Switch Theme:

Why is the Vanquisher still awful?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Springfield, VA

 gnome_idea_what wrote:
The problem is that GW wants to keep it at 1 shot per turn, which means that it has to pack a massive punch for it to be viable due to BS3. Honestly if they swallowed their pride and admitted that paying for a long-range melta on a main battle tank body is a fundamentally terrible idea then we might get somewhere.


1 shot per turn is not awful, but it has to do more than d6 or even 2d6 damage. 3D6 is okay, but 4d6 drop the 2 lowest improves reliability (which is a massive problem for the Vanquisher, so I'd rather improve reliability). It also removes the tank's ability to one-shot Land Raiders, which it could do on a 3d6 roll.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Even the fw variant isn't good but in general both variants need to be able to reroll to hit and to wound vs vehicles and monstrous creatures.

What they vanquisher lacks in volume it makes up for in accruacy and reliability.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Springfield, VA

Turns out that 4d6 drop 2 lowest averages out to 9.34. So my estimate actually was a bit far.
   
Made in gb
Junior Officer with Laspistol




Manchester, UK

I think just the str9 could be enough. Boosts the damage against t8 a fair bit, which should be the primary target of the vanquisher. 2d6 pick highest is already enough damage, you don't want the thing to be insane. Basically puts you a step behind the hammerhead. Tag on the battlecannon shell for fluff reasons, as vanquishers are described as able to use HE shells.

The problem is that you can't give it multiple shots, as it is not a blast weapon and wouldn't suit it. 2d6 damage is insanely good. I guess you could go 3d3 or something. It really is a conundrum, I can see why it is hard to get right.

The Tvashtan 422nd "Fire Leopards" - Updated 19/03/11

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." - Hanlon's Razor 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Springfield, VA

Recalculating ...

Leman Russ Battle Tank: 2d6 shots, 4+ to hit, 3+ to wound, 5+ save, d3 damage is: avg 3.11 damage against our hypothetical rhino per shooting phase.

Vanquisher (Mod Unit): 2 shots, 4+ to hit, 3+ to wound, 6+ save, 4d6D2 damage is: 5.18 damage against our hypothetical rhino per shooting phase.

Is an extra 2.17 average damage to a big target worth sacrificing the LRBT's capability against other target types and paying 3 more points than the LRBT?
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




I don't think S9 would matter much.
How much T8 stuff are you shooting? I guess other Leman Russ, Land Raiders and the occasional Knight? It would represent no change versus T7 and lower.

I quite like the idea of the railgun rules (on a 6+ to wound get d3 mortal wounds) but would argue this should just be on any successful wound rather than on 6+. On a 6+ it should be something like D6 mortal wounds - it won't happen very often, but its very cinematic when it does.

Although to some degree I also think that while it sucks that its inferior to a battlecannon its also fine. It has always been kind of stupid that the Russ got 7 main guns. Some of them are always going to be better than others (has anyone ever seen an exterminator?). There are not that many types of target.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Springfield, VA

 Trickstick wrote:
I think just the str9 could be enough. Boosts the damage against t8 a fair bit, which should be the primary target of the vanquisher. 2d6 pick highest is already enough damage, you don't want the thing to be insane. Basically puts you a step behind the hammerhead. Tag on the battlecannon shell for fluff reasons, as vanquishers are described as able to use HE shells.

The problem is that you can't give it multiple shots, as it is not a blast weapon and wouldn't suit it. 2d6 damage is insanely good. I guess you could go 3d3 or something. It really is a conundrum, I can see why it is hard to get right.


2d6 damage isn't that good. It's really not. It's 7, essentially. Would the Vanquisher be a 'good tank' if it did 7 damage?

Heck, let's make it auto hit and auto wound while ignoring all saves: seven damage, on a 4+.

That's not a very good tank destroyer, really, for 145 points. 145 points of lascannon predator is considerably better.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/10/16 19:54:07


 
   
Made in us
Powerful Phoenix Lord





I'd argue that 2D6 damage is fine...again if coupled with extreme range, higher Strength, meaning almost everything it sees will be 3+ or 2+ to wound, and a save modifier which strips down any normal armour save to nothing. That's not atrocious - particularly with the flood of CPs and special commands and orders IG get.

Also, you're looking at the points cost of the Vanquisher solely as its gun. The majority of the Leman Russ costs are due to its own Toughness 8 and wounds/armour, etc.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Springfield, VA

 Elbows wrote:
I'd argue that 2D6 damage is fine...again if coupled with extreme range, higher Strength, meaning almost everything it sees will be 3+ or 2+ to wound, and a save modifier which strips down any normal armour save to nothing. That's not atrocious - particularly with the flood of CPs and special commands and orders IG get.

Also, you're looking at the points cost of the Vanquisher solely as its gun. The majority of the Leman Russ costs are due to its own Toughness 8 and wounds/armour, etc.


I am also looking at it compared to other Russes, between whom the only difference is the gun. Let's assume the Vanquisher gets 2d6 (which I'll simplify to 7) for damage and the basic battlecannon still has d3

Leman Russ: 3.11 damage per shooting phase per rhino, on average, as usual.

Vanquisher (Str 9, -4 rend): 4.11 damage per shooting phase per rhino on average.

Vanquisher (Str 14, -4 rend): 5.8333 damage.

Whatever the Vanquisher's Strength is, if it's between 9 and 14(!) it's wounding things on 3s, and it's not worth being 5 points more expensive and trading its capability against literally anything that's not multi-wound for one more average damage per shooting phase.

If it's 14+ strength, then we're back into the same average damage realms that 4d6D2 for damage gives it, so really about the same, I suppose. It's your choice if you prefer 4d6D2 damage or Str 14+.

Bear in mind, though, that against T8 targets, it goes back down to sucking (4.11 damage per shooting phase) until you get it to Str 16(!!).

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/10/16 20:03:05


 
   
Made in gb
Junior Officer with Laspistol




Manchester, UK

The root of the problem is that using d6 shots as a mecchanic for blasts is fundamentally flawed. It performs way to well against high toughness targets, which would be the ones most able to shrug off an explosion.

If we look at the battle cannon, the thing really would do very little against heavily armoured targets. HE would do really well against soft vehicles in the t5-6 range but against 7+ you would get some light spalling and crew concussion, no actual penetration damage. The multi-shot mechanic completely pushes the vanquisher out of usefulness. However, there is not an easy way to fix this without overhauling how blasts work. Personally, I think blasts are one of the best and worst parts of the new edition. I like removing the pain of markers and scatter (one of the most argument causing aspects of 40k) but the simple d6 shot system is really lackluster. I think you could fix it if you made all blasts work more like demolishers, maybe "d3 shots per 5 models" or something. This would punish hordes more (hordes being a currently hard unit to counter) and reduce the power of blasts against single targets.

A bit of a random idea I guess, but I do think that the current blast system should get reworked a bit for 9th.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/10/16 20:10:54


The Tvashtan 422nd "Fire Leopards" - Updated 19/03/11

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." - Hanlon's Razor 
   
Made in us
Lord of the Fleet






Halifornia, Nova Scotia

 Trickstick wrote:

A bit of a random idea I guess, but I do think that the current blast system should get reworked a bit for 9th.


Sweet mother of feth yes it does. The random on top of random on top of random was bad enough in 7th, doubling down on it in 8th was a ridiculous move.

Hard to balance anything when its all a random value between 1 and 6.

Mordian Iron Guard - Major Overhaul in Progress

+Spaceship Gaming Enthusiast+

Live near Halifax, NS? Ask me about our group, the Ordo Haligonias! 
   
Made in gb
Junior Officer with Laspistol




Manchester, UK

Just to add, whilst I think blast rules are currently one of my least favourite parts of 40k, it falls far short of my hatred for complex wound allocation from 5th. My heart still burns with a fiery loathing for that Paladin infested nonsense...

So I guess the rules could be worse if this is what I have the biggest problem with.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/10/16 20:14:14


The Tvashtan 422nd "Fire Leopards" - Updated 19/03/11

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." - Hanlon's Razor 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Springfield, VA

I actually think you totally can fix it within the system. Think about it this way:

Shots are the number of shrapnel / whatever hits the weapon gets.

Damage is the ability of the weapon to actually puncture and injure vital systems.

The Leman Russ is quite capable of showering its targets in shards of flying metal, etc., but each one does little damage to the area of the vehicle/monster it impacts.

The Vanquisher is not capable of doing significant damage to a system that its penetrator finally finds after puncturing the armour.

