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.

Gonna agree with Peregrine and Stoffer...there are more variables than you are allowing for in your argument. 40K, as much as it is mathhammer, is not just a game of numbers.

But if we were to actually mathhammer this...even a queen can be sacrificed so a pawn can win the game.

ender502

"The game is complex" and "My opponent has to make choices" aren't panaceas. Furthermore, saying these things isn't even saying anything. You could say them for ANYTHING to shut down a conversation ("you don't use grenade launchers to handle terminators? Well, the game is complex"), but it's also meaningless in its own right. What does the fact that your opponent needs to make decisions actually support?

Furthermore, they're always true. My opponents will always have to make decisions, and, as such, it's rather a controlled variable here. I always assume that I'm playing against the most competent opponents who will always make the right decision, and then be happy when they don't. I don't PLAN on my opponents not being able to figure out what the most threatening things are in my army at any given point.

Yes, sometimes you need to sacrifice a queen for a pawn to win, but it's risible to extend that into advising chess players to make an army only of pawns.

 Ailaros wrote:
"The game is complex" and "My opponent has to make choices" aren't panaceas. Furthermore, saying these things isn't even saying anything. You could say them for ANYTHING to shut down a conversation ("you don't use grenade launchers to handle terminators? Well, the game is complex"), but it's also meaningless in its own right. What does the fact that your opponent needs to make decisions actually support?

Furthermore, they're always true. My opponents will always have to make decisions, and, as such, it's rather a controlled variable here. I always assume that I'm playing against the most competent opponents who will always make the right decision, and then be happy when they don't. I don't PLAN on my opponents not being able to figure out what the most threatening things are in my army at any given point.

Yes, sometimes you need to sacrifice a queen for a pawn to win, but it's risible to extend that into advising chess players to make an army only of pawns.

Exactly...just as silly as to suggest because one weapon is better at taking out things in cover (and nothing else) it is better. Ignoring the higher strength and vehicle kiling power of the BC is just as silly as saying "my opponents make choices." It ignores every other factor.

The difference here is that you are the one ignoring every factor so as to arrive at your desired end: that eradicators are better than battle cannons. Which, in a vacuum, and under specific circumstances..they are. Sadly, the game, as has been noted by many, is not played in a vacuum that only favors the superiority of the eradicator.

But just for giggles...lets consider a marine in 4+ cover versus an eradicator or a battle cannon.... eradicator has a ( 5/6 x 1/3) 28% chance of an unsaved wound. A battle cannon has a (5/6 x 1/2) 42% chance of an unsaved wound.

I'll take the weapon that has a better wound ratio versus opponents in cover, vehicles, and high T opponents.

ender502

I usually just go to great pains to point out that my platoon command squad is 'only XX points and are you *really* going to shoot at them?"

But then again, I don't usually send mine out into the enemy lines. My PCS is usually anchoring a flank or sitting next to a tempting deep strike location.

Maybe it's cause my games don't tend to leave wreckage about for EXPLODES results, but usual battle cannon tactics amount to.

Bring it down order on transport > Hope transport explodes > Drop battle cannon on marine squads head.

Although, I am interested in fielding an eradicator at some point due to a combination of the massive increase of necron players, defence lines and night fighting.

 Compel wrote:

Although, I am interested in fielding an eradicator at some point due to a combination of the massive increase of necron players, defence lines and night fighting.

I find the Manticore works better. It denies cover a lot of the time (damn area terrain) and IDs the Lords too. In my FLGS my opponent throws his Lord at the front of the squad with a rez orb so he can tank all the shots that aren't AP2. The Manticore gets around this and throws out some casualties around the Lord.
I've seen the Lord at the front tactic a lot, and I have to wait until turn 2 usually for my Vendettas to pick him off since those warriors make short work of my plasma vets in chimerae.

 Compel wrote:
I usually just go to great pains to point out that my platoon command squad is 'only XX points and are you *really* going to shoot at them?

Often times since you only need to devote one unit firing one time at them, and frequently with a unit that is only useful for hurting this type of target, yes.

Several million years ago, you'll find me asking Ailaros why he was using heavy weapons squads? He said no one shoots at them. I guess that has changed in his area.

ender502 wrote:Which, in a vacuum, and under specific circumstances..they are. Sadly, the game, as has been noted by many, is not played in a vacuum that only favors the superiority of the eradicator.

