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.

 Marmatag wrote:
Bringing less than 3 baneblades = not playing your army at all? Okay, I guess? Just keep wrecking people, and lamenting that you don't know what to do about it. I mean seriously.

Do you read my posts? There are dozens of reasons to bring 3, as well as some reasons not to, in the fluff. We could take it to PMs but I am happy to talk the fluff over with you surrounding Imperial superheavies.

Also, it's worth noting that bringing 2 baneblades is essentially bringing 0; they're not very durable for their points (someone did the math on this, I think it's like 24 pts per T8 3+ wound, which is less tough than LRBTs or Land Raiders point for point) and so people with "reasonable" lists can actually quite easily alpha-strike them if they've brought enough anti-tank to also deal with LRBTs and Land Raiders. (my Baneblades come out to almost exactly 21 pts per T8 3+ wound, and they're not very 'optimized'. Leman Russes are ~13 points per T8 3+ wound. Land Raiders are ~20 points per T8 2+ wound. And this is after the point discount on the superheavies).

 Marmatag wrote:
Bringing less than 3 baneblades = not playing your army at all? Okay, I guess? Just keep wrecking people, and lamenting that you don't know what to do about it. I mean seriously.

That is actually a legitimate concern since the Superheavy detachment requires a minimum of 3 choices, otherwise he'd be running 2 auxillary detachments just for the core of his army (and since most places limit Matched Play to 3 detachments in total, that's quite a significant handicap). Not to mention Steel Fury companies are traditionally (in fluff) made up of 3 or more Baneblade Superheavy tanks (or equivalent variants). Plus this line of thinking just sound like people should only play Unit when his army is weak, but he should be shunned as a pariah if his army actually has a chance to win (i.e: he should be the seal ready to clubbed and somehow it's his fault for not wanting a clubbing).

@ WaaaghPower: He never actually said the army that shaved off two Superheavies was an Ultramarine only army, but I do admit the way he phrased it did sound like so.

I'm not an experienced player, so be gentle.

But, I was doing some mathhammer, and,,, is he LR turret weapon firing twice really that big a deal? The basic BC has less damage output (against a somewhat arbitarily chosen T8 3+ target) than a Mechanicus Neutron Laser Onager Dunecrawler).

And a Stormsurge with an ATS and shield generator and a basic Baneblade have approximately the same damage output with respect to each other.

Alcibiades wrote:
I'm not an experienced player, so be gentle.

But, I was doing some mathhammer, and,,, is he LR turret weapon firing twice really that big a deal? The basic BC has less damage output (against a somewhat arbitarily chosen T8 3+ target) than a Mechanicus Neutron Laser Onager Dunecrawler).

And a Stormsurge with an ATS and shield generator and a basic Baneblade have approximately the same damage output with respect to each other.

Personally, not really that big of a deal. However people see that a Punisher has the potential to do 49 shots in a single turn (9 from 3 heavy bolters, 20 x 2 from it's double-firing punisher cannon) and everybody freaks. Most people sort of forget that these are BS4+ S5 AP0 shots and a fully decked out Punisher isn't exactly cheap. The other Russes are even less impressive since their guns weren't all that good to begin with, but then people conveniently forget these exist when complaining (and don't even get me started on my favourite guard tank, the Hellhound).

Alcibiades wrote:
I'm not an experienced player, so be gentle.

But, I was doing some mathhammer, and,,, is he LR turret weapon firing twice really that big a deal? The basic BC has less damage output (against a somewhat arbitarily chosen T8 3+ target) than a Mechanicus Neutron Laser Onager Dunecrawler).

And a Stormsurge with an ATS and shield generator and a basic Baneblade have approximately the same damage output with respect to each other.

No, TBH we still wont see leman russes in tournaments, with the possible exception of pask in a punisher. But I wouldnt bet on it, because mortar squads and wyverns are both superior anti horde weapons already. not to mention Vultures. Pask is a 250 point unit that can be killed without too much trouble by a single volley from a lascannon devastator squad.

The only reaosn people complain about Leman Russes is because they're a common unit and people can go "BUT muh DOUBLED FIREPOWER?!?!?!?!???!?!?" It doesn't actually matter that they're still not terribly great.

The units that are actually a problem in the guard codex are conscripts, plasma scions, mortars, (all nerfed at least somewhat) manticores (admittedly buffed, which was dumb) and forgeworld stuff like elysians, arty carriages, etc (all of which were unchanged by the codex, and stand alongside the malefic lord and alphabet soup tzeentch daemon as testament to forgeworld's horrible balance).

people have a huge problem with units like Basilisks, Russes, etc getting buffed because they're in the same book with conscripts and mortars. The same people would have cried if in 7th GW decided to give a buff to Shining Spears and Wraithblades, because having a book with some OP choices and some useless choices is somehow better than a book with some OP choices and some balanced choices. It definitely doesn't push people towards the few broken choices almost exclusively. Which is why Guilliman is not in every SM list, Celestine is not in every SoB list, and Tyranid lists in 7th featured a large variety of units and not just Flyrants.

