Some Leman Russ changes that I've had in mind

[Spyboy]

@Chris521

I know this is going to sound stupid, but what does OP stand for? Other then overpowered.

 

Could you provide a link to these pictures?

 

Thanks

[Chris521]

@Chris521

I know this is going to sound stupid, but what does OP stand for? Other then overpowered.

 

Could you provide a link to these pictures?

 

Thanks

It's just the original post.  The pictures are at the beginning of the thread.

[Spyboy]

Oh... I feel stupid lol. Thanks.

[Brother Tual]

So.... take the vanq. if you want the highest chance of 0 result... otherwise a mix of punisher and plasmacutioner are your most effective choices...

 

It is not really considered by your analysis but range is an important attribute and has an accociated cost.

 

Could you add the conq. and annihilator turrent? Or are you only looking at AM codex?

[duz_]

My experience with range is that rarely does >48" come into play
Most of the time (unless on the odd occasion your playing hammer and anvil) your only 24-36" away from your opponent

[Chris521]

A low number of shots will mean more of a chance of doing nothing, but I gave my version of the Vanquisher a lot of help with that. 

 

If I can get around to it I may add the Conqueror and the Annihilater.  It not a really big deal to add functions for them since 90% of it would be a copy paste job.  The data processing part however is a little less streamlined.  Formatting that data table turned out to be a much bigger pain than it should have.  

 

I think the reason I didn't have the FW tanks in the first place was that my original graph format was getting absurdly hard to read ( they are still uploaded, I think you can see them in my gallery), so I didn't want to add more tanks.  With this new format that shouldn't be that much of a problem.

 

 

Comparisons between my Vanquisher and the annihilater have been at the back of my mind.  Given how widespread lascannons are, they aren't likely to change price.  Without even running simulations, I can say the the Vanquisher is better against single targets, as it should be, since the annihilater can also be effective against squads of heavy infantry due to it higher number of shots.  But if would be worth looking into.

 

I did mention the idea of make the Vanquisher 3d3 damage (maybe with a re roll lowest, idk)  instead of 2d6.  If I add the FW tanks I may run the Vanquisher with he damage profile to see how it does against the lascannon.

[Tirak]

Sitting still in Coax range the Stygies Vanquisher edges out a normal Annihilator .3 of a wound. However a Cadian Annihilator edges the Stygies Vanquisher by .4 of a wound.

 

The normal Vanquisher comes out much worse, averaging 2.47 wounds against T7 3+, compared to 3.89 from a normal annihilator and 4.54 against a Cadian annihilator.

[Chris521]

I got around to adding the Annihilator and Conqueror. The first 7 pictures are the same the one I put in my first post except with the FW tanks. The last 3 use 3d3 damage for the Vanquisher against some Vehicle profiles.

GEQ

MEQ

TEQ

Primaris

T64+armor

T7 3+ armor

T8 3+ armor

With 3d3 Vanquisher

T6 4+armor

T7 3+ armor

T8 3+ armor

[Brother Tual]

Thank you.

[Silas7]

 

 

So how has your Vanq changes settled after some time? Do you think this years Chapter Approved will see some of this feedback rolled into the dex'?

[Chris521]

I wasn't expecting any more activity in this thread, not that I complaining.  I haven't really given much thought to this stuff recently, but I still stand by most of these suggestions (Not sold on the eradicator idea). 

 

Specifically with the Vanquisher profile I still would love the profile

 

S14 Ap-4 3D3 (+1 to hit while stationary)  It solves that fundamental problem of it being a single shot weapon while actually doing worth while damage for a hit.

Though it would likely need to be 40+ points since it is better than the annihilator.  Which, unfortunately, will have a fixed cost since lascannons are kind of a standardized price.

 

I very much doubt GW would implement anything here unfortunately.  I don't think any of the rules writers do any number crunching like this and I have my doubts that they would even understand what I did.  It seems like they just assign values, say "that looks right", and maybe change the points down the line.  We remember last years chapter approved when they took 5 points off the Vanquisher and called it a day.  You could make the Vanquisher Cannon free and I still wouldn't be happy with it.  They should be taking this opportunity to actually change profiles. 

[Silas7]

Maybe send them a link to this thread? It could help, and sorry for the necro but your thread was linked and I followed the rabbit hole and it felt like a more suitable place to continue this aspect.

