can give the eradicator multimeltas and a lascannon and make it deadly to basically any target and at decent range as well, and against infantry and light vehicles, they get to shoot all their guns, rather than one or the other.

All this is really making me think the eradicator better than the regular russ here.

The comparison then turns to other non-ordnance weapons. In my mind, the other three have weapons that are primarily useful against AV10 and infantry, but struggle once they get up to AV12. As such, the question is which is going to be better against infantry, something like a punisher, or something like a eradicator? In this case, you can make a decent argument for the punisher, but the eradicator does have better range, and costs less (both by a fair bit). Meanwhile, neither the exterminator or the executioner are going to be good against infantry in cover.

As such, if you've already got a fair amount of stuff to handle light vehicles, then the eradicator really does become the better choice. Except, perhaps, for demolishers, but the two tanks really do rather different things.

As for comparing the eradicator to artillery, it's the classic chassis question. Both a pair of griffons and the colossus have the potential to do more damage, depending on the target, but they also are much flimsier. Also, artillery can't take sponsons, which does a lot to fix the firepower gap.

 Ailaros wrote:
Single-shot BS3 weapons don't have the volume of fire to handle lighter vehicles, and S8 Ap3 doesn't have the punch to knock out heavier vehicles. They don't even do AV12 well, what with only having about a 1 in 3 chance of causing a penetrating hit WHEN YOU HIT.

2/3; LRBT is Ordinance.

2/3 Chance to pen isn't that bad.

 TheCaptain wrote:
2/3 Chance to pen isn't that bad.

And given the removal of the "hole must be over the hull requirement," most vehicles will be hit on any deviation of 7" or less, if you're aiming for center-mass.

TheCaptain wrote:2/3; LRBT is Ordinance.

2/3 Chance to pen isn't that bad.

Oops.

Still, though.

Yes, you don't need to have the hole over the vehicle anymore, but it's not like that makes the russ an auto-hitter. It makes it more like BS4. Against a chimera with no cover, you're looking at having to fire SEVEN SHOTS to kill the thing by stripping hull points (and by then it's very likely too late). With Ap3, the russ is only wrecking a chimera outright about one in ever 14 or 15 shots it makes. That's still pretty terrible.

And that's not including cover. The battlecannon is already crappy against AV12 enough without adding the fact that it could be doing less.

And moreover, you might as well just take an exterminator by this point.

 Ailaros wrote:
They don't even do AV12 well, what with only having about a 1 in 3 chance of causing a penetrating hit WHEN YOU HIT.

Don't forget the ordnance rule, which makes it 1/2 for a penetrating hit, and 3/4 to at least take off a hull point.

Marines in cover are either going to be getting a 3+ or a 4+ cover save, depending on where they are and if they're going to ground or not.

No they aren't. 4+ is only for ruins, most cover is only 5+. And if a unit goes to ground for a 4+ (normal) or 3+ (area terrain) cover save then the unit has effectively killed itself.

The question, then, is which has a wider niche, hitting space marines out of cover or digging Sv4+ units out of it? It seems the latter is going to be more useful (especially since things tend to bunch up more when they're in cover), and it's going to be more strategic (objectives tend to be in or near cover).

No, the question is whether the Eradicator is useful. If the LRBT is bad and the Eradicator is slightly less bad, the answer is to take none of the above. Instead, take artillery, allied ABG LRBTs with infernus shells, hellfury Vendettas/Vultures, etc.

Furthermore, the eradicator has the potential for higher damage output, thanks to the new heavy rules. Let's compare a bolter boat russ against a bolter boat eradicator against marines chilling behind an aegis or some devs in some ruins (or whatever). Let's say that the splat cannon on both of them hits 5. The russ then adds 1.5 heavy bolter hits, while the eradicator adds 4.5. Assuming that the squad doesn't go to ground, the LRBT is killing 2.4 marines, while the eradicator is doing 2.3. That's right, basically the same damage. Against marines - the one thing the battlecannon is supposed to be good for.

Of course there's three problems with this:

1) Most importantly, your math is wrong. With 5+ cover the battlecannon alone is causing 2.77 unsaved wounds, for a total of 2.88 once you include the HB. The Eradicator gets a total of 2.38 with all of its weapons. IOW, the battlecannon alone does more damage than the Eradicator's entire total.

