Whereswaldo wrote: How many regular gauss shots to kill a wraith knight, no bonuses from preferred enemy / stalker +1 BS bubble.
Thanks
Assuming 3+ armor and no FNP:
For a Necron warrior, one out of (2/3 (to hit roll) X 1/6 (to wound roll) X 1/3 (3+ armor save) X 1/5 (5 wounds)) shot would deal a lethal shot to a wraithknight. This comes out to 2/270 or 1/135.
It would take 135 gauss shots, on average, to kill a wraithknight.
And no amount of boltgun shots will kill a wraithknight.
Yes, I know it's ridiculous. Yes, wraithknights need to be nerfed.
I make it 40.5* shots to get 1 wound. Do wraithknights not have 6 wounds, and so need 243 shots?
[1/[[2/3] * [1/6] * [1/3] * [2/3]] = [1 / [chance of hitting * chance of wounding * chance of getting through armour * chance of getting through FNP ]] That makes the (unlikely) assumption that the Wraithknight has no cover/invulnerable save.
2/3 (hit) X 1/6 (wound) X 1/3 (armor) X 2/3 (FNP) X 1/6 (6 wounds) = 4/972 = 1/243.
Every 243rd shot should kill that wraithknight.
You want even more obscene calculations? Consider the following computations for Krak missile launchers (S8, AP 3) on a tactical marine (not assuming combat doctrines or the use of a signum):
2/3 (hit) X 1/2 (wound) X 2/3 (FNP) X 1/6 = 4/108 = 2/54 = 1/27.
It would take 27 shots with krak missiles to kill a wraithknight. That's slightly more than 2 full rounds of shooting with 3 devoted devastator squads with 4 missile launchers a piece.
That's 3 units worth 130 points each (390 points total).
BUT THE WRAITHKNIGHT ONLY COSTS 295 PPM!
Tell me that's not fething obscene.
The wraithknight, at bare minimum, should cost 400 ppm, not counting upgrades.
Note, of course, that these are just the laws of averages.
It's possible for a guass weapon to kill a wraithknight in 6 shots. If you only roll 6s and your opponent only rolls 1s, the wraithknight dies very quickly.
Note, of course, that these are just the laws of averages.
It's possible for a guass weapon to kill a wraithknight in 6 shots. If you only roll 6s and your opponent only rolls 1s, the wraithknight dies very quickly.
Note, of course, that these are just the laws of averages.
It's possible for a guass weapon to kill a wraithknight in 6 shots. If you only roll 6s and your opponent only rolls 1s, the wraithknight dies very quickly.
And what's the mathematical possibility of THAT?
Getting 6 6s to hit, 6 6s to wound, and then having the opponent roll 6 1s on armor and 6 1s on FNP?
It's 1/6 to the 24th power. Basically, multiply 6 by itself 24 times, and then put a 1 over that.
It's....1/4,738,381,338,321,616,896
Though, I wish to stress this point:
It's still more likely than wounding a wraithknight with a boltgun.
Note, of course, that these are just the laws of averages.
It's possible for a guass weapon to kill a wraithknight in 6 shots. If you only roll 6s and your opponent only rolls 1s, the wraithknight dies very quickly.
And what's the mathematical possibility of THAT?
Getting 6 6s to hit, 6 6s to wound, and then having the opponent roll 6 1s on armor and 6 1s on FNP?
It's 1/6 to the 24th power. Basically, multiply 6 by itself 24 times, and then put a 1 over that.
It's....1/4,738,381,338,321,616,896
Though, I wish to stress this point:
It's still more likely than wounding a wraithknight with a boltgun.
The statistical probability of that is exactly 0.
Thus, I repeat: I PROTEST!
Its not 1/6 to the 24th power. First of all it would only be to the 5th power (don't know where you get 24th power from) and even then that not how you calculate probability.
The odds of getting a wound through on a single shot is 2.469%. With that you take 6 trials (6 shots) and need 6 success and you get 0.0001% chance of killing a Wraithknight with 6 gauss shots.. WAAAY different then your ridiculous fraction
CrownAxe wrote:Its not 1/6 to the 24th power. First of all it would only be to the 5th power (don't know where you get 24th power from) and even then that not how you calculate probability.
The odds of getting a wound through on a single shot is 2.469%. With that you take 6 trials (6 shots) and need 6 success and you get 0.0001% chance of killing a Wraithknight with 6 gauss shots.. WAAAY different then your ridiculous fraction
The question was what the odds were for the Necron player rolling all 6s and the Eldar player rolling all 1s:
The Necron player has (1/6 X 1/6 X 1/6 X 1/6 X 1/6 X 1/6) (to hit) X (1/6 X 1/6 X 1/6 X 1/6 X 1/6 X 1/6) (to wound) chance of rolling all 6s.
The eldar player has: (1/6 X 1/6 X 1/6 X 1/6 X 1/6 X 1/6) (armor save) X (1/6 X 1/6 X 1/6 X 1/6 X 1/6 X 1/6) (Feel No Pain) chance of rolling all 1s.
Here are some calculations I did of Tau weapons against a Wraithknight a while ago... should give some insight here as well.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Taking down a Wraithknight.. why it sucks so much
Spoiler:
So this has been coming up recently on many forums and groups I watch. Most effective way to handle a Wriathknight or Stormsurge? Well had some time so I did some numbers. Tau surprisingly have a hard time dealing with GMC despite our heavy firepower. Of course I am considering 0 D-missiles (not everyone uses a stormsurge themselves).
*Note: No invisibility, BS5 cause markerlights, no ethereal, no fireblade, no darkstrider; you need 9 damage because 5+ FNP
I thought this was pretty interesting. Comparing shield and w/o CIBs offer decent approaches to both because of the s7 wounding on 5s. It is just crazy at the amount of firepower you need to take one of these down.. and its under 400 points.. ugh
Additionally you would need 11 crisis suits with fusion to commit, or 9 with plasma (assuming rapid range which I computed for). Taking one down in 1 go is not worth trying, the amount of damage you can do to other units in the army is far more effective.
Stormsurge w/ shield: ***I only did shield because why would be not have one. 8 WOUNDS! 12 damage cause FNP
Notice the RoF vs Ap debate in action here. The burst cannons and plasmas take about the same number of suits/weapons to do the same task, one throws more dice, the other has low ap. The WK 5s and 6s wound the same on T8. On the surge the better invul makes up for the easier wounding. Very interesting.
I initially suspected the Surge was more vulnerable then the WK but as this shows it takes more low AP and less RoF to kill the Surge when compared to the WK. And as you can see, Tau struggles in this area greatly.. it will take multiple turns committing units to this task.. and shows the issue with GMC in general.
So yeah.. next to D weapons, space marine players have the best anti GMC/MC weapon in the game.. so there should be near no complaints
Automatically Appended Next Post:
commander dante wrote: Can you see how many Heavy Destroyer shots it would take to kill a WK?
Both with and Without the formation that allows them to Reroll to wound
Give a man a fish.. teach a man to fish.. etc etc
So how was I figuring out the calculations? well its easier to start backwards... and to simplify. As stated a WK has 5+ FNP and 6 wounds.. so right there you know you need to deal 9 damage averagely (14 if 5++ invul and 27 if 3+ armor can be taken on top of FNP).
So knowing this... use the following.
x => # of hits Pw => Probability of wounding Pw' =>Probability of not wounding no rerolls x (Pw) = damage ... for example a s8 weapon has a 1/2 chance of wounding.
rerolls to wound x - x(Pw) + x(Pw)(Pw') = damage
To figure out how many shots from the number of hits it is the same equations replace "damage" with "hits" and x=>"number of shots"
Automatically Appended Next Post: OH I forgot to mention... it appears on paper you need the nearly the same amount of "shots" between say a grav and melta but it is important to think about how many shots those weapons have...
a melta is a single shot.. so 20 shots means 20 meltas
I think it's pretty funny that people get all worked up about 400 points necron warriors being needed to kill a 300 point model in one turn. What kind of power do you expect? Table your opponent in one turn or his army is op?
It would take 135 gauss shots, on average, to kill a wraithknight.
And no amount of boltgun shots will kill a wraithknight.
Yes, I know it's ridiculous. Yes, wraithknights need to be nerfed.
Feth wraithknights.
So, don't use bolters to kill the Wraithknight?
That's my exact thinking in this thread. Bunch of people getting butt hurt because they cant get a square peg down a round hole. Might as well get mad that guardsmen are nearly twice the price of a rhino and saying its OP because they cant hurt it.
Stalker + heavy destroyers, lascannons that miss 1/36 of the time combo'd with wraiths, or even scarabs, or lychguard or.... Seriously how is this a problem? Oh wait, its dakka, if its eldar its unstoppable and everyone wants their 3rd ed army to win every game. Please. Wraithknights are a point sink, all they do is slap around bad players and soak up bullets against medium generals and are a 1 turn dead against any general worth their salt.
Make your army with these 4 things in mind and shut your pie holes.
1. Ignore cover
2. Kill 1 or more wraithknight of Imp knight in a single turn
3. Counter/Ignore invisibility
4. Mobile Objective taking.
That's my exact thinking in this thread. Bunch of people getting butt hurt because they cant get a square peg down a round hole. Might as well get mad that guardsmen are nearly twice the price of a rhino and saying its OP because they cant hurt it.
Stalker + heavy destroyers, lascannons that miss 1/36 of the time combo'd with wraiths, or even scarabs, or lychguard or.... Seriously how is this a problem? Oh wait, its dakka, if its eldar its unstoppable and everyone wants their 3rd ed army to win every game. Please. Wraithknights are a point sink, all they do is slap around bad players and soak up bullets against medium generals and are a 1 turn dead against any general worth their salt.
Make your army with these 4 things in mind and shut your pie holes.
1. Ignore cover
2. Kill 1 or more wraithknight of Imp knight in a single turn
3. Counter/Ignore invisibility
4. Mobile Objective taking.
pm713 wrote: Some people are upset that Space Marines can't win with a single shot.
Bolters should have rending.
