There absolutely is a reason to take battlecannons over vanquishers... They don't have any of the weapon sub titles (Anti-Infantry/light AT, Anti-tank), so they get full AP against every target. Vanquisher has 0AP against infantry, but better AP against vehicles.

@s2korpionic

7 ай бұрын

Yeah, I think he might change his mind going up against an infantry heavy opponent on a battlefield with decent amount of structures and terrain.

@Hearesy

7 ай бұрын

The key thing that you guys need to understand here is that the Vanquisher is SO good, that the opportunity cost of taking a Battlecannon just isn't worth it. Or to explain another way, losing the 1AP you would have had from the battlecannon when shooting at Infantry is a price you should pay every time for the incredible vehicle killing power and range bonus you get from choosing the vanq.

@batteredwarrior

6 ай бұрын

@@Hearesy I think you are missing the point. Infantry are the game winners here. They are the most crucial thing to eliminate in your opponent's army. You only have to watch pretty much every battle report for LI to see that. Anyone who focuses too much on killing tanks etc loses. I have seen armies get absolutely pasted by vanquisher cannons...the problem is the other player was using their infantry to play the objectives and STILL won by MILES! You can take out every tank in your opponent's army and still lose. Battlecannons are far better and more necessary than you are giving them credit for. Same with heavy bolters and flamers.

I kept double-checking the rules, thinking I was missing something, but, nope, the vanquisher battlecannon really is that good. Seems like a major oversight (one of several, unfortunately) to make one option essentially "unplayable," especially for such an iconic unit; hopefully it gets errata.

@McF1oss

7 ай бұрын

It is really disappointing that some of the weapon options are clearly better than others. Hopefully GW releases a balance update or maybe there will be a net rule set that is more balanced

@jamiemoresco3885

7 ай бұрын

Baneblade w/hellhammer & pd auto cannons sound terrifying that maybe my first load out...

@amoryburgess

7 ай бұрын

Vanilla battle cannon having blast would have balanced it and made it a choice, rather than making the vanquisher an auto take.

@Ferox2121

7 ай бұрын

Indeed. Thats why i was thinking that they would limit the vanquisher on the Russes at only one every two tanks or so. Right now it is just too good compared to the good old battle canon.

@Ungantor

7 ай бұрын

Vanquisher only gets bonuses against SPECIFICALLY vehicles, and is AP 0 against everything else. It's in the Anti-Tank rules. That's the balance.

Love these videos! More solar aux!!

I like the baneblade flamers for toasting infantry in buildings. You're going to be within 12" to be using the baneblade and hellhammer cannon, so its not too hard to get within 6". At a push as well you can use them after marching due to them being point defence.

Can't wait for your great analysis of the Spartan Assault transport.

Great overview. Id just like to add a few things. The vanquisher canon is better than the battle canon - unfortunatley. You have to restrain yourself a bit, once the Leman Russ Boxes hit the shelfs. For the Malcador i would also add the Laser boat with double lasconon turret, hull Lascanon and lascanon sponsons. But the vanquisher/demolisher/lascanonon loadout should be the most resonable choice. Baneblade - i would not rule out the Baneblade canon so easily. I think it has its uses - and we should get better things to deal with structures on the Auxilia - Basilisk / Medusa for example...

Vanquisher definitely looks better (and I’ll be building my LRs with them, for the range as much as anything else - a lot of my force will be quite close-quarters focused) but I’ll be interested to see how they play out in practice; it’s easy to underrate anti-infantry I think.

I think mixing weapons in your detachments are the key. If you don’t your enemy will crush you, for example having no point defense means the infantry will bum rush you and kill your entire detachment. Orgyns will eat your tanks with zero issues. Las cannons are great against vehicles but walkers and missile launchers will krak you to death. Auto cannons are infantry/ walker killers but are no match for enemy armor.

@blecao

7 ай бұрын

its also a increase in fast play. starting to shoot every litle bit of equipment can drain a lot of time when you can just have 2 units each having a role

Just build mine yesterday, 4 Leman Russ 3xBattle Canon 1xVanquisher. I wasn't sure if I missed something in the rules? So I played it safe.

So a few things.... Theres been a decent conversation on going all Lascannons on Malcadors. A few of them can really strip the Void Shields off of Titans, and are most efficient at it since they're firing all the same gun. Furthermore, the lascannon turret is about equal to or even better than the Vanquisher in certain circumstances (vehicles up to a 3+, infantry). The range is still a factor to consider, but its not like youd get the sponsons and hull weapons in if you were leveraging the Vanquisher's range. As for the Baneblade, I do mostly concur that the Hellhammer is probably the better of the two guns. Not that you cant get the Baneblade Cannon to work though. Cannon plus autocannon sponsons and the existing lascannons gives a decent bit of shots at progressively longer ranges. I'd give that a shot. And then theres the poor Battle Cannon. Its selling point is its versatility. Its not a good weapon by any means but it does beat out the Vanquisher against Infantry (and presumably Cavalry, once they release) in the open. And otherwise it can fire at other targets and expect some results. Not nearly as well as the Vanquisher when it comes to vehicles or larger, but it'll still do work. Also a more "efficient" Void Shield stripper, combined with the hull lascannon. I'd never take one on the Malcador though, given the twin lascannon turret outperforms it there in every circumstance.

@Hearesy

7 ай бұрын

I agree re Las, which is why its the first build I recommended!

@Pumpkin_Lich

7 ай бұрын

Full lascannon malcadors do seem pretty tasty

They really gotta do something about the Plasma and Bolter weapons. In hindsight, I think your dismissal here of the Bolter weapons with Point Defence may be due to the fact that you're used to playing with terrain-light battlefields.

