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.

 Ailaros wrote:
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.

Then they are cheating. MotF can only boost ruins, and aegis lines are not ruins.

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.

But you're talking about stuff like devastators that actually wants to contribute to the fight. Going to ground and dropping BS 4 to BS 1 might not be literally killing the unit, but it's certainly crippling it. Sure, you'll want to go to ground if the alternative is losing the unit, but if a LRBT shot causes a vital unit to go to ground in a desperate attempt to stay alive I'll call that a success.

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.

Except that the LRBT is good at things. It's good at killing marines (especially when killing their transports or deep striking puts them into ideal battlecannon formation), it's good at killing hordes, and it's good as a secondary anti-vehicle unit. Grenade launchers, on the other hand, are just bad at everything.

Fine, if your opponents are dumb enough to deepstrike big wads of power armor right in front of an LRBT, then take LRBTs.

Meanwhile, back in the real world, they're going to struggle, especially when you start talking about displacement and cover saves (and let's not forget, you still need to hit and wound, which isn't automatic). In the real world, spending 150 points just to kill a space marine or two per every other turn it hits while the russ survives really isn't that good. Throw in some pretty mediocre anti-vehicle, and the grenade launcher really is an apt comparison.

 Ailaros wrote:
Fine, if your opponents are dumb enough to deepstrike big wads of power armor right in front of an LRBT, then take LRBTs.

Aren't you the one who advocates using units like melta stormtroopers as anti-tank?

Also, when your unit has 72" range and a 360* turret "right in front" really means "anywhere on the table". And I don't know about you, but in my opinion 150 points is a pretty reasonable price to pay to force all of the units my opponent would like to deep strike to start on the table and be useless.

displacement

You keep repeating that and ignoring the fact that in 6th edition displacement often has a very high price. I'll be quite happy if my opponent displaces every single unit, takes a bunch of models out of cover, and loses them with no saves at all against my plasma guns. They're going to lose more models to plasma fire than they save from the LRBT, so it's a win-win situation for me. All because of a 150 point unit.

They don't have to deepstrike in front of the LRBT, they just have to deepstrike, because the battle tank's range reaches across the board.

I'm not seeing the grenade launcher comparison. Grenade launchers don't insta-kill stuff, and grenade launchers don't have AP3. You'd be hard pressed to make an eradicator kill as many space marines as a russ.

Edit: Got Ninja'd by Peregrine.

It's decent as a bolter boat.
9 S5 shots, 3 S4 shots and a S6 ignore cover blast.

And don't tell me you can replace that ignore cover with a barrage. They're enough cover saves that barrage doesn't solve. For example, models on the middle floor of a ruin, in/around a BA librarian, Ork Big Mek, eldar Warlock, Harliquin... ect.

It's a solid choice as a 3rd Heavy slot. If you've got enough anti-tank and anti-MEQ/TEQ.

I was running 2x1 Medusa and a pair of Russ (battle cannon). I've been happy with the switch to a pair of bolter boats.

-Matt

HawaiiMatt wrote:
And don't tell me you can replace that ignore cover with a barrage. They're enough cover saves that barrage doesn't solve. For example, models on the middle floor of a ruin, in/around a BA librarian, Ork Big Mek, eldar Warlock, Harliquin... ect.

The problem is that you pay for that ignoring cover ability. For example, is a 5+ cover save from a mek really that important that you need a specialized unit to deal with it?

Peregrine wrote:I'll be quite happy if my opponent displaces every single unit

Then you've never played against it. If you're discontent with the theory behind how dispersal guts the firepower of blast weapons, then I'm sure experience will show you directly. Play a few more games against people who understand its power, and I'll sure you'll catch on quickly.

kestril wrote:They don't have to deepstrike in front of the LRBT, they just have to deepstrike, because the battle tank's range reaches across the board.

Well, if they're deepstriking, odds are pretty good that they're terminators, in a drop pod (and can thus disperse out of their transport), or are capable of killing the russ in their own right. I'd also implore you to remember that russes are slower now, which means that it's possible to create blind spots where russes can't shoot at them.

