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.

At this particular point in my life, I am not sure I have the time to magnetize and paint as many variants as can be made with the kit. Which would you recommend?

Thanks

SG

It really depends on what your goal is. all have uses but not all have what you need. for a battle taxi the stormlord is great for a big tank baneblade for superheavy or tank killing shadowsord.

Look up a guide on building the Octoblade and then you get to try them out for yourself. If you have time to build the base kit and play games of 40k, you have an extra 2-3 hours to magnetize it. You don't need to paint all the variants at once, just build them and prime them all, then paint a variant when you feel like trying it out. It's a $140 model and buying a second one is way more hours of equivalent labor barring a few professions tgan the time it takes to magnetize it.

If you're just gonna build it straight one way and want the most competitive straight up current choice in 8E, the Shadowsword. They're broken good.

The classic Baneblade isn't bad by any means, but doesn't match the big tank hunter.

Well, the way I see it is if you have 6-9 lascannon HWT made up, you go Stormlord and put them inside for AT, and build the sponsons.

If you don't, then you go Shadowsword.

sidewinderscott wrote:
It really depends on what your goal is. all have uses but not all have what you need. for a battle taxi the stormlord is great for a big tank baneblade for superheavy or tank killing shadowsord.

First response nails it.

Shadowsword wins, with stormlord second. Though personally, I also like the idea of the banehammer. Transport, and gives something you cant get anywhere else - controlling the enemies mobility. All while still having a decent gun. Bonus: Less TFG than the shadowsword, and you can easily build it to be swappable with the doomhammer and stormlord, depending on your needs (BH: jack of all trades, DH: AT, SL: AI). No need to go for a full hex- or octoblade.

Shadowsword.

After that, Baneblade.

Stormlord isn't nearly as good as it used to be, but it's pretty viable.



I'd personally avoid the Banesword, Stormsword, or Hellhammer, because you can just do better with a Shadowsword or Baneblade.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

Stormlord isn't nearly as good as it used to be, but it's pretty viable.

I'm super interested in why you think so. Is it because the baneblade got cheaper, or did something change with the stormlord itself that I'm missing?

Shadowsword is ridiculously good. I hate seeing it lined up against me when I play. It pulverises your opponent's superheavies, and autodeletes a tank every round if your opponent didn't bring one. Ugh. Seriously underpriced, even before the buff, if you ask me.

 daedalus wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

Stormlord isn't nearly as good as it used to be, but it's pretty viable.

I'm super interested in why you think so. Is it because the baneblade got cheaper, or did something change with the stormlord itself that I'm missing?

Stormlord is short 10 shots from it's previous incarnation, and the Baneblade got cheaper and more effective than it used to be.


Mostly, the Stormlord pays for the crap-ton of transport, which I consider a downside.

grouchoben wrote:
Shadowsword is ridiculously good. I hate seeing it lined up against me when I play. It pulverises your opponent's superheavies, and autodeletes a tank every round if your opponent didn't bring one. Ugh. Seriously underpriced, even before the buff, if you ask me.

It didn't need the 40 point price decrease. It was fairly priced before they messed with it.

Notably, most of a Baneblade's goodness comes from it's sponsons and TITANIC. The Shadowsword is the best one because the big gun actually does a thing in it's own right, namely blow up super-heavies.

Back around, I don't think the deleting a tank a turn it a big deal though. All the baneblades can do that, and it's not something hard for 550 points for of stuff to do. Also, it can only destroy one vehicle each turn. If your army can't sustain the loss of one vehicle on turn one, then it probably had a bigger problem that the Shadowsword not being there wouldn't have solved.



I think it's definitely rather underpriced and overwhelmingly powerful, but I think that's because of the TITANTIC immunities and sponson suite than the giant destroyer laser.


Bring a shadowsword because it does pretty much everything the other baneblades do, and it can wreck a super-heavy tank. The latter ability is game winning if it gets to use it, otherwise, you still have the performance of any other baneblade for a fairly marginal increase in cost.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Shadowsword.

After that, Baneblade.

Stormlord isn't nearly as good as it used to be, but it's pretty viable.



I'd personally avoid the Banesword, Stormsword, or Hellhammer, because you can just do better with a Shadowsword or Baneblade.

Really? I don't have either but I'd rather have a Hellhammer than a Baneblade. Hellhammer's cannon is better at killing stuff and only loses to Baneblade with range, which should be still enough for most intents and purposes. And if you do want range, Shadowsword is just better than Baneblade most of the time. Am I missing something?

Edit: Also, Stormlord is interesting but you'd really have to have a plan to utilize it's transportation capability. Like the thing with the lascannons.

It depends on what you do.

Hellhammer is very very very expensive and doesn't gain much over the Baneblade.

Shadowsword is overspecialized imo (e.g. a Baneblade is much better against conscripts / horde infantry).

Banesword is junk, and Stormsword is only okay if you're desperate to Ignore Cover - at least it's cheap, unlike the Hellhammer.

 RedCommander wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Shadowsword.

After that, Baneblade.

Stormlord isn't nearly as good as it used to be, but it's pretty viable.



I'd personally avoid the Banesword, Stormsword, or Hellhammer, because you can just do better with a Shadowsword or Baneblade.

Really? I don't have either but I'd rather have a Hellhammer than a Baneblade. Hellhammer's cannon is better at killing stuff and only loses to Baneblade with range, which should be still enough for most intents and purposes. And if you do want range, Shadowsword is just better than Baneblade most of the time. Am I missing something?

Edit: Also, Stormlord is interesting but you'd really have to have a plan to utilize it's transportation capability. Like the thing with the lascannons.

Well, the Baneblade is cheaper and has better range. The Hellhammer isn't actually better at killing things, because of how the chart works now. S9 is functionally identical to S10.

The only really worthwhile part of the hellhammer is AP4 vs AP3, and I think it's usually wasted, so I'd stick with the cheaper, longer-ranged option.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
It depends on what you do.

Hellhammer is very very very expensive and doesn't gain much over the Baneblade.

Shadowsword is overspecialized imo (e.g. a Baneblade is much better against conscripts / horde infantry).

Banesword is junk, and Stormsword is only okay if you're desperate to Ignore Cover - at least it's cheap, unlike the Hellhammer.

A shadowsword isn't that specialized. It has 10 heavy bolters, which is enough from experience to chew up any infantry you may want to.

It's really, really good at one thing, and still pretty good at the other thing. It's not like it's going to be ineffective if your enemy brought all conscripts.

A Baneblade can also have 10 heavy bolters, buying it equivalent anti-infantry firepower to the shadowsword, while having more guns and a better main gun at killing infantry to boot.

It is also, in this configuration, good against most targets the shadowsword is good against.


I still maintain the shadowsword is overkill against smaller tanks, making it overspecialized at killing larger vehicles, relative to the Baneblade.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
A Baneblade can also have 10 heavy bolters, buying it equivalent anti-infantry firepower to the shadowsword, while having more guns and a better main gun at killing infantry to boot.

It is also, in this configuration, good against most targets the shadowsword is good against.


I still maintain the shadowsword is overkill against smaller tanks, making it overspecialized at killing larger vehicles, relative to the Baneblade.

It is, but basically just enough so that if you roll poorly, you can probably kill it anyway. For its price, it's a fantastic AT unit for vehicles of all sizes. Even if put to use against stuff like Razorbacks, if it's popping one a turn, it's going to make its points back by the end of the game. Against heavier tanks like Leman Russ tanks or Land Raiders even more beautiful.

Essentially, it's a one-size fits all unit, ensuring that with one round of fire, you'll probably kill any single monster or vehicle from a Sentinel or unit of Obliterators up to a Land Raider, without too much worry.

That it's just as effective against most Superheavies is icing on the cake really.

It's stupid good

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
A Baneblade can also have 10 heavy bolters, buying it equivalent anti-infantry firepower to the shadowsword, while having more guns and a better main gun at killing infantry to boot.

It is also, in this configuration, good against most targets the shadowsword is good against.


I still maintain the shadowsword is overkill against smaller tanks, making it overspecialized at killing larger vehicles, relative to the Baneblade.

They way I see it is that the Shadowsword brings effectively the same performance as a Baneblade, but can also blow up superheavy tanks, which is an absolutely game-winning ability.


A superheavy tank represents a fair amount of the power in a list including it, and bringing it down before it can have a meaningful effect is essentially game winning. Denying them the use of their big giant tank of doom is incredibly good, and even them just knowing that I have a Shadowsword to possibly bring in my list can sometimes encourage someone not to bring their own superheavy.

Because the Shadowsword is very good against infantry and tanks, and effective enough to the point where being better isn't required, and denies the enemy super-heavies, I'm very convinced that the Shadowsword is the best of the group.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:


Well, the Baneblade is cheaper and has better range. The Hellhammer isn't actually better at killing things, because of how the chart works now. S9 is functionally identical to S10.

The only really worthwhile part of the hellhammer is AP4 vs AP3, and I think it's usually wasted, so I'd stick with the cheaper, longer-ranged option.

Ah but if you are thinking about a Baneblade or Hellhammer, you'd probably want to kill infantry too with the main gun. S10 is better against T5 targets, which is where the toughness of infantry pretty much caps at. Also, Hellhammer ignores cover along with AP -4. Still, fair points. Not saying Baneblade is useless, I'd just rather have a Hellhammer and probably try it with maximum Heavy Flamers.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
A Baneblade can also have 10 heavy bolters, buying it equivalent anti-infantry firepower to the shadowsword, while having more guns and a better main gun at killing infantry to boot.

It is also, in this configuration, good against most targets the shadowsword is good against.


I still maintain the shadowsword is overkill against smaller tanks, making it overspecialized at killing larger vehicles, relative to the Baneblade.

They way I see it is that the Shadowsword brings effectively the same performance as a Baneblade, but can also blow up superheavy tanks, which is an absolutely game-winning ability.


A superheavy tank represents a fair amount of the power in a list including it, and bringing it down before it can have a meaningful effect is essentially game winning. Denying them the use of their big giant tank of doom is incredibly good, and even them just knowing that I have a Shadowsword to possibly bring in my list can sometimes encourage someone not to bring their own superheavy.

Because the Shadowsword is very good against infantry and tanks, and effective enough to the point where being better isn't required, and denies the enemy super-heavies, I'm very convinced that the Shadowsword is the best of the group.

I have to agree. The Shadowsword is the best of the bunch.

It has a good chance of killing other Lord of War-warmachines. This is excellent value.

Its ability to overkill a regular tank per turn can't be underestimated either. If the tank is in your LoS, it's basically a confirmed tank kill before you even roll the dice. Even if it's a land raider. This is true especially since the Codex upgrade. And since you only need to use the Volcano Cannon for this, you can aim the other guns at different targets. Tactically, being able to depend on a certain thing to happen is huge.

And what about the infantry? Well, that's why I'm bringing all five of the Twin Heavy Bolters. And you still need to decide what to do with the four lascannons.

Also, giant death lasers are cool.

Shadowsword all day long. The ability to kill a super heavy in one round is awesome, and it dominates other vehicles as well. Throw on heavy bolters and you have some all-purpose firepower as well.

ShadowSword hands down. 3d3 shots = 6 shots for 4s = 3 hits(adds 1 vs Titanic) wounds on 2+ (rerolls vs titanic) and does 2d6 damaged. ~4d6 damage vs what ever it hits (after AS@-5 or InSaves).