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.

Well, we all know the Vanquisher isn't THAT great. Sure, it has a 72" range (according to the 5th Edition), Str 8, Ap 2, and Heavy 1, but it's really not the best tank hunter in the world. Other than bringing Pask, I think it should be improved towards killing tanks and MC's. That's its niche in the IG, so at least let it do that effectively. I'd give it the following stats:

Vanquisher

BS 3 FA 14 SA 13 RA 12 (It is going to be facing a lot of AT fire, make it tougher for that) Type--tank
Vanquisher Battle Cannon: Range--72" (at least) Str--9, AP 1, Heavy 1 (gets a addition D6 for Armor Penetration, like in the original rules)
Points: 155 to 165 I'd say.

Obviously, since it is a tank hunter/destroyer, it's not going to be good against Hordes and the like. However, it is going to be come a fire-magnet. It should at least be harder to kill. I'd still run it naked and likely with a Lascannon.

Comment away. I know everyone's likely done a Vanquisher thread before, but I'd like to throw in my two cents.

hmmm, maybe just make the cannon strength 8 AP 1 and give it range 96" again

Well, I did think of a longer range, but for many matches, you'll not have to worry as much about range. Unless it's a big map or Apocalypse, 96" is over the top. I'd likely bring a super heavy at that point. Not saying your idea isn't bad, though. People would take either a likely see it as a improvement.

You might have noticed the higher rear armor, but I think that's fair, considering it's task. it is going to attract a lot of fire power from everything that can reach it.

The weapon's stats are fine, I think the only changes that could be made would be the following: Either:

1: Give it a co-axial weapon, probably a Heavy Stubber, which would increase it's accuracy.

2: Let it switch between regular Battle Cannon and Vanquisher Cannon ammo.

Coaxial Stubber isn't a bad idea. Increased accuracy is really good for a anti-tank unit. Even now, my idea for a Vanquisher will still have trouble killing MCs quickly. It only gets a single shot from it's main weapon, plus a Lasconnon shot. Two possible wounds against something that might have six wounds for all you know!

Coax heavy stubber would be good to increase accuracy.

The old days Vanquishers could fire battle cannon shells and you could buy vet skills to make it fire twice or reroll to hit.

I've heard the Vanquisher used to be good before the new Codex. Sadly, that's the one I get to see and mess with. My problem with it is it doesn't do the job it's designed for well--anti-tank. It's like throwing a Sherman tank armed with a early 75mm against a King Tiger. The chances of even remotely hurting it are low and it can maul you with a single blast. If I could compare, I'd say a Vanquisher should be more like Tiger I in it's role.

I think you're being conservative.

In order for me to even THINK about the vanquisher, it would have to gain S10, Ap1 the extra die, and stay the same price.

Because, really, you're spending all those points for something that still only hits half the time, and doesn't ignore cover.

Ailaros wrote:I think you're being conservative.

In order for me to even THINK about the vanquisher, it would have to gain S10, Ap1 the extra die, and stay the same price.

Because, really, you're spending all those points for something that still only hits half the time, and doesn't ignore cover.

That's kinda OTT. I can't remember the points of a Vanquisher, but a LRBT almost does the same task just as well - same Str and instead of 2d6 you get Ordnance. It's not terrible, and the Vanquisher does what it's meant to do...OK. I can't remember the range, but it still hits half the time - and it's gonna penetrate what it hits unless you're firing at the Monolith or a Wave Serpent. But it's armored as well as a Tank (maybe AV 11 in the rear), and is a hard target to take down, but it's important TO take down because of the threat it represents.

It may be a bit overpriced, but it certainly doesn't need a giant buff.

Well, I didn't think the not ignoring cover thing.

So, what about this instead...

BS 3 FA 14 SA 13 RA 12 Type--tank
Vanquisher Battle Cannon: Range--96" Str--10, AP 1, Heavy 1 (gets a addition D6 for Armor Penetration, like in the original rules), ignores cover saves. (against only MC's and tanks, maybe)
Coaxial Heavy Stubber
Hull Mounted Heavy Bolter
Coaxial Heavy Stubber is free of charge.
Still has Lumbering Behemoth
Points: 155 to 165 I'd say.

This still keeps it towards it purpose of killing MC's and tanks. I don't think it should have a Blast Template because it's a AT weapon--AT shells don't have nearly has much explosive power as HE weapons.

I thought of a coaxial autocannon, but feel the turret wouldn't handle that large of a extra weapon. It'd need a new turret design then.

TheRedArmy wrote: It's not terrible, and the Vanquisher does what it's meant to do...OK.

Except it doesn't even do what it does OK.

A vanquisher shooting at a rhino that popped smoke immobilizes or destroys it on a .107

To say that another way, it takes 10 vanquishers shooting at a single rhino for the expected result being that the rhino is stopped.

This is pathetic. Well over a thousand points of vanquisher to stop a less than 50 point transport? Really, they need to be at least turned into what the new tau railgun is expected to be.

LordCommissarBucher wrote:BS 3 FA 14 SA 13 RA 12 Type--tank
Vanquisher Battle Cannon: Range--96" Str--10, AP 1, Heavy 1 (gets a addition D6 for Armor Penetration, like in the original rules), ignores cover saves. (against only MC's and tanks, maybe) Rear armor needs to be 10, considering the range of the weapon. Only close-range weapons have 11, and regardless it doesn't need 12. Ignores cover for tanks and MCs is way too powerful for the points suggested.
Coaxial Heavy Stubber Confusing. Every other guard vehicle has to pay for this. Why is it free, and on the tank that benefits from it the least?
Hull Mounted Heavy Bolter Free on guard vehicles. It's fine, and should have the free substitute to heavy flamer.
Coaxial Heavy Stubber is free of charge. See above.
Still has Lumbering Behemoth As it should.
Points: 155 to 165 I'd say. Not for the changes you suggested. You're trying to make another Vendetta here, something Guard doesn't need, it's got plenty of fine vehicles. EDIT: I mean to say an underpriced unit.

This still keeps it towards it purpose of killing MC's and tanks. I don't think it should have a Blast Template because it's a AT weapon--AT shells don't have nearly has much explosive power as HE weapons.

I thought of a coaxial autocannon, but feel the turret wouldn't handle that large of a extra weapon. It'd need a new turret design then.

Your ideas are fine, your execution is poor. Even in friendly games, I'd never be fine with this. For the ideas you suggested...180 should be a fair price.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ailaros wrote:

TheRedArmy wrote: It's not terrible, and the Vanquisher does what it's meant to do...OK.

Except it doesn't even do what it does OK.

A vanquisher shooting at a rhino that popped smoke immobilizes or destroys it on a .107

To say that another way, it takes 10 vanquishers shooting at a single rhino for the expected result being that the rhino is stopped.

This is pathetic. Well over a thousand points of vanquisher to stop a less than 50 point transport? Really, they need to be at least turned into what the new tau railgun is expected to be.

That's poor target priority. If I had nothing else to shoot, I shoot the Rhino. Before that I'm shooting Predators, Land Raiders, Razorbacks...you name it. Almost everything else first. It's clearly not meant to take down light vehicles, but heavy vehicles. Heavier vehicles typically don't carry smoke, so that drops a fine percentage of the shots that would otherwise miss just fine. Also, there is no way to predict a single die roll (the damage roll), so you can't really predict which one will get the expected result - the first one, or the sixth one?

Edited for clarity.

TheRedArmy wrote:That's poor target priority.

Then you need to bring even MORE vanquishers when dealing with higher armor.

The only reason to take a vanquisher is to destroy vehicles. You need to spend WAY more point on vanquishers than your opponent spends of vehicles.

Taking vanquishers thus greatly helps your opponent. Clear that up, and maybe I'll consider taking them.

Well, they do pay for the Heavy Stubber, but it isn't Coaxial. It's Pindle mounted. The Coaxial is there to help increase accuracy. Like on a Baneblade, which uses a autocannon for that.

Although I didn't notice it, I meant to place a different point value--I totally forgot to change it. You're right, it's too low. I was going to make it the cost of the regular LRBT, the Stubber at the least, which would be 160. I believe, though 175 is the minimum. Sorry about that! Thanks for pointing it out.

Yes, the Hull Mounter Heavy Bolt is free, same with the Heavy Flamer. It still uses the rules for the regular LRBT for hull weapons and sponsons.

Ok, instead of ignoring cover saves, how about a +1 to the roll to hit? That might much more fair.

Reason why I have the armor so high is because it's, like I said in a earlier post, akin to Tiger 1, which was very well armored even i the rear. However, it suffered for other faults that could be taken advantage off (like slow turret speed, mechanical and weight problems). We can't represent those problems, I know realize. How about 14 FA, 12 SA, and 10 RA?

Well, the Vendetta is a tank hunter, but it's still not the same thing as the Vanquisher--I want a vehicle dedicated to killing heavily armored foes, that's well armored and all. The Vendetta carried troops, is a skimmer, and has weaker armor. The Vendetta is a Warthog with troop carrying abilities.

Thanks for the comments though! You've got a better train of thought than me right now.

Honestly, it should get something more like Ap1, and a rule like:

HIGH VELOCITY:
A vanquisher fires shells with such a staggering velocity that, combined with the hollow charge of the shell itself, makes any armor useless to resist. All successful hits by a vanquisher yield a penetrating result, regardless of armor value of the target.

Of course, you're still only wrecking a vehicle in cover a quarter of the time you shoot at it. By then it's very likely too late.

