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.

ValentineGames wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

ValentineGames wrote:
Should get back their HE round as well.
Stupid now only firing AT


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

ValentineGames wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

ValentineGames wrote:
I see people are mixing up Co-axial with a Spotting rifle/ranging gun

I collect DKK so I forget Astra don't get that.

I'm more referring to how Co-axial machine guns (so the heavy stubber) are not for ranging in reality. And so should give no bonus

But the DKK Russ' give a re-roll if you shot at what your Co-axial does.

Correct...which is not how it works

It does for conquerors and vanquishers.

No I mean that's not what co-axial machine guns are for

Yes but DKK ones have that rule, so its for shooting 'and' targeting, I don't know what you are saying.

Ice_can wrote:

w1zard wrote:
I did my math on the assumption of firing one shot for both the battle cannon and the vanquisher cannon. Firing two shots for both changes nothing in the comparison against each other because you are just multiplying both results by two. It only changes it when you are comparing it against other things. I still stand by my assessment.

-Re-rolls wounds against Monsterous Creatures + Vehicles
-3d3 damage

This is the level required to see vanquishers even make sense from a mathematical standpoint and even then it may still need more buffs on top of this to get people to take them in any kind of numbers. The ONE SHOT hurts!

As I said I would much rather see them going to 1d3 shots, it would make them so much easier to balance.

No you do need to take into acount the double shooting as it is fundamental to finding a balanced solution not just building the next OP unit.

D3 avarages 2 shots then shooting twice so 4 shots go BS 4 with rerolls 3 hits 2 wounds no saves 12 wounds and one dead predator or leman russ so a 100% return in points cost from a single round of shooting thats filthy OP.
It does double the damage the damage of quad lascannon predator for less points.

Firstly, your math is wrong. Secondly, I wasn't suggesting 1d3 shots at 3d3 damage each, please actually READ my post before hating. I said if it stayed at ONE shot then re-rolling wounds vs vehicles + monsters and 3d3 damage was a good starting point for viability.

This discussion is not about how balanced leman russes are in relation to other units, but to each other. If you want to discuss how you think double shooting is OP do it in another thread.

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

ValentineGames wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

ValentineGames wrote:
Should get back their HE round as well.
Stupid now only firing AT


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

ValentineGames wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

ValentineGames wrote:
I see people are mixing up Co-axial with a Spotting rifle/ranging gun

I collect DKK so I forget Astra don't get that.

I'm more referring to how Co-axial machine guns (so the heavy stubber) are not for ranging in reality. And so should give no bonus

But the DKK Russ' give a re-roll if you shot at what your Co-axial does.

Correct...which is not how it works

It does for conquerors and vanquishers.

No I mean that's not what co-axial machine guns are for

Yes but DKK ones have that rule, so its for shooting 'and' targeting, I don't know what you are saying.

Like I said. Co-axial machine guns are not for ranging in reality. And so should give no bonus in game.

ValentineGames wrote:

Like I said. Co-axial machine guns are not for ranging in reality. And so should give no bonus in game.

You realize that you can have a coaxial machine gun that is also a spotting rifle? See the Scorpion.

ValentineGames wrote:
Like I said. Co-axial machine guns are not for ranging in reality. And so should give no bonus in game.

We have laser range finders now, before those, coaxial MG's were used for range finding, though not always optimally. Also, reality is not really relevant when talking about what should and should not work in 40K!

ValentineGames wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

ValentineGames wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

ValentineGames wrote:
Should get back their HE round as well.
Stupid now only firing AT


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

ValentineGames wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

ValentineGames wrote:
I see people are mixing up Co-axial with a Spotting rifle/ranging gun

I collect DKK so I forget Astra don't get that.

I'm more referring to how Co-axial machine guns (so the heavy stubber) are not for ranging in reality. And so should give no bonus

But the DKK Russ' give a re-roll if you shot at what your Co-axial does.

Correct...which is not how it works

It does for conquerors and vanquishers.

