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.

Again done from the perspective of the daemon primarchs being significantly more powerful than the Daemon Lords like An'ggrath, Aetaos, Zarakynel, and Scabeiathrax.
Apparently Daemon Angron is supposed to be bigger than a warhound titan. Of note those 100 paladins couldn't hope to actually hurt Angron, they were attempting to banish him back. I quote "I cant even compare the deaths of these paladins to a man swatting a fly as that implies any effort of force and a guided hand that simply wasn't present" As to blinding speed a lot of people don't understand how tough the primarchs really are in the fluff. I remember a story where a marine found the Spear of Telesto, which still had a small part of Sanguinius' power and he just started moving at mach speeds and weaving between entire volleys of fire.
Without further ado....
Daemon Primarch Angron 2750 points
[WS][BS][.S][T][W][.I][.A.][LD][SV]
[.10.][.6.][10][9][10][8][10][10.][2+]
Unit Type: Gargantuan Creature
Unit Composition:
Special Rules: Blinding Speed, Unnatural Toughness, IWND 4+, Fleet, Fearless, Terror, Strength of the Blood God, Primarch of the World Eaters, Brutal Assault, WE "tactics"
Wargear: The Red Angel's Visage, Black Blade of Angron, Collar of Khorne, The Butcher's Nails
Unique Special Rules
-Blinding Speed: Even the marines find it impossible to keep up with Angron in combat. Angron moves 4D6 on the charge but must stop to attack every enemy squad he comes within BTB on the charge. He counts as having a 4+ cover save on top of his other saves after charging due to the sheer speed of the charge. If Angron comes into contact with another GC or a titan while charging he flying suplexes them, hitting them with a S: D attack with Concussive.
-Strength of the Blood God: Khorne's blessing granted unspeakable power. When wounding Angron the 6 result on the S: D table is removed for wound dealing on a 3+. A 6 counts as a 2-5.
-Primarch of the World Eaters: All khorne Berserkers and Khornate World Eater units from the Legion list gain ATSKNF and count as having Assault and Defensive grenades.
-Brutal Assault: All friendly vehicles with transport capacity count as being assault vehicles. So those New WE terminators or whatever else can assault out of whatever transport they're in. Somehow.
-Unnatural Toughness: Angron rerolls failed IWND rolls, toughness tests, and ignores dangerous terrain on a 2+.
-World Eater's Tactics:Whenever a primarily CC unit (this is up to what you and your buddies think) deep strikes they deep strike perfectly, without scattering.
Unique Wargear
-The Red Angel's Visage: This armor grants Angron a 2+ armor save and a 3+ invulnerable save. It cannot be broken or weakened.
-Black Blade of Angron: The sword has the Melta special rule, and inflicts Instant Death on a 5+ to wound.
-The Butcher's Nails: These obscene implants used to be slowly killing Angron but now they grant him even more power. For every squad or IC that Angron kills entirely he gains 1 attack for the duration of the game. This stacks up to 10 times.
Worth mentioning whenever I play Apoc I play it to tabling. This is the same for every Gamestore within about 10 miles.

That is far too powerful, even for Apoc. I think Angron casually killing 100 paladins with ease is clearly overblown fluff, even khorne would probably have to put *effort* into killing 100 anti-demon knights who're all uncorruptable and such.

100 Paladins could easily take down Angron, read up on Aurelian and the First War of Armageddon. As for rules, it's far overpowered. Perhaps you should take a lesson from your Scarab idea and make it underpowered to begin with, and work up from there, instead of making a "Special Snowflake" character straight away.

Actually fluffwise, the Daemon Primarchs are supposed to be below the greatest of the great Greater Daemons.

I chuckled a bit when I saw Melta on a S10 GC. Too cheap for what he does, haven't you seen An'ggrath's rules? Angron shouldn't be better than him- where are you getting the fluff that says Angron was better than An'ggrath? I REALLY wanna know, lol.

Also, ignoring 6s on the D chart? Really? Why do the WE and Berzerkers get ATSKNF?

He even has 70% chance to regain a wound every turn, ALWAYS gets his FNP, can never get his armor modified?

Gaining extra attacks after killing squads is ridiculous.

Lucarikx

Edit: Just saw the part where he gets a 4+ cover when he charges - why in Khorns name would this do anything for a guy who has 2+/3++ unmodifiable?

 Valkyrie wrote:
100 Paladins could easily take down Angron, read up on Aurelian and the First War of Armageddon. As for rules, it's far overpowered. Perhaps you should take a lesson from your Scarab idea and make it underpowered to begin with, and work up from there, instead of making a "Special Snowflake" character straight away.

How is it overpowered? Before you do anything, at least learn how to properly give criticism.
The hierophant is currently 1000 points with a similar base statline. Any problems could be solved by upping points to 2000.
No as for the battle of Armageddon: That's actually a quote. They never wounded his manifestation, they just casted spells to throw his ass back to the warp.
A special Snowflake is any character who stands out . In Apoc the armies have even more variation between them. You're not even using the word properly, by this definition every single last Apoc unit is a "snowflake"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lucarikx wrote:
I chuckled a bit when I saw Melta on a S10 GC. Too cheap for what he does, haven't you seen An'ggrath's rules? Angron shouldn't be better than him- where are you getting the fluff that says Angron was better than An'ggrath? I REALLY wanna know, lol.

Also, ignoring 6s on the D chart? Really? Why do the WE and Berzerkers get ATSKNF?

He even has 70% chance to regain a wound every turn, ALWAYS gets his FNP, can never get his armor modified?

Gaining extra attacks after killing squads is ridiculous.

Lucarikx

Edit: Just saw the part where he gets a 4+ cover when he charges - why in Khorns name would this do anything for a guy who has 2+/3++ unmodifiable?

Lorgar beat An'ggrath in a hard fought duel and Angron is magnitudes stronger than Lorgar. He would be a dozen times stronger than An'ggrath once ascended.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Actually fluffwise, the Daemon Primarchs are supposed to be below the greatest of the great Greater Daemons.

Nope, Didn't you read the OP?
As to this see the above. Lorgar the wimpiest primarch beat An'ggrath in hand to hand and Angron before ascension was magnitudes stronger.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

xruslanx wrote:
That is far too powerful, even for Apoc. I think Angron casually killing 100 paladins with ease is clearly overblown fluff, even khorne would probably have to put *effort* into killing 100 anti-demon knights who're all uncorruptable and such.

This is the same game with the C'tan, Warlord Titan, Emperor Titan, Manta, Phantom titan.......etc. units more powerful.
You do know this right

It seems you don't want criticism again - I don't think anyone wants to go on for 3 page of arguments.

Bottom line is that this unit needs balancing.

Lucarikx

 Lucarikx wrote:
It seems you don't want criticism again - I don't think anyone wants to go on for 3 page of arguments.

