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've been thinking recently about the possibility of getting a Baneblade and converting it for the use of my Children of Torment army. IIRC using it in Apoc is completely okay, but what about a game of Escalation?

Would you allow me, as a CSM player, to field a converted and appropriately painted Baneblade in a casual game of Escalation? If the answer is yes, then on what potential conditions?

 SarisKhan wrote:
I've been thinking recently about the possibility of getting a Baneblade and converting it for the use of my Children of Torment army. IIRC using it in Apoc is completely okay, but what about a game of Escalation?

Would you allow me, as a CSM player, to field a converted and appropriately painted Baneblade in a casual game of Escalation? If the answer is yes, then on what potential conditions?

There are no games of escalation, only games of 40K. Since the Baneblade isn't allowed as a Lord of War for Chaos Space Marines, what you're asking is illegal. What you could do however is take your primary detachment from Codex Imperial Guard and get the maximum amount of CSM allies. That way you'd have some Traitor Guard in there and the Baneblade and all the elite Traitor Marines you can cram in. Just consider it a conversion project. The end result will be very good looking.

Of course if you were just playing a completely casual game where we can houserule anything we like, I wouldn't have a problem with it at all, but personally I'd assume you'd eventually want a legal army so you don't have to ask for a permission every time.

The condition would be that it must have no less than 30 spikes and 100 skulls. Anything less will result in me calling you a WAAC TFG.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
The condition would be that it must have no less than 30 spikes and 100 skulls. Anything less will result in me calling you a WAAC TFG.

Exalted.

I would allow it. I was going to say you could just use Fellblade, which would be cooler, fluffier and legal, but apparently Forge World are slowed and have given the Fellblade to every chapter, however minor and underequipped but not the traitor legions who have actual fluff justification for using them. -.- Get your gak together FW, you're the one part of GW still doing great work. I will also add that I would appreciate it if your legion was one more likely to have a Baneblade (for example, Iron Warrior as opposed to Night Lords) and/or if it was modelled as something acquired with some renegade humans (ie cultists) rather than a proper legion vehicle - the Baneblade doesn't look right alongside SM vehicles if it's painted exactly the same imo.

I'm still unsure about the status of Escalation. Is it basically the same as, say, using a Black Legion Supplement?

Spikes, skulls, spiked rams, chains, marks of chaos, spiky spikes... and a Havoc Launcher and Combi-bolter thrown in for good measure

Well, Children of Torment are a part of the Black Legion, which according to the newest fluff, is the largest and most powerful of the Traitor Legions. As such, I think it's pretty likely they'd have a Baneblade or few. Using Cultists/Renegades to man it would be nice and fluffy, I agree.

EDIT: Spelling.

That escalation book is so damn incomplete its not even funny, let alone fluffy, its a model sale.... chaos gets the lord of skulls... space marines get diferent vehicles, formations coming available at drips and drabs, various random models being created via ipad rules... meh. i have for my CSM army, a warhound, a thunderhawk, a baneblade, fellblade and glave.

now how is it as chaos i can only take a Lord Of Skulls, yet eldar get Revenant titans, HAHAHAH ballance right there, not that Superheavies and titans would be considered ballance for 40k

 SarisKhan wrote:
I'm still unsure about the status of Escalation. Is it basically the same as, say, using a Black Legion Supplement?

Spikes, skulls, spiked rams, chains, marks of chaos, spiky spikes... and a Havoc Launcher and Combi-bolter thrown in for good measure

Well, Children of Torment are a part of the Black Legion, which according to the newest fluff, is the largest and most powerful of the Traitor Legions. As such, I think it's pretty likely they'd have a Baneblade or few. Using Cultists/Renegades to man it would be nice and fluffy, I agree.

EDIT: Spelling.

Don't people let you use a FW dreadnought . If they are ok with that , you can take a FW baneblade do they have different rules or something

Makumba wrote:

 SarisKhan wrote:
I'm still unsure about the status of Escalation. Is it basically the same as, say, using a Black Legion Supplement?

Spikes, skulls, spiked rams, chains, marks of chaos, spiky spikes... and a Havoc Launcher and Combi-bolter thrown in for good measure

Well, Children of Torment are a part of the Black Legion, which according to the newest fluff, is the largest and most powerful of the Traitor Legions. As such, I think it's pretty likely they'd have a Baneblade or few. Using Cultists/Renegades to man it would be nice and fluffy, I agree.

EDIT: Spelling.

Don't people let you use a FW dreadnought . If they are ok with that , you can take a FW baneblade do they have different rules or something

Dreadnoughts are in the CSM codex. Bane Blades are a Lord of War choice that follows the Escalation rules, in which you are allowed to take one if, and only if, the primary detachment is IG.

He uses a dreanought with sonic weapons and that is not in the codex .

Makumba wrote:
He uses a dreanought with sonic weapons and that is not in the codex .

Is it a Lord of War? The line about Escalation was the more important one.

Not here , the question here is if opponent is ok with FW or not . considering a lot aren't , he could wave a FW pdf all he wants and people would still didn't let him use it.

But his FW accepting opponents , could accept anything . If they say yes to one FW thing , they have to say yes to all other.

There's a big difference between saying yes to a walker with a different set of a guns, and saying yes to a Super Heavy tank. One does not equate the other.

I would probably let a CSM use a Baneblade though. CSM did get to use Baneblades and whatnot before.

No. This is like asking to use Vendettas and Helldrakes in your Tau army because your own flyers aren't powerful enough.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
There's a big difference between saying yes to a walker with a different set of a guns, and saying yes to a Super Heavy tank. One does not equate the other.

I would probably let a CSM use a Baneblade though. CSM did get to use Baneblades and whatnot before.

If both are FW ,I don't see where the legal difference is suppose to be . You would have to allow FW on unit per unit basis and then you may as well do it w40k models too, In the end you would end up with people refusing to play with anyone who has an army they don't have a good chance to win against.

 Peregrine wrote:
No. This is like asking to use Vendettas and Helldrakes in your Tau army because your own flyers aren't powerful enough.

1. He never said it was for competetiveness. Do not jump to conclusions, it might have been because he liked the model?

2. Vendettas and Heldrakes are overpowered. I fail to see how a Baneblade is overpowered, given that it is just 3 or so Leman Russ packed together into one tank, and priced as such. One quick alpha strike and bommmm it's dead.

I certainly would allow it. Refusing it would make little sense to me, many Baneblades have fallen over the millennia. Gamewise it'd be interesting as well.

But where is the line drawn for overpowered? Shadowswords were frequently deployed as Legion assets in the Great Crusade as well as Baneblades, as well as having fallen into traitor hands. But packing a Destroyer makes its power level decidedly different. I'm not sure I'd extend a blanket allowance of it, and I own a Shadowsword festooned with Nurglings and Death Guard markings. If you say yes to Baneblades, no to Shadowswords because of power level, some might disagree that the baneblade falls under an acceptable power threshold.

 BrotherHaraldus wrote:
stuff was here

he obviously didnt mean it like that, he just meant that you have to follow the rules and the rules dont allow CSM to take baneblades (unless their allied to IG and IG are primary)

But it is a Baneblade, not a Shadowsword. Since it arguably is not overpowered, he should not use that as justification of his opinion. He can play perfectly along the rules if he wishes to, that is not what I am saying. But he said he wouldn't play with the Chaos BB because it is supposedly overpowered. I felt the need to point out that no, it isn't.

 BrotherHaraldus wrote:
But it is a Baneblade, not a Shadowsword. Since it arguably is not overpowered, he should not use that as justification of his opinion. He can play perfectly along the rules if he wishes to, that is not what I am saying. But he said he wouldn't play with the Chaos BB because it is supposedly overpowered. I felt the need to point out that no, it isn't.

No, that's not at all what I said. My argument does not depend on it being overpowered.

And whether the Baneblade is overpowered or not is a matter of opinion. And I think that when the Baneblade is clearly superior to its points in LRBTs or similar tanks there's a pretty good argument that it is overpowered.

I take the view that 40K Esculation can not be played without including the FW list, so yes.

Makumba wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
There's a big difference between saying yes to a walker with a different set of a guns, and saying yes to a Super Heavy tank. One does not equate the other.

I would probably let a CSM use a Baneblade though. CSM did get to use Baneblades and whatnot before.

