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.

I know we don't NEED more Tanks

But :

My SHT formation looked just not right with the existing tanks. So I came up with this:


Firesword

Armor: 14/13/12
BS: 3
Speed: Lumbering
Structure: 3
options: May use the IG vehicle upgrades


Main weapon: Mega-Inferno-Cannon. Primary. S 7 / ap 3 / Heavy 1, hellstorm-template.

Secondary weapons: Front: 2x Heavy bolter -turret. Sponsons: Heavy flamer+lascannon.
- May add a second pair of sponsons with either HB + lasc. or HF + lasc.
-Heat-shielding: the flamy nature of this vehicle is treated with care. Any melta-type weapon won't get a additional d6 at penetrating.


Shadowhammer

Armor: 14/13/12
BS: 3
Speed: Lumbering
Structure: 3
options: May use the IG vehicle upgrades


Main weapon: Apoc missile launcher pod. Primary. S 7 / ap 3 / apoc.bombardment ( 5 ). barrage 24-360"

Secondary weapons: Front: 1x Heavy bolter - turret. Sponsons: Heavy bolters + Autocannon.
- May add a second pair of sponsons with Heavy Bolters + Autocannon.


LightBlade

Armor: 14/13/12
BS: 3
Speed: Lumbering
Structure: 3
options: May use the IG vehicle upgrades


Main weapons: Turbolaser-annihilator . Primary. S titankiller / ap 2 / Heavy 2 , 5"Blast , 96" range.

Secondary weapons: Front: Demolisher, Heavy bolter-turret. Sponsons: Autocannon + Lascannon.
- May add a second pair of sponsons with Autocannon + lascannon.

Shadowaxe

Armor: 14/13/12
BS: 3
Speed: Lumbering
Structure: 3
options: May use the IG vehicle upgrades

Main weapon: Ultra-heavy mortar. R = 24 - 120 " S + ap depends on ammo.

Ammo 1: witch-incinerator = S 5 / ap 5 / ordnance 2/ 10" / barrage / ignores invul saves
Ammo 2: xeno-shredder = S 5 / ap 4 / apoc. bombardment 8 / target gets pinned at -1

Secondary weapons: 2x demolisher / 2x heavy bolter / 4-6 heavy stubber


Points will be around Baneblade.

Edit: 4th SHT inserted

I love the Apoc ML one. Clever use of the weapon and I like the idea of a Missile Support Baneblade.

BYE

Apocalypse? Sure! Isn't that the point?

This set of superheavy Tanks should complete the "baneblade-class".

Any different configuration to those 3 or FW Models to add ?

Off the top of my head:

current FW stuff:
- Baneblade
- Hellhammer
- Shadowsword (volcano cannon)
- Stormblade (short baneblade)
- Stormsword (plasma blastgun)

plus obvious Epic:
- Stormhammer!

plus obvious FW:
- Gorgon (Transport 50)

plus Titan weapons:
- Stormlord (Vulcan Megabolter)
- Storm??? (Turbo-Laser Destroyer)
- Hell??? (Inferno Cannon)

plus remaining Apoc templates:
- superheavy multi-missiles (Apocalypse Barrage(#)

plus remaining roles:
- super-Bombard (superheavy Mortar)


My maximum plan would be for:
- Shadowsword conversion
- Hellhammer conversion
- Baneblade conversion


good luck!

Someone tell DD that the Gorgon isn't based off the Baneblade chassis. It's a Macharius chassis.

BYE

JohnHwangDD wrote:Off the top of my head:

current FW / GW stuff:
- Baneblade
- Hellhammer
- Shadowsword (volcano cannon)
- Stormblade (siege cannon)
- Stormsword (plasma blastgun)

plus obvious Epic:
- Stormhammer!

Have them already

JohnHwangDD wrote:
plus obvious FW:
- Gorgon (Transport 50)

Isn't a gorgon based on the macharius chassis ?

JohnHwangDD wrote:
plus Titan weapons:
- Stormlord (Vulcan Megabolter)plus transport capacity
- Storm??? (Turbo-Laser Destroyer)
- Hell??? (Inferno Cannon)

plus remaining Apoc templates:
- superheavy multi-missiles (Apocalypse Barrage(#)

TLD => Lightblade
IC => Firesword
Apoc barrage => shadowhammer

I think it is covered by Apoc reloaded or OP .

