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.

-

I would say let them in with anything that has a 40k Standard logo next to it. Nothing in that book is overpowered by any means. I expect next year a quite a bit of tournaments will allow it in regular play.

Reecius wrote: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 what you 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.

I think it's pretty obvious that that's not what I'm saying. Yes, your direct calculations of 1.4% kills on an Achilles and 2.8% on a standard Land Raider are accurate. Your conclusion of 2.8% - 1.4% = 1.4% therefore "1.4% more resilient" is factually incorrect. This is a not difference of interpretation.

Ultimately "more resilient" is an unclear statement, since resiliency is not something that's quantified in game terms. So lets be clear and speak in real gaming terms.

Comparison of an Achilles to a standard Land Raider:
Assuming the firer and the weapon are the same then the part of the formula that includes chance to hit and chance to penetrate then that can actually be ignored. So then only the Damage Table results matter so there are three cases: AP -, AP 6-2, AP 1

AP -
Standard Land Raider:
Glancing hits are at -3 so no chance of a Destroyed result
Penetrating hits are at -1 so 16.6% chance of a Destroyed result

Land Raider Achilles:
Glancing hits are at -3 so no chance of a Destroyed result
Penetrating hits are at -2 so no chance of a Destroyed result

AP 6-2
Standard Land Raider:
Glancing hits are at -2 so no chance of a Destroyed result
Penetrating hits are unmodified so 33.3% chance of a Destroyed result

Land Raider Achilles:
Glancing hits are at -2 so no chance of a Destroyed result
Penetrating hits are at -1 so 16.6% chance of a Destroyed result

AP 1
Standard Land Raider:
Glancing hits are at -1 so 16.6% chance of a Destroyed result
Penetrating hits are at +1 so 50% chance of a Destroyed result

Land Raider Achilles:
Glancing hits are at -1 so 16.6% chance of a Destroyed result
Penetrating hits are unmodified so 33.3% chance of a Destroyed result

Against AP - weapons, it is impossible to get a Destroyed result on an Achilles
Against AP 6-2 weapons, it is twice as hard to get a Destroyed result on an Achilles. Another way to put this is that it is half as likely to get a Destroyed result.
Against AP 1 weapons it's a little bit closer. Glancing hits are equal. Against penetrating hits it is 1.5 times as hard to get a Destroyed result (2/3s as likely).

This is the reality of the Achilles.

Amerikon wrote:Against AP 1 weapons it's a little bit closer. Glancing hits are equal. Against penetrating hits it is 1.5 times as hard to get a Destroyed result (2/3s as likely).

This is the reality of the Achilles.

so far AP1 guns it's actually less than a 1.4% drop, doesn't that go against your point and for reecius?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
But aside from Tau and sisters the only AP1 guns I can think of are melta, which the achilles is significantly stronger against, so the 1/3 bump on the damage chart is the least of everyone's problems.

I think the whole quote makes it clearer:

Amerikon wrote:Against AP - weapons, it is impossible to get a Destroyed result on an Achilles
Against AP 6-2 weapons, it is twice as hard to get a Destroyed result on an Achilles. Another way to put this is that it is half as likely to get a Destroyed result.
Against AP 1 weapons it's a little bit closer. Glancing hits are equal. Against penetrating hits it is 1.5 times as hard to get a Destroyed result (2/3s as likely).

This is the reality of the Achilles.

And from what I can tell, this doesn't even take into account the fact that melta weapons get one less dice for armor penetration, and lance weapons don't get their bonus? Those are huge!

Ninja'ed:

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:But aside from Tau and sisters the only AP1 guns I can think of are melta, which the achilles is significantly stronger against, so the 1/3 bump on the damage chart is the least of everyone's problems.

Exactly! Not to mention taking away the lance bonus.

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:so far AP1 guns it's actually less than a 1.4% drop, doesn't that go against your point and for reecius?

You're misunderstanding me. My point is that Reecius's claim of a 1.4% drop is incorrect. It's actually a 50% drop, which results in a 1.4% chance of scoring a Destroyed result. This point is completely unrelated to the second half of my post which is just me trying to put the differences in realistic terms and get away from confusing things like "1.4% more X".

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:
But aside from Tau and sisters the only AP1 guns I can think of are melta, which the achilles is significantly stronger against, so the 1/3 bump on the damage chart is the least of everyone's problems.

