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.

The once mighty premier tank buster of the Imperial Guard, once feared by all, and with a stunning profile to boot, is no more.

For some reason this edition, even with the change to grinding advance allowing it to fire twice, is incredibly awful. To recap, its a heavy 1 Str 8, AP -3, d6 Damage, roll 2 take the highest on damage. Its pretty much worse than a lascannon for more points, its hull mounted Lascannon is more likely to kill a tank. I was really hoping it would be changed to D3 shots so it could possibly be good, but at this point you are unlikely to hit big tanks, less likely to wound big tanks, and even less likely to kill big tanks, despite that being the weapons only purpose. Sadly enough, the venerable LRBT or executioner is capable of doing more anti-tank fire than the Vanquisher could ever hope to do.

Any theories on why this is terrible? What could be done to improve it?

I have no idea. I suspect it's because GW didn't know how to handle the Vanq in the transition to 8th - the melta suffers from a similar confusion.

I want Vanquishers to be good because Vanquisher Tank Commanders are the bestest thing ever imo, but they're just not.

Why is it awful? GW is not good at writing rules.

How can we fix it? Two things;

1) Reliability. The vanq has long suffered from being a 50/50 hit chance unless you or your opponent liked FW and let you run the FW version with the coax stubber and/or a BS3+ Tank commander. The solution here to make the coax a part of the base turret profile. When combined with a tank commander, you're looking at a really good chance to hit, especially with Grinding Advance firing twice now.

2) Killability. The vanq has also long suffered from not being reliable at killing actual tanks, or large gribblies. The new bs of having every weapon shoot D6 times for D6 damage doesn't help trying to make something resembling a balanced set of rules, but its what we have to work with. So let's make it more. I'm not sure if 2D6 would start stepping on the toes of superheavies too much, but it'd make the weapon actually good at what it does.

3) Versatility. Its allegedly a tank hunter, but struggles to kill tanks. For a long time, it also struggled to hurt any large gribblies too, and it was useless against literally everything else, often for a premium over the base battlecannon. Give it the option for an HE shell that is somewhat weaker battlecannon shot.

I guess pick two of the above and you'd have pretty solid tank worthy of being a squadron commander.

*Edit* [And adjust points appropriately for new abilities]

 Blacksails wrote:
Why is it awful? GW is not good at writing rules.

How can we fix it? Two things;

1) Reliability. The vanq has long suffered from being a 50/50 hit chance unless you or your opponent liked FW and let you run the FW version with the coax stubber and/or a BS3+ Tank commander. The solution here to make the coax a part of the base turret profile. When combined with a tank commander, you're looking at a really good chance to hit, especially with Grinding Advance firing twice now.

2) Killability. The vanq has also long suffered from not being reliable at killing actual tanks, or large gribblies. The new bs of having every weapon shoot D6 times for D6 damage doesn't help trying to make something resembling a balanced set of rules, but its what we have to work with. So let's make it more. I'm not sure if 2D6 would start stepping on the toes of superheavies too much, but it'd make the weapon actually good at what it does.

3) Versatility. Its allegedly a tank hunter, but struggles to kill tanks. For a long time, it also struggled to hurt any large gribblies too, and it was useless against literally everything else, often for a premium over the base battlecannon. Give it the option for an HE shell that is somewhat weaker battlecannon shot.

I guess pick two of the above and you'd have pretty solid tank worthy of being a squadron commander.

*Edit* [And adjust points appropriately for new abilities]

If it stays 1 shot (2 for Grinding Advance) I could see it going up to 4d6 pick the two highest for damage - because even 2d6 damage averages out to being completely identical to the LRBT (2 shots that do 2d6 damage instead of 2d6 shots that do an average of 2 damage) while the LRBT is still really good against other targets and the Vanq still wouldn't be.

Imo it should:

1.) Grant +1 BS to the tank being used, as the longer barrel is suppose to make it more accurate and

2.) do an absurd amount of Damage per wound. It's a HE shell designed to destroy tanks.

3.) have a High AP, as again it's a shaped charge (which is designed to penetrate armor).

4.) low, but set number of shots. Maybe even just 1 shot (compensated by the improved BS).

I would say somethign like AP-3, D:6 and +1 BS to the user would be good, maybe add on that it does 2x Damage to VEHICLE and MONSTER units. Of course, it would need to be rebalanced to cost appropriately for this.

