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.

 Troike wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
So what exactly do you think SoB use for air support? Have they ever been given fluff that includes their own dedicated air support, while even marines have to ask the navy for help sometimes?

It was mentioned that they have their own ships back in their 2e codex, and this hasn't been retconned, to my knowledge. And, of course, there's the simple fact that SoB fluff hasn't really gone anywhere for a while, being pretty much only slightly to moderately expanded or recycled. So the absence of fluff specifically dealing with SoB air support certainly doesn't mean that it can't exist.

Well, see, the problem with this argument is that the fluff for the Avenger did retcon it, by saying that the Sisters need to call upon the Imperial Navy for air support.

If you don't like that retcon, it's fine, the fluff is malleable. But to say that Forge World is wrong to retcon the fluff because the fluff hasn't been retconned is nonsensical.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Whomever said that the Achilles Land Raider is indestructible against IG has never tried using a pair of Vanquisher command tanks with co-axial stubbers.

AV14 immune to melta , IWND procing on +4 , PotMS . totaly easy to kill and what am I suppose to do with two vanquishers against all other armies?


Also aren't command tanks armor company only?

Makumba wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Whomever said that the Achilles Land Raider is indestructible against IG has never tried using a pair of Vanquisher command tanks with co-axial stubbers.

AV14 immune to melta , IWND procing on +4 , PotMS . totaly easy to kill and what am I suppose to do with two vanquishers against all other armies?


Also aren't command tanks armor company only?

Command tanks are indeed armored company only, but with allies you can get at least one command Vanquisher in almost any army save Tyranids, iirc.

You could use the Vanquishers to kill their vehicles, or the Beast Hunter shells to ID Characters/MCs (especially hilarious against riptides and wraithknights). Hell, the AP2 blast can kill just about any infantry to varying degrees of effectiveness. And the coaxial stubber can add some wounds to light infantry, while making the blast twin-linked as well.

I don't want to play armored company . I play IG not armored company. + I wouldn't be able to fit them in to an army , most people here play 1500pts .

Even If I take one , if I don't start my opponent will just kill it turn one with a pod unit , because the vanquisher isn't immune to melta .

So maybe you should reconsider that choice when you know that there are units that are immune to melta. Or just spam more Vendettas/Manticores/etc.

Do you know how many turns it takes to kill a LR with + 4 IWND AV14 and melta immunity , with 10 lascannons , without any cover ?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Well, see, the problem with this argument is that the fluff for the Avenger did retcon it, by saying that the Sisters need to call upon the Imperial Navy for air support.

If you don't like that retcon, it's fine, the fluff is malleable. But to say that Forge World is wrong to retcon the fluff because the fluff hasn't been retconned is nonsensical.

But it didn't retcon them having their own starships. And to get things planet-side in starships, you'll probably need aircraft. All it says is that they request the Avenger because it's a potent symbol to them, not that they lack access to aircraft altogether.

And anyway, I'm not sure that FW has the tightest grip on SoB fluff. As Lynata mentioned, FW has them simply not showing up to a Cardinal going rogue, and said Cardinal having executed several SoB already. I'd much rather see what GW has to say on the issue, really.

Makumba wrote:
I don't want to play armored company . I play IG not armored company. + I wouldn't be able to fit them in to an army , most people here play 1500pts .

Even If I take one , if I don't start my opponent will just kill it turn one with a pod unit , because the vanquisher isn't immune to melta .

So maybe you should reconsider that choice when you know that there are units that are immune to melta. Or just spam more Vendettas/Manticores/etc.

Do you know how many turns it takes to kill a LR with + 4 IWND AV14 and melta immunity , with 10 lascannons , without any cover ?

Unwillingness to adapt your army and tactics (seriously, there have been tactics to avoid podded AT for like 3 editions now) to a new threat shows conservatism on a scale I don't think I can even fathom.

Seriously, your argument against Forge World inclusion is "I DUN WANNA CHANGE MY LIST OR TACTICS! I WANT TO BE EXACTLY THE SAME AS I'VE ALWAYS BEEN!"? Most people consider that a detrimental thing...

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Farseer Faenyin wrote:
The models are very well built. The fluff is amazing. There are far more rules per page than a GW Supplement. Sure there are some broken units that feth up the rules, but they aren't as readily available for spam...so that makes it better than Scythes, Riptides, Helldrakes or Vendettas already.

The only thing I'm not a fan of is the Armored Battlegroup. I understand the want to take this for the 'idea and fluff' of bringing tanks to a battle...but without prior consent from a player so they can somewhat tailor a list...this game is TERRIBLY boring. I'm VERY pro-FW, but the two players in my area prefer ABG armies for regular games of 40k don't get many games. This is because Objective games become a hide-and-seek fest since the tanks can't Deny Objectives, and half of a regular army...or more...can't touch the tanks without assaulting. Just annoying games to play without prior warning.