Killing a WK is not what you should do in the first place. Just by chance.
Wow.. they really shouldn't.. not with all your chapter tactics and combat doctrines
Automatically Appended Next Post: Maybe... maybe.. a way to give them pseudo rending.. but they would need some rework overall if that change was made.
pm713 wrote: Some people are upset that Space Marines can't win with a single shot.
Bolters should have rending.
Killing a WK is not what you should do in the first place. Just by chance.
Wow.. they really shouldn't.. not with all your chapter tactics and combat doctrines
Automatically Appended Next Post: Maybe... maybe.. a way to give them pseudo rending.. but they would need some rework overall if that change was made.
Bolters don't need a way to hurt it. Lascannons need a way to be effective.
Grizzyzz wrote:So yeah.. next to D weapons, space marine players have the best anti GMC/MC weapon in the game.. so there should be near no complaints
I shouldn't have to buy grav weapons (which are 1. relatively new on the scene and 2. EXTREMELY short range) to deal with a wraithknight. Krak missiles are the standard anti-tank weapon for the Imperium. How expensive a wraithknight is should be relative to how many krak missiles I need to kill it.
Furthermore, consider that the krak missile is pretty much what should be considered "on par" against a wraithknight. It wounds on 4s and is just enough to strip a wraithknight's armor saves.
Thus, I repeat: how expensive a wraithknight is should be relative to how many krak missiles I need to kill it.
390 points wraithknights (without upgrades): that, and nothing less, is fair.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote:Bolters don't need a way to hurt it. Lascannons need a way to be effective.
The problem would be solved if wraithknights were 400 points or more without upgrades. Then it would turn into a matter of: "Ok. I have my 12 krak missile launchers and you have your 1 wraithknight. How many devastator squads can you take down in a turn, Eldar player?"
Grizzyzz wrote:So yeah.. next to D weapons, space marine players have the best anti GMC/MC weapon in the game.. so there should be near no complaints
I shouldn't have to buy grav weapons (which are 1. relatively new on the scene and 2. EXTREMELY short range) to deal with a wraithknight. Krak missiles are the standard anti-tank weapon for the Imperium. How expensive a wraithknight is should be relative to how many krak missiles I need to kill it.
Furthermore, consider that the krak missile is pretty much what should be considered "on par" against a wraithknight. It wounds on 4s and is just enough to strip a wraithknight's armor saves.
Thus, I repeat: how expensive a wraithknight is should be relative to how many krak missiles I need to kill it.
Grav centurians have been around for a while now.. and why would you pay for something that is not as good. I completely understand the difference between playing a casual game and playing in a tournament.. but either way.. everything a Krak missle can do, a grav weapon is capable of. Additionally you said it right there.. "standard anti-tank weapon".. well Wraithknights are from from vehicles. Grav is the marine answer to MC/GMC.
a Centurian squad with a librarian is the same cost (possibly cheaper) then a wraithknight and averagely has the ability to take it out in one pass..
pm713 wrote: Some people are upset that Space Marines can't win with a single shot.
Bolters should have rending.
Killing a WK is not what you should do in the first place. Just by chance.
Wow.. they really shouldn't.. not with all your chapter tactics and combat doctrines
Automatically Appended Next Post: Maybe... maybe.. a way to give them pseudo rending.. but they would need some rework overall if that change was made.
Bolters don't need a way to hurt it. Lascannons need a way to be effective.
They are..... 3 followed by 3s, 18 lascannon shots drop a wraithknight. It happens a lot. Or you know, take grav and quit your bitchin. The game has changed. Deal with it.
Grizzyzz wrote:So yeah.. next to D weapons, space marine players have the best anti GMC/MC weapon in the game.. so there should be near no complaints
I shouldn't have to buy grav weapons (which are 1. relatively new on the scene and 2. EXTREMELY short range) to deal with a wraithknight. Krak missiles are the standard anti-tank weapon for the Imperium. How expensive a wraithknight is should be relative to how many krak missiles I need to kill it.
Furthermore, consider that the krak missile is pretty much what should be considered "on par" against a wraithknight. It wounds on 4s and is just enough to strip a wraithknight's armor saves.
Thus, I repeat: how expensive a wraithknight is should be relative to how many krak missiles I need to kill it.
Grav centurians have been around for a while now.. and why would you pay for something that is not as good. I completely understand the difference between playing a casual game and playing in a tournament.. but either way.. everything a Krak missle can do, a grav weapon is capable of. Additionally you said it right there.. "standard anti-tank weapon".. well Wraithknights are from from vehicles. Grav is the marine answer to MC/GMC.
a Centurian squad with a librarian is the same cost (possibly cheaper) then a wraithknight and averagely has the ability to take it out in one pass..
Its really strange, that most people are totally fine with grav centurions and don't think they are over powered in the slightest. My buddy brings a Quad Centstar list and stomps people into the dirt and they don't say a word. Bring eldar and they piss and moan for ages.
Ravenous D wrote:They are..... 3 followed by 3s, 18 lascannon shots drop a wraithknight. It happens a lot. Or you know, take grav and quit your bitchin. The game has changed. Deal with it.
Let's do the math.
Of all shots fired by a devastator marine with a lascannon, (2X3 (to hit) X 2/3 (to wound) X 2/3 (FNP) X 1/6 (6 wounds)) (8/162 = 4/81) should deal a lethal blow to a wraithknight. It would take slightly more than 20 lascannon shots, statistically speaking, to kill a wraithknight. A devastator squad with 4 lascannons is 150 points. To deal with the wraithknight in roughly two turns, you would need 3 devastator squads with the following composition:
2 X 5 man devastator squad with 4 lascannons (150 points each; a total of 300 points)
1 X 5 man devastator squad with 2 lascannons (110 points).
Once again, we arrive to a wraithknight that, in all justice, should cost roughly 400 points.
In point of fact, however, the latter composition for a devastator squad is just silly. So, in point of fact, we we are talking about 450 points worth of devastators to deal with a 295 point unit.
And that's assuming that the wraithknight doesn't have a scatter shield. If he has a scatter shield, even more is required to take him down.
Grizzyzz wrote:Grav centurians have been around for a while now.
They've been around since 6th edition. I shouldn't have to buy the bright, expensive new shiny when there are already standard codex options which traditionally have been intended to fill that role.
The points cost for a wraithknight should be weighted against what has traditionally been the appropriate unit designed to deal with that kind of threat, which is, of course, a devastator marine with either a lascannon or a missile launcher.
If the wraithknight were appropriately priced, we wouldn't be having this discussion. As I said:
400 point wraithknight. Nothing substantially less is fair. It should probably cost more.
everything a Krak missle can do, a grav weapon is capable of.
No, a grav weapon isn't.
1. It is not effective vs. vehicles.
2. It is not effective vs. high toughness, low armor save non-vehicles.
3. It is not effective at ranges beyond 24 inches.
Grav is the marine answer to MC/GMC.
Sternguard and anti-tank weapons traditionally have been the answer to MCs.
Ravenous D wrote:Its really strange, that most people are totally fine with grav centurions and don't think they are over powered in the slightest. My buddy brings a Quad Centstar list and stomps people into the dirt and they don't say a word. Bring eldar and they piss and moan for ages.
Centurions are T5 with 2 wounds and a 2+ armor save. Furthermore, they cost 55 pm without any upgrades.
Nuff said.
I'm pretty sure that there's not a single IG player in the game who is complaining about OP grav centurions.
The problem would be solved if wraithknights were 400 points or more without upgrades. Then it would turn into a matter of: "Ok. I have my 12 krak missile launchers and you have your 1 wraithknight. How many devastator squads can you take down in a turn, Eldar player?"
By your very own logic, a 400 point Wraith knight should be able to kill 400 points worth of krak missile devastators in one turn of shooting.
It takes just as many krak missiles to kill a Land Raider, better raise them to 400 points too.
It takes 1260 points worth of Ork Boyz with shootas to kill 10 Tactical Marines. So I guess a tactical marine is worth 126 points?
Ok, I'm done making fun of your insipid reasoning. You're just incorrect about how things should and do work.
DarknessEternal wrote:Things cost more than they kill in one shot. That's why the game lasts 5-7 turns and isn't automatically one on the first player's first turn.
You clearly misread what I said. I didn't say anything about "one shot." My point is that it would take 3 devastator squads with either lascannons or missile launchers to provide an effective answer to wraithknights. Therefore, wraithknights should cost as much.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
DarknessEternal wrote:By your very own logic, a 400 point Wraith knight should be able to kill 400 points worth of krak missile devastators in one turn of shooting.
In two turns of shooting. And, in point of fact, if you take assaults into account, they probably can.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Furthermore, DE, you are failing to note this key fact:
The ML or Lascannon devastator squads are realistically the only thing in my army that can be expected to deal with a wraithknight effectively.
Practically anything can deal with my devastator squads.
Therefore, wraithknights should cost even MORE!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
DarknessEternal wrote:It takes 1260 points worth of Ork Boyz with shootas to kill 10 Tactical Marines.
You are incorrect. Assuming that the boys are charging in assault, a single boy gets 4 S4 attacks on the charge.
Of such sets of attacks, (4/1 (number of attacks) X (1/2) (to hit) X 1/2 (to wound) X 1/3 (armor save) (a total of 4/12 or 1/3)) can be expected to take out a tactical marine. 3 boys reliably should be able to take out the marine in a single round of combat. And note, it doesn't take any more boys than that to take out a marine even if he's armed with a plasma cannon.
taetrius67 wrote: Hello,
Just a though can a psyker with the force power activ kill the wraithknight in one hit with for exemple iron hand to help him a bit?
No. Gargantuan Monstrous Creatures can't be killed via the Instant Death rule. Instead of removing the model from play, you just deal additional wounds.
Note, of course, that these are just the laws of averages.
It's possible for a guass weapon to kill a wraithknight in 6 shots. If you only roll 6s and your opponent only rolls 1s, the wraithknight dies very quickly.
And what's the mathematical possibility of THAT?
