As it is now, probably just under 400pts, no more.
However, it SHOULD only be 300 pts with a few nerfs. As an Eldar player for years, I have gone through many editions before the WK became my preferred anti-tank. When it was an MC with str10 guns, it was quite good and I enjoyed fielding 2 of them. When it was rumored to become a LoW & GMC, I was pissed. Suddenly I was going to have to look for other anti-tank options since I was certain it was going to now be 450+ pts.
I was relieved when it only went up to 295, but then immediately realized the hate that it was going to generate. Personally, I would prefer that it stay under 300pts, but that it has a few nerfs. -1W and only 24" range on the Wraithcannons would be a good start.
The biggest issue with the WK is not necessarily its rules, but the rules for GMCs/D-weapons and the fact that the WK is the only "codex" GMC (until the StormSurge, but that this is expensive). All other GMCs are FW and overcosted.
Galef wrote: As it is now, probably just under 400pts, no more.
What's your standard of comparison?
Honestly, Imperial Kinghtss and the fact that the WK is much better. They should be priced similarly. The reasons I would say that IKs still need to be more are because:
1) T8 is roughly equal to AV12, but IK's are AV13 in the front and can get a 4++. Obviously FNP exists and armour saves, blah, blah, but if the initial dice roll to inflict damage is harder, that should count. 2) Even though Poison is nerfed vs GMCs, you can still wound whereas an IK is completely immune. Grav is WAAAAY more common than Haywire 3) IK's can have a D cc weapon AND a big gun at the same time. WK are more specialized as befits Eldar. 4) Way more armies have access to IKs. Sure anyone can technically ally with any other army, but the ally matrix ensures more armies will have "comfortable" access to IKs
The WK would still be "better" than any IK, but pricing them similarly helps
This more than cancels out AV 13. AV 13 is only decent because S6 can't scratch it. But scatterbikes fly to the sides of the IK and they die the next turn. IK are garbage, even compared to regular MCs. The curse of hull points is a thing.
Galef wrote:Honestly, Imperial Kinghtss and the fact that the WK is much better. They should be priced similarly.
I don't follow you. WKs are much better than IKs, but WKs and IKs should be priced similarly?
I'm not sure that I follow.
1) T8 is roughly equal to AV12, but IK's are AV13 in the front. Obviously FNP exists and armour saves, blah, blah, but if the initial dice roll to inflict damage is harder, that should count.
AV 12 and T8 are incommensurable.
An "explodes" result on AV13 results in 1d3 hullpoints of damage.
One, and only one, wound can be dealt to T8 because of, say, a lascannon shot.
2) Even though Poison is nerfed vs GMCs, you can still wound whereas an IK is completely immune. Grav is WAAAAY more common than Haywire
It would take, for a sternguard veteran, assuming IF chapter tactics:
5/6 X 1/6 X 1/3 (3+ armor save) X 2/3 (5+ FNP) shots to deal a single wound to a wraithknight, assuming no further buffs. That's 10/324 = 5/162. That's more than 30 shots just to deal a single wound to a wraithknight.
That's 3 - 5 man sternguard veteran squads firing within rapidfire distance. To deal 1 wound. And statistically speaking, none of those 30 or so shots are actually going to hit. 5/162 is actually worse odds than 1/30.
No. It's so difficult to deal poison damage to a wraithknight that we should assume it as practically or virtually negligible for points-cost purposes.
3) IK's can have a D cc weapon AND a big gun at the same time. WK are more specialized as befits Eldar.
The wraithknight deals 5 S10, AP 2 attacks on the charge, plus hammer of wrath, plus stomp. That's something.
A wraithknight should be about 100 points more expensive. I argued against that for over a month, then did the math. T8 3+ actually equal to av13/13/12
The suntanning should be cheaper than that, the sword and board slightly more.
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: A wraithknight should be about 100 points more expensive. I argued against that for over a month, then did the math. T8 3+ actually equal to av13/13/12
Except, the wraithknight isn't T8 3+. It's T8, 3+ and 5+ FNP.
And I don't think that you're factoring in the possibility of dealing multiple hullpoints to AV with vehicle damage table results.
400 points, -1 point for every post on "nerf Wraithknights" you've made. IOW, zero points.
Seriously, what is the goal of this thread? Is there anything new to discuss about new Wraithknight rules that has not been covered in any of the countless previous threads on Wraithknights and Eldar in general? Or is this just another opportunity for you to express how unhappy you are about them, soon to descend into thinly-veiled accusations about all Eldar players being WAACTFGs?
Peregrine wrote: 400 points, -1 point for every post on "nerf Wraithknights" you've made. IOW, zero points.
Seriously, what is the goal of this thread? Is there anything new to discuss about new Wraithknight rules that has not been covered in any of the countless previous threads on Wraithknights and Eldar in general? Or is this just another opportunity for you to express how unhappy you are about them, soon to descend into thinly-veiled accusations about all Eldar players being WAACTFGs?
The poll is new.
I want actual statistical data on public opinion on what constitutes a fair wraithknight cost.
Automatically Appended Next Post: So far:
38% of pollsters aren't taking the poll seriously.
1 person thinks that the WK current cost is fair.
The remainder think it should cost more than 350 points.
Traditio wrote: I want actual statistical data on public opinion on what constitutes a fair wraithknight cost.
No you don't. You want a number that you can cite to support your claims that Wraithknights should be more expensive. Or, if the result of the poll is that Wraithknights should be less than 295 points (the option that is currently winning) will you concede defeat on the issue and lobby for its cost to be reduced to match public opinion? Will you go from arguing that Eldar players are WAACTFGs if they exploit this undercosted unit to praising Eldar players that take such an awesome model despite it having a point cost that is generally agreed to be too high?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Traditio wrote: 38% of pollsters aren't taking the poll seriously.
1 person thinks that the WK current cost is fair.
The remainder think it should cost more than 350 points.
IOW, exactly what I thought: any poll vote that doesn't agree with what you want the result to be is "not taking the poll seriously". You aren't attempting to make an honest survey of opinions, you're just trying to see if you can manufacture some numbers to support your balance proposals.
BossJakadakk wrote: So you made a poll for opinions that contains wrong answers. Interesting.
Explain.
You're essentially implying that anyone who thinks it's overcosted (EDIT: or even currently costed fairly) isn't taking the poll seriously, meaning those answers are trolls or simply wrong. Yet you provided the access to those answers, and are now discounting those who use them. I don't get the impression you're trying to get any data at all, but are rather attempting to find a reason to further assert your seeming forum-wide constant vendetta against all things "cheese."
Nobody has provided an in-thread argument for why the WK should cost less than it does now, and I've not seen any serious argumentation for such a proposition anywhere else.
This leads me to think that 8 people, thus far, have trolled my poll.
Traditio wrote: Nobody has provided an in-thread argument for why the WK should cost less than it does now, and I've not seen any serious argumentation for such a proposition anywhere else.
This leads me to think that 8 people, thus far, have trolled my poll.
Why bother having a poll if you're just going to ignore any poll results that don't match up with what you've decided the common discussion on the subject is?
Traditio wrote: Nobody has provided an in-thread argument for why the WK should cost less than it does now, and I've not seen any serious argumentation for such a proposition anywhere else.
This leads me to think that 8 people, thus far, have trolled my poll.
Why bother having a poll if you're just going to ignore any poll results that don't match up with what you've decided the common discussion on the subject is?
I want to clarify my answer. I am the 1 person who voted that the WK should remain at the same cost. Not because I think that is a fair cost for the model, but because of the economics of fitting one into my army. Rather than keeping the WK as is, but jacking the points up (creating the need to drop other units in my finely balanced lists), I would MUCH rather have a 295pt WK that is fair for the cost (i.e. nerfed a bit)
Dropping from 6 wounds to 5 is a 17% decrease in durablitly. Making the Wraithcannons only 24" range forces the "shooting" version to be more aggressive and possibly get into unfavorable positions. Both of these would make a "350pt" WK into a "295pts"
Why have a poll at all? You're ignoring any answer that doesn't come with an explanation post attached (at least when it disagrees with you, you seem fine with accepting poll votes in your favor that aren't accompanied by an explanation for why that person voted the way they did), so what exactly is this poll accomplishing? You might as well just read Eldar balance threads and say "I see a lot of people arguing that Wraithknights should be nerfed".
