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.

http://imgur.com/a/olj9h

Batrep in image descriptions. As i say in the final image-I am looking for advice. I want to ensure that my Forgeworld list is fairly middle of the road, and does not seem like a power-gamey list. I found it fairly hard to get a straight answer on what units are generally considered "too strong" as most people say "I have never played against this army" or "I play this army and everything in it is totally balanced don't let people bully you"

People are not bullying me, but as you can see from the report I play in a fairly casual environment, and people aren't going to think twice about taking one of the worst units in their codex if it fits their army fluff for the most part. Only 5 people to my knowledge use any superheavies at all (3 Knights and 2 people with Wraithknights which are now supers) and this would make my the sixth, but I don't want to leave opponents with a bad taste in their mouth due to the Forgeworld stuff.

So I know my opponent took some pretty subpar stuff in his list (Illic and the Rangers particularly) and also made a couple tactical mistakes early which cost him a good chunk of points and momentum turn 1 (Again starring mostly Illic). But did i go overboard with my list? I made sure to take the Vorax (which were the standout worst unit in the codex) and tried not to spam any one thing with a good mix of light infantry, heavy infantry, MCs, and vehicles, didn't build a beatstick HQ and kept the units that seemed like they could be cheesy to the minimum size.

I actually received this army as a gift (or trade, really) from a Chinese friend who I used to room with. As a going away present I got him tickets to his favorite american band and an NBA basketball game in his last month here, stuff he wouldn't ever be able to do in China, and in return once he went back home he sent me back a Forgeworld army I'd never have been able to afford, but he doesn't know the game really so he just got me a bunch of different stuff from an army he knew I was into. So I'd love to continue to field all the stuff I got from him, but mostly I've been fielding it very much not WYSIWYG. Now that the new rules are out for 40k Mechanicum, though, I am considering proxying it into a Cult Mechanicus/skiitari army, with the Thallax as a big squad of Sicarian Infiltrators, the Destructors as Kataphracts, and the Vorax and Castellax as ranged and melee loadout Kastelans respectively. The knight can be whatever the new one with the Chaingun is, and the Triaros can be an Onager, I'd just need to pick up some Skiitari infantry and maybe one more thing of the Kataphracts to fill it out. Would it make more sense to continue using them with the 30k rules or switch to 40k? From what I've seen at least from the Kastelans, they make Castellax look tame...

"He rolled two solid hits, causing 4 pens. the Ion Shield stopped 3 of them, and it was not an explodes result-the Knight is largely unscathed."
This is not how D weps work. Check "YMTC", basically for two "solid hits" he gets 2 saves, and each failed save rolls for extra hull points.

Ahhh, whoops. So it works differently for Vehicles as it does for Infantry?

Otherwise, why would the book specify "the model takes X wounds WITH NO ARMOR SAVES ALLOWED" unless it's implying that you take saves for that number of wounds? I guess we were just confused about how it worked with vehicles that have saves.

Didn't make a huge difference outcome-wise. Knight would've lost 1 instead of 2 HP at end of game.

Really needed more terrain in each DZ. both armies so exposed =\

 Ratius wrote:
Really needed more terrain in each DZ. both armies so exposed =\

You think so? We covered a quarter of the table and ruled both the brown mountain and the pillar thingy as LOS blocking impassible.

So maybe some of the internet hype of eldar being totally over the top isn't true? He had all the worst offenders, yet he lost.

sturguard wrote:
So maybe some of the internet hype of eldar being totally over the top isn't true? He had all the worst offenders, yet he lost.

True. He didn't have any Scatterbikes, and illic+Rangers is probably the worst unit in the codex to offset some of that, but you're right, it was a pretty one sided match.

Some of that can be attributed to tactics ( none of his infantry were particularly effective, the Wraithguard did most of the heavy lifting taking out about half the total casualties he inflicted, and the Wraithknight took out most of the rest.)

At the same time though things may have been different if he'd followed suit with me and taken the dangerous anti tank infantry's transport out instead of attacking smsll fry Thallax with his WK.

sturguard wrote:
So maybe some of the internet hype of eldar being totally over the top isn't true? He had all the worst offenders, yet he lost.

1 game does not provide enough data to conclude anything. More data is needed. Clearly, the Eldar player had some bad-ish rolling while the Mech player had decent rolls when it came to saving his bacon (in this game).

We need more games with battle reports to help us draw more solid conclusions. More games with Eldar vs all the factions enough times to find suitable counters/match ups.

Melevolence wrote:

sturguard wrote:
So maybe some of the internet hype of eldar being totally over the top isn't true? He had all the worst offenders, yet he lost.

1 game does not provide enough data to conclude anything. More data is needed. Clearly, the Eldar player had some bad-ish rolling while the Mech player had decent rolls when it came to saving his bacon (in this game).

We need more games with battle reports to help us draw more solid conclusions. More games with Eldar vs all the factions enough times to find suitable counters/match ups.

The game would probably have done somewhat differently as well if he had not infiltrated the scorpions and rangers close enough for me to get to them turn one (I even said as he put them down that they were probably close enough for me to shoot and charge, and he said he wanted to try and steal initiative ) and if he'd taken out the Triaros turn 1 with his knight instead of my knight, leaving my Myrmidons without much way of making themselves a credible threat with their 18" range.

More data is needed. I'm just debating what I want to do with my list. Might swap one Adsecularis unit with a Techpriest unit to decrease my tarpitty obnoxiousness.

As a 30k Legio Cybernetica player, looking at your list I think you were rather kind in constructing it. You could have fielded much worse.

I've had numerous matches against 40k lists and I try and be kind with my lists too. Still as Legio, I am castallax/thanatar heavy and these guys aren't easy to deal with. Eldar fielding crimson death formation and hemlocks would be your worst match up. His list did not have the threats to deal with yours effectively.