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.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

RogueApiary wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I run three vehicles.

Two move forwards to get into melee, one sits back and covers them without moving. They all concentrate their firepower on one AT threat at a time until it is dead or crippled, then move on.

When the two assault tanks make it to the enemy lines and crash into them, the third tank begins to move up, utilizing the not-inconsiderable mobility of the Baneblade and its ilk to get where it needs to go.

The tendency of players to pack all their AT in a few packages (e.g. 5 marines with 4 lascannons in a devastator squad instead of 20 marines with 4 lascannons in 4 Tac squads, or a Vendetta with six lascannons) means disabling their anti-tank is comparatively easy - usually I will lose/have crippled one vehicle by turn 2 or 3, then their AT is disabled. By the end of the game I usually lose/have crippled another vehicle in the enemy's last stand where they pile everything into a phalanx and goes for it, but by turn 4 my third follow-up vehicle obliterates the straggling survivors of the assault by the first two vehicles.

Last game I had 3 Stormhammers, 6 barebones Scion squads, and 4 HQs for a total of 12 CP at 2k in 13 drops.

That explains it, my AT is coming from scions, mixed hwts, company command squads with a single lascannon each, and 2 leman russes. They haven't been able to nullify it all before getting made combat ineffective from damage.

Then your opponents are bad. Yesterday I played a list that had 5 LRBTs/ basilisks, no wyverns, a HWT squad, six infantry squads with lascannons, and a Vendetta for antitank.

By the end of the game I had one vehicle left with 0 wounds suffered, the other two dead, and most of my scions and 2 HQs left.

The thing I would do against your list is go for melee, including using my smoke generators (since as you rightly point out, Baneblade moving and shooting is meh). We only need 2 turns to get across the table, I can usually go first, so smoke generation for the one turn is all I need before tying a huge amount of stuff up in melee because of the Baneblade's massive footprint and the ability of the covering Baneblade to blow holes in most screens

I have no illusions about the quality of my opponents. I would really like to see those lists played with a better pilot, but to their credit they were targeting everything with a lascannon attached to it. The major differences I see based on what you describe is neither had Scions and neither tried to engage in melee with their baneblades.

Sorry. I'm still not on board with the Baneblade chassis. It's bS mixed with no invulnerable save means I'd rather take a knight over it any day.

In my local meta there is so much AT and maneuverable units, it would be a disaster.

for Baneblades I've personally been fielding the Stormhammer, even sticking lascannons on all the sponsons has it clocking in at 520pts though normally I run it with heavy flamers so its about 60pts cheaper. With the stock lascannon, dual battle cannons and the storhammer cannon (seriously, coaxial to reroll misses, 2d6 pick the highest for shots and reroll damage results of 1) I find it already does stupid amounts of work. Give it a astropath buddy for psychic barrier and it already pretty darn good survivability goes up and even more so with a enginseer along for the ride.

Of course it doesn't just work by itself, I also run HWTs, russes, basilisks, conscripts, and hellhounds to support it and give target priority to any anti-tank. In most games it's made it's points back or better, and comes out relatively unscathed because of the enginseer and no one really wanting to shoot a 26w 2+ behemoth that heals D3 every turn.

just my two cent on baneblades.

Well most people don't have the best FW version of a baneblade to play with ... That variant isn't even CLOSE to how poorly the others perform AND it is way cheaper! I wish I had that thing, haha. I would probably use it.

 Ir0njack wrote:
for Baneblades I've personally been fielding the Stormhammer, even sticking lascannons on all the sponsons has it clocking in at 520pts though normally I run it with heavy flamers so its about 60pts cheaper. With the stock lascannon, dual battle cannons and the storhammer cannon (seriously, coaxial to reroll misses, 2d6 pick the highest for shots and reroll damage results of 1) I find it already does stupid amounts of work. Give it a astropath buddy for psychic barrier and it already pretty darn good survivability goes up and even more so with a enginseer along for the ride.

... I dont quite get how running it with flamers makes it cheaper? Each spnson has a LC *and* twin HF/HB. Taking the flamers makes it more expensive?

The Stormhammer is kitted out differently. Although each heavy flamer is only 3pts cheaper than a las cannon ... so it should only be 18pts cheaper in total.

