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.
2021/01/30 02:08:17
Subject: How to make a Baneblade viable without being broken?
When they moved everything to the toughness and wound mechanic there really isn’t a point to labeling lord of wars separately.
I think lord of wars should benefit from clan/chapter/regiment tactics just like any other vehicle/monster etc...
In order to fix the baneblade or all lord of wars I think they need to beef up toughness and save characteristics and make them a part of the degrading wound profiles or just make them cheaper poontwise... let’s be honest most times lords of war are over costed because there is an overvalue on large wound models without taking into account offensive power.
2021/01/30 02:31:11
Subject: Re:How to make a Baneblade viable without being broken?
Insularum wrote: Big units having the exact same rule interactions as small units creates the scaling problem that baneblade style units suffer from, they should be exceptions to the norm to accommodate their vast size not just treated like bigger leman russes. Things I would like to see would include:
1. Saving throws on 2D6 like 2nd ed terminators so that low AP weapons suffer against them
2. A new class of weapon that is bigger than "heavy", which either has splash damage - or is made intentionally weaker but allowed to fire at multiple targets (number of activations could be a damage chart stat)
3. Damage during movement by crushing models you move over
1. I like that idea! I never thought of expanding the dice like that. Thank you!
2. Like MACRO? Like Titan based weapons, which is literally what most bane blade variants are? I would love to see them get Macro, with all the associated rules that come with.
3. They already have 9 S8 AP4 D3 attacks, that's pretty "crush what gets near me". Not to mention the blast upgrades on the 5 twin heavy flamers. Thats 20d6 autohitting S5 AP1 D1.
I like the idea of "Mass reactive" armor being a T8 vehicle thing in 9th. If a weapon that does not contain an AP of 4 or better shoots this model, it's can only wound on a 6. That would cut out a lot of Bolter/Plasma nonsense, and anything less than a Lascannon or a Melta, which is how it should be.
You'd have to buff lascannons to AP4 then since they're only AP3. I think making the cut off arbitrarily AP4 as the cut off point makes no sense since there's plenty of weapons that are short of that but are the anti-tank of certain races that lack that hard level of AP.
2021/01/30 09:53:14
Subject: How to make a Baneblade viable without being broken?
gungo wrote: When they moved everything to the toughness and wound mechanic there really isn’t a point to labeling lord of wars separately.
I think lord of wars should benefit from clan/chapter/regiment tactics just like any other vehicle/monster etc...
In order to fix the baneblade or all lord of wars I think they need to beef up toughness and save characteristics and make them a part of the degrading wound profiles or just make them cheaper poontwise... let’s be honest most times lords of war are over costed because there is an overvalue on large wound models without taking into account offensive power.
They need about 40% more wounds for the same points other than warglaive i can't think of a low that is survivable enough for its points
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/01/30 09:54:33
2021/01/30 14:25:17
Subject: Re:How to make a Baneblade viable without being broken?
Insularum wrote: Big units having the exact same rule interactions as small units creates the scaling problem that baneblade style units suffer from, they should be exceptions to the norm to accommodate their vast size not just treated like bigger leman russes. Things I would like to see would include:
1. Saving throws on 2D6 like 2nd ed terminators so that low AP weapons suffer against them
2. A new class of weapon that is bigger than "heavy", which either has splash damage - or is made intentionally weaker but allowed to fire at multiple targets (number of activations could be a damage chart stat)
3. Damage during movement by crushing models you move over
1. I like that idea! I never thought of expanding the dice like that. Thank you!
2. Like MACRO? Like Titan based weapons, which is literally what most bane blade variants are? I would love to see them get Macro, with all the associated rules that come with.
3. They already have 9 S8 AP4 D3 attacks, that's pretty "crush what gets near me". Not to mention the blast upgrades on the 5 twin heavy flamers. Thats 20d6 autohitting S5 AP1 D1.
I like the idea of "Mass reactive" armor being a T8 vehicle thing in 9th. If a weapon that does not contain an AP of 4 or better shoots this model, it's can only wound on a 6. That would cut out a lot of Bolter/Plasma nonsense, and anything less than a Lascannon or a Melta, which is how it should be.
You'd have to buff lascannons to AP4 then since they're only AP3. I think making the cut off arbitrarily AP4 as the cut off point makes no sense since there's plenty of weapons that are short of that but are the anti-tank of certain races that lack that hard level of AP.
LCs should really be AP5 for the cost. They should have the hardest punch in the game.
2021/01/30 14:41:34
Subject: Re:How to make a Baneblade viable without being broken?
Insularum wrote: Big units having the exact same rule interactions as small units creates the scaling problem that baneblade style units suffer from, they should be exceptions to the norm to accommodate their vast size not just treated like bigger leman russes. Things I would like to see would include:
1. Saving throws on 2D6 like 2nd ed terminators so that low AP weapons suffer against them
2. A new class of weapon that is bigger than "heavy", which either has splash damage - or is made intentionally weaker but allowed to fire at multiple targets (number of activations could be a damage chart stat)
3. Damage during movement by crushing models you move over
1. I like that idea! I never thought of expanding the dice like that. Thank you!
2. Like MACRO? Like Titan based weapons, which is literally what most bane blade variants are? I would love to see them get Macro, with all the associated rules that come with.
3. They already have 9 S8 AP4 D3 attacks, that's pretty "crush what gets near me". Not to mention the blast upgrades on the 5 twin heavy flamers. Thats 20d6 autohitting S5 AP1 D1.
I like the idea of "Mass reactive" armor being a T8 vehicle thing in 9th. If a weapon that does not contain an AP of 4 or better shoots this model, it's can only wound on a 6. That would cut out a lot of Bolter/Plasma nonsense, and anything less than a Lascannon or a Melta, which is how it should be.
You'd have to buff lascannons to AP4 then since they're only AP3. I think making the cut off arbitrarily AP4 as the cut off point makes no sense since there's plenty of weapons that are short of that but are the anti-tank of certain races that lack that hard level of AP.
LCs should really be AP5 for the cost. They should have the hardest punch in the game.
Why should a man-portable anti-tank weapon be the best in the game?
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
2021/01/30 15:09:20
Subject: How to make a Baneblade viable without being broken?
Couple of rough ideas, not necessarily used all at once.
- Make the overall thing cheaper. 400pts before sponsons perhaps.
- Why can't it be BS3+? It's a bloody 300 ton war machine with various targeters, auxiliary systems and backup crew, and it's no more accurate than a Guardsman. Seems to be a common theme with GW, same as the Manta only having BS4+.
- Damage reduction would be good, perhaps as a once per game upgrade.
- More of a personal gripe, but give the Stormhammer back the unique rules it had. It'd still be crap, but at least this way it can be slightly less crap.
2021/01/30 15:09:45
Subject: Re:How to make a Baneblade viable without being broken?
Insularum wrote: Big units having the exact same rule interactions as small units creates the scaling problem that baneblade style units suffer from, they should be exceptions to the norm to accommodate their vast size not just treated like bigger leman russes. Things I would like to see would include:
1. Saving throws on 2D6 like 2nd ed terminators so that low AP weapons suffer against them
2. A new class of weapon that is bigger than "heavy", which either has splash damage - or is made intentionally weaker but allowed to fire at multiple targets (number of activations could be a damage chart stat)
3. Damage during movement by crushing models you move over
1. I like that idea! I never thought of expanding the dice like that. Thank you!
2. Like MACRO? Like Titan based weapons, which is literally what most bane blade variants are? I would love to see them get Macro, with all the associated rules that come with.
3. They already have 9 S8 AP4 D3 attacks, that's pretty "crush what gets near me". Not to mention the blast upgrades on the 5 twin heavy flamers. Thats 20d6 autohitting S5 AP1 D1.
I like the idea of "Mass reactive" armor being a T8 vehicle thing in 9th. If a weapon that does not contain an AP of 4 or better shoots this model, it's can only wound on a 6. That would cut out a lot of Bolter/Plasma nonsense, and anything less than a Lascannon or a Melta, which is how it should be.
You'd have to buff lascannons to AP4 then since they're only AP3. I think making the cut off arbitrarily AP4 as the cut off point makes no sense since there's plenty of weapons that are short of that but are the anti-tank of certain races that lack that hard level of AP.
LCs should really be AP5 for the cost. They should have the hardest punch in the game.
Why should a man-portable anti-tank weapon be the best in the game?
Isn't that already the case with Melta weapons? Because a Heavy 1 shot weapon should deliver more punch than a multi shot assault weapon, with 1.5 the damage potential. In my way of thinking at least. Why SHOULDN'T it?
2021/01/30 15:11:14
Subject: Re:How to make a Baneblade viable without being broken?
Insularum wrote: Big units having the exact same rule interactions as small units creates the scaling problem that baneblade style units suffer from, they should be exceptions to the norm to accommodate their vast size not just treated like bigger leman russes. Things I would like to see would include:
1. Saving throws on 2D6 like 2nd ed terminators so that low AP weapons suffer against them
2. A new class of weapon that is bigger than "heavy", which either has splash damage - or is made intentionally weaker but allowed to fire at multiple targets (number of activations could be a damage chart stat)
3. Damage during movement by crushing models you move over
1. I like that idea! I never thought of expanding the dice like that. Thank you!
2. Like MACRO? Like Titan based weapons, which is literally what most bane blade variants are? I would love to see them get Macro, with all the associated rules that come with.
