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.

@ Math: You get 0.7/0.97 if you take D6 for the Vanquishers damage, but against vehicles it already does Melter damage, leading to the numbers in my post.

If you want to go for 6/8 average damage on LR/Macharius Vanquishers you might change "2D6 pick the highest" to 1D6+3 for the LR variant and 1D6 +4 for the Macharius. Its one dice less to throw and would make the Vanquisher more reliable by having a higher floor damage.To put this in again:
LR Vanquisher against T8, 3+ / T7, 3+
1.354/1.527

Macharius Vanquisher against T8, 3+ / T7, 3+
4.167

That... sounds interesting. It would become the best option for tank hunting (on average) but quite bad against anything with less than 4 wounds by wasting most of his firepower on single models killing them 3times over. Which somehow fits the fluff, you don't shoot Anti-Tank rounds on single dudes running around.

That's what I get for not reading the rules.

I don't know of many d6+X weapons in 40k. Toying around with the numbers a bit more, doubling the damage on a wound roll of 6+ would make the LR vanquisher match a LR on T7/3+ and do 1.25 dmg on a T8/3+. Unfortunately this is not enough on a marcharius, it still won't match the BC. So I think your idea might be good for that marcharius (melta, +2 against vehicles, and doubling on a wound of 6+). The only other rule I can think of that will do something similar is doubling the damage on a 5+ and taking the highest damage of 3d6. 1d6+4 and the one I just mentioned will do 7.5 damage per shot on average, while the combination will do 8.125. I'm slightly worried that will be too good.

You would shoot AT rounds at a single dude if you're shooting a custodian.

Theoretically the vanquisher could be a slightly more expensive battle cannon with better range(then again when is range ever an issue for the BC on the tabletop? but it's something to consider) and accuracy(having a higher velocity, ammunition which is ballisticly superior an a gun that is naturally more accurate and is superior in manufacturing).

Thought vanquisher was some kind of coilgun(hence the issues of manufacture and their apparent rarity(before that was ret-conned)

On another note BC and Vanquisher should both be using HEAT (With the Abrams it was decided to do away with HEF and use HEAT as an anti-personnel round because ammo capacity was only 40 (120mm) rounds) A higher velocity weapon should still be more accurate (because the target is presumably not stationary and waiting to be hit by a flying shell and it might just be a more accutrate weapon)

I thought the Abrams just had no need for an anti-infantry round. Then again modern US conflicts have no need for the Abrams, but that might change if the war party (i.e. both parties) gets its way.

Still, I am skeptical if a velocity change of a few hundred m/s will make a noticeable difference on the tabletop outside, of one point of AP or something. I think it is more plausible that they use different ammunition which requires different barrel structures. I don't have a good guess for what those might be, and I don't think GW does either.

@ GW not having a clear idea: That's a fair guess I can get behind.

But seriously, I could live with some handwaving or techbrabble as explanation, as long as you can see game mechanical intention behind the Vanquishers for example.

Is it the long range sniper variant? Than it needs a better BS
Is it a tank killer? Than the damage output against heavily armoured targets should be better than the other LR loadouts.
Is it a specialist weapon for handling unconventionally armoured (Void shields, Quantum Shielding etc.) targets? Let it ignore one special layer of defence (ISv, FNP, QS).


Back to the Malcador/Macharius: as OldMate mentioned (at least I think so) they should have more storing room for ammunition than the LR. And since the Baneblade has to carry the ammunition and power cells for much more weapons one could make the argument that only the intermediate tanks carry specialized ammo as Eipi10 mentioned. Could also be interesting.


Edit:
Just shooting from the hip:
1. Guided high AP, anti Tank Shell: Heavy1 S9, AP-4, Melter Damage, +1 to BS and to wound vs. vehicles (so an improved Version of the Macharius Vanquisher Shell)
2. heavy blast shell: Heavy 1D6, S8, AP -2, D6 (the classic Macharius Battlecannon Shell)
3. Frag Shell: Heavy 2D6, S6, AP -1, D1 (for shredding Infantry, maybe even D2, not sure about that)

And just for fun (and not really serious)
4. guided Flarak Missile: Heavy 1 S9, AP -3, D6 (like the Space Marines Hunter) ignores hard to hit, +1 against fly, can not target non-fly units (because of targeting problems or whatever)

@ GW not having a clear idea
Seems that Forgeworld's Gryphonne and Styrgies are set up to fire different ammo, and not really well at that. And their optimal performance stats for a russ seems to be lifted from an Abrams. So I'd say its a fair prognosis.