Ooooh... right. Never mind then. Got mixed up.
(seriously though... whoever thought having that many variants with tiny differences and really similar names was a good idea?)

 Tyr13 wrote:
Ooooh... right. Never mind then. Got mixed up.
(seriously though... whoever thought having that many variants with tiny differences and really similar names was a good idea?)

Yeah, it seems an odd way of doing Baneblades. I'd have preferred to just have one Baneblade entry with all the options. Same issue with the Leman Russ really. Keep it simple please.

Baneblade point 1: you can get a 2+ armour save on it really easily (one psyker), which gives it a 5+ against lascannons, just like a Knight has.

Baneblade point 2: You should absolutely be shooting for melee. Baneblades are better than Knights in melee with hordes. They love melee. Being in melee with the vast majority of stuff in this game is a victory for the Baneblade.

How are baneblade better then knights in Melee? Even vs horde titanic feet gives them 12x str8 attacks at ap-2 d3 at bs3+
Bandeblade is 9x str9 atks at ap-2 d3 at bs4+.

Not to mention it can move over infantry and move and fire hvy weapons without penalty.
I guess if you take flamer sponsons it can be better if the baneblade doesn't move but if I'm stuck in melee w a horde w a knight I just fall back fire my Gatling cannon and dual battle cannon and stubbers and then charge and finish off what's left.

 Colonel Cross wrote:
The Stormhammer is kitted out differently. Although each heavy flamer is only 3pts cheaper than a las cannon ... so it should only be 18pts cheaper in total.

Yup you have the right of it, I'm just extremely poor at math. Still a damned good variant of the baneblade in my experience though. The fact ot looks awesome always helps too, i need to fimish building mine so i can start painting it.

I can honestly say I fully support a fireball baneblade provoking a charge. 8d6 autohitting overwatch is naaaaaasty and they're tanky enough to usually survive until their next shooting phase then flame whatever attacked them again while firing the other big guns at juicier targets.

Even if you can't get that horde to charge it the baneblade idsstill usually able to get into range to flame them worse that a keyboard warrior hopped up on mountain dew.

gungo wrote:
How are baneblade better then knights in Melee? Even vs horde titanic feet gives them 12x str8 attacks at ap-2 d3 at bs3+
Bandeblade is 9x str9 atks at ap-2 d3 at bs4+.

Not to mention it can move over infantry and move and fire hvy weapons without penalty.
I guess if you take flamer sponsons it can be better if the baneblade doesn't move but if I'm stuck in melee w a horde w a knight I just fall back fire my Gatling cannon and dual battle cannon and stubbers and then charge and finish off what's left.

Because they can still shoot. Knights in Melee get 12x battlecannon shots.

Baneblades in melee get 9 Str 9 battlecannon shots plus baneblade cannon shots plus demolisher cannon shots plus heavy bolter/heavy flamer shots plus lascannon shots plus autocannon shots plus heavy stubber shots. Not all of them can be at what it's fighting, but that's why it gets those 9 Str 9 battlecannon shots at that particular target :3.

What's more, it's usually stationary when it's locked up so it gets to shoot them all at full BS.

What's more, enemy units can't shoot at it while it's locked up, so it's immune to the most common enemy AT assets.

It isn't that the baneblade beats a knight in melee. But it is better for a Baneblade to be in melee than a Knight, because it really isn't meaningfully affected at all, except to get 9 more baneblade cannon shots (essentially) and being immune to enemy shooting.

So I'm starting to see a very solid core develop with nearly all of my lists.

3xInfantry SQDs w/Plasma Guns, Las Cannons, SGTs have Boltguns
2-3 Infantry SQDs w/Flamers or Plasmas & Heavy Bolters (front rank)
1-2 Mortar Heavy Weapon Squads

I also like a BN Detachment of Scions w/ 2xTempestor Primes w/Command Rods
2x5 Scion SQDs w/2xMelta Guns
1x5 Scion SQD w/2xPlasma Guns
And 1 Scion Command SQD w/4x Plasmas (of course)

If I take a unit of conscripts I nearly always take an Astropath and keep him close. Otherwise the Astropath is still an autotake, if only to deny powers and prevent Space Marine scouts from getting a 2+ cover save.

