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.

 Griddlelol wrote:

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.

So you want to discuss which is the best all-rounder, without regarding the overwealmingly most popular infantry type, as well as the only infantry type that doesn't drop like flies anyway?
I don't know what fantasy universe you live in where everyone either has army-wide terminators or mysteriously durable guardsmen/fire warriors but I don't recognise it.

 Griddlelol wrote:

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

Oh, you!

 Griddlelol wrote:

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."

If you're happy with Multi Meltas on an expensive AV14 for your anti-tank, that's fine by me.

 Griddlelol wrote:

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

Then run up to them and kill them.

 Griddlelol wrote:

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.

Actually what you've proved is that the Eradicator is only useful in a list specifically tailored against certain opponents. In that case obviously it's going to be superior to the Russ.

But most people a)can't tailor their lists in this way and b)regard it as unsporting. I eventually gave up blob guard because I was sick of my opponent turning up with 3 Thunderfire Cannons *every single game*. This is what you're advocating.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheCaptain wrote:

 Tomten wrote:
Haha I will try the Plasma LRBT

The Exterminator.

You mean the Executioner. The Exterminator is the autocannon one.

 Testify wrote:

So you want to discuss which is the best all-rounder, without regarding the overwhelmingly most popular infantry type, as well as the only infantry type that doesn't drop like flies anyway?
I don't know what fantasy universe you live in where everyone either has army-wide terminators or mysteriously durable guardsmen/fire warriors but I don't recognise it.

Again, I refer you back to page 1 or 2. The LRBT doesn't pull that much further ahead.

Oh, you!

It's very easy to be dismissive. If I said "Demolishers are irrelevant to the discussion between LRBT and Eradicator" would that be considered the same as pointing out the logical fallacy in your argument?

If you're happy with Multi Meltas on an expensive AV14 for your anti-tank, that's fine by me.

Again, dismissive without addressing the main issue. I'm am not advocating using it for the only anti-tank in a list. When you look at Ailaros' list you'll see why an Eradicator with such things would be very useful.

You know what, I was considering responding to your points, but you're overall tone is sarcastic and frankly ignoring the points I've raised. I'm not going to continue this discussion, but I hope I've added to it as a whole.

 Griddlelol wrote:

Again, I refer you back to page 1 or 2. The LRBT doesn't pull that much further ahead.

Except it does. It's three times as effective in the open, twice as effective in 5+ cover, and still a lot more effective in 4+ cover, and can instant death, and can hurt vehicles.

 Griddlelol wrote:

It's very easy to be dismissive. If I said "Demolishers are irrelevant to the discussion between LRBT and Eradicator" would that be considered the same as pointing out the logical fallacy in your argument?

I think you should leave phrases like "straw man" and "logical fallacy" to your sociology tutorials.

 Griddlelol wrote:

Again, dismissive without addressing the main issue. I'm am not advocating using it for the only anti-tank in a list. When you look at Ailaros' list you'll see why an Eradicator with such things would be very useful.

Yeah, Ailaros seems to think that something that can be a pitiful anti-tank OR anti-light infantry (albeit somewhat effective), but not both at the same time, is a good use of points. He's been cracked ever since 6th killed blobs.

 Testify wrote:


If you're happy with Multi Meltas on an expensive AV14 for your anti-tank, that's fine

"Expensive AV14."

Hah. What.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Testify wrote:
6th killed blobs.

Hah. What.

 TheCaptain wrote:

 Testify wrote:


If you're happy with Multi Meltas on an expensive AV14 for your anti-tank, that's fine

"Expensive AV14."

Hah. What.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Testify wrote:
6th killed blobs.

Hah. What.

An eradicator with lascannon and sponsons is 205. For something can fire a S6 AP4 pie plate, and BS3 Multi-Meltas and a lascannon, yeah I regard that as too much.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheCaptain wrote:

Hah. What.

5+ cover and focus fire killed blobs. If you have evidence to the contrary I'd like to see it.

 Testify wrote:

5+ cover and focus fire killed blobs. If you have evidence to the contrary I'd like to see it.

