Page 1 of 1

[ 15 posts ]

The baneblade
The_Real_Chris	Post subject: The baneblade Posted: Fri Jun 02, 2006 8:27 pm
Brood Brother Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:45 pm Posts: 8139 Location: London	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? _________________ If using E-Bay use this link to support Tac Com! 'Abolish red trousers?! Never! Red trousers are France!' – Eugene Etienne, War Minister, 1913 "Gentlemen, we may not make history tomorrow, but we shall certainly change the geography." General Plumer, 191x
Top

nealhunt	Post subject: The baneblade Posted: Fri Jun 02, 2006 8:39 pm
Purestrain Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm Posts: 9617 Location: Nashville, TN, USA	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. _________________ Neal
Top

Dwarf Supreme	Post subject: The baneblade Posted: Fri Jun 02, 2006 8:44 pm
Brood Brother Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 8:45 pm Posts: 11148 Location: Canton, CT, USA	Those stats look good, Chris. My preception of the Baneblade is the same: a short to medium range tank. _________________ "I don't believe in destiny or the guiding hand of fate." N. Peart
Top

The_Real_Chris	Post subject: The baneblade Posted: Fri Jun 02, 2006 8:51 pm
Brood Brother Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:45 pm Posts: 8139 Location: London	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 _________________ If using E-Bay use this link to support Tac Com! 'Abolish red trousers?! Never! Red trousers are France!' – Eugene Etienne, War Minister, 1913 "Gentlemen, we may not make history tomorrow, but we shall certainly change the geography." General Plumer, 191x
Top

The_Real_Chris

Post subject: The baneblade Posted: Fri Jun 02, 2006 8:55 pm

Brood Brother Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:45 pm Posts: 8139 Location: London

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 _________________ If using E-Bay use this link to support Tac Com! 'Abolish red trousers?! Never! Red trousers are France!' – Eugene Etienne, War Minister, 1913 "Gentlemen, we may not make history tomorrow, but we shall certainly change the geography." General Plumer, 191x

Top

Ilushia	Post subject: The baneblade Posted: Fri Jun 02, 2006 9:32 pm
Brood Brother Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 10:50 am Posts: 1189	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).
Top

nealhunt

Post subject: The baneblade Posted: Fri Jun 02, 2006 10:02 pm

Purestrain Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm Posts: 9617 Location: Nashville, TN, USA

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.