What are your combos you guys like to run? I really like Eversor + Rough Riders to ensure at least something gets the charge off, if need be. They are a pretty nice combo. Vindicare + 2x5 Ratlings are pretty solid but thus far haven't been worth their points.


I'm building an Ad Mech Vanguard Detachment consisting of Cawl, 2xKastelans w/Phosphor Blasters, and 3 Dunecrawlers since our AT is garbage.

 Colonel Cross wrote:
So I'm starting to see a very solid core develop with nearly all of my lists.

3xInfantry SQDs w/Plasma Guns, Las Cannons, SGTs have Boltguns
2-3 Infantry SQDs w/Flamers or Plasmas & Heavy Bolters (front rank)
1-2 Mortar Heavy Weapon Squads

I also like a BN Detachment of Scions w/ 2xTempestor Primes w/Command Rods
2x5 Scion SQDs w/2xMelta Guns
1x5 Scion SQD w/2xPlasma Guns
And 1 Scion Command SQD w/4x Plasmas (of course)

If I take a unit of conscripts I nearly always take an Astropath and keep him close. Otherwise the Astropath is still an autotake, if only to deny powers and prevent Space Marine scouts from getting a 2+ cover save.

What are your combos you guys like to run? I really like Eversor + Rough Riders to ensure at least something gets the charge off, if need be. They are a pretty nice combo. Vindicare + 2x5 Ratlings are pretty solid but thus far haven't been worth their points.


I'm building an Ad Mech Vanguard Detachment consisting of Cawl, 2xKastelans w/Phosphor Blasters, and 3 Dunecrawlers since our AT is garbage.

Yeah at 15 points, I find it hard not to attach an astropath to anywhere I'm sticking at least two squads. I've converted several out of a cadian command squad, and just give them a special point job to identify themselves. I wish they didn't have to pay for their stupid staffs, or I'd let them keep them. I used a scion command rod with the skull cut off and a flag pole doodad on it to make a primaris, even though I don't really care to run them.

I've tried to use ratlings several times and every time they've been near useless. But they're so cheap I just keep bringing them anyway.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

gungo wrote:
How are baneblade better then knights in Melee? Even vs horde titanic feet gives them 12x str8 attacks at ap-2 d3 at bs3+
Bandeblade is 9x str9 atks at ap-2 d3 at bs4+.

Not to mention it can move over infantry and move and fire hvy weapons without penalty.
I guess if you take flamer sponsons it can be better if the baneblade doesn't move but if I'm stuck in melee w a horde w a knight I just fall back fire my Gatling cannon and dual battle cannon and stubbers and then charge and finish off what's left.

Because they can still shoot. Knights in Melee get 12x battlecannon shots.

Baneblades in melee get 9 Str 9 battlecannon shots plus baneblade cannon shots plus demolisher cannon shots plus heavy bolter/heavy flamer shots plus lascannon shots plus autocannon shots plus heavy stubber shots. Not all of them can be at what it's fighting, but that's why it gets those 9 Str 9 battlecannon shots at that particular target :3.

What's more, it's usually stationary when it's locked up so it gets to shoot them all at full BS.

What's more, enemy units can't shoot at it while it's locked up, so it's immune to the most common enemy AT assets.

It isn't that the baneblade beats a knight in melee. But it is better for a Baneblade to be in melee than a Knight, because it really isn't meaningfully affected at all, except to get 9 more baneblade cannon shots (essentially) and being immune to enemy shooting.

Still not seeing it
The only difference from the knight crusader vs baneblade is the baneblade can fire its wpns while locked in combat but only to units not within 1in and the knight can move and fire at full bs with better accuracy 3+. They both can disengage and fire and recharge. However the knight doesnt need to be stationary. There is no reason not to fall back and shoot and recharge with the knight when it allows you to hit first in combat and move over infantry..
The knight crusader gets 2d6 battle cannon shots and 12x str6 ap-2 2 dam avenger Gatling shots and 2x hvy stubbers and optional carapace wpn. The above knight without the carapace is nearly the same price as a baneblade without sponsons and The knight crusader has a better bs. That 3+ bs and higher volume of shots really has helped me more this edition.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

gungo wrote:
How are baneblade better then knights in Melee? Even vs horde titanic feet gives them 12x str8 attacks at ap-2 d3 at bs3+
Bandeblade is 9x str9 atks at ap-2 d3 at bs4+.

