Vanquisher v demolisher, math time

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

I think their results would have been better with plasma cannons on the vanquisher.

 

my last game, the vanquisher played a key role in killing a demon prince and angron in T1 and 2 respectively.

 

the demolisher’s cannon did help with angron however, but was out of range of the demon prince.

Edited February 25 by Inquisitor_Lensoven

[sairence]

On any Russ comparison the only thing that matters is the turret and special rule, cause everything else can be equipped the exact same way. 

 

For me, as long as the Vanq gun is a single shot, it's not going to go into any lists bar wanting to have another tough hull on there. In which case it gets 3 HF and pushes forward as a premium Hellhound with a reloadable hunter killer. 

 

I'll prob test out the standard Demolisher when I get to tank lists again, suspect it might still have some play. LR TC is back in the box, too expensive for its capabilities.

 

For now it's Mech Assaults turn to have a go though. :D

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

7 hours ago, sairence said:

On any Russ comparison the only thing that matters is the turret and special rule, cause everything else can be equipped the exact same way. 

 

For me, as long as the Vanq gun is a single shot, it's not going to go into any lists bar wanting to have another tough hull on there. In which case it gets 3 HF and pushes forward as a premium Hellhound with a reloadable hunter killer. 

 

I'll prob test out the standard Demolisher when I get to tank lists again, suspect it might still have some play. LR TC is back in the box, too expensive for its capabilities.

 

For now it's Mech Assaults turn to have a go though. :D

I’ve actually really enjoyed my vanquisher so far, and without it I likely would have never killed angron, and definitely would have been more than 1 turn of shooting to kill a demon prince.

[Galron]

I have yet to use them but I agree with MG's philosophy on them. If you use them, you use them in threes. One is kind of a waste and you are better off with a battle cannon. Three means 1.5 will hit barring no other modifiers or rerolls. 

[Emperor Ming]

Apart from the points difference of course

 

3 russes damage potential from the turret is 81, 3 vanquishers turrets cant even get to half of that

Edited February 27 by Emperor Ming

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

53 minutes ago, Emperor Ming said:

Apart from the points difference of course

 

3 russes damage potential from the turret is 81, 3 vanishers turrets cant even get to half of that

What kind of russes are you comparing against? Where are you getting this damage number of 81 from?

3 LRBTs? You’re unlikely to get all 9 attacks, and you’re much less likely to wound with an LRBT, so even if you get max shots, and hit with 100% of them you have a 66% chance to fail the wound roll with each of them meaning only 3 will be likely to get through and with AP-1 they’re likely to save 2/3 at least. So if you get 3 LRBTs and roll max attacks and 100% accuracy, you’re still only doing the average damage of 1 vanquisher to an enemy target, for 90 points more.

 

 

The vanquisher is the cheapest Russ version. It’s 525points for 3 LRBTs.

its 435 for 3 vanquishers.

 

 

 

And 3 demolishers have a max damage output of 126, what’s your point?

Edited February 26 by Inquisitor_Lensoven

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

1 hour ago, Galron said:

I have yet to use them but I agree with MG's philosophy on them. If you use them, you use them in threes. One is kind of a waste and you are better off with a battle cannon. Three means 1.5 will hit barring no other modifiers or rerolls. 

Staying stationary and take aim, get it to a 2+. Give them a Russ commander to order them, and you’ve got a sniper slinging nukes.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

I do think the standard BC does need a bit of a boost.

 

either S11 and D6+1 damage or S10 AP-2 D4

[Emperor Ming]

3 hours ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

I do think the standard BC does need a bit of a boost.

 

either S11 and D6+1 damage or S10 AP-2 D4

It needs ap2, the main battle cannon being the same ap as a heavy flamer is crazy

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

1 hour ago, Emperor Ming said:

It needs ap2, the main battle cannon being the same ap as a heavy flamer is crazy

I definitely think it needs a bit more than just AP-2, D4 would help make it a bit more of a threat to medium and heavy armor with that rather low S, when it does do damage to heavy armor, it should feel like it was worth it.

[DemonGSides]

3 damage is fine for something with D6+3 shots.  Ap-2 would be hugely beneficial and also not so big of an increase to blow out its impact and therefore need a huge points increase. I think you could probably just give it AP-2 and keep points the same and it'd be close to fair.  

 

Anything else changed just makes it step into the niche of other guns and defeats the purpose of having options.  

[Emperor Ming]

47 minutes ago, DemonGSides said:

3 damage is fine for something with D6+3 shots.  Ap-2 would be hugely beneficial and also not so big of an increase to blow out its impact and therefore need a huge points increase. I think you could probably just give it AP-2 and keep points the same and it'd be close to fair.  

 

Anything else changed just makes it step into the niche of other guns and defeats the purpose of having options.  

Yes thats what im thinking too, minimal changes to keep the points the same, and ap2 d3 isnt that outlandish

 

Every other codex seems to be awash with ap2/3 d3 weapons or similar

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

1 hour ago, DemonGSides said:

3 damage is fine for something with D6+3 shots.  Ap-2 would be hugely beneficial and also not so big of an increase to blow out its impact and therefore need a huge points increase. I think you could probably just give it AP-2 and keep points the same and it'd be close to fair.  

 

Anything else changed just makes it step into the niche of other guns and defeats the purpose of having options.  

Tbf we really don’t need like 8 variants lol.

 

and I generally feel the S10 is very underwhelming for a main battle tank.

like they can’t even reliably deal with themselves.

Edited February 27 by Inquisitor_Lensoven

[OverchargeThis!]

The youtuber was pretty good. 

 

However, the analysis was flawed. The Demolisher had MM sponsons and the Vanquisher had HB sponsons. They should both have been configured for anti-armor (MM sponsons on both) for the analysis to be more meaningful.

 

 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

1 hour ago, OverchargeThis! said:

The youtuber was pretty good. 

 

However, the analysis was flawed. The Demolisher had MM sponsons and the Vanquisher had HB sponsons. They should both have been configured for anti-armor (MM sponsons on both) for the analysis to be more meaningful.

 

 

I don’t think it would have been more meaningful.

realistically no one is putting MMs on vanquishers. They’re snipers of the Russ family, so most turns they’d be doing 0 damage since they’d be out of range most of the game. I do agree HBs was not the best sponson for a more fair comparison, they should have done plasma cannons. They have the range to be useful from turn 1, and they have the S AP and D to be raise above the ‘chip damage’ threshold against medium+ armor and monsters.

[Sergeant Bastone]

I've run both a Vanquisher and LRBT ever since they lowered the Vanquisher points (lol 195 points at index launch).  I love them both.  Vanquisher draws soooo much fire for the points. 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

11 minutes ago, Sergeant Bastone said:

I've run both a Vanquisher and LRBT ever since they lowered the Vanquisher points (lol 195 points at index launch).  I love them both.  Vanquisher draws soooo much fire for the points. 

They are scary if that main gun hits lol.

[Sergeant Bastone]

And that main gun is a great place to use Command Reroll if you miss the 3+ shot.  3+ with a reroll hits 8/9 times mathematically, or 1/4 times if you use my dice. 

[TheArtilleryman]

6 hours ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

realistically no one is putting MMs on vanquishers.

I built mine with MM because I thought I could swap the turret with one of my other Russes once painted up. But no, my others are the old kit and this one is the newer version, and apparently the turrets don’t fit each other. So I’m stuck with it until I buy another new style Russ. You live and learn

Edited February 28 by TheArtilleryman

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

38 minutes ago, TheArtilleryman said:

I built mine with MM because I thought I could swap the turret with one of my other Russes once painted up. But no, my others are the old kit and this one is the newer version, and apparently the turrets don’t fit each other. So I’m stuck with it until I buy another new style Russ. You live and learn

How old of a kit is it? Current Russ sponsons slid right in and out.

[AutumnEffect]

 

If the AP on the battle cannon is giving you trouble, keep in mind the Exterminator's special rule. It's an amazing support vehicle. 8 shoots (24") Str 9 AP -1 damage 3 with re-rolls to wound is a solid generalist profile and anything that they hit gets the AP debuff. 
Patter a few shots off your target and it gives a nice boost to your mid-AP weapons. Even our lasguns become AP -1.

 

I love my Exterminator. It's a great buddy tank for another vehicle.

Edited February 28 by AutumnEffect

[Emperor Ming]

8 hours ago, AutumnEffect said:

I love my Exterminator. It's a great buddy tank for another vehicle.

 

While I like the exterminator, relying on one model for other rules to function correctly or better is not a sound or good strategy 

 

Our entire codex weapons ap issues being solved by the exterminator is a worrying crutch

 

I would rather a data sheet and weapon profile be good enough to stand by themselves

 

Which I suppose is why certain choices are never or hardly taken like the standard battle cannon and punisher  

 

 

[AutumnEffect]

36 minutes ago, Emperor Ming said:

Our entire codex weapons ap issues being solved by the exterminator is a worrying crutch

 

That wasn't what I was suggesting. I was simply giving a possible solution to anyone who was having an issue with the AP weapons in their army to give the Exterminator a try.

 

If I'm pushed to give my own opinion, I don't think the Imperial Guard does have an AP issue in the army. It's always been an army that relies on quantity of firepower to accomplish damage to enemy units.

The problem with the base Leman Russ Battle Tank is that the Rogal Dorn has taken it's niche, and the Punisher was only ever good with Pask. I've never looked at a main battle tank and thought "If only I could trade the main gun for more strength 5". We have that in spades on every Chimera, heavy bolter, ogryn, etc. The Punisher's been dead on arrival.
The Oppressor Cannon on the Dorn is everything you are asking for:
D6+3 [Blast] Strength 12 AP -2 and Damage 3

 

GW is probably pushing the new kit, but...well, the gun is there to take.

Edited February 28 by AutumnEffect

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

10 hours ago, AutumnEffect said:

 

If the AP on the battle cannon is giving you trouble, keep in mind the Exterminator's special rule. It's an amazing support vehicle. 8 shoots (24") Str 9 AP -1 damage 3 with re-rolls to wound is a solid generalist profile and anything that they hit gets the AP debuff. 
Patter a few shots off your target and it gives a nice boost to your mid-AP weapons. Even our lasguns become AP -1.

 

I love my Exterminator. It's a great buddy tank for another vehicle.

I love mine as well, but it essentially doubles the cost of the battle tank to make it usable.

 

50 minutes ago, AutumnEffect said:

 

That wasn't what I was suggesting. I was simply giving a possible solution to anyone who was having an issue with the AP weapons in their army to give the Exterminator a try.

 

If I'm pushed to give my own opinion, I don't think the Imperial Guard does have an AP issue in the army. It's always been an army that relies on quantity of firepower to accomplish damage to enemy units.

The problem with the base Leman Russ Battle Tank is that the Rogal Dorn has taken it's niche, and the Punisher was only ever good with Pask. I've never looked at a main battle tank and thought "If only I could trade the main gun for more strength 5". We have that in spades on every Chimera, heavy bolter, ogryn, etc. The Punisher's been dead on arrival.
The Oppressor Cannon on the Dorn is everything you are asking for:
D6+3 [Blast] Strength 12 AP -2 and Damage 3

 

GW is probably pushing the new kit, but...well, the gun is there to take.

For our infantry I agree, but for armor I disagree, they should all be useful in their niche.

should the LRBT be able to reliably kill a land raider or a baneblade in a single turn? No. Should it be capable of reliably bracketing another Russ in a single round of shooting(including hull weapons)? Imho yea.

[DemonGSides]

2 hours ago, Emperor Ming said:

 

While I like the exterminator, relying on one model for other rules to function correctly or better is not a sound or good strategy 

 

Our entire codex weapons ap issues being solved by the exterminator is a worrying crutch

 

I would rather a data sheet and weapon profile be good enough to stand by themselves

 

Which I suppose is why certain choices are never or hardly taken like the standard battle cannon and punisher  

 

This feels like completely missing the point of our faction, and is also a pretty bad take on the state of our datasheets.

 

Like we have plenty of AP. Exterminator is basically just another "Remove the benefit of Cover" option, just worded differently (so you could double em up).

 

We have one of the strongest armies around based purely on statistics.  A couple of bad datasheets doesnt spoil the faction.