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.

Every game I've feielded my revenant - and it's seen about 30. (Mostly apocalypse) it's ran the table. The list of super heavy kills it has is so long I don't bother keeping track. The thing is crazy efficant. For apoc that's awsome, and I have had games where it's been destroyed. Usually when I face 4+ SH. It just can't keep up with the incoming fire and goes down. But not before it takes out a solid chunk of the enemy. In a normal game..... It would be very hard to stop. Not even the new tau triple cannon thing from FW or the armless wonder would do much I reckon. - for that reason I don't think it belongs in normal games. Mine stays in its display case beside the phantom, unless someone asks to fight it. I certainly would not take it to a tournament or "offical" match. I like to win.... But not like that. Good? Yes. Over powered - no. But I believe it was designed for apoc, facing off against legions of baneblades, warhounds and stompas. 7th brought it out of its home and introduced it to "normal" games. It's not over powered or broke. But it is an invasive species.

How do you know the Baneblade is perfectly costed. You have everything coming from that one data point, but even then it is a datapoint that you are putting faith in that is balanced by GW.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
So, you're saying that units that were originally intended for Apocalypse games are overpowered in standard 40k? That's been known for awhile. Warhound Titans are a good example of this too.

to be fair to the warhound here at the current arms race acceleration going on in the current meta especially with many tournaments opening up to lords of war the warhound will probably look pretty tame within the next 5 years. in fact your porbably going to see players treat that as entry level seal clubbing. assuming anyone continues to buy into games workshops ludicrous price jacking at that point

 Quickjager wrote:
How do you know the Baneblade is perfectly costed. You have everything coming from that one data point, but even then it is a datapoint that you are putting faith in that is balanced by GW.

The baneblade has never been complained about as being too powerful. So it was one of my balance points for superheavies when I designed the system.

Av: 90 points
9hull points: 200
Baneblade cannon: 160
Autocannon: 15
Demolisher cannon: 40
Twinlinked heavy bolter: 15
Total: 520 points

Darhspader, if you were to change the 6 on the destroyer table to d3+3 hullpoints/wounds you would see a huge gap closed between the superheavies that do and don't have those calliber of weapons.

 DarthSpader wrote:
Every game I've feielded my revenant - and it's seen about 30. (Mostly apocalypse) it's ran the table. The list of super heavy kills it has is so long I don't bother keeping track. The thing is crazy efficant. For apoc that's awsome, and I have had games where it's been destroyed. Usually when I face 4+ SH. It just can't keep up with the incoming fire and goes down. But not before it takes out a solid chunk of the enemy. In a normal game..... It would be very hard to stop. Not even the new tau triple cannon thing from FW or the armless wonder would do much I reckon. - for that reason I don't think it belongs in normal games. Mine stays in its display case beside the phantom, unless someone asks to fight it. I certainly would not take it to a tournament or "offical" match. I like to win.... But not like that. Good? Yes. Over powered - no. But I believe it was designed for apoc, facing off against legions of baneblades, warhounds and stompas. 7th brought it out of its home and introduced it to "normal" games. It's not over powered or broke. But it is an invasive species.

Good post! I don't have the experience to agree, but I have the confidence to defer.

Own one and in anything other than a APOC game or a massive play game; which I guess is still APOC with no special scenerio rules, it is far to stupid to field. on occasion people can get lucky and take it down, but more offten than not the holofield just seems to ignore anything shot into it.

 ionusx wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
So, you're saying that units that were originally intended for Apocalypse games are overpowered in standard 40k? That's been known for awhile. Warhound Titans are a good example of this too.

to be fair to the warhound here at the current arms race acceleration going on in the current meta especially with many tournaments opening up to lords of war the warhound will probably look pretty tame within the next 5 years. in fact your porbably going to see players treat that as entry level seal clubbing. assuming anyone continues to buy into games workshops ludicrous price jacking at that point

I'd figure most would just make card board titans to varying levels of success. You know, just like in regular apocalypse.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:

 Quickjager wrote:
How do you know the Baneblade is perfectly costed. You have everything coming from that one data point, but even then it is a datapoint that you are putting faith in that is balanced by GW.

