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.

Never mind.

I can't wait for Sigismund to come out.

 Peregrine wrote:

changemod wrote:
Doesn't that kind of entirely take out the few things that can stand a chance at doing some meaningful damage to it?

Yes, and that's the whole point. You're not supposed to be able to kill it easily without superheavies (preferably titans) of your own.

You already couldn't, was the point of my disbelief. This has taken it from "if you cater your entire list to it, you have a slim chance" to "If you cater your entire list to it, it will laugh at you".

but not much point whipping it out against an army of equal points tailored to try to take it down if there's effectively no such thing as an army of equal points tailored to try to take it down.

It costs almost 3000 points. It will never be seen outside of Apocalypse, where there are plenty of D-weapons to deal with it.

Void shields mean only close combat D would stand a serious chance, and it's now basically invisible in assault. The only counter is another Warlord or completely outpointing it with smaller Superheavies, in which case the match goes to the side that goes first.

It's a fancy display piece, but you'd want to whip it out once or twice for the heck of it if you had it... And how is that fun if you don't have any risk?

changemod wrote:
This has taken it from "if you cater your entire list to it, you have a slim chance" to "If you cater your entire list to it, it will laugh at you".

No it hasn't, because "cater your entire list to it" means spamming tons of D-weapons. Four D-weapon Warhounds (approximately equal price) will, on average, kill it in one round of shooting.

Void shields mean only close combat D would stand a serious chance

Only if you're wasting D-weapon shots on void shields. Take some Manticores and remove the void shields before you start shooting D-weapons at it.

 Peregrine wrote:

changemod wrote:
This has taken it from "if you cater your entire list to it, you have a slim chance" to "If you cater your entire list to it, it will laugh at you".

No it hasn't, because "cater your entire list to it" means spamming tons of D-weapons. Four D-weapon Warhounds (approximately equal price) will, on average, kill it in one round of shooting.

Void shields mean only close combat D would stand a serious chance

Only if you're wasting D-weapon shots on void shields. Take some Manticores and remove the void shields before you start shooting D-weapons at it.

The only issue with it is if your playing HH and "that guy" wants to play the single titan useing the leviathan FOC. Because then it's a normal 3000 point army vs. the single War Lord.


Witch of course the answer is "don't play that guy" since it's not like their is 30k tournaments were you might be forced to play ageist it just because it's "legal". It's the reason in general i don't like alot of these huge epic units coming into 30/40k rules. The power balance just goes out of whack.

 Lockark wrote:
The only issue with it is if your playing HH and "that guy" wants to play the single titan useing the leviathan FOC.

Which specifically requires permission from your opponent to do, beyond the normal agreement between players required for any non-tournament game. FW even mentions the example of "a company of space marines vs. a titan", but presents it as a "let's screw around one day and try this" special event, not something you should consider your primary army. So it TFG wants to bring their Warlord every game all you have to do is say "no thanks" when they ask for permission to use the leviathan FOC.

And of course you have to play a game with a high enough point limit for the Warlord to fit at all. Stick to 2500 point games and the Warlord is not an issue.

I'm seriously pumped for that Chaos knight. I like the look, and I'm glad I don't have to do all the converting on my own like I was tempted to do. I cringe to think about what the price will be though.

Don't agree with the rules for it being immune to haywire, or being hard to hit for monstrous and gargantuan creatures, particularly gargantuan creatures. The background repeatedly states how for example Tyranids tear apart Titans either through numbers or through their specialized creatures specifically designed for tearing apart vehicles and fortifications.

Most haywire weapons would at best be knocking off a mere 1 HP at best, so it would still take numerous hits to accomplish anything.

Plus I find the idea of a character doing like Luke Skywalker in the Empire Strikes Back and landing a hit against a preoccupied Warlord appealing. I don't find the height of the Warlord much of a rationale considering we have people with jet packs, or superhuman agility. I could totally see a Solitaire parkouring up the leg of a Warlord to plant a haywire against a vulnerable piece of machinery for example.

The big problem I find is a Warlord (or any other superheavy or Titan) shouldn't be just an immovable and invulnerable block of HP all the way down to the last HP before suddenly blasting apart in a giant fireball. In the old Epic 2nd edition, Warlords were powerful but if someone tried to act like they were invincible and just marched them in front of massed enemy heavy weapons, the massed fire would ablate their shields and destroy them.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Lockark wrote:
The only issue with it is if your playing HH and "that guy" wants to play the single titan useing the leviathan FOC.

