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.

Many people moan about the Vanquisher, mainly about the unreliability of it's main weapon. The most common complaint I've heard is that it should be a blast weapon, as to reduce the chance of it missing the target. However, I've been thinking about an alternative way to make the Vanquisher more reliable.

Firstly, if the Vanquisher was given a blast, then it would necessarily be a much tougher, only slightly more expensive Devil Dog, with a weapon that has 300% greater range, extra D6 at it's full range, with the only downside of one point of Ap. This would make the Devil Dog completly obsolete. This is probably what GW was trying to avoid when designing the rules for the vehicles.

My thought, is to add a co-axial heavy stubber or heavy bolter to the Vanquisher Cannon, which would allow a re-roll to hit if the co-axial weapon hits the desired target. This would make the Vanquisher cannon much more reliable, while keeping the roles for the Vanquisher and the Devil Dog seperate.

Any thoughts on this?

Valk

I feel like that may be a bit too complicated. I'd say maybe keep the Vanquisher the way it is, but let it ignore cover.

The main problem with the Vanquisher is that it is ridiculously priced for a one tone instrument. We are not talking about something like the Russ Main Battle Tank, which has the ability to perform all combat roles (arm with a Lascannon and Multi-Meltas and you have an anti-armor machine, arm with Plasma and a Lascannon and you have an anti-MEQ and Termi machine, tri-Heavy Bolters and you get a formidable anti-medium infantry badass). Meanwhile, the Vanquisher can ONLY be an anti-super-heavy-armor. And you get that at more points than the regular Russ.

My proposed solution? Well, the Vanquisher should be able to alternate fire that cannon like it did back in 2nd/3rd and in Imperial Armor. i.e.; Main Battle Cannon stats or the anti-armor Vanquisher rounds. True, this would neuter the use of regular Russes, but it would make Vanquishers worth the money buying from Forge World or the time converting them.

I agree with Skin. In the Armored Company rules the Vanquisher shot both Anti tank shells Str 8 2d6 pen ap 2 vanquisher shells and standard battle cannon str 8 ap 3 large blast shells and was priced at 5 points less then a Punisher. This is how the Vanquisher should have stayed. You pay a premium in points over the basic leman russ but it can fire both types of shells making it actually desirable to take.

Kirika wrote:I agree with Skin. In the Armored Company rules the Vanquisher shot both Anti tank shells Str 8 2d6 pen ap 2 vanquisher shells and standard battle cannon str 8 ap 3 large blast shells and was priced at 5 points less then a Punisher. This is how the Vanquisher should have stayed. You pay a premium in points over the basic leman russ but it can fire both types of shells making it actually desirable to take.

Yes, that sounds familiar. As it currently is, the only pro to the Vanquisher is the extra AP, but you lose the pie plate, which is a MAJOR draw back 90% of the time. The only reason I would take a Vanquisher is if I were expecting more than one Land Raider, otherwise Lascannons are a better investment.

Skinnattittar wrote:The main problem with the Vanquisher is that it is ridiculously priced for a one tone instrument. We are not talking about something like the Russ Main Battle Tank, which has the ability to perform all combat roles (arm with a Lascannon and Multi-Meltas and you have an anti-armor machine, arm with Plasma and a Lascannon and you have an anti-MEQ and Termi machine, tri-Heavy Bolters and you get a formidable anti-medium infantry badass). Meanwhile, the Vanquisher can ONLY be an anti-super-heavy-armor. And you get that at more points than the regular Russ.

My proposed solution? Well, the Vanquisher should be able to alternate fire that cannon like it did back in 2nd/3rd and in Imperial Armor. i.e.; Main Battle Cannon stats or the anti-armor Vanquisher rounds. True, this would neuter the use of regular Russes, but it would make Vanquishers worth the money buying from Forge World or the time converting them.

Well i guess alot of it is what are you fighting ? if you are fighting Ork Stompa's baneblades, ECT. i would think you would be willing to sacrafice some points for a Squadren of those puppys

I say keep the distinction from the main battle tank, but implement different rounds.
You can have a penetration round that adds a tank hunter esque bonus to vehicle damage and a round designed to kill transports that might inflict attacks on the contents of the target vehicle under certain circumstances. Maybe it uses gas or has some sort of flack it unloads upon delivery. Maybe just add the wounds you'd take if the tank blew up to any wrecked result or something.

The "poison the transport" gun was something I thought about for tyranid players who struggle with how their biomorphs cant hurt men in tanks very well. I feel like it could be a cool mechanic in this environ.

if not that, the tank deserves to cost less at the moment in my opinion, or maybe it could be piloted by special veterans to bring up it's effectiveness at it's job. I always wondered why trading pie plate (and almost always hitting something at bs3) was worth miss chance and extra penetration roll.

If it's the tank sniper of the Russ family, I say they should make it feel more like that. Either that or let it do something original.

I love the Vanquisher, it is a permenant feature in my army, i look at it in the way it is basicly a long range melta weapon, though the accuracy may cause a problem but hey you play guard what did you expect

though i do love the coaxil weapon idea

The thing is essentially a 72" melta gun (sans AP1) and youre asking for more?

IG book is full of "OP ideas" that dont play out well in game

Vanquisher should honestly just be a type of round available to the standard Leman Russ. On it's own, it's just a pathetic as it has no versatility and isn't a competitive choice (hell most Russes are getting less and less competitive with the single blast).

If it were an upgraded round. Say a 10-20 point upgrade (like bastion-breachers for the Medusa) for a Leman Russ Battle Tank that could can be fired instead of the main cannon, then it'd be great ( IE so you can use either or).

It's fine how it is as far as I'm concerned.. I mean, sure it could do with an upgrade that increases its BS by 1 (like, tank commander or something, or skilled gunner) for like, 40pts, and I'd be fine with that, but otherwise, I would rarely field it unless I'm in Apocalypse (but I have apocalypse tanks that do the same stuff but better) or if I'm going up against Mech Guard or Marines, or maybe even Tau (good for sniping battlesuits across the board ;D)

Just use the Vanquisher rules from the latest Armoured Battlegroup List in IA: Volume 1 Second Edition.

In short, co-ax weapon for +10pts, the option to use it as a Commissar tank or Company Commander (BS4 for ~15-20pts more), and the option for Beast Hunter shells, which cause instant death.

Vanquisher is now a dedicated and effective anti-tank option and MC hunter for ~200pts.

Check the post times before you reply

Thread is being locked due to thread necromancy.