Not to mention it can move over infantry and move and fire hvy weapons without penalty.
I guess if you take flamer sponsons it can be better if the baneblade doesn't move but if I'm stuck in melee w a horde w a knight I just fall back fire my Gatling cannon and dual battle cannon and stubbers and then charge and finish off what's left.

Because they can still shoot. Knights in Melee get 12x battlecannon shots.

Baneblades in melee get 9 Str 9 battlecannon shots plus baneblade cannon shots plus demolisher cannon shots plus heavy bolter/heavy flamer shots plus lascannon shots plus autocannon shots plus heavy stubber shots. Not all of them can be at what it's fighting, but that's why it gets those 9 Str 9 battlecannon shots at that particular target :3.

What's more, it's usually stationary when it's locked up so it gets to shoot them all at full BS.

What's more, enemy units can't shoot at it while it's locked up, so it's immune to the most common enemy AT assets.

It isn't that the baneblade beats a knight in melee. But it is better for a Baneblade to be in melee than a Knight, because it really isn't meaningfully affected at all, except to get 9 more baneblade cannon shots (essentially) and being immune to enemy shooting.

If your opponent wants to fire at it, he will just let the unit fall back.
In CC the baneblade or any variant hit´s only at 5+. If he moves he only hit´s also at 5+.
Effectively the Knight can just fall back, shoot at BS 3+ and charge again and hits first due to being charger.
I would take the Knight Crusader everytime over any super-heavy imperial tank.

As long as it lacks the ability to move and shoot its weapons without penalty, it calls for flamers.
Way overcosted.

There is one very good reason not to fall back: Objectives.

I can't tell you how many games I have won by parking a Baneblade directly over top of an objective and just being stubborn. The vehicle is large enough that the enemy can't get any models within 3", so unless they kill it I can be confident the objective is mine. Knights can't do that.

Furthermore, "they will just fall back to shoot the baneblade" is the point. Charge a Leman Russ! Charge their Ravager... charge anything really. You have enough firepower to blow holes in their screen after a turn or two so charge important stuff. That way, if/when they fall back, they lose a good chunk of firepower. You have a massive footprint, bigger than most units. Get within 1" of as many things as possible! Spin sideways to lockup something like 1/4 to 1/3 of the space on the enemy's back line!

Lastly, I don't really think you guys appreciate how little it matters hitting on 5's rather than 4's. 7 shots with the main gun goes from 3 hits to 2 (incidentally the same number lost going from 3+ to 4+ if you are a Space Marine). The only weapons I worry about moving and shooting are the lascannons, as they are "one-hit-wonder" types. And even then, wit 6 firing, 2 will hit if all 3 vehicles move. And I try to keep one stationary for fire support purposes, so rarely do all three move.

You guys are missing its advantages in melee. It can be protected from all enemy shooting, unless the enemy falls back which is a win in its own way. It can never be stopped from Overwatching just by being locked up. Its close combat profile gives it three extra battlecannon hits per turn, while a Knight has to fall back to participate in the wider battle, and yield ground.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Lastly, I don't really think you guys appreciate how little it matters hitting on 5's rather than 4's. 7 shots with the main gun goes from 3 hits to 2 (incidentally the same number lost going from 3+ to 4+ if you are a Space Marine).

If you round the number of lost hits to the nearest integer this is true. More precisely the BS3+ unit loses 1/4 of its hits while the BS4+ loses 1/3 of its hits. In other words this means that out of 12 regular hits 3+ gets 9 and 4+ gets 8. Which is not a big difference, but it's there.

sossen wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Lastly, I don't really think you guys appreciate how little it matters hitting on 5's rather than 4's. 7 shots with the main gun goes from 3 hits to 2 (incidentally the same number lost going from 3+ to 4+ if you are a Space Marine).

If you round the number of lost hits to the nearest integer this is true. More precisely the BS3+ unit loses 1/4 of its hits while the BS4+ loses 1/3 of its hits. In other words this means that out of 12 regular hits 3+ gets 9 and 4+ gets 8. Which is not a big difference, but it's there.

