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 at
Longtime Dakkanaut




I've recently made a thread about houseruling Ophydian Destroyers, but we have another unit in my little meta that feels really, really weak for its cost...which is the mighty baneblade.

I do not understand why this thing is so squishy while being this expensive. It's just really, really easy to shoot it off the board.

To counteract this me and my gaming group have come to the consensus of giving the baneblade the following buffs:

- improve its toughness to T9
- improve the save to 2+

We've decided against giving it an invulnerable save, because it really does not fit the baneblade as far as we understood it. It doesn't have any shield technology or anything in the lore as far as I can remember, it's just a massively bigger and more heavily armored Leman Russ basically....so a 2+ save and T9 better represents that fact. At least that was our train of thought.

I'd just like to get some additional opinions on whether you think these buffs would be too strong.
   
Made in us
Monster-Slaying Daemonhunter




I think the BaneBlade is a lost cause. Especially in 9th. Although, I have seen others do a special 1CP stratagem that lets the BB fire at BS 2. It's easy to justify. They have literally the best targeting equipment in the entire Mars line up. I've also seen them do a 1CP or Once per game, If the BB doesn't move this turn, regain up to 1d6 wounds. Call it Mechanicus Healing. All BBs have a Mars Tech Adept aboard them anyway.
   
Made in at
Longtime Dakkanaut




FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I think the BaneBlade is a lost cause. Especially in 9th. Although, I have seen others do a special 1CP stratagem that lets the BB fire at BS 2. It's easy to justify. They have literally the best targeting equipment in the entire Mars line up. I've also seen them do a 1CP or Once per game, If the BB doesn't move this turn, regain up to 1d6 wounds. Call it Mechanicus Healing. All BBs have a Mars Tech Adept aboard them anyway.


I like that idea, making the baneblade more consistent once per game or something like that, but it would still die really easily. Imo it shouldn't be possible to shoot such an expensive lord of war from the table that easily.
   
Made in us
Monster-Slaying Daemonhunter




That's just it, the Baneblade is the epitome of Glass Cannon. It can down a knight in one turn, and even a lesser titan, if it's a Shadowsword shooting it. It was never meant to exist on the table for all 5 rounds. Also, it was "designed" around the play style of 7th/8th, when super heavy vehicles and massive shooting platforms were king. It's a relic of a by-gone era, one that I'm sad to see go. I hated the shootiness of 8th, but I LOVE my Shadowsword model.
   
Made in us
Daemonic Dreadnought




The dark hollows of Kentucky

A 2+ save would be a big help for Baneblades and the other Guard super heavy tanks. I'd start there. If you go for T9 as well, make sure you're opponent knows what they're getting into. That means lascannons are wounding it on 4s, and S8 AT weapons like multi-meltas and dark lances are wounding it on 5s. I always explained that to a potential opponent in 8th when my Fellblade was T9. It can be a game changer if the best their army can do is S8. I'd consider a points drop as well, the Guard super heavies are currently overpriced.

Super Heavy tanks can still do fine in 9th. My Fellblade gets work done, and it's T8 26W just like a Baneblade. But it has a 2+ and access to the Smokescreen stratagem. Maybe consider allowing the Baneblade to be affected by Orders, so it can benefit from Strike and Shroud?
   
Made in us
Monster-Slaying Daemonhunter




The Fellblade is for SM only right? You can't field the Fell Blade in a Guard detatchment, I may likely be wrong about that. But there is a great difference between a Fellblade and a Baneblade. Shooting alone, the Fellblade is a 3+BS, versus a 4+ for the guard version. Also it's accelerator cannon is about the same as a double shooting Volcano cannon, then it has 8 Lascannons versus 4 on the guard tank.

Yeah, the Fellblade is NOT a Baneblade, I don't care what you say. I might a well say a Predator is the same as a Chimera.
   
Made in us
Daemonic Dreadnought




The dark hollows of Kentucky

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
The Fellblade is for SM only right? You can't field the Fell Blade in a Guard detatchment, I may likely be wrong about that. But there is a great difference between a Fellblade and a Baneblade. Shooting alone, the Fellblade is a 3+BS, versus a 4+ for the guard version. Also it's accelerator cannon is about the same as a double shooting Volcano cannon, then it has 8 Lascannons versus 4 on the guard tank.