Yeah, If you go back to a post on the second page, it was determined that against a LR a BS4 melta shot has about a 20% chance of getting a Destroyed result, but against an Achilles it drops to about 1.8%.

Amerikon wrote:

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:so far AP1 guns it's actually less than a 1.4% drop, doesn't that go against your point and for reecius?

You're misunderstanding me. My point is that Reecius's claim of a 1.4% drop is incorrect. It's actually a 50% drop, which results in a 1.4% chance of scoring a Destroyed result. This point is completely unrelated to the second half of my post which is just me trying to put the differences in realistic terms and get away from confusing things like "1.4% more X".

But like reecius said that's semantics. You are looking at two sides of the same coin. It is a 50% drop, but 50% of 2.8% is a difference of 1.4 percentage points. It's by proportion a big drop, but in real percentage points it's rather insignificant. I wouldn't worry about a 90% drop in in effectiveness if it was a decrease from .000001% to .0000001%

Amerikon wrote:

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:
But aside from Tau and sisters the only AP1 guns I can think of are melta, which the achilles is significantly stronger against, so the 1/3 bump on the damage chart is the least of everyone's problems.

Yeah, If you go back to a post on the second page, it was determined that against a LR a BS4 melta shot has about a 20% chance of getting a Destroyed result, but against an Achilles it drops to about 1.8%.

Gotcha. That is a huge drop, but I guess my point is the AP1 part of your analysis isn't really that relevant, because most AP1 guns are only going to be able to glance. The 2.8% to 1.4% drop is only for AP6-2 guns that pen.

Darkwynn wrote:I would say let them in with anything that has a 40k Standard logo next to it. Nothing in that book is overpowered by any means. I expect next year a quite a bit of tournaments will allow it in regular play.

Thank you! I think all it will take it exposure to these units to calm some of the biggest detractors.

@Amerikon

I get what you are saying. Everyone does. The point was that you said my math was fail, meaning it was wrong. It wasn't. You were using hyperbole to try and somehow override the facts of the discussion, which annoys me.

We both said THE EXACT SAME THING! Haha, no need to fight about it at all. I just wish you hand't come at me the way you had, trying to undermine my argument with sarcasm and hyperbole when you said the same thing I did. As ArtfcllyFlvrd pointed out, the difference was only in semantics, the facts were identical.

@thread
Par two will be up tomorrow. I will jump to Chaos first and then back to the normal order.

DarthDiggler wrote:

-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.

I forgot about Adrenal Glands because I don't use them on Trygons, but you are right they would make it even easier.

It'd be wonderful to see a more widespread tournament acceptance of FW, it'd certainly help with pickup game acceptance as well. Even with the very small number of units that cause controversy, it's no worse than the stuff that comes out of GW's main studio really given the hilarity we've seen lately, and there's a ton to add to the game.

Besides, I've got a grip of Death Korps of Krieg stuff, Heavy Mortars and Chimera autocannon turrets I'd love to use in more events

I make a big deal about it online, but I probably wouldn't care in real life, most of the time (tournaments are another issue, no invincible tanks in tournaments please). Hell, it'd give me more of a reason to buy FW myself, although all their Dark Eldar offerings suck ass...the tantalus is probably the best unit and it requires taking not only an archon but a court as well apparently, and it costs over 200 points in addition to that...cool model, too expensive, both in game and in terms of cash.

Sidstyler wrote:I make a big deal about it online, but I probably wouldn't care in real life, most of the time (tournaments are another issue, no invincible tanks in tournaments please). Hell, it'd give me more of a reason to buy FW myself, although all their Dark Eldar offerings suck ass...the tantalus is probably the best unit and it requires taking not only an archon but a court as well apparently, and it costs over 200 points in addition to that...cool model, too expensive, both in game and in terms of cash.

It's a heavy support option that MAY be taken as a dedicated transport for your Court of the Archon. You are not required to buy the court.

I was just talking to Patt Higgs about the Chaos Contemptor. It's a lot of points but has some very cool options. I'd be really tempted to try it out if I knew what slot it goes in.

Sasori wrote:

Sidstyler wrote:I make a big deal about it online, but I probably wouldn't care in real life, most of the time (tournaments are another issue, no invincible tanks in tournaments please). Hell, it'd give me more of a reason to buy FW myself, although all their Dark Eldar offerings suck ass...the tantalus is probably the best unit and it requires taking not only an archon but a court as well apparently, and it costs over 200 points in addition to that...cool model, too expensive, both in game and in terms of cash.

