Actually Onyx 's idea is far better for two reasons
1. Elegance and simplicity. The rule actually could be used on a few other units as well and provides a needed ability I think.
2. Fluff. The baneblade has accuracy and targeting capabilities the other tanks don't carry actually. The BB is noted for its amazing fire in the move capabilities and why it's THE breakthrough tank in the Imperium. It's NOT a generalist tank actually. It has a well defined role as much as the others, just a role that EA doesn't capture well currently.
3. Tactical doctrine and training is often more important than the platform in many cases. Look at the ability of the IDF fielding Sherman tanks repeatedly against the Egyptians, again mainly facing Shermans during the 56 war and coming out ahead time and time time again. How you use the weapon is just as important as the weapon itself.

_________________
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!

Hey JZ,

Good points mate but my concern is the ability onyx proposes would arguably go on lots of vehicles, most Eldar and tau could argue for it, and we'd open another can of worms.

I'm not sure what FW think makes a "breakthrough" tank but the way your describing it makes me think it should get to make its full move when it consolidates after an assault. Effective it assaults at speed, brakes or destroys its target then charges through into the enemy rear. Making it more able to threaten formations in depth or turn in behind the enemy line to effect cross fire or setup support fire for a rolling assault .

To me that is more telling of a "breakthrough" than shooting effectively at speed which most units can do .

Finally I agree about tactics vs technology , but I feel the rules should be more aligned to the "technology " and leave the "tactics" up to the players .

I feel like that's all in the name. Yeah, if you called it "Stable Platform" all sorts of people will be crawling out of the woodwork going "Hey, my platform's stable too, give me the rule!" If you made it sound like a specific piece of tech, say a "Velocity Compensator", then you can give it to vehicles selectively by saying they're the ones that use that wargear. Or you can go whole hog and lock it down to one vehicle by saying it's a specific tactic or maneuver - "Baneblade Advance" or similar.

There are many ways to add special rules without opening worm-cans.

I think tackling the BB's slow move and firefight is the answer rather than mooorrr guns ( otherwise known as the GW approach.)

My only concern is ignoring the -1 (almost) effectively makes them move 30cm... Faster than leman russ.

Personally I still like the infiltrate option, but has a simple extra small arms attack been looked at? A company then starts to dish out a significant punch (12x4+) ; similar effectiveness to a dire avenger formation (with more survivability) at 500points. Sounds about right...?

Perhaps with a small movement buff to 20cm...?

No no, it's a weapon ability. The BB Cannon would be stable. The other 4 weapons would be shooting at -1. There's still a trade off. I was trying to capture the fluff of the Baneblade Cannon, not the shared chassis as the cannon actually shoots self guided rockets, like an enormous bolter that gives it the fire on the move ability other imperial tanks lack.

Orton's idea about the consolidation move is interesting as well. After all, this guy is meant to take the fight to the rear as follow on units keep pushing through the gap it makes. The goal here is to get a unit that plays like the fluff and up -gunning it just makes people want to sustain and turn it into a bunker.

[geeking out warning-eject now for your own sanity]

Now to answer the question above about what makes a modern MBT designed specifically designed for breakthrough tactics is best described with the comparison of the M1 Abrams versus the IDF Merkava. The carry relatively the same equivalent armour from what's been gathered from operational uses, pretty similar weapons and apparent effective range, close to the same size / weight and similar powerplants (in HP). However, the Merkava has about 20% more operational range of an M1 due to a more efficient engine, carries more shells for it's main gun, and actually allows dismounts as every one can carry an infantry squad with them, plus uses a rear mounted turret which not to dive too much into theory basically enhances crew survivability by sticking the engine up front, etc... Basically the Merkava is designed to range farther past the front lines for longer than the M1A1 is which is more encumbered by the ability of the supply lines (generally due to the US's greater abilities for logistics than anyone else).

Now to take this back to Epic, all these (other than the infantry dismounts but BB don't have those so we can safely ignore it) really don't change the unit in the size of the battle being represented in the game. However, the fighting doesn't just stop after the end of T3. Gains are consolidated. Reserves are called up to explout the opening. The next part of the larger strategic fight starts, etc. What this means is that in the larger grand scheme of things, a breakthrough tank crew will be using aggressive forward tactics more often simply because they can run farther and longer and more independent than other units. This means they can afford to crack off a few more rounds than their contemporaries during that battle They can afford to run the unit faster / longer because they've got more range. Simply they know they can stay in the fight longer. All this meaning that they way they get used by their crews differently than say a Stormsword which even though it's based on the same chassis, due to the heavier weapon, carries less shells and doesn't need to operate forward independently so is simply used (and stated) differently.

Edit: Before L4 shows up and beats me up for blagging on the M1, I'm not. Just pointing out that the armies are designed for two different purposes Don't hurt me!

_________________
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!

+1EA small arms attack or 20cm move is better ideas than the "stable platform". Don't add new rules please.

_________________
https://epic40ksweden.wordpress.com/

"You have a right to be offended" - Steve Hughes
"Your feelings are hurting my thoughts" - Aron Flam

The stable platform on just the main canon sounds ok - but doesn't fit with my idea of the BB. However I bow to your greater geek-fu! :-)

In fact I was thinking adding stable platform to the battle cannons on the UK ulani list would be an ideal (and much needed ) buff and encourage the blitz play style the list is supposed to embody. Bit like the late war US shermans.

ha! Guilty as charged!
Not to go off-topic, but I'd love to hear some more about Ulani changes. Perhaps a new thread to discuss? I really like that list.

_________________
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!

Yeah, ulani is great, but seems to struggle a little against most other lists. One of my epic converts has played them relentlessly as his first army and over the months come to a fairly solid build that can take on most ground based armies, but still struggles if the enemy can get through his fighter screen with air assaults (ie marines and eldar.) Unfortunately he came up against some other unfortunate match ups at the Exeter tourney (crons and THE shadow sword list), but good showing for a first tourney.

Personally, I think the ulani could do with some mobile infantry, perhaps mounted on the Salamanders in a Bren Carrier platoon style, and the option to take the supreme com in any leman russ co rather than having to take the 10 strong co (which cripples activations.)

I strongly agree on this. I would even suggest giving the BB the EpicUK Blitzkrieg rule (from Ulani).

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

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

Pretty much a casual dabbler to EA rather than a tourney player, but having read the thread I would favour the 2 shot approach, with the addition of giving the main gun Disrupt. Game wise it gives an edge to using them in assaults and as a supporting unit. Fluff wise the justification would be that it carries a wide variety of different shell types as befits its all-rounder role, and is able to change its approach to suit the opponent. I don't see this treading on any toes too much and is slightly more interesting than just the extra shot by itself.

Sorry I missed this post earlier ... Regardless ... I generally agree with what you are saying here. Modern MBTs primary mission is to take on other MBTs. Plus because of their speed, armor mobility and firepower. They are capable of making and exploiting a breakthrough. Which is generally what we saw their use was in WWI. However, in much more of an Infantry Support role. To suppress and destroy enemy MG positions, etc., cross trenches etc. ... And in theory the WWI Cav would exploit the breakthrough as even then a horse was generally faster than a Tank.

However, we saw in WWII the Germans in the first few years of the war. Took everybody to school with their "Blitzkrieg" tactics, etc. ... and combined arms doctrine. Which is basically what all modern mobile/mechanzied tactics are based on to one extent of another. So yes, MBTs of today along with Mech Infantry working in concert. Plus FA, CAS, Gunships, Naval Gunfire is support ... is how it is done. To breakthrough and exploit, etc. ... But regardless, NO MBTs in Epic should be given any sort of exploitation rule, IMO ... Also one of the concepts of modern mobile combined arms warfare ... is Keep It Simple [Stupid] ... and any rule for MBT breakthrough and exploitation is not needed. As the player/commander you should be savvy enough to maneuver your toy soldiers within the existing rules for breakthrough and exploitation ...

_________________
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."

The idea behind 'stable platform' for the whole of the Baneblade, not just the main gun, is that it gives the tank a unique role that no other SHT has.

Right now we see a lot of Shadowswords for ranged shooting, and possibly some Stormblades. If people want superheavies for engaging, then they take Stormhammers, or possibly they take Baneblades because they don't have any Stormhammer models.

The issue is that if you focus just on making the Baneblade better in assault, you haven't really gained anything, because ultimately either the Baneblade or the Stormhammer will be better, and people will take that option and leave the other in the cabinet. Right now the proposal is to make them equal, 3 dice on 3+ or 4 dice on 4+ works out at two hits either way. You avoid the issue of one tank or the other being superior by making them the same. The only way to differentiate assault is to have lots of expected hits against either macro or ignore cover hits, and I don't think anyone would argue that's a sensible path to take for modifying the Baneblade.

The way, I think, to make the Baneblade really different is to give it scope to combine some mobility and close range hitting power. You could double it up to within 15cm of the enemy, unload everything and actually hit with some of the guns, and then be in position to give supporting fire to the engaging unit. It becomes a unit designed to provide close range fire support to the primary engaging unit - which is a role unlike any of the other super heavies.

Giving the Baneblade an extra 20cm move does a similar thing, and there's a lot to be said for a simple stat change, instead of adding a new special rule. But it does mean mixed companies would become non-viable - you won't see a Stormhammer with two Baneblades anymore, and that's a shame. And I worry that this won't feel quite right - a march of 60cm is quite a lot of ground covered. The slow and steady double every turn while putting out loads of firepower seems a better feel. But then I haven't playtested either option, and am happy to be proved wrong.

I see all the Super Heavies as heavily armed and armored mobile weapons platforms. They can move but not fast. They have a lot of firepower and protection to take on other Super Heavies and even if need be. The ultimate super heavy mobile weapons platform/ Land Battleship [and target !] - the Titan.

As the saying goes, the best weapon against a tank is another tank, etc. ... And on modern battlefields, combined arms mobile warfare using all assets available, seems to be very "useful" ...

So IMO, keeping the Baneblade slower than the L/Russ, etc., makes more sense to me ... Again, it is a Super Heavy ... so should not be as fast or as "lively" as lighter AFVs including MBTs.

_________________
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."