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.

tneva82 wrote:


When was vanquisher good tank buster? 5th ed? Ever since hull points were introduced vanquisher has been bad at tank busting.

It wasn't good then. Still suffered from low BS (improved somewhat with the FW lists), and only AP2, meaning it only had a 33% chance to nuke a vehicle, even after it hit and penned.

 Kanluwen wrote:

I was under the impression it was discarding-sabot, not high explosive antitank.

Aside from that, I think the primary thing it needs to to do 2d6 damage [or some variant thereof, the average damage per hit should be crippling and maximum potential wrecking for light and medium armor] and be at least S9.

It should only ever have 1 shot [2 with Lumbering Behemoth].

You already do 2d6 damage. You just discard the lowest.

Putting it bluntly...
You want the Vanquisher to have a real role and place? Give it fixed damage value. Put it at 4 or 5 damage and be done with it.

Kdash wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

I was under the impression it was discarding-sabot, not high explosive antitank.

Aside from that, I think the primary thing it needs to to do 2d6 damage [or some variant thereof, the average damage per hit should be crippling and maximum potential wrecking for light and medium armor] and be at least S9.

It should only ever have 1 shot [2 with Lumbering Behemoth].

You already do 2d6 damage. You just discard the lowest.

Putting it bluntly...
You want the Vanquisher to have a real role and place? Give it fixed damage value. Put it at 4 or 5 damage and be done with it.

That would go a long way to make it viable. Maybe D3 +3 damage, OR make it like the Neutron, D6 and nothing less than a 3. It still gets less shots, str, and AP over the Onager anyways so its not really stealing its thunder anyways.

What really gets me is I have these gorgeous forgeworld Vanquisher turrets that will no longer see any use, and that makes me sad (except for my annihilator turret, that one will be good post FAQ that will never come because forge world has now become awful)

 generalchaos34 wrote:
...forge world has now become awful

That's not quite the case. They are just too small to handle the workload now. After years and years of releasing stuff, the catalogue of things that need to be updated is now huge. Add to that the fact that FAQs don't make money directly and it is easy to see why they don't prioritise them. The writers are spending all of their time on the HH and IA books, where their paychecks are. I guess they are probably still hurting from the loss of Alan Bligh too, on top of the fact that 8th invalidated everything at the same time.

I'd like to see more stuff like D6+3 used for both damage and attacks...would aid some weapons tremendously. Again D6 is far worse than D3+3 etc.

Heck, I even suggested putting Leman Russ battlecannons at 2D3 instead of D6 before they boosted them

Kdash wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

You already do 2d6 damage. You just discard the lowest.

Putting it bluntly...
You want the Vanquisher to have a real role and place? Give it fixed damage value. Put it at 4 or 5 damage and be done with it.

I kinda agree with this. A flat damage will vastly improve it's reliability and make it an option vs the other weapons.

Personally, i believe fixed shot number should equal fixed damage and random shots equals random damage. But, this would require a lot more balance change as it obviously begins to affect a lot of other weapons.

A fixed shot number shouldn't necessarily equate fixed damage, but I will say that the more I think on it the more I think it should be 5 Damage.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 generalchaos34 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

You already do 2d6 damage. You just discard the lowest.

Putting it bluntly...
You want the Vanquisher to have a real role and place? Give it fixed damage value. Put it at 4 or 5 damage and be done with it.

That would go a long way to make it viable. Maybe D3 +3 damage, OR make it like the Neutron, D6 and nothing less than a 3. It still gets less shots, str, and AP over the Onager anyways so its not really stealing its thunder anyways.

What really gets me is I have these gorgeous forgeworld Vanquisher turrets that will no longer see any use, and that makes me sad (except for my annihilator turret, that one will be good post FAQ that will never come because forge world has now become awful)

The FW Index actually has the Stygies Vanquisher as a unique thing. The Coaxial still lets you reroll a failed To Hit roll with the Vanquisher Battle Cannon and if you remained still then you get to add 1 to your Hit Rolls with the Stygies Vanquisher Battle Cannon.