@Hearesy

7 ай бұрын

I dont know why you would draw that conclusion :)

My baneblades would take yours off the field because they outrange yours. But I agree with what you said about the synergy of the Hellhammer.

Imo a lot depends on the composition of the rest of your force and the size of the games you play. In smaller games you dont necessarily have the luxury of having a detachment that can sit at the back sniping, and youre not always going to be able to guarantee you can target tanks with the vanqs. Scale it up though and a wing of vanq russes is going to be priority target for enemy air if they have a lot of tanks facing off. Pure AT russes are pretty useless vs garissoned infantry, but have decent move and excellent range to target choice detachments

@Hearesy

7 ай бұрын

Pure AT russes are almost identical to none AT russes against garrisoned infantry. That’s kinda the issue - the opportunity cost to taking a vanq is almost zero.

@darijast2901

7 ай бұрын

@Hearesy yeah I agree. I think that's more symptomatic of the game design tho isn't it. The generally small difference in shot count between at and light weapons is counteracted by the better to hit scores that at weapons generally have. Light weaponry has no ap usually so there's no to very little opportunity cost for choosing the at gun. It's a bit more nuanced for light at weaponry, as that generally has at but loses point defence

Don't get me wrong, I'm still super happy, that we got legion imperialis, but we start to see some design flaws. These are subjective of course. 1. Vehicles should pay for weapons I wanted to build some multimelta rhinos, but those cost a lot, so I went why pay for them, when I can basically get another tank, which can get way better weapons. 2. Extra dice rules are problematic I'll just take the rend example, you will rarely loose combats with an extra dice added, now if it said roll 3 and pick 2 I could we that work. 3. Heavy Bolters need something they just feel mediocre, they lack shots especially with the bad hit chance. I would have liked, if they had more shots and/or rapid fire (at least, when we don't have to pay for weapons)

You made a slight oversight with the Vanquisher!- Both anti-tank and armourbane do NOT work on infantry, meaning Terminators and other heavy infantry get the full armour save, no re-rolls... The regular battlecannon does not have this limitation, and thus is more adaptable.

@Hearesy

7 ай бұрын

Not sure what gave you this impression.

@Ungantor

7 ай бұрын

@@Hearesy Page 77, Anti-Tank; "Hits scored against an Infantry or Cavalry model treat their AP as 0, regardless of the weapon's base AP value"... It's basically opposite world Light AT, where the gun gets 0 AP against infantry instead? Unless I'm massively missing something, LI has a bit of a weird thing where certain rules are hidden debuffs...

Wouldn't making some sort of Malcador siege tank build also make sense? Puttings demolisher cannon as hull mounted and packing all other slots with heavy bolters. So we can possibli hit building that we are trying to storm and infantry inside it?

Personally if I have a contingent of baneblades I want it to be engaging the enemy, not being a glorified wrecking ball knocking down buildings. And the 25" vs the 14" difference means it's always going to be the baneblade cannon for me. The Hull mounted Demolisher is just a nice-to-have for if the Baneblades survive long enough to get within 14" of the titan they're trying to kill. Also bigger barrel = better right?

@Miniwargaming101

7 ай бұрын

Yeah, as much as I still agree that the Hellhammer is probably the go-to turret (since it matches so well with the range of the other weapons it has), I don't think it's such a clear-cut distinction. The Baneblade Cannon having nearly twice the range and with the same profile otherwise is a reasonable tradeoff. It only lacks Demolisher/Ignores Cover. I'd probably match it with the autocannon sponsons, for that bit of extra range.

If you run some Malcadors near a baneblade, would you then the baneblade Cannon on it you would have extra demolishes on the Malcadors. Or run 2 baneblades, 1 with Cannon and 1 with hellhammer? I know splitting builds in a unit will cause weapons not effective in different shootings.

@marcmiddleton2277

7 ай бұрын

Why I think running like 4 or 6 Leman Russ, half bolters half lascannon gives you some point defense and some extra anti-tank. Kinda gotta think of the unit as a whole and not just single tanks like in HH or 40k

The image I seen to running toward is Leman Russ = Anti Vehicles, Malcadors = Anti Infantry, Baneblade = Building Cracker/Anti Infantry

Why do you say you can't line the Malcador up to have all the same weapons? It can have lascannons, lascannon and lascannons. I can see why you might always pick the vanquisher over the turret lascannons, but it can be done.

The Vanquisher range looks like a misprint to me, like it should have been a 22" range, so it's trading off a slighly shorter range than the battle cannon for more hitting power.

@zerosniped

6 ай бұрын

I'm not so sure, in the other tabletops russes with vanquishers have really long range. The battlecannon in 30kor40k is 48", vanquisher 72". What is missing from this ruleset is that the battlecannon in the other games is significantly better versus infantry, which retaining an ap-1 doesn't confer

Many AT weapons in this game don't seem to be weak enough against infantry to make the choice meaningful. That and heavy bolters being so plentiful make AT weapons the easy choice.

@Hearesy

7 ай бұрын

Yep!

I think people need to be careful generalising too much at this point in the release schedule. With bikes, land speeders and light artillary units waiting in the wings some configurations that are currently suboptimal will likely become more important down the road

@Hearesy

7 ай бұрын

Absolutely, but if we just guess/hope, then there's nothing to make videos about other than useless conjecture. So the content is relevant for right now, and it can be updated at a later date!

Baneblades are great models but play wise not so good, pt for pt lemons and macadamias put out more devastation and survive longer.

Yeah the battlecannon should have been 2 shots, or maybe had some sort of blast rule giving more hits against infantry, let's see what they do with the medusas and basilisks

7:13 if HH taught us anything it's not to wait on GW to make changes to anything in a black book no matter how badly it ruins the games

Says we’re not going to talk about best weapons. Entire video talks about best tanks and waste of points