Vanquisher v demolisher, math time

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

1 hour ago, DemonGSides said:

 

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.

We have one or two combos that are very good. Statistics from tournaments generally only represent the top meta lists.

not everyone wants to play the same exact one or two lists.

 

tournaments don’t represent how balanced a codex is within itself.

 

sure we have plenty access to AP, in 2 or 3 Russ variants out of like 7 or 8 total options, the dorn and the blade variants.

infantry only have two options options that are actually usable, and we only get two per ten dudes hitting on 4s barring an order, and one of those options is so short ranged it’s often just useless for two turns.

Edited February 28 by Inquisitor_Lensoven

[DemonGSides]

1 hour ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

We have one or two combos that are very good. Statistics from tournaments generally only represent the top meta lists.

not everyone wants to play the same exact one or two lists.

 

tournaments don’t represent how balanced a codex is within itself.

 

sure we have plenty access to AP, in 2 or 3 Russ variants out of like 7 or 8 total options, the dorn and the blade variants.

infantry only have two options options that are actually usable.

 

I said nothing about competitive winning statistics. I said unit statistics. As in their datasheets. IG is an army of really solid to great datasheets and some ok detatchment options.  Acting like we are missing AP is just a lack of understanding how the game works and our faction works.  

 

You do the math on a great deal of our units and we are pretty solid as far as points potential goes. And we aren't lacking ap, because we have ways to get extra AP across the army; so not only are the datasheets strong, but they also synergize.

 

No army, especially one with as many options as our, should expect any one given unit to do everything. That's bad design.   Considering part of the whole parcel of IG is the idea of humanity working together to overcome the horrors of the universe, thinking that we shouldn't have synergy is barking up the wrong tree, in my opinion. 

Edited February 28 by DemonGSides

[TheArtilleryman]

18 hours ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

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

Sponsons are glued now. I wanted the multi meltas so I glued them in but I was going to swap the turret with one of my other Russes, ideally my demolisher. The vanquisher is the current kit but the other tanks are over 20 years old and the turret mount is a different size.

[OttoVonAwesome]

Would rather take the demolishers if I had to choose. Being able to shoot the main gun in engagement range and all. It's kind of a wierd debate pitting a front line tank vs a backline one.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

On 2/28/2025 at 3:47 PM, OttoVonAwesome said:

Would rather take the demolishers if I had to choose. Being able to shoot the main gun in engagement range and all. It's kind of a wierd debate pitting a front line tank vs a backline one.

I mean tanks aren’t supposed to be getting mobbed by infantry.

 

I guess I’d also say that they didn’t take range into account as it’s entirely possible that the demolisher is more or less useless for the first turn.

[sairence]

If tanks have good targets turn 1, regardless of range, you either play on a super light board or your opp really messed up. 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

1 hour ago, sairence said:

If tanks have good targets turn 1, regardless of range, you either play on a super light board or your opp really messed up. 

I mean my games are posted here with pictures of the tables, and I’ve never had an issue shooting at something T1 with any of my vehicles.

especially the sort of targets you’d want to use such tanks against.

[TheArtilleryman]

4 hours ago, sairence said:

If tanks have good targets turn 1, regardless of range, you either play on a super light board or your opp really messed up. 

You’ve got to remember that guard armies tend to have a lot of tanks. You can’t hide everything from everything, especially with the size of a board in 10th …

Edited March 2 by TheArtilleryman

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

44 minutes ago, TheArtilleryman said:

You’ve got to remember that guard armies tend to have a lot of tanks. You can’t hide everything from everything, especially with the size of a board in 10th …

The ideal targets for something like a vanquisher are hard to hide completely since they tend to be large.

 

44 minutes ago, TheArtilleryman said:

You’ve got to remember that guard armies tend to have a lot of tanks. You can’t hide everything from everything, especially with the size of a board in 10th …

And again the ideal targets for something like a vanquisher are hard to hide completely since they tend to be large.

Edited March 2 by Jolemai

[sairence]

On 3/2/2025 at 2:03 PM, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

I mean my games are posted here with pictures of the tables, and I’ve never had an issue shooting at something T1 with any of my vehicles.

especially the sort of targets you’d want to use such tanks against.