Ailaros wrote:

TheRedArmy wrote:That's poor target priority.

Then you need to bring even MORE vanquishers when dealing with higher armor.

The only reason to take a vanquisher is to destroy vehicles. You need to spend WAY more point on vanquishers than your opponent spends of vehicles.

Taking vanquishers thus greatly helps your opponent. Clear that up, and maybe I'll consider taking them.

That didn't really address most of my post or even the main point - the Vanquishers are designed to handle heavy armor. I agree that the Vanquisher isn't worth it's points right now, but it might be in another codex - it's because Guard has so many more better ways to deal with heavier armor. The unit itself isn't bad, it's its place in the codex that is bad. It's competing with all the other Leman Russes, all the artillery, and everyone's favorite, the deathstrike . At any rate, it does not need much improvement, just a tad. Leave everything the same, and throw in AP1. Depending on the points (forgot), maybe drop it by 5 or 10.

Ah, by higher armor, did you mean more armor? Then I actually agree with you. But I think a good list includes things to handle lighter armor (missile launcher, multi-laser, and some other stuff I forgot), and things to dispatch heavier armor (Lascannons, Vanquisher, Manticore), in a good balance for the expected opposition. Put all your eggs in one basket (or on one type of anti-vehicle) and bad things happening become much more likely.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'm confused. How does a co-axial weapon improve accuracy of the main weapon?

TheRedArmy wrote:the Vanquishers are designed to handle heavy armor. I agree that the Vanquisher isn't worth it's points right now, but it might be in another codex - it's because Guard has so many more better ways to deal with heavier armor.

The reason why other things in the codex deal with heavy armor better than the vanquisher is because the vanquisher deals with heavy armor so very poorly.

Thus the whole point of this thread - to make the vanquisher better so that it is actually a viable option.

Being new, I think there's a rule that allows for re-rolls if you have a coaxial on the tank. Let me go find if such a rule exists....

I agree with you--a vehicle that does all is not good. Hence the reason for the changes on the Vanquisher to better suit it's role. True, it does have a lot of competition.

Auto-pene doesn't sound like a bad idea, but if it had that and then a +1 to hit, wouldn't that make it even stronger? And if you can re-roll, that's even nastier....

Seems over the top then....


Note that the Baneblade is equipped with a coaxial autocannon too. An autocannon is a decent enough weapon in its own right, but the coaxial autocannon enables the Baneblade's main gun to re-roll to hit - an invaluable bonus!

This came straight from GW, so there is a rule about coaxial weapons and rerolls....

Coax weapons don't let you reroll hits. Twin linked weapons do. I'd just knock the AP to 1 instead of 2. It makes it no better against infantry or MCs, but makes it better against armor. That would go a long way.

So, here's the basic idea for a revamped Vanquisher now that I've look all your comments and ideas.

BS 3 FA 14 SA 13 RA 10 Type--tank

Vanquisher Battle Cannon: Range--96" Str--10, AP 1, Heavy 1 (see hollow charge)
Special Rules: Lumbering Behemoth
Hollow Charge: basically, it does a auto-penetration, like TheRedArmy wrote.
It gets a +1 when it rolls to hit.

Aside from that, it has all the other normal upgrades as a regular LRBT. No coaxial Heavy Stubber.

Pts: 175

I was tempted to have it have two shots, but that might be too much again.

Brother SRM wrote:Coax weapons don't let you reroll hits. Twin linked weapons do. I'd just knock the AP to 1 instead of 2. It makes it no better against infantry or MCs, but makes it better against armor. That would go a long way.

Last time I checked they do. In Apoc, the only rules for Co-axial weapons states something along the lines of "If one shot from the Co-axial weapon hits the designated target, then the main weapon may re-roll hits (or the directional dice) against that target.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

LordCommissarBucher wrote:So, here's the basic idea for a revamped Vanquisher now that I've look all your comments and ideas.

BS 3 FA 14 SA 13 RA 10 Type--tank

Vanquisher Battle Cannon: Range--96" Str--10, AP 1, Heavy 1 (see hollow charge)
Special Rules: Lumbering Behemoth
Hollow Charge: basically, it does a auto-penetration, like TheRedArmy wrote.
It gets a +1 when it rolls to hit.

Aside from that, it has all the other normal upgrades as a regular LRBT. No coaxial Heavy Stubber.

Pts: 175

I was tempted to have it have two shots, but that might be too much again.

Also, an Ap1 auto-penetration? Not in this lifetime. Give it S9 Ap1, with +1 to hit, that's all it needs.

Assuming that you're shooting against a Leman Russ in cover, and that the Vanquisher were BS4, Ap1, S9 +1d6 damage, it would take over 20 vanquishers shooting at it for a turn in order to reliably assmume the vehicle will be destroyed.

No, my friend, the vanquisher needs to get MUCH better.

BS 3 FA 14 SA 13 RA 10 Type--tank

Vanquisher Battle Cannon: Range--96" Str--10, AP 1, Heavy 1
Special Rules: Lumbering Behemoth
Hollow Charge: gets a +1 on damage table.
It gets a +1 when it rolls to hit.

Aside from that, it has all the other normal upgrades as a regular LRBT. No coaxial Heavy Stubber.

Pts: 175

Maybe it should be Heavy 2 instead?

And hopefully, someone else with better rule knowledge can post stats for how they would improve the Vanquisher!

To be honest I'd make it cost more than that...

And it's kind of disappointing to see this, when Tau don't get +2 on the damage table, or a possible Heavy 2, or a ton of extra weapons on it.

And in my opinion, Ailaros, I think anything that instantly penetrates it overpowered... In my opinion, the way Guards are made, they aren't supposed to have anything that is a one-shot kill kind of a thing. Sure, 3 Melta vet-squads are a bit of a contradiction to what I said, but I feel the 5th ed IG codex was terribly made.

grayspark wrote:To be honest I'd make it cost more than that...

And it's kind of disappointing to see this, when Tau don't get +2 on the damage table, or a possible Heavy 2, or a ton of extra weapons on it.

And in my opinion, Ailaros, I think anything that instantly penetrates it overpowered... In my opinion, the way Guards are made, they aren't supposed to have anything that is a one-shot kill kind of a thing. Sure, 3 Melta vet-squads are a bit of a contradiction to what I said, but I feel the 5th ed IG codex was terribly made.

Agreed on all counts. The disparity between the best in the codex (Vendetta, arguably), and the worst in the codex (maybe...Stormtroopers?) is appallingly large. Consider the DE codex - at least they all have a place in some list, somewhere (from what I've seen and remember). Not so for some of IG, and some deserves to be in virtually every list because it's simply too good.

+2 on damage is appalling large. Shoot at open-topped vehicles and only 1 result isn't a wrecked or exploded vehicle.

The challenge has been thrown, so I will offer...

Leman Russ Vanquisher
BS - 3
Armor - 14/13/10
Vanquisher Cannon - 72", S10, AP2, Heavy 2
Rules: Lumbering Behemoth, Vanquisher cannon rolls 2D6 for armor penetration.
Options: Standard for Vanquisher as now.
Points: 165

Now you have a very dedicated tank that can reliably penetrate something every turn from the board away. And doesn't break the bank.

What about its normal weapon profile, but a BS 4? Surely the gunners in these tanks would have to be crack shots. They can't afford to be "almost" on target like a normal russ with HE shells, they have to put a shell where it's gonna count the most. Granted, with Pask, that's hitting on 2's...

All I want from the vanquisher is AP1...I am much content with all else the same

Hmmmmmm, what about giving it the Lance quality to represent its ability to smash through armor?

Seriously, though, by-damage, a 105 point squad of melta stormies is as likely to kill a vehicle as a thousand points of vanquisher.

Giving them an uber-bonus may SEEM like a big deal, but it really isn't when you actually look at the statistics. Long-range anti-tank is pretty crappy in 5th ed, and the only way it's even vaguely viable is if it's very cheap, which the vanquisher very much isn't. It either needs a substantial damage increase (the +2 on the vehicle damage chart is getting there), or it needs its price to be cut in half.

Although in most cases I'd still take a hydra and a melta SWS over two vanquishers, even if they were only 75 points apiece...

Leman Russ Vanquisher
BS - 3
Armor - 14/13/10
Vanquisher Cannon - 72", S10, AP2, Heavy 2
Rules: Lumbering Behemoth, Vanquisher cannon rolls 2D6 for armor penetration.
Options: Standard for Vanquisher as now.
Points: 165 (written by TheRedArmy)

Well, it wasn't as much of a challenge as it was asking for some imput or aid. We've be saying how bad the Vanquisher is, but we haven't really don't have much 'Here's my idea on how to....' I've been doing it based on what I have heard back and all, and I am still new to the game, so I don't know what 'breaks the bank' and all.

Being a German player in FoW and other games with German tanks, German tanks are absolutely nightmarish to fight over long ranges and some are extremely difficult to destroy. In general, most German vehicles had a powerful anti-tank weapon that could gut foes at ranges they could never hope to reply.

With this in mind, I was basically trying to make the Vanquisher something like a Tiger I--a well armored, powerful anti-tank vehicle. And with that being said, I like TheRedArmy's rule suggestion for the Vanquisher. I would, possibly increase the range, but I suppose range isn't so big a deal with the battlefields we work with now.

And what's the Lance quality?

And I also agree the gunner in this vehicle would be a better gunner than tanks with HE because a AT round is high velocity--it doesn't have a blast large enough to damage a vehicle that's well armored.

Anyways, I do appreciate all the comments and suggestions!