Yes, though if you scale it up to any reasonable value it is the same number of lost hits on average (because you can't roll a fraction).

Eg 20 shots on a 4+ is 10, on a 5+ it is 7, so 3 lost hits.

20 shots on a 3+ is 13, on a 4+ is 10, so 3 lost hits again.

You don't even have to round for 18:
3+ is 12
4+ is 9 (difference of 3)
5+ is 6 (difference of 3)

So they lose the same number of effective hits no matter what their starting BS was.

Yes, but it matters more for the PROPORTION of the shots fired. If I pay 100pts for a BS4+ unit with 24 S4 shots, I usually expect 12 to hit. When reduced to BS5+ 8 hit. It has lost a third of its value.

If I pay 100pts for a unit with BS 3+ that gets 18 S4 shots, it is expected to hit 12 times (the same damage output in the previous case). But when the BS drops to 4+ it now get 9 hits - it's lost a quarter of its value.

The difference is only very small admittedly, but it shows why you should shoot better BS weapons against fliers + other hard to hit enemies. Orks really lose out to negative BS modifiers. A -1 to hit for an ork BS5+ unit cuts its expected damage dealt by HALF!

 DoomMouse wrote:
Yes, but it matters more for the PROPORTION of the shots fired. If I pay 100pts for a BS4+ unit with 24 S4 shots, I usually expect 12 to hit. When reduced to BS5+ 8 hit. It has lost a third of its value.

If I pay 100pts for a unit with BS 3+ that gets 18 S4 shots, it is expected to hit 12 times (the same damage output in the previous case). But when the BS drops to 4+ it now get 9 hits - it's lost a quarter of its value.

The difference is only very small admittedly, but it shows why you should shoot better BS weapons against fliers + other hard to hit enemies. Orks really lose out to negative BS modifiers. A -1 to hit for an ork BS5+ unit cuts its expected damage dealt by HALF!

Yes but in theory the BS4+ weapon is cheaper than the BS3+ weapon in the first place.

So in a perfect world (which I know GW doesn't make) it is conceivable that the BS4+ weapon is cheaper by more than the mere 33% than the BS3+ weapon because of this effect. So for example an Imperial Guard plasma gun is 7 points, and a Space Marine plasma gun is 33% more effective without modifiers so it should cost only 33% more (2-3 points), right? Well, wrong, because it's a bit more than 33% more effective due to the phenomenon you mentioned, and as such, it's damn near twice as expensive.

Essentially what I am saying is that once you say "effectiveness per point" you're opening up a whole 'nother can of worms.

So you lose the same number of hits with a -1 modifier whether you are BS3+ or BS4+, so the base BS of the platform is kind of irrelevant (provided it's costed appropriately, which again is a discussion we can have, but is not the same one).

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
So you lose the same number of hits with a -1 modifier whether you are BS3+ or BS4+, so the base BS of the platform is kind of irrelevant (provided it's costed appropriately, which again is a discussion we can have, but is not the same one).

You are already calculating an average with the xd6 hits, might as well continue calculating averages without rounding since it is a more accurate representation of what you will get once you roll the dice. Going from 3 hits to 2.25 hits is better than going from 3 hits to 2 hits. It's the same proportional difference as you will get with a higher volume of shots except for a larger deviation per die.

sossen wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
So you lose the same number of hits with a -1 modifier whether you are BS3+ or BS4+, so the base BS of the platform is kind of irrelevant (provided it's costed appropriately, which again is a discussion we can have, but is not the same one).

You are already calculating an average with the xd6 hits, might as well continue calculating averages without rounding since it is a more accurate representation of what you will get once you roll the dice. Going from 3 hits to 2.25 hits is better than going from 3 hits to 2 hits. It's the same proportional difference as you will get with a higher volume of shots except for a larger deviation per die.

