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.

 necron99 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
The Rapier is a vehicle.

Oh yeah I saw that....meant as a separate discussion. Haven't seem them on the table much wasn't sure if it was because forge word is expensive/harder to get or if it's just plain bad. Looks like a glass cannon but for 88 points it seems very tempting.

Oh, gotcha. The Rapier is trash, a LC HWS has better damage and the durability difference is negligible in the real world.

Hey, so I have a question.

Is the Doomhammer currently the most versatile Baneblade variant?

I admit I've never used (nor do I own) any superheavy tank, so I don't know how they fare in practice. But the Doomhammer, despite not being one of the more iconic or unique Baneblade variants, seems to me like it has many solid advantages. Its magma cannon gives it 2d6 S10 AP-5 shots, with D6 damage. At half range (still a respectable 30 inches), it gets the melta rule, where you roll 2D6 for damage and pick the highest result. It also ignores cover, not that it matters all that much at AP -5. All in all, it appears to be a major threat to Land Raiders and Imperial Knights, without being as overspecialized as the Shadowsword. Its range of 60 inches is on the low side for a superheavy, but this will rarely ever matter except in a game of Apocalypse on a huuuge table (and even then, it won't be lacking for targets).

What sets it apart, however, is its transport capacity (25 models) and its firing deck (10 models may shoot), second only to the Stormlord's. It seems like a perfect place to stick three Heavy Weapon Squads (9 models in all) with lascannons. Heavy weapon teams count as two models each for transport capacity, but I don't believe this applies to the firing deck; according to my interpretation of the rules, all 9 models would still be able to shoot. Is that correct?

.

-Guardsman- wrote:
Hey, so I have a question.

Is the Doomhammer currently the most versatile Baneblade variant?

I admit I've never used (nor do I own) any superheavy tank, so I don't know how they fare in practice. But the Doomhammer, despite not being one of the more iconic or unique Baneblade variants, seems to me like it has many solid advantages. Its magma cannon gives it 2d6 S10 AP-5 shots, with D6 damage. At half range (still a respectable 30 inches), it gets the melta rule, where you roll 2D6 for damage and pick the highest result. It also ignores cover, not that it matters all that much at AP -5. All in all, it appears to be a major threat to Land Raiders and Imperial Knights, without being as overspecialized as the Shadowsword. Its range of 60 inches is on the low side for a superheavy, but this will rarely ever matter except in a game of Apocalypse on a huuuge table (and even then, it won't be lacking for targets).

What sets it apart, however, is its transport capacity (25 models) and its firing deck (10 models may shoot), second only to the Stormlord's. It seems like a perfect place to stick three Heavy Weapon Squads (9 models in all) with lascannons. Heavy weapon teams count as two models each for transport capacity, but I don't believe this applies to the firing deck; according to my interpretation of the rules, all 9 models would still be able to shoot. Is that correct?
.

You can do that, it's just not amazingly useful. If you move, the lascannons get a -1 to hit, and if you don't, you're spending three times the points to protect the lascannons as they cost.

The Stormlord wins out of the transport options because it can carry a full squad of bullgryns, which want to get closer.

The general consensus on superheavies is:
1) Shadowsword - does it's thing really well, can be kept relatively cheap without sponsons
2) Baneblade classic - good all rounder
3) Hellhammer - Arguably better main gun than the baneblade, and rewards getting stuck in with Crush 'Em
4) Stormlord - mega transport
...
Everything else is just weirdly specialized or redundant.

Regarding the Baneblade-variants and other LoW I would also like to ask a question to the more experienced players.
I'm building a Tallarn force and really like their rules for Infantry and Vehicles, but since I started building I try to get my head around IF and HOW you can make use of their rule that Lords of War can treat all their weapons as assault weapons.

So far it seems to me that one of these could work out:
1. Hellhammer with 4 x Heavy Flamer Sponsons => Move, Advance, Crush them and Fire everything up
2. Stormlord, a deck full of Special weapons (preferably Plasma/Melter) and Heavy Flamer sponsons => the same as above with the added advantage that the Special weapons users on the firing deck should be able to also fire their weapons after advancing without penalty

Has anyone ever tried this? Is this a dumb idea due to the high cost coupled with actively driving towards the enemy as fast as possible? I'm new to the hobby, and unsure if I want to invest in a LoW or keep to the smaller vehicles.

Pyroalchi wrote:
HOW you can make use of their rule that Lords of War can treat all their weapons as assault weapons.

You don't. There's almost never going to be a situation where you're willing to trade -1 to hit for D6" (average 3.5", with a high chance of rolling only 1-2") of extra movement on a unit that can already move 12" without penalty. And you give up some extremely powerful bonuses to get this very weak and situational option. The Tallarn ability on LoW is effectively blank text and the only reason you'd ever have it is if you're taking a supreme command detachment to get your LoW slot and really want JSJ tank commanders in those HQ slots.

I believe its a rule for flamer equipped guys who need that inch to get into range with their 2 to 6 heavy flamer sponsons -- and maybe to make a charge possible. If your choice is flamers/no flamers or crush them!/ no charge, suddenly the change in hits from a vulcan cannon and 4 lazcannon are less crucial.
(Theoretically. IRL, I concede I don't actually have sponsons on my big tank, cause of that wierdo rule interpretation that tallarn can't put a sponson tank in off board ambush. Also cause its so many points in one target.)

Actually one would consider running Baneblade as Tallarn only to use Ambush Stratagem on it.
Currently it is the only viable option to ensure Baneblade will shoot. Baneblade is always priority target and having no inv makes it too easy to kill turn one

Also Baneblade with sponsons can be ambushed. Sponsons are not part of hull therefore can be hanging over the table edge

I thought along the line that with 12'' + 6'' advance (alongside a warlord with implacable determination) it would be possible on a 4' x 4' table to reach the first 4'' of the enemy deployment zone with a whole bunch of flamers on turn 1 (8 Heavy flamers from the sponsons + up to 20 flamers on the firing deck if you want to go crazy)
But I guess you are right, lacking an Inv the superheavy would most likely just be blown of the table before he can do that.

Gnollu wrote:
Actually one would consider running Baneblade as Tallarn only to use Ambush Stratagem on it.
Currently it is the only viable option to ensure Baneblade will shoot. Baneblade is always priority target and having no inv makes it too easy to kill turn one

Also Baneblade with sponsons can be ambushed. Sponsons are not part of hull therefore can be hanging over the table edge

That’s not what the rule says. It says “no part of the model or it’s base” can be over the edge. Nothing about hull.

Random thought. Would HWT teams with lascannons be at all viable if they were semi immune to shooting? Unless GW fixes it in FAQ(so don't spend money yet for this) there just might be way. Take salamander detachment(and to hell their mono bonus). Play their heroic sacrifice stratagem to salamander character in front of HWT within 6". Unless enemy is closer to HWT than character he can't shoot at them(not even with snipers) and you obviously have plenty of stuff in front of character to ensure he won't be shot either.

Replace HWT with any other infantry model you can think off.

Interesting to see if GW fixes this one or not.

Well, heavy weapon squads are insanely points efficient for shooting, the trade off being they die to a stiff breeze. Problem is by taking a salamanders unit to protect them, you're spending more points, and CP, to make them more durable, which means you've now lost your cost effectiveness which was the whole point in bringing them. Especially since if someone wants the HWS gone they'll just murder the salamanders unit in question or get behind it. Any Salamanders unit tough enough to weather a round of shooting for the HWS ain't gonna be cheap.

That said, if there's a fairly cheap but insanely durable salamanders unit that has good ranged weapons, it might work. I've just not seen many salamanders rules yet. The guard would want to be cadians with an officer nearby for obvious reasons, since they could potentially be hitting on 3's and rerolling all hits and potentially all wounds depending on the target. 9 semi untargetable lascannons wouldn't be shabby.

Honestly though if this is your plan just take Ryza Kataphrons instead. They do far more damage than HWS can, have more strategems that help them, and are more durable for when the marines finally die.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
Well, heavy weapon squads are insanely points efficient for shooting, the trade off being they die to a stiff breeze. Problem is by taking a salamanders unit to protect them, you're spending more points, and CP, to make them more durable, which means you've now lost your cost effectiveness which was the whole point in bringing them. Especially since if someone wants the HWS gone they'll just murder the salamanders unit in question or get behind it. Any Salamanders unit tough enough to weather a round of shooting for the HWS ain't gonna be cheap.

Well that salamander provides protection to all infantry within 6" that is further to enemy than salamander so not just hwm. Secondly salamander wil' be character so your front line(you do have screens don't you?) means he won't be able to shoot at the salamander screening rest of the units.

To shoot at the units protected by salamander he either needs enough snipers to kill that hero or first wipe out all units closer to him than salamander hero. Until that salamander and units he cover are 100% immune to shooting.

tneva82 wrote:

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
Well, heavy weapon squads are insanely points efficient for shooting, the trade off being they die to a stiff breeze. Problem is by taking a salamanders unit to protect them, you're spending more points, and CP, to make them more durable, which means you've now lost your cost effectiveness which was the whole point in bringing them. Especially since if someone wants the HWS gone they'll just murder the salamanders unit in question or get behind it. Any Salamanders unit tough enough to weather a round of shooting for the HWS ain't gonna be cheap.

Well that salamander provides protection to all infantry within 6" that is further to enemy than salamander so not just hwm. Secondly salamander wil' be character so your front line(you do have screens don't you?) means he won't be able to shoot at the salamander screening rest of the units.

To shoot at the units protected by salamander he either needs enough snipers to kill that hero or first wipe out all units closer to him than salamander hero. Until that salamander and units he cover are 100% immune to shooting.

Have we got an official picture of the strategems showing it works with characters? Because even if that does work, that seems pretty much guaranteed to get faq'd. Granted GW doesn't always FAQ the gamey rules in the 2 week FAQ but that one seems pretty obviously unintentional. Otherwise we're back to 7th ed invisibility level shenanigans.

I dunno, maybe I'm naively optimistic but I don't think GW was stupid enough to deliberately make invincible infantry an option for salamanders. Like I believe you mentioned earlier, I wouldn't even bother building a list with this in mind just yet because odds of it working this way for long are low. Odds are it will be non characters infantry only, which means using it with something like centurions or stormshields terminators. Stuff that would still be useful because you now need far more powerful AT weapons to chew through them and get to the yummy HWS, but not the end of the world.

It's totally broken until it gets a FAQ. The character being sacrificed can just hide out of LOS so no snipers. If a 2nd character in phobos armor infiltrates out of LOS they will be the closest model and immune to indirect fire because they are a character. If cheesed to the max an entire army can be set up where nothing can shoot at it.

having the stormlord loaded with flamers is a good way to "extend" the range of the guns since everything is measured from the hull.

 JohnnyHell wrote:

Gnollu wrote:
Actually one would consider running Baneblade as Tallarn only to use Ambush Stratagem on it.
Currently it is the only viable option to ensure Baneblade will shoot. Baneblade is always priority target and having no inv makes it too easy to kill turn one

Also Baneblade with sponsons can be ambushed. Sponsons are not part of hull therefore can be hanging over the table edge

That’s not what the rule says. It says “no part of the model or it’s base” can be over the edge. Nothing about hull.

Yup doesnt matter though as the baneblade with sponsons is less than 7" wide so can deploy side ways with Ambush

You could always just put both sponsons on the same side...

 Smirrors wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

Gnollu wrote:
Actually one would consider running Baneblade as Tallarn only to use Ambush Stratagem on it.
Currently it is the only viable option to ensure Baneblade will shoot. Baneblade is always priority target and having no inv makes it too easy to kill turn one

Also Baneblade with sponsons can be ambushed. Sponsons are not part of hull therefore can be hanging over the table edge

That’s not what the rule says. It says “no part of the model or it’s base” can be over the edge. Nothing about hull.

Yup doesnt matter though as the baneblade with sponsons is less than 7" wide so can deploy side ways with Ambush

I believe the FAqd this. the sponsons dont count as far as the"Hull"

I have a theory. GW introduced the Ironstone-effect (reduce damage by one to minimum one) as a way to create more difference between anti elites weapons (several shot, damage 2 and 1d3) and anti tank weapons (few shots, damage 3 and 1d6). And I believe we will see more similar effects in the future.