Yeah, the Fellblade is NOT a Baneblade, I don't care what you say. I might a well say a Predator is the same as a Chimera.

The Accelerator Cannon is actually mathematically inferior to the Baneblade Cannon, and definitely isn't "the same as a double shooting Volcano cannon". In fact, the Falchion's twin Volcano cannon is inferior to the Shadowsword's single Volcano cannon. Maybe you should know the rules for the units before you compare them?

If you fire every gun on a quad lascannon equipped Fellblade and a 4 sponson Baneblade at a T8 3+ target they deal roughly the equivalent number of unsaved wounds (actually, last time I did it the Baneblade won by a slim margin) if both are in their top brackets.

Giving the Baneblade access to Orders and a 2+ save would give it equal durability and firepower to a Fellblade.
   
Made in us
Monster-Slaying Daemonhunter




I forgot the BB cannon is S9 shooting, I thought it was S8. I freely admit I was wrong. I still say BS3 vs BS4 makes a significant difference, also make it IH and it can heal a ton each round. The IG have no real great heals for their heavy tanks.

In any event, the likely best way to make the BB and it's variants viable is to give it more health, or better BS.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




T9 is a pretty rough breaking point for some armies. For my craftworlders, that means that almost all of my dedicated anti-tank guns will only wound you 1/3rd of the time, and a 2+ save means you'll get a save even against things like bright lances

Add on the standard astopath buffs of -1 to hit and +1 to saves, and I worry you end up creating a potentially unpleasant experience.

If your goal is to make the baneblade more worth its points, then maybe you'd be better off just lowering its points? If your goal is to make it "feel right," then...
A.) You'd have to define just how killy and durable you think it should be and...
B.) Ask yourself if that level of killy/durable is going to be fun to play against.

I'm a bit biased against superheavies in general. For them to feel as impressive as their fluff makes them out to be, you have to make them so powerful that they risk being a bad fit for the scale of 40k.
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran





Wyldhunt wrote:
For them to feel as impressive as their fluff makes them out to be, you have to make them so powerful that they risk being a bad fit for the scale of 40k.


This is why they should have stayed APOC only and never been added to regular games.
   
Made in at
Longtime Dakkanaut




Thanks for all the suggestions so far, it really helps.

Veldrain wrote:
Wyldhunt wrote:
For them to feel as impressive as their fluff makes them out to be, you have to make them so powerful that they risk being a bad fit for the scale of 40k.


This is why they should have stayed APOC only and never been added to regular games.


I get that point, I'm not that keen on superheavies in 40k either. But isn't there a fine line between making a model "feel" right and going overboard with making it fit their fluff?

Our main goal was that the guy in our group who plays guard, has less feelbad moment with his baneblade, cause he really loves that model and likes to play it. T9 was maybe too big of a step, though we still might give it a go once or twice to see how our meta can handle it.

In my opinion the 2+ save is a given, I don't see how it was ever written with 3+ save in the first place...makes absolutely no sense to me.

If we houserule it just with a 2+ save, would you also make it a bit cheaper? And if so, by how much?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/26 06:16:14


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Tiberias wrote:

I get that point, I'm not that keen on superheavies in 40k either. But isn't there a fine line between making a model "feel" right and going overboard with making it fit their fluff?

Maybe. There's a section in an eldar novel where a scorpion superheavy tank wipes out a bunch of tanks and entrenched infantry in a single salvo. So if the fantasy I'm trying to convey mechanically is, "Wipes out about 2,000 points of enemy army in one turn," you can see where that's going to be tricky to balance.

If we houserule it just with a 2+ save, would you also make it a bit cheaper? And if so, by how much?

You could probably get away with that. I can't think of a unit with comparable wounds and durability that is considered well-priced, so suggesting a pricetag is kind of tricky. You could probably give it a 2+ save and lower its points by 10% and adjust from there after a few games.

Alternatively, how would you feel about leaving the armor save and points alone and just upping its wounds? Increasing wounds gives it more durability, but it doesn't reduce the likelihood that your opponent's weapons will do damage; it just makes each point of damage a smaller portion of the whole. It's usually less frustrating for your opponent if they can perceive that they're making progress whereas improving its save or toughness can cause your opponent to feel like they're not accomplishing as much as they'd like. Narratively, the wounds being lost can represent the ablative armor being blasted off before the enemy fire starts penetrating enough to hit something important. So it's not that the metal used to build a baneblade is significantly more durable than the metal used to make a leman russ. There's just more of it.
   
