Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 6 of 18
  [ 260 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 ... 18  Next

Baneblade Test Thread
jimmyzimms
 Post subject: Re: Baneblade Test Thread
PostPosted: Fri Nov 21, 2014 7:25 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 8:24 pm
Posts: 9658
Location: Manalapan, FL
Redgeran wrote:
I wouldn't mess with supreme commanders, etc. you're messing with lists too much, and if anything should be reserved for discussion on a different thread.

I also don't think we should change the speed/infiltrate. The BB chassis is specifically stated as being slow.

I'm also starting to think the BB cannon isn't the solution. It's not supposed to be a heavy firepower linebreaker. The stormhammer is. The BB is an all-rounder. A slow all-rounder at that. What I keep reading however is that it is often used as a command vehicle due to its vox, sensors, and overall inspiring presence. In this way i like the "commander" idea that has been circulating on this thread recently.

What if Baneblades got a special rule where IG formations within 5 cm got a +1 bonus to initiative and rally rolls, kind of like orks? I know people don't like special rules, but this might prevent major changes to stats while giving a clear role for a baneblade... Namely an all-rounder command tank that inspires other formations to advance and hold the line. It makes it more of a synergist tank, something I don't think any of the super heavy tanks have.


There's always the Improved Coms rule. While it is an addition in the NetEA lists it's now become a defacto standard ability in that the many lists that take it do not even define the rule anymore. We should just add it to the TP and be done (if not already-separate discussion that is). Perhaps that's something we should consider?

_________________
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!
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Redgeran
 Post subject: Re: Baneblade Test Thread
PostPosted: Fri Nov 21, 2014 7:41 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 03, 2013 2:08 pm
Posts: 243
Location: Atlanta, GA
Oh, an make that 10 or 15cm to avoid intermingled. Plus 5cm is probably too short to begin with.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Redgeran
 Post subject: Re: Baneblade Test Thread
PostPosted: Fri Nov 21, 2014 7:44 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 03, 2013 2:08 pm
Posts: 243
Location: Atlanta, GA
Will have to check out improved coms rule once out of work.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Commissar Holt
 Post subject: Re: Baneblade Test Thread
PostPosted: Fri Nov 21, 2014 7:54 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2012 7:03 pm
Posts: 289
Location: Hungary
Ahm... guys... why don't we simply test dual shot that is the least technical change statwise (AP/AT) and rulewise. Though it would be hilarious to see infiltrating Baneblades (if are at it, add skimmer ability!!! :D ), but let's not forget we are dealing with a long time concrete approved list.
That's why my word alone means too less (though I'm impersonating one of the best commissars in 40k universe! O0 ) for such a change to make.

EDIT: No matter what will be the final result, be aware that it should work on singletons too, not just 3xBB companies.

_________________
Epic Commander of the Prassium Invasion Troops 214th Regiment
***Action is our prayer. Victory is our offering.***
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
jimmyzimms
 Post subject: Re: Baneblade Test Thread
PostPosted: Fri Nov 21, 2014 8:44 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 8:24 pm
Posts: 9658
Location: Manalapan, FL
I'm certain no one here is saying these will not be tested. They're just spittballing ideas about things to try out.

Good thinking though to make sure we're keeping ourselves realistic CH! I'm sure you'll put a bolt round through our heads if we're derelict in our testing duties! :)

_________________
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!
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
The_Real_Chris
 Post subject: Re: Baneblade Test Thread
PostPosted: Sat Nov 22, 2014 1:35 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:45 pm
Posts: 8139
Location: London
I think balancing them with a single shadowsword is asking too much... Currently the choices I can see are a baneblade company and shadowsword single as that optimises both. Shadowsword companies are to specialised and a single baneblade lacks the big scary gun...
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
GlynG
 Post subject: Re: Baneblade Test Thread
PostPosted: Sat Nov 22, 2014 6:57 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2003 7:27 pm
Posts: 5602
Location: Bristol
I really think we should just keep it simple and make a small change: giving the Baneblade Cannon either 1 x AT2+/AP2+ or 2 x AT4+/AP4+ would help, while not being too much.

Actually, yes, a Storm Hammer should have TRA. It's in Raiders but has been missed out of the TP, I'll go report the error.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Commissar Holt
 Post subject: Re: Baneblade Test Thread
PostPosted: Sat Nov 22, 2014 11:18 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2012 7:03 pm
Posts: 289
Location: Hungary
@Jimmyzimms:
Quote:
Good thinking though to make sure we're keeping ourselves realistic CH! I'm sure you'll put a bolt round through our heads if we're derelict in our testing duties! :)

;D

@The_Real_Chris: I agree with you on that. A single shadowsword is soo useful role that the baneblade probably never reach that, unless we make it overpowered, especially in company. Yet a bit more upgunning would still make a huge difference, lessening the gap beetween single shadowsword and baneblade.

@GlynG: The two shot is preferable in a way, that it gives the BB a chance to differ from shadowsword. A shadowsword will always have a possible one kill / turn with it's main gun, assuming best rolls. However a baneblade with two shots (especially when those are quite good values: AP3+/AT4+ ) will gain an opportunity to inflict more kills than a shadowsword, so against normal targets (less armoured) a BB would become better.

If the number of shots (dices) become too much, autocannon can be removed as fluffwise it is used for tracer anyway.

_________________
Epic Commander of the Prassium Invasion Troops 214th Regiment
***Action is our prayer. Victory is our offering.***
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
GlynG
 Post subject: Re: Baneblade Test Thread
PostPosted: Sun Nov 23, 2014 12:12 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2003 7:27 pm
Posts: 5602
Location: Bristol
I'd be very against removing the autocannon. It's goes against WYSIWYG as it's clearly on the model.

Rather than make a large boost to the main gun to the extent it needs to loose the autocannon to counterbalance it, it would be better to just make a smaller boost in the first place.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
The_Real_Chris
 Post subject: Re: Baneblade Test Thread
PostPosted: Sun Nov 23, 2014 12:51 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:45 pm
Posts: 8139
Location: London
I'd be happy to go with AP2/AT2. Very little difference, but more confidence of plinking shots while advancing.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
carlisimo109
 Post subject: Re: Baneblade Test Thread
PostPosted: Sun Nov 23, 2014 11:04 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Wed Sep 23, 2009 5:06 am
Posts: 740
Location: San Francisco, CA
Largo_W wrote:
Or simply give it speed 20cm (the same as a Russ). That could also work.

That would address the Baneblade's shortcomings more than up gunning it would. Who needs more guns when it's never in position to use them? It wouldn't match the other super-heavies but its hull doesn't look like theirs anyway. No exotic weaponry on board.

FF3+ would probably be appropriate as an alternative, but it'd make it a very defensive unit and that seems wrong. I don't care that it'd be too similar to the Stormhammer because most people choosing between the two are just trying to use the models they actually have access to.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Koshi
 Post subject: Re: Baneblade Test Thread
PostPosted: Sun Nov 23, 2014 8:31 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2011 3:39 pm
Posts: 292
Location: Mooskirchen, Austria
Hmm, the 20cm moving range seems intrigating but I like to see the Cannon changed to 2BP/AT 3+ This would fit well enough IMO.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
carlisimo109
 Post subject: Re: Baneblade Test Thread
PostPosted: Sun Nov 23, 2014 10:54 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Wed Sep 23, 2009 5:06 am
Posts: 740
Location: San Francisco, CA
The biggest downside to giving them a 20cm move is probably that it makes it faster than the Macharius, which would lead to questions about that tank that might be entirely reasonable. The other superheavies are types that in real life wouldn't be expected to be as fast as regular tanks.

The upsides are we'd start using the Baneblade offensively, which would be more fitting for what I think it's meant for. It's not an infantry tank, so it shouldn't travel at the same pace as them. The Macharius isn't either, right? The Malcador might be, and the Stormhammer might be too. If the latter isn't, well, it's got two turrets on a Baneblade hull and that's bound to weigh it down.

2BP makes the company more flexible. I don't think there's great value in that, especially when artillery is so readily available in most of the lists that have Baneblades. Just like the proposed 2 shots change, it raises the cost of doubling. That's a negative in my view.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Largo_W
 Post subject: Re: Baneblade Test Thread
PostPosted: Mon Nov 24, 2014 8:32 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 30, 2010 6:55 pm
Posts: 803
Screw the Macharius! No one uses them anyway :D

edit: that may sound harsher than it is meant to be. My point: The Macharius is another underperforming tank and should be addressed when the Baneblade is fixed.

_________________
My blog - A man without a mountain of unpainted lead is no real man!
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
  Print view Previous topic | Next topic 
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 6 of 18
  [ 260 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 ... 18  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 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