PDA

View Full Version : What is a Vanquisher cannon?



TEMPLARDAWG
18-08-2007, 05:02
Is it like a battle cannon or lascannon. I saw it on some Forge world tanks and was wondering?
<><

shutupSHUTUP!!!
18-08-2007, 05:06
It's a battle cannon which in addition to normal shots can fire special anti-tank rounds, which roll to hit using Ballistic Skill and roll 2d6 for Armour Penetration.

Arcanus
18-08-2007, 05:08
It is a complex version of a battle cannon.

Alexandr Ulyanov
18-08-2007, 06:06
It's like a battlecannon but it's a waste of points by comparison.

lordbeefy
18-08-2007, 07:59
It's like a battlecannon but it's a waste of points by comparison.


Yeah right, tell that to my opponents from recent tank battle days. Vanquishers tear throught armoured targets and are probably the single most effective anti-tank weapons in the game.

My Vanquisher has so many kills to its credit that its kill marks only count AV14 targets...the rest are too easy to destroy so dont count as a kill credit anymore.

The single problem with it is the BS3, so it is best utilised by AC rules by commanders, commissars or tank aces.

Axel
18-08-2007, 09:40
Basically the Vanquisher cannons "anti tank shell" increases the chance to get a direct ordonance hit on an enemy tank from 33 to 50%.

Sir_Turalyon
18-08-2007, 11:08
My Vanquisher has so many kills to its credit that its kill marks only count AV14 targets...the rest are too easy to destroy so dont count as a kill credit anymore.

Exactly, against anything but AV14 they are overpriced, overkilling weapons. Unless AV14 vehicle is a Monolith, in which case they are overpriced regular battlecannons.

You rarely see enough Land Riders in one battle to justify fielding Vanquisher.

Lostanddamned
18-08-2007, 11:14
Vanquishers look awesome as a commanders tank - I have one and it really stands out compared to the regular Russes.

Cirenivel
18-08-2007, 12:19
Exactly, against anything but AV14 they are overpriced, overkilling weapons. Unless AV14 vehicle is a Monolith, in which case they are overpriced regular battlecannons.

You rarely see enough Land Riders in one battle to justify fielding Vanquisher.

It's still easier to hit the monolith than with a normal battlecannon (especially if you use an ace or commander), and land raiders and monoliths aren't the only AV14 tanks out there.

IMO, every tank company should have at least one vanquisher, as it's still just as good against infantry as a normal leman russ, but it can kill other tanks with an ease that a normal russ can't hope to match.

Cirenivel

Killgore
18-08-2007, 12:30
if it hits its target then the chances are it will leave a very big hole in your tougthest armor

they will be brilliant for baneblade/ titan hunting in apoc ;)

SonofUltramar
18-08-2007, 14:35
if it hits its target then the chances are it will leave a very big hole in your tougthest armor

they will be brilliant for baneblade/ titan hunting in apoc ;)

True but when was the last time you fought against an Imperial Guard army with your own Imperial Guard?

The other main thing about the Vanquisher is that it has an extended range over a normal Battlecannon, not sure why you really need an extra 24" to its range but it does mean that in giant games (like Apocalypse) where you may be firing at AV 13/14 vehicles on the far side of the table you know that you'll be in range even on a 8'x4' table (107" corner to corner) with a little movement. Commanders and Tank Aces FTW with Leman Russ Vanquishers:)

yankeeboy
18-08-2007, 17:45
It's like a battlecannon but it's a waste of points by comparison.


Exactly, against anything but AV14 they are overpriced, overkilling weapons. Unless AV14 vehicle is a Monolith, in which case they are overpriced regular battlecannons.

You rarely see enough Land Riders in one battle to justify fielding Vanquisher.

All you need is to kill a single Land Raider and the Vanquisher Leman Russ has more than earned it's entire price back. Should you play against Mech Tau, or Mech Eldar, it's a great tool. It also guarantees everything else under AV14 pops on the first hit. Given it's abilities, it can mow down any possible vehicle opposition it faces, from an extreme distance, as well.

Additionally, you can still use it as a normal anti-infantry weapon, just like the regular Russ.

