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.

Basilisks have a long range

LRBT are supposed to make MEQ's hide in cover and waste their potential, so why take a variant that encourages them out of cover and into your lines with little repercussion?

Hedkrakka wrote: 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)

I don't understand where this misconception is coming from. If you look at page 72 of the rulebook, you can clearly see that the line of sight for russ sponsons converge.

I just busted out a russ, and, from the points they say to measure from, could see a single 20mm-based infantry model from 6" away with both sponsons. If there was a unit of infantry, the sponsons just need to be able to see one of the models. Against larger targets, you can see them at any range.

This idea of sponsons having some sort of blind spot are greatly exaggerated

Hedkrakka wrote:the lack of synergy between the main gun and any sponsons ... has been covered in a satisfactory way

Covered and rebutted. Russes are one of the few places in the guard codex where you can get genuine versatility. You don't need to have all of the weapons on a russ serve the same purpose.

Hedkrakka wrote: I'd much rather get two more lascannons or other upgrades/more bodies than an increase in killing power against units in cover.

This seems really strange to me. Do people use cover at your local gaming group?

They do at mine, and I can certainly say that lascannons are insufficient for removing gone to ground scoring units off of objectives.

ender502 wrote:a s8 ap3 weapon witha a very long range is not terrible.

The math has already been over this. I fail to see how a weapon that takes more turns than there are in a game to break open a transport or that only kills a marine a turn on average qualifies for the definition of "not terrible".

DevianID wrote:the combination of a tank that tries to fill two different specific meta games at once creates an over specialized choice.

The two niches that a las-MM eradicator can handle are

1.) Infantry units that use cover.

2.) Armies that include vehicles, terminators, or monstrous creatures.

How does that make the tank "overspecialized"?

OK here is a misconception you keep having, how is the small chance of exploding a vehicle with a battle canon making it terrible? It can hit multiple transports in one go, will easily pen which means the transport and the crew are at worst not shooting and probably not moving. I'll take two of those effects all game thank you very much.

 Ailaros wrote:

ender502 wrote:a s8 ap3 weapon witha a very long range is not terrible.

The math has already been over this. I fail to see how a weapon that takes more turns than there are in a game to break open a transport or that only kills a marine a turn on average qualifies for the definition of "not terrible".

Well, considering the eradicator is even worse at it killing transports or killing marines.... kinda rebuts your position. By your logic, the eradicator is even worse than the battle cannon.

ender502

 Red Corsair wrote:
OK here is a misconception you keep having, how is the small chance of exploding a vehicle with a battle canon making it terrible? It can hit multiple transports in one go, will easily pen which means the transport and the crew are at worst not shooting and probably not moving. I'll take two of those effects all game thank you very much.

You're over-estimating the ability of a blast to hit >1 target. That's not reliable or common. The small chance of it exploding means you shot your single battle cannon blast per turn at removing 1 HP, something that an AC could do.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ender502 wrote:


Well, considering the eradicator is even worse at it killing transports or killing marines.... kinda rebuts your position. By your logic, the eradicator is even worse than the battle cannon.

ender502

I'm playing devil's advocate here, but you're wrong. The vanilla Russ is fire battle cannon and chance those other weapons, the eradicator is use all 4 weapons in one go. Even if you took 2 PCs, Hull LC and the main cannon, you've got a far better chance of removing a rhino in one turn than the vanilla Russ. You also kill more MEQ, GEQ and TEQ per turn. It's more expensive, but it has a multi-role ability the vanilla russ wishes it had.

