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 would have built it differently if I had understood how the over-watch worked. I had a ton of points in thunder-hammer lieutenants, shrike and assault centurions that couldn't charge anything without instantly dying to unlimited overwatch. Issue was that all the firepower was in 3 units so the only way to optimize targets better would have been to let the robots go last and split fire them with fury of mars.

I don't mean to call you out -- I consider you a friend, but the issue is that comes of as disingenuous to say 'oh I am worried my list is too strong, I am not a power gamer - I just want to run fluffy armies and have good games against people.' but then say in the next sentence 'oh btw my fluff is that I only run my tanks in groups of 3, with heavy support, and it is just the way I play that I like to make my lists as strong as I can.'

You kinda need to pick one?

I don't think that's true at all.

It's not my fluff that the tanks are run in groups of 3 - that's GW's, at least for superheavy tank companies. I mentioned in my OP that I'd be happy to play a team game with another regiment in which I brought only one tank, or two if necessary. But people don't seem to like team games so much, and I understand why: they take a bit to organize.

I think it is possible to be a player who likes fluff, and builds a fluffy army that is optimized. I don't think I have to deliberately play bad lists to be a fluffy player.

What you bring up is the reason for this thread. I am not a power gamer. I didn't seek to be. In earlier editions, Baneblades and their variants weren't actually very good. Now they are, and because they are, I am worried that the same army I've run from edition to edition is suddenly a power-gamey army.

I would continue to run 3 Baneblades long after they are nerfed into the ground, also. I feel like a fluff player in a bad spot - if I was a power gamer, do you really think I'd build an entire regimental TO&E of vehicles and whatnot? Power gamers tend to leap between the best armies at any given time. I rarely change what army I am playing, and have rode it through the ups and downs.

But now it's on the ups, and I am trying to seek a way to preserve the way I've played and avoid exactly the kind of reaction you have.

One good way may be to drop the Trojan support tanks, but what do I bring instead? The entire IG codex is phenomenally good. I could bring infantry (some might call these 'screens' that are 'too durable for their cost' as you may have seen elsewhere on the forum) or artillery (which is just more firepower)... I'm not sure what to do.

Suddenly my army went from 'rather okay I guess, if I optimize it" to "super ridiculous" and I'm not sure how to handle it.

EDIT: Sorry, not in the OP - I mention team games further down. Even so, the real fluff for the IG is that their regiments are split up across a whole battle zone, and that's especially true of superheavy tanks. Concentrated tank companies are only brought to the most vital of battles - just like Guilliman or Cawl would.

Basically, you're afraid others will treat you like you treat others when they play strong units.

 Purifier wrote:
Basically, you're afraid others will treat you like you treat others when they play strong units.

Yes, with the added caveat that I didn't go out of my way to specifically build an army of strong units, and would like to continue using the army I've built and painted/repainted since at least 4th edition (you can see the beginnings of it in my gallery, which I haven't updated in ages) that was made of until-now mediocre units which suddenly finds itself too ridiculous to play.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Thanks for the advice guys. Lots of good stuff here.

I'm always all for rolling on without worrying about it, but I really am kind of worried about it, hah.

I feel like Panzergraf spoke to my soul - he likes his TO&Es and so do I.

I could try the halfsies thing, though trying to get people to break out of their 'comfort zone' when a club has a dedicated points level that they've played forever can be a pain. Still, it's probably less of a pain than it might seem.

I do actually try to run infantry - my support company has reserve tank crews, to help recover the superheavies if they are disabled behind enemy lines. Since a Baneblade has 11 crewmen, I run them as a Platoon Commander (baneblade kit tank commander guy) and 10-man infantry squads, armed with the las-carbines (rather than lasguns) that came in the old Leman Russ kit (with folding stocks, like las-SMGs), and the Tank Commander heads from either the baneblade kit (for the platoon commanders) or the Leman Russ kit (the little dooders with the leather padded tanker's cap like something out of the USSR).

It seemed like it was on-theme to me while still allowing me to bring some dudes, but I actually kind of felt more gross fielding them, as they were cheap-as-chips infantry squads who could screen my tanks for 40 points (essentially) and it was one step away from essentially adding a conscript screen to an already damn good army, so I stopped.

As for whether or not these rumors are true: they are. Winters SEO on youtube has the codex in-hand, and you can even pause it when he zooms in on the baneblade to show that it does in fact get 3d6 shots with its main gun.

