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.

The pain of the Achilles....

Matters not one jot to my Zoanthropes.

S10 Lance goooooooo!

Vaktathi wrote:

italiaplaya wrote:
A melta Bomb still gets 2d6 against the Achilles. Its not a melta weapon as per its name. It just allows you to gain another d6 for armour Pen. Melta bombs are another good way to pen. a Achilles.

Hrm, that may be a difficult thing to get many opponents accept. In a strict raw sense I'd agree, but it's one of those things that most players will play as if it doesn't get double-pen. The Ap1 thing is a bit different as CC attacks don't have AP, but a lot of players aren't going to like being told that a rule making you immune to melta effects doesn't apply to all melta weapons.

It's one of those rulings that you may see adhered to at top end RAW level, but GAP would be seen as "wait what?"

Read the melta bomb rule. Its not a melta weapon. It merely adds another D6 to armour pen. Its like a heavy Flamer not being a heavy weapon.

I'd think this is more akin to a Heavy Flamer not being a 'flame' weapon if you want to go down this route.

Hmm, maybe someone should start up a separate YMDC thread and direct this tangent over there. Certianly, if meltabombs fully work against it that makes it a lot less scary... but I'm not sure that they do.

DarkStarSabre wrote:And this is now you trying to be a quite patronising git.

As I said - gone off tangent. Believe the answer is hidden within one of the FAQs where similar precedents exist (so Black Templars, SMs, Blood Angels - one of those most likely) but this debate has nothing more to do with a review of the book.

Haha.

Quite mature for the name calling. Im sorry you feel that im patronising you guys by telling everyone to read the rulebook. There are no FAQs about it either. You can dig into it if you would like too. But yes this thread has gone off rail.

And back on track..... Bring on the Ork unit reviews!!!!

Holy crap this has gotten out of hand! Hahahaha.

Ok, here goes.

@Amerikon

My math is wrong. Really? You are sure about that. So, 1/2*1/6*1/6 is not, in fact, 1/72 or 1.4%

And is 1/2*1/6*1/3 not in fact 1/36 or 2.8%?

If that is whatyou are saying that then you are wrong.

Is the difference between the two not 1.4%?

If that is what you are saying, then you are wrong.

My "failure" according to you, is not in the math, the math is accurate. How you choose to analyze the data is where we differ, although we are saying the same thing.

Is 1.4% twice 2.8%? Yes. Is it also a difference of 1.4%? Yes. We said the exact same thing in a different way.

Please don't try and say my math was wrong and your's was right as we came to the same conclusion. It is a difference in interpretation.

Furthermore, if you had read the article in completion, you would see that the example of a BS3 las cannon was an example OTHER PEOPLE were using against the Achilles, not me. I was correcting those people's inaccuracy in their math. I then compared it to a regular Land Raider to show how marginal of a difference it was. I was not saying it was the best way to deal with the Achilles.

Again, and I am probably going to back out of this argument after this post as it is getting tiresome repeating myself, we have actually PLAYED with and against the Achilles with multiple different armies. It is not nearly as good as you all say it is. Is it good? Yeah, very good. Game breaking? No, not at all. I think time and experience will overcome a lot of this fear.

@RiTides
I didn't mean to imply that a person who writes a list with only meltas or lance weapons is dumb at all, simply that they are building a list with an inherent weakness.

But you answered your questions, really. Furious assaulting power fists, and dreadnoughts are your best bet for taking out the Achilles.

But again, you don't have to kill the stupid thing to win a game!

Hahaha, do you table your enemy every time you beat him? No. Most games you don't kill every single model in the other army.

@Darkstar Sabre
WIll is neither a power gamer or a jerk, and simply because he disagrees with you doesn't mean he is any of those things.

The rules are clear. A melta bomb is not a melta weapon. Period. It doesn't get +1 on the damage table, it doesn't have the melta rule. Perhaps that was an oversight on the rules writers' part, but the fact remains that the rules are what they are. You may not play RAW, which is your choice and fine, but because other people do (the tournament community) then that doesn't make them bad guys or wrong. The reason we play RAW in the tournament scene, is because it is the only way to have an equal playing field for all players to come and play on, regardless of background.

No reason to hurl insults, it is just a difference of opinion. Will's is just based on the rules as written, yours is based on what you think should be the case, but in fact isn't (and it is a very common, and understandable mistake). There are lots of rules in this silly game that seem illogical, but at the end of the day, they are what they are. We either play by them or we don't, but that doesn't change the words on the page.

@Grimgob
Hahaha, so right! People get irrationally upset about this stuff.

Orks are incoming!

IIRC melta bombs got their 2d6 vs the old Monolith Living metal rule. But GW took down the Necron FAQ so I can't verify this. I believe the rationale was as Italiaplayer stated, the weapon is a Str 8 weapon that adds 2d6 to its penetration rolls (just like a chainfist).

Leo_the_Rat wrote:IIRC melta bombs got their 2d6 vs the old Monolith Living metal rule. But GW took down the Necron FAQ so I can't verify this. I believe the rationale was as Italiaplayer stated, the weapon is a Str 8 weapon that adds 2d6 to its penetration rolls (just like a chainfist).