Yes, but even at 100 shots, the difference is:

BS3+: 67 hits
BS4+: 50 hits (difference of 17)
BS5+: 33 hits (difference of 17)

I can scale it up to a thousand:

BS3+: 667 hits
BS4+: 500 hits (difference of 167)
BS5+: 333 hits (difference of 167)

I could do it for a million too, but the point is that the difference is less than a single hit, even with rounding, no matter what you're scaling to. It's essentially the same. Dice can't roll fractions, so in practical applications in the real world, it's the same, or close enough to be considered equivalent.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

sossen wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
So you lose the same number of hits with a -1 modifier whether you are BS3+ or BS4+, so the base BS of the platform is kind of irrelevant (provided it's costed appropriately, which again is a discussion we can have, but is not the same one).

You are already calculating an average with the xd6 hits, might as well continue calculating averages without rounding since it is a more accurate representation of what you will get once you roll the dice. Going from 3 hits to 2.25 hits is better than going from 3 hits to 2 hits. It's the same proportional difference as you will get with a higher volume of shots except for a larger deviation per die.

Yes, but even at 100 shots, the difference is:

BS3+: 67 hits
BS4+: 50 hits (difference of 17)
BS5+: 33 hits (difference of 17)

I can scale it up to a thousand:

BS3+: 667 hits
BS4+: 500 hits (difference of 167)
BS5+: 333 hits (difference of 167)

I could do it for a million too, but the point is that the difference is less than a single hit, even with rounding, no matter what you're scaling to. It's essentially the same. Dice can't roll fractions, so in practical applications in the real world, it's the same, or close enough to be considered equivalent.

This is showing the reduction in terms of absolute numbers from a given start point at 3+ to hit, not relative numbers with the same starting point which is what you were referring to earlier when you spoke of 3 hits being reduced by an equal amount both for BS3+ minus 1 to hit and BS4+ minus 1 to hit. If the assumption is that the BS3+ unit and the BS4+ unit get the same amount of hits to begin with, the BS4+ unit will get 8/9 of the hits that the BS3+ unit gets after minus 1 to hit. With a similar illustration as yours:

BS3+: 50 hits
BS4+: 37 hits (difference of 13)

BS4+: 50 hits
BS5+: 33 hits (difference of 17)

sossen wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

sossen wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
So you lose the same number of hits with a -1 modifier whether you are BS3+ or BS4+, so the base BS of the platform is kind of irrelevant (provided it's costed appropriately, which again is a discussion we can have, but is not the same one).

You are already calculating an average with the xd6 hits, might as well continue calculating averages without rounding since it is a more accurate representation of what you will get once you roll the dice. Going from 3 hits to 2.25 hits is better than going from 3 hits to 2 hits. It's the same proportional difference as you will get with a higher volume of shots except for a larger deviation per die.

Yes, but even at 100 shots, the difference is:

BS3+: 67 hits
BS4+: 50 hits (difference of 17)
BS5+: 33 hits (difference of 17)

I can scale it up to a thousand:

BS3+: 667 hits
BS4+: 500 hits (difference of 167)
BS5+: 333 hits (difference of 167)

I could do it for a million too, but the point is that the difference is less than a single hit, even with rounding, no matter what you're scaling to. It's essentially the same. Dice can't roll fractions, so in practical applications in the real world, it's the same, or close enough to be considered equivalent.

This is showing the reduction in terms of absolute numbers from a given start point at 3+ to hit, not relative numbers with the same starting point which is what you were referring to earlier when you spoke of 3 hits being reduced by an equal amount both for BS3+ minus 1 to hit and BS4+ minus 1 to hit. If the assumption is that the BS3+ unit and the BS4+ unit get the same amount of hits to begin with, the BS4+ unit will get 8/9 of the hits that the BS3+ unit gets after minus 1 to hit. With a similar illustration as yours:

BS3+: 50 hits
BS4+: 37 hits (difference of 13)

BS4+: 50 hits
BS5+: 33 hits (difference of 17)

Yes but now you are comparing completely different guns - for the BS3+ to get 50 hits, you have to have a gun that fires 75 shots. For the BS4+ to hit 50 times, you have to have a gun that fires 100 shots.

So yes, I admit that if you pay completely different points to purchase completely different weapon systems, then the -1 to hit sucks.

But given the same weapon system (i.e., a Demolisher Cannon, Baneblade Cannon, whatever else people think the Baneblade doesn't do well) - the baneblade loses just as many hits if it started at BS3+ then moved as it does if it started at BS4+ and then moved.