Bottom line is that this unit needs balancing.

Lucarikx

In the proposed rules forum make sure to re read the actual rules in question after the OP goes on a rant. I actually have to say that. Already done.
Is having people say what they have trouble with in the rules to be taken seriously so hard

Your negative responses to the feedback given don't help your argument. I looked through all the rules, and I stated how I felt about them. Simple as that.

Its just constructive criticism. We have our opinions on your Proposed Rules, you have yours. We simply give suggestions that may make it more enjoyable for your opponent or you, depending on how you like to look at it.

Lucarikx

 Lucarikx wrote:
Your negative responses to the feedback given don't help your argument. I looked through all the rules, and I stated how I felt about them. Simple as that.

Its just constructive criticism. We have our opinions on your Proposed Rules, you have yours. We simply give suggestions that may make it more enjoyable for your opponent or you, depending on how you like to look at it.

Lucarikx

Saying something is OP isn't constructive now Is it.
Regardless now this dude Is twice the cost of a hierophant and about 1.75x the beatstick so it's not OP by Apoc standards.
These are facts.

So it hits as hard as the scarab did in CC with 10 base S10 attacks, but at T9 and -30W for almost 2K points less, but also isn't affected as badly by S: D weapons, and is hits harder thanks to ID(5+) and Melta, and while providing army buffs.

I'm not sure what to tell you. No matter what I say you'll just say how it's vulnerable to S: D weapons. Please just think about it for a second. If you have every commentor on here telling you "That unit is too powerful" and no user agreeing with you that it's "balanced" then maybe it is indeed "too powerful". Just take that into consideration.

As already stated, your problem is you're trying to make something is extremely good when you should be aiming to make something that is just borderline decent and build up. It's better to build up from a good framework than to try and tear down a scrap heap of rules thrown together.

Yes, he's not twice the beatstick, but what you've added to his survivability is what makes him OP. 10 Wounds, Toughness 9, a 3++ Invulnerable save combined with FNP and a 4+ IWND save that you can re-roll is just stupidly tough.

I agree with everyone in this thread, except the OP.

Way too survivable for the points, and still an obscenely powerful beatstick and army wide buffing machine for the cost.

Not to mention the incredibly, almost to the point of being silly, vague 'World Eater's Tactics' rule. A 'primarily cc unit' is just so infinitely vague and unclear you'd have to spend several minutes before each game simply discussing which ones are which, on top of the already lengthy Apoc set up process. Not to mention the overpowered nature of no scatter deepstrike army wide (or nearly anyways).

This either needs a hefty price tag increase, or significantly reduce its army wide buffing and survivability.

Oh, and TheSaint, remember that being able to die does not make it balanced. This is a weird line of thought many people have when they try and justify their creations on this board. And you could seriously improve the way you respond to people. You've had a few threads now where people stop trying to help as you don't seem willing to truly listen or engage.

Instead of refuting points, or dismissing them, try and ask questions in return that aim to clarify or elaborate. This isn't a one-sided venture of us against you. And try and do it politely.

 Valkyrie wrote:
Yes, he's not twice the beatstick, but what you've added to his survivability is what makes him OP. 10 Wounds, Toughness 9, a 3++ Invulnerable save combined with FNP and a 4+ IWND save that you can re-roll is just stupidly tough.

Accounting for durability he's 1.75 times the beatstick. Without that he's about 1.3 times the beatstick. He'll be taking a lot more than 1 wound per turn (4 on average in a 8000 point game) and he can only heal 1 per turn. Did I say it was a 3++? It's just a 3+. The hierophant also has some pretty sick regen himself.
You don't seem to really know what you're talking about.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blacksails wrote:
I agree with everyone in this thread, except the OP.

Way too survivable for the points, and still an obscenely powerful beatstick and army wide buffing machine for the cost.

Not to mention the incredibly, almost to the point of being silly, vague 'World Eater's Tactics' rule. A 'primarily cc unit' is just so infinitely vague and unclear you'd have to spend several minutes before each game simply discussing which ones are which, on top of the already lengthy Apoc set up process. Not to mention the overpowered nature of no scatter deepstrike army wide (or nearly anyways).

This either needs a hefty price tag increase, or significantly reduce its army wide buffing and survivability.

Oh, and TheSaint, remember that being able to die does not make it balanced. This is a weird line of thought many people have when they try and justify their creations on this board. And you could seriously improve the way you respond to people. You've had a few threads now where people stop trying to help as you don't seem willing to truly listen or engage.

Instead of refuting points, or dismissing them, try and ask questions in return that aim to clarify or elaborate. This isn't a one-sided venture of us against you. And try and do it politely.

I mentioned that rule was vague. To keep it within the same parameters it has to be vague.
Being able to die does not make it balanced? He has no non CC capabilities and you'll have to do everything you can to cover for him so he can get to enemies. CC only Apoc units have to be pretty damn durable for this blatantly obvious reason.
I'm not going to listen to people who say "it's OP, that is all". Because that is in no way useful.
Of note the Hierophant also has 12 S:10 AP:2 shots per turn. So yeah........


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Savageconvoy wrote:
So it hits as hard as the scarab did in CC with 10 base S10 attacks, but at T9 and -30W for almost 2K points less, but also isn't affected as badly by S: D weapons, and is hits harder thanks to ID(5+) and Melta, and while providing army buffs.

I'm not sure what to tell you. No matter what I say you'll just say how it's vulnerable to S: D weapons. Please just think about it for a second. If you have every commentor on here telling you "That unit is too powerful" and no user agreeing with you that it's "balanced" then maybe it is indeed "too powerful". Just take that into consideration.

As already stated, your problem is you're trying to make something is extremely good when you should be aiming to make something that is just borderline decent and build up. It's better to build up from a good framework than to try and tear down a scrap heap of rules thrown together.

The scarab had hilariously better Army buffs and 30W with T10, and the better charge is worth quite a bit more than 2000 points..... The scarab was around 4 times better.
Regardless edited. He now only ignores the 6 on S: D only on a 3+, and is 2250 points.
At this point he seems pretty overcosted.

 TheSaintofKilllers wrote:

 Valkyrie wrote:
Yes, he's not twice the beatstick, but what you've added to his survivability is what makes him OP. 10 Wounds, Toughness 9, a 3++ Invulnerable save combined with FNP and a 4+ IWND save that you can re-roll is just stupidly tough.

Accounting for durability he's 1.75 times the beatstick. Without that he's about 1.3 times the beatstick. He'll be taking a lot more than 1 wound per turn (4 on average in a 8000 point game) and he can only heal 1 per turn. Did I say it was a 3++? It's just a 3+. The hierophant also has some pretty sick regen himself.
You don't seem to really know what you're talking about.

So we're resorting to insults now are we?

Hierophant has a 6+ Invulnerable and regenerates wounds on a 6, not a re-rollable 4+, which you claim is the same in terms of balance.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blacksails wrote:
I agree with everyone in this thread, except the OP.

Way too survivable for the points, and still an obscenely powerful beatstick and army wide buffing machine for the cost.

Not to mention the incredibly, almost to the point of being silly, vague 'World Eater's Tactics' rule. A 'primarily cc unit' is just so infinitely vague and unclear you'd have to spend several minutes before each game simply discussing which ones are which, on top of the already lengthy Apoc set up process. Not to mention the overpowered nature of no scatter deepstrike army wide (or nearly anyways).

This either needs a hefty price tag increase, or significantly reduce its army wide buffing and survivability.

Oh, and TheSaint, remember that being able to die does not make it balanced. This is a weird line of thought many people have when they try and justify their creations on this board. And you could seriously improve the way you respond to people. You've had a few threads now where people stop trying to help as you don't seem willing to truly listen or engage.

Instead of refuting points, or dismissing them, try and ask questions in return that aim to clarify or elaborate. This isn't a one-sided venture of us against you. And try and do it politely.

I mentioned that rule was vague. To keep it within the same parameters it has to be vague.
Being able to die does not make it balanced? He has no non CC capabilities and you'll have to do everything you can to cover for him so he can get to enemies. CC only Apoc units have to be pretty damn durable for this blatantly obvious reason.
I'm not going to listen to people who say "it's OP, that is all". Because that is in no way useful.
Of note the Hierophant also has 12 S:10 AP:2 shots per turn. So yeah........

Not really, you should make the rules as specific as you can, which like Blacksails said, reduces the time spent discussing and debating how such rules work, and yes, people saying "It's OP" should at least tell you that it's far from perfect, but you seem reluctant to acknoledge any of our comments.
Hierophant does indeed have 12 shots, albeit with only BS3, so that rebalances it a fair amount.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheSaintofKilllers wrote:

Daemon Primarch Angron 2250 points
-The Red Angel's Visage: This armor grants Angron a 2+ armor save and a 3+ invulnerable save. It cannot be broken or weakened.
.

Well I don't know about you, but I definitely see a 3++ Invulnerable save there.

Well, I tried. Instead of actually listening and engaging in a non one-sided argument, you have waved away every point without even a semblance of proper analysis. You also completely failed to properly acknowledge my point on how to discuss things with people.

Its blatantly obvious you've already made up your mind this is perfectly balanced. This thread had run its purpose the moment you started it; you have no real intention of listening to any opinions that differ from your own.

Good luck.

 TheSaintofKilllers wrote:
If Angron comes into contact with another GC or a titan while charging he flying suplexes them, hitting them with a S: D attack with Concussive.

I didn't think I would ever laugh so hard on this forum. This is hilariously fanboyish. Why would he do that?

All friendly vehicles with transport capacity count as being assault vehicles. So those New WE terminators or whatever else can assault out of whatever transport they're in. Somehow.

Again, why? Why does the ascended Angron allow you to ignore most of the downsides all of your troops possess?

Whenever a primarily CC unit (this is up to what you and your buddies think) deep strikes they deep strike perfectly, without scattering.

Why? What about Angron gives precision to his followers?

The sword has the Melta special rule, and inflicts Instant Death on a 5+ to wound.

Why? Gargantuan creatures roll 2d6 for armor pen anyway, right?

The rules you tossed together here are unbelievably powerful. Comparing them to the heirophant doesn't make your case any better. The heirophant isn't designed to get into cc, doesn't have a 3+ invul, doesn't give troop buffs, and is worse altogether at dealing damage.

 Valkyrie wrote:

 TheSaintofKilllers wrote:

 Valkyrie wrote:
Yes, he's not twice the beatstick, but what you've added to his survivability is what makes him OP. 10 Wounds, Toughness 9, a 3++ Invulnerable save combined with FNP and a 4+ IWND save that you can re-roll is just stupidly tough.

Accounting for durability he's 1.75 times the beatstick. Without that he's about 1.3 times the beatstick. He'll be taking a lot more than 1 wound per turn (4 on average in a 8000 point game) and he can only heal 1 per turn. Did I say it was a 3++? It's just a 3+. The hierophant also has some pretty sick regen himself.
You don't seem to really know what you're talking about.

So we're resorting to insults now are we?

Hierophant has a 6+ Invulnerable and regenerates wounds on a 6, not a re-rollable 4+, which you claim is the same in terms of balance.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blacksails wrote:
I agree with everyone in this thread, except the OP.

Way too survivable for the points, and still an obscenely powerful beatstick and army wide buffing machine for the cost.

Not to mention the incredibly, almost to the point of being silly, vague 'World Eater's Tactics' rule. A 'primarily cc unit' is just so infinitely vague and unclear you'd have to spend several minutes before each game simply discussing which ones are which, on top of the already lengthy Apoc set up process. Not to mention the overpowered nature of no scatter deepstrike army wide (or nearly anyways).

This either needs a hefty price tag increase, or significantly reduce its army wide buffing and survivability.

Oh, and TheSaint, remember that being able to die does not make it balanced. This is a weird line of thought many people have when they try and justify their creations on this board. And you could seriously improve the way you respond to people. You've had a few threads now where people stop trying to help as you don't seem willing to truly listen or engage.

Instead of refuting points, or dismissing them, try and ask questions in return that aim to clarify or elaborate. This isn't a one-sided venture of us against you. And try and do it politely.

I mentioned that rule was vague. To keep it within the same parameters it has to be vague.
Being able to die does not make it balanced? He has no non CC capabilities and you'll have to do everything you can to cover for him so he can get to enemies. CC only Apoc units have to be pretty damn durable for this blatantly obvious reason.
I'm not going to listen to people who say "it's OP, that is all". Because that is in no way useful.
Of note the Hierophant also has 12 S:10 AP:2 shots per turn. So yeah........

Not really, you should make the rules as specific as you can, which like Blacksails said, reduces the time spent discussing and debating how such rules work, and yes, people saying "It's OP" should at least tell you that it's far from perfect, but you seem reluctant to acknoledge any of our comments.
Hierophant does indeed have 12 shots, albeit with only BS3, so that rebalances it a fair amount.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheSaintofKilllers wrote:

Daemon Primarch Angron 2250 points
-The Red Angel's Visage: This armor grants Angron a 2+ armor save and a 3+ invulnerable save. It cannot be broken or weakened.
.

Well I don't know about you, but I definitely see a 3++ Invulnerable save there.

The hierophant has a 4+ currently. He used to have a 3++. So yeah.......
A 3+ is not a 3++. It would be if I specified it as a 3++. I treat an inuvl as it's own save in all my rules so a 3+ is a 3+ regardless of other saves.
The hierophant will hit with about 5 of those shots on average, and could very well hit with all of them so the point is mute.
You never refuted this "He has no non CC capabilities and you'll have to do everything you can to cover for him so he can get to enemies. CC only Apoc units have to be pretty damn durable for this blatantly obvious reason.".....


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blacksails wrote:
Well, I tried. Instead of actually listening and engaging in a non one-sided argument, you have waved away every point without even a semblance of proper analysis. You also completely failed to properly acknowledge my point on how to discuss things with people.

Its blatantly obvious you've already made up your mind this is perfectly balanced. This thread had run its purpose the moment you started it; you have no real intention of listening to any opinions that differ from your own.

Good luck.

Nope I just want to be told what's exactly wrong with it. Hilarious how hard that is. The dude above this seemed to have caught on. Regardless of whatever gak he says he still tried.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

hubbsey wrote:

 TheSaintofKilllers wrote:
If Angron comes into contact with another GC or a titan while charging he flying suplexes them, hitting them with a S: D attack with Concussive.

I didn't think I would ever laugh so hard on this forum. This is hilariously fanboyish. Why would he do that?

All friendly vehicles with transport capacity count as being assault vehicles. So those New WE terminators or whatever else can assault out of whatever transport they're in. Somehow.

Again, why? Why does the ascended Angron allow you to ignore most of the downsides all of your troops possess?

Whenever a primarily CC unit (this is up to what you and your buddies think) deep strikes they deep strike perfectly, without scattering.

Why? What about Angron gives precision to his followers?

The sword has the Melta special rule, and inflicts Instant Death on a 5+ to wound.

Why? Gargantuan creatures roll 2d6 for armor pen anyway, right?

The rules you tossed together here are unbelievably powerful. Comparing them to the heirophant doesn't make your case any better. The heirophant isn't designed to get into cc, doesn't have a 3+ invul, doesn't give troop buffs, and is worse altogether at dealing damage.

I did my job then. The "flying suplex of megadeath" was meant to be hilarious. How you didn't seem to get that I'll never know.
This dude is currently 2.25 times more expensive so he's expected to be significantly better in every way. Like Horus in the legion list compared to Dante.

Doesn't Angron already have rules for Apoc?
http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m2110495_The_Battle_for_Armageddon

xruslanx wrote:That is far too powerful, even for Apoc. I think Angron casually killing 100 paladins with ease is clearly overblown fluff

Well, he did have a bunch of daemons helping him. This detail tends to get ignored from time to time.
Aside from the whole "myths and propaganda" bit. It probably depends on how much of this one wants to creep into the TT rules, but I do think it is imperative to keep in mind that the purpose of a game is that both players have a good time, so a certain balance is important.

Your defensive vitriol isn't cute.

If your friends like your big bad guy rules, go nuts. Were you to bring this to a table in which I'd be playing, I would firmly disallow it.

Enjoy playing by yourself.

I'll try and help and point out that comparing to the Hierophant is not a good comparison for many reasons.

Your unit buffs the the entire army, a lot. The Hierophant does not.

Your unit is amazing in CC. The hierophant is okay; nothing special. But certainly not 1000pts of CC.

Your unit has no shooting. The hierophant has average shooting for its points. An average of 6 S10 shots with middling AP isn't making a lot of titans or GC sweat. A Warhound with two S: D weapons will deal approximately the same number of wounds, which ignore everything. The range of 48" is also nothing to write home about, considering apoc games will be played on larger tables with more space.

Your unit is significantly more survivable. The ability to dismiss the worst part of the Destroyer table, dismiss destroyer weapons by taking a 3++ against them that no other model can do, a better IWND roll, and the same number of wounds of a hierophant. The hierophant has a 6++, not the 4++ you claimed earlier. This invuln cannot be taken against D weapons.

Overall, your unit is significantly more durable than the hierophant (I mean a lot more, combine 3++ with 4+ IWND, with the possibility of downgrading D weapons, and always taking that 3++), hits a lot harder in CC than most things I can think of, buffs the whole army, and is probably smaller than the Hierophant.

So, the first point of all that is to stop using the hierophant as a comparison or benchmark. If you want to, tone it down to hierophant levels and points. If you want to keep at a 2250ish unit, find a GC around that level and compare it.

The second point is that not having shooting isn't nearly the drawback you make it out to be. Units that are specialized in either melee or shooting are generally better than units that try and be good at both. Your unit ignores all shooting, but benefits from insane close combat. Now, combine his ability to move around quickly and destroy anything he touches, and it almost doesn't matter that he can shoot or not. Furthermore, if he stays in combat for even one round, he can't be shot at that turn, and then gets to consolidate, move, and assault the next turn, possibly avoiding being shot at all.

I also just saw the re-roll on the IWND 4+. That's a 75% chance to regenerate a wound every turn.

Seriously, this does everything insanely well except shoot. Once again, he needs a serious hit from the nerf hammer, or a serious hit in points. I don't know what to even cost it, because Apoc is pretty silly for balance anyways, but I know that this unit would absolutely beat face.

To summarize, you've made a unit that does everything well except shoot, and has plugged up every possible flaw with a rule to ignore any negative aspect. He either needs some serious drawbacks (or at least remove the rules that allow you to ignore a lot of rules), or to remove the army wide buffs, or a combination and a points increase.

 Blacksails wrote:
I'll try and help and point out that comparing to the Hierophant is not a good comparison for many reasons.

Your unit buffs the the entire army, a lot. The Hierophant does not.

Your unit is amazing in CC. The hierophant is okay; nothing special. But certainly not 1000pts of CC.

Your unit has no shooting. The hierophant has average shooting for its points. An average of 6 S10 shots with middling AP isn't making a lot of titans or GC sweat. A Warhound with two S: D weapons will deal approximately the same number of wounds, which ignore everything. The range of 48" is also nothing to write home about, considering apoc games will be played on larger tables with more space.

Your unit is significantly more survivable. The ability to dismiss the worst part of the Destroyer table, dismiss destroyer weapons by taking a 3++ against them that no other model can do, a better IWND roll, and the same number of wounds of a hierophant. The hierophant has a 6++, not the 4++ you claimed earlier. This invuln cannot be taken against D weapons.

Overall, your unit is significantly more durable than the hierophant (I mean a lot more, combine 3++ with 4+ IWND, with the possibility of downgrading D weapons, and always taking that 3++), hits a lot harder in CC than most things I can think of, buffs the whole army, and is probably smaller than the Hierophant.

So, the first point of all that is to stop using the hierophant as a comparison or benchmark. If you want to, tone it down to hierophant levels and points. If you want to keep at a 2250ish unit, find a GC around that level and compare it.

The second point is that not having shooting isn't nearly the drawback you make it out to be. Units that are specialized in either melee or shooting are generally better than units that try and be good at both. Your unit ignores all shooting, but benefits from insane close combat. Now, combine his ability to move around quickly and destroy anything he touches, and it almost doesn't matter that he can shoot or not. Furthermore, if he stays in combat for even one round, he can't be shot at that turn, and then gets to consolidate, move, and assault the next turn, possibly avoiding being shot at all.