Waaaghpower wrote:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
@ WaaaghPower: It sounds like your opponent was a decent player, recognized the actual threats to his army, made an active effort to eliminate them, and you just had a bad string of rolls. Also you said your army was a gulliman based artillery line? If this was space marines then they were never really known for stationary gunlines (that's kinda the guard's shtick). Maybe try some more mobile space marine options since trying to out-artillery Guard is like trying to beat Muhammad Ali in a fistfight, rather than just suing him for physical assault.

Nah. Other than one unlucky explosion on a tank that put a couple of wounds my dreads, and one really bad but irrelevant roll on a cheap unit of Dominions (three 1s on four 2+ saves, not that it matters,) my rolls were actually generally pretty good - All things considered. (All I really got to roll were armor saves, mostly on 5+ and 6+. I made about half my 5+ saves.)

He just had so many rerolls on pretty much everything that bad dice weren't ever possible for him.

Hows that different to playing a Space Marine opponent where they are rerolling everything due to Captains and Lieutenants and the Ancient even allows them to get a final attack off if a unit dies?

Only a couple of weeks ago I saw a squad of Salmander terminators with heavy flamers putting out more shots than even post Codex Leman Russ punisher is capable of and rerolling wounds thanks to their captain, he tabled the Space Wolf army on turn 2.

There are quite a few major differences between a stormsurge and a baneblade. Survivability is one of them.

The other is the supporting cast. You can protect baneblades for next to nothing with IG.

WatcherZero wrote:

Waaaghpower wrote:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
@ WaaaghPower: It sounds like your opponent was a decent player, recognized the actual threats to his army, made an active effort to eliminate them, and you just had a bad string of rolls. Also you said your army was a gulliman based artillery line? If this was space marines then they were never really known for stationary gunlines (that's kinda the guard's shtick). Maybe try some more mobile space marine options since trying to out-artillery Guard is like trying to beat Muhammad Ali in a fistfight, rather than just suing him for physical assault.

Nah. Other than one unlucky explosion on a tank that put a couple of wounds my dreads, and one really bad but irrelevant roll on a cheap unit of Dominions (three 1s on four 2+ saves, not that it matters,) my rolls were actually generally pretty good - All things considered. (All I really got to roll were armor saves, mostly on 5+ and 6+. I made about half my 5+ saves.)

He just had so many rerolls on pretty much everything that bad dice weren't ever possible for him.

Hows that different to playing a Space Marine opponent where they are rerolling everything due to Captains and Lieutenants and the Ancient even allows them to get a final attack off if a unit dies?

Only a couple of weeks ago I saw a squad of Salmander terminators with heavy flamers putting out more shots than even post Codex Leman Russ punisher is capable of and rerolling wounds thanks to their captain, he tabled the Space Wolf army on turn 2.

That's literally impossible.
2 Heavy Flamers is, at most, 12 shots. 8 Storm Bolters is 32 shots.
A LRP gets 49 shots.

the_scotsman wrote:

Alcibiades wrote:
I'm not an experienced player, so be gentle.

But, I was doing some mathhammer, and,,, is he LR turret weapon firing twice really that big a deal? The basic BC has less damage output (against a somewhat arbitarily chosen T8 3+ target) than a Mechanicus Neutron Laser Onager Dunecrawler).

And a Stormsurge with an ATS and shield generator and a basic Baneblade have approximately the same damage output with respect to each other.

No, TBH we still wont see leman russes in tournaments, with the possible exception of pask in a punisher. But I wouldnt bet on it, because mortar squads and wyverns are both superior anti horde weapons already. not to mention Vultures. Pask is a 250 point unit that can be killed without too much trouble by a single volley from a lascannon devastator squad.

The only reaosn people complain about Leman Russes is because they're a common unit and people can go "BUT muh DOUBLED FIREPOWER?!?!?!?!???!?!?" It doesn't actually matter that they're still not terribly great.

The units that are actually a problem in the guard codex are conscripts, plasma scions, mortars, (all nerfed at least somewhat) manticores (admittedly buffed, which was dumb) and forgeworld stuff like elysians, arty carriages, etc (all of which were unchanged by the codex, and stand alongside the malefic lord and alphabet soup tzeentch daemon as testament to forgeworld's horrible balance).

people have a huge problem with units like Basilisks, Russes, etc getting buffed because they're in the same book with conscripts and mortars. The same people would have cried if in 7th GW decided to give a buff to Shining Spears and Wraithblades, because having a book with some OP choices and some useless choices is somehow better than a book with some OP choices and some balanced choices. It definitely doesn't push people towards the few broken choices almost exclusively. Which is why Guilliman is not in every SM list, Celestine is not in every SoB list, and Tyranid lists in 7th featured a large variety of units and not just Flyrants.

The big complaint Ive heard isnt so much the buffs to the units themselves (grinding advance, points reductions) its that we got all of this AND really good regiment traits that buff most of our army and all our tanks. Space Marines in particular are very salty that their tanks don't get chapter traits yet ours do for example and I cant say I blame them. Its essentially the whole "Gee Bill, why do you get TWO hotdogs?" issue.