If the chance to get a wound is 2/3*1/6*1/3*2/3 = 2/81 (based on a previous post, I didn't figure that out myself) then the chance of getting 6 wounds in a row is (2/81)^6, which is 0.00000002266%.
The chance of killing it with... 50 shots is 0.142% 100 shots is 3.8% 200 shots is 37.3% 300 shots is 75.2% 400 shots is 93.1% 500 shots is 98.5%
So if you shoot it 100 times each turn, you'll probably kill it by turn 3, turn 2 if you're lucky, turn 4 if you're unlucky, turn 5 if you're very unlucky, turn 6+ if you're very very unlucky
1. It is not effective vs. vehicles.
2. It is not effective vs. high toughness, low armor save non-vehicles.
3. It is not effective at ranges beyond 24 inches.
Gonna have to disagree there.
1. A single result of a 6 immobilises a vehicle and strips a HP. A 2nd 6 takes two hull points, since an Immobilise result on an already Immobilised vehicle causes an extra HP. Two 6's wreck any 3HP vehicle without saves in the game - doesn't matter if you're a Leman Russ or a Trukk. A single 6 cripples almost every vehicle by immobilising it. Grav Cannons even come with Grav-Amps which let you re-roll for that 6. Grav Cannons with Grav-Amps are very effective against non-super heavy vehicles.
2. What are all these high-toughness, low armour save non-vehicles? Keepers of Secrets and Great Unclean Ones? Not exactly the most serious of threats... Bloodthirsters all have 3+ Armour Saves, though Lords of Change admittedly might be a problem if they avoided taking the 3+ Greater Reward. Demon Princes might also deliberately avoid buying a 3+ save, though that would be tailoring specifically to counter Grav-Spam (and are only T5 anyway). Tyranid MC's all have at least a 4+, with most of them having a 3+. AdMech Kastelans have a 3+, Dark Eldar Talos have a 3+ and Necron C'Tans have a 4+ (despite also having a 4++ lol). The biggest threat I can think of would be Nurgle Spawn, being T6 with no armour save. What am I missing?
3. Marines have Drop Pods, which makes range restrictions meaningless. Or you can ally Draigo in for guaranteed Gate of Infinity, who also doubles as an extremely effective tank.
This is the problem with Grav weapons. They are extremely effective at what they do (killing 2+/3+ models), whilst still being adequate at dealing with 4+ and even 5+ models because their ROF combined with the Grav-Amp re-rolls means you still push a reasonable amount of wounds through, all the while not caring a bit about the Toughness of a model. Whilst say a Heavy Bolter might be better at killing 4+ models, it falls well short on 2+ or 3+ or T6+. Meanwhile the Grav Cannon still does pretty good against 4+ but is way more effective against better saves and higher Toughness. Even against vehicles, they can through their ROF put enough Immobilise results out (again, not caring about the Armour Value) to question why you would ever want to bother with Missile Launchers. I think you're arguing the same thing here - in that you shouldn't have to use Grav - but unfortunately that's just the way the game is and goes well beyond the specific issue of Wraithknights being undercosted.
Grav guns in particular are only cost effective vs expensive vehicles. Grav cannons are much more effective against a wider point range.
Drop pods back fire quite frequently and aren't the "win" button everyone seems to think. Being stranded on foot after the drop can be very bad indeed and you have to purchase empty pods or piecemeal your force. The Draigo cheese is far scarier.
Grav weapons cannot kill low armor armies for feth.
IG, daemons, and orks all excel against grav spam. Grav does not work well against vehicles with a save.
The best way to beat the WK is to take a bigger model OR tie it up with some kind of fearless/stubborn blob like khorne dogs, green tide, scout sentinals, or assault marines. (Bikes cost too much)
sfshilo wrote: Lol, an Eldar player saying anything is too good.
Grav weapons cannot kill low armor armies for feth.
IG, daemons, and orks all excel against grav spam. Grav does not work well against vehicles with a save.
The best way to beat the WK is to take a bigger model OR tie it up with some kind of fearless/stubborn blob like khorne dogs, green tide, scout sentinals, or assault marines. (Bikes cost too much)
Grav works well against anything with an armour save of 4+ or lower. The higher values (5+/6+) can be put down by the standard firearms (bolters/gauss) of the army, so grav really doesn't need to be good at killing them.
Also, I don't think assault marines would be a good fodder unit for a WK - though IG max platoons with a Priest is very good.
1. A single result of a 6 immobilises a vehicle and strips a HP. A 2nd 6 takes two hull points, since an Immobilise result on an already Immobilised vehicle causes an extra HP. Two 6's wreck any 3HP vehicle without saves in the game - doesn't matter if you're a Leman Russ or a Trukk. A single 6 cripples almost every vehicle by immobilising it. Grav Cannons even come with Grav-Amps which let you re-roll for that 6. Grav Cannons with Grav-Amps are very effective against non-super heavy vehicles.
Again, they are 24 inch max range, and that's if and only if you are taking a grav cannon.
3. Marines have Drop Pods, which makes range restrictions meaningless. Or you can ally Draigo in for guaranteed Gate of Infinity, who also doubles as an extremely effective tank.
I have two points to make about this:
1. I shouldn't have to run grav cannons when there are other codex options which deal with the same thing. I shouldn't be forced to run a specific kind of build. That's what the points system is supposed to effect. If you are sitting here telling me that I have to run grav cannons in drop pods, then GW have failed at their jobs of balancing the game. Something is awry.
2. Grav centurions can't take drop pods. To take those drop pods, I'd have to put regular devastators with grav cannons and amps. That squad is going to cost 210 points plus the 35 points for the drop pod (unless GSF with two demicompanies). And unless I specifically took the formation that allows my devastators relentless when they enter the game via drop pods, those grav cannons are going to be firing 3 rounds a piece at 12 inch range. Not to mention, of course, that every single one of those devastators is probably going to die on my opponent's next turn.
Don't get me wrong, I fully admit that grav weapons are overpowered and need a major nerf (though I still insist that the major problem with grav weapons is that they can go on bikes; grav guns on bikes is what's really effective). But then, so do a lot of things in this game, including wraithknights.
They have no better firepower than BA. I've played against those lists. Because they have to get with 18" and don't reroll wounds, a LOT more can go wrong for them. I'll deal with them any day of the week over LOLscatterbikes or ignore cover ion accelerators.
Whereswaldo wrote: How many regular gauss shots to kill a wraith knight, no bonuses from preferred enemy / stalker +1 BS bubble.
Thanks
Assuming 3+ armor and no FNP:
For a Necron warrior, one out of (2/3 (to hit roll) X 1/6 (to wound roll) X 1/3 (3+ armor save) X 1/5 (5 wounds)) shot would deal a lethal shot to a wraithknight. This comes out to 2/270 or 1/135.
It would take 135 gauss shots, on average, to kill a wraithknight.
And no amount of boltgun shots will kill a wraithknight.
Yes, I know it's ridiculous. Yes, wraithknights need to be nerfed.
Feth wraithknights.
Its almost as if Monstrous Creatures can't be slain easily by small arms fire.
I like Eldar hate as much as anybody, but complaining that its too hard to kill a monstrous creature with small arms is kind of silly. I mean, you have heavy weapons and grav, right? That's what they are for.
Bolters don't need a way to hurt it. Lascannons need a way to be effective.
Lascannons are fine.
Its just they are outclassed by weapons that can strip HP quickly. The problem isn't the lascannon, its the poorly thought out vehicle rules.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
pm713 wrote: Traditio believes he shouldn't have to use grav.
Well that's silly. Isn't the function of a grav weapon to kill MCs? That's like refusing to use a hammer to beat in a nail, and insist on using your fist; It could work, but it would be very painful and time consuming.
pm713 wrote: Traditio believes he shouldn't have to use grav.
Well that's silly. Isn't the function of a grav weapon to kill MCs? That's like refusing to use a hammer to beat in a nail, and insist on using your fist; It could work, but it would be very painful and time consuming.
CthuluIsSpy wrote:Well that's silly. Isn't the function of a grav weapon to kill MCs? That's like refusing to use a hammer to beat in a nail, and insist on using your fist; It could work, but it would be very painful and time consuming.
MCs predate the existence of grav weapons. As I've insisted previously, for the space marines codex, the way of dealing with MCs prior to grav weapons, was:
ThatGuyFromThatPlace wrote: Do some math hammer and find out how many Loota shots it takes to kill a wraithknight (S7 AP4 D3 shots) 14ppm
Loota: 1/3 chance to hit, 1/3 chance to wound.
Wraithknight: 2/3 chance to save with armour, 1/3 chance to save with FnP.
Overall 2/81 chance to wound (or about 1/40), so about 240 shots needed to bring down a wraithknight. If we assume the average for the d3 shots is 2 you therefore need 120 lootas to take a wraithknight down in one turn, 60 lootas for 2 turns, 30 lootas for 3 turns and so on.
Bolters don't need a way to hurt it. Lascannons need a way to be effective.
Lascannons are fine.
Its just they are outclassed by weapons that can strip HP quickly. The problem isn't the lascannon, its the poorly thought out vehicle rules.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
pm713 wrote: Traditio believes he shouldn't have to use grav.
Well that's silly. Isn't the function of a grav weapon to kill MCs? That's like refusing to use a hammer to beat in a nail, and insist on using your fist; It could work, but it would be very painful and time consuming.
Lascannons are not fine. Low ROF, MCs easily get cover, vehicle damage table now sucks for AP2. And a lot of T5+ units that are no longer doubled out by the lascannon.
Martel732 wrote:Lascannons are not fine. Low ROF, MCs easily get cover, vehicle damage table now sucks for AP2. And a lot of T5+ units that are no longer doubled out by the lascannon.
I agree. However, the solution is not to buff Lascannons. The solution is to nerf the things that you'd need a lascannon to deal with.
ENOUGH is ENOUGH! I'm TIRED of this MOTHER FETHING power creep in this MOTHER FETHING game!
