Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

1hadhq wrote:The poll moves to the more established Tanks?

I'll try one Tank per weapon config for sure.

Baneblade variant with Vulcan Megabolter as Battletank or a stormlord?

What names have you given them in that pic?

And are you sure you don't want a 'Light Recon Squadron' in your Super-Heavy Tank Company, and by that I mean a quartet of Macharius'?

BYE

H.B.M.C. wrote:
What names have you given them in that pic?

I have names only for GW/FW types.Variants with turbolaser,apocML and megainfernocannon are "new" patterns of my own.
Must think of names for them.
Actual set of patterns seems to have lots of "storm", "sword", "hammer" in their names.

And are you sure you don't want a 'Light Recon Squadron' in your Super-Heavy Tank Company, and by that I mean a quartet of Macharius'?

BYE

Don't want? the pic is just the main battlegroup. Any Recon or mech inf is not included there.
Will add them like modern formations. Recon is not directly in every company.
They get a status as part of the anti-infantry / anti-aircraft force. => some macharius and some hydras to move with eyes
on ground and air threats.

1hadhq wrote:Must think of names for them.
Actual set of patterns seems to have lots of "storm", "sword", "hammer" in their names.

Why not try:

Stormbane
Stormhell
Stormshadow
Shadowstorm
Shadowhammer
Shadowbane
Shadowblade
Chris
Bladehammer
Bladeshadow
Hellblade... wait that's a Chaos Fighter
Hellshadow
Hellstorm... no wait... something has that already...
Hammerblade
Helmhammerhand
Shadowshadow
Swordbane
Swordblade
Swordhammer
Hammersword
Swordstorm
Swordhell
Hellsword
Swordsword
Banebane
Hammerbane
Hammerhammer

And my all time fav:

Bladeblade

BYE

I like Chris pattern super-heavy tanks.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

H.B.M.C. wrote:


Why not try:

Stormbane
Stormhell
Stormshadow
Shadowstorm
Shadowhammer
Shadowbane
Shadowblade
Bladehammer
Bladeshadow
Hammerblade
Helmhammerhand
Swordbane
Swordblade
Swordstorm
Swordhell
Hellsword
Hammerbane
Swordstorm

wow,thanks

I think to double names may sound wierd.But a lot of usable names you have there.

And my all time fav:

Bladeblade

BYE

The secret mega tank?

Helmhammerhand => LotR in 40k?

Can I have the datasheet for the CHRIS?

JohnHwangDD wrote:
Hmm... Epic Armageddon took the Stormhammer down a peg. The original Stormhammer Epic 40k (also Final Liberation game) is:

- 2 twin-linked Battlecannons
- 4 sponsons each with Lascannon and twin Heavy Bolters

Basically, it has the firepower of 2 Baneblades on a single chassis. You can concentrate a *lot* of firepower in a small place.

If playing Final Liberation, slots that don't go to Warlord Titans should go to Stormhammers, before buying any Deathstrike Missiles or Bombards!

Which is probably why they were powered down for E:A.

____

Oh, yeah. Search eBay / Specialist Games. I'm sure you can find a picture of a Stormhammer, as GW actually made models for these.

I've Never really played Epic.
Only got the books Epic Armageddon + Epic Swordwind.
Is Epic and DoW faster implementing new units/variants than 40k? Actual Whirlwind=first at DoW. Actual Vindicator=First at epic.

GW sells only Baneblades and shadowswords,actually.
The chart in Epic Armageddon translates all other superheavys to"counts as" baneblades with different weapons.
Looks like the rules are only done to field the stormhammer as outdated unit in actual games.

Nothing about stormhammers at specialist games.
Rely on E-Bay and painted small models may lead to bad results for rescaling.Is the stormhammer bigger than a baneblade?

GW used to sell StormHammer tanks in Epic 40k.

If you know where to look, download Epic 40,000 Final Liberation and check it out. The StormHammer looks just like the old Epic 40k model.

StormHammer is essentially the same size as a Baneblade. You would use the same chassis.