It's a heavy support option that MAY be taken as a dedicated transport for your Court of the Archon. You are not required to buy the court.

Well that's even worse, I'd have to replace a ravager.

Mannahnin wrote:I was just talking to Patt Higgs about the Chaos Contemptor. It's a lot of points but has some very cool options. I'd be really tempted to try it out if I knew what slot it goes in.

I'm definitely gonna be trying out the Chaos Contemptor, but the problem for me isn't so much that it costs a lot; it's the fact that compared to the other Contemptprs it's clearly at least 10-15 points over-costed. At least the Multi-melta is a free upgrade.

The 4+ chance to bounce a Glance is pretty cool.

I agree that the multimelta is probably best, though the Butcher Cannon is awfully tempting.

@Sasori and Sidstyler
We think the Tantalus is pretty damn good, actually. Frankie is gong to get one and use it with 15 Wyches and Vect. That sounds pretty mean to me.

@BDJV and Mannahnin
We play tested the Chaos Contemptor with MoN and Butcher Cannon. It is the business! Expensive yes, but man is it cool.

The other cool unit is the dreadclaw. That really adds a lot to a Chaos force.

Reecius wrote:
@BDJV and Mannahnin
We play tested the Chaos Contemptor with MoN and Butcher Cannon. It is the business! Expensive yes, but man is it cool.

The other cool unit is the dreadclaw. That really adds a lot to a Chaos force.

As you know, Khorne is the only thing I care about.

And man, a dreadclaw would be sweet. Unfortunately, the FW model is expensive, and GW will probably release a sweet plastic one that will put any type of counts as or conversion to shame....

I can see both sides of the argument having some strong points but I thought I'd throw in what I think about the whole IA stuff.

First of all, IA stuff are not "normal" 40k and are not normal codex units so one can reasonably expect to never see them. By allowing them, that forces an opponent to prepare for them or be potentially hosed and I guess the question then is can players successfully adapt their army lists to deal with these threats without negatively affecting their overall army list effectiveness and tournament performance?

So lets take the Achilles:

Dark Eldar players can cry all day (but I have no pity on them). They have wyches with haywire grenades (wych, I mean which I can't imagine them not taking at least one or two units of). Even just a 5 man in a venom is a good enough investment-they make great units for tying up stupid psi-riflemen dreads too.

IG have manticores and Lascannons are not too bad either so they are ok.

Tau, well if anyone takes tau, Railguns are great and I can't imagine the tank lasting too long from a few Broadside volleys.

ORKS have it not too bad with deff rollas and s10 claws from Ghaz (if you don't use Ghaz you are doing it wrong). Dreads with s10 can do a number too. but are otherwise hurtin' for a way to deal with the tank and the thunderfire will lay down some pain.

Space Marines, well, I think they are at a loss in dealing with this tank since melta weapons are not really any more effective than missile launchers (simply because a ML has such a longer range and so on). There are always s10 dread CC attacks. There really isn't much one can do except just play to the mission and ignore the tank which would be the tactical thing to do. The tank won't really do that much against SM so I'd personally just focus on the objectives and call it a win?

Tyranids are actually kind of at a loss. Sure they have Zoanthropes, Carnifexes and Rupture cannons but those all suck. Seriously, a Zoanthrope needs to roll to pass a test, HOPE nobody stops the power with a hood, roll to hit, roll to pen then roll a good result. Just too many hurtles to jump over and its far from reliable for the points you pay. Carnifex units are so overpriced and undereffective and will throw off your armies overall effectiveness IMO, especially if you want to do any kind of a fluffy list. Tyranofexes...please don't go there as those are not really that good for anti tank and cost way too much. Tyranids don't really have anything that will be too reasonably effective except for Trygons (which are ok) and the cannon really hurts but once again, just play the mission, get the objectives and win that way, you don't HAVE to kill the Achilles to win.

Eldar are OK since melta bombs, wychblades, S10 Wraithlords and D-Weapons are going to do ok. HECK, just trap the tank in place with skimmers lol...

Necrons are ok with Scarab farms and you can glance it to kingdom come or just ignore the darn thing and again play the objectives.

I guess the difficulty comes in actually being able to penetrate the darn thing and or get meaningful damage results.

I mean really, if I happen to face an army or unit I can't deal with, I try to ignore it as much as possible and play to the mission. But I definitely can see why some people will have a really hard time with certain units and not want to have to face them. Destroying the Achilles is not a mission objective so, I wouldn't worry too much about it =).

I'm still reading the new article, but I just finished the Hell Blade section and I want to clarify something: Daemonic Possession-as listed in Codex: CSM-drops the Ballistic Skill of a model it's bought for to 3, -not- -1 Ballistic Skill no matter what-which means that a Hell Blade with Daemonic Possession would clock in at 150 points and still be BS3, not BS2.

EDIT: Now that I've read it all... I think you were a lot more spot-on with how much the Chaos stuff rocks face/sucks in comparison to the Loylist article; that's simply my opinion on the matter.

One thing I'd like to say about the Hell Blade is that-though pricey-they're decent anti-light armor (Rhinos hate them) and anti-MEQ due to the rate of fire (it would be even better if they could squadron up, simply force more dice rolls adn increase the odds of putting wounds on "important" models like missile launchers or hidden Powerfists), and it eats almost anything that has less than a 3+ save. Also, the Reapers on the Hell Blades are 48", not 36" like the Terminator variants; this-combined with Aerial Assault-would allow them to dart about the board and skirt the ranges of weapons like Lascannons and still try to get side-armor shots, or opening up on exposed infantry. Combined with a Butcher Cannon-equipped Contemptor, They love crackign open transports, freeing up Obliterators to plasma cannon/gun the occupants to death in the same turn. Granted, Two Hell Blades and the juiced-up Nurgle Contemptor clocks in at 555 poitns, but that still leaves room for what CSM armies tend to need (Dual DPs w/ wings & warptime, 3x3 Oblits (or, in my case, 2x3 oblits and a 4-Missile Launcher Havoc team, trimmed to fit points), 5-man chosen (x4 meltas, x1 champ with claws, rhino w/ combi-flamer), 2x either 5 or 7-man teams of Plague Marines (dual plasma & combi-plasma's how I run them) and a 10-man CSM squad /w Lascannon, Plasma gun, champ, and icon (to keep their asses in place, same as the havocs). It takes some trimming, but I managed to cram all of that into 2500 points (the norm where I play, though obviously the FW options become less appealing in smaller games, when you need to start making room).

EDIT 2:

mortetvie wrote:I can see both sides of the argument having some strong points but I thought I'd throw in what I think about the whole IA stuff.

First of all, IA stuff are not "normal" 40k and are not normal codex units so one can reasonably expect to never see them. By allowing them, that forces an opponent to prepare for them or be potentially hosed and I guess the question then is can players successfully adapt their army lists to deal with these threats without negatively affecting their overall army list effectiveness and tournament performance?

Actually, these ARE "normal" 40k. They've -always- been, it's just on paper now for everyone who's been hard-headed about it for all these years. They're totally legal in Warhammer 40k now as long as they have that Warhammer 40k logo next to them in the book. Unfortunately, I live in Louisiana so tournaments (hell, shops alone) are very few and far-between (no, not everyone who lives in Louisiana is in New Orleans or Baton Rouge. Hell, I don't think they have any LGSes, if they have more then one each then they're not listed on GW's site. Also, no GW stores in the entire state.), but from a RAW standpoint, they should (and likely will) be totally tournament-legal (and in the very near future), and thus the reason for a lot of the Achilles hooplah. Regardless of the semantics, It's an even-harder-to-kill-and-still-killy version of an already-hard-to-kill-and-still-killy tank.

On that note, we've been looking purely at the stats of X gun against the Achilles, when the fact of the matter is that somehting as valuable as the Achilles will -not- go unsupported. And what if there's more than one? In Kill Points, two TL multi-meltas will deal with any transports or dreads that dare get close enough to challenge it, and in non-KP missions it can, with careful positioning, sit on an objective -and- pound the/an enemy objective (dpending on the -type- of objective mission) with nigh impunity. Add in screening units, cover, difficult/dangerous terrian that may or may not be there, and the threat level fo something like the Achilles skyrockets. I feel it would be a unit that would actually benefit from a terrain-heavy board, slowing down any assaulters and-as long as the terrain doesn't block too much LOS-it can pound said assaulters into the dirt while they're trudging through said terrain.

And yeah, people could change their lists for this one tank they MIGHT encounter...and thus harm themselves versus everything else.