(Of course we all know the real answer: doing that wouldn't allow you to cite poll numbers in support of your arguments in your next "nerf Wraithknights" discussion. This isn't a sincere attempt to gain information, it's an attempt to manufacture evidence for your next arguments.)
Galef wrote: I want to clarify my answer. I am the 1 person who voted that the WK should remain at the same cost. Not because I think that is a fair cost for the model, but because of the economics of fitting one into my army. Rather than keeping the WK as is, but jacking the points up (creating the need to drop other units in my finely balanced lists), I would MUCH rather have a 295pt WK that is fair for the cost (i.e. nerfed a bit)
Dropping from 6 wounds to 5 is a 17% decrease in durablitly. Making the Wraithcannons only 24" range forces the "shooting" version to be more aggressive and possibly get into unfavorable positions. Both of these would make a "350pt" WK into a "295pts"
"For the purposes of the poll, assume that the wraithknight has the same stats, special rules, wargear, etc. as it does now.
Assume further that, regardless of its price, it must purchase upgrades as normal."
'Real' reason the WK should be cheaper: as we determined in the other thread a (current) equal number of points of Tactical Marines and Rhinos beat a WK 8 on 1 in an objectives match.
Matt.Kingsley wrote: 'Real' reason the WK should be cheaper: as we determined in the other thread a (current) equal number of points of Tactical Marines and Rhinos beat a WK 8 on 1 in an objectives match.
So 4 units of Tac Marines with their free rhinos is 280 points. IIRC, the WK kills 6 units before it dies. I propose dropping the WK to an equivalent point value of 210, 3/4 of the cost of those SM units. Maybe add 5 points because it kills 210 points in the given scenario.
Galef wrote: I want to clarify my answer. I am the 1 person who voted that the WK should remain at the same cost. Not because I think that is a fair cost for the model, but because of the economics of fitting one into my army. Rather than keeping the WK as is, but jacking the points up (creating the need to drop other units in my finely balanced lists), I would MUCH rather have a 295pt WK that is fair for the cost (i.e. nerfed a bit)
Dropping from 6 wounds to 5 is a 17% decrease in durablitly. Making the Wraithcannons only 24" range forces the "shooting" version to be more aggressive and possibly get into unfavorable positions. Both of these would make a "350pt" WK into a "295pts"
"For the purposes of the poll, assume that the wraithknight has the same stats, special rules, wargear, etc. as it does now.
Assume further that, regardless of its price, it must purchase upgrades as normal."
Which is why I clarified in my first post, that as is, the WK should be just under 400pts. Like 395. 100pts more than it is now, as many other are suggesting. Even though this screws the poll results, I think it is quite safe to assume that the VAST majority of people agree this is the case.
However, my point was that the theory of a WK; something that is the next level up from a Wraithlord with a living pilot and unique wargear, SHOULD cost around double what a WraithLord does. So when asked "What should a WK cost?" I voted according to that. I then elaborated in the comments to help further flesh out your data.
BossJakadakk wrote:So 4 units of Tac Marines with their free rhinos is 280 points. IIRC, the WK kills 6 units before it dies. I propose dropping the WK to an equivalent point value of 210, 3/4 of the cost of those SM units. Maybe add 5 points because it kills 210 points in the given scenario.
He's referring to the test I conducted in the "do you run a cheesy army" thread. The WK didn't die. It ddn't take a single wound. It ran around slaughtering things with utter impunity. It just didn't kill 8 units in 5 turns.
This doesn't actually prove anything about fair points costs. Had the game gone on to turn 6 or 7, it would have killed more things.
It only proves that a WK can't, in and of itself, reliably beat MSU battle company marines in an objectives game.
Matt.Kingsley wrote: 'Real' reason the WK should be cheaper: as we determined in the other thread a (current) equal number of points of Tactical Marines and Rhinos beat a WK 8 on 1 in an objectives match.
So 4 units of Tac Marines with their free rhinos is 280 points. IIRC, the WK kills 6 units before it dies. I propose dropping the WK to an equivalent point value of 210, 3/4 of the cost of those SM units. Maybe add 5 points because it kills 210 points in the given scenario.