Not really sure what your example shows, considering you're comparing two completely different weapons.

Both are good in their own way.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
But given the same weapon system (i.e., a Demolisher Cannon, Baneblade Cannon, whatever else people think the Baneblade doesn't do well) - the baneblade loses just as many hits if it started at BS3+ then moved as it does if it started at BS4+ and then moved.

Not really sure what your example shows, considering you're comparing two completely different weapons.

It would still lose a relatively larger proportion of the hits in the case where you start off with the same amount of shots, which is still worse. BS3+ loses 25% of the regular hits while BS4+ loses 33% of the regular hits - it doesn't matter what the starting number of hits is because the relative loss is still higher, so unless the pts cost is adjusted to still provide a higher hit/pts for worse BS-models then it is still a problem. Comparing the absolute number of lost hits is irrelevant.

sossen wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
But given the same weapon system (i.e., a Demolisher Cannon, Baneblade Cannon, whatever else people think the Baneblade doesn't do well) - the baneblade loses just as many hits if it started at BS3+ then moved as it does if it started at BS4+ and then moved.

Not really sure what your example shows, considering you're comparing two completely different weapons.

It would still lose a relatively larger proportion of the hits in the case where you start off with the same amount of shots, which is still worse. BS3+ loses 25% of the regular hits while BS4+ loses 33% of the regular hits - it doesn't matter what the starting number of hits is because the relative loss is still higher, so unless the pts cost is adjusted to still provide a higher hit/pts for worse BS-models then it is still a problem.. Comparing the absolute number of lost hits is irrelevant.

Not really sure why this is relevant / important? It does lose proportionally more hits ... so what? I already said BS4+ weapons are / should be cheaper than BS3+...?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

sossen wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
But given the same weapon system (i.e., a Demolisher Cannon, Baneblade Cannon, whatever else people think the Baneblade doesn't do well) - the baneblade loses just as many hits if it started at BS3+ then moved as it does if it started at BS4+ and then moved.

Not really sure what your example shows, considering you're comparing two completely different weapons.

It would still lose a relatively larger proportion of the hits in the case where you start off with the same amount of shots, which is still worse. BS3+ loses 25% of the regular hits while BS4+ loses 33% of the regular hits - it doesn't matter what the starting number of hits is because the relative loss is still higher, so unless the pts cost is adjusted to still provide a higher hit/pts for worse BS-models then it is still a problem.. Comparing the absolute number of lost hits is irrelevant.

Not really sure why this is relevant / important? It does lose proportionally more hits ... so what? I already said BS4+ weapons are / should be cheaper than BS3+...?

It is relevant because if you get the same hits/pts for both BS3+ and BS4+ then BS4+ will still be impacted more by minus to hit.

sossen wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

sossen wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
But given the same weapon system (i.e., a Demolisher Cannon, Baneblade Cannon, whatever else people think the Baneblade doesn't do well) - the baneblade loses just as many hits if it started at BS3+ then moved as it does if it started at BS4+ and then moved.

Not really sure what your example shows, considering you're comparing two completely different weapons.

It would still lose a relatively larger proportion of the hits in the case where you start off with the same amount of shots, which is still worse. BS3+ loses 25% of the regular hits while BS4+ loses 33% of the regular hits - it doesn't matter what the starting number of hits is because the relative loss is still higher, so unless the pts cost is adjusted to still provide a higher hit/pts for worse BS-models then it is still a problem.. Comparing the absolute number of lost hits is irrelevant.

Not really sure why this is relevant / important? It does lose proportionally more hits ... so what? I already said BS4+ weapons are / should be cheaper than BS3+...?

It is relevant because if you get the same hits/pts for both BS3+ and BS4+ then BS4+ will still be impacted more by minus to hit.

Yes, if you get the same hits/pts. But look at, e.g. the Plasma Gun in Rapid Fire range:

1.3 hits for 13 points (SM plasma gun) = 0.10 pts per hit
1 hits for 7 points (IG plasma gun) = 0.14 pts per hit

It's clear that the hits/pt isn't identical, which tells me that GW is aware of this. Or, if they're not aware of it mathematically, they are at least intuitively.