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.

when can we expect the banedoomswordhammerblade

7th of March..

I am sorry but am I not the only one to realize that the mega bolter model is wrong. In the apoc list for it says its mounted as turrent mount. Ummm, no its not its mounted as hull weapon. When, I did the model as a scratch built, I used the main turrent as the base for a mega bolter. Look at the picture the model is hull mount, it cannot move. So, the question is this, is it hull mounted or turrent mounted?

Make you wonder is GW knows the difference!

Astalado wrote:I am sorry but am I not the only one to realize that the mega bolter model is wrong. In the apoc list for it says its mounted as turrent mount. Ummm, no its not its mounted as hull weapon. When, I did the model as a scratch built, I used the main turrent as the base for a mega bolter. Look at the picture the model is hull mount, it cannot move. So, the question is this, is it hull mounted or turrent mounted?

Make you wonder is GW knows the difference!

Astaldo, the gun is mounted on the turret. It is defined as a fixed turret design. The shadowsword, stormsword, stormblade, etc have always been defined as a fixed turret tank (see Imperial Armour). Meaning the turret does not traverse or rotate. If you stuck yours on the end baneblade turret, thats fine I wouldn't say "No you can't use it." but if you look at the image in the Apoc Reload book it is fairly clear where the gun is mounted.

Makes me wonder if you know the differrence!

holden88 wrote:Wow I guess that Stormlord is one of those models that is going divide peoples opinions. You either love it or hate it. Personally I think it's a terrible design. It's got no engine for starters. There doesn't appear to be any means of the troops getting in and out of the troop compartment. They should have made the front part of the vehicle a fully enclosed troop compartment with an assault ramp (ala: Land Raider).

Also, the Vulcan Mega Bolter is a bit silly. How is the gun aimed? The enitire vehicle pivots? This just seems ludicrous for a multi-barrel weapon. You'd want to have a generous sweeping fire arc that you can traverse rapidly and accurately for a gun like this.

I know, I know. It's just game. Get over it. Well I like my guard vehicles to be logically consistant. These are the kind of things that will prevent me from using a model in the game. It could be one of the most powerful units available to the army, if I despise the model I'll not use the unit.

The other five variants very good. I'll most likely pick up a kit for them. A simple magnetic barrel swap should enable one to field any of the five variants. I'm not sure what the difference between is however.

I think you are wrong on several counts. It does have an engine compartment at the back of the tank, just not as big a compartment as the baneblade or it could be a mid engine design (look it up, its a real design term). The loading ramp is in the back I believe. Just like on a Chimera, which if you think about it, the Stormlord is essentially a superheavy Chimera. You are right about the Mega Bolter. It is a limted traverse weapon with maybe a maximum of 90 degree fire arc. That is why they mounted autocannons and sponsons on the sides.

I am sorry, then I just reread the rules and it does state that turret mounted weapons rotate 360 degrees unless the model doesn't allow it. I stand corrected. This variant of tank reminds me of the old german stug tank design. and yes the gun was in its turret but was still considered hull mounted. I am sorry. If you look at the design the turret dosn't move and looks like a just a raised area of the hull aka a hull mounted gun. A turreted mount is not what it is. They should have made the statement that the gun was hull mounted for the purpose of firing to remove such confusion.

Astaldo, again its defined as a raised fixed turret. Technically it isn't the hull. Its a raised turret. The turret is raised off the hull. From Apoc Reload it is a "Twin-linked Vulcan-mega bolter in a raised superstructure." If you define the raised superstructure as "the hull" then you are correct. I don't consider the shadowsword volcano cannon to be hull mounted. I consider it to be mounted on a raised fixed position turret. The fact that GW defines it as a turret is good enough for a tabletop game. Either way per GW its not mounted on a standard baneblade turret.

Is it just me, or is the VMB on the warhounds exactly the same looking as this Twin Linked VMB on the stormblade? I'm prob. scratching mine, so I think it may have more barrels. Only two barrels on the front, esp. with a Macharius carting the same physical loadout, looks a bit anemic.

grizgrin wrote:Is it just me, or is the VMB on the warhounds exactly the same looking as this Twin Linked VMB on the stormblade? I'm prob. scratching mine, so I think it may have more barrels. Only two barrels on the front, esp. with a Macharius carting the same physical loadout, looks a bit anemic.

Same weapon really, nothing twin-linked about it.

holden88 wrote: How is the gun aimed? The enitire vehicle pivots?

Yep Like any StuG / tankhunter.

Heavygear wrote:. It does have an engine compartment at the back of the tank,

The confusion comes from the video and there is no engine compartment.