3. They already have 9 S8 AP4 D3 attacks, that's pretty "crush what gets near me". Not to mention the blast upgrades on the 5 twin heavy flamers. Thats 20d6 autohitting S5 AP1 D1.
I like the idea of "Mass reactive" armor being a T8 vehicle thing in 9th. If a weapon that does not contain an AP of 4 or better shoots this model, it's can only wound on a 6. That would cut out a lot of Bolter/Plasma nonsense, and anything less than a Lascannon or a Melta, which is how it should be.
You'd have to buff lascannons to AP4 then since they're only AP3. I think making the cut off arbitrarily AP4 as the cut off point makes no sense since there's plenty of weapons that are short of that but are the anti-tank of certain races that lack that hard level of AP.
LCs should really be AP5 for the cost. They should have the hardest punch in the game.
Why should a man-portable anti-tank weapon be the best in the game?
Isn't that already the case with Melta weapons? Because a Heavy 1 shot weapon should deliver more punch than a multi shot assault weapon, with 1.5 the damage potential. In my way of thinking at least. Why SHOULDN'T it?
Because the game is too damn lethal already. Melta got too powerful-that's not a reason to make everything else just as lethal.
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
2021/01/30 15:46:59
Subject: Re:How to make a Baneblade viable without being broken?
Insularum wrote: Big units having the exact same rule interactions as small units creates the scaling problem that baneblade style units suffer from, they should be exceptions to the norm to accommodate their vast size not just treated like bigger leman russes. Things I would like to see would include:
1. Saving throws on 2D6 like 2nd ed terminators so that low AP weapons suffer against them
2. A new class of weapon that is bigger than "heavy", which either has splash damage - or is made intentionally weaker but allowed to fire at multiple targets (number of activations could be a damage chart stat)
3. Damage during movement by crushing models you move over
1. I like that idea! I never thought of expanding the dice like that. Thank you!
2. Like MACRO? Like Titan based weapons, which is literally what most bane blade variants are? I would love to see them get Macro, with all the associated rules that come with.
3. They already have 9 S8 AP4 D3 attacks, that's pretty "crush what gets near me". Not to mention the blast upgrades on the 5 twin heavy flamers. Thats 20d6 autohitting S5 AP1 D1.
I like the idea of "Mass reactive" armor being a T8 vehicle thing in 9th. If a weapon that does not contain an AP of 4 or better shoots this model, it's can only wound on a 6. That would cut out a lot of Bolter/Plasma nonsense, and anything less than a Lascannon or a Melta, which is how it should be.
You'd have to buff lascannons to AP4 then since they're only AP3. I think making the cut off arbitrarily AP4 as the cut off point makes no sense since there's plenty of weapons that are short of that but are the anti-tank of certain races that lack that hard level of AP.
LCs should really be AP5 for the cost. They should have the hardest punch in the game.
Why should a man-portable anti-tank weapon be the best in the game?
Isn't that already the case with Melta weapons? Because a Heavy 1 shot weapon should deliver more punch than a multi shot assault weapon, with 1.5 the damage potential. In my way of thinking at least. Why SHOULDN'T it?
Because the game is too damn lethal already. Melta got too powerful-that's not a reason to make everything else just as lethal.
Exactly. The shift to the AP system as it is now was to introduce more granularity for armour saves being more than an all or nothing approach, but now with AP-2 and better being handed out like candy, armour in general has been severely devalued. There's a reason why most top tier units either don't rely on armour saves at all (i.e. daemons or harlequins) or they have multiple wounds alongside invulns and other artificial ways of heightening survivability (transhuman strat). The arms race have quickly made many weapons obselete.
2021/04/20 06:33:04
Subject: How to make a Baneblade viable without being broken?
Personally I wouldn't give them any kind of invul as it's not lore friendly in my opinion. GW are doing away with FNP type saves as well, unless it comes from a stratagem (limited to once a turn), a warlord trait, or some kind of healer unit. The two former can be killed and if it's an aura it's typically worse.
What I would do:
In terms of actually taking one:
- Allow said player to have a 0-1 LoW slot if they take a brigade.
- Make a super-heavy auxiliary detachment work like a fortification detachment, you are refunded the CP cost if the units faction matches your warlords. Then optionally you can give them the regiment traits for free.
On improving the Baneblade:
- Basically make them a tank commander. Make them a character, give it the officer keyword, give them BS3+ and give them a tank order (that they can either use on themselves or a leman russ). If they're a character then they can take a warlord trait or relic.
- Increase its wounds to 28 and give it a 2+ save.
In terms of stratagems:
- Let it use Relentless for 2CP.
- Let it use Hail of Fire for 3CP.
- Thanks to being an officer they can now use Inspired Tactics.
- Let any Tech-Priests taken in the Guard codex use the Tech-Adept stratagem.