JohnHwangDD wrote:GW used to sell StormHammer tanks in Epic 40k.

No more stormhammers from GW or e-bay.

If you know where to look,download Epic 40,000 Final Liberation and check it out.The StormHammer looks just like the old Epic 40k model.

Only armageddon available.

Found some stuff at fansites:

Old metal epic model:
http://1.2.3.11/bmi/www.solegends.com/citcat94/cat1994092-03.jpg
Scratchbuild model with different weapon placement based on baneblade:

Rendering for DoW:

3 pics, 3 different stormhammers.

StormHammer is essentially the same size as a Baneblade. You would use the same chassis.

The same chassis but I will follow more the old model with fully 360° rotate turrets.
This will be done by a low placed front turret and a high placed back turret. Sponson turrets are not in a viable place in the newer
variants,I will solve this by reducing the front sponsons to HB with targeters and the back sponsons may be placed with their
turrets under the needed free space for the big guns to rotate.

TL = reroll to hit. Is a reroll to scatter with 2x2 TL ordnance possible?

1hadhq wrote:Old metal epic model:
http://www.solegends.com/citcat94/cat1994092-03.jpg

Scratchbuild model with different weapon placement based on baneblade:
http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q47/Marcio_silva/Stormhammer-front.jpg

Rendering for DoW:


The same chassis but I will follow more the old model with fully 360° rotate turrets.

This will be done by a low placed front turret and a high placed back turret. Sponson turrets are not in a viable place in the newer variants,

TL = reroll to hit. Is a reroll to scatter with 2x2 TL ordnance possible?

The first one is the classic model, and is the most "correct", as it is the actual original model.

The scratchbuild model is horrible. It doesn't have the right weapons loadout or layout, and should be smashed and burned.

The DoW render isn't terrible, and is a reasonable effort at updating the classic Stormhammer design. Count it as a "mk.2" model.

Note that only the rear turret has full-360 rotation. The sponson turrets and front turret all interfere with each other because they are all at the same height. That means the front turret has effectively limited 120 rotation. From a practical standpoint, the interference isn't such a big deal. If you skew the tank slightly, you'll be able to fire 3 Lascannons, 2 sets of HBs, and both Turrets at your primary target. That should be plenty enough.

I haven't dealt with twin Battlecannon in 5th, so I can't say for sure. I'd assume you simply re-roll the scatter die on a deviation.

I belive I can change the gun position to get all 4 firing without much interference.
I'll lower the front emplacement and rise the back emplacement.Then only at low angles the guns interfere.

Plastic Baneblades - the modellers friend

People need to model the rear two sponsons in reverse so that they don't fire into the ones in front of them and can cover the rear arcs.

BYE

There should not be any active threat behind a Tank
1) threat gets shot or is crushed.
2)threat used 5th ed and cc-attacked front :(

When the front sponsons arced forward and the rear sponsons backwards,is there a blind space between their fire arcs?

JohnHwangDD wrote:The scratchbuild model is horrible. It doesn't have the right weapons loadout or layout, and should be smashed and burned.

That's a pretty strong sentiment about someone else's property that they themselves are probably happy with. It's an inaccurate rendition of what the Stormsword used to look like, anything beyond that is neither pertinent nor useful.

yeah,
Johns opinion is perinent, as he's showing how it will be recieved by people who know the original design layout, (if built coping that design).
harsh but true...

PaniC.

The modelling and painting of the subject is really well done for a resin kit.
The resarch to make it fit into the ruleset is non-existent. John was right about the old ruleset,but it is changed now.
The model we discuss here doesn't fit in either the old or new rules.
Sorry,good work spend on a unfieldable model.

The render pic is closer to the old variant,but not usable "as it is" with actual Epic rules.(battlecannon replaced with demolisher).
I'll try to get the stormhammer into both: lookin like a stormhammer and acting with rules compatible to apocalypse.

If I do well,my model will not be smashed and burnt.

Agamemnon2 wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:The scratchbuild model is horrible. It doesn't have the right weapons loadout or layout, and should be smashed and burned.

