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'm wondering if I'm going to have a similar problem trying to fit 6 100mm ordnance battery bases into my deployment zone.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Unless the Baneblade chassis is something like 800+ points, it’s usable.
It might not be optimal, but it’s not useless.

Define "usable"?

Usable, as in it is literally possible to put it on the table? Sure, it is a legal Warhammer 40k unit and can be taken in games. But so is everything else, so that's not saying much.

Usable, as in it will contribute to winning games and there is an argument for taking it as the best tool for a certain job? No. It's a major liability that is crippled by core rules designed deliberately to punish titanic units and push them out of normal games. It will never be better than its points in LRBTs and there is no strategic argument for it to ever see the table.

Usable, as in it's never the correct answer but won't be so egregiously wrong that your overall list will suffer significantly? No. At 500 points it's a significant percentage of your list spent on a very bad unit that will often be dead weight. Even in a relatively casual environment it hurts you badly and you really need your opponent to cooperate and help you make a LoW-friendly game.

If Baneblades are "usable" at all it's only because guard are the most recent codex and benefit enough from power creep that you can afford to take some extremely subpar choices and still win games because the rest of your army is so strong.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ph34r wrote:
I'm wondering if I'm going to have a similar problem trying to fit 6 100mm ordnance battery bases into my deployment zone.

Probably. IMO it's a unit you want to take 0-1 of and it competes with Basilisks/Manticores and mortars for that same 0-1 slot. You probably want an indirect fire unit, you probably don't want more than one of them because of diminishing returns. It's especially true for the FOBs since they're so completely dependent on being hidden out of LOS, the artillery tanks at least have a vehicle stat line to survive a stray shot or two if you can't get them into a good hiding spot.

Arcanis161 wrote:
Isn't the point of this thread to discuss Imperial Guard tactics relative to competitive play?

So you think tactics is only relevant on one game mode?

Looooooooooooooool.

(as is by definuition tactics is relevant post-list building anyway. List building isn't tactics)

tneva82 wrote:

Arcanis161 wrote:
Isn't the point of this thread to discuss Imperial Guard tactics relative to competitive play?

So you think tactics is only relevant on one game mode?

Yes, given the way people are talking about "casual" play as a game mode where you prioritize things other than winning the game. You can't have a meaningful discussion of tactics if you're starting from a premise that X is the choice that maximizes your chances of winning the game but you're going to do Y instead because you care more about story/aesthetics/whatever.

(as is by definuition tactics is relevant post-list building anyway. List building isn't tactics)

Protest all you like that it doesn't fit the dictionary definition of "tactics" but in a 40k context when people talk about "tactics" they're including list building and list building is the majority of the discussion.

Funny, eight years here ane still DakkaDakka suffers from WAAC syndrome player "either it is unit from meta list or its bad unit". ))) Surprise, Surprise it is not like that... Remember guy saying "it is irrelevant what your army is if you take Valkyrie instead of Vendetta, you already losing". Oh, sweet 5th edition...

No, Baneblade chassis isnt bad and wont lose you a game as someone would argue. Depends on type and role. Shadowsword is very specialized, but good at it. BB is solid weapon base. Etc. Only real drawback is with transport varianty as 9th ed tables are densely covered with terrain.

Is LR spam more effective? Definitely, just use all your Executioners, few Vanquishers and have fun. Well, if you have fun this way... But I can guarantee you that in even semicompetitive tournament you will have more fun with Baneblade chassis (and your opponent too) and still be competitive, but some people do not play to have fun

I would stay away from Ordnance spam, because IG will probably lose its dataslate upgrade, and you will spend a lot of time and money on something you actually do not want to spam. 4 plates are IMO good for cool effect and still make damage with orders. Im going for 2 right now.

Btw - after few first tournament, I expect nerfhammer to Kasrkin and LR, lets hope not crippling.

P. S. That Valkyrie worked better than Vendetta 😆

 UlrikDecado wrote:
Funny, eight years here ane still DakkaDakka suffers from WAAC syndrome player "either it is unit from meta list or its bad unit". )))

Funny, eight years here ane still DakkaDakka suffers from CAAC syndrome player "if you talk honestly about unit evaluation or enjoy competitive play you're having fun the wrong way and you need to stop." )))

No, Baneblade chassis isnt bad and wont lose you a game as someone would argue.

Really? It won't cost you games to put a quarter of your points into a unit that can't leave your deployment zone and can be shot to death from anywhere on the table while it can't see anything to return fire? Maybe you can argue that a Baneblade is only D-tier instead of F-tier or that using F-tier units is "fun", but if you can't see how taking one can and will cost you games you're making a serious mistake in evaluating the unit.

(Or you're playing on tables with nowhere near enough terrain and creating a meta that excessively rewards alpha strike lists, but that's not something most people can rely on.)

Gue'vesa Emissary wrote:

 UlrikDecado wrote:
Funny, eight years here ane still DakkaDakka suffers from WAAC syndrome player "either it is unit from meta list or its bad unit". )))

Funny, eight years here ane still DakkaDakka suffers from CAAC syndrome player "if you talk honestly about unit evaluation or enjoy competitive play you're having fun the wrong way and you need to stop." )))

No, Baneblade chassis isnt bad and wont lose you a game as someone would argue.

Really? It won't cost you games to put a quarter of your points into a unit that can't leave your deployment zone and can be shot to death from anywhere on the table while it can't see anything to return fire? Maybe you can argue that a Baneblade is only D-tier instead of F-tier or that using F-tier units is "fun", but if you can't see how taking one can and will cost you games you're making a serious mistake in evaluating the unit.

(Or you're playing on tables with nowhere near enough terrain and creating a meta that excessively rewards alpha strike lists, but that's not something most people can rely on.)

Have you ever thought that maybe I am the problem and I am not getting the most out of these units? If several other people are saying something do you dismiss what is called groupthink with your superior intellect?

Just here to say shadowsword was used competitive and placed 4th in a GT this week…

I am by no means saying it’s a very competitive unit but it’s by no means useless… it really does need AoC to stay imho for it to be remotely relevant.

 CKO wrote:

Have you ever thought that maybe I am the problem and I am not getting the most out of these units? If several other people are saying something do you dismiss what is called groupthink with your superior intellect?

Given that nobody is really addressing the terrain issues and the most popular response to me putting the LoW in F-tier is "WAAC IS BAD PLAY FOR FUN", no, I don't think I'm the problem here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

gungo wrote:
Just here to say shadowsword was used competitive and placed 4th in a GT this week…

I am by no means saying it’s a very competitive unit but it’s by no means useless… it really does need AoC to stay imho for it to be remotely relevant.

I'd like to see the terrain layouts that were used. Flat D12 could be a decent stat line if you're playing in a very low-terrain environment but I don't think you're going to see that at many events.

(And AoC is not going to stay, so if the event was using the dataslate buffs it's not a very accurate representation of where we'll be long term.)

I love the way this is going into armchair player zone
It is About third Page of one theoryer guy opposing number of others, trying to look "I know it all" and throwing "This is F-Tier" in very lenghty response to player asking about his units. Not helping at all, just throwing around wise words about "just play LRBT" )

Right now it isnt even about tactics, but one ego unable to comprehend what OP wanted to discuss.

Pity he wasn around during Leafblower period, I know what would he preach ))

To OP with BB. I would stay away from transport versions, terrain wont let you deliver cargo where you want. Basic BB is very good shooting base that can work even as area denier. But depends on the rest of your army. Shadowsword is powerful, but if you already run like three Vanquishers, it is overkill. If not, that firepower against big units can be game deciding. Especially if you have tools to mop up doggies. BB chassis is still very durable, especially for the points (hello Repulsors, truly bottom tier units) and require a lot of attention. Just dont get sucked into *boom boom* game and grind those secondaries

On todays battlefields, with lots of LOS blockers, a model as huge as a baneblade is not very practical. Because of its size it cant hide, its defensive stats are weak, and it can hardly move. Smaller enemy units can hide behind LOS blockers, the baneblade wont see them. Killing a baneblade in one turn is not impossible. This is not armchair theory.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

gungo wrote:
Just here to say shadowsword was used competitive and placed 4th in a GT this week…

I am by no means saying it’s a very competitive unit but it’s by no means useless… it really does need AoC to stay imho for it to be remotely relevant.

I doubt the shadowsword did any major work in that list.

 UlrikDecado wrote:
I love the way this is going into armchair player zone
It is About third Page of one theoryer guy opposing number of others, trying to look "I know it all" and throwing "This is F-Tier" in very lenghty response to player asking about his units. Not helping at all, just throwing around wise words about "just play LRBT" )

Right now it isnt even about tactics, but one ego unable to comprehend what OP wanted to discuss.

Pity he wasn around during Leafblower period, I know what would he preach ))

To OP with BB. I would stay away from transport versions, terrain wont let you deliver cargo where you want. Basic BB is very good shooting base that can work even as area denier. But depends on the rest of your army. Shadowsword is powerful, but if you already run like three Vanquishers, it is overkill. If not, that firepower against big units can be game deciding. Especially if you have tools to mop up doggies. BB chassis is still very durable, especially for the points (hello Repulsors, truly bottom tier units) and require a lot of attention. Just dont get sucked into *boom boom* game and grind those secondaries

Interesting, cheers for the ideas. Was also looking at the Stormsword. Seems to have a nice balance between number of shots and damage output so might try that along with the BB.

 UlrikDecado wrote:
It is About third Page of one theoryer guy opposing number of others, trying to look "I know it all" and throwing "This is F-Tier" in very lenghty response to player asking about his units.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

Ten thousand people like you saying "TIER LISTS BAD DONT WAAC PLAY FOR FUN" are outweighed by one person explaining the issues with terrain and detachments that titanic units face in 9th. And none of you are addressing those issues at all.

If not, that firepower against big units can be game deciding.

If it can ever see a target. Why reveal a target for the Shadowsword when you can hide everything behind LOS blocking ruins and shoot it through one-way cover?

How dense are your tables?

I can see the movement issues, but unless you just say every terrain piece is obscuring, LoS isn't going to be a huge issue. An issue, sure, but not insurmountable.

 JNAProductions wrote:
How dense are your tables?

I can see the movement issues, but unless you just say every terrain piece is obscuring, LoS isn't going to be a huge issue. An issue, sure, but not insurmountable.

You have to have lots of terrain and have all of it be obscuring if you want to mitigate alpha strikes enough to have a game instead of just a roll to see who goes first. Look at GW's recommended tournament layouts, it's almost all ruins (obscuring) with maybe a couple pieces of forest (dense) which are almost as bad. And the gaps between those pieces are tiny. If a Baneblade with sponsons fits at all it's only by a narrow margin and only along a single line. So even if you theoretically have a spot where the LoW can get line of sight to a vital target it's questionable whether you can even get there. Meanwhile the units shooting at the LoW have no such problem. It can be seen from anywhere on the table and does not ever benefit from -1 to hit or +1 save.

Half related to this: I just skimmed over the new regiment traits as listed by Auspex tactics and stumbled on "Blitz Division"
=> half power level for reserves and can arrive anywhere on the battlefield as if it was battleround 3

Does this mean I could (potentially) drop a Baneblade chassis into the enemies deployment zone turn 2 after he potentially left enough space there in turn 1? (Given my superheavies count as regimental)
Regardless of the question if superheavies are F tier or not, I just try to understand this doctrine.

 Pyroalchi wrote:
Half related to this: I just skimmed over the new regiment traits as listed by Auspex tactics and stumbled on "Blitz Division"
=> half power level for reserves and can arrive anywhere on the battlefield as if it was battleround 3

Does this mean I could (potentially) drop a Baneblade chassis into the enemies deployment zone turn 2 after he potentially left enough space there in turn 1? (Given my superheavies count as regimental)
Regardless of the question if superheavies are F tier or not, I just try to understand this doctrine.

No. You have two problems here. First of all, units in SHADs do not get doctrines so you'll need to take a full superheavy detachment of 3x LoW. This means committing ~1500 points, giving up all relics and WLTs, and having crippled access to stratagems. But even if you're willing to pay this absurdly high price note the rules on setting up reserve units: they must arrive wholly within 6" and I believe the standard Baneblade model with sponsons has no dimension shorter than 6". Which means this rule now applies:

If a model is so large that it cannot physically be set up wholly within 6" of a battlefield edge (i.e. the smallest dimension of that model is greater than 6"), it must be set up so that it is touching your battlefield edge. During the turn in which such a model is set up on the battlefield, that model’s unit cannot do any of the following: make a Normal Move, Advance, Fall Back, Remain Stationary; attempt to manifest or deny psychic powers; make any attacks with ranged weapons; declare a charge; perform a Heroic Intervention; perform any actions or psychic actions.

So you can't set it up anywhere except in your own deployment zone and you can't do anything other than sit passively and take hits on the turn it arrives. IOW, there is no point to doing this vs. just setting it up normally at the start of the game.

my point is, that the Auspex tactics video lists "anywhere on the battlefield" which to me sounds a lot like the "6'' from a battlefield edge'' thingy does not apply.

also: just saw that the Superheavy ace "Steadfast leviathan" seems to be gone that allowed superheavies in a SHAD to get regimental keywords, what a pitty. But what if I give my Superheavy in a SHAD "Veteran Commander" and select "Blitz Brigade". That should be possible, right?

 Pyroalchi wrote:
my point is, that the Auspex tactics video lists "anywhere on the battlefield" which to me sounds a lot like the "6'' from a battlefield edge'' thingy does not apply.

Then the video is wrong (or may be an old video from the playtest leaks, where things might have worked differently). The only thing the doctrine changes is the turn-based restriction, counting turn 2 as turn 3 for purposes of location. The 6" limit still applies.

also: just saw that the Superheavy ace "Steadfast leviathan" seems to be gone that allowed superheavies in a SHAD to get regimental keywords, what a pitty. But what if I give my Superheavy in a SHAD "Veteran Commander" and select "Blitz Brigade". That should be possible, right?

Yes. Steadfast Leviathan is unfortunately gone. And Veteran Commandeer does not work. It gives the model an additional doctrine but because of the SHAD rule that it doesn't benefit from detachment abilities you have a model with 2-3 (depending on if you take Born Soldiers) doctrines, none of which have any effect on it because they are all detachment abilities.

OK, thanks for clearing that up

 Valkyrie wrote:
What are people's thoughts on the new Superheavies? Nice to see they've gotten a well-deserved boost, and I currently have a Baneblade, Shadowsword, Octoblade and Stormhammer that I'm hoping to finally use for once.

Stormhammer I could probably proxy since it's absolute crap now.

The D4 on the Banesword is somewhat interesting, especially while there isn't a Rogal Dorn model to buy and play with. The D12 on the Shadowsword is "cool" but you'll be sad when your opponent shows up with max W3 models. I think those two are the best, I don't like the transports, don't like a D3 main gun (already got plenty) and don't like the swingy D6+2.

The LRBT (and Kasrkin) are undercosted I think and will get nerfed at some point in the future to open up more datasheets (and sell some Rogals).

So taking more LRBTs will generally be better than taking superheavies. I think the RDBT sits in the middle between the two for now.

But, a single super heavy doesn't look like a massive liability in a reasonably "competitive" game between two people who aren't top tier amazing at the game. And you always have the chance they haven't got a great solution for basically a Knight screened out by the other possibly very good 1,500 points.

EightFoldPath wrote:
But, a single super heavy doesn't look like a massive liability in a reasonably "competitive" game between two people who aren't top tier amazing at the game. And you always have the chance they haven't got a great solution for basically a Knight screened out by the other possibly very good 1,500 points.

If you can't deal with 2-3 LRBT-equivalent tanks (which is what a Baneblade is) you're way past "reasonably competitive" and into playing either strict narrative games with forces decided by the story rather than on-table strategy or very low-skill players putting random units on the table with no ability to make a coherent TAC list. Any list that can't handle a Baneblade is going to struggle to win games at all.

And yeah, you can have a very strong 1500 points. But that's less "Baneblades are viable" and more "if you have the most recent codex you can afford to take some F-tier choices and still win because the rest of your army is overpowered". And you're not going to be screening much when the fact that the very tip of my antenna can see the very tip of your Baneblade's antenna means that the three ruins and a forest between our models magically cease to exist for my shooting but block your return fire entirely. If anything your screening is just going to get in the way of the Baneblade's movement and block it from getting into a position where it can even attempt to exchange fire.

Dude, no one is saying the baneblade's variants are better than 2 LRBT. We are saying they are not F-tier. 30 t9 wounds with a 2+ 5++ save are durable and, in most cases, because this thing is not towering over terrain like an Imperial Knight, if they can see you you can see them.

Please, remind us about terrain being an issue.

 CKO wrote:
Dude, no one is saying the baneblade's variants are better than 2 LRBT. We are saying they are not F-tier. 30 t9 wounds with a 2+ 5++ save are durable and, in most cases, because this thing is not towering over terrain like an Imperial Knight, if they can see you you can see them.

Please, remind us about terrain being an issue.

Then what tier would you put them in, if F-tier is not appropriate for a unit that should never be taken over the units that directly compete with it for its role and suffers from major issues with core rules designed to discourage the use of its class of unit in normal games?

And yes, T9/W30/2+/5++ (if you take the tank ace for the 5++) is a durable stat line. But it's less durable than the T9/W17/2+/5++ of a RDBT in the vast majority of cases. It doesn't have to "tower over terrain" for one-way line of sight to apply, all you need to be able to see is the very tip of a single antenna through the overlap of ruin windows, even if the only thing that can draw LOS to that antenna tip is the very tip of a single antenna on your own tank. And then suddenly you're comparing T9/W30/2+/5++ to T infinite/W infinite/0+/0++/0+++.

Gue'vesa Emissary wrote:

 CKO wrote:
Dude, no one is saying the baneblade's variants are better than 2 LRBT. We are saying they are not F-tier. 30 t9 wounds with a 2+ 5++ save are durable and, in most cases, because this thing is not towering over terrain like an Imperial Knight, if they can see you you can see them.

Please, remind us about terrain being an issue.

Then what tier would you put them in, if F-tier is not appropriate for a unit that should never be taken over the units that directly compete with it for its role and suffers from major issues with core rules designed to discourage the use of its class of unit in normal games?

And yes, T9/W30/2+/5++ (if you take the tank ace for the 5++) is a durable stat line. But it's less durable than the T9/W17/2+/5++ of a RDBT in the vast majority of cases. It doesn't have to "tower over terrain" for one-way line of sight to apply, all you need to be able to see is the very tip of a single antenna through the overlap of ruin windows, even if the only thing that can draw LOS to that antenna tip is the very tip of a single antenna on your own tank. And then suddenly you're comparing T9/W30/2+/5++ to T infinite/W infinite/0+/0++/0+++.

Let's try an analogy.

Suppose GW came out, tomorrow, with a new unit for the Guard Dex. Call it a Leman Russer. It is, in every way shape and form, identical to a Leman Russ-but each Leman Russer is five points cheaper. That's the only difference-five points per model.
The Leman Russer is clearly a superior choice-saving five points isn't much, but it could add up to let you take some extra sponsons or whatever. Is the Leman Russ suddenly F-Tier, because a slightly better unit came out?

A Baneblade chassis is not the BEST choice-but not being the best doesn't make something garbage.

Gue'vesa Emissary wrote:
And yes, T9/W30/2+/5++ (if you take the tank ace for the 5++) is a durable stat line. But it's less durable than the T9/W17/2+/5++ of a RDBT in the vast majority of cases. It doesn't have to "tower over terrain" for one-way line of sight to apply, all you need to be able to see is the very tip of a single antenna through the overlap of ruin windows, even if the only thing that can draw LOS to that antenna tip is the very tip of a single antenna on your own tank. And then suddenly you're comparing T9/W30/2+/5++ to T infinite/W infinite/0+/0++/0+++.

Those antennae are not as easy as you make it seem. Nonetheless, play smart and make sure it isn't exposed on turn 1. Unless the enemy exposes itself also.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Let's try an analogy.

Suppose GW came out, tomorrow, with a new unit for the Guard Dex. Call it a Leman Russer. It is, in every way shape and form, identical to a Leman Russ-but each Leman Russer is five points cheaper. That's the only difference-five points per model.
The Leman Russer is clearly a superior choice-saving five points isn't much, but it could add up to let you take some extra sponsons or whatever. Is the Leman Russ suddenly F-Tier, because a slightly better unit came out?

A Baneblade chassis is not the BEST choice-but not being the best doesn't make something garbage.

That's not really a comparable analogy. The gap between a LRBT and a cheapLRBT is very small. Yes, one is an auto-take over the other in this unrealistic scenario, but the fact that the gap is so tiny means that the tier gap is also small. If LRBTs are A-tier as-is then cheapLRBTs would take their place in A-tier and LRBTs would drop down to B-tier, maybe A- or B+ if you're breaking it down into finer steps. It's a power gap, but one that is only clearly identifiable because you've created the unrealistic scenario of having two units that are literally identical except for point cost. With real units that small a power gap would be too small to definitively identify and people would probably argue the merits of each.

The more accurate analogy would be if GW made the LRBT-but-cheaper cost 50 points less. That's an immense power gap, one that is clearly identifiable and will directly translate to differences in real-world win rates depending on which one you take. And in that situation yes, you would dump the old LRBT into F-tier because it's a completely redundant unit that nobody with any skill at evaluating units will ever want to take.

And you see that very clearly in the arguments here. With units that are in adjacent tiers you have genuine arguments about the merits of each. Some people still think the lower-tier unit is better, and most people acknowledge that it has advantages in some situations. But here we have none of that. The only argument in favor of the Baneblade is "it's not so bad that you'll auto-lose" or "DONT BE WAAC PLAY FOR FUN", with even the people who are defending it admitting that its points in LRBTs or RDBTs will be better at winning games. That's a textbook F-tier unit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CKO wrote:

Gue'vesa Emissary wrote:
And yes, T9/W30/2+/5++ (if you take the tank ace for the 5++) is a durable stat line. But it's less durable than the T9/W17/2+/5++ of a RDBT in the vast majority of cases. It doesn't have to "tower over terrain" for one-way line of sight to apply, all you need to be able to see is the very tip of a single antenna through the overlap of ruin windows, even if the only thing that can draw LOS to that antenna tip is the very tip of a single antenna on your own tank. And then suddenly you're comparing T9/W30/2+/5++ to T infinite/W infinite/0+/0++/0+++.

Those antennae are not as easy as you make it seem. Nonetheless, play smart and make sure it isn't exposed on turn 1. Unless the enemy exposes itself also.

How do you "play smart" when the terrain on the table does not cover the entire model? There isn't some secret strategy that lets a Baneblade be obscured behind a ruin that has holes in the wall and doesn't block LOS without the obscuring trait applying.

And yes, they are in fact that easy to see. I can't remember a time when I've ever had trouble seeing a tank through even multiple pieces of terrain. If it doesn't have the obscuring trait the only thing blocking a shot is that some people feel it's "cheap" to use the actual LOS rules and you should voluntarily decline to shoot if you can't see a significant percentage of the model.

Gue'vesa Emissary wrote:
How do you "play smart" when the terrain on the table does not cover the entire model? There isn't some secret strategy that lets a Baneblade be obscured behind a ruin that has holes in the wall and doesn't block LOS without the obscuring trait applying.

And yes, they are in fact that easy to see. I can't remember a time when I've ever had trouble seeing a tank through even multiple pieces of terrain. If it doesn't have the obscuring trait the only thing blocking a shot is that some people feel it's "cheap" to use the actual LOS rules and you should voluntarily decline to shoot if you can't see a significant percentage of the model.

Is there a lot of terrain or not? You are saying there is too much so the baneblade can't move but it is not enough to hide.

 CKO wrote:

Gue'vesa Emissary wrote:
How do you "play smart" when the terrain on the table does not cover the entire model? There isn't some secret strategy that lets a Baneblade be obscured behind a ruin that has holes in the wall and doesn't block LOS without the obscuring trait applying.

And yes, they are in fact that easy to see. I can't remember a time when I've ever had trouble seeing a tank through even multiple pieces of terrain. If it doesn't have the obscuring trait the only thing blocking a shot is that some people feel it's "cheap" to use the actual LOS rules and you should voluntarily decline to shoot if you can't see a significant percentage of the model.

Is there a lot of terrain or not? You are saying there is too much so the baneblade can't move but it is not enough to hide.

There's no contradiction here. A ruin blocks the Baneblade's movement but might as well not exist for blocking LOS. You don't benefit from the obscuring trait and if even the slightest bit of the model is visible through windows or other gaps then it can be shot as if the ruin wasn't there at all.

Gue'vesa Emissary wrote:
If you can't deal with 2-3 LRBT-equivalent tanks (which is what a Baneblade is) you're way past "reasonably competitive" and into playing either strict narrative games with forces decided by the story rather than on-table strategy or very low-skill players putting random units on the table with no ability to make a coherent TAC list. Any list that can't handle a Baneblade is going to struggle to win games at all.

It isn't our fault you lack imagination.

My last 4-1 GT list will struggle with killing a Baneblade (and RDBTs and LRBTs). It was finely tuned in terms of being good into CK/IK because (a) they lacked screens and (b) it was good at killing T7 war dog bodies that would be screening. I'm currently debating my next GT list and I am thinking of just ignoring the LRBTs (and so also the Baneblades) and just trying to clear everything else from T3~7 in the first turn or two. I'd actually be taking out some S5 and skewing more into other areas.

I'm flicking through the factions and thinking of the lists I saw and there are quite a few that would have had a rough time against a Baneblade. A lot of the higher placing CSM lists will need a re-design, as D2 CSM melee looks awful into LRBTs/RDBTs/SHs.

Gue'vesa Emissary wrote:
Then what tier would you put them in, if F-tier is not appropriate for a unit that should never be taken over the units that directly compete with it for its role and suffers from major issues with core rules designed to discourage the use of its class of unit in normal games?

I think in your rush to be the edgiest edgelord who ever did edge, you might have missed the AoW tier list where Baneblades sat at the bottom of the middle tier, behind all the really strong choices, barely ahead of all the flawed choices that aren't worth taking.

The point is though, that even if all the players at a GT were taking the exact same army/list, then being realistic probably only 20% of the players would have a chance of winning. Ultimately for the bottom 80% it doesn't matter if they don't take the perfect optimised list. It might cost them a win on their final record. Those bottom 80% can take a SH and maybe doing so now will teach them something about the game without completely tanking them down to 0-5.

The original question also wasn't asking "should I buy a SH" it was asking "I already own them, which one looks the best". More reading comprehension required, less edging.

Because you would be right to discourage the purchase of SHs from a purely competitive play angle. But if someone already owns a SH then letting them get it on the table a time or two to learn the flaws for themselves is a very good wargaming experience.