[Chris521]

Oh, I don't mind people bumping the thread at all.  It just hasn't been on my mind very much in recent months.  I guess it  couldn't hurt to send them the thread since the the Deathwatch FAQ actually had some of my questions word for word.  But I fully expect that in the off chance that someone actually opens the thread, they'll nope right out of it in about 5 seconds.

[Tokugawa]

The most simply fix for exterminator, and not overpowered, is:

 

Make it damage3 instead of damage2.

[Phubar]

I have thought about the Eradicator. In 7th it was the bane of light/medium infantry, it let them no saves at all:no armour, no cover.

With 8th and the new cover system the ignore cover rule is simply like a better AP so not so strong as before.

Today we have some armies and powers that give a -1 to hit to represent the concealement of the target, things that in 7th are used to be done by giving a bonis to cover saves (so negated by the Eradicator).

So why dont give the Eradicator the ability to ignore negative mod to hit? I know its a bit strange and its a rule adjustement that its hard to belive but it will give him back his role.

[Phubar]

For the Exterminator i think that the solutions are all with some downsided about balance so i have no idea...

 

For the Vanquisher the problem is that its a single shot at bs 3+. Giving him d3 shots will make him good against small units too (centurions, aggressors, warriors, etc etc).

But it will need big stopping power against high T and high W targets.

How? Wounds always on 2+ and AP-4? If scored a hit you roll 2 dice for wounding (not damage) so you could generate 2 wounds that do 1d6 (rerollable) each for each shot?

[Tokugawa]

 

For the Exterminator i think that the solutions are all with some downsided about balance so i have no idea...

 

For the Vanquisher the problem is that its a single shot at bs 3+. Giving him d3 shots will make him good against small units too (centurions, aggressors, warriors, etc etc).

But it will need big stopping power against high T and high W targets.

How? Wounds always on 2+ and AP-4? If scored a hit you roll 2 dice for wounding (not damage) so you could generate 2 wounds that do 1d6 (rerollable) each for each shot?

 

Wound everything on 2+ need strength~16. That is going too far away from the background lore. Even the lance of a Castellan can't reach S16, it is S14. D3 attacks and S9 is enough, if not more than enough, to bring it back to serious games.

[Phubar]

The problem with d3 shots its that could kill 3 (or 6 with grinding)(ok it has a poor chanche to do it, but it could) models in a squad.

I think that it has to do a "lot" of wounds but only to a single target.

[Chris521]

The problem with d3 shots its that could kill 3 (or 6 with grinding)(ok it has a poor chanche to do it, but it could) models in a squad.

I think that it has to do a "lot" of wounds but only to a single target.

 

That was conclusion I came to as well.  While yes, more shots would obviously fix GW's inability to balance one shot weapons, it kind takes the identity away from the Vanquisher.  S14 AP-4 with +1 to hit while stationary would actually give it a reasonable chance to get through.

[Phubar]

About Exterminator i think the problem is that Battle Cannon is too good against single model units.

So the solution is that against single targets/less than 5 models units the BC fires 1d3 instead 1d6 shots. Of course same nerf at the Eradicator nova cannon (with the ignore hit penalities mentioned before)

With the mod at the Vanquisher (better S and AP) i think it will balance all the variants and make them all a viable choice.

[Silas7]

I think the Vanquisher could use a high count set damage value so even if the odds of hitting are not so great when you do hit it will smash the target hard, somthing along the lines of 8 or 10 damage per hit.

[WLBjork]

Should the Vanquisher get the HE round back? Not the overpowered Battlecannon round that it had originally, but D6 shots S4/5 AP0 D1?

[Phubar]

The problem isnt that Vanq its not good, its that the BC is better against vehicles/monsters.

Giving HE will keep it worst in killing vehicles and still worst in killing infantry.

[WLBjork]

Probably should have said "also", mostly to prevent it being too niche.

 

Nothing like the joy of sitting there with a Vanquisher against your opponents infantry horde after all :D

 

As to the S etc, I don't think GW have completely thought the new rules through. This edition will probably be a transition edition, like 3rd edition effectively ended up.

[Phubar]

Probably should have said "also", mostly to prevent it being too niche.

 

I was already talking about the dual ammo.

Standard one is worse than BC at killing vehicles, HE one is worse than BC at killing infantry.