Jump to content

Welcome to The Bolter and Chainsword
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Some Leman Russ changes that I've had in mind


  • Please log in to reply
56 replies to this topic

#1
Chris521

Chris521

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 266 posts
I was intending to post this in the proposed rules section at Dakka, but I figured I would test the waters in a guard forum first
 
 
Introducing the new Grinding advance rules in the Codex helped the Leman Russ immensely, but by itself, was a sloppy fix.  The internal balance on the Leman Russ is still a complete mess, so I have some updated turret profiles as well as some addition rules and changes to propose that I think will not only make every Russ variant have a place, but make the entire platform more interesting. 
 
NOTE.  While I am placing point values with my proposed changes, these are secondary to the main point of my post and are very malleable
 
First, I going to go over all of the Turret options (I haven’t thought about the FW options too much, so I’m not going to go into detail on them here)
 
 
 
Battle Cannon: I think most of us are happy with this one.  I don’t have any changes in mind.  I my head, after the changes to the other guns, I see this as the cheap allrounder.
 
 
Punisher Cannon: Same as the battle cannon, Guard players love this one. If anything, it could go up in price a bit.
 
 
Demolisher:  This one certainly has the firepower worthy of a Russ, so I don’t propose any changes to the weapon itself.  Its short range seems to hurt it a bit more than the punisher since many people still don’t use this one a much.  So, if it gets any thing it could use a very small point drop, maybe to 35 points.  I don’t it should be the most expensive weapon on this list.
 
 
Exterminator:  This one was a huge disappointment we it came out.   After the changes to twin linked weapons, we all thought it would be heavy 8.  Now with grinding advance, heavy 8 could be pushing it.  I see 2 potential options. 
1. Keep the current price and give it heavy 6
or
2. Bump it up to heavy 8 with a point increase (maybe 10 points)
 
 
Eradicator:  This one was silly on GW's part.  You pay 3 points more than the battle cannon for the privilege of being slightly better against T5 targets in cover while be worse at everything else.  I propose a full rework here.
 
         Old Profile:    Heavy   D6 S6 AP-2 d3 damage Ignores Cover (25 points)
         New Profile:  Heavy 2D6 S6 Ap-2   1 damage Ignores Cover (30-35 points) 
 
What I’ve done is change it to a blast based alternative to the punisher.  While the punisher is cheaper and has a lot more shots, this one can:
 
wound T3 on 2’s
Has some armor penetration
Ignore cover
Better range
Be a threat to lighter vehicles
 
The incredible thing is, even against Guardsman in cover, ( T3 5+ and cover), the punisher is still a little stronger, so those last couple advantages are pretty important
 
 
Executioner:  This one doesn’t really need a change, but I would like to differentiate it more from the battle cannon and make it a bit more interesting.
 
All of the standard plasma stats would remain the same, but instead of being heavy D6, it would be Heavy 3D3.  This thing used to fire 3 shots. This doesn’t come across.  Now it, it would be the equivalent of 3 plasma cannons.
  Obviously, this is a huge increase in firepower and would warrant a huge point increase.  I think this should be the most expensive turret at 40-45 points.  Kind of fits with the fluff too, with it being rare.
 
 
Vanquisher:  Okay, this one was perhaps our biggest disappointment.  It’s a one-dimensional weapon that is flat out worse than the battle cannon at the one thing it should be good at.  
There are two problems with the weapon
 
1.       It’s very likely to do no damage.  Even ignoring the battle cannons higher average damage, poor rolls with the BC are at least likely to do something, while the vanquisher is still all or nothing (with a really good chance of nothing).
2.       When it does hit, a maximum of 6 damage just kind of sucks.
 
My proposed profile is going to seem absurd at first but it’s not a crazy as it seems.
 
     Old Profile:   Heavy 1 S8 Ap-3 D6 Damage - Roll 2 D6 pick highest for damage
 
     New Profile: Heavy 1 S14 Ap-4 2D6 Damage - When this weapon is stationary during it’s previous movement phase, add 1 to all hit rolls.  (maybe 35-40 points)
 
I’ve basically taken some things from both the FW Vanquisher, and the Shadowsword. 
 