JohnHwangDD wrote:
plus remaining roles:
- super-Bombard (superheavy Mortar)

Can't find a super bombard.
Maybe a mortar with such stats : primary / ordnance 10 " ,barrage 24 - 120" / S + ap depends on ammo. ?

JohnHwangDD wrote:
My maximum plan would be for:
- Shadowsword conversion
- Hellhammer conversion
- Baneblade conversion


good luck!

we could add a anti-aircraft tank

Maybe a "super-hydra" ?
-multiple hydra-turrets and enhanced AA-sensors
-would think about 4x hydra turrets on a broadened ( 50 % ) baneblade chassis

1hadhq wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:Off the top of my head:

current FW / GW stuff:

- Gorgon (Transport 50)

Isn't a gorgon based on the macharius chassis ?

FW "official", sure, tho I think it's really the other way around (the Macharius post-dates the Gorgon).

If I wanted to field such a thing, I'd start with a BB chassis because it's cheaper, bigger, and better-detailed than buying FW.

1hadhq wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:
plus remaining roles:
- super-Bombard (superheavy Mortar)

Can't find a super bombard.

Maybe a mortar with such stats : primary / ordnance 10 " ,barrage 24 - 120" / S + ap depends on ammo. ?

Yup.

1hadhq wrote:we could add a anti-aircraft tank

Maybe a "super-hydra" ?
-multiple hydra-turrets and enhanced AA-sensors
-would think about 4x hydra turrets on a broadened ( 50 % ) baneblade chassis

The existing Hydra turret is oversize for the Chimera, and quad barrels are about the most I've seen for AA-use.

But it could still upgrade the Autocannon to R96" S9 AP4 twin-linked Heavy 4 with BS4 Targeters.

Trying to fit multiple AA turrets would be kind of wierd, as I think they'd get in each other's way.

See, even when he's wrong about something he still has to come back and find some way to be right about it...

Amazing.

BYE

JohnHwangDD wrote:

FW "official", sure, tho I think it's really the other way around (the Macharius post-dates the Gorgon).

If I wanted to field such a thing, I'd start with a BB chassis because it's cheaper, bigger, and better-detailed than buying FW.

We don't have a stormlord as transport now?
A gorgon seems weird as it is (FW). Open topped assault transport?
But you should:
A) want to
B) start to
C) .... field a BB based tank to replace the gorgon

JohnHwangDD wrote:
- super-Bombard (superheavy Mortar)

1hadhq wrote:
Maybe a mortar with such stats : primary / ordnance 10 " ,barrage 24 - 120" / S + ap depends on ammo. ?

Should find some ammo crates now. Will ask Munitorum Officials

JohnHwangDD wrote:
The existing Hydra turret is oversize for the Chimera, and quad barrels are about the most I've seen for AA-use.

But it could still upgrade the Autocannon to R96" S9 AP4 twin-linked Heavy 4 with BS4 Targeters.

Trying to fit multiple AA turrets would be kind of wierd, as I think they'd get in each other's way.

Does a AA weapon trained at AV 10 flyers need S 9 ?
But twin-linked / Heavy 4 and BS 4 would help a lot ( +2 shots, reroll , to hit 3+ )

Multiple AA turrets may look "interesting" or "fascinating"
A vehicle with :
-all weapons to shoot if moved 6" ( so keeps up the pace with his comrades )
-allowed to aim at different targets ( could fight down squadrons or just focus fire )
-big enough to provide the needed space to rotate 360° without crashes

may be more a "Land-fortress" as a tank (but gets the role of the cruisers/destroyers to shield battleships).
I see . This must be enlarged a bit. Baneblade chassis to 200 % perhaps?

A company of Hydras could be cheaper.

1hadhq wrote:Does a AA weapon trained at AV 10 flyers need S 9 ?

I doubt it, virtually every flyer in the game is AV10 all round (Thunderhawk and Valk/Vult being exceptions). S9 just means you glance 100% of the time rather than most of the time.

BYE

whoah daddy. Somebody smart should make a cool online build-your own Superheavy thinger. Yes, they should.

I like the Autocannons.

1hadhq wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:If I wanted to field such a thing, I'd start with a BB chassis because it's cheaper, bigger, and better-detailed than buying FW.

We don't have a stormlord as transport now?
A gorgon seems weird as it is (FW). Open topped assault transport?
But you should:
A) want to
B) start to
C) .... field a BB based tank to replace the gorgon

I haven't seen an official model of a Stormlord. Have you?

While I actually do have interest in such a superheavy assault transport, it's pretty far down on my priority list. Right now, I'm more interested in fielding a Stormsword or Hellhammer, to be supported by a Shadowsword. And I've got a small mountain of other stuff to finish.

But if I were getting started on a Stormlord / Gorgon class superheavy Transport, I'd start with a Baneblade chassis:
- use full 2 Las / twin HB Sponsons per side (4 total)
- replace BB Turret with a Heavy Mortar (Indirect 48" Ordnance 1, 10" Blast; S7 AP4 or S5 AP3)
- replace hull twin HB and Demolisher with Transport (30) and Assault Ramp.
I figure this roughly preserves the overall Baneblade firepower (although shorter-ranged).

1hadhq wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:But it could still upgrade the Autocannon to R96" S9 AP4 twin-linked Heavy 4 with BS4 Targeters.

Does a AA weapon trained at AV 10 flyers need S 9 ?
But twin-linked / Heavy 4 and BS 4 would help a lot ( +2 shots, reroll , to hit 3+ )

Multiple AA turrets may look "interesting" or "fascinating"
A vehicle with :
-all weapons to shoot if moved 6" ( so keeps up the pace with his comrades )
-allowed to aim at different targets ( could fight down squadrons or just focus fire )
-big enough to provide the needed space to rotate 360° without crashes

A company of Hydras could be cheaper.

The extra range, BS, and S is to help the Superheavy AA compete with multiple Hydras. S9 means that they always Glance vs. usually Glance. Twin BS4 means they almost never miss vs. usually hit.

Supplement it with a long-ranged missile array, and you'll be all set.

1hadhq wrote:may be more a "Land-fortress" as a tank (but gets the role of the cruisers/destroyers to shield battleships).
I see . This must be enlarged a bit. Baneblade chassis to 200 % perhaps?

I think you're talking about a Capitol Imperialis or Leviathan. That thing is a monster, *much* bigger than a Baneblade. Like 4x, because it's a lot taller. It's even more silly than the Baneblade.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

1hadhq wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:Does a AA weapon trained at AV 10 flyers need S 9 ?

I doubt it, virtually every flyer in the game is AV10 all round (Thunderhawk and Valk/Vult being exceptions). S9 just means you glance 100% of the time rather than most of the time.

BYE

I think even "guided by radar (machine spirit) weapons are not that good. It should be a 30% chance to miss.

Tacobake wrote:whoah daddy. Somebody smart should make a cool online build-your own Superheavy thinger. Yes, they should.

I like the Autocannons.

The is an article and everyone could contribute to.
Would be a lot easier to build SHT if more dakkaites share their opinion

JohnHwangDD wrote:
I haven't seen an official model of a Stormlord. Have you?

While I actually do have interest in such a superheavy assault transport, it's pretty far down on my priority list. Right now, I'm more interested in fielding a Stormsword or Hellhammer, to be supported by a Shadowsword. And I've got a small mountain of other stuff to finish.

But if I were getting started on a Stormlord / Gorgon class superheavy Transport, I'd start with a Baneblade chassis:
- use full 2 Las / twin HB Sponsons per side (4 total)
- replace BB Turret with a Heavy Mortar (Indirect 48" Ordnance 1, 10" Blast; S7 AP4 or S5 AP3)
- replace hull twin HB and Demolisher with Transport (30) and Assault Ramp.
I figure this roughly preserves the overall Baneblade firepower (although shorter-ranged).

Nice config for a superheavy transport.
Give it a name and we'll add it to the list.

