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.

Right. Better just to assume people haven't read the thread.

Meh. Truthfully, I ain't that fussed.

A TF cannon on a PoTMS chassis is bad, this is true, but that thing, with its -1 to damage results, will suffer 'Weapon Destroyed' results like no tomorrow.

Its capacity? 6 men. 6. Men. Or 3 Terminators. Why are you scared again?

The TL multi-meltas. Yes, they are TL, and yes, they have a 360 degree field of fire between them and even then not all of them can fire at any given period unless the tank remains stationary, which derides from its principal role as a transport. Not to mention the plethora of 'Weapon Destroyed' or 'Vehicle Stunned' this thing will be faced with, rendering 2/3 weapon useless.

My verdict? This thing is worse than a standard LR. Sure, you can't kill it is quickly, but its primarly transport role is reduced significantly for only a slight increment in anti-armour firepower.

Simply put: stop getting your knickers in a twist, this is nothing to be afraid of. Overpriced, underpowered. Tchah, I'd much rather have 2 x Vendettas + extras than a single one of these.

L. Wrex

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:A TF cannon on a PoTMS chassis is bad, this is true, but that thing, with its -1 to damage results, will suffer 'Weapon Destroyed' results like no tomorrow.

That is not how the damage tables work. It will suffer Crew Shaken results like no tomorrow, but it will suffer Weapon Destroyed results no more frequently than any other Land Raider.

Its capacity? 6 men. 6. Men. Or 3 Terminators. Why are you scared again?
...
its principal role as a transport.

Make up your mind, is it principally a transport, or is its transport capacity not worth panicking about (unless you're trying to stop it claiming objectives, of course).

Maybe a substantial Jetbike Council with Spears? It would take a few turns, certainly, but it's a possible solution for Eldar, perhaps.

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:Simply put: stop getting your knickers in a twist, this is nothing to be afraid of. Overpriced, underpowered. Tchah, I'd much rather have 2 x Vendettas + extras than a single one of these.

Exactly. The only thing this tank has going for it is that it's hard to kill, and who cares about that when you cannot do anything else?

I bet a Deff Rolla could crush this thing in one hit.

All the av14 and immunity to lance/melta won't save you from *gasp*
Some kid wanting to look at your model!!!!!

Rule-wise that looks like a SM version of the Monolith. I love the model tho, it's like the Crusader's more badass big brother.

AlexHolker wrote:
Make up your mind, is it principally a transport, or is its transport capacity not worth panicking about (unless you're trying to stop it claiming objectives, of course).

This right here is the biggest problem with this model. For 300 points plus whatever the cheapest set of troops you can get in your codex are you are essentially guaranteed to capture an objective. The amount of fire power to dislodge this thing would be prohibitive because the entire rest of the army would be getting a free ride, and since troops in a vehicle are nice enough to lean out and capture the objective then hide away again when they get shot at you just have to give up and accept that objective is not yours.

Very stupid question; isn't melta guns (heat-based weapons), bright lances (laser), and dark lances (particle accelerator???) three completely different types of weapons and thus wouldn't it be immune every melta weapon (fusion gun, fusion blaster, and etc) , laser (lascannon, scatter laser and etc) and particle accelerator (ion cannon) in the game?

Jesus that is one angry land raider! I want to convert one for my Iron warriors army now, back to the plotting table...

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:Simply put: stop getting your knickers in a twist, this is nothing to be afraid of. Overpriced, underpowered. Tchah, I'd much rather have 2 x Vendettas + extras than a single one of these.

Exactly. The only thing this tank has going for it is that it's hard to kill, and who cares about that when you cannot do anything else?

Because you can stick a cheap scoring unit in it and have it sit on an objective being nigh immovable for many armies and it'll always be able to fire at least one gun at something. I can think of plenty of ways to abuse it. The most abuseable things in this game are those that can mitigate damage, not those that can necessarily dish tons of it out (though most things that can mitigate damage can also dish a lot out as well).

