Why?

Besides the size difference between the two weapons, it doesn't seem right that a direct fire weapon should have that long of a range. The helstrike (or whatever the vulture's weapon is called) is a guided missile, and the basilisk cannon is meant for indirect and is much less powerful to boot.

I imagine that the planets would have to align in a special way to do this, but is it desireable to give a shadowsword company and baneblade company the capability to work in concert to bring down most/all void shields down (assuming 2 shots and range increase) and then smoke the target with TK shots in the same turn, all at 90cm?

_________________
Let us playtest like the Greeks of old... You know the ones I mean

Hi!

I really, really like all the changes, except for Baneblade.

I think 4+ for FF is correct, since a DC3 BB is mostly equal to 3 Leman Russ. The latter has 6 heavy bolter in total, the former has 3 but twin linked one.
All weaponry looks fine by the fluff [eleven barrels of hell!] and by the stats aswell.
The one and only issue in my humble opinion is the main battle cannon. It just doesn't have the punch and most of the time it's AP/AT just bounces off, like if it weren't a Super-Heavy Tank knocking on your doors!

Rug felt it right that the mb cannon must be buffed somehow. Range wouldn't solve anything, since it is the damage what is too soft, and if you would need a BB variant unit, hitting enemy from 90 cm range, why on earth would you take one with AP/AT 3+, instead of MW2+ TK(D3) ?

A close to middle (30 - 60 cm?) cannon volley, with raw firepower would more befit the fluff and the rank, that should differ from shadowsword.

I suggest the following stats for the main battle cannon:
WEAPON: Experimental Cannon v75
RANGE: 75 cm
FIREPOWER: MW4+

Or

WEAPON: Experimental Cannon v60
RANGE: 60 cm
FIREPOWER: MW3+

Or

WEAPON: Experimental Cannon v01
RANGE: 75 cm
FIREPOWER: MW3+

Macro attack is in short supply in the whole Steel Legion anyway.
Whereas v75 maintains the ability to attack deployment zone first round, it may still lack the sufficient punch with a 4+ hitting value as standard.

v60 is more significant change, since it denies the ability to attack deployment zone first round, but at the same time, maintains the 3+ hitting value and probability, which the original mb cannon had.
v01 is the combination of v75 and v60 with their best values. Meaning: Everything remains the same, just simply swapping the AP/AT into an MW dmg.

Erm, this was my two cents.

PS.: Even if v01 would be applied I still be tempted to take Stormblade variant, instead of Baneblade variant.
I know it is a question using Minervan or other lists that allows Stormblade.
Hmm, have you considered that these general changes, affects all other lists that use the same stuff ? (upgrades, BB, Emperor Battleship)

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

That is a very important point for everyone to consider. If changes are made to this "founding" list, it will directly affect all of the other lists that have branched off from it. This in turn could cause other lists to develop problems of their own. I would argue that the list has been performing solidly for years now and change, if really needed, should be approached very carefully.

_________________
"Live off the land. Go to find war. Kill wot comes close. The old ways are best." - Grodd, Ork Snakebite Runtherd

Again, changes are being made to core formations in the Space marine list without these concerns being raised.

Doesn't make it right

_________________
Let us playtest like the Greeks of old... You know the ones I mean

Heavily implies that it's not wrong though, and I'll point out that this is coming from the guy who's unilaterally decided that already statted out chaos engine Armoured vehicles are now DC2 War Engines at only 75 points.

Ohh, also, they get Thunderhawks now because.....

And they're fearless 'cause you don't like losing them in losing engagements, but don't cost any more because.....

The very big blast template (double the diameter as the Leman Russ`s Battlecannon)the Baneblade has for his battle cannon gives it a new special ability i incorporated in my WhES. I called it Blast. If you score a hit with a weapon with this ability then the target formation receives two hits.

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/

So I can't oppose changes to an established list because I'm AC of a fringe one and made design choices you disagree with MikeT? And I made a stat/special rule because I "don't like" losing a unit when things go my way. Wow, I applaud your internet snark savvy there. Funny how you didn't even comment on that thread where it belongs. In fact, you can go ahead and piss off.

IIRC the changes to the SM list was minor points changes and not armor save or firepower changes. All the SM FMs besides allies are detachments (not core/support) anyway, so that part of your argument doesn't hold water. The whole thing amounted to unneeded fiddling in my opinion. There should be a really heavy burden to change core/established lists. "We fiddled with one core list so that makes fiddling with others ok," doesn't sound like it passes the sniff test.

_________________
Let us playtest like the Greeks of old... You know the ones I mean

I think that list of problems with underperforming units in the IG list has been widely recognised for many years, so I'm all in favour of you getting in there in changing them.

_________________
http://hordesofthings.blogspot.co.nz/

Except the Baneblade all these are quite justified, and even with the changes I wouldn't expect to see the relevent formations/upgrades suddenly flood the table.

I too would not like to see the Baneblade Battlecannon at 90cm range, also largely because it shouldn't match the Volcano Cannon's range. For reference, in 40k the Baneblade Battlecannon has the same range as a standard Battlecannon but slightly better S/AP and a honkin' big template. The Volcano Cannon has a much longer range. The stats are where 40k says they should be. Personally I'm okay with only taking 40k stats as a starting point, but we should try to keep the relationships between stats largely the same when possible.

Personally I like Baneblades; they put out tremendous fire, they take fire well, and they hold their own in Engage. Plus Commissars love them. I don't think they need changing.

_________________
SG

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

Not a fan of the Baneblade changes at all.
The rest of the proposals are ok.

_________________
Just call me Steve.

NetEA Rules Chair
NetEA FAQ

Want to play Iron Warriors in Epic Armageddon? Click HERE
Some of my Armies.
My Hobby site.

I looked up the 40k rules for a Baneblade Battle Cannon in Imperial Armour Vol.1, 2nd edition. It has the same range as a regular battle cannon, though is stronger, better at penetrating armour and hits an area twice as big as a regular battlecannon (10" template not 5").

With that in mind then rather than FF3+ or increasing the range I'd rather it had 2 x AP3+/AT3+ attacks for the gun, representing the sizeable explosion hitting two targets. That would be easily justified by the 40k stats.

It could definitely do with a boost; I've found it underwhelming in ny games in the rare occasion I've chosen to the take it.

that'd be my preferred change.