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.

 Daba wrote:
Peregrine, I'm talking about the really new FW IAA book. They put some previews up and the Wraithseer was really lazily updated (they even misprinted it) and has set powers. The Warp Hunter gun I'm talking about is not the old version which I do understand was just old and un-updated. The new one in IAA is completely mangled and makes no sense as a distort weapon; worse than if they kept it as is (though the old one was OP).

I'm not going to make any judgements based on blurry pictures that may or may not even be edited to avoid giving away free copies of the rules. But even if the Warp Hunter isn't really the same as other distort weapons who cares? Giving different stats for a weapon is hardly "breaking the design rules" in any meaningful way, it's just making a vehicle less effective than you might want it to be. That's not even close to being in the same category as pre-nerf dread pods, which did legitimately break a design rule of 6th until they got different rules.

As for the Wraithseer, having fixed psychic powers breaks a design rule, but do you really want to have a unit with its own special random table? When you answer this keep in mind that the Wraithseer should probably keep the ability to take more than one power no matter what you do with random vs. fixed, and the difference between having three fixed powers and picking from a random table of two powers and a primaris power is pretty neglibile (and of course if you want to give it the ability to take three powers it's nonexistent).

The Avatars melta and flame immunity is a different thing due to being an MC and also has a legacy reason for it. The FW ones have no excuse, and is on a vehicle which is different.

How exactly is it different? So far in 6th edition we have codex vehicles with melta immunity and a codex MC with even better melta immunity. So it's hardly "breaking the design rules" for FW to have vehicles with melta immunity, especially when most of them are flyers like the melta-immune codex flyer.

But the smaller Storm one (I forget the name, the little stubby one) that was written for 6th has that same rule, and it was written with 6th well in mind as opposed to the stormraven when it first dropped with BA. So I very much doubt that it'd be dropped, if the smaller version of it that was written with 6th in mind was given it.

And are they actually updating Doom already? I thought they would go through the IA books from oldest to newest, that is really surprising.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Daba wrote:
Peregrine, I'm talking about the really new FW IAA book. They put some previews up and the Wraithseer was really lazily updated (they even misprinted it) and has set powers. The Warp Hunter gun I'm talking about is not the old version which I do understand was just old and un-updated. The new one in IAA is completely mangled and makes no sense as a distort weapon; worse than if they kept it as is (though the old one was OP).

I'm not going to make any judgements based on blurry pictures that may or may not even be edited to avoid giving away free copies of the rules. But even if the Warp Hunter isn't really the same as other distort weapons who cares? Giving different stats for a weapon is hardly "breaking the design rules" in any meaningful way, it's just making a vehicle less effective than you might want it to be. That's not even close to being in the same category as pre-nerf dread pods, which did legitimately break a design rule of 6th until they got different rules.

As for the Wraithseer, having fixed psychic powers breaks a design rule, but do you really want to have a unit with its own special random table? When you answer this keep in mind that the Wraithseer should probably keep the ability to take more than one power no matter what you do with random vs. fixed, and the difference between having three fixed powers and picking from a random table of two powers and a primaris power is pretty neglibile (and of course if you want to give it the ability to take three powers it's nonexistent).

I told you, it's not about power level but verisimilitude. The Warp Hunter cannon breaks that a bit too much. From what I read of it, the weapon is really effective (apparently it has better expected outcome against AV14 than the old version or even the S10 large blast version) and powerful, but just not what the weapon type should behave like. If they wanted a weapon to behave like that, they should have made a new tank. Arguably, the versimillitude is the most important thing in 40k. This one isn't breaking design rules but is going against precedent for a weapon type; it's on the level of a Demolisher cannon behaving like a higher rate of fire Heavy Bolter.

Rather than it's own random table, maybe it should be rolling off the existing ones? I mean some of the powers are almost the same as existing table powers. It's just really unoptimised to me, and for a centrepiece model, a really 'stuck in 5th' sort of thing.

How exactly is it different? So far in 6th edition we have codex vehicles with melta immunity and a codex MC with even better melta immunity. So it's hardly "breaking the design rules" for FW to have vehicles with melta immunity, especially when most of them are flyers like the melta-immune codex flyer.