Yes you are correct. Meltabombs did work against the old school Monolith.

Hey guys, I've put up a thread in YMDC to continue this discussion:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/419975.page#3732364

Let's drop it from Reece's thread and get back to talking about IA Second Edition Units!

Thanks for the response, Reecius, I guess I did answer my own question (regarding my own army). I would be curious about how more other armies would handle it, though (so far I've seen IG, Necrons, and Chaos mentioned... and it seems haywire grenades for DE).

derp slow posting times.

Reecius wrote:@Loki
You answered your own question =)

How is an overpriced monstrous creature that can't move fast enough to catch the tank a solution? Short of Warp Lance, which doesn't get its bonus against the Achilles, Tyranids have nothing to actually deal with the Achilles.

Don't get me wrong, I love the model and think the rules aren't that bad for its price. But stating that any army that relies on lance or melta weapons to crack AV14 tanks is one dimensional is stupid when an entire army needs to rely on it.

Does regular Eldar have something like the DE haywire grenades to take it out with?

RiTides wrote:Does regular Eldar have something like the DE haywire grenades to take it out with?

Yeah, they have the original haywire grenade from the Swooping Hawks. Dark Eldar copied them there. They also have wraithcannons, which against all vehicles of any armor are 1-2 nothing, 3-4 glance, 5-6 pen. Only carried by wraithguard though, so you have to have an opponent willing to let you walk your slow guys with 12" cannons up next to the thing. Original eldar aren't really the worst affected by the LR Achilles. They have those two weird things, a few MCs, and Eldrad who can basically just get a free glance against it every turn. Plus warlocks with their S9 CC weapons.

I think people's main problem is that their accepted tourney list which is optimized to kill rhinos may not be able to seriously hurt the achilles.

This is not a problem, this is a change in the meta.

Or, don't worry about it since you are not likely to face one in the current edition. Maybe in 6th they will add the IA stuff into the rules and then everyone can complain till they're blue in the face.

@Loki
Sigh.

Again, I didn't say it was stupid to build an army around lance and melta. I said explicitly that it wasn't. It is though, one dimensional by it's very definition.

You are absolutely entitled to your opinion, I won't tell you you are wrong because that isn't my place.

But complaining about the price of Tyranid units and their relative worth has nothing to do with the Achilles. The Nid book is pretty under-powered, but that has little to nothing to do with the Achilles.

Bugs have some of the best tools to take out the Achilles, more so than most books. If you disagree, fine. But no reason to get mad at me, that changes nothing.

Reecius, I think you might have misread him:

-Loki- wrote:But stating that any army that relies on lance or melta weapons to crack AV14 tanks is one dimensional is stupid when an entire army needs to rely on it.

He's saying you can't label an army like that one dimensional if it needs to rely on it.

I think applying labels like "one-dimensional" broadly is a mistake... however, "relying" is an imprecise word, too. Many armies might "rely" heavily on meltas or lances, but still have at least a few other options for taking that tank out.

Chop chop where is the next review... I haven't seen the book yet so keep on posting buddy!

Chaos unit review please!

Chaos contempt or dread - everything chaos needed in a dread but for the cost of a land raider. Seriously imagine if there were no Contemptors and all chaos dreads were these things. That would be cool for chaos. It would put the fear of chaos dreads into everybody. Of course you would need to reduce the points by 15-20%. A nurgle contemptor with butcher cannon is the price of a LRR. You get a 4 shot str 8 gun and -1 on the damage table in defense, but too pricey.

I do love the antipsyker rule the chaos contemptor has. Every psyker in combat takes a str 2 ap 2 hit at initiative 10. Very anti grey knights there.

italiaplaya wrote:

Leo_the_Rat wrote:IIRC melta bombs got their 2d6 vs the old Monolith Living metal rule. But GW took down the Necron FAQ so I can't verify this. I believe the rationale was as Italiaplayer stated, the weapon is a Str 8 weapon that adds 2d6 to its penetration rolls (just like a chainfist).

Yes you are correct. Meltabombs did work against the old school Monolith.

That was a source of long and repeated debates, whether the 2d6 included an "extra" d6. The last version of the Necron FAQ, the one that was up for the last three or four years, said that other than Ordnance, nothing ever got anything but its strength +1d6 to penetrate a monolith.

Anyway, that point is moot now. And all this is off topic anyway. Thanks RiTides for opening the other thread. I've trimmed out several off-topic posts from this thread, a number of them rude. There's no call for namecalling or casting aspersions on others.

For one I thought it was a nice read and hope to see the next part of your review soon.

Thanks guys, I am glad you guys are enjoying the read. I will have the next part up in the next few days.

Sounds like people are looking for Chaos, so we will jump straight to those!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@RiTides
My point though, is that armies DON"T need to rely on lance or melta weapons. Every book has alternatives, most people just don't use them.

Reecius wrote:My point though, is that armies DON"T need to rely on lance or melta weapons. Every book has alternatives, most people just don't use them.

My point was Tyranids do need to rely on them due to their other options for cracking AV14 are outright terrible.

I'm not attacking the Achilles - did you miss the part where I said I liked it? I was merely addressing this.

A list that relies entirely on lance or melta weapons to take on AV14 is a one dimensional list and that is the fault of the person writing it, not of the Achilles.

I take issue with the fact that you blame the person writing the list, when in some cases, like every single Tyranid list, it has nothing to do with the person writing their list if they rely on lances to crack AV14. Every Tyranid player needs to do it.

@ Loki
Why do you say that the Trygons cant catch the Land Raiders. The Land Raider moves a max of 12 inches a turn. The Trygon (most lists I have seen have 2 in them) moves 6" Fleet d6" and Charge 6" how is it not good at taking out the big tank? I agree it would be tough to do with my Zoan's but I regularly use Trygons to beat up on tanks especially Land Raiders. I usually use 2 Trygons and 2 Zoans in pods in my lists.

Personally I think the Achilles is a great thing to add to the meta game as it forces people to use different tactics. Don't rely on one way to get a job done take a few options so if one isnt working you can use the other.

vhwolf wrote:@ Loki
Why do you say that the Trygons cant catch the Land Raiders. The Land Raider moves a max of 12 inches a turn. The Trygon (most lists I have seen have 2 in them) moves 6" Fleet d6" and Charge 6" how is it not good at taking out the big tank? I agree it would be tough to do with my Zoan's but I regularly use Trygons to beat up on tanks especially Land Raiders.

Because I didn't. Carnifexes are better at cracking AV14, but they can't fleet to catch it. Trygons can if you need them to, but you need to roll above average to even glance AV14 with a Trygon. They're not that great at actually cracking the tank open when they catch it. Carnifexes are better, but can't actually catch it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

vhwolf wrote:Personally I think the Achilles is a great thing to add to the meta game as it forces people to use different tactics. Don't rely on one way to get a job done take a few options so if one isnt working you can use the other.

Absolutely true. But Tyranids can't actually reliably destroy it, which is why I took issue with saying the problem lies with the person writing the army list, when the problem is with the army book itself.

-Loki- wrote:Absolutely true. But Tyranids can't actually reliably destroy it, which is why I took issue with saying the problem lies with the person writing the army list, when the problem is with the army book itself.

The point of the achilles is that it can't be reliably destroyed. No army can reliably destroy it as it's immune to the things that are generally used to destroy av14.
The immunities of the tank mostly don't even effect Tyranids so I'm not sure why that was even brought up. I've never seen anyone field a carnifex or a zoanthrope in a tournament match, so it seems much more likely that a trygon or the flyrant would be set to kill the thing if you really needed to kill it.

-Loki- wrote:

vhwolf wrote:@ Loki
Why do you say that the Trygons cant catch the Land Raiders. The Land Raider moves a max of 12 inches a turn. The Trygon (most lists I have seen have 2 in them) moves 6" Fleet d6" and Charge 6" how is it not good at taking out the big tank? I agree it would be tough to do with my Zoan's but I regularly use Trygons to beat up on tanks especially Land Raiders.

Because I didn't. Carnifexes are better at cracking AV14, but they can't fleet to catch it. Trygons can if you need them to, but you need to roll above average to even glance AV14 with a Trygon. They're not that great at actually cracking the tank open when they catch it. Carnifexes are better, but can't actually catch it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

vhwolf wrote:Personally I think the Achilles is a great thing to add to the meta game as it forces people to use different tactics. Don't rely on one way to get a job done take a few options so if one isnt working you can use the other.

Absolutely true. But Tyranids can't actually reliably destroy it, which is why I took issue with saying the problem lies with the person writing the army list, when the problem is with the army book itself.

It is because the Carnifex can't catch the tanks that the Trygon is much better at killing them.You will also find that once you use the Trygon people will not necessarly move the tank 12" away every time because they know they cant escape and they decide to use the tank for its shooting for its full shooting potential for at least a turn. In theory hammer it does not work out but on the actual table you will find that not all of your rolls are average some will be high and some will be low therefor the low rolls don't do squat but that high roll does the job. It is just one of the things that happens in actual game play vs theory. In the last tournament I played in two weeks ago I ran the two Zoans Two Trygons and the Doom because I had never used him. All it took was one Trygon charging the monolith and down it went. In the same tournament I played a guy with two land raiders and sent a zoan and a trygon after each one. Only one died to the Zoan but they both died the same turn (the bonus of doing it this way was that the Second Trygon got to assualt the Terminator Squad from the Land Raider)

Just saying, the Tyrannofex has access to S10 shooting, so Zoanthropes aren't the only option, even if the T-Rex is expensive as gak.

-Loki- wrote:

vhwolf wrote:

Because I didn't. Carnifexes are better at cracking AV14, but they can't fleet to catch it. Trygons can if you need them to, but you need to roll above average to even glance AV14 with a Trygon. They're not that great at actually cracking the tank open when they catch it. Carnifexes are better, but can't actually catch it.


itself.

Actually a trygon with adrenal glands doesn't need to roll above average, but below average to glance AV14.