While I can sort of understand this, in my experience playing against ABG's is usually an easy win, precisely because the ABG usually has few or no scoring units, and often little ability to maneuver to get better firing positions on troops behind cover sitting on an objective

That's what I meant to say, in that they either wreck the enemy through kill points or loose handily in Objectives

So without prior knowledge and bringing a proper counter force, kill point missions suck.
And without the ABG player bringing supporting troops, objective missions suck.

Basically, win or lose...it is rarely an interesting game.

 Farseer Faenyin wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Farseer Faenyin wrote:
The models are very well built. The fluff is amazing. There are far more rules per page than a GW Supplement. Sure there are some broken units that feth up the rules, but they aren't as readily available for spam...so that makes it better than Scythes, Riptides, Helldrakes or Vendettas already.

The only thing I'm not a fan of is the Armored Battlegroup. I understand the want to take this for the 'idea and fluff' of bringing tanks to a battle...but without prior consent from a player so they can somewhat tailor a list...this game is TERRIBLY boring. I'm VERY pro-FW, but the two players in my area prefer ABG armies for regular games of 40k don't get many games. This is because Objective games become a hide-and-seek fest since the tanks can't Deny Objectives, and half of a regular army...or more...can't touch the tanks without assaulting. Just annoying games to play without prior warning.

While I can sort of understand this, in my experience playing against ABG's is usually an easy win, precisely because the ABG usually has few or no scoring units, and often little ability to maneuver to get better firing positions on troops behind cover sitting on an objective

That's what I meant to say, in that they either wreck the enemy through kill points or loose handily in Objectives

So without prior knowledge and bringing a proper counter force, kill point missions suck.
And without the ABG player bringing supporting troops, objective missions suck.

Basically, win or lose...it is rarely an interesting game.

'

You guys are either incredibly dull critics that need to be set on fire to feel anything, or haven't been playing in my area ever (I'm guessing the latter). There's two ABG players here, and their games (against whomever) always attract a crowd.

I run an ABG, I don't mind that the army is very win/big lose big, I have fun every game I play with it, but there is an element of truth in that it can be a very binary army, usually not in favor of the ABG

I'm thinking the Mortis dread's anti-flier abilities are going to be a boon for competitive DA.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Makumba wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Whomever said that the Achilles Land Raider is indestructible against IG has never tried using a pair of Vanquisher command tanks with co-axial stubbers.

AV14 immune to melta , IWND procing on +4 , PotMS . totaly easy to kill and what am I suppose to do with two vanquishers against all other armies?


Also aren't command tanks armor company only?

Command tanks are indeed armored company only, but with allies you can get at least one command Vanquisher in almost any army save Tyranids, iirc.

You could use the Vanquishers to kill their vehicles, or the Beast Hunter shells to ID Characters/MCs (especially hilarious against riptides and wraithknights). Hell, the AP2 blast can kill just about any infantry to varying degrees of effectiveness. And the coaxial stubber can add some wounds to light infantry, while making the blast twin-linked as well.

so you admit that it is more or less unkillable by any list that is not specifically tailored to counter that one vehicle?

Gather round folks, we may be close to seeing something special...a forgeworld acolyte is actually close to admiting that a fw unit is actually op!

Hardly unkillable. It can be killed with medusa, lascannons, manticores, vanquishers, and demolisher cannons. It obviously isn't something I would want to spring on people but if you know it is an option and you don't take at least one of those weapons you deserve to get beaten.

In fact your average IG list takes a minimum of 9 lascannons from the vendettas everyone and their dog takes.

There's a large array of weapons that can kill the achilles, it's not as powerful as it's original incarnation, its rules got toned down and the 6E vehicle rules don't work well, it's primary role of being an invincible scoring bunker no longer works.

 ansacs wrote:
Hardly unkillable. It can be killed with medusa, lascannons, manticores, vanquishers, and demolisher cannons. It obviously isn't something I would want to spring on people but if you know it is an option and you don't take at least one of those weapons you deserve to get beaten.

In fact your average IG list takes a minimum of 9 lascannons from the vendettas everyone and their dog takes.

lascannons will bounce off it, medusas, vanquishers and demolishers are very rare in most guard lists, though vanquishers will still flop with about a 12% chance to pop it. You might manage to strip its hull points away if you divert your entire army towards shooting it for a couple of turns, which will be helpful if your opponent was curteous enough to not use the rest of his army for a while.

