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.

I would still opt for the plasma sponsons on the Exterminator though. Being able to cover more bases (literally and figuratively) is always a nice thing to have. As for the Demo, I would agree with some of the others on here and keep her with multi-melta sponsons with the hull HB. Sure you might be out of range for a turn, but that is why we have the smoke. I would rather pop smoke with the Demo and preserve it's life than chance 1 BS 3 shot to potentially do nothing.

All I know is, after bringing an executioner to just one game yesterday, people at my store are actively dreading seeing it again. I've never seen Marine players freak out quite like they did when they saw that thing fire first turn

I think I'll be using them for a while and seeing how they do. Yes, they're obscenely expensive, but they're also incredibly destructive. Every game I've had afterwards that I didn't use them I've found myself wishing I had it. I really think it's got potential to be a heavy hitter now.

Haven't tried the punisher and exterminator after 1.1, so they're next on the list. I'm hearing positive things about them as well though.

Just played a game with this change, and it really hurt the demolisher. My opponent deployed at the opposite end of the table from mine and it spent three full turns moving 6" closer before it finally got to shoot. Granted, this was low model count GK and another army might have had closer targets to shoot at, but I can easily see how the loss of D6+6" movement each turn can draw out what would normally be just a single turn of wasted shooting. And of course the demolisher gets nothing in exchange for this crippling, it's purely a loss, and a pointless one.

Yeah, I suppose a demolisher would be particularly badly hurt by this.

 Ailaros wrote:
Yeah, I suppose a demolisher would be particularly badly hurt by this.

WIll this mean a new era for the Medusa for getting Str 10 anti tank downrange?

sure, but why bother? There are other ways to handle tanks.

140 points for a rather flimsy single long-range melta shot a turn? You might as well spend the extra 15 points for the AV14 upgrade to vanquisher.

generalchaos34 wrote:
WIll this mean a new era for the Medusa for getting Str 10 anti tank downrange?

Or does it mean that both vehicles have too many drawbacks, and AP 2 needs to come from elsewhere in the FOC? The last few games I've used one of each, and I'm not sure. Before the latest FAQ I was getting kind of disappointed in the Medusa, with only AV 12 it just wasn't living long enough. Sure, getting a better shot turn 1 was nice (if you don't go second and lose it), but the demolisher seemed to do more damage over the entire game thanks to AV 14 keeping it alive. Making the demolisher worse doesn't change these problems, so maybe the end result is just that neither vehicle is very consistent, and you have to decide whether the raw power when it works is worth the games where it doesn't do anything?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ailaros wrote:
sure, but why bother? There are other ways to handle tanks.

IMO, the Medusa is for anti-terminator/MEQ, not for anti-tank. It's nice to have STR 10 ordnance around when you need a tank killed, but the real reason for the pie plates (on either tank) is to make paladins/TWC/etc cry, especially now that the rules have shifted in favor of 2+ saves.

The only reason I'd ever consider taking the BBS "upgrade" is when I'm really worried about a fortification and need it killed ASAP. The size of the target model combined with STR 10 + 2D6 almost ensures a penetrating hit, and AP 1 makes it hurt. But this is a pretty narrow role, and I don't foresee it being a frequent part of my list.

It's not ordnance, though. Without the BB's, the medusa is little more than the most expensive lascannon in the game, at least as far as anti-vehicle capabilities are concerned. With the bastion breachers, it gets +D6, and, more importantly, has Ap1. This means it can actually kill vehicles.

Given that anti-vehicle is really the reason to take it (because, seriously, there are plenty of ways to handle terminators), it seems mandatory to take BB to justify taking the medusa in the first place.

But as I said, there are other ways to do anti-tank, especially in a new world of multimelta sponsons now.

 Ailaros wrote:
It's not ordnance, though.

Huh? The Medusa's standard gun is ordnance. It only loses the ordnance rule and becomes heavy when you take the BBS upgrade.