Blobs are plenty competitive. Even in the larger tournaments. Aegis line + divination. Blobs aren't dead, just different.

 Griddlelol wrote:
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.

Well said, but I have to disagree with you on a number of points.

I don't see how the Eradicator is better at killing marines in cover, unless of course you're factoring in plasma cannon sponsons and a las cannon upgrade, inflating the cost of the tank to well beyond that of the Battle Tank (at which point it's no longer a fair comparison). I also disagree with the notion that the Battle Tank's range is 'excessive' and that anything further than 48" is not worth shooting at. Long Fangs, Havocs, guard artillery, hell pretty much ANY backfield unit that has reach is hardly what I would consider 'not worth shooting at.' Units babysitting home objectives would also be a good target.

The Demolisher comparison was not meant to be a straw man, that was not my intent. I was simply listing the merits of the Battle Tank after several allegations of it being a 'crummy' vehicle. In terms of anti-transport, the Battle Tank still wins unless you're throwing multi-melta sponsons on your tank in which case, again, it's no longer a fair comparison because you're looking at a substantial points differential (well, substantial for IG players). Also I have to disagree with the assertion that the only worthwhile results on a transport are explodes or immobilized. In my opinion, anything that strips a hull point is a favourable result.

Again though, if you see a lot of units in your area with a 2+ cover save I can totally see the appeal behind the Eradicator. Having to deal with that would piss me off too, but as an all-rounder I would still prefer the Battle Tank as a cheap unit that doesn't need any fancy upgrades to do its job.

 Griddlelol wrote:
Ailaros has already demonstrated that the LRBT isn't that much more effective when there's a 4+ cover save. Go back and read.

Err, no. According to Ailaros' own math the Eradicator is horrible. Unless you consider paying 40% more points per marine death "not much less effective", of course, but then I'll have to seriously question your understanding of the game.

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.

No. The Eradicator is not better than a LRBT at killing vehicles because the Eradicator's only anti-vehicle weapons are the same MM/LC that the LRBT can ALSO take. Therefore both units are equally good at destroying vehicles in situations where you can use the MM/LC, while the LRBT is far better at destroying them in situations where you can't.

I doubt you'd say "A Tac squad's anti-tank consists of 1 BS4 MM? Good luck with that."

Except nobody considers a single tactical squad MM to be sufficient anti-tank, which is why they also have a melta gun and combi-melta in the squad.


========================================

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

Not true at all. You can only hit something with both sponsons if it's directly in front of the tank, and nothing blocks LOS from the low-mounted gun. For example, if you rotate the hull away from the target to keep AV 14 against your opponent's biggest anti-tank threat you can only shoot with one sponson. Or let's say you do well with shooting and the target dies before the Eradicator gets to fire. You try to pick the tank next to it as a target and find that one sponson is out of arc, while the other is blocked by a Chimera sitting next to your tank.

Is it a fatal problem, and you should never take sponsons? Of course not. But you have to be aware of the fact that while the turret gun has a 360* arc from high enough to shoot over pretty much any other unit, the sponsons are not guaranteed to be able to shoot.

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.

But if you don't take them with the same purpose then your entire pro-Eradicator argument falls apart. If the sponsons are independent of the main gun then sponsons do not favor one type of Leman Russ over another.

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".

First of all, "more turns than there are in a game" is ridiculously false.

Second, it's a bad argument anyway, since all it means is that the weapon has a single shot. If you calculate how many turns it takes for a single lascannon to kill a transport you aren't going to like those numbers either.

Finally, "kills a marine a turn on average" is also ridiculous. You're only getting kill numbers that bad if you assume unrealistically low numbers of hits per template.

Red Corsair wrote:how is the small chance of exploding a vehicle with a battle canon making it terrible?

Because it's small.

You have to hit, then pen, then roll a 6 to explode it.

I mean, a single lascannon is going to do this job better, and you don't have to spend 150 points for it.

Red Corsair wrote: It can hit multiple transports in one go

If my opponents cram vehicles into close order drill.

If people can spread infantry out, they can certainly spread vehicles out.

ender502 wrote:Well, considering the eradicator is even worse at it killing transports or killing marines.... kinda rebuts your position.

Except it doesn't.

On the one hand, the eradicator isn't necessarily supposed to be good against those targets, while the russ is. Given that a russ is crappy against these targets, the ones it's supposed to do well, it means don't take the russ. On the other hand, the eradicator can fire sponsons at full BS along with the cannon. This makes it equal to, or better than a battlecannon at killing marines in cover. Then on top of this, you get to paste lighter infantry, often in a highly strategic way (removing scoring units from objectives).

Put another way, there is a group of things that neither the battlecannon nor the exterminator do particularly well, and then the exterminator goes and does at least one thing really well. Therefore, take eradicators rather than russes.

creeping-deth87 wrote:What is bad about this weapon?

It's expensive and doesn't kill very much. Just look at the math.

Tomten wrote:It all depends on what you are fighting.

Except it doesn't. This is rather the whole point of the thread.

TheCaptain wrote:Good V. Some targets. Crap V. Others

That's the mark of a mediocre unit.

I'm sorry, but which units are good against everything? By your definition, everything is mediocre.

That said, a las/melta eradicator or punisher is pretty good against a pretty huge slice of the pie.

Testify wrote:You want those MEQs taking 5+ or 4+ cover saves (far less common in 6th but still) rather than 3+ armour saves, no?

So, this is something else I don't get. Let's bring this down into the real world for a second. How often is your opponent actually going to be hiding their MEq in cover but then not hide them in cover if you fail to bring a russ?

I mean, really. If the MEq in question is hiding on an objective as a scoring unit, then they're going to go to ground regardless of what you shoot at them, giving them somewhere between a 2+ and a 4+ cover save, depending on what they're hiding behind. At best, you're talking about the difference between a 3+ armor save and a 4+ cover save, which isn't very pronounced, while if we're talking about MEq behind an aegis, then the eradicator is BETTER, requiring them to use the 3+ save, rather than the 2+.

So if they're not hiding on an objective, then what are they doing? If they're devestators, then they're going to be in the best cover on the board, most like, which once again largely defeats the advantage of the battlecannon. If they're not a gunline unit then they are therefore a unit that is going to be charging forward. In this case, the lack of battlecannon would only be a problem if I didn't have other units in my army that carried guns that hurt space marines. Which is not the case for me at least. In my particular case, marines are already hiding in cover so as to not get annihilated by lascannon or meltagun fire, but I can imagine that others have their own solutions.

Finally, the last real category is for marines that want to be charging, but the above statement for some reason does not apply to them. If my opponent is bringing a dedicated charging unit and decides he'd rather have the unit sit in cover doing nothing just because I brought a russ, then I'm probably winning anyways.

This whole idea that russes are actually going to have a psychological or killing power advantage against marines is silly. The only time it will ever actually make a difference is against tightly clustered MEq out on the open. Not likely to happen, people.

Testify wrote:If you're happy with Multi Meltas on an expensive AV14 for your anti-tank, that's fine by me.

45 points is a STEAL for two multimeltas and a lascannon. And they come on an AV14 chassis, unlike, say, HWSs, which blow away like a fart on the wind whenever they get shot at.

Peregrine wrote:You can only hit something with both sponsons if it's directly in front of the tank, and nothing blocks LOS from the low-mounted gun.

If only russes could move during the movement phase...

Peregrine wrote:If the sponsons are independent of the main gun then sponsons do not favor one type of Leman Russ over another.

Except for when the main gun causes the other guns to snap fire.

Peregrine wrote:Finally, "kills a marine a turn on average" is also ridiculous. You're only getting kill numbers that bad if you assume unrealistically low numbers of hits per template.

Well, let's look at an example.

Turn 1, the shot misses. Turn 2, the shot hits 4 marines in cover, all of them wound, cover saves two. Turn 3, the shot misses. Turn 4, the shot hits three, one of which fails to wound, and another is blocked by cover.

