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.

Now, I love the idea for the Vanquisher. I've always found it silly that Leman Russes only have HE shells, but that's another matter. But the Vanquisher to me has always been something that would really fit in with the Imperial Guard, however....there's always been this problem that Vanquisher sucks. Pure and simple. Now, excluding a complete overhaul of the whole thing into a PROPER tank destroyer (high speed, thin armor, etc.) I've thought that a big part of why the Vanquisher isn't competitive is that its target range is too small. It's only good against things that are just a little out of reach for the lascannon both strength and range wise....and that's a fairly small selection.

So, I think one good way to make this tank much more competitive would be to broaden its target horizons to include MCs (as well as giving it AP1). What's the fluff justification for this I hear you ask? Well, I always viewed the Vanquisher as shooting an APFSDS round. Either of these rounds would fly straight through even the toughest armor on a MC, and most likely out the other side, with sheer speed probably doing a lot of squicky damage on its pass through. As such, I propose the following profile for the Vanquisher Battle cannon

Vanquisher Battlecannon
Range: 72" Strength 8 AP1 Heavy 1

Armor Piercing Shell: The Vanquisher Battlecannon is built to fly through even the toughest enemy armor as if it was paper. As such, the Vanquisher rolls an additional d6 when rolling for armor pen, and inflicts d3 wounds on MCs.


What does dakka think?

Hell I'd support it. But to me the main weakness in the Vanquisher is the fact that, unlike other LR variants if it misses... well, it's just a big ol' paperweight. The others with blast damage can at least scatter onto something. Let's face it, our BS 3 guardsmen are only gonna hit half the time so even if it can have a target all 6 turns it's only hit three of them with absolutely no collateral damage. Sure you can give them Pask but that just jumps the points cost to higher than I can justify given its niche performance. So I think that's the real problem. Though if this proposed rule change worked then it would definitely help to balance it back into the "kinda useful" area.

Right, but this is to just make it a little bit better. Give it a slightly better chance of causing pain when it hits so that it gets a little bit better, and maybe make Pask's point cost a bit easier to swallow.

My take on the vanquisher is that it just needs its main gun to be heavy 3, enough shots to make up for poor ballistic skill and get some reliable damage on tanks at very long range (making it AP1 makes it too similar to the Tau Railgun for my taste), 1.5 hits a turn which will on average blow through any armour in the game (aside from the monolith) is good by me.

Jack

But there's really no fluff reason for it to be heavy 3, I'd think....

And if anything is going to similar to the railgun, it'd be the Vanquisher cannon.

Another possibility, would be to add say....a coaxial stormbolter or something. That could solve the accurate problems.

Eh, add some fluff about it being rapid fire, instead of firing special bullets

The coaxial solution (aside from needing a IA rule to work) is not so great as only being twin linked within 24inches is rather blah for what ought to be a long range antitank gun.

More shots is a good way to get the same sort of reliability AP1 adds, without needing to go about it the same way.

Jack

Personally, 72" AP1, BS4, Coaxial Heavy Stubber (so rerolls if stubber hits, which has a 36" range) and it'd be great. Not so sure about the MC thing, could be fine I dunno, but the problem is that the Vanquisher costs a *ton* of points for a 1 shot weapon that will miss 50% of the time, and will only kill 33% of the time that it actually pens armor (which, even with 2d6 armor pen, can still fail against AV14 about 42% of the time), and whose armor pen bonus really only matters against AV13/14 vehicles when compared with other weapons. That and it can't do anything really other than hunt tanks.

If I were gonna add a coaxial gun to it something with at least moderate anti armour punch would be more sensible, autocannon or lascannon perhaps?

Jack

Coaxial heavy stubber or autocannon seems like it'd fit best....

THe MC thing is there so that the Vanquisher HAS a bigger place on the battlefield. Hunting enemy heavy armor, or hunting down MCs. This wider job range may make it so its slightly more worthwhile taking.

The coaxial weapon is there for two purposes. On actual tanks they are there not only for anti-infantry firepower, but also, at least historically, as ranging devices. The gunner would fire the coaxial machinegun, watch to see if it struck, and then use that aiming point for the main weapon. That's what the coaxial weapon rule is representing.

Why not just give it a "Targetting System" and allow re-rolls to hit?

I agree that a dedicated Tank hunter should have 2D6 vs armour as well.

That could be a good idea....I think making the Vanquisher more accurate would be a long step to making the tank more competitive.

Why not just use the imperial armour rules i've used them quite a bit and they work fine. So it can fire the normal russ shell as well making it a cracking all rounder. The vanq is supposed to be the ultimate russ it was originally called the king russ before they sorted the rules and books out. The accuracy is fine as it matches the rest of the army i've done two land raiders in two turns before it all balances out in the end. Firing both shells means it can always shoot something and indicates its position as top IG tank.

Thousand Nuns wrote:The accuracy is fine as it matches the rest of the army i've done two land raiders in two turns before it all balances out in the end..

Cool. You have a 5% change to kill 1 land raider in cover, and a 0.25% chance to kill two in a row. You have well over a 80% chance to do no damage result at all to a land raider, and more than a 70% chance to do nothing 2 turns in a row.

How about you give me $80, and I give you $5 back.
It all balances out, right?

Fair point well made so referring back to my original post would it not be a good idea to fire the other shell type at something you can kill?

Seems good, lol I like the idea of making it better I love the tank

ChrisWWII wrote:But there's really no fluff reason for it to be heavy 3, I'd think....

And if anything is going to similar to the railgun, it'd be the Vanquisher cannon.

Another possibility, would be to add say....a coaxial stormbolter or something. That could solve the accurate problems.

it HAD a coaxel storm bolter, AP 1 as well as normal battle cannon rounds, and range 96" back in imperial armor volume 1

Oh how come we can't keep the good things?

Then again, a coaxia stormbolter would be of much use to be honest....coaxial heavy stubber maybe.

Giving it back the normal Battle Cannon shot goes against the design grain of the newer IG codex though, nothing in their gets ammo options, and each turret variant is treated as a discrete tank type.

Jack

ChrisWWII wrote:Oh how come we can't keep the good things?

Then again, a coaxia stormbolter would be of much use to be honest....coaxial heavy stubber maybe.

still not as bad as what they did the the exacutioner, it was range 54" but only heavy 1. personally if GW was smart they would have left that in but make the choice before each game which type you use, or maybe chose for every shot?

I actually like the Executioner better this way. The 3 templates means you might actually get to put multiple wounds on big critters, and there's not a lot in the IG codex that can do that.

That's why I originally wanted my d3 wounds for the Vanquisher. Give it a bigger targeting group, so it'd be more worthwhile, along with something to improve its accuracy.

personal opinion i guess, as i prefer the longer range with a plasma weapon. however i think it should be both, as well as the vanquisher having both AP1 AT rounds and the normal battle cannon rounds but both at range 96" like it USE TO BE

Just put Knight Commander Pask in it and it immediately becomes viable.

No, because then it's way too expensive for what it does. 205 pts for what's essentially a 72" melta?

Not worth it, imho. It's targetting variety is too narrow right now (AV13 and 14 only), and its accuracy makes it bad unless you've got Pask when it's too expensive.

I would say a coaxial gun and making it better against MCs is a good way to go in order to make the tank actually viable.

A 72" melta is a fantastic asset especially if you have it in synergy with the rest or your army. My three heavy support choices for my guard list are 2 Hydras m 2 punishers and a vanquisher with Pask. The Hydras pop transports and heavy infantry, the punishers destroy infantry and protect my Infantry and the Vanquisher deals with Landraiders or their equivalent. Add in a couple of Heavy Weapons teams with autocannons and las cannons and it works very nicely - still haven't lost with this list tournament or friendly.