The baneblade has never been complained about as being too powerful. So it was one of my balance points for superheavies when I designed the system.

Av: 90 points
9hull points: 200
Baneblade cannon: 160
Autocannon: 15
Demolisher cannon: 40
Twinlinked heavy bolter: 15
Total: 520 points

Darhspader, if you were to change the 6 on the destroyer table to d3+3 hullpoints/wounds you would see a huge gap closed between the superheavies that do and don't have those calliber of weapons.

I would argue that the Baneblade is overcosted for what it does. It's main gun suffers heavily from not having ignores cover as most of the time half the wounds it causes just goes away and it can't deal with even regular monstrous creatures effectively. It should be a lot cheaper.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:

 Quickjager wrote:
How do you know the Baneblade is perfectly costed. You have everything coming from that one data point, but even then it is a datapoint that you are putting faith in that is balanced by GW.

The baneblade has never been complained about as being too powerful. So it was one of my balance points for superheavies when I designed the system.

Av: 90 points
9hull points: 200
Baneblade cannon: 160
Autocannon: 15
Demolisher cannon: 40
Twinlinked heavy bolter: 15
Total: 520 points

Darhspader, if you were to change the 6 on the destroyer table to d3+3 hullpoints/wounds you would see a huge gap closed between the superheavies that do and don't have those calliber of weapons.

Why the hell is the baneblade cannon so expensive? It hardly does anything. I would rather have a Basilisk - it has a longer range, 3 more hullpoints, doesn't require LOS, can still shoot at a separate target, and can buy camo netting all for cheaper than the one gun of a Baneblade .

Wut.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh also the basilisk ignores intervening terrain for cover saves.

I feel once things get Titan shaped, use should be agreed upon before you pull it out of nowhere. It is kind of a gak move to pull on someone unsuspecting.

"Hey, I want to try out my Titan for a game, would you be down?"

See it's not that hard to do and at least I know I will be going into a game where I will pretty much pick up my army I just deployed on turn 1.

So who here actually believes a Revenant is balanced in a regular game of 40k ?

 Dozer Blades wrote:
So who here actually believes a Revenant is balanced in a regular game of 40k ?

Apparently the OP due to the fact that it is costed fairly in games involving much larger boards. Also, it helps if you houserule D to be weaker. And the OP came to this conclusion using custom rules that he made up.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
So who here actually believes a Revenant is balanced in a regular game of 40k ?

Back when wyches had haywire grenades there was some balance. A little. Maybe.

 Vash108 wrote:
I feel once things get Titan shaped, use should be agreed upon before you pull it out of nowhere. It is kind of a gak move to pull on someone unsuspecting.

"Hey, I want to try out my Titan for a game, would you be down?"

See it's not that hard to do and at least I know I will be going into a game where I will pretty much pick up my army I just deployed on turn 1.

I did that for my first two games with my Hellhammer, despite it being overcosted. My opponent got over his trepidation relating to SH vehicles by me allowing him to tailor his list.

Now he just sees it as a really big Leman Russ

 Selym wrote:

 Vash108 wrote:
I feel once things get Titan shaped, use should be agreed upon before you pull it out of nowhere. It is kind of a gak move to pull on someone unsuspecting.

"Hey, I want to try out my Titan for a game, would you be down?"

See it's not that hard to do and at least I know I will be going into a game where I will pretty much pick up my army I just deployed on turn 1.

I did that for my first two games with my Hellhammer, despite it being overcosted. My opponent got over his trepidation relating to SH vehicles by me allowing him to tailor his list.

Now he just sees it as a really big Leman Russ

How does a Baneblade compare to a Eldar Titan?

So everyone agrees the Eldar Titan is in fact NOT balanced? Even the OP does when he says it was balanced around larger board size.

 Vash108 wrote:

 Selym wrote:

 Vash108 wrote:
I feel once things get Titan shaped, use should be agreed upon before you pull it out of nowhere. It is kind of a gak move to pull on someone unsuspecting.

"Hey, I want to try out my Titan for a game, would you be down?"

See it's not that hard to do and at least I know I will be going into a game where I will pretty much pick up my army I just deployed on turn 1.

I did that for my first two games with my Hellhammer, despite it being overcosted. My opponent got over his trepidation relating to SH vehicles by me allowing him to tailor his list.

Now he just sees it as a really big Leman Russ

How does a Baneblade compare to a Eldar Titan?

Like a slug compared to a Challenger 2.

The revenant IS balanced. It's just balanced for a game style that is rarely? Played. It's an excellent unit for apoc. It's expensive - for its class and as far as "scout" or small class Titans go, it's got a good mix of offense and defense. It's more an offensive and speedy unit, lacking in armor. Vrs something that's more heavily armored, slower and or less firepower. But it is balanced.

The problems with it:

- 7th really brought super heavies into the "normal" game. This is a mistake.
- when playing a game of 7th using "normal" units wich expect to compete against other "normal units" adding a titan of any kind, is generally bad news.
- this is purely a case of an animal being moved from its natural environment where it has "predators" to keep it in check, into an environment where no such predator exists. Therefore it expands aggressively and without check, causing it to gain the appearance of overpowered. In its intended game style it's perfectly ok and a fun unit to have and play against. But in normal games it quickly dominates because normal stuff is not designed to fight it, or defend against it. The same is said for other SH - the second part of the issue, is unlike some other super heavy / apoc units, the rev actually achieves a pretty good balance and is effective for its cost. So it's impact to normal games is more, then something less efficant.

It's not balanced then, if it's not balanced in a game mode that it's legally allowed in.

True. But it's not the fault of the revenant. And directing hate and vitriol against the rev is misplaced.

Instead blame the people who decided to allow super heavies and Titans into normal games. Who changed the system, and brought in things that were not intended for that system.

If you bring a shark into an area that's never had sharks and have no predator or way to control said shark - is it the Sharks fault when they breed and get out of control? Or is it the fault of the person who brought the shark over in the first place?

It's the later. The rev titan is an amazing model with good rules, and is a blast to use. And even fun to play against if you can bring other super heavies like warhounds or other Titans - it's fairley priced for what it does in those games. But because GW didn't think it through too much when they "unlocked the SH box" for normal games - people go "oh yea I can take this in. Normal games" and do. People who don't expect it and don't build a list or army to deal with it are caught off gaurd - can't deal with it then cry foul.

Issue is not with the rev itself. Changing its rules won't do much more then bandaid a bullet a wound

The issue is this editions rule set that brought them in. Change it back to 5th or earlier, get rid of Superhev / low choices in normal games and the problem goes away.

OR, you could balance the SHV/LOW so that they're fine in low points games, such as the 25% or 33% rule, which restricts most titans to APOC level anyways.

Anything that can be classified as a titan should definitely not be sprung on an unsuspecting opponent.

Nobody believes that destroyer rolls of 6 is balanced. If you lower it to what I say above then other lowlevel superheavies have a decent chance of survival, and may then retaliate.

The baneblade cannon is priced the way it is because it covers a 10" area. That is a huge chunk of board space and could drastically change the outcome of the game the first time it is fired, every game. Comparing it to a basilisk is more than a bit silly...

I admit that the design rules I use for my side of the discussion have been updated by me. But they are not my idea, nor are they some third party offering for how things should be priced. They are a reworked update of the 4th edition design rules given out by games workshop in the late 90's. I went through and addressed issues people had with the original iteration, then balanced it according to the current ruleset to allow people to make their own vehicles. While doing so I was able to start trying to piece together how games workshop priced their units, and began balancing things out for games via my houserules.

I thought that I had something interesting to share in my findings, so I did. That was all.

A 10" pieplate doesn't do diddly, because the opponent knows it's coming. He will spread his units out.

So that means it can kill 5 tactical marines a turn, because combat squads is all he will give you to shoot at that you can kill.

Against vehicles, it does 1 hull point per vehicle under the template if they're not AV13 or 14, in which case it's likely to do nothing at all.

It also has a teeny weeny chance of blowing them up if it penetrates.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
A 10" pieplate doesn't do diddly, because the opponent knows it's coming. He will spread his units out.

So that means it can kill 5 tactical marines a turn, because combat squads is all he will give you to shoot at that you can kill.

Against vehicles, it does 1 hull point per vehicle under the template if they're not AV13 or 14, in which case it's likely to do nothing at all.

It also has a teeny weeny chance of blowing them up if it penetrates.

Even a S 10 AP 1 Ignores Cover 10" blast does little if your opponent is not braindead. I fought against my regular SW player and he just spread things out and deepstruck the Molester Dread to deal with my Stormsword/Hammer/whatever the variant is.
In the whole of the game my SH Assault Gun did a total of: 1HP's worth of damage and a stunned result to a Vindicator, killed off 5 Bloodclaws on jump packs, killed 5 SW devastator equivalents and stripped 2 HP from Molester Dread.

My opponent knew what was coming and played for it.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Anything that can be classified as a titan should definitely not be sprung on an unsuspecting opponent.

Nobody believes that destroyer rolls of 6 is balanced. If you lower it to what I say above then other lowlevel superheavies have a decent chance of survival, and may then retaliate.

The baneblade cannon is priced the way it is because it covers a 10" area. That is a huge chunk of board space and could drastically change the outcome of the game the first time it is fired, every game. Comparing it to a basilisk is more than a bit silly...

I admit that the design rules I use for my side of the discussion have been updated by me. But they are not my idea, nor are they some third party offering for how things should be priced. They are a reworked update of the 4th edition design rules given out by games workshop in the late 90's. I went through and addressed issues people had with the original iteration, then balanced it according to the current ruleset to allow people to make their own vehicles. While doing so I was able to start trying to piece together how games workshop priced their units, and began balancing things out for games via my houserules.

I thought that I had something interesting to share in my findings, so I did. That was all.

Having used the Baneblade, I can confirm that you're way off the mark.
The Baneblade's main gun has a habit of needing a good three hits (discounting cover) to take out a vehicle, and if its targeting infantry, that's because they got into melee range. Once that happens, the Baneblade seems to be made of paper. It's a rather ineffectual vehicle on the TT, and is about 100-200 points overpriced.

Blasts in general suck. A good number of ordinary shots do the same job, are more reliable, and can strip more armor.

I personally think the SHV weapons need more weapons like the Distorter Cannon on the Mechanicus troops. Hits 1 model, does D3 wounds/hp; rather than the easy Template STR: D solution.

 DarthSpader wrote:
True. But it's not the fault of the revenant. And directing hate and vitriol against the rev is misplaced.

Instead blame the people who decided to allow super heavies and Titans into normal games. Who changed the system, and brought in things that were not intended for that system.

If you bring a shark into an area that's never had sharks and have no predator or way to control said shark - is it the Sharks fault when they breed and get out of control? Or is it the fault of the person who brought the shark over in the first place?

It's the later. The rev titan is an amazing model with good rules, and is a blast to use. And even fun to play against if you can bring other super heavies like warhounds or other Titans - it's fairley priced for what it does in those games. But because GW didn't think it through too much when they "unlocked the SH box" for normal games - people go "oh yea I can take this in. Normal games" and do. People who don't expect it and don't build a list or army to deal with it are caught off gaurd - can't deal with it then cry foul.

Issue is not with the rev itself. Changing its rules won't do much more then bandaid a bullet a wound

The issue is this editions rule set that brought them in. Change it back to 5th or earlier, get rid of Superhev / low choices in normal games and the problem goes away.

This is a copout - people know that no one wants to play against an Revenant... bringing one for a normal game of 40k equates to a dick move. Just because we can doesn't necessarily mean we should.

 Selym wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Anything that can be classified as a titan should definitely not be sprung on an unsuspecting opponent.

Nobody believes that destroyer rolls of 6 is balanced. If you lower it to what I say above then other lowlevel superheavies have a decent chance of survival, and may then retaliate.

The baneblade cannon is priced the way it is because it covers a 10" area. That is a huge chunk of board space and could drastically change the outcome of the game the first time it is fired, every game. Comparing it to a basilisk is more than a bit silly...

I admit that the design rules I use for my side of the discussion have been updated by me. But they are not my idea, nor are they some third party offering for how things should be priced. They are a reworked update of the 4th edition design rules given out by games workshop in the late 90's. I went through and addressed issues people had with the original iteration, then balanced it according to the current ruleset to allow people to make their own vehicles. While doing so I was able to start trying to piece together how games workshop priced their units, and began balancing things out for games via my houserules.

I thought that I had something interesting to share in my findings, so I did. That was all.

Having used the Baneblade, I can confirm that you're way off the mark.
The Baneblade's main gun has a habit of needing a good three hits (discounting cover) to take out a vehicle, and if its targeting infantry, that's because they got into melee range. Once that happens, the Baneblade seems to be made of paper. It's a rather ineffectual vehicle on the TT, and is about 100-200 points overpriced.

It has a rear armor value of 12, there isn't much most infantry can do to it in melee at all. If you aren't firing large blasts at units that they are designed to obliterate then that is not an issue with the gun. The baneblade cannon is designed to cover the most models possible, whatever those may be. And it taking three shots to eliminate a vehicle isn't true. Ap2 gives a +1 to the damage chart Meaning you have a 50/50 chance of immobilizing or destroying a weapon, not to mention the 1/6 to simply blow it up.

Blast weapons are all terrible at killing monstrous creatures, the baneblade cannon is priced appropriately against every other blast weapon in the game (with the vdr) if you knocked 100 points off of the gun, it would be priced at 5 points more than the twin battle cannon of the paladin, and would be slightly cheaper than the earthshaker cannon. That is a bit much. If you want to shave off 100 points then drop 3 hullpoints off of it. You are paying for the 50% higher durability over the imperial knights, and if it is being killed as easily as you say, then the extra hullpoints shouldn't matter.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, for the holofield being 100 points, I can compare it to other defensive buffs out there

4+ invul 30 points
3+ invul 60 points
Voidshields 35 points
Ork fields 25 points
Knight energy field 20 points

The holofield is over tripple what other models spend on a 4++ or a voidshield. Would you rather see the same firepower and similar survivability with 70 less points spent?

You aren't hearing what we are telling you...

the enemy isn't going to let units that it is designed to obliterate near you.

They will spread their units FAAAAR apart, and guard players will not combine their squads (letting them stay 10 men and split way up) and Marine players will combat squad, giving you a whopping 5 models per blast if they're smart about spreading.

Against vehicles, the Baneblade's maingun is an Ordnance Lascannon, so worse than the 60 point rapier platform.

Exactly what Unit1126 is saying. It might have a weapon that is REALLY good at something, but if you can't make that situation happen it is useless.

It is the Grey Knight problem. I pay for power weapons, stormbolters, and the ability to deepstrike. But no effective target for these weapons as the infantry are in vehicles that cannot be assaulted from deepstrike or be killed by stormbolters, so the mech runs away.

It is like putting a 15 point melta on a Tau Firewarrior. Yea it is appropriately costed, but the situation that they are good in is never going to happen.

Except one in three games should be hammer and anvil, they won't have a choice to bunch up. Space marines in drop pods will at best be 12" apart, and if you are playing guard they don't need to blob in order to hit multiple models. The baneblade is a generalist platform designed mostly for crowd control and survivability. It does both of those things. Cutting prices on things due to their ability to be outplayed is how imbalance starts to seriously set in.

I am sure a green tide ork player and swarm based nids would never complain about the baneblade being to expensive. It doesn't do well in a tournament meta, doesn't mean it is actually overcosted for the amount of firepower it puts out or damage it can take.