As someone who champions FW products/rules in competitive play in the UK through various means i have one question to all the people who are complaining about any of the IA units. Can you please provide any real life evidence that in a tournament environment IA have negatively affected the event or indeed messed with the overall balance of the game? Im not sure how many US events allow FW but in the UK the ones that do generally have a positive feedback from players and organisers about them or at worst they don’t care. I suppose what im asking for is for people to list events they have attended that have allowed IA and give their opinion and how its effected the event.

This isn’t intended to ruffle feathers but im genuinely interested in real life negative experiences with IA in competitive play not just people who’s melta spam armies lost to a LR Achilles at their local game store.

Amerikon wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote:Yeah, so the message of "it is only a 1,4% more resilient" presented in the review can only be seen as....what?...dangerously misleading?...wholly wrong?...an unfortunate case of misunderstood math?

I think it was mostly just misunderstood math. I don't think Reecius is trying to trick people, but his statement greatly understated the actual difference in toughness.

And I agree with you that the lascannon example was pretty weak to begin with. Shooting a lascannon at a Land Raider is pretty foolish unless you have no other targets. For me it's melta or nothing, although I play Sisters so my solution to most problems is "Moar melta!!!"

Just to echo this, though... I understand the lascannon example was someone else's, but it Does sidestep the primary advantages of the Achilles (immunity to melta/lance effect) and imo, the stat was misleading. I read the article, and had no idea how much more resilient it was until seeing the further discussion in this thread...

I don't think it's being unreasonable to point out that the math was misleading. Terms like "fail" will of course ruffle feathers...

However, I also think it's entirely reasonable for people to question the viability of including this tank in tournaments without Having to have faced it. Or rather, without immediately accepting "We've played against it / tournaments have allowed FW with no problems." It's a valid concern and, other than general anecdotal evidence, the math is the best way of looking at what kind of impact it will have.

If anything, real game circumstances will play to the strength of the achilles even more- i.e., if it has a troop squad inside and can claim an objective, the fact that it ignores dangerous terrain, etc.

Not wanting to stir things up, but I want more than "We've played against it, it's not broken", or "Events have allowed FW without problems" when I'm considering if this is something I want to face or not. And right now, I have that option... I can choose not to allow it.

For me, I feel that there's a possibility of ever-increasing "hard" lists based around the 2% of FW units that are undercosted/overpowered. Imagine if BA could still take the dreadpod? It's such a no-brainer it's silly... and as I'm putting together a dreadnought drop pod BA list, it actually would Bother me if we could take it. Because then everyone would, and my own army becomes ho-hum. I'd rather not risk tilting tournaments into an environment where the few over-powered FW units are everywhere. It'd be like it is now with codexes, but another step up... I understand that people DO want to allow it, and perhaps some for just the coolness. But many of the people I see in favor of it are regular tournament goers who take the hardest list they can. There's nothing wrong with that... but as a semi-regular tournament goer who plays themed lists, I'd rather not face a list composed around an insane FW item if I don't have to.

It feels different to me for something like the Adepticon team tournament, where there will be a spread of hardcore and more "for fun" players, which I'll be doing for the first time this year . And I'm sure every tournament has that to a degree. But I have a feeling that if FW is allowed in "regular" tournaments, it will shift things signifcantly towards a very small percentage of FW units being used... and that's something I'd rather not see.

Just my opinion, and I understand that others really want these allowed... I just don't see the fun in it when I expect that tournies would only see a very small percentage of FW choices represented. I.e., what does that really add that makes it so worth including? I'd love someone to explain that to me... rather than implying "if you haven't faced it, you can't comment". Most people haven't faced it because it's not usually allowed. So they have concerns about facing it... and that's completely legitimate, imo, and shouldn't be written off. Let's say someone fields 2 of these things? Now the deathstar build would have gotten even more insane... doesn't sound very fun to me.

Now with ALL of that said, I'd actually be tempted to get one if they werre allowed as it's a pretty sweet model! But I probably wouldn't, as I like to avoid the "auto-include" units... and whether it's fair or not, this tank seems to be getting that label, and there's at least some reason for it.

The Achilles has the same rules as the old living metal on the monolith. Nobody was complaining about it being too hard to kill. Mine got blown up every other game.

That's also about the only thing the old 'crons had going for them... if you could have suddenly added an AV14 "living metal" tank into any marine army, I bet it would have raised a few more eyebrows.

Hence the discussion about the Achilles, I think (or at least, my concern with it... and more broadly, including FW in standard events in general).

