Baneblade stats issue

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.

**kurhanik**

cmspano wrote:
The problem baneblades and variants have is the lack of threat distribution. Knights overcome that by being able to get a 3++ and be super durable.

A shadowsword can wreck titanics, but if you go second that shadowsword is dead vs a ravellan list. Or at least degraded down to hitting on a 5 or 6.

Putting all your shots in 1 basket is asking for it to die, especially when that basket is only as tough as 2 russes(which isn't fragile but that's not tough for the points).

GW has long since decided that imperial knights are the super heavies they want to push. Just compare them to a baneblade/variant.

5++ inherent, can get up to a 3++. BS and WS of 3+ instead of 4+. Can get a 2+. Is solid in both melee and ranged. Has warlord traits. Has strong strategems and faction traits. Has a few really good relics.

A regular knight isn't going to have quite the firepower of a baneblade variant but a Ravellan will outclass it in every respect except vs hordes with an anti horde baneblade. Hit on 3's, reroll all 1's including # of shots and damage. 3++ save. Missiles that can snipe characters and ignore invul saves. You pay more than you do for a baneblade but not that much more and you get way more.

Baneblades are just going to be left behind competitively except for the shadowsword as a counter to knights. That's not going to change until maybe a new guard codex and probably not even then.

This is more of a problem with Knights being too strong though, than Baneblades being too weak. Take the problematic Knights and knock them down a peg so they are still good but not broken, and suddenly the Baneblade will look like a decent option again.

The strategem issue is due to the fact that Knights are in Codex Knights, while Baneblades are in a codex where they are but one of many units - one dex is built from the ground up around the unit, while the other one has to factor in a huge variety of units.

I'm all for an upgrade option to the Baneblade and its variants that grant it a 2+ save, but it would have to be appropriately costed. A 2+ save on a 20 some wound, t8 model can give it a lot of extra survivability and needs to be factored into the cost.

**Daedalus81**

cmspano wrote:
The problem baneblades and variants have is the lack of threat distribution. Knights overcome that by being able to get a 3++ and be super durable.

A shadowsword can wreck titanics, but if you go second that shadowsword is dead vs a ravellan list. Or at least degraded down to hitting on a 5 or 6.

Putting all your shots in 1 basket is asking for it to die, especially when that basket is only as tough as 2 russes(which isn't fragile but that's not tough for the points).

GW has long since decided that imperial knights are the super heavies they want to push. Just compare them to a baneblade/variant.

5++ inherent, can get up to a 3++. BS and WS of 3+ instead of 4+. Can get a 2+. Is solid in both melee and ranged. Has warlord traits. Has strong strategems and faction traits. Has a few really good relics.

A regular knight isn't going to have quite the firepower of a baneblade variant but a Ravellan will outclass it in every respect except vs hordes with an anti horde baneblade. Hit on 3's, reroll all 1's including # of shots and damage. 3++ save. Missiles that can snipe characters and ignore invul saves. You pay more than you do for a baneblade but not that much more and you get way more.

Baneblades are just going to be left behind competitively except for the shadowsword as a counter to knights. That's not going to change until maybe a new guard codex and probably not even then.

No.

SS is 424 points. Castellan is 600ish.

//SS Volcano
6 * .666 * .998 * .666 * 7 = 19 damage //against 5++ (plus 3.1 for LC)
6 * .666 * .998 * .333 * 7 = 9.3 damage //against 3++ (plus 1.6 for LC)

//Castellan Volcano
3.5 * .666 * .888 * 6 = 12.4 damage (plus 3.8 for PD)

And solid in melee? Against infantry? 12 S8 AP2 that hit on 4s. For 1 CP SS gets 9 S9 AP2 that hit on 2s.

You can't just sit there and claim all the benefits of traits, relics, and startagems and ignore what IG have to offer in that department. Especially as you're relying on IG for CP.

Defensive gunners.
Vengeance for Cadia.
Nightshroud.
Psychic Barrier.

The Shadowsword has plenty of room to breathe. People just have relic envy and hate losing a big point investment turn one.

If you can't handle losing a super heavy then don't take one.

**HoundsofDemos**

This whole discussion highlights how out of whack the whole scale of the game is. Lists should be based around how to deal with hordes or some elite infantry backed by a few tanks. Instead to be competitive, you need enough firepower to blow through a mini titan or a supertank in one turn. GW really needs to pull Super Heavies out of the normal game.

**Horst**

Daedalus81 wrote:
cmspano wrote:
The problem baneblades and variants have is the lack of threat distribution. Knights overcome that by being able to get a 3++ and be super durable.

A shadowsword can wreck titanics, but if you go second that shadowsword is dead vs a ravellan list. Or at least degraded down to hitting on a 5 or 6.

Putting all your shots in 1 basket is asking for it to die, especially when that basket is only as tough as 2 russes(which isn't fragile but that's not tough for the points).

GW has long since decided that imperial knights are the super heavies they want to push. Just compare them to a baneblade/variant.

5++ inherent, can get up to a 3++. BS and WS of 3+ instead of 4+. Can get a 2+. Is solid in both melee and ranged. Has warlord traits. Has strong strategems and faction traits. Has a few really good relics.

A regular knight isn't going to have quite the firepower of a baneblade variant but a Ravellan will outclass it in every respect except vs hordes with an anti horde baneblade. Hit on 3's, reroll all 1's including # of shots and damage. 3++ save. Missiles that can snipe characters and ignore invul saves. You pay more than you do for a baneblade but not that much more and you get way more.

Baneblades are just going to be left behind competitively except for the shadowsword as a counter to knights. That's not going to change until maybe a new guard codex and probably not even then.

No.

SS is 424 points. Castellan is 600ish.

//SS Volcano
6 * .666 * .998 * .666 * 7 = 19 damage //against 5++ (plus 3.1 for LC)
6 * .666 * .998 * .333 * 7 = 9.3 damage //against 3++ (plus 1.6 for LC)

//Castellan Volcano
3.5 * .666 * .888 * 6 = 12.4 damage (plus 3.8 for PD)

And solid in melee? Against infantry? 12 S8 AP2 that hit on 4s. For 1 CP SS gets 9 S9 AP2 that hit on 2s.

You can't just sit there and claim all the benefits of traits, relics, and startagems and ignore what IG have to offer in that department. Especially as you're relying on IG for CP.

Defensive gunners.
Vengeance for Cadia.
Nightshroud.
Psychic Barrier.

The Shadowsword has plenty of room to breathe. People just have relic envy and hate losing a big point investment turn one.

If you can't handle losing a super heavy then don't take one.

So.... the castellans volcano gun is weaker than the baneblades... great. Add in Cawls Wrath, and add in the stratagem that let's you reroll all ones, the castellan does 30 damage to a baneblade in a single salvo. Baneblade is lucky to do 10.