If a stat change was to happen I think that rather works well. However we should be wary of any wide reaching changes. In no way does a range increase make any sense.

I cannot get behind Battleship changes as they, well... to put it frank are pretty much worthless in the GT. Either we fix them across the board or leave it be.



I happen to concur with Ben that the arty company is poo poo. I'd say it's only worth 550-600 myself (I have a slightly better estimation of them but that's like saying I prefer to get kicked in the jolly by someone wearing shoes vs boots, mind you)

Also let's keep it friendly yall

_________________
He's a lawyer and a super-villian. That's like having a shark with a bazooka!

-I HAVE NO POINT
-Penal Legion-Fan list
-Help me make Whitescars not suck!

If I had to redo the Baneblade Battlecannon I'd give it two shots. I would disapprove, but in extremis I'd accept that change.

I'd far prefer to leave it alone.

_________________
SG

Ghost's Paint Blog, where everything goes that isn't something else.

I second that post word for word.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

It's a dog-eat-dog world, and I've got my Milkbone underwear on.

It depends and I disagree. Remember the grand tournament army lists are meant to be balanced for 2-5k on a 4 by 6 table. I wouldn't bother much with a Battleship at 2-3k but at 4-5k with the greater density of troops might make it a reasonable choice for 150. Epic-UK have dropped the costs of the poor slow and steady and ork spacecraft, but we haven't. Others could be changed in time if appropriate but that'd br different discussions up to individual army champions

+1

In the big picture I'd call this a small change, even though it effects several lists. I find the current battlecannon stats a bad translation from a fluff and also a 40k comparsion point of view.

TBH the EUK changes have still been unappealing, indicating they may well still be overpriced, if anything.

They could be put back to their original prices and made independent formations. *shrug*

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

My big beef with using 40k as a base is that it's really badly scaled when you start to look at really big stuff which is not widely deployed in the usual skirmish-style games of 40k.....it also changes every 5 years or so (there is no way to justify the nigh-invulnerability of NetEA living metal by the current 40k rules for example)

I suggest that people start thinking of game balance first, and accurate representation of 40k rules a distant second..... if you love 40k so much, go and play it....

I support giving the baneblade 2 shots and also upping the lascannons to twin linked, and intend on testing these modifications out on thursday.....

_________________
NetEA Space Marine, Imperial Fists and Blood Angels Army Champion

NetEA Red Corsairs Army Champion

My hobby/painting threads

Army Forge List Co-ordinator

The upgrades stated and the artillery at 600 points haven't caused any problems (or abuse) in the E-UK lists.
Also the Emperor Battleship has been dropped to 200 points in the E-UK list, at 150 it would be a straight choice between that and the Lunar (if a Spaceship was to be taken), looking at the stats and the slow and steady rule I think it would be worth trying at 150.



Not keen on the 90cm upgrade, for me the 2 SH tanks fill different roles and the Shadowswords popularity is (for me) more to do with it filling a roll only it can do at the points.
The BB comes into it's own (compared to the Shadowsword and as singletons) in later turns when the 2 armies have closed and the BB can take more advantage of it's many guns but other formations can do a similar job for the SL and usually have multiple rolls.
A few examples,
Stormtroopers= similar shots but easier to kill, gain numbers and garrison.
Infantry Co.= similar shots but easier to kill, gain numbers and garrison and open support slots.
Even a hydra battery gives similar number of shots and adds AA coverage.

I feel the main problem for the BB is that it doesn't add anything extra to the list, thats not covered by other formations, rather than it not being worth it's points.
When facing SL, especially with Marines or Eldar, I fear the BB much more than the Shadowsword after turn 1.

I'm in broad agreement with Dave on the Baneblade.

If anything, a FF upgrade would be ok, but I don't think it nessesarily needs it, and it doesn't need its minor weapons going non-WYSIWYG at all.

A really serious upgrade would be to give the Baneblade's main cannon MW status, which is probably justified from the background & 40k, but we'd need serious evidence that it's underpowered.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

As far as I'm aware, the Epic UK tournament results lists are the only real authorative source for stats, so I wnet and compiled some quick stats for BaneBlade usage in Steel Legion lists in the last 3 years:

Of the 43 Steel Legion lists used, 30 had one or more Super Heavy tank. Of that 30, only 8 had one or more BaneBlades (meaning the other 22 used only ShadowSwords).

Over the three years, average Win/Loss/Draw stats for Steel Legion was:

35.6%/34.9%/29.5%

The same stats for just the 8 lists using BaneBlades was:

26.6%/53.4%/20%

On average, lists using BaneBlades won less and lost a lot more.

I cannot see any of the proposed changes making the BB a truly viable choice.

Adding extra range,MW or 2 shots.
This won't have much benefit on most tables with appropriate terrain, other than the odd pot shot on turn 1 the BB still needs to get close to make full use of it's 200 point cost. Even in a SH Company, 3 Shadowswords hitting on a base MW2+ with TK d3 is going to be better than 1xMW2+ TKd3 and 2(or4)x AP/AT 3+( or even MW3+, which also then steps on the toes of the stormblade in other lists).

FF 3+.
Steps on the stormhammers toes in other lists, also would it give it a roll in the list that isn't covered already or will the extra 1/2 a hit in FF make it a viable choice.

All of the suggestions made so far improve the BB but would any of them make the BB a viable choice for the roll it has if it is not already being taken. I suppose testing some of the suggestions will show if it does make it a better choice or not.

Matt, have you considered dropping the points cost of the BB, would that even be a consideration or make it any more viable as a choice.

Suggestion of what I mean,
Single BB at 175 (25 points to upgrade to a Shadowsword).
Company of BB's at 450 or 425 (25 points to upgrade each BB to a shadowsword).

I like that.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter