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.

Real quick before I have to go to work. I was tooling around with the Age of Strife VDR program while sifting through my bits box. The VDR rules are extremely over priced and lack some of the more recent weaponry. I was hoping dakkadakka could give me some balance on this design as I convinced my self I want this to be the keystone of my imperial apocalypse force. It goes a little something like this:

The Warhammer Battletank (name is whatever)

TYPE: Super-heavy Vehicle

STRUCTURE POINTS: 4

F S R BS
14 14 12 4

WEAPONS:
1 T-L Vulcan Mega-Bolter (seriously my favorite super-weapon, dumb? sure. but i just like the thought of thousands of rounds tearing into a formation)
2 Sponson T-L Heavy Bolters (maybe 3 or 4)
2 Sponson Inferno Cannons
1 Hull-mounted Heavy Flamer

That's about it. I did sketches but I'm in a rush. I don't plan on having it just look like a Baneblade with different weapons, I'm still working out what chassis to combine to make this look good.
So dakkadakka, how would you balance this and/or what points cost?

Goodnight

What are you pointing it at? Because it's already superior to the Baneblade in significant ways (specificly structure points and side armor).

Old VDR rules pointed it at 1000+, I was thinking more the high 600s, or maybe an even 750. But a Baneblade and a half seems unreasonable when a Baneblade can stick it to a Titan, while this is mainly anti-infantry.

Any rules design feedback is appreciated too.

try:

Chassis= 400-450
hull and sponson weapons= 115
main weapon= 175

Result : 680-730 points.

Points based on rules from 4th book of the astronomican (rules by JJ).

chassis is taken as 300 for structure and 140 at armor. added 10 for speed ( if you want it normal 12" movement).
Maybe substract 50 for being old rules? or better compatibility with the baneblade?
hull and sponson weapons : 2x20 =heavy bolters, 2x30 =inferno cannons,1x15=heavy flamer. => you asked for bs 4!
main weapon: points taken from assault cannon= 35, added 150% for size,added 100% for range,added 150% for multiple shots.

I like the idea,but think of apocalypse reloaded and the rumored transport super heavy tank.

So do you think 700 would be reasonable and gentlemanly? Also, not to derail my own thread, but what is this jazz about a Super-heavy transport tank?! Similar to that Ork Baneblade IIRC?

Smashotron wrote:So do you think 700 would be reasonable and gentlemanly? Also, not to derail my own thread, but what is this jazz about a Super-heavy transport tank?! Similar to that Ork Baneblade IIRC?

You have only the main gun with range,everything else is 24". When this vehicle is slow (moves 6") like a super-heavy tank does,
it has a lot of turns to get anywhere.Enough chances for the opponent to destroy it.So about 700 is a medium price for it.



Rumor about transport based on baneblade with: vulcan megabolter and space for 40 guardsmen
should be able to fire twice if not moving (his main weapon!).Out with apocalypse reloaded

Heavy bolters are 36" but still your point it certainly valid. Iknow my group has limited table space making this deadly for (my and others) apocalypse horde armies, but may find itself lacking in other arenas.

Wha! My brain! I wonder it they will create a plastic vulcan mega-bolter sprue. (fat chance!)

wrong at the HB

If you want it deadly, give it rear armor 14. Attacks in CC are against your AV 12,but this must add some points then,maybe 20-50.

I was consider leaving it 12 as an offer to those brave enough to attempt to assault it. And just in case I build from a Baneblade's Chassis at all, it will be more appropriate.

I am starting to consider designing it as that Imperial mobile HQ Super-heavy, except shorter and more squat to offer the turret good field of vision. Then putting 3 TL HB on each side with 1 stronger IC on each side also. Then scratching the HF.

Av 12 for the brave

Want some pics if you build one.

Best way for you to get points for your machine is to deconstruct vehicles we already have.

Also, remember, you *SHOULDN'T add extra "hard-to-kill" gubbins such as shields, structure points, etc. without MODELING justification for said improvements. I mention this because you've listed yoiur vehicle with 4 structure points where the baneblade and all it's variants have 3 (and since the chaos baneblade variant has 3, I see no reason a SM variant should have more without some modeling justification). IMHO, your model needs to drive your rules, not the other way around.

As an example: some time ago a poster showed us a pretty cool (looking) conversion of a land raider with a baneblade cannon mounted on it. He capped the end of the cannon to make it similar to the end of a lascannon (though bigger, and I thought more could have been done to make it a 'laser' instead of a 'cannon,' but that's a different discussion). He made it a turbo laser-destroyer, which is an uber-titan weapon, because he wanted it to be one. The model, however, did not support the weapon being such - it was far to small, its flew contrary to logic that a land raider would be able to even power such a weapon, as titans need massive fusion reactors to do so, and a land raider simply wouldn't have the energy output requirements to fire such a weapon. So myself and another replier suggested making it a laser destroyer, a la the Forgeworld Russ variant. But the creator was adimant that it was a turbo laser destroyer because he wanted it to be. IMHO, that's just the wrong way to do datasheets.

So, back on track and without further ado:

Armor/Hull/etc.

The standard baneblade has armor 14/13/12, your vehicle has 14/14/12. In the baneblade's options, you can replace a sponson with armor plates to achieve side armor 14, and additional sponsons cost 100 points, so your AV 14 on the side is worth ~100 points. Now you can fudge that a little, because the 100 points is for 2 additional sponsons, which can be argued are worth mroe than the original sponsons because of increased returns on investment, so call your AV 14 75 points.

SM Variant + 75 points

If you find a modeling justification for your 3 structure points, that should increase your cost substantially. Your looking at increasing your vehicle's lifespan by approximately 33%, and that's a big deal. Now, the more structure points you have (same with wounds, if we talk gargantuan creatures), you're going to start getting diminishing returns on how much each structure poiint is worth - the 5th increases survivability 25% past the 4th, the 6th increases 20% past the 5th, etc, so as you get higher each structure should be less costly, but for your purposes, its a big price tag. Off the top of my head, if you add a fourth structure point, it should increase TOTAL vehicle cost by about 25% (so when you're all done, multiply cost by 1.25).

Speed/Vehicle Type

Speed - you haven't changed the speed at all, so no cost change here.

Transport - you mentioned transport capability. If you do choose to add some, don't forget to model appropriately. You'll need more than doors, you'll need room in the hull for the bodies, so don;t forget to increase your vehicle's footprint to accomodate trhe transported models' space requirements. Points-wise, a good rule of thumb is transport cost is 1 point per model trasnported. So transporting 40 models = 40 points.

Weapons

Lets start with your sponsons. The twin-linked heavy bolters are identical, so no change here. The inferno cannon is a significantly different weapon than the lascannon. It far exceeds the lascannons anti-infantry capabilities, and is exceedingly better at killing light vehicles which are open-topped (ork trukks, dark eldar raiders and ravagers, etc) because as a template it scores two hits. The only place the lascannon outpaces the inferno cannon is medium to heavy anti-vehicle. In my mind I'd point cost the inferno cannon at maybe 10 points higher per cannon, but I wouldn;t give you grief if you called the two a push, since you're completely incapable of destroying heavy armor after taking away the lascannon.

SM Variant +20 points

As far as additional sponsons, they should cost more than the additional HB/Las sponsons of the original baneblade, imo. Increasing from two to four lascannons isn't as big a deal as increasing from two to four inferno cannons. I'd give the vehicle an option to add a second set of HB/Inferno sponsons at 125 points for the pair.

Now for the turret. We need to find comparisons for the Vulcan. Here's my thought process on that guy.
- First, ignore the co-axial autocannon, it is irrelevant.
- Second, find weapons equal to the vulcan that have similar profiles to the baneblade cannon.
..........^ Closest I could find was on the warhound titan. You choose 2 arm weapons (cost already paid for in the titan's cost), of which you can choose the double barrell turbo-laser destroyer and the vulcan. So the question is:
- What should be the points derivation? You are replacing S9 AP2 10" blast with S: D AP2 5" blastx2 (note: you're not really getting the turbo-laser, but the vulcan is equivalent point wise to the turbo laser, and its better to compare apples to apples as much as possible, so I'm comparing the baneblade cannon to the turbo-laser for points com parison). This is entirely guesswork. MY guess is that the turbo-laser (and therefor the vulcan) is worth ~75 points more, so I'll go with that.

SM Variant +75 points

Lastly, hull mounted weapons. First, mounting a heavy flamer on the hull is ludicrous, you're giving up about 1/3 of your template bacause of where the weapon sits (I am assuming you're placing it where the hull TL HB is on the baneblade). IMO, keep it the TL HB, or if you're in love with the flame-spewingness of multiple flamers, make it an inferno cannon for +50 points. And lastly, you're removing the demolisher cannon completely, and it's total guess work on what that's worth, but I'd argue ~75 points.

So, by my figuring, the datasheet looks like this:

Guilliman (insert favorite primarch here, lol) pattern super heavy tank.....Cost: 650 points

Type: Super-heavy tank
Armor: 14/14/12
Structure Points: 3
Weapons and Equipment:
- Turret mounted Vulcan Mega-bolter
- Hull mounted Inferno Cannon
- Two sponsons, each with one Inferno Cannon and one Twin-linked Heavy Bolter
- Searchlight and Smoke Launchers

Options:
- A Guillliman may be armed with 2 extra sponsons (for a total of two sponsons per side!), each sponsons with one Inferno Cannons and one Twin-linked Heavy Bolter, for +125 points.
- Any extra options that will denote the tank as marine and not guard... marine codex upgrades (remember machine spirit is pretty unnecessary with the super heavy rules), etc.

And finally, if you find a way to model an extra structure point, that cost goes from 650 to 800.

Them;s my thoughts, by me.

I definitely appreciate your input and will take a lot from it. Modeling is my favorite part of this hobby, second only to the game itself. I am striving to avoid another "BLANK-Pattern Baneblade" and instead am going to try to pull together the most original idea possible. Again, may not use Baneblade hull at all.

I remember reading the discussion on that Land Raider variant. I was extremely impressed with the model and was certainly on the fence with how the rest of the topic faired in regards to properly modeling the Turbolaser. To me, accurate modeling is a must.

Once I sort out exactly what makes me happy with this model, I will probably start my very first P&M blog.


edit:
holy smokes i just thought of a special rule! let me know what you think.

well, since marines typically strike fast into battle via thunderhawk flyby, drop pods or teleportation, i feel a super-heavy transport would not suit marine fluff. but what if the vehicle possessed a rear access ramp, and within the technology to allow teleporting units to arrive from inside. its hard to explain but see it as this.

units held in reserve that possess the ability to teleport may be deployed from the vehicles access ramp instead of deep striking. 2 units may deploy in this manner per turn. thus the vehicle would not possess a transport capacity, but a unique manner in which it could transport. the idea is that they teleport within the vehicle unto a platform (ex: Star Trek) then march down the battle ramp.

its a quick thought. any feedback?

I think it's a cool idea, and easily doable. Just give the vehicle a teleport homer, and stipulate that the homer is at the exit ramp. Teleport automatically within 6" of the vehicle, and then run, voila!... you "deep struck" inside, then exited and ran.

I've decided to split the two ideas. First building the (ahem) Guilliman-Pattern Battletank based on the original concept and then making a much weaker, less defended, "Mobile Relay Station" using the teleport homer concept.