I think the various buffs wouldve been somewhat groaned about, its just our regiment traits are icing on the cake. Yes Admech get this too to a degree but their codex specifically forbids knights getting their forgeworld trait, while our superheavies do. Fluff doesnt matter here, in that Knights arent usually from the same forgeworld as the Admech yet IG baneblades are, its a rules mechanic thing and I understand that. Im not really sure why Guilleman and Mortarion having their chapter abilities as lords of war is fine yet IG is the dealbreaker, but there you go. Best guess is its people who play a chapter that doesnt get a primarch, in that case I would be salty too.

Thats why IG units absolutely deserve a small points hike, or at least not a discount. Leman russes for example only need a small tweak since most were terrible before, grinding advance made them useable, punishers being the exception and could oribably use a larger price increase, alongside Pask going up in price.

What angers people that we got buffs on top of regiment traits that significantly buff our whole army, which in other people's eyes at least, was already perfect. It doesnt matter that regular Leman Russes were crap, IG had a good index therefore their tanks didn't need buffs in people's eyes. We can sit here and weep about being picked on but to be honest Im pretty most of us IG players had similar reactions to Tau and Eldar releases. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone and all that.

And can you blame them? Catachans for example got +1s on infantry across the board, that alone is easily worth a point in other codexes, yet all of our infantry stayed the same pointswise. And this is ignoring more useful abilities like the Cadian reroll 1's. I'm pretty sure that easily pushes guardsmen into being worth at least 5pts per man. Then you need to tack on relics, orders, regimental traits, and warlord traits which, like it or not, do affect a unit's abilities and usefulness and therefore should have at least some influence on its cost. Im not saying infantry squads should be 80pts a squad or anything, but they definitely didnt need to stay at 40pts. That many buffs at least puts them in 50 minimum, possibly even 60pts territory if youre really squeezing every ounce of abilities out of them like cadians can.

Alcibiades wrote:
I'm not an experienced player, so be gentle.

But, I was doing some mathhammer, and,,, is he LR turret weapon firing twice really that big a deal? The basic BC has less damage output (against a somewhat arbitarily chosen T8 3+ target) than a Mechanicus Neutron Laser Onager Dunecrawler).

And a Stormsurge with an ATS and shield generator and a basic Baneblade have approximately the same damage output with respect to each other.

Weapon range is a huge factor - being able to move and shoot is also a factor. More shots with the same average damage is about 50% more effective vs non vehcials. Being t8 is a factor. Not to say the dun crawler is bad - dune crawlers - were probably the best vehcial in the game before guard got super buffed.

The Storm Surge takes 25.7 unbuffed spacemarine lascannon shots to kill.

The Baneblade takes 20.1 unbuffed spacemarine lascannon shots to kill.

We can drop it to a Meltagun if you prefer, to make the T8 Baneblade matter. Here it is outside of melta range:

The Stormsurge takes 25.7 unbuffed space marine meltagun shots again; nothing changed.

The Baneblade takes 22.3 unbuffed space marine meltagun shots to kill. Still less durable than the stormsurge.

We can drop it to Strength 7 - let's do plasma guns that aren't overcharged (the only Strength 7 "antitank" weapon I can think of).

The Stormsurge takes 120 unbuffed space marine plasma gun shots to kill.

The Baneblade takes 140 unbuffed Space Marine plasma gun shots to kill.

So if you are trying to kill a baneblade with plasma guns, it is more durable than the Stormsurge. But against any real antitank firepower, the stormsurge is actually more durable, and puts out about the same amount of firepower.

Autocannons are S7, AP-1, D2. They serve as antitank in a pinch.

Also, how much more expensive is a Stormsurge than a Baneblade?

Edit: Also, firepower:

Stormsurge has:
4d6 (14) S5 shots. (Cluster Missile System)
8 more S5 shots (at 18"). (2 Burst Cannons)
8 more S5 shots that don't need LoS. (2 Smart Missiles)
And then its main gun, which either does:
Pulse Blastcannon (Max Range 30")
2 S14 AP-4 D6 shots.
4 S12 AP-2 D3 shots.
6 S10 AP0 D1 shots.
or
Pulse Driver Cannon
1d3 (2) S10 AP-3 Dd6 shots.
All at a 4+, degrading.
It WILL take a Shield Generator, and probably a Multi-Tracker and Advanced Targeting Systems, for reroll 1s and -1 AP on all guns. It also has 4 Destroyer missiles.
This costs: 442 points, with the Blastcannon. It jumps up by about 50 points to take the Driver.

A Baneblade has:
2 S7 AP-1 D2 shots. (Autocannon)
3d6 (10.5) S9 AP-3 D3 shots. (Baneblade cannon)
1d3 (2) S10 AP-3 Dd6 shots, at 24". (Demolisher cannon)
3 S4 shots. (Heavy Stubber)
4 S9 AP-3 Dd6 shots. (4 Lascannons)
24 S5 AP-1 shots. (4 Twin Heavy Bolters.)
All at a 4+, degrading.
This costs 689 points. A fair amount more than the Stormsurge. (Although I am looking at the Index, so didn't the Baneblade drop by like, 40 points?)

Against, say, Marines, the Stormsurge kills:
5 with secondary weapons, and either 1.11 with its main gun (10-20") or .83 (less than 10"), for about 6 total.
Baneblade kills:
.33 with the Auto, 3.65 with the main cannon, .69 with the Demolisher, .25 with the Stubber, 1.39 with the Lascannons, and 4 with the Heavy Bolters, for 10.31 total.
Baneblade is nearly twice as good.

What if they fire at each other? We'll assume each is undamaged and in optimal range.
Stormsurge does 2.5 wounds with its secondaries and 2.67 with its main (10-20") or 4 with its main (less than 10"). Average that to around 6 wounds.
Baneblade does .5 with autocannon, 5.25 with its main cannon, 1.17 with Demolisher, .17 with its stubber, 2.33 with its Lascannons, and 2 with its Heavy Bolters, for 11.42. Nearly double that of Stormsurge.

Now, I just realized I forgot to reroll 1s for the Surge, which it can get so long as it targets just one unit. That being said, the Baneblade is a LOT better than a Stormsurge.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Autocannons are S7, AP-1, D2. They serve as antitank in a pinch.

Also, how much more expensive is a Stormsurge than a Baneblade?

I'm pretty sure it's cheaper, by a good bit. The base platform is 180 I believe.

Autocannons aren't antitank weapons. There's a reason the Hydra is not actually very good at its job, and that reason is mostly the fact that Str 7 -1 doesn't cut it.

You play 3 super heavy tanks and you don't understand why people don't want to play against your 'fluffy' list?

So the Stormsurge is between 371 and 423 with a shield generator and ATS, depending on the primary weapon chosen.

So yeah, cheaper.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ordana wrote:
You play 3 super heavy tanks and you don't understand why people don't want to play against your 'fluffy' list?

No, I understand why... did you see my thread? I think people explained why just fine. The why is because there's not a lot of variety.

Also, why is fluffy in air-quotes in your post? Do you think it isn't fluffy?

Autocannons are not really anti-anything weapons.
Wish it wasn't the case but they are just bad.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Autocannons are S7, AP-1, D2. They serve as antitank in a pinch.

Also, how much more expensive is a Stormsurge than a Baneblade?

Edit: Also, firepower:

Stormsurge has:
4d6 (14) S5 shots. (Cluster Missile System)
8 more S5 shots (at 18"). (2 Burst Cannons)
8 more S5 shots that don't need LoS. (2 Smart Missiles)
And then its main gun, which either does:
Pulse Blastcannon (Max Range 30")
2 S14 AP-4 D6 shots.
4 S12 AP-2 D3 shots.
6 S10 AP0 D1 shots.
or
Pulse Driver Cannon
1d3 (2) S10 AP-3 Dd6 shots.
All at a 4+, degrading.
It WILL take a Shield Generator, and probably a Multi-Tracker and Advanced Targeting Systems, for reroll 1s and -1 AP on all guns. It also has 4 Destroyer missiles.
This costs: 442 points, with the Blastcannon. It jumps up by about 50 points to take the Driver.

A Baneblade has:
2 S7 AP-1 D2 shots. (Autocannon)
3d6 (10.5) S9 AP-3 D3 shots. (Baneblade cannon)
1d3 (2) S10 AP-3 Dd6 shots, at 24". (Demolisher cannon)
3 S4 shots. (Heavy Stubber)
4 S9 AP-3 Dd6 shots. (4 Lascannons)
24 S5 AP-1 shots. (4 Twin Heavy Bolters.)
All at a 4+, degrading.
This costs 689 points. A fair amount more than the Stormsurge. (Although I am looking at the Index, so didn't the Baneblade drop by like, 40 points?)

Against, say, Marines, the Stormsurge kills:
5 with secondary weapons, and either 1.11 with its main gun (10-20") or .83 (less than 10"), for about 6 total.
Baneblade kills:
.33 with the Auto, 3.65 with the main cannon, .69 with the Demolisher, .25 with the Stubber, 1.39 with the Lascannons, and 4 with the Heavy Bolters, for 10.31 total.
Baneblade is nearly twice as good.

What if they fire at each other? We'll assume each is undamaged and in optimal range.
Stormsurge does 2.5 wounds with its secondaries and 2.67 with its main (10-20") or 4 with its main (less than 10"). Average that to around 6 wounds.
Baneblade does .5 with autocannon, 5.25 with its main cannon, 1.17 with Demolisher, .17 with its stubber, 2.33 with its Lascannons, and 2 with its Heavy Bolters, for 11.42. Nearly double that of Stormsurge.

Now, I just realized I forgot to reroll 1s for the Surge, which it can get so long as it targets just one unit. That being said, the Baneblade is a LOT better than a Stormsurge.

I edited some math in. The Stormsurge is cheaper, yes. But worse.

 JNAProductions wrote:

Spoiler:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Autocannons are S7, AP-1, D2. They serve as antitank in a pinch.

Also, how much more expensive is a Stormsurge than a Baneblade?

Edit: Also, firepower:

Stormsurge has:
4d6 (14) S5 shots. (Cluster Missile System)
8 more S5 shots (at 18"). (2 Burst Cannons)
8 more S5 shots that don't need LoS. (2 Smart Missiles)
And then its main gun, which either does:
Pulse Blastcannon (Max Range 30")
2 S14 AP-4 D6 shots.
4 S12 AP-2 D3 shots.
6 S10 AP0 D1 shots.
or
Pulse Driver Cannon
1d3 (2) S10 AP-3 Dd6 shots.
All at a 4+, degrading.
It WILL take a Shield Generator, and probably a Multi-Tracker and Advanced Targeting Systems, for reroll 1s and -1 AP on all guns. It also has 4 Destroyer missiles.
This costs: 442 points, with the Blastcannon. It jumps up by about 50 points to take the Driver.

A Baneblade has:
2 S7 AP-1 D2 shots. (Autocannon)
3d6 (10.5) S9 AP-3 D3 shots. (Baneblade cannon)
1d3 (2) S10 AP-3 Dd6 shots, at 24". (Demolisher cannon)
3 S4 shots. (Heavy Stubber)
4 S9 AP-3 Dd6 shots. (4 Lascannons)
24 S5 AP-1 shots. (4 Twin Heavy Bolters.)
All at a 4+, degrading.
This costs 689 points. A fair amount more than the Stormsurge. (Although I am looking at the Index, so didn't the Baneblade drop by like, 40 points?)

Against, say, Marines, the Stormsurge kills:
5 with secondary weapons, and either 1.11 with its main gun (10-20") or .83 (less than 10"), for about 6 total.
Baneblade kills:
.33 with the Auto, 3.65 with the main cannon, .69 with the Demolisher, .25 with the Stubber, 1.39 with the Lascannons, and 4 with the Heavy Bolters, for 10.31 total.
Baneblade is nearly twice as good.

What if they fire at each other? We'll assume each is undamaged and in optimal range.
Stormsurge does 2.5 wounds with its secondaries and 2.67 with its main (10-20") or 4 with its main (less than 10"). Average that to around 6 wounds.
Baneblade does .5 with autocannon, 5.25 with its main cannon, 1.17 with Demolisher, .17 with its stubber, 2.33 with its Lascannons, and 2 with its Heavy Bolters, for 11.42. Nearly double that of Stormsurge.

Now, I just realized I forgot to reroll 1s for the Surge, which it can get so long as it targets just one unit. That being said, the Baneblade is a LOT better than a Stormsurge.

I edited some math in. The Stormsurge is cheaper, yes. But worse.

Yes, which is about what you would expect, right? The cheaper unit is worse?

Also don't forget the Stormsurge can do 4d3 mortal wounds as well, essentially automatically if it has Markerlight support.

If your list is any good it can't be fluffy.

 NenkotaMoon wrote:
If your list is any good it can't be fluffy.

But my list wasn't good 4 editions ago when I started to build it...

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

Spoiler:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Autocannons are S7, AP-1, D2. They serve as antitank in a pinch.

Also, how much more expensive is a Stormsurge than a Baneblade?

Edit: Also, firepower:

Stormsurge has:
4d6 (14) S5 shots. (Cluster Missile System)
8 more S5 shots (at 18"). (2 Burst Cannons)
8 more S5 shots that don't need LoS. (2 Smart Missiles)
And then its main gun, which either does:
Pulse Blastcannon (Max Range 30")
2 S14 AP-4 D6 shots.
4 S12 AP-2 D3 shots.
6 S10 AP0 D1 shots.
or
Pulse Driver Cannon
1d3 (2) S10 AP-3 Dd6 shots.
All at a 4+, degrading.
It WILL take a Shield Generator, and probably a Multi-Tracker and Advanced Targeting Systems, for reroll 1s and -1 AP on all guns. It also has 4 Destroyer missiles.
This costs: 442 points, with the Blastcannon. It jumps up by about 50 points to take the Driver.

A Baneblade has:
2 S7 AP-1 D2 shots. (Autocannon)
3d6 (10.5) S9 AP-3 D3 shots. (Baneblade cannon)
1d3 (2) S10 AP-3 Dd6 shots, at 24". (Demolisher cannon)
3 S4 shots. (Heavy Stubber)
4 S9 AP-3 Dd6 shots. (4 Lascannons)
24 S5 AP-1 shots. (4 Twin Heavy Bolters.)
All at a 4+, degrading.
This costs 689 points. A fair amount more than the Stormsurge. (Although I am looking at the Index, so didn't the Baneblade drop by like, 40 points?)

Against, say, Marines, the Stormsurge kills:
5 with secondary weapons, and either 1.11 with its main gun (10-20") or .83 (less than 10"), for about 6 total.
Baneblade kills:
.33 with the Auto, 3.65 with the main cannon, .69 with the Demolisher, .25 with the Stubber, 1.39 with the Lascannons, and 4 with the Heavy Bolters, for 10.31 total.
Baneblade is nearly twice as good.

What if they fire at each other? We'll assume each is undamaged and in optimal range.
Stormsurge does 2.5 wounds with its secondaries and 2.67 with its main (10-20") or 4 with its main (less than 10"). Average that to around 6 wounds.
Baneblade does .5 with autocannon, 5.25 with its main cannon, 1.17 with Demolisher, .17 with its stubber, 2.33 with its Lascannons, and 2 with its Heavy Bolters, for 11.42. Nearly double that of Stormsurge.

Now, I just realized I forgot to reroll 1s for the Surge, which it can get so long as it targets just one unit. That being said, the Baneblade is a LOT better than a Stormsurge.

I edited some math in. The Stormsurge is cheaper, yes. But worse.

Yes, which is about what you would expect, right? The cheaper unit is worse?

Also don't forget the Stormsurge can do 4d3 mortal wounds as well, essentially automatically if it has Markerlight support.

About half as good.

And 4d3 mortal wounds, with support, on a 4+ (rerolling ones). 3+ if it's anchored. That's an average of 6.22 mortal wounds, ASSUMING MARKERLIGHT SUPPORT. The Baneblade does more damage EVERY TURN without any support.

Waaaghpower wrote:

That's literally impossible.
2 Heavy Flamers is, at most, 12 shots. 8 Storm Bolters is 32 shots.
A LRP gets 49 shots.

6 man agressor squad, 12 flame storm gauntlets each does 2d6 shots, total 24d6 autohits rerolling wounds thanks to he'stan, 12 power.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 NenkotaMoon wrote:
If your list is any good it can't be fluffy.

But my list wasn't good 4 editions ago when I started to build it...

No excuses, you know the rules

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

Spoiler:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Autocannons are S7, AP-1, D2. They serve as antitank in a pinch.

Also, how much more expensive is a Stormsurge than a Baneblade?

Edit: Also, firepower:

Stormsurge has:
4d6 (14) S5 shots. (Cluster Missile System)
8 more S5 shots (at 18"). (2 Burst Cannons)
8 more S5 shots that don't need LoS. (2 Smart Missiles)
And then its main gun, which either does:
Pulse Blastcannon (Max Range 30")
2 S14 AP-4 D6 shots.
4 S12 AP-2 D3 shots.
6 S10 AP0 D1 shots.
or
Pulse Driver Cannon
1d3 (2) S10 AP-3 Dd6 shots.
All at a 4+, degrading.
It WILL take a Shield Generator, and probably a Multi-Tracker and Advanced Targeting Systems, for reroll 1s and -1 AP on all guns. It also has 4 Destroyer missiles.
This costs: 442 points, with the Blastcannon. It jumps up by about 50 points to take the Driver.

A Baneblade has:
2 S7 AP-1 D2 shots. (Autocannon)
3d6 (10.5) S9 AP-3 D3 shots. (Baneblade cannon)
1d3 (2) S10 AP-3 Dd6 shots, at 24". (Demolisher cannon)
3 S4 shots. (Heavy Stubber)
4 S9 AP-3 Dd6 shots. (4 Lascannons)
24 S5 AP-1 shots. (4 Twin Heavy Bolters.)
All at a 4+, degrading.
This costs 689 points. A fair amount more than the Stormsurge. (Although I am looking at the Index, so didn't the Baneblade drop by like, 40 points?)

Against, say, Marines, the Stormsurge kills:
5 with secondary weapons, and either 1.11 with its main gun (10-20") or .83 (less than 10"), for about 6 total.
Baneblade kills:
.33 with the Auto, 3.65 with the main cannon, .69 with the Demolisher, .25 with the Stubber, 1.39 with the Lascannons, and 4 with the Heavy Bolters, for 10.31 total.
Baneblade is nearly twice as good.

What if they fire at each other? We'll assume each is undamaged and in optimal range.
Stormsurge does 2.5 wounds with its secondaries and 2.67 with its main (10-20") or 4 with its main (less than 10"). Average that to around 6 wounds.
Baneblade does .5 with autocannon, 5.25 with its main cannon, 1.17 with Demolisher, .17 with its stubber, 2.33 with its Lascannons, and 2 with its Heavy Bolters, for 11.42. Nearly double that of Stormsurge.

Now, I just realized I forgot to reroll 1s for the Surge, which it can get so long as it targets just one unit. That being said, the Baneblade is a LOT better than a Stormsurge.

I edited some math in. The Stormsurge is cheaper, yes. But worse.

Yes, which is about what you would expect, right? The cheaper unit is worse?

Also don't forget the Stormsurge can do 4d3 mortal wounds as well, essentially automatically if it has Markerlight support.

About half as good.

And 4d3 mortal wounds, with support, on a 4+ (rerolling ones). 3+ if it's anchored. That's an average of 6.22 mortal wounds, ASSUMING MARKERLIGHT SUPPORT. The Baneblade does more damage EVERY TURN without any support.

About half as good in firepower (and not even because you forgot the re-roll ones, as you admit) but more durable against big guns is fine. The Baneblade's also actually 703 points and does slightly more damage because you forgot one Twin Heavy Bolter.

Besides, if you mix and match the Baneblade's weapons more it changes.

For example, my Baneblades are the "classic" loadout, with only one set of sponsons (2 lascannons and 2 twin heavy bolters per tank, plus the default armament (1 baneblade cannon, 1 autocannon, 1 demolisher cannon, 1 twin heavy bolter)). Alternatively, the Baneblade you're testing against could be "optimized" with heavy flamers, in which case the cost rockets to 767 points and it actually loses firepower until the enemy is 8" away. So it all depends on what you've given the tank.

Alcibiades wrote:
I'm not an experienced player, so be gentle.

But, I was doing some mathhammer, and,,, is he LR turret weapon firing twice really that big a deal? The basic BC has less damage output (against a somewhat arbitarily chosen T8 3+ target) than a Mechanicus Neutron Laser Onager Dunecrawler).

In fairness, some LR variants were due for a buff, the BC being one of them. But all LRs getting double shots for a trifling penalty AND a points cut was a little overboard. They could have reasonably buffed the weaker LR weapons, but instead just blanked buffed everything, which smacks of laziness to me.

 Kap'n Krump wrote:

Alcibiades wrote:
I'm not an experienced player, so be gentle.

But, I was doing some mathhammer, and,,, is he LR turret weapon firing twice really that big a deal? The basic BC has less damage output (against a somewhat arbitarily chosen T8 3+ target) than a Mechanicus Neutron Laser Onager Dunecrawler).

In fairness, some LR variants were due for a buff, the BC being one of them. But all LRs getting double shots for a trifling penalty AND a points cut was a little overboard. They could have reasonably buffed the weaker LR weapons, but instead just blanked buffed everything, which smacks of laziness to me.

Weapon costs should have been tweaked. The leman Russ Battlecannon is about perfect where it sits, whereas a Punisher at this points cost is pretty insane, especially with a tank commander or pask. Generic ones arent near as crazy, its mainly how Pask combines with the punisher that pushes it over the top. If anything Pask needs the biggest point increase, with the punisher getting a small amount on top of that.

The Vanquisher still needs a buff if I remember.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Waaaghpower wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Waaaghpower wrote:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:

Like I said, a skilled player with a bad army is better than an unskilled player with a good army. My opponent decided to park his ass in a corner thinking he could shoot everything I had off the board, then proceeded to focus on my dreadnoughts and tanks and forgot my berserkers existed. He also didn't take into account Morale and thought that the bonuses from his defensive grenades and overwatch would protect his fire warriors. From Berserkers. I basically ended up controlling all of the objectives on the board by the end of turn 2 and his battlesuits ended up chasing a single backpedaling dreadnought for most of the game. Just because someone has a bigger gun doesn't necessarily mean they will win in a firefight, especially if they're holding the gun backwards. Similarly, my 3.5 Iron Warriors have also lost to a 3rd edition Dark Eldar army simply because I didn't know about Dark Lances (DE players being THAT rare at the time).

When life gives you lemons, make exploding lemons. Blaming your loss on an opponent's army choice rather than actually try to find a way around it just seem cowardly to me.

That's not always true, though. In the case of my last game against Guard, my opponent made a ton of mistakes - Lots of exploitable gaps in his screen, nowhere near enough troops near the Relic making it super wide open, tanks crowded too close together, meaning that one assault could potentially bog a bunch of them down.

The problem is, none of those mistakes matter when he has board-covering range, easy counter-deployment access, and can kill half my army in a single shooting phase.

Those mistakes absolutely matter. If there are gaps in the screen, then Alpha Legion or Raven Guard (just as examples) will drop in, march through the gaps, and feth over all of his tanks.

Boom, just won the game right there.

Firstly: When I say 'Gaps' I mean 'Small areas where my Seraphim/Celestine could jump over conscripts and get into assault'. Not large gaps that Infiltrators could exploit.

Secondly: I had every intention of exploiting those gaps, but as I have noted several times now, over half my army was destroyed in one turn, before I got to go.
This isn't a hypothetical. His mistakes didn't matter, because I didn't survive long enough to exploit them.

That's happened to me before, against guilliman armies. 8th edition is simply brutal, and that's not Guard's fault.

I've lost two superheavy tanks (or lost 1 and had one crippled) which is half my army at 2k on the top of Turn 1. It's just a thing that happens; this is not unique to guard.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Heck, there's a thread in this very forum where a CSM player tabled an Eldar player top of turn 1.

This really isn't just a problem with guard, so acting like it's the guard codex's fault is just ... asinine. It's not.

*Coughs* Well Guilliman is REALLY good.

>.>


But it's not a superheavy list that breaks the meta since superheavies are all or nothing as a list. If you can't effectively deal with them, you will be smeared across the board, if you can take out, minimum, of one superheavy a turn, you'll win in 3 to 4 turns just by killing all the super heavies, and most competitive lists have the ability to kill superheavies. It's sort of the competitive litmus. Superheavies would be a bummer for someone playing a less anti tank focused casual list. My calgar list is too fragile to survive the baneblade alpha and hit back, while my guilliman list is completely fine with it. Rhinos make good cover for a turn, and either die or can move to open up a firelane.


People who think all superheavies are a tournament winning list need to pay attention to tournaments. They win rarely, and only as an anti meta pick, eg, everyone builds an army to kill hordes since hordes are dominating, a superheavy list will knock out the people who went too far with anti horde and sacrificed most of their anti tank weaponry. The problem with this being smite spam rocks the pants off super heavies and hordes protecting smite spam is pretty much 100 percent of all chaos lists, and a lot of imp soup lists do it too.






Automatically Appended Next Post:

Waaaghpower wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


That's happened to me before, against guilliman armies. 8th edition is simply brutal, and that's not Guard's fault.

I've lost two superheavy tanks (or lost 1 and had one crippled) which is half my army at 2k on the top of Turn 1. It's just a thing that happens; this is not unique to guard.

Was that pre or post-codex? Because Guard super-heavies are now both cheaper and harder to cripple.
Furthermore, Guard are both the best army at crippling opponents in such a way, and one of the most resilient armies against it. Yes, it's a problem with 8th edition, but it is a problem that Guard exploit far more easily than any other army. Their range makes it nearly impossible to counter-deploy against or hide from, their screens make it impossible to assault and tie up.

(Also: By my math, that amount of damage output from Space Marines is only really possible if he takes 1000ish points of anti-tank fire, plus Guilliman, or if he gets very good dice. It's not going to be a common eventuality.)

Hmm... let's see, I had 2 devastator squads with missle launchers at 10 men and 2 5 man hellblasters for my antitank shooting. Plus Guilliman himself, and 2 librarians for psychic chipping.

4 missile launchers hit roughly 3.5ish times (actual math is hard. rounding to nearest half interger) and wound roughly 2.5 times, netting just under 2 wounds after saves. hellblasters hit roughly 9 times (a little less) and wound roughly 7ish (6.75 or somthing) for, let's split the difference and say 13 wounds. two hellblasters plus a smite kills a baneblade and lets my missiles shoot somewhere else for roughly 14 to 16 damage depending on rerolls. And that's not including other incidental fire.

Baneblade armies require the ability to craft an effective list and the ability to pick out proper firelanes. I managed to hide most of my anti tank in cover or behind a rhino, preserving my firepower for the first turn alpha, loosing all my tactical screens, my rhinos, and a few expendables in my dev unit. In return I nuked a baneblade and half another, roughly statistically even, maybe a little better.

Baneblades are by no means overwhelmingly good, not even now with a price decrease. Aptly, their weight (in points) in leman russes would do better in my opinion.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:

 Kap'n Krump wrote:

Alcibiades wrote:
I'm not an experienced player, so be gentle.

But, I was doing some mathhammer, and,,, is he LR turret weapon firing twice really that big a deal? The basic BC has less damage output (against a somewhat arbitarily chosen T8 3+ target) than a Mechanicus Neutron Laser Onager Dunecrawler).

In fairness, some LR variants were due for a buff, the BC being one of them. But all LRs getting double shots for a trifling penalty AND a points cut was a little overboard. They could have reasonably buffed the weaker LR weapons, but instead just blanked buffed everything, which smacks of laziness to me.

Weapon costs should have been tweaked. The leman Russ Battlecannon is about perfect where it sits, whereas a Punisher at this points cost is pretty insane, especially with a tank commander or pask. Generic ones arent near as crazy, its mainly how Pask combines with the punisher that pushes it over the top. If anything Pask needs the biggest point increase, with the punisher getting a small amount on top of that.

I don't get it. Do people not just shoot the crap out of pask? He's got a 29" threat range. Don't put anything in that that can't take a whole bunch of S5 AP0. He deals on average about 5 wounds to your normal transport, or kills 5 marines in cover. If he lives more than one turn, you're kind of making a mistake, because he's 250ish points with leman russ defenses. I wasn't being hyperbolic when I said it's not unreasonable for 4 lasdevs to kill him in a single round of shooting - their wound potential is double his health. On average, it'll take 2 dev squads, if they're unbuffed.

The paskisher is a thing that looks super unreasonable and scary on paper. Do you know why FW Vultures aren't sweeping through tournaments en masse, despite putting out almost the same firepower for cheaper? Because 40 S5 AP0 shots isn't particularly scary in 8th, where they don't have the ability to glance vehicles to death.

Waaaghpower wrote:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
@ WaaaghPower: It sounds like your opponent was a decent player, recognized the actual threats to his army, made an active effort to eliminate them, and you just had a bad string of rolls. Also you said your army was a gulliman based artillery line? If this was space marines then they were never really known for stationary gunlines (that's kinda the guard's shtick). Maybe try some more mobile space marine options since trying to out-artillery Guard is like trying to beat Muhammad Ali in a fistfight, rather than just suing him for physical assault.

Nah. Other than one unlucky explosion on a tank that put a couple of wounds my dreads, and one really bad but irrelevant roll on a cheap unit of Dominions (three 1s on four 2+ saves, not that it matters,) my rolls were actually generally pretty good - All things considered. (All I really got to roll were armor saves, mostly on 5+ and 6+. I made about half my 5+ saves.)
He just had so many rerolls on pretty much everything that bad dice weren't ever possible for him.

(He WAS a decent opponent, though. Super nice guy, also.)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Sorry, Assault Centurions.

And they infiltrated with the Raven Guard stratagem. Shrike came along as well, though he didn't do much.

And I think most of the lascannon damage came from a couple of predators and a razorback. IIRC the 'smattering of other damage' was things like smites and whatever shooting was left that wasn't lascannons.

So it WASN'T Ultramarines?
Also: I'm still confused how he managed to assault you, get within 12" of your Baneblade, and hit your tanks with SMITE, a power that targets only the closest unit. Conscripts, or just regular Guardsmen, and even a remotely decent deployment should have prevented this.

People play more than one game. I am roughly 90 percent certain I am the ultramarine player he played against. I did win, and I did so by surviving the first turn fire through use of terrain and sacrificing my rhinos, and taking out one and a half baneblades on his turn.