PDA

View Full Version : Vanquisher house rules



DaSpaceAsians
04-07-2009, 18:21
Ever since the new codex has been out, I'm a bit disappointed about the Vanquisher since it lost it's blast so one day while having nothing to do I wrote up a homemade profile for it. It would cost 190 pts, possess the same rules, armour values as the actual one but have a different weapon profile. It would shoot 96 inches and have the option of shooting an AT shell with 2d6 to penetrate, strengh 8 and AP2 or an HE shell with strength 8 and AP3 and have a coaxial stormbolter. AT shell would be a Heavy whereas HE Shell would be Ordnance weapon. Would this be overpowered? No flaming please:)

SirSnipes
04-07-2009, 18:34
nope....................sounds lovely

sigur
04-07-2009, 18:38
Sounds good to me, but why make the AP shell a heavy weapon?

DaSpaceAsians
04-07-2009, 18:41
Sounds good to me, but why make the AP shell a heavy weapon?

Because in the codex, it's a heavy and I suspect the reason why the original one was ordnance was because of the Ordnance damage table

greenmtvince
04-07-2009, 18:43
I'd simply just use the Imperial Armour 1 entry and save myself 10 points and any heartache over hommade rules. It's what I'd do for any non-competition fun game.

DaSpaceAsians
04-07-2009, 18:47
Well the problem is that IA 1 doesn't have Lumbering Behemoth or 13 side armour

Bunnahabhain
04-07-2009, 18:50
So fairly much a direct copy of the previous rules for it then?

I'd do:
96" range
AT round: S10, AP1, No Blast, Ordnance
HE round: S8, AP3, Large Blast, Ordnance
-Hopefully crystal clear rules. I know it's not the traditional Vanquisher AT round, but it's the most powerful AT round possible,


Coaxial Storm bolter. If any of the ranging shots from the Co-axial storm bolter hit, the main gun counts as twin linked.
-Because BS3 on a direct fire weapon like the vanquisher cannon is just not good enough.

Cost. 180pts?
-Enough it's not a no brainer upgrade from a standard Russ, hopefully

DaSpaceAsians
04-07-2009, 18:54
The reason I overprice to avoid cheese calling . I'd also rather have the old rules since they were fine and weren't broken. Would a coaxial heavy stubber be to much?

ServanoTomasin
04-07-2009, 20:31
And the current gw codex vanquisher is why I and my fellow gaming group treadheads do not use the current IG codex. For anything. We're currently still using IA:vol 1 and the old codex, but we are trying to make our own version.


Would a coaxial heavy stubber be to much
Nope. If anything, I think it'd be slightly more realistic than the stormbolter. It's got a longer range, and it has more shots meaning its really useful for anti-infantry, and its similar to the olde-1930-1965 "50.cal ranging gun"(before the wonderful world of computers). And I just prefer them :D

Maine
04-07-2009, 21:16
Theres a reason it lacks the blast marker shot - in the 3rd edition Guard codex (the first one early in 3E, not the second one that we just left behind), Vanquishers were 0-1 Heavy choices, and cost about 20% more than a regular Russes.

Even at 225 points, it would pretty much be a no brainer to always take Vanquishers instead of regular Russes if your opponent fields much AV13/14 vehicles.

DaSpaceAsians
05-07-2009, 00:35
Theres a reason it lacks the blast marker shot - in the 3rd edition Guard codex (the first one early in 3E, not the second one that we just left behind), Vanquishers were 0-1 Heavy choices, and cost about 20% more than a regular Russes.

Even at 225 points, it would pretty much be a no brainer to always take Vanquishers instead of regular Russes if your opponent fields much AV13/14 vehicles.

What's wrong with that?

senorcardgage
05-07-2009, 00:42
What's wrong with that?

Do you mean 'what's wrong with having it be a no brainer?'

If that's what you meant then my response is that there shouldn't be any no-brainer options and everything should be viable.

carldooley
05-07-2009, 00:47
following your reasoning, why not try for the old(but still legal) Armored Company lists? It's all vehicles, but that just means that in objective missions you go for the tie, and then roll over everything in anniliate. Or, you take 2 troops from WH and 2 from DH and play NASTY!

of course you have pointed out the weaknesses to this approach - your tanks won't have lumbering behemoth, but this can be countermanded by fielding a siege company - 1+ chimeras and 5+ basilisks - that can take the upgrade but still drop rounds closer than 3'.

RCgothic
05-07-2009, 00:48
The drawback is that if your opponent doesn't turn up with lots of AV13/14 you've just wasted points you didn't have to spend.

I agree with dual profiles:
S10 AP1 Ordnance1 NoBlast
S8 AP3 Ordance 1 Large Blast
Coaxial heavy stubber, causes main gun to be twin-linked if it hits.

185pts.

DaSpaceAsians
05-07-2009, 00:50
Do you mean 'what's wrong with having it be a no brainer?'

If that's what you meant then my response is that there shouldn't be any no-brainer options and everything should be viable.

Sorry, I misread the post and now we must find a way to make the dual profile idea official!

carldooley
05-07-2009, 00:54
sorry, these are the old AC lists - taken from a public posting on one of the GW sites, not sure if it is still up.

Grand Master Raziel
05-07-2009, 03:13
I would vote "No" to the idea of the Vanquisher getting back the pie plate. One of the things that bugged me about it back in my early days of playing 40K was that it went through my tanks like their armor was tissue paper, but it could then switch over to that AP3 pie plate to masscre my squads. I always thought that if the the thing was going to be so awesome vs tanks, the downside ought to be that it didn't get the pie plate, or that its pie plate be much less impressive than the stock Russ's battle cannon. Maybe it could get the small blast template instead of the big one, or maybe its pie plate could be S6 AP4 instead of S8 AP3. Personally, I don't mind the Vanquisher not getting the pie plate at all.

RCgothic
05-07-2009, 10:14
The blast template isn't really the bit that bothers me about vanquishers. it's the fact that it just outright sucks at taking down vehicles. First it misses half the time, then it doesn't get a destroyed result 60% of the time, and on top of that, getting past the armour isn't a sure bet either. AP1 is an absolute neccesity.

Grand Master Raziel
05-07-2009, 14:26
Well, I think the intent is to man your Vanquishers with Knight-Commander Pask. After all, why would you put Pask on any of the pie-plate lobbers?

DaSpaceAsians
09-07-2009, 12:57
Did anyone test these house rules yet?

Treadhead_1st
09-07-2009, 16:52
Theres a reason it lacks the blast marker shot - in the 3rd edition Guard codex (the first one early in 3E, not the second one that we just left behind), Vanquishers were 0-1 Heavy choices, and cost about 20% more than a regular Russes.

Even at 225 points, it would pretty much be a no brainer to always take Vanquishers instead of regular Russes if your opponent fields much AV13/14 vehicles.

Well, a lot of people play against more than one opponent - and I don't think that makes the Vanquisher a no-brainer when the basic russ is 75pts less - that's a Griffon or a pair of Sentinels or another Infantry Squad.

I miss the old duality - though I notice many opponents don't ;) I think it should retain the ability, but exactly like the old profile. Still nasty against tanks (guaranteed penetrate most times it hits) but can still fail on the penetration roll - but it's still stopped that rival Russ etc firing. Though it can turn on the Infantry, it's paying heavily for the duality, which I reckon makes it balanced.

DaSpaceAsians
09-07-2009, 21:36
I miss the old duality - though I notice many opponents don't ;) I think it should retain the ability, but exactly like the old profile. Still nasty against tanks (guaranteed penetrate most times it hits) but can still fail on the penetration roll - but it's still stopped that rival Russ etc firing. Though it can turn on the Infantry, it's paying heavily for the duality, which I reckon makes it balanced.

Most of my opponents except my cheese caller couldn't care less about the duality since mine failed to kill anything. The only reason why I took was for the duality and massive range.

MrMojoZ
09-07-2009, 21:44
And the current gw codex vanquisher is why I and my fellow gaming group treadheads do not use the current IG codex. For anything. We're currently still using IA:vol 1 and the old codex, but we are trying to make our own version.


You'd be fools to pass up on lumbering behemoth but have fun I guess.

DaSpaceAsians
09-07-2009, 21:47
and don't forget side armour 13