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.

It'll probably be awhile before I pick up a superheavy as I'm just starting up on guard, but figured I'd look into it just in case. The two variants that I'm fairly sold on are, as the title suggests, the baneblade and the stormsword. Other than main guns, are there any major differences?

Is it worth it to have the extra range of the baneblade and the extra demolisher shot, or is the ignores cover the superior choice?

Right now I'm leaning towards the stormsword, but am up for suggestions.

PS: does the kit come with enough parts to build both, and just swap out the turrets?

stormlord or shadowsword are the two "best" variants of the blade. if you want to stock blade id probably run strikeforce hammerblow so it becomes a twin linked baneblade

The kit does come with enough parts to build all of the variants listed on the GW site. I have one that's yet to be put together as I'm in a similar situation and just can't decide how to equip it. Originally I was going to go with the stock Baneblade for the amount of weapons it has, but now I'm more interested in the Stormlord and Shadowsword, like you are.

Glad you posted this, as I was going to put up something similar in the coming days.

I am considering getting something as well myself.

However I have been considering these:

https://www.forgeworld.co.uk/en-US/Stormblade-Arkurian-Pattern

https://www.forgeworld.co.uk/en-US/Stormsword-Arkurian-Pattern


Right now with the euro down, I can get them cheaper than the GW baneblade kit.

the GW baneblade kit is likely the best buy, at least until you buy two. There is a discussion about the stormlord right now, here:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/681914.page

they reason why, IMO, that the GW kit is the best buy is that you can build all of them, and decide for yourself which is best.

 Lord Scythican wrote:
I am considering getting something as well myself.

However I have been considering these:

https://www.forgeworld.co.uk/en-US/Stormblade-Arkurian-Pattern

https://www.forgeworld.co.uk/en-US/Stormsword-Arkurian-Pattern


Right now with the euro down, I can get them cheaper than the GW baneblade kit.

erm, forgeworld uses GBP not euros. It would be about 170 USd to get those ones, BEFORE shipping

 Brennonjw wrote:


erm, forgeworld uses GBP not euros. It would be about 170 USd to get those ones, BEFORE shipping

ouch...didn't see that. dammit. I always thought they were in euros. That makes forge world way more expensive than I thought.

 Lord Scythican wrote:

 Brennonjw wrote:


erm, forgeworld uses GBP not euros. It would be about 170 USd to get those ones, BEFORE shipping

ouch...didn't see that. dammit. I always thought they were in euros. That makes forge world way more expensive than I thought.

It's expensive, but the models are generally amazing, and I think it's worth it so long as you pace yourself.

Storm swords are awesome, s10 ap 1 ignores cover 10" blast, you literally cannot miss what you are shooting at. Oh and primary weapon, so benefits from ordinance re-rolls of armor pen. it puts large circles of generally instant death in enemy lines, and the 36" range on most table deployments doesn't really impact it because it is massive.

I prefer the Hellhamer to the storm sword. smaller blast, but you gain an auto cannon and a demolisher cannon. And I always spring for the sponsons...ITs already a fire magnet as is why not grab 4 lascannons and 4 TL HBs more.

Doesn't the hellhammer lose ignores cover as well?

 pumaman1 wrote:
Doesn't the hellhammer lose ignores cover as well?

No just drops to a massive blast. still S10 AP1 ignore cover.

 ionusx wrote:
stormlord or shadowsword are the two "best" variants of the blade. if you want to stock blade id probably run strikeforce hammerblow so it becomes a twin linked baneblade

What's the Strikeforce Hammerblow?

http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/topic/297605-tutorial-magnetisation/page-2#entry3867853

Guide to magnetising the Baneblade kit so you don't have to decide which variant you want

IMO the Stormsword is vastly superior to the Baneblade and Hellhammer for 2 reasons. Point cost, and ignores cover. 7th is all about ignoring as many saves as you can. The Stormsword is also 485 points base, vs 525 for the Baneblade and 540 for the Hellhammer. With the points you save, you could buy those oh so shmexy side sponsons you want. Every single battle I have used the Stormsword I was pleased with its performance. It gives the middle finger to literally everything but flyers and invul saves.

 chrispy1991 wrote:
IMO the Stormsword is vastly superior to the Baneblade and Hellhammer for 2 reasons. Point cost, and ignores cover. 7th is all about ignoring as many saves as you can. The Stormsword is also 485 points base, vs 525 for the Baneblade and 540 for the Hellhammer. With the points you save, you could buy those oh so shmexy side sponsons you want. Every single battle I have used the Stormsword I was pleased with its performance. It gives the middle finger to literally everything but flyers and invul saves.