The Strength, the AP value and the special rule are to give this thing a chance at doing more than 0 damage. 
 
The key this to remember with this one is, while it is now the best at shooting armored targets, it lacks the versatility of the other variants (I've also given it a fairly high proposed price).
 
 
 
 
I addition to these turret changes, I have a few tweaks to propose to make the platform little more interesting.  While the balance between HQ and heavy support Russes isn’t nearly a big a deal as the weapons, it can be improved.
 
Note: I’m arbitrarily giving a tank orders a value of 10 points for these suggestions.  Just like before, the precise point values are not the important parts of the post.
 
Currently I think people are far to tempted to take tank commanders over their heavy support counterparts.  While the 10 point decrease for the HS Russ in the codex helped, I think more can be done.  I’m attacking this from two different angles.
1.       make the tank commander more about the orders rather than the bs upgrade
2.       Give the heavy support tank access to the bs upgrade.
 
Now that RAW say that tanks can order themselves, it seems kind of silly that a “Command Tank” will only order itself and be done with it.  I think simply giving the tank commander (and Pask) one extra order and increasing the price of each by 10 points could do this.
 
On the other end of things, I would give heavy support Russes access to bs 3+.  It could be either a veteran tank or some kind of targeter upgrade. (I think veteran make more sense) Since my previous suggestion would make it a 55 point upgrade to make a Russ into a commander, I think a bs 3+ upgrade would be on the order of 30-35 points.
 
So these changes in the end give a more expensive but a more “Commandery” tank commander, while also providing a greater incentive to take normal Leman Russes.
 
 
A lot of crap here so I thank anyone for reading through this.
 
********************************************************************************************************
 

Update December 2nd

 

So I decided to show some off the math behind the weapons profiles.  I modified my graphs the I made a while back to show a much easier to read probability distribution.

 

A quick explanation of the images:

For each weapon, a simulation will go through the dice rolls for a shooting phase against the given target parameters.  I save a vector for each step of the shooting phase. For my graphs, the simulation is run 100,000 times for each weapon.  At the end, I total up the results to find how many time any given amount of damage is done.

 

I mentioned that I save the vector at every step of the shooting phase. Well, that data is used to make the first five columns in the data table.  99% of the time, when someone does the math the determine what a weapon can do, they will multiple the probabilities for each dice roll to find the average damage.  This data basically shows the steps to that calculation except all the values are calculated empirically.  It’s useful as a quick guide, and to check my work for the other data, as it will show that vast majority of my mistakes. (someone spotted one the last time I posted this stuff). 

 

The last four columns are based on the graph.  They simply show the likelihood of causing a given amount of wound.  I find it the best when of quickly judging how strong a weapon is.

 

 

I decided to use the tank commander For the simulations.  I could easily plus a normal Russ or Pask in, but I don't really want to make this a data dump like my last post ended up being.  It is trivial to change any of these parameter if someone wants to see anything though. Just ask

 

A few notes:

 

*Grinding advance is assumed to be in effect for every run

 

*Although, a scatter plot would have shown all the data, I thought it looked easier to read when I connected the lines (which are themselves, meaningless).

 

*For the exterminator and the super charged executioner, it isn’t possible to get an odd numbered damage result so technically the plots should be jumping to zeros at all those points.  That looked like crap, so I hard coded it no ignore the odd numbered results

 

*I used heavy 6 as the profile for the exterminator in my version

 

*The T3 and T4 runs used a squad size of 5 so the Demolisher Cannon get it’s better profile.