Given the limited number of tanks you can take with a standard guard army, it's a functional and efficient choice to include one.

Stella Cadente
18-08-2007, 18:01
overkilling weapons.


you make that sound like a bad thing

and anyway the most important thing isn't how it performs, its how it looks, and your enemies face when you say "I have 3 vanquishers" he then askes "what does it do" you then say "in basic terms?, well its like a 96" meltagun" then he cries

Kulgur
18-08-2007, 18:32
Would have loved having a vanquisher at a recent battle I had at GW Bedford. Massive tank battle, including 2 titans (one tyranid, one imperial)

Alexandr Ulyanov
18-08-2007, 20:44
Exactly, against anything but AV14 they are overpriced, overkilling weapons. Unless AV14 vehicle is a Monolith, in which case they are overpriced regular battlecannons.

You rarely see enough Land Riders in one battle to justify fielding Vanquisher.
Unless the single shot using BS still counts as ordnance, then the normal battle cannon is more powerful than the vanquisher AT round against monoliths and other no 2d6 vehicles, since it still gets to take the better of 2 rolls on the penetration attempt. (energy field on waveserpents negates 2d6 pen too, right?)

And the chance to hit with a battle cannon is better than 33%; 33% chance of on target+the chances of getting a 1" scatter on any rhino+sized vehicle and possibly the chance of getting a 2" or less scatter on monoliths and land raiders: so long as the center hole is over the target it's a direct hit. It's probably more like a 40% chance of a hit, then. Besides, even if you miss with a normal shot you may hit and kill something else. (Once I missed a railhead completely only to instant kill a tooled out Shas'o)

Cirenivel
18-08-2007, 21:05
Unless the single shot using BS still counts as ordnance, then the normal battle cannon is more powerful than the vanquisher AT round against monoliths and other no 2d6 vehicles, since it still gets to take the better of 2 rolls on the penetration attempt. (energy field on waveserpents negates 2d6 pen too, right?)


Remember that the vanquisher can still shot normal battle cannon shells too. They just have 24" longer range and the option to fire a shell that kill tanks dead.



And the chance to hit with a battle cannon is better than 33%; 33% chance of on target+the chances of getting a 1" scatter on any rhino+sized vehicle and possibly the chance of getting a 2" or less scatter on monoliths and land raiders: so long as the center hole is over the target it's a direct hit. It's probably more like a 40% chance of a hit, then. Besides, even if you miss with a normal shot you may hit and kill something else. (Once I missed a railhead completely only to instant kill a tooled out Shas'o)

While that may be right, let's even say that you have something like a 45% chance of getting a direct hit, then a tank ace or commander will still hit 66,66% of the time with a more destructive shell against most vehicles.

Cirenivel

MegaPope
18-08-2007, 21:10
Funnily enough, the single shot slug does count as ordnance when it hits.

And the extra range comes in damn handy when you have to shoot obliquely across a 6' wide table. This happens to me quite a lot.

I shot a Vulture out of the sky with one once. My opponent and I had some discussion about whether it could fire at an aerial target when it causes damage to vehicles like an Ordnance weapon. Having come to the conclusion that a) since it had to roll to hit (on a 6) instead of placing a template and scattering and b) it would only cause glancing hits to such a target anyway, my opponent kindly let me take the shot. Needless to say, the Vanquisher was a Commissar tank, and his gunners did the business.

However, this is only our house rule. RaW would forbid the use of unmodified Vanquisher cannons as ad-hoc anti-aircraft weaponry.

Bunnahabhain
19-08-2007, 01:35
Funnily enough, the single shot slug does count as ordnance when it hits.

And the extra range comes in damn handy when you have to shoot obliquely across a 6' wide table. This happens to me quite a lot.

However, this is only our house rule. RaW would forbid the use of unmodified Vanquisher cannons as ad-hoc anti-aircraft weaponry.


To praphrase the rules from IA one.... " for ordnance weapons, roll the scatter dice, on a hit the flyer is hit, on any other result the shot misses."