Heavygear wrote:
You are right about the Mega Bolter. It is a limted traverse weapon with maybe a maximum of 90 degree fire arc.

GW made the mistake to fix it. So the look doesn't fit to the "in-game" use.
Actual design would demand to pivot. ( modern example : swedish Tank => stridsvagn )

But Apoc Datasheet can change at relase of the kit.
Could help to wait and see.......

holden88 wrote:Wow I guess that Stormlord is one of those models that is going divide peoples opinions. You either love it or hate it. Personally I think it's a terrible design. It's got no engine for starters. There doesn't appear to be any means of the troops getting in and out of the troop compartment. They should have made the front part of the vehicle a fully enclosed troop compartment with an assault ramp (ala: Land Raider).

Also, the Vulcan Mega Bolter is a bit silly. How is the gun aimed? The enitire vehicle pivots? This just seems ludicrous for a multi-barrel weapon. You'd want to have a generous sweeping fire arc that you can traverse rapidly and accurately for a gun like this.

I know, I know. It's just game. Get over it. Well I like my guard vehicles to be logically consistant. These are the kind of things that will prevent me from using a model in the game. It could be one of the most powerful units available to the army, if I despise the model I'll not use the unit.

Yeah, the Stormlord has serious problems with layout. It doesn't make any logical sense whatsoever from a pseudo-realistic design perspective. BTW, you missed that it's Transport 40. That's right: 40. It's just a squad shy of a dedicated transport like the Gorgon, without nearly the same space dedicated to troops. I think if it kept the engines and were Transport 10 or 15, it might make a little sense.

My sense is the VMB is basically a shotgun, operating on the "spray & pray" principle. The inherent inaccuracy of the short barrels gives adequate spread of fire so horizontal sweep isn't needed.

If the rules really are that good, I'll simply scratchbuild something off of a Baneblade chassis that counts as a Stormlord. It's not like I didn't do that for my Russes...

VMB - 60" Str 6 AP 3 heavy 15

Storm lord special rule: All power to weapons!: Instead of moving the Stormlord may opt to fire its VMB again, at a different target

She has the same cost as a Baneblade.

I wonder if all of the Imperial Superheavy Gun chassis will have "All Power to Weapons!" for their (single) Primary Weapon.

If so, it makes the Shadowsword and similar a lot more competitive with things like the Baneblade and Hellhammer.

Though, I'm sure certain people are going to decry how it dumbs down the game when they are forced to make an in-game tactical decision that chooses between moving and shooting...

JohnHwangDD wrote:I wonder if all of the Imperial Superheavy Gun chassis will have "All Power to Weapons!" for their (single) Primary Weapon.

If so, it makes the Shadowsword and similar a lot more competitive with things like the Baneblade and Hellhammer.

Though, I'm sure certain people are going to decry how it dumbs down the game when they are forced to make an in-game tactical decision that chooses between moving and shooting...

This is a Stormlord only thing hopefully as it makes the tank stand out more and gives it some extra use because a super-heavy transport that grinds along isn't getting your troops anywhere in a hurry. Men run faster than that. I plan on getting a Stormlord and just use it as a bunker. I'm especially looking forward to the new datasheet for this beast, as I'm hoping that she'll be able to take the command crew upgrade as well, making for a very useful anchor in a static defence line.

The background of the Shadowsword does state how the drive system has to be disengaged and the power systems need to be rerouted to the main weapon in order for it to fire. However, I sincerely doubt that this will be applied to all super-heavies all of the sudden. We're talking Imperial Guard here after all, not the Space Eunuchs who need to overcompensate for their loss of something.

Too bad.

While I can see why the Shadowsword & Doomsword could potentially do without the rule, the short-barreled (assume shorter-ranged) Superheavies like Stormsword, Doomhammer, and Banehammer could all use it for tactical flexibility.

Heavygear wrote:I think you are wrong on several counts. It does have an engine compartment at the back of the tank, just not as big a compartment as the baneblade or it could be a mid engine design (look it up, its a real design term). The loading ramp is in the back I believe. Just like on a Chimera, which if you think about it, the Stormlord is essentially a superheavy Chimera. You are right about the Mega Bolter. It is a limted traverse weapon with maybe a maximum of 90 degree fire arc. That is why they mounted autocannons and sponsons on the sides.

Yes I know what mid engine design is, but thanks for the condecending tone. The rear of the Stormlord is the same as the standard Baneblade. In other words engine exhaust pipes and such. Basically they just opened up the cavity where the engine for tank should be and called it a troop compartment with no regard for logic.