I also just saw the re-roll on the IWND 4+. That's a 75% chance to regenerate a wound every turn.

Seriously, this does everything insanely well except shoot. Once again, he needs a serious hit from the nerf hammer, or a serious hit in points. I don't know what to even cost it, because Apoc is pretty silly for balance anyways, but I know that this unit would absolutely beat face.

To summarize, you've made a unit that does everything well except shoot, and has plugged up every possible flaw with a rule to ignore any negative aspect. He either needs some serious drawbacks (or at least remove the rules that allow you to ignore a lot of rules), or to remove the army wide buffs, or a combination and a points increase.

Hold up, Hold up
I never said he always gets to take the 3+ invul even against S: D did I? He just ignores the possibility for 12 fething wounds and only takes 3. And only a 3+.
The hierophant is nasty in CC and will wreck any non Eldar titan and any other GC except for An'ggrath or Zarakynel. He's the third best CC unit in the game. How is that not "special"
The army wide buffs basically act as extra chapter tactics so they're not "insanely good". The primarchs have similar army buffing rules for similar additional points.
That means he heals 1 wound out of 4 per turn. Do you think he'll be taking a single wound per turn? Seriously?
No shooting in Apoc means he can only make his points back in CC which is a massive draw back. It means that he gets in CC and is then killed or you lose all your points. That's a leviathan weakness.
You messed up a lot of your arguments bro.
This dude currently costs as much a damn warlord!!!!

His lack of shooting is only a weakness because you keep saying it is. Even though a glance at his rules really shows that it is not.

Given the monster's durability, his lack of shooting is a false weakness. It's something you can point at to say 'look at how balanced it is!' while, in fact, it does nothing to weaken it overall. His sheer overwhelming durability and speed mean that no, his lack of shooting is NOT a weakness as he is almost guaranteed a first turn charge. And once there, he will reliably kill anything he touches with almost nothing being able to stop him.

Likewise, his rules reek of rampant overpowering, hitting any big thing he touches (not assaults) with a free, unstoppable strength D hit. And that isn't even going into the poorly-worded and overpowering army-wide buffs this guy gives.

 Lynata wrote:
Doesn't Angron already have rules for Apoc?
http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m2110495_The_Battle_for_Armageddon

xruslanx wrote:That is far too powerful, even for Apoc. I think Angron casually killing 100 paladins with ease is clearly overblown fluff

Well, he did have a bunch of daemons helping him. This detail tends to get ignored from time to time.
Aside from the whole "myths and propaganda" bit. It probably depends on how much of this one wants to creep into the TT rules, but I do think it is imperative to keep in mind that the purpose of a game is that both players have a good time, so a certain balance is important.

Again I quote " I can't even compare the deaths of these Paladins to a man swatting a fly as that implies any effort of force and a guided hand that wasn't present". The paladins never actually scratched him, they severed his manifestation's bond to the materium.
Something similar happened in reports of the battle of the fang with Magnus. Magnus in some interpretations was never hurt in any way, and his manifestiation simply ran out of power. So once he accomplished what he wanted to do, he teleported his legion of marines and daemons back to the planet of the sorcerers.
Of note in Lorgar's battle with An'ggrath he was not allowed to buff himself with his Alpha level psyker powers. It was just straight up hand to hand.
A lot of the heresy is straight from the Primarch's perspective, so it can be inferred that the stuff from Magnus' or Angron's perspective happened exactly as stated because there's no way the imperium would know.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 curran12 wrote:
His lack of shooting is only a weakness because you keep saying it is. Even though a glance at his rules really shows that it is not.

Given the monster's durability, his lack of shooting is a false weakness. It's something you can point at to say 'look at how balanced it is!' while, in fact, it does nothing to weaken it overall. His sheer overwhelming durability and speed mean that no, his lack of shooting is NOT a weakness as he is almost guaranteed a first turn charge. And once there, he will reliably kill anything he touches with almost nothing being able to stop him.

Likewise, his rules reek of rampant overpowering, hitting any big thing he touches (not assaults) with a free, unstoppable strength D hit. And that isn't even going into the poorly-worded and overpowering army-wide buffs this guy gives.

You're missing the whole point.
The point wasn't what you're saying (you don't have a point but whatever). It's that if he doesn't get into CC which will take on average 4-5 turns you just lost 2250 points. Shooting covers for this in that he can at least make back some points. Once again either you make back some points, or you lost a quarter of your army like that. It's a massive weakness which is why the Hierophant has some pretty badass shooting.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 curran12 wrote:
His lack of shooting is only a weakness because you keep saying it is. Even though a glance at his rules really shows that it is not.

Given the monster's durability, his lack of shooting is a false weakness. It's something you can point at to say 'look at how balanced it is!' while, in fact, it does nothing to weaken it overall. His sheer overwhelming durability and speed mean that no, his lack of shooting is NOT a weakness as he is almost guaranteed a first turn charge. And once there, he will reliably kill anything he touches with almost nothing being able to stop him.

Likewise, his rules reek of rampant overpowering, hitting any big thing he touches (not assaults) with a free, unstoppable strength D hit. And that isn't even going into the poorly-worded and overpowering army-wide buffs this guy gives.

Only one rule out of 12 is "poorly worded" and I mentioned that's up to what you and your buddies think.
Rampant overpowering? He's the same cost as a warlord.......
He has to charge into the unit. If he just assaults or touches them nothing happens but normal combat.

 TheSaintofKilllers wrote:

I never said he always gets to take the 3+ invul even against S: D did I? He just ignores the possibility for 12 fething wounds and only takes 3. And only a 3+.

Ahem.

and a 3+ invulnerable save. It cannot be broken or weakened.

Combined with

Destroyer Weapons wrote:No saving throws of any kind are allowed against damage from a Destroyer weapon

So, ummm, yes, he gets his 3++ save according to you. If you're going to write rules and defend them vigorously, at least either know the rules, or write them clearer.

Oh, and ignoring the worst part of the destroyer table is a huge bonus. Don't downplay it, seriously. You need to stop doing that sort of thing. Its never a good thing when writing a custom unit to have special rules that outright ignore other rules that people bring for the express purpose of killing units like yours. Its called balance.

The hierophant is nasty in CC and will wreck any non Eldar titan and any other GC except for An'ggrath or Zarakynel. He's the third best CC unit in the game. How is that not "special"

Right, 8 attacks, hitting at best on 3s, and more likely 4s against many other remotely competent assault unit will yield 4 or 5 attacks average, with the possibility of another from re-rolling a 1. So generally a max of 6 attacks, which will likely wound and AP2 will mean a lot of dead stuff. However, invulns still work against these attacks, which many dedicated assault units have. Stomp is good too, though only on a 6 will it do anything amazing, but your character can do that too, anyways, so its largely irrelevant as a comparison point. So, really, dealing a max average of 6 wounds against units with no invuln is hardly anything to write home about. Its great against vehicles, certainly, but for 1000pts, there are killier options available.

