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.

If you don't get sponsons, you don't get russes. There's no way around it now.

Still don't get why people are fawning over the battlecannon, though. Must be tradition. Old habits die hard, I guess.

 Ailaros wrote:
If you don't get sponsons, you don't get russes. There's no way around it now.

Sure there is. If you have an ordnance main gun sponsons are worthless until GW fixes their FAQ. Taking them is just throwing away points.

Still don't get why people are fawning over the battlecannon, though. Must be tradition. Old habits die hard, I guess.

Because it works.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Ailaros wrote:
If you don't get sponsons, you don't get russes. There's no way around it now.

Sure there is. If you have an ordnance main gun sponsons are worthless until GW fixes their FAQ. Taking them is just throwing away points.

Still don't get why people are fawning over the battlecannon, though. Must be tradition. Old habits die hard, I guess.

Because it works.

And big man Battle cannon looks better than tiny baby Nova cannon.


You know, the Exterminator has the same AP as the Nova cannon, better strength, and 4 shots that are re rollable. Cheaper too! A good alternative if one really must not take the Battle cannon.

 Ailaros wrote:
If you don't get sponsons, you don't get russes. There's no way around it now.

Still don't get why people are fawning over the battlecannon, though. Must be tradition. Old habits die hard, I guess.

I would say thats a completely false statement, you run barebones LRBT and demolishers so you have more points for anti vehicle armament in your list or whatever your lacking. If I recall many guard players will agree that for guard you take multiples of the same unit and you never want to put many upgrades into a unit as the guard was is when 1 dies replace it with the next. Whats the point of taking 1 eradicator when your opponent will put all his anti tank weapons into it because from your style of play you dont use squadrons and you go more towards massed infantry.

And I would say because maybe some people know how to use a battle cannon effectively. Ive tried the different russes with various different sponsons but I cannot get myself to take an eradicator unless its against some terrible save army, and with that I would still prefer my Battle tanks. Even though those heavy bolters or whatever sponsons you have fire at normal bs your opponent will still get a cover save if hes firing at units in cover and as you've mentioned a lot of 4+ cover is used in your games. So most of your sponson fire will have little effect on the units its targeting in the first place.

tankboy145 wrote:you run barebones LRBT and demolishers so you have more points for anti vehicle armament in your list or whatever your lacking.

And where's the cheapest place to put anti-vehicle stuff in your list? Why, a pair of multimelta sponsons and a lascannon is only 45 points, and it comes on an AV14 frame, which is pretty durable.

I'm not seeing how you're beating this with other things in your list.

tankboy145 wrote:And I would say because maybe some people know how to use a battle cannon effectively.

It's not a matter of experience or fieldcraft, it's a matter of math.

People are either getting really lucky, have really dumb opponents, are selectively remembering, or are feeling nostalgic. At least, that's the best I can guess from all of this argument by assertion in favor of the battlecannon. Times change, people.

 Ailaros wrote:
I'm not seeing how you're beating this with other things in your list.

Melta CCS, melta stormtroopers into rear armor, Vendettas outflanking into side/rear armor, BBS Medusas, etc. It's not hard to beat three BS 3 shots, especially when two of them are only effective inside 12" and the unit carrying them can only move 6" a turn. Also don't forget about firing arcs, there are many cases where only one sponson can fire, and even common cases where neither can fire.

That's not to say that it's always a terrible idea to take those upgrades, but they're a secondary weapon set that is for separate targets, not an addition to the main gun's firepower. On a LRBT it's because they can only snap fire if you use the main gun, on an Eradicator it's because they're worthless against the targets the main gun can be used effectively against. So the MM/LC sponson choice is entirely independent of whether you take a LRBT or Eradicator.

People are either getting really lucky, have really dumb opponents, are selectively remembering, or are feeling nostalgic. At least, that's the best I can guess from all of this argument by assertion in favor of the battlecannon. Times change, people.

All of the luck factors apply equally well to the Eradicator. If you selectively remember the times when the battlecannon hit perfectly every turn for an entire game, you also selectively remember the time that the Eradicator did the same. Both are dependent on the same 5" blast at BS 3, so you can't just single out the LRBT for that criticism.

As for dumb opponents, I've already pointed out the reasons why even smart players can be hurt by a battlecannon shot. You just refuse to accept that they exist.

 Ailaros wrote:
If you don't get sponsons, you don't get russes. There's no way around it now.