Considering the massive amount of damage the Plasma tank can dish out and it can now fire 5 templates on the run rather than 4 I'd say the Battle Tank got nerfed, hoping for an errata (again).

Its an interesting change, and what I like about it is that it encourages players to take different Leman Russ variants. I think i'd probably take an Exterminator with all bolters in an all-comers list. Twin linking helps overcome the anemic BS3, and the volume of heavy bolters can find a variety of targets.

The Vanquisher seems interesting now too. Its only 5pts more than a vanilla russ, and kitting it with a lascannon/multimelta sponsons you have a lot of tank killing weapons on the move.

 Peregrine wrote:
Just played a game with this change, and it really hurt the demolisher. My opponent deployed at the opposite end of the table from mine and it spent three full turns moving 6" closer before it finally got to shoot. Granted, this was low model count GK and another army might have had closer targets to shoot at, but I can easily see how the loss of D6+6" movement each turn can draw out what would normally be just a single turn of wasted shooting. And of course the demolisher gets nothing in exchange for this crippling, it's purely a loss, and a pointless one.

Actually, it doesn't hurt the Demolisher that much, at least the way I run it. You should have had a lascannon on there, since in many games you can't fire the cannon the first couple of turns anyway.

I played a game over the weekend with my usual LRBT with HB sponsons, and I decided I am going to leave them on there. I like the increased chance of the Weapon Destroyed roll not killing me. And there are times in games where I don't want to fire the cannon, especially late game when I am firing on an enemy that is close to one of my positions. Now, I can use all my bolters at full BS while moving to get in to position and help with assault.

I'm going to try some Exterminators too. The Executioner is just too expensive for my Guard philosophy of making sure that losing a unit doesn't destroy my strategy.

bb

 Ailaros wrote:
Unless, of course, they're a non-ordnance russ, which can now move 6" and fire everything at full BS.

This....

I think that 6th edition will favor non-ordnance russ' as gun platforms and ordnance russ' will be bare bones.

The issue with the ordnance Russes is that for both the BT and Demo you can get a superior weapon on a cheaper artillery platform

Im going with Glocknalls thinking. I'm going to try swapping out my BTs for a pair of basilisks. They can hide behind cover and rain down pie plates. Anything within the 36" min. range limit can be handled by either the exterminator or the executioner, other options in the codex.

Glocknall wrote:
The issue with the ordnance Russes is that for both the BT and Demo you can get a superior weapon on a cheaper artillery platform

Comparing tanks to artillery is apples to oranges. They play a different role in any list you write. Artillery has its uses, but the issue you describe simply doesn't exist.

bb

There is a big difference between AV 12 open topped basalisks and an AV 14 tank. AV 14 at range is very hard to dislodge.

 labmouse42 wrote:
There is a big difference between AV 12 open topped basalisks and an AV 14 tank. AV 14 at range is very hard to dislodge.

Does that really matter anymore with Necrons being so prominent, all they have to do is glance the thing to death (both the Basilisk and the LRBT). Dark Eldar seem to be pretty popular but they sport a load of lance weaponry so that 14 is less efficient, space marines will melta you if given the chance (most likely on the side or rear at which point the LRBT is only slightly harder to take out). The armies that I think will have the hardest time with the LRBT's 14 are probably the armies that are not being played as heavily right now.

Not that my opinion matters, but I am on the side of the fence that is scratching their heads and wondering wtf GW is thinking. Lumbering Behemoth was iconic for the LRBT, now we have heavy, which makes everything BUT the battle tank even more efficient and makes the LRBT over-cost and almost not worth it to upgrade aside from the 'random roll' for weapon destroyed but with Hull Points now incorporated it doesn't make 'that' much of a difference.

Well now the exterminator, executioner, and punisher are top tier units.