 
 
 
T3 3+ armor GEQ
 

gallery_93059_13986_59845.png
 
gallery_93059_13986_42207.png
 
T4 3+ armor MEQ
 
gallery_93059_13986_27296.png
 
gallery_93059_13986_108321.png
 
 
T4 2+ armor TEQ
 
gallery_93059_13986_31168.png
 
gallery_93059_13986_86002.png
 
T4 3+ 2 wound Primaris  (PEQ ??? is that a thing)
 
gallery_93059_13986_100096.png
 
 
gallery_93059_13986_23069.png
 
T6 4+ armor
 
gallery_93059_13986_103786.png
 
 
gallery_93059_13986_80884.png
 
T7 3+ armor
 
gallery_93059_13986_27567.png
 
 
gallery_93059_13986_110835.png
 
T8 3+ armor
 
gallery_93059_13986_88924.png
 
 
gallery_93059_13986_13223.png

 

 

 

Some observations for my proposed balance changes:

 

 

* Like I originally claimed demolisher is certainly not worthy of being the most expensive weapon.  There isn’t really anything wrong with the profile, but it could come down 5-10 points.

 

* Even with its overhaul, the eradicator is outclassed by the punisher.  I think that this would be something that could be fixed with points.  The eradicator can join the battle cannon as being the cheap option (but for a different job), while the punisher could be bumped 10 points and still be excellent. 

 

* I think auto cannon is a bit of a funny weapon.  It has good toughness and damage but bad armor penetration.  Bumping it the heavy 6 however, does give it a place to shine.  It can tear up light vehicles and can be rather good against Primaris marines (who could be showing up more after their recent buffs)

 

* The Vanquisher certainly has a good showing here.  Useless against troops but deadly against the big stuff.  Perhaps a bit too strong though.  Particularly in its’s ability to do 15+ wounds.  I may play around with the damage stat.  Perhaps something like 3d3 could work

 

* The executioner cannon is very strong and would absolutely deserve to be the most expensive Russ.  This thing is 45 points easy.  There is however, another way of balancing it which I think would be better than putting it more than 45 points.  Right now, a failed overcharge only gives the tank one mortal wound.  Not a huge threat even with the increased number of shots that I’ve given it.  I think simply changing it to 2 mortal wounds would be effective.  We still have way to mitigate this effect, but I think it would be enough to make it an actual decision to overcharge.

 

 

 

 

If you spot anything that doesn’t look right, please point it out.  I’ve made a lot of changes to the code to make it nice and easy to change parameters (even between my balance chances and the codex).  It is possible that something could have slipped through the cracks when doing this and the idea that I would have posted incorrect data somewhere bugs the crap out of me.


Edited by Chris521, 14 December 2017 - 04:12 PM.

  • KhorneHunter57x, patchestheclown, DominikB and 3 others like this

#2
TheShredder

TheShredder

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 411 posts

First off, I probably wouldn't post this on DakkaDakka at the moment. They literally just had a thread where people complained about FRFSRF being overpowered. Hence, i suspect any feedback you'd get there would be, to put it mildly, less than helpful.

 

Anyway, regarding the points you brought up:

 

Demolisher Cannon - It's current cost has made me hesitant to take it in the past, do I'd agree that it could probably use a small points drop at the very least.

 

Exterminator - Agreed about this. Though I think part of the problem is that Autocannons themselves are overvalued/underpowered. Their profile is pretty niche and could probably do with having AP-2. I mention this because that could help make the Exterminator more attractive - especially if it was given a few extra shots.

 

Eradicator - Not sure about this one, honestly. Your change might help a bit, but I'm doubtful that it will see much use regardless. This isn't your fault, but the main function of this turret (ignoring cover) just isn't very useful in 8th. It's also got so much competition - not just with other Russ turrets but with Wyverns, Heavy Bolters and such. I think you'll struggle to make this one viable - especially if you want to keep it close to its old profile.

Executioner - 3d3 would be nice, but I'd be careful of making it too expensive. Especially since more shots means more potential for self-inflicted wounds (and if you're not overcharging it, you'd probably be better off with a different turret). I agree it should cost more with this profile, I just don't want to see it priced so high that it becomes too much of a risk to bother with.

