Even if a plasma cannon change only affects russ demolisher, i fear this to be a slippery slope at best. Best to keep the vindicator a marine issue only. The cannon i fear affects too many other armies. While I like the MW idea, i think it is an issue outside of codex marines and likewise this thread.

Sorry Ulrik, this confuses me. Can you please explain what you mean? I'm not sure what internal balance issue there is for moving Pulsars to 75cm. Is this in relation to how Vindicators effect external balance...?

fair enough, I hope you can see that without any real concrete targets, the debate machine is going into overdrive again

there seem to be three (or more!) branches to this discussion

1. marines are being left behind and becoming uncompetetive due to the power level of other lists creeping up
2. marines are being left behind by GW because they are not keeping up with all the new shiny toys being released
3. the marine list has a narrow set of options and only has a few solid units, many units are seldom used as they are narrow in scope or just plain weak/uncompetetive

for me personally I've not seen much evidence of 1, and I couldn't give a fig about 2, but I do think that 3 has a point and would support efforts towards rebalancing the list and making the seldom used units more competetive




not at all, I was referring to other ideas that have been suggested or may crop up in future, I think your suggestions should be implemented

on the topic of the vindicator I think that perhaps it is a casualty of the epic system, it suffers from being a marine unit which benefits from high SR, good int and ATSKNF which really give it a baseline cost we can't go below, the problem with being a marine unit is that while individually they are normally very good, you can't field them in number sufficient to make them really effective, while AT3+/AT4+ IC is great, it's only 4 shots.... in many (most?) cases the 12x shots of either AP or AT of the predator variants are simply better, the destructor is also the better FF support vehicle, is just as survivable and is faster (plus can also plink at 45cm if required)

I'm not sure I like giving the vindicator a MW shot.... but if we drop the points below 200 it will become spammable and abusable, however at 200/225 it's just not worth taking over the predator.... I'm trialing them at six for 300 points in the IF list to see if a bigger formation is any more effective.... it has been suggested that the big eff-off dozer blade on the front may justify an armour buff to 3+, but I'm not convinced

_________________
Just some guy

My hobby/painting threads

Army Forge List Co-ordinator

Well said Kyuss

On Ulrik's comments about Eldar balance, I think there is both a bit of internal improvements and buffing here - Changes in Phantom, Cobra and HBs are intended to make them a more plausible choice against other Eldar staples (Warlock, other EoV and Aspects). However these are undoubtedly buffs as a whole - there are no corresponding nerfs to keep the list *totally* balanced.

In that sense, up-gunning the Vindicator and Baneblade fall into the same definition of improving an underperforming unit, but as Kyuss says, these will always struggle against the alternatives which are more generalist units.

Vindicators have a very narrow niche as an assault support tank but one which can be dropped by Landing craft, while BaneBlades do not have a corresponding delivery mechanism. As such, I tend to support upgunning the Baneblade in the same way as I agree we should try improving the range of the Cobra - though I also think they will still struggle. However I am less comfortable about the Vindicator, purely because we have already improved the speed, Preds are generally more usefull and I suspect we really need to concentrate on finding optimal tactics (like being carried in Landing Craft or possibly THawk transporters.

As a relatively new Epic player who came across from 40k, I was surprised to see how weak the Demolisher cannon is in E:A - it has consistently been one of the most potent guns in the game since second edition, limited only by its short range.

In 40k terms, the two weapons look like this:

Plasma cannon: small blast, S7, AP2, range 36"
Demolisher cannon: large blast, ordnance, S10, AP2, range 24"

If any 40k-scale weapon deserves the "macro" classification in Epic, it would have to be the Demolisher cannon. It kills troops and vehicles with equal ease - the blast is large enough to cover a unit, it ignores troop armour saves, and the combination of high strength and the ordnance rule means that it can reliably punch through a Land Raider.

In comparison, the Plasma cannon is great at killing troops if they bunch up, but can't kill a dispersed formation. It's also fairly rubbish against anything but the lightest vehicle armour.

Interesting comparison Morsla. Does the large blast ordnance mean a template weapon? (I am assuming it does but it's 40K and I haven't picked up the rule book for that game in 10 years)

If this is the case, would a template weapon on the Vindicator formation e.g 30cm BP1 Disrupt, IC... make them more interesting to use? It would give all lists with the weapon a buff. The Vindicator more so than the others however because in other lists there would be only one gun per WE - unless you take 3 and that still gives the Vindicator formation a better buff with 4BP. It might be a nice addition to other formations too to add a bit of barrage weaponry. A little better versus hordes then too.

(Of course a MW template would definitely be more interesting than even this. I know it would on a 6-unit formation! It has an effect on the Chaos lists as well however and I'm not sure Steve 54 wants (or even needs) to add another MW template to the Chaos arsenal).


On a complete tangent here, I'm curious to know, what is the rationale for having a Fearless IG character (Commissars) but not a single Marine character with that fortitude...? It seems so overtly incorrect.

Is it simply because of ATSKNF supposedly taking over from that?