You can't stop the power creep without a total rewrite. That ship has already sailed. Low ROF weapons need a buff. Period. And vehicles don't need anymore nerfs.
Martel732 wrote: You can't stop the power creep without a total rewrite.
Define "total rewrite." For starters, how about nerfing grav weapons, reducing the number of wounds on monstrous creatures, and removing the Gargantuan Monstrous Creature rules from the CRB entirely?
Not good enough. Lascannons are a fail against Rhinos now. Go do the math.
I think your approach is all wrong. Things like lascannons and hammerhead railguns should be very lethal to big things. As in multiple wounds, no FNP rolls, etc.
If lascannons could first strike centurions and one shot them, then the dreaded grav cannon would have an actual counter. You could give heavy weapon teams in all books upgrades like "thermal targeting" to ignore invisibility.
Total rewrite. Elite infantry and big monsters made of flesh should die when hit by anti-tank fire.
Martel732 wrote: Not good enough. Lascannons are a fail against Rhinos now. Go do the math.
I think your approach is all wrong. Things like lascannons and hammerhead railguns should be very lethal to big things. As in multiple wounds, no FNP rolls, etc.
If lascannons could first strike centurions and one shot them, then the dreaded grav cannon would have an actual counter. You could give heavy weapon teams in all books upgrades like "thermal targeting" to ignore invisibility.
Total rewrite. Elite infantry and big monsters made of flesh should die when hit by anti-tank fire.
So your suggestion to fix 40k is to allow 30pt weapons to insta-kill 200pts+ models?
Martel732 wrote: Not good enough. Lascannons are a fail against Rhinos now. Go do the math.
I think your approach is all wrong. Things like lascannons and hammerhead railguns should be very lethal to big things. As in multiple wounds, no FNP rolls, etc.
If lascannons could first strike centurions and one shot them, then the dreaded grav cannon would have an actual counter. You could give heavy weapon teams in all books upgrades like "thermal targeting" to ignore invisibility.
Total rewrite. Elite infantry and big monsters made of flesh should die when hit by anti-tank fire.
So your suggestion to fix 40k is to allow 30pt weapons to insta-kill 200pts+ models?
Not instakill. My fix is a total rewrite. Obviously, everything would be priced off its practical battlefield efficacy. The Hammerhead, for example, would probably go up in price a lot due to the rules for the main gun. The Hammerhead main gun looks to be an anti-titan weapon to me. MCs would probably get cheaper, but easier to remove because modern weapons hurt. A lot.
Martel732 wrote: Not good enough. Lascannons are a fail against Rhinos now. Go do the math.
I think your approach is all wrong. Things like lascannons and hammerhead railguns should be very lethal to big things. As in multiple wounds, no FNP rolls, etc.
If lascannons could first strike centurions and one shot them, then the dreaded grav cannon would have an actual counter. You could give heavy weapon teams in all books upgrades like "thermal targeting" to ignore invisibility.
Total rewrite. Elite infantry and big monsters made of flesh should die when hit by anti-tank fire.
So your suggestion to fix 40k is to allow 30pt weapons to insta-kill 200pts+ models?
As opposed to a 10-point meltagun murdering 250+ point Land Raiders? You just perfectly illustrated why vehicles are much worse off than MCs.
EDIT: I think it'd be reasonable to give lascannons, brightlances railguns and the like some sort of multiple wounds/Hull Point rule to illustrate the fact that you're going to be taking stupid levels of damage if you get hit, even if it doesn't outright kill you, but I'd also be wary of such weapons invalidating Independend Characters. How about some sort of rule giving the weapons a reduced chance to hit anything smaller than a bike, to illustrate the fact that turning a slow-firing anti-tank weapon against infantry is a really silly plan. It'd let dedicated anti-infantry weapons get some time in the sun as well.
Another option is to simply double the Hull Points of all vehicles. When even a Rhino has 6 hull points, glancing them to death becomes a lot harder.
Martel732 wrote: Not good enough. Lascannons are a fail against Rhinos now. Go do the math.
I think your approach is all wrong. Things like lascannons and hammerhead railguns should be very lethal to big things. As in multiple wounds, no FNP rolls, etc.
If lascannons could first strike centurions and one shot them, then the dreaded grav cannon would have an actual counter. You could give heavy weapon teams in all books upgrades like "thermal targeting" to ignore invisibility.
Total rewrite. Elite infantry and big monsters made of flesh should die when hit by anti-tank fire.
So your suggestion to fix 40k is to allow 30pt weapons to insta-kill 200pts+ models?
As opposed to a 10-point meltagun murdering 250+ point Land Raiders? You just perfectly illustrated why vehicles are much worse off than MCs.
This would have to be addressed as well. Hence, total rewrite.
The WK as it currently stands is at LEAST at 400 pt model. At least. You can fire an entire army's worth of old school weapons at it for multiple turns before it dies. That's just crazy.
Martel732 wrote: Not good enough. Lascannons are a fail against Rhinos now. Go do the math.
I think your approach is all wrong. Things like lascannons and hammerhead railguns should be very lethal to big things. As in multiple wounds, no FNP rolls, etc.
If lascannons could first strike centurions and one shot them, then the dreaded grav cannon would have an actual counter. You could give heavy weapon teams in all books upgrades like "thermal targeting" to ignore invisibility.
Total rewrite. Elite infantry and big monsters made of flesh should die when hit by anti-tank fire.
Hmm
In that case, what if there was a rule where a weapon inflicts an extra wound for every point of strength that exceeds the targets toughness? Or pehaps a 6 on a wounding hit from a heavy weapon inflicts another wound? This may result in EW becoming obsolete.
Vehicles need a buff though. Adding more HP is not enough, as the counter would to be spam more autocannons / scatter lasers / whatever. A saving throw would be healthier, imo.
Martel732 wrote:The WK as it currently stands is at LEAST at 400 pt model. At least. You can fire an entire army's worth of old school weapons at it for multiple turns before it dies. That's just crazy.
Regardless of our disagreements, we basically agree on this point.
Martel732 wrote: Not good enough. Lascannons are a fail against Rhinos now. Go do the math.
I think your approach is all wrong. Things like lascannons and hammerhead railguns should be very lethal to big things. As in multiple wounds, no FNP rolls, etc.
If lascannons could first strike centurions and one shot them, then the dreaded grav cannon would have an actual counter. You could give heavy weapon teams in all books upgrades like "thermal targeting" to ignore invisibility.
Total rewrite. Elite infantry and big monsters made of flesh should die when hit by anti-tank fire.
So your suggestion to fix 40k is to allow 30pt weapons to insta-kill 200pts+ models?
As opposed to a 10-point meltagun murdering 250+ point Land Raiders? You just perfectly illustrated why vehicles are much worse off than MCs.
EDIT: I think it'd be reasonable to give lascannons, brightlances railguns and the like some sort of multiple wounds/Hull Point rule to illustrate the fact that you're going to be taking stupid levels of damage if you get hit, even if it doesn't outright kill you, but I'd also be wary of such weapons invalidating Independend Characters. How about some sort of rule giving the weapons a reduced chance to hit anything smaller than a bike, to illustrate the fact that turning a slow-firing anti-tank weapon against infantry is a really silly plan. It'd let dedicated anti-infantry weapons get some time in the sun as well.
Another option is to simply double the Hull Points of all vehicles. When even a Rhino has 6 hull points, glancing them to death becomes a lot harder.
Frankly, I'd like to see independent characters largely invalidated.
Martel732 wrote: Not good enough. Lascannons are a fail against Rhinos now. Go do the math.
I think your approach is all wrong. Things like lascannons and hammerhead railguns should be very lethal to big things. As in multiple wounds, no FNP rolls, etc.
If lascannons could first strike centurions and one shot them, then the dreaded grav cannon would have an actual counter. You could give heavy weapon teams in all books upgrades like "thermal targeting" to ignore invisibility.
Total rewrite. Elite infantry and big monsters made of flesh should die when hit by anti-tank fire.
Hmm
In that case, what if there was a rule where a weapon inflicts an extra wound for every point of strength that exceeds the targets toughness?
Or pehaps a 6 on a wounding hit from a heavy weapon inflicts another wound?
This may result in EW becoming obsolete.
In that case, what if there was a rule where a weapon inflicts an extra wound for every point of strength that exceeds the targets toughness?
Or pehaps a 6 on a wounding hit from a heavy weapon inflicts another wound?
This may result in EW becoming obsolete.
Realistically, we are looking at different weapon profiles against different target types, etc. Lascannons should be incredibly inefficient vs light infantry that probably comes in the form of a massive to hit penalty.
In that case, what if there was a rule where a weapon inflicts an extra wound for every point of strength that exceeds the targets toughness? Or pehaps a 6 on a wounding hit from a heavy weapon inflicts another wound? This may result in EW becoming obsolete.
You've just buffed scatterlaser spam.
Congrats.
And heavy bolters
I personally prefer my first idea better. The EW rule always came across as arbitrary to me. Like, an IG general can take 3 hits from a heavy bolter, but a multi-laser is a 1hko? How does that even work?
In that case, what if there was a rule where a weapon inflicts an extra wound for every point of strength that exceeds the targets toughness?
Or pehaps a 6 on a wounding hit from a heavy weapon inflicts another wound?
This may result in EW becoming obsolete.
You've just buffed scatterlaser spam.
Congrats.
In a rewritten system, I would completely bust the balls on this thing. I would basically make it murder against most infantry types, but make it completely unable to damage vehicles. So there is a real trade off for spamming them.
So I stopped reading most of the posts after I talked about grav centurions... so forgive me if these points were already made but i think its important..
1) Grav is good against vehicles as someone mentioned auto immobilized , extra hull points.. amp access etc.
2) Grav cents are amazing at dealing with both low armor save targets and high armor save targets because of amps.. and hello... what are these hurricane bolters i have strapped to my chest.
3) ABSOLUTELY GW is in this to make money.. so 'why should i have to buy the new guy.. and can't use my TRADITIONAL gear..." WHY????? because you already bought it and GW is a business that wants you to buy what is new. Additionally, you don't have to take what is the best answer for something.. but in a meta right now that MCs are spammed because toughness is better then hull points and AV,, you can't sit there and say I hate not being able to handle something.. even though you have the best option to do so and just refuse...
4) the meta changes over time.. if you want to stay competitive then you need to evolve with it.
5) You can absolutely put centurians in drop pods.. the vanilla codex allows them to be purchased now.as fast attack. and in the tournament scene some very popular options are ..blood angels formation "flesh terrors", and Space wolves "company of the great wolf". both are used to get quick access to drop pods in battle brother forces that don't have access themselves (for example grey knights). I will just note that cents take up 3 slots.. so you can only fit 3 in a drop pod.
.. I think that was it..
Cheers!
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh and Happy Easter! (if that applies to you. if not then Happy Weekend)
Traditio wrote: My answer to all of that is "the points system is supposed to effect balance."
Period. End of statement.
If you are telling me that I need the new shiny, then balance has not been effected.
Period.
End of story.
GW has to move product.. they released a bunch of new MCs that are hard for traditional methods to deal with... so they released grav.. cycle will continue.
And taking exactly what you said there are grav options that are point efficient to a wraithknight.. so I am not sure what the problem is..your just stuck not wanting to adapt. Sry it's not working for you..
Grizzyzz wrote:GW has to move product.. they released a bunch of new MCs that are hard for traditional methods to deal with... so they released grav.. cycle will continue.
And taking exactly what you said there are grav options that are point efficient to a wraithknight.. so I am not sure what the problem is..your just stuck not wanting to adapt. Sry it's not working for you..
Grizzyzz wrote:GW has to move product.. they released a bunch of new MCs that are hard for traditional methods to deal with... so they released grav.. cycle will continue.
And taking exactly what you said there are grav options that are point efficient to a wraithknight.. so I am not sure what the problem is..your just stuck not wanting to adapt. Sry it's not working for you..
Dark Souls is a video game that was designed with the intention of letting you play however you want and beat the game with skill.
40k is not that. 40k is Rock Paper Scissors. Its all about using rock to beat scirssors to beat papers to beat rocks. If you keep insisting on only taking scissors you'll never beat rocks.
Dark Souls is a video game that was designed with the intention of letting you play however you want and beat the game with skill.
40k is not that. 40k is Rock Paper Scissors. Its all about using rock to beat scirssors to beat papers to beat rocks. If you keep insisting on only taking scissors you'll never beat rocks.
Exactly.
And I have only played the first one.
When designing a list you can't take an "all comers" anymore. You take an "about 60% coverage" list. You design to take on a few of the most popular builds across multiple armies and hope you don't get paired with that 40%..
The whole GMC toe in cover thing makes the WK unkillable for BA. Grav guns can't cause enough wounds, and they will be the first thing the Eldar shoot off the table.
Dark Souls is a video game that was designed with the intention of letting you play however you want and beat the game with skill.
40k is not that. 40k is Rock Paper Scissors. Its all about using rock to beat scirssors to beat papers to beat rocks. If you keep insisting on only taking scissors you'll never beat rocks.
Exactly.
And I have only played the first one.
When designing a list you can't take an "all comers" anymore. You take an "about 60% coverage" list. You design to take on a few of the most popular builds across multiple armies and hope you don't get paired with that 40%..
Which is a bit of a failure of game design, imo. It is for this reason why I prefer DzC's rule set; that game is designed in such a way that it strongly encourages all comer lists, due to how the units interact.
There's no fun in playing a 2 hour game of Rock Paper Scissors. Especially one full of random tables and special rules.
Martel732 wrote: In Starcraft, I can scout your rock and build paper. You can still out-micro me, though like with banelings vs marines.
If you try to do that in WH40k, it's called "list tailoring". : D
Also in Starcraft you can change your army composition as the game progresses.
Also also in Starcraft, the game developers have access to tons of actual data on how games play out and can make adjustments to the rules and re-balance all units and sides constantly, whereas in 40k, GW only re-does one army at a time, changes the basic rules independently of those army updates, and is very scarce with errata and FAQs.
Also Starcraft is a computer game, so the rules don't suddenly change just because your opponent disagrees with your interpretation and won the roll-off.
CrownAxe wrote:Dark Souls is a video game that was designed with the intention of letting you play however you want and beat the game with skill.
40k is not that. 40k is Rock Paper Scissors. Its all about using rock to beat scirssors to beat papers to beat rocks. If you keep insisting on only taking scissors you'll never beat rocks.
Grizzy essentially is making the argument that the rules for the newer models are not and should not be fair because this would be bad for business. Why would you buy a wraithknight if it were fairly costed? Why buy the tactical marines kit for the grav cannon upgrades if you just as easily could use missile launchers?
You have to make the newer stuff OP, and make the older stuff basically obsolete, so you can keep selling expensive models at a premium.
That business model actually makes me LESS inclined to buy stuff from GW and LESS inclined to play against the people who do.
Why do I keep bringing up Dark Souls?
Because that game is pretty much the definition of balance:
Which is better: crossbow or bow? Zweihander or broadsword? Broadsword without magic or a broadsword with fire?
Which is better: Havel's armor or leather armor?
There's no obviously right answer. Ultimately, it comes down to a matter of your personal style of play.
Even in Dark Souls II, the only "no brainer" upgrade I can think of is the upgrade from the broadsword to the drake keeper's sword. But even then, there's a trade off: 3 units of weight in exchange for 6. And you're trading the B strength scaling and D dex scaling (at level 10 upgrade) for the broadsword in exchange for C scaling for both stats for the drake keeper's sword.
The only "flaw" of Dark Souls II is that equipment weight doesn't slow you down like it did in Dark Souls I.
I'm sure you get my point. Every piece of equipment (with the exception of the rings; a level 2 ring of the same kind is obviously better than a level 1 ring of that kind) has its place and is potentially usable depending on how you want to play.
What is my point?
In Dark Souls, you don't take the newest, most OP piece of equipment you can find. You find the piece of equipment that you find aesthetically most pleasing and most suitable to your style of play.
If wraithknights were 400 points per model, people would still find a place for them. They wouldn't be an auto-pick, of course, but they would still have their place.
If grav cannons were either more costly pointswise, or else, were nerfed somewhat, people would still find a place for them. Again, they wouldn't be an auto-pick, of course, but they would still have their place.
If Warhammer 40k were more like Dark Souls, that wouldn't be bad for the game, and it wouldn't be bad for business. Yes, few people would buy the new shinies en masse. Instead of buying 3 wraithknights, people might only buy 1. But with that and a few other steps, I bet that overall sales would be up, and the customer base would be much larger. Instead of 1 person buying 3 wraithknights, perhaps 5 people might buy 1 wraithknight, a box of striking scorpions and a few boxes of dire avengers.
And even if people are buying this stuff second hand, you know what? Even the people buying this stuff second hand need paint. Citadel makes some pretty darned good paint. Plus even the people buying stuff second hand need to buy the codices.
And by the way, for all of your protests to the contrary, if you read the rulebooks, what I am describing is essentially the game that GW PROMISED to give us, vis-a-vis their points system.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CthuluIsSpy wrote:Which is a bit of a failure of game design, imo.
With the exception of the phrase "a bit of a," I completely agree with this.
You want to see pretty much perfect balance in games? Look at Dark Souls. 40k needs to be more like Dark Souls.
Then, and ONLY then, would Tau and Eldar players be entitled to say "git gud." Unless and until then? I'd like to see them play Chaos Space Marines (without spamming the best units in the codex and without using Forge World) and tell people to "git gud."
Yes it would be great if 40k was a balanced and everything was a viable option to be played with no matter what you played against...
BUT THAT'S NOT 40K IS. 40K IS NOT BALANCED AT ALL.
Their are a ton of things that literally can't be hurt by certain weapons (vehicles and high toughness). There are a ton of ways to make units functionally invincible (2++ rerollable invul and invisibility). There are attacks that kill you with no recourse (Stomp and Str D). And unlike Dark Souls, there is a time limit of 5-7 turns so taking something ineffecient is a death sentence and the game will be over before you killed anything of note.
Sure, 40k SHOULD be more balanced like Dark Souls. But that's not what it is. That's not what GW gave us. GW took their game of rock paper scissors and added diamonds and nukes so now if you want to compete with the diamonds and nukes you have to take diamonds and nukes, not rock, paper, or scissors.
You have to play to what the game is, and not what the game SHOULD be.
CrownAxe wrote: Yes it would be great if 40k was a balanced and everything was a viable option to be played with no matter what you played against...
Great. Then you ultimately agree with me. What's your beef?
BUT THAT'S NOT 40K IS. 40K IS NOT BALANCED AT ALL.
I agree. I'm making the claim that it should be.
Their are a ton of things that literally can't be hurt by certain weapons (vehicles and high toughness).
I think that formations go a long way to "fixing" this. If you run a full battle company, you HAVE to run two squads of devastators, and if you read the fluff, it's pretty obvious that you're supposed to bring anti tank weapons.
There are a ton of ways to make units functionally invincible (2++ rerollable invul and invisibility).
There shouldn't be.
Sure, 40k SHOULD be more balanced like Dark Souls.
You keep agreeing with me, but for some reason, you keep arguing against me.
I don't understand this.
Look, I'm going to ask a question:
"A wraithknight should cost a minimum of 400 ppm. True or false? Why or why not?"
If you then say "no, because grav," I'll then ask you:
"Grav should be nerfed. True or false? Why or why not?"
Traditio wrote:
Grizzy essentially is making the argument that the rules for the newer models are not and should not be fair because this would be bad for business. Why would you buy a wraithknight if it were fairly costed? Why buy the tactical marines kit for the grav cannon upgrades if you just as easily could use missile launchers?
You have to make the newer stuff OP, and make the older stuff basically obsolete, so you can keep selling expensive models at a premium.
On the contrary never once have I said anything of the sort.
-------
To comment on the whole dark souls thing. That's sounds great. But guess what.. that's not currently how it is. Since we are comparing apples to oranges I'll toss in a fruit.