Much the reverse. Sponsons were dubious in 5th edition and ever since 6th came out they've been outright bad, at least on LRs with Ordnance turrets.

On those without Ordnance turrets, sponsons may still be a poor choice. For instance, the proposed Eradicator + MM sponsons + hull las tank has serious focus issues. The main gun will nearly always want to fire at different targets than the sponsons, and thus one or the other will be inefficient.

Sponsons only work well if they synergize with the main gun, they can fire normally at the same time as the main gun, and taking them isn't overkill. Meeting all those points is rare.

 Kingsley wrote:
Meeting all those points is rare.

IMO, the valid ones:

MM/LC Vanquisher, Exterminator, or Annihilator (if you'd ever take one): more anti-vehicle firepower.

HB/HB or HB/LC Exterminator or HB/HB Punisher: better volume of mid-strength firepower, optionally with a hull LC on the Exterminator to help the ACs against vehicles without giving up many HB shots.

PC/LC Executioner: more shots for the main gun.

HF/HF Eradicator: if you're going to go anti-cover, at least do it right.

The LRBT and Demolisher never get sponsons because of the ordnance main gun, and the Conqueror has the hilarious combination of being so terrible that you'd never even think of using one, and not even being a heavy vehicle (yes, this makes the coax gun rather pathetic).

I remember when I built my army, I looked at the eradicator, "Cool, it ignores cover saves...but it's only St6 and ap...4? So it ignores cover, when half the bloody armies in the game have 3+ armour anyways."

As was said earlier in the thread, it's highly dependent on the meta of your area. My region is not Marine heavy at all; Chaos Marines make up most of the actual power armour, but there's just as many of them as there are necrons or Guard, so there's no shortage of 4+ for the Eradicator to work on in my group, yet I still don't see the merit in it.

I admit the standard Russ isn't exactly awe inspiring, but it's long range, decent strength large blast firepower is a useful area denial weapon and can contribute to just about every scenario, though it doesn't really excel in any. It is also a pretty cheap way to keep just about anything short of a monstrous creature inside buildings, making difficult terrain tests and all bunched up for my barrage and template weapons (I actually use a banewolf, quite shocking I know, but quite handy against a full tac squad bunched up in a building).

But then the standard Russ is not, nor has it ever been the key unit in my army; it's a ground holder, sitting back popping off templates across the table while more specialist units engage targets they're well suited for, but the eradicator simply isn't powerful enough for it to warrant a spot, and it's got no synergy with any of its possible weapon upgrades. The things it excels at killing are not things I worry overly much about; firewarriors in a building, or necron warriors in a building die as readily to lasgun fire as they do out in the open, I don't need a lacklustre 150 point unit to serve that purpose.

But russes aren't like other guard units. Other guard units can go crazy on specialization because they're cheap and flimsy. Russes are neither. In this case, spending what still amounts to bargain prices for versatility is a good idea.

Plus, if what you're talking about were true, then taking PISs with lascannons and meltaguns would be sheer lunacy, yet I've had this be my most effective gun loadout of my years of playing. Versatile effectiveness, force concentration, and time all factor in favor of this, for both infantry and for russes. It's generally a good idea to specialize with guard units, but that's a rule of thumb, not a universal truth that requires cult-like obedience.

So, another way to think about it is to make an analogy to power weapons. On the one hand, you have a power maul - a weapon that wounds infantry on 2's, and has Ap4. On the other hand, you have a proposed new type of power weapon that also wounds infantry on 2's, and has Ap3, but your opponents still get to make cover saves, even in close combat.

You can see a small range of things where the proposed new type would be better, but I'd still definitely take the power maul in this case.

MajorStoffer wrote:As was said earlier in the thread, it's highly dependent on the meta of your area.

And one of my points is that it isn't. Battle cannons have crummy firepower regardless of how many power armored units you have in your area.

The only meta that matters is if your opponent brings tons of power armor units and runs them around in close order drill outside of cover. Very few metas are going to be blessed with this kind of behavior.

Meanwhile, the eradicator is doing equal or more damage to MEq most of the time, and is better against a bunch of other stuff as well.

 Ailaros wrote:
And one of my points is that it isn't. Battle cannons have crummy firepower regardless of how many power armored units you have in your area.

The only meta that matters is if your opponent brings tons of power armor units and runs them around in close order drill outside of cover. Very few metas are going to be blessed with this kind of behavior.

And again, this is not true. Please stop ignoring the reasons I've given for how the LRBT can do reasonable damage even against smart players.