40k 'Blast' weapons use the round templates - regular blasts are 3" across, large blasts are 5" across. The sight of one or more Vindicators on the table has a major impact on enemy deployment: you simply can't afford to bunch up near them, as they will happily remove entire units if they make it into range.

Ordnance weapons roll two dice for armour penetration, picking the highest (instead of just a single D6). Combined with the high weapon strength, Demolisher cannons stand a good chance of punching through the toughest vehicle armour: not quite as good as a close-range shot from a Melta weapon, but far better than a lascannon.

I think that a standard MW shot makes more sense than adding barrage points for the Demolisher cannon - even a single Vindicator should be a threat, and going for a BP option means that they don't really get scary until you see large units of the things. I don't really buy the "Macro Weapons aren't a Marine thing" argument - if a MW shot is something that armour offers no protection against, and that can knock out a vehicle or infantry unit with equal ease, that's exactly what a Vindicator does (certainly more so than a Multimelta, but let's not go there ).

The 40k equivalent of the Epic Vindicator formation is a Linebreaker squadron (3+ Vindicators), and is used to bring down titans and fortifications at close range... Marine big guns are more specialised than Guard artillery, but they certainly have tools capable of hitting hard when they need to.

Good info!

Just a question, are those plasma stats the same for the plasma cannon mounted on vehicles like the russ executioner?

_________________
Just some guy

My hobby/painting threads

Army Forge List Co-ordinator

Those Plasma Cannon stats are for the man-portable (or sponson-mounted) version, found on Dark Angels Tac squads and Leman Russ Demolisher sponsons. The Executioner turret mounts a much heavier version, firing multiple shots with almost twice the range.

Comparing them to their current Epic versions, the Executioner (Plasma Destroyer) weapon seems about right as a 60cm, 4+ MW shot: it significantly out-ranges the man-portable version, and does more damage.

Giving the Vindicators a 30cm 4+ MW shot (possibly retaining IC - it is a bunker-busting weapon) would give them the distinctive niche they fill in 40k:

- Firing indirectly? Use Whirlwinds.
- Direct fire at infantry, or FF support? Use Predator Destructors.
- Direct fire at armour? Use Predator Annihilators.
- Close-ranged finishing shots at hard targets? Use Vindicators.

Just wanted to note that BP weapons are not just weapons with area effects - a barrage in Epic represents a continuous bombardment of an area, no weapon (except ludicrously oversized titan weapons or bunker buster bombs) can create a BP using a single shot - BP are used for artillery for a reason. (Ork Soopa Guns use BP because it's an abstraction of an endless variety of ork weapons.) Instead a template in 40k is one of several ways a weapon can qualify for AP shots, as a single shot weapon can only threaten point targets (ie vehicles), not dispersed targets (infantry).

Other than that - yeah, a Demolisher Cannon should qualify for MW, but it's not automatic. It has 2 more strength than a Battle Cannon (which is significant), but otherwise it's identical. A meltaweapon is better at penetrating armour last time I checked (8+2D6 vs 10+pick highest of two D6), but the difference isn't big. So I'd say that a Demolisher Cannon is right on the border between MW and normal, meaning we can pick what works best for the game!

Dobbsy, what are your thoughts on adding MW to the demolisher as something to test?

as someone who owns a dozen vindicators which never get used due to their pants-ness, I'd support giving them some teeth.... especially as it's a nice thematic addition to the IF list

I'd suggest if we do so, spamming them might be worthwhile, as well as trying the planetfalling LC o'doom to see just how bad things could be.....

_________________
Just some guy

My hobby/painting threads

Army Forge List Co-ordinator

The 40k Demolisher Cannon has AP2 (ignores all normal armour in the game) whereas the Battle Cannon only has AP3 (ignores everything up to and including Power armour, but not stuff like terminators)

_________________
My EPIC and BFG Blog: https://epicaddiction.wordpress.com/

Dobbsy I wouldn't recommend a BP effect for the demolisher cannon. Its not performing a wide area suppression role like typical arty, nor is its gun that big that its like a 500lb+ bomb going off and hitting everything in a large area. Rather its more likely to be used in reducing obstacles and strong points through demolition or shaped charge rounds.

I think MW is justified, as morsla states, it has the Highest St available in 40k, it is AP2 which means marines and terminators armour is bypassed (though terminators have their backup invulnerable save) whilst terminators can pretty much walk through battle cannon fire (as its AP3). The only time a multimelta is better at penetration is when the melta weapon is within half range, thought clearly that's getting down in the weeds and be like saying in epic that a multi melta would be MW at 0-7.5cm and AT at over that to 15cm... probably a bit silly!

There are few other weapons in 40k that have the power of the demolisher, for comparrison the power weapons that typically grant a MW hit in CC are less powerful than a demolisher cannon.

If you were going to do it though i wouldn't bother with Ignore cover. The MW ability sort of covers this anyway as there is no cover save against the hit, just the -1 to hit. I say that for these reasons. Ignore cover should be for those weapons that can somehow bypass the cover or flow around it, (eg flamers, tau smart missiles, some alien psychic attack etc, even the thermobaric style bombard shells. I see the Demolisher as something that just blows its way through the armour. So the fact that cover obscures you makes it harder for the vindicator to identify your exact position (-1 to hit) but wherever it hits the cover means little due to huge HE round and shockwave etc.

At the end of the day its a game so do what works for you but I think there is certainly justification for MW if 40k is to be used as a comparison. SM/TL era vindicators were also a -3 or -4 save IIRC so there is precedence within the epic community for these things to be MW in effect.

As for the plasma cannons, IIRC when we discussed these in the earlier days of EpicA the AP4/AT4 slow fire came about because back in 2nd ed a heavy plasma cannon could fire at max charge, then take a turn to recharge (hence slow fire). Firing at Max power, the heavy plasma gun was more powerful than any other man-portable heavy weapon, though the multimelta could theoretically cause more damage.

Comparing the current hvy plasma gun to say a missile launcher, the krak missile has a slightly better chance to cause a penetrating or glancing hit, whilst the plasma cannon due to its AP2 is more likely to cause an kill/explosion if it penetrates.
So what? well I'd say in a current 40k to EpicA conversion it would be on par with a missile launcher for AT. It is worse than a lascannon. Against infantry it is better than a missile launcher, same chance to hit but greater chance to kill and bypass armour - so what? well AP4+ is probably appropriate but then that puts in on par with a battlecannon which in 40k is generally much better at killing off a squad. Call it AP4.5+ and round back up to AP5+?

The other consideration is that the standard plasma gun is 15cm AP5+/AT5+. I like the AP5/AT5 stat line for infantry weapons as its a bit of mix between the old and the new, but removes the accounting required from slow fire.

Given the consideration that the Baneblade and Vindicator are considered sub par and both have had threads over the years to address their performance, MW on the demolisher cannon would probably help both out. The only other user i'm aware of off the top of my head is the LR demolisher. It can be pretty handy, especially with the 2x AP4/AT4 attacks from its sponsons on top of the main gun and lascannon. Toning back the plasma cannons to balance the MW boost would probably keep this unit at is present "power level" for want of a better term. Though that is something you would have to bring up with the IG guys - who are probably wanting the same thing but avoiding it for fear of upsetting the marine guys

Still we can trial it, would you recommend the same points for swapping the main gun from:
30cm AP3+/AT4+ IC
to
30cm MW4+

?

EDIT: A few of the posts above slipped in while I was typing this - that'll teach me to leave a half-typed reply while putting my daughter to bed...

I think the 40k Demolisher Cannon has two other points in favour of it being a MW in Epic, beyond its ability to penetrate vehicle armour. Against units of troops, it completely denies them a regular armour save (even Terminators only have their invulnerable save to fall back on). Against vehicles, it does more severe damage than weapons like the Battlecannon - the low AP value allows it to add +1 to damage table rolls, making it more likely to destroy the target outright instead of just taking out weapons or tracks.

Taking a step back from the 40k-specific details, it also fills a role that the Marine army struggles with: people often complain that they have to field Titans to get MW attacks in their list. In its current incarnation (AP3+/AT4+ IC), the Vindicator suffers competition from vehicles like Predators. A MW version would provide something unique among the Marine vehicles, while also potentially reducing the dependency on Warhounds a little.

This concern has been raised a few time, what would you compare it to as a typical maxed out LC load?

Assuming the load infantry is common, lets compare roughly similar points costs of SM armour formations. A LC could take:
A. 6 vindicators OR
B. 4 annihilators and a hunter OR
C. 4 Landraiders

At 31 - 45cm (might happen to land outside AA bubble?) against an AV target (armour 4+ / 5+)
A. 0 avg hits, 0 / 0 avg kills
B. 5.2 avg hits, 2.6 / 3.4 avg kills
C. 4 avg hits, 2 / 2.7 avg kills

At 30cm or less against an AV target (armour 4+ / 5+)
A. 3 avg hits, 3 / 3 avg kills
B. 5.2 avg hits, 2.6 / 3.4 avg kills
C. 4 avg hits, 2 / 2.7 avg kills

At 30cm or less against a mixed INF/AV or LV target (armour 4+ / 5+)
A. 3 avg hits, 3 / 3 avg kills
B. 5.2 avg hits, 2.6 / 3.4 avg kills
C. 6 avg hits, 3 / 4 avg kills

At 30cm or less against a INF target in 3+ cover
A. 2 avg hits, 2 kills
B. 0 hits, 0 kills
C. 1.3 avg hits, 0.4 avg kills

At 15cm in a fire fight:
A. 3 avg hits
B. 1.5 avg hits
C. 2 avg hits

Anyhow you see the difference where each unit has its strength. If going after AV then annihilators are good, vindicators with MW but no IC are still better against dug in infantry. Landraiders and vindicators are probably almost tied in the 30cm gun fight against a mixed force, or in a firefight but the LR 4+RA will help more in a firefight to protect friendly losses.

If we put MW on the main gun will you give it a MW in FF as well? - if so would a FF reduction to 5+ be required?