That's a pretty strong sentiment about someone else's property that they themselves are probably happy with. It's an inaccurate rendition of what the Stormsword used to look like, anything beyond that is neither pertinent nor useful.

Sometimes, the truth hurts. Now, if the owner decided to call it a "super-Baneblade" or somesuch, then I'd be far more charitable toward it. But if he wants to call it a StormHammer, then it will be judged accordingly and found wanting.

It's a very ugly model that pretends to be a "StormHammer". Yes, I'm sure the owner is happy with it. But it's no more deserving of the name "StormHammer" than a mule is deserving of the label "thoroughbred".

The fact is, a Stormhammer has a very specific design and layout. Key to that are the paired offset turrets with twin Battlecannon. If it doesn't have that, then it's a total failure, full stop.

H.B.M.C. wrote:People need to model the rear two sponsons in reverse so that they don't fire into the ones in front of them and can cover the rear arcs.

The only purpose for rear facing weapons on a Baneblade is to, 1) allow such weapons to be used against other Imperial forces in instances of defection to chaos or other acts of rebellion, or 2) to provide covering fire when the rear of the vehicle is facing the enemy such as during a cowardly retreat or a desertion maneuver where in the crew are interested only in protecting themselves and not in further advancing the glory of the Emperor. The first is idiocy and the second is herecy. H.B.M.C., report to the Inquisiton, prostrate yourself accordingly and confess, then pray that you may receive the Emperor's Mercy before the lure of chaos has corrupted you completely. There will be no use of common sense in this Imperial Guard.

Stormhammer Concept draw:

JohnHwangDD wrote:Sometimes, the truth hurts. Now, if the owner decided to call it a "super-Baneblade" or somesuch, then I'd be far more charitable toward it. But if he wants to call it a StormHammer, then it will be judged accordingly and found wanting.

It's a very ugly model that pretends to be a "StormHammer". Yes, I'm sure the owner is happy with it. But it's no more deserving of the name "StormHammer" than a mule is deserving of the label "thoroughbred".

The fact is, a Stormhammer has a very specific design and layout. Key to that are the paired offset turrets with twin Battlecannon. If it doesn't have that, then it's a total failure, full stop.

Whatever floats your boat.

I'm wondering why people are so interested in Stormhammers, really. I've seen dozens of conversions, a completely disproportionate amount in comparison to other superheavies. Is it just the fact that FW or GW hasn't made one since 2nd edition Epic? It's not like it fills any really interesting or distinctive role on the battlefield, aside from "a bit like a Baneblade, except with more guns".

It's a BigBlade! It's fun!

BYE

JohnHwangDD wrote:Sometimes, the truth hurts.

Who died and made you Stelek, DD?

BYE

Agamemnon2 wrote:I'm wondering why people are so interested in Stormhammers, really. I've seen dozens of conversions, a completely disproportionate amount in comparison to other superheavies. Is it just the fact that FW or GW hasn't made one since 2nd edition Epic? It's not like it fills any really interesting or distinctive role on the battlefield, aside from "a bit like a Baneblade, except with more guns".

The StormHammer is made of awesome and win. The biggest, baddest tank you could get in Epic 40k. Being an embiggened Baneblade is plenty enough to make it cool - it takes the excessive tank gunnery of 40k to its logical conclusion and should be celebrated for doing so.

1hadhq wrote:Stormhammer Concept draw:

FWIW, the easiest thing for you to do is to take the 4-sponson chassis and place it directly in the center of the paper, and then outline it. That will give you the *exact* chassis dimensions.

Then place the Sponson turrets over the sponsons - this gives you the *exact* sponson turret clearance.

Now take two of your main turrets and place them on top of the chassis - *exact* main turret clearance.

Done!

First concepts for the "1hadhq" pattern weapon config's :

The Mega inferno cannon mounted on a turret with additional promethium tanks.
The Turbo Laser also on a turret with enegy cells fit (done like GW's SM predator).
The Apoc Missile launcher. starterbox with 3 rows of missiles and Mag's to reload on the roof.

For comparision standard Baneblade turret.