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.

I think that there is a small problem with the Baneblade's stats as it only has a 3+ save and toughness 8. I think it should have a 2+ armour save as if you compare its armour to a terminator with a 2+ its just better or a leman russ with a 3+ save its obviously better. I think it should have a chance of saving against melta weapons. Also I think the toughness should be 9 as that would stop las cannons wounding it on a 3 which is far to often. With this I wouldn't mind seeing a 10 -15 point increase though. Finally some will moan about the shadowsword then and I just say make its gun strength 18 then as it won't gain any extra power against vehicles just carry on wounding super heavies on a 2 which is the point of it.

Armour save isn't about how big the model is, it's about how good the armour on it is at stopping the penetration of incoming attacks.

Terminators have some of the most technologically advanced armour in the galaxy. Baneblades essentially have the same armour as smaller tanks, just on a bigger scale. It's not particularly advanced, basically just armour plating.

Just being big is better resented in durability using wounds, which the tank already has lots of.

I see no lore disconnect here basically!

As for balance, I think T9 is a bad idea. I don't see a compelling reason to make units intended for use in 2k games that resistant to Lascannons and equivalents. They already have loads of wounds, it needs to be reasonably possible to destroy these vehicles.

If you're having issues keeping your baneblade alive, consider taking two Primaris Psykers and casting Night Shroud and Psychic Barrier on it.

Baneblades, like other T8 multiwounds dudes are already too resilient. In fact the current competitive meta is based around lists that have the firepower to 1-shotting a knight because those super dudes must be killed as soon as possible or the game is lost, which is absurd.

I'd rather limit LoWs to 4000+ points games than introducing T9 just to make those huge models even more frequent on the board.

Alternatively ok with T9 and even 2+, but no invuln or -1 to hit allowed on them. At all.

 Blackie wrote:
the current competitive meta is based around lists that have the firepower to 1-shotting a knight because those super dudes must be killed as soon as possible or the game is lost, which is absurd.

This right here is likely the reason the OP is having issues. A baneblade profile in a vacuum is plenty durable. But any list that is bringing the tools to take down a Knight is going to find a Baneblade trivial by comparison, due to that lack of an invuln.

That does NOT mean Baneblades need a buff. It means Knights need tweaks (especially Ion Shields).

Make Knights less durable, and other big units become more viable in the meta.

Park the baneblade in cover (ok thats pretty hard), have two astropath nearby casting psychic barrier and nightshroud. Its -1 to hit and has a 1+ sv. Downside is you need first turn.

With the 2nd turn strat to give cover you can give it a 2+ and with the guard strat "take cover" you can give it 1+ I think that's durable enough. As a centerpiece of your army of course it's gonna ether be focused or ignored. In the current Knight meta it's gonna get focused so you will ether need to make it more resilent via strats/Psychic/regemental traits/healing or you are gonna need to expect it will die.

Timeshadow wrote:
With the 2nd turn strat to give cover you can give it a 2+ and with the guard strat "take cover" you can give it 1+ I think that's durable enough. As a centerpiece of your army of course it's gonna ether be focused or ignored. In the current Knight meta it's gonna get focused so you will ether need to make it more resilent via strats/Psychic/regemental traits/healing or you are gonna need to expect it will die.

The first stratagem you listed doesn't work for Titanic keyword models like the Baneblade. The second stratagem you listed was FAQ'd into only being usable by Infantry models.

deotrims 16th wrote:
I think that there is a small problem with the Baneblade's stats as it only has a 3+ save and toughness 8. I think it should have a 2+ armour save as if you compare its armour to a terminator with a 2+ its just better or a leman russ with a 3+ save its obviously better. I think it should have a chance of saving against melta weapons. Also I think the toughness should be 9 as that would stop las cannons wounding it on a 3 which is far to often. With this I wouldn't mind seeing a 10 -15 point increase though. Finally some will moan about the shadowsword then and I just say make its gun strength 18 then as it won't gain any extra power against vehicles just carry on wounding super heavies on a 2 which is the point of it.