 Trickstick wrote:

 generalchaos34 wrote:
...forge world has now become awful

That's not quite the case. They are just too small to handle the workload now. After years and years of releasing stuff, the catalogue of things that need to be updated is now huge. Add to that the fact that FAQs don't make money directly and it is easy to see why they don't prioritise them. The writers are spending all of their time on the HH and IA books, where their paychecks are. I guess they are probably still hurting from the loss of Alan Bligh too, on top of the fact that 8th invalidated everything at the same time.

Its not too hard to make a piece of paper that says "all Leman Russes get the new grinding advance rule" You can do it in 5 minutes, esp for common sense changes, or like Elysians having the wrong damage on their plasma guns. I know they are over taxed but theres some things that can be done without much effort that makes playing so much easier. (and for free by anyone out there if they really needed the help)

I'd be all for the vanq having a fixed number damage if every other weapon had a fixed number of shots (barring exceptions like ork weaponry, for obvious reasons) with fixed damage.

 generalchaos34 wrote:

 Trickstick wrote:

 generalchaos34 wrote:
...forge world has now become awful

That's not quite the case. They are just too small to handle the workload now. After years and years of releasing stuff, the catalogue of things that need to be updated is now huge. Add to that the fact that FAQs don't make money directly and it is easy to see why they don't prioritise them. The writers are spending all of their time on the HH and IA books, where their paychecks are. I guess they are probably still hurting from the loss of Alan Bligh too, on top of the fact that 8th invalidated everything at the same time.

Its not too hard to make a piece of paper that says "all Leman Russes get the new grinding advance rule" You can do it in 5 minutes, esp for common sense changes, or like Elysians having the wrong damage on their plasma guns. I know they are over taxed but theres some things that can be done without much effort that makes playing so much easier. (and for free by anyone out there if they really needed the help)

It's worth mentioning that they're apparently exploring the idea of doing "Codices" for Death Korps, Renegades & Heretics, and Elysians.

That might be what's happening here. I hope they update the Index for free though.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 generalchaos34 wrote:

 Trickstick wrote:

 generalchaos34 wrote:
...forge world has now become awful

That's not quite the case. They are just too small to handle the workload now. After years and years of releasing stuff, the catalogue of things that need to be updated is now huge. Add to that the fact that FAQs don't make money directly and it is easy to see why they don't prioritise them. The writers are spending all of their time on the HH and IA books, where their paychecks are. I guess they are probably still hurting from the loss of Alan Bligh too, on top of the fact that 8th invalidated everything at the same time.

Its not too hard to make a piece of paper that says "all Leman Russes get the new grinding advance rule" You can do it in 5 minutes, esp for common sense changes, or like Elysians having the wrong damage on their plasma guns. I know they are over taxed but theres some things that can be done without much effort that makes playing so much easier. (and for free by anyone out there if they really needed the help)

It's worth mentioning that they're apparently exploring the idea of doing "Codices" for Death Korps, Renegades & Heretics, and Elysians.

That might be what's happening here. I hope they update the Index for free though.

As much as I love the indexes, those were one and done publications, meant to get everyone on at least some basic footing. Future updates will either be in Chapter Approved or (more likely) Codexes. For FW, I very much doubt they will get away from their IA booklist way of doing things.

 Stormonu wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 generalchaos34 wrote:

 Trickstick wrote:

 generalchaos34 wrote:
...forge world has now become awful

That's not quite the case. They are just too small to handle the workload now. After years and years of releasing stuff, the catalogue of things that need to be updated is now huge. Add to that the fact that FAQs don't make money directly and it is easy to see why they don't prioritise them. The writers are spending all of their time on the HH and IA books, where their paychecks are. I guess they are probably still hurting from the loss of Alan Bligh too, on top of the fact that 8th invalidated everything at the same time.

