Dawn of War Codex

Posted: **Sat 25 Jul, 2015 7:25 pm**

Overall the BB is a very poor choice even if the player happens to have enough resources for it. Its Anti-Infantry capabilities are somewhat good, it could supress a bit faster but maybe that's me asking too much

But the core issues is its pricing and its inability to deal with large targets as well.. its price is IMO outdated, 1000/200 for 3250 hp with its nerfed demolisher where as you can get land raiders(especially land raider phobos) for 700/180 which are somewhat more efficient at the same job. Paladins can easily deal with it, same as nobs and even walkers

Atm i believe BB mounted lascannons should be a bit better, not gonna ask for splash 1 lascannons of the LRP cause i think they're completely balls to the wall OP, but some damage or fire rate increase to deal with big targets in a better way.. Also 1000/200 is just too much for its current performance, i won't give a suggestion on how much it should cost, but at least id like the price to be checked

Posted: **Sat 25 Jul, 2015 9:20 pm**

Even BB is too hard to deal now, what do you want more? Biggest tank in game it is! Just put it in mid with 2 GM back of it. Only the most experianced players can deal with it like that. Only its demoralizng effect on player is even something worth to point on. Also, one of the best line breakers in game. You just can't force off it that easly. Demolisher might be nerfed but it still a very very powerfull weapon to use. You can easly tear apart a whole defence line with it or assasinate a very annoying set-up team. Yes, I can assasinate somethnig with Baneblade. 8-)

There are also a ton of benefits of Baneblade but will not point on them.

Compering with Phobos is another thing to discuss I think. Phobos is all about AV and has splash damage just to save it from being impractical. But it is not as scary as Baneblade. First of all Chaos generally suffers from support. They can't take of Phobos as well as your Baneblade. Secondly; Baneblades health is neat, only Phoboses is low

A low health vehicle with weak support is not something extreamly hard to force off or destroy. And it is cheaper becauseeeeee Chaos? Chaos units are always cheaper and do more damage from loyal units but suffers from health and support. IMO, Phobos is one of the best adapted new unit in this mod.

Prize problem ; well I can say only one thing about it with an example, CL Dark Halo is more expensive than FC Iron Halo. Because buble shield is much powerfull with CL.

Also, Paladins and Nobz generally do the same for all tanks

Posted: **Sun 26 Jul, 2015 1:34 pm**

Lets get a Shadow sword its a baneblade with twice the number of guns:p. On topic hm it is a big target but i find them still great to get so long as u make sure to watch for eldar nuke and nobs. Is a bit expensive and has along built time but then thats been changed for a reason

Posted: **Mon 27 Jul, 2015 7:20 am**

i've shared the same thoughts as bahamut for a long time now.

at release the baneblade was super strong and had lots of hp, dealt massive damage and had ridiculous range. it was worth 1000/20 and 20pop

then following things happened again and again:

- max range nerf but minimum range wasn't touched (it should be reduced imo!)

- damage nerfs

- cannon revamp

- multiple hp nerfs

- bolter was buffed a bit and courage damage increased but i think it wasn't enough to make a difference that can be noticed

build time increase for absolutely no reason. really, it just doesn't make any sense at all.

after all these nerfs i think a price of maybe 900/180 18pop would be much better and make more sense

Posted: **Mon 27 Jul, 2015 5:12 pm**

Baneblade was broken and stupid in Retribution. There's nothing fun about losing 100% health squads immediately from a cheesy-ass long baneblade cannon. It's unbelievable stupid, and I can't believe they even thought that was a good idea. To top it all off, you had two of these abilities at your disposal. It was even underpriced for what it did, it even makes the old Chaos Rising GUO like a god damn walk-over, and that thing cost roughly ~1200 req or 1400 req and 200-300 range in power. I mean, what the hell?

Now to be abit more specific on the changes
- Instead of a 450 instagibbing explosive anti-fun cannon, you've traded it for consistency. Over the span of 30 seconds (The Baneblade's weapon cooldown) you'll actually inflict more total damage now then you could before. Again, the raw consistency damage gives both players the ability to inflict predictable and manageable damage outputs, and react accordingly.

- It's weapon range is still one of the best of all the tanks in the game. It's only outclassed by the Fire Prism in range.

- The Baneblade recieved a rotation increase.

- The Baneblade side-guns recieved a ~66% damage increase. How that is not noticeable, I don't know. The damage was increased so substantially that it will reduce the amount of rapid fires on numerous entities by several even. Those side-guns are not to be scoffed at. Combined, they give up a whooping 100 dps. And people buy the Mark of Khorne Predator for it's amazing side-guns as well, and those puppies got 40 dps, but only 2 of them. Go figure.