This is not far from the kind of results you should expect. In this scenario, assuming the russ has survived until turn 5, you have spent almost the entire game, and all you have to show for it is three dead marines.

One kill per turn may even be generous to the battlecannon. And, of course, that's not assuming that marines are going to ground or anything...

While we are in the real world please explain to me which moron opponent of your would go to ground with marines if you fired an eradicator? You play guard but not marines so I'll assume your ignorance here, you don't intentionally pin a marine unit from a nova canon haha.

In fact, that only strengthens the case for the battle canon which would make them go to ground and remove them from the fight.

Also why are you insisting that a battle canon won't get solid hits when neither will an eradicator. They use the EXACT same template. GEQ can spread out and insure that nova canon isn't killing more then a couple a turn anyway.

BTW:
Heres a game with the nova canon, turn one its out of range. Turn two it misses. Turn three it hits 3 properly spaced GEQ's and wounds all three. Turn four it misses. All the meanwhile that 45 points worth of AT you love to brag about is wasted.

Red Corsair wrote:In fact, that only strengthens the case for the battle canon which would make them go to ground and remove them from the fight.

But, read what I just wrote. When is this ever going to happen? Either they're holding an objective, and the point will be to hold it as much as possible, so going to ground won't matter as they'll be doing it anyways (or won't have very much firepower anyways), or they're not, and the battlecannon still won't matter.

Red Corsair wrote:Heres a game with the nova canon, turn one its out of range. Turn two it misses. Turn three it hits 3 properly spaced GEQ's and wounds all three. Turn four it misses. All the meanwhile that 45 points worth of AT you love to brag about is wasted.

Firstly, an eradicator has a 40" threat range. Why wouldn't it be in range turn 1?

Secondly, If there isn't an infantry target worth shooting at, then you don't waste the anti-tank, because you shoot the anti-tank weapons. What you're making is an argument against sponsons, not against eradicators.

It does happen plenty. Most units and especially marines have duality. A MEQ squad is good because it can do multiple rolls WHILE holding an objective. If they are running 'grot' squads then they will reserve and run them onto the objective in their backfield later on in the game anyway.

Why wouldn't it be in range? Easy to start 33% of games are hammer and anvil. Then factor in that half the time your opponent will deploy second and can easily counter its limiting range.

No, what your making is an argument FOR sponsons NOT the eradicator. There are 4 other variants that all can use sponsons and their turret.

 Ailaros wrote:

TheCaptain wrote:Good V. Some targets. Crap V. Others

That's the mark of a mediocre unit.

I'm sorry, but which units are good against everything? By your definition, everything is mediocre.

That said, a las/melta eradicator or punisher is pretty good against a pretty huge slice of the pie.

By my definition, every unit is mediocre, because every unit is mediocre.

It's up to us to choose which mediocrity we need, and choose other mediocrity to balance the previous.

Infantry Blobs are mediocre. Tanks/Artillery are mediocre. Synergy allows them to perform above their usual ability.

Unit synergy is everything. Find me a unit that can win a game on its own, and I'll believe it is a good unit.

That said, some units are more/less mediocre than others. Those units with less weaknesses are less mediocre, and naturally deserve more consideration.

Red Corsair wrote:No, what your making is an argument FOR sponsons NOT the eradicator. There are 4 other variants that all can use sponsons and their turret.

But the exterminator doesn't kill infantry as well, the punisher is much more expensive (and has an ACTUALLY short range), and the exterminator is very expensive, and is stuck with small pie plates.

And none of them ignore cover saves against anything.

Yes, the eradicator doesn't handle vehicles very well, but neither does any russ that isn't either a demolisher or a vanquisher (and even then...), so you're not really losing much. Arguing over which russ is at the bottom of the barrel against most vehicles is largely pointless.

Meanwhile, the eradicator is as good or better against marines most of the time than most russes, and is way, way better against lower-armored cheap scoring units, especially those kind that get bonuses to cover saves, making it a highly strategic option.

 Ailaros wrote:

Red Corsair wrote:No, what your making is an argument FOR sponsons NOT the eradicator. There are 4 other variants that all can use sponsons and their turret.