I prefer the russ as what it's model is. A Howitzer on top of a metal box that is covered with guns.

These'd been my three, now I think of it I'm just being nasty to the nids!

1Canister shot: fires a 20 hit S1 AP1 at an enemy unit.
2Beast Killer : Poison round, ignores FNP, and against monsterous creatures/demons D6 automatic wounds
3Incendiary: Basically a long range Hellhound shot.

Also sounds cool. But I guess that a lot of non IG players would critisize this for additional bloat and IG getting to much new toys
But as houserules definitely something and it would add another tactical layer.

Just as a little crazy idea: you could even say that the player has to choose the next round to be loaded at the end of his shooting phase. So you have to decide what the LRs optimal target will be next turn before you see how your oppontents turn went. Thus simulating, that you can not quickly put a loaded round back out of the canon in the heat of battle.

An easy other way to handle it is to make a detachment for malcador tanks (minimum 3 to form it) or macharius tanks(min 3 to form it.)

Give each detachment the ability to designate one tank a command tank (-1 cp) and create a relic of moderately badass power that is NOT a copy of the hammer of sunderance. Like, for example, an energy weapon cannon that on a 5+ (roll once per wound save triggered) degrades the enemy's invuln shield by 1 point (stacks) for the rest of the phase.

Give the detachment a strategem like "toughness" 1 cp spend befoer the game to give any tank in the detachment -1 to incoming wound rolls. This reflects veteran crews in an ancient vehicle using absolutely every last trick of the book to keep their best armor facing the incoming fire. I imagine most people taking three machariusses would take this one three times!
Give it an active use strategem called "hard to pin" allowing one macharius or malcador tank to withdraw from melee d6 inches after firing its main tyurrent weaponry (and only its turret weaponry) in overwatch.
Give it a detachment commander option of a chimera with a platoon commander in it OR the above mentioned malc/mach tank commander, and let that vehicle's warlord trait (again like in a vigilis detach_) have a 6" aura of rerolling 1 to hit, 1 to wound, 1 to damage a round, affecting one designated tank, but you can wait till use to pick which.. To make this spicey, allow the tank designated to force the ENEMY to take the reroll, if you want, when attacking your tank. "Gosh, that six damage looks bad, reroll that please! would justify this entire detachment in my mind. Just to say it to someone once " Since each vigilis style detachment traditionally has 2 unique strategems, have one called "armored pack infantry" .. one infantry within 3" with this tank , that can draw at least one line between it and the enemy throught the body of the tank can pass the incoming hits (not wounds, but raw hits) onto the tank on a 3+. Meaning that the troops basically are cowering behind the tank, of course, and letting the bolterfire ping, ping, ping off its body.
Cause those old veteran tank crews are slippery, they make the best use of what they got, even when its cooperating with troops.

Sure, you don't fix the total firepower gap issue, but the malc and machr tanks are suddenly much less easy to pop like a can of soda, and I think this detachment could be fun to play, and importantly, it could be DIFFERENT to play,. not just one more mathematically optimized function of damage and resilience per unit point spent. In other words, don't make them leman russes any more than you would complain that air gunships and ground tanks are not exactly comparable stat for stat. Its an idea I been kicking around for a while now. It would make it a real choice if you wanted to go light armor that dies easier, or heavier, older style armor that is less significantly easy to kill.

A really cool idea to be sure. I like that (as I wished for at the start of this threat) it would make taking Malcadors/Macharius a tactical choice with a specific use instead of trying to compete with the LR/Baneblades in their territory. The idea to tank wounds for accompanying infantry is also very innovative and cool.

One thing one should consider: I would instead make it open to include any mix of Malcadors and Macharius, since the models are really not cheap and getting three of the same model can be a bit dull. Also it would look cool and fluffy to have a Macharius Command tank leading his two Malcador buddies on the battlefield.

Oh, sure. Its an idea I kick around in my head that is not fully evolved yet. It would probably have to properly be set up so you can't take both leman russ fist AND the heavy armor assault column, ever. Forcing a choice in philopsophy.