Its not too hard to make a piece of paper that says "all Leman Russes get the new grinding advance rule" You can do it in 5 minutes, esp for common sense changes, or like Elysians having the wrong damage on their plasma guns. I know they are over taxed but theres some things that can be done without much effort that makes playing so much easier. (and for free by anyone out there if they really needed the help)

It's worth mentioning that they're apparently exploring the idea of doing "Codices" for Death Korps, Renegades & Heretics, and Elysians.

That might be what's happening here. I hope they update the Index for free though.

As much as I love the indexes, those were one and done publications, meant to get everyone on at least some basic footing. Future updates will either be in Chapter Approved or (more likely) Codexes. For FW, I very much doubt they will get away from their IA booklist way of doing things.

The Indexes for Forge World serve a very different purpose to those for 40k itself, I feel.

Remember that Forge World did items based on Campaign books. You'd have items updated as their army was in the campaign and then left to rot until another book came through with something shiny and new.
The Index method is actually a way better way for them to do stuff, especially if they just need to tweak points costs and the like.

They used to do the "Imperial Armour: Apocalypse" books which would give you access to the items but not the army lists. I think that they might very well keep it that way.

To pivot slightly, anyone have any thoughts on the Exterminator?

For some reason, 4 shots at S7 with -1AP and 2 Damage at 48" range costs more than D6 shots (average 3.5 shots) at S8 with -2AP and D3 (average 2) Damage.

The Exterminator trades Range, S and AP for consistency of shots and damage, but those consistent values merely match the Battlecannons average on those statdabout what the Battlecannon does for Shots and Damage, and has a dramatically lower maximum potential damage output. Its basically worse in every way and more expensive to boot.

In 5E-7E the Exterminator had 4 TL'd shots. In 8E, unlike almost every other TL'd weapon, it did not get its shots doubled. Now, I think outright doubling that to 8, and then potentially 16 with Grinding Advance would be a bit much. Perhaps increasing the shots to 6 and reducing the gun cost to 20?

 Vaktathi wrote:
To pivot slightly, anyone have any thoughts on the Exterminator?

For some reason, 4 shots at S7 with -1AP and 2 Damage at 48" range costs more than D6 shots (average 3.5 shots) at S8 with -2AP and D3 (average 2) Damage.

The Exterminator trades Range, S and AP for consistency of shots and damage, but those consistent values merely match the Battlecannons average on those statdabout what the Battlecannon does for Shots and Damage, and has a dramatically lower maximum potential damage output. Its basically worse in every way and more expensive to boot.

In 5E-7E the Exterminator had 4 TL'd shots. In 8E, unlike almost every other TL'd weapon, it did not get its shots doubled. Now, I think outright doubling that to 8, and then potentially 16 with Grinding Advance would be a bit much. Perhaps increasing the shots to 6 and reducing the gun cost to 20?

I can roll with that, when I started this thread I was mulling the idea of my once favorite from 6-7th tank (it was very proficient at stripping hull points) and the 16 shots did seem to be way too much. I can definitely agree that a bump to 6 could be a factor this make this gun back to what it was, or maybe even add in a mechanic that works with grinding advance, like +1 BS reroll 1s on the second round of shooting for Grinding Advance, making the gun at least slightly thematic to its older idea of a fast firing heavy shell tank that was extremely accurate, hell even the Hydra gets 8 shots these days and they essentially had the same gun for ages.

Vanquisher should hit on a 1+, be Str 16, and deal 2D6 wounds, but be quite expensive.

Martel732 wrote:
Vanquisher should hit on a 1+, be Str 16, and deal 2D6 wounds, but be quite expensive.

Close but it should hit on a 0+. That way if it gets debuffed you're still hitting on 2s.

Strength 16 isn't quite good enough. Because toughness 8 can be buffed to become toughness 9 with various spells and effects. I would say strength 20 is a nice round number.

