Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 239 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 12, 13, 14, 15, 16  Next

Baneblade Test Thread

 Post subject: Re: Baneblade Test Thread
PostPosted: Mon Jul 24, 2017 4:33 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid

Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2016 6:18 pm
Posts: 70
jimmyzimms wrote:
I never once said sit in the deployment zone.

regardless are we trying to fit fluff, give it a role relative to the other variants, or make it actually usable here? I think that the 2x BB cannon shot works well on #3!


To fit fluff the Baneblade would need to be markedly better and probably more expensive than all of the other SHT variants which I do not think there is appetite for (?).

Fluff wise the Baneblade is painted as a MBT, often leading formations of Leman Russ as HQ. If the Baneblade was made faster it could make a cool upgrade for a Leman Russ formation but then the company would be competing with the Leman Russ company and without some major adjustments it would always win!

:{[]

So at the moment we are indeed aiming for just making them usable!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Baneblade Test Thread
PostPosted: Mon Jul 24, 2017 5:24 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 8:24 pm
Posts: 7921
Location: Manalapan, FL
well somewhat hyperbolic but yeah they're a breakthrough tank (more a giant Merkava than an Abrams as was said like ... 10 pages back or so). I'm too am very good with "actually usable" as well! ;D Seems like you could put some boom out T2 after a late double or even march into position the previous turn. That extra BB cannon making it a nasty customer to deal with and giving it a solid area of control on the table. Even if you break or take them out, they still absorb plenty of hurt and could really throw a cog into the enemy plans.

BTW the thought of 13 BB tank companies at 3k made me laugh. Yeah let's not do that! :)

_________________
The Artist Formerly Known As Marine Army Champion

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Baneblade Test Thread
PostPosted: Mon Jul 24, 2017 5:46 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 8:54 pm
Posts: 2144
Location: Cornwall
I'll try to have a crack with the two shots option to try them out again.

Personally, if a shooting upgrade to the main gun is preferred, then the 2BP option seemed to best fit with the fluff. Makes the enemy spread out and (in a Co) adds extra BMs prepping them for the troops to assault.

IIRC there isn't an imperial barrage SHT, so again its a unique role over a LR Co.

Will be great to test out some of other proposals. Especially those to the artillery units. Look forward to see details...


Sent using Tapatalk


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Baneblade Test Thread
PostPosted: Mon Jul 24, 2017 6:24 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Sun Nov 01, 2015 10:23 pm
Posts: 259
Location: Newcastle, UK
I thought that the other "siege breaker" SHTs (stormsword, decimators and such) had more of a Sturmtiger ethos - hit the poor so-and-so's with several tonnes of direct fire ordinance then there's no one left capable of resisting the infantry. And are the other SHTs regularly used for their FF or their ruddy huge guns?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Baneblade Test Thread
PostPosted: Mon Jul 24, 2017 7:07 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid

Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2016 6:18 pm
Posts: 70
Blip wrote:
I'll try to have a crack with the two shots option to try them out again.

Personally, if a shooting upgrade to the main gun is preferred, then the 2BP option seemed to best fit with the fluff. Makes the enemy spread out and (in a Co) adds extra BMs prepping them for the troops to assault.

IIRC there isn't an imperial barrage SHT, so again its a unique role over a LR Co.

Will be great to test out some of other proposals. Especially those to the artillery units. Look forward to see details...


Sent using Tapatalk


The Stormsword is the Imperial SHT with IC 3BP barrage out to 45cm. The trouble with barrage is that without IC is that whilst doubling you take a massive hit to firepower and against other WE the main cannon will be next to useless.

I think the unique roll of the the Baneblade is the Jack of all trades


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Baneblade Test Thread
PostPosted: Mon Jul 24, 2017 7:43 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2012 7:03 pm
Posts: 249
Location: Hungary
At one hand all it takes to balance out the two shots to make it actually useful next to shadowswords, yet not overdoing leman russes, especially point costs considered.

Since BB has already a really strong AP firepower I wouldn't mind to cut on that, while giving it a solid AT.

2xAP5+/AT3+ or even
2xAP5+/AT2+

If I remember well, the 2xAP5+/AT3+ was quite solid and felt okay when I'm tested it multiple times, multiple opponents, both using it, both against it.

On the hand; isn't the shadowsword 90 cm range is over top maybe? Instead of upping every SHT to it, -as currently happening with BB- simply tone it down to 75 cm or 60 cm? [and making heavy bolters to twin heavies for better defense]

_________________
Epic Commander of the Prassium Invasion Troops 214th Regiment
***Action is our prayer. Victory is our offering.***


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Baneblade Test Thread
PostPosted: Mon Jul 24, 2017 9:40 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid

Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2016 6:18 pm
Posts: 70
The Volcano Cannon is consistently 90cms across all lists and the Shadowsword is also in numerous lists, it's also a key piece of the Imperial Guard armoury. Changing the range of the Shadowsword Volcano Cannon would take a tremendous amount of rebalancing and I'm not sure it's necessary.

TBH I'm not too concerned at the AP of the Bane Cannon, it doesn't seem right to me that it would hit infantry in cover on 7s after doubling either. Have you found the long range AP to be too potent at range during play testing? Long range AP is quite rare outside of bararage artillery.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Baneblade Test Thread
PostPosted: Mon Jul 24, 2017 10:32 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2014 8:01 pm
Posts: 1116
Seems like a sensible and proportionate change. I'll try to get a game in using this. 150 point baneblades seems a bit OP - war engine spam can be super effective (especially combined with fearless) - Jon M's won a tournie spamming shadowswords and I had 11 war engines in a tournie winning Krieg list earlier this year so we if people want to do that it's already an effective tactic, we shouldn't make it easier/cheaper.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Baneblade Test Thread
PostPosted: Tue Jul 25, 2017 9:35 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2009 10:16 am
Posts: 727
Location: London
In fairness that was just spamming shadowswords, and i think Jon just got lucky with his matchups given the next time he took it he didn't do even nearly as well.

I don't think that's likely to happen with Baneblades though tbh, if i was running a Superheavy list (and if i was with NetEA i'd be doing it through Minervans personally) i'd be wanting a spread of the variants to cover various needs, and at 3k personally i wouldn't be running more than 6 units/solo tanks given the hard cap on commissars. Interestingly though if i was to do something like that, i'd probably now consider running one of the units as baneblades, as with the increased firepower they'd make a reasonable mid-field support unit.

I'll have to try them out in a regular guard army when i get a chance though, i'd like to see how they'd do compared to the russ company, but also how they'd get on supporting a russ company and dropping to a single mech infantry for a 'sturdier' build


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Baneblade Test Thread
PostPosted: Tue Jul 25, 2017 10:28 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2014 8:01 pm
Posts: 1116
Fair point Richard. I played Jon in the 2nd tournament where he ran that list. To be fair he hadn't played for about a year and was still top table on game 3 - however, I think he'd freely admit that list didn't have a lot of answers for my Biel Tann. Anyway, point was more that war engine spam can already be an effective build so doesn't need decreasing in cost. I'd be utterly fine in seeing baneblades come into a list like Jon's. Purely a point on cost.

I'd definitely consider the revised baneblades in Ulani on an epic UK level. That's a list which often struggles a bit with shifting dug in infantry and also has a solid anti-tank option which isn't a shadowsword in the tank destroyers.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Baneblade Test Thread
PostPosted: Tue Jul 25, 2017 10:43 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2009 10:16 am
Posts: 727
Location: London
Oh indeed - points wise i think they're fine. A bit of up-gunning should be all they really need to make them a bit more viable, especially for turns 1 and 2 when normally they'd be a real damp squib until they can close to 30cm.

I still didn't find them necessarily quite as threatening as a mech infantry co, although this may be just for the potential assault range they can manage. Still, after seeing a legion bike co pretty much wiped on a double, i'd shudder at what it might do do a formation on foot on either a single or sustain - that might change my mind somewhat in terms of threat!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Baneblade Test Thread
PostPosted: Tue Jul 25, 2017 10:54 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2014 8:01 pm
Posts: 1116
In cover, halfway up the board an sustaining into mixed infantry/AV units or LVs looks like the dream with them ;D

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Baneblade Test Thread
PostPosted: Tue Jul 25, 2017 10:59 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2009 10:16 am
Posts: 727
Location: London
Oh, and if people are still feeling it's a bit underwhelming rather than a points drop there would be two other potential changes that i could think of to distinguish it a bit more:

1. Give it thick rear armour, to better represent it's role as a mid-front line assault tank.
2. Weaken the crit to 1 extra point of damage. Interestingly this wouldn't be as huge a change as most people might think given it would only effect a crit on a tank that just takes a single wound, otherwise it would be the same as usual.

I don't personally think it needs either of those (and definitely not both), but if the consensus is that it's still rubbish i'd go for something like that over dropping points.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Baneblade Test Thread
PostPosted: Tue Jul 25, 2017 1:06 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 8:54 pm
Posts: 2144
Location: Cornwall
@Rug - fair enough. Like i say, i'll try to get a game or two in over the summer.

As i say, also very interested in the artillery changes...


Sent using Tapatalk


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Baneblade Test Thread
PostPosted: Tue Jul 25, 2017 7:10 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2012 7:03 pm
Posts: 249
Location: Hungary
RugII wrote:
The Volcano Cannon is consistently 90cms across all lists and the Shadowsword is also in numerous lists, it's also a key piece of the Imperial Guard armoury. Changing the range of the Shadowsword Volcano Cannon would take a tremendous amount of rebalancing and I'm not sure it's necessary.

TBH I'm not too concerned at the AP of the Bane Cannon, it doesn't seem right to me that it would hit infantry in cover on 7s after doubling either. Have you found the long range AP to be too potent at range during play testing? Long range AP is quite rare outside of bararage artillery.


For long range, it is completely fine to have a good AP, what I'm concerned is when it comes to all weapons fire, in closer range, where the BB is already good at. But that part really needs fine tune test to judge correctly, I guess.

_________________
Epic Commander of the Prassium Invasion Troops 214th Regiment
***Action is our prayer. Victory is our offering.***


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 239 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 12, 13, 14, 15, 16  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  


Powered by phpBB ® Forum Software © phpBB Group
CoDFaction Style by Daniel St. Jules of Gamexe.net