Also, it's not even relevant. Both the LRBT and Eradicator are dependent on 5" templates at BS 3, so if the meta is against the LRBT it's also against the Eradicator.

Meanwhile, the eradicator is doing equal or more damage to MEq most of the time, and is better against a bunch of other stuff as well.

Except the Eradicator that matches the LRBT in marine kills in some situations also costs a lot more. Even your own math has it paying 40% more per dead marine once you remove the point-wasting sponsons from the LRBT.

And it's hardly better against a "bunch" of other stuff. It's only better against units with a 4+ save or worse that also have cover bonuses. Yes, some of those units are important, but it's a very short list.

Well this is, again, my own personal experience; most of the players I go up against are very aggressive; lots of rhino rushes and their ilk, walls of infantry and fast skimmer lists; generally speaking, when facing lots of light armour, and quite a large number of high toughness infantry, the standard Russ has more utility for me. I very rarely, if ever have to dig out an armour 4 unit out of cover that can't be handled in some other, cheaper capacity. When clearing a ruin, I find my flamer platoon command squad in a chimera with flamers will inflict a godawful number of wounds, superior to just about everything else I field, enough that armour really doesn't matter much.

Since clearing buildings isn't really an issue for me, why bother with the eradicator? It's no more accurate or damaging to general troops, it's less effective at popping transports or offing things like Plague Marines. I just fail to see how it has greater utility with lower range, lower strength, lower AP and the same erratic accuracy. Granted, Russ rules regarding weaponry have given it somewhat of an advantage, but so too has it benefited my Exterminator and Punisher, moreso, I'd say, than the Eradicator.

I'd still say the standard Russ is the most lacklustre unit I field, but I still find them more effective in most circumstances than an Eradicator.

MajorStoffer wrote:When clearing a ruin, I find my flamer platoon command squad in a chimera with flamers will inflict a godawful number of wounds

Your opponents just let you drive up and flamer their Sv5+ units in cover?

Weird.

[quote=Ailaros 494219 5069197 fe521ef049cf08dfe48f5a43cc4f107d.jpg and MCs (where the worst have a 2+ save, or lots and lots of wounds)

Nids MC's only rock out a 3+

And W6.

It's going to take a LONG time to kill a tervigon with a battlecannon.

What I find odd about the Russ Battle Tank Love is how much worse it is against anything that isn't giving you 5 hits per template with 3+ armor in 5+ or worse cover. I think 5 hits every time you shoot is very wishful thinking, but this would be the breakdown.

TEQ: Eradicator by 1.31 wounds to .75 wounds
4+ or worse armor: Eradicator 7.91 wounds to russ 4.5
MEQ: 4+ cover: Eradicator 2.63 vs Russ 2.19
MEQ: open ground: Russ 4.27 vs Eradicator 2.63

Russ is great at popping that last hull point...
AV10: Eradicator 2.25 hull points to Russ 1.02
AV11: Eradicator 1.08 hull points to Russ .91
AV12: Russ .75 hulls points to Eradicator 0.
AV13: Russ .55
AV14: Russ .30

Yes, the bolt boat Eradicator is more expensive than the russ. But I don't drop special weapons from the whole army to upgrade, I drop a single PiS.

The mix of the Eradicators ignore cover blast with it's dakka hasn't been a problem for me. Against hordes I just focus fire. Against non-hordes I get a kill or two with the dakka and then drop the pie plate.

Bolterboats work decent without the ignore cover effect. When the ignore cover does kick in, it's really worth it.

Armored company allies is a better option, IF you are playing somewhere where forge world and allies are being used.

-Matt

And when you factor in that the russ still needs to hit, and cover saves, those stats against vehicles can start to take a pretty steep plunge in a hurry.

Plus, russes are durable, but they're not invincible. Even if the game weren't limited to 5-7 turns, you still have a time limit for how many shots you get sometimes.

Combined with the cost of even a vanilla LRBT, and you're talking about something that's a really inefficient vehicle-killer to boot.

This seems to have degenerated into a debate about Specialists vs Generalists. I've got news for everyone then. They BOTH work. Depending on your mindset, personality, and strategy 3 Specialsts, each good at either Target A, B, or C VS 3 Generalists that can do 1/3 of the job to A, B, and C that the specialist can will still get the job done.