Even in the worst possible case scenario, your opponent has to be pretty dumb to just deepstrike in its reach anyways.

And, to be fair, you still have to hit. A russ is only good against deepstrikers half the time.

kestril wrote:I'm not seeing the grenade launcher comparison. Grenade launchers don't insta-kill stuff, and grenade launchers don't have AP3.

It's not that the weapons are literally the same, it's that they're analogous. They're a weapon that comes in promising being decent against everything, and then winds up being crappy against everything with a few narrow exceptions.

kestril wrote:You'd be hard pressed to make an eradicator kill as many space marines as a russ.

I gave the example already pitting the two against space marines in 4+ cover.

The exterminator gets even better when your opponent spreads out (unless you're in peregrine's FLGS where you only have tiny pieces of terrain), or when those marines go to ground.

 Ailaros wrote:
Then you've never played against it. If you're discontent with the theory behind how dispersal guts the firepower of blast weapons, then I'm sure experience will show you directly. Play a few more games against people who understand its power, and I'll sure you'll catch on quickly.

Please read again. I'll make it very simple:

Displacing hurts the firepower of unit X.

Displacing helps the firepower of unit Y.

In many situations, the gain in firepower from unit Y is greater than the loss in firepower from unit X, therefore displacing is a bad idea.

Well, if they're deepstriking, odds are pretty good that they're terminators, in a drop pod (and can thus disperse out of their transport), or are capable of killing the russ in their own right. I'd also implore you to remember that russes are slower now, which means that it's possible to create blind spots where russes can't shoot at them.

The entire BA codex disagrees with you that deep striking means spreading out. And sure, they might use their melta shot on the Leman Russ and maybe even kill it, but then the plasma vets next to it throw a demo charge out the hatch and wipe the squad out.

Even in the worst possible case scenario, your opponent has to be pretty dumb to just deepstrike in its reach anyways.

Remember the part where "in its reach" means "on the table"? You might be able to find a blind spot or two behind LOS blocking terrain, but dropping far off behind terrain negates the whole point of deep striking.

I gave the example already pitting the two against space marines in 4+ cover.

And your example was ridiculous because you inflated the cost of the LRBT by including worthless sponson guns. As I pointed out, the Eradicator pays 45% more for each dead marine, which is terrible performance.

 Peregrine wrote:

The entire BA codex disagrees with you that deep striking means spreading out. And sure, they might use their melta shot on the Leman Russ and maybe even kill it, but then the plasma vets next to it throw a demo charge out the hatch and wipe the squad out.

.

You give your Plasvets democharges?

What?

Peregrine wrote:Displacing hurts the firepower of unit X.

Displacing helps the firepower of unit Y.

In many situations, the gain in firepower from unit Y is greater than the loss in firepower from unit X, therefore displacing is a bad idea.

If only this were actually true. At some point logical deduction needs to reflect reality or else it completely lacks utility.

Just like the above.

Peregrine wrote:The entire BA codex disagrees with you that deep striking means spreading out

You're right, I've never seen a predetor or a razorback or a stormraven or a drop pod in any blood angels list. I'm pretty sure the codex doesn't even have entries for them.

Good thing no BA units can assault out of deepstrike, or have lower-scatter deepstriking allowing them to kill off vehicles more easily when they land either.

Peregrine wrote:And your example was ridiculous because you inflated the cost of the LRBT by including worthless sponson guns.

Sponsons are the reason to take russes now. Welcome to russes being heavy.

 Ailaros wrote:

Peregrine wrote:And your example was ridiculous because you inflated the cost of the LRBT by including worthless sponson guns.

Sponsons are the reason to take russes now. Welcome to russes being heavy.

Ordnance + sponsons = Bad Idea. Heavy or not, you can only snap-fire everything else when you fire Ordnance.

And drop the snark level back towards minimum, folks. If you can't have a discussion without sniping at each other, you're not going to have a discussion for long.