Why not halve it's points while we're at it? What the hell is wrong with you? Baneblade Chassis are the second most competitive super heavy chassis there is. It does NOT need ANY kind of buff. 10-15 pts for t9 and 2+ ? Either you are trolling or a massive fanboy. Either way, this Thread certainly made me mad.

Morkphoiz wrote:

deotrims 16th wrote:
I think that there is a small problem with the Baneblade's stats as it only has a 3+ save and toughness 8. I think it should have a 2+ armour save as if you compare its armour to a terminator with a 2+ its just better or a leman russ with a 3+ save its obviously better. I think it should have a chance of saving against melta weapons. Also I think the toughness should be 9 as that would stop las cannons wounding it on a 3 which is far to often. With this I wouldn't mind seeing a 10 -15 point increase though. Finally some will moan about the shadowsword then and I just say make its gun strength 18 then as it won't gain any extra power against vehicles just carry on wounding super heavies on a 2 which is the point of it.

Why not halve it's points while we're at it? What the hell ist wrong with you? Baneblade Chassis are the second most competitive super heavy chassis there is. It does NOT need ANY kind of buff.

Eh, unless Knights get a nerf to their invulnerable save, the Baneblade could really use a 5+ invulnerable to ranged as well, because right now a 600 pt Knight Castellan can shrug off a Shadowsword's shooting, then turn around and ignore any damage and nuke it.

 Horst wrote:

Morkphoiz wrote:

deotrims 16th wrote:
I think that there is a small problem with the Baneblade's stats as it only has a 3+ save and toughness 8. I think it should have a 2+ armour save as if you compare its armour to a terminator with a 2+ its just better or a leman russ with a 3+ save its obviously better. I think it should have a chance of saving against melta weapons. Also I think the toughness should be 9 as that would stop las cannons wounding it on a 3 which is far to often. With this I wouldn't mind seeing a 10 -15 point increase though. Finally some will moan about the shadowsword then and I just say make its gun strength 18 then as it won't gain any extra power against vehicles just carry on wounding super heavies on a 2 which is the point of it.

Why not halve it's points while we're at it? What the hell ist wrong with you? Baneblade Chassis are the second most competitive super heavy chassis there is. It does NOT need ANY kind of buff.

Eh, unless Knights get a nerf to their invulnerable save, the Baneblade could really use a 5+ invulnerable to ranged as well, because right now a 600 pt Knight Castellan can shrug off a Shadowsword's shooting, then turn around and ignore any damage and nuke it.

The castellan is the single most blatantly overpowered model in the game right now. It should not bei your point of reference

 Horst wrote:

Morkphoiz wrote:

deotrims 16th wrote:
I think that there is a small problem with the Baneblade's stats as it only has a 3+ save and toughness 8. I think it should have a 2+ armour save as if you compare its armour to a terminator with a 2+ its just better or a leman russ with a 3+ save its obviously better. I think it should have a chance of saving against melta weapons. Also I think the toughness should be 9 as that would stop las cannons wounding it on a 3 which is far to often. With this I wouldn't mind seeing a 10 -15 point increase though. Finally some will moan about the shadowsword then and I just say make its gun strength 18 then as it won't gain any extra power against vehicles just carry on wounding super heavies on a 2 which is the point of it.

Why not halve it's points while we're at it? What the hell ist wrong with you? Baneblade Chassis are the second most competitive super heavy chassis there is. It does NOT need ANY kind of buff.

Eh, unless Knights get a nerf to their invulnerable save, the Baneblade could really use a 5+ invulnerable to ranged as well, because right now a 600 pt Knight Castellan can shrug off a Shadowsword's shooting, then turn around and ignore any damage and nuke it.

All knights are not castellens, a castellen is a 700 point model you can get T9 and 2+ armour for your baneblade when you pay 700 points.
You also loose access to nightshroud and psychic barrier.