I'm late to the debate but I'm gonna have to come in on the pro-LRBT side. I'd like to open by saying I don't understand why ANYONE thinks a S8 AP3 72" range weapon is bad. What is bad about this weapon? It breaks marine armour saves, doubles out T4 to cancel out FNP, and the range on the weapon means you can fire it anywhere which, among other things, allows you to throw some killing power on the other end of the table if you have a weak flank there. It also means that, unlike the Demolisher, the Battle Tank does NOT need to be in the threat range of everything that specializes in wrecking AV14 (melta guns or pretty much any assaulting unit) to do its job. I also don't understand the notion that the Battle Tank sucks at hurting vehicles and struggles at AV12. Having Ordnance means you're glancing or penetrating AV12 more often than not, and the ability to hit multiple vehicles with the full strength of the blast also forces your opponent to space out their vehicles more which opens up side armour and in general causes them to think twice about how they deploy and move.

Now, if you're taking a Russ just to throw the sponson weapons on it, I can SORT OF see the appeal for the Eradicator (although it still seems counter-intuitive since your main gun doesn't jive with any of the sponson weapons) cause you're still getting a large blast weapon that doesn't nerf your other guns to BS1. But... honestly, S6 AP4 isn't all that terrifying unless your meta has a LOT of xenos and Guard running around. I personally don't come across a lot of opponents with 2+ cover saves like Ailaros has apparently, so maybe the advantage of the Eradicator is lost on me. It just seems like that in an edition of MOSTLY 5+ cover saves, the Eradicator doesn't strike me as particularly good. Frankly I think if you're gonna take a Russ to throw sponsons on, the Exterminator is a much better choice because its main gun works very well with sponsons (imo).

Just FYI I'm playing devil's advocate, I'm still sitting on the fence here, (leaning towards the Vanilla Russ) but I think Ailaros has some good points, so I'm throwing my thoughts in...

 creeping-deth87 wrote:
It breaks marine armour saves

As established, the LRBT is better in the one situation where Marines are standing in the open. Not exactly common since most lists pack plenty of plasma and melta.

the range on the weapon means you can fire it anywhere which, among other things, allows you to throw some killing power on the other end of the table if you have a weak flank there

.
The range is excessive. Most things that it is worth shooting at won't be >48" away, in which case there are plenty of other weapons able to manage this. I mean, on tables I play on the 72" range means I just don't bother measuring.

It also means that, unlike the Demolisher, the Battle Tank does NOT need to be in the threat range of everything that specializes in wrecking AV14 (melta guns or pretty much any assaulting unit) to do its job.

Neither does the Eradicator...you know the one we're comparing it to. Bringing up the Demolisher is a thinly veiled Straw Man.

I also don't understand the notion that the Battle Tank sucks at hurting vehicles and struggles at AV12. Having Ordnance means you're glancing or penetrating AV12 more often than not, and the ability to hit multiple vehicles with the full strength of the blast also forces your opponent to space out their vehicles more which opens up side armour and in general causes them to think twice about how they deploy and move.

Well I've mentioned this already, pen =/= wreck. Yes it can pen more often than the eradicator, but you still only have a 2/6 chance of doing anything worth while to the transport (read explode or immobilize). The Eradicator has the advantage of being able to ping off all the HPs or if using MM pretty much guaranteeing the explode result.

Now, if you're taking a Russ just to throw the sponson weapons on it, I can SORT OF see the appeal for the Eradicator (although it still seems counter-intuitive since your main gun doesn't jive with any of the sponson weapons) cause you're still getting a large blast weapon that doesn't nerf your other guns to BS1. But... honestly, S6 AP4 isn't all that terrifying unless your meta has a LOT of xenos and Guard running around.

People don't take sponsons on vanilla Russes, that's why this comes up. It's basically a single shot tank that only beats the Eradicator's main cannon drastically when Marines are in the open. If the marines are in cover the results are pretty similar. In fact the Eradicator pulls ahead if you kit it with PC sponsons.

I personally don't come across a lot of opponents with 2+ cover saves like Ailaros has apparently, so maybe the advantage of the Eradicator is lost on me. It just seems like that in an edition of MOSTLY 5+ cover saves, the Eradicator doesn't strike me as particularly good.