40k to me is like DOTA. Some heroes are better then others , some counter some but not all. Put a combination of 5 together and you can make up for weaknesses and protect yourself from your counters. If you play an opponent and he happens to counter you, there is just enough balance and just enough opportunity that if you play a perfect game and your opponent makes a mistake you can pull out a win.
CrownAxe wrote:
Sure, 40k SHOULD be more balanced like Dark Souls. But that's not what it is. That's not what GW gave us. GW took their game of rock paper scissors and added diamonds and nukes so now if you want to compete with the diamonds and nukes you have to take diamonds and nukes, not rock, paper, or scissors.
You have to play to what the game is, and not what the game SHOULD be.
Grizzyzz wrote:On the contrary never once have I said anything of the sort.
My point throughout this thread is that a fair price for a Wraithknight is 400 ppm. I further argued that this is the case because that's how many points of devoted traditional anti-tank weapons are required to defeat one.
You then responded: "BUT YOU CAN USE THE NEW SHINIES! GW GOTS TO SELL THE NEW SHINIES!"
CrownAxe wrote: It doesn't what it should be. If you don't want to lose to wraithknights, you need to take the tools to beat a 300 pt Wraithknight.
Or I could simply refuse to play games which involve wraithknights.
In point of fact, that's what I already do.
No one here is arguing with you about your views on game balance.
We are all giving advice that if you want to take down a WK and you play space marines.. then you need to take grav. All arguments about balance aside.. that is how it is right now.
So.. bottom line. if you don't want to use grav, then that is fine. But don't complain about how hard hardmode is.
Grizzyzz wrote:On the contrary never once have I said anything of the sort.
My point throughout this thread is that a fair price for a Wraithknight is 400 ppm. I further argued that this is the case because that's how many points of devoted traditional anti-tank weapons are required to defeat one.
You then responded: "BUT YOU CAN USE THE NEW SHINIES! GW GOTS TO SELL THE NEW SHINIES!"
Grizzyzz wrote:No one here is arguing with you about your views on game balance.
We are all giving advice that if you want to take down a WK and you play space marines.. then you need to take grav. All arguments about balance aside.. that is how it is right now.
So.. bottom line. if you don't want to use grav, then that is fine. But don't complain about how hard hardmode is.
No, no.
I completely agree with the main gist of this. In concreto, what you are saying is simply true.
Given that wraithknights cost 295 ppm without upgrades, you MUST use grav in order to defeat one in a points effective manner.
That said, that simply doesn't address the point that I've been making, namely:
Wraithknights should not cost 295 ppm.
I should not have to use grav in order to kill one.
Thus:
You're playing a wraithknight? Fine. Then play it against someone else. I'm not interested in that game.
I do sincerely offer my apologies if I've misrepresented you; that said, that's effectively how what you have said has come off to me in the course of this thread. Regardless of what you may have intended, that's what I've "heard," so to speak.
I really don't know how else to say it. No one is arguing with you about game balance.
Guns < Kevlar < armor piercing ...
GW releases cool new MCs.. people buy them. They then realize in their rolling cycle that marines traditional methods don't work.. GW releases new product to counter.. cycle continues.
If customer refuses to purchase then they will have a tough time dealing with said MCs..
Grizzyzz wrote: I really don't know how else to say it. No one is arguing with you about game balance.
Guns < Kevlar < armor piercing ...
GW releases cool new MCs.. people buy them. They then realize in their rolling cycle that marines traditional methods don't work.. GW releases new product to counter.. cycle continues.
If customer refuses to purchase then they will have a tough time dealing with said MCs..
Again, I agree with everything that you've just said.
The problem is that we're arguing past each other.
I'm not interested in the factual claim, which is what you're interested in.
I'm interested in the normative claim.
GWshould not be engaging in this cycle of codex creep/BUY THE NEW SHINY!!!!eleventy111!. They should make the game more like Dark Souls.
Do you agree or disagree with this?
Ultimately, we're talking past each other:
Me: The game should be more like Dark Souls!
You: This game is not like Dark Souls.
Note that these claims are not contradictory propositions. They're mutually compossible.
I do sincerely offer my apologies if I've misrepresented you; that said, that's effectively how what you have said has come off to me in the course of this thread. Regardless of what you may have intended, that's what I've "heard," so to speak.
Whether rightly or wrongly.
I appreciate it. There is only so many ways you can type something out. Sometimes it doesn't always come across.
That said.. hop on the grav train because things ain't slowen down
Me: The game should be more like Dark Souls!
You: This game is not like Dark Souls.
Note that these claims are not contradictory propositions. They're mutually compossible.
I agree to an extent. I think there are major changes to be made. Making any weapon useful in every situation is where I respectfully disagree. Where I think single shot weapons currently need to be better (hp canned them) I don't think one made for a tank should be directly effective against a MC. And of course vice versa.
What's the saying? Don't show up with a knife to a gun a fight.
I do agree here; no matter what it is currently, it SHOULD be balanced. Not everything should be good in every situation; Sometimes you bring flamers against tank IG, and you try to have as much fun as possible but likely will not win. But the models and weapons in the game Right now that CAN handle everything (Grav Cannons, Wraithknights, Scat Bikes, BikerStars, TWC) are not a good thing for the game. Every weapon SHOULD be good at a specific task, and be able to be chosen for that task. Flamwers for short-range anti infantry, heavy bolters for long range, Plasma for Anti-TEQ, Grav for anti-MC, Melta for Short-range anti-vehicle, Lazcannons for long range. HOW to do this we can debate all the live long day, but the point is that this needs to happen.
See, this is not a good attitude to have. it's not even like it would be hard to balance. Just looking at marines, a few small changes, a buff to Heavy Bolters and a nerf to grav would go a long way to fixing the problems currently inherit with 40k marines, and then the other armies can be updated similarly.
It's not a good attitude or a bad attitude, it's simply reality.
You're welcome to have a crack at writing your own house rules and convincing your mates to play with you. That may be a satisfactory solution to you.
However GW have shown over many years and several editions that they have little interest in balancing their game. Even if they did have an interest in doing it, rock-paper-scissors type games are hard to balance in a way that would be satisfactory to everyone because some people are always going to want to do a themed army that consists of only of rocks and scissors. To balance 40k well would require a rewrite of the rules because many of the unbalancing characteristics of 40k are written right in to the core rules.
Maybe GW are finally turning a corner with reopening a channel for feedback in facebook, or maybe it's just a token gesture, we don't know yet....
I'm curious, for the people who refuse to play against Wraithknights because they don't want to take the tools needed, how do you deal with Wraihtlords?
Happyjew wrote: I'm curious, for the people who refuse to play against Wraithknights because they don't want to take the tools needed, how do you deal with Wraihtlords?
My mom prefers to play Orks. I prefer to play Sororitas, often with Astartes allies. Both of us prefer to field armies of infantry backed up by a couple of tanks or walkers.
MC and GMC woes are something I can't comment on at all.
Happyjew wrote: I'm curious, for the people who refuse to play against Wraithknights because they don't want to take the tools needed, how do you deal with Wraihtlords?
Wraithlords are slow so you can just kite them around
Happyjew wrote: I'm curious, for the people who refuse to play against Wraithknights because they don't want to take the tools needed, how do you deal with Wraihtlords?
Wraithlords are relatively easy to kill. That's why Eldar players prefer wraithknights.
Let's compare:
Sternguard hellfire rounds wound wraithlords on 2s, wraithknights on 6s.
Sniper rifles wound wraithlords on 4s, wraithknights on 6s.
Then, of course, the standard anti-tank weapons are effective against both.
Not to mention the fact that wraithlords don't move 12 inches in the movement phase.
GMCs have ridiculously strong rules. They should not exist in this game.
Happyjew wrote: I'm curious, for the people who refuse to play against Wraithknights because they don't want to take the tools needed, how do you deal with Wraihtlords?
Wraithlords are relatively easy to kill. That's why Eldar players prefer wraithknights.
Let's compare:
Sternguard hellfire rounds wound wraithlords on 2s, wraithknights on 6s.
Sniper rifles wound wraithlords on 4s, wraithknights on 6s.
Then, of course, the standard anti-tank weapons are effective against both.
Not to mention the fact that wraithlords don't move 12 inches in the movement phase.
GMCs have ridiculously strong rules. They should not exist in this game.
I can't help but notice that rather than addressing the question you've just made a poor point about what things are wounded on and complained about Wraithknights.
pm713 wrote: I can't help but notice that rather than addressing the question you've just made a poor point about what things are wounded on and complained about Wraithknights.
Reading comprehension. It's a thing.
I answered the question.
The strongly implied answer was: "You can use sniper rounds, sternguard hellfire ammunition rounds and the traditional anti-tank weapons."
I would say that I can understand how confusion could arise...
...
...
...
But that would be a lie on my part.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grizzyzz wrote:I agree to an extent. I think there are major changes to be made. Making any weapon useful in every situation is where I respectfully disagree. Where I think single shot weapons currently need to be better (hp canned them) I don't think one made for a tank should be directly effective against a MC. And of course vice versa.
What's the saying? Don't show up with a knife to a gun a fight.
Megaman comes to mind. Imagine the following case:
I ask someone about a given megaman game. He then tells me that all of the bosses, except for the first, are extremely easy.
I then ask another player what he thought, and he tells me that its IMPOSSIBLE to beat any of the bosses, except for one, beyond the first one.
I, of course, played the same game, and I thought that all of the bosses were challenging to varying degrees, but were neither extremely easy nor impossible.
pm713 wrote: I can't help but notice that rather than addressing the question you've just made a poor point about what things are wounded on and complained about Wraithknights.
I think they were trying to show that common methods of dealing with Wraithlords are ineffective against Wraithknights.
I'm also pretty sure they were assuming you were trying to say that people should just treat Wraithknights like they would a Wraithlord with a few extra wounds.
Pouncey wrote:I think they were trying to show that common methods of dealing with Wraithlords are ineffective against Wraithknights.