It's a background thing (which goes way deeper than 'excuse armour' the Stormraven or FW vehicles get; it's ingrained into setting quite deeply), and being in Melta / Flamer range of the Avatar is bad (because you're in charge range), while on a vehicle it's good (because vehicles are vulnerable in close combat). You go around countering those unit types in completely different ways. The other matter is what other weapons it can be wounded/damaged by. The Avatar takes wounds from small arms, while AV14 vehicles are only taken out by S8 or above, unless they have special properties (which are specifically designed for it), however the immunity takes away from these specific properties. The Avatar's immunity is a bit silly, but in the larger game is much less of a problem thanks to it not countering one of the few actual specific counters to its unit type.

Also, the Death from the Skies seems like a 'light patch'. It didn't change the Vendetta points cost, and no one really admits that that cost is appropriate, so it looks like they're waiting for another codex release to change it. And even then, Ceramite Plating isn't so bad on AV11 / 12 vehicles as it is on AV14 ones.

 Daba wrote:
I told you, it's not about power level but verisimilitude.

So now we're banning units because we don't like the fluff? Game balance wise it looks fine, and it doesn't break any fundamental design rules. It's like arguing that the new BT codex needs to be banned because there's a unit with AP 4 bolters.

Rather than it's own random table, maybe it should be rolling off the existing ones? I mean some of the powers are almost the same as existing table powers. It's just really unoptimised to me, and for a centrepiece model, a really 'stuck in 5th' sort of thing.

But the whole point of it is that it isn't a standard HQ, it does its own special thing. You might prefer a farseer in a wraithlord body, but the existing wraithseer isn't a problem.

And so what if it's unoptimized? Are we banning units now because they're too weak?

It's a background thing (which goes way deeper than 'excuse armour' the Stormraven or FW vehicles get; it's ingrained into setting quite deeply), and being in Melta / Flamer range of the Avatar is bad (because you're in charge range), while on a vehicle it's good (because vehicles are vulnerable in close combat). You go around countering those unit types in completely different ways. The other matter is what other weapons it can be wounded/damaged by. The Avatar takes wounds from small arms, while AV14 vehicles are only taken out by S8 or above, unless they have special properties (which are specifically designed for it), however the immunity takes away from these specific properties. The Avatar's immunity is a bit silly, but in the larger game is much less of a problem thanks to it not countering one of the few actual specific counters to its unit type.

But now we're moving away from fundamental design rules and into the fine points of balancing individual units. Your initial argument was that FW breaks fundamental design rules, like giving out melta immunity when it supposedly isn't allowed anymore. But the evidence is indisputable that GW considers "immune to melta" a valid thing for a unit to have in 6th.

Also, the Death from the Skies seems like a 'light patch'. It didn't change the Vendetta points cost, and no one really admits that that cost is appropriate, so it looks like they're waiting for another codex release to change it. And even then, Ceramite Plating isn't so bad on AV11 / 12 vehicles as it is on AV14 ones.

This is all your personal speculation. There's no reason at all to believe that GW is going to remove melta immunity from the Stormraven, and it's ridiculous to argue that FW units need to be banned for breaking design rules on the assumption that it will happen.

 NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
Well I could cherry pick parts of quotes and change from past to present in mid sentence but I.m going to keep it simple, and honest....

I run an Elysian Drop Troops Army list. Its 40K Approved.

It has NO disclaimer or statement from an Apocalypse book 3 editions back pertaining to Titans and Super Heavy Vehicles about being fun and might not be fair.....You might as well apply that kind of foolishness by saying the current Necron Codex has the same relationship to another out of date book for a different game. It would be just as foolish and misleading.

My Elysian Drop Troops Army list rules are the 6th Edition Basic Rule Book, the current Imperial Guard Codex and the Taros Companion rules for Elysian Drop Troops in the IA Vol 3 Second edition printed in this year. There is no confusion over it, no mystery to which book. The newest rules for something always overrides the older, just like I quit using my old IG Codex when the newest came out.

The main difference between My Elysian list and the newest Tau stuff is you do not need batteries and an electronic device to read it, both are approved for 40K.

The other difference of course in none of the Tournaments will allow my list in their main events...even with the 40K stamp on it.

It's their events, as I have always said.

I could always run a 9 Vendetta list since the purpose has changed from have a good time to win at all cost at most of the main events for the tournaments. That they would allow...

And here is where the confusion comes in, you Elysian list comes com imperial armor 3, but wait my opponent shows up wi an Elysian list from imperial armor 8. I need to know that this is in 2 books and that 3 second Ed is newer than 8? And is this different from the list found in IA 4 which is seemingly a different veteran Elysian list? This is not confusing at all!