And 2d6 can still roll a 2, it should be 2D6+7.

Sarcasm?

generalchaos34 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
To pivot slightly, anyone have any thoughts on the Exterminator?

For some reason, 4 shots at S7 with -1AP and 2 Damage at 48" range costs more than D6 shots (average 3.5 shots) at S8 with -2AP and D3 (average 2) Damage.

The Exterminator trades Range, S and AP for consistency of shots and damage, but those consistent values merely match the Battlecannons average on those statdabout what the Battlecannon does for Shots and Damage, and has a dramatically lower maximum potential damage output. Its basically worse in every way and more expensive to boot.

In 5E-7E the Exterminator had 4 TL'd shots. In 8E, unlike almost every other TL'd weapon, it did not get its shots doubled. Now, I think outright doubling that to 8, and then potentially 16 with Grinding Advance would be a bit much. Perhaps increasing the shots to 6 and reducing the gun cost to 20?

I can roll with that, when I started this thread I was mulling the idea of my once favorite from 6-7th tank (it was very proficient at stripping hull points) and the 16 shots did seem to be way too much. I can definitely agree that a bump to 6 could be a factor this make this gun back to what it was, or maybe even add in a mechanic that works with grinding advance, like +1 BS reroll 1s on the second round of shooting for Grinding Advance, making the gun at least slightly thematic to its older idea of a fast firing heavy shell tank that was extremely accurate, hell even the Hydra gets 8 shots these days and they essentially had the same gun for ages.

Yeah, and the Hydra didnt come out terribly great either but a bump of this sort to the Exterminator would help it see the field.

Martel732 wrote:Vanquisher should hit on a 1+, be Str 16, and deal 2D6 wounds, but be quite expensive.

Hrm, in this vein actually, messing around with this, if they kept the to-hit roll and damage the same, but bumped the S to 16 and the AP to -4, that would actually make it rather solid at the current price. S16 and AP-4 would allow it to hurt really big stuff, but keeping it one shot and not enhancing the damage any further would keep it relarively solid for its cost, and wouldnt need additional rules or gimmicks like the Hammerhead has.

Heavy 1 S16 AP-4 Damage D6 (roll twice pick highest) would fit without messing with too much else, nor would it be particularly broken at the current cost. It would still probably lose a long range gun battle to a trilas pred, but also costs proportionately less. I think that'd actually be a solid fix without making it too gross or abusing grinding advance too much.

I was thinking to make it more like a modern armor gun.

The Auger Array alows once off TOHIT reroll for 10 pts. maybe give the Vanquisher a special modified Auger Array that allows the Heavy 1 to be roll 2ds discard lowest for the to hit roll makeing it more reliable at hitting its targets.

but since the AP round is more effective at penetrating armour maybe represent this by roll 2d6 for TO WOUND roll and take highest?

and/or allow the damage value to also use exploding 6s.
maybe all of the above

so i wonder what mathammer has to say about 2d6 take highest for to wound AND damage AND exploding 6s for damage.

What about a special rule for Melta weapons, where if a model is wounded by a weapon with this key word after resolving damage if the unit is still standing it takes additional wounds on a 4+ in the next turn. This could simulate a pile of molten material buring it's way through the model.

Make it reduce the armour save characteristic of a Vehicle it causes damage to with the main gun by 1 for the rest of the game, no stacking.

I think they should change the Vanquisher battle cannon's profile to something like the following:

Range: 72"
Heavy: 1
Strength: 9
AP: -4
Damage: D6

Special rules:
Roll two dice when inflicting damage and discard lowest.
Re-roll failed wound rolls when targeting models with 10 or more wounds.
Heavy is D2 (or D3) instead when you fire this against a unit consisting of one (1) model.

Done. Adjust the points as necessary. Vanquisher remains a specialized cannon but now it's actually good at its job and way better than a lascannon. Should be pretty scary against a tank or a big monster but it's a total waste to shoot it at Infantry because you'll only ever kill one.