Regarding Tank Commanders, I think them ordering themselves is reasonable. In fact, this legitimately happened in war (one of the things a tank commander does is issue orders to his own tank). Now, you could argue that he should be able to issue more orders than that, but you could make similar arguments for Company Commanders (they command whole companies, why are they only ordering 2 units per turn?). Anyway, I can see where you're coming from, but I don't think it's really necessary.

Then again, it would be nice if non-Cadians had access to a Tank Commander who could issue 2 orders per turn.

 

I'm not sure about Veteran Tanks. I think BS4+ is an iconic part of the leman russ, and this upgrade seems like it would walk a thin line between an always-tank and a never-take (depending on cost).  


  • narcolepticltd likes this

#3
Chris521

Chris521

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 266 posts

Just a quick word about the points costs. I'm really trying to fix the internal balance of the Russ without making anything OP (a couple of these changes are rather powerfull) so I'm more comfortable proposing costs that may be a little too high rather than being under costed.


Edited by Chris521, 12 November 2017 - 11:45 PM.


#4
Zectz

Zectz

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 194 posts
I think the Eradicator needs to go back to being a nice budget option that it was in 7th regardless of how cover works in 8th. Having D3 damage doesn't make sense on its profile and for its intended targets so you could just simply change it to D1 and greatly reduce the cost. Also nerfing a weapon while reducing its cost would be better accepted by the masses than buffing + increasing the cost.

If you change it to a D1 profile and reducing the cost, then you have more distinction between the other weapons and an actual positive + negative in your choice. Unlike now.

They could easily do this in a Chapter approved like they did with the starcannon in FAQ.

#5
Akrim

Akrim

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 1,129 posts
  • Location:Winnipeg
Havent been able to fit my Eradicator in any of my lists yet in 8th. The profile really boxes it into the dimension of being a dedicated anti-infantry tank.

I would stop short of calling it a bad tank, but it competes with the versatility of the Leman Russ Battle Tank.

If it needed a fix keep it Heavy D6 but roll two pick the highest similar to Earthshaker cannon.

I run a Demolisher here and there. Always had a soft spot for that tank in an infantry support role.

#6
EnsignJoker

EnsignJoker

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 343 posts
To offer my two cents and to be completely honest, I’m not a fan of any of these changes or alterations. The codex is only a few weeks old, and there are still several more major armies and races to come. Let the current rules and points breathe a bit before we start putting changes out into the atmosphere.

The exterminator for one is tied heavily into the current state of autocannons, which, if further adjusted, would start to impact the importance and interaction of other heavy weapons.

Again, not trying to junk your ideas and efforts, just offering a guard players opinion. Leman Russ’ are near and dear, and we finally got them to have some love. Let it ride for a bit 😊

#7
Chris521

Chris521

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 266 posts

To offer my two cents and to be completely honest, I’m not a fan of any of these changes or alterations. The codex is only a few weeks old, and there are still several more major armies and races to come. Let the current rules and points breathe a bit before we start putting changes out into the atmosphere.

The exterminator for one is tied heavily into the current state of autocannons, which, if further adjusted, would start to impact the importance and interaction of other heavy weapons.

Again, not trying to junk your ideas and efforts, just offering a guard players opinion. Leman Russ’ are near and dear, and we finally got them to have some love. Let it ride for a bit

These problems were primarily introduced in the index and ignored in the codex.


  • KhorneHunter57x likes this

#8
KhorneHunter57x

KhorneHunter57x

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 1,976 posts
  • Location:Crusading
  • Faction: House Hawkshroud

To offer my two cents and to be completely honest, I’m not a fan of any of these changes or alterations. The codex is only a few weeks old, and there are still several more major armies and races to come. Let the current rules and points breathe a bit before we start putting changes out into the atmosphere.

The exterminator for one is tied heavily into the current state of autocannons, which, if further adjusted, would start to impact the importance and interaction of other heavy weapons.