No I mean that's not what co-axial machine guns are for

Yes but DKK ones have that rule, so its for shooting 'and' targeting, I don't know what you are saying.

Like I said. Co-axial machine guns are not for ranging in reality. And so should give no bonus in game.

They do ever heard of tracer fire, tracer fire has been used as far back as WW2 to target with infantry and on tanks? Plus they are in the rules.

Personally I always wanted Vanquisher cannons to get a +1 to their to hit rolls, better representing them as they are portrayed in the lore: long range, accurate anti-vehicle weapons.

I think it should be like 3 ed. Vanquisher was a 10 point upgrade and you could choose to fire the regular battletank ammo or the vanquisher ammo. 2 shots, ap -4, 3d3 damage would also make them better.

 Davespil wrote:
I think it should be like 3 ed. Vanquisher was a 10 point upgrade and you could choose to fire the regular battletank ammo or the vanquisher ammo. 2 shots, ap -4, 3d3 damage would also make them better.

I disagree. Taking vanquishers should be a choice, not a straight up upgrade to a battle tank.

It's about a month I emailed GW about the Vanquisher. I explained that the thing is basically useless and nobody uses it for tank hunting. Or anything, really.

I suggested making it S9 to make it at least somehow reliable and giving it 3d3 damage. You get 3 wounds minimum, 6 on average.

 Hawky wrote:
It's about a month I emailed GW about the Vanquisher. I explained that the thing is basically useless and nobody uses it for tank hunting. Or anything, really.

I suggested making it S9 to make it at least somehow reliable and giving it 3d3 damage. You get 3 wounds minimum, 6 on average.

S9 is not a bad change, but re-rolls to wound statistically is better.

Ironically S9 was what genestealer vanquishers were for a while.

w1zard wrote:

 Davespil wrote:
I think it should be like 3 ed. Vanquisher was a 10 point upgrade and you could choose to fire the regular battletank ammo or the vanquisher ammo. 2 shots, ap -4, 3d3 damage would also make them better.

I disagree. Taking vanquishers should be a choice, not a straight up upgrade to a battle tank.

It should be a straight up upgrade to tank/monster hunting.

3rd ed had you pay points for that extra tank hunting capacity- but it would function as a regular russ. You were essentially paying extra for the chance to oneshot a landraider, or at least, probably penetrate it (hit on 4+, 2d6+s8 pen roll = average 15)

What you'd hope is that a single vanquisher hit should be reliably knocking out smaller vehicles(like dreadnoughts) and at least damaging larger ones like russ tanks.

I'd argue that a vanquisher should be a bs4 russ with a risk/reward alternate fire mechanism- you can get steady, reliable damage by using the standard battlecannon shells or try to win big with the anti-tank shells.

vanquisher AT-shell- you can't move, you don't get two shots, hit on 3+, massive damage potential (2d6?)

 =Angel= wrote:

w1zard wrote:

 Davespil wrote:
I think it should be like 3 ed. Vanquisher was a 10 point upgrade and you could choose to fire the regular battletank ammo or the vanquisher ammo. 2 shots, ap -4, 3d3 damage would also make them better.

I disagree. Taking vanquishers should be a choice, not a straight up upgrade to a battle tank.

It should be a straight up upgrade to tank/monster hunting.

3rd ed had you pay points for that extra tank hunting capacity- but it would function as a regular russ. You were essentially paying extra for the chance to oneshot a landraider, or at least, probably penetrate it (hit on 4+, 2d6+s8 pen roll = average 15)

What you'd hope is that a single vanquisher hit should be reliably knocking out smaller vehicles(like dreadnoughts) and at least damaging larger ones like russ tanks.

I'd argue that a vanquisher should be a bs4 russ with a risk/reward alternate fire mechanism- you can get steady, reliable damage by using the standard battlecannon shells or try to win big with the anti-tank shells.

vanquisher AT-shell- you can't move, you don't get two shots, hit on 3+, massive damage potential (2d6?)

Just give the Vanquisher it's he ammo back, doesn't even need to be on par with the strength of the bc. Make it something like 1d6 s6 -1ap, additionally to an accuracy buff for the regular vanquisher shell.
It would not infringe into the Bc territory of the normal russ and still give you some viable way of justyfing it.

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

They do ever heard of tracer fire, tracer fire has been used as far back as WW2 to target with infantry and on tanks? Plus they are in the rules.

That only helps if the machine gun has the same ballistic properties as the main gun. Most don't.

Usually the ranging gun is a dedicated spotting rifle with special ammunition. There have only been a few coaxial machine guns that were also spotting guns (but they do exist).

Pity the FW Vanquisher variants can't be taken as Tank commanders. They are bit better than GW Vanquishers (getting +1BS and roll-two-pick-the-highest for damage), but they are still S8, which makes them only 50% reliable when shooting other Russes. Not mentioning tougher vehicles.

 =Angel= wrote:

It should be a straight up upgrade to tank/monster hunting.

3rd ed had you pay points for that extra tank hunting capacity- but it would function as a regular russ. You were essentially paying extra for the chance to oneshot a landraider, or at least, probably penetrate it (hit on 4+, 2d6+s8 pen roll = average 15)

What you'd hope is that a single vanquisher hit should be reliably knocking out smaller vehicles(like dreadnoughts) and at least damaging larger ones like russ tanks.

I'd argue that a vanquisher should be a bs4 russ with a risk/reward alternate fire mechanism- you can get steady, reliable damage by using the standard battlecannon shells or try to win big with the anti-tank shells.

vanquisher AT-shell- you can't move, you don't get two shots, hit on 3+, massive damage potential (2d6?)

The choice between a vanquisher and a LRBT should be a choice between a vehicle/monster hunter and a general purpose tank. A vanquisher shouldn't be able to do both, otherwise nobody would take the standard LRBT.

w1zard wrote:
The choice between a vanquisher and a LRBT should be a choice between a vehicle/monster hunter and a general purpose tank. A vanquisher shouldn't be able to do both, otherwise nobody would take the standard LRBT.

Is the issue maybe that a LRBC is just a bit too good now that it's effectively 2D6 shots at S8 Dd3 which is actually quite an effective vehical hunter. Heck it wounds a Landraider on a 4+ where as previously it needed a 6.

Would making the LRBC S7 actually be a better solution as currently a LRBC with grinding advance went from underwhelming to undercosted. It wounds most vehicals on 3+ and most infantry on a 2+ which is a bit too good for a generalist weapon. Making it S7 would keep it effective against heavy infantry but make it weaker against vehicals giving vanquishers space to actually exsist in.

w1zard wrote:

 =Angel= wrote:

It should be a straight up upgrade to tank/monster hunting.

3rd ed had you pay points for that extra tank hunting capacity- but it would function as a regular russ. You were essentially paying extra for the chance to oneshot a landraider, or at least, probably penetrate it (hit on 4+, 2d6+s8 pen roll = average 15)

What you'd hope is that a single vanquisher hit should be reliably knocking out smaller vehicles(like dreadnoughts) and at least damaging larger ones like russ tanks.

I'd argue that a vanquisher should be a bs4 russ with a risk/reward alternate fire mechanism- you can get steady, reliable damage by using the standard battlecannon shells or try to win big with the anti-tank shells.

vanquisher AT-shell- you can't move, you don't get two shots, hit on 3+, massive damage potential (2d6?)

The choice between a vanquisher and a LRBT should be a choice between a vehicle/monster hunter and a general purpose tank. A vanquisher shouldn't be able to do both, otherwise nobody would take the standard LRBT.

You're paying extra points to turn a regular Battlecannon Russ into a Battlecannon Russ with a better tank hunting option.

That is, assuming proper points, perfectly balanced. You either have a generalist unit for X points, or a generalist unit that's better at one specific role and equally good at all else for X+Y points.

 JNAProductions wrote:

You're paying extra points to turn a regular Battlecannon Russ into a Battlecannon Russ with a better tank hunting option.

