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.

BuFFo wrote:

schadenfreude wrote:Transport capacity of 6 with no assault ramps means it's a super duper ultra hard to kill razorback with 2TLMM a TFC and POMS.

Just treat it like a monolith and ignore it.

Oh, ignore it? So I can phase out the rest of the Marine army?

Even if necrons didn't have the phase out rule ignoring monoliths would still be the way to go. They're too hard to kill to be worth the effort when the effort should be focused on killing the lord with a res orb.

Transport capacity of 6 with no assault ramps means it's a super duper ultra hard to kill razorback with 2TLMM a TFC and POMS. It is about as tough as a 450 point superheavy with the firepower of about 150 points worth of units.

I'm talking the basic fundamentals of target priority here. Gun down Khorne Zerkers before shooting at Plague Marines. It's much better to focus lascannon and other heavy anti tank weapons on other easier to kill tanks that probably have more firepower for the first few turns of the game.

The firepower of 150 points worth of units? The TFC alone is worth 100 points on practically the most vulnerable chassis in the game, and a twin-linked multi-melta is worth a minimum of 50 points (on an Attack Bike, assuming you also have Vulkan), and that's again on an incredibly vulnerable chassis and with extra units to boot. The LRAchilles is certainly worth its price.

It makes no difference how many times you want to point out it's carrying capacity, or lack of assault ramp. Those are ridiculously off-base things to even attempt to point out as a defense. Why don't artillery pieces get larger carrying capacities and assault ramps?

There's also the value that comes in basically purchasing an objective in 2/3 of the game types currently in existence. Park one of these things in cover on top of an objective and most armies are just flat out better off admitting they can never kill it. One troop inside is enough to guarantee you have that objective.

The Achilles is not balanced and for many armies not enjoyable. If you and your opponent both agree to wanting to have it knock yourselves out. Have a blast and do what you want all day long. Just do not even think about looking down on someone that doesn't want to play against it.

Fetterkey wrote:The firepower of 150 points worth of units? The TFC alone is worth 100 points on practically the most vulnerable chassis in the game, and a twin-linked multi-melta is worth a minimum of 50 points (on an Attack Bike, assuming you also have Vulkan), and that's again on an incredibly vulnerable chassis and with extra units to boot. The LRAchilles is certainly worth its price.

Yes the firepower of 150 points of units.
Tfc+attack bike=150 points
Firepower is the same, achilles costs twice as much and is harder to kill than 2 regular land raiders.

Shooting at an achilles when other targets are available just seems crazy to me.

Also IA is not tournament legal until gw faqs it as legal. When was the last time anybody saw ia at ard boys?

Che-Vito wrote:
Ah okay, my math was just for getting through the armor with a pen/glance. I didn't multiply by 4 at any point though. I used fractions to multiply instead of decimals...it's slightly more precise (which makes my rounding not as bad!). If there is a 5% chance of getting a pen (which you need to destroy the sucker.), then multiply 5% x 1/6 = ~0.8% chance of a destroyed result by my math. Again, what is the difference?

You started with 4 attacks * chance to hit to determine the expected number of total hits (resulting in 3.5, although 3.5555... is the precise result). You then did your calculation for chance to rend and chance to penetrate resulting in 0.193 total penetrating hits (0.1975... if you don't round).

But, then you divided that result by 4 to give you an ~5% chance of a penetrating hit (4.938...% without rounding). That's the part that I don't understand.

If you want to calculate a per shot penetrate chance, start with just 1 attack and you don't have to divide at all at the end. If you want a total chance to penetrate with all 4 shots, don't divide by 4 at the end to give you a 19.8% chance to get a penetrating hit (actually less than this, but this is a good approximation).

Your final result of ~0.8% (0.823...% without rounding) is absolutely correct. That is the chance to destroy it with a single shot from a BS4 TL-Assault Cannon. But, since the Assault Cannon is 4 shots, you shouldn't be dividing by 4 earlier on. Resulting in a chance of destroying it of 3.29...%.

My group has an open "FW Allowed" policy for all non superheavies.
We also allow proxying for models that haven't been released yet, or that we just want to try out.

I've probably played a half doxen games against this beast, using the temp rules. Usually a pair of them (we play 2K points).It's horrible.
In all the games we played, we only ever managed to immobilize ONE and destroy a weapon TWICE. That's it.

I've started my own policy of "I look at your list and, if you have this unit, I congratulate you on your win and ask if you want to play another game, wthout that unit."
I have the same for the Ork Big Mek that allows a stompa as a Heavy choice.

Eric

Fetterkey wrote:The firepower of 150 points worth of units? The TFC alone is worth 100 points on practically the most vulnerable chassis in the game,

Incorrect. Thunderfire Cannons cost 25 points. Their price includes a 75 point, servo-harnessed Techmarine.

schadenfreude wrote:Also IA is not tournament legal until gw faqs it as legal. When was the last time anybody saw ia at ard boys?

Its cool that you think so, and any tournaments you run you are able to disqualify IA books. But you don't have authority to determine what is legal in a tournament. Only the TO's can do that. I know of at least one that allows IA - and they hold an annual event in 4 cities.

schadenfreude wrote:

Fetterkey wrote:The firepower of 150 points worth of units? The TFC alone is worth 100 points on practically the most vulnerable chassis in the game, and a twin-linked multi-melta is worth a minimum of 50 points (on an Attack Bike, assuming you also have Vulkan), and that's again on an incredibly vulnerable chassis and with extra units to boot. The LRAchilles is certainly worth its price.

Yes the firepower of 150 points of units.
Tfc+attack bike=150 points
Firepower is the same, achilles costs twice as much and is harder to kill than 2 regular land raiders.

Shooting at an achilles when other targets are available just seems crazy to me.

Also IA is not tournament legal until gw faqs it as legal. When was the last time anybody saw ia at ard boys?

The LRAchilles has two multi-meltas, not one, so you're at minimum cost 200.

Yeah but when the Achilles is moving 12" and PotMS-ing its Thunderfire cannon, it only has the firepower of a 25 point model.....

...
..
.

<<poot>>

Fetterkey wrote:

schadenfreude wrote:

Fetterkey wrote:The firepower of 150 points worth of units? The TFC alone is worth 100 points on practically the most vulnerable chassis in the game, and a twin-linked multi-melta is worth a minimum of 50 points (on an Attack Bike, assuming you also have Vulkan), and that's again on an incredibly vulnerable chassis and with extra units to boot. The LRAchilles is certainly worth its price.

Yes the firepower of 150 points of units.
Tfc+attack bike=150 points
Firepower is the same, achilles costs twice as much and is harder to kill than 2 regular land raiders.

Shooting at an achilles when other targets are available just seems crazy to me.

Also IA is not tournament legal until gw faqs it as legal. When was the last time anybody saw ia at ard boys?

The LRAchilles has two multi-meltas, not one, so you're at minimum cost 200.

The 2nd MM is largely irrelevant. If the land raider moves 6" it can still only fire 2 weapons, and if it fires both MM then it can't fire the TFC. Now it's down to shooting 100 points of weapons instead of 150 points of weapons. Also note I'm fairly certain by just looking at the Achilles that the point at which the MM can cross and hit the same target is going to be further than 12" away from the land raider, so I don't think it will be able to shoot both MM at the same target.

The only way the Achilles can shoot both MM and the TFC for a full 200 points worth of firepower on a 300 point unit would be for the Achilles to sit completely still, and even then it's severely limited in what it can shoot. The TFC and 2 MM are in different arcs so the only possible options are.

Option #1 fire a MM at target A, and the TFC + 1 MM at target B. Anything that is a good target for a TFC is a sub optimal target for a MM and vice versa.

Option #2 Fire both MM at target A, and the TFC at target B. 2 problems with that. First problem is drawing LOS from both MM to the target that is within 12" is going to be difficult or impossible depending on the size of the target. Second problem is if the MM are shooting at a transport or MC the Achilles is vulnerable to assault on the opponents next turn, and if that is the case it's just not worth it to fire the TFC instead of moving 6".

The Achilles is very under gunned, but my final verdict is that it's a well balanced unit. The real power of the Achilles is it's ability to claim an objective, and if the SM player goes 2nd the Achilles has such a large foot print it can just tank shock any unit that is attempting to contest and objective so that they are >3" from the objective right before the game ends. People just need to recognize just how under gunned it is when playing against it and respond accordingly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dracos wrote:

schadenfreude wrote:Also IA is not tournament legal until gw faqs it as legal. When was the last time anybody saw ia at ard boys?

Its cool that you think so, and any tournaments you run you are able to disqualify IA books. But you don't have authority to determine what is legal in a tournament. Only the TO's can do that. I know of at least one that allows IA - and they hold an annual event in 4 cities.

