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.

Marin wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

Karol wrote:
So GW thinks GK strikes should cost more then 1ksons. Interesting, maybe they are really making a huge book with rule for GK to use. Because the point changes look strange. If everyone gets their point costs cut, then the cuts only matter to top and mid tier armies. The bad ones will stay bad.

Strikes have the same problem loyalist Terminators do - they pay for having weapons that are pretty good for both shooting and close combat and therefore end up being pretty bad at both due to cost. If GW insists on sticking to fixed costs for wargear they're going to need to start slashing the base cost of things like GK to compensate but they seem reluctant to do that for some reason. I agree with you about the points cuts. I don't think constantly reducing the cost of almost everything is they way to go as it just leads to a further increase in damage output.

And an increase in sales as people are forced to buy models to fill in gaps...

Considering the broad strokes of the point decreases is , all in all considering , quite significant.
I had a marine based CSM list with 55 CSM in it. The list is allready now 110 pts cheaper, that is literally a whole other CSM squad.
Not to mention that the 30 cultist blob also got cheaper by 30 pts aswell.

And that is just expected model cuts, not to go into detail on some special weapory.

I also doubt that Havocs will remain 14 ppm aswell.

Chosen should come down as well. But then again raptors didn't. My contemptor will be at least 8 points cheaper thanks to the drop on chainfists.

Still hoping for a drop on the fellblade. They dropped the wraithknight so that's one non ik/ck low down. Didn't make the eldar players happy though. Always want more.

Yea, that drop will make seeing WK 0 times on top tables, to seeing it 0 times at top tables. The points were not the problem, it just don`t work.

Only the most points efficient units see top tables.

I just want my fellblade good enough for most fun games.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Considering the firepower getting tossed around by 300-400pt units, there is no logical reason a Baneblade should cost 500-600pts. It's less survivable, easier to kill, less firepower due to it's inherent WS/BS, zero stratagems dedicated to it, and completely useless once in melee. But sure, it should cost more than every Knight, and twice as much as an Executioner.

Useless in melee? Anything with the steel behemoth rule is nasty up close. Especially if take flamers instead of bolters. A flamer baneblade can go toe to toe with a bloodthirster.

And you can get two for the price of one fellblade.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Considering the firepower getting tossed around by 300-400pt units, there is no logical reason a Baneblade should cost 500-600pts. It's less survivable, easier to kill, less firepower due to it's inherent WS/BS, zero stratagems dedicated to it, and completely useless once in melee. But sure, it should cost more than every Knight, and twice as much as an Executioner.

While not dedicated, it's hard to imagine a better use of "Crush them!" than a baneblade, which gives it 9 S9, AP2, D: d3 attacks hitting on 2s.

The problem has always been the durability, as others have pointed out. In terms of firepower and function, they seem good, they just disappear very quickly.

 Polonius wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Considering the firepower getting tossed around by 300-400pt units, there is no logical reason a Baneblade should cost 500-600pts. It's less survivable, easier to kill, less firepower due to it's inherent WS/BS, zero stratagems dedicated to it, and completely useless once in melee. But sure, it should cost more than every Knight, and twice as much as an Executioner.

While not dedicated, it's hard to imagine a better use of "Crush them!" than a baneblade, which gives it 9 S9, AP2, D: d3 attacks hitting on 2s.

The problem has always been the durability, as others have pointed out. In terms of firepower and function, they seem good, they just disappear very quickly.

Meanwhile Al rahem would call for his head....

Yeah, right. If you can afford to load your Baneblade with flamers be my guest. More than twice the cost, and are useless for the majority of the Baneblade's already short life on the table. This thing will die before turn 3, and adding 100pts in close range fire support and wasting CP on it's melee isn't helping it do it's job.

It turns big targets to toast. If your baneblade is in melee, you are doing it wrong.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Yeah, right. If you can afford to load your Baneblade with flamers be my guest. More than twice the cost, and are useless for the majority of the Baneblade's already short life on the table. This thing will die before turn 3, and adding 100pts in close range fire support and wasting CP on it's melee isn't helping it do it's job.

It turns big targets to toast. If your baneblade is in melee, you are doing it wrong.

With a Doomhammer at 364 I'd cackle with glee about pushing a couple up the table and when they die Ogryns and Inquisition pop out...like some Jokaero and Coteaz. it'd be fun for a little bit at least.

As far as lack of strategems goes, you ever see what a baneblade can do to a chaos army with vengeance for cadia on it?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Yeah, right. If you can afford to load your Baneblade with flamers be my guest. More than twice the cost, and are useless for the majority of the Baneblade's already short life on the table. This thing will die before turn 3, and adding 100pts in close range fire support and wasting CP on it's melee isn't helping it do it's job.

It turns big targets to toast. If your baneblade is in melee, you are doing it wrong.

Not if it's Tallarn.

Gadzilla666 wrote:
As far as lack of strategems goes, you ever see what a baneblade can do to a chaos army with vengeance for cadia on it?

Don't forget defensive gunners. I made that mistake...once...

Gadzilla666 wrote:
As far as lack of strategems goes, you ever see what a baneblade can do to a chaos army with vengeance for cadia on it?

While VFC is admittedly hideously OP on a Baneblade for 1CP, it's also basically only one of three (the others being Defensive Gunners and Crush Them!) they're ever going to get any use out of, and it's only useful against one faction.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Yeah, right. If you can afford to load your Baneblade with flamers be my guest. More than twice the cost, and are useless for the majority of the Baneblade's already short life on the table. This thing will die before turn 3, and adding 100pts in close range fire support and wasting CP on it's melee isn't helping it do it's job.

It turns big targets to toast. If your baneblade is in melee, you are doing it wrong.

I think we all agree that the thing is overly fragile.

 Polonius wrote:

I think we all agree that the thing is overly fragile.

Calling something T8 with 26 wounds overly fragile...I just don't know about that.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Polonius wrote:

I think we all agree that the thing is overly fragile.

Calling something T8 with 26 wounds overly fragile...I just don't know about that.

Considering vehicles with no other unafectable source of defenses is considered fragile atm, yes, i believe you can call a baneblade fragile, altough brittle would be better imo

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Polonius wrote:

I think we all agree that the thing is overly fragile.

Calling something T8 with 26 wounds overly fragile...I just don't know about that.

Considering vehicles with no other unafectable source of defenses is considered fragile atm, yes, i believe you can call a baneblade fragile, altough brittle would be better imo

Looking at what kills vehicles these days --

Disco Lords ignore the invulnerable saves of knights in melee. Non-IH/IF Marines lack a lot of ways to take T8 from range right now. Daemons are smiting to invulns are irrelevant. Harlies are haywire so again - no use. It takes 3 IH Repulsor Executioners -- 1,000 points to down one in a single turn considering that there is no reason to be in range of anything more than its main gun. The Astreaus isn't cutting through it, either.

We're not living in the days of Castellans and Ynnari Reapers.

Doesn't change the fact that knights impacted the meta negatively for these kinds of vehicles daedalus.

Also again i am more in the brittle camp.

Most lists nowadays are designed to be able to take down a knight turn one. So without something buffing it's durability I would say something like a baneblade is definitely "brittle ".

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Polonius wrote:

I think we all agree that the thing is overly fragile.

Calling something T8 with 26 wounds overly fragile...I just don't know about that.

What I've learned in general from this board is that "fragile" is a meaningless word, since pretty much every unit has been described as such, and I think it's born out of an idea that a unit "needs" to be able to survive an entire army's shooting or it's somehow not worth it.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Polonius wrote:

I think we all agree that the thing is overly fragile.

Calling something T8 with 26 wounds overly fragile...I just don't know about that.

I think it more says something about the problem with Lethality atm.

Knights are still a gatekeeper list. Any list that can deal with 3-4 Knights can deal with a Baneblade

 Galef wrote:


It would make sense for GKs to be a supplement to Inquisition, which I would include in the Imperial Agents Codex.

But the details aren't important, as the main thesis of my suggestion is that Factions ABC should be full codices while Factions XYZ should only get supplements that require fielding some of ABC first

-

that would be really bad for anyone playing GK or DW, because not only would their armies be forced to be in books with other, potentialy better units, but being forced to run alongside other armies wouldn't really work. Why take worse options from other books and lose your doctrine, when you can take better units out of your own codex, go mono and get a buckets of good extra rules. DW aren't that bad all rounders, at least when compared to pre supplement marines, but why take GK at all? They are the worse army to take vs demons, not only are they bad at countering demons, but also give nothing when someone plays an opponent without demons.

May as well move them to narrative, but am not sure if even in narrative someone would want to play GK instead their own army. And GK players would have armies optimised to be played with majority of other army, so if someone really wanted to play just GK, they could have an army even worse then the one right now.

This sounds like a horrible idea, and I have no idea what people would be gaining out of it.

 Ordana wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Polonius wrote:

I think we all agree that the thing is overly fragile.

Calling something T8 with 26 wounds overly fragile...I just don't know about that.

I think it more says something about the problem with Lethality atm.

Knights are still a gatekeeper list. Any list that can deal with 3-4 Knights can deal with a Baneblade

It's a lot easier for assault cents to get into it with knights that have no screen than it a BB behind IS. Or for TFCs to slow down a melee knight where a BB literally doesn't care.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Polonius wrote:

I think we all agree that the thing is overly fragile.

Calling something T8 with 26 wounds overly fragile...I just don't know about that.

While not fragile, I don't think it's unfair to call their resiliency weak for the relative investment. Depending on how you kit a BB out, equal points of Heavy Support Russ tanks (particularly with the new CA pricing) will have 36-48 T8 3++ wounds, and a Knight with a 5++ being shot at by AT weapons effectively has 32 wounds relative to the BB's 26.

The Baneblade's *relative* resiliency took a huge tanking with 8E. In previous editions they always had 3x the wounds/HP's/etc of a Russ instead of just 2x as they do now, and had 50% more wounds/HP relative to a Knight whereas now the Knight has basically an identical number of wounds.

That said, ultimately I think the issue is creep in the other units, the BB I think is actually more in line with where the game should be.

 Galef wrote:

Yoyoyo wrote:
You listed Knights but omitted Guard and Tyranids?

For shame

Fixed. I did say I missed some. I have to type fast in between calls at work.

Karol wrote:
How would GK work as a supplment to custodes or marines, where besides rhinos, razorbacks and some vehicles they have no units in common with each other?

It would make sense for GKs to be a supplement to Inquisition, which I would include in the Imperial Agents Codex.

But the details aren't important, as the main thesis of my suggestion is that Factions ABC should be full codices while Factions XYZ should only get supplements that require fielding some of ABC first

-

Indeed, there should be an Inquistion codex with all the Ordos inside.
I'd prefer more generic codices with DIY rules.

i'd live with that, IF the customisation once again get's pricetags wuestenfux

Given the new changes where the all the BBs main guns except Stormlord got an extra D3/6 shots per gun, it's essentially a Glass Cannon. You can do a horrifying set of wounds to basically anything in the game now, but you may not survive the next round of shooting.

I always wondered why we never saw 3 Baneblade lists in 8th....

I would venture it's because they are horrifying to get around in well terrained boards, and they are relatively easy to play cat and mouse with them.

As for how easy it is to take them down, don't forget on their 2nd bracket they become essentially worthless, at BS5, and that is just 10 wounds. A single executioner could drop ten wounds on a Baneblade very easily.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Given the new changes where the all the BBs main guns except Stormlord got an extra D3/6 shots per gun, it's essentially a Glass Cannon. You can do a horrifying set of wounds to basically anything in the game now, but you may not survive the next round of shooting.

I always wondered why we never saw 3 Baneblade lists in 8th....

I would venture it's because they are horrifying to get around in well terrained boards, and they are relatively easy to play cat and mouse with them.

As for how easy it is to take them down, don't forget on their 2nd bracket they become essentially worthless, at BS5, and that is just 10 wounds. A single executioner could drop ten wounds on a Baneblade very easily.

I used to run 3 BB lists. They were tons of fun at the beginning of 8th, but the Knight codex dropped and their utility plummeted. Everyone brought stuff to kill Knights, and they could wipe a Baneblade and a half (or so) a turn, since a Baneblade is just a knight but FAR easier to get your wound through on. I've never been tabled on turn 2 with the list, but I have been tabled top of 3, typically from enemy shooting that was intended to kill 3++ castellans/4++knights (once the FAQ finally dropped for RIS and the Castellan was nerfed).

What do you mean the "new changes where they get an extra d3/d6 shots per gun?" I always found it odd that a Baneblade fired 4d6 shots (3d6 main gun, 1d6 with its demolisher cannon), and the Russes that were alongside it for roughly the same points fired 6d6 shots.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Given the new changes where the all the BBs main guns except Stormlord got an extra D3/6 shots per gun, it's essentially a Glass Cannon. You can do a horrifying set of wounds to basically anything in the game now, but you may not survive the next round of shooting.

I always wondered why we never saw 3 Baneblade lists in 8th....

I would venture it's because they are horrifying to get around in well terrained boards, and they are relatively easy to play cat and mouse with them.

As for how easy it is to take them down, don't forget on their 2nd bracket they become essentially worthless, at BS5, and that is just 10 wounds. A single executioner could drop ten wounds on a Baneblade very easily.

I used to run 3 BB lists. They were tons of fun at the beginning of 8th, but the Knight codex dropped and their utility plummeted. Everyone brought stuff to kill Knights, and they could wipe a Baneblade and a half (or so) a turn, since a Baneblade is just a knight but FAR easier to get your wound through on. I've never been tabled on turn 2 with the list, but I have been tabled top of 3, typically from enemy shooting that was intended to kill 3++ castellans/4++knights (once the FAQ finally dropped for RIS and the Castellan was nerfed).

What do you mean the "new changes where they get an extra d3/d6 shots per gun?" I always found it odd that a Baneblade fired 4d6 shots (3d6 main gun, 1d6 with its demolisher cannon), and the Russes that were alongside it for roughly the same points fired 6d6 shots.

I forgot where I read it, but I saw the main guns on BB got an extra D whatever thrown on. I thought, huh, that's interesting, still not buying one. I am suddenly apprehensive that it was a Apoc faq....

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

I forgot where I read it, but I saw the main guns on BB got an extra D whatever thrown on. I thought, huh, that's interesting, still not buying one. I am suddenly apprehensive that it was a Apoc faq....

You're almost certainly thinking the update that harmonized the Demolisher cannon to a flat D6 shots across all codexes. It's not remotely "hey, here's an extra D6 shots".

 Luke_Prowler wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Polonius wrote:

I think we all agree that the thing is overly fragile.

Calling something T8 with 26 wounds overly fragile...I just don't know about that.

What I've learned in general from this board is that "fragile" is a meaningless word, since pretty much every unit has been described as such, and I think it's born out of an idea that a unit "needs" to be able to survive an entire army's shooting or it's somehow not worth it.

Ya i gotta agree, even the Ta'unar is fragile minus drones (30 wounds, 5++ for a 1,000 point unit).

Perhaps fragile is the wrong word. Maybe, we can all agree that Baneblades are surprisingly easy to destroy or degrade into near uselessness? Compared to the basis russ, the baneblade quickly became a points sink that was all to easy for armies to knock out.

 Polonius wrote:
Perhaps fragile is the wrong word. Maybe, we can all agree that Baneblades are surprisingly easy to destroy or degrade into near uselessness? Compared to the basis russ, the baneblade quickly became a points sink that was all to easy for armies to knock out.

Agreed. It's the Land Raider syndrome. A LR is quite clearly more durable that a Predator, but for the points and damage output, you are way better off with 2 Predators.

-

 Polonius wrote:
Perhaps fragile is the wrong word. Maybe, we can all agree that Baneblades are surprisingly easy to destroy or degrade into near uselessness? Compared to the basis russ, the baneblade quickly became a points sink that was all to easy for armies to knock out.

Problem with the baneblade is just how bug and scary it is. Due to its sheer intimidation factor, and the weakness it has, it is the first thing an oppenent will focus on. The only real way to keep them alove is to make your opponent focus more o something else. Which is very hard to do when they are staring at a tank the size of a habblock gunning for their dudes.

Tau surges are going to dominate. I used to run a tripple surge list and I considered it the strongest possible tau army. Then again. In my shops I don't have garenteed magic boxes to hide my drones in and turn lascannon shots in 1 mortal wound for a busted sheild drones. Regardless they are very strong. Surge has gone down to 330 which is absolute madness (about a 70 point drop). MADNESS. That is with the 4++ save.

Encouraging though that the LR excelsior has dropped in price to about 330 now. At least it's got a 5++ save and that Grav cannon is preferable to heavy bolters. And filling an HQ slot is bettering than taking up a heavy. Any word on the rino primaris? I did not see a drop. Tell me though - in what world should a LR cost the same as a storm surge?