I'm also pretty sure they were assuming you were trying to say that people should just treat Wraithknights like they would a Wraithlord with a few extra wounds.
pm713 wrote: I can't help but notice that rather than addressing the question you've just made a poor point about what things are wounded on and complained about Wraithknights.
Reading comprehension. It's a thing.
I answered the question.
The strongly implied answer was: "You can use sniper rounds, sternguard hellfire ammunition rounds and the traditional anti-tank weapons."
I would say that I can understand how confusion could arise...
...
...
...
But that would be a lie on my part.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grizzyzz wrote: You gave a terrible answer. Anti tank weapons and snipers work poorly and hellfire are available in about two armies.
Pouncey wrote:I think they were trying to show that common methods of dealing with Wraithlords are ineffective against Wraithknights.
I'm also pretty sure they were assuming you were trying to say that people should just treat Wraithknights like they would a Wraithlord with a few extra wounds.
As I said!
Reading comprehension.
It's a thing.
And you apparently have it, at least.
I'd like to recommend not being so hostile though. When you're trying to convince someone of something, insulting them is typically the wrong way to go about it. Very counter-productive.
That said, I did note that you said that anti-vehicle weapons were effective against both. Though I have no actual frame of reference for saying this, if I wanted to take out something as tall as a building and made of tough stuff, I'd probably favor a rocket launcher or laser cannon over special acid-bearing ammunition for .75 cal shells or 1.00 cal sniper rifles. Both of those weapon choices bring the movie Independence Day to mind, with the US Air Force fighting city-sized spaceships using missiles with a one-pound warhead. I thought of shelling them with artillery from afar. My dad suggested dropping 2,000 pound bombs all over the top of it. Then he reconsidered and suggested placing nuclear blasts on opposite ends, one on top, one below, to try to flip it and make the crew and troops inside go squish against their bulkheads and then break it in half when it slams against the ground.
I mean, Anti-tank weapons are fine against a Wraithlord in general, except for maybe melta guns. And a good amount of armies have poison, so the hellfire shell example does actually make sense. Another option is simply tarpitting the Wraithlord, seeing as it doesn't have stomp, and if you can ignore it's armor in CC you can get a good amount of wounds in as it lacks an invuln or a FNP.
pm713 wrote: You gave a terrible answer. Anti tank weapons and snipers work poorly and hellfire are available in about two armies.
1. I could make the same general point (about being available to a limited number of armies) against the people crying: "USE THE NEW SHINY GRAV CENTURIONS!!!!!"
2. Your point about snipers being ineffective is factually inaccurate. A wraithlords is 120 points per model without upgrades. It has 3 wounds and a 3+ armor save. It doesn't have an invuln. It can't be upgraded to have an invuln. It doesn't have FNP. It has, furthermore, an 18 inch threat range.
Roll 3 6s to wound on sniper rounds, and the wraithlord is dead.
Let's do some mathhammer. 12 ppm per sniper, and you could take 10 snipers vs that one wraithlord. Let's assume BS 3:
10/1 (10 shots) X 1/2 (to hit) X 1/2 (to wound) X 1/3 (3+ armor save) X 1/3 (3 wounds) = 10/36 = 5/18.
A little less than a third of all shots fired by snipers would deal a fatal blow to a wraithlord.
And that's BS 3. Vanilla marine snipers have better odds.
Note, finally, this doesn't take into account the fact that snipers resolve wounds at AP 2 on 6s to hit.
Swampmist wrote: I mean, Anti-tank weapons are fine against a Wraithlord in general, except for maybe melta guns. And a good amount of armies have poison, so the hellfire shell example does actually make sense. Another option is simply tarpitting the Wraithlord, seeing as it doesn't have stomp, and if you can ignore it's armor in CC you can get a good amount of wounds in as it lacks an invuln or a FNP.
Anti tank - Cover and high T make it surprisingly tough against them.
Poison - Is it that common? The only armies I can think of having it are Dark Eldar, Space Marines and Nurgle Daemons. So not that common although I think Dark Eldar would do well with their amount of poison.
Tarpittting - Watch for flamers if you have low armour and T and you're close but otherwise a good solution.
pm713 wrote: You gave a terrible answer. Anti tank weapons and snipers work poorly and hellfire are available in about two armies.
1. I could make the same general point (about being available to a limited number of armies) against the people crying: "USE THE NEW SHINY GRAV CENTURIONS!!!!!"
2. Your point about snipers being ineffective is factually inaccurate. A wraithlords is 120 points per model without upgrades. It has 3 wounds and a 3+ armor save. It doesn't have an invuln. It can't be upgraded to have an invuln. It doesn't have FNP. It has, furthermore, an 18 inch threat range.
Roll 3 6s to wound on sniper rounds, and the wraithlord is dead.
Let's do some mathhammer. 12 ppm per sniper, and you could take 10 snipers vs that one wraithlord. Let's assume BS 3:
10/1 (10 shots) X 1/2 (to hit) X 1/2 (to wound) X 1/3 (3+ armor save) X 1/3 (3 wounds) = 10/36 = 5/18.
A little less than a third of all shots fired by snipers would deal a fatal blow to a wraithlord.
And that's BS 3. Vanilla marine snipers have better odds.
Note, finally, this doesn't take into account the fact that snipers resolve wounds at AP 2 on 6s to hit.
Personally, I'd use an Exorcist.
Also, Vanilla Marines only get sniper rifles on Scouts, which are BS3 except the Sergeant.
Pouncey wrote:I'd like to recommend not being so hostile though. When you're trying to convince someone of something, insulting them is typically the wrong way to go about it. Very counter-productive.
That said, I did note that you said that anti-vehicle weapons were effective against both. Though I have no actual frame of reference for saying this, if I wanted to take out something as tall as a building and made of tough stuff, I'd probably favor a rocket launcher or laser cannon over special acid-bearing ammunition for .75 cal shells or 1.00 cal sniper rifles. Both of those weapon choices bring the movie Independence Day to mind, with the US Air Force fighting city-sized spaceships using missiles with a one-pound warhead. I thought of shelling them with artillery from afar. My dad suggested dropping 2,000 pound bombs all over the top of it. Then he reconsidered and suggested placing nuclear blasts on opposite ends, one on top, one below, to try to flip it and make the crew and troops inside go squish against their bulkheads and then break it in half when it slams against the ground.
How much larger is a human being than a brown recluse?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Pouncey wrote:Also, Vanilla Marines only get sniper rifles on Scouts, which are BS3 except the Sergeant.
That's actually not true as of the 7th ed codex. Scouts are now BS4; furthermore, if you run them in a gladius strike force, they can reroll 1s to hit when you use the devastator and tactical combat doctrines.
pm713 wrote: You gave a terrible answer. Anti tank weapons and snipers work poorly and hellfire are available in about two armies.
1. I could make the same general point (about being available to a limited number of armies) against the people crying: "USE THE NEW SHINY GRAV CENTURIONS!!!!!"
2. Your point about snipers being ineffective is factually inaccurate. A wraithlords is 120 points per model without upgrades. It has 3 wounds and a 3+ armor save. It doesn't have an invuln. It can't be upgraded to have an invuln. It doesn't have FNP. They have, furthermore, an 18 inch threat range.
Roll 3 6s to wound on a sniper round, and the wraithlord is dead.
Let's do some mathhammer. 12 ppm per sniper, and you could take 10 snipers vs that one wraithlord. Let's assume BS 3:
10/1 (10 shots) X 1/2 (to hit) X 1/2 (to wound) X 1/3 (3+ armor save) X 1/3 (3 wounds) = 10/36 = 5/18.
A little less than a third of all shots fired by snipers would deal a fatal blow to a wraithlord.
And that's BS 3. Vanilla marine snipers have better odds.
Note, finally, this doesn't take into account the fact that snipers resolve wounds at AP 2 on 6s to hit.
Where on Earth is an 18" threat range coming from? Last I checked the ability to shoot a scatter laser constituted a threat.
Yeah roll 3 6's out of cover and it's gone. If you roll all ones to hit it does nothing. Luck is not a valid counter.
Half your snipers will miss. A further half will fail to wound. One of those will rend. So to survive the Wraithlord needs to pass two 3+ saves. Which seems pretty likely. That's without cover and when would you not have it in cover?
Even with that then you've done your opponent a favour by wasting that many points on scouts. One or two armies may have better snipers but largely snipers are a waste.
Pouncey wrote:I'd like to recommend not being so hostile though. When you're trying to convince someone of something, insulting them is typically the wrong way to go about it. Very counter-productive.
That said, I did note that you said that anti-vehicle weapons were effective against both. Though I have no actual frame of reference for saying this, if I wanted to take out something as tall as a building and made of tough stuff, I'd probably favor a rocket launcher or laser cannon over special acid-bearing ammunition for .75 cal shells or 1.00 cal sniper rifles. Both of those weapon choices bring the movie Independence Day to mind, with the US Air Force fighting city-sized spaceships using missiles with a one-pound warhead. I thought of shelling them with artillery from afar. My dad suggested dropping 2,000 pound bombs all over the top of it. Then he reconsidered and suggested placing nuclear blasts on opposite ends, one on top, one below, to try to flip it and make the crew and troops inside go squish against their bulkheads and then break it in half when it slams against the ground.
How much larger is a human being than a brown recluse?
Much larger, except Brown Recluse bites rarely kills. It just makes you very, very sick.
So unless you want a weapon that makes wraithknights waste a turn vomiting, that's not a very good example.
Pouncey wrote:I'd like to recommend not being so hostile though. When you're trying to convince someone of something, insulting them is typically the wrong way to go about it. Very counter-productive.
That said, I did note that you said that anti-vehicle weapons were effective against both. Though I have no actual frame of reference for saying this, if I wanted to take out something as tall as a building and made of tough stuff, I'd probably favor a rocket launcher or laser cannon over special acid-bearing ammunition for .75 cal shells or 1.00 cal sniper rifles. Both of those weapon choices bring the movie Independence Day to mind, with the US Air Force fighting city-sized spaceships using missiles with a one-pound warhead. I thought of shelling them with artillery from afar. My dad suggested dropping 2,000 pound bombs all over the top of it. Then he reconsidered and suggested placing nuclear blasts on opposite ends, one on top, one below, to try to flip it and make the crew and troops inside go squish against their bulkheads and then break it in half when it slams against the ground.