I don't think it's wise to show up to an event where the TO may or may not disqualify a list because it has IA. In larger tournaments there is often more than 1 person running the show, and I have seen TOs flop back and forth on an issue.

If a TO wants to allow IA I'm perfectly fine with that, but they should definitely have it in writing beforehand. The last thing anybody wants is to see an IA list run into TFG, because TFG has a good argument from a purely legal rules interpretation standpoint. Nothing has been officially published by GW that officially recognizes any 3rd party rules to be valid in a tournament. RAW is black and white on this issue because IA is a 3rd party set of rules. Now if a TO wants to allow IA that is within a TO's power, but what isn't within a TO's power? Many TO's will take extensive liberties with the rules especially when designing special scenarios, and much like IA in the end such liberties make the game more fun.

All I'm saying is people can't just walk into a large tournament like ard boys or adepticon and expect the TO to allow rules from a 3rd party publisher because the 3rd party publisher said it was ok on their web sight.

Your making the question of legality overly complicated. It either is or isn't legal in a tournament at the sole decision of the TO. I would say that finding out the rules of any particular tournament ahead of time goes without saying, including the legality of codices and IA material. The TOs are in charge of approving all army lists, not just those with IA in it.

Dracos wrote:Your making the question of legality overly complicated. It either is or isn't legal in a tournament at the sole decision of the TO. I would say that finding out the rules of any particular tournament ahead of time goes without saying, including the legality of codices and IA material. The TOs are in charge of approving all army lists, not just those with IA in it.

Probably a good rule of thumb if somebody runs into IA at a tournament is if the list made it that far it's been approved by the TO.

What I do see being the problem is Ard boys because TFG always shows up, and Ard boys tends to bring out the worst in some people.

schadenfreude wrote:
The 2nd MM is largely irrelevant. If the land raider moves 6" it can still only fire 2 weapons, and if it fires both MM then it can't fire the TFC. Now it's down to shooting 100 points of weapons instead of 150 points of weapons. Also note I'm fairly certain by just looking at the Achilles that the point at which the MM can cross and hit the same target is going to be further than 12" away from the land raider, so I don't think it will be able to shoot both MM at the same target.

Actually, you can move 6" and fire all three weapons, since the Thunderfire Cannon can be fired as defensive.

Luco wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:

Luco wrote:I know in my group nothing FW is considered auto-accepted as apart of the game unless its an alternative model for a codex unit. So in our group, FW is a non-official unit choice that can be rejected by an opponent.

So how is that different from a codex? I can at any time reject any opponent on the basis that I don't like his army list, the codex he is using, or a single unit in his army.

Not for us. If you don't like his list, its tough nuggets as long as the units are in the codex. The only exception are Erratas and FAQ's provided you have the paper in hand. FW its up to the opponent.

So if I played with your group and happened to have a game against a Dark Angels player, that happened to be fielding Stormshield spam Deathwing, what you're telling me is that someone would basically hold a gun to my head and force me to play? The game doesn't work that way, there is no 'tough nuggets', aside from tournament settings (where the TO is god anyway, and can decide pretty much anything they want), I have the right to refuse anything and everything at any time, Forgeworld is no different than 'standard' codex stuff in this regard.

chaos0xomega wrote:

Luco wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:

Luco wrote:I know in my group nothing FW is considered auto-accepted as apart of the game unless its an alternative model for a codex unit. So in our group, FW is a non-official unit choice that can be rejected by an opponent.

So how is that different from a codex? I can at any time reject any opponent on the basis that I don't like his army list, the codex he is using, or a single unit in his army.

Not for us. If you don't like his list, its tough nuggets as long as the units are in the codex. The only exception are Erratas and FAQ's provided you have the paper in hand. FW its up to the opponent.

So if I played with your group and happened to have a game against a Dark Angels player, that happened to be fielding Stormshield spam Deathwing, what you're telling me is that someone would basically hold a gun to my head and force me to play? The game doesn't work that way, there is no 'tough nuggets', aside from tournament settings (where the TO is god anyway, and can decide pretty much anything they want), I have the right to refuse anything and everything at any time, Forgeworld is no different than 'standard' codex stuff in this regard.

But if you played with a group and refused to play, you probably wouldn't be in that group for long- hence tough nuggets.

I suspect the point here is this - if you refused to play armies that the group had regarded as viable, then the group as a whole would stop playing you as well. You have a personal veto, obviously. Nevertheless, if a group play regularly then all members ought to buy into their ways of playing.

Somehow I doubt that is the only group though available to the hypothetical player. If your gaming values don't match the group you are in, I don't see any reason you shouldn't try to find another group anyways. If its just a bunch of friends (therefore making switching groups undesirable) then I don't see them ostracizing you in this way.

Fetterkey wrote:

schadenfreude wrote:
The 2nd MM is largely irrelevant. If the land raider moves 6" it can still only fire 2 weapons, and if it fires both MM then it can't fire the TFC. Now it's down to shooting 100 points of weapons instead of 150 points of weapons. Also note I'm fairly certain by just looking at the Achilles that the point at which the MM can cross and hit the same target is going to be further than 12" away from the land raider, so I don't think it will be able to shoot both MM at the same target.

Actually, you can move 6" and fire all three weapons, since the Thunderfire Cannon can be fired as defensive.

Ow yea underground burst is S4. The largest problem is still firing arcs and only being able to shoot at 2 targets with 3 weapons that have very different fire arcs.

Option #1 fire a MM at target A, and the TFC + 1 MM at target B. Anything that is a good target for a TFC is a sub optimal target for a MM and vice versa

Option #2 Fire both MM at target A, and the TFC at target B. 2 problems with that. The problem is drawing LOS from both MM to the target that is within 12" is going to be difficult or impossible depending on the size of the target.

I played a 1000 point game last night, getting a feel for possible adepticon TT builds. I made my list well in advance.

My opponent fielded:

Librarian (Null Zone, Avenger)
5 tac marines
10 tac marines, missile, melta, sgt w/ combi-melta, rhino
2x land speeder w/ HF/MM
Dread w/ 2 twin-linked autocannons
Land Raider Achillies


I had a mono-tzeentch daemon list:
2x chariots w/ bolt, master of sorcery, we are legion
2x 5 horrors w/ bolt
1x 6 horrors w/ bolt+changeling
2x 3 flamers
1x 5 screamers
1x daemon prince w/ MoT, bolt, gaze

We played on a 4x4 table. Turn 1, he drove the libby in the Achilies (w/ the 5 man tac squad) to the center of the table, giving him pretty much blanket coverage of the whole field with null zone.


I ignored it, killing all his other troops. My flamers were able, eventually, after everything else was dead, to take out the thunderfire cannon. The thunderfire cannon was a beast - a couple of times, I'd have landed a unit (in deep strike formation) only to see him put 20 wounds on the it on his turn. But, even this was manageable, by using terrain, and concentrating on what I could kill. This thing is like a C'Tan or a Monolith - ignore it, accept that it will kill some stuff, and concentrate on everything else your opponent is fielding.

Really, it's 325 points. It gives up the assault ramp (something that hurt my opponent). It's tough, but it's certainly not an auto-win, not even when carrying the ideal unit to stop an army that has to land in clusters.

I get it, Rb. In a 200 point game, though, where your boy fielded TWO of thos annoyances, and the rest of his army is tough as nails, too, it's still a VERY different story.


Eric

Redbeard wrote:I played a 1000 point game last night, getting a feel for possible adepticon TT builds. I made my list well in advance.

My opponent fielded:

Librarian (Null Zone, Avenger)
5 tac marines
10 tac marines, missile, melta, sgt w/ combi-melta, rhino
2x land speeder w/ HF/MM
Dread w/ 2 twin-linked autocannons
Land Raider Achillies


I had a mono-tzeentch daemon list:
2x chariots w/ bolt, master of sorcery, we are legion
2x 5 horrors w/ bolt
1x 6 horrors w/ bolt+changeling
2x 3 flamers
1x 5 screamers
1x daemon prince w/ MoT, bolt, gaze

We played on a 4x4 table. Turn 1, he drove the libby in the Achilies (w/ the 5 man tac squad) to the center of the table, giving him pretty much blanket coverage of the whole field with null zone.


I ignored it, killing all his other troops. My flamers were able, eventually, after everything else was dead, to take out the thunderfire cannon. The thunderfire cannon was a beast - a couple of times, I'd have landed a unit (in deep strike formation) only to see him put 20 wounds on the it on his turn. But, even this was manageable, by using terrain, and concentrating on what I could kill. This thing is like a C'Tan or a Monolith - ignore it, accept that it will kill some stuff, and concentrate on everything else your opponent is fielding.

Really, it's 325 points. It gives up the assault ramp (something that hurt my opponent). It's tough, but it's certainly not an auto-win, not even when carrying the ideal unit to stop an army that has to land in clusters.

Well MM are just a half range missile launcher against tzeentch deamons, so it's really 325 points for a single TFC and a shell to protect the librarian. The librarian is a serious force multiplier, but once his points and the points of the Achilles he's only force multiplying 575 points + 1 TFC in a 1000 point game. A 1,000 point game is way to small to use a land raider Achilles, the unit just seems more effective in larger point games. In a 2,000 point game he would be force multiplying 1575 points + 1 TFC with a librarian in an Achilles, and null zone is a lot scarier when 1575 points of space marines is shooting at deamons rather than 575 points.

I'm not sure I agree with your logic.

If something is overpowered, then it's more overpowered in a smaller game, as your opponent has less resources to devote to destroying it. In 2000 points, I've got two soul grinders w/ S10/ap1 shots and the ability to kill it on the charge as well. At that point, my opponent has to decide, does he move 12 inches each turn, cutting his offensive firepower, to try and mitigate the Soul Grinder attacks, or does he bunker and hope to kill them before they kill it?

At 2000 points, we use a larger table, so the librarian can no longer blanket the whole battlefield. There are pros and cons both ways.

Riddick40k wrote:A Land Raider Achilles is a also Heavy Support choice in a Codex Space Marines,
Codex Black Templars, Codex Space Wolves or Codex: Dark Angels army. says that straight on the page, Achellies is able to play on normal games without opponents consent

Not this again... Any expansions would require your opponent's consent to play units from, this includes Imperial Armour. And they are not legal in tournaments unless the TOs specifically say Imperial Armour rules may be used. Other than that, yes, your opponent has to say its ok. And in a friendly game (which it seems like few people play), there are probably some people who'd love a new unit to work against.

SoloFalcon1138, you probably need to grab a copy of the latest IA which do not indicate what you say- they are GW publications using Citadel miniatures. Only the IA:Apoc book indicates that it is permission only (as is Apoc). TOs can make whatever rules they want, of course.

And arguing "permission only" is weak anyway- the whole game is permission only. In a game, I can whine that your all trukk list is too OP and refuse to play unless you play all foot. Or you could gripe that my bikes are too fast and refuse to play. That just indicates poor sportsmanship. As does refusing to play with GW published rules simply because one doesn't think they are "fun" or "fair". 4e Trifalcs weren't fun/fair, 5ed seer bikes aren't fun/fair, etc. but so what?

Show me the codex listing for the achilles and I'll accept it as a normal part of game play.

jmurph wrote:SoloFalcon1138, you probably need to grab a copy of the latest IA which do not indicate what you say- they are GW publications using Citadel miniatures. Only the IA:Apoc book indicates that it is permission only (as is Apoc). TOs can make whatever rules they want, of course.

And arguing "permission only" is weak anyway- the whole game is permission only. In a game, I can whine that your all trukk list is too OP and refuse to play unless you play all foot. Or you could gripe that my bikes are too fast and refuse to play. That just indicates poor sportsmanship. As does refusing to play with GW published rules simply because one doesn't think they are "fun" or "fair". 4e Trifalcs weren't fun/fair, 5ed seer bikes aren't fun/fair, etc. but so what?

No they are forge world publications and forge world miniatures. GW and forge world are different companies. GW as the parent company owns 50% or more of forge worlds stock, that's it for the legal connection between those 2 companies. Subsidiary companies don't have any legal power to change their parent corporation's company policy.

Now show me in writing where GW has said IA is ok to use in any game.

I worked for GW 2 years ago and game in their store weekly, IA is allowed only with opponents permission and is not a part of standard 40k. IA is tourny's is based solely off the tourny organizer, Astonomicon I believe allows it, while the GT's in my area do not allow IA at all.

As for the Achilles, every army has a way to deal with it, from monsterous creature, to demolisher cannon and even haywire grenades, the question is if your list has these secondary vehicle hunting methods in them.

So how does an ork deal with it?
An when you say every army has a way to deal with it what do you mean? 1 single way to deal with it? Cause that's what it is with the Achiles. Some races have 1 single way to hurt it.
So there is only the demolisher cannon on the table that can harm my achilles? Guess what I'll focus fire on then....

DakkaDakka wrote:

Yeap it was mentioned earlier in the thread. If something is good, you tend to double or tripple up on it.
9KK?
9Oblits?
2-3Monoliths etc