Made in au
Dakka Veteran




I wouldn't give a Baneblade T9 or an invul. What I'd do is:

- Give it 28 wounds
- Give it a 2+ Save against ranged attacks and a 3+ Save in melee.
- Give it BS3+

Stratagems:
- Allow it to use the Relentless stratagem for 2CP

That should be enough to make it more viable in most games. Other ways to buff it are:

- Give it a single pair of sponsons for free.
- -1 damage (minimum 1)
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Jarms48 wrote:
I wouldn't give a Baneblade T9 or an invul. What I'd do is:

- Give it 28 wounds
- Give it a 2+ Save against ranged attacks and a 3+ Save in melee.
- Give it BS3+

Other than just giving it a points reduction, this seems like a reasonable direction to go in.

Also, for the sake of discussion, what do people think of giving superheavies weapons that get less effective up close? So for instance, we could make a shadowsword BS3+ and make its main gun nice and killy, but we could also give it a special rule stating that it never hits on better than a 5+ against targets within 24" or better than a 6+ against targets with engagement range. The idea being that such weapons are really intended to fire over huge distances at large targets or general areas rather than at specific enemies. Up close, the turret just doesn't turn all that quickly, and the targeting software is out of its element.

Or similarly, you could say that such weapons never hit on better than a 5 when fired against non-titanic targets. The shadowsword is great at targeting and hurting something in the weight class of a knight, but it's just not designed to target something as small as a tank.

Maybe some of the superheavy blast weapons could become more of a deathstrike or orbital bombardment type effect. That is, you target a point on the table, and then enemy units still standing there at the start of your next shooting phase get hit. This might be a way of capturing that "kill 2,000 points in one volley" feeling I described above while still leaving room for counterplay. If the enemy scorpion points its main weapon near objective 3, you'd better get all of your squishy units away from objective 3. This could make big guns an interesting zoning tool and make mobility feel more important. Heck. I wouldn't mind seeing that kind of mechanic brought down to non-superheavy options. Making the master of ordnance's attack bigger and more impactful but putting it on a delay seems very appropriate.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut



London

I like the tank in Epic, in short it has the survivability of 3 leman russ, but slightly different firepower.

Spoiler:
(If you are curious it was -note in Epic if you get a hit the target has to save or its dead, or a baneblade in which case it has to fail its save 3 times from 3 different hits- the following, with most shots you have to chose if you are shooting at tanks AT or infantry AP.
75cm 2 × AP3+/AT3+
45cm AP5+/AT6+
45cm 2 x AT5+
30cm AP3+/AT4+, Ignore Cover
30cm 3 x AP4+

3 standard Leman russ were
75cm 3 x AP4+ / AT4+
45cm 3 x AT5+
30cm 6 x AP5+

Baneblades were better if surrounded but also 75% of the speed of a 'Russ, which meant they spent a lot of time rushing and getting -1 to hit)


For 40k that would mean assuming you think the firepower is similar (Russ with sponsons vs Baneblade with sponsons)

Spoiler:
(Is it?
72" Heavy (6)D6 8 -2 D3 Blast - 3 tanks can shoot 6 times with main gun
48" Heavy 3 9 -3 D6
36" Heavy 18 5 -1 2
vs
72" Heavy 3D6 9 -3 3 Blast
48" Heavy 2 7 -1 2
48" Heavy 2 9 -3 D6
36" Heavy 18 5 -1 2
24" Heavy D6 10 -3 D6 Blast)


you would either up the wounds to 32 or drop the points to 420 (the latter is perhaps better). Of course there is a lot more going on and the effectiveness of armour in general but it would be a start...

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/09/27 03:09:18


 
   
Made in gb
Lord of the Fleet






London

I'm wondering if to add a bit of variety we reintroduce the armour panel rule it used to have. For a modest point cost, you can swap the sponsons for the armour giving you a 5+ FNP?