How are you getting 6 units? It's killing at most 14 models (with no upgrades). And that is over the course of 7 turns. Unless it gets into melee, but I don't use one often (read once since I bought it back in 6th edition) so I wouldn't know how well it stands up to that.
Happyjew wrote:How are you getting 6 units? It's killing at most 14 models (with no upgrades). And that is over the course of 7 turns. Unless it gets into melee, but I don't use one often (read once since I bought it back in 6th edition) so I wouldn't know how well it stands up to that.
In the test I conducted, the "real" damage output of the WK came from charging. 5 S10, AP 2 attacks on the charge is pretty decent damage. Add stomp, hammer of wrath and complete immunity to small arms? Complete slaughter.
Matt.Kingsley wrote: 'Real' reason the WK should be cheaper: as we determined in the other thread a (current) equal number of points of Tactical Marines and Rhinos beat a WK 8 on 1 in an objectives match.
So 4 units of Tac Marines with their free rhinos is 280 points. IIRC, the WK kills 6 units before it dies. I propose dropping the WK to an equivalent point value of 210, 3/4 of the cost of those SM units. Maybe add 5 points because it kills 210 points in the given scenario.
How are you getting 6 units? It's killing at most 14 models (with no upgrades). And that is over the course of 7 turns. Unless it gets into melee, but I don't use one often (read once since I bought it back in 6th edition) so I wouldn't know how well it stands up to that.
That's actually valid. It won't necessarily get into melee every round, even if it is the melee variant. Killing 14 models isn't exactly scary.
BossJakadakk wrote:That's actually valid. It won't necessarily get into melee every round, even if it is the melee variant. Killing 14 models isn't exactly scary.
The WK, if not upgraded, is highly effective as an anti-tank model. It's apparently not particularly good vs. MSU spam. It is, however, capable of wiping squads of infantry in close combat, and it can reliably pop open tanks.
When you add scatter lasers, I suspect that it becomes substantially better vs. MSU spam. I'll conduct another test later on today and post the results.
Matt.Kingsley wrote: 'Real' reason the WK should be cheaper: as we determined in the other thread a (current) equal number of points of Tactical Marines and Rhinos beat a WK 8 on 1 in an objectives match.
So 4 units of Tac Marines with their free rhinos is 280 points. IIRC, the WK kills 6 units before it dies. I propose dropping the WK to an equivalent point value of 210, 3/4 of the cost of those SM units. Maybe add 5 points because it kills 210 points in the given scenario.
How are you getting 6 units? It's killing at most 14 models (with no upgrades). And that is over the course of 7 turns. Unless it gets into melee, but I don't use one often (read once since I bought it back in 6th edition) so I wouldn't know how well it stands up to that.
That's actually valid. It won't necessarily get into melee every round, even if it is the melee variant. Killing 14 models isn't exactly scary.
Then again, you are right. It could (theoretically) kill 4 rhinos, plus two 5 man tac squads. Assuming every shot hits and wounds, and the models fail their cover save.
So let's see...Over the course of 7 turns, 14 shots at BS 4 means on average you will get 10 hits (actually 9.333...). Of those, 1 in 6 will roll a 1. 1 in 6 will roll a 6. So about 8 (7.778) will be successful, and of those about 2 will allow no saves. Of the remaining 6, if the model has cover, (assuming 5+ standard), 2 will be saved. Meaning, you are most likely to get 6 (5.704) dead models. In other words, you take out the tanks and that is it.
Actually it was over 6 turns, not 5, since that's the metric yu used.
More than 6 D hits are required to kill the Rhions if they are using cover/smokelaunchers, and a WK will only hit with 8 of the 12 shots it will fire in 6 turns.
If the Marines aren't riding in their Rhinos you can't charge them after destroying a Rhino, meaning you'll have to shoot them and not a Rhinos to charge them, wasting more shots.
Ez win.
Going on to T7 at worst makes it a tie, so the WK should at most be 280 using your logic.
Matt.Kingsley wrote: Actually it was over 6 turns, not 5, since that's the metric yu used.
In the test I conducted, the game ended on turn 5.
More than 6 D hits are required to kill the Rhions if they are using cover/smokelaunchers, and a WK will only hit with 8 of the 12 shots it will fire in 6 turns.
Rhinos can only pop smoke once per game, and in lieu of a flat out movement or shooting.
quote]Going on to T7 at worst makes it a tie, so the WK should at most be 280 using your logic.
BossJakadakk wrote:That's actually valid. It won't necessarily get into melee every round, even if it is the melee variant. Killing 14 models isn't exactly scary.
The WK, if not upgraded, is highly effective as an anti-tank model. It's apparently not particularly good vs. MSU spam. It is, however, capable of wiping squads of infantry in close combat, and it can reliably pop open tanks.
When you add scatter lasers, I suspect that it becomes substantially better vs. MSU spam. I'll conduct another test later on today and post the results.
When you add scatter lasers, you're giving it upgrades. We're discussing base model and points.
Not to mention that fact that a D-shot that hits, gets through the cover save, and doesn't roll a 1 or 6, isn't even guaranteed to kill a 35pt...I mean FREE rhino. D3 only averages 2 HPs. So out of those 6 turns it's only likely to kill 3 rhinos and maybe 1 Tac unit it charges. The shoulder guns are need for MSU, but we are considering them at this time.
Galef wrote: Not to mention that fact that a D-shot that hits, gets throught the cover save, and doesn't roll a 1 or 6, isn't even garunteed to kill a 35pt...I mean FREE rhino. D3 only averages 2 HPs.
So out of those 6 tunrs it's only likely to kill 3 rhinos and maybe 1 Tac unit it charges. The shoulder guns definitely help though
You're not taking into account the fact that it can charge. Charging a rhino essentially gaurantees that you'll kill the rhino in the assault phase.
Galef wrote: Not to mention that fact that a D-shot that hits, gets throught the cover save, and doesn't roll a 1 or 6, isn't even garunteed to kill a 35pt...I mean FREE rhino. D3 only averages 2 HPs.
So out of those 6 tunrs it's only likely to kill 3 rhinos and maybe 1 Tac unit it charges. The shoulder guns definitely help though
You're not taking into account the fact that it can charge. Charging a rhino essentially gaurantees that you'll kill the rhino in the assault phase.
Actually, I did take charging into account. That was how it killed the 1 Tac unit.
Regardless, it's pointless to compare units in isolation like this. Of course a group of Tac units in Rhinos would be better than a WK at an objective mission, But add Scatter bikes into the mix and you have a different story. The fact is that the WK plugs any whole in an already full tool kit that Eldar have. I like that it does this, but would like to continue bringing my WK without getting the stink-eye
Galef wrote:Actually, I did take charging into account. That was how it killed the 1 Tac unit.
Regardless, it's pointless to compare units in isolation like this. Of course a group of Tac units in Rhinos would be better than a WK at an objective mission, But add Scatter bikes into the mix and you have a different story. The fact is that the WK plugs any whole in an already full tool kit that Eldar have. I like that it does this, but would like to continue bringing my WK without getting the stink-eye
I wrote a turn-by-turn "battle report" in the "is your army cheesetastic" thread. Would you care to look at it and comment on whether or not the results are basically typical?
you know what. I think I am starting to understand the users of dakka dakka. It is very evident that there be many many trolls on here with the leading vote to make the wraith mnight cost less than 295pts. You trolls must think your are so funny.
Grief wrote: you know what. I think I am starting to understand the users of dakka dakka. It is very evident that there be many many trolls on here with the leading vote to make the wraith mnight cost less than 295pts. You trolls must think your are so funny.
This is why I like polls.
Most people on dakka, I am willing to bet, don't post on a regular basis.
A vocal minority do, and of that vocal minority that do, at least some of them, I am willing to bet, are trolls.
But trolls are in the minority, whether vocal or otherwise, and trolls can't win in a poll.
Case in point: The trolls, try as they might, aren't winning on the poll. Over 60% of dakka poll respondents, so far, agree that the wraithknight should cost at least 350 points.
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: A wraithknight should be about 100 points more expensive. I argued against that for over a month, then did the math. T8 3+ actually equal to av13/13/12
Except, the wraithknight isn't T8 3+. It's T8, 3+ and 5+ FNP.
And I don't think that you're factoring in the possibility of dealing multiple hullpoints to AV with vehicle damage table results.