Hellhammer also ignores cover...and for 55 points more you get a demolisher cannon.

Eisenfresser wrote:

 ionusx wrote:
stormlord or shadowsword are the two "best" variants of the blade. if you want to stock blade id probably run strikeforce hammerblow so it becomes a twin linked baneblade

What's the Strikeforce Hammerblow?

webstore formation its regular guard platoon, some russes, some sentinels, a tempest squad in a valk, a comissar and then a baneblade. the sentinels get free teleport homers added to their wargear, the valk gets deepstrike, and the baneblade and the leman russes all get twin linked, however the tempest valk MUST start in reserves and well its a full basic guardsmen platoon and a basic comissar which isnt stellar

 Tenzilla wrote:

 chrispy1991 wrote:
IMO the Stormsword is vastly superior to the Baneblade and Hellhammer for 2 reasons. Point cost, and ignores cover. 7th is all about ignoring as many saves as you can. The Stormsword is also 485 points base, vs 525 for the Baneblade and 540 for the Hellhammer. With the points you save, you could buy those oh so shmexy side sponsons you want. Every single battle I have used the Stormsword I was pleased with its performance. It gives the middle finger to literally everything but flyers and invul saves.

Hellhammer also ignores cover...and for 55 points more you get a demolisher cannon.

Demolisher cannon blast area covers about 19.6 square inches
Hellhammer cannon blast area covers about 38.5 square inches
Stormsword cannon blast area covers about 78.5 square inches

You are not paying 55 more points for a demolisher cannon. You are paying 55 points, and about 40 square inches of STR10 AP1 ignores cover cannon, to get a demolisher cannon and a 10pt autocannon.

While having 2 cannons means you have the possibility of dealing 2 wounds instead of 1 to the same target, the fact that both cannons are much less accurate (because they cover less surface area, even combined), and that one of them doesn't ignore cover, is AP2, and only has 24 inch range, makes it seem like a poor trade off to me. The advantage of having a turret is not a particularly significant one on a super heavy with a good range either IMO.

I would just take the extra lascannon/TW HB sponsons with the points you save, and keep the 78.5 square inch super doom cannon that you have to literally roll a 9 or higher on the deviation to miss the target with (and that's assuming the target is a small infantry base, vehicles are almost impossible to miss). You could alternatively put those 55 points elsewhere in the army to keep your SH from becoming a point sink. As one of the previous posters pointed out, all it takes is a melta deepstrike, and the tank reliably goes 'splody in 1 turn.

As far as the Shadowsword goes, I'm not particularly fond of it because it's a 1 shot cannon that only covers 19.5 square inches, and even IF it hits, you have to roll a 6 on the D table to ignore cover and invul.

My take.

Build a Baneblade and drill a heavy pin onto the barrel stoock forthe main gun. Fill the barrel cores with modelling putty and sink it onto the pin. This makes the barrels swappable without magnets.

You want the Baneblade because it is the default and most common super heavy, and is seldom a poor choice, because while it lacks cover negation it brings so much pain on so many range brackets its always useful.

You want the Hellblade because it is a safer choice than the Stormsword. Dont get me wrong the Stormsword is a fine tank, the 10" pie is a big advantage as chrispy explains, but dont get overly fixated on the area of effect. It means you have to be very careful where you aim because friendly fire is much easier to come by. Also a 7" pie is good enough for accurate fire, anything but the wildest scatter will end up hitting the centre target if you want to kill a tank and is a lot safer. Besides the Hellhammer cannon has a coaxial mount, the Stormsword lacks this (though that depends on whether you allow co-axial fire as the rules are ambiguous on this point,if allowed I would call the Hellhammer a superior weapon).

Most of all the Hellblade is turreted. All too often you will be in combat and cant turn the main hull. Super heavies can shoot and be shot at in combat, but that stormsword cannon is a fixed gun, you need to swivel the hull the Hellhammer main gun is turreted. Even if not surrounded by assault troops you have to take into account terrain and armour arcs. Quite often you dont want to turn your tank around 90 degrees to shoot a dangerous target on your flank, you just want to turn the turret for the same effect.

