Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Except one in three games should be hammer and anvil, they won't have a choice to bunch up. Space marines in drop pods will at best be 12" apart, and if you are playing guard they don't need to blob in order to hit multiple models. The baneblade is a generalist platform designed mostly for crowd control and survivability. It does both of those things. Cutting prices on things due to their ability to be outplayed is how imbalance starts to seriously set in.

I am sure a green tide ork player and swarm based nids would never complain about the baneblade being to expensive. It doesn't do well in a tournament meta, doesn't mean it is actually overcosted for the amount of firepower it puts out or damage it can take.

I disagree completely. The Baneblade cannon certainly isn't worth an entire Leman Russ. It really isn't very good at all.

But if you would prefer to stick to your theory even when it flies in the face of reality, be my guest.

A mistake made by academics all the time.

The baneblade cannon is as I recall just a str 9 really big blast. Since it's not a D weapon it's not Likley to 1 shot stuff.

The rev has a much better chance, given the 4 small D str blasts. It's gotten worse//better depending on view with he changes. It no longer insta kills stuff - so a chance things might survive the hit. But the baneblade can't really do that. And in all fairness a baneblade is geared and set up for anti infantry control - where the rev is a SH Hunter. So it will naturally excell at killing baneblades. (Mine has well over 30 baneblade chasis kills, and had only been killed once fighting them - and that was facing off vrs an army that had 10 of them plus a few warhounds. I took out both warhounds (they had anti inf as well) and 5 of the blades before the weight of fire took me down) using the standard baneblade as a tank / SH hunter is a mistake. It could probally handle normal tanks like a Lemun Russ, or predator etc. But it's not designed for that task. Your bringing a butter knife to a steak dinner with that one.

So comparing a baneblade vrs the rev is like comparing a lazcannon to a flamer. They have diffirent intended roles.

And yes I agree. Taking any super heavy, rev titan included without letting the other guy know ahead of time, or putting it i a tourney list that dosent explicitly mention "take yours / prepare for Titans" is a bit dickish - and I don't do it. I may consider it if I'm paying money to play in such tournament and it has a substantial prize - but then I would expect others to do the same and otherwise prepare for it.

Dosent change my stance that it's balanced for its orginal intended apocalypse game style - and by bringing it to normal games is what causes the cries of OP.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Except one in three games should be hammer and anvil, they won't have a choice to bunch up. Space marines in drop pods will at best be 12" apart, and if you are playing guard they don't need to blob in order to hit multiple models. The baneblade is a generalist platform designed mostly for crowd control and survivability. It does both of those things. Cutting prices on things due to their ability to be outplayed is how imbalance starts to seriously set in.

I am sure a green tide ork player and swarm based nids would never complain about the baneblade being to expensive. It doesn't do well in a tournament meta, doesn't mean it is actually overcosted for the amount of firepower it puts out or damage it can take.

Well of course they're not going to complain, as they'll be happy you spent a good chunk of your points on a meh-performing model.

Nid players will either put their swarms in ruins, have them covered by Venomthropes or just have FMCs. All of these things shut down the oh so mighty Baneblade cannon. I've fielded this thing a few times and it is pretty much worthless thanks to cover saves. Hell, there was a game where the twin-linked heavy bolters killed more than the gun itself!

If the Baneblade's gun did D3 wounds and was ignores cover yeah it would be worth taking at it's asking price. As is it is just a more expensive LRBT. And you could probably accomplish more with just spending the points on LRBTs. Or, hell, just get a Knight.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Nid players will either put their swarms in ruins, have them covered by Venomthropes or just have FMCs. All of these things shut down the oh so mighty Baneblade cannon. I've fielded this thing a few times and it is pretty much worthless thanks to cover saves. Hell, there was a game where the twin-linked heavy bolters killed more than the gun itself!

If the Baneblade's gun did D3 wounds and was ignores cover yeah it would be worth taking at it's asking price. As is it is just a more expensive LRBT. And you could probably accomplish more with just spending the points on LRBTs. Or, hell, just get a Knight.

Speaking as a tank guy, I'd take three battlecannons over a Baneblade on the tt any day,, despite LRBT's being underpowered.

Sad, really.

You can do more HP per turn and kill as much if not more models since you are firing more blast markers. And if your opponent greases a tank oh well you still have two more. Same can't be said about the Baneblade.

It really is sad how worthless it is.

If the enemy is piled into ruins, they are bunching up to be hit more, if they are spreading way out, then some aren't hiding in cover and won't get the save.

If there is a venomthrope, kill it with the giant cannon. I specifically said swarm tyranid lists, and a green tide ork list will be destroyed wholesale against a 10" plate that mitigates any feel no pain they bring and can hit 15+ models a shot.