Again, not trying to junk your ideas and efforts, just offering a guard players opinion. Leman Russ’ are near and dear, and we finally got them to have some love. Let it ride for a bit

These problems were primarily introduced in the index and ignored in the codex.

Bingo, and the change to Grinding Advance only increased the gulf between the good ones and the poor ones.
ETL_VI_Banner_02_Oathbraker_.jpg

#9
H311fi5h

H311fi5h

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 260 posts

I actually thought about this a while ago and came to almost the same conclusions teehee.gif Not kidding.

 

This is what I had in mind:

Battle tank - no changes - 25 points (+3)

Punisher - no changes - 25 points (+5)

Exterminator - no changes - 10 points (-15) Explanation: Right now the Extermiantor is just a straight up worse battle tank for more points. This change will still make it the worst Russ, but also the cheapest one. Which means you get more options for list building. With all of the other variants going up in price, one should stay cheap.

Demolisher - no changes - 30 points (-10)

Eradicator - agree 100%

Executioner - agree 100% - should be 55 points. 3D3 instead of 1D6 is essentially the equivalent of getting 2 extra plasma cannons factoring in grinding advance (slightly better actually). This would make it the strongest Russ by far, but also the most expensive one. Which fits perfectly with the fluff.

Vanquisher - let's do some math. The Vanquisher should be better than the battle tank at killing tanks. Against a Land Raider the battle tank does average 0.875 wounds (before grinding advance). Right now, the Vanquisher does ~0.75, which is ridiculous. With your proposed change it will be ~2.6, 3 times the battle tank. Seems a bit much. 2D3 Damage will be enough, for ~1.48 damage. That's ~2.22 vs rhino etc. compared to the battle tank's ~1.56. Cost should be 35 points. 2D6 pick highest for 40 points could also work.

My idea was to just give it S10 AP-4 and leave the rest, but S14 and +1 to hit for a much higher cost is more interesting, I agree. Also fits with the fluff.



#10
Withershadow

Withershadow

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • +EXCOMMUNICATUS+
  • 2,847 posts
55 is outrageous for the Executioner Cannon, which is questionable as it is at 20. 3D3 on an overcharged weapon is asking for trouble.

#11
CoffeeGrunt

CoffeeGrunt

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 2,377 posts
  • Location:England
  • Faction: 4th Tarosian/Hades Hive Hyenas

I find the Executioner to be incredibly potent, personally. It's very versatile.


  • duz_ likes this

#12
Withershadow

Withershadow

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • +EXCOMMUNICATUS+
  • 2,847 posts
Is it? Or is it just a battle cannon that gets an extra point of AP and tries to murder you?
  • Halfpint100 likes this

#13
CoffeeGrunt

CoffeeGrunt

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 2,377 posts
  • Location:England
  • Faction: 4th Tarosian/Hades Hive Hyenas
And is consistently Dam2, which makes it more effective against 2W targets. Also that extra point of AP certainly helps, and against 1W models it isn't necessary to overcharge.

Given how saturated with Marines my meta is, it's indispensable.

#14
H311fi5h

H311fi5h

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 260 posts

I think it's just plain boring. The Executioner is supposed to be this incredible, priceless, lost ancient technology machine from the early days of the Imperium. But on the table it's just a slightly different battle tank. It should be the most powerful Leman Russ Variant, followed by the Vanquisher. Of course that should also reflect in points. 



#15
Chris521

Chris521

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 266 posts

55 for 3D3 is a little steep I think.  It's 20 points now, and 3D3 is a bit less than twice as much as D6 ( not taking into account the minimum of 3).  Doubling that cost to around 40 (or 45) points seems reasonable to me.  It's slightly less points efficient (at least on average), but I think its fair to pay a small premium to fit so much firepower on the platform.



#16
H311fi5h

H311fi5h

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 260 posts

55 for 3D3 is a little steep I think.  It's 20 points now, and 3D3 is a bit less than twice as much as D6 ( not taking into account the minimum of 3).  Doubling that cost to around 40 (or 45) points seems reasonable to me.  It's slightly less points efficient (at least on average), but I think its fair to pay a small premium to fit so much firepower on the platform.

