HenricusTyranicus Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 I know that speculation based off of previous codices can be a bit tricky. But do you think there's a chance they'd bring the Vanquisher up to D-strength in the new codex to make it competitive against other armies? It'd make it actually worthwhile without Pask, an there is precedent for it. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/312974-d-strength-vanquisher/ Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorFish Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 I don't think so.. From a balance point of view I'm not sure the treatment certain armies get is a good benchmark... If we did get it I'd imagine the Deathstrike would be the more likely candidate? Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/312974-d-strength-vanquisher/#findComment-4157959 Share on other sites More sharing options...
librisrouge Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 I'd say that AP1 is far more likely to happen if GW realizes that it needs more power. Maybe a strength increase too. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/312974-d-strength-vanquisher/#findComment-4157960 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boomkapow Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 I bet they'll give us the baneblade as a Lord of War and make some variants str-D. But I agree we need something against Wraithknights. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/312974-d-strength-vanquisher/#findComment-4157964 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quneitra Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 A D-strength Vanquisher? Honestly, that'd be overpowered, and I don't think it'd fit in well fluffwise. If anything, AP1 is necessary, to give it a better chance at instagibbing vehicles. Its a vehicle hunter, first and foremost; a better MC hunter would probably be something like the Executioner or Demolisher. Also, recall, the current codex gave us tank commanders, so a BS4 Vanq isn't limited to Pask . Or, if you have IA1 V2, you can potentially field up to 5 BS4 Vanqs in the Armoured Battlegroup formation, and Beast Hunter Shells do a nice job of instagibbing MCs and manbarbies. I do think that the Deathstrike should get the D treatment, though. Its definitely better in this codex than in the 5th, but its still way too situational for my liking, and it doesn't match up with the fluff at all.Spoilers for Yarrick: Imperial Creed below: Towards the end of the book, the Chaos separatists manage to acquire a Deathstrike through unknown means, and the resulting launch and explosion annihilates the planetary capital and almost wipes out the Guard survivors (who managed to escape on time), Hiroshima style. The nuke-like description of the blast given in the book is almost certainly intentional, I believe. Hell, had Yarrick not emphasized that it was a plasma warhead (nuclear fusion bomb?), I would have thought it was a nuke too. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/312974-d-strength-vanquisher/#findComment-4158006 Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoffeeGrunt Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 I don't see it happening. Maybe it'll get AP1 but I only see D weapon status being handed out to the Deathstrike to be honest. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/312974-d-strength-vanquisher/#findComment-4158007 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lukash_ Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 I bet they'll give us the baneblade as a Lord of War and make some variants str-D. But I agree we need something against Wraithknights. The Shadowsword already exists, and it's pretty fantastic. Make the Vanquisher AP1 and give us the option to upgrade its BS for 15-20 points (fluff-wise, Vanquishers are rare and only given to veteran crews.) Give Command Vanquishers the option to take Beast Hunter Shells. Maybe toss in a rule allowing natural 1s on the vehicle damage table to be rerolled. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/312974-d-strength-vanquisher/#findComment-4158016 Share on other sites More sharing options...
HenricusTyranicus Posted August 28, 2015 Author Share Posted August 28, 2015 Perhaps if they made it ap1 and heavy 2 instead of heavy 1? Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/312974-d-strength-vanquisher/#findComment-4158061 Share on other sites More sharing options...
HenricusTyranicus Posted August 28, 2015 Author Share Posted August 28, 2015 Also, recall, the current codex gave us tank commanders, so a BS4 Vanq isn't limited to Pask . A BS4 isn't, but Pask's rerolls to hit are harder to do. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/312974-d-strength-vanquisher/#findComment-4158063 Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorFish Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 We'll be here all day if we're wish listing I will be interested to see what bone GW decides to throw us when we get an update, but my expectations aren't that high. I don't think Guard have ever really been a top tier codex as that seems to require strange units and other silly things that we don't get. Our theme is the humble soldier and the tanks beside him and that's how it should stay :) For now though I agree that AP1 would be nice for the Vanquisher but what it really needs is something to alleviate the BS3. Either some form of BS buff or a points drop to encourage us to take them. Given GW has no idea how many Vanquishers we take (as it's a multi-kit box) I'm not sure if our pleas will be heard but there's no harm in trying Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/312974-d-strength-vanquisher/#findComment-4158113 Share on other sites More sharing options...
march10k Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 The average AP roll results in a 15 as it is...I don't think S9 is in the cards. BS4, maybe...but, as has been stated, you can have that now. Maybe BS4 for the entire command squadron? That would be nice. I don't see AP1 happening, either. It's not an explosive round or anything, it just punches holes in stuff, no matter how thick the armor. I think AP2 is actually about perfect, although maybe a special rule saying that crew shaken/stunned cannot be ignored and stunned cannot be downgraded to shaken? That would be good without making it auto-delete a 200 point model per turn... Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/312974-d-strength-vanquisher/#findComment-4158322 Share on other sites More sharing options...
morroccomole Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 I think AP2 is actually about perfect, although maybe a special rule saying that crew shaken/stunned cannot be ignored and stunned cannot be downgraded to shaken? Seems like the Vanquisher cannon is analogous to the real life sabot round, so this sounds sensible. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/312974-d-strength-vanquisher/#findComment-4158346 Share on other sites More sharing options...
march10k Posted August 29, 2015 Share Posted August 29, 2015 Precisely Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/312974-d-strength-vanquisher/#findComment-4158388 Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorFish Posted August 29, 2015 Share Posted August 29, 2015 without making it auto-delete a 200 point model per turn... What's wrong with that? We could do with a broken unit or two to catch up I like the shaken idea, something like that would be very nice at making it more effective. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/312974-d-strength-vanquisher/#findComment-4158562 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Truesight Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 How about the Vanquisher cannon gets the ignores cover rule? That seemed to be the main problem when I used them. That would give them a role that would be unique. I could probably find a use for a squadron of two with a psyker to twin link them with that change. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/312974-d-strength-vanquisher/#findComment-4159020 Share on other sites More sharing options...
HenricusTyranicus Posted August 30, 2015 Author Share Posted August 30, 2015 Oh I know! Keep it exactly the same, except that a hit from a Vanquisher reduces the armor on the facing it hit. If it's just meant to tear through stuff, maybe it wouldn't destroy on it's own, just weaken the integrity of the structure. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/312974-d-strength-vanquisher/#findComment-4159043 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emicus Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 It's already good at shooting (long range, although the hit rate is 50%) and will statisticly pen land raiders every time. What I feel the Vanquisher is missing is a higher chance of outright disabling the vehicle. Perhaps a bonus towards removing the main weapon, movement or even exploding? I mean it's supposed to be a tank killer after all. Not a "oh, crew shaken". Having a 50% chance to hit will be damn good if it asplodes a vehicle. Imagine a 25% chance to punt a Land Raider, wow! Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/312974-d-strength-vanquisher/#findComment-4159151 Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorFish Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 Or maybe something like an additional rule, similar to grav? So it hits so hard it's guaranteed to do something like disable the vehicle, or knock out a gun? Concussive against MCs? The Vanquisher is really cool but doesn't feature in my lists outside of a tank commander's squadron. I'd like to change that, but I'll need a hand from GW... Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/312974-d-strength-vanquisher/#findComment-4159188 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quneitra Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 If IA1 V2 is to be believed, it fires sabot rounds specifically designed for the gun to wreck tanks and other armoured vehicles. The Tau railgun is similar (the experimental railgun IRL use saboted sub-caliber munitions) and has AP1, so I think that's a must. AP2 is given to munitions that destroy armor through sheer force, but AP1 is given to specialized anti-vehicle weapons. Lacking that, porting over the coaxial stubber from IA would be sweet, in order to give us a better chance of hitting something. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/312974-d-strength-vanquisher/#findComment-4159300 Share on other sites More sharing options...
march10k Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 I don't think we need to pick and choose railhead rules to cut and paste onto the vanquisher. Keep in mind that while it is S10AP1, it also doesn't average 15 on the pen roll and it has AV13 front and AV12 side armor. Sure, it can jink, but as soon as it starts doing that, it's dead, just dead a bit slower...snap-shotting that heavy 1 gun is no way to win a tank duel. There are plenty of valid reasons why tau players don't field three railheads and in fact only field longstrike. I think the vanquisher is superior to the hammerhead even before you start comparing points cost. I'd much rather see a special rule like "ignores cover," because that is pretty realistic. The sabot rounds from my M1A1 went over a mile a second with a nearly flat trajectory (great for hitting even helicopters, as long as their lateral speed wasn't greater than the rate at which the turret could traverse), that should defeat jink pretty reliably, and they also punched through sand dunes to go straight through the T-72 on the other side...so ignoring cover sounds like a good alternative to my previous suggestion that shaken/stunned cannot be ignored or downgraded. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/312974-d-strength-vanquisher/#findComment-4159312 Share on other sites More sharing options...
HenricusTyranicus Posted August 30, 2015 Author Share Posted August 30, 2015 The Problem with ignores cover is that for most jinking vehicles you'd want to use and Eradicator anyway. Especially if said vehicles are in a squadron. And you really don't get great cover on non jinking vehicles too often. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/312974-d-strength-vanquisher/#findComment-4159327 Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorFish Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 It's sad that there's a good chance GW will change nothing for the Vanquisher, but we live in hope. Maybe people can post their Vanquishers up here to cheer me up? ;) Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/312974-d-strength-vanquisher/#findComment-4159467 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quneitra Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 Will a description suffice or are pictures necessary? Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/312974-d-strength-vanquisher/#findComment-4159525 Share on other sites More sharing options...
march10k Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 It's sad that there's a good chance GW will change nothing for the Vanquisher, but we live in hope. Maybe people can post their Vanquishers up here to cheer me up? Ask and ye shall receive...Pasquisher and nameless LRBT wingman: The wingman can have his fires split, or, if the 9- fails, fire his lascannon at Pask's target...I roll enough 10-12 that it pays to have the lascannon on the LRBT, and you'd be surprised how often Pask whiffs and the BS3 lascannon pens! Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/312974-d-strength-vanquisher/#findComment-4159708 Share on other sites More sharing options...
morroccomole Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 Do you have a secret to getting the drawn-on numbers so pretty looking? I can imagine trying to do that and making a bloody smear out of it lol. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/312974-d-strength-vanquisher/#findComment-4159766 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.