I should note that I am open to changing my mind, in fact I haven't even really made it up yet (and don't have the experience with 40k to do so, just getting back into it after playing fantasy for a few years). But I haven't seen an argument that would make me want to face the Achilles or an answer to what this really adds to the overall flavor of tournaments, when it is likely that only a small percentage of the available FW options will be taken... not adding variety so much as simply a few more overpowered or undercosted units to deal with.

Or is that wrong, and I'm missing something here? Like I said, I'm open to discussing it, but what I've seen so far has not convinced me of the merits of including FW in standard events. The argument of "Recent codexes have overpowered units, why worry about FW's?" doesn't sway me... as one being true (and not optional to face) does not justify including the other (which is currently optional).

RiTides wrote:

Amerikon wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote:Yeah, so the message of "it is only a 1,4% more resilient" presented in the review can only be seen as....what?...dangerously misleading?...wholly wrong?...an unfortunate case of misunderstood math?

I think it was mostly just misunderstood math. I don't think Reecius is trying to trick people, but his statement greatly understated the actual difference in toughness.

And I agree with you that the lascannon example was pretty weak to begin with. Shooting a lascannon at a Land Raider is pretty foolish unless you have no other targets. For me it's melta or nothing, although I play Sisters so my solution to most problems is "Moar melta!!!"

Just to echo this, though... I understand the lascannon example was someone else's, but it Does sidestep the primary advantages of the Achilles (immunity to melta/lance effect) and imo, the stat was misleading. I read the article, and had no idea how much more resilient it was until seeing the further discussion in this thread...

I don't think it's being unreasonable to point out that the math was misleading. Terms like "fail" will of course ruffle feathers...

However, I also think it's entirely reasonable for people to question the viability of including this tank in tournaments without Having to have faced it. Or rather, without immediately accepting "We've played against it / tournaments have allowed FW with no problems." It's a valid concern and, other than general anecdotal evidence, the math is the best way of looking at what kind of impact it will have.

If anything, real game circumstances will play to the strength of the achilles even more- i.e., if it has a troop squad inside and can claim an objective, the fact that it ignores dangerous terrain, etc.

Not wanting to stir things up, but I want more than "We've played against it, it's not broken", or "Events have allowed FW without problems" when I'm considering if this is something I want to face or not. And right now, I have that option... I can choose not to allow it.

For me, I feel that there's a possibility of ever-increasing "hard" lists based around the 2% of FW units that are undercosted/overpowered. Imagine if BA could still take the dreadpod? It's such a no-brainer it's silly... and as I'm putting together a dreadnought drop pod BA list, it actually would Bother me if we could take it. Because then everyone would, and my own army becomes ho-hum. I'd rather not risk tilting tournaments into an environment where the few over-powered FW units are everywhere. It'd be like it is now with codexes, but another step up... I understand that people DO want to allow it, and perhaps some for just the coolness. But many of the people I see in favor of it are regular tournament goers who take the hardest list they can. There's nothing wrong with that... but as a semi-regular tournament goer who plays themed lists, I'd rather not face a list composed around an insane FW item if I don't have to.

It feels different to me for something like the Adepticon team tournament, where there will be a spread of hardcore and more "for fun" players, which I'll be doing for the first time this year . And I'm sure every tournament has that to a degree. But I have a feeling that if FW is allowed in "regular" tournaments, it will shift things signifcantly towards a very small percentage of FW units being used... and that's something I'd rather not see.

Just my opinion, and I understand that others really want these allowed... I just don't see the fun in it when I expect that tournies would only see a very small percentage of FW choices represented. I.e., what does that really add that makes it so worth including? I'd love someone to explain that to me... rather than implying "if you haven't faced it, you can't comment". Most people haven't faced it because it's not usually allowed. So they have concerns about facing it... and that's completely legitimate, imo, and shouldn't be written off. Let's say someone fields 2 of these things? Now the deathstar build would have gotten even more insane... doesn't sound very fun to me.

Now with ALL of that said, I'd actually be tempted to get one if they werre allowed as it's a pretty sweet model! But I probably wouldn't, as I like to avoid the "auto-include" units... and whether it's fair or not, this tank seems to be getting that label, and there's at least some reason for it.

RiTides,

I have looked over the book myself as I ordered it along with a couple of our own guys in the area. Looking over the units and stats it has given options to weaker codeices to shore up weakness and in my eyes to allow those books to compete. It gives Orks a option to become mechanized and have more str 8 shooting and allow Chaos armies to play like they should have been before with a deep strike option and a dreadnought that isn't going to shoot your army. What I am getting it is it opens players to playing their armies in a different way that a lot of people should have been able to play in the first hand.

