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

The baneblade
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=74&t=6791		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  The_Real_Chris [ Fri Jun 02, 2006 8:27 pm ]
Post subject:  The baneblade
As I delve into my hard drive I find more and more of my old notes.
And in this case a link to the old forum. (Check it out in all its glory here.)

Baneblades. Currently not cutting the mustard.
They have the staying power. They have the WE assault bonus. They Have the WE formation damage resistance. But they just lack the firepower of other Guard units. A shadowsword will give you 3 defence laser shots, and Baneblade typically a turn of inaccurate battlecannon fire, a turn of Battlecannon and 45cm weapons or inaccurate everything and then finally an assault or decent round of firing.

The old suggestions essentially took the Forgeworld model as the base and upgunned the beat from there.

Note - SG have apparently done a new model (maybe it was never completed) but I doubt currently it will ever see the light of day :(

Based on past disscussion, driving my horde of Baneblades around the table (though far less than most it seems) and the fact the Demolisher cannon isn't going to get any changes I'd suggest:-

Baneblade
Move 15cm
Save 4+, DC 3, RA, Thick Rear Armour, Critical - blow up etc
FF 3+
CC 6+
Mega/Big/Uber/Fat Battle Cannon, Range 75cm, AP3+/AT3+
Autocannon, Range 45cm, AP5+/AT6+
2 x Lascannon, Range 45cm, AT5+
Demolisher Cannon, Range 30cm, AP3+/AT4+, Ignore Cover
3 x Twin Heavy Bolter, Range 30cm, AP4+

In essence slightly tougher when stuck in (TRA), a formation of 3 does 6 FF hits instead of 4 1/2, slightly boosted AT fire and better long range fire and a big boost to short ranged AP fire (from 2x5+ to 3x4+).

All of this makes the tank a short to medium range unit, better at operating in built up areas near enemy infantry and on par if used right with the Shadowsword.

Anyone any thoughts? What other ideas were people trying?
Author:  nealhunt [ Fri Jun 02, 2006 8:39 pm ]
Post subject:  The baneblade
I agree they are slightly underpowered, but only very slightly.

I think it could get by with just a FF increase.  Don't forget that as WEs they will usually be able to choose to use their FF value instead of having to use their CC.  Boosting their FF is a significant advantage.

One of the guys around here takes a company of them with Fire Support Platoon (sometimes an infantry platoon) and it becomes a very hard formation.  It's essentially a great area denial unit.  If you come near it, not only will you get pounded with fire, you will risk being assaulted with serious supporting fire.
Author:  Dwarf Supreme [ Fri Jun 02, 2006 8:44 pm ]
Post subject:  The baneblade
Those stats look good, Chris. My preception of the Baneblade is the same: a short to medium range tank.
Author:  The_Real_Chris [ Fri Jun 02, 2006 8:51 pm ]
Post subject:  The baneblade
I've tried that - but I've found adding infantry to an advancing AV/WE unit is asking for blast markers. Most formations have both AP and AV weapons and you become a god send in terms of target type. Even just 4 AP hits supresses a Baneblade and lands you with 5BM, and artillary also tends to love such mixed beasts.

Such a fomration still has a long walk to get into range. If you opponent is being cautious (I lost track of how many Eldar game i saw with the eldar simply sitting on their baseline waiting and firing) thats 2 turns of movement to get into range.

They always seem in the final analysis to lose to shadowswords as support and Leman Russ as attack.

I do think being the 'best' assault fomration with corresponding beefed up short range firepower gives them a solid area to operate in.

And FW tanks are nicer and 9 pound cheaper for 3 :)
Author:  The_Real_Chris [ Fri Jun 02, 2006 8:55 pm ]
Post subject:  The baneblade
Quote (nealhunt @ 02 June 2006 (20:39))
I think it could get by with just a FF increase. ?Don't forget that as WEs they will usually be able to choose to use their FF value instead of having to use their CC. ?Boosting their FF is a significant advantage.

Oh, defensively the whole WE thing often counts against them. Seeing 4 terminators air assaulting the end of a 3 tank formation gives you a sick feeling and you can only ever it seems get 2 out of 3 tanks in a position to respond.