As for later people claiming their first army was FW I would suggest you are the distinct minority and Peregrin I believe you said you played your buddies army for a while before acquiring your own...was this also all FW? What we see as standard is dependent on how we get into the game...and I would suggest that for most people it is through kits found I. Their lgs and not FW.

Breng77 wrote:
And here is where the confusion comes in, you Elysian list comes com imperial armor 3, but wait my opponent shows up wi an Elysian list from imperial armor 8. I need to know that this is in 2 books and that 3 second Ed is newer than 8? And is this different from the list found in IA 4 which is seemingly a different veteran Elysian list? This is not confusing at all!

Yes, if you're afraid of people using obsolete rules then you should do the research and bring a list of where all the rules are to every tournament. Just like you have to bring a copy of every codex FAQ/update if you're afraid of people using obsolete or edited FAQs.

As for later people claiming their first army was FW I would suggest you are the distinct minority

Of course we're in the minority. But the question here is why is it acceptable to tell people they aren't welcome because they didn't pick one of the armies you approve of?

and Peregrin I believe you said you played your buddies army for a while before acquiring your own..

Nope. I played a total of one small intro game with my friend's orks before buying my first Tau models (and my first FW Tau models followed soon after that). By the time I had even enough to play a 1000 point game I already had several FW units.

Unoptimised = not optimised to fit into the current game paradigm, not effectiveness.

Also, GW have confirmed that fluff leads the design process. They have said it's the most important thing, which leads to the models and then the rules come from the models.

There is a world of difference with AV14 being immune to Melta and Lance, and AV12 or below being immune to Lance(!) and Melta, or a monstrous creature that can be wounded by every weapons in the game immune to it.

Ultimately, there are two different concerns:

Tournament play needs the tournament organisers to know the rules and being able to reference them. The way FW rules are arranged are not conducive to this, and add another level of complexity that they simply cannot afford to have, on top of legacy rules that don't fit into the game. Also, because of the relative proliferation, players generally know more of what to expect from GW codices than a list from a FW book (which may or may not be the most up to date version of that).

The other concern is out of tournaments, but playing in the 'setting'; this requires a level of verisimilitude for a 'cinematic' game, where FW's badly designed gamist rules don't fit in.

So if you are on friendly enough terms with the other player, there's nothing stopping you from playing FW or a fan supplement or your own written codex.

If FW get their act together and compile their lists into dedicated books (so you don't have some vague 'Imperial Armour X' where you don't know what armies they contain in), and maybe put all 'codex expansion' units in one book which is kept reasonably up to date, it would be easier for Tournaments to start bringing them in.

 Daba wrote:
Also, GW have confirmed that fluff leads the design process. They have said it's the most important thing, which leads to the models and then the rules come from the models.

Sure, but what does that have to do with tournament balance and whether things need to be banned? The Warp Hunter might not be the most fluffy unit ever (in your subjective opinion), but it doesn't do anything that is outside the normal design rules for what a unit can do. If FW changed the name of the gun from "d-whatever" to "big gun" you'd have nothing to complain about.

There is a world of difference with AV14 being immune to Melta and Lance, and AV12 or below being immune to Lance(!) and Melta, or a monstrous creature that can be wounded by every weapons in the game immune to it.

And now again you're talking about the fine points of balance instead of whether or not the fundamental design rules are obeyed. The simple fact is that the FW melta-immune units don't break any fundamental design rules because GW is quite happy to have melta immunity be part of the game.

Also, we're talking about one unit with immunity to lances. One very expensive Land Raider variant with minimal transport capacity that got a lot less durable now that it can die to HP loss. It's not a cargo loader Sentinel, but I don't see anyone talking about it having a place in competitive lists.

The other concern is out of tournaments, but playing in the 'setting'; this requires a level of verisimilitude for a 'cinematic' game, where FW's badly designed gamist rules don't fit in.

That's your personal opinion. IMO they fit just fine. But that's entirely off-topic for a thread about tournaments.

If FW get their act together and compile their lists into dedicated books (so you don't have some vague 'Imperial Armour X' where you don't know what armies they contain in), and maybe put all 'codex expansion' units in one book which is kept reasonably up to date, it would be easier for Tournaments to start bringing them in.

Do you also want to ban codex supplements from tournaments? Because those suffer from the exact same problem, and GW seems to be in the process of making them a common event.

 Daba wrote:
Unoptimised = not optimised to fit into the current game paradigm, not effectiveness.

Also, GW have confirmed that fluff leads the design process. They have said it's the most important thing, which leads to the models and then the rules come from the models.

There is a world of difference with AV14 being immune to Melta and Lance, and AV12 or below being immune to Lance(!) and Melta, or a monstrous creature that can be wounded by every weapons in the game immune to it.

So tell me fluff wise,why would the once all powerful Imperium put Ceramite Plating on their mid-strength tanks, but not their most highly armoured ones, why not protect them more?

I'm as big a fluff bunny as the next guy, but when you start to get down to writing fluff rules, then you break the game.

Drop Pods.

 Daba wrote:
Drop Pods.

Sorry, I missed that, could you be a little more vague for me?

 Peregrine wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
And here is where the confusion comes in, you Elysian list comes com imperial armor 3, but wait my opponent shows up wi an Elysian list from imperial armor 8. I need to know that this is in 2 books and that 3 second Ed is newer than 8? And is this different from the list found in IA 4 which is seemingly a different veteran Elysian list? This is not confusing at all!

Yes, if you're afraid of people using obsolete rules then you should do the research and bring a list of where all the rules are to every tournament. Just like you have to bring a copy of every codex FAQ/update if you're afraid of people using obsolete or edited FAQs.

As for later people claiming their first army was FW I would suggest you are the distinct minority

Of course we're in the minority. But the question here is why is it acceptable to tell people they aren't welcome because they didn't pick one of the armies you approve of?

and Peregrin I believe you said you played your buddies army for a while before acquiring your own..

Nope. I played a total of one small intro game with my friend's orks before buying my first Tau models (and my first FW Tau models followed soon after that). By the time I had even enough to play a 1000 point game I already had several FW units.

You still miss the point, I don't have to do research for FAQs there is one current FAQ for each book, called surprisingly Codex:_____ FAQ. Where as the IA books are all different numbers etc. So again I need to know what lists are in each book, what models are in each book, which books is the newest book with each model and each list. Whether lists are updates, or different lists with similar names (don't DkoK have 2 or 3 different army lists that are separate not updates.) It is also entirely possible for people who use those armies not to know they got updated, and bring the wrong rules (unless the TOs are going to declare which units and lists from which book are legal.) Also on the FAQ front I can feel comfortable with that because I can also safely assume that most TOs will bring them...I cannot assume the same with IA books, nor would I think I should call a TO to vet the rules in one. Or should I do that for every FW player "Judge....just wanted to make sure this is the newest FW book containing the rules for these units." If you cannot see this as a bigger issue that FAQs I don't know what to tell you. It is one of the reasons when I first thought of FW I believed it should be limited to only specific books (only the newest 2 for each faction, or maybe only books that have been released since 6th, or have a second edition, not sure)

50 pages! Huzzah (or somesuch )

 Peregrine wrote:

Yes, if you're afraid of people using obsolete rules then you should do the research and bring a list of where all the rules are to every tournament. Just like you have to bring a copy of every codex FAQ/update if you're afraid of people using obsolete or edited FAQs.

Sorry but not the same thing. Every 40k player knows that you find the Necron rules in the Necron codex and most every tourney player already knows what the current codex cover looks like. If they're not familiar with the codex cover, they can simply look over to the 40k section in most game stores to double check. Do you find the Krieg rules in the Krieg IA book? It's not the same thing as making sure that the list you're using from IA4 is using the newer rules for one unit/vehicle from IAA2 (1st edition) as well as the new rules for another vehicle in IAA (6th edition)...not to be confused with the IAA1 (second edition) that had the same vehicle with now obsolete rules after only a year and a half... and all that is assuming that they actually *KNOW* where the updated rules are which means they'd have to purchase multiple expensive books to research *YOUR* list. You're comparing apples to basketballs in the codex/FW current rules comparison. The ability to fact check which units/armies in a FW list should be the tourney organizer's responsibility and frankly it's only feasible for the largest national tournies to do so. It might be different if FW actually got off their lazy butts and published their own updated list of where to find everything in its latest format all in one handy file but they don't. The only thing we have is Adepticon lists and those are updated only once a year (assuming they continue to do so) and therefore miss several FW books in between updates.

 Bobthehero wrote:

 davou wrote:

 Bobthehero wrote:
My only army is a Death Korps of Krieg Siege Regiment

by choice, and if there was an issue you could absolutely play it as a core IG army.

Without FW units? No, not at all, unless everything count as everything else.

a guardsman is a guardsman, mask or no. You can (and should) absolutely giv the core IG dex a shot when you feel a little shoehorned into the DKOK lists.

arent most of your tanks counting as anyhow?

Not getting tanks, ever, right the best I could is something like 2 squads of veterans (with 2 plasma, a flamer and a melta), a Comissar Lord, a Valkyrie, a Hellhound and 2 squads of Stormtroopers.

The Earthshakers won't do for a proper Basilisk stand in and the Centaur is too small to proxy for anything.

I'd have a lousy list that would'nt even be close to 1500 pts.

Eldercaveman wrote:

 Daba wrote:
Drop Pods.

Sorry, I missed that, could you be a little more vague for me?

The Ceramite rule has no reason to exist. Fluffwise, it's for surviving atmospheric entry, but the model famous for it, the Drop Pod, lacks any such rule.

With your aforementioned statement about Ceramite Plating on their mid-strength vehicles, it is absurd, but it's not something that makes sense for the mid-strength vehicles either. It messes up the gameplay for high AV vehicles, but it doesn't have a strong enough case, thanks to the existence of drop pods, to exist for mid-vehicles either; it was purely a rule based on gameplay advantage.

I told you, it's not about power level but verisimilitude....

This? Verisimilitude is a philosophical concept that distinguishes between the truth and the falsity of assertions and hypotheses. The problem of verisimilitude is the problem of articulating what it takes for one false theory to be closer to the truth than another false theory.

I am not getting what you are saying if we are using the definition above.

 warboss wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Yes, if you're afraid of people using obsolete rules then you should do the research and bring a list of where all the rules are to every tournament. Just like you have to bring a copy of every codex FAQ/update if you're afraid of people using obsolete or edited FAQs.

Sorry but not the same thing. Every 40k player knows that you find the Necron rules in the Necron codex and most every tourney player already knows what the current codex cover looks like. If they're not familiar with the codex cover, they can simply look over to the 40k section in most game stores to double check.

Where do you find the Sisters of Battle rules?

It might be different if FW actually got off their lazy butts and published their own updated list of where to find everything in its latest format all in one handy file but they don't.

Well, I am not really objective here but I will defend Forgeworld on this point. They are anything but “lazy”, and a lot of the time what AdeptiCon does with Forgeworld would not be possible without the input and cooperation of Forgeworld / Games Workshop / Black Library. It just is not always evident. To do what Forgeworld does with the staff they have I think is pretty remarkable and very much speaks to a veteran audience that remembers the hobby a bit differently.

So when people ask me why support Forgeworld and their work. It really has very little to do with what has been discussed in this thread. The biggest reason is because they still are capable of doing things I love .. Previews of upcoming models, and books. discounts on bundles, experimental rules and listening to the community. All they need to do is bring resin bits to shows !

 NeedleOfInquiry wrote:

I told you, it's not about power level but verisimilitude....

This? Verisimilitude is a philosophical concept that distinguishes between the truth and the falsity of assertions and hypotheses. The problem of verisimilitude is the problem of articulating what it takes for one false theory to be closer to the truth than another false theory.

I am not getting what you are saying if we are using the definition above.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verisimilitude_%28narrative%29

"In a broader sense, verisimilitude refers to the believability of a narrative—the extent to which a narrative appears realistic, likely, or plausible (regardless of whether it is actually fictional or non-fictional)."

muwhe wrote:
So when people ask me why support Forgeworld and their work. It really has very little to do with what has been discussed in this thread. The biggest reason is because they still are capable of doing things I love .. Previews of upcoming models, and books. discounts on bundles, experimental rules and listening to the community. All they need to do is bring resin bits to shows !

I think that's very fair to say... a lot of what FW does is amazing! And has nothing to do with their rules format. The models certainly, are gorgeous.

I've picked up a fair number of chaos dwarfs from them, and the fact that they were able to listen to feedback and put out something that people had wanted for so long is awesome. They even take feedback from the members of chaos dwarfs online for their FAQs and the like. So I am a big fan in that regard

It has been an expensive proposition even for the rules of my chaos dwarfs, though (unrelated to the above). I bought the Tamurkhan book from FW, the new WoC army book just for the hellcannon page, and Storm of Magic for the taurus and lamassu entries. I've also had the Tamurkahn book re-bound with just the rules for the chaos dwarfs in a smaller section I can bring to games / show to opponents easier / etc. And I'm going to remove the few sheets from those other books and have them laminated so that they're easy to reference, too. But in the end, I think it will be worth it to use these gorgeous models which thankfully have a lot of acceptance in the fantasy meta (likely because the rules are all, mostly, in just one book and it is easy to reference... and everyone has been wanting chaos dwarfs for so long!).

 davou wrote:
a guardsman is a guardsman, mask or no.