As for balance, I do find it odd that Forgeworld introduced this book but it looks like to be a book to balance all of the armies out there at once from a game design point of view. Which is radical but also great at the same time. That being sad coming from a tournament stand point, I think they have done a great job and people should use them. Nothing in that book will shift armies radical to your dreadpod for example. There are too many design limitation built into the book to go that route were it would be ineffective. That being said your still going to see a lot of the top players and top armies use models that are not from Forgeworld. It would allow a lot of the middle players and people who like to have fun try their new toys.

Everything in that FOrgeworld book would have a counter also. If someone went the route of having all dread pods they would only have three. They would have also had to spend a large amount of points to make that work. When a player reserves first turn and completely negates that tactic, that player has wasted his points and is playing behind the b all because he can't use his army effective at that point.

If you see Forgeowrld it will be one off units that will come with a high premium to the army. Only ones who actually get a benefit out of it would be Black Templar. Mainly because Their Blessed Hull Land raider isn't to far from the cost of a Achilies and they would welcome a need of a mortis dread. That being said they are going to get redone here in about three months so that is kind of moot when a whole new book is coming and will change their dynamic.

As for people being worried about the Achilles, I wouldn't worry about it at all. You worry about a land raider because what it can deliver to your lines as a threat. With no assault ramp and low troop carrying capacity it would either sit in the middle of the table or hold a objective. You have the ability to focus on other parts of the army you need to take out and win the game that way. if you have some spare shots at str 9 take it at the Achillies, otherwise ignore it, its not that big of a threat without a strong paylod. A good player could still hide a 5 man squad in the back field to hold a objective and not let them get shot. he doesn't need a Land Raider to cover them up.

Also the Achillies is resilient but it won't be that tough to kill.

9 Las Cannon shots vs the Achillies at BS 3 is your chances below. Drop into a P curve it you can get it first try but the Standard deviation isn't bad because at the end of the day we are still rolling dice and absolute values will have to come threw.

Armor
Value Glancing Penetrating Some type of Damage Stun/Shake Weapon Destroyed Immobile Destroyed
AV14 8.3% 8.3% 80.6% 65.4% 11.8% 22.4% 11.8%



Against a normal Land raider is still the same chance for you to land on a immobile result All this really does is shift the results down one and allow more stun and shake results happen.
Armor
Value Glancing Penetrating Some type of Damage Stun or shake Weapon Destroyed Immobile Destroyed
AV14 8.3% 8.3% 80.6% 40.2 % 22.4% 22.4% 22.4%


Here it is calculated by one shot
shooting against Achilles.
Value| |Glancing| |Penetrating| |Some type of Damage| |Stun or shake | |Weapon Destroyed| |Immobile | |Destroyed |
AV14 |8.3% |8.3% | 16.7% | 11.1% | 2.8 | 1.4% | 1.4%

Vs Normal Land raider

AV 14 |8.3% |8.3% |16.7% |6.9% |2.8% | 2.8% | 2.8%

MajorTom11 wrote:Thanks for ignoring the rest of my post in it's entirety where I essentially conceded those very points by way of explanation. By all means, keep being upset and pissy though, you seem very offended about it and I will not make the mistake of trying to mollify your toy-soldier hang-ups again. I apologize for voicing a differing perspective than your own.

Let's all move on now shall we?

Bravo, the most civil and adult thing I think I have heard on dakkadakka.

@Darkwynn
I 100% agree. The first thing we all said when we opened the book was wow, this makes so many armies better than they were. We felt it IMPROVED game balance, not broke it at all.

As you said, and we have said as well, the top lists will look the same because there are things in the existing books that are better for the top tier armies than what they can get here.

@Whitedragon
Haha, I know it, brohym! I have an all Khorne FW army, too. and I am so juiced for the new rumors! I hope we get a Khorne army that isn't overpriced and underpowered.

@RiTides
The math I presented may have appeared misleading to some, and if so, I apologize as that was not my intent. I was merely countering someone else's example.

I didn't want to cover my post with math, as that tends to turn people off. Getting into the stats typically goes over people's head, too. I was just trying to show that while it is tougher than a normal Land Raider, it isn't invincible as many people try to make it sound.