Maybe make one "Superdense Macharius Assault Group" for superheavy tanks, repair tanks, and -1 to wound rolls as above, but make one for malcador support tanks, transport command tanks (trojan, salamander, chimera) as the warlord trait vehicle, and elite infantry (special weap squad, vets, or command squads) as the troops to follow along. Let each tank in the tank grenadiers group protect 1 infantryman per round for free on a 4+ (as opposed to the single 3+ strategem in the superheavy assault tank group). As a balancing rule, such protected squads won't be able to carry heavy weapons, but can substitute an extra special weapon in its place (they are, of course, part of the same detachment.) Call that detachment "malcador grendiers" detachment.

Viola, ytou have given the gaurd different options -- neither of which suck. Someone willing to plunk down the money and effort to make an army that is special wepaon intensive, and has those big classic tankers gets a column that any gaurdsman would be proud to field!

This finally answers the worry I had that the malcadors are only heavy class tanks and the macharius are superheavy. Now you can make one detachment that is part of an infantry column for malcadors, and one that is a superheavy tank group with a few strategems, for machariusses.

Ah, decisions. Would you pick an atlas recovery tank and three macharius? Or perhaps a trojan and three malcadors with a mix of plasma and grenades marching behind?

I don't know about specialist detachments, they feel too restrictive. I think there is a reason why there is no indication we will see any more since vigilus, and why I personally have never seen one used since they were new.

It seems pretty clear from the rules that the BB is intended to be a supersized russ, so I figured the malc and mach would follow the same trend if GW/FW wrote the rules properly. But it looks like you all proposing rules that would split the guard tanks into two families, infantry support and MBT. You could even go further and give each guard tank fill a unique tactical role, but I'm not sure of a good way to differentiate the BB and LR, or malc and mach for that matter. If you wanted some more flexibility, you could always make both the malc and mach heavy supports.

So if the LR has it's GA rule for tank v. tank combat, and the BB has steel behemoth for dominating the battlefield, what special rules should the malc and mach get? What about some kind of dedicated heavy tank rule: As long as this tank moves at or under half it's move characteristic, it suffers no penalties for moving and firing heavy weapons, subtracts 1 from the damage of incoming attacks to a minimum of 1, and on a 4+ it can force one enemy unit to target it instead of one friendly infantry unit within 3" for shooting attacks one per battle round.

I really think these tanks need some kind of shooting improvement, they are just so far behind that it's sad. Something to further boost survivability will not be remiss if you aren't trying to make it compete with a LR/BB, but I don't like messing with wound roles unless it is for a good reason, I would soon alter the incoming damage or just give the tank a FNP.

In apocalypse you could use Malcadors as escort tanks for baneblades and Macharius, in a detachment with rules that'd allow you to role a "Look out sir!" on 5s and 6s.

Also interesting Oldmate.

Another wild idea that came into my mind (especially when considering Malcadors/Macharius as "Bodyguards" for infantry or Lords of War):
While the Malcador Defender and Annhillator do possess the (now even better) Demolisher cannon, the Standard Malcador can only take a Heavy Bolter/Heavy Flamer or Lascannon. Together with his single Battlecannon (with the LR D3 damage and not the Macharius D6 damage profile) this makes him really lacking on the firepower side. One could as well say that the reason for that was that something else like a void shield generator needed the space inside. So one could give him not only a invulnerability save but make it apply to fellow infantry (or even vehicles?), depending on the "power distribution".
Just to go wild on this idea: if you see it as a bubble he might choose:
a) 5++ only for himself
b) 6++ for any unit within 3''
This way he could serve as a infantry support tank or as a nice, yet expensive bodyguard for a Baneblade etc. If it turn out to be too powerful one could make him choose to either use the ISv for himself OR for one protected unit, but not both at the same time (so no bubble).
If one likes this option, one could imagine giving the same to the Malcador, but with more range (6'' bubble/one unit within 6'')

Basically that shield is to weak to help other units much at all.
Gaurd infantry won't benefit from it because they usually get a 6+ save against anti-infantry weapons. Gaurd tanks usually won't see much benefit because 3+ armor -3 (for a lascannon) ALSO already has a 6+ save against most foes. So you are giving saves they already have, unless your enemy army consists entirely of anti-orbital ship weaponry like knight castellans fire or packs of multimeltas. Even a multimelta hitting a baneblade next to a source of 6++ only loses 1/6 its damage potential, and none of its damage, if the baneblade is clever enough to squeak cover out of terrain.
Sure, you protect gaurd troops out of cover really well against ap-2 weapons, compared to 2 points of armor, but its kind of a niche spot, and that +1/6th miss isn't going to win any battles for a gaurd army that can buy 10 more gaurd for 40 points anyway.