The 5+ fnp is supposed to be equal to the lack of damage table for the superheavy walkers. Unless you explode them (or instant death the monster) there is no penalty for them being hit by stronger weapons.
As a standard it appears that both superheavy walkers and gargantuan creatures pay 100 points for their first 6 wounds/hullpoints and pay different amounts from there on (with hullpoints being the cheaper of the two) my guess is because feel no pain is always taken into account whereas hullpoints slowly lose importance on singular units.
Grief wrote: you know what. I think I am starting to understand the users of dakka dakka. It is very evident that there be many many trolls on here with the leading vote to make the wraith mnight cost less than 295pts. You trolls must think your are so funny.
The vast majority, if not all, of the posters who picked the 'less than 295pts' option came from the thread that started this topic in the first place.
A thread that like many of Traditio's others quickly descends into madness because he's either a troll or just overly stubborn and is 'never wrong'.
In that thread Traditio went on about Free Rhinos from the gladius not being cheese while the WK is, even though one gives you 250-350 free points of models and the other is considered to be 100 points too cheap.
Many posters then showed him that no, free Rhinos are just as erroneous and cheesy and a 'free 100pt' WK and then did the math to show him that in 11/12 BRB missions the WK will lose to equal points of Marines in Rhinos, as it couldn't even kill the full 280 points of models.
Come this thread which is so obviously made for Traditio to come back and go 'nah ah x% of people think the WK is too cheap and therefor cheese' because he dug himself into a hole and wouldn't back down. People that disagreed with him in the other thread and proved him wrong then came here in response and voted the poll option that by Traditio's normal logic should be the preffered one, it should be cheaper as it couldn't kill 280 points of marines. Marines are the standard therefore the WK needs to be reduced to at most 280pts, preferably 250.
Do I truly believe it? No, however the rabbit hole that is Traditio's many threads indicates that it should be the case.
Grief wrote: you know what. I think I am starting to understand the users of dakka dakka. It is very evident that there be many many trolls on here with the leading vote to make the wraith mnight cost less than 295pts. You trolls must think your are so funny.
The vast majority, if not all, of the posters who picked the 'less than 295pts' option came from the thread that started this topic in the first place.
A thread that like many of Traditio's others quickly descends into madness because he's either a troll or just overly stubborn and is 'never wrong'.
In that thread Traditio went on about Free Rhinos from the gladius not being cheese while the WK is, even though one gives you 250-350 free points of models and the other is considered to be 100 points too cheap.
Many posters then showed him that no, free Rhinos are just as erroneous and cheesy and a 'free 100pt' WK and then did the math to show him that in 11/12 BRB missions the WK will lose to equal points of Marines in Rhinos, as it couldn't even kill the full 280 points of models.
Come this thread which is so obviously made for Traditio to come back and go 'nah ah x% of people think the WK is too cheap and therefor cheese' because he dug himself into a hole and wouldn't back down. People that disagreed with him in the other thread and proved him wrong then came here in response and voted the poll option that by Traditio's normal logic should be the preffered one, it should be cheaper as it couldn't kill 280 points of marines. Marines are the standard therefore the WK needs to be reduced to at most 280pts, preferably 250.
Do I truly believe it? No, however the rabbit hole that is Traditio's many threads indicates that it should be the case.
You voted for the less than current option?
What is your actual opinion, independent of my rhetoric?
JohnHwangDD wrote: Probably because you're asking people to pay a ludicrious 400+ pts for a Wraithknight.
Thus the reason for the poll. I am asking for general public opinion. What is your actual opinion on the matter?
My actual opinion is that you get beat by Eldar because you are a weak player, and you want the stuff that beats you to be nerfed down to your lack of playing ability. That is my opinion.
I'm sorry that there's no nicer way of putting that.
JohnHwangDD wrote: Probably because you're asking people to pay a ludicrious 400+ pts for a Wraithknight.
Thus the reason for the poll. I am asking for general public opinion. What is your actual opinion on the matter?
My actual opinion is that you get beat by Eldar because you are a weak player, and you want the stuff that beats you to be nerfed down to your lack of playing ability. That is my opinion.
I'm sorry that there's no nicer way of putting that.
JohnHwangDD wrote: Probably because you're asking people to pay a ludicrious 400+ pts for a Wraithknight.