- Build Time was global for all super-units to delay them. Nothing odd about that.

Posted: **Mon 27 Jul, 2015 5:46 pm**

Cheers for info cal sounds a lot better with the facts.

Posted: **Mon 27 Jul, 2015 6:36 pm**

A little note here, I like the new automatic nerfed cannon. Now I can use it to hit tanks just like Vanquiser of Lemen Russ. I gave me more AV.

Posted: **Tue 28 Jul, 2015 3:53 pm**

me too, the cannon revamp was good and the damage nerf absolutely reasonable. i just wish the minimum range would have been changed/reduced a bit as well. i think everyone agrees that the retribution release bb was bs and needed nerfs.

Posted: **Wed 29 Jul, 2015 5:21 am**

Caeltos wrote:Baneblade was broken and stupid in Retribution. There's nothing fun about losing 100% health squads immediately from a cheesy-ass long baneblade cannon. It's unbelievable stupid, and I can't believe they even thought that was a good idea. To top it all off, you had two of these abilities at your disposal. It was even underpriced for what it did, it even makes the old Chaos Rising GUO like a god damn walk-over, and that thing cost roughly ~1200 req or 1400 req and 200-300 range in power. I mean, what the hell?

Now to be abit more specific on the changes
- Instead of a 450 instagibbing explosive anti-fun cannon, you've traded it for consistency. Over the span of 30 seconds (The Baneblade's weapon cooldown) you'll actually inflict more total damage now then you could before. Again, the raw consistency damage gives both players the ability to inflict predictable and manageable damage outputs, and react accordingly.

- It's weapon range is still one of the best of all the tanks in the game. It's only outclassed by the Fire Prism in range.

- The Baneblade recieved a rotation increase.

- The Baneblade side-guns recieved a ~66% damage increase. How that is not noticeable, I don't know. The damage was increased so substantially that it will reduce the amount of rapid fires on numerous entities by several even. Those side-guns are not to be scoffed at. Combined, they give up a whooping 100 dps. And people buy the Mark of Khorne Predator for it's amazing side-guns as well, and those puppies got 40 dps, but only 2 of them. Go figure.

- Build Time was global for all super-units to delay them. Nothing odd about that.

I agree with the changes, all i'm saying is 1000/200 is a price tag for an OP superunit, which the baneblade used to be.. but since it's not OP anymore it should have a normal superunit price tag.. like 800/200

Posted: **Mon 03 Aug, 2015 2:36 pm**

IF codex is up to date, then autofire cannon does 180 damage per shot (expl), range 16-55, 4 AoE, 26,87 dps main gun (very long minimum range for a formerly op gun)
2 lascannons 55 damage per shot, 0-44 range, 27,5 AP dps.

demolisher turned into useless vs vehicles does 225 psychic dmg (10 aoe but only center does serious damage)

3 heavy bolters, total 100 piercing dps.(0-38)

combined anti-vehicle dps is at the level of a lascannon predator vet 0.(55) vs baneblade 54,37
3250 hp = nothing extraordinary.

For example the land raider crusader has no minimum range and very limited anti-vehicle, but its anti-infantry is this :

0-40 320 dps
0-38 60,97 dps= 380.97 dps

+ melta 0-25, 33.33 dps.

3250 hp as well. costs less, has a clear role, unlike the do-it-all-poorly at a great price baneblade.

Leman russ 500/125, /+100/20+150/30= 750/175 and it does quite comparably. Vanquisher has same 55 range/35,71 dps but no minimum (no aoe though)
basic tank has atrocious dps but ok AoE. But BB cant even see at its maximum range to utilize its gun, so again BB needs LR as support or be somewhere in the back. Quite an expensive thing, 25 pop cost + upkeep = great stuff.

Posted: **Mon 03 Aug, 2015 3:57 pm**

Foma wrote:demolisher turned into useless vs vehicles does 225 psychic dmg

via Imgflip Meme Maker

Posted: **Tue 04 Aug, 2015 1:21 am**

Foma wrote:IF codex is up to date, then autofire cannon does 180 damage per shot (expl), range 16-55, 4 AoE, 26,87 dps main gun (very long minimum range for a formerly op gun)
2 lascannons 55 damage per shot, 0-44 range, 27,5 AP dps.

demolisher turned into useless vs vehicles does 225 psychic dmg (10 aoe but only center does serious damage)

3 heavy bolters, total 100 piercing dps.(0-38)

combined anti-vehicle dps is at the level of a lascannon predator vet 0.(55) vs baneblade 54,37
3250 hp = nothing extraordinary.

For example the land raider crusader has no minimum range and very limited anti-vehicle, but its anti-infantry is this :

0-40 320 dps
0-38 60,97 dps= 380.97 dps

+ melta 0-25, 33.33 dps.

3250 hp as well. costs less, has a clear role, unlike the do-it-all-poorly at a great price baneblade.

Leman russ 500/125, /+100/20+150/30= 750/175 and it does quite comparably. Vanquisher has same 55 range/35,71 dps but no minimum (no aoe though)
basic tank has atrocious dps but ok AoE. But BB cant even see at its maximum range to utilize its gun, so again BB needs LR as support or be somewhere in the back. Quite an expensive thing, 25 pop cost + upkeep = great stuff.

Nice, you backed my argument with actual data ty!

So yeah.. just the pricing going down to 800/200 would be great.. it's the standard price for a superunit. Maybe fixing the minimum range as well?

Posted: **Tue 04 Aug, 2015 9:13 am**

Well, Bane Blade high req cost could be a reasonable penalty on imperials for their bleed resistance.

And you guys keep forgetting BB`s impact on moral. Once you bring a MOTHERFUCKING BANEBLADE on the field, your opponents will be demoralized as hell.

Posted: **Tue 04 Aug, 2015 11:31 am**

Bahamut wrote:
Foma wrote:.

Nice, you backed my argument with actual data ty!

So yeah.. just the pricing going down to 800/200 would be great.. it's the standard price for a superunit. Maybe fixing the minimum range as well?

it is the most expensive thing, so I expect it to perform. You see, the (op) land raider crusader has 380 anti infantry dps total. 33 melta dps. Squads can reinforce. And maybe some other stuff.
25 pop is also the highest pop price. Without it performing to its cost, including pop, it simply wont do.

What could be enough is to make demolisher do explosive damage again (225) Ork looted tank special shot does 200 explosive damage btw. So it is usable/useful against tanks (60 range) It isnt insta-shot so it isnt so easy to hit.

The other thing would be reducing the main gun minimum range to say, 7-10. It isnt anywhere powerful the way it used to be, so imo this would be enough. No actual stat dps or whatever buffing.

Posted: **Tue 04 Aug, 2015 12:20 pm**

SinisterLaugh wrote:Well, Bane Blade high req cost could be a reasonable penalty on imperials for their bleed resistance.

And you guys keep forgetting BB`s impact on moral. Once you bring a MOTHERFUCKING BANEBLADE on the field, your opponents will be demoralized as hell.

quite funny.

Posted: **Tue 04 Aug, 2015 12:42 pm**

Foma wrote:quite funny.

I find this topic's name funny too

Posted: **Tue 04 Aug, 2015 3:11 pm**

Dark Riku wrote:
Foma wrote:quite funny.
I find this topic's name funny too

Yeah, he is the only one who find a Baneblade a poor choice. Even this should count as Heresy.

Posted: **Sat 08 Aug, 2015 10:29 pm**

Foma wrote:
SinisterLaugh wrote:Well, Bane Blade high req cost could be a reasonable penalty on imperials for their bleed resistance.

And you guys keep forgetting BB`s impact on moral. Once you bring a MOTHERFUCKING BANEBLADE on the field, your opponents will be demoralized as hell.

quite funny.

Not very funny if 80% of your army are AI focussed damage squads and then a wild BaneBlade pops in your face.

Posted: **Sun 09 Aug, 2015 6:57 pm**

it needs min range reduction. Otherwise it is big and thats about it. its AI is overall worse than a garrisoned Chim., AT 55 dps overall. Something like fire prism outranges it (no kb either) while said fp has plasma cannon dmg, which is generally doing more... but I suppose BB isnt a must even if you have resources for it.

Posted: **Sun 09 Aug, 2015 10:55 pm**

How is it's AI worse than a garrisoned chimera?
I don't see chimeras wiping setup teams of the map with a demolisher shot, and hello main gun hitting hard on infantry.

Posted: **Sun 09 Aug, 2015 11:21 pm**

King Tiger's fine just don't expect to beat Guard Motor with one. Oh wait wrong game :twisted:

On a serious note, it's a fantastic shock/tank unit, large health pool keeps it going long in firefights and it can deal with any setup team. It catches opponents off guard and you can absorb a lot of nukes with it, meaning your opponent wastes a lot of red on it.

Posted: **Mon 10 Aug, 2015 3:17 am**

It is just too expensive to get out in the field in a balanced match. I please invite people to post or point at replays where you can see BBs in a balanced environment (meaning it's not one sided) and the match has lasted long enough for the BB actually fight more than 1 engagement

Posted: **Mon 10 Aug, 2015 12:00 pm**

Someone with spare time to waste, please point Bahamut in the right direction.

Posted: **Mon 10 Aug, 2015 5:19 pm**

the way i see it , bane blade is the kind of unit that is fantastic against hords of infantry or against players who are not at the same power tier as ig (hence why bb rushes work so well in the first place)

simply buy one support it with guardsmen and move it slowly across the map.

its main issue really is that it is total balls against other super units , namely the chaos landraider since its av potential is far less than its anti infantry potential. and it is also very easy to lose if not supported . But if you have an unsupported bb .. what the hell art thou thinking?

Posted: **Tue 11 Aug, 2015 10:43 am**

The problem is how the heck you can force out a well bunkered IG player.

Posted: **Tue 11 Aug, 2015 12:25 pm**

Lost Son of Nikhel wrote:The problem is how the heck you can force out a well bunkered IG player.

Destroy or steal bunker?

Posted: **Tue 11 Aug, 2015 1:19 pm**

He doesn't necessarily mean with an actual bunker.
Good luck not getting shot to pieces trying to reach the bunker btw.
Or even better, booby trapped, byebye whatever was inside

Posted: **Tue 11 Aug, 2015 3:05 pm**

Flanks and nukes are still possible. If you can't force off IG there, split them up. Go bash some power farm, cap their natural victory point, etc... Every defence must have a weak point. What are we going to do? We can't beat multi-bankered Baneblade, so we shall remove bunkers or Baneblade?

Posted: **Tue 11 Aug, 2015 3:15 pm**

firatwithin wrote:Flanks and nukes are still possible. If you can't force off IG there, split them up. Go bash some power farm, cap their natural victory point, etc... Every defence must have a weak point. What are we going to do? We can't beat multi-bankered Baneblade, so we shall remove bunkers or Baneblade?

well the flaw with that is that ig players tend to build a bb strategy with the idea of holding two vps indefinitely . they wont care about resource points because clearly they already have a bb and if they support it correctly they wont plan on losing it. And you can cap that third vp or that side of the map all you want. but in the end when a successful bb camp starts it is a unit numbers / composition game rather than a resource number game.
either you have the units with the correct abilities in the correct numbers to smash the bb defense .. or you dont and crumple from it.

usually the good strategies like to use even longer ranged arty supported with their own defense to force a bb camp to attack. like with say eldar using a few d cannons to pick at the bunkers from behind a defensive line of their own. or a well timed nuke spam and rush.

Posted: **Tue 11 Aug, 2015 3:18 pm**

thing is, is the IG player gets bunkers, mantis and HWTs to bunker up then no res for a BB, if you get a BB then you got no manti, no bunkers, no HWTs. Can't have it all as dark riku thinks

It's like trying to break a defensive line with a LRP, a chaos termie squad with an autocannon, a blastmaster squad, a khrone havoc, a tzeentch havoc and a worshiped nurgle shrine with 2 or more tzeentch marine squads. Reality is, the chaos player can't afford all that.. and if it does then the match was over long before

Same as SM defensive lines with several devs, pdevs and LRR plus terminators(which is a bit more feasible) Or an eldar player with several dcannons fire prisms, avatar and seer council for counter initiation..

Dawn of War Codex

BaneBlade underperforming

BaneBlade underperforming

Re: BaneBlade underperforming

Re: BaneBlade underperforming

Re: BaneBlade underperforming

Re: BaneBlade underperforming

Re: BaneBlade underperforming

Re: BaneBlade underperforming

Re: BaneBlade underperforming

Re: BaneBlade underperforming

Re: BaneBlade underperforming

Re: BaneBlade underperforming

Re: BaneBlade underperforming

Re: BaneBlade underperforming

Re: BaneBlade underperforming

Re: BaneBlade underperforming

Re: BaneBlade underperforming

Re: BaneBlade underperforming

Re: BaneBlade underperforming

Re: BaneBlade underperforming

Re: BaneBlade underperforming

Re: BaneBlade underperforming

Re: BaneBlade underperforming

Re: BaneBlade underperforming

Re: BaneBlade underperforming

Re: BaneBlade underperforming

Re: BaneBlade underperforming

Re: BaneBlade underperforming

Re: BaneBlade underperforming

Re: BaneBlade underperforming

Re: BaneBlade underperforming