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.

Okay, guys. I think every Leman Russ variant in the AM codex is interesting in its own way. The LRBT is a good allrounder that doesnt require spending extra points on sponsons and can lay the hurt on anything except TEQ and MCs. The Demolisher sacrifices range for being able to lay the hurt to TEQ as well, the Eradicator sacrifices a little less range, but both TEQ and MEQ killing ability to be able to absolutely slaughter light and medium infantry and also use its sponsons at normal BS; the Vanquisher is a one trick pony specialized in reliably stripping 1HP off any tank per turn (if it hits), and the executioner is the best of the bunch but with a serious chance of knocking itself out. The exterminator currently only specialized in stripping HPs off light vehicles...but do we really need a Leman Russ chassis for that kinda job? Here's my suggestion for a new Exterminator Cannon profile:

Range: 48"
S: 7
AP: 3
Type: Heavy 4, twin-linked


So what do you guys think? A simple reduction of the AP from the bland and rather useless 4, to a very useful 3 suddenly gives this tank a whole new purpose: hunting Monstrous creatures. Because no other tank can really do that well. The Punisher, with its 20 S4 shots otherwise would have been the closest choice, but even it fails. See, now:


Statistically speaking, a Punisher Gatling Cannon, out of its 20 shots, does 10 hits, 1.66 wounds against T6, and then 0.33 failed saves if you assume the MC has a 3+ armor save.

The Exterminator Autocannon, out of its 4 twin-linked shots, does 3 hits, 2 wounds against T6, which equals to 0.666 failed saves if you assume the MC has a 3+ armor save.

As you can see, the Exterminator really is our best bet against MCs (the Vanquisher causes 0.4166 unsaved wounds - so its better than the punisher, but worse than the exterminator. I didnt try doing the math with the executioner, since calculating the scatter of 3 blast markers and the whole gets hot stuff is a chore, but even if it yielded better results than the exterminator, it would still be a risky tank to use)

Now if you bring Pask into the equation to our original two examples, things change. First of, he is BS4 rather than BS3. Next, he gives both weapons rending. Next, his warlord trait allows him to re-roll failed 1s on to-hit (doesnt affect the Exterminator due to twin-link) AND to-wound rolls.

So:

The Punisher Gatling Cannon, out of its 20 shots, does 15.55 hits, 2.59 wounds against T6 - these are sixes, thus rending, and thus 2.59 failed saves if you assume the MC has a 3+ armor save.

The Exterminator Autocannon, out of its 4 twin-linked shots, does 3.55 hits, 1.48 normal + 0.59 rending wounds against T6, which equals to 1.08 failed saves if you assume the MC has a 3+ armor save.

As you can see, this time the Punisher Gatling Cannon comes out as the winner. Had the Exterminator Autocannon been AP3, it would have scored a total of 2.37 unsaved wounds, which is still worse than the Punisher Gatling Cannon. So its not like giving AP3 to this weapon would make it super overpowered.

Now, a non-Pask Exterminator with hypothetical AP3 would, out of its 4 twin-linked shots, do 3 hits, and 2 wounds against T6, which equals to 2 failed saves if you assume the MC has a 3+ armor save. And that is a pretty decent damage output for anti MC duty.

Does the Imperial Guard really need MORE anti-MEQ weapons? Wouldn't some sort of poisoned weapon make more sense when fighting high-T enemies if you want it to be a dedicated monster killer anyway?

Just drop it's cost and u'll see it being used much more often. It's not a bad gun but just pays too much for a carcass.

It should be shooting at tanks, not MCs. And ignoring pask's punisher its pretty solid at it.

Is it? I think a regular LRBT with its "2D6 + pick the highest" armor pen roll would do better by placing its S8 pie plate over enemy tanks from as far away as 72" than the 48" Exterminator would. With the added bonus of being able to drop a pie plate on 3+ infantry holed up in ruins and such, although they do get a cover save.

I really don't think the Exterminator needs any change. With HB it's a terror to non-MEQ infantry, and to light vehicles, and with LC and MM it's a decent tank hunter (although outclassed by the Vanquisher).

In terms of anti-MC, the Vanquisher with PC/LC or an Executioner does the job just fine, as do plasmaVets, Stomtroopers and Command Squads.

 Sir Arun wrote:
Is it? I think a regular LRBT with its "2D6 + pick the highest" armor pen roll would do better by placing its S8 pie plate over enemy tanks from as far away as 72" than the 48" Exterminator would. With the added bonus of being able to drop a pie plate on 3+ infantry holed up in ruins and such, although they do get a cover save.

in 7ed blasts are terrible at killing vehicles because its about HP removal and blasts can only get 1 hit max. So your LRBT at best is going to do 1 HP (and can't explode it) and also can't shoot anything else because ordnance.

That's why the exterminator is superior. With 4 twin-linked shots it reliable gets 3+ hits so can potential to strip 3-4 HPs off which would wreck a vehicle. Add in a lascannon and perhaps multimelta and you can reasonably expect it to pop a vehicle in a single go.

Completely unnecessary.

Also an apples and oranges comparison to Punishers. Those are wildly different weapons.

 CrownAxe wrote:
It should be shooting at tanks, not MCs. And ignoring pask's punisher its pretty solid at it.

Knocking one hull-point off AV12 per turn on average with zero chance to explode it is "pretty solid"?

Easy fix to fix the Leman Russ variants, give all of them rear AV11 like the demolisher. It's crazy when deep striking marines can glance my heavy tanks to death with bolters.

 TheSilo wrote:
It's crazy when deep striking marines can glance my heavy tanks to death with bolters.

It's even crazier that you would allow them to land there.

If my math isn't wrong, Pask punishers strip (edited) 2.59hp off av12 with their Gatling cannon alone, while the pask exterminator can only strip off 1.18 hps, so yes, both tanks are indeed very comparable.

Pasknisher can not be compared to anything. It's a unique tank.

Compare a regular punisher and exterminator.

 Sir Arun wrote:
If my math isn't wrong, Pask punishers strip 1.72hp off av12 with their Gatling cannon alone, while the pask exterminator can only strip off 1.18 hps, so yes, both tanks are indeed very comparable.

Sorry, but your calculation is way off. In fact you are not alone in this case, I have found many persons that still can't fathom how insanely good Pask-nisher is.
This tank was the star of Astra Militarum lists at 2014 ETC, for a good reason.

Pask in a Punisher brings not only BS=4 and rending to the Gatling turret, but also pseudo-tank hunter, plus preferred enemy to his squadron (as warlord trait). Which is huge, consider this :
The punisher fires, hits on 3+ and rerolls dice of so --> 20 * (4/6 + 4/36) = 15.5556 hits.
Each penetration roll of a is rending, which causes a HP loss each time against AV 11 or 12.
However, all other failed penetration dice can be rerolled, trying to get another , so --> 15.5556 * (1/6 + 5/36) = 4.753 hull points stripped off in average !
And I'm not even taking into account the accumulation of weapon destroyed / immobilized results. They may cause HP to be vaporized quicker.
Add-in multimelta, plus a laser cannon, and this tank becomes a terrifying all-rounder unit, capable of shredding heavy infantry, tanks and monstrous creatures that come in his range.


Pask in an Exterminator is much less powerful than this.
Exterminator Leman Russ in general, does not compares well to this kind of beast, having similar battlefield role. He has the range advantage though.

"Make my one thing better" all I see here.

+1 for it being an army that absolutely, positively, does not need it, either.

If you made it AP3 you would just be comparing it to the Battle Cannon and saying that has longer range, better strength, and 2d6-tth to pen.

 Sir Arun wrote:
If my math isn't wrong, Pask punishers strip 1.72hp off av12 with their Gatling cannon alone, while the pask exterminator can only strip off 1.18 hps, so yes, both tanks are indeed very comparable.

Pask is not comparable. He makes the punisher, a tank that couldn't even hit Av12, suddenly able to kill Land Raiders reliably. It would be like complaining about librarians because Tigarius can reroll his powers and psychic tests. Its not comparable.

Leave Pask out of this.

But that's exactly why Pask should be considered - he is not some distant FW IA addition some WAAC players might take. He is part and parcel of the main AM codex and arguably a staple element in most AM lists. And since he affects all Russes, when comparing Russes we should also factor in what he brings to the table.

Thats why I made two separate Mathhammers in my original post, once factoring Pask in and the other leaving him out to keep things separated.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ravajaxe wrote:
Sorry, but your calculation is way off.

Yeah my mistake was for some reason I thought the Punisher Gatling Cannon as S4 >.< Let me run you through the calc again:

Basically I took Pask's BS4, so:

20 shots * 0.66 (BS 4 = hitting on 3,4,5 or 6 on 6 sided dice, so 4/6, i.e. 66.66% chance of hitting) = 13.33 hits; the remaining 6.66 dice are either 1s or 2s, the chance should be 50% (you can only re-roll the 1s due to preferred enemy warlord trait), so 6.66*0.5=3.33. Again apply BS4 -> 3.33 * 0.666 = 2.22 additional hits, so 13.33 + 2.22 = 15.55 total hits.

Now we take all these dice for armor pens, but the Gatling Cannon being S5, only 6s will do anything, and even though 5+6 adds up to 11, any 6 on a rending weapon during armor pen grants that roll an additional D3 for armor pen, so:

15.55 * 0.166 (you need 6s on 6 sided dice for rending, so 1/6, i.e. 16.66% chance) = 2.59 rends

Now these already represent a S5 + 6 = S11 armor pen roll, and since we get a D3, even the worst roll on that would give us +1 to the armor pen roll, so that's AV12 reached already, so 2.59 glances done or better

 Sir Arun wrote:
...

But that's exactly why Pask shouldn't be considered. If you want to include him - go with the punisher or, as some people prefer, vanquisher. No need to compare here. Now when Pask is not avaliable - that's perfect time to decide what other tanks to bring. And in this case, i clearly see exterminator useful and worth it with a lazcannon for anti-mid av. Another question is that autocannons are allready avaliable en masse with platoons and stuff, but that's to be discussed and not "Pasknisher is better - buff exterminator".

And i don't think it needs ap3 from the ballance perspective, really.

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 TheSilo wrote:
It's crazy when deep striking marines can glance my heavy tanks to death with bolters.

It's even crazier that you would allow them to land there.

Which is exactly why this would be a good fix. A heavy tank shouldn't need to park on the table edge or with its back to a wall just to protect it against bolters. With rear av 11 it's still vulnerable to krak grenades and any decent anti tank, but the heavy tank won't get taken out by light machine guns or S4 guys punching it.

>> Sir Arun

You should re-read Pask's page in the codex. What you still miss are the benefits of tank hunter erzatz that Pask gives. Penetration rolls that failed to score a rending in the first go have a second chance thanks to a reroll.

By the way, Pask in an Exterminator is the another case where rending gets into play for a Leman Russ. But, there are much less dice to reroll, and it only gets interesting for high AV targets, while still being less powerful than a punisher.

It is just supposed to be a fancy high speed twin linked autocannon.

It makes it useful for a dakka tank (3 Hvy Bolters) or a light vehicle killer (1 lascannon) with a BS3 driver (no ordinance!) with some aircraft opportunity fire.

AP3 just makes it more punchy for well armored non-vehicles which I fail to see as helpful.

A slight change in cost could be argued but not much else should be changed to differentiate it that would make sense.

 Ravajaxe wrote:
>> Sir Arun

You should re-read Pask's page in the codex. What you still miss are the benefits of tank hunter erzatz that Pask gives. Penetration rolls that failed to score a rending in the first go have a second chance thanks to a reroll.

By the way, Pask in an Exterminator is the another case where rending gets into play for a Leman Russ. But, there are much less dice to reroll, and it only gets interesting for high AV targets, while still being less powerful than a punisher.

I might be blind, so please help me out here as I am looking at Pask's entry.

BS4

Old Grudges warlord trait (his unit gets preferred enemy vs 1 enemy codex/faction, i.e. re-roll 1s for all failed to-hit and to-wound rolls)

Tank orders (pass LD test and then either move an additional D6", or split fire, or fire and launch smoke)

Crack Shot: Rending on PGC and EAC

rending (according to BRB): every 6 to-wound wounds target regardless of toughness and at AP2, and every 6 on armor pen roll against vehicles grants that roll an additional D3 to add to the total result.


EDIT: Ha, found it. First sentence after Crack Shot, silly me

 TheSilo wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 TheSilo wrote:
It's crazy when deep striking marines can glance my heavy tanks to death with bolters.

It's even crazier that you would allow them to land there.

Which is exactly why this would be a good fix. A heavy tank shouldn't need to park on the table edge or with its back to a wall just to protect it against bolters. With rear av 11 it's still vulnerable to krak grenades and any decent anti tank, but the heavy tank won't get taken out by light machine guns or S4 guys punching it.

Alternatively, you could protect its vulnerable parts with infantry. Ya know, how it's been done in the real world for 70 years now.

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 TheSilo wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 TheSilo wrote:
It's crazy when deep striking marines can glance my heavy tanks to death with bolters.

It's even crazier that you would allow them to land there.

Which is exactly why this would be a good fix. A heavy tank shouldn't need to park on the table edge or with its back to a wall just to protect it against bolters. With rear av 11 it's still vulnerable to krak grenades and any decent anti tank, but the heavy tank won't get taken out by light machine guns or S4 guys punching it.

Alternatively, you could protect its vulnerable parts with infantry. Ya know, how it's been done in the real world for 70 years now.

With the new cover rules infantry won't protect its rear unless you literally cover a 24" arc behind the tank with infantry to prevent deep striking. Anything less and with drop pods and descent of angels they're taking one hull point with every 9 bolter shots. No cover save from intervening infantry.

Hows that? If you draw LoS through an infantry blob to a tank, and the gun you are firing out of isnt higher than the heads of the infantry, they confer a cover save to the tank

 Sir Arun wrote:
Hows that? If you draw LoS through an infantry blob to a tank, and the gun you are firing out of isnt higher than the heads of the infantry, they confer a cover save to the tank

“At least 25% of the facing of the vehicle that is being targeted (its front, side or rear) needs to be hidden by intervening terrain or models from the point of view of the firer for the vehicle to be in cover. If this is the case, the vehicle is obscured (or ‘hull down’). If a unit is firing at a vehicle, the vehicle is obscured only if it is 25% hidden from the majority of the firing models that are able to damage the vehicle. If a unit has firing models in two or more different facings of a target vehicle, work out whether or not the vehicle is obscured separately for each facing, using only models firing at that facing.”

Excerpt From: Games Workshop. “Warhammer 40,000 (Interactive Edition).” Games Workshop, 2014. iBooks. https://itun.es/us/kNVz0.l

There's no way that your infantry is going to cover 25% of that vehicle's facing unless you have 3+ tightly packed ranks of infantry that literally block all line of sight below head level.

Don't the gaps between the models in a unit still count as obscuring? You don't physically need to have a model blocking LOS, as long as the unit as a whole is blocking the LOS.

 GoonBandito wrote:
Don't the gaps between the models in a unit still count as obscuring? You don't physically need to have a model blocking LOS, as long as the unit as a whole is blocking the LOS.

Yes, but some people want to easter egg themselves an advantage. My reading is that a scarab swarm in your face distracts you from the Ctan in the distance, granting a 5+ to it if you can draw line of sight through (or over) the unit, 25% or not (ditto on the reverse for that matter - I figure a bug leaps up and catches the bolt of doom or whatever instead of you). The rules could be clearer, or at least consolidated in one spot so selective quoting is harder, but that's other threads for that.