Which specifically requires permission from your opponent to do, beyond the normal agreement between players required for any non-tournament game. FW even mentions the example of "a company of space marines vs. a titan", but presents it as a "let's screw around one day and try this" special event, not something you should consider your primary army. So it TFG wants to bring their Warlord every game all you have to do is say "no thanks" when they ask for permission to use the leviathan FOC.

And of course you have to play a game with a high enough point limit for the Warlord to fit at all. Stick to 2500 point games and the Warlord is not an issue.

Witch of course the answer is "don't play that guy" since it's not like their is 30k tournaments were you might be forced to play ageist it just because it's "legal".

Part of the issue is that Superheavies ignore the vehicle damage table entirely, when really if anything they should be more prone to losing specific subsystems with minimal loss to the totality than a smaller vehicle.

Something with an entire 30 hull points should be racking up penalties like crazy by the time it has one hull point left, not stamping happily around one Melta's difference between mildly scuffed paintwork and catastrophic detonation.

 Lockark wrote:
Witch of course the answer is "don't play that guy" since it's not like their is 30k tournaments were you might be forced to play ageist it just because it's "legal".

Are 30k tournaments often over 2500pts? That seems really high!

changemod wrote:
Something with an entire 30 hull points should be racking up penalties like crazy by the time it has one hull point left, not stamping happily around one Melta's difference between mildly scuffed paintwork and catastrophic detonation.

It should fluff-wise, but in the only games where you'll be able to use a Warlord the bookkeeping of all of those damage results isn't worth it. There's a reason why the Apocalypse book even suggests ignoring the damage table for regular vehicles.

changemod wrote:
Part of the issue is that Superheavies ignore the vehicle damage table entirely, when really if anything they should be more prone to losing specific subsystems with minimal loss to the totality than a smaller vehicle.

Something with an entire 30 hull points should be racking up penalties like crazy by the time it has one hull point left, not stamping happily around one Melta's difference between mildly scuffed paintwork and catastrophic detonation.

That's exactly the same point I stated in my post. In the old Epic, there were damage tables for different body parts, so it was possible to disable weapons, immobilize the Titan and so on. Right now, the rules are ironically reversed with small vehicles having more bookkeeping involved, while superheavy vehicles and Titans are just one big blank block of HP. In most game systems, it is the larger showpiece models that have the most bookkeeping and details.

The lack of detail also means there is little to differentiate D weapons beyond range, number of shots, and blast size. This leads to the strange situation where a turbo-laser is more destructive and dangerous than a Warlord's arm mounted Volcano Cannon or Quake Cannon, despite the background showing these to be the primary weapons while the turbo-lasers are meant to be the secondaries. Again in the old 2nd edition Epic, there were weapons that had many shots while others had fewer shots but had bonuses to the damage table. So the Volcano Cannon might have had only one shot but it would likely destroy whatever hit location it did hit.

 Lockark wrote:
Witch of course the answer is "don't play that guy" since it's not like their is 30k tournaments were you might be forced to play ageist it just because it's "legal".

But you can play them, you just don't give them special permission to use the leviathan FOC instead of a normal detachment. The leviathan FOC is like that bit in the 7th edition rulebook about point limits being optional, technically it exists but you have no obligation to pay any attention to it unless you want to play a specific scenario where it is appropriate.

Also, even in a 30k tournament the leviathan FOC wouldn't be legal unless the TO specifically added that option to the tournament rules. The default in 30k games is "no leviathan FOC allowed", if you show up to a "standard 30k" tournament with an army that uses it you're not going to be allowed to play.

 gorgon wrote:
In case it hasn't been posted already, here's a better pic of Guilliman. And it looks much better (IMO), as I predicted.

From B&C:

Spoiler:

No, I don't think that was but only the painted grainy pic of a photo BOW image. He does look quite nice there.

Iracundus wrote:
Right now, the rules are ironically reversed with small vehicles having more bookkeeping involved, while superheavy vehicles and Titans are just one big blank block of HP.

Not in Apocalypse, which is the only place you'll ever see a Warlord titan. The strongly suggested house rule is that you ignore the damage table for everything, not just superheavies, and only track HP.

 Haighus wrote:

 Lockark wrote:
Witch of course the answer is "don't play that guy" since it's not like their is 30k tournaments were you might be forced to play ageist it just because it's "legal".

Are 30k tournaments often over 2500pts? That seems really high!

I think his point was that 30K is even less about tournament play than 40K is these days. But regarding points, 2500 pts in 30K is probably closer to 2000 pts in 40K in terms of the amount of stuff on the table.

 Peregrine wrote:

Iracundus wrote:
Right now, the rules are ironically reversed with small vehicles having more bookkeeping involved, while superheavy vehicles and Titans are just one big blank block of HP.

Not in Apocalypse, which is the only place you'll ever see a Warlord titan. The strongly suggested house rule is that you ignore the damage table for everything, not just superheavies, and only track HP.

To be fair, that's largely a suggestion for simple record keeping's sake, and not a hard rule. Iracundus makes a solid point in that Superheavies in general, Warlord or not, tend to very awkwardly be less detailed than their smaller and more numerous (and ideally more abstracted) "normal" vehicle kindred.

That said, I'm ok with vehicles getting some love, MC's & GC's certainly don't have to worry about performance degradation with hits, losing weapons, becoming immobilized, etc. I don't really have a problem with the Warlord in and of itself (I think it could be more points, but in games where it's being used this is likely a secondary concern due to the nature of Apocalypse style gaming).

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Iracundus wrote:
Right now, the rules are ironically reversed with small vehicles having more bookkeeping involved, while superheavy vehicles and Titans are just one big blank block of HP.

Not in Apocalypse, which is the only place you'll ever see a Warlord titan. The strongly suggested house rule is that you ignore the damage table for everything, not just superheavies, and only track HP.

To be fair, that's largely a suggestion for simple record keeping's sake, and not a hard rule. Iracundus makes a solid point in that Superheavies in general, Warlord or not, tend to very awkwardly be less detailed than their smaller and more numerous (and ideally more abstracted) "normal" vehicle kindred.

That said, I'm ok with vehicles getting some love, MC's & GC's certainly don't have to worry about performance degradation with hits, losing weapons, becoming immobilized, etc. I don't really have a problem with the Warlord in and of itself (I think it could be more points, but in games where it's being used this is likely a secondary concern due to the nature of Apocalypse style gaming).

Part of the challenge though in the old Titan games was whether for example it was worthwhile to retreat a Titan or hide it behind buildings to recover shields and repair disabled weapons. Granted these days with the Apocalypse style, it almost always is just worth spamming whatever weapons you can and wiping out as much of the opposing table before you go down in a fireball, but I find that kind of removes what little decision making remains with these Titans and superheavies.

I still also stand by my assertion that Titans should remain vulnerable to infantry that successfully close the distance to keep them on their toes. The Warlords sort of have a remnant of this rule where they cannot fire at enemies that are too close to it, but all the special invulnerabilities or fixed to-hit penalties they have built in now make it hardly a risk. If enemy anti-armor or close combat specialists or characters make it into point-blank or assault range, I think Titans should risk taking damage and not blithely ignore them. That is again why I feel the haywire immunity is a bit much considering Warlords already have such an ablative bank of HP.

I find for example I like the visual idea of a Solitaire parkouring up amidst all the pistons and gears of a Warlord, then planting a haywire grenade and somersaulting off, leaving behind a cascade of sparking crackling lightning and shorting circuits causing the Warlord's hip rotation to seize up.

It is still a bit vulnerable to Melta weaponry up close. They will still have an impact, albeit less so than before. Also, it isn't immune to Close Combat, just much more resistant than before. So it can still be killed by massed Carnifexes, they will just require more turns and attacks to kill it, because it will take them awhile to chew through it's leg plating.
Haywire is the iffy bit though, it may be better for it to be Glances on a 6+, instead of outright Immunity, but then I can see this thing being electromagnetically shielded, and it does have damn thick armour.

For the SH damage thing, I am in the camp that ignoring damage results for normal vehicles, but bookkeeping for the badass centre pieces; would make for a more cinematic and awesome game. Having a cool Titan duel whilst lesser troops die in their droves in the cross fire would be awesome I think. Personally I think that MC and GC should get damage results too, to represent their arms or legs being blown off.

 Haighus wrote:
It is still a bit vulnerable to Melta weaponry up close. They will still have an impact, albeit less so than before. Also, it isn't immune to Close Combat, just much more resistant than before. So it can still be killed by massed Carnifexes, they will just require more turns and attacks to kill it, because it will take them awhile to chew through it's leg plating.
Haywire is the iffy bit though, it may be better for it to be Glances on a 6+, instead of outright Immunity, but then I can see this thing being electromagnetically shielded, and it does have damn thick armour.

The whole point of the Haywire rule is that it it is strong enough to bypass armor to attack the systems. One could make the argument for Knights, Necrons, or any other piece of war machinery in the 40K era being shielded, yet they are all affected by Haywire attacks.

If a lascannon penetrating through knocks off just 1 HP, one could say it is just hitting redundant hardened systems and thick armor, yet the Warlord isn't completely immune to lasers. There can only be a finite number of redundancies so knocking enough of them out should wear down the Warlord eventually, through HP loss. The same reasoning can be applied to Haywire attacks. Meltas, special CC attacks (and I include Haywire into these) all serve to keep the Titans and superheavies from being totally oblivious to the existence of small infantry. If they ignore them in favor of firing away at enemy superheavies, then they should suffer if they let those infantry in too close.

For the SH damage thing, I am in the camp that ignoring damage results for normal vehicles, but bookkeeping for the badass centre pieces; would make for a more cinematic and awesome game. Having a cool Titan duel whilst lesser troops die in their droves in the cross fire would be awesome I think. Personally I think that MC and GC should get damage results too, to represent their arms or legs being blown off.

For Tyranid Bio-Titans I think they should have the same potential of having weapons or legs disabled, just like they did in the old 2nd edition Epic. The whole differentiation between a Tyranid Bio-Titan and Warlord Titan with one using Gargantuan rules and the other vehicle rules is a purely artificial one anyway.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Lockark wrote:
Witch of course the answer is "don't play that guy" since it's not like their is 30k tournaments were you might be forced to play ageist it just because it's "legal".

But you can play them, you just don't give them special permission to use the leviathan FOC instead of a normal detachment. The leviathan FOC is like that bit in the 7th edition rulebook about point limits being optional, technically it exists but you have no obligation to pay any attention to it unless you want to play a specific scenario where it is appropriate.

Also, even in a 30k tournament the leviathan FOC wouldn't be legal unless the TO specifically added that option to the tournament rules. The default in 30k games is "no leviathan FOC allowed", if you show up to a "standard 30k" tournament with an army that uses it you're not going to be allowed to play.

you realize I'm bassicly agreeing with you right? It's a unit intended for narrative gaming. Not something you slap down for pick up games.

 Lockark wrote:
you realize I'm bassicly agreeing with you right? It's a unit intended for narrative gaming. Not something you slap down for pick up games.

Ok, I'm just trying to make it clear that the leviathan FOC isn't something to be scared of. A lot of people have the misconception that it's a standard part of 30k instead of an optional "with permission only" thing for special games, and therefore 30k needs to be kept separate from everything else. And your original post about TFG abusing the leviathan FOC to bring a Warlord in a normal game reinforces that misconception.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Lockark wrote:
you realize I'm bassicly agreeing with you right? It's a unit intended for narrative gaming. Not something you slap down for pick up games.

Ok, I'm just trying to make it clear that the leviathan FOC isn't something to be scared of. A lot of people have the misconception that it's a standard part of 30k instead of an optional "with permission only" thing for special games, and therefore 30k needs to be kept separate from everything else. And your original post about TFG abusing the leviathan FOC to bring a Warlord in a normal game reinforces that misconception.

Your not wrong, but the wording is more ambiguous then you give it credit for.

The idea that it's "with permission only" how most people read it. But realy I think what their trying to say is that as a gaming club, group, or tournment the players as a whole or the organizer is to decide if it
is being allowed or not.

I don't suppose there are any details on the thanatar profiles?
I have particlar intrest in the 'sollex pattern lascannon' and these new units!

 Lockark wrote:
Your not wrong, but the wording is more ambiguous then you give it credit for.

The idea that it's "with permission only" how most people read it. But realy I think what their trying to say is that as a gaming club, group, or tournment the players as a whole or the organizer is to decide if it
is being allowed or not.

It actually says that both sides need to agree on the use of the special FOC options, which pretty clearly means that it's talking about pre-game agreements (since there's no "side" before a game is arranged). And then the designer's note says "these are story-based 'fun' FOCs and probably aren't balanced, treat them appropriately", which is another statement against their use in "normal" games. You're obviously free to, as a group, agree that they'll always be available if everyone likes those options and wants them to be available, but your opponent can't just say "surprise, I have a Warlord, it's completely legal".