The main weapon system may say that it's mounted in a "fixed turret" (an oxymoron if I ever heard one) or a"hull mount" but on the model the weapon mount is completely fixed with no apparant traverse mechanism possible.

The whole tank reminds me of an amatuer built custom vehicle I used to see often (via the vehicle design rules). It is poorly thought out and executed. No amount of in game fluff is going to be able to explain away the vehicles' design flaws. It would be like if someone took a Thunderhawk gunship, removed the engine pods from the wings and put huge missiles there instead beacause it looks "kewl"!?

If I was going to build one I'd mount the Vulcan Mega Bolters on the standard Baneblade turret. Then I'd use a Land Raider style boarding hatch and mount that in the front of the vehicle. Leave the engine compartment in the back. Leave the enitire tank enclosed. I'd probably lose or relocate the front hull mounted heavy bolter turret (since this is where the troop compartment would be). I wonder if you get the standard Baneblade components in this kit? Probably not.

Design flaws?

This. Is. 40. K.

Now switch off those over thinking noggins before Tony starts crying.

@holden: The problem is that the front of the BaneBlade is messed up, too.

The layout with the forward access panels suggests that they've got the transmission up front, similar to a Panzer III/IV. But why they didn't extend the front for where the drive shafts should go is totally beyond me...

Anyhow, assuming that the mechanicals are as the panels suggest, how can people exit from the front if that's where the transmission is?

BrookM wrote:Design flaws?

This. Is. 40. K.

Now switch off those over thinking noggins before Tony starts crying.

There's a difference between suspension of disbelief and slackjawed reverence to a bunch of stupid ideas, which appears to be what you are advocating. At some point, there comes a time for every fan to say "this much I accept, and no further". The Stormlord is one of those points.

JohnHwangDD wrote:@holden: The problem is that the front of the BaneBlade is messed up, too.

The layout with the forward access panels suggests that they've got the transmission up front, similar to a Panzer III/IV. But why they didn't extend the front for where the drive shafts should go is totally beyond me...

Anyhow, assuming that the mechanicals are as the panels suggest, how can people exit from the front if that's where the transmission is?

Agreed, the access panels at the front of the baneblade does suggest that the transmission is located towards the front of the vehicle. However as you indicate there is no drive shaft axle at the front (since the hull doesn't extend far enough). To me this indicates that the drive sprockets for the track are at the back and the front sprockets are merely return idlers. I don't have my Baneblade with me right now so I can't look close at the details. Of course, I'd be surprised if the designers of the model put this much thought into the design.

At the end of the day I really don't think there is any logical justification to account for an additional 40 troops inside the Baneblade chassis unless you re-model the hull. I think you could modify the front part of the hull so that instead of sloping roughy downwards (as the the standard Baneblade does) it is more or less flush with the turret platform. You'd need a large, boxey compartment at the front of the vehicle to house all those troops.

Alternatively, you could keep more or less the Stormlord look by removing all the engine detail at the back of the tank. Add a large boarding hatch back there. Re-model all the engine exhausts so that they come out of the sides of the tank. Perhaps move the sponson mounts to the forward positions and have the exhausts coming out behind them.

I don't see the point in trapping 40 men inside a stormlord anyways. I think I'm going to mount the chassis back like the shadowsword (mistakenly called a shadowlord in the text beneath on the page! made me smile) and load the VMB on there. Skip all this transporting nonsense.

@nolden: Of course, if the forward wheels are idlers, then it makes no sense for the transmission to be up front. If the Baneblade is a rear-driver with a rear engine, then the engine sits atop the transmission? Or, if it's mid-transmission, then the engine sits atop the differential drive clutches? Regardless, the tank becomes even more of a mess... Because now, *all* of the major masses sit on the back of the vehicle: engine, transmission, and primary gun. So the weight distribution is a disaster, and you lose most of the advantage of having track to spread the weight around.

Plus, you're completely wasting the nearly 180-degree wrap on those front wheels that would make them ideal for the primary drive. The alternative is a far more complicated system that has an internal drive mechanism that indirectly drives front wheels.

Now the mid-engine approach has promise, and would be semi-feasible. Although the upper deck would want to be restructured with both air intakes and exhaust piping. And any engine work would presumably require the entire upper deck to be lifted to gain access to the engine.


This is why I'll be converting my Baneblade chassis to add an extra half-inch to the forward hull. Mechanically, it suggests a far simpler and more reliable direct-drive "T"-transmission with pair of full-length half-shafts between the forward drive wheels.

So John, just so my head can UN-explode, does that mean you're going to convert the Baneblade to extend to where the tracks end?