Landraider was AV14 all round, Baneblade had weaker armour at the rear

converting to saves the 2+ on the Land Raider and 3+ on the baneblade makes sense to me

 Stux wrote:
Armour save isn't about how big the model is, it's about how good the armour on it is at stopping the penetration of incoming attacks.

Terminators have some of the most technologically advanced armour in the galaxy. Baneblades essentially have the same armour as smaller tanks, just on a bigger scale. It's not particularly advanced, basically just armour plating.

having more armour would mean batter armour plus the baneblade is known for shrugging off melta wounds due to its armour

deotrims 16th wrote:

 Stux wrote:
Armour save isn't about how big the model is, it's about how good the armour on it is at stopping the penetration of incoming attacks.

Terminators have some of the most technologically advanced armour in the galaxy. Baneblades essentially have the same armour as smaller tanks, just on a bigger scale. It's not particularly advanced, basically just armour plating.

having more armour would mean batter armour plus the baneblade is known for shrugging off melta wounds due to its armour

Ok, but we still have to represent this on a scale from 2+ to 6+. 2+ represents the most advanced and best armour in the galaxy. 3+ is "very good" armour. I don't think the Baneblade deserves to be in the 2+ category.

Knights are already in the same faction/keyword soup and aside from those Baneblades compare pretty well to other armies LOW. Instead of giving a Baneblade T9, 2+ and STR18 we should probably lower invuln's. That way the shadowsword could do its job as well as other tank hunting units and maybe eventually you won't have to bring a LOW to every game...

 Sleep Spell wrote:
Knights are already in the same faction/keyword soup and aside from those Baneblades compare pretty well to other armies LOW. Instead of giving a Baneblade T9, 2+ and STR18 we should probably lower invuln's. That way the shadowsword could do its job as well as other tank hunting units and maybe eventually you won't have to bring a LOW to every game...

100% agree with this.

I also think a big tank or battlewagon having a 3+ or 4+ save is silly when a much smaller model can also get a 3+ or even 2+. Now as someone mentioned I'm sure terminator armour is a bit more advanced but sheer size should count for something as well. As for extra toughness 8 is right for game balance which is ultimately more important for a game than pure fluff. 9 would make it even harder to kill for say Orks who don't get easy access to S9 guns*.

*I'm aware we get higher strength anti-armor but that tends to be melee which I value quite a bit lower than shooty killyness.

 Castozor wrote:
...sheer size should count for something as well...

There are three measures of durability in 40k. Toughness, Wounds, and Save. Two of those (Toughness and Wounds) are already measures of sheer size. If you make the third a measure of sheer size you might as well start consolidating stats to avoid having three numbers on the statline that mean pretty much the same thing.

Actually bigger armour plates are easier to penetrate than smaller ones. So is absolutely plausible and lorefull for Terminator Armour to be much more harder and difficult to penetrate than the Baneblade platings.

But the baneblade can sustain so much more punishement and is harder to inflict damage upon once the armour fails than a Terminator with his T4 and 2W.

Baneblades are fine, they're very durable and 3+ is fine on them, they weren't AV14 all around like the LR and the sheer amount of wounds they have shores up that weakness enough in my opinion.

The bigger issue we have are Knights and other superheavies (which mostly belong to IOM as us Tyranids can go suck one with our terrible Superheavy MC's) have made everyone NEED to bring the firepower to take down knights and baneblades, and then you have the Castellan which has no place with a 3++ AT ALL. my Chaos Daemons were hit with a limit of 4++ from a stratagem, why Castellan can stack up to a 3++ is beyond me.

A side rant though, Baneblades are incredibly competitive compared to virtually any MC I could field as a Tyranid, and I do feel Tyranids deserve T9 far more (yes yes, organic creature but we all know they don't play by normal biological rules or laws). T9 and 3+ save (and 5++) would be fine on the Tyranid knight equivs (Hirodules, barbed and scythed and which are laughably awful compared to knights) and T9 on the Heirophant, not that he should ever see regular play at 1800 points.

With that much gun and reasonable survability Baneblades are fine. Knights necessitating overwhelming fire power is the issue

The current stat lines and use of d6's is too limiting, it's why we need so many special rules.
I'd altar the stats completely and use d12's instead of d6's, but then I guess that'd be a different game.

Gir Spirit Bane wrote:
Baneblades are fine, they're very durable and 3+ is fine on them, they weren't AV14 all around like the LR and the sheer amount of wounds they have shores up that weakness enough in my opinion.

leopard wrote:
Landraider was AV14 all round, Baneblade had weaker armour at the rear

converting to saves the 2+ on the Land Raider and 3+ on the baneblade makes sense to me

Hrm, thats something of an awkward thing to measure against, this sort of thing evolves through editions, as once the Leman Russ had identical armor to Land Raiders and Leman Russ Demolishers had even better armor than a Land Raider going back to 2E, while the Baneblade was such an overwhelming monster of a vehicle that it wasn't even playable without special rules for most of the game's existence. Ultimately I think the 2+sv of the Land Raider is really more of a gimmick to make it feel special than anything really formulaic about converting the 3E era armor values to 8E Toughness.

Ultimately I don't think it really matters much either way as long as the unit functions. I think the bigger issue with Baneblade type units, aside from the aforementioned Knights, is that half the variants are under-gunned and never get used as a result.

EDIT: another thought did hit me, by comparison, the Baneblade is actually comparatively weaker than in any previous edition, next to a Knight or Russ tank, it's substantially easier to kill than in the 3E era, where the AV14/13/12 HP9 Baneblade had 50% more HP than a AV13/12/12 HP6 Knight and triple the HP of a AV14/13/12 Russ, while now the Baneblade and Knight are have practically identical stats and the Baneblade only has about twice the HP of a Russ. Something to think about.

Making Knight invuls weaker won't make a baneblade feel better in comparison because a knights base profile is essentially the same. If you can kill a knight with a 5++ you can kill a baneblade with a bit less firepower.

Baneblade should either get a 2+ or a 5++. A bigger vehicle will inherently have thicker armor. A 2+ save gives you a 5 vs plasma and lascannons and a 6 vs melta and lance weapons. That would help a lot without breaking the IG feel by giving it an invul.

Or better yet, give it a special rule that reduces damage per shot like a wave serpent. Fluff wise it's from being a giant t, anabolic tank. That would make it very resistant to being wore down by plasma and disintegrators but still vulnerable to big hits like castellan volcano guns and shafowsword cannons(which they should be)

Baneblades are still quite overgunned, imo. I still think they are too cheap for their firepower. They'd have go up in points considerably or lose firepower to gain additional defenses.

Bring a castellen. Problem solved. -love GW

Baneblade aren't overgunned. You can take 3-4 russes for the same price and have more damage output vs most targets, more wounds, and distributed threats.

Shafowsword will still out damage smaller tanks vs Titanic's, and the FW buff tanks will boost a baneblade up past a squad of russes

Martel732 wrote:
Baneblades are still quite overgunned, imo. I still think they are too cheap for their firepower. They'd have go up in points considerably or lose firepower to gain additional defenses.

They're only cheap if they don't have that insane firepower. A Shadowsword basically deletes 1 tank per turn... but 400 points of tank commanders would do that just as well. It's real value is in putting massive damage on other Titanic units, since 2D6 damage per hit is super overkill against anything with less than 20 wounds. If you give it the extra bolters / lascannons that make it have insane firepower, then it's cost goes up significantly, those sponsons are 34 points each. A fully upgunned Shadowsword has less firepower than a Knight Castellan, costs about the same, and is significantly less survivable without that 3++ invuln the castellan can get.

The Shadowsword is the only overgunned Baneblade variant. In general, as noted, equivalent points spent on basic Russ tanks (not Tank Commanders) will get you similar or better firepower and substantially more wounds. For the price of a Baneblade's 26 wounds, a trio of Russ tanks gets 36.

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.

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.

Great write up.