To say the baneblade is worthless is hyperbole at best. Compared to undercosted wraithknights, maybe, but those should be considered outllier in the scope of superheavy units, not the baseline.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:

To say the baneblade is worthless is hyperbole at best. Compared to undercosted wraithknights, maybe, but those should be considered outllier in the scope of superheavy units, not the baseline.

Do you actually play 40k? Or are you just here to speculate?

Wraithknights are not being taken as the baseline except in tournaments, where the best unit /has/ to be considered the baseline.

Baneblades have such gak performance on the TT, its not even worth taking one. Its a full-on detriment to an IG army. I have used the standard Baneblade and the Hellhammer variant. In every game I use them, I would have been much better off taking the equivalent points in overcosted Russ tanks.

I think amongst the earlier 7E books, most Baneblade type tanks are "allright", perhaps a bit overcosted, but not outrageously so, pretty close to where they should be.

It's when you get into playing against the 2015 books that their utility just crashes, though so do most IG units at that point

OK, since we appear to be at an impasse, if you wanted to make the baneblade more capable you could add an alternate fire mode to it with the vdr.

Clustershell 60" range str 8 ap3 large blast primary heavy 4

There, it would equal the same points because the cheaper fire mode at half cost wouldn't equal the base cost of the primary firing mode. Done.

This is looking more and more like proposed rules though...

No, it's looking like your system is more and more flawed, if you can add the clustershell capability for no extra cost...

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
OK, since we appear to be at an impasse, if you wanted to make the baneblade more capable you could add an alternate fire mode to it with the vdr.

Clustershell 60" range str 8 ap3 large blast primary heavy 4

There, it would equal the same points because the cheaper fire mode at half cost wouldn't equal the base cost of the primary firing mode. Done.

This is looking more and more like proposed rules though...

AND like I always say, if something has to be houseruled, he balance isn't there.

The way multiple firing modes work is you have 75% of the highest point weapon profile added to 50% of the lower. If that doesn't add up to equal the higher profile then you simply take the higher profile. Had to word it that way so people couldn't add a heavy stubber to a demolisher cannon to just get points off of the gun.

I will go back and look at the baneblade cannon, I have no issue with doing so and have always accepted feedback for the vdr.

How much would a Tank, that had Haywire upon ramming another vehicle cost? How much would it cost for Infiltrate as a baseline rule on a Tank (I can't find that in the spreadsheet)?

 Quickjager wrote:
How much would it cost for Infiltrate as a baseline rule on a Tank (I can't find that in the spreadsheet)?

1 Ursarker Creed

Haywire on a ram is interesting! Normally haywire is resolved instead of the hit, and ramming is a single hit, I would say it would be the 10 points. Maybe up it to 15 for benefit of the doubt since it would be a one time special thing for that vehicle that doesn't exist elsewhere. As for infiltrate, I would price it at the same as scout and see where it ends up in regards to effectiveness. Infiltrate has a greater potential mobility benefit, but scout is more of a guarantee for positioning.

Preliminary cross referencing for the baneblade cannon is showing it to be about 15 points too expensive. I would say one issue I am seeing with the tank itself is they already have it about 5 points overcosted (presumably paying for the searchlight and smoke launchers) the 15 points over for the cannon, and then the fact that it is paying for the demolisher cannon when that particular gun is so out ranged by everything else that it doesn't get to fire most of the time.

You could knock off another 15 points to turn the demolisher into a battle cannon. That's 35 points off the base cost, with an additional long range gun (didn't give this one the alternate fire mode, though you can if you wanted)

This thread gave me a head-ache.

Even horde armies don't play nearly as clustered as the OP indicates and they usually have cover, negating at least a third of any wounds they suffer. Baneblades aren't necessarily awful but they are not competitive at all. Comparing a Baneblade to any other Super Heavy/Gargantuan Creature will only end in tears.

The argument presented against the Revenant is inane, putting it as politely as possible. 95% of all 40k games are standard games, not Apocalypse or other specialist matches. A Revenant is too powerful in a normal game for its cost even when compared to most other Super Heavies/Gargantuan Creatures. Ergo, it is not a "balanced" unit.

To be blunt, the thread is silly and reeks of an advertisement for a point allocation system the majority of the 40k community has no knowledge of. I'm glad for your work and contributions OP but you're not going to convince anyone of the merits of your system by trying to justify a Revenant Titan of all things.

Wasn't justifying it. I said it seemed too good in a normal sized game because all of its abilities were designed to let it compete in a different arena. It paid for all of them, that means it isn't overpowered. It just means it shouldn't be used in game spaces where it doesn't actually suffer from its own "weaknesses".

