too bad that saying proved false, L4 (though not as terribly false as attack choppers making armour redundant)

but I'm still with L4, et.al. on disliking the speed boost and coming around to Blip's point about the Ulani blitzkrieg rule which has been tested to death.

_________________
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!

I still think the saying has merit ... but again, in light of the combined arms concept. Since on the modern battlefield everything can kill everything else in many cases ... based on terrain and situation. For example, an M2 Bradley can take on an MBT with it's TOWs. If you have seen the footage of FSA dismounted TOWs eating up Syrian MBTs, etc., then yes, you see how effective those are. But to go tank hunting with Bradleys is not good idea and not recommended. But to conduct Movement to Contact with a Tank unit against another Tank unit is doctrine. In both cases there, the paradigm can be changed with the addition of other assets in the Combined Arms menu.

FA or CAS could have suppressed those FSA TOWs. CAS and or Gunships can destroy AFVs. ADA/AAA (even the MGs mounted on top of many AFVs & trucks plus Infantry MGs, MANPADS, etc. ) systems can shot down or cause any aircraft to "Jinx" missing their target(s) or abort.

So again ... it's Combined Arms ...

_________________
Legion 4 "Cry Havoc, and let slip the Dogs of War !" ... "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."

It seems just plain mean to give an army called the Ulani a blitzkrieg rule. Ulani are polish cavalry, and the Poles were, ah, not the beneficiary of blitzkrieg

Anyhow, how does the Ulani blitzkrieg rule work?

+1 to double. Makes you want to use the tank pressing forward aggressively instead is sitting there sustaining.

_________________
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!

Lighter AFVs do the blitz ... looking for a weakness in the line. Breaking thru with support from other assets. Including Heavier AFVs, providing support and holding the shoulders at the point of penetration. Then exploitation of the gap with faster elements . It's right out of the old Panzer FM !

_________________
Legion 4 "Cry Havoc, and let slip the Dogs of War !" ... "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."

stop trying to apply logic to 40k weapons, L4.

_________________
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!

I can't ...

_________________
Legion 4 "Cry Havoc, and let slip the Dogs of War !" ... "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."

I suggested applying the Blitzkrieg rule to the Baneblade (+1 to Double actions), but thinking about it... maybe +1 to Advance orders could be a good alternative.

_________________
Epic Armageddon in Spanish (from Spain): http://www.box.net/shared/3u5vr8a370

Konig Armoured Regiment FanList: https://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd ... 41#p581941

Or both...?

Unnecessary ... IMO ... but as always, do what works for you ... not me ...

_________________
Legion 4 "Cry Havoc, and let slip the Dogs of War !" ... "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."

Oh, okay. Is that really what people think is limiting the Baneblade? Because I'm far from a vet, but I've never finished a game with Baneblades thinking 'if only they were more reliable on their initiative when doubling'.

Nor is there ever much of a temptation to sustain, because they rarely start an activation with much more than their main gun in range. And if their mass of short range guns are in range then I'm in range for an engagement.

The problem is that when the Baneblade does double up to lay down a mass of fire the result is really underwhelming. Off a straight listing of its guns, against an enemy with mixed infantry and tanks, the Baneblade can expect 3.8 hits, which is a decent return for SHT that's managed to put itself in a fairly close to optimal position. But when you apply -1 for doubling you lower the expected hits to 2.5. Assume the enemy infantry is in cover and it drops to 1.9 hits, which is really underwhelming.

And we're talking about a unit with a move of 15cm that's had to slog it's way over the field and somehow managed to bring itself in to range of it's ideal target. Change the target to purely armour and the results get really bad.

The point is: Guard has no "secure" activations apart from Titans. Thats one reason why the Warhound is so popular. By "Double is on a one" the Baneblade opens up a plethora of new tactical options, filling a niche and, at least in my opinion, is not overpowered as its main role will probably still beeing "go there shoot things, done". But now it could do this more reliable.

I say: Go for it.

_________________
My blog - A man without a mountain of unpainted lead is no real man!

Have played 4 games featuring Baneblades, 3 with and one against using 2 shots. It was marginally more effective, but it didn't feel right. Going to test the MW next. I'm a little uncomfortable it might encroach on the Stormblade, but the lower to hit and single shot are hopefully different enough to make them both valid choices.

No, I get the point. And looking at that point, I just can't see how people think the problem is with 2+ initiative, and not with the problem that when it doubles its guns score very few hits.

And it doesn't open up that many new options, the versatility of the Warhound comes from the way 1+ combines with speed, macro guns and void shields to produce a unit that can do a whole lot of things in any turn. This proposed change to the Baneblade will make it more reliable at one thing.

Now, I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with specialisation. A large reason the Baneblade has drifted has been this idea that it’s the all-rounder SHT, that it didn’t matter that it wasn’t great at any one thing because it was okay at everything.

But the Baneblade does have a specialty - it uses massive ranks of close range firepower, but unlike most units in Epic it doesn’t use them in assault but in shooting. If you want to assault you have the Stormhammer. If you want a SHT to prep the target with casualties and blast markers before lending fire support to the assault, then that’s the Baneblade.

The issue, then, is that giving it +1 initative on the double means it will be a bit more reliable, but it will still deliver minimal hits on the target. That’s the issue.

I know this thread was about testing changes to the Baneblade Cannon with a view to making the Baneblade a more exciting prospect compared to it's counterparts and that this thread's ancient but I've used the Baneblade Company several times now and I've had a couple thoughts myself.

I think if it tries to lean towards increasing firepower then it's gonna tread on the toes of the 3/4 other variants that give you different flavours of main gun (macro/tk/barrage). So I was thinking maybe making it more of a frontline super-heavy by either making it 20 cm speed to keep up with the Russ Companies or making it a bit more durable by removing it's critical? Nothing too major I feel but makes it more suited to taking and trading shots with the enemy at medium range?

Sent from my 4034X using Tapatalk