You want to do it effectively, give it the ability to give one unit a 4++ shield and itself a 5++ shield. Or give it abilities more similar to the salamander command tank -- a baneblade firing at +1 is suddenly worth something to gaurd.
I think that would be a tank option with value to a gaurd player .. but the 6++ aura is pretty useless. (Having experimented a bit with celestine taught me that right quick.)

What if they carried extra ammo in that space, so they could function as a trojan (for themself OR another vehicle?)

Earlier in the thread, I had suggested giving the malcador reroll hits on it's main gun if it moves under half it's move characteristic. Between that and boosted damage, it would be in line with the power level of a LR. I don't think that rule would be good however, the game has too many rerolls now and I don't want to infringe in the trojan's territory. A mathematically similar rule would be shoot twice (like a LR) but with a damage of d6 minus 1 to a minimum of 1. If you want to malcador to be a slightly tankier LR and want to macharius to bridge the gap between a LR and a BB, you can use to rules I made.

But making these tanks more like infantry support vehicles is much more interesting. I still like your idea of intercepting hits. Maybe make it apply to all units within 3" (not just infantry) and activate on a 5+ if you want these tanks to support infantry too. A pair of macharius's can even intercept hits for each other if you want to stay out of melta/rapidfire range or something. This rule only works if the attacks are within range of the new tank. Otherwise, the attacks target the originally targeted unit as normal.

I don't like the idea of guard getting invuln saves (except for characters and those given by other armies). They're supposed to (usually) be 20th-century soldiers in the 400th-century, no force fields here.

Yeah. I don't imagine its good to have too flexible and easy a buff to the tanks, either. The vigilis style detachments let you play a whole different style of gaurd, but they also FORCE you to play a whole different style of gaurd. Are you going for shooty leman russ tanks all in a row supporting a few crap infantry? Is fine, but you buy 5 or so leman russ, you can't buy the malch and mach detachments also. Are you going to put elite infantry next to support tanks and roll the panzer grenadiers forward? Is fine, but after 3 malcadors, you likely able to dip the terrible tank commander trio anymore. Maybe its viable as such, in fact, I think that the troops escort + elite troops style would work solid, but you can't skim a bit of each to have "this is my 5 leman russ and 1 malcador and 8 little squads with 47 plasma that nobody can shoot, hahha"

Similarly, if you want to play superduperheavy armor, with the wound roll penalty to attackers, great, but after you buy 3 superheavies, you are not looking at a huge OTHER army, so you end up building a list about what makes this unit shine and special, rather than "this is a cool soup element I can now make soup with." IE, you know your macharius superheavies are now as hard to kill as probably knights, cause no shield, but wound benefit!. Thos machariuses don't NEED the full firepower of a baneblade each to be useful anymore.

I even think a third type of detachment (using malcadors) called a armor scouting support detachment might be cool. It would potenetially include any armor with a scout move and 3 malcadors. The thing that would do would be to allow the scout vehicles to recieve tau style overwatch from a malcador tank (1 cp strategem), and would allow the scout vehicles to designate line of sight for an indirect fire from a malcador tank (1 cp strategem), and would (finally) allow the malcador tanks to take a -1 to be hit as long as one of the scout vehicles was closer to the firing unit than the malcador itself. (I modeled this one based on interviews I once did with a tanker veteran from WWII, they used to use jeeps with a 50 cal MG on them in the spotter role before the sherman tanks, to spoil the many clever ambushes the german tanks laid in against them.) I don't think that overwhelms the game -- but it lets the malcador player use his stuff very differently yet again.

The "basic" pregame detachment strategems of "designate a command malc or macharius that is +1bs and +1LD" for a cp, (use only one time) and designate any malc or machar tank as +1T (1 cp, may buy multiple times, but cannot stack on same tank) would still be available.

Viola. You could make an army that was infantry support -- 3 tough tanks roll up the center with elite troops cowering behind them (but no heavy weapons allowed, and only gaurd special weapons squads, command squads, or veterans). You could make an army that was scout tank based, a bunch of scout sentinals and salamanders spotting enemies for them and harrying the foe, while the big tanks roll up to support, or you could just plain jane go for a superheavy tank group that is incredibly tough to kill because of its incredibly thick armor (but can't synergize with the scouts or troops).