Incidentally it will take 16 twin-linked lascannon to strip it to death, on average.

xruslanx wrote:

lascannons will bounce off it

Not any moreso than anything else that's AV14...

, medusas, vanquishers and demolishers are very rare in most guard lists

The latter two yes, the Medusa makes appearances often enough. Demolishers were more popular before the change to Heavy/Lumbering Behemoth.

You might manage to strip its hull points away if you divert your entire army towards shooting it for a couple of turns which will be helpful if your opponent was curteous enough to not use the rest of his army for a while.

Incidentally it will take 16 twin-linked lascannon to strip it to death, on average.

If you can deal with a couple Leman Russ tanks at range, you can deal with an Achilles, both of which cost near the same amount of points. If you're relying entirely on melta for anti-AV14, then you're opponent has merely exploited a flaw in your list.

I am guessing you do not use prescience libbys or inquisitors?

I noticed you completely ignored the manticore. Nice.

That is terrible that a model might make underused portions of the codex see more use. Definitely not a good thing.

A single vendetta has a 12.5% chance to explode the thing and strips 0.75 HP per turn. The rather common 3 vendetta lists you see will have a 36% chance to explode the thing in 1 turn.

It is a 300 point vehicle with the fire output of ~2 vendettas. Your assertion it is invincible is just not right. It is decent at getting a large unit from point A to point B. That is it.

I don't mind FW (but only cuz I have a contemptor and a Achilles) as long as they have "approved" rules.

 ansacs wrote:
I am guessing you do not use prescience libbys or inquisitors?

I noticed you completely ignored the manticore. Nice.

That is terrible that a model might make underused portions of the codex see more use. Definitely not a good thing.

A single vendetta has a 12.5% chance to explode the thing and strips 0.75 HP per turn. The rather common 3 vendetta lists you see will have a 36% chance to explode the thing in 1 turn.

It is a 300 point vehicle with the fire output of ~2 vendettas. Your assertion it is invincible is just not right. It is decent at getting a large unit from point A to point B. That is it.

this may surprise you, but i don't run vendettas, or ally cheese. If the only way of killing said unit is by using over-powered units...then that unit is over powered. I never said it was more over powered than anything in any existing codex. Though as it happens, i can't think of any other 'cheese' units that are so over powered even when there's only one of them.

If my opponanent ran such a tank against me, it'd be an auto-lose unless i got very lucky and glanced it to death with meltaguns. If i was mentally ill and took some demolishers i might have a fighting chance, as long as i had them deployed in the right place. But on average i wouldn't fancy my chances.

Fair enough. I was only talking about prescience and vendettas since they are common in most lists. Even simple HWT lascannons with orders can kill it too. What type of army do you run? It would be more productive I think to brainstorm ways to kill it within your list type.

Even if you cannot kill it then you can very easily ignore it. For 300 pts it has negligible firepower and if they put something in it then it is a deathstar and deserves the deathstar treatment; ie kill everything else.

xruslanx wrote:
this may surprise you, but i don't run vendettas, or ally cheese.

So maybe this is the problem: you arbitrarily declare certain strategies to be "cheese", and then you have trouble dealing with stuff because you've ruled out your best counters.

If my opponanent ran such a tank against me, it'd be an auto-lose unless i got very lucky and glanced it to death with meltaguns. If i was mentally ill and took some demolishers i might have a fighting chance, as long as i had them deployed in the right place. But on average i wouldn't fancy my chances.

So then maybe you should reevaluate your opinion that taking demolishers makes you "mentally ill", since they seem to be your best counter (in addition to Manticores, Vendettas, etc). It sounds like the problem here is that you're stuck on the assumption that you can't change your list and have to use melta as your only counter AV 14. In that case adding the LR Achilles is good for the game because it forces you to think about including some diversity in your choices instead of just taking melta and assuming you're done.

Plus, doesn't this contradict your argument elsewhere that bad balance makes the game better? I would think that you of all people would love these overpowered units because it's a great game when you get crushed by them with no counter available.

If your list can't deal with any single unit, the problem is with your list, not the unit you are facing. This is a simple truth no matter what rules are in place.

I dunno - I'm not sure how I'm supposed to save my Tervigons from a drop pod Rune Priest jawing then to death.

Aside from rolling better that is.

Put 18"+ of gaunts spaced out as a honeycomb so that if the drop pod does scatter onto the troops the contents of the pod die.

 ansacs wrote:
Put 18"+ of gaunts spaced out as a honeycomb so that if the drop pod does scatter onto the troops the contents of the pod die.

Do you mean die in the next turn when they get swamped or something? Because they wouldn't die on the turn they arrive would they, the pod would just displace to the outside of the gaunt formation?

Seeing as how the drop pod won't suffer from scattering onto a unit, and there's a 6" disembark from the pod, and Jaws has a 24" range, I'd have to literally deploy models in no mans land to avoid it.

Given that's impossible, how about we agree it's a bad idea? Your suggestion would require literally flooding my deployment zone and throwing models in illegal deployment places.

TBH I'm not that scared of them and can mostly handle them. But saying its a problem with my list is factually incorrect.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Your suggestion also ignores that it would be a horrible list against anything but pod priests. "Problem with the list" indeed.

If you scatter onto a unit your reduce scatter until you can land. Honeycomb patterns can allow you to place the pod without being able to place the unit.

Where did I even mention deploying as such? You guys are talking about illegal deployments when it doesn't even involve deployment.

If you do not loose the game to a single unit your list is dealing with it. Your entire comment is then pointless as your list is dealing with rune priests according to your latter comments. The comment you replied to was dealing with the assertion that a single unit would mean an auto loose of the game. Such prompted my comment. Though I guess if you are loosing the game to such then you probably are lining all your units up in a 24" line so even screening will not manage it.

BTW you can leave a ~5" gap between the gaunts and the tervigon as the pod needs to be more than 1" from each unit. The priest has to be 1" from the outer gaunt...18+1+5=24"

 SarisKhan wrote:

 Erik_Morkai wrote:
In our local Meta FW is accepted and nobody blinks. We see an FW model and ask what does it do? Allright cool. Let's play and have fun. We have a very nice gaming club and the attitude of the players counts for alot.

It would be awesome if more people were like that. Still, I don't complain myself for now, since I have no problems at all using a FW Sonic Dreadnought whilst playing with my closest gaming friends. I've explained what kind of weaponry it has and established the points cost with them, and we're all happy.

Totally agree. if more FW players were willing to do demonstration games and allow peopleto check out their stuff, the distrust of FW might lessen. I'm tickled to death to even see the models.

 ansacs wrote:
If you scatter onto a unit your reduce scatter until you can land. Honeycomb patterns can allow you to place the pod without being able to place the unit.

You'd either have to have a massive pattern or a dumb opponent.

Where did I even mention deploying as such? You guys are talking about illegal deployments when it doesn't even involve deployment.

You're aware drop pods come down turn 1, right? Ie is likely that I haven't been able to do anything but deploy.

If you do not loose the game to a single unit your list is dealing with it. Your entire comment is then pointless as your list is dealing with rune priests according to your latter comments. The comment you replied to was dealing with the assertion that a single unit would mean an auto loose of the game. Such prompted my comment. Though I guess if you are loosing the game to such then you probably are lining all your units up in a 24" line so even screening will not manage it.

That's the point though - my list isn't managing it. My tactics are. The first few times I played against a 4 pod priest list I lost horribly (turn 3 was the longest game). Without changing my list one iota I started winning most games against them to the point I'm having a bad day if I lose.
You said that lists had to deal with units. That's not always true.

BTW you can leave a ~5" gap between the gaunts and the tervigon as the pod needs to be more than 1" from each unit. The priest has to be 1" from the outer gaunt...18+1+5=24"

So 3-4 turns of movement (to get the 18" honeycomb)... How is that valid advice again?

Regardless, my point was that your statement was way too broad - not everything can be solved with list building alone. Tervigons getting nukes 2/3 of the time by jaws cannot be fixed by list building (not well anyway - you'll neuter yourself against non jaws lists) alone.

 EVIL INC wrote:

 SarisKhan wrote:

 Erik_Morkai wrote:
In our local Meta FW is accepted and nobody blinks. We see an FW model and ask what does it do? Allright cool. Let's play and have fun. We have a very nice gaming club and the attitude of the players counts for alot.

It would be awesome if more people were like that. Still, I don't complain myself for now, since I have no problems at all using a FW Sonic Dreadnought whilst playing with my closest gaming friends. I've explained what kind of weaponry it has and established the points cost with them, and we're all happy.

Totally agree. if more FW players were willing to do demonstration games and allow peopleto check out their stuff, the distrust of FW might lessen. I'm tickled to death to even see the models.

So you keep mentioning demonstrations games. How do you propose people do that who play in areas where people unanimiously refuse to even entertain FW being played because they think it's "unofficial" or "not legal"? This is a problem that can't always be solved by playing demo games you know. I'm not saying it's a bad idea, it's just one that isn't applicable 100% of the time and I think you fail to recognize that in favor of pushing that constantly.

Wasn't my advice and your comment boils down to what then? That because of bad play rune priests stomped you once upon a time but your list was fine and you stopped playing badly? Considering all your statements I have lost track of your point completely.