 

I don't think you can calculate the value of the gun like this. By that logic, the executioner plasma canon has the same value as the hull mounted lascannon. Part of the gun's value is already in the price of the platform.

My calculation goes like this: Going from 1D6 to 3D3 is slightly better than adding 1D3. 1D3 is exactly one plasma cannon, so 15 points. Thanks to grinding advance, you can fire that additional plasma cannon twice, so its real value is at least 30 points.

Look at it this way: Would you rather take the current Executioner with plasma cannon sponsons (so 50 points on guns) or the proposed Executioner without sponsons for 55 points?

The first option gives you an average 11 plasma shots for 50 points, so 0.22 shots per point, the second option is 12 plasma shots for 55 points, which is also ~0.218, so basically the same.

Now this calculation only works when standing still. Moving 0-5", the sponsons are obviously worse, but they get much better when moving more than 5".



#17
Withershadow

Withershadow

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • +EXCOMMUNICATUS+
  • 2,847 posts

I would rather take the current version, because D6 + 2D3 is better than 3D3.



#18
narcolepticltd

narcolepticltd

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 75 posts

 

 
Vanquisher:  Okay, this one was perhaps our biggest disappointment.  It’s a one-dimensional weapon that is flat out worse than the battle cannon at the one thing it should be good at.  
There are two problems with the weapon
 
1.       It’s very likely to do no damage.  Even ignoring the battle cannons higher average damage, poor rolls with the BC are at least likely to do something, while the vanquisher is still all or nothing (with a really good chance of nothing).
2.       When it does hit, a maximum of 6 damage just kind of sucks.
 
My proposed profile is going to seem absurd at first but it’s not a crazy as it seems.
 
     Old Profile:   Heavy 1 S8 Ap-3 D6 Damage - Roll 2 D6 pick highest for damage
 
     New Profile: Heavy 1 S14 Ap-4 2D6 Damage - When this weapon is stationary during it’s previous movement phase, add 1 to all hit rolls.  (maybe 35-40 points)
 
I’ve basically taken some things from both the FW Vanquisher, and the Shadowsword. 
 
The Strength, the AP value and the special rule are to give this thing a chance at doing more than 0 damage. 
 
The key this to remember with this one is, while it is now the best at shooting armored targets, it lacks the versatility of the other variants (I've also given it a fairly high proposed price).
 

 

 

While I agree that the current Vanq is kinda crap, this seems to be a little over the top and stepping on some super heavy weapon choices. You've basically turned it into a one shot valdor neutron laser projector with potentially double the damage per shot, which kinda invalidates the valdor, and definitely takes away steam from the shadowsword.

 

How's this for an upgraded alternative?

 

72" - Heavy d3 - Str 9 - AP -3 - d6 damage || roll 2d6 when determining damage and discard the lowest. If this vehicle did not move in the preceding movement phase, add +1 to all hit rolls for this weapon. - no change to points cost

 

This brings it in line with the demolisher and battle cannon a bit better w/o over powering either. With grinding advance, not moving, and on a TC - you're looking at 2-6 shots hitting on a 2+, and still rolling 2 dice for damage and picking the highest for each failed save. 


  • LordCommanderSamirus likes this

#19
H311fi5h

H311fi5h

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 260 posts

I would rather take the current version, because D6 + 2D3 is better than 3D3.

 

Not if you factor in grinding advance. 6D3 is definitely better than 2D6 + 2D3



#20
Withershadow

Withershadow

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • +EXCOMMUNICATUS+
  • 2,847 posts
I guess, that's a lot of potential mortal wounds. Regardless of the output, not super fond of even more expensive Russes. As it is I'm finding it hard to consider anything except Conquerors and Punishers.
  • TheShredder and narcolepticltd like this

#21
LordCommanderSamirus

LordCommanderSamirus

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 366 posts
  • Location:Nebraska
  • Faction: Blood Angels, Deathwatch

 

 

 
Vanquisher:  Okay, this one was perhaps our biggest disappointment.  It’s a one-dimensional weapon that is flat out worse than the battle cannon at the one thing it should be good at.  
There are two problems with the weapon
 
1.       It’s very likely to do no damage.  Even ignoring the battle cannons higher average damage, poor rolls with the BC are at least likely to do something, while the vanquisher is still all or nothing (with a really good chance of nothing).
2.       When it does hit, a maximum of 6 damage just kind of sucks.
 
