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.

Buttons

They may know the Vanquisher, but would you want to take that chance? A possible 250 point tank killed because you thought nothing would happen.

Buttons wrote:
Also, making the cannon heavy 2 or 3 is a terrible idea. Yes it needs more accuracy, but that isn't the way to do it. Perhaps have a coaxial storm bolter or heavy stubber, perhaps have a targeter that allows rerolls or boosts the BS, but making it heavy 2 would be too much since if they both hit using the AP 1 strength 10 idea that Vlad considered the target will almost certainly die. Having AP 1 is one thing, having a 25% chance of hitting it with two practically autokill shots is too much.

I've played it at heavy 2 (via the Apocalypse formation mentioned above, also used in some Spearhead games with no superheavies) and its impressive but hardly game wrecking. As to the Co-axial idea, I'm opposed for two reasons: one the range would be very short, at best 36 inches for the stubber and secondly it requires adding in a rule not present in normal 40k, so if folks see twin linking as the benefit needed why not just make it twin linked all the time (or the slightly better choice to me, 2 shots period).

Jack (sorry )

Depends on the situation. Generally you should keep vehicles in cover as much as possible anyway, however if I was doing something important with a 250 point vehicle I would probably be willing to take the chance. If I lose the tank, sure it hurts losing anywhere between half and 1/10th my points, but you cannot expect to defeat Guard armies by just sitting back (with a few exceptions) and letting them shoot at you with tanks, artillery, and melta vets until your army melts away. Now, the Vanquisher is threatening, and it has potential to kill almost anything, but there are more threatening things in a Guard army.

TBH the Guard has some of the best AT options in the game, Melta vets, Vendettas, Medusas with Bastion Breacher, Medusa without BB shells, Demolishers, the only reason I care about the Vanquisher is that I love the model, but buying it just feels like such a waste. For less points I can get 3 twin-linked lascannons, I can get a Medusa with BB shells and a maximum tank killing range of 48", for slightly more I can get 3 meltas in a Chimera or a Demolisher. With the exception of the Vendetta all of the aforementioned options also have at least some anti-infantry capabilities.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jackmojo wrote:

Buttons wrote:
Also, making the cannon heavy 2 or 3 is a terrible idea. Yes it needs more accuracy, but that isn't the way to do it. Perhaps have a coaxial storm bolter or heavy stubber, perhaps have a targeter that allows rerolls or boosts the BS, but making it heavy 2 would be too much since if they both hit using the AP 1 strength 10 idea that Vlad considered the target will almost certainly die. Having AP 1 is one thing, having a 25% chance of hitting it with two practically autokill shots is too much.

I've played it at heavy 2 (via the Apocalypse formation mentioned above, also used in some Spearhead games with no superheavies) and its impressive but hardly game wrecking. As to the Co-axial idea, I'm opposed for two reasons: one the range would be very short, at best 36 inches for the stubber and secondly it requires adding in a rule not present in normal 40k, so if folks see twin linking as the benefit needed why not just make it twin linked all the time (or the slightly better choice to me, 2 shots period).

Jack (sorry )

I wouldn't mind twin-linking all the time, I just feel like heavy 2 or 3 is too much.

Keep in mind in lots of battles you're not going for the 250 point land raider, you're plonking one of several cheap transports full of goons coming to murder your men, so its not as if its always going to have a perfect high priced target to kill and look overpowered (also I'm not at all in favor of combining extra shots with the oft suggested AP1). Also I like how the extra shot gives it a slight increase in utility versus monstrous critters.

Jack

HI fellas

I have been following your ideas with interest and I tend to agree with the following points;

1. We should not introduce apocalypse rules into regular 40k
2. Vanquisher is "redundant" depending on how you build your army

To reduce the "redundancy" of the vanquisher and avoid messing up the rules, I think we need to keep a few things in mind.

In third edition the tank worked very well and people did not mind the mixed ammunition and the 0 - 1 limit. Because in the original fluff the world that made the tanks was destroyed by the orks and the tank was a regular LRBT that could fire special AT rounds.

The tank is meant to be the beast at what it does, but to do so would mean that it could not be used in other roles, it would be expensive for what it does and people would not want to field it.

So it must be made to be able to handle things other than tanks as well ie infantry

SO how about a compromise ?

0 - 1 Leman Russ Vanquisher Battle Tank = 220 points. For this price you get 14/12/10, Hull mounted Lascannon, smoke launchers, search light, Vanquisher cannon, storm bolter, Veteran Crew. May have all normal upgrades except side sponsors

Veteran Crew = Ignore crew shaken results, re-roll scatter dice if off target
Vanquisher Cannon = The specilized forges that produced this cannon produced a weapon of incredible power, designed to kill enemy tanks and still be able to support front line infantry. This cannon uses AT ammunition, has Range of 92"
Anti-Tank Ammunition = Strength 8 AP 3 Ordenance large blast. Against tanks AT ammunition adds 2D6 to its strength ie 8 + 2D6 to determine penetration/glance. For damage table roll 3D6 and pick the highest

How is this looking ? The storm bolter is in there so that if you target infantry you can shoot it at infantry as well and if your vanquisher cannon gets destroyed you still got stormbolter plonking away

I am going to use the 3rd edition rules for the vanquisher next time I head to my FLGS and see how it works out - I encourage you guys to do the same as well !!

I really do not like giving the Vanquisher a blast template for free. Once again, all we need to turn the Vanquisher from crap to a major threat is two or three things.

1. Improved accuracy. Whether through simple rerolls, a higher BS, or a coaxial weapon we need to be able to hit our target more reliably.

2. Improved killing power Strength 10 AP 1 2D6 would work fine and is already used in another Imperial vehicle (albeit with a small blast template).

3. Maybe large blast templates.

There is need to set a hard limit on it, if someone is willing to spend over 600 points on a squadron of Vanquishers let them, I'm sure their opponents would be happy as well. Also, a very high cost makes the thing redundant. For the price of one of your Vanquishers I could buy 3 veteran squads, buy two vet squads with three meltas each, buy four chimeras, buy a Medusa with BB shells or a Vendetta and have 80/90 points left.

I want the Vanquisher to be good, but I don't want it to turn into a point sink, especially when the Guard has better point sinks like the Executioner.

Here are some things I like about your idea and some things I don't like.

1. What is the absolute base cost? Do the storm bolter and lascannon come standard?
2. The whole way to calculate damage is really overpowered (3D6 is just too much). Just make the gun AP 1 and take away the blast.
3. It is overpriced.
4. Some of the ideas about it seem random. Less side armour and no sponsons? Why?
5. 0-1 limit. Really there are rarer vehicles in the Guard that have no such limit, like the executioner.

Now, I do like some things.

1. Vet crew is a nice idea, I suggest however that you not make it standard, perhaps a 15 point upgrade.
2. Blast templates. I really don't care which way this swings, but blast templates are fine. Once again it should be an upgrade. Perhaps price it at 20 points.

Now, if we subtract the cost of the lascannon and storm bolter, as well as removing the cost for the vet crew and blast templates, we have a base cost of 160 points, which is just 5 points more expensive but with much more upgrade potential.

My thoughts:


Vanquisher (0-1) - 155 points
Armor as original, turret as original
No Sponsoons
Veteran crew (ignores shaken and grants BS4 on turret weapon) - +15

or

Vanquisher (0-1) - 175
Av Original
no sponsoons
Change the cannon to:
Str 8, Ap4 blast with 2d6 to pen if the hole in the marker covers the haul of whatever you're attacking.

Both of these would be able to get all other normal upgrades. Another thought could be to make the Lascannon cheaper to buy for Vanquishers. Something like 5 pts.

Or we could just leave it like it is...

master of ordinance wrote:Or we could just leave it like it is...

To be honest i run a vanquisher with pretty decent success. I don't think it NEEDS a change, but something other than a 50pt upgrade for bs4 would have been nice.

Its fun to dream

But do you think that 205 points you spend on it or there abouts couldnt be spent on something better ??

sumi808 wrote:But do you think that 205 points you spend on it or there abouts couldnt be spent on something better ??

SHUT UP!!!

Lets just leave the poor feth as it is. no more lets give them any more stuff okay? no more BS4 and Battlecannon shells. while i admit this would be cool this whole thing is just getting a little...... out there.

master of ordinance wrote:

sumi808 wrote:But do you think that 205 points you spend on it or there abouts couldnt be spent on something better ??

SHUT UP!!!

Lets just leave the poor feth as it is. no more lets give them any more stuff okay? no more BS4 and Battlecannon shells. while i admit this would be cool this whole thing is just getting a little...... out there.

What?
Chill out.
And don't tell people to shut up in capital letters.

Please try and show a bit more restraint and patience when posting please.

Thanks

Moving forward - how do you guys who use the vanquisher as it currently stands find it ?

Do you take it in your tournament lists or compeditive lists ? Casual lists only ?

Do you feel it is worth loosing the ordinence large blast template for the heavy 1 ?

i laughed so hard i peed myself at that guy up there lol.

its kind of a trade off between heavy 1 and the blast. the blast makes it effective against multiple foes, and heavy one would be good against tanks and then be limited, unless you took extra weapons.

Yeah it was really over the top !

I dont think it would be worth taking unless your up against something that really must die fast eg Land raider redeemer - even them I dont see it being worth it.

Lascannon teams with orders from HQ

The tanks gotta be set apart from the other leman russes, but not be so specilised that it becomes overpriced for what it does or redundent - great e.g. leman russ conquorer

I was playing against tau yesterday and something occured to me that didnt occure to me earlier in this thread - we already ahve mixed munitions in normal 40k

Missile launchers can shoot frag or krak ... so can GL ...
Tau weapons get choices between main ammo and submunitions.

So having two choices of ammo for the vanquisher is a good and reasonable point.

So.. How about:

Vanquisher 165 points - comes with battle cannon rounds and AT rounds (at rounds are strength 10 ap 1). Then you roll 2D6 for armor penetration and pick the highest. Then on the damage table you add +1 to whatever you roll.

The tank comes with a stormbolter and then for +5 pts you must take either a HHB or HHF or for +15pts you can have hull mounted lascannon.

NOW the stormbolter is useful against infantry and for when you fire normal ammo at infantry. Its no different to using a missile launcher or railgun This removes the problem of "co-axle" weapons being a new weapon to the normal game

I just think they would be fine if they were a bit cheaper or came with an upgrade to have a veteran operating them. Or have some sort of targeting information being fed to them or something.

It would be really cool to have it partially dependant on having a squad with a special war-gear upgrade giving them information nearby.