I don't look at a lot of sections of this forum, so haven't come across those pictures. 

 

Either way, if you regularly have reliable shooting lanes from one edge of the board to the other, and can see good targets turn 1, we're probably playing a different game.

 

Whether it's because of the boards I use generally being denser (I tend to play on GW or WTC terrain quite often, very ocassionally UKTC) or because of the way our opponents deploy doesn't really matter.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

7 hours ago, sairence said:

I don't look at a lot of sections of this forum, so haven't come across those pictures. 

 

Either way, if you regularly have reliable shooting lanes from one edge of the board to the other, and can see good targets turn 1, we're probably playing a different game.

 

Whether it's because of the boards I use generally being denser (I tend to play on GW or WTC terrain quite often, very ocassionally UKTC) or because of the way our opponents deploy doesn't really matter.

I mean even looking at the example tables in the BRB GW terrain set ups provide plenty of shooting lanes.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

Something of interest.

no demolishers in any of these lists, but one does have 2 vanquishers.

 

 

Edited March 6 by Inquisitor_Lensoven

[Santaclauswitz]

Spoiler

 

I wrote down my own tier list and I put the vanquisher in A tier, which is - these units are very good and well costed, you should probably take these. The gun is a unique for it's damage output and it's a leman russ chassis.

 

The demolisher is quite a way down C which i call - perfectly good units but over costed. The demolisher always had the next best gun with more reliable damage output than the vanquisher. The nerf to number of shots have made it swingy.

 

To be honest, with exception of the vanquisher, all the russ variants are in C for me currently.  I don't understand why they've mostly got different price points. 2 would be ideal. 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

2 hours ago, Santaclauswitz said:

  Reveal hidden contents

 

I wrote down my own tier list and I put the vanquisher in A tier, which is - these units are very good and well costed, you should probably take these. The gun is a unique for it's damage output and it's a leman russ chassis.

 

The demolisher is quite a way down C which i call - perfectly good units but over costed. The demolisher always had the next best gun with more reliable damage output than the vanquisher. The nerf to number of shots have made it swingy.

 

To be honest, with exception of the vanquisher, all the russ variants are in C for me currently.  I don't understand why they've mostly got different price points. 2 would be ideal. 

Because some are significantly more useful than others.

punisher and executioner come to mind immediately.  I think the eradicator is slightly redeemed by its ability if I’m remembering it correctly.

[TheArtilleryman]

The attraction of the vanquisher for me is a) the points cost and b) the gun looks cool, plus c) the very idea of having a gun that powerful and what it could do if it works. That’s what we’re always doing with the guard, keeping on firing until we eventually hit something!

 

I haven’t tried any eradicators but they also look like they’d be pretty good too. Executioners I have two of by complete chance and I don’t rate them, or plasma weaponry in general. You always feel like you should overcharge but as soon as you do you regret it.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

7 hours ago, TheArtilleryman said:

The attraction of the vanquisher for me is a) the points cost and b) the gun looks cool, plus c) the very idea of having a gun that powerful and what it could do if it works. That’s what we’re always doing with the guard, keeping on firing until we eventually hit something!

 

I haven’t tried any eradicators but they also look like they’d be pretty good too. Executioners I have two of by complete chance and I don’t rate them, or plasma weaponry in general. You always feel like you should overcharge but as soon as you do you regret it.

Eradicators would be good against GEQs, but there’s a lot that’s good against them.

at first glance you’d think it would be good against MEQ but at AP-1, I think it will be kind of hit or miss against normal marines let alone TEQs.

[Santaclauswitz]

17 hours ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

Because some are significantly more useful than others.

punisher and executioner come to mind immediately.  I think the eradicator is slightly redeemed by its ability if I’m remembering it correctly.

I'd happily argue that the punisher would be the same price bracket as the vanquisher and I'd put the eradicator in the same bracket too.

 

Let's look at the only army wide buff from a Russ. The elimanator's ap buff.  It's a great buff but it costs 180 points. For that I can buy a hellhound and a scout sentinel. The hellhound's gives a similar buff to the eliminator. The sentinel has It's nice reroll 1's buff. I just think it's a better use of 180 points than the Russ.

 

The peak of non character guard efficiency to me sits in 50 - 70 points range. That's where I'd look to spam. Cad and Cat Hws, scout sentinels, ogyrns, taurox and krieg combat engineers are exceptionally good value for their points cost. 

 

Anyway, sorry for going a little off topic with this post. I'm really enjoying the codex and I'll probably play all the toys I've got at some point, I just wouldn't use a fair few if I was playing in a competitive situation. 

Edited March 7 by Santaclauswitz
Too many similar sounding Russ names leads a simple mind to err! Twice lol.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

2 hours ago, Santaclauswitz said:

I'd happily argue that the punisher would be the same price bracket as the vanquisher and I'd put the eradicator in the same bracket too.

 

Let's look at the only army wide buff from a Russ. The elimanator's ap buff.  It's a great buff but it costs 180 points. For that I can buy a hellhound and a scout sentinel. The hellhound's gives a similar buff to the eliminator. The sentinel has It's nice reroll 1's buff. I just think it's a better use of 180 points than the Russ.

 

The peak of non character guard efficiency to me sits in 50 - 70 points range. That's where I'd look to spam. Cad and Cat Hws, scout sentinels, ogyrns, taurox and krieg combat engineers are exceptionally good value for their points cost. 

 

Anyway, sorry for going a little off topic with this post. I'm really enjoying the codex and I'll probably play all the toys I've got at some point, I just wouldn't use a fair few if I was playing in a competitive situation. 

Sure you can put model on the table for that point cost, but they’re also much easier to kill.

im not saying that the range of points for each variant shouldn’t be smaller, but some are clearly better than others, and should have higher points.

 

we’ll have to agree to disagree about the punisher and vanquishers. Imho the punisher should be the cheapest, and should be dirt cheap because it’s not particularly good against anything but infantry, and guard has plenty of weapons not on a russ turret to kill infantry with.

[Santaclauswitz]

1 hour ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

Sure you can put model on the table for that point cost, but they’re also much easier to kill.

im not saying that the range of points for each variant shouldn’t be smaller, but some are clearly better than others, and should have higher points.

 

we’ll have to agree to disagree about the punisher and vanquishers. Imho the punisher should be the cheapest, and should be dirt cheap because it’s not particularly good against anything but infantry, and guard has plenty of weapons not on a russ turret to kill infantry with.

It's the old saying 'quantity has a quality all of it's own'. I can't deny that my current army is probably the most brittle list I've ever written. But there's transports and hiding out of line of sight to aid that. Also it means that I'm maxing msu so I have lots of units. Because I've lots of units I'm only really aiming to use them once each. Take Cad Hws squads, I'll deploy 2 in line of sight of the enemy on a firing line I'll know they'll be moving something I don't like down. Then in the opponents movement phase I can overwatch twice at 4's for 1 cp with Creed. If I get first turn I get 12 lascanon shots out of these units. Second turn I still get 6 lascanon shots before the other player can even target them. Then you've got the look on the other players face the turn after the first 2 teams are destroyed when you get the third team out for another 4+ overwatch. That's pretty much my take on your first point. 

 

Yeah, we're kind of agreeing on the second point and our differences aren't really that big. We both agree that some Russ variants are better than others. My point is that I feel that there's 2 groupings if you compare all the variants. I just feel the 3 at the bottom are close enough to be at the same price point as are the 4 at the top. I've already listed the bottom 3 and know that'll I'll cock up trying to list all of them. 

 

As for punisher vs vanquisher. I've always liked the vanquisher more personally, it's a great backfield pillbox and easy to use. The punisher is really good at being thrown forward to move block and being a pain to charge. I just don't think there's as big a difference as between them as there is between the top 4 Russes. But I get where you're coming from and totally respect your logic and opinion. 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

4 hours ago, Santaclauswitz said:

It's the old saying 'quantity has a quality all of it's own'. I can't deny that my current army is probably the most brittle list I've ever written. But there's transports and hiding out of line of sight to aid that. Also it means that I'm maxing msu so I have lots of units. Because I've lots of units I'm only really aiming to use them once each. Take Cad Hws squads, I'll deploy 2 in line of sight of the enemy on a firing line I'll know they'll be moving something I don't like down. Then in the opponents movement phase I can overwatch twice at 4's for 1 cp with Creed. If I get first turn I get 12 lascanon shots out of these units. Second turn I still get 6 lascanon shots before the other player can even target them. Then you've got the look on the other players face the turn after the first 2 teams are destroyed when you get the third team out for another 4+ overwatch. That's pretty much my take on your first point. 

 

Yeah, we're kind of agreeing on the second point and our differences aren't really that big. We both agree that some Russ variants are better than others. My point is that I feel that there's 2 groupings if you compare all the variants. I just feel the 3 at the bottom are close enough to be at the same price point as are the 4 at the top. I've already listed the bottom 3 and know that'll I'll cock up trying to list all of them. 

 

As for punisher vs vanquisher. I've always liked the vanquisher more personally, it's a great backfield pillbox and easy to use. The punisher is really good at being thrown forward to move block and being a pain to charge. I just don't think there's as big a difference as between them as there is between the top 4 Russes. But I get where you're coming from and totally respect your logic and opinion. 

Not even necessarily just the more squishy issue, but the less killy as well, particularly against hard targets.

 

scout sentinel, and hellhound is a lascannon, two heavy flamers, a stubber, and two HKMs.

so it’s a little bit more fire power than a Russ’ hull loadout.

Edited March 8 by Inquisitor_Lensoven

[Santaclauswitz]

I could talk and talk but I figure you're not really open to different ideas. I've been thinking about getting table top simulator. How about we settle this like men and fight it out with digital toy soldiers? I should be really easy to beat as I've not played much and my list isn't very killy.

Edited March 8 by Santaclauswitz
This is for Inquisitor_Lensoven, I just forgot to reply to the last post of his.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

3 hours ago, Santaclauswitz said:

I could talk and talk but I figure you're not really open to different ideas. I've been thinking about getting table top simulator. How about we settle this like men and fight it out with digital toy soldiers? I should be really easy to beat as I've not played much and my list isn't very killy.

I’d  be down, just need a computer that hasn’t crapped the bed lol.

 

i can barely play a Pokémon browser fan game right now.

[sairence]

18 hours ago, Santaclauswitz said:

It's the old saying 'quantity has a quality all of it's own'. I can't deny that my current army is probably the most brittle list I've ever written. But there's transports and hiding out of line of sight to aid that. Also it means that I'm maxing msu so I have lots of units. Because I've lots of units I'm only really aiming to use them once each. Take Cad Hws squads, I'll deploy 2 in line of sight of the enemy on a firing line I'll know they'll be moving something I don't like down. Then in the opponents movement phase I can overwatch twice at 4's for 1 cp with Creed. If I get first turn I get 12 lascanon shots out of these units. Second turn I still get 6 lascanon shots before the other player can even target them. Then you've got the look on the other players face the turn after the first 2 teams are destroyed when you get the third team out for another 4+ overwatch. That's pretty much my take on your first point. 

 

Just as a point of clarification here, the Cadian HWTs "Covering Fire" ability does not allow you to use the Overwatch more than once. 

 

The only adjustment it makes is that it lets you hit on better than 6s.

[Santaclauswitz]

1 hour ago, sairence said:

 

Just as a point of clarification here, the Cadian HWTs "Covering Fire" ability does not allow you to use the Overwatch more than once. 

 

The only adjustment it makes is that it lets you hit on better than 6s.

I did put with Creed. Surely that's the clarification? Or have I misunderstood Creed's 'tactical genius' ability? 

[DemonGSides]

12 hours ago, Santaclauswitz said:

I did put with Creed. Surely that's the clarification? Or have I misunderstood Creed's 'tactical genius' ability? 

 

Her current skill reads "reduce the CP Cost of that usage of that strategem by 1CP", so you can't overwatch twice in one turn, any more.  This changed recently in a dataslate; if you check the app or the warhammer community, it'll be under the Rules Commentary for “Stratagems that can be used more than once a turn”.

They nerfed the "Double strategem" concept a few months back across the entire game.  Like Space Marine captains.

Edited March 9 by DemonGSides