So no, he isn't the third best CC unit in the game. When you make claims like that, its generally expected for you to provide some sort of proof or evidence.

The army wide buffs basically act as extra chapter tactics so they're not "insanely good". The primarchs have similar army buffing rules for similar additional points.

The primarchs don't have army wide buffs as powerful as yours. Every transport becoming an assault transport? Perfect deepstriking? Seriously? Their rules aren't remotely near as powerful, especially when you consider the sheer amount of units affected by your guy in a what I expect would be a 10,000pts game.

That means he heals 1 wound out of 4 per turn. Do you think he'll be taking a single wound per turn? Seriously?

No, it means exactly what I said it means. He'll regenerate a wound 75% of the time. I'm not going to throw around an avergae number of wounds per turn he can take, because I honestly don't know, and neither do you. My point is simply that a 75% regenerate rate is unheard of. Hell, 50% is really, really good. Drop the re-roll.

No shooting in Apoc means he can only make his points back in CC which is a massive draw back. It means that he gets in CC and is then killed or you lose all your points. That's a leviathan weakness.

Again, no shooting is not as big a weakness as you make it out to be. A dedicated unit for assault or shooting is generally better than a unit that tries to be good at both. The hierophant is a good example of this; its alright in close combat, and alright in shooting. But a titan of equal size will kill it at range, and a dedicated assaulty GC will kill it in melee. The hierophant is a middle of the road unit.

Yours trades all shooting ability for massive melee ability. Its min-maxing at its finest, while you pretend its a weakness. In 5th edition, marines never once complained that their TH/SS termies couldn't shoot; it simply didn't matter because they were durable and dead killy in assault. It was a tradeoff that actually worked in the units favour. Look at normal termies in comparison. They trade a reduced CC ability for some mediocre shooting ability.

So no, its not a 'leviathan' weakness.

You messed up a lot of your arguments bro.

I'm not your bro, and I didn't mess up a thing. You continue to dismiss any criticism with a simple hand wave with no math or real analysis. Look at the length of my replies compared to yours. I'm nearly positive anyone reading this discussion would likely agree with my points almost purely out of a deeper, well thought analysis, as opposed to one-liners like 'you mess a lot of your arguments, bro'.

This dude currently costs as much a damn warlord!!!!

What's yourpoint? You say stuff like this all the time, and then never back it up. You never provide any meaningful or accurate comparisons. Explain to me your reasoning, at length and in detail. Maybe then, you might have people agreeing with you. But as it stands, everyone so far thinks its overpowered.

Do you think that's a problem with the rest of us not understanding balance, or perhaps a problem with you not understanding balance.

TheSaintofKilllers wrote:A lot of the heresy is straight from the Primarch's perspective, so it can be inferred that the stuff from Magnus' or Angron's perspective happened exactly as stated because there's no way the imperium would know.

According to Black Library, novels should be treated like legend or fairytale rather than a pure account of events.
"Yes it's all official, but remember that we're reporting back from a time where stories aren't always true, or at least 100% accurate. if it has the 40K logo on it, it exists in the 40k universe. Or it was a legend that may well have happened. Or a rumour that may or may not have any truth behind it. Let's put it another way: anything with a 40K logo on it is as official as any Codex... and at least as crammed full of rumours, distorted legends and half-truths."
- Marc Gascogne, Chief Editor BL

This is of no consequence to the discussion at hand, though. If you want a more "epic" version of Angron, go for it. Nobody says your houserules cannot be meant to represent myth and legend, after all, and the Movie Marines ruleset aims for a somewhat similar portrayal. But the point I was trying to make still stands: consider how the side playing against this unit would feel, and if they would have a fun game. You can have armies and characters with "plot armour", but it shouldn't be exclusive to either side, as there is no protagonist who has to come out winning in the end. Unless you'd create a scenario to go along with your Angron, where this unit also becomes the opponent's objective - like a sort of "boss encounter". Perhaps give him the bodyguard of daemons he had on Armageddon, and make this the only unit the player may field? The other player's objective is simple: kill Angron, or die trying.

 Blacksails wrote:

 TheSaintofKilllers wrote:

I never said he always gets to take the 3+ invul even against S: D did I? He just ignores the possibility for 12 fething wounds and only takes 3. And only a 3+.

Ahem.

and a 3+ invulnerable save. It cannot be broken or weakened.

Combined with

Destroyer Weapons wrote:No saving throws of any kind are allowed against damage from a Destroyer weapon

So, ummm, yes, he gets his 3++ save according to you. If you're going to write rules and defend them vigorously, at least either know the rules, or write them clearer.

Oh, and ignoring the worst part of the destroyer table is a huge bonus. Don't downplay it, seriously. You need to stop doing that sort of thing. Its never a good thing when writing a custom unit to have special rules that outright ignore other rules that people bring for the express purpose of killing units like yours. Its called balance.

The hierophant is nasty in CC and will wreck any non Eldar titan and any other GC except for An'ggrath or Zarakynel. He's the third best CC unit in the game. How is that not "special"

Right, 8 attacks, hitting at best on 3s, and more likely 4s against many other remotely competent assault unit will yield 4 or 5 attacks average, with the possibility of another from re-rolling a 1. So generally a max of 6 attacks, which will likely wound and AP2 will mean a lot of dead stuff. However, invulns still work against these attacks, which many dedicated assault units have. Stomp is good too, though only on a 6 will it do anything amazing, but your character can do that too, anyways, so its largely irrelevant as a comparison point. So, really, dealing a max average of 6 wounds against units with no invuln is hardly anything to write home about. Its great against vehicles, certainly, but for 1000pts, there are killier options available.

So no, he isn't the third best CC unit in the game. When you make claims like that, its generally expected for you to provide some sort of proof or evidence.

The army wide buffs basically act as extra chapter tactics so they're not "insanely good". The primarchs have similar army buffing rules for similar additional points.

The primarchs don't have army wide buffs as powerful as yours. Every transport becoming an assault transport? Perfect deepstriking? Seriously? Their rules aren't remotely near as powerful, especially when you consider the sheer amount of units affected by your guy in a what I expect would be a 10,000pts game.

That means he heals 1 wound out of 4 per turn. Do you think he'll be taking a single wound per turn? Seriously?

No, it means exactly what I said it means. He'll regenerate a wound 75% of the time. I'm not going to throw around an avergae number of wounds per turn he can take, because I honestly don't know, and neither do you. My point is simply that a 75% regenerate rate is unheard of. Hell, 50% is really, really good. Drop the re-roll.

No shooting in Apoc means he can only make his points back in CC which is a massive draw back. It means that he gets in CC and is then killed or you lose all your points. That's a leviathan weakness.

Again, no shooting is not as big a weakness as you make it out to be. A dedicated unit for assault or shooting is generally better than a unit that tries to be good at both. The hierophant is a good example of this; its alright in close combat, and alright in shooting. But a titan of equal size will kill it at range, and a dedicated assaulty GC will kill it in melee. The hierophant is a middle of the road unit.

Yours trades all shooting ability for massive melee ability. Its min-maxing at its finest, while you pretend its a weakness. In 5th edition, marines never once complained that their TH/SS termies couldn't shoot; it simply didn't matter because they were durable and dead killy in assault. It was a tradeoff that actually worked in the units favour. Look at normal termies in comparison. They trade a reduced CC ability for some mediocre shooting ability.

So no, its not a 'leviathan' weakness.

You messed up a lot of your arguments bro.

I'm not your bro, and I didn't mess up a thing. You continue to dismiss any criticism with a simple hand wave with no math or real analysis. Look at the length of my replies compared to yours. I'm nearly positive anyone reading this discussion would likely agree with my points almost purely out of a deeper, well thought analysis, as opposed to one-liners like 'you mess a lot of your arguments, bro'.

This dude currently costs as much a damn warlord!!!!

What's yourpoint? You say stuff like this all the time, and then never back it up. You never provide any meaningful or accurate comparisons. Explain to me your reasoning, at length and in detail. Maybe then, you might have people agreeing with you. But as it stands, everyone so far thinks its overpowered.

Do you think that's a problem with the rest of us not understanding balance, or perhaps a problem with you not understanding balance.

That doesn't go together like you said. What I meant when I said it cannot be broken or weakened I meant against effects like the Vinicares shield breaker which break armor or other effects which weaken the saves.. Even if I didn't say that it in no way means that it can take that save against things it shouldn't be able to take the invul against.
Lets compare him to a Warlord:
The warlord has 45 Hull points when adding the 6 Void shields. Each Void Shield is a Structure point and the Warlord has 27 HP without them. The warlord get's to roll for void shield repair for every Structure Point he has remaining and on a 5+ repairs one. This is the same as having 3 2+ to repair a whole SP (void shield) when full on SPs.
Angron has 10 wounds at T9 with a 2+ Armor save, a 3+ invul and the ability to shrug off the 6 result on S: D on a 3+. He basically heals 1 wound per turn.
The Warlord wins out incredibly heavily here with dramatically more durability. About 3-4 times more durable against everything due to sheer volume of HP and regen.
Moving on to Weaponry:
The Warlord has 2 volcano cannons which each have a S: D AP:1 10inch blast. The Warlord also has 2 Vulcan Mega Bolters which have between them roughly 36 S:7 AP:3 shots.
Angron has 10 S:10 AP:2 hits with melta when in melee. He also has instant death which only applies in a few situations when the other model doesn't have EW.
The Warlord wins out very heavily here as well.
There boom. The Warlord is about 4 times more effective with all of these factors and Angron army buffs thrown in.
Trying to be nice also. Damn dude not very friendly are you? Regardless we have different views ( mine's right of course )
No shooting means you possibly (most likely) lose half your points so yeah...

 TheSaintofKilllers wrote:

That doesn't go together like you said. What I meant when I said it cannot be broken or weakened I meant against effects like the Vinicares shield breaker which break armor or other effects which weaken the saves.. Even if I didn't say that it in no way means that it can take that save against things it shouldn't be able to take the invul against.

You should make that clear then. Its very easy to interpret 'can never be broken or weakened' as ignoring destroyer weapon effects.

Lets compare him to a Warlord:
The warlord has 45 Hull points when adding the 6 Void shields. Each Void Shield is a Structure point and the Warlord has 27 HP without them.

This is wrong. Void shields are not structure points. They are ordinary hull points at AV12 that are removed for every glancing or penetrating hit. So it has 33 total hull points.

The warlord get's to roll for void shield repair for every Structure Point he has remaining and on a 5+ repairs one. This is the same as having 3 2+ to repair a whole SP (void shield) when full on SPs.

Again, this is wrong. You roll for each collapsed void shield, and on a 5+, the void shields regenerate. So no, its not as durable as you make it out to be.

Angron has 10 wounds at T9 with a 2+ Armor save, a 3+ invul and the ability to shrug off the 6 result on S: D on a 3+. He basically heals 1 wound per turn.

Which, is surprisingly comparable to the durability of the warlord when we dispel all the misinformation. The ability to regenerate wounds, have a 3++, ignore the worst parts of the D table, and T9 (roughly comparable to AV14 when you consider the 'to wound/to penetrate' values). Think of it this way too, a hierophant's shooting is significantly more dangerous to the warlord than it is to Angron. You have a 2+ to take against those S10 AP4 hits, whereas the warlord has no save.

The Warlord wins out incredibly heavily here with dramatically more durability. About 3-4 times more durable against everything due to sheer volume of HP and regen.

As above, we now know this to be conclusively false. The degree to which its false can be discussed at length using various weapon examples, but the combination of 2+/3++/4+ IWND and good toughness, compared to the sheer mass of HP on the warlord but no saves possible are at least comparable in durability. Throw enough D weapons at either and they'll go down in a turn or two each.

The Warlord has 2 volcano cannons which each have a S: D AP:1 10inch blast. The Warlord also has 2 Vulcan Mega Bolters which have between them roughly 36 S:7 AP:3 shots.

Sure, these are good weapons. They won't be winning the game single-handedly by any stretch, and consider also that you could bring four baneblade chassis with the same quantity of those guns (plus all the lascannons extra) for the same price, if not cheaper. They'd also have more HP total. So this argument doesn't really win you anything, unless you want to argue that Baneblades and their variants are overpowered.

Angron has 10 S:10 AP:2 hits with melta when in melee. He also has instant death which only applies in a few situations when the other model doesn't have EW.

Which is very strong, but not game breaking on its own, which is fine. Trades ranged ability for close in ability. Pretty much the opposite of the warlord. Balance!

The Warlord wins out very heavily here as well.

No, not really, no. If the two were standing on opposite sides of the board with no cover and no other units, sure. But that's not how you balance anything. The same thing applies to every other unit in 40k. Not having a shooting attack doesn't mean the unit is awful. Quite the opposite in many cases.

There boom. The Warlord is about 4 times more effective with all of these factors and Angron army buffs thrown in.

As above, no it isn't. One is a ranged beast, the other a close combat beast. We're also forgetting the size differences here. The warlord would be the single largest model on the board. I'm picturing Angron to be smaller than the hierophant, which means cover saves are possible, or even outright LOS blockage depending on terrain/units. These factors need to be considered when balancing.

Trying to be nice also. Damn dude not very friendly are you? Regardless we have different views ( mine's right of course )
No shooting means you possibly (most likely) lose half your points so yeah...

I've been perfectly nice. You've been dismissing everyone's points with no second thought and talking down to most people. You've also shown your true colours in other threads where you resort to name calling or outright insults.

Once more, not having a shooting attack doesn't make the unit balanced. Stop saying this, its patently false. Look at every unit in 40k. Are the one-dimensional units never taken because they can only do one thing well? Absolutely not, its quite the opposite. Units that are 100% geared towards assault are taken over ones with a weird mixture.

As others have said, its a false flaw; its something you point out and say 'look! Balance!'.

Oh, and with the warlord comparison, we're also completely dismissing the massive army wide buffs your guy brings, easily worth several hundred points all things considered.

 Blacksails wrote:

 TheSaintofKilllers wrote:

That doesn't go together like you said. What I meant when I said it cannot be broken or weakened I meant against effects like the Vinicares shield breaker which break armor or other effects which weaken the saves.. Even if I didn't say that it in no way means that it can take that save against things it shouldn't be able to take the invul against.

You should make that clear then. Its very easy to interpret 'can never be broken or weakened' as ignoring destroyer weapon effects.

Lets compare him to a Warlord:
The warlord has 45 Hull points when adding the 6 Void shields. Each Void Shield is a Structure point and the Warlord has 27 HP without them.

This is wrong. Void shields are not structure points. They are ordinary hull points at AV12 that are removed for every glancing or penetrating hit. So it has 33 total hull points.

The warlord get's to roll for void shield repair for every Structure Point he has remaining and on a 5+ repairs one. This is the same as having 3 2+ to repair a whole SP (void shield) when full on SPs.

Again, this is wrong. You roll for each collapsed void shield, and on a 5+, the void shields regenerate. So no, its not as durable as you make it out to be.

Angron has 10 wounds at T9 with a 2+ Armor save, a 3+ invul and the ability to shrug off the 6 result on S: D on a 3+. He basically heals 1 wound per turn.

Which, is surprisingly comparable to the durability of the warlord when we dispel all the misinformation. The ability to regenerate wounds, have a 3++, ignore the worst parts of the D table, and T9 (roughly comparable to AV14 when you consider the 'to wound/to penetrate' values). Think of it this way too, a hierophant's shooting is significantly more dangerous to the warlord than it is to Angron. You have a 2+ to take against those S10 AP4 hits, whereas the warlord has no save.

The Warlord wins out incredibly heavily here with dramatically more durability. About 3-4 times more durable against everything due to sheer volume of HP and regen.

As above, we now know this to be conclusively false. The degree to which its false can be discussed at length using various weapon examples, but the combination of 2+/3++/4+ IWND and good toughness, compared to the sheer mass of HP on the warlord but no saves possible are at least comparable in durability. Throw enough D weapons at either and they'll go down in a turn or two each.

The Warlord has 2 volcano cannons which each have a S: D AP:1 10inch blast. The Warlord also has 2 Vulcan Mega Bolters which have between them roughly 36 S:7 AP:3 shots.

Sure, these are good weapons. They won't be winning the game single-handedly by any stretch, and consider also that you could bring four baneblade chassis with the same quantity of those guns (plus all the lascannons extra) for the same price, if not cheaper. They'd also have more HP total. So this argument doesn't really win you anything, unless you want to argue that Baneblades and their variants are overpowered.

Angron has 10 S:10 AP:2 hits with melta when in melee. He also has instant death which only applies in a few situations when the other model doesn't have EW.

Which is very strong, but not game breaking on its own, which is fine. Trades ranged ability for close in ability. Pretty much the opposite of the warlord. Balance!

The Warlord wins out very heavily here as well.

No, not really, no. If the two were standing on opposite sides of the board with no cover and no other units, sure. But that's not how you balance anything. The same thing applies to every other unit in 40k. Not having a shooting attack doesn't mean the unit is awful. Quite the opposite in many cases.

There boom. The Warlord is about 4 times more effective with all of these factors and Angron army buffs thrown in.

As above, no it isn't. One is a ranged beast, the other a close combat beast. We're also forgetting the size differences here. The warlord would be the single largest model on the board. I'm picturing Angron to be smaller than the hierophant, which means cover saves are possible, or even outright LOS blockage depending on terrain/units. These factors need to be considered when balancing.

Trying to be nice also. Damn dude not very friendly are you? Regardless we have different views ( mine's right of course )
No shooting means you possibly (most likely) lose half your points so yeah...

I've been perfectly nice. You've been dismissing everyone's points with no second thought and talking down to most people. You've also shown your true colours in other threads where you resort to name calling or outright insults.

Once more, not having a shooting attack doesn't make the unit balanced. Stop saying this, its patently false. Look at every unit in 40k. Are the one-dimensional units never taken because they can only do one thing well? Absolutely not, its quite the opposite. Units that are 100% geared towards assault are taken over ones with a weird mixture.

As others have said, its a false flaw; its something you point out and say 'look! Balance!'.

Oh, and with the warlord comparison, we're also completely dismissing the massive army wide buffs your guy brings, easily worth several hundred points all things considered.

Void Shields are AV 13 Structure points and they worked the way I mentioned in the edition before the stupid new Apoc system. In regards to everything but the unit changes and S: D buff we play by the edition before. Void Shields only being HP is so stupid from a fluff perspective, so we just ignored that stupid gak. The new Apoc rules are pretty new, and not well liked, so why would you assume we instantly start using them?
The Warlord is dramatically more powerful against everything from GC's and titans to infantry. The Warlord will be dealing at the very least 4 times the number of wounds with those massive S: D templates alone.
I never said it made it balanced....It makes for a leviathan weakness in any apoc game with the massive boards and you can't seem to understand that. A false flaw? In this edition and the size of Apoc boards not at all.
The warlord is dramatically more effective at everything and this isn't counting the hordes of tech priests the warlord has to repair it every single turn.
I actually keep saying it's hilariously overpriced at this point with the Manta, Phantom Titan, and Warlord running around at the same price. It's unbalanced but not in the way you say it is....
The I'm not your bro comment? And you say you've been perfectly nice? That hurts .

I don't like the army wide (Heck, table wide, everything in apoc counts as a friendly unit if its on your side. That's why its called 'come the apocalypse!) buffs and abilities. Back when he was human, they would make sense, but when he is a daemon primarch they make no sense at all. He isn't a military leader, he isn't a mechanic (Or however the hell you want to make marines charge through closed transport doors, of every race on your side of the field) and he isn't an armourer (tossing grenades about to any1 he wants) and he ain't no disciplined leader either (Fearless maybe, ATSKNF is just a stupid rule all together). They make no sense to me, but drop the points if you need to.