Read the entire rest of this thread. My whole point is that battle cannons aren't good generally, not just in fringe circumstances. Go back and look at some of the math. They're just crummy.

DarknessEternal wrote:Several million years ago, you'll find me asking Ailaros why he was using heavy weapons squads? He said no one shoots at them. I guess that has changed in his area.

Yeah, the shift of 6th ed to being more shooty, and especially the addition of first blood. Most relic games come down to secondaries, and those games that don't end in a hideously one-sided slaughter also tend to have secondaries matter.

People didn't really ever shoot at my HWSs when they were just a few crummy autocannons, but now that you get VP for sweeping them off the table right away...

Compel wrote:Although, I am interested in fielding an eradicator at some point due to a combination of the massive increase of necron players, defence lines and night fighting.

Right, and that's some of the reasons I even bothered taking a second look at the eradicator at all. Half the missions are ones where you have a bunch of objectives scattered around the field. Often, people don't waste expensive units holding said objectives (especially in their deployment zones). Therefore digging crummy units out of cover is now a real thing you have to make sure you include in your list. Before, I was doing this with 10-man flamer stormtrooper squads, but now I'm making a shift towards vehicles.

I mean, every GK player at my store nowadays is bringing coteaz so that they can deposit MSU henchmen squads on stuff, while SM players are starting to all include camo cloak scouts, and I've already seen a harkerstar from one of our guard players. As peregrine mentioned earlier, there's a pretty short list of stuff that can handle this well (and doesn't require something silly like your opponent not shooting at it for a couple of turns), which basically boils down to flamer stormies, hellhounds, vendettas with hellstrike missiles, colossuses, and eradicators.

The difference between the eradicator and those other options are few, but important. They have AV14, which means actual durability, for example, and you can take a real hull weapon and sponsons. Armed with an eradicator cannon, lascannon, and multimelta sponsons, you have a tough platform that can seriously threaten most things in the game. Seriously threaten being the pertinent thing here. As I mentioned in the OP, I only consider versatility when something is actually GOOD at various roles. MCs and TEq have to fear the hull weapons (in a local tournament recently I destroyed a draigowing because I had a pair of tanks with this setup. 6 shots per turn that ignore armor saves, FNP, and caused instant death on paladins basically won the game for me in addition to the rest of the lascannon spam in my list), while it's also got good anti-vehicle with the hull weapons, and it also has hordes pretty well mangled with the main gun.

Ironically enough, the only thing it DOESN'T handle is MEq out in the open. Presuming that one of them doesn't turn into a demon prince halfway through the game, I generally haven't found this to be that big of a problem.

I'll freely admit that I've never used an Eradicator. However, I think the main problem with the Eradicator is that it's situational, which is definitely not a problem for the good old LRBT (even if it's worse at killing armor now due to the shifted damage table). If you're facing Ork Warbikers, Eldar Pathfinders or expensive fortifications or anything else with a ridiculous cover save, sure, the Eradicator's a great tank. But alternatives also need consideration, namely the Demolisher and the Colossus Siege Mortar.
The Demolisher costs marginally more than the Eradicator, has a much higher strength, better AP, insta-kills up to T5, at the price of a shorter range. It can kill vehicles and Termies, which the Eradicator can't do. And don't underestimate the ID rule-taking the FnP away from those pesky BA, for example. The Colossus can at least punch through power armor, at the cost of much weaker armor.
All in all, I wouldn't really bring the Eradicator unless I knew for sure that my opponent would be bringing Orks, Tyranids or Eldar/DE. That said, I'll model one after reading this thread; it's worth a try.

I do agree that the demolisher is pretty good. When my next league comes up, I'm going to try both demolishers and eradicators and see how they do. I like the eradicators because they get the hull and sponson weapons making them hella killy, but the demolisher may show them up. Perhaps...

As to the eradicator being situational and the russ being able to be good against most stuff, I'd go back and actually read what has been posted in this thread.

If there's anything I'd like people to see (other than eradicators not being so bad), it's that the idea of a battlecannon russ being a good generalist is no longer an accurate thing to say.

Small correction: I never said that the LRBT is effective against everything-I just stated that it can handle everything equally well, which says nothing about how effective that handling is. I completely agree that the glory days of the LRBT are over with the changes to Ordnance and Lumbering Behemoth.

 Ailaros wrote:

If there's anything I'd like people to see (other than eradicators not being so bad), it's that the idea of a battlecannon russ being a good generalist is no longer an accurate thing to say.