Sorry your head hurts :/

I was a bit rude, sorry. Basically this thread just proves that most Super Heavies should not be allowed in normal games, but then again Invisibility and super death-stars exist in normal games as well...

The thing about the Revenant is that in the majority of Apocalypse games it still ends up being the MVP unit because it is far and away one of the better SHV's for its points while also acting as the quintessential titan-killer.

You can field 5 baneblades and still have no chances against a single revenant titan.
Btw, feels like a dman thread.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Also, for the holofield being 100 points, I can compare it to other defensive buffs out there

4+ invul 30 points
3+ invul 60 points
Voidshields 35 points
Ork fields 25 points
Knight energy field 20 points

The holofield is over tripple what other models spend on a 4++ or a voidshield. Would you rather see the same firepower and similar survivability with 70 less points spent?

How can you say that a 4++ invulnerable is worth 30pts for EVERY model?

Surely increasing the durability of a model by 100% warrants its price to increase by a multiplier, rather than a static modifier? Ie a 4++ save means a 50% increase in cost; a 3++ save means a 100% increase in cost.

I think thats a fundamental flaw in how many points systems are created, and how they fall apart so completely once you start getting to higher points levels or adding multiple statis multipliers to a unit. The various IoM Space Marines Super Friends units are testament to that.
Once you start piling the buffs on, you see models start to get exponentially more effective. If a model survives for twice as long, it fires its guns twice as much. If its guns hit twice as often (BS2-> BS4), it guns do twice as much damage... If it can't be caught in combat, its guns become more effective... if it can move anywhere it wants to avoid Line of Sight issues, its guns become more effective... all of these should be applied as multipliers to its damage dealing potential.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Wasn't justifying it. I said it seemed too good in a normal sized game because all of its abilities were designed to let it compete in a different arena. It paid for all of them, that means it isn't overpowered. It just means it shouldn't be used in game spaces where it doesn't actually suffer from its own "weaknesses".

Sorry your head hurts :/

... so you're saying its overpowered in game spaces where it has no weaknesses. Which is essentially every game on a table less than 12 ft long, which is 99% of games?

Because that wasn't how they did the math, because it isn't a static 50% addition to survival but a chance at it. The issue with multiplying everything the way you suggest is the dice could fail you the very first time you are hit and then your unit is eliminated far too early. What the invul saves at is a CHANCE at survival, not the guarantee of one. Armor saves and the possibility of cover also add to the chance, but can more easily be mitigated.

If a monstrous creature like the wraithlord was charged an additional 120 points for a 3++, and nothing fired an ap3 weapon at it, those points are totally wasted. Or charging it 60 poi ts for the same defensive boost it can attain from simply standing in ruins. The chance for denial of damage is equal no matter what you put the save on, other survival stats scale because they have to line up with armor penetration values and strength scores.

Also, it is too capable in 99% of games. I reiterate, a unit is only overpowered if it has abilities that it doesn't pay for. The revenant pays for all of the power and speed it possesses, it just doesn't need it outside of fighting other giant titans.

Hence the fluff where they are fielded as a last resort when something g else of that caliber is found on the battlefield.

Yeah and people use fluff to build their 1500pts armies.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Because that wasn't how they did the math, because it isn't a static 50% addition to survival but a chance at it.

If you're trying to balance stuff while ignoring probability then you're never going to make balanced rules. Negating incoming damage on a 4+ is equivalent to doubling the HP of a unit. A 10 HP unit with a 4+ "save" and a 20 HP unit with no damage prevention will have the same durability on average. Yes, it isn't guaranteed, but the dice form a nice neat bell curve where the probability of failing all of your 4+ rolls and losing the 10 HP unit "too quickly" is balanced out by the probability of passing all of your 4+ rolls and keeping it on the table "too long".

Under-pricing abilities because they're "just rolling dice" and ignoring the math guarantees that your point costs will be wrong. And as long as you do it that way nobody is going to take your cost suggestions seriously.

If a monstrous creature like the wraithlord was charged an additional 120 points for a 3++, and nothing fired an ap3 weapon at it, those points are totally wasted.

But the Revenant's 4+ "save" isn't a save, it's a flat 50% damage negation. You get it in addition to any armor/cover/invulnerable saves you might have, which means the "what if you never face a weapon where it is relevant" argument fails entirely.

The chance for denial of damage is equal no matter what you put the save on

But "chance to save" isn't what determines the value of a save (or save-like ability). What matters is the percentage the unit's durability is increased by, and that added value is a multiplier on the base value of the unit, not a fixed value independent of what you put it on. Doubling the durability of a 5-point unit should cost much less than doubling the durability of a 500 point unit. And in the case of the Revenant you're doubling the durability of a unit that should probably cost 1000+ points before you add the 50% damage negation. And that should cost way more than your proposed 100 points.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Because that wasn't how they did the math

Isn't the point that you're doing your own math using your VDR? If all your VDR does is come up with made up numbers for abilities that add up to the costs that GW assigned, its not very useful. The point of coming up with your own system is that you can change it to create different results than GW gets.

because it isn't a static 50% addition to survival but a chance at it. The issue with multiplying everything the way you suggest is the dice could fail you the very first time you are hit and then your unit is eliminated far too early.