One of the guys around here takes a company of them with Fire Support Platoon (sometimes an infantry platoon) and it becomes a very hard formation. ?It's essentially a great area denial unit.


For 600 points it would have to be :)
Author:  Ilushia [ Fri Jun 02, 2006 9:32 pm ]
Post subject:  The baneblade
I think that one suits it over all. I've kinda wondered why they weren't twin-linked heavy bolters to begin with really (As far as I know the models have ALWAYS mounted two to a turret, at least all the ones I've ever seen.) And certainly the current FW ones do. This set for them sounds about right. They're a very good anti-personal suppression system and anti-tank system once close enough to start laying it on. Russ will probably beat them out in ability to stand off and shoot, due to the difference in numbers, but the Baneblades are definitely better at moving up and laying down constant fire (No worries about supression for quite a while).
Author:  nealhunt [ Fri Jun 02, 2006 10:02 pm ]
Post subject:  The baneblade
Oh, defensively the whole WE thing often counts against them. Seeing 4 terminators air assaulting the end of a 3 tank formation gives you a sick feeling and you can only ever it seems get 2 out of 3 tanks in a position to respond.


I'm surprised at you, Chris.  Where is the Siege IG guy that tweaks the heck out of his deployments for max effect?

Why are they on line?  That's like saying it's bad if artillery hits your infantry while they are all bunched up.  Well, yeah, but you deserve it.

Deploy them with at least a slight stagger if not a real triangle so that no LoS is cut off between them.  Have the one engaged in base contact barge through with the countercharge.  Units which are barged are dragged behind the WE, which should clear the Line of Sight for the rest of the formation (at least enough to provide them good targets.  If you're lucky you'll still have one of the assaulting formation not in base contact so the barging tank can still use FF attacks.  If the others are more than 20cm away so they can't countercharge into FF range, well, that's like putting them on line - you deserve it.

Once I fell into that LoS trap once, I never did it again.

I've tried that - but I've found adding infantry to an advancing AV/WE unit is asking for blast markers. Most formations have both AP and AV weapons and you become a god send in terms of target type. Even just 4 AP hits supresses a Baneblade and lands you with 5BM, and artillary also tends to love such mixed beasts.

I haven't had the same results.  4 hits on infantry in cover isn't exactly easy.  WEs have the damage capacity to risk difficult terrain checks more often, too, so the whole formation can often be in cover that another "mixed formation" would avoid.  With the WE coherency distance you can spread out more than normal (and still be in FF support range as above) for defense against arty.
Author:  The_Real_Chris [ Sat Jun 03, 2006 3:32 am ]
Post subject:  The baneblade
Quote (nealhunt @ 02 June 2006 (22:02))
I'm surprised at you, Chris. ?Where is the Siege IG guy that tweaks the heck out of his deployments for max effect?

Why are they on line? ?That's like saying it's bad if artillery hits your infantry while they are all bunched up. ?Well, yeah, but you deserve it.

Yes, the first time was a straight line :)
The second though was a triangle. The Thunderhawk landed in contact with a corner SHT, the terminators piled out to contact it and the SHT and Thunderhawk blocked LOS to them.
Counterbarge couldn't go anywhere as 6 units in contact, the other two can only shoot up the Thawk. 6 4+ attacks weren't enough to kill the Thunderhawk and the terminators dealt with the SHT. One resolution later another dead SHT and the fearless one fleeing.

Though I admit a Thunderhawk with terminators in it seems to be designed for this sort of thing :) - And the attack would have cost the marines 575 points!

Barging wise I was under the impression if the entire enemy formation was in contact there was nowhere to barge to.
Author:  dafrca [ Sat Jun 03, 2006 8:08 am ]
Post subject:  The baneblade
Chris, we need to be careful looking at a single moment and drawing general conclusions.

Could the T-Hawk happen, yes. How many times in the life of my games? Never because the people I play use Eldar, Bugs, and Orks.

Because one army, with one formation can be an effective counter to the BB Formation does not mean we need to change then significantly IMO.

dafrca
Author:  Ilushia [ Sat Jun 03, 2006 9:06 am ]
Post subject:  The baneblade
I've been wondering about the barging rules myself. They don't prohibit the ability to charge through an enemy formation completely (In fact it specifically notes you can move up to full move IIRC) but it also doesn't make any illusions that you lose the 'must charge closest enemy if you get into their ZoC' rule. So I'd expect it to be fairly hard to clip a unit and barge a bunch especially if they're closely packed. Depends on just how they're layed out though. maximum dispersal would be easy for most WEs. Just charge right down between two columns and pull both with you.
Author:  The_Real_Chris [ Sat Jun 03, 2006 1:44 pm ]
Post subject:  The baneblade
Quote (dafrca @ 03 June 2006 (08:08))
Chris, we need to be careful looking at a single moment and drawing general conclusions.

Its largely to illistrte the potential problems you can hae in assaults with them. Others include being CC'ed by other small formations that can all 'hide and get into base contact, assault wargengines etc.

In fact it bears no relation to any suggested change bar perhaps the slight boost to assault firepower as none of it would actually help it out in that situaton :)
Author:  Hojyn [ Sat Jun 03, 2006 2:03 pm ]
Post subject:  The baneblade
Well, I've never used Baneblades, but I've seen them used against me many times, and I've always found them to be underperformers. They are usually the least of my worries when I play against a Guard army.

99% of the time, you're better off with a Shadowsword : same FF/CC values for a much more efficient weapon. Yes, it's only one weapon, but what you see, you kill. That's 2BM and a very dead unit each time you shoot at something. With a Baneblade, you certainly throw tons of dice, but when the dust clears off you usually find your target laughing at your inefficiency.
Author:  The_Real_Chris [ Sat Jun 03, 2006 2:18 pm ]
Post subject:  The baneblade
Minor point, the Shadowsword is FF5+.
Author:  dafrca [ Sat Jun 03, 2006 8:03 pm ]
Post subject:  The baneblade
Quote (The_Real_Chris @ 03 June 2006 (05:44))
Quote (dafrca @ 03 June 2006 (08:08))
Chris, we need to be careful looking at a single moment and drawing general conclusions.

Its largely to illistrte the potential problems you can hae in assaults with them. Others include being CC'ed by other small formations that can all 'hide and get into base contact, assault wargengines etc.

In fact it bears no relation to any suggested change bar perhaps the slight boost to assault firepower as none of it would actually help it out in that situaton :)

Oh and I did not mean I think you are wrong it needs to be revisited. I just mean we need to keep in mind the overall balance and not try to balance against a single issue.

Either way, I think you are heading down the right path. Just wanted to voice caution.  :;):

dafrca
Author:  nealhunt [ Mon Jun 05, 2006 2:55 pm ]
Post subject:  The baneblade
Quote (The_Real_Chris @ 03 June 2006 (03:32))
Quote (nealhunt @ 02 June 2006 (22:02))
Why are they on line?  That's like saying it's bad if artillery hits your infantry while they are all bunched up.  Well, yeah, but you deserve it.

Yes, the first time was a straight line :)
The second though was a triangle. The Thunderhawk landed in contact with a corner SHT, the terminators piled out to contact it and the SHT and Thunderhawk blocked LOS to them.
Counterbarge couldn't go anywhere as 6 units in contact, the other two can only shoot up the Thawk. 6 4+ attacks weren't enough to kill the Thunderhawk and the terminators dealt with the SHT. One resolution later another dead SHT and the fearless one fleeing.

Okay, back up.

I said I thought that an FF increase would be enough because the SHTs are WEs and could usually choose to use FF values.

You then responded by saying usually usually the SHTs could not all respond.

I then pointed out that if you played them right they would be able to.

You then used an example in which all 3 tanks were fully engaged and the 2 not in base contact were able to use FF value.  They responded just fine and brought their full FF value to bear.

Sure, the tanks lost, but so what?  It's 575 points of air assault specialists hitting a near-ideal target.  They better win because if not they are worthless.  That's not the point.

The point is that an increased FF value would have helped the tanks.
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/