JohnHwangDD wrote:But it could still upgrade the Autocannon to R96" S9 AP4 twin-linked Heavy 4 with BS4

The extra range, BS, and S is to help the Superheavy AA compete with multiple Hydras. S9 means that they always Glance vs. usually Glance. Twin BS4 means they almost never miss vs. usually hit.

Supplement it with a long-ranged missile array, and you'll be all set.

Extra range and BS may be the usual upgrade for SHT weapons. I would stay with the minimum range of 12" , so it is 12-96"
S 7 does provide a 3+ glance and thus a 66% chance. IMO S 8 is enough "pimp the gun" for autocannons.
You could fail with then. Not a real problem with 4 shots. A little chance to evade AA-fire should be preserved.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

1hadhq wrote:may be more a "Land-fortress" as a tank (but gets the role of the cruisers/destroyers to shield battleships).
I see . This must be enlarged a bit. Baneblade chassis to 200 % perhaps?

I think you're talking about a Capitol Imperialis or Leviathan. That thing is a monster, *much* bigger than a Baneblade. Like 4x, because it's a lot taller. It's even more silly than the Baneblade.

I'm talking about the role of a AA-tank. IMO the actual SHT haven't AA-capacity, so there is need for a vehicle to provide that and
keep up with the advance ( lumbering isn't much movement ).
A tank-design for AA use may use the upper hull as flat platform ( could have extensions to enlarge) => old WWII design maybe?

Thinking more, how about SchwereBergePanzer?

With that many Baneblade, ARV is a definite need.

One ARV per company ?

Support vehicles may exist in pure Super-Heavy-companies.
Could think of a 10-20 SHT : 1-3 ARV .

How does an ARV move a SHT ? use those hooks on the front or rear of the plastic baneblade ?
ARV has: extra armor? weapons yes/no ?

The engine must be enhanced, so maybe use 2 syncronized engines. Transport capacity for repair crew/ engineseer.
Like this idea

If I recall correctly, you have about 10 BB-class Tanks, so 1 ARV is about right.

To move a Baneblade, you can't do it with an Atlas, or even a trio of Atlas. It's just too small.

I think you'll need a BB-class ARV to move a BB-class tank. I'd expect an extra-large articulated front dozer blade / spade / stabilzer supplemented by lateral stabilizers on each side. You'll want a heavy-duty A-frame integrated into the hull for maximum strength (don't mess around with a crane arm). And of course, you'll need dual primary winches. Of course, you'd use the integral eyelets on the BB to be moved.

ARV traditionally has very little weapons, so I'd probably count as Stormblade, with the hull Hellhammer cannon for demolitions.

I don't think you'd need a second engine, but you'd definitely need side hatches for the Enginseer & Servitors. Maybe Transport 12 so you can carry a small squad of Veterans (Combat Engineers).

JohnHwangDD wrote:If I recall correctly, you have about 10 BB-class Tanks, so 1 ARV is about right.

To move a Baneblade, you can't do it with an Atlas, or even a trio of Atlas. It's just too small.

I think you'll need a BB-class ARV to move a BB-class tank. I'd expect an extra-large articulated front dozer blade / spade / stabilzer supplemented by lateral stabilizers on each side. You'll want a heavy-duty A-frame integrated into the hull for maximum strength (don't mess around with a crane arm). And of course, you'll need dual primary winches. Of course, you'd use the integral eyelets on the BB to be moved.

ARV traditionally has very little weapons, so I'd probably count as Stormblade, with the hull Hellhammer cannon for demolitions.

I don't think you'd need a second engine, but you'd definitely need side hatches for the Enginseer & Servitors. Maybe Transport 12 so you can carry a small squad of Veterans (Combat Engineers).

Tech config seems fine but i doubt a big gun mounted on a ARV.
Maybe restrict the vehicle to infantry suppression (looters) and use heavy bolters/heavy stubbers.
Repair crew is a must! Can't see them resisting to "pimp" their tank, so a few additional bitz could look good.

I think a ARV is definetly on the company-formation-sheet from now on.

You know, you don't ever have to use the Hellhammer cannon...

And yeah, the kit boxes and stuff will make the tank look awesome!