OR, the Titan could save every single shot at it for 20 games in a row.
And this is why Grav guns suck because they only have a CHANCE at wounding 2+ save units; and they're just as good as boltguns because boltguns also have a CHANCE at wounding the same models.
Oh wait... that doesn't sound right.
If you're going to ignore statistics and fall back on 'but its dice! there is a chance!'... you're going to have a bad time.

If a monstrous creature like the wraithlord was charged an additional 120 points for a 3++, and nothing fired an ap3 weapon at it, those points are totally wasted. Or charging it 60 poi ts for the same defensive boost it can attain from simply standing in ruins. The chance for denial of damage is equal no matter what you put the save on, other survival stats scale because they have to line up with armor penetration values and strength scores.

Hence why a general 100% increase in durability should make the model cost less than 100% more, because the save may not be applicable in all circumstances. On the other hand, the Revenant's holofield is applicable in all circumstances, as it can

Also, it is too capable in 99% of games. I reiterate, a unit is only overpowered if it has abilities that it doesn't pay for. The revenant pays for all of the power and speed it possesses, it just doesn't need it outside of fighting other giant titans.

Then you're using an incomplete definition of overpowered.
A model's cost is (supposedly) added to for strengths it gains and subtracted from for weaknesses it gains. If the weaknesses in fact don't exist in a real game (I'm still not convinced that the weaknesses exist even in an Apocalypse game), then the cost shouldn't be discounted.

I get what the OP is saying, that there's nothing terribly overpowered about the model per se. The issue is:

1) It shows up with Eldar armies

2) There are not that many other players with Titans, Greater Daemons, Superheavies, etc to provide balance.

If you think about it for a minute, it's hard to build a list that can handle a Revenant plus a squad of Jetbikes with scatterlasers. The synergy is what makes the unit more powerful than it's stats would suggest.

If Orks could field something comparable it would be a different story. Maybe it would be more fair if Revenants would be swapped with Stompas.

The revenant holofield at 100 points is set that way because they are limited to armor value 12 until they are at least 21 hullpoints. The revenant is a 900 point titan with worse armor than a 400 point knight. It gains a 50% (if it moves, 33% otherwise) chance to negate strength 10 but that strength 10 has a much higher chance to injure the revenant than it does a warhound. There is also the fact that the revenant is actually threatened by things like autocannon and multilasers.

The holofield are designed to help mitigate the eldar lack of heavy armor values and to make them cost similar to other races superheavies.

My vdr wasn't originally designed to be something to fix what games workshop was doing. It was designed to allow people to make their own vehicles that would be comparable to ones that already exist. I have made changes to the pricing of abilities and weapons to make them make more sense, but I would have to make an infantry design system from scratch in order to not swing things too far out of whack.

If I priced the invuln save differently from what games-workshop appears to do, then nobody would use them due to them being more outclassed by infantry on the table.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
The revenant holofield at 100 points is set that way because they are limited to armor value 12 until they are at least 21 hullpoints. The revenant is a 900 point titan with worse armor than a 400 point knight. It gains a 50% (if it moves, 33% otherwise) chance to negate strength 10 but that strength 10 has a much higher chance to injure the revenant than it does a warhound. There is also the fact that the revenant is actually threatened by things like autocannon and multilasers.

The holofield are designed to help mitigate the eldar lack of heavy armor values and to make them cost similar to other races superheavies.

My vdr wasn't originally designed to be something to fix what games workshop was doing. It was designed to allow people to make their own vehicles that would be comparable to ones that already exist. I have made changes to the pricing of abilities and weapons to make them make more sense, but I would have to make an infantry design system from scratch in order to not swing things too far out of whack.

If I priced the invuln save differently from what games-workshop appears to do, then nobody would use them due to them being more outclassed by infantry on the table.

Translation: You've never met a Revenant on the TT, or you use one, and you're doing everything you can to justify GW's terribad points costing.

I used one once, via proxy in an apocalypse game. It did OK, giant team game where it got nuked second turn by another strength D shot before it got to do that much. I would never attempt to validation all of their pricing, but some units are direct translations of their epic counterparts, and those games were on a significantly different scale. Making the choices made for the revenant in regards to weapon loadout and maneuverability less nonsensical.

And that, folks, is why this thread got made.