As there are two hit results on a scatter dice, you actually have a better chance to hit with ordnance than a normal weapon.
I agree with your decision to treat it in the same way as any other weapon that rolls to hit using BS. Makes far more sense.


They might not be the most efficient use of points in the Army, but they're great fun, and look good. I currently have 5, ( Command russ, Commissar russ, macharius and VDR tank destroyer) and am doing at least another macharius. If you're being competitive, you can always just use them as better looking standard battle cannons.

Alexandr Ulyanov
19-08-2007, 02:12
While that may be right, let's even say that you have something like a 45% chance of getting a direct hit, then a tank ace or commander will still hit 66,66% of the time with a more destructive shell against most vehicles.
Cirenivel
Would be nice, except that although the tournaments I attend allow IA with some restrictions, they do not allow Armored Company and I have not seen an IA book that just gives tank aces/commanders for normal IG. So while I can see the benefit with a BS4 tank, I don't think I or anyone else around here can use those.

Finn
19-08-2007, 03:49
To praphrase the rules from IA one.... " for ordnance weapons, roll the scatter dice, on a hit the flyer is hit, on any other result the shot misses."

As there are two hit results on a scatter dice, you actually have a better chance to hit with ordnance than a normal weapon.

Sounds wrong...I was under the impression that ordnance was forbidden from shooting at flyers (under the flyer rules in the VDR in CA:2004 and elsewhere) unless mounted in an AA mount. And even then, you can only hit the flyer or the ground beneath it - I actually had someone try to hit my flyer with an earthshaker round that was shooting the squad beneath it, once.

IMO, Vanquishers rock. Although against a Monolith, you'll be better off shooting a normal BC shell as you'll still get the second die, pick the highest rule - don't the Monolith's rules take away the extra die from the AT shell?

Vaktathi
19-08-2007, 03:51
To praphrase the rules from IA one.... " for ordnance weapons, roll the scatter dice, on a hit the flyer is hit, on any other result the shot misses."



that is ONLY if you have an AA mount. otherwise ordnance cannot target flyers.

Alexandr Ulyanov
19-08-2007, 06:25
Although against a Monolith, you'll be better off shooting a normal BC shell as you'll still get the second die, pick the highest rule - don't the Monolith's rules take away the extra die from the AT shell?
Well, I made this same point a bit back. Yes, the vanquisher AT shot won't get 2d6 armor penetration vs a monolith or a waveserpent; yes, ordnance does get 2d6 take the highest, even vs. a monolith or a waveserpent.

However, it is possible that the AT shot still counts as ordnance, just not ordnance blast and may still benefit from the 2d6 take highest. I personally don't think so, but I have never seen anything written either way in the rules.

Cirenivel
19-08-2007, 07:09
Would be nice, except that although the tournaments I attend allow IA with some restrictions, they do not allow Armored Company and I have not seen an IA book that just gives tank aces/commanders for normal IG. So while I can see the benefit with a BS4 tank, I don't think I or anyone else around here can use those.

Well, if you only play at tournaments, then that's your loss.
Personally, I find a vanquisher command tank/ace as the very best option for anti-tank that a tank company can take. (unless it's a tank company as in IA, where a commisar is a better choice for a vanquisher tank).

Cirenivel

Alexandr Ulyanov
19-08-2007, 09:58
Well, if you only play at tournaments, then that's your loss.
Personally, I find a vanquisher command tank/ace as the very best option for anti-tank that a tank company can take. (unless it's a tank company as in IA, where a commisar is a better choice for a vanquisher tank).

Cirenivel
My group leans upon the adepticon rulings for resolving rules ambiguities and for determining allowable material. Because it does not allow AC, neither do my friends for friendly play.

And, if I were to play AC, I prefer Basilisks or Manticores to Vanquishers for taking on heavy armor. Hopefully indirect fire gets the job done early, but if not it can still do well in a pinch. The extra point of Str is better vs. monoliths and waveserpents than 2d6, and it still does well at beating armor 14. As well? No, but it also is cheaper and the 2d6 pen is usually overkill when compared to 2d6 take the highest.