And, again, I'll point out that the 7th edition rulebook says similar things about using point limits to build armies. If people aren't terrified of no-point-limits armies in 40k then they shouldn't be terrified of leviathan FOCs in 30k.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SirDonlad wrote:
I don't suppose there are any details on the thanatar profiles?
I have particlar intrest in the 'sollex pattern lascannon' and these new units!

FW posted rules for it a while ago: http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Downloads/Product/PDF/t/Thanatar-Calix.pdf

(In case you can't access the pdf for some reason the sollex pattern lascannon is a lascannon with STR 10 and 60" range. IOW, pretty disappointing.)

 Peregrine wrote:

 Lockark wrote:
Your not wrong, but the wording is more ambiguous then you give it credit for.

The idea that it's "with permission only" how most people read it. But realy I think what their trying to say is that as a gaming club, group, or tournment the players as a whole or the organizer is to decide if it
is being allowed or not.

It actually says that both sides need to agree on the use of the special FOC options, which pretty clearly means that it's talking about pre-game agreements (since there's no "side" before a game is arranged). And then the designer's note says "these are story-based 'fun' FOCs and probably aren't balanced, treat them appropriately", which is another statement against their use in "normal" games. You're obviously free to, as a group, agree that they'll always be available if everyone likes those options and wants them to be available, but your opponent can't just say "surprise, I have a Warlord, it's completely legal".

And, again, I'll point out that the 7th edition rulebook says similar things about using point limits to build armies. If people aren't terrified of no-point-limits armies in 40k then they shouldn't be terrified of leviathan FOCs in 30k.

What paragraph dose it say that both sides need to agree? Because I don't see it when I read threw page 9 of "Legion Astartes: Crusade Army List". The only thing that alluded to it is the Designer's Notes, and it dose not actually say that both sides need to agree. Just that the alt org charts may not be correctly balanced and to keep this in mind if you use them.

It never comes out and states what you are saying that it states.

That part of the rules is written more for Gaming Clubs then the average pick up game, implying that as a group or club you decide if your using them, instead of individuals debating if they can use them before a game. It's safe to assume in a pick-up game you wouldn't use them. So it's a slight difference in the grand scheme of things, but making a blanket statement that no one uses them is incorrect.

My orginal comment implies that if their is a guy in your 30k gaming group who is insisting on you playing ageist him with his single warlord, maby you just shouldn't play ageist him. (Or even dare I say. Just as a group decide your not allowing the alt FoC's anymore!)

 Lockark wrote:
What paragraph dose it say that both sides need to agree?

Page 164 of book 2, under "battles in the age of darkness alternative force organization charts" (the section directly above the designer's note):

The use of these alternative Force Organization Charts is strictly optional when not included as part of a particular mission and should always be agreed upon by both sides before their use.

Because I don't see it when I read threw page 9 of "Legion Astartes: Crusade Army List".

I wonder if this is something that was changed from the original book then.

 zedmeister wrote:
Spot the Carapace Multilasers:

Ok, I am loving that hatch and balcony/gangway. Counts-as battlements?

 Peregrine wrote:

 Lockark wrote:
What paragraph dose it say that both sides need to agree?

Page 164 of book 2, under "battles in the age of darkness alternative force organization charts" (the section directly above the designer's note):

The use of these alternative Force Organization Charts is strictly optional when not included as part of a particular mission and should always be agreed upon by both sides before their use.

I have located the paragraph you were referring to, and see the part I missed. You are correct.

 Peregrine wrote:

Page 164 of book 2, under "battles in the age of darkness alternative force organization charts" (the section directly above the designer's note):

Because I don't see it when I read threw page 9 of "Legion Astartes: Crusade Army List".

I wonder if this is something that was changed from the original book then.

Some of the pricing on units, and options were changed between book1&2 and "Legion Astartes: Crusade Army List", plus the Erratas for said books being added to the complied book. So it's the most up to date rules for the army list, and considered to take president over the original trilogy rules wise. For example in said book Tactical Support Squads have access to both Volkite Chargers and Calivers.

 Peregrine wrote:

FW posted rules for it a while ago: http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Downloads/Product/PDF/t/Thanatar-Calix.pdf

(In case you can't access the pdf for some reason the sollex pattern lascannon is a lascannon with STR 10 and 60" range. IOW, pretty disappointing.)

Yeah, i sent them an e-mail about how weak it was and they said they would mention it to the rules-people (or something to that effect) so i was asking more as a confirmation of what it ended up as, but thanks anyway.