But the exterminator doesn't kill infantry as well, the punisher is much more expensive (and has an ACTUALLY short range), and the exterminator is very expensive, and is stuck with small pie plates.

And none of them ignore cover saves against anything.

Yes, the eradicator doesn't handle vehicles very well, but neither does any russ that isn't either a demolisher or a vanquisher (and even then...), so you're not really losing much. Arguing over which russ is at the bottom of the barrel against most vehicles is largely pointless.

Meanwhile, the eradicator is as good or better against marines most of the time than most russes, and is way, way better against lower-armored cheap scoring units, especially those kind that get bonuses to cover saves, making it a highly strategic option.

The Eradicator is not better then a LRBT at killing MEQ, I don't know why you continue to claim this. In the open a LRBT is better, and in area terrain it's still better. You are claiming that the sponsons make up the slack, that's not making an argument for the Eradicator, it's making an argument for sponsons. Now, the nova canon is better for GEQ but not your variation that pushes the 200pt mark and will still require MULTIPLE turns of direct hits to clear even a modest 10 man unit and doesn't even cause pinning, meaning they can react. It will not make up its cost.

Against marines with a 2+ save, say by going to ground behind an ADL, or by going to ground in a reinforced ruin, an eradicator is better than a battle cannon, because the marines will be forced to use their armor save, which allows twice as many wounds though. Against marines with a 3+ save, say, by going to ground in a ruins, the eradicator and the battlecannon are the same. Ignoring sponsons, in the world of a 4+ save for being behind an ALD, in a ruin, or gone to ground behind practically anything, the russ is a little bit better, indeed.

And then you add the sponsons. The LRBT snap fires sponsons. The Eradicator doesn't. The extra damage therefrom makes the eradicator better against marines in 4+ cover.

If you're going to set up the only scenario for an exterminator wherein everything is both in cover and at maximum dispersion, then, as you mention, you have to apply it equally. NO large blast weapon is going to kill off infantry all that well in this one specific scenario. I'd note, though, that the eradicator is still doing it better than other large blast options, what with still ignoring cover saves. I'd also note that it's only 200 points because it can also take down a land raider in those instances where sufficient infantry targets can't be found (though, by that point, I've already won the game).

This is all pretty funny. Know why everyone is all on about sponsosn? not because they are great...it's because eradicators suck without them.

The argument for eradicators is "Hey, as long as you spend more points on unit A, then it will be better than unit B." So, the eradicator doesn't get "better" than the terrible russ unless you pump even more points into an already expensive unit. That's like saying a $5 bill is more valuable than a $10 bill as long as you add 6 $1 bills to the $5.

ender502

The math will never bear out your assertions, ender.

Furthermore, to say that eradicators suck without sponsons is like saying that vets suck without special weapons.

So?

 Ailaros wrote:
The math will never bear out your assertions, ender.

Furthermore, to say that eradicators suck without sponsons is like saying that vets suck without special weapons.

So?

This is a true assessment. Vets do suck without special weapons.

So? Lots of things aren't very good if you don't arm them properly. Failing to arm them properly does not make the unit intrinsically bad. It's the player's fault, not he unit's.

You know, and there's another thing I'm not getting. People around here seem to fall over themselves when talking about how good a griffon is. Compare a pair of griffons to an eradicator, and the former is an option that does somewhere between slightly more to much less damage (depending on the circumstances of cover saves), can never be made to be good against vehicles, and comes on a much more fragile frame.

That people can love the griffon and hate the eradicator seems strange to me, given that the latter is better than the former at everything the former is good at, and is then better in other ways as well.

 Ailaros wrote:
The math will never bear out your assertions, ender.

Furthermore, to say that eradicators suck without sponsons is like saying that vets suck without special weapons.

So?

A 205 point Eradicator is better than a 150 point naked russ.... Ummm...yeah. It costs 33% mor ethan the russ. It ought to be at least 33% more effective. The more interesting comparison is the same load out of a battle cannon russ with las and MM for 195 vesus the 205 eradicator. That russ is still better and cheaper.