What if there is no mechanical linkage between the engine and the tracks?

I'm thinking that it is possible that the engine is setup to generate electricity, and the drive wheels are either motor in hubs or have a hull mounted motor connected directly via a short driveshaft.

Given the advanced technology available, I don't see it as a problem to implement. And, given that power can be diverted from the drive to the weapons, it seems to strongly suggest such a mechanism, as I wouldn't expect a similar option to exist in a drive-train with a more traditional mechanical transmission.

Not sure I catch what you mean, Brook. Are both of them TL? Neither? Are they the same weapon, I guess would be the pertinant question.

Tragic nut: That's exactly how modern large ships are set up, especially with azi-pods. Mechinical energy transfer from prime mover to prop is only used on the very small, I think. The mthod you are talking about gives great flexibility, and the possibility for redundancies that you just can't do with mechanical linkage. I know in some older military vessels, the reduction gears that reduced the tens of thousands of RPM's from gas turbine gennies down to somehting that you could realistically turn a prop at were so dang expensive that the military never bought them from the manufacturer. 30 year lease.

grizgrin wrote:Not sure I catch what you mean, Brook. Are both of them TL? Neither? Are they the same weapon, I guess would be the pertinant question.

Both use the same weapon, the VMB is not twin-linked, it is just a dual-rotary cannon that coughs out 15 shots per round.

Scottywan82 wrote:So John, just so my head can UN-explode, does that mean you're going to convert the Baneblade to extend to where the tracks end?

That is exactly right. My BB-equivalent will extend the hull forward to enclose the forward hub carriers.

I primarily bought my Baneblade for the hull chassis. I had concepted some superheavies, but didn't want to deal with the whole "make wheels & tracks" business, which is a royal PITA to scratchbuild & duplicate. So I got the first BB for the hull, tracks, and wheels. The rest is primarily detail bitz. The new explosion of BB-class vehicles has put everything temporarily on hold, but I'll likely field at least 1 "counts as" BB.
____

TragicNut wrote:What if there is no mechanical linkage between the engine and the tracks?

I'm thinking that it is possible that the engine is setup to generate electricity, and the drive wheels are either motor in hubs or have a hull mounted motor connected directly via a short driveshaft.

That would be possible, although it's not obvious where the torque goes...

However, some of us still prefer to see 40k Imperials using lower tech as analogues to the more traditional vehicles that they are visually styled after.

grizgrin wrote:I know in some older military vessels, the reduction gears that reduced the tens of thousands of RPM's from gas turbine gennies down to somehting that you could realistically turn a prop at were so dang expensive that the military never bought them from the manufacturer. 30 year lease.

I've been a engineer in the navy for over 12 years now and I've been on any large vessel that didn't have a reduction gearbox to couple the main propulsion engines to the propellor shafts. And tens of thousands is a bit exceesive for Gas Turbine speeds. Typical gas turbine shaft speeds are around 4500 RPM. Typical propellor shaft speeds are around 200 RPM. This yields a reduction ratio of 22.5:1 (the destroyer I serve on has a main reduction ratio of 31:1).You are correct however, the reduction gearbox is the single most expensive component of any large warship.

Azi pods are very new. Although the concept has been around since the 60's the first vessel to use Azi pod drive was in 1998 (which in sea going vessel terms is pretty new). Certainly no major warships use this design yet.

Savnock wrote:

Reecius wrote:That stormlord is the coolest tank I have ever seen, I love it. Can't wait to get one to roll with my Baneblade.

I second that emotion.

Actually, I can see wanting a Baneblade and one of these kits, but the BB stil has it's own special place. The demolisher and the BB cannon are an anti-infantry combo that's hard to beat with any of these more focused-purpose variants.

I'm no treadhead, but I dig the Stormlord. Elusive71 s VMBs!

It's great that you can make a bunch of variants with the same kit. Anybody know if the bitz that make a Baneblade out of this chassis are contained on their own sprues? In other words, can you make this kit into a Baneblade too with the purchase of one or two BB specific sprues?

Heavygear wrote:if you think about it, the Stormlord is essentially a superheavy Chimera.

That makes me like it even more although I think BrookM's idea of using it as a (mobile) bunker is more practical.

One more question to those who have a Baneblade: Are the tracks and their housing on their own sprues? If so, I'd buy extra if possible to widen the tracks on the kit to make it look more practical in terms of weight displacement, sort of like one of those squat Ogre cybertanks (from the Steve Jackson game) or in real-life terms, a massive T-28 super-heavy tank destroyer:


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/17/T-28-1.jpg