MegaPope
19-08-2007, 10:00
Hmm. It seems I should review my rulebooks more often...IA1 does indeed fail to specifically state that the Vanquisher AT round is an 'Ordnance' attack, whereas is specifically DOES state that the Leman Russ Destroyer's weapon, which also uses a single roll to hit, IS an ordnance attack.

That'll teach me to rely on assumptions;). Looks like Mr Ulyanov is correct.

Thinking about it now, it does make sense in a way - otherwise, why would anyone bother using Destroyers, which don't have turrets and can't take any other weapons?

On the plus side, even if the AT does not count as Ordnance, it still means the Vanq is a really good tankhunter. Not only is the big gun a 96" range melta weapon, bu you can fit it with a bow lascannon, and if it's stationary, it can use both weapons on said armoured targets simultaneously.

SonofUltramar
19-08-2007, 11:14
Hmm. It seems I should review my rulebooks more often...IA1 does indeed fail to specifically state that the Vanquisher AT round is an 'Ordnance' attack, whereas is specifically DOES state that the Leman Russ Destroyer's weapon, which also uses a single roll to hit, IS an ordnance attack.

That'll teach me to rely on assumptions;). Looks like Mr Ulyanov is correct.

Thinking about it now, it does make sense in a way - otherwise, why would anyone bother using Destroyers, which don't have turrets and can't take any other weapons?

On the plus side, even if the AT does not count as Ordnance, it still means the Vanq is a really good tankhunter. Not only is the big gun a 96" range melta weapon, bu you can fit it with a bow lascannon, and if it's stationary, it can use both weapons on said armoured targets simultaneously.


Minor problem that the Armoured Company list does show the AT round as Ordanace in the following:

http://uk.games-workshop.com/imperialguard/ac-armylist/assets/ac-armylist.pdf

I think its safe to say that it doesn't make that much difference even if it isn't Ordnance as the only difference is a "6" on the table and lets face it I wouldn't be using this list in an Tournament so I would let it go if they strongly felt it wasn't Ordnance. Maybe something to clarify before you play if its not a regular opponent?

Cirenivel
19-08-2007, 11:27
My group leans upon the adepticon rulings for resolving rules ambiguities and for determining allowable material. Because it does not allow AC, neither do my friends for friendly play.


Well then, that isn't much friendly is it? ;)
Here, we usually allow most things that we find.
Some of us are even in the process of re-writing lizardmenn from fantasy into 40k. No one has complained yet.



And, if I were to play AC, I prefer Basilisks or Manticores to Vanquishers for taking on heavy armor. Hopefully indirect fire gets the job done early, but if not it can still do well in a pinch. The extra point of Str is better vs. monoliths and waveserpents than 2d6, and it still does well at beating armor 14. As well? No, but it also is cheaper and the 2d6 pen is usually overkill when compared to 2d6 take the highest.

If all the heavy/medium armour that you face is monoliths and waveserpents, then I feel bad for you. Can't be much fun is it?

Remember that you will need to get a direct hit with the earthshaker for it to be effective, and with indirect fire, the chances of getting that are reduced to almost 1/3 for a shot that's actually a lot worse than the vanquisher cannon.

Also, remember that overkilling a tank with one weapon isn't bad. It just means that it won't get back in the game :D.
Overkilling a landspeeder (or other light vehicle) with, for example, 4 lascannons, that's a real bad overkill.
Destroying a land raider/leman russ/predator etc. with a vanquisher cannon is not.

Cirenivel

Scythe
19-08-2007, 12:01
Hmm. It seems I should review my rulebooks more often...IA1 does indeed fail to specifically state that the Vanquisher AT round is an 'Ordnance' attack, whereas is specifically DOES state that the Leman Russ Destroyer's weapon, which also uses a single roll to hit, IS an ordnance attack.


Of course it does. The Vanquisher cannon is an ordnance weapon, as stated in its profile. Anti-tank weapons do not change this profile, other than the special rules mentioned, which do not change the type of the weapon.

Finn
19-08-2007, 22:34
You cannot fire an AT shell at a Monolith to get a better chance to hit in addition to the Two Dice, Pick the Highest - the AT shell's armour penetration rules supersede the ordnance AP rules.