How much larger is a human being than a brown recluse?
I've never seen a Brown Recluse in person, and I really would rather not at any point in my life. I've seen photos of untreated bites...
I get your point though.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Pouncey wrote:Also, Vanilla Marines only get sniper rifles on Scouts, which are BS3 except the Sergeant.
That's actually not true as of the 7th ed codex. Scouts are now BS4; furthermore, if you run them in a gladius strike force, they can reroll 1s to hit when you use the devastator and tactical combat doctrines.
Well, at least I have that to look forward to when I return to playing the game. Doubt I'll ever use a Gladius Strike Force though, my games tend to be very low points because my mom and I are agonizingly slow.
CthuluIsSpy wrote:Much larger, except Brown Recluse bites rarely kills. It just makes you very, very sick.
So unless you want a weapon that makes wraithknights waste a turn vomiting, that's not a very good example.
Have you seen images of brown recluse bites?
A single brown recluse bite can cause necrosis.
Will one brown recluse bite kill you? Maybe not. Will several? I'll leave that for your consideration.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
pm713 wrote:Where on Earth is an 18" threat range coming from? Last I checked the ability to shoot a scatter laser constituted a threat.
"Without upgrades."
They have shuriken catapults. You can upgrade to scatter lasers for 15 points per laser.
Yeah roll 3 6's out of cover and it's gone. If you roll all ones to hit it does nothing. Luck is not a valid counter.
Half your snipers will miss. A further half will fail to wound. One of those will rend. So to survive the Wraithlord needs to pass two 3+ saves. Which seems pretty likely. That's without cover and when would you not have it in cover?
Even with that then you've done your opponent a favour by wasting that many points on scouts. One or two armies may have better snipers but largely snipers are a waste.
pm713 wrote: You gave a terrible answer. Anti tank weapons and snipers work poorly and hellfire are available in about two armies.
1. I could make the same general point (about being available to a limited number of armies) against the people crying: "USE THE NEW SHINY GRAV CENTURIONS!!!!!"
2. Your point about snipers being ineffective is factually inaccurate. A wraithlords is 120 points per model without upgrades. It has 3 wounds and a 3+ armor save. It doesn't have an invuln. It can't be upgraded to have an invuln. It doesn't have FNP. They have, furthermore, an 18 inch threat range.
Roll 3 6s to wound on a sniper round, and the wraithlord is dead.
Let's do some mathhammer. 12 ppm per sniper, and you could take 10 snipers vs that one wraithlord. Let's assume BS 3:
10/1 (10 shots) X 1/2 (to hit) X 1/2 (to wound) X 1/3 (3+ armor save) X 1/3 (3 wounds) = 10/36 = 5/18.
A little less than a third of all shots fired by snipers would deal a fatal blow to a wraithlord.
And that's BS 3. Vanilla marine snipers have better odds.
Note, finally, this doesn't take into account the fact that snipers resolve wounds at AP 2 on 6s to hit.
Where on Earth is an 18" threat range coming from? Last I checked the ability to shoot a scatter laser constituted a threat.
Yeah roll 3 6's out of cover and it's gone. If you roll all ones to hit it does nothing. Luck is not a valid counter.
Half your snipers will miss. A further half will fail to wound. One of those will rend. So to survive the Wraithlord needs to pass two 3+ saves. Which seems pretty likely. That's without cover and when would you not have it in cover?
Even with that then you've done your opponent a favour by wasting that many points on scouts. One or two armies may have better snipers but largely snipers are a waste.
The 18" threat range comes from its shuriken catapults. They were assuming a Wraithlord completely barren of upgrades.
pm713 wrote: You gave a terrible answer. Anti tank weapons and snipers work poorly and hellfire are available in about two armies.
1. I could make the same general point (about being available to a limited number of armies) against the people crying: "USE THE NEW SHINY GRAV CENTURIONS!!!!!"
2. Your point about snipers being ineffective is factually inaccurate. A wraithlords is 120 points per model without upgrades. It has 3 wounds and a 3+ armor save. It doesn't have an invuln. It can't be upgraded to have an invuln. It doesn't have FNP. They have, furthermore, an 18 inch threat range.
Roll 3 6s to wound on a sniper round, and the wraithlord is dead.
Let's do some mathhammer. 12 ppm per sniper, and you could take 10 snipers vs that one wraithlord. Let's assume BS 3:
10/1 (10 shots) X 1/2 (to hit) X 1/2 (to wound) X 1/3 (3+ armor save) X 1/3 (3 wounds) = 10/36 = 5/18.
A little less than a third of all shots fired by snipers would deal a fatal blow to a wraithlord.
And that's BS 3. Vanilla marine snipers have better odds.
Note, finally, this doesn't take into account the fact that snipers resolve wounds at AP 2 on 6s to hit.
Where on Earth is an 18" threat range coming from? Last I checked the ability to shoot a scatter laser constituted a threat.
Yeah roll 3 6's out of cover and it's gone. If you roll all ones to hit it does nothing. Luck is not a valid counter.
Half your snipers will miss. A further half will fail to wound. One of those will rend. So to survive the Wraithlord needs to pass two 3+ saves. Which seems pretty likely. That's without cover and when would you not have it in cover?
Even with that then you've done your opponent a favour by wasting that many points on scouts. One or two armies may have better snipers but largely snipers are a waste.
The 18" threat range comes from its shuriken catapults. They were assuming a Wraithlord completely barren of upgrades.
Pounce wrote:The 18" threat range comes from its shuriken catapults. They were assuming a Wraithlord completely barren of upgrades.
I half suspect that he doesn't even bother reading my posts in their entirety. He often replies to my postings in a way that completely miss the point of -- often completely misrepresent -- what I've actually said.
Pounce wrote:The 18" threat range comes from its shuriken catapults. They were assuming a Wraithlord completely barren of upgrades.
I half suspect that he doesn't even bother reading my posts in their entirety. He often replies to my postings in a way that completely miss the point, often completely misrepresent, what I've actually said.
Thus the hostility.
Excuse me if I get bored of childish whining. But I would add I do read your posts. Perhaps my interpretation is altered by.... well how stupid some things you've said are.
pm713 wrote:Excuse me if I get bored of childish whining. But I would add I do read your posts. Perhaps my interpretation is altered by.... well how stupid some things you've said are.
I actually think that would be fine; if there where a way to neuter GMCs and SHVs without killing them it would be just as well. Look at the sicarian Venator from 30k; "Crew Shakens" any vehicle it shoots at, but because of the wording it works on SHVs. however, it's a very expensive, one shot weapon with ordinance, so it's still balanced and only really works great against heavy tank armies. Something similar for GMCs would go a long way to helping the game be less slanted toward them.
The 18" threat range comes from its shuriken catapults. They were assuming a Wraithlord completely barren of upgrades.
Which is never going to be seen.
Personally I run wraithlords bare bones. Flamers and glaives. For one it keeps them cheap. and 2nd its hilarious to see your opponents face when you put 3 Lords on the table. They absorb a lot of unnecessary fire, being T8 is still good. I would rather have my lords taking Lascannon shots then my transports and tanks. And they are immune to small arms fire which is also a nice perk.
Board control.. If ran in the warhost they auto run 6" and combined with an Avatar have Rage and Furious charge, which is hilarious! Essentially, they prevent my opponent from moving into their potential 18" charge bubble per Lord, covering a fair amount of the board if they are spread out a little.
Shooty wraithlords are a trap. For the same cost you can get more bang for your buck from warwalkers, scat bikes, running hornets, or in this current meta, just more warp spiders haha.
The comparison between a Wraithlord and the Wraithknight is utterly baffling to me. The Wraithknight has ranged Str. D weapons, moves 12" a turn and murderizes everything it touches in close combat. The Wraithlord is completely ignorable and dies to a stiff breeze by comparison.
The biggest hurdle to balancing 40k currently is two fold.
First, assault is WAY to nerfed, but that's old news.
The second thing passes under the radar and annoys everyone but people have an issue identifying it. It's the disparity between Armor Value and Toughness.
Essentially AV 10 is the equivalent of T6 (both require 4's from s6 to take damage). Of course s3 can hurt T6 on a roll of 6 While AV10 is safe from s3 but AV doesn't have an armor save ever. Tau has made this even more hilarious, piloted walkers jumping around with high toughness and armor saves that also swing back in combat ignoring armor even though they lack any sort of combat weapon. Iam not hating on Tau here, in fact I think the simplest solution is to make all vehicles more like Tau MC's.
If for example AV10 was T6 and AV11 was T7 etc etc. and we gave vehicles armor saves then the game become much simpler to balance.
MC's are SOOOO strong in the current meta. They can move full speed and fire 2 weapons, get toe in cover, smash, MTC, fear and many also have their own special rules on top of that. Meanwhile vehicles need to be 25% obscured and have literally no armor save anywhere in the game, something I have never understood and when damaged are forced to snap fire, snap fire and not move, lose wargear, become permanently immobile or flat out die, worse yet detonate and kill other models nearby.
Imagine if a rhino was T6 and had 3w and a 3+ armor save and a 6+ possibly invuln. The unit type Vehicle would stipulate it can't be locked in combat while tank would allow it to tank shock. All vehicles are relentless and transports and fire points remain the same. Make weapons like Las canons monster hunter/tank hunter.
Honestly you wouldn't use warrior gauss to kill a wk. Why not use Destroyers or Heavy destrouers? This is like asking how many bolter gun shots will it take to kill a monolith.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The fact that you can't kill a wk practically with gauss doesn't mean the WK needs a nerf(though it still is op). Personally I can use my Skitarii vangaurd to kill a WK its not like they're invincible. Also alpha striking grav is every where