Genralists have strength in numbers, whereas Specialists are predators. (no Alien refference intended)


About sponsons; HFs should be a good choice. Unlike the other options HFs are not in competition with the main weapon of any tank. They fill the defensive needs of most armour, and provide anti-cover options. Interesting to note, BS doesn't matter, so enjoy Ordinance enthusiasts.

*edit
What do people think about the benefits of having all HF equipped LRs (turret whatever is your fave) doing a 6" per turn gunline with major flames to push back or severely punish those who get caught or too close? It's like adding a Flame Tanks weapon to an Avatar in C&C3

 Gibblets wrote:
Interesting to note, BS doesn't matter, so enjoy Ordinance enthusiasts.

BS doesn't matter with flamers because you can't snap fire them at all, so you have to choose which gun to use. I still have LRBTs with hull flamers though, they are cheap and sometimes better than a battlecannon shot for close up work.

 Ailaros wrote:
And W6.

It's going to take a LONG time to kill a tervigon with a battlecannon.

Vanquishers with beast-hunter shells are one of the best MC killers in the entire game, as long as it doesn't have EW. You are right though, you may as well not bother firing a regular bc at a tervigon.

Why would some one use a BC to go after a Tervignon? There are better weapons in standard guard army for that job.

Basing an argument on an absurdity is kinda ridiculous. Why not say a HB is better than a Las Cannon because it is better at killing hordes?

Assuming that opponents will always be in cover is kind of absurd..as is assuming they will always be in the open. Comparing a BC to a missile launcher is also absurd.

Further...saying the BC is terrible because it doesn't have as many shots as some weapons and is not as strong as others is kinda dumb. The BC is both stronger than some weapons and better at killing vehicles than others.

ender502

 Ailaros wrote:

MajorStoffer wrote:When clearing a ruin, I find my flamer platoon command squad in a chimera with flamers will inflict a godawful number of wounds

Your opponents just let you drive up and flamer their Sv5+ units in cover?

Weird.

Clearly I just march my chimera right across the table and they ignore me.

Moving said unit at max speed, utilizing cover (which is dirt easy to get now for vehicles) and providing other, more important targets for the enemy to fire on usually means my "Mr. Fwoosh," has no issues getting a chance to roast something. Also, due to overlapping flame templates, it doesn't matter the armour value; they've knocked out MEQs reliably, as bunched up units in cover getting 6+ hits per flame template means there's just too many saves for them to make, and the enemy dies. Not usually squad wipes, unless they're getting no saves, or if they roll poorly, but still well.

This is my point, as a part of a larger army, the Eradicator is too expensive for what it does; I have other, more deficient options. For instance, when fighting units out in the open well spread out, I've got Exterminators and Punishers with as many HBs as possible, plasma vet squads, a bane wolf, and regular guard gun lines, depending on the list. If the enemy chooses cover which allows them to spread out well, like forests or the like, their cover save is not going to be very good, so I have no qualms using a battle cannon shell or other armour negating weapons, as their cover save isn't going to save many of their troops.

Unless it's an Ironbark, those things annoy the ever-living gak out of me.

 Ailaros wrote:

MajorStoffer wrote:When clearing a ruin, I find my flamer platoon command squad in a chimera with flamers will inflict a godawful number of wounds

Your opponents just let you drive up and flamer their Sv5+ units in cover?

Weird.

And your opponent is going to let your 1 eradicator live long enough to have great effect? or are you going to take 2 or 3 tanks costing about 200pts a piece where if you save the points from each of your eradicators you get melta stormes to drop in, pop a transport or tank and if theres troops alive your LRBT has a target. Not to mention if your running expensive tanks like that then you have to have them well protected.

And against W6 creatures that battle cannon is just another wound to add to that creature because I would love to see a single guard unit put out 6 solid wound to drop that creature...possible but it will sometimes require multiple targets and thats where the 1 battle cannon helps as that tank can start firing at that MC turn 1 without night fight and can wound it 2 turns mostlikely doing 2 wounds (or atleast scattering and wounding some little guys because tyranids like to sheild there bigger one) before you get additional lascannon or plasma gun fire to effectively drop it quickly.

Well here's what I'm not getting. If your fireball PCS is really such a good thing, then you must have something that's REALLY good that will be a higher priority. Since we're talking about you killing scoring units off of an objective, the only thing that's going to have a higher priority is things that kill off scoring units better or faster than a fireball PCS.

The only two things I can think of that fit this are a colossus, or an eradicator.

Either your opponents have target priority problems or fireball PCSs aren't as good as you say. Or you're already taking eradicators.

 Ailaros wrote:
Well here's what I'm not getting. If your fireball PCS is really such a good thing, then you must have something that's REALLY good that will be a higher priority. Since we're talking about you killing scoring units off of an objective, the only thing that's going to have a higher priority is things that kill off scoring units better or faster than a fireball PCS.

The only two things I can think of that fit this are a colossus, or an eradicator.

Either your opponents have target priority problems or fireball PCSs aren't as good as you say. Or you're already taking eradicators.

Fireball PCS are very effective, but I usually see them in Vendettas rather than Chimeras. I do know someone who takes two fireball PCS squads in a mostly-mech army and puts those Chimeras in front to deter some assaulters, as they can Overwatch with 4d3 flamer hits.

This is 2 pages late, but Techmarines don't improve the area terrain aspect of area terrain Ruins from 5+ to 4+. They only improve the 4+ part to 3+. If they are area terrain ruins, that leaves them at 5+ for area, and 3+ from ruins parts in the way.

The Space Marine FAQ is explicit.

As far as on-topic: Eradicator's are a fine way to get an actual versatile unit onto the field for guard.

 Ailaros wrote:
Well here's what I'm not getting. If your fireball PCS is really such a good thing, then you must have something that's REALLY good that will be a higher priority. Since we're talking about you killing scoring units off of an objective, the only thing that's going to have a higher priority is things that kill off scoring units better or faster than a fireball PCS.

The only two things I can think of that fit this are a colossus, or an eradicator.

Either your opponents have target priority problems or fireball PCSs aren't as good as you say. Or you're already taking eradicators.

In point of fact, I usually use the PCS to kill flanking units, devestators and their equivalent and so on. Provided the game last, it joins up with whatever outflankers my team has and support an assault up the table edge.

Generally speaking, people tend to target my battle cannon russes, my demolisher and my executioner; save for the executioner, they're instant death to most things, and will reduce the saves of everything they target. In fact, since we're a pretty vehicle heavy group, my Commissar Tank Vanquisher tends to get an awful lot of the attention.

Since I run an Armoured Company, the russes are the principle targets. My PCS is likely more dangerous strategically due to its ability to do horrible things to scoring units more reliably than pie plates, but a wall of Russes can't be ignore either. Only infantry horde armies tend to target the PCS first; daemons and orks and bugs, otherwise my proper tanks receive the most attention. There's also the reality that I use a banewolf; i've got two dedicated anti-cover units, effective against everything which doesn't have 2+ in abundence, and a bunch of dangerous russes.

I learned this from a Grey Knights player; always have dangerous targets for the enemy to choose between, force them into a dilemma where they can't easily eliminate your force, and it isn't clear which one is truly more powerful. You can mathhammer it out and find unit x is y percentage better at inflicting wounds based on normal probability off the table, but for most people, that has little bearing on an average game.

People see a Battle Cannon russ and go, "that thing will either give me no save if I'm in the open, or drop my save down to a 4+ at best in cover," while the PCS gets scoffed at, at first, because most units will still get an armour save...against between 25-40 wounds, depending on how well I place my templates, and how poorly they place their men.

The PCS has utility, and because it isn't very expensive, losing it is not very important, but using cover saves well, it's not hard to keep alive unless the enemy focuses on it. An eradicator is alright at its job, but it's cost vs reward ratio isn't great. There are cheaper, more effective options in that nice. Hell, consider hellhounds, being fast with their funky inferno cannon, it gives them good range, good mobility, and a low profile means lots of cover saves, and isn't penalized by BS3.

I admit, I'm not a player which spends a lot of time or effort optimizing my lists, but even I'd be reluctant to take an eradicator; it just doesn't strike me as a niche unit worth using. Its niche can be filled by other Guard units. If it's what you like, all the power to you, but I'm not seeing anything that'll convince me to build one, and I even have a spare turret I haven't decided on yet.

MajorStoffer wrote: I usually use the PCS to kill flanking units, devestators

Wait, your fireball PCSs are killing DEVASTATORS? What kind of world are you living in?

MajorStoffer wrote:Generally speaking, people tend to target my battle cannon russes... My PCS is likely more dangerous strategically due to its ability to do horrible things to scoring units

Once again, I've got to seriously question your opponents. Your PCSs are the most dangerous things, but your opponents are ignoring them to attack russes, which, by your own admission, are lower-quality targets. I feel like I have to repeat my previous question.