I am not a fan of the Stormsword siege cannon, it gimps its ride and forces a large lumbering block of a tank to maneuver to use it. This can cause all sorts of hassle for your own deployment. The Hellblade doesnt have those problems and provides almost the same bang with its main gun. and has secondary weaponry to help. Having a Demolisher cannon as an afterthought is awesome.

 Orlanth wrote:
My take.

Build a Baneblade and drill a heavy pin onto the barrel stoock forthe main gun. Fill the barrel cores with modelling putty and sink it onto the pin. This makes the barrels swappable without magnets.

You want the Baneblade because it is the default and most common super heavy, and is seldom a poor choice, because while it lacks cover negation it brings so much pain on so many range brackets its always useful.

You want the Hellblade because it is a safer choice than the Stormsword. Dont get me wrong the Stormsword is a fine tank, the 10" pie is a big advantage as chrispy explains, but dont get overly fixated on the area of effect. It means you have to be very careful where you aim because friendly fire is much easier to come by. Also a 7" pie is good enough for accurate fire, anything but the wildest scatter will end up hitting the centre target if you want to kill a tank and is a lot safer. Besides the Hellhammer cannon has a coaxial mount, the Stormsword lacks this (though that depends on whether you allow co-axial fire as the rules are ambiguous on this point,if allowed I would call the Hellhammer a superior weapon).

Most of all the Hellblade is turreted. All too often you will be in combat and cant turn the main hull. Super heavies can shoot and be shot at in combat, but that stormsword cannon is a fixed gun, you need to swivel the hull the Hellhammer main gun is turreted. Even if not surrounded by assault troops you have to take into account terrain and armour arcs. Quite often you dont want to turn your tank around 90 degrees to shoot a dangerous target on your flank, you just want to turn the turret for the same effect.

I am not a fan of the Stormsword siege cannon, it gimps its ride and forces a large lumbering block of a tank to maneuver to use it. This can cause all sorts of hassle for your own deployment. The Hellblade doesnt have those problems and provides almost the same bang with its main gun. and has secondary weaponry to help. Having a Demolisher cannon as an afterthought is awesome.

How hard is it to maneuver a vehicle that can move 12 inches through anything except impassable and still fire everything? When are you not going to be able to turn your hull? It's a SH with move through cover that can't be immobilized. Properly support it and position it and you won't have to worry much about its facings. I'll admit that a turret is more flexible, but hardly worth losing half of the area of your template over.

As for accuracy, that really depends on your opinion of "reliable". Assuming you are firing at a single infantry model, a hellhammer cannon has about a 61% chance of hitting its target while the Stormsword has 81% and the demolisher cannon has 52%. From a statistical standpoint, the accuracy of the demolisher cannon and hellhammer cannon combined is almost exactly the accuracy of the Stormsword cannon, with the addition of the chance to hit with both and do 2 wounds/hp in the case of the Hellhammer.

I am really not concerned about a 10pt autocannon on a BS 3 model either. I want to stress that the Hellhammer is 55 points more expensive even though it has marginal improvement to its cannons.

 chrispy1991 wrote:

 Tenzilla wrote:

 chrispy1991 wrote:
IMO the Stormsword is vastly superior to the Baneblade and Hellhammer for 2 reasons. Point cost, and ignores cover. 7th is all about ignoring as many saves as you can. The Stormsword is also 485 points base, vs 525 for the Baneblade and 540 for the Hellhammer. With the points you save, you could buy those oh so shmexy side sponsons you want. Every single battle I have used the Stormsword I was pleased with its performance. It gives the middle finger to literally everything but flyers and invul saves.

Hellhammer also ignores cover...and for 55 points more you get a demolisher cannon.

Demolisher cannon blast area covers about 19.6 square inches
Hellhammer cannon blast area covers about 38.5 square inches
Stormsword cannon blast area covers about 78.5 square inches

You are not paying 55 more points for a demolisher cannon. You are paying 55 points, and about 40 square inches of STR10 AP1 ignores cover cannon, to get a demolisher cannon and a 10pt autocannon.

While having 2 cannons means you have the possibility of dealing 2 wounds instead of 1 to the same target, the fact that both cannons are much less accurate (because they cover less surface area, even combined), and that one of them doesn't ignore cover, is AP2, and only has 24 inch range, makes it seem like a poor trade off to me. The advantage of having a turret is not a particularly significant one on a super heavy with a good range either IMO.

I would just take the extra lascannon/TW HB sponsons with the points you save, and keep the 78.5 square inch super doom cannon that you have to literally roll a 9 or higher on the deviation to miss the target with (and that's assuming the target is a small infantry base, vehicles are almost impossible to miss). You could alternatively put those 55 points elsewhere in the army to keep your SH from becoming a point sink. As one of the previous posters pointed out, all it takes is a melta deepstrike, and the tank reliably goes 'splody in 1 turn.

As far as the Shadowsword goes, I'm not particularly fond of it because it's a 1 shot cannon that only covers 19.5 square inches, and even IF it hits, you have to roll a 6 on the D table to ignore cover and invul.

Im not arguing against the size difference...Its a big loss...but it is also a liability once things get close to your other units. If the enemy you want to shoot moves within 10 inches of a friendly model you cannot target it, since you cant put the blast over your own units. Plus you run the risk of mashing your own troops within 14" of your target

Also it would take what? more than 8 BS4 melta guns in melta range to possibly destroy your super heavy...IF there is no screen on it assuming they dont scatter out of melta range and they can get side armor...

It would take 7 crisis suits with 2 fusion blasters each, for 14 melta shots at slightly further range, and 1 buff shas'vre with command and control node, to reliably kill a baneblade in one drop.
each suit gets 2 shots, and the buff 'vre gives TL, landing 1.5 shots per suit. since you roll for armor pen, versus the rear armor, there are only 3 combinations of dice that don't at least glance or 91.666% chance of taking a hp, and pens have a 1/3 chance of doing d3. so at 52 points a suit, and a 47 point buff suit.. that's 411 points to reliably destroy your hell hammer in 1 turn.
Even versus side armor of 13, there are only 5 combination of dice that don't take a HP, for 86.1111% chance of doing a hp, that still (just) can reliably take it down in 1 shooting for the same number of points.
SO why wouldn't you take the most damage you can do to enemy lines as fast as possible from your deployment/ie storm sword?

Also.. the diameter is 10", not the radius, so within 5" of the target model
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, you are guard, hitting your own people is part of the plan

and the storm sword can let you buy another infantry blob to bubble wrap better

You are right..radius not diameter, forgive me.

The storm sword lets you buy one additional infantry squad...not blob. Also getting your 8 crisis suits behind a baneblade is impossible turn one..and highly improbable turn 2 or 3. here just inst enough room in the deployment zone, and if you are driving your super heavy straight into the middle of the field you are doing something wrong.

Additionally if you take that 50 points and buy some bodies to bubble wrap your baneblade you are talking about saving 1/3 of those hps.

And if you want to do as much damage why wouldnt you take 2 more guns? Because one shot is larger doesnt mean it is going to do more damage...you are still only targeting one unit...and and competent general will spread his units out against a 10" blast.

I will confess I have never used a Stormsword...but I have used baneblades and hellhammers. And the larger blast difference has always been negligible(like I said people tend to not stack units on eachother when you are running a 10" blast) but the demolisher cannon has always made itself useful. Example. My last game with a hellhammer I was able to kill a unit of TWC with my demolisher cannon that were trying to flank me, then was also able to smash another unit with the hellhammer cannon 36" away from the TWC....You cant do that with a Stormsword..

And I never PLAN on hitting my own people...but there are times it is acceptable...and other times its game changing...like losing an objective because my artillery had an unfortunate scatter and took out my own guys.

Its pretty easy to DS tau squads in with no scatter, and see rear or side armor, turn 2. and the demolisher cannon is at 24" so if you have any intention of using it, you are going to have to be closer.
and in a game where you would be taking a LOW, 1500+ games, there are usually enough units on the board, hiding in cover etc that you can hit 1 or more units at the same time.

And you never aim at your own people, but bs and so many templates, IG should plan on it happening 1ce per game

I dont know who you play against but if there is 8 crisis suits with fusion blasters in reserve Im not going to let you DS behind my superheavy....

As i said with the Demolisher...they were coming for me....in addition my group mostly plays dawn of war deployment meaning 24" range is not an issue.....plus...the Stomrsword doesnt have the demolisher cannon meaning there is no drawback...

1500 points doesnt mean plenty of units....again an opposing general putting all his units together to let you blast them all with one 10" blast is not going to happen...

Well maelstrom missions have specific deployment patters, and eternal war you are supposed to roll from deployment, but a topic for another thread.

And i also stated that at side armor, it is likely to die in 1 turn as well.

or a single storm surge with 2-3 markerlights for d missiles.

You like the hellhammer, i get it. Having played against most varients of the baneblade, the storm sword is the most devastating, one of the cheaper options, and can usually get its points back in 1 blast. There are certainly circumstances where a turret mounted cannon will be beneficial, but many 40k games are played on sparse terrain tables (to their detriment). so pivoting a stormsword isn't an issue.

 pumaman1 wrote:
Well maelstrom missions have specific deployment patters, and eternal war you are supposed to roll from deployment, but a topic for another thread.

And i also stated that at side armor, it is likely to die in 1 turn as well.

or a single storm surge with 2-3 markerlights for d missiles.

You like the hellhammer, i get it. Having played against most varients of the baneblade, the storm sword is the most devastating, one of the cheaper options, and can usually get its points back in 1 blast. There are certainly circumstances where a turret mounted cannon will be beneficial, but many 40k games are played on sparse terrain tables (to their detriment). so pivoting a stormsword isn't an issue.

Having played against.....so you are the guy that put all his units in a 10" blast radius and this is why you think it is so common? Pivoting is most certainly an issue, especially when exposing lower armor facings.

And the argument that something can be destroyed in one turn so you shouldnt take it is a moot point...especially when you are arguing the viability of 2 different tanks with the same defensive stats....if youre taking into account the pivoting of the stormsword I would argue it is less defensible. Were talking LoW here and you are arguing that more weapons are inferior. and arguing about 55 points at a LoW level...it seems pointless.

The argument that something can be reliably destroyed in 1 turn for less points that the unit itself costs does have merit. It exposes a weakness inherent to the baneblade platform itself. And that over investing in a more expensive version is just flushing points.

55 points >10% difference, and the price of a squad is not negligible in a good game.

Who said i put all my units in a 10" ciricle? i do have to put whatever units I start on the table on the table in coherency with each other, but you can only null deploy to a point against that blast. there is an entire army behind that storm sword, and if you get tabled turn 1 trying to save most of your army for deepstike or outflank, you easily can be turn 1 tabled.

Pivoting is not an issue with the extra range a stormsword offers, and those massive side arcs, it wont take much to be able to see them on a hell hammer. and if you intend to use your beloved demolisher cannon at all, you are just as armor facing locked as the storm sword.

First of all...your list tailoring to try and destroy a superheavy in one turn to say it is not viable while saying the same armor of the other one...which is still more points than your fusion bomb...is a superior option.

Second the hellhammer and the Stormsword have the same range. Even with the bigger blast you can only target up to 36" away.

You claim the storm sword is the most devastating...and also claim that it is common for the large blast to hit several units....So I am left to put 2 and 2 together and assume this happens to you because you claim to have played against baneblade variants extensively...and ignore the fact that I have repeatedly pointed out, that good generals are not going to group their units up to all be hit by 1 10" blast.

The hell hammer is not as locked as the stormsword...turrets swivel 360 degrees....and guess what superheavies do not have to target the same unit with all weapons...A demolisher cannon for 55 points.....when the going rate for guard is 170 pts is a great deal, and you will hardly find a more durable platform for it....so why not?

Do you not field Tau Commanders because it can be instant killed by a 10 point melta gun? If you want any chance at all of surviving a melta shot you have to upgrade your commander...so is that also a waste of points?

I challenge you to find a way in a 12" deployment, with 60 bodies of infantry, multiple vehicles and or MCs, especially if you deploy first, to not have any unit trying to get some cover versus the rest of the units in an IG army, not within 10" of each other.
The less expensive unit to lose in 1 turn is the superior option. if you lost $10 or $12 the superior option of the 2 is to lose $10.
As far as for list tailoring, among friends, usually you'll agree on if LOW will be played or not, which is a give away. at the FLGS they tend to have house rules about LOW that you'll know ahead of time to expect them or not. and tournaments have rules about low, so unless your tfg and bringing a SH to a troop fight a degree of list tailoring (versus Ik, DK, WK the star is nearly always useful) is going to happen.
Tau commanders are often iridium armored t5, or 4++ so meltas are countered in standard war gear. But there are people who agree, and don't spend the points on a commander, but bring an ethereal to pump up the troops.
Anywhoo. when fighing an all IK night list, your hell hammer can focus its guns and be better doing 2 wounds to super heavies. versus a CAD/most decurion style deployments, there are often many troops on the field, within x" range of each other for maximum bonuses (dark shround, combined fire, 1bs etc) so there are many game reasons to be within that range.