That is, assuming proper points, perfectly balanced. You either have a generalist unit for X points, or a generalist unit that's better at one specific role and equally good at all else for X+Y points.

That is exactly my point. It would either be worth the points, in which case it would be taken 100% of the time, or it wouldn't be worth the points in which case it would be taken 0% of the time.

I don't know anyone who is going to say "Hmm... that vanquisher upgrade for my LRBT makes them really effective at damaging vehicles and makes that attack profile completely optional... Nah I'm going to take the clearly sub-par basic LRBT instead to save a few points".

Vanquisher tanks and LRBT being separate entities makes it an actual choice with list building consequences rather than a vanquisher being a LRBT+.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ice_can wrote:

w1zard wrote:
The choice between a vanquisher and a LRBT should be a choice between a vehicle/monster hunter and a general purpose tank. A vanquisher shouldn't be able to do both, otherwise nobody would take the standard LRBT.

Is the issue maybe that a LRBC is just a bit too good now that it's effectively 2D6 shots at S8 Dd3 which is actually quite an effective vehical hunter. Heck it wounds a Landraider on a 4+ where as previously it needed a 6.

Would making the LRBC S7 actually be a better solution as currently a LRBC with grinding advance went from underwhelming to undercosted. It wounds most vehicals on 3+ and most infantry on a 2+ which is a bit too good for a generalist weapon. Making it S7 would keep it effective against heavy infantry but make it weaker against vehicals giving vanquishers space to actually exsist in.

LRBTs were extremely underpowered last edition so I wouldn't take 7th edition as a guideline. I think LRBTs are exactly where they should be now in terms of balance. They were underpowered before the double shot buff and the IG players rightly pointed it out to GW. GW just decided to buff their damage output instead of lower their points.

Lascannons are better than Autocannons pretty much always. Yet, some people take Autocannons to save points.

There is a points range where it's worth taking, but can also be skipped to save points. There shouldn't be ANY auto-include or never-include options.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Lascannons are better than Autocannons pretty much always. Yet, some people take Autocannons to save points.

There is a points range where it's worth taking, but can also be skipped to save points. There shouldn't be ANY auto-include or never-include options.

Lascannons and autocannons have different targets. Nobody takes lascannons and decides to downgrade them to autocannons to save points while still planning on shooting them at the same targets. It just isn't done. You take lascannons to shoot at lascannon targets and that is that.

 =Angel= wrote:

w1zard wrote:

 Davespil wrote:
I think it should be like 3 ed. Vanquisher was a 10 point upgrade and you could choose to fire the regular battletank ammo or the vanquisher ammo. 2 shots, ap -4, 3d3 damage would also make them better.

I disagree. Taking vanquishers should be a choice, not a straight up upgrade to a battle tank.

It should be a straight up upgrade to tank/monster hunting.

3rd ed had you pay points for that extra tank hunting capacity- but it would function as a regular russ. You were essentially paying extra for the chance to oneshot a landraider, or at least, probably penetrate it (hit on 4+, 2d6+s8 pen roll = average 15)

What you'd hope is that a single vanquisher hit should be reliably knocking out smaller vehicles(like dreadnoughts) and at least damaging larger ones like russ tanks.

I'd argue that a vanquisher should be a bs4 russ with a risk/reward alternate fire mechanism- you can get steady, reliable damage by using the standard battlecannon shells or try to win big with the anti-tank shells.

vanquisher AT-shell- you can't move, you don't get two shots, hit on 3+, massive damage potential (2d6?)

I like this idea a lot. The problem would be balancing the cost correctly to make it a somewhat difficult choice and not a no-brainer in either direction. Another option would be to give the vanq bonuses against superheavy units, and keep it at one-shot. That way it's pretty bad against 'fly' keyword tanks/vehicles, but excellent against Knights, Shadowswords, Morkanauts, etc. That's my conception of how they are in the fluff, and it keeps and anti-vehicle role open for other guard tanks: specializing in stuff that is faster but lightly armored. The vanq is the heavy-armor killer. It would be cool if when the vanq takes the last wound of any vehicle, that vehicle explodes on a 3+ instead of a 6+. Makes putting a super-heavy surrounded by screens in the middle of your army kind of a dicey proposition against a vanquisher.

A point of order- it's not a superheavy killer.
It's a tank Hunter. You field one for the same reason you take a lascannon dev squad- you want tanks to die, at long range, reliably.

The fact that it's supposed to do this in one shot rather than 4 means that the one shot should be capable of 12 damage- enough to one shot a Russ or xeno equivalent. That's why I'd argue for 2d6- reliably damaging ( lowering a point of bs) Russ equivalents with a chance for 12 damage.

What you don't want is for it to become a mini shadows word.

w1zard wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

w1zard wrote:
The choice between a vanquisher and a LRBT should be a choice between a vehicle/monster hunter and a general purpose tank. A vanquisher shouldn't be able to do both, otherwise nobody would take the standard LRBT.

Is the issue maybe that a LRBC is just a bit too good now that it's effectively 2D6 shots at S8 Dd3 which is actually quite an effective vehical hunter. Heck it wounds a Landraider on a 4+ where as previously it needed a 6.

Would making the LRBC S7 actually be a better solution as currently a LRBC with grinding advance went from underwhelming to undercosted. It wounds most vehicals on 3+ and most infantry on a 2+ which is a bit too good for a generalist weapon. Making it S7 would keep it effective against heavy infantry but make it weaker against vehicals giving vanquishers space to actually exsist in.

LRBTs were extremely underpowered last edition so I wouldn't take 7th edition as a guideline. I think LRBTs are exactly where they should be now in terms of balance. They were underpowered before the double shot buff and the IG players rightly pointed it out to GW. GW just decided to buff their damage output instead of lower their points.

The thing is if you compair a LRBT with BC against other tanks it comes out as comparable against specialist infanty or vehical hunters while being a generalist. A generalist has to be weaker than specialists from a balance perspective otherwise why would you take a specialist when a generalist gives you the same performance against the preferred target and much better performance against a non preferred target.

Right now to make a vanquisher good enough to out perfom a LRBC it would have to be so good it would render any other anti vehical tank obsolete.
Becasue the LRBC is almost as effective as other armies dedicated anti infantry or anti tank tanks in some cases it's actually better due to some mechanics eg quantum shields & invulnerable saves.

I was actually looking back at 3rd/4th edition imperial armour books for inspiration and noticed that BC have got a massive buff against tanks from the edition change. Gone from needing 5+vrs AV13 to needing a 3+ a vanquisher got 8 +2d6 and hasn't really benifited at all from the edition change. Unless the battle cannon on a LR gets S7 their isn't any design space to make a vanquisher better than a BC without starting a new round of codex creep and once again removing vehicals from the game as they just get one shotted turn 1.

At the moment the only way I can see of opening up the design space needed to make a vanquisher work requires addressing the LRBC over performing against T7 ie most vehicals.
LRBC needs to stop wounding most vehicals on a 3+ to give the vanquisher the ability to be better at it's design intent.

Ice_can wrote:

The thing is if you compair a LRBT with BC against other tanks it comes out as comparable against specialist infanty or vehical hunters while being a generalist. A generalist has to be weaker than specialists from a balance perspective otherwise why would you take a specialist when a generalist gives you the same performance against the preferred target and much better performance against a non preferred target.

I'd like to see that math please, because I don't believe it. If it were true then pretty much every vehicle in the Imperial Guard arsenal is overpowered. I mean, just compare a LRBT to a basilisk and adjust for points and a basilisk is better damage output per point.
Don't las preds outdamage LRBT against vehicles and are cheaper?

w1zard wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

The thing is if you compair a LRBT with BC against other tanks it comes out as comparable against specialist infanty or vehical hunters while being a generalist. A generalist has to be weaker than specialists from a balance perspective otherwise why would you take a specialist when a generalist gives you the same performance against the preferred target and much better performance against a non preferred target.