   
Made in us
Monster-Slaying Daemonhunter




A 5+++ would do almost nothing, it's not like these die to heavy AT fire. They die to mass cheap shooting or melee that is AP2 or better. What is, in the worst possible scenario, the Baneblade's worst enemy? It's not a squad of Devestators, it's a squad of Wytches or a squad of Wulfen, or a squad of BA Assault Intercessors.

The main thing this unit needs, is the ability to fire all it's guns in melee.
   
Made in au
Dakka Veteran




 Valkyrie wrote:
I'm wondering if to add a bit of variety we reintroduce the armour panel rule it used to have. For a modest point cost, you can swap the sponsons for the armour giving you a 5+ FNP?


This is one of the reasons I suggest we bake in the 1st pair of sponsons for free. Then you could swap the sponsons out for a durability buff.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
A 5+++ would do almost nothing, it's not like these die to heavy AT fire. They die to mass cheap shooting or melee that is AP2 or better. What is, in the worst possible scenario, the Baneblade's worst enemy? It's not a squad of Devestators, it's a squad of Wytches or a squad of Wulfen, or a squad of BA Assault Intercessors.

The main thing this unit needs, is the ability to fire all it's guns in melee.

Is that true? I don't face baneblades every day, but I do face them. And when I kill them, it's usually with dark lances or dark reapers.

Also, doesn't the strat that lets you hit on 2+ in melee still exist?
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







Baneblades literally CAN fire all their guns in melee, just not always at the melee target.

I think durability is their main problem.
   
Made in us
Tough-as-Nails Ork Boy




Honestly, I'd slap on a 2+ armor save, Toughness 9 and perhaps a few more wounds. A baneblade should dominate the battlefield its on. The baneblade as a whole should have serious firepower.

Hell, the turret's main gun should be shockingly accurate and have enough serious punch to kill a tank like an opposing Predator, Leman Russ or other medium tank with a single shot. Thing should be fearsome in shooting. As it stands, the game is odd about how it represents large caliber cannons, and mixes the properties of their HE and AP munitions. I'd give it split profiles, one which is a huge AP shell which should kill tanks, and seriously damage Knights if it goes through perhaps give it a rule where it reduces invulns. The other being a massive blast, like 4d6 Strength 6, AP-1 and 2 damage, blast.

If should a weapon was hitting on 2s, which I think should be a mainline feature for all Tanks across all factions when it comes to their turret weapon, they should be above average for their faction given the stability of their platforms and the excellent weapon sights of their main guns. Call it "trademarkium Optic" on the Baneblade and give its main gun BS 2+.

If the baneblade doesn't get regimental traits (which I'd fix by say Super Heavy Aux detachments can only get the same subfaction trait as the Warlord) then it needs to be able to stand alone and be a viable thing in a game where if a squad with a bunch of Melta's gets too close they can cripple or kill it.
   
Made in us
Monster-Slaying Daemonhunter




If we give the Baneblade T9 we have to give the Land Raider T9, the Knights T9, and the other Lords of War Vehicles T9. The Baneblade is not the largest thing on most battlefields. They are also supposed to exceedingly rare. Even Armageddon, didn't have any in their unit listings, If the Wiki is to be believed. To field a unit of Baneblades, it requires the direct authorization of the Adeptus Mechanicus, as they all technically belong to them.

Give them a self heal(Don't shoot for a turn) ability and drop their cost variant wide by 45-60 points.
   
Made in at
Longtime Dakkanaut




FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
If we give the Baneblade T9 we have to give the Land Raider T9, the Knights T9, and the other Lords of War Vehicles T9. The Baneblade is not the largest thing on most battlefields. They are also supposed to exceedingly rare. Even Armageddon, didn't have any in their unit listings, If the Wiki is to be believed. To field a unit of Baneblades, it requires the direct authorization of the Adeptus Mechanicus, as they all technically belong to them.

Give them a self heal(Don't shoot for a turn) ability and drop their cost variant wide by 45-60 points.


Why? Knights can distinguish themselves from other superheavies by having an invuln. The baneblades unique selling proposition could be T9.
   
Made in us
Monster-Slaying Daemonhunter




Because if the Justification for the BB needing a T9 upgrade is that it's a GIANT Lord of War, then that breaks the current Meta.

Knights do get a Invuln, but they also have an incredibly difficult time scoring objectives in 9th, and are basically useless as a stand alone Army. IG have no such issues, with a plethora of cheap units that can hold objectives fairly well.