I'd say AP-4 and see how much adjusting from there.

Simple; fix the main gun.

In this edition if I was writing a tank-hunting gun, I'd probably go:

0-72" Range, Heavy 1, Strength 10, -5 save, 2D6 damage.

I haven't looked at the strength of the Baneblade variant guns, but it should be below those, and well above a battle cannon. Assume it'll be firing no HE rounds (or poor HE rounds). The above profile gives it the rare ability to one-shot some tanks, and heavy ability to one-shot Dreadnoughts, Walkers, Vypers, etc.

It'd be hugely potent against large characters - as it should be, but should be suitably expensive for such a strong gun.

My thought was this -

APFSDS round: R72 S10 AP -5 D d3+3 Heavy 1; Add 1 to wound rolls with this weapon against targets with the VEHICLE keyword. Rolls of 6 to wound inflict d3 mortal wounds in addition to their normal damage.

Then, add an alternative profile:

HE-FRAG round: R72 S8 AP -1 D 2 Heavy d3; when targeting units with the INFANTRY, BATTLESUIT or MONSTER keyword, rolls of 6+ to hit inflict two hits.

EDIT: reduced HE-FRAG AP to -1; a battle cannon should still be slightly better at killing infantry at the cost of being a jack-of-all-trades, master-of-none weapon.
EDIT, part the second: gave the APFSDS round the mortal-on-a-6 ability from the Tau railgun. An APFSDS round and a railgun slug are similar, and the Tau tank is more accurate, so...

 Elbows wrote:
Simple; fix the main gun.

In this edition if I was writing a tank-hunting gun, I'd probably go:

0-72" Range, Heavy 1, Strength 10, -5 save, 2D6 damage.

I haven't looked at the strength of the Baneblade variant guns, but it should be below those, and well above a battle cannon. Assume it'll be firing no HE rounds (or poor HE rounds). The above profile gives it the rare ability to one-shot some tanks, and heavy ability to one-shot Dreadnoughts, Walkers, Vypers, etc.

It'd be hugely potent against large characters - as it should be, but should be suitably expensive for such a strong gun.

This still suffers from the LRBT problem, though it's better, but only slightly. I would still take the regular LRBT over this profile - 2 shots doing 2d6 damage is less useful than 2d6 shots doing on average 2 damage, even if the steps in between are slightly better for the 2-shot gun. In fact, aside from rend, they're functionally identical against T7 and below targets.

The problem is that with things like the Catachan or Cadian Tank Order there are many many mechanisms to re-roll the number of 'shots' a d6 weapon gets, but there are no (or few, costly) mechanisms to re-roll the amount of 'damage' a dice-damage weapon does.

 generalchaos34 wrote:
The once mighty premier tank buster of the Imperial Guard, once feared by all, and with a stunning profile to boot, is no more.

For some reason this edition, even with the change to grinding advance allowing it to fire twice, is incredibly awful. To recap, its a heavy 1 Str 8, AP -3, d6 Damage, roll 2 take the highest on damage. Its pretty much worse than a lascannon for more points, its hull mounted Lascannon is more likely to kill a tank. I was really hoping it would be changed to D3 shots so it could possibly be good, but at this point you are unlikely to hit big tanks, less likely to wound big tanks, and even less likely to kill big tanks, despite that being the weapons only purpose. Sadly enough, the venerable LRBT or executioner is capable of doing more anti-tank fire than the Vanquisher could ever hope to do.

Any theories on why this is terrible? What could be done to improve it?

To be frank, what are you talking about?

Vanquishers should always go on a commander. When doing so you are going to wreck whatever you shoot at most of the time. 2D6 and pick the highest, so the odds are really really good you are going to do 3 or more damage with that shot. And if you hit twice that 6 or more damage from one tank with the odds. A las cannon is no where near that dependable, and if you are talking about damaging T8 things, those are rare, not typical.

This dakka dakka idea that you need to explode a vehicle to eliminate it is getting really annoying. You just need to make the vehicle less effective in a turn, if you kill/explode it that's a bonus. Most vehicles are shooting/moving extremely poorly once you get them into damage.

 sfshilo wrote:

 generalchaos34 wrote:
The once mighty premier tank buster of the Imperial Guard, once feared by all, and with a stunning profile to boot, is no more.

For some reason this edition, even with the change to grinding advance allowing it to fire twice, is incredibly awful. To recap, its a heavy 1 Str 8, AP -3, d6 Damage, roll 2 take the highest on damage. Its pretty much worse than a lascannon for more points, its hull mounted Lascannon is more likely to kill a tank. I was really hoping it would be changed to D3 shots so it could possibly be good, but at this point you are unlikely to hit big tanks, less likely to wound big tanks, and even less likely to kill big tanks, despite that being the weapons only purpose. Sadly enough, the venerable LRBT or executioner is capable of doing more anti-tank fire than the Vanquisher could ever hope to do.

Any theories on why this is terrible? What could be done to improve it?

To be frank, what are you talking about?

Vanquishers should always go on a commander. When doing so you are going to wreck whatever you shoot at most of the time. 2D6 and pick the highest, so the odds are really really good you are going to do 3 or more damage with that shot. And if you hit twice that 6 or more damage from one tank with the odds. A las cannon is no where near that dependable, and if you are talking about damaging T8 things, those are rare, not typical.

This dakka dakka idea that you need to explode a vehicle to eliminate it is getting really annoying. You just need to make the vehicle less effective in a turn, if you kill/explode it that's a bonus. Most vehicles are shooting/moving extremely poorly once you get them into damage.

The Battlecannon is miles better at killing tanks than the Vanquisher cannon right now and that is a problem. That is what he is on about.

I think the problem you'll run into...is that, for the most part, vehicles don't die in one shot in this game. Yet that's kinda what the Vanquisher "should" do, some times. It should stand a decent chance at killing, say, a Predator with a single round. You'd need to create a way to do that without making it the "go to" killer of all non-tank things.

Bonus damage or mortal wounds vs. something categorized as a vehicle, perhaps? In tank hunter fashion, perhaps +1 to hit if the vehicle remains stationary? (You'd then lose your Leman Russ rolling advance nonsense though).

I think increasing Strength above 8 is huge, meaning you can hurt stronger tanks on a 3+. More AP is also huge, if a Land Raider or Russ does not get an actual armour save from your main gun. That's nothing to sneeze at. I dunno - how do the Tau do their mega-rail guns?

Tau rail weapons are pretty much like you describe, though they mostly can't kill vehicles in one hit. (The Hammerhead railgun can kill a Dreadnought or Helbrute in one shot if you're very lucky.)

Rail Rifle: R30 S6 AP -4 D d3 Rapid-fire 1; rolls of 6 to wound inflict a mortal wound in addition to their normal damage.

Twin Heavy Rail Rifle: R60 S8 AP -4 D d6 Heavy 2; rolls of 6 to wound inflict a mortal wound in addition to their normal damage.

Railgun: R72 S10 AP -4 D d6 Heavy 1; rolls of 6 to wound inflict d3 mortal wounds in addition to their normal damage.

Railguns are, at the moment, good but not fantastic as tank killers. They're murder on smaller monsters, Sentinels, War Walkers, heavy infantry, etc. However, you will not insta-kill even a Rhino with one, unless the SMS or burst cannons also do some damage.

The Vanquisher is still awful because 40k is a math-based game, and it's mathematically impossible for a unit whose attacks are both low volume and low strength to be good.

Howling Banshees are gak for the same reason. If a unit is to pack a punch in combat it HAS to have either high strength or high volume of fire.

The Vanquisher Cannon should have had a rule that makes it wound any vehicle or monster on a 2+ so long as they lack the Titanic keyword.

 Elbows wrote:
I think the problem you'll run into...is that, for the most part, vehicles don't die in one shot in this game. Yet that's kinda what the Vanquisher "should" do, some times. It should stand a decent chance at killing, say, a Predator with a single round. You'd need to create a way to do that without making it the "go to" killer of all non-tank things.

Bonus damage or mortal wounds vs. something categorized as a vehicle, perhaps? In tank hunter fashion, perhaps +1 to hit if the vehicle remains stationary? (You'd then lose your Leman Russ rolling advance nonsense though).

I think increasing Strength above 8 is huge, meaning you can hurt stronger tanks on a 3+. More AP is also huge, if a Land Raider or Russ does not get an actual armour save from your main gun. That's nothing to sneeze at. I dunno - how do the Tau do their mega-rail guns?

Broadside Rail rifle is 60" heavy 2 s8 ap-4 d6 damage with a mortal wound on a 6+.

Hammerhead railgun is 72" Heavy 1 S10 ap-4 D6 damage with D3 mortal wound on 6+.

Taunar Heavy rail cannon is 120" Macro 1 S18 Ap-5 2d6 damage with D3 mortal wounds on 6+

GW's ability to write rules is, as noted, awful. The Vanquisher cannon is one of the least effective AT options, even with double shots. The Vanquisher really just isnt very good.

There's lots of options to fix it, and it was very plain that it wasnt functional even in the Index, but GW chose...not to.

Were it up to me, Id have it hit on 3+ (not necessarily the rest of the guns) and be S9.

The Exterminator has much the same issue. Unlike almost all other TL weapons, it didn't get its shots doubled for...whatever reason, and its just really...unattractive. The Predator's autocannon however got made into its own unique weapon and massively enhanced...

 generalchaos34 wrote:
The once mighty premier tank buster of the Imperial Guard, once feared by all, and with a stunning profile to boot, is no more.

For some reason this edition, even with the change to grinding advance allowing it to fire twice, is incredibly awful. To recap, its a heavy 1 Str 8, AP -3, d6 Damage, roll 2 take the highest on damage. Its pretty much worse than a lascannon for more points, its hull mounted Lascannon is more likely to kill a tank. I was really hoping it would be changed to D3 shots so it could possibly be good, but at this point you are unlikely to hit big tanks, less likely to wound big tanks, and even less likely to kill big tanks, despite that being the weapons only purpose. Sadly enough, the venerable LRBT or executioner is capable of doing more anti-tank fire than the Vanquisher could ever hope to do.

Any theories on why this is terrible? What could be done to improve it?

when has it ever been feared?

I think in 4th edition, where it was basically a lascannon with the melta rule at battlecannon range (which was actually quite rare back then).

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
I think in 4th edition, where it was basically a lascannon with the melta rule at battlecannon range (which was actually quite rare back then).

Though crucially it still had the option to fire as a regular battlecannon till the 5e codex.

Ever since they made it a specialized tank-hunter and took away its ability to do anything else it has been terribad, save for the 6th Edition armoured battlegroup when they ....

....

...

gave it a blast back.

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
2.) do an absurd amount of Damage per wound. It's a HE shell designed to destroy tanks.

3.) have a High AP, as again it's a shaped charge (which is designed to penetrate armor).

The Vanquisher doesn't use shaped charges or HE shells. It uses APDS shots, although in 40k there is always room for alternative patterns. The power comes from sheer kinetic energy being transferred to the target.

I would like to see the Vanquisher be able to use standard HE rounds as an extra weapon profile, although the points cost would have to go up to compensate for this. They used to have this ability. Other than that, maybe just +1str and maybe +1ap. It should be all about increasing the power of that one shot. I'm personally wanting to use the co-axial stubber but that is because I love the FW model as a tank commander.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
...gave it a blast back.

What would a beast-hunter shell even look like in the new rules? Probably 2+ to wound non-vehicles but how do you translate instant death?

 Trickstick wrote:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
2.) do an absurd amount of Damage per wound. It's a HE shell designed to destroy tanks.

3.) have a High AP, as again it's a shaped charge (which is designed to penetrate armor).

The Vanquisher doesn't use shaped charges or HE shells. It uses APDS shots, although in 40k there is always room for alternative patterns. The power comes from sheer kinetic energy being transferred to the target.

I would like to see the Vanquisher be able to use standard HE rounds as an extra weapon profile, although the points cost would have to go up to compensate for this. They used to have this ability. Other than that, maybe just +1str and maybe +1ap. It should be all about increasing the power of that one shot. I'm personally wanting to use the co-axial stubber but that is because I love the FW model as a tank commander.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
...gave it a blast back.

What would a beast-hunter shell even look like in the new rules? Probably 2+ to wound non-vehicles but how do you translate instant death?

I was going off the wiki cuz I don't have my codex Sue me.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
when has it ever been feared?

When it had beast hunter shells and you were facing a tyranid. They usually hid and cried.

Add a rule (sorry keyword) called secondary explosion, on a 4+ the round has exploded in a vital area causing a further d6 damage.
Perhaps additionally or instead of, it could also have tank destroyer keyword, always wounds on 2+

 Huron black heart wrote:
Add a rule (sorry keyword) called secondary explosion, on a 4+ the round has exploded in a vital area causing a further d6 damage.
Perhaps additionally or instead of, it could also have tank destroyer keyword, always wounds on 2+

I think str9 would do, 3+ to wound most vehicles. Vanquisher shells don't have any explosive filler, they are solid shot. Calling them shells is a mistake on GWs part.

 Trickstick wrote:

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
when has it ever been feared?

When it had beast hunter shells and you were facing a tyranid. They usually hid and cried.

I had some great success with Vanquishers during 6-7th, esp with Pask. Granted not the greatest but compared to everything else the guard had it was still fairly decent

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
Why is it awful? GW is not good at writing rules.

How can we fix it? Two things;

1) Reliability. The vanq has long suffered from being a 50/50 hit chance unless you or your opponent liked FW and let you run the FW version with the coax stubber and/or a BS3+ Tank commander. The solution here to make the coax a part of the base turret profile. When combined with a tank commander, you're looking at a really good chance to hit, especially with Grinding Advance firing twice now.

2) Killability. The vanq has also long suffered from not being reliable at killing actual tanks, or large gribblies. The new bs of having every weapon shoot D6 times for D6 damage doesn't help trying to make something resembling a balanced set of rules, but its what we have to work with. So let's make it more. I'm not sure if 2D6 would start stepping on the toes of superheavies too much, but it'd make the weapon actually good at what it does.

3) Versatility. Its allegedly a tank hunter, but struggles to kill tanks. For a long time, it also struggled to hurt any large gribblies too, and it was useless against literally everything else, often for a premium over the base battlecannon. Give it the option for an HE shell that is somewhat weaker battlecannon shot.

I guess pick two of the above and you'd have pretty solid tank worthy of being a squadron commander.

*Edit* [And adjust points appropriately for new abilities]

If it stays 1 shot (2 for Grinding Advance) I could see it going up to 4d6 pick the two highest for damage - because even 2d6 damage averages out to being completely identical to the LRBT (2 shots that do 2d6 damage instead of 2d6 shots that do an average of 2 damage) while the LRBT is still really good against other targets and the Vanq still wouldn't be.

Right. I was away from my book and haven't committed these new awful D6 and D3 nonsensical weapon profile to memory yet.

4D6 pick highest two would do some solid damage.

Plus, as Vaktathi pointed out, S9 would go some way to ensuring it wounds in the first place. Even S10 wouldn't be amiss.

4d6 pick the highest two... That sounds like just about the best anti tank non super heavy weapon in the game. On an incredibly durable platform. Plus it fires twice, totally eclipses the Tau hammerhead by miles.

Talinsin wrote:
4d6 pick the highest two... That sounds like just about the best anti tank non super heavy weapon in the game. On an incredibly durable platform. Plus it fires twice, totally eclipses the Tau hammerhead by miles.

We're sptiballing, it could very well be just be a flat 2D6. Points costs can be adjusted too. Point is, the tank needs a purpose, as is, its outclassed in every way by the stock battlecannon.

There's also plenty of reason the hammerhead could use some help too.

I suspect the average on 4d6 drop 2 is 10.

Some maths (vs a rhino with no cover):

Shadowsword averages: 6 shots, 4+ to hit, 2+ to wound, no save, 2d6 damage per is: 17.5 damage per shooting phase.

Vanquisher averages: 2 shots, 4+ to hit, 3+ to wound, 6+ save, assuming 10 average damage is: 5.56 damage per shooting phase.

Leman Russ Battletank: 2d6 shots, 4+ to hit, 3+ to wound, 5+ save, assuming 2 average damage is: 3.11 damage per shooting phase.

Not even close to the best AT weapon in the game. Not even a little. It's finally better than the Russ against tanks, but not even by double.

The problem is that GW wants to keep it at 1 shot per turn, which means that it has to pack a massive punch for it to be viable due to BS3. Honestly if they swallowed their pride and admitted that paying for a long-range melta on a main battle tank body is a fundamentally terrible idea then we might get somewhere.