Thus the reason for the poll. I am asking for general public opinion. What is your actual opinion on the matter?
My actual opinion is that you get beat by Eldar because you are a weak player, and you want the stuff that beats you to be nerfed down to your lack of playing ability. That is my opinion.
I'm sorry that there's no nicer way of putting that.
Traditio wrote: Update. My opinion has over 60 percent of the vote thus far, even including the trolls.
Well yes, of course "including the trolls". 55% of the vote thus far is trolls voting in support of your opinion because they want to ruin the poll and laugh at the idea of 400 point Wraithknights. So if you only consider the honest votes it's ~5% for your side and ~35% for cheaper Wraithknights.
Using Traditios own methodology for working out points costs I voted less than 295.
Though there was no option on the poll for 40k needs to be burnt down and remade from the foundations up. Something which would get rid of the majority of the silliness we have now.
Mr. Burning wrote: Using Traditios own methodology for working out points costs I voted less than 295.
Though there was no option on the poll for 40k needs to be burnt down and remade from the foundations up. Something which would get rid of the majority of the silliness we have now.
Agreed. If we use his philosophy (which he uses when appropriate), then the Wraithknight cannot be 295+.
More consistent balancing across all factions is needed.
Update. My opinion has over 60 percent of the vote thus far, even including the trolls.
In fact, even taken individually, my opinion has the largest share of the votes.
When can I start claiming the support of public opinion?
On this topic: Never.
You've admitted in an earlier post that, to some extent or another, that trolls have more than likely been involved with the poll in this thread. This means that any results that your poll yields are meaningless unless you can identity all the trolls that voted in the poll and which option they voted for, then remove their votes and tally the remaining results. This is practically impossible and therefore by both the likely scenario of people trolling the poll as well as by your own admission that trolls likely voted in the poll, you cannot draw any conclusions from the poll, which most definitely means you cannot start claiming the support of public opinion.
You are riding the general consensus that Wraithknights more than likely need a change, and are trying to use the results of a poll that has been invalidated by the presence of disingenuous answers being submitted to justify an argument that, as far as I can tell, is being disagree with by a significant number (if not a majority) of people.
Speaking honestly, I see no issues with the wraith knight as it is.
I think it's more about the fact there is rarely ever one in its own.
Alot of the time people will run 2-3 of them, so naturally they will dominate a game with ease.
But the damage output for one on its own is hardly something to scream about.
If it's a choice between facing a wraith knight or the same points in scatterbikes/spiders, I'd face the knight.
Look at tournament results as of recent, the armies running a single knight didn't place that high as countering a single knight and managing its damage isn't that bad.
It's only when people begin to run 2-3 there is a real issue with them.
So points wise, I think they are fine as is.
It's more the way you rarely face one at a time.
And before anyone screams troll or Eldar player, I have no interest in them what so ever.
I happily run nids and daemons and occasionally my 30k mechanicum.
It is very evident that there are many trolls here, with leading votes saying people believe the WK should cost more. You must think you're very funny, trolls.
We've established reasons the WK would be justified costing less using the OP's own system.
T8 is actually why it's so cheap as it can be wounded by S5. It essentially gives it an AV of 11. Granted armour and FNP help now but as it can get wounded by a heavy bolter/pulse rifle that makes it weaker in ways to even a dreadnought. WK are solid but not that bad and my own has only ever survived 1 match and even then it had 1 wound left. The damn thing has got such a bad rep that I've stopped using it and LOW at all now.
There are about the same number of things that can hurt a WK that can't hurt an IK as vice versa. So bringing up things that can't hurt one or the other just invites argument
Str 5, Poison & Fleshbane have no effect on AV12+, yet things like Haywire, Melta & Lance have no bonus vs models with T. However, since Melta and Lance weapons are almost all str 8 AP1/2, they are still good ways to hurt a WK. This is probably GWs thinking: "There are twice as many weapons that can hurt a WK than can hurt an IK. WK should be cheaper than IKs" Just a guess Haywire is the only weapon I can think of that can hurt a vehicle that can't hurt a WK, unless the Haywire weapon is Str 5+ naturally (which some are).