I assume if you include a BB or some variant in your army, your army list is not three Baneblades and a few squads of troops? That would be the only way to compare yourselves to knights.

I don't see how you make Knight level units compatible with 9th, without turning the Meta on it's head. They are easily destroyed by most AT weapons or just flat out high wound massed melee, they don't have their own version of ObSec, and they cost a full quarter of most lists. Either relagate them to Apoc or don't push them anymore.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







But some people DO run 3-baneblade lists

*Cries*
   
Made in us
Insect-Infested Nurgle Chaos Lord





In My Lab

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
If we give the Baneblade T9 we have to give the Land Raider T9, the Knights T9, and the other Lords of War Vehicles T9. The Baneblade is not the largest thing on most battlefields. They are also supposed to exceedingly rare. Even Armageddon, didn't have any in their unit listings, If the Wiki is to be believed. To field a unit of Baneblades, it requires the direct authorization of the Adeptus Mechanicus, as they all technically belong to them.

Give them a self heal(Don't shoot for a turn) ability and drop their cost variant wide by 45-60 points.
A self-heal that requires them to not shoot would be basically useless, unless it's literally a full heal.

It's very possible to take a Baneblade or other SuperHeavy from full to dead in one turn-if it's clinging to life with, say, 5 wounds, healing d6 of them won't contribute nearly as much as a round of shooting.

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




FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Because if the Justification for the BB needing a T9 upgrade is that it's a GIANT Lord of War, then that breaks the current Meta.

Knights do get a Invuln, but they also have an incredibly difficult time scoring objectives in 9th, and are basically useless as a stand alone Army. IG have no such issues, with a plethora of cheap units that can hold objectives fairly well.

I assume if you include a BB or some variant in your army, your army list is not three Baneblades and a few squads of troops? That would be the only way to compare yourselves to knights.

I don't see how you make Knight level units compatible with 9th, without turning the Meta on it's head. They are easily destroyed by most AT weapons or just flat out high wound massed melee, they don't have their own version of ObSec, and they cost a full quarter of most lists. Either relagate them to Apoc or don't push them anymore.


Again, you paint a picture of only black and white. GW can make knights a stand alone army in 9th if they get the proper rules like counting for multiple obsec models when on a point.
I'm not the biggest fan of knights in 40k, but they are here now and they are not going anywhere.

I still don't see how T9 would break the meta, since we both agree that currently it's really rather easy shooting a lord of war like the baneblade from the table. T9 wouldn't suddenly make it impossible.

Sure you could just give the baneblade more wounds instead of T9, I'm not against that at all and I'll probably tinker with it a bit, but I just don't think T9 would be such a gamebreaker.

So the only thing we'll houserule for sure is the 2+ save, everything else we'll tinker around with a bit.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/28 17:31:05


 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







Even then, the enemy could just stunlock the baneblade until you get frustrated and decide not to heal it, and then it gets one shooting phase before being deleted. (which is literally the same as just Strategic Reserving it but with more steps)

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/28 17:26:54


 
   
Made in us
Monster-Slaying Daemonhunter




Yeah, I guess T9 would still fall victim to any SM Redemptor Dreadnaughts with plasma cannons and fists no more than 3 turns before it pops. Less if they are DA or BA. I don't know what could help this, except not being in Competitive 40k. Move it to Apoc only games. As others have said.
   
Made in us
Daemonic Dreadnought




The dark hollows of Kentucky

Jarms48 wrote:
I wouldn't give a Baneblade T9 or an invul. What I'd do is:

- Give it 28 wounds
- Give it a 2+ Save against ranged attacks and a 3+ Save in melee.
- Give it BS3+

Stratagems:
- Allow it to use the Relentless stratagem for 2CP

I agree with most of this. I wouldn't give Baneblades BS3, firepower isn't their problem. They're already on the high end of firepower compared to similar LoWs. Their problem is durability. So I'd give them a 2+ save, ability to benefit from Orders so they can use Strike and Shroud (and allow its Smoke Launchers to be used more than once per battle), and allow them to use Relentless. That way they'd be both harder to kill and capable of operating at peak efficiency even when bracketed.
   
 
Forum Index » 40K Proposed Rules
Go to: