The Stormhammer Super Heavy Tank appears on the Minervan list with the following stats:
STORMHAMMER (ACACIUS PATTERN)
Type Speed Armour Close Combat Firefight
War Engine 15cm 4+ 6+ 3+
Weapons Range Firepower Notes
2 x Twin Snub Battlecannons 45cm AP3+/AT3+ -
4 x Lascannons 45cm AT5+ -
4 x Twin Heavy Bolters 30cm AP4+
Damage Capacity 3. Critical Hit: The Stormhammer’s magazine explodes. The Stormhammer is destroyed, and any units within 5cm of the model suffer a hit on a D6 roll of 6+.
Notes: Reinforced Armor

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

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

Well, I'm still in favour of returning the Minervan Stormhammer's speed to 10cm, where it will find it harder to bring its awesome firepower to bear.

Failing, or in addition to that, +50 points per Stormhammer chosen might not be terrible.



---


In the Mossinian list, TRC went for a much lower-tech Stormhammer, which is more balanced for its points cost, but isn't as damned punchy as the Minervan Stormhammer.

And punchy is cool

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

The Mossinian Stormhammer is this:

MOSSINIAN STORMHAMMER (NICEA PATTERN)
Type Speed Armour Close Combat Firefight
War Engine 15cm 4+ 6+ 3+
Weapons Range Firepower Notes
2 x Twin Snub Battlecannons 45cm AP3+/AT3+ -
4 x Heavy Stubbers 30cm AP6+ -
Defensive Boltgun Array (15cm) Small Arms Extra Attacks (+1)
Damage Capacity 3. Critical Hit: The Stormhammer’s magazine explodes. The Stormhammer is destroyed, and any units within 5cm of the model suffer a hit on a D6 roll of 6+.
Notes: Reinforced Armor, Thick Rear Armour, Walker

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

Walker is too much IMO. But [/i]Thick Rear Armour[/i] is mandatory (SM/TL Stormhammer fluff tells about improved rear armour).

FF3+, or FF4+ with +1 extra FF attack. I would even say FF4+ with +2 extra FF attacks, but it may be to much.

The sides sponsors shouldn't carry lascannon. Only heavy bolters.

_________________
My gaming and painting blog : http://figsdeflogus.blogspot.fr

The sides sponsors shouldn't carry lascannon. Only heavy bolters.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

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

Only posted the stats for easy comparison.
I didn't haver played with or against Minervans. Sowhat exactly are the perceived problems with the Stormhammer? The FF? The firepower?

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

Through extensive playtesting and differing variations on the Starmhammers use, I've found that limitig its availibility to 1 for each company of Minervans fielded (whether this be as inclusive within the company itself or as a support choice.

This seems to balance the power of the stormhammer a little more as you are forced to use it in conjunction with other types of attack, rather than allowing it to rampage freely with the collosal numbers of attacks 3 Starmhammers bring to bear.



If limiting the numbers doesn't cut it, then I suggest increasing the points value to 300 for a single 'hammer and +50points on the company price.



If this is also not to your liking, the removal of the Lascannons and replacing them with Heavy Bolters would limit it's battlefield applications seriously.

_________________
"Stars in my pocket like grains of sand."

www.spartangames.co.uk

I'm not picking on Jonluke here but the first two ideas are exactly the thing I am not looking for.  Had I these suggestions prior to putting out Raiders I would have seriously considered them but I just don't like the idea of these changes now theat we're in print.

Adjusting the stats is really what I am looking for.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

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

The trouble is that if we stat it even vaguely accurately it's worth more than the other super-heavies. We either have to totally cripple its shooting or (preferably) make it more expensive.

Is is such an issue to have a price errata instead of a stat errata?

Either way, drop it back to 10cm movement, which it was tested at before you altered it for raiders, and which the unit text still alludes to.

_________________
http://www.troublemakergames.co.uk/
Epic: Hive Development Thread

Simple stat changes probably won't work to fix the necron list either, for example the core obelisk formation (which was only added with the release of raiders so was never playtested). An army consisting of 9 obelisk formations and a pylon is 2900 points, and has 54 AP4+/AT4+ 45cm ranged shots, all on fearless, teleporting skimmers with a 5+ reinforced save.

The problem here is them being allowed as a core formation, not the stats. How can that be fixed with a simple stat change?

_________________
http://www.troublemakergames.co.uk/
Epic: Hive Development Thread

Necron stuff - interesting point but Off Topic.
----
How is it that the stat change works for the Mossinians but not for the Minervans?  

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear:

I DON'T WANT TO CREATE SPECIAL PRICING.*

I DON'T WANT TO CREATE SPECIAL RULES.

I want to create a simple stat change.  If it can't be done, the list will be just fine without Stormhammers.  A speed change counts as a stat change so that recommendation is fine, but I'm not about to be badgered into it.  Maybe that explains how I feel about the matter better?

Are there other recommendations?

*Two reasons for this: One is that I would like to have all the SHT's priced the same so that the pricing structure is kept simple.  The other reason is I have a personal problem with an "inferior" SHT having superior firepower and higher pricing than the best the Forgeworlds can produce.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

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

The Mossinian stats have never been playtested as far as I know.

The necron reference was off-topic, but included to show that stat changes alone may not be sufficient to fix all the raiders lists.

Whatever, my proposed stats for the Stormhammer would be:

_________________
http://www.troublemakergames.co.uk/
Epic: Hive Development Thread

I second Zombo's stats.

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17

Speed 15cm : this tank is heavier armoured than others SHT (thick rear armour), but it's weaponnery is more 'primitive' than on others SHTs : plasma reactors for Stormblades, big accumulators for the Volcano of the Shadowsword, loads of mega-battlecannon and demolisher big shells, ...

Side sponsors : from lascannon & heavy bolters to heavy bolters and arrays of bolters. 4 lascannons will makes the Stormhammer to powerful IMO, and I see Stormhammer as a short range tank or even a FF-tank (so is the FF extra attack).

And the un-twinning of the snub battlecannons is for giving the Stormhammer an antitank capacity even with the removal of the lascannons.

FF3+ => FF4+ : FF short range capacity already represented by Defensive Boltgun Array.

_________________
My gaming and painting blog : http://figsdeflogus.blogspot.fr

The model is clearly armed with two twin main cannons.

_________________
http://www.troublemakergames.co.uk/
Epic: Hive Development Thread