YMMV I guess. I haven't found infantry squads taken solo for screening purposes to be OP in any way. They don't have the ignores morale shenanigans and cost 1pt more apiece. If you're not giving them upgrade weapons you're basically playing at a handicap.

Our club's comfort value was 2000, but we've basically migrated to 2500 just because it's what you can easily play in the time slot we have available. 2000pt games were averaging about an hour shorter than they were in 7th ed.

the_scotsman wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Thanks for the advice guys. Lots of good stuff here.

I'm always all for rolling on without worrying about it, but I really am kind of worried about it, hah.

I feel like Panzergraf spoke to my soul - he likes his TO&Es and so do I.

I could try the halfsies thing, though trying to get people to break out of their 'comfort zone' when a club has a dedicated points level that they've played forever can be a pain. Still, it's probably less of a pain than it might seem.

I do actually try to run infantry - my support company has reserve tank crews, to help recover the superheavies if they are disabled behind enemy lines. Since a Baneblade has 11 crewmen, I run them as a Platoon Commander (baneblade kit tank commander guy) and 10-man infantry squads, armed with the las-carbines (rather than lasguns) that came in the old Leman Russ kit (with folding stocks, like las-SMGs), and the Tank Commander heads from either the baneblade kit (for the platoon commanders) or the Leman Russ kit (the little dooders with the leather padded tanker's cap like something out of the USSR).

It seemed like it was on-theme to me while still allowing me to bring some dudes, but I actually kind of felt more gross fielding them, as they were cheap-as-chips infantry squads who could screen my tanks for 40 points (essentially) and it was one step away from essentially adding a conscript screen to an already damn good army, so I stopped.

As for whether or not these rumors are true: they are. Winters SEO on youtube has the codex in-hand, and you can even pause it when he zooms in on the baneblade to show that it does in fact get 3d6 shots with its main gun.

YMMV I guess. I haven't found infantry squads taken solo for screening purposes to be OP in any way. They don't have the ignores morale shenanigans and cost 1pt more apiece. If you're not giving them upgrade weapons you're basically playing at a handicap.

Our club's comfort value was 2000, but we've basically migrated to 2500 just because it's what you can easily play in the time slot we have available. 2000pt games were averaging about an hour shorter than they were in 7th ed.

I can start bringing a trio of 'replacement tank crews' or whatever to wander around the battlefield and give something for the enemy to fire at. That's not a problem at all. It seems almost... condescending, or something, though. And not sure if it would help.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Blacksails wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


Other than not seeing my beloved army on the table top, do you guys have a suggestion for perhaps how to avoid the powergamer label or make my army more interesting to fight against?

Serious question...but why does it matter? Be a pleasant human being and everything else will fall into place. Anyone who denies you a game because of your army list either isn't worth your time anyways, or understands the match up might simply be undesirable for them. In the first case, feth'em, in the second case, no harm no foul.

Not sure what to do.

Play what you want to play. Don't concern yourself with people who are willing to judge you on an army list of all things. Maybe I'm the odd man out but I'm inifnitely more concerned with the human across from me than the army list they happened to bring along.

Life's too short and all that.

That's a bit comforting. I do try to be a sporting opponent and a good player.

Scott-S6 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:
At this point you just need to see how it goes. If you need to tone it out down for the players in your area you might need to cut back to two super heavies.

We talked about that, but there's a few reasons it wouldn't work:

1) You need 3 superheavies to fill out the Super Heavy Detachment. Cutting back to two loses me 3 command points, in game terms.
2) 3 Superheavies have been the way IG Superheavy Tank Companies have been organized since the dawn of time. In 4e Apoc, the Emperor's Fury Superheavy Tank Company was 3-5 Baneblades. In the 5e Battle Missions book, the Emperor's Fury Superheavy Tank Company was 3 Baneblades. In 6e Apoc, the Emperor's Fury Superheavy Tank company was 3+ Baneblades. In 7e Mont'ka the Emperor's Fury Superheavy Tank Company was 3-5 Baneblades. In the novel Baneblade, the two companies featured have 4 tanks and 3 tanks. In the novel Stormlord, there are 3 Stormlord superheavy tanks in the company. In the novel Shadowsword, they pull shadowswords from various companies to form one Shadowsword company - of 3 tanks.

The fluff is just overwhelming that it's 3 tanks per company in IG standard doctrine.

Neither of those is a reason why it wouldn't work.

Just because there are three tanks in a company doesn't mean you must always put a company on the table or that the company will always be fielded together. When I'm going Russ heavy I don't insist on fielding a full company and it wouldn't make sense to do so.

Losing a few command points is hardly the end of the world.


If you're adamant that you must field 3 then you'll just have to do that and roll with whatever happens.

You're worried that your list might be too powerful for your gaming group but you don't want to change your list at all - not sure what to tell you.

I am not worried about the list being too powerful. That is pretty much a given. I am worried about how people perceive me as a person.

Are there any actions I could take (that don't involve me running a different army) that would mitigate people'a knee-jerk reaction to a trio of Baneblades? Any in-game behaviors I should emphasize or suppress?

And to be fair, best-case scenario I play a team game with another guard player, bringing one or two vehicles and possibly some support elements. That is what is fluffiest for a superheavy regiment - to be deployed in support of another regiment in a battlegroup, including being doled out in small less-than-company-size packets. But for some reason people despise team games.

Basically you have answered your own question.
You are the kind of person that expects another person to want to play against your now too powerful tanklist because you bought a few tanks a few years ago and want to use them in every game. Frankly I wouldn't play against that "army". Seems a waste of time when I would rather hang out with someone still actively building his collection into novel and interestingly varied forces.

I agree with the bold and underlined sentiment above.

My 2c,

Play what you want, don't change your list because other people have stupid opinions. However, if your army is *legitimately* unfun to play against, then that isn't just people needlessly whinging. See for yourself it actually leads to bad games. If it does, then it doesn't matter how fluffy or well painted it is, neither of those things can fix the games being unfun for the other player.

 jeff white wrote:


Basically you have answered your own question.
You are the kind of person that expects another person to want to play against your now too powerful tanklist because you bought a few tanks a few years ago and want to use them in every game. Frankly I wouldn't play against that "army". Seems a waste of time when I would rather hang out with someone still actively building his collection into novel and interestingly varied forces.

I agree with the bold and underlined sentiment above.

So should I retire/rebuild the entire regiment? That's the fate I was trying to avoid. I put a lot of love and effort into the army and enjoy seeing it on the tabletop. And the collection is still growing; I just ordered another Banehammer through the FLGS to fill out the 7th company. It's not like I'm done.

Mugaaz wrote:
My 2c,

Play what you want, don't change your list because other people have stupid opinions. However, if your army is *legitimately* unfun to play against, then that isn't just people needlessly whinging. See for yourself it actually leads to bad games. If it does, then it doesn't matter how fluffy or well painted it is, neither of those things can fix the games being unfun for the other player.

Well, the 'dex isn't out yet, so I guess it's a matter of we'll see, but I can already tell by looking that it's gonna be pretty ridiculous and likely unfun. I was hoping not to have to shelve the army though.

1) Expect whatever faction just got thier codex to be labeled OP for a month or so. That's been the pattern so far and it's not even a GW thing. PP has the same thing with theme list releases.

2) If you have a a model worth over $100, expect to be accused of powergaming at some point. For many angry players this fact alone makes it OP. I've seen them blow up on weaponless transports because they merely 'suspected' it had some secret, hidden rule that must make it better than their stuff .

3) If you win, figure on a 25% of being accused of being a powergamer. That is kind of a GW thing, but there's nothing you can do about it.

You don't have to "bring units just for opponents to shoot at" in order to have a varied list. Introducing some infantry elements and then playing the game to win with those elements will give your opponents better games than merely adding more tanks/things to buff tanks.

The most comparable list to this from my area currently is a guy who likes IG tanks, and basically nothing but 'em. he started out in 7th running basically nothing but russes, wyverns, and techpriests, and was getting demolished and also having pretty unfun games. His lists nowadays include multiple russes with vastly different roles (he's got an all-flamer punisher, an all-plasma executioner, a couple battlecannons, etc) and then he's got a bunch of inquisitorial elements, a set of the Assassins, some Infantry/vet squads, a Hellhound, and he basically fills out half the list with those.

That leads to fewer one-sided stomps both winning and losing (because he's not hard countered by fast melee/loads of anti-tank anymore) and generally means the game is more tactical, because it's no longer "what do I do about just leman russ tanks" you've got tons of other elements in there.

it seems like this thread may have been created with a goal response in mind.

the_scotsman wrote:
You don't have to "bring units just for opponents to shoot at" in order to have a varied list. Introducing some infantry elements and then playing the game to win with those elements will give your opponents better games than merely adding more tanks/things to buff tanks.

The most comparable list to this from my area currently is a guy who likes IG tanks, and basically nothing but 'em. he started out in 7th running basically nothing but russes, wyverns, and techpriests, and was getting demolished and also having pretty unfun games. His lists nowadays include multiple russes with vastly different roles (he's got an all-flamer punisher, an all-plasma executioner, a couple battlecannons, etc) and then he's got a bunch of inquisitorial elements, a set of the Assassins, some Infantry/vet squads, a Hellhound, and he basically fills out half the list with those.

That leads to fewer one-sided stomps both winning and losing (because he's not hard countered by fast melee/loads of anti-tank anymore) and generally means the game is more tactical, because it's no longer "what do I do about just leman russ tanks" you've got tons of other elements in there.

it seems like this thread may have been created with a goal response in mind.

I actually would enjoy that. I've actually got a whole idea (and ordered models for) an infantry regiment. It's what the transport Banehammers are for, in fact, at least in part.

The issue I run into is points. A three-tank company takes up 1250-1750 points, leaving me with hardly enough to do much with.

At 3000, though, or even 2500, I have some sororitas I can bring, and definitely a small Inquisition detachment, as well as those aforementioned Roman-themed guardsmen and some random smattering of other stuff, including Hydras and Mechanicum robots (from 30k, sadly, but I could make them work).

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
You don't have to "bring units just for opponents to shoot at" in order to have a varied list. Introducing some infantry elements and then playing the game to win with those elements will give your opponents better games than merely adding more tanks/things to buff tanks.

The most comparable list to this from my area currently is a guy who likes IG tanks, and basically nothing but 'em. he started out in 7th running basically nothing but russes, wyverns, and techpriests, and was getting demolished and also having pretty unfun games. His lists nowadays include multiple russes with vastly different roles (he's got an all-flamer punisher, an all-plasma executioner, a couple battlecannons, etc) and then he's got a bunch of inquisitorial elements, a set of the Assassins, some Infantry/vet squads, a Hellhound, and he basically fills out half the list with those.

That leads to fewer one-sided stomps both winning and losing (because he's not hard countered by fast melee/loads of anti-tank anymore) and generally means the game is more tactical, because it's no longer "what do I do about just leman russ tanks" you've got tons of other elements in there.

it seems like this thread may have been created with a goal response in mind.

I actually would enjoy that. I've actually got a whole idea (and ordered models for) an infantry regiment. It's what the transport Banehammers are for, in fact, at least in part.

The issue I run into is points. A three-tank company takes up 1250-1750 points, leaving me with hardly enough to do much with.

At 3000, though, or even 2500, I have some sororitas I can bring, and definitely a small Inquisition detachment, as well as those aforementioned Roman-themed guardsmen and some random smattering of other stuff, including Hydras and Mechanicum robots (from 30k, sadly, but I could make them work).

in my experience 2500 is easy to convince people into. It runs really well in the timeslot that a 2k game of 7th runs, and it typically doesn't end in the tablings you usually see at 2k, so the mission matters more.

Protip: Mechanicum Robots work really well as the two flavors of Kastelans (vorax for shootyhands, castellax for rockem sockem) and the Thanatar makes a good Onager.

the_scotsman wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
You don't have to "bring units just for opponents to shoot at" in order to have a varied list. Introducing some infantry elements and then playing the game to win with those elements will give your opponents better games than merely adding more tanks/things to buff tanks.

The most comparable list to this from my area currently is a guy who likes IG tanks, and basically nothing but 'em. he started out in 7th running basically nothing but russes, wyverns, and techpriests, and was getting demolished and also having pretty unfun games. His lists nowadays include multiple russes with vastly different roles (he's got an all-flamer punisher, an all-plasma executioner, a couple battlecannons, etc) and then he's got a bunch of inquisitorial elements, a set of the Assassins, some Infantry/vet squads, a Hellhound, and he basically fills out half the list with those.

That leads to fewer one-sided stomps both winning and losing (because he's not hard countered by fast melee/loads of anti-tank anymore) and generally means the game is more tactical, because it's no longer "what do I do about just leman russ tanks" you've got tons of other elements in there.

it seems like this thread may have been created with a goal response in mind.

I actually would enjoy that. I've actually got a whole idea (and ordered models for) an infantry regiment. It's what the transport Banehammers are for, in fact, at least in part.

The issue I run into is points. A three-tank company takes up 1250-1750 points, leaving me with hardly enough to do much with.

At 3000, though, or even 2500, I have some sororitas I can bring, and definitely a small Inquisition detachment, as well as those aforementioned Roman-themed guardsmen and some random smattering of other stuff, including Hydras and Mechanicum robots (from 30k, sadly, but I could make them work).

in my experience 2500 is easy to convince people into. It runs really well in the timeslot that a 2k game of 7th runs, and it typically doesn't end in the tablings you usually see at 2k, so the mission matters more.

Protip: Mechanicum Robots work really well as the two flavors of Kastelans (vorax for shootyhands, castellax for rockem sockem) and the Thanatar makes a good Onager.

I do have a ton of robots then, but we'll see what happens when Fires comes out. At 2500 I could bring right around a thousand points beyond the superheavies themselves; that should be plenty for fleshing out the army, perhaps with an inquisitor and retinue, and more.

 jeff white wrote:
You are the kind of person that expects another person to want to play against your now too powerful tanklist because you bought a few tanks a few years ago and want to use them in every game. Frankly I wouldn't play against that "army". Seems a waste of time when I would rather hang out with someone still actively building his collection into novel and interestingly varied forces.

IOW, "keep spending hundreds of dollars and countless hours of painting time or I don't want to play against you". No thanks.

I'm not changing, Im gonna play Guard and have fun.

 RedCommander wrote:


Whoa, whoa, whoa!

Are these things true? I have a Shadowsword and that thing is absolutely brutal even with the Index-rules. As it should be.

If I had all those three things you mentioned, just... wow. Let me elaborate:

1) Not suffering -1 to hit with Heavy Weapons when you move: I've heard of this and I guess it will be so. Sounds cool and useful but I don't really need it because if everything goes according to the plan, a Shadowsword doesn't need to move during a battle. Nifty but not a huge factor on its own.

2) Extra... D6... shots... for superheavy weapons? Hah....hahhahhaaa! Really? Insane! This really sounds like a rumour. Let me tell you, a Volcano Cannon with 1D6 shots is absolutely brutal. This kills a Land Raider with one blast. Volcano Cannon with 2D6 shots would kill anything 95% of the time.

3) ... And a 40 point discount? Really? Is it needed? After these upgrades? Doesn't sound fair but I guess I just have to take it, if it's true.

Seriously, are 2) and 3) true? Sounds... a bit too much. Not that I'm complaining but I thought IG superheavy tanks were already very, very good.

- The volcano cannon doesn't really give a gak about moving and shooting.

- I have seen nothing that gives superheavies double tap. Leman Russ has their 'Grinding Advance' updated to allow for it, but i've not seen the same for any other vehicle. Was that in the video previews?

So basically they dropped 40 points. Whoop dee doo.

Daedalus81 wrote:

- The volcano cannon doesn't really give a gak about moving and shooting.

- I have seen nothing that gives superheavies double tap. Leman Russ has their 'Grinding Advance' updated to allow for it, but i've not seen the same for any other vehicle. Was that in the video previews?

Most Baneblade variants' main guns were simply upgraded. The Baneblade gets 3d6 shots now instead of 2d6. The Shadowsword got the biggest upgrade, d6 to 3d3.

I would honestly agree that the balance around Imperial Guard / Astra Militarum in 8th edition is frustrating.

And a super heavy tank company is going to be tough for a lot of people. It was already a solid list if played well.

My personal opinion, regarding casual games:

Imperial guard players will need to understand that their faction is far and away the strongest in the game right now, and keep that in mind when you're playing your games.

Don't be like Eldar and Tau in 7th edition and deny that there's a balance issue, while trouncing people at the FLGS.

Hrmm, very interesting thread. I would hate to have a player not be able to game with his loving painted and collected army. At the same time, I'd hate to always face an extremely powerful list with no chance to win.

It's a tough call, but I'd play you. I'm sure you can pick and choose the times to play your heavies. Also, growth leagues, narrative campaigns, and the like can be a way to tone down your list and pick up new minis to play with.

Good luck.

 Marmatag wrote:


Imperial guard players will need to understand that their faction is far and away the strongest in the game right now, and keep that in mind when you're playing your games.
.

Please tell me you are a SM player.

 Marmatag wrote:
Imperial guard players will need to understand that their faction is far and away the strongest in the game right now, and keep that in mind when you're playing your games.

Don't be like Eldar and Tau in 7th edition and deny that there's a balance issue, while trouncing people at the FLGS.

On the other side of this, don't be like everyone else in 7th and assume that the entire codex and every list from it is overpowered cheese played by a WAAC TFG.

Marmatag wrote:I would honestly agree that the balance around Imperial Guard / Astra Militarum in 8th edition is frustrating.

And a super heavy tank company is going to be tough for a lot of people. It was already a solid list if played well.

My personal opinion, regarding casual games:

Imperial guard players will need to understand that their faction is far and away the strongest in the game right now, and keep that in mind when you're playing your games.

Don't be like Eldar and Tau in 7th edition and deny that there's a balance issue, while trouncing people at the FLGS.

I do recognize that IG are ridiculous. In fact, that's half the motivation behind this thread. You can view this thread, if you wish, as "IG Are Ridiculous, How Do I Keep Playing IG Without Being Ridiculous Myself". Though that's long and clumsy. Do you have any suggestions of what can be done?

brother_b wrote:Hrmm, very interesting thread. I would hate to have a player not be able to game with his loving painted and collected army. At the same time, I'd hate to always face an extremely powerful list with no chance to win.

It's a tough call, but I'd play you. I'm sure you can pick and choose the times to play your heavies. Also, growth leagues, narrative campaigns, and the like can be a way to tone down your list and pick up new minis to play with.

Good luck.

I appreciate you wouldn't mind playing me. Part of the problem with me being a treadhead is I naturally gravitate towards the biggest, scariest tanks around, so when I pick factions, I end up essentially picking them based on tanks. If I had to play something other than Imperium, it'd be Tau, because I find the tanks cool, but I don't like the fluff. I could downgrade my Baneblades to Leman Russes (I still have plenty!) and be fine, but the Leman Russ got such a drastic buff that I am not sure I'd be any better off - essentially, my tanks would get cheaper, and I'd have to screen them to keep myself from auto-losing to melee armies, but it would be mostly the same story. Tons and tons of ridiculous firepower.

Peregrine wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Imperial guard players will need to understand that their faction is far and away the strongest in the game right now, and keep that in mind when you're playing your games.

Don't be like Eldar and Tau in 7th edition and deny that there's a balance issue, while trouncing people at the FLGS.

On the other side of this, don't be like everyone else in 7th and assume that the entire codex and every list from it is overpowered cheese played by a WAAC TFG.

The problem is that the 3 Baneblade list kind of is overpowered cheese, but I ended up playing the list completely by accident (essentially). I don't wish to give the impression of being a WAAC TFG but I'd like to continue playing with the army. That's the crux of this thread I think.

Dionysodorus wrote:

Daedalus81 wrote:

- The volcano cannon doesn't really give a gak about moving and shooting.

- I have seen nothing that gives superheavies double tap. Leman Russ has their 'Grinding Advance' updated to allow for it, but i've not seen the same for any other vehicle. Was that in the video previews?

Most Baneblade variants' main guns were simply upgraded. The Baneblade gets 3d6 shots now instead of 2d6. The Shadowsword got the biggest upgrade, d6 to 3d3.

Base Baneblade is 390 + 40 + 34 + 34 = 498 (566 fully equipped). 383 for a land raider w/ multi-melta. Let's shoot a Leman Russ
//Baneblade Baneblade - 8.74 Demolisher - 1.94 Lacannons - 1.94 to 3.88 HBs - shoot something useful 0.025 damage per point 0.026 full loaded //Land Raider Lascannons -- 5.17 MM - 1.16 0.0165 damage per point

So the land radier is certainly weaker in damage terms, but is also a transport.

The land raider brings a 2+ and since both are T8:

//LR 16 * 1.833 = 29.3 / 383 = 0.077 wounds per point //BB 26 * 1.666 = 43.3 / 498 = 0.087 wounds per point

So in average terms not too far off.

What about a 4LC Pred?

Damage 4 * .666 * .666 * .833 * 3.5 / 190 = 0.027 Durability 11 * 1.666 / 190 = 0.096

Same as the BB in these regards.

In other words the LR is not a big gun platform.

The BB brings 7.25 LC hits and 26 T8 3+ wounds. For 498 points you can take 2.6 quad LC predators and get 7 LC hits with 29 T7 3+ wounds.

The bigger problem is deleting a unit The predators are certainly weaker, because their effectiveness can be reduced much more quickly. The BB cannon with a reroll on shots can probably kill a pred in one go.

If the predators go first they can take the BB down to half. If the BB is half (and consider the demolisher needs a turn before it's in range) then it can tag about 2/3 of a pred. That doesn't look so good for the BB. Even with an extra 2 LC it might not kill a pred.

So i'd go out on a limb and say it's "balanced". It depends who gets the first turn and whether or not you decided to bring enough AT to make the BB scared about going second. I would say they shouldn't have dropped the points as a safety factor after having made change to such big weapons.

The Shadowsword at 458 points...
6 * .5 * .833 * 7 = 0.038

Crazy - a really powerful gun. Here's the catch...unless it's shooting a titan or a landraider the power is wasted. It overkills a predator by 50%.

So, again - balance "feels" relatively ok. Alpha strike is the real problem. My issue with it is that it creates a meta that is too much about anti-tank weapons. Taking two BB takes it out of range of what most lists bring for AT.

CP abilities can also create big swings, which AM have too much of currently. Giving them a regain CP ability was the dumbest thing about the book imo.

Let's not forget devastators though! RG, 5 Devs w/ 4 LC and a cherub is 530.

2 * .97 * .888 * .833 * 3.5 = 5 3 * .888 * .888 * .833 * 3.5 = 6.9

That's almost as good as 3 LC preds. And you even have RG to help beat stuff up. Just make sure you go first or have a ton of squads...that's part of the AM "weakness": no pile of full reroll auras.

You know, this thread does make me think of a related question: I've noticed that in general, this forum tends to treat "fluffy" and "strong" as mutually exclusive. To the point that it seems like a lot of people seem to define "fluffy" as "a list I can expect to beat more often than not".

Why is that? Can't a list be fluffy and strong at the same time if the rules and fluff just happen to align?

I kind of didn't want to have a discussion about how "good" Baneblades are.

It's not really relevant whether or not they are actually good or balanced. I am sure that information can be arrived at, as demonstrated by your post, Daedalus, but it's perception more than reality which concerns me.

The opponent of the game I played that made me post this worried thread already chimed in and gave some excellent points, so I am still not sure how to proceed.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I kind of didn't want to have a discussion about how "good" Baneblades are.

It's not really relevant whether or not they are actually good or balanced. I am sure that information can be arrived at, as demonstrated by your post, Daedalus, but it's perception more than reality which concerns me.

The opponent of the game I played that made me post this worried thread already chimed in and gave some excellent points, so I am still not sure how to proceed.

Sure, I think the conclusion relates to that.

The perception of how strong a BB is is strongly tied to 1) your anti-tank options and 2) first strike results. Two BBs make that calculus even more harsh, which therein lies the rub. How do you deal with two BBs with 1 BB worth of AT while trying to break past another 1,000 points of guard?

I know my list doesn't have adequate AT, but I do have Magnus...

Is the new, improved superheavy even as good as a Knight or Warhound, points for points?

I say, play them, and see how it goes.

I dont think it's either or for fluffy / competetive, just how enjoyable the game is going to be comes down to how interactive the game is.

Always let people know the capabilities of your list, and let them tailor at least a smidgen so they can have anti-armor.

Dont go too gung-ho on the rerolls, you dont really need it to wreck things.

Try to have some variety so there are options for your opponent to engage. It's not fun having anti infantry or mid range units that just can't do much against a Baneblade list. I played a full Russ list and it wasn't that bad bc I had options for my melee units... those options disappear against pure Baneblade.

Try to reconsider always running 3. If you are worried about CPs infantry guard is going to have an easier time anyway and while 1 or 2 superheavies is a challenge and fun, 3 just feels spammy.

You sound like a cool dude to me. I think its very interesting you have fluff for your own army and find it cool as well.

This is coming from a player who isn't a fan of playing against more than 1 super heavy but to be fair if the person I'm playing against isn't a jerk I have a swell time regardless.

I'm sure you'll be fine, you seem to be very open and talking about your army before you throw em down on the table and completely thrash someone.

I wish you well buddy, but I think you'll be good just by judging your character.