A lot of people see 2+. A lot of people see GEQ or Xenos. The Eradicator can handle a lot of things well. The Vanilla Russ can do one thing very well, but take away marines in the open and it's actually not that great.

Eradicators are good ok?

 Red Corsair wrote:
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!

Right. If I took Eradicators my opponents would just ignore them. If I had vanilla Russes or Demolishers, they'd be top priorities.

And if I bought 3 Executioners with plasma sponsons, my opponents would brown their pants

 Tomten wrote:
Eradicators are good ok?

They're mediocre and niche.

 TheCaptain wrote:

 Tomten wrote:
Eradicators are good ok?

They're mediocre and niche.

It all depends on what you are fighting.

 Tomten wrote:

 TheCaptain wrote:

 Tomten wrote:
Eradicators are good ok?

They're mediocre and niche.

It all depends on what you are fighting.

Good V. Some targets. Crap V. Others

That's the mark of a mediocre unit.

exactly.

 TheCaptain wrote:

 Tomten wrote:
Eradicators are good ok?

They're mediocre and niche.

I'm starting to think neither of those statements are fair. Or at least, if TheCaptain's statement is true, it's also true for the Vanilla Russ.

 Griddlelol wrote:

 TheCaptain wrote:

 Tomten wrote:
Eradicators are good ok?

They're mediocre and niche.

I'm starting to think neither of those statements are fair. Or at least, if TheCaptain's statement is true, it's also true for the Vanilla Russ.

Why not?

 Griddlelol wrote:


As established, the LRBT is better in the one situation where Marines are standing in the open.

...and when they're not. You want those MEQs taking 5+ or 4+ cover saves (far less common in 6th but still) rather than 3+ armour saves, no?

Lanrak wrote:

Neither does the Eradicator...you know the one we're comparing it to. Bringing up the Demolisher is a thinly veiled Straw Man.

It's not. The Demolisher can smash AV14, and will piss all over AV 11 or 12. The Eradicator simply cannot touch anything with an armour value.

Lanrak wrote:

Well I've mentioned this already, pen =/= wreck. Yes it can pen more often than the eradicator, but you still only have a 2/6 chance of doing anything worth while to the transport (read explode or immobilize). The Eradicator has the advantage of being able to ping off all the HPs or if using MM pretty much guaranteeing the explode result.

So the Eradicator's anti-tank consists of two BS3 Multi-Meltas? Good luck with that.

Lanrak wrote:

People don't take sponsons on vanilla Russes, that's why this comes up. It's basically a single shot tank that only beats the Eradicator's main cannon drastically when Marines are in the open. If the marines are in cover the results are pretty similar. In fact the Eradicator pulls ahead if you kit it with PC sponsons.

Vanilla Russ vs MEQ in the open:
83% chance to wound
83% chance to kill
Instant Death

Eradicator vs MEQ in the open:
83% chance to wound
27% chance to kill
No Instant Death

So it's 1/3 as effective, like you'd expect.

Vanilla Russ vs MEQ in 5+ cover
83% chance to wound
55% chance to kill

Eradicator - as above

So in 5+ cover the vanilla Russ is still twice as effective.

Vanilla Russ vs 4+ cover is 41%, again compared to 27% chance for the Eradicator.

So the Eradicator reaches parity when you play with 3+ cover table-wild...except it can't instant death, so it doesn't. And it still can't hurt vehicles, and you better hope your opponent doesn't have nobs or bikers or ogryns.

Lanrak wrote:

A lot of people see 2+. A lot of people see GEQ or Xenos. The Eradicator can handle a lot of things well. The Vanilla Russ can do one thing very well, but take away marines in the open and it's actually not that great.

You don't need pie plates to kill GEQ, you need dice. No army in the game struggles to mow down guardsmen or guardians, almost without trying. But the vanilla russ will wound almost everything on a 2+ and can harm (though being AP3 likely not destroy) vehicles, and ID marines to boot.

 Testify wrote:

 Griddlelol wrote:


As established, the LRBT is better in the one situation where Marines are standing in the open.

...and when they're not. You want those MEQs taking 5+ or 4+ cover saves (far less common in 6th but still) rather than 3+ armour saves, no?

Lanrak wrote:

Neither does the Eradicator...you know the one we're comparing it to. Bringing up the Demolisher is a thinly veiled Straw Man.

It's not. The Demolisher can smash AV14, and will piss all over AV 11 or 12. The Eradicator simply cannot touch anything with an armour value.

Lanrak wrote:

Well I've mentioned this already, pen =/= wreck. Yes it can pen more often than the eradicator, but you still only have a 2/6 chance of doing anything worth while to the transport (read explode or immobilize). The Eradicator has the advantage of being able to ping off all the HPs or if using MM pretty much guaranteeing the explode result.

So the Eradicator's anti-tank consists of two BS3 Multi-Meltas? Good luck with that.

Lanrak wrote:

People don't take sponsons on vanilla Russes, that's why this comes up. It's basically a single shot tank that only beats the Eradicator's main cannon drastically when Marines are in the open. If the marines are in cover the results are pretty similar. In fact the Eradicator pulls ahead if you kit it with PC sponsons.

Vanilla Russ vs MEQ in the open:
83% chance to wound
83% chance to kill
Instant Death

Eradicator vs MEQ in the open:
83% chance to wound
27% chance to kill
No Instant Death

So it's 1/3 as effective, like you'd expect.

Vanilla Russ vs MEQ in 5+ cover
83% chance to wound
55% chance to kill

Eradicator - as above

So in 5+ cover the vanilla Russ is still twice as effective.

Vanilla Russ vs 4+ cover is 41%, again compared to 27% chance for the Eradicator.

So the Eradicator reaches parity when you play with 3+ cover table-wild...except it can't instant death, so it doesn't. And it still can't hurt vehicles, and you better hope your opponent doesn't have nobs or bikers or ogryns.

Lanrak wrote:

A lot of people see 2+. A lot of people see GEQ or Xenos. The Eradicator can handle a lot of things well. The Vanilla Russ can do one thing very well, but take away marines in the open and it's actually not that great.

You don't need pie plates to kill GEQ, you need dice. No army in the game struggles to mow down guardsmen or guardians, almost without trying. But the vanilla russ will wound almost everything on a 2+ and can harm (though being AP3 likely not destroy) vehicles, and ID marines to boot.

You dont take Eradicators if you fight Meqs

But a question I had earlier in the thread that was unanswered is are you going to spam eradicators then. Because If your playing against good opponents(assuming you do as you are saying how your having trouble with lists) and you only have 1 eradicator then what makes you think your opponent will let that tank live long to even do its job. But then if you spam them your using many points on sponsons and if your opponent doesnt have those horde type units that rely on cover to get a better save then your eradicators are almost useless as they wont have great targets.

I dont see why people also believe the MM are great on russes as you have to be within 12inches to get the melta rule, and if you say to stop a death star from crashing into your lines, then if its already that close its probably already killed your tanks.

A land raider moves 6 inches and the troops disembarking get a 6 inch move and they can assault up to 12 inches(although maximum range is unlikely) this just gives those units a better chance at destroying your tanks before they get to use their MM sponsons. I could see PC sponsons for the additional range s7 ap 2 shots but that still doesnt help kill high AV enemy armor.

 Griddlelol wrote:

 TheCaptain wrote:

 Tomten wrote:
Eradicators are good ok?

They're mediocre and niche.

I'm starting to think neither of those statements are fair. Or at least, if TheCaptain's statement is true, it's also true for the Vanilla Russ.

My statement IS true, and its true for the Vanilla russ too.

Eradicator: Excels at stuff in cover.

Vanilla Russ: Excels at stuff outside cover.

Both have their niche, and both are pretty decent at it. But as soon as they're outside that niche, they're an unremarkable unit.

Tl;dr Russes are mediocre.

Only one that impresses me, though I haven't used it yet, is the Plasmaboat Russ.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tankboy145 wrote:

I dont see why people also believe the MM are great on russes as you have to be within 12inches to get the melta rule, and if you say to stop a death star from crashing into your lines, then if its already that close its probably already killed your tanks.

Multimeltas are still good (well, decent.) outside melta range.

They're still Str8 AP1 guns with 24" range.

Why is the Plasma LRBT so popular?

 Tomten wrote:
Why is the Plasma LRBT so popular?

Because 5 plasma plates on an AV 14 chassis is bloody amazing. Three of them covers your anti-MEQ in a reasonable points limit.

But those small blast only hit like 2 or 3 then the MEQs get cover.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
and it can scatter and miss completly.

 Tomten wrote:
But those small blast only hit like 2 or 3 then the MEQs get cover.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
and it can scatter and miss completly.

You have 5 scatters to miss, though.

 Testify wrote:

...and when they're not. You want those MEQs taking 5+ or 4+ cover saves (far less common in 6th but still) rather than 3+ armour saves, no?

Ailaros has already demonstrated that the LRBT isn't that much more effective when there's a 4+ cover save. Go back and read. Similarly your math doesn't take into account sponson weapons, and more importantly it focuses entirely on marines. I don't know if you've missed the discussion, but no one has said the Eradicator is better at killing marines (unless of course there are PC sponsons and the marines are in cover) but is decent at multiple roles.
You're tailoring the argument to fit "but it doesn't kill marines as well" which isn't the discussion here. It's whether the LRBT is a better all rounder or the Eradicator is a better all rounder. The discussion over marine killing is important to the all round debate, as it's a role to fill. However as the Eradicator doesn't fall that far behind the LRBT in marine killing and is better at destroying vehicles, 2+ and MCs than the LRBT the conclusion is that the Eradicator is better. I feel like this paragraph should be my conclusion because everyone seems to be missing this gigantic point that Ailaros is making.

It's not. The Demolisher can smash AV14, and will piss all over AV 11 or 12. The Eradicator simply cannot touch anything with an armour value.

The Demolisher is not being discussed here. Bringing it up is only ignoring the argument. Pretty much the definition of Straw Man.

So the Eradicator's anti-tank consists of two BS3 Multi-Meltas? Good luck with that.

Two BS3 MM is more accurate than 1 BS4 MM, and has a higher potential damage ceiling. Not to mention you're ignoring the hull LC and the ability of the main cannon to glance. I doubt you'd say "A Tac squad's anti-tank consists of 1 BS4 MM? Good luck with that."

You don't need pie plates to kill GEQ, you need dice. No army in the game struggles to mow down guardsmen or guardians, almost without trying. But the vanilla russ will wound almost everything on a 2+ and can harm (though being AP3 likely not destroy) vehicles, and ID marines to boot.

I take it you don't come across ADL humping GEQ. Ignoring cover is far superior to making them roll 2+ saves.

As I said before, I like the LRBT because it's so incredibly cheap and it is a work horse. It's just not the all-rounder people think it is. It's actually rather specialised, but specialised in a way that other units can easily out-shine it. For the Eradicator to be a good all-rounder it's going to be 200+ points, whereas for 150pts you can get a decent av:14 tank.

One of the blasts will miss. the only downside with plasma LRBT is that it cant kill AV 14 and its very expansive.

 Tomten wrote:
One of the blasts will miss. the only downside with plasma LRBT is that it cant kill AV 14 and its very expansive.

Practically everything else worth taking in the IG codex can kill AV 14.

If you don't have that covered, you shouldn't be looking to the LRBT chassis to begin with.

Haha I will try the Plasma LRBT

 Tomten wrote:
Haha I will try the Plasma LRBT

The Exterminator.

Have anyone tried 3 Plasma LRBTs?