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.

 TheCaptain wrote:

 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.

Actually, I've had a pretty easy time getting the hellhound in range. Usually driving it up the table edge to flank the enemy. It might not win its points back but it causes some helpful disruption and with the other threats on the table doesn't always take so much heat. As for the manticore sure it might scatter but you've at least got a better chance of doing more damage on the second or third blasts. A chance at something greater for less points than the eradicator is better than nothing at all. In addition to that it's str 10 and doubles most things out unlike the eradicator and since its barrage its going to ignore cover anyway. Concerning ordinance, I wasn't just talking about the LRBT, rather ordinance in general. Long story short the eradicator fills a nitch role that isn't all that impressive when you have other options at your disposal albeit on a weaker chasis. Most of which you can hide behind cover and you have the range to lob shells down field. In a world filled with gauss, doomscythes, screamers, flammers, etc all that extra armor isn't gonna help you all that much. At that point you're better off going for the glass cannons..

 TheCaptain wrote:
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 think it is worth considering, since you aren't always going to be in the ideal situation. The LRBT can do a decent job against other targets when its primary target type isn't available (or isn't a high priority threat), an Eradicator/Punisher/etc without its primary target pretty much just sits there uselessly. Or, to put it in more general terms, when I say "if nothing else is a better target" I mean settling for second best, not just throwing away shots.

The bolt pistol, on the other hand, never does anything effectively, especially not shooting at terminators.

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.

Yeah, I don't get that either. I'll shoot at vehicles with a LRBT if it makes sense, but I'm certainly not taking the LRBT with the hope that I get to take shots at vehicles every turn.

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.

Yeah, I don't get that either. I'll shoot at vehicles with a LRBT if it makes sense, but I'm certainly not taking the LRBT with the hope that I get to take shots at vehicles every turn.

And I get what you're saying and I agree. Perhaps I should have been more clear, but what I was getting at is that with the ordinance russes that are available to us, they at least serve a dual role. Sure the LRBT isn't going to be wrecking vehicles left and right but it has that opportunity to knock off a hull point due to the fact it IS ordinance. A demolisher, basilisk, or manticore would be far better at getting pens and doing some more lasting damage, but at least with the LRBT it can play into multiple roles even if it isn't that great at the anti-armor role. The eradicator on the other hand can't deal with armor whatsoever so we are left with its initial purpose to kill things in cover. The effectiveness of the eradicator is completely dependent on your local meta. If your meta is SM heavy, why bother? Take a russ and knock their save down to a +4 at worst. If your meta is GEQ or whatever then your decision to bring the eradicator will probably be worth it if you can weather the hail of long range anti-armor most of those armies have at their disposal.

 Peregrine wrote:
an Eradicator/Punisher/etc without its primary target pretty much just sits there uselessly

Huh? You can't just say things and mind-boggingly wrong as this and expect to get away with it.

An Eradicator has four guns that can hurt almost everything in the game. If you're choosing to do nothing with it, that's your problem, not its.

 DarknessEternal wrote:
An Eradicator has one gun that can hurt only a limited range of targets.

Fixed that for you. Sponsons are irrelevant to this discussion because you can put the same sponsons on ANY tank, and there is no target type where both the main gun and secondary weapons on an Eradicator are both firing effectively.

 Peregrine wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:
An Eradicator has one gun that can hurt only a limited range of targets.

Fixed that for you. Sponsons are irrelevant to this discussion because you can put the same sponsons on ANY tank, and there is no target type where both the main gun and secondary weapons on an Eradicator are both firing effectively.

Unless you focus fire.

-Matt

HawaiiMatt wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:
An Eradicator has one gun that can hurt only a limited range of targets.

Fixed that for you. Sponsons are irrelevant to this discussion because you can put the same sponsons on ANY tank, and there is no target type where both the main gun and secondary weapons on an Eradicator are both firing effectively.

Unless you focus fire.

-Matt

How does focus fire help?

If you're shooting the main gun at a squishy unit in cover the sponsons and hull gun aren't doing anything useful because they're just wasted against cover saves and/or hordes of bodies.

If you're shooting the sponson and hull guns at a vehicle the main gun isn't doing anything useful because a single STR 6 shot is pretty much worthless.

If you're shooting the sponson and hull guns at a MEQ unit then the main gun isn't doing anything useful because it's only AP 4.

Focus fire just doesn't help you.

Eradicators are good vs medium to light infantry and the standard LMBT has more uses,. you can shoot everything with it

 Peregrine wrote:

HawaiiMatt wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:
An Eradicator has one gun that can hurt only a limited range of targets.

Fixed that for you. Sponsons are irrelevant to this discussion because you can put the same sponsons on ANY tank, and there is no target type where both the main gun and secondary weapons on an Eradicator are both firing effectively.

Unless you focus fire.

-Matt

How does focus fire help?

If you're shooting the main gun at a squishy unit in cover the sponsons and hull gun aren't doing anything useful because they're just wasted against cover saves and/or hordes of bodies.

If you're shooting the sponson and hull guns at a vehicle the main gun isn't doing anything useful because a single STR 6 shot is pretty much worthless.

If you're shooting the sponson and hull guns at a MEQ unit then the main gun isn't doing anything useful because it's only AP 4.

Focus fire just doesn't help you.

I think what he meant was shoot the main gun at the units in Cover, then Focus Fire the other weapons at units without cover saves. Unfortunately, if I understand the rule, you can't do that

Why is that?

 Peregrine wrote:

HawaiiMatt wrote:

Unless you focus fire.

-Matt

How does focus fire help?
If you're shooting the main gun at a squishy unit in cover the sponsons and hull gun aren't doing anything useful because they're just wasted against cover saves and/or hordes of bodies.
If you're shooting the sponson and hull guns at a vehicle the main gun isn't doing anything useful because a single STR 6 shot is pretty much worthless.
If you're shooting the sponson and hull guns at a MEQ unit then the main gun isn't doing anything useful because it's only AP 4.
Focus fire just doesn't help you.

If you're shooting at a horde, odds are some are in cover, some are not. Heavy bolters plink off guys in the open, pie plate goes for maximum hits.
If you're shooting at a vehicle, the Eradicator does better vs AV10 or AV11 than a Russ.
If you're shooting at MEQ in 4+ cover, the advantage of firing at full BS does more damage than a battle cannon.

If you're shooting at MEQ in the open, then Russ is best.

how about a demolisher

 Tomten wrote:
how about a demolisher

Already been discussed pretty in depth.

 TheCaptain wrote:

 Tomten wrote:
how about a demolisher

Already been discussed pretty in depth.

I didnt know

 Tomten wrote:

 TheCaptain wrote:

 Tomten wrote:
how about a demolisher

Already been discussed pretty in depth.

I didnt know

Gotta read the thread bud. Otherwise you'll find yourself asking questions that have already been answered.

but were can i find it?

 Tomten wrote:
but were can i find it?

One page back...

Peregrine wrote:Sponsons are irrelevant to this discussion because you can put the same sponsons on ANY tank

That doesn't make sponsons equally good on them, though.

A melta-las eradicator can handle pretty much anything, thanks to its peculiar versatility. So could a melta-las punisher.

A melta-las LRBT, though, is always going to struggle against infantry in cover. That's a pretty important gap in its killing power compared to the other two. Plus, as we've been over, a LRBT can't fire its main gun and sponsons at the same time (at least, not well). You get more firepower when you can use all of your weapons than when you can use only one of them. An eradicator shooting its main cannon and its sponsons are going to do equal or more damage than an LRBT firing either its main cannon OR sponsons against most infantry targets.

It's something I'm finding really bizzare about this all. If you can't figure out how to use a russ with sponsons, you lack creativity. Making arguments like "they'll never be in range", or "the tank will be useless when it's not firing its main gun" don't make a lot of sense to me.

HawaiiMatt wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

HawaiiMatt wrote:

Unless you focus fire.

-Matt

How does focus fire help?
If you're shooting the main gun at a squishy unit in cover the sponsons and hull gun aren't doing anything useful because they're just wasted against cover saves and/or hordes of bodies.
If you're shooting the sponson and hull guns at a vehicle the main gun isn't doing anything useful because a single STR 6 shot is pretty much worthless.
If you're shooting the sponson and hull guns at a MEQ unit then the main gun isn't doing anything useful because it's only AP 4.
Focus fire just doesn't help you.

If you're shooting at a horde, odds are some are in cover, some are not. Heavy bolters plink off guys in the open, pie plate goes for maximum hits.
If you're shooting at a vehicle, the Eradicator does better vs AV10 or AV11 than a Russ.
If you're shooting at MEQ in 4+ cover, the advantage of firing at full BS does more damage than a battle cannon.

If you're shooting at MEQ in the open, then Russ is best.

How is eradicator better at av 10 or 11 than a standard russ when eradicator is s6 with 1d6 to glance or pen and the LRBT is s8 with 2d6 pick the highest to pen...wouldnt the normal russ be better as its better strength and it gets 2 d6? And if your shooting at MEQ in cover isnt MEQ's save a 3+ assuming its a marine then wouldnt the Battle tank be better as the marine has to take a 4+ cover save than where as the nova cannon allows the Marine to then take the save with his 3+ armor, think the battle tank is better as well.

Also people keep mentioning MM sponsons. Eradicator has 6inch move and the effective melta rule for the MM to kill a High AV tank(predators, land raiders and other Leman russ) then dont you have to be within 12inches??? if your that close to enemy tanks then your also mostlikely that close to other troops, In which those troops could assault the tank and kill it or the enemy tank gets to shoot at it. But what Im getting at is if you hate being close with the demolisher then why are you getting closer for MM???

 Ailaros wrote:


A melta-las LRBT, though, is always going to struggle against infantry in cover.

Not exactly true. The LRBT is better than the eradicator versus MEQs in cover. The eradicator is better at the 5+ and 4+ saves models in cover.

 Ailaros wrote:
That's a pretty important gap in its killing power compared to the other two. Plus, as we've been over, a LRBT can't fire its main gun and sponsons at the same time (at least, not well). You get more firepower when you can use all of your weapons than when you can use only one of them. An eradicator shooting its main cannon and its sponsons are going to do equal or more damage than an LRBT firing either its main cannon OR sponsons against most infantry targets.

It's something I'm finding really bizzare about this all. If you can't figure out how to use a russ with sponsons, you lack creativity. Making arguments like "they'll never be in range", or "the tank will be useless when it's not firing its main gun" don't make a lot of sense to me.

I usually don't put sponsons on my LRBT. It's always seemed a bit of a waste. But no matter what LR type you take you do need to try to create a synergy of effect. The LRBT is a generalist vehicle. It does quite a bit pretty decently. Not great..but not bad..as we've seen itis even better than the eradicator at killing some infantry types in cover. IMO the LR chassis do not make good mobile fire platforms for the price. I think guard have better options. The LR chassis work best when they are stationary or move very little. Does this make sponsons useless? No. But they do lack the mobility that makes shorter ranged weaponry more effective...a MM on a speeder is way better, in general, than on a LR chassis. So if you are going with sponsone i'd say go cheap and go with heavy bolters. They are inexpensive and will force arnor saves on MEQs and help thin out hordes if necessary.

The eradicator does have some nice advantages over the LRBT (better versus some armor saves in cover and better synergy with sponsons) but I think the advantages are narrow and not worth the loss of the battle cannon. Also, the areas where the eradicator do have advantages are usually such that guard armies have better ways to do the same things already. And is the battle cannon as terrible as some would have us believe? Long range, decent chance to hit, ID and better at killing MEQs in cover.

I'll take the LRBT in non-COD games.

ender502

ender502 wrote:

Ailaros wrote:A melta-las LRBT, though, is always going to struggle against infantry in cover.

Not exactly true. The LRBT is better than the eradicator versus MEQs in cover. The eradicator is better at the 5+ and 4+ saves models in cover.

But it still struggles. Just because something is better doesn't make it good.

And, as has already been mentioned, a bolter boat eradicator will kill MEq better than a bolter boat LRBT. The more heavy bolter hits make up for the -1 cover save (depending on the situation. It may not even be less, in which case the eradicator is better).

ender502 wrote:IMO the LR chassis do not make good mobile fire platforms for the price. I think guard have better options.

This is actually a pattern that I've been noticing. People who are disliking the eradicator also tend not to like russes at all. Don't let the dislike for a chassis or unit type skew the choice of weapons.

I'll admit that russes are certainly enigmatic, but they do have a bunch of subtle advantages. If you don't see the advantages of the russ (like sponson weapons), then you're not going to like russes in general, much less any specific pattern.

 Ailaros wrote:
And, as has already been mentioned, a bolter boat eradicator will kill MEq better than a bolter boat LRBT. The more heavy bolter hits make up for the -1 cover save (depending on the situation. It may not even be less, in which case the eradicator is better).

And that's a stupid comparison because you don't take a bolter boat LRBT. If you remove the overpriced sponsons from the LRBT you find that the LRBT kills marines in cover about 40% more efficiently (points per kill). And this is based on your own math.

This is actually a pattern that I've been noticing. People who are disliking the eradicator also tend not to like russes at all. Don't let the dislike for a chassis or unit type skew the choice of weapons.

Actually I like them in general. The LRBT is useful, the Demolisher is very good, and the Executioner is awesome as long as you can get your anti-tank from somewhere else in the FOC. The Eradicator is garbage.

The eradicator needs to be ap3 ignores cover s6 for it to be useful. It is not. A colossus does a better job for less.

 Red Corsair wrote:
The eradicator needs to be ap3 ignores cover s6 for it to be useful. It is not. A colossus does a better job for less.

Nevermind that the colossus can fire without line of sight and the barrage rule lets you manipulate wound allocation.

Exactly, which gets to my previous point.

If all you're doing is looking at up-front splat cannon killing power, then russes are terrible. They were in the past, and still are now. Why take a terrible battlecannon when you can take a much better earthshaker cannon? Why take a demolisher when a medusa is killier, and can take BB shells? Why bother with exterminators when you can take a pair of hydras for the same price (even in 6th ed)?

The plain fact is, point-for-point, russes have never been straight-up killier than their points in other HS slots. As mentioned, though, russes are still worth taking, but the reasons are a lot more subtle and difficult to see. A first-run pass of killing power efficiency will always miss them.

But the point of russes isn't to compare them to how artillery does the same killing for better or cheaper (or both), because it always does. The point of russes is exactly those other things. It's the AV14, it's the hull and sponson options, and it's the better on-the-move firepower, and the myriad of little things these general principles represent.

The point of this all is that russes don't HAVE to be as killy per point as artillery. That's not their job. Their job is to be russes.

I used the colossus as an example for comparison of why the nova canon falls flat for me, whether you take a colossus or not.

I take demolishers because they have multiple impacts on the game.

1. They terrify death stars
2. The are a Russ so they block LOS well
3. They soke up AT


By comparison yhe eradicator really only accomplishes roll 2. because a smart opponent will know better then to waste shots dealing with it. Its a dreadfully slow chassis with a short ranged non threatening canon. At least a LRBT will keep them out of my DZ and hugging cover.

Stating that they there job is to just be a Russ if foolish to me. Your investing not only a lot of points but a HS slot. That is an important slot, it needs to be killy or else it's not a threat, which doesn't sound Russ like to me. I like the exterminator more then the Eradicator for Pete's sake!

 Ailaros wrote:
Exactly, which gets to my previous point.

If all you're doing is looking at up-front splat cannon killing power, then russes are terrible. They were in the past, and still are now. Why take a terrible battlecannon when you can take a much better earthshaker cannon? Why take a demolisher when a medusa is killier, and can take BB shells? Why bother with exterminators when you can take a pair of hydras for the same price (even in 6th ed)?

The plain fact is, point-for-point, russes have never been straight-up killier than their points in other HS slots. As mentioned, though, russes are still worth taking, but the reasons are a lot more subtle and difficult to see. A first-run pass of killing power efficiency will always miss them.

But the point of russes isn't to compare them to how artillery does the same killing for better or cheaper (or both), because it always does. The point of russes is exactly those other things. It's the AV14, it's the hull and sponson options, and it's the better on-the-move firepower, and the myriad of little things these general principles represent.

The point of this all is that russes don't HAVE to be as killy per point as artillery. That's not their job. Their job is to be russes.

Of course, better armor has a price. You're right about the fact that Russes have more staying power, so they simply get more shots off than artillery. That's exactly why you take them. They also force the enemy to try and get behind them-they dictate your opponent's play. It's exactly that what makes them a big threat and totally worth their points (unless you take an Eradicator). Even if you're not up against MEQ, no ID against T4 really takes off a lot of psychological threat from the Russ.

I believe the rule changes are making all of us look to non-ordnance russes for maximum volume of fire, but does it really work? An Eradicator with HB sponsons costs 20% more than a LRBT, one with MM sponsons (only one of which will be able to fire every turn the tank fires most of the time, due to the firing arc) costs even more, and I'd much rather get two more lascannons or other upgrades/more bodies than an increase in killing power against units in cover. Add a hull LC and it becomes even more ridiculously expensive. I'm sorry, but even if the BC "sucks", I'd rather get two LRBT or two Demolishers and other units/upgrades instead of two melta/LC Eradicators, EXACTLY because Russes are meant to be Russes (i.e. bring armor onto the field).

Sponsons work if they help your main gun AND complement your equipment. I believe the lack of synergy between the main gun and any sponsons on an Eradicator has been covered in a satisfactory way by Peregrine. Concerning equipment, first-generation Russes (rear AV10) are simply too susceptible to being charged or jumped behind to be able to use short ranged weapons effectively. Trust me, I've had a Russ destroyed late game by charging Lootas. LOOTAS. It was only supposed to block LOS so that they couldn't kill a battered PIS sitting on an objective (Yeah, I was unlucky enough that the game continued into Turn 7, the Lootas slaughtered the PIS after killing the Russ and the game ended in a draw. It's a painful memory). If you really want to make short ranged weapons work well with a Russ, I'd say go for the rear AV11 ones. Isn't their shorter range the reason for having rear AV11 anyway?

For the record, I love Russes. LRBTs, Exterminators, a Vanquisher, Demolishers and an Executioner are a proud part of my collection, and more are under construction. It's quite rare that I bring no Russes in any game over 750 pts. I converted the Eradicator I modeled into an Exterminator after a single playtest. I just don't have the patience to make it work.

 Ailaros wrote:
The point of russes is exactly those other things. It's the AV14, it's the hull and sponson options, and it's the better on-the-move firepower, and the myriad of little things these general principles represent.

Yes, but you don't have to use all of those things at once. The fact that you are willing to pay extra for AV 14 on your "Basilisk" doesn't mean that you're also obligated to "make use" of the sponson options even when they eat up a lot of points without contributing much. You're trying way too hard to make the sponsons fit just because they're an option, instead of asking yourself what you need to add to the unit to make it do its job.

To weigh in, the eradicator has 2 functions. One, its a heavy tank. 2, it kills 2+ cover save units.

Both 1 and 2 are meta game considerations. Because of this,I feel the eradicator is too specialized for its roll.

First, lets talk about the tank aspect. The av14 is nice, there it no doubt, but it is not impervious. As guard tend to lack counter assault elements, and assault is the easiest way to get around the av14, the heavy tank is not good in a meta game including fast tough assault elements. Wraiths led by a 2+ destroyer lord, nurgle spawn, ect. If you are worried about these units, then the heavy tanks trade off in killing power for toughness is wasted, making any heavy tank a poor choice.

Now for the main gun. 2+ cover seems to come from 3 places for the most part. First is the aegis with units going to ground behind it. Second is from units behind some cover with night fighting applied, either from necrons or by rolling it on turn 1 or 5+. Third is from stealthy units in terrain like stealth snipers, stealth suits, harlequins, ect. For the aegis, any barrage weapon would also strip their save, and barrages ability to fire from beyond Los coupled with the cheap cost makes barrage weapons superior. For night fighting, if you have unused search lights then you can get around the bonus cover save. Thus the Russ variant is not needed as much provided you have other vehicles that can search light for you. Finally we come to the stealthy units. Stealthy units can be a real pain if you are un prepared, but they are not that common. Thus, in a take all comers list, you probably don't need to worry about them. Guard do have good access to transports and flamers, which handle night fight with search lights and stealthy units with deposited flamers, so only if you have none of those will you need to consider the Russ variant.

In conclusion, the combination of a tank that tries to fill two different specific meta games at once creates an over specialized choice. This applies to most of the Russ variants but it is most profound with the eradicator, with no cover saves being such a specialized role that clashes with the role of a heavy tank. While cheap henchmen getting a 3+ cover save when going to ground in area terrain is an issue, dealing 9 wounds to t3 infantry is not so difficult, and the eradicator only counts for 6 more wounds in that case, which can easily be made up for with other units considering the premium paid. It truly takes a 2+ cover save stealthy unit before the eradicator begins to shine offensively, and units that get such saves on their own are few and far between. For everything else you have mortars, griffins, and searchlights.

 Ailaros wrote:
Exactly, which gets to my previous point.

If all you're doing is looking at up-front splat cannon killing power, then russes are terrible. They were in the past, and still are now.

Disagree. a s8 ap3 weapon witha a very long range is not terrible. The range alone makes it very effective. The ability terrify MEQs is probably worth the points all by itself.

 Ailaros wrote:


The plain fact is, point-for-point, russes have never been straight-up killier than their points in other HS slots. As mentioned, though, russes are still worth taking, but the reasons are a lot more subtle and difficult to see. A first-run pass of killing power efficiency will always miss them.

But the point of russes isn't to compare them to how artillery does the same killing for better or cheaper (or both), because it always does. The point of russes is exactly those other things. It's the AV14, it's the hull and sponson options, and it's the better on-the-move firepower, and the myriad of little things these general principles represent.

The point of this all is that russes don't HAVE to be as killy per point as artillery. That's not their job. Their job is to be russes.

Agree. Though I do like to play my russes as stationary (like arty) they do have a greta advantage over arty...no need to hide the russ. I generally play with 2 naked russes and then 2 arty vehicles.

ender502