Also, your basic assumption that marines are always in cover is simply false. How do they get there? Oh, yeah...right. By a transport. The transport that is less vulnerable to the nova cannon than the battle cannon. But wait! I'm forgetting about the lascannon upgrade that is necesary for the eradicator to be even comparable to the naked russ. But is that really a difference? No..because the standard russ can take that too.

The entire conversation about sponsons is flawed because both russ chasis can take all the same options. It's like saying that car A is better because it can get rims and ignoring the fact that car B can get the exact same rims for the same price.

The only way to compare the russ and eradicator is based upon their differences, not their shared options. Talking about sponsons is just a way to mask the relative weakness of the nova cannon in comparison to the battle cannon.

ender502

^This, this over and over.

Also people like griffons because they are none threatening, hide at the rear, also get past the ADL and at 75 pts you get a pair for CHEAPER. Heck for the cost of that abomination you like, you can almost get 3 or better yet pair one with a colossus and guide your rounds! You keep forgetting that the Nova canon doesn't cause pinning either, which for me seals it.

Russes are meant to act like line backers who hold back the line so the arty can kill stuff. The Eradicator is awful for its cost and don't discourage MEQ from crossing no mans land.

ender502 wrote:A 205 point Eradicator is better than a 150 point naked russ.... Ummm...yeah. It costs 33% more than the russ. It ought to be at least 33% more effective.

And a 115 point plasma vet squad is better than a 70 point naked vet squad. So?

What you should deduce from this is that you should give your vets plasma guns, not that vets are weak units.

ender502 wrote:Also, your basic assumption that marines are always in cover is simply false.

And the idea that marines are going to be clustered out in the open is absurd. At my local store, players know when things are threatening, and know how to use cover accordingly.

The entire conversation about sponsons is flawed because both russ chasis can take all the same options. It's like saying that car A is better because it can get rims and ignoring the fact that car B can get the exact same rims for the same price.

Then take ratlings. I am sure we will all shut up and bow down to you the next time you win a tournament with ratlings and Eradicators. Funny how we have all missed it.

 Ailaros wrote:

Peregrine wrote:You can only hit something with both sponsons if it's directly in front of the tank, and nothing blocks LOS from the low-mounted gun.

If only russes could move during the movement phase...

Thank you for dishonestly not quoting the example I gave of rotating the tank so that AV 14 faces an anti-tank unit instead of directly at your target unit and implying that I'm not smart enough to realize that I can move my tanks. At least you're willing to admit that this is about proving yourself right and not about which is a better unit.

Peregrine wrote:If the sponsons are independent of the main gun then sponsons do not favor one type of Leman Russ over another.

Except for when the main gun causes the other guns to snap fire.

Except that we're talking about killing vehicles with an Eradicator, a situation where the main gun doesn't fire (or barely matters) and the only relevant weapons are the MM and LC. In that situation it doesn't matter what your turret gun is because all that matters is that you have the MM/LC.

Well, let's look at an example.

Of course if you just invent arbitrary math you can come to any conclusion you want. But what exactly does that prove?

 Ailaros wrote:
And then you add the sponsons. The LRBT snap fires sponsons. The Eradicator doesn't. The extra damage therefrom makes the eradicator better against marines in 4+ cover.

Please stop repeating this. You only "proved" this by adding inefficient HB sponsons to the LRBT, which would be the equivalent of me adding dozer blades/extra armor/etc to the Eradicator just to bring its point cost up without adding any meaningful firepower.

In the comparison that actually matters, your HB/HB Eradicator vs. a no-sponson LRBT, the Eradicator pays 40% more points per marine kill. And that's according to your own math.

So please stop repeating this claim and ignoring all the times I've proved it to be wrong.

 Ailaros wrote:
That people can love the griffon and hate the eradicator seems strange to me, given that the latter is better than the former at everything the former is good at, and is then better in other ways as well.

See that pesky "accurate bombardment" rule? You know, the one that makes the Griffon much more accurate and therefore allows it to kill far more efficiently than the single Eradicator. I suggest paying attention to it.