A guardsman is. All the artillery/flyers/etc are not.

You can (and should) absolutely giv the core IG dex a shot when you feel a little shoehorned into the DKOK lists.

Who said anything about feeling shoehorned? I'm perfectly happy with my rules the way they are, the only reason I'd ever need to use different ones is because someone says I'm not welcome if I don't play my army the way they want me to. And TBH I'd rather sit at home and watch paint dry than attend an event with that kind of house rule.

 Daba wrote:
The Ceramite rule has no reason to exist. Fluffwise, it's for surviving atmospheric entry, but the model famous for it, the Drop Pod, lacks any such rule.

Probably because the drop pod itself has little reason to exist and is just an excuse to make you pay $35 for the privilege of deep striking your marines. It plays no real part in the battle so whether or not it is immune to melta makes no difference.

Also, fluff-wise the drop pod might have the same ceramite plating, but I seriously doubt it has it on the inside once the doors are open.

With your aforementioned statement about Ceramite Plating on their mid-strength vehicles, it is absurd, but it's not something that makes sense for the mid-strength vehicles either. It messes up the gameplay for high AV vehicles, but it doesn't have a strong enough case, thanks to the existence of drop pods, to exist for mid-vehicles either; it was purely a rule based on gameplay advantage.

Sigh. Again, you're talking about the fine points of game balance, not whether or not FW's melta-immune rules break basic rules of game design like you claimed.

 Peregrine wrote:


Probably because the drop pod itself has little reason to exist and is just an excuse to make you pay $35 for the privilege of deep striking your marines. It plays no real part in the battle so whether or not it is immune to melta makes no difference.

lolwut? Aside from safely and accurately deepstriking models, one of the most useful aspects of the Drop Pod is area denial. They're also great for blocking static units' line of sight. When taken in multiples, both of these aspects can be used to great effect.

Torrent of Ire wrote:
lolwut? Aside from safely and accurately deepstriking models, one of the most useful aspects of the Drop Pod is area denial. They're also great for blocking static units' line of sight. When taken in multiples, both of these aspects can be used to great effect.

Yeah, but let's be honest here, do you really think that GW had this in mind instead of just an opportunity to sell another model when they changed drop pods from a standard deep strike to a shiny new model? I doubt they put very much thought into designing the drop pod's rules once it arrives. Just look at the fact that they still haven't bothered to say anything about whether you have to have the doors open or not for LOS purposes for a good example of how lazy they are about it.

But anyway, I've already pointed out that drop pods don't get melta immunity because once they land and open their doors their vulnerable interior is certainly not protected against a melta shot. "Drop pods aren't immune to melta therefore GW doesn't think anything else should be" is a nonsense argument.

That's backwards justification. They didn't think of Ceramite plate until after the Drop pod was created. It is a gamist rule with excuse fluff to justify it.

 Daba wrote:
That's backwards justification. They didn't think of Ceramite plate until after the Drop pod was created. It is a gamist rule with excuse fluff to justify it.

And, again, who cares? Your point was that ceramite plating on FW units breaks the fundamental design rules and does something GW doesn't want in the game. Which is a ridiculous argument when GW has published melta-immune units (including the exact same ceramite plating rule) in 6th edition and shows no sign of changing that trend. You can argue all you want that the Stormraven shouldn't be immune to melta, but that doesn't have anything to do with whether FW and GW are playing by the same rules.

Ceramite plating is fundamentally made much worse in it's effect on the game on AV14 units, something you keep conveniently forgetting.

 Daba wrote:
Ceramite plating is fundamentally made much worse in it's effect on the game on AV14 units, something you keep conveniently forgetting.

Which is completely different than your original claim that FW is playing by different rules and breaking GW's fundamental design rules. We could argue endlessly about whether having a very small number of melta-immune AV 14 units is a good thing but you can not argue that melta immunity is somehow against GW's unwritten design rules.

PS: in DFTS the Storm Talon gained ceramite plating even though the 5th edition version didn't have it.

When did FW create the LR which is the source of all these problems by the way? Before or after the release of the newest Necron codex.

edit: The achilles (is that the right one?) seems to have been released back when GW had AV14 vehicles that ignored melta as well. I'm just helping with context here.