 Ailaros wrote:
If only this were actually true. At some point logical deduction needs to reflect reality or else it completely lacks utility.

Except it IS true. If you have so much terrain that every single one of your opponent's units can get a cover save for every model AND stay at maximum coherency at all times AND still complete their mission then you're playing with too much terrain. You're supposed to have to work to get cover and make difficult choices between maximizing cover use and getting where you need to be, not just have a cities of death table where everything has a 4+ cover save at all times.

Good thing no BA units can assault out of deepstrike, or have lower-scatter deepstriking allowing them to kill off vehicles more easily when they land either.

And when they deep strike they still land in base contact, which is the whole point. If you're using deep striking melta as your anti-tank in a BA list you're dropping in perfect battlecannon/executioner formation and you'd better kill everything with a pie plate as soon as you arrive.

Sponsons are the reason to take russes now. Welcome to russes being heavy.

That's true of the ones with non-ordnance guns, but not true of the LRBT. That's why I didn't object to you counting sponson guns in the Eradicator's firepower. But it's ridiculous to inflate the cost of the LRBT by tacking on inefficient sponson weapons and cover up the fact that without them it kills far more efficiently point-wise.

 TheCaptain wrote:
You give your Plasvets democharges?

What?

Yep. I got into the habit of doing it when I played all-Hades-drill lists since the drill lets you start the squad in demo charge range, and the melta bombs make the unit a legitimate anti-tank threat even when you give them plasma guns (if you're in 6" melta range you're also in charge range with melta bombs). It turns a unit that can really hurt marines into a unit that wipes entire squads off the table, and even once I decided to be nice and take fewer drills I still frequently take demolitions on my vets.

 Peregrine wrote:


Yep. I got into the habit of doing it when I played all-Hades-drill lists since the drill lets you start the squad in demo charge range, and the melta bombs make the unit a legitimate anti-tank threat even when you give them plasma guns (if you're in 6" melta range you're also in charge range with melta bombs). It turns a unit that can really hurt marines into a unit that wipes entire squads off the table, and even once I decided to be nice and take fewer drills I still frequently take demolitions on my vets.

All of em?

I'm not sure I see the justification pointswise. Its nice in theory, but sans-hades, seems like they wouldn't get enough use.

Additionally, which IA are Hades drills in, in their most-updated form?

*rolls a natural 20 and dodges incoming forgeworld argument*

 TheCaptain wrote:
All of em?

I'm not sure I see the justification pointswise. Its nice in theory, but sans-hades, seems like they wouldn't get enough use.

With Hades squads, all of them. They were very consistently useful, and the massive firepower (or when I melta bombed a tank) more than justified the point cost.

With Chimera squads, depends on my mood and whether I can fit in an entire useful unit by taking off the demo charges. Sometimes they are present, sometimes they aren't, but they're still a relevant threat that deep striking units have to be aware of.

Additionally, which IA are Hades drills in, in their most-updated form?

IA1, second edition. Which was just released and killed the unit entirely, to the point that "the molds broke and we can't recover them, let's kill the rules so nobody misses it when we sell out of them" is the only plausible explanation. Everything I've said about them is about the original rules (which were awesome), which are in IA:Apocalypse 2 if you can convince your opponent to let you use the real rules instead of this abomination.

 Peregrine wrote:

HawaiiMatt wrote:
And don't tell me you can replace that ignore cover with a barrage. They're enough cover saves that barrage doesn't solve. For example, models on the middle floor of a ruin, in/around a BA librarian, Ork Big Mek, eldar Warlock, Harliquin... ect.

The problem is that you pay for that ignoring cover ability. For example, is a 5+ cover save from a mek really that important that you need a specialized unit to deal with it?

But you aren't paying that many points to ignore cover, and Ignoring cover can win you games.
It's tough to compare the two, because it depends on how many models you catch in the blast.
If you catch 4, and they are in power armor, and they are in cover (5+), the Eradicator slightly edges out the Standard Russ (but costs 40 points more and had half the range).
If they aren't in power armor, the Eradicator dominates.
If the opponent is in the open, and in power armor, the Battle Tank dominates.
So what do you face most often? Clumped up power armor in the open, or medium ranged opponents?


You can make a good stance for Exterminator. 4 shots with re-rolls to hit, the exterminator is where you'd need either a good cluster or 4+ armor in cover for the Eradicator to out-perform.
Anyhow, I've been happy with the Eradicators. Since I load the rest of my army with AP2, I don't really miss the AP3 pie plate. Think of it as a Russ with a 36" range heavy flamer.

The best reason to try them is the bits are dirt cheap.



-Matt

HawaiiMatt wrote:
But you aren't paying that many points to ignore cover, and Ignoring cover can win you games.

It's not just the point cost, it's that you give up the LRBT's gun to get that cover-ignoring shot. It's worth considering things like that if you're talking about important units with a 2+ cover save, but the value of ignoring cover drops considerably when you're talking about only 5+ cover. So:

Infernus shells (essentially an alternate shell that duplicates an Eradicator shot) on an armored battlegroup command tank are an auto-buy since they give you the powerful cover-ignoring ability for a reasonable point cost, but allow you to keep the battlecannon shot for when you don't need to ignore cover. That's powerful versatility.

Taking an Eradicator over a LRBT is questionable at best since you lose more than just the 10 points difference between the two and turn a decent generalist into an extremely specialized unit that is only viable in a specific situation. It might be worth it sometimes, but you'd better be very sure that you need to make that trade.

HawaiiMatt wrote:

If you catch 4, and they are in power armor, and they are in cover (5+), the Eradicator slightly edges out the Standard Russ (but costs 40 points more and had half the range).

How? The marines would take the save on a 3+. With the Russ, it forces them to save on a 5+.

TheCaptain wrote:*rolls a natural 20 and dodges incoming forgeworld argument*

It's like he's a ninja!

 kestril wrote:
How? The marines would take the save on a 3+. With the Russ, it forces them to save on a 5+.

Probably the sponson guns, since if you assume a poor shot from both pie plates you're left with the sponson and hull guns doing most of the work, in which case the Eradicator firing at full BS beats the LRBT firing at BS 1 and makes up the gap.

But then we get into the whole "how many points to you want to spend on a tank?" game.

 kestril wrote:

HawaiiMatt wrote:

If you catch 4, and they are in power armor, and they are in cover (5+), the Eradicator slightly edges out the Standard Russ (but costs 40 points more and had half the range).

How? The marines would take the save on a 3+. With the Russ, it forces them to save on a 5+.

I compared the 190 point Eradicator (3 heavy bolters and heavy stubber) vs Russ Battle Tank (hull heavy bolter).
You aren't giving up the battle cannon for the ability to ignore cover.
You're giving up the battle cannon to fire the sponsons at full effect and ignore cover.
I run the numbers at 3 and 4 hits for the 5" blast.
The problem I've seen with battle cannons is the all or nothing effect on deep striking units. If I deep strike 7 or less models, I've got smaller than a 3" circle, that you drop a 5" template on. IF you don't roll a hit, it's really easy to scatter off them and score ZERO hits.

If you are Averaging more than 4 hits per shot with your battle cannons, I sure hope you are running 6+ russes.

-Matt

I would not take sponsons in 6th edition (exception: Leman Russ Punisher). If you really want to be cool you can take a hull lascannon and multi-melta sponsons on pretty much any Russ to make it good against tanks within a certain distance... except that that costs 45 points, the opportunity cost is high, and you don't want your Russes going after tanks anyway.

If you want to kill heavy tanks, take five-man Stormtrooper squads with meltaguns or something. Don't take Leman Russes and then pile on the upgrades to try to make them into something they're not. The Leman Russ Battle Tank is good at shooting Marines outside of cover and is OK at finishing off vehicles via hull point damage thanks to its fairly reliable accuracy. Sponsons don't help with either of these goals and can't even shoot effectively thanks to the new rules regarding Ordnance weapons forcing other weapons to Snap Fire.