What do you think?

And how common does the ironstone-effect have to be to make melta a good choice over plasma when building allcomers lists? Lascannons over battlecannons?

Mellon wrote:
I have a theory. GW introduced the Ironstone-effect (reduce damage by one to minimum one) as a way to create more difference between anti elites weapons (several shot, damage 2 and 1d3) and anti tank weapons (few shots, damage 3 and 1d6). And I believe we will see more similar effects in the future.

What do you think?

And how common does the ironstone-effect have to be to make melta a good choice over plasma when building allcomers lists? Lascannons over battlecannons?

Its possible. Given the fact that all marine models are 2+ wounds (except the old stuff). Im starting to get tired of all the marine releases and concerned Codex creep is starting to become a thing.

What would guard trait be? Sloped armor: reduce damage by 1 on multi-wound weapons?

Mellon wrote:
I have a theory. GW introduced the Ironstone-effect (reduce damage by one to minimum one) as a way to create more difference between anti elites weapons (several shot, damage 2 and 1d3) and anti tank weapons (few shots, damage 3 and 1d6). And I believe we will see more similar effects in the future.

What do you think?

And how common does the ironstone-effect have to be to make melta a good choice over plasma when building allcomers lists? Lascannons over battlecannons?

The problem with that is that it just makes damage 1 weapons with mid-range AP the best weapons in the game. Space marine heavy bolters, for example, are AP-2, str5... and are now one of the best anti-tank weapons in the game because they have just enough AP to force an inuln save, and just enough strength the wound on 5's instead of 6's. Firing at T8 targets, I'd rather have more shots from a SM heavy bolter than from a Tank Commander. The only difference between the two against an Ironstone buffed tank is that the heavy bolter wounds on a 5+ instead of a 4+, and the battle cannon has a 1/3 chance to deal 2 damage per hit. Not worth the cost premium. It's a sad state of affairs when anti-infantry weapons like that are better against vehicles than dedicated anti-tank weapons.

Well players wanted it before 8th ed, they got it

So does this mean that we're going to see more use out of stuff like punisher cannons? Because they're not great for AT but when none of our weapons are really gonna do anything more than one damage may as well just throw as many shots as possible at them.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
So does this mean that we're going to see more use out of stuff like punisher cannons? Because they're not great for AT but when none of our weapons are really gonna do anything more than one damage may as well just throw as many shots as possible at them.

Possibly. When shooting at an Executioner with an Ironstone buff....

Punisher =
40 shots * .66 to hit *.33 to wound * .33 unsaved * .84 get past FNP = 2.41 damage.

Battle Cannon =
8 shots * .66 to hit * .5 to wound * .66 unsaved * 1.333 average damage * .84 get past FNP = 1.94 damage

The punisher cannon is a better weapon to kill Executioners with than the battle cannon now.

Jesus that is depressing. I really hope that gets faqd to take at least one of those out. Knocking off one damage or just cutting it in half I can deal with. A single dread is gonna be harder to drop than a knight

At least with Knights, every point of damage you do is pretty much permanent. They really don't have a way to repair. I mean sure, you can use AdMech allies, and if you make the AdMech guy your warlord and use a stratagem, you can heal 4 wounds per turn, max. That's spending a LOT of points to do it.

Iron Hands, their primary buff character can heal for 6 wounds for 1 extra CP per turn, and a librarian can heal for D3 more. So if you fail to one shot one of these vehicles, they'll just instantly repair back up to full health and you're wasting your time.

Some madman just FAQ'd the Demolisher cannon to d6 shots. Its official now, Demolisher Russe's are insane anti armor now. I apologise for not having faith we'd get the buff

I have 2 demolisher cannons itching to get into the fight now!

Lol... looking at the Leman Russes it is kind of funny that they decided to buff the Demolisher... makes the Vanquisher and Eradicator even more pointless competetively in my opinion

So Demolisher for anti knight T8+ and Punisher for horde. Battle cannon for range anti tank? Im really liking Tallarn Demolishers to get the extra move to get in range and still get Grinding Advance.