Tactical Command
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/

Baneblade
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=74&t=9299		 Page 1 of 10
Author:  The_Real_Chris [ Wed Apr 25, 2007 8:15 am ]
Post subject:  Baneblade
The concensus on the (very old) thread was the following.
Jervis incidentally had okayed Thick Rear armour and had told the IG champ that heavy flamer sponson options were possible. Now call me a cynic but I doubt the new SG model will ever be released, indeed was it even finished? So the Heavy Flamers are probably out.

So this was I think the general concensus from the old thread (note this is to try and balance it in utility against the mighty Shadowsword).

Note, it may seem as if this describes the FW baneblade load out. That could however be merely a coincidence (who reckons FW stuck that bit in the fluff about inferior copies to refer to the SG one? :) )

War Engine
Speed 15cm
Save 4+, 3DC, Reinforced Armour
CC 6+
FF4+
Demolisher Cannon
Autocannon
Two Lascannon (whoops, it was turn them into heavy flamers)
Three twin heavy bolters
Big Battle Cannon (the BBC of the battlefield) 75cm, AP3+/AT3+

Contenous - Thick Rear Armour. Supported by Jervis and a few others, decried by many.

I guess people could try the above with or without TRA and report back? Equal to the Shadowsword now or not?
Author:  The_Real_Chris [ Wed Apr 25, 2007 8:48 am ]
Post subject:  Baneblade
You go against the word of Jervis! One day he shall return (Yes, it is true, you laugh but I will be proved right!) and smite you, you unbeliever you! :)

I have to say I like the thick rear armour - with the shorter range weapons this is a company of tanks that rumbles forward and takes/holds and objective. With such slow speed cross fire is sadly common place and you die awful fast for a 500 point tank unit :(

The other thing to consider is the vindicator - if it goes to small arms ignore cover, should the Baneblade get it on 1 or all of its FF attacks? Or just not at all?
Author:  Evil and Chaos [ Wed Apr 25, 2007 12:11 pm ]
Post subject:  Baneblade
I do not support Thick Rear Armour for the Baneblade at all.

This is due to its rear armour being actually pretty average in 40k (Armour 12, hardly the armour 14 of a Land Raider!).


I would instead go the route of up-gunning the Baneblade.

Thusly;

- All the gun stats you propose above (Ie: the extra heavy bolters).
- Make the Mega Battle Cannon* AP3+/AT3+ (This means it hits on 2's when sustaining).


* Note that Imperial Armour I simply calls it a 'Baneblade Battle Cannon'.
Author:  Evil and Chaos [ Wed Apr 25, 2007 12:12 pm ]
Post subject:  Baneblade
The other thing to consider is the vindicator - if it goes to small arms ignore cover, should the Baneblade get it on 1 or all of its FF attacks? Or just not at all?

I'd find a way to give it just one attack that ignores cover, for flavour rather than outright killing potential.
Author:  Pulsar [ Wed Apr 25, 2007 12:20 pm ]
Post subject:  Baneblade
i don't think it should get Thick Rear Armour when most other IG tanks don't have it.

and why should a super heavy tank get it when Reaver and Warhound Titans don't have it!

Edit: sorry ment to say most!
Author:  The_Real_Chris [ Wed Apr 25, 2007 12:46 pm ]
Post subject:  Baneblade
Edit - bugger do Ragnaroks have TRA, I think that was something I playtested ages ago and it got stuck in my brain! :)

Indeed you could say why should a Land Raider get it when Reavers don't? :)

It was for a sound reason it was suggested (tried a bit) and jervis accepted. Namely it allows them to move forward and use their weapons with little fear of being flanked. The fluff for the tank has them being used to fight battles on their own, not get brought low by a flanking unit of dev's.

I've noticed not everyone tried their best to set up crossfires - I recomend it, I've had companies of Russ desolve to such tactics.

Beside i can fall back on 'jervis said so' and as this chart (showing the chain of command in Epic) demonstrates
GW head
GW Board
GW Accountants
GW etc etc etc etc
GW Tea lady
GW Design Studio
Jervis
Forgeworld

Jervis ranks higher than forgeworld so we must all slavishly follow his instructions. That date from two years back.

:)
Author:  Evil and Chaos [ Wed Apr 25, 2007 12:49 pm ]
Post subject:  Baneblade
TRC: PM Sent. Interesting info for you. :)
Author:  ragnarok [ Wed Apr 25, 2007 4:50 pm ]
Post subject:  Baneblade
My voter is for the proposed stats, without TRA and with weapon arc ristriction.

And just for everyones information, I do have thick rear armour  :p  :p
Author:  Irondeath [ Wed Apr 25, 2007 6:32 pm ]
Post subject:  Baneblade
I?m of the opinion that TRA should be a very special ability, and 40k doesn?t seem to support this for the Baneblade. While I?m blissfully unaware of current 40k rules, it would seem plain wrong to add TRA in E:A . Upping firepower is in order though, I?ve never seen a Baneblade in a competitive environment while SSwords are common. Fire arcs are a thing of bygone eras, E:A does nicely without them most of the time.

Here?s my suggestion:


War Engine
Speed 15cm
Save 4+, 3DC, Reinforced Armour
CC 6+
FF 3+

Baneblade Battle Cannon 75cm MW4+ (+1EA small arms MW)
Baneblade Demolisher Cannon 30cm AP3+ AT4+ (+1EA small arms Ignore Cover, Fixed Forward Arc)
Autocannon 45cm AP5+AT6+
Heavy Bolter 30cm AP5+
2x Lascannon 2xAT5+

I consider adding +1EA small arms MW a stroke of genius, in combination with increasing FF this should make the BB quite attractive. Opinions will differ though... :glare:
Author:  Evil and Chaos [ Wed Apr 25, 2007 8:14 pm ]
Post subject:  Baneblade
Baneblade Battle Cannon 75cm MW4+ (+1EA small arms MW)

If anything, the Demolisher cannon should be a MacroWeapon.

It has a higher strength in 40k than the Baneblade's battle cannon, and uses the same size template.

So in my eyes, there is no justification for giving the Baneblade's battle cannon MW status if the Demolisher Cannon doesn't get the same treatment.


So, just improve it to AP3+ / AT3+ (Or lower)
Author:  nealhunt [ Wed Apr 25, 2007 9:01 pm ]
Post subject:  Baneblade
I actually think the book stats, with TRA (for background reasons, not anything vaguely to do with 40K stats) and a better (+1) FF value would be fine.
Author:  The_Real_Chris [ Wed Apr 25, 2007 9:08 pm ]
Post subject:  Baneblade
Personally I'm against upping the FF - it isn't to my mind an assault super heavy, but a big Leman Russ carrying as it does roughly twice the firepower. 3 times as good in an assault is enough - going to 4 times is pushing it.
Page 1 of 10 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/