I'd like to see that math please, because I don't believe it. If it were true then pretty much every vehicle in the Imperial Guard arsenal is overpowered. I mean, just compare a LRBT to a basilisk and adjust for points and a basilisk is better damage output per point.
Don't las preds outdamage LRBT against vehicles and are cheaper?

A quad las predator is 190 points what are you equipping on a LRBT to make it that expensive?
Also try that maths against Hammerheads with railgun etc aswell as the predator is currently a glass cannon unit ironically.

Ice_can wrote:

A quad las predator is 190 points what are you equipping on a LRBT to make it that expensive?
Also try that maths against Hammerheads with railgun etc aswell as the predator is currently a glass cannon unit ironically.

Lets see, a LRBT is 164 pts with a hull lascannon. Hypothetical target is T8 3+... calculating on statistical averages.

LRBT - 7 shots -> (7/2) hits -> (7/4) wounds -> (7/6) failed saves -> (14/6) damage + (lascannon) 1 shot -> (1/2) hits -> (1/3) wounds -> (5/18) failed saves -> (35/36) damage -> TOTAL: (119/36) damage per shooting phase assuming LRBT stands still ~3.30 damage

Quad Las Predator - 4 shots -> (8/3) hits -> (19/9) wounds -> (95/54) failed saves -> (665/108) damage per shooting phase ~6.16 damage

As you can see, a LRBT standing still (best case scenario) has a little over half the damage output of a quad las predator against vehicles. I agree that the predator is not as good against general targets, costs 26 more points and is slightly less durable, but those seem like fair trade-offs to me.

My bad on the cost of the quad-las though, I am not a marine player.

The isdue with that example is most tanks arn't T8. T7 Sv 3+ is the most common toughness target, covering Marines, Eldar, Tau and Necrons.
Also turn 1 most tanks will be moving as they can't afford to be in the open or the alpha stike wipes them from the table.

So all the maths is very different.
I'll post up the comparison later.

Against T7 3+...

Russes
7 Battlecannon shots, 1 Lascannon shot
Hits: 7/2 and 1/2
Wounds: 7/3 and 1/3
Unsaved: 14/9 and 5/18
Damage: 28/9 and 35/36
Total: 3.11 and .97, for 4.08 total

Predators
4 Lascannon shots
Hits: 8/3
Wounds: 16/9
Unsaved: 40/27
Damage: 140/27
Total: 5.18

So the Predator is about 25% better, but also costs about 15% more and is less durable, and can't receive orders or get Chapter Tactics. Running the Russ math again assuming they've got various buffs...

Russes (Rerolling 1s To Hit)
7 Battlecannon shots, 1 Lascannon shot
Hits: 49/12 and 7/12
Wounds: 49/18 and 7/18
Unsaved: 49/27 and 35/108
Damage: 98/27 and 245/216
Total: 3.63 and 1.13, for 4.76, making the Predator not even 10% better, and all that takes is a tank order or being Cadian and not moving.

Russes (Rerolling Number Of Shots On One Die)
7.75 (31/4) Battlecannon shots, 1 Lascannon shot
Hits: 31/8 and 1/2
Wounds: 31/12 and 1/3
Unsaved: 31/18 and 5/18
Damage: 31/9 and 35/36
Total: 3.44 and .97, for 4.41 total, making the Predator about 17% better. Russ is pretty much as good per point at doing wounds, and is more durable.

Russes (Rerolling 1s To Hit And Number Of Shots On One Die)
7.75 (31/4) Battlecannon Shots, 1 Lascannon Shot
Hits: 217/48 and 7/12
Wounds: 217/72 and 7/18
Unsaved: 217/108 and 35/108
Damage: 217/54 and 245/216
Total: 4.02 and 1.13, for 5.15 total, making the Predator not even a whole percent better. (It rounds up to 1% better, barely.) At being more expensive, and less durable.