And what exactly changed? The russes have to snap-fire three bolter shots now, and that's about it.

I've gone back and read the thread, but for the life of me I'm still not seeing it.

I actually think I agree with you Ailros. I am starting to think more and more that the LRBT is a poor choice and the more specific LR setups are actually pretty good now that nobody is stun locking the things. You can afford to take 3 really good tanks that can do their damage in 1-2 turns rather than taking 6 tanks so you would hopefully get a shot or two off between shaken/stunned.

I personally haven't tried the eradicator but I think I might give it a try in the next game and see how it performs. It actually seems decent at a task that the normal autotakes of the IG codex doesn't really cover. Also this vehicle would be great against night fighting, I really have started hating shrouded.

The battle cannon threatens everything but its best advantage is actually the range. So the only place I really see them being the best choice is in the back field behind an aegis line where with camo nets they become nearly invulnerable. Everywhere else a demolisher just seems to work better.

 Ailaros wrote:
I do agree that the demolisher is pretty good. When my next league comes up, I'm going to try both demolishers and eradicators and see how they do. I like the eradicators because they get the hull and sponson weapons making them hella killy, but the demolisher may show them up. Perhaps...

Demolisher has disappointed me time and time again. I wish you the best of luck with it, and think it requires a very specific build to function well and avoid getting ripped apart before it is in range.

kestril wrote:And what exactly changed?

A bunch of little things.

For example, in 6th ed, half of the games you play now have a bunch of objectives, rather than 1/3rd like in 6th ed, or the zero of 4th ed. This means that people are bringing more infantry units. Infantry units that are cheaper, generally. Infantry units that take advantage of cover better, generally.

Add to this, units getting a 2+ cover save for going to ground behind an ADL that's guarding an objective.

Also, its capabilities against vehicles have been eroding. In 4th edition, you could kill things with a glance, and any penetrating hit came with "+ crew stunned" which stopped the vehicle shooting altogether. Now, glancing doesn't do anything to stop an enemy vehicle from moving or shooting at full power, and the change to the AV rules means that a russ isn't terribly likely to wreck a vehicle outright anymore.

Furthermore, the addition of hull points has made people in my local area start up-armoring. Razorbacks are becoming predetors, artillery is becoming russes, and the like. These are the kinds of targets that battlecannons seriously struggle against.

We've also had codices flesh out more over time. Nowadays, necron has plenty of 4HP AV13 vehicles around. No longer can you use a battlecannon to target the warriors and hope for a phase out. Grey knights didn't used to have paladins or dreadknights or storm ravens, all commonplace now, but didn't even exist a few years ago. In general, codices have been giving out more options that are less LRBT-friendly than before.

Battlecannons also can't target an entire new class of units, fliers. Not that eradicators can, but still, this is a ding against the battlecannon.

Then we have heavy replacing lumbering, as you mention. It's basically not worth it to have sponsons on an LRBT. That means that you're paying a lot of points for what basically amounts to a single blast missile launcher. Sponsons are a way to greatly increase the killing power of a vehicle, for super cheap. Where else in the codex do you get a pair of plasma cannons for only 40 points? Where outside of servitors can you even GET multimeltas, much less TWO of them, for only 30 points, on an AV14 frame? Sponsons are great now, and LRBTs aren't the best way to take them.

There wasn't one big thing that came in and made LRBTs bad. It's been a slow, choking death over time for a unit that, let's not lie to ourselves, that never was THAT great to begin with. Traditional ideas are hard to let go of, but I think, for now at least, the battlecannon russ may actually be near the bottom of the heap nowadays.

TheCaptain wrote:Demolisher has disappointed me time and time again.

Really? This basically describes 4th edition for me. Dozens of games of underpreformance eventually caused me to ragequit demolishers out of my lists.

I've got to feel like they've gotten relatively better, though. The off-center scatter buff against vehicles actually helps a unit with S10 ordnance and Ap2, and I've been seeing an uptick in the number of terminators being fielded as of late (most notably paladins), as well as the heavy vehicles as said above. I feel like of all the things that hurt the LRBT, only like a third of them apply to the demolisher, and they did get better at like that one thing they always did well.

Or perhaps I'm wrong. What exactly was your problem with them?

Also, what is your specific loadout?

 Ailaros wrote:
"The game is complex" and "My opponent has to make choices" aren't panaceas. Furthermore, saying these things isn't even saying anything. You could say them for ANYTHING to shut down a conversation ("you don't use grenade launchers to handle terminators? Well, the game is complex"), but it's also meaningless in its own right. What does the fact that your opponent needs to make decisions actually support?

That's entirely missing the point. The point is not that "it's complex" is an automatic justification for any strategy, it's just that your assumption that your opponent will always kill the flamer PCS because it's the biggest threat on the table unless you brought Eradicators is nonsense. Things aren't that simple, and there are lots of cases where the PCS isn't at the top of the target priority list and/or your opponent has to focus on a lesser threat. So you can't just arbitrarily declare that the PCS will always die first and never get to do anything.

 Ailaros wrote:
Then we have heavy replacing lumbering, as you mention. It's basically not worth it to have sponsons on an LRBT. That means that you're paying a lot of points for what basically amounts to a single blast missile launcher. Sponsons are a way to greatly increase the killing power of a vehicle, for super cheap. Where else in the codex do you get a pair of plasma cannons for only 40 points? Where outside of servitors can you even GET multimeltas, much less TWO of them, for only 30 points, on an AV14 frame? Sponsons are great now, and LRBTs aren't the best way to take them.

You're focusing way too much on the value of sponsons.

First of all, to make them useful you need weapons that share the same target type as the main gun. So, multimelta Vanquishers and plasma cannon Executioners are good, but just throwing multimeltas on an Eradicator is only wasting points. You either waste the main gun or the sponsons no matter what target you shoot at. And if you're conceding that you're going to lose the main gun to shoot the sponson multimeltas on your Erradicator at a vehicle target, well, the LRBT can take those same multimeltas and get the same result. So in that case it doesn't matter which variant you put your sponsons on.

Second, they're not even that great. Sure, they're cheap multimeltas. But they also have severe firing arc problems (you can only use both if you're perfectly lined up against a vehicle at close range), and they're mounted low enough that it's easy for your own vehicles to block their shots. Sometimes they're nice to have, but it's ridiculous to look at a 150+ point tank as nothing more than a platform for some heavy bolters.

I've got to feel like they've gotten relatively better, though. The off-center scatter buff against vehicles actually helps a unit with S10 ordnance and Ap2, and I've been seeing an uptick in the number of terminators being fielded as of late (most notably paladins), as well as the heavy vehicles as said above. I feel like of all the things that hurt the LRBT, only like a third of them apply to the demolisher, and they did get better at like that one thing they always did well.

The problem with the Demolisher is the 24" range, which gives you poor options on turn 1 (especially if you go first and your opponent deployed to avoid it) and can often cause problems later in the game. The Medusa's extra 12" of range is incredibly useful, to the point that I've stopped taking Demolishers entirely in favor of them.

 Ailaros wrote:

TheCaptain wrote:Demolisher has disappointed me time and time again.

Really? This basically describes 4th edition for me. Dozens of games of underpreformance eventually caused me to ragequit demolishers out of my lists.

I've got to feel like they've gotten relatively better, though. The off-center scatter buff against vehicles actually helps a unit with S10 ordnance and Ap2, and I've been seeing an uptick in the number of terminators being fielded as of late (most notably paladins), as well as the heavy vehicles as said above. I feel like of all the things that hurt the LRBT, only like a third of them apply to the demolisher, and they did get better at like that one thing they always did well.

Well they've definitely gotten better; there's no doubt about that. I suppose just not better at the things I need.

Also, what is your specific loadout?

Well, when it comes to me fielding tanks, it's been my weird Gunline+Vendettas and Vultures cheesy abomination of a list. Which leads me to why the Demolisher hasn't been a pleasing addition.

Or perhaps I'm wrong. What exactly was your problem with them?

My Meta is very Termie/Calvalry/Bike(nobs) so I figured "Huh, why not Demolisher?" Mind you, I'm the only Guard player at my store; (lots of powergamers, Codex-of-the-month, and tourney players, meaning Nob Bikers, Necrons, GK, Chaos (daemons and marines), and Space Wolves is pretty much every game I play) and one of the better players there, so it's kindof a "thing" to find out what TheCaptain is running, and try to beat it. Sound fun? Yeah.

Anyways, Demolisher did a good job as a 24" deathbubble around my Aegis, helping me fight off deathstars trying to crash into my blob/tanks.

Unfortunately, pretty much as soon as it started instant deathing people's stuff, everyone and their mother was bringing Meltabikes, Meltaspeeders, Sternmelta, and the other dex equivalents. Basically fast-delivery Anti-AV14. That or dumping every lascannon, missile launcher, Lance, and so forth into it.

Basically became a big bullseye and ended up not doing much.

I should digress, and say that this only shows that Gunline is not the list for the Demolisher; not at all am I saying that the Demolisher is a bad/disappointing tank. If I recall, your list is far more mobile and "take the fight to 'em". Granted, I'd bring two to scoot around HP's a bit, but overall, I can see it doing pretty well for you.

Especially if your meta is Multiwound or just Termie-heavy.

I've found my S10AP2 love in the Artillery Medusas from FW. We're a match made in...the warp? Yeah. I'll go with that.

-TheCaptain



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:


The problem with the Demolisher is the 24" range, which gives you poor options on turn 1 (especially if you go first and your opponent deployed to avoid it) and can often cause problems later in the game. The Medusa's extra 12" of range is incredibly useful, to the point that I've stopped taking Demolishers entirely in favor of them.

I gotta say, it's been a huge blessing, and sold me on the Medusa (or rather, my preferred version of it.)

About the sponsons & the Eradicator, I think it's not easy to find a weapon that's worth fitting on them. If you consider the really specialized role of the main gun (screwing cover saves), the heavy flamers are pure crap, heavy bolters have the same range and AP but don't really add to the functionality since all they add is 6 BS3 S5 shots that won't do much to anything that's worth bombarding with the Eradicator Nova cannon, and multi-meltas prefer very different targets than the main gun, as do plasma cannons. What sponsons would you add to an Eradicator anyway?

If you'll use MM as you implied, I would like to point out that a 12" effective range will probably be pretty dismal on a tank that can't ever move more than 6" per turn. The more I think about it, the better the PC sponsons look- more range, blast, good against light vehicles and all kinds of infantry including termies for just a few more points. But still not optimal IMO, as mentioned above.

LRBTs are good

 Ailaros wrote:


For example, in 6th ed, half of the games you play now have a bunch of objectives, rather than 1/3rd like in 6th ed, or the zero of 4th ed. This means that people are bringing more infantry units. Infantry units that are cheaper, generally. Infantry units that take advantage of cover better, generally.

Sure, but I find that marines will like taking their armor save over a 4+ or 5+ cover, and t3 units in cover with a low armor save can be dealt with easily by the normal stuff I bring in my list. (can anyone say first rank fire?)

Add to this, units getting a 2+ cover save for going to ground behind an ADL that's guarding an objective.

Unless they have shrouded, they won't be getting a 2+ cover save, and the ADL provides a 4+(which cannot be bolstered to a 3+ by master of the forge), which is more easily dealt with by normal guns.

But as to the 2+ cover units, yes, I have seen them more often, but I find my opponent only has one or two 2+ cover save units, and I think that's hardly a reason to dump 180 points into a bolter-sponsoned eradicator that can only contribute one thing, and not well, at that.

But yes, you're right, an eradicator is better than the LRBT at shooting units with a 2+ cover save, but so are flamer-stormtroopers, hellhounds, and helldettas which are roughly the same price as the eradicator. The thing is, the stormtroopers and helldettas can also contribute to the game outside of the eradicator's narrow role. Stormies can kill marines, deepstrike, and contest objectives, while helldettas can transport troops, fly, and strike anywhere on the map. As you like to say, since something is better than another thing, it doesn't make it good.

Also, its capabilities against vehicles have been eroding. In 4th edition, you could kill things with a glance, and any penetrating hit came with "+ crew stunned" which stopped the vehicle shooting altogether. Now, glancing doesn't do anything to stop an enemy vehicle from moving or shooting at full power, and the change to the AV rules means that a russ isn't terribly likely to wreck a vehicle outright anymore.

It still has a 2/3 chance to pen AV 12. That's actually not so bad. Immobilizing or stunning some multimelta-boat or a troop transport is helpful. Although, usually, you want to pop the transport with melta, and the battlecannon the marine squad inside, not the other way around.

Furthermore, the addition of hull points has made people in my local area start up-armoring. Razorbacks are becoming predetors, artillery is becoming russes, and the like. These are the kinds of targets that battlecannons seriously struggle against.

Yep. But to be fair, you don't want to use a battlecannon against those types of targets. If you really want to, just put multi-melta sponsons on the LRBT and you have a better tank than the sponsoned eradicator for 10 points less!

We've also had codices flesh out more over time. Nowadays, necron has plenty of 4HP AV13 vehicles around. No longer can you use a battlecannon to target the warriors and hope for a phase out. Grey knights didn't used to have paladins or dreadknights or storm ravens, all commonplace now, but didn't even exist a few years ago. In general, codices have been giving out more options that are less LRBT-friendly than before.

In your meta, sure. In mine, the focus has started to shift to tough infantry which can hold objectives. Many have revoked vehicles entirely and focused on putting as many 3+ / 2+ save, multi-wound models on the field. Which is a pain to deal with with low-strength weapons.

Battlecannons also can't target an entire new class of units, fliers. Not that eradicators can, but still, this is a ding against the battlecannon.

Still a ding against the eradicator, and I don't entierly see how this point is relevant to the leman russ/eradicator debate.

Then we have heavy replacing lumbering, as you mention. It's basically not worth it to have sponsons on an LRBT. That means that you're paying a lot of points for what basically amounts to a single blast missile launcher. Sponsons are a way to greatly increase the killing power of a vehicle, for super cheap. Where else in the codex do you get a pair of plasma cannons for only 40 points? Where outside of servitors can you even GET multimeltas, much less TWO of them, for only 30 points, on an AV14 frame? Sponsons are great now, and LRBTs aren't the best way to take them.

As peregrine said, firing arcs on sponsons are extremely limited, and the 12 inch range on a slow vehicle doesnt help. Cheap is always good, but I still don't see the eradicator or russ putting them to full use. Putting good sponsons on a situational tank doesn't suddenly make it good. The sponsons make the tank have a few more situations where it can perform decently. On the other hand, the LRBT can perform decently in any situation against a broad variety of targets, and really does damage well when it's optimum targets (space marines!) come in range (72 inches!)

There wasn't one big thing that came in and made LRBTs bad. It's been a slow, choking death over time for a unit that, let's not lie to ourselves, that never was THAT great to begin with. Traditional ideas are hard to let go of, but I think, for now at least, the battlecannon russ may actually be near the bottom of the heap nowadays.

I guess it's one of those "you get what you pay for" type dealies. I find it to be better in 6th due to the new hull point rules. But yeah, I find the more Tanks I have on the board in the late game, the more powerful they are compared to everything else that's left. With the eradicator's narrow set of targets, I'm concerned that it will fail to contribute as much over the course of the game because its primary targets have either been deployed out of it's range, or its primary targets have already been dealt with. In either case, you have 180 points of AV14 uselessness sitting on the board.

My Demolisher has actually been my biggest disappointment as of late.

The main gun remains solid, but the change to lumbering behemoth means the multimelta sponsons I gave it are now worthless.

And they're plastic cemented on there; they ain't coming off.

I may yet try the Eradicator on one of my old Russ chassis, use it when fighting non-MEQs, as I won't argue its utility in those cases, and build the spare Russ I have into a barebones battlecannon, no sponsons and such since they now have no purpose.

The nerf to ordinance russes really is inconvenient, as now what was originally the most common types of Russes are now overgunned, laden with points they can't really use anymore. Save for the executioner, which is still laughing maniacally as it murders power and terminator armour.

 MajorStoffer wrote:
My Demolisher has actually been my biggest disappointment as of late.

The main gun remains solid, but the change to lumbering behemoth means the multimelta sponsons I gave it are now worthless.

And they're plastic cemented on there; they ain't coming off.

Saw them off flush to the mount.

Haven't really ever used the eradicatir yet. Used it once back in 5th and disappointed me a bit but then again it was against a seer council on jetbikes. I'd like to try it but I'm hesitant about the whole large blast thing. Sure it looks nice but when it starts to scatter it's basically wasted shooting. I guess you'd have your sponsons but still. Loosing that large blast to scatter is why I'm not so sure about its effectiveness.

I prefer the hellhound to it. Sure it has a weaker chasis and shorter range but it has far better mobility and you can place the template. I like to keep the whole deny cover slot reserved for the hellhound so I can put other russes in my heavy slots like punishers, demolishers, or a manticore. I want to like the eradicator so maybe I'll give it a second chance. When you do try it out, i'm looking forward to see how it performed for you.

 WhiteWolf01 wrote:
I'd like to try it but I'm hesitant about the whole large blast thing. Sure it looks nice but when it starts to scatter it's basically wasted shooting.

Isn't everything wasted shooting if it misses?

 TheCaptain wrote:

 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

...Sorry; I seem to have missed the gigantic nerf thrown at anti-vehicle ordnance by 6e; that comment was based on a mistaken assumption that it was still 2d6 for armor penetration.

The remarks on the LRBT being a jack-of-all-trades tank that's generally a good choice in limited-resources (cash or points) games still stand, though.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Sorry; I seem to have missed the gigantic nerf thrown at anti-vehicle ordnance by 6e; that comment was based on a mistaken assumption that it was still 2d6 for armor penetration.

Err, what? Ordnance wasn't 2D6 penetration in 5th either (and probably wasn't before 5th), it was the exact same 2D6 pick the highest, which is exactly what has been said before: 50% to pen AV 12, 30% to pen AV 13, no chance to pen AV 14. The only thing 6th changed was that now there is no half strength for missing with the hole.

 Peregrine wrote:
The problem with the Demolisher is the 24" range, which gives you poor options on turn 1 (especially if you go first and your opponent deployed to avoid it) and can often cause problems later in the game. The Medusa's extra 12" of range is incredibly useful, to the point that I've stopped taking Demolishers entirely in favor of them.

Which is why I like the Plasma sponsons on mine. Well, pre 6th ed. anyway. Now that I can hurt myself, I just go with the HHB.

 TheCaptain wrote:

 WhiteWolf01 wrote:
I'd like to try it but I'm hesitant about the whole large blast thing. Sure it looks nice but when it starts to scatter it's basically wasted shooting.

Isn't everything wasted shooting if it misses?

Let me clarify. Basically what I was getting at is that there are better things that increases you chances to hit and do damage. Such as the hellhound or the manticore which has the potential to cover a larger amount of ground that scatter shouldn't technically hurt you as much. In the case of ordanance blasts your usual target is generally armor and with the new blast rules, once again scatter shouldn't hurt you. With the colossus you can take squads for fewer points than squads of eradicators and pull off what the manticore does to a better extent against troops in cover. The way I'm looking at it is not about durability so much as increasing your chances to do damage.

 WhiteWolf01 wrote:

Let me clarify. Basically what I was getting at is that there are better things that increases you chances to hit and do damage. Such as the hellhound or the manticore which has the potential to cover a larger amount of ground that scatter shouldn't technically hurt you as much. In the case of ordanance blasts your usual target is generally armor and with the new blast rules, once again scatter shouldn't hurt you.

Hellhound is a Chimera-Chassis flamer with a 20 inch range. Good luck getting it close.

Manticore is affected by scatter as much as anything else. Except if the initial shot scatters off, you're incredibly likely to miss with the extra blasts as well. The difference being Manticore allows armor saves for MEQ, and scatters full distance sometimes.

And Ordinance blasts should not be targeting armor at STR8, AP3. We've already discussed how poor of a choice that is. Give a look at the math on the pages previous.

Especially in guard, where we can mass lascannons like no army short of Horus Heresy books.

 TheCaptain wrote:
And Ordinance blasts should not be targeting armor at STR8, AP3.

Well, that depends on the situation. Early-game where you don't have many good infantry targets and stopping incoming vehicle threats is the most important thing? Yeah, I'll take a shot and knock off a HP instead of shooting a random tactical squad that isn't an immediate threat. Basilisk sitting out of lascannon range? A battlecannon shot has the range, and all you need is a 'shaken' result. You don't take it as a primary anti-tank weapon, but at least it has the ability to attempt the shot when you need every anti-tank shot you can get, unlike the Eradicator.

 Peregrine wrote:

 TheCaptain wrote:
And Ordinance blasts should not be targeting armor at STR8, AP3.

Well, that depends on the situation. Early-game where you don't have many good infantry targets and stopping incoming vehicle threats is the most important thing? Yeah, I'll take a shot and knock off a HP instead of shooting a random tactical squad that isn't an immediate threat. Basilisk sitting out of lascannon range? A battlecannon shot has the range, and all you need is a 'shaken' result. You don't take it as a primary anti-tank weapon, but at least it has the ability to attempt the shot when you need every anti-tank shot you can get, unlike the Eradicator.

I mean; the argument "well, if nothing else is a good target" always stands, yeah. But the same goes for just about everything. I'll shoot termies with Bolt pistols if they're the only thing in range; not really something to consider when taking said pistols though.

I can see what you mean, but my statement was moreso in counter to "[with] Ordinance blasts your usual target is armor", which struck me as ill-advised.