This is the problem. Up the damage is all that is needed. Right now, 2d6D1 is just not cutting it, because it just isn't much.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
To add:

More hits is more useful against more targets than more damage is, so not only should the vanquisher do "about the same" to an armoured target as an LRBT, it should do drastically more, perhaps almost twice as much, before it starts becoming an attractive choice again.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/10/16 20:15:17


 
   
Made in us
Lord of the Fleet






Halifornia, Nova Scotia

 Trickstick wrote:
Just to add, whilst I think blast rules are currently one of my least favourite parts of 40k, it falls far short of my hatred for complex wound allocation from 5th. My heart still burns with a fiery loathing for that Paladin infested nonsense...

So I guess the rules could be worse if this is what I have the biggest problem with.


Yeah, that wasn't great. It had a fairly straightforward solution though, pulled from 4th, so an easily solved problem that would have made 5th a lot better with a single, simple rule change.

I remember the first time I faced a nob biker squad. I was blown away, literally and figuratively.

Mordian Iron Guard - Major Overhaul in Progress

+Spaceship Gaming Enthusiast+

Live near Halifax, NS? Ask me about our group, the Ordo Haligonias! 
   
Made in gb
Junior Officer with Laspistol




Manchester, UK

 Blacksails wrote:
 Trickstick wrote:
Just to add, whilst I think blast rules are currently one of my least favourite parts of 40k, it falls far short of my hatred for complex wound allocation from 5th. My heart still burns with a fiery loathing for that Paladin infested nonsense...

So I guess the rules could be worse if this is what I have the biggest problem with.


Yeah, that wasn't great. It had a fairly straightforward solution though, pulled from 4th, so an easily solved problem that would have made 5th a lot better with a single, simple rule change.

I remember the first time I faced a nob biker squad. I was blown away, literally and figuratively.


I do have fond memories from it though. It was around the time that I was running pure armoured companies. The Paladin players had to be very careful with their spacing when I was bringing squadrons of demolishers.

The Tvashtan 422nd "Fire Leopards" - Updated 19/03/11

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." - Hanlon's Razor 
   
Made in us
Lord of the Fleet






Halifornia, Nova Scotia

 Trickstick wrote:
 Blacksails wrote:
 Trickstick wrote:
Just to add, whilst I think blast rules are currently one of my least favourite parts of 40k, it falls far short of my hatred for complex wound allocation from 5th. My heart still burns with a fiery loathing for that Paladin infested nonsense...

So I guess the rules could be worse if this is what I have the biggest problem with.


Yeah, that wasn't great. It had a fairly straightforward solution though, pulled from 4th, so an easily solved problem that would have made 5th a lot better with a single, simple rule change.

I remember the first time I faced a nob biker squad. I was blown away, literally and figuratively.


I do have fond memories from it though. It was around the time that I was running pure armoured companies. The Paladin players had to be very careful with their spacing when I was bringing squadrons of demolishers.


The days of the old ABG FW lists and mechvets. Plus, that was when Ailaros was active here with his amazing power blob batreps. Ended up running powerblobs myself to mix up my usual all mech/armoured stuff.

Mordian Iron Guard - Major Overhaul in Progress

+Spaceship Gaming Enthusiast+

Live near Halifax, NS? Ask me about our group, the Ordo Haligonias! 
   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







Loosely, the Vanquisher is still awful because the addition of saves and high wound counts on vehicles make single-shot weapons crap AT unless you can get a huge number of them.

Balanced Game: Noun. A game in which all options and choices are worth using.
Homebrew oldhammer project: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/790996.page#10896267
Meridian: Necromunda-based 40k skirmish: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/795374.page 
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle





In My Lab

I think part of the issue is a Vanquisher has a high chance of doing NOTHING.

At S9, AP-4, targeting another Russ, or a Rhino, or something with a 3+ or worse save and T5 or better (but not more than T8), it has a 44.44% chance of completely whiffing. Drops to a 30% chance of whiffing if you give it to a tank commander, but still. That means that, on a Tank Commander, in a 6 turn game, you'll do NOTHING two turns, on average.

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in gb
Junior Officer with Laspistol




Manchester, UK

 Blacksails wrote:
The days of the old ABG FW lists and mechvets. Plus, that was when Ailaros was active here with his amazing power blob batreps. Ended up running powerblobs myself to mix up my usual all mech/armoured stuff.


I used to love all that stuff. Like an Al'rahem/Chenkov army to really mix up your crazy infantry shenanigans.

I found myself thinking the other day that Ailaros could probably have some fun with the new codex and 8th ed in general. I remember that "taking from the front" wound allocation was what really screwed him over in trying to close with the enemy. Wonder if he would ever make a return?

The Tvashtan 422nd "Fire Leopards" - Updated 19/03/11

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." - Hanlon's Razor 
   
Made in us
Lord of the Fleet






Halifornia, Nova Scotia

 Trickstick wrote:
 Blacksails wrote:
The days of the old ABG FW lists and mechvets. Plus, that was when Ailaros was active here with his amazing power blob batreps. Ended up running powerblobs myself to mix up my usual all mech/armoured stuff.


I used to love all that stuff. Like an Al'rahem/Chenkov army to really mix up your crazy infantry shenanigans.

I found myself thinking the other day that Ailaros could probably have some fun with the new codex and 8th ed in general. I remember that "taking from the front" wound allocation was what really screwed him over in trying to close with the enemy. Wonder if he would ever make a return?


We do have Al'rahem back in spirit, between all the Tallarn specific rules you can pretend it's Al'rahem leading your force, with a promotion to boot. Major Al'rahem.

I certainly wouldn't complain if he came back. Might be one of the rare people to do non video batreps, which would be welcome.

Mordian Iron Guard - Major Overhaul in Progress

+Spaceship Gaming Enthusiast+

Live near Halifax, NS? Ask me about our group, the Ordo Haligonias! 
   
Made in us
Preacher of the Emperor





Hanford, CA, AKA The Eye of Terror

 JNAProductions wrote:
I think part of the issue is a Vanquisher has a high chance of doing NOTHING.

At S9, AP-4, targeting another Russ, or a Rhino, or something with a 3+ or worse save and T5 or better (but not more than T8), it has a 44.44% chance of completely whiffing. Drops to a 30% chance of whiffing if you give it to a tank commander, but still. That means that, on a Tank Commander, in a 6 turn game, you'll do NOTHING two turns, on average.


This is everything I looking at when I am disappointed with the Vanq. It should be the case where even if it is intended to miss often (and I'm ok with that) it should hit like a ton of bricks when it does.

17,000 points (Valhallan)
10,000 points
6,000 points (Order of Our Martyred Lady)
Proud Countess of House Terryn hosting 7 Knights, 2 Dominus Knights, and 8 Armigers
Stormcast Eternals: 7,000 points
"Remember, Orks are weak and cowardly, they are easily beat in close combat and their tusks, while menacing, can easily be pulled out with a sharp tug"

-Imperial Guard Uplifting Primer 
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle





In My Lab

In addition, assuming the same 3+ hit, 3+ wound, no save, it has about a 30% chance of doing no damage, a slightly less than 30% chance of doing 6 or less damage (and therefore not even knocking a Russ down a peg) and the remainder doing 7+ damage.

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in gb
Junior Officer with Laspistol




Manchester, UK

When (if?) FW releases an update, the Vanquisher is probably still going to be horrible. That is because you can just have an Annihilator with 4 lascannon shots instead. The Annihilator is supposed to be inferior to the Vanquisher, used when you can't get the real thing. I know 40pts will be an expensive turret weapon but getting to shoot twice will be pretty good.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/10/16 21:14:20


The Tvashtan 422nd "Fire Leopards" - Updated 19/03/11

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." - Hanlon's Razor 
   
Made in ca
Hardened Veteran Guardsman





The Vanq isn't bad per say, it's just not a very sensible choice when you could take a Battle Cannon instead. I would say giving it STR 9 would be enough, but as Trickstick, pointed out, it would still be relatively bad because the Annihilator exists. At least STR 9 would make it more reliable on a tank commander though because then you would hit more often than not, and would be wounding on 3s rather than 4 vs your main targets (T8).

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/10/16 23:39:26


 
   
Made in us
Monster-Slaying Daemonhunter





 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
Imo it should:

1.) Grant +1 BS to the tank being used, as the longer barrel is suppose to make it more accurate and

2.) do an absurd amount of Damage per wound. It's a HE shell designed to destroy tanks.

3.) have a High AP, as again it's a shaped charge (which is designed to penetrate armor).

4.) low, but set number of shots. Maybe even just 1 shot (compensated by the improved BS).

I would say somethign like AP-3, D:6 and +1 BS to the user would be good, maybe add on that it does 2x Damage to VEHICLE and MONSTER units. Of course, it would need to be rebalanced to cost appropriately for this.


I was under the impression it was discarding-sabot, not high explosive antitank.

Aside from that, I think the primary thing it needs to to do 2d6 damage [or some variant thereof, the average damage per hit should be crippling and maximum potential wrecking for light and medium armor] and be at least S9.

It should only ever have 1 shot [2 with Lumbering Behemoth].

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/10/17 00:57:33


Guardsmen, hear me! Cadia may lie in ruin, but her proud people do not! For each brother and sister who gave their lives to Him as martyrs, we will reap a vengeance fiftyfold! Cadia may be no more, but will never be forgotten; our foes shall tremble in fear at the name, for their doom shall come from the barrels of Cadian guns, fired by Cadian hands! Forward, for vengeance and retribution, in His name and the names of our fallen comrades! 
   
Made in us
Ollanius Pius - Savior of the Emperor






Gathering the Informations.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
Imo it should:

1.) Grant +1 BS to the tank being used, as the longer barrel is suppose to make it more accurate and

2.) do an absurd amount of Damage per wound. It's a HE shell designed to destroy tanks.

3.) have a High AP, as again it's a shaped charge (which is designed to penetrate armor).

4.) low, but set number of shots. Maybe even just 1 shot (compensated by the improved BS).

I would say somethign like AP-3, D:6 and +1 BS to the user would be good, maybe add on that it does 2x Damage to VEHICLE and MONSTER units. Of course, it would need to be rebalanced to cost appropriately for this.


I was under the impression it was discarding-sabot, not high explosive antitank.

Aside from that, I think the primary thing it needs to to do 2d6 damage [or some variant thereof, the average damage per hit should be crippling and maximum potential wrecking for light and medium armor] and be at least S9.

It should only ever have 1 shot [2 with Lumbering Behemoth].

You already do 2d6 damage. You just discard the lowest.

Putting it bluntly...
You want the Vanquisher to have a real role and place? Give it fixed damage value. Put it at 4 or 5 damage and be done with it.
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut





A while back, I was a big advocate of giving it d3 shots with a special rule forcing all hits to be against a single model. I ran the numbers and it became useful without being too crazy. With the new grinding advance, d3 shots would be too much.

To actually run one, I would give it AP-4, 2D6 damage, and at least strength 9. Running some of the numbers, it would be a bit better than the demolisher against T8 3+ while have having a much smaller target pool.
   
Made in us
Inspiring SDF-1 Bridge Officer





Mississippi

Well, if GW had been intelligent enough to make the Dx number of shots only capable of hitting a target once, we'd probably not have this problem in the first place. "Blast" weapons would be good against multiple models in a unit, but not quite so great against vehicles (and big monsters).

What about 3D6 damage, drop lowest die. STR 9, AP -4?

What would be the expected points adjustment for this, as I'd like to try it out in some games at home.

It never ends well 
   
Made in fi
Locked in the Tower of Amareo





 generalchaos34 wrote:
The once mighty premier tank buster of the Imperial Guard, once feared by all, and with a stunning profile to boot, is no more.

For some reason this edition, even with the change to grinding advance allowing it to fire twice, is incredibly awful. To recap, its a heavy 1 Str 8, AP -3, d6 Damage, roll 2 take the highest on damage. Its pretty much worse than a lascannon for more points, its hull mounted Lascannon is more likely to kill a tank. I was really hoping it would be changed to D3 shots so it could possibly be good, but at this point you are unlikely to hit big tanks, less likely to wound big tanks, and even less likely to kill big tanks, despite that being the weapons only purpose. Sadly enough, the venerable LRBT or executioner is capable of doing more anti-tank fire than the Vanquisher could ever hope to do.

Any theories on why this is terrible? What could be done to improve it?


When was vanquisher good tank buster? 5th ed? Ever since hull points were introduced vanquisher has been bad at tank busting.

2024 painted/bought: 109/109 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut






Still don't really understand why it's S9 for GsC, but S8 when IG take it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh wait, I see they've FAQ'd that. The wrong way round, if you ask me.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/10/17 09:40:36


 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: