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.

Been quite a while since I last posted here, but honestly I couldn't think of a better place to pose this conundrum I'm faced with.

I'm a huge fan of the Fantasy Flight Games ttrpgs for 40k, one of them, Only War lets you play as part of a Super Heavy Regiment, which of course means being the crew of a Baneblade. That being said there seems to be some... inaccuracies with how it's signature namesake main weapon (screw you GW I am not calling it a 'mega battle cannon') stats compare between Only War and current edition Tabletop, that is to say the Only War version is barely more powerful then a Leman Russ Battle Cannon and is outclassed in all but range by the secondary hull mounted Demolisher Cannon.

In Only War the Baneblade Cannon has the following profile;
750m; S/–/–; 3d10+15 X; Pen 10; Clip 12; 3 Full; Blast [12], Concussive [3], Reliable

By comparison the Battle Cannon has this profile;
750m; S/–/–; 3d10+10 X; Pen 8; Clip 12; Reload 3 Full; Blast [10], Concussive [3], Reliable

The profile for the Demolisher Cannon is as follows;
50m; S/–/–; 4d10+20 X; Pen 10; Clip 2; Reload Full; Blast [10], Concussive [3]

So 5 extra damage, 2 extra pen and 2 extra meters of blast radius is the only difference between the mighty Baneblade Cannon and the ubiquitous mass produced Battle Cannon. Meanwhile the Demolisher Cannon is equal too the Baneblade Cannon save for having better damage and a vastly worse range, the later makes some sense as it's a short range siege mortar type weapon, but still. This feels like a case of Fantasy Flight Games doing what they always seem to do, fall short of making something good great by being lazy. They probably figured no one would go through the hassle of taking a Baneblade or thought much about what it was suppose to be able to do on tabletop and/or in lore, bumped a few stats and called it good enough.

On tabletop these are the stats for each weapon;

Baneblade Cannon
72" range, 3D6 Atk, 4+ BS, Str 12, Pen -2, 3 Damage

Battle Cannon
48" range, D6+3 Atk, 4+ BS, Str 10, Pen -1, 3 Damage

Demolisher Cannon
24" range, D6+3 Atk, 4+ BS, Str 14, Pen -3, D6 Damage

So it's clear Fantasy Flight at least glanced at the stat lines for the weapons, but seemed to fail to grasp how big of a difference there is between Str 10 and 12, they also didn't even bother adjusting the range, granted in a ttrpg 750m range is pretty insane, but there could be times that range matters, either on huge maps or (more likely) theater of the mind battles on vast sweeping battlefields where, so them copy and pasting the Battle Cannons and calling it good enough. Unlike the ttrpg the difference between the Demolisher and Battle Cannon seem more like they are in lore, less range but not a complete lack of it, more Str and bit more, though unreliable damage output, comparing to the Baneblade Cannon it is more reliable in damage but at knife fight range (by comparison), the 3d6 vs d6 I suppose to showcase the chance of over pen a weapon like the Baneblade Cannon has against anything but the side of a mountain.

Now I know these stats won't be changing, given Fantasy Flight lost the 40k license ages ago now and even if they did (and had released the 4th splat book for Only War) I doubt they would have changed it. However I would like to make a stat block for the weapons that makes sense and feels right with worrying about them being 100% perfect from table top to ttrpg, within the same firing arc would be enough for me.

I'd keep the Battle Cannon the same;
750m; S/–/–; 3d10+10 X; Pen 8; Clip 12; Reload 3 Full; Blast [10], Concussive [3], Reliable

The Baneblade Cannon would look like this;
1250m; S/–/–; 6d10 X; Pen 12; Clip 12; Reload 3 Full; Blast [12], Concussive [3], Reliable

The Demolisher Cannon would this;
375m; S/–/–; 3d10+20 X; Pen 16; Clip 2; Reload Full; Blast [10], Concussive [3]

My logic for the changes to the Baneblade Cannon are thus;

If we equate 750m in Only War to 48" in Tabletop the Baneblade Cannon would have a range of 1125m, we round it up a bit to 1250 for a nice even number because a bit extra won't be a game breaker.

Damage is made 6d10, much higher but much more swingyer then the 3d10+15 from before, matching it's swinglyness on tabletop.

Pen is changed to 12 as that seems to line up with the pen value for tabletop and feel right for the weapon.

For the Demolisher the reasoning is much the same, 375m would be accurate following the 750m = 48", the pen is increased to be in line with the tabletop and the damage reduced a bit but with an extra +5 raw to make it more reliable in damage output.

So this was a monster to type up, I am looking for critique and feedback from anyone and everyone.

 JakeCWolf wrote:
That being said there seems to be some... inaccuracies with how it's signature namesake main weapon (screw you GW I am not calling it a 'mega battle cannon') stats compare between Only War and current edition Tabletop.

In earlier editions of the game the baneblades power sat somewhere between the demolisher and the battlecannon (identical to the lascannon in fact).

But its real draw was the significantly larger blast of 10" instead of 5".

Compared to the demolisher cannon, the baneblade cannon has fifteen times the range and six times the shots before it needs to reload - hardly an incremental bonus, especially when you consider the kind of things that'd be aiming at! It also has Reliable, which is also super helpful. It's only slightly stronger than the battle cannon, that's true, but it also comes attached to a much sturdier brick with more guns. And I think that's the theme you want with a Baneblade, really; this is the next step up from a Leman Russ, a solid and dependable workhorse rather than something flashy and swingy, capable of getting the job done so long as the job isn't too ridiculous.

You're also comparing stats from an RPG drawing from wargame rules that were written over ten years ago to the wargame's current ruleset. I don't doubt that there's discrepancies. If you're looking for accurate comparisons, digging up the fifth edition stats might be more relevant?

A fun exercise is to take a single weapon and follow its stats from RT to 10th and you'll see the evolution of weapons and their place in the game.

RPGs only ever model the iteration they are created in and will be a snapshot of that time.

Ozymandian wrote:


You're also comparing stats from an RPG drawing from wargame rules that were written over ten years ago to the wargame's current ruleset. I don't doubt that there's discrepancies. If you're looking for accurate comparisons, digging up the fifth edition stats might be more relevant?

Hindsight is 20/20 on that one, didn't think about that till after I posted as was to tired to edit. I honestly would compare to 5th edition Warhammer but no idea where to find a source that doesn't involve plying the high seas.

I think the 5e Baneblade cannon from Apocalypse was S9 AP2 but had a massive 10" diameter "pizza plate" blast template. Battle Cannon was S8 AP3 and Demolisher was S10 AP2, both 5" large blast.

So the Only War profiles actually make sense to me if they're based on that, except that I would guess the difference between "Blast 10" and "Blast 12" isn't a 4x difference(!) in area like it was in Apocalypse. Those rules were kind of dumb frankly.