I'm starting to question why you (Ailaros) starts these threads. He asks a question in the title, but really he is already set in his opinions and is simply trying to lecture everyone else. Clearly he knows more then us, that must be why he knee caps himself with limitations before he plays a book.

People who have actually played with the Eradicator have better grasping knowledge then arm chair generals. If you don't want are advice then stop asking and just play with the Eradicators.

The only reason I post in these threads anymore is for the sake of others who may come across the awful advice being suggested.

For casual/niche games, sure take the Eradicator. Please stop suggesting it's even remotely competitive.

 Red Corsair wrote:
I'm starting to question why you (Ailaros) starts these threads. He asks a question in the title, but really he is already set in his opinions and is simply trying to lecture everyone else. Clearly he knows more then us, that must be why he knee caps himself with limitations before he plays a book.

People who have actually played with the Eradicator have better grasping knowledge then arm chair generals. If you don't want are advice then stop asking and just play with the Eradicators.

The only reason I post in these threads anymore is for the sake of others who may come across the awful advice being suggested.

For casual/niche games, sure take the Eradicator. Please stop suggesting it's even remotely competitive.

I think to inform other players on different ways to do guard. To be fair to him, he did sell me on a new way to run the Leman Russ. I still disagree with his sentiment that it's better than the LRBT.

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"

Ailaros, as you have said, the las-mm eradicator does those 2 things well. To either prove or disprove your theory on the value of an eradicator, all one needs to do is illustrate 205 points that can do both listed jobs as well as your eradicator.

So a vendetta with its 3 las cannons easily out performs the lc and 2 multimeltas. Add in a griffin or vendetta carried flamer squad to deal with infantry in cover and you are set.

Or you can go with 3 melta vets in a chimera for vehicles and a mortar squad for infantry.

Or you can use the synergy of a CCS with orders to hamper a targets cover save while also using the ccs to deliver meltas as needed.

Really, the ccs squad in general grants orders that both make most shooting at vee's or mc's better, while nerfing another units cover save at the same time.

So again, like my long post before, the 205 point eradicator is an overspecialized generalist unit. I do see the value in dealing with 2+ cover saves, but the eradicator is not the tool to bring for this job, because on the turn you need to kill that dug in infantry on an objective, we both know they will be spread out, so you will have spent 205 points on a 50% chance for 3 kills on 4+ or worse save infantry, plus perhaps 1 more kill if you are very lucky with the 3 other guns. So best case scenario you maybe snag 4 models in a turn, if the terrain allows los AT ALL.

A griffin may not bust every type of 2+ cover save, but it can hit an enemy behind LOS blocking terrain 55% of the time. The eradicator has no answer what so ever to LOS blocking terrain/vee wrecks.

 Red Corsair wrote:
I'm starting to question why you (Ailaros) starts these threads. He asks a question in the title, but really he is already set in his opinions and is simply trying to lecture everyone else. Clearly he knows more then us, that must be why he knee caps himself with limitations before he plays a book.

People who have actually played with the Eradicator have better grasping knowledge then arm chair generals. If you don't want are advice then stop asking and just play with the Eradicators.

The only reason I post in these threads anymore is for the sake of others who may come across the awful advice being suggested.

For casual/niche games, sure take the Eradicator. Please stop suggesting it's even remotely competitive.

Honestly I get the same feeling to be perfectly honest, you're spot on. The fact that this thread has dragged on for 7 pages with I think only a single person actually agreeing with him is kind of a testament to everything you just said.

Red Corsair wrote:I'm starting to question why you (Ailaros) starts these threads.

Really, to do two things.

1.) to challenge "established" knowledge.

2.) to acid test new ideas.

Honestly, when the only arguments against new ideas are based on refusing to listen to what I say and making arguments based on nothing but the power of assertion, I know I'm on to something.

Or, to put it all more simply "If you're dumb, surround yourself with smart people. And if you're smart, surrond yourself with people who disagree with you."

Plus, once I get down to the point where the only people who disagree with me do so for personal reasons, I know I've reached the end of whatever utility I can get from a conversation.