Switch Theme:

Houseruling the Baneblade  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Kind of late to make this reply, but the reason T9 is such a big deal is that it's a break point for many specialized (often expensive) anti-tank weapons. It means bright lances, dark lances, krak missiles, melta weapons, and lascannons are all functionally at -1 to wound.

So if you have a target with a fair few wounds and a decent save (possibly even a 2+ save if you make that change as well), it can be kind of a bummer to watch your expensive anti-tank guns only wound it 1/2 (lascannons) or 1/3rd of the time.

I haven't crunched the numbers to see exactly how much more durable the BB would become at T9 with a 2+ save, but you can see how those changes might make it unpleasant to play against. Whereas upping its wounds with no other changes would increse its durability while still allowing your opponent to feel like he's making progress against it with his anti-tank weapons.
   
Made in us
Tough-as-Nails Ork Boy




Honestly, give the Baneblade's main gun a serious boost, and add to its durability, perhaps +1 to saves against shooting attacks, T9 or T10 (you shouldn't rely upon Lascannons, Bright Lances or Dark Lances to kill Baneblades, you should bring out Heavy Anti Tank guns, like Vanquisher Cannons, Fire Prisms with Lance profile or Neutron Lasers and the like to take on a behemoth like a Baneblade.

The Baneblade should be capable of destroying a standard MBT type tank in a single round of shooting from its big gun. If a Baneblade decides to focus on a Land Raider it should be a worrisome experience for those Astartes. while it is a BIG tank, it should be good at being a tank.

Baneblades and their variants are essentially the face of Warhammer super heavies to me, more so then Knights, which I've found are a LOT more common, yet the Baneblade holds a special place in my eyes. (incidentally it was Baneblades and Leman Russes that got me into Warhammer, was a huge tank nerd for a while)

If the Baneblade is to not have an invuln (it shouldn't) Then it needs to be very durable through a combination of saves, T value and wound count.

I'd stat it out defensively at T9 30 Wounds and a 3+ save, +1 against shooting.

Offensively I'd upgrade its main gun. Give it a choice in which shell it fires. Either a MASSIVE AP round or a massive Frag shell. I'd give the cannon something along the lines of Heavy 1 Strength 16 AP -5 Damage 12 or 14 shot. Perhaps have it reduce invulns. (this is based around some fluff I honestly cannot recall about an Ork Warboss having a Forcefield that shook off the effects of a Lascannon because it was an energy weapon, but failed when struck by a Vanquisher Cannon, partially because it was a physical object.)

The other profile would be a massive 4d6 Blast at Strength 6 AP-2 D2.
   
Made in us
Insect-Infested Nurgle Chaos Lord





In My Lab

panzerfront14 wrote:
Honestly, give the Baneblade's main gun a serious boost, and add to its durability, perhaps +1 to saves against shooting attacks, T9 or T10 (you shouldn't rely upon Lascannons, Bright Lances or Dark Lances to kill Baneblades, you should bring out Heavy Anti Tank guns, like Vanquisher Cannons, Fire Prisms with Lance profile or Neutron Lasers and the like to take on a behemoth like a Baneblade.

The Baneblade should be capable of destroying a standard MBT type tank in a single round of shooting from its big gun. If a Baneblade decides to focus on a Land Raider it should be a worrisome experience for those Astartes. while it is a BIG tank, it should be good at being a tank.

Baneblades and their variants are essentially the face of Warhammer super heavies to me, more so then Knights, which I've found are a LOT more common, yet the Baneblade holds a special place in my eyes. (incidentally it was Baneblades and Leman Russes that got me into Warhammer, was a huge tank nerd for a while)

If the Baneblade is to not have an invuln (it shouldn't) Then it needs to be very durable through a combination of saves, T value and wound count.

I'd stat it out defensively at T9 30 Wounds and a 3+ save, +1 against shooting.

Offensively I'd upgrade its main gun. Give it a choice in which shell it fires. Either a MASSIVE AP round or a massive Frag shell. I'd give the cannon something along the lines of Heavy 1 Strength 16 AP -5 Damage 12 or 14 shot. Perhaps have it reduce invulns. (this is based around some fluff I honestly cannot recall about an Ork Warboss having a Forcefield that shook off the effects of a Lascannon because it was an energy weapon, but failed when struck by a Vanquisher Cannon, partially because it was a physical object.)

The other profile would be a massive 4d6 Blast at Strength 6 AP-2 D2.
1 shot.
2/3 hits (assuming it goes to BS 3+)
10/18 or 5/9 wounds
6.67 damage at D12, 7.78 at D14, assuming no Invuln

14 shots
28/3 hits
28/9 wounds
4.15 damage against a 3+ target

The single-shot is only about 50% better at taking on a big target. If you give that target a 5+ Invuln (such as Knights) then it drops to about 10% better.

-1 Damage hits the frag profile way harder, I guess.

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




panzerfront14 wrote:
Honestly, give the Baneblade's main gun a serious boost, and add to its durability, perhaps +1 to saves against shooting attacks, T9 or T10 (you shouldn't rely upon Lascannons, Bright Lances or Dark Lances to kill Baneblades, you should bring out Heavy Anti Tank guns, like Vanquisher Cannons, Fire Prisms with Lance profile or Neutron Lasers and the like to take on a behemoth like a Baneblade.

Well, my craftworlders don't have vanquisher cannons or neutron lasers, I don't own a fire prism, and I only sometimes field wraith weapons (you kind of have to build your list around the units that can take them). So I'm not fond of radically changing every craftworld list I write just to avoid having a bad time on the off-chance my pick up game that day happens to feature a superheavy.

If your proposed rule requires everyone using it to overhaul their army lists to avoid having a worse experience when using it, that seems like a red flag.
   
Made in us
Monster-Slaying Daemonhunter




Also, why are we making the Baneblade's AP shot almost a duplicate of the Shadowsword?

The Baneblade's main gun needs a damage boost, not a variant profile. Make it flat 4.

Also just saying, but if we brought back AV this wouldn't be a problem. Because that is the baneblade. A tank made for a completely different time. Like the land raider.

I do agree on making it need something greater than a man portable laser cannon to take down. It should take a knight level threat to damage a knight level threat. Again, AV would fix this...
   
Made in gb
Lord of the Fleet






London

A small boost would be to bring back the co-axial rule. Very simple:

Co-Axial: If the model's Autocannon hits a target in the Shooting Phase, add 1 to any hit rolls for the Baneblade Cannon when shooting the same target for the rest of the phase

   
Made in us
Monster-Slaying Daemonhunter




 Valkyrie wrote:
A small boost would be to bring back the co-axial rule. Very simple:

Co-Axial: If the model's Autocannon hits a target in the Shooting Phase, add 1 to any hit rolls for the Baneblade Cannon when shooting the same target for the rest of the phase


Exhalted. That would be a big change. Also it would make it a less worthless weapon, as the range of the Cannon and the range of the main gun are not near to each other. You'd be cutting the distance in half to get that buff. I don't like moving the baneblade up the middle unless I have to.

What about giving it a obj secured type rule. "King of the hill": If this unit is capable of being on an objective, nothing can shift it's might, and this objective is held, no matter how many enemy models are also on the objective.

Basically, if a baneblade is on an objective, and 10 cultists are also on it, are we really going to say the BB doesn't own that objective?
   
Made in gb
Lord of the Fleet






London

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
 Valkyrie wrote:
A small boost would be to bring back the co-axial rule. Very simple:

Co-Axial: If the model's Autocannon hits a target in the Shooting Phase, add 1 to any hit rolls for the Baneblade Cannon when shooting the same target for the rest of the phase


Exhalted. That would be a big change. Also it would make it a less worthless weapon, as the range of the Cannon and the range of the main gun are not near to each other. You'd be cutting the distance in half to get that buff. I don't like moving the baneblade up the middle unless I have to.

What about giving it a obj secured type rule. "King of the hill": If this unit is capable of being on an objective, nothing can shift it's might, and this objective is held, no matter how many enemy models are also on the objective.

Basically, if a baneblade is on an objective, and 10 cultists are also on it, are we really going to say the BB doesn't own that objective?


I'd be up for just making it a generic Titanic rule, say where they have ObSec and count as the number of wounds remaining. For example, a fully functional Knight would count as 24 models, but as it gets damaged, it's ability to secure a point gets worse and worse.

   
Made in us
Tough-as-Nails Ork Boy




Wyldhunt wrote:
panzerfront14 wrote:
Honestly, give the Baneblade's main gun a serious boost, and add to its durability, perhaps +1 to saves against shooting attacks, T9 or T10 (you shouldn't rely upon Lascannons, Bright Lances or Dark Lances to kill Baneblades, you should bring out Heavy Anti Tank guns, like Vanquisher Cannons, Fire Prisms with Lance profile or Neutron Lasers and the like to take on a behemoth like a Baneblade.

Well, my craftworlders don't have vanquisher cannons or neutron lasers, I don't own a fire prism, and I only sometimes field wraith weapons (you kind of have to build your list around the units that can take them). So I'm not fond of radically changing every craftworld list I write just to avoid having a bad time on the off-chance my pick up game that day happens to feature a superheavy.

If your proposed rule requires everyone using it to overhaul their army lists to avoid having a worse experience when using it, that seems like a red flag.


I play Orks, I have none of those things either. In my opinion, heavy AT weapons should be nice to have when taking on super heavies. I'd rather see you guys gain those as an option, along with other methods of taking out super heavies, while also giving those Guard players who use Baneblades a good time with their super tank. Say if you had some heavy melee that would work against the Baneblade. I also think these changes should be limited. Knights should be softer against some weapons then a baneblade, while more difficult to kill with others.

Though the criticism regarding turning the Baneblade's main gun into a copy of the shadow sword is valid, part of the issue is that there are so many variants it is hard to find a role for all of them due to the scale 40k operates at. The idea regarding having Super Heavies remaining wounds count as Obsec models could do wonders for Knights as an Army and would help Super Heavies of all Armies. Stompas would be very difficult to shift from objectives.
   
Made in au
Dakka Veteran




 Valkyrie wrote:
A small boost would be to bring back the co-axial rule. Very simple:

Co-Axial: If the model's Autocannon hits a target in the Shooting Phase, add 1 to any hit rolls for the Baneblade Cannon when shooting the same target for the rest of the phase


This only works on 2 out of 8 vehicles. What are you going to do with the other 6?
   
Made in gb
Lord of the Fleet






London

Jarms48 wrote:
 Valkyrie wrote:
A small boost would be to bring back the co-axial rule. Very simple:

Co-Axial: If the model's Autocannon hits a target in the Shooting Phase, add 1 to any hit rolls for the Baneblade Cannon when shooting the same target for the rest of the phase


This only works on 2 out of 8 vehicles. What are you going to do with the other 6?


Baneblade: Covered by Co-Axial
Hellhammer: Covered by Co-Axial
Stormhammer: Covered by Co-Axial, and make the main gun 3D3 shots.
Stormblade: Covered by Co-Axial
Stormlord: Let it spin up and fire twice if it doesn't move.
Banesword: Give it Shadowsword Targeters
Stormsword: +1 to hit when attacking a unit in cover.

That's most of them covered.

   
Made in us
Monster-Slaying Daemonhunter




So after re-reading the book, I think all Baneblades should get the anti-titan ability that Shadowswords get. With the exception of the stormlord, is there really any Baneblade variant that isn't designed to go up against other Supreme Heavies? I feel like giving all the variants +1 to wound anything T7+ would differentiate it enough.
   
Made in us
Daemonic Dreadnought




The dark hollows of Kentucky

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So after re-reading the book, I think all Baneblades should get the anti-titan ability that Shadowswords get. With the exception of the stormlord, is there really any Baneblade variant that isn't designed to go up against other Supreme Heavies? I feel like giving all the variants +1 to wound anything T7+ would differentiate it enough.

The same could be said for most LoWs. The dedicated Titan killer is the Shadowsword. Baneblades have plenty of firepower. They need durability. All of the firepower in the world won't do you any good if it gets blown off the table or bracketed into uselessness turn 1. It needs a 2+ save, the ability to get -1 to be hit and the ability to use the Relentless stratagem.
   
Made in us
Monster-Slaying Daemonhunter




Yeah, but killyness is 9ths whole bag I feel like. A Intercessor SGT with a thunder hammer and the right colors can theoretically one shot a knight. Does that mean we need to buff knight's defenses?

Giving an invuln to a unit with 14 different guns is too much. Dropping the cost is also somewhat out of the question I think. I would therefor suggest we up the killiness, or give it a special Super heavy detachment only available to IG/AM. Where it doesn't cost CP, it's just points. Then you could field them as a triple list. Or even quad.
   
Made in gb
Lord of the Fleet






London

I agree that the detachments needs a bit of tweaking. Personally I'd also just add a single LoW choice to a Battalion, letting you take a Baneblade, Stormsurge or other super-heavy without having to take 3, or losing out on CP.

   
Made in us
Monster-Slaying Daemonhunter




I would still say they get a 1-3 Superheavy detachment that can also be given support craft like salamanders, repair chimeras, etc.

What about giving BBs a warlord option?
   
Made in us
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Gathering the Informations.

Eh...I'd give a Baneblade chassis the option to be upgraded to a Tank Commander for X Power/Y Points.
   
Made in au
Dakka Veteran




 Valkyrie wrote:
I agree that the detachments needs a bit of tweaking. Personally I'd also just add a single LoW choice to a Battalion, letting you take a Baneblade, Stormsurge or other super-heavy without having to take 3, or losing out on CP.


I'd prefer giving a single LoW choice to a Brigade. Makes bringing a Brigade a bit more viable again.

Also, I want the ability to take a Super-heavy Detachment and get a CP refund. Let me take a Baneblade Tank Company in a similar way someone can take a Knight Lance.
   
Made in us
Tough-as-Nails Ork Boy




Jarms48 wrote:
 Valkyrie wrote:
I agree that the detachments needs a bit of tweaking. Personally I'd also just add a single LoW choice to a Battalion, letting you take a Baneblade, Stormsurge or other super-heavy without having to take 3, or losing out on CP.


I'd prefer giving a single LoW choice to a Brigade. Makes bringing a Brigade a bit more viable again.

Also, I want the ability to take a Super-heavy Detachment and get a CP refund. Let me take a Baneblade Tank Company in a similar way someone can take a Knight Lance.


I agree with this, I honestly wish Supreme Commanders were their own slot type to prevent Mortarion and Ghazzy from being lumped in with Super Heavy Tanks and Stompas. Either throw 1 LOW in a Battalion and 2 in a Brigade (perhaps 3) or let Superheavy Aux take the same subfaction rule as the Warlord. LOWs need a lot help in general and I'd say giving them subfaction traits, provided they match up with your warlord (no bringing Fellblades for IG but Baneblades should be normal for them) that sort of deal.
   
Made in au
Dakka Veteran




Supreme Commanders are their own slot. It’s a Supreme Commander detachment. Costs 0 CP.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/10/17 05:09:41


 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K Proposed Rules
Go to: