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.

 Ailaros wrote:
Honestly, when the only arguments against new ideas are based on refusing to listen to what I say

You mean kind of like quoting one sentence from me and acting like I'm missing something incredibly obvious and entirely ignoring the following sentence which clearly explained I was talking about something else? And then ignoring the point I was making with the entire paragraph as a whole?

Well, by your own argument we're on to something and the Eradicator is garbage.

 creeping-deth87 wrote:

 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.

Agreed as well. You've stated your question but have seemed to already made your mind up with how this eradicator is better. In this case of having this back and forth arguement you could have just tried it and decided if you truly liked it or if its really what your army needs. I may try the unit sometime down the road but it is not a field I am lacking in and don't see myself trying it personally unless it is something for fun.

You defended the eradicator with so many facts but personally it depends on how your meta is, and your personal experience with a unit and how well you use it. Most people in my meta despise my army because I run 3+ LRBT in every army so my opponent always hugs cover(slowing him down to get to my objective, and making him spread his units out so much that some of them are mostlikely going to be out of assault range or out of range of firing in general. Also at my meta I am usually against chaos marines, daemons, or marine equivalent so taking as much ap3 or better is usually needed.

I give you props for being able to really defend the eradicator but as I said its experience with a unit and meta. marine armies and 5+ cover is generally what I have to deal with and the LRBT just terrifies my opponents especially when I have so many.

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.

I feel I addressed your claims sufficiently with lengthy metagame considerations debunking both the heavy tank aspect and limited value at digging out 2+ cover save units, and further debunked the idea that the anti armor sponson weapons allow the expensive tank to be a good generalist.

As I said before and repeat here: While 2+ cover save units are problematic, the ways in which most all 2+ cover saves are gained can be defeated with other very cheap specialized units without resorting to attacks that always ignore cover. Expensive large blast weapons that target a specific kind of foe (like s10 ap2 or the ignores cover ones here) can always be mitigated with simple spacing as target priority is obvious.

The answers I would have given to Ailaros have been-again-amply covered by Peregrine. I think there is little constructive criticism left to be made by either side in this discussion, and I'd like to thank everyone for the food for thought provided in this thread.

 Ailaros wrote:

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.

This is why I read Ailaros' threads. He comes in with the intent to discuss, but other people have the disposition to turn that into argument whenever someone questions their sacred cow. There's nothing wrong with disagreeing and saying "here's why I disagree" but when it turns into what it's become it's a foregone conclusion.

< Taken by the void dragon. >

 Griddlelol wrote:

 Ailaros wrote:

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.

This is why I read Ailaros' threads. He comes in with the intent to discuss, but other people have the disposition to turn that into argument whenever someone questions their sacred cow. There's nothing wrong with disagreeing and saying "here's why I disagree" but when it turns into what it's become it's a foregone conclusion.

Except he isn't just acid testing or discussing. He is claiming that the Eradicator is better for killing MEQ then a LRBT when the numbers don't support him. That is arguing.

 Ailaros wrote:
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.

I'm already on the "pro" side of Eradicators, but saying Griffons aren't good against vehicles is not necessarily true.

The only vehicles Griffons can't be good against are those with AV 12+ all around.

Because of the way multiple Barrage weapons are fired from a unit (in this case, a unit of up to 3 Griffons), you have the opportunity to place some of those Barrages into arcs that you aren't firing from. Str 6 Ordnance is actually pretty good when hitting a vehicle with AV 10 in that facing (and most vehicles are 10 on the Rear).

Is this as good as 2 multi-meltas and a lascannon? Who knows, but comparing one Eradicator to 3 Griffons isn't really a comparison where one is always better.

I think you have to give it to the eradicator in some circumstances. Of course, most o fthose are not circumstance sthat worry me...units gone to ground? great. they aint doing anything now..allows me to focus on nastier moving units. Units in deep cover? I like flamer squads or the colossus way better for the points.

Your "math" is fuzzier than a congressman running for president.

LRBT's versus Eradicators assuming las MM load out within max range for MM. Alairos claims you need seven turns for the LRBT to take out a chimera. That seems pretty hard to swallow. Why? Because it is a half truth at best. His numbers assume the battle cannon fires and everything else snapfires...why not assume the battle cannon does not fire? Why that would make the LRBT way better at taking out the target and not supporting his point. The eradicator would have an advantage because it adds in an additional s6 shot.

So what about the MEQ question?
Ran the numbers and edited the post and lost half my new post...fudge.
Basically, VS. a 3+ save the LRBT is better in the open and at a 4+ save. The eradicator is better at a 3+ and 2+ save.

Vs 4+ and 5+ saves is where the eradicator is way better than the LRBT. Over 6 turn sthe LRBT will kill about 18 guard while the eradicator takes out about 20. Those numbers get better and better for the eradicator as you introduce cover saves.

The numbers for T5 models changes stuff by a bit. (assuming a 3+ save)
OPEN: 7.5 + 4 = 11.5 for the eradicator vs. 3 + 15 = 18 for the LRBT
4+ Cover: 3.75 + 4 = 7.75 for the eradicator vs 1.5 + 7.5 =9 for the LRBT
3+ Cover: 2.2 + 4 = 6.2 for the eradicator vs 1 + 5 =6 for the LRBT
2+ 1.1 + 4 = 5.1 for the eradicator vs .25 +2.1 = 2.3 for the LRBT

Versus T5w/ 3+ save the LRBT wins everything except for the 4+, TIES at 3+ (though it ties for a lower points cost) and losses at 2+ cover save.

Now, here is the thing...I would NEVER go with las/MM for the LRBT. I hate that combo. If I was facing hordes i'd go with all HB...Otherwise, i'd go with hull HB and plasma cannons. versus a 5+ or 4+ save the 3HBs (in the open) will give you about 21 kills. Better than any variant of the las/mm loadout. 4+ save = 10.5 kills. 3+ save = 9 kills. 2+ save = 4.1 kills.

ender502

 Red Corsair wrote:


Except he isn't just acid testing or discussing. He is claiming that the Eradicator is better for killing MEQ then a LRBT when the numbers don't support him. That is arguing.

Yeah. That's what I'm getting as well. The eradicator is viable depending on the list, but this became more of an argument when Ailaros claimed it was better than the LRBT, and then promptly dismissed everyone else's opinion on the matter.

 DarknessEternal wrote:
Because of the way multiple Barrage weapons are fired from a unit (in this case, a unit of up to 3 Griffons), you have the opportunity to place some of those Barrages into arcs that you aren't firing from. Str 6 Ordnance is actually pretty good when hitting a vehicle with AV 10 in that facing (and most vehicles are 10 on the Rear).

Barrage weapons always hit side armour, no matter where the template lands.

Well, there goes that then.

There are times that an Eradicator is better then a LRBT.

-CSs only apply a % of the time a unit is in play.
-AS is a passive ability, so, 100% of the time.


AS---------------------------CS
6------------------------------6
5------------------------------5 common AS and CS
4<--NC----------------------4 common AS and CS
3<--BC <--Colossus---3
2------Colossus--> NC-->2 rare AS improbable CS

BC 4 chances for AS, so 66%, applying 100% of the time
0% for CS
vs
NC 3 chances for AS, so 50%
6 chances for CS, so 100% with a 0-100% chance. An important thing to note that against AS 3-2 are more likely to use the their AS anyways changing nothing.
vs
Colossus 4 chances, so 66%, applying 100% of the time
and also nullifying your enemies 0-100% to still get a save.

Double range for BC vs NC, cheaper base cost, and 2 higher Str for ID against T4 .
You can see that the BC has a higher threshold for success versus AS when compared to the NC

NC are basically 36" pie Hellhound templates. Which means they can fire sponsons as well, YMMV depending on how precious 45 points are to your army. If you've got them available, use them.

Now the colossus seems to be imo the IGs best anti-troop choice. It's cheaper then the BC, with better range, and will very reliably kill any Troops choices. When it hits, that is. as was just posted it hits on side armor so can be just as 'effective' as a BC vs armor.

A little bit off topic, but I didn't want to start a new topic on Russes.

I will be having a game this weekend, where I'd want to try and play 1250pts. I have 100pts left and need to fit some AT with the remaining points and models that I have. I want to mention that I'm converting some melta stormies and a Vendetta is on the way, but neither will be ready in time. So with my remaining models I'm looking at advisors for the CCS, Doctrines for the Vets and LR upgrades (fully magnetized LRBT kit, so no AV11 variants).
In my mind I have the following options:

1. LC/MM on the LRBT and Demolitions on a Vett squad (should they go to Plasma or Melta vets?)
2. LC/MM on and Exterminator and Demolitions on a Vett squad
3. LC/MM Eradicator and 1x Demolitions
4. LC/MM Vanquisher with Pask

I'm not so sure if anything is really worth it, the Demo charge on the vets is nice, but I've already got Marbo for Demo delivery and getting the Vets in CC can be very hard. And the Russes get progressively more expensive, and I feel uneasy sinking so many points in a tank.

So wise people of Dakka, which stopgap should I choose?

I'd go with LC/MM Exterminator. Then depending on how many vehicles you have spam out 5 HKmissles with the remaining points.
Or if you have luck using Vanquishers go that route.

Demolitions is probably a waste of points if it's meant to be AT


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It usually goes without saying but if you can post the 'for sure' units of your list it will help identify which options are best.

Good point on the HKs, had not thought of them at all. As an added bonus I would indeed be able to mount all 5 of them.

 Red Corsair wrote:

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 would even question that. Even in a casual game, you want to win. Chances are you mainly play against MEQ armies with light armour, in such situations the Eradicator is grossly inferior to the standard Russ. 160 points for a S6 large blast that can't penetrate power armour is comparable to a single heavy bolter.

There are, imo, three worthwhile versions of the Russ - Vanilla, Demolisher and Executioner. All of them have their strengths and weaknesses but to say that the eradicator can stand with them is laughable.

 Testify wrote:
There are, imo, three worthwhile versions of the Russ - Vanilla, Demolisher and Executioner. All of them have their strengths and weaknesses but to say that the eradicator can stand with them is laughable.

I'd like to quote this for emphasis, and gently remind people that those variants should be taken with the stock heavy bolter and no sponsons except for the executioner's plasma cannon sponsons.

Corollax wrote:

 Testify wrote:
There are, imo, three worthwhile versions of the Russ - Vanilla, Demolisher and Executioner. All of them have their strengths and weaknesses but to say that the eradicator can stand with them is laughable.

I'd like to quote this for emphasis, and gently remind people that those variants should be taken with the stock heavy bolter and no sponsons except for the executioner's plasma cannon sponsons.

I think the Punisher may also have a place in the 6th edition environment, though it certainly didn't in 5th edition.

Meh I don't like the punisher. Too expensive and the s5 either doesn't wound that well or allows armor. With a longer range or s6 perhaps, but with bolters you get 10 wounds on t4 for 200 ish points--not a terrible number but nothing that will sweep a dangerous squad at a clutch time. At 24 inches that tank has to get within striking distance of the units it is trying to prevent from getting close it seems. Griffins and manticore missiles seem the safer choice, with increased range and the ability to fire blind.

Basically, a troop of 30 firing first rank second rank costs less, has the same range, is scoring, and still does 10 wounds to t4.

 Kingsley wrote:
I think the Punisher may also have a place in the 6th edition environment, though it certainly didn't in 5th edition.

IMO not with Vultures around to carry the punisher cannons. The LR Punisher's BS 3 is just too much of a drawback, half of those 20 shots will miss, some will fail to wound, and then more will fail to get through armor saves. That's just a lot of points for a unit that is really only effective against a very narrow range of targets, and not even all that impressive when it does work.

 Kingsley wrote:
I think the Punisher may also have a place in the 6th edition environment, though it certainly didn't in 5th edition.

If you're using Imperial Armour or Space Wolf allies, certainly not. Either option has a much more cost-effective selection of S5 firepower. (In particular, look at the Valkyrie.)

Either way, if I'm going to put a Leman Russ within 24" of the enemy, I'd like to do something productive with that investment. I'm more comfortable with an S10 AP2 ordnance blast than a dozen S5 hits.

So what has gone so badly wrong with the exterminator nowadays?

 Compel wrote:
So what has gone so badly wrong with the exterminator nowadays?

Well I dont see them as terrible but since their main gun is only ap4 and only 4 twinlinked shots its decent at killing horde units but not great as its only 4 shots and against meq and most monstrous creatures the shots will only create a small amount of wounds which they will make saves for, finally against armor you are stuck with shooting at light armor because it is only s7.

So basically whatever the tanks sponsons are is what the tank will be doing and its main cannon doesnt excel at much like how the battle cannon doesnt excel at much either. Only differences are the LRBT is ap 3( good against meq), large blast, s8(insta kills t4), and is ordnance so is a but better at killing light armor.

Advantages the exterminator has is that it can have sponsons to help out what the main gun lacks. I feel like the bolter boat exterminator sounds the best route. Not terrible at killing horde(9s5 ap4 shots and 4 s7 ap 4 shots), and not bad at putting wounds on monstrous creatures as well as other units.

 Compel wrote:
So what has gone so badly wrong with the exterminator nowadays?

AP 4 can't hurt the most common infantry in the game.

STR 7 has trouble penetrating vehicle armor, and AP 4 means a low chance of getting a kill when you do penetrate (compared to the same chance as a lascannon in 5th).

Low volume of fire can't keep up with hordes (especially after cover saves).

It's not the worst unit in the game, but you're really not getting very much for 150+ points and a heavy support slot.

The 4 shots get 3 hits, and of those 3 hits you expect to score 1.5 pens on av 10, 1 pen on av 11, .5 pens on av 12. You expect 2 hull points on av 10, 1.5 on 11, 1 on 12, and .5 on av 13.

The battle cannon hits often, but not 100% of the time. Its actual hit ratio depends on the size of the vee in question, so its hard to figure what average to use. Lets just say it hits for now.

With a hit you have an 8/9th chance to pen av 10, 3/4ths for 11, 5/9ths for 12, 11/36 for 13. HP is 35/36 for 10, then 8/9, 3/4, 5/9th, and finally 11/36 to get a hull point off of av 14.

So in terms of penetrating hits, and because the stock russ does not have a 100% chance to hit, the s7 gun is superior on all av values that it can actually penetrate. Since it cant penetrate av 13 obviously it loses there, and neither attack can pen av14.

In terms of hull points, just like before the s7 gun is better versus all targets until its strength is no longer effective. Just like with pens on av 12, the s7 gun will take more HP off of av 13 when factoring the fact that the battle cannon can miss.

However, because pens are more valuable than just hull points, we conclude that the battle cannon is still superior versus av 13 than the s7 gun.

Thus, the exterminator > battle cannon for av 10-12. Meanwhile, the battle cannon is not actually good at dealing with av 13 and 14, so the fact that it is superior here is not an endorsement for its use against these targets. Better weapons exist.

As for infantry, the s7 shots hit 3 targets, while the battle cannon shot, if it hits, hits 3 small base targets if they are spread out. Thus, the battle cannon's lower end of damage, on a hit, is also 3 hits, but at higher s and ap. Granted, you hit directly only 1/3rd of the time, but a miss can still cause damage, and may potentially cause MORE hits than 3 to a spread out unit. Finally, the battlecannon's limit for hits, on a tightly packed group of enemies, is HUGE. This would indicate that the battle cannon wins versus small base infantry. Large base infantry get better spread, so its about a wash unless they bunch up.

Against 2+ saves, both stink. Against t6+ MCs, unless you are facing one of the rare 4+ or worse save MCs, the ap of the cannon and point of strength overcome the 2 extra hits the autocannons deal. If you hit 75% of the time versus an mc, then the battlecannon is only worse than the autocannons if the MC gets a cover/invuln save of any kind. Since this is fairly easy with the changes to cover, I have to call this about even.

Finally, the exterminator can hit flyers, and its not complete garbage at shooting them, so obviously the s7 gun wins here.

In conclusion, the Exterminator is better versus av 12 or lower, better versus flyers. The regular russ is better versus infantry, and much better versus infantry if your opponent presents a nice tight clump for you to wipe out. Since the second case is kind of rare we cant give the battle cannon too much credit for this ability, nor can we ignore that other large blast attacks take better advantage of this kind of clumping.

Final verdict for me is that the exterminator is better at doing what I need a tank to do--beat on the spammed vehicles that my guard dont have the option to assault like other armies do. If I wasnt worried about the MSU razor/venom spam and necron flyers, and instead worried about massive foot MEQ armies at my local store, then I would go for the battle cannons instead. But I dont see 60 purifier lists, or havent yet, so Ill stick with the exterminator.

DevianID wrote:
The 4 shots get 3 hits, and of those 3 hits you expect to score 1.5 pens on av 10, 1 pen on av 11, .5 pens on av 12. You expect 2 hull points on av 10, 1.5 on 11, 1 on 12, and .5 on av 13.

The battle cannon hits often, but not 100% of the time. Its actual hit ratio depends on the size of the vee in question, so its hard to figure what average to use. Lets just say it hits for now.

With a hit you have an 8/9th chance to pen av 10, 3/4ths for 11, 5/9ths for 12, 11/36 for 13. HP is 35/36 for 10, then 8/9, 3/4, 5/9th, and finally 11/36 to get a hull point off of av 14.

So in terms of penetrating hits, and because the stock russ does not have a 100% chance to hit, the s7 gun is superior on all av values that it can actually penetrate. Since it cant penetrate av 13 obviously it loses there, and neither attack can pen av14.

In terms of hull points, just like before the s7 gun is better versus all targets until its strength is no longer effective. Just like with pens on av 12, the s7 gun will take more HP off of av 13 when factoring the fact that the battle cannon can miss.

However, because pens are more valuable than just hull points, we conclude that the battle cannon is still superior versus av 13 than the s7 gun.

Thus, the exterminator > battle cannon for av 10-12. Meanwhile, the battle cannon is not actually good at dealing with av 13 and 14, so the fact that it is superior here is not an endorsement for its use against these targets. Better weapons exist.

As for infantry, the s7 shots hit 3 targets, while the battle cannon shot, if it hits, hits 3 small base targets if they are spread out. Thus, the battle cannon's lower end of damage, on a hit, is also 3 hits, but at higher s and ap. Granted, you hit directly only 1/3rd of the time, but a miss can still cause damage, and may potentially cause MORE hits than 3 to a spread out unit. Finally, the battlecannon's limit for hits, on a tightly packed group of enemies, is HUGE. This would indicate that the battle cannon wins versus small base infantry. Large base infantry get better spread, so its about a wash unless they bunch up.

Against 2+ saves, both stink. Against t6+ MCs, unless you are facing one of the rare 4+ or worse save MCs, the ap of the cannon and point of strength overcome the 2 extra hits the autocannons deal. If you hit 75% of the time versus an mc, then the battlecannon is only worse than the autocannons if the MC gets a cover/invuln save of any kind. Since this is fairly easy with the changes to cover, I have to call this about even.

Finally, the exterminator can hit flyers, and its not complete garbage at shooting them, so obviously the s7 gun wins here.

In conclusion, the Exterminator is better versus av 12 or lower, better versus flyers. The regular russ is better versus infantry, and much better versus infantry if your opponent presents a nice tight clump for you to wipe out. Since the second case is kind of rare we cant give the battle cannon too much credit for this ability, nor can we ignore that other large blast attacks take better advantage of this kind of clumping.

Final verdict for me is that the exterminator is better at doing what I need a tank to do--beat on the spammed vehicles that my guard dont have the option to assault like other armies do. If I wasnt worried about the MSU razor/venom spam and necron flyers, and instead worried about massive foot MEQ armies at my local store, then I would go for the battle cannons instead. But I dont see 60 purifier lists, or havent yet, so Ill stick with the exterminator.

Now do you run your exterminator barebones or do you switch up weapons and add different sponsons and hull weapons? I ask only because I have 1 on the way and was wondering what is an effective way. It is an older varient so I think Im stuck with las or bolter hull and bolter sponsons.

I feel that it's best with no sponson and instead use the points for more of them.

If you only run 1 tank total, it was suggested by others to run plasma cannons for more s7 or bolters for more dakka.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Kingsley wrote:
I think the Punisher may also have a place in the 6th edition environment, though it certainly didn't in 5th edition.

IMO not with Vultures around to carry the punisher cannons. The LR Punisher's BS 3 is just too much of a drawback, half of those 20 shots will miss, some will fail to wound, and then more will fail to get through armor saves. That's just a lot of points for a unit that is really only effective against a very narrow range of targets, and not even all that impressive when it does work.

Vultures aren't allowed in most tournaments and in many pickup games.

 Kingsley wrote:
Vultures aren't allowed in most tournaments and in many pickup games.

From what I've seen, that trend is changing. And as far as pickup games go, I'd challenge you or anyone else here to find any kind of compelling statistics on that. Your phrasing is numerically vague and impossible to verify. How do you expect us to dispute such a claim when the data doesn't exist?

"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." ~ Christopher Hitchens