Playing a general all-comers Eldar army that isn't built around wraithlords or a seer council I'd probably be playing for a draw, in a KP game that'd be 2 KP's I can probably forget about taking.

Rubberanvil wrote:Very stupid question; isn't melta guns (heat-based weapons), bright lances (laser), and dark lances (particle accelerator???) three completely different types of weapons and thus wouldn't it be immune every melta weapon (fusion gun, fusion blaster, and etc) , laser (lascannon, scatter laser and etc) and particle accelerator (ion cannon) in the game?

It's a cheap stunt by Forgeworld to make this thing ridiculously hard to kill.

Meltas work by melting things (obviously). Lances work by focusing an intense amount of energy on a very tiny point to punch a hole through the armor. Once the lance is through the armor, then it can start disabling all of the fragile bits inside the hull. The two types of weapons are only related in the sense that they use energy to damage things.

I'm not sure what rationale you'd have for negating the melta effect while still allowing general plasma weaponry to work (possibly highly advanced heat sinks with very efficient heat-dumping technologies - but that's REALLY pushing the boundaries of believability when talking about Imperial technology that we've seen so far). But lances are easily explained away with a system that difuses the lance's energy across a wider area (of course, coming up with a believable explanation for how such a system works is a whole 'nother can of worms - one that I don't think GW has ever bothered to address aside from saying "Just because"). Such a system would remove the advantage of the lance while still allowing general laser weaponry to be fully effective in the anti-vehicle role.

personally, this is my verdict:
it's underpriced and broken.
why? it has:
A TF cannon
2 TL multi-meltas
practically indestructible
can fire 2 guns while moving 12"
can carry a captain and command squad.
so...
it'll kill a squad with the TF cannon, drive full-speed into enemy territory, hit opposing walkers/tanks with 2 multi-meltas, and then drop off the captain and command squad, which will then proceed to assault out of the ramp, and kill a surviving squad. And the LR is nigh-indestructible against most armies.
Even if it was the FUgliest model FW has ever made, I would still buy one. (and I think it looks badass)
FW, you have sucessfully made one of the most OP units in the 40K universe. Congratulations.

shrike wrote:can fire 2 guns while moving 12"

Can't actually do that.

shrike wrote:can carry a captain and command squad.
so...
it'll kill a squad with the TF cannon, drive full-speed into enemy territory, hit opposing walkers/tanks with 2 multi-meltas, and then drop off the captain and command squad, which will then proceed to assault out of the ramp, and kill a surviving squad. And the LR is nigh-indestructible against most armies.

It can't fire two weapons if it moves 12". It can fire one - just like any other Land Raider. On top of that, you should note that the Land Raider Achilles is not an assault vehicle. It doesn't even have a forward access point. You have to disembark from the side doors - and you can't move, nor launch an assault, unless you disembarked before the Achilles moved.

shrike wrote:can fire 2 guns while moving 12"

MinMax wrote:Can't actually do that.

It can't fire two weapons if it moves 12".

PotMS.

MinMax wrote:You have to disembark from the side doors - and you can't move, nor launch an assault, unless you disembarked before the Achilles moved.

oh, yeah...oh well. In that case, put a sternguard squad in there

shrike wrote:PotMS.

Which will allow it to fire exactly 1 weapon, if it moves at 12". Cruising speed is no weapons, for a vehicle that isn't fast.

MinMax wrote:

shrike wrote:PotMS.

Which will allow it to fire exactly 1 weapon, if it moves at 12". Cruising speed is no weapons, for a vehicle that isn't fast.

I stand corrected.

MinMax wrote:Which will allow it to fire exactly 1 weapon, if it moves at 12". Cruising speed is no weapons, for a vehicle that isn't fast.

Would the Thunderfire Cannon count as a defensive weapon if the shell detonates underground (making it a S4 weapon)?

AlexHolker wrote:

MinMax wrote:Which will allow it to fire exactly 1 weapon, if it moves at 12". Cruising speed is no weapons, for a vehicle that isn't fast.

Would the Thunderfire Cannon count as a defensive weapon if the shell detonates underground (making it a S4 weapon)?

hmmm...
maybe...

That thing is so fugly and so stupidly hard to kill.

i'd still buy it tho for the rules (and I think it looks awesome)

Eumerin wrote:

I'm not sure what rationale you'd have for negating the melta effect while still allowing general plasma weaponry to work (possibly highly advanced heat sinks with very efficient heat-dumping technologies - but that's REALLY pushing the boundaries of believability when talking about Imperial technology that we've seen so far).

Even with "very efficient heat-dumping technologies " there is still going to be fugliiness at the point of impact, thermal expansion comes to mind. And there the not so little problem of extreme defense against one type of weapon, almost inevitably leave the armor vulernable to other type(s) of weapons; Kinetic energy (bolters, railguns, autocannons, splinter cannons, and etc.), and chemical energy (any high-explosive or equivalent munitions).

Eumerin wrote:But lances are easily explained away with a system that difuses the lance's energy across a wider area (of course, coming up with a believable explanation for how such a system works is a whole 'nother can of worms - one that I don't think GW has ever bothered to address aside from saying "Just because"). Such a system would remove the advantage of the lance while still allowing general laser weaponry to be fully effective in the anti-vehicle role.

O.o Bet I'll be reading a lot of achilles land raiders being killed by IG's lasguns or Swooping Hawks' lasblasters in the future.

I absolutely love the model, I'm going to buy one eventually just to paint. I agree that the immune to melta and lance with -1 to the damage roll is overpowered but it's nice to see that there's something immune to lance/melta spam that's become the norm.

So its a hard to kill thunderfire cannon... with a 6 troop capacity... and sponson mounted multi-meltas. Doesn't seem too nifty to me. Sure, some armys will have a hard time with it... but for 300 pts, low capacity (can't even carry a squad of termis or anything uber killy), can't be used by BA, its just a glorified thunderfire cannon on wheels. Not worth the price tag, and a massive waste of points. It'll be hard as hell to kill, but thats about all it has. Its a Monolith on wheels.

Can you imagine how much damage that thing could do?!
I'm definitely gonna get one for christmas.

Had to update Acrobat reader before reading the rules for it. Isn't there anybody at Forgeworld who at least watched the Military or the History Channel for information on weapons and vehicles? Should have been a varient of the Land Raider Ares with different sponson weapons while keeping the Demoisher cannon if Forgeworld wanted to make another siege land raider. Imho the thunderfire needs a transversable weapon mount (turret, hull or sponson) to reach full potenial.

Rubberanvil wrote:Had to update Acrobat reader before reading the rules for it. Isn't there anybody at Forgeworld who at least watched the Military or the History Channel for information on weapons and vehicles? Should have been a varient of the Land Raider Ares with different sponson weapons while keeping the Demoisher cannon if Forgeworld wanted to make another siege land raider. Imho the thunderfire needs a transversable weapon mount (turret, hull or sponson) to reach full potenial.

Yeah, the TF cannon is OP IMO. They should have either done a demolisher cannon or eradicator nova cannon.

Its forgeworld, its not going in the normal 40k codex without getting serious points/rule changes. I get the feeling this was designed as a kind of space marine super heavy answer its more for apocalypse where the ARE plenty of weapons that can wreak it easily. The model is a bit ugly, but i looks mean.

nevertellmetheodds wrote:Its forgeworld, its not going in the normal 40k codex without getting serious points/rule changes. I get the feeling this was designed as a kind of space marine super heavy answer its more for apocalypse where the ARE plenty of weapons that can wreak it easily. The model is a bit ugly, but i looks mean.

yes- you do looks mean!