I'm actually leaning more towards an executioner with 3 hb. The effect of an executioner on meq players is excessive firepower directed at it and meq hiding in cover until it's dead. The extra 2 plasma cannons won't make much of a difference. To unitss caught in the open, and they can overheat.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The nova cannon just went from zero to hero. It's not ordinance. Add 2 plasma cannons and it's only 200 points. The nova cannon will kill troops dependent on cover, and the plasma for those that have armor.

 schadenfreude wrote:
Well now the exterminator, executioner, and punisher are top tier units.

I'm actually leaning more towards an executioner with 3 hb. The effect of an executioner on meq players is excessive firepower directed at it and meq hiding in cover until it's dead. The extra 2 plasma cannons won't make much of a difference. To unitss caught in the open, and they can overheat.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The nova cannon just went from zero to hero. It's not ordinance. Add 2 plasma cannons and it's only 200 points. The nova cannon will kill troops dependent on cover, and the plasma for those that have armor.

Now all we need it to have is rules for its sponsons to be allowed to shoot at different targets.

Though I like your idea for the eradicator. Makes me want to run two Exterminators with Plasma sponsons and your eradicator.

On phone, so cannot look at faqs, but the plasma sponsons still get hot on anything lower than a three, correct? Wouldn't this drastically decrease their life span with 3 hps?

Oh christ... heavy flamers that can always fire...

 UMGuy wrote:
On phone, so cannot look at faqs, but the plasma sponsons still get hot on anything lower than a three, correct? Wouldn't this drastically decrease their life span with 3 hps?

Nope. They get hot on a 1, but vehicles have a 4+ save (effectively) against their overheats.

Lascannons on demolishers were an add-on. The Demolisher hasn't lost anything relevant in this change, just keep the HB.

 UMGuy wrote:
On phone, so cannot look at faqs, but the plasma sponsons still get hot on anything lower than a three, correct? Wouldn't this drastically decrease their life span with 3 hps?

You roll before firing each weapon with the 'Gets Hot' rule, if you roll a '1' you get hot, the on a 'further roll of a 1,2, or 3, the vehicle takes a glancing hit."

 Testify wrote:
Lascannons on demolishers were an add-on. The Demolisher hasn't lost anything relevant in this change, just keep the HB.

Besides the ability to use a lascannon (which is not a trivial thing), the demolisher suffered a major loss in its shorter maximum movement distance. Limiting it to 6" per turn instead of D6+12" (or even the D6"+6 of 5th) means it takes a lot longer to get into range if there aren't any targets within 24", and the new deployment types make it even easier for this to happen.

 beerbeard wrote:
Actually, it doesn't hurt the Demolisher that much, at least the way I run it. You should have had a lascannon on there, since in many games you can't fire the cannon the first couple of turns anyway.

It had a lascannon on it, but a single BS 3 lascannon for 180 points is horrible. Before the latest change if you were out of range you'd almost always want to move the maximum distance and give up firing the hull gun so you could get into range asap for the main gun (the reason you bought the tank). And of course to add insult to injury you can't even use the lascannon once you do get into range to fire the main gun!

Peregrine wrote:Before the latest change if you were out of range you'd almost always want to move the maximum distance and give up firing the hull gun so you could get into range asap for the main gun (the reason you bought the tank).

Not necessarily. If there was any chance your opponent would be bringing things over towards you, it always made sense to shoot a lascannon from behind 4+ cover than to charge out into the open and shoot nothing.

 Jstncloud wrote:

 labmouse42 wrote:
There is a big difference between AV 12 open topped basalisks and an AV 14 tank. AV 14 at range is very hard to dislodge.

Does that really matter anymore with Necrons being so prominent, all they have to do is glance the thing to death (both the Basilisk and the LRBT). Dark Eldar seem to be pretty popular but they sport a load of lance weaponry so that 14 is less efficient, space marines will melta you if given the chance (most likely on the side or rear at which point the LRBT is only slightly harder to take out). The armies that I think will have the hardest time with the LRBT's 14 are probably the armies that are not being played as heavily right now.