2) The cost difference is very relevant. If we drop the worthless sponson bolters from the LRTB it will cost 150 points to kill 2.88 marines, while the Eradicator costs 180 points to kill 2.38. That's a 45% increase in cost per kill.

3) This is based on the assumption that GW doesn't realize their mistake with the new heavy change and bring lumbering behemoth back.

But the sponson thing doesn't stop there. You can give the eradicator multimeltas and a lascannon and make it deadly to basically any target and at decent range as well, and against infantry and light vehicles, they get to shoot all their guns, rather than one or the other.

And you can give a LRBT the same. The ability to fire all four guns is worthless because the main gun isn't going to do anything against the targets multimeltas and lascannons are good against. So both tanks will be firing MMx2/LC at full BS and not firing the turret weapon. The only difference is that the LRBT has the ability to fire the main gun in other situations.

 kestril wrote:
I prefer the helldetta for those sort of tasks, because usually my opponents only have one or two 2+ cover save squads, and the helldetta can go and damage some other stuff and/or drop off troops on the objective it just nuked after it's done, and it brightens my opponent's day when I say the thing doesn't have three twin-linked lascannons. Maybe just try the thing once? On the tabletop the helldetta feels more like calling in a strategic air-strike then queuing up flight of the Valkyries on the stereo.

The problem with that approach is that you turn the Vendetta into a bad Vulture. With 6th edition really hurting the usefulness of Vendettas as transports the Vulture can bring the same TL LC and 2x hellfuries, has the option to trade the TL LC for a second anti-infantry weapon, and has the amazingly useful vector dancer USR. The Vendetta is only really worth it if you keep the three TL LCs, since that's the only case where it's vastly superior to everything else you could take in the same role.

...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...

And as for lacking AP2 for dealing with Monstrous Creatures, how many Monstrous Creatures have a 2+ save? Let me think...Definitely not Wraithlords, almost nothing in the Tyranid Codex...none of the Greater Daemons...I get that the Battle Cannon isn't your best weapon against W6 Monstrous Creatures, but that's because of low rate of fire; the Tyrannofex and Dreadknights are the only Monstrous Creatures that still get an armor save against it...

...You've ignored the fact that the Eradicator has half the range of the Battle Cannon...

Have you ever heard the phrase "Jack of all trades, master of none"? The regular Leman Russ may not be your single best weapon at hitting anything, but it's decent against single heavy vehicles, light vehicle squadrons, and any infantry short of Terminators at all ranges. The Eradicator is very good at killing lighter enemies in cover, but it isn't very effective against Monstrous Creatures or heavy vehicles, and has a fairly short range for an artillery vehicle. If you're in a smaller game, or if you're on a budget, the regular Russ is an infinitely better choice because it can actually act outside of it's specialization area, instead of requiring you to buy one vehicle to deal with light infantry in cover, another to deal with heavy infantry, and a third to deal with vehicles, or whatever else you're suggesting.

 Ailaros wrote:
Yes, you don't need to have the hole over the vehicle anymore, but it's not like that makes the russ an auto-hitter. It makes it more like BS4. Against a chimera with no cover, you're looking at having to fire SEVEN SHOTS to kill the thing by stripping hull points (and by then it's very likely too late). With Ap3, the russ is only wrecking a chimera outright about one in ever 14 or 15 shots it makes. That's still pretty terrible.

But you don't take a LRBT as a primary anti-tank weapon. You take it as a unit that can supplement your main anti-tank weapons and strip a final hullpoint, throw a shaken result on a gun tank, etc, while waiting for infantry targets to appear. The point is that the LRBT can contribute a bit early in the game, while the Eradicator just sits there being worthless until low-save cover-dependent infantry show up.

 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

 Peregrine wrote:


The problem with that approach is that you turn the Vendetta into a bad Vulture. With 6th edition really hurting the usefulness of Vendettas as transports the Vulture can bring the same TL LC and 2x hellfuries, has the option to trade the TL LC for a second anti-infantry weapon, and has the amazingly useful vector dancer USR. The Vendetta is only really worth it if you keep the three TL LCs, since that's the only case where it's vastly superior to everything else you could take in the same role.