My proposed profile is going to seem absurd at first but it’s not a crazy as it seems.
 
     Old Profile:   Heavy 1 S8 Ap-3 D6 Damage - Roll 2 D6 pick highest for damage
 
     New Profile: Heavy 1 S14 Ap-4 2D6 Damage - When this weapon is stationary during it’s previous movement phase, add 1 to all hit rolls.  (maybe 35-40 points)
 
I’ve basically taken some things from both the FW Vanquisher, and the Shadowsword. 
 
The Strength, the AP value and the special rule are to give this thing a chance at doing more than 0 damage. 
 
The key this to remember with this one is, while it is now the best at shooting armored targets, it lacks the versatility of the other variants (I've also given it a fairly high proposed price).
 

 

 

While I agree that the current Vanq is kinda crap, this seems to be a little over the top and stepping on some super heavy weapon choices. You've basically turned it into a one shot valdor neutron laser projector with potentially double the damage per shot, which kinda invalidates the valdor, and definitely takes away steam from the shadowsword.

 

How's this for an upgraded alternative?

 

72" - Heavy d3 - Str 9 - AP -3 - d6 damage || roll 2d6 when determining damage and discard the lowest. If this vehicle did not move in the preceding movement phase, add +1 to all hit rolls for this weapon. - no change to points cost

 

This brings it in line with the demolisher and battle cannon a bit better w/o over powering either. With grinding advance, not moving, and on a TC - you're looking at 2-6 shots hitting on a 2+, and still rolling 2 dice for damage and picking the highest for each failed save. 

 

 

This is the Vanquisher profile we deserve.


  • narcolepticltd likes this

#22
CoffeeGrunt

CoffeeGrunt

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 2,377 posts
  • Location:England
  • Faction: 4th Tarosian/Hades Hive Hyenas
Am I the only person who doesn't really have problems with Mortal Wounds on the Executioner? Heck I was running it last edition when there was no low power option and they only had 3HP. It's really easy to mitigate with +1 to Hit or reroll 1s.

In exchange I get a platform that melts Marines very reliably at range.

#23
Halfpint100

Halfpint100

    ++ EXEMPLUM CONVECTORIS ++

  • ++ MODERATI ++
  • 1,211 posts
  • Location:UK
  • Faction: 32nd Firedrakes
I haven't had issues with Executioners, I like them :) there are many ways to get re-rolls to mitigate 1s.

#24
Chris521

Chris521

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 266 posts

 

 

 
Vanquisher:  Okay, this one was perhaps our biggest disappointment.  It’s a one-dimensional weapon that is flat out worse than the battle cannon at the one thing it should be good at.  
There are two problems with the weapon
 
1.       It’s very likely to do no damage.  Even ignoring the battle cannons higher average damage, poor rolls with the BC are at least likely to do something, while the vanquisher is still all or nothing (with a really good chance of nothing).
2.       When it does hit, a maximum of 6 damage just kind of sucks.
 
My proposed profile is going to seem absurd at first but it’s not a crazy as it seems.
 
     Old Profile:   Heavy 1 S8 Ap-3 D6 Damage - Roll 2 D6 pick highest for damage
 
     New Profile: Heavy 1 S14 Ap-4 2D6 Damage - When this weapon is stationary during it’s previous movement phase, add 1 to all hit rolls.  (maybe 35-40 points)
 
I’ve basically taken some things from both the FW Vanquisher, and the Shadowsword. 
 