Not that my opinion matters, but I am on the side of the fence that is scratching their heads and wondering wtf GW is thinking. Lumbering Behemoth was iconic for the LRBT, now we have heavy, which makes everything BUT the battle tank even more efficient and makes the LRBT over-cost and almost not worth it to upgrade aside from the 'random roll' for weapon destroyed but with Hull Points now incorporated it doesn't make 'that' much of a difference.

That's why he said "at range". A lot of things can kill them in the 24" and under range. Not much can kill them past that. You ever tried killing a leman russ with cover from across the board? It aint easy. That's the durability he's talking about. Plus, any halfway sane IG commander should be screening his tanks with infantry to make sure that melta weapons aren't just walking up to the tank or deepstriking next to it.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:

 Jstncloud wrote:

 labmouse42 wrote:
There is a big difference between AV 12 open topped basalisks and an AV 14 tank. AV 14 at range is very hard to dislodge.

Does that really matter anymore with Necrons being so prominent, all they have to do is glance the thing to death (both the Basilisk and the LRBT). Dark Eldar seem to be pretty popular but they sport a load of lance weaponry so that 14 is less efficient, space marines will melta you if given the chance (most likely on the side or rear at which point the LRBT is only slightly harder to take out). The armies that I think will have the hardest time with the LRBT's 14 are probably the armies that are not being played as heavily right now.

Not that my opinion matters, but I am on the side of the fence that is scratching their heads and wondering wtf GW is thinking. Lumbering Behemoth was iconic for the LRBT, now we have heavy, which makes everything BUT the battle tank even more efficient and makes the LRBT over-cost and almost not worth it to upgrade aside from the 'random roll' for weapon destroyed but with Hull Points now incorporated it doesn't make 'that' much of a difference.

That's why he said "at range". A lot of things can kill them in the 24" and under range. Not much can kill them past that. You ever tried killing a leman russ with cover from across the board? It aint easy. That's the durability he's talking about. Plus, any halfway sane IG commander should be screening his tanks with infantry to make sure that melta weapons aren't just walking up to the tank or deepstriking next to it.

What player would waste the time trying to take it at range? Any tactical player would cut the range to increase the odds of taking down the tank (IE: Space Marines, Dreadnoughts, Drop Pods, etc with meltas) or Necrons with lotsa crazy glancing spam.

Maybe tau, but even they have Melta Options and their long range option (str 10 ap 1) is pretty efficient.

My point is, the tank is not cost efficient anymore when you take away the Battle Tank's firing capabilities. Prior to this FAQ my group agreed to use the Lumbering Behemoth the way it used to work (but with 6th ed logic, IE: you could fire the main cannon if you moved in addition to the other weapons you were allowed to fire. This we assumed would mean one hull/sponson weapon at pure BS, one turret weapon at pure BS, and the rest were snap shots, it honestly made sense). Giving the Russ heavy seems logical but not re-wording Lumbering Behemoth along with the heavy status means one variant (Battle Cannon) is nearly useless for those of us who have already modeled our tanks with side sponsons, and that is also a point I was trying to make. Vehicles now can easily be dispatched, so simply saying "Errr, the side sponsons make weapon destroyed results less painful" is absurd, the fact is if your opponent focus their fire on the tank they will be very likely not to stop until it is gone anyways, so why make it cost more points than it is currently worth.

This update just doesnt seem right, lascannons seem pointless on the tanks now, and the bolters will rarely hit, maybe once if that. The rules for weapon destroyed being random was nice for the battle cannon and demolisher but now that sponsons are useless your main cannon is easier to loose again because whose gunna spend 20+ points for sponsons that might make your cannon more survivable. Maybe heavy vehicles will get the update of being able to fire all weapons at normal bs, sounds reasonable. thankfully i have 2 russes with sponsons and 2 without seeing as i wont be using the ones with them anymore. having 6 battle tanks sucks now, guess its time to break some turrets to make punishers and eradicators lol.