Can the vulture transport troops? Then I'd take one, but I need some method of troop-delivery to objectives as well.

But you don't take a LRBT as a primary anti-tank weapon. You take it as a unit that can supplement your main anti-tank weapons and strip a final hullpoint, throw a shaken result on a gun tank, etc, while waiting for infantry targets to appear. The point is that the LRBT can contribute a bit early in the game, while the Eradicator just sits there being worthless until low-save cover-dependent infantry show up.

This. The russ can contribute something every turn of the game, especially with the brilliant 72-inch range. Moreover, with the lack of glancing hits causing stunnage, those battlecannons will be firing every round, and when it's priority targets DO appear, some marines get evaporated.

 kestril wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:


The problem with that approach is that you turn the Vendetta into a bad Vulture. With 6th edition really hurting the usefulness of Vendettas as transports the Vulture can bring the same TL LC and 2x hellfuries, has the option to trade the TL LC for a second anti-infantry weapon, and has the amazingly useful vector dancer USR. The Vendetta is only really worth it if you keep the three TL LCs, since that's the only case where it's vastly superior to everything else you could take in the same role.

Can the vulture transport troops? Then I'd take one, but I need some method of troop-delivery to objectives as well.

It trades transport capacity for Vector Dancer, Strafing run, and 4-5 guns instead of 3.

LRBTs are good because they have a decent amount of power for their price, and are the cheapest av14 (i think) in the game. All of the others are better at different things, but they are all worse armour efficiency. They sit and block things, in a very price efficient way and with a decent gun. If you want to move up chimeras, the battle tanks offer a great piece of cover to hide behind. Then the enemy has to shoot at the cheap, rubbish tank or the expensive, killy one.

Works ok with the squadron rules too, with the expensive tanks in the rear for protection. I don't use mixed squadrons myself but can see the merit of this idea.

A pair of them in front of a pair of various artillery pieces gives you a long range fire base. You can also have them give cover to some advancing medusa, although demolishers are a better cheap advancing tanks.

edit: I think that I have started to see the lrbt as a "tank", in the mmo sense of the word. Great at absorbing damage and protecting other things.

Peregrine wrote:4+ is only for ruins, most cover is only 5+.

Ruins and ADLs, both of which I see at my local store. Plus, anyone who is playing power armor from the vanilla 'dex nowadays is bringing a TFC, and the attending techmarine/master of forge gets to reinforce any 5+ cover to a 4+ cover. Worse, they do it on ruins or ADLs, and those devs/scoring units get a 3+ cover save just because.

And going to ground is not the same as a unit committing suicide. Not on purge missions, certainly, and not on any game where the going to ground unit is scoring and near an objective.

Peregrine wrote: The point is that the LRBT can contribute a bit early in the game, while the Eradicator just sits there being worthless until low-save cover-dependent infantry show up.

Unless you take sponsons. Sponsons don't add much to a regular russ, while they do to an eradicator. A las-MM eradicator is capable of doing plenty.

Plus, as mentioned, there are more things than cover-dependent infantry that an eradicator cannon handles just as well or roughly the same as a battlecannon.

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

You saw the math. Good luck peeling paint.

Furthermore, an LRBT isn't the best way of causing penetrating hits, and isn't even the best russ for this job.

AnomanderRake wrote:...You've ignored the fact that the Eradicator has half the range of the Battle Cannon...

Sure, but a 42" threat range isn't exactly short, either.

AnomanderRake wrote:Have you ever heard the phrase "Jack of all trades, master of none"?

Yes, but I only believe in versatility or generality when something is GOOD at what it does. What the LRBT is starting to look like here is the grenade launcher of the russ world. Yes, it can, in theory, target lots of stuff, but it's rarely ever particularly effective, in general, for its points, or compared to other options.

Trickstick wrote:LRBTs are good because they have a decent amount of power for their price, and are the cheapest av14 (i think) in the game.

Well, firstly, an exterminator costs the same, and it's not like those extra 10 or 15 points for a demolisher or eradicator are exactly breaking the bank.

Secondly, that's sort of the problem, they DON'T have a decent amount of killing power, including for their price. Go back to a 4th ed world where they could fire all their guns and perhaps it would be a different story, but not now in a world of 6th ed rules and heavy replacing lumbering behemoth.