 Ailaros wrote:
Wait, your fireball PCSs are killing DEVASTATORS? What kind of world are you living in?

It's not completely unreasonable. To kill a 5-man MEQ unit with flamers you need an average of six hits per model, and you have five flamers (four + the Chimera). Obviously that means a complete kill requires better than average luck, but not by so much that it would be shocking if your opponent's luck with 3+ armor saves sucked and the whole squad died, and you don't always need a complete kill to consider it a success (who cares about the sergeant, and even taking out 3/4 heavy weapons is a win).

In short: it's not realistic to expect to consistently kill devastator squads, but it is realistic to expect to hurt them.

Once again, I've got to seriously question your opponents. Your PCSs are the most dangerous things, but your opponents are ignoring them to attack russes, which, by your own admission, are lower-quality targets. I feel like I have to repeat my previous question.

It's not always that simple. For example, do you kill the flamer PCS headed for your scoring units, or do you kill the Medusas that are about to reduce your terminators to a bloody mess and remove your only surviving assault element and therefore your only real hope of wiping your opponent's troops off their objectives? And then it gets even more complicated if the PCS is going after something other than a scoring unit. Do you shoot the PCS headed for your devastators, or the melta vets headed for your Vindicator? And then consider all the random other variables, do you shoot at the PCS Chimera out in the open, or the Colossus hiding behind an aegis line with camo netting? The Chimera is an easier target, but the Colossus is probably going to do more damage.

 Ailaros wrote:

Wait, your fireball PCSs are killing DEVASTATORS? What kind of world are you living in?

Not consistently, but they do enough damage to neutralize the threat. The larger the unit, the more effective the flamers become as well; tightly packed bloodletters or any such unit really doesn't appreciate just how many wounds flamers can deal to them; I force the enemy to roll buckets of dice, and probability says some are going to die, especially since flamers are one of the few weapons which, when there's 5 of them, can inflict significantly more wounds than there are models. I know one guard player who only uses flamers as special weapons; no plasma or melta, and he just roasts everything alive, and anything short of a terminator wing army tends to actually suffer quite badly at the hands of it.

 Ailaros wrote:

Once again, I've got to seriously question your opponents. Your PCSs are the most dangerous things, but your opponents are ignoring them to attack russes, which, by your own admission, are lower-quality targets. I feel like I have to repeat my previous question.

As said in the post above me, there's more variables to consider. To take my last game as an example, a SW player launched a large assault through light cover to reach my line (normal guard list, so lighter armour, only 4 russes). He had several large units of regular marines of the wolfie variety (I'm not familiar enough with SW units to tell which), lead by a terminator armoured model with a stormshield. He advanced at my Russ squadron (Dem and Punisher), but I had deployed with a banewolf on one flank, a PCS fwooshmera on another flank, and an executioner in the rear. I also had a plasma special weapon squad in a nearby ruin, and both an autocannon and missile luauncher heavy weapon team. H

is 2 rifle dreads and two long fangs with missiles had to choose targets carefully; they didn't have enough shots to kill everything about to open up on them next turn, so they had to prioritize. I've built an army reasonably effective at engaging most things that get thrown at me, I present enough targets that only a Tau or Guard list will ever have enough shooting to really neutralize my counter-attack. In the end, his rifledreads immobilized and stunned my Banewolf, it made its cover saves for everything else, and the missiles managed to knock out a standard russ further off by hitting side armour, and glance my squadron once. He didn't make awful choices, but it's impossible to eliminate everything, and when faced with lots of nasty, dangerous and expensive specialist units, the PCS tends to get ignored, which is one of its strengths.

People who've fought it before and taken nasty losses start taking it higher up the priority list, but then that means my russes aren't getting shot at, so they can demolish, punish, exterminate, execute and so on with less interference. It is only the standard russes I consider somewhat lacklustre, but provide a useful backbone which can contribute something to most combat scenarios. They've only ever been "useless" when fighting Imhotek, as they're range doesn't mean anything, and everyone and they're brother has a 2+ cover, and I'm being hit by lightning, but that's a different beast entirely.

Imhotek, now there's a match for the eradicator; take your night fighting cover save and shove it.

 TheCaptain wrote:

 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.

I have yet to play against anyone who has disallowed FW units. Maybe i'm just lucky.

Although i am thinking of calling foul on my friends project of a Death Company Contemptor Dread....but purely coz it scares the feth out of me.