If both are FW ,I don't see where the legal difference is suppose to be . You would have to allow FW on unit per unit basis and then you may as well do it w40k models too, In the end you would end up with people refusing to play with anyone who has an army they don't have a good chance to win against.

The baneblade isn't forgeworld. GW sells them now.

 Mr Morden wrote:
I take the view that 40K Esculation can not be played without including the FW list, so yes.

The FW lords of war list doesn't give chaos access to the Baneblade either.

I'd like to get a Baneblade because I like both the model and the tank itself. Also, what alternatives I have in this regard? Lord of Skulls, in a Slaaneshi army? Nope, thanks. Warhound titan? It costs more £ than my entire current army and then some.

Thanks for your feedback, anyway, it helps me estimate the potential reaction of other players. As Makumba said, my regular gaming friends would have no problem at all with me fielding a Baneblade, so I'm more interested about the opinion of other people.

It probably wont fly in anything more then a REALLY causal game with your friends.


Because once you cross that line, where do you stop?

The FoC is fragile enough without braking it further.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
I take the view that 40K Esculation can not be played without including the FW list, so yes.

The FW lords of war list doesn't give chaos access to the Baneblade either.

Realy - ah well missed that - I would still allow it as I would allow pretty much all FW models .........can;t think of one I would not.

I'd be fine with it even as pure CSM, however it would probably be more fluffy if you were CSM with an allied IG detachment, then you'd just have a slight fudging of the rules to have the lord of war from the allied detachment instead of from the main. Under no circumstance shall you ever take a Khornemower to a game. Basically any fudging of the rules is allowed to avoid that horrible situation. Though there is a great conversion involving the Dreamforge Leviathan that makes it palatable.

Alternately, you could look at IG main and CSM allied. With double FOC you might still have ample room for all the CSM you need? I'm hugely partial to renegade guard allies for CSM though.

For me is obviously a YES.

People keep forgetting the rules of the game. There is nothing "illegal" in fielding a Chaos Baneblade. People are supposed to adapt the list when something is missing.

Regarding using superheavies with AA: this is taken from GW Customer Services:
"We do not produce a super-heavy vehicle for the Adepta Sororitas, so there is not a specific army model for them. However you do have the option to add any of the super-heavy vehicles or gargantuan creatures that we currently produce to your Adepta Sororitas army.

For example if you wanted to use a Doom Hammer or a Thunderhawk with you Sister's you are free to do so."

If it is a properly modelled model, what is the problem? It is not overpowered at all, it is fluffy, it looks great...

 BoomWolf wrote:
It probably wont fly in anything more then a REALLY causal game with your friends.
Because once you cross that line, where do you stop?

The FoC is fragile enough without braking it further.

You mean the FoC from the Rulebook? Or one you are using that, for some reason, does not accept house rules?

Page 108, Rulebook 6th edition, "The Army List" entry.
"With the points limit agreed, players need to pick their forces. The best way to do this is to make use of the army list in the relevant codex, although, of course, players are free to either adapt the army lists or use their own system as they wish."


Automatically Appended Next Post:
In a best-case situation, it would be an awesome conversion so chaotic is no longer possible to identify it, playing using the "count-as" rule.

I'd allow it if it were properly modeled to be all Chaos-y. To be honest, Escalation is a stepping stone to allow you to further the games you're playing. If you and your friends throw up a house rule for it by all means, go for it.

Lord of skulls is.. well... garbage in my opinion, and definitely doesn't fit your Slaaneshy tastes I'd guess. Also, I don't like the idea of taking IG as your primary to open up the Lord of War as it will probably soak up any points you'd be able to use for your army.

Just always remember the most important rule when playing. Talk before the game, see that your opponent is fine with it, then make your purchase and fire away.

Couldn't you just run IG with chaos allies? Run cheap HQ and 2 units of 10 cultists (guard) then do whatever you want with your CSM.

Bam, completely legal way to do this, and it only costs you like 150pt more than otherwise.

Depending on the remainder of his composition, he's out a lot of options for his Chaos army. Down to 1 HQ, 1 Elite, 2 Troops, 1 Fast Attack, and 1 Heavy Support... not so great if your main army is the one that you have to ally in.