 RedCommander wrote:
I think they should change the Vanquisher battle cannon's profile to something like the following:

Range: 72"
Heavy: 1
Strength: 9
AP: -4
Damage: D6

Special rules:
Roll two dice when inflicting damage and discard lowest.
Re-roll failed wound rolls when targeting models with 10 or more wounds.
Heavy is D2 (or D3) instead when you fire this against a unit consisting of one (1) model.

Done. Adjust the points as necessary. Vanquisher remains a specialized cannon but now it's actually good at its job and way better than a lascannon. Should be pretty scary against a tank or a big monster but it's a total waste to shoot it at Infantry because you'll only ever kill one.

The strength and AP seem right, but I still don't feel like D6 melta-style damage is enough for a kinetic kill anti-tank weapon. I wonder if 3D6 discard the lowest would be feasible, like a super melta rule? I just can't help but think that it should at least have a chance of one-shotting an armored target if everything works out. It'd be expensive, but then it would be a proper cannon.

4d6 discard two lowest, as I suggested, does less than 10 wounds on average.

I think that's about where you'd want the Vanquisher at, to make it worthwhile compared to the LRBT.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
4d6 discard two lowest, as I suggested, does less than 10 wounds on average.

I think that's about where you'd want the Vanquisher at, to make it worthwhile compared to the LRBT.

...lol?

Literally the problem with the Vanquisher right now is that it's random damage with a low ROF.

72" Heavy 1 S8 AP-3 4 damage
5 damage if they're feeling friendly.

I'd also, for grins and giggles, give it "This model may target enemy CHARACTER units without having them be the nearest enemy unit."

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
4d6 discard two lowest, as I suggested, does less than 10 wounds on average.

I think that's about where you'd want the Vanquisher at, to make it worthwhile compared to the LRBT.

...lol?

Literally the problem with the Vanquisher right now is that it's random damage with a low ROF.

72" Heavy 1 S8 AP-3 4 damage

4 damage means you're better off firing a Leman Russ at enemy tanks, and would make the Vanquisher go from useless to... well, still garbage. Not sure why you think there's value in that suggestion.

HECK, the Exterminator is better than your Vanquisher at killing Rhinos.

I'll do the math on the punisher in a sec.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
A Punisher firing only it's main weapon twice does 2.2 wounds to a Rhino per shooting phase for a total of 13 or so wounds per game against T7 3+. Your Vanquisher does .5555555 wounds per shooting phase, for a total of 6.67 wounds to a rhino over the course of a game on average.

Split that over 100 games, and you'll find that the Punisher is roughly twice as good against Rhinos than your proposed Vanquisher fix.

Neat.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
4d6 discard two lowest, as I suggested, does less than 10 wounds on average.

I think that's about where you'd want the Vanquisher at, to make it worthwhile compared to the LRBT.

...lol?

Literally the problem with the Vanquisher right now is that it's random damage with a low ROF.

72" Heavy 1 S8 AP-3 4 damage

4 damage means you're better off firing a Leman Russ at enemy tanks, and would make the Vanquisher go from useless to... well, still garbage. Not sure why you think there's value in that suggestion.

Not sure why you think adding another 2d6 and removing another poor roll is a good suggestion, but here we are.

HECK, the Exterminator is better than your Vanquisher at killing Rhinos.

I'll do the math on the punisher in a sec.

Gee, it's almost like for killing what have fluffily been light, speedy vehicles things that aren't toting anti-tank weaponry excel...
Hey guys remember when Autocannons were talked about in the fluff as being a thing used for popping heavy infantry and light vehicles?
The Vanquisher is a tank hunter. Rhinos aren't tanks, they're glorified taxis.


If you really want to get into it though, I think there's a lot more work that can be done with the Vanquisher. A fixed damage value is a good start but beyond that?
-Vanquisher Battle Cannon gets +1 to Hit and Wound rolls when remaining stationary and firing at keyword VEHICLE or MONSTER.
-Wound rolls of 6s add 2 Mortal Wounds in addition to the 4 damage when fired at VEHICLE or MONSTER.
-Addition of Lascannon Sponson options for Leman Russes, opening up the capability for a triple Lascannon and VBC model.

One of the biggest problems facing the Leman Russ at the moment is that all of the variants are rolled into one now. Vanquishers could have been given a special rule, for example, allowing them to get a penalty to be shot at beyond a certain range after their initial deployment(to represent a tank hunter crew concealing themselves in for an ambush in advance of the main forces) and bonuses to hit+wound rolls versus vehicles/monsters.

Demolisher variants could have been given "Siege Tank", allowing them to treat AP-1 as AP0 natively.

Etc. Etc. Etc.

how about Str 9, AP -4 and D 3D3, that way you always get 3 damage, and theres a decent chance of causing 9 damage, which means you are killing tanks. This is easily balanced out by the bad BS and it being single shot. If you want to double down and take Pask that means he will be a prime target (and its exactly what he should be doing, he has killed more than one Titan in a Vanquisher)

 generalchaos34 wrote:
how about Str 9, AP -4 and D 3D3, that way you always get 3 damage, and theres a decent chance of causing 9 damage, which means you are killing tanks. This is easily balanced out by the bad BS and it being single shot. If you want to double down and take Pask that means he will be a prime target (and its exactly what he should be doing, he has killed more than one Titan in a Vanquisher)

S8 is still evening out with most of the higher end tanks.

Leman Russ and Baneblade hulls are T8, most of the Rhino platforms are T7(for whatever reason the Stalker and Hunter are T8), Land Raiders are T8, Devilfish chassis are T7, Chimera hulls are T7(barring Hydra, Basilisk, and Wyvern at T6), I don't have the Eldar values to work from though...

A Vanquisher, sitting still or moving under half its M value, is firing twice thanks to "Grinding Advance".

So with my initial proposal, it's hitting on 4+ and Wounding on 4+ versus T8 and causing 8 Wounds a turn.
Is that killing a tank outright? No. But it's significantly putting the pressure on each time a Vanquisher fires, and potentially allowing you to finish the job with the hull Lascannon if you chose to use it for that.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 generalchaos34 wrote:
how about Str 9, AP -4 and D 3D3, that way you always get 3 damage, and theres a decent chance of causing 9 damage, which means you are killing tanks. This is easily balanced out by the bad BS and it being single shot. If you want to double down and take Pask that means he will be a prime target (and its exactly what he should be doing, he has killed more than one Titan in a Vanquisher)

S8 is still killing most tanks.

Leman Russ and Baneblade hulls are T8, most of the Rhino platforms are T7(for whatever reason the Stalker and Hunter are T8), Land Raiders are T8, Devilfish chassis are T7, Chimera hulls are T7(barring Hydra, Basilisk, and Wyvern at T6), I don't have the Eldar values to work from though...

A Vanquisher, sitting still or moving under half its M value, is firing twice thanks to "Grinding Advance".

So with my initial proposal, it's hitting on 4+ and Wounding on 4+ versus T8 and causing 8 Wounds a turn.
Is that killing a tank outright? No. But it's significantly putting the pressure on each time a Vanquisher fires.

No it isn't. Let's do the math again:
Over 100 games firing for 6 turns without interruption or degredation, your Vanquisher will average out to 1.6 wounds per shooting phase against a Baneblade.
Over 100 games firing for 6 turns without interruption or degredation, the Exterminator will average 1.3 wounds per shooting phase against a Baneblade.

It's only slightly better than the "light" vehicle killer against a BANEBLADE.

Meanwhile, the regular LRBT with the same criteria: 2.33 wounds per shooting phase.

A regular LRBT will kill your Vanquisher on average before your Vanquisher kills it.

Really?