And, as I tried to say over and over, you don't have to kill the dumb thing. Just as Necronboy pointed out, the old Monoliths were nearly as hard to kill. What did everyone advise you to do? Ignore them. Same thing applies here. Play to the mission. That is the path to victory. Ignore the dumb Achilles as much as you can.

@Kepora
Thanks for pointing out that error! I fixed it.

I think the Hell Blade is a rad unit, but for the points I just don't think it's that hot. If it has another weapon system I could get into it, suck as a Las Cannon or such, but for the points, AV10 on a Flyering Stand? I just don't see it lasting long or killing much. I'd love to be wrong though, as it is an awesome model.

@Boomstick
I have played in MANY tournaments with FW units (and in most leagues I have been in, we have allowed FW) and I can honestly and truly say that they were not, at all, game breaking in any of my experiences.

Even the Hades Breaching Drill, which is criminally under-priced, isn't game breaking. At Adepticon we played against multiple opponents with multiple Breaching Drills and we beat them every time with our "Fluff" lists.

The Lucius Drop Pod is no big deal, in fact, I have played against three of them at once, as well as in singles and NEVER did it change the game. If you know they're coming, pan for it. Simple, IMO.

But anyway, time will tell. I think these will become mainstream, but we'll see. I feel that it is good for the game to mix things up.

@Mortetvie
You make good points. There is a valid argument on both sides of the aisle, but I honestly believe including these units in the game will make it better, not worse.

Darkwynn wrote:I have looked over the book myself as I ordered it along with a couple of our own guys in the area. Looking over the units and stats it has given options to weaker codeices to shore up weakness and in my eyes to allow those books to compete. It gives Orks a option to become mechanized and have more str 8 shooting and allow Chaos armies to play like they should have been before with a deep strike option and a dreadnought that isn't going to shoot your army. What I am getting it is it opens players to playing their armies in a different way that a lot of people should have been able to play in the first hand.

As for balance, I do find it odd that Forgeworld introduced this book but it looks like to be a book to balance all of the armies out there at once from a game design point of view. Which is radical but also great at the same time. That being sad coming from a tournament stand point, I think they have done a great job and people should use them. Nothing in that book will shift armies radical to your dreadpod for example. There are too many design limitation built into the book to go that route were it would be ineffective. That being said your still going to see a lot of the top players and top armies use models that are not from Forgeworld. It would allow a lot of the middle players and people who like to have fun try their new toys.

Nice points! You guys make the book sound quite comprehensive... tempting to get it now.

@Reecius- Thanks for the reply, and it makes more sense with that being a counter to someone else's point. Also, I probably should have prefaced it all with a big Thank You for putting the article together . It's nice to be discussing these things from a competitive point of view!

Necronboy wrote:The Achilles has the same rules as the old living metal on the monolith. Nobody was complaining about it being too hard to kill. Mine got blown up every other game.

The difference is that the monolith didn't have the -1 to damage results ability (That makes it twice as hard to destroy as an old monolith)and the army was built very much around the fact that it was the only vehicle in the army and that it was hard to kill. Also, yes, during 3E and 4E the Monolith was incessantly complained about.

Darkwynn wrote:As for people being worried about the Achilles, I wouldn't worry about it at all. You worry about a land raider because what it can deliver to your lines as a threat. With no assault ramp and low troop carrying capacity it would either sit in the middle of the table or hold a objective.

That's sorta the issue. It can sit in the middle of the table on top of an objective with a scoring unit inside and two TL'd multi meltas with a TFC and sporting PotMS and simply laugh at most enemy attacks. For armies that don't know it's coming and can't bring the "niche" AT weapons that normally don't have a place in an all comers army to deal with it, it can effectively dominate a game by itself.

Reecius wrote:
@Kepora
Thanks for pointing out that error! I fixed it.

I think the Hell Blade is a rad unit, but for the points I just don't think it's that hot. If it has another weapon system I could get into it, suck as a Las Cannon or such, but for the points, AV10 on a Flyering Stand? I just don't see it lasting long or killing much. I'd love to be wrong though, as it is an awesome model.

No problem! And amen on the weapon loadouts; been runnign ideas in my mind about a possible twin Hurrican Bolter variant, the Hell Scythe...and Lascannons, plasma cannons, or even multi-meltas would be neat. The best use I've found for them it to hold them in reserve, swoop in and open up on the first available target, be it light armor or infantry. Maybe try to cause a few wounds on MCs because of the S7 shots?