Three viable (I thinik anyway) mach/malc detachments that would give gaurd players an option to take OTHER than just a pile of leman russes, and, I think, would be both fluffy and fairly useful.

Anyoen who loves baneblades can still do 3 baneblades, sure, and properly throw in the 3 trojans and the 3 engenseers and 1 company commander. Still viable, but so expensive! And anyone who wanted a "just one" macharius or malcador could, I guess, get the +1toughness strategem to use before the game. Sure, its undergunned, but its got great armor now, fluffy as heck, but not total trash.

That's pretty much my idea, anyway. Sure, vigilis style detachments may be out of vogue in some ways, but for pure gaurd armies, they make a lot of sense, they can essentially force the gaurd player not to abuse rule mechanics on individual units that otherwise ... well, gaurd is such a big faction, its a bit like you can make gaurd soup with only other gaurd in it, skimming the best armor, the best infantry, the best melee, the best artillery, the best ... and end up with something that is the same mathematically optimized mix every time.

I still don't like using detachments for this. As long as you stay mono-faction, I wouldn't consider your army to be soup. Everyone is always trying to optimize their list, it's why internal army balance is so important. Furthermore, there is a reason why GW made a lot of their specialist detachment relics and stratagems into standard ones. This is especially true for marines, and they have an even bigger codex than guard.

FW units need some special stratagems all their own. +1T for the macharius and BB is good, maybe for 2 CP if it's outside of a specialist detachment. The malc is too small to be T9. Intercepting shooting can be a malcador stratagem, maybe make it a 2CP strat so you don't have to compensate in another way, so your not designing the unit around the stratagem. I was reading over the guard codex and I noticed the LR doesn't actually have a unique stratagem, maybe give it a stratagem that lets it fire it's heavy weapons even if it advances, to represent it's mobility.

Remove the LR tank commander (Pask can still exist) and then a tank commander can be a general AM stratagem. For 2CP, it gives 1 tank order to the unit, the officer keyword, +1 BS, +1LD, and makes the unit count as an HQ instead of a heavy support. This can only be applied to the malcador, macharius (which is now a heavy support) and LR. Tank order can now be used a malcador, macharius, or LR, instead of just the LR.

But the WW2 tactics is more a mine avoidance tactics than a shooting one, you can do that with normal movement.

I like the idea of having recon forces spotting for your tanks, read something similar about the British in Italy, where they were using brengun carriers for recon, was very much finding AT positions and those pesky Stugs that basically killed everything. (I'm not joking the humble stug 3 was probably responsible for the most armour kills of any German AFV)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
But in any case having scout sentinel or salamander be able to give a tank/artillery piece/aircraft a re-roll on a target would be interesting.

Better to do +1 to hit (which DOESNT slow the game down), and / or let the tank fire its main gun in close support during any phase if the scout gets to within a certain range of the target unit (yep, you guessed it, one inch. Assault scouts!). "I discovered it! Give me overwatch supression!" In that case? Treat it like a valhallan shot, 1's would hit the scout unit, its a dangerous job, sniffing out ambush tanks!
Or when the scout comes under fire from anything in the M/M's range (a different cool use of a 1 point strategem). "Enemy located, he is ARRGH" .... "Fire on that location, Gunner, that scout didn't die in vain!"

That would basically insure the scouts driving forward like madmen, looking frantically for targets for the tanks to come down on. There wouldn't need to be a grinding advance mechanism then, to make up the firing, as the malcador and macharius main guns would be going off an extra time, potentially, during assault (once charges declared), when someone actually charges the scout and gets into attack position, or during enemy fire phase.

I bet it would keep people on their toes! Clever players would bring a lot of scouts sentinals, scout cars, and similar.

Actually, there is no reason that a similar but slightly different strategy for WW1 themed armies can't exist where rough riders are the "scout" element and the basilisk or wyvern of your choice is the artillery backup piece. To keep this sane, though, you would set it up so people can't be BOTH kinds of cheese at once.

I bet this would be a nice mechanism for making gaurd somewhat more competitive again (as I believe its currently monogaurd doing about 40 percent win in the big tournamnets). In local games, though, it would be a fluffy and fun reason to run lots of scout units and go all over with them.