The Strength, the AP value and the special rule are to give this thing a chance at doing more than 0 damage. 
 
The key this to remember with this one is, while it is now the best at shooting armored targets, it lacks the versatility of the other variants (I've also given it a fairly high proposed price).
 

 

 

While I agree that the current Vanq is kinda crap, this seems to be a little over the top and stepping on some super heavy weapon choices. You've basically turned it into a one shot valdor neutron laser projector with potentially double the damage per shot, which kinda invalidates the valdor, and definitely takes away steam from the shadowsword.

 

How's this for an upgraded alternative?

 

72" - Heavy d3 - Str 9 - AP -3 - d6 damage || roll 2d6 when determining damage and discard the lowest. If this vehicle did not move in the preceding movement phase, add +1 to all hit rolls for this weapon. - no change to points cost

 

This brings it in line with the demolisher and battle cannon a bit better w/o over powering either. With grinding advance, not moving, and on a TC - you're looking at 2-6 shots hitting on a 2+, and still rolling 2 dice for damage and picking the highest for each failed save. 

 

 

 

I don't think the Valdor is even worth comparing anything to right now.  It wasn't great before the codex (compare it to the old shadow sword), and it, along with most the other FW tanks has been left to rot.

 

 

Prior to the Codex I was a big proponent of making the Vanquisher Heavy D3, but didn't because I felt it would be too powerful.  My biggest concern when making this post was the power level of the Vanquisher, so I was surprised we got this far through the thread without much of an issue with it.  It's also why I gave it a high point cost.

 

The thing is, the weapon profile you suggested is often even stronger than the one I proposed.  I've run a few simulations with it (still had the d3 function ready to run from back when I wanted it).  S9 and AP-3 can tone back the numbers a bit depending of the target, but the big comparison here is Heavy 1 2D6 damage vs Heavy d3 D6 (roll 2, pick the highest).

 

To illustrate this using just the quick math, you are doubling the average number of shots with more than half the average damage. 

 

There is another factor the the quick math doesn't show, which I touched on a bit in the OP.  When I compared it to the Battle Cannon, I mentioned that not only is the Vanquishers average damage lower, it's bad roll are likely to result on no damage while the battle cannon is much more likely to do something with bad rolling.  This is basically because the battle cannon rolls more dice and has more of a chance of heading to the statistical average. 

 

Another important factor that makes the d3 Version even stronger is that it now become much stronger against multi target units.  I wanted to make it very strong, but also give it some significant drawbacks, one which is it's versatility. Against a heavy infantry squad you now have around twice the amount of shots ( or more taking doctrines and orders into account) with each shot being almost as likely to result in a kill.

 

I think Heavy D3 could be a valid way to change to Vanquisher, but I chose to balance it a bit differently by keeping it true to it's one shot mechanic, but actually changing the stats to allow the mechanic to do something.


  • Silas7 likes this

#25
Chris521

Chris521

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 266 posts

I’ve updated my OP significantly

 

Some of you may remember that a while back, when the index came out, I made a bunch of graphs showing the damage output of the Leman Russ.  While valuable, they were difficult to read to say the least.  They also didn’t take the new grinding advance rule into account.  I’ve changed the graphs around into a format that I believe is much easier to read as it basically shows a probability distribution curve for every weapon.

 

I’ve also done versions that take my balance changes into account.  I added most of the important information to the OP but in short I’ve added 14 images comparing the current rules with my suggested changes on a Tank Commander against the target following profiles.

 

T3 5+armor 1 wound 5 models in squad (GEQ)

T4 3+ armor 1 wound 5 models in squad (MEQ)

T4 2+ armor 2 wound 5 models in squad (TEQ)

T4 3+ armor 2 wound 5 models in squad (Primaris)

T6 4+ armor

T7 3+ armor

T8 3+ armor

 

Chances are, only a few people will really look at the graphs.  That’s okay, I enjoy doing it, so it’s mostly for me anyway.  Just figured I’d share.


  • Silas7 likes this




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users