Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2009 16:34:38 GMT -5
Personaly i feel that the vanquisher can be used as both an anti-tank and anti-infantry tank as much as the regular russ. It you give it a stubber and a pair of heavy bolter spons it can still go the job and the cannon is good at hurting carnifex's with +2 saves
|
|
|
|
Post by RedsandRoyals on May 18, 2009 17:03:07 GMT -5
Personaly i feel that the vanquisher can be used as both an anti-tank and anti-infantry tank as much as the regular russ. It you give it a stubber and a pair of heavy bolter spons it can still go the job... While it can be upgraded to cope with infantry, it's really a waste to use it that way, especially when so many more units do the job so much better. Remember, just because it can, doesn't mean it should.  I'm a bit of a Vanquisher fanboy, as some of you know, so I've thrown down at least one in most of my games, and they're wonderful at cracking tanks. Taking Pask in one is almost mandatory, and I find they work best in pairs. Yes, they're specialized, but they kill armour better then just about anything else in the game (except maybe meltabombs), and are one of the cheapest variants, being only 5pts more expensive then an Exterminator or normal Russ. I usually use take them as my AT units, giving me a very durable anti-armour platform, and allowing my infantry to take more Heavy Bolters and Autocannons, which works better with BS 3, instead of Missile Launchers and Lascannons, which are expensive, a single shot, and are more fragile thanks to the new HW team rules. Against IG, Tau, Marines, and Nidzilla lists, and any mechanized opponent, take them. Against horde armies, like Orks, don't bother. Reds |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2009 18:23:20 GMT -5
i can see what your saying. i completly agree with the fanboy thing haha i love the tank myself and run three in my army because its funny to watch necrons and space marines cry when you destroy thier monolith or land raider
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 19, 2009 21:45:01 GMT -5
With Pask and a lascannon it would be good, with multimelta sponsons it would be discusting. And expensive. But very, very cool.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Envoy (AWOL) on May 19, 2009 21:56:43 GMT -5
It's really unnecessary to put the Multi-Melta's sponsons on the Vanq. If an enemy vehicle is close enough to warrant using them, your tank isn't doing its job and should have a stern talking to. Besides, with Pask, the Lascannon upgrade is all you need, and even that is only just in case.
|
|
nox
Captain
WWPKD?
Posts: 169
|
Post by nox on May 20, 2009 8:20:57 GMT -5
It's really unnecessary to put the Multi-Melta's sponsons on the Vanq. If an enemy vehicle is close enough to warrant using them, your tank isn't doing its job and should have a stern talking to. Besides, with Pask, the Lascannon upgrade is all you need, and even that is only just in case. While i agree about the Multi-Meltas i must say that the lascannon is mandatory. Its an anti tank vehicle and should not have anti infantry weapons. BS4 is good, but can and will miss, so that lascannon could very well be your game winning shot. It saved me twice when the cannon failed to hit. The reason i use the Multi meltas is because mine is modelled that way because i like how it looks as a whole. And that is enough for me to pay the extra points. Nox |
|
|
|
Post by The Envoy (AWOL) on May 20, 2009 10:22:59 GMT -5
While i agree about the Multi-Meltas i must say that the lascannon is mandatory. Its an anti tank vehicle and should not have anti infantry weapons. BS4 is good, but can and will miss, so that lascannon could very well be your game winning shot. It saved me twice when the cannon failed to hit. Sorry, should have specified, that's what I meant by just in case. It's also good for those instances when the turret weapon get taken off, you still have some sort of tank busting power along with Pask's abilities. The reason i use the Multi meltas is because mine is modelled that way because i like how it looks as a whole. And that is enough for me to pay the extra points. Nox Fair enough. I would do the same thing if mine were modeled that way. |
|
nox
Captain
WWPKD?
Posts: 169
|
Post by nox on May 20, 2009 14:38:46 GMT -5
Ah, ok. I see what you were saying now. Ya his Crack Shot does wonders to the lascannon. Beautiful thing.
Nox
|
|
|
|
Post by amulus on May 22, 2009 18:45:27 GMT -5
in my bigger games i use three of them. One with pask, and a squadron of 2. So far these guys have worked wonders and have something to shoot at every single turn. Be it tanks, TEQ, MC, or what have you.
|
|
|
|
Post by inquisitor0sylver on May 26, 2009 7:48:37 GMT -5
Vanquishers kick ass, I take 2-3 in every game and kill lots of tanks. They are more versatile than other russes and free up the rest of your army to kill other stuff. I've actually found that if you have a lot off vets you really don't need much in the way of ordnance to win, so I have no problem without battlecannon templates (I scatter horrifically  ). Oh, and I sometimes take a Manticore just so that I'm throwing down some ordnance for old time's sake. |
|
|
|
Post by Rolling Thunder on May 26, 2009 11:35:46 GMT -5
A lot of vets. A single 'f' is used to indicate the possessive in this case.
Haven't ever used anything bar a regular russ and a demo. That's all I own, and frankly, all I need.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kassill on May 26, 2009 20:14:48 GMT -5
I am really hopin to run a few in my army sometime! I just think Tiger Tank every time I think vanquisher ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by lthedgehog on Jun 16, 2009 6:36:00 GMT -5
Still think it should be an ordance profile.
Or have the back story downgrade the gun to a 75mm or something.
If the standard russ has a 120mm gun and is ordnance, then the Vanquisher should be ordance as well, otherwise it just won't cut it.
I mean, its no mere melta gun is it?
Its mounted on a F**king tank, bit of a clue there as to the power of the damn thing.
And as its a LB version of the standard Russ the range shoud be a bit longer, I refer you to the Hydra in this case.
So short and sweet, put it back you non tanking muppet.
I'd pay 200 for it easily, mind you I try to only play bigger games, and take them in four vehicle platoons, dunno why GW have a fetish with Soviet style vehicle units. **Shrugs**
|
|
|
|
Post by Lord General Armstrong on Jun 16, 2009 19:40:29 GMT -5
the new vanquishers sucks
|
|
|
|
Post by RedsandRoyals on Jun 16, 2009 19:45:50 GMT -5
Actually, that's exactly wrong. They only suck if you use them against infantry, and doing that would be exceptionally stupid. They are the best, most survivable AT platform we can get, and it's only 5pts more then a Normal Russ. In fact, a Russ with Sponsons costs the same as a Vanq with a Hull lascannon.
Vanqs end Rhinos, Predators, Russes, Chimeras, and just about any tank you care to name. One of my Vanquishers has 3 LR kills to it's credit since I started playing with the New Codex (which is good, considering I've faced 4).
I have yet to have the new Vanq "Suck", but maybe that's because I'm using it right, and supporting it properly, instead of relying on it to do things it shouldn't.
Reds
|
|
|
|
Post by Sister Galatea(M.I.A) on Jun 16, 2009 22:45:26 GMT -5
Is it true that this was nerfed? I heard it used to have a better Str and had additional dice to Pen? 0_-
|
|
|
|
Post by The Envoy (AWOL) on Jun 16, 2009 22:48:41 GMT -5
No. Vanq's used to be able to fire regular Battlecannon shells as well. It also had a small blast template when firing the AT shell.
Now it's just pure AT.
|
|
|
|
Post by RedsandRoyals on Jun 16, 2009 22:51:45 GMT -5
No, what it had was the ability to fire a small blast as the AT shell, and a Large Blast as normal, if I remember right. It was essentially a Russ with an AT shell ability. Of course, the had to nerf it, other wise no one would take anything else. It's now an excellent AT Tank. You have to rely on Exterminators for true anti infantry.
Reds
|
|
|
|
Post by Lord General Armstrong on Jun 16, 2009 23:35:02 GMT -5
well i'll change my point the new vanquisher has been nerfed to much.
|
|
|
|
Post by RedsandRoyals on Jun 16, 2009 23:49:51 GMT -5
Like I said in my previous post, they've been nerfed just enough. If they had the abilites they did in IA, for their cost in IA, no one would take anything else, since they do every job well. It makes sense to have it do what it does in the new Codex, and they lowered the points cost accordingly.
It's a good, solid tank. It's just right for what it's designed to do, which is kill enemy armour. it got turned into what it should have been in the first place.
Reds
|
|
|
|
Post by madinsaneweasel on Jul 14, 2009 0:47:28 GMT -5
ive played a tank heavy army for a while and i found the vanquisher is most effective when you let it sit back in your line and kill the tanks and use demolishers or punishers to clear the infantry and with the new russ tank squads this is made highly effective
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2009 14:05:43 GMT -5
ya i think the vanq with pask and hull lazcannon is The armor killing unit in our codex, that and a vendetta with a melta vet squad, you shouldnt have much trouble killing tanks with those 2 unbit in your army. also if you give the vets bastonne then they can use the bring it down order and have tl meltas. that is basically 3 tanks a turn that you should be able to mash. so within a turn or 2 your enemy shoudl eb about out fo tanks. then you can take those at units and turn them to take out the hardened infantry, like terminators, plaguebearers, carnefexes and anything with a 2+ save, watch out zoanthropes and nob bikers you all get the insta kill.
seems like a solid buy at the 180 pts or so, with pask like 250, and about 500 pts for the vendetta and vets all totalled up. 500 pts and your enemy has no tanks to use, seems far to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ignatius on Jul 15, 2009 1:41:20 GMT -5
Im gonna go with Reds on this. Every point and arguement hes made has been what I believe.
Also on the "it should be ordinance" debate: Why do you think this? I dont see how your logic of 'its just as big as a regular russes barrel so it should be the same' makes any sense. You do realize that the type of shell used greatly effects the result of the shot right? What is the point of a AT tank have a weapon that can scatter 12"? I personally am glad that its a heavy weapon. That means that I hit more, which means more kills. It fires specail AT shells specifically for killing tanks. Why do they need a dedicated AT shell to explode?
|
|
|
|
Post by thebufenator on Jul 15, 2009 18:53:53 GMT -5
Tank shells always explode  |
|
|
|
Post by whiteiron on Jul 15, 2009 19:01:03 GMT -5
Not sabot rounds, which is what this sounds like, I don't believe teh 30mm spent uranium round shot by the A-10 Thunderbolt (warthog) technically explodes either, it burns due to the heat and energy produced on impact. But anyway, I recently used a vanquisher w/ lascannon and pask against my friends grey knights with landraider. In a 6 round game nearly every round I penetrated his land raider, unfortunately my damage rolls were as concise but I eventually immobilized it and took out 2 weapons. I'd have to say that The Paskquisher is very, very effective, pluss its good against termies when you don't have a tank to shoot at, to AP 2 shots at BS4 are very effective
|
|
).