You only have the opportunity cost if you're bringing an ordnance russ.

An eradicator isn't ordnance, and only 45 points is a steal for a lascannon and two multimeltas on such a durable platform.

I personally believe its your meta that you play in. I play against mainly chaos marines or daemons and I cant find myself to take a 190pt eradicator to fight against that as I spend the 150 for the russ and with the extra 40pts you can use those pts to add special/heavy weapons to your force, let alone 10 more points and you have another infantry squad. Ive read through this thread but I honestly cant see how the eradicator would be good unless your playing against an army that has a majority of 4+ or worse saves. The fact that the russ can also damage vehicles is actually great, I dont see how it isnt. If you drop a hull point that helps your army kill whatever vehicle your shooting at and if you damage it then youve already gained a plus as you could make it snap fire, stop it from moving, immobilize it, tear a weapon of it,or if your lucky blow it up.

Effectivily thinking you pay 150 for the LRBT and with that extra 40 or 30pts you would use you could get a lascannon and melta gun added to an infantry squad to pop transports and then your LRBT just found its new target.

Honestly like I mentioned in the beginning its just the meta you play in. Most of the terrain used when I play is 5+ some 4+ but most of the armies I play against usually have Power armor. I have great success with the LRBT and its easily one of my favored units so I typically run a minimum of 3, usually 4.

I have thought of running an eradicator because there is a guard player that runs a line with a bunch of infantry behind it and it would be awesome to see the expression on his face when i pulled that tank out. To be honest though he doesnt show up much due to another game so I truly have no reason to run an eradicator.

 Ailaros wrote:
You only have the opportunity cost if you're bringing an ordnance russ.

An eradicator isn't ordnance, and only 45 points is a steal for a lascannon and two multimeltas on such a durable platform.

It's also the slowest melta platform in the game and costs over 200 points. For 5 points more you could have two squads of 5 Stormtroopers with dual meltaguns. I know who wins that fight...

 Ailaros wrote:
You only have the opportunity cost if you're bringing an ordnance russ.

Of course you do. A LC/MM setup is worthless against the things the main gun is good against, while the main gun is worthless against the things the LC/MM are good against. No matter what you fire at there's an opportunity cost of not getting to use the other.

Taking advantage of the heavy rule with a non-ordnance turret only works if you ensure that all of the weapons have the same target type (for example, a LC/MM Vanquisher or PC Executioner).

Nova cannon + 2 plasma cannons sounds pretty versatile to me. Sure a more expensive executioner will do better against teq, but it's a more specialized tool and cannot threaten units with a 2+/3+ cover save.

The thing about the whole "I can outfit an Eradicator with MM Sponsons with a hull Lascannon" is that you can do the same for the LRBT, save some points and gain a better gun. Denial of cover save still doesn't deny those Marines their 3+ save while the LRBT will do you fine. If it's durable Lascannons you want, just stick it on the vanilla Russ. After all, it's not the main gun you want so why pay for it?

 schadenfreude wrote:
Nova cannon + 2 plasma cannons sounds pretty versatile to me. Sure a more expensive executioner will do better against teq, but it's a more specialized tool and cannot threaten units with a 2+/3+ cover save.

The problem is now you're mixing your target types. No matter what you shoot at some of your expensive guns will be shooting inefficiently. Either the plasma will fail against cover saves, or the main gun will fail against armor saves. If you're going to be able to shoot both at once (IOW, no ordnance) you always pick a main gun and sponsons that share the same ideal target type.

 schadenfreude wrote:
Nova cannon + 2 plasma cannons sounds pretty versatile to me. Sure a more expensive executioner will do better against teq, but it's a more specialized tool and cannot threaten units with a 2+/3+ cover save.

Plasma cannons are unserious weapons. Don't bother with them.