Galef wrote: There are about the same number of things that can hurt a WK that can't hurt an IK as vice versa. So bringing up things that can't hurt one or the other just invites argument
Str 5, Poison & Fleshbane have no effect on AV12+, yet things like Haywire, Melta & Lance have no bonus vs models with T.
However, since Melta and Lance weapons are almost all str 8 AP1/2, they are still good ways to hurt a WK. This is probably GWs thinking: "There are twice as many weapons that can hurt a WK than can hurt an IK. WK should be cheaper than IKs" Just a guess
Haywire is the only weapon I can think of that can hurt a vehicle that can't hurt a WK, unless the Haywire weapon is Str 5+ naturally (which some are).
They forgot to compute the possibility of those things actually hurting the WK. FNP should be a 75 pt upgrade, not free.
I think it would be interesting if the stock WK was 350pts for this: Suncannon/Shield, 2 Shuricannons
Swap either Shuricannon for Scatter Laser or Star Cannon for free. Swap Suncannon for Glaive for free Swap Suncannon & Shield for 2 Wraithcannons for 25pts
The Wraithlord comes stock with 2 catapults or flamer, the WK should come with 2 shoulder weapons as well. Since the First draft FAQ clarifies that GMCs can fire all their weapons, I haven't made a list without putting at least 1 shoulder gun on my WK.
Well, it's the next day, and so far, we have the following results:
20% of poll respondents are trolls.
6% think the WK is fine as is...or else answered it inappropriately (I'm looking at you, Galef! )
8% think a relatively minor points increase is called for.
67% think that the WK's points cost needs to skyrocket.
This is about what I would be led to expect based on the poll results in the "Is your army cheesetastic" thread.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Galef wrote: I think it would be interesting if the stock WK was 350pts for this:
Suncannon/Shield, 2 Shuricannons
Swap either Shuricannon for Scatter Laser or Star Cannon for free.
Swap Suncannon for Glaive for free
Swap Suncannon & Shield for 2 Wraithcannons for 25pts
A wraithknight with suncannon, shield and 2 shuricannons already costs 325 points.
Likewise scatter lasers. And two starcannons will take you to 335.
You're saying that the WK only needs a point increase ranging from 15-25, unless it uses ranged D.
That's just patently false...
...
Unless we go with your idea of stripping a wound from the wraithknight and nerfing its weapons.
when I wsaw who made this thread I knew it would be the WK kill my marines and so should be nefted, a single marine should be able to kill 6 wraithknights etc. they should be about 350 though and IK are better than wk in general btu the wk is better at what it is equipped to do ie cc with sword or long range with the cannons
G00fySmiley wrote: when I wsaw who made this thread I knew it would be the WK kill my marines and so should be nefted, a single marine should be able to kill 6 wraithknights etc. they should be about 350 though and IK are better than wk in general btu the wk is better at what it is equipped to do ie cc with sword or long range with the cannons
Imperial knights have worse saves (assuming scattershield on the WK) and have the possibility of losing multiple wounds due to an Explodes! result on the vehicle damage table.
G00fySmiley wrote: when I wsaw who made this thread I knew it would be the WK kill my marines and so should be nefted, a single marine should be able to kill 6 wraithknights etc. they should be about 350 though and IK are better than wk in general btu the wk is better at what it is equipped to do ie cc with sword or long range with the cannons
Imperial knights have worse saves (assuming scattershield on the WK) and have the possibility of losing multiple wounds due to an Explodes! result on the vehicle damage table.
Generally speaking, WK's are around 100pts under priced. When you throw in the fact that they now have Stomp and 2 ranged D weapons it becomes laughable to play against these guys. When another player brings a super heavy against a WK the Eldar player probably has to hide his glee at the easy kill he is about to achieve.
OF course I am also one of those old gamers who thinks that GMC and Super Heavies shouldn't be allowed in 40k.
Traditio wrote: Well, it's the next day, and so far, we have the following results:
20% of poll respondents are trolls. 6% think the WK is fine as is...or else answered it inappropriately (I'm looking at you, Galef! ) 8% think a relatively minor points increase is called for. 67% think that the WK's points cost needs to skyrocket.
Alternatively:
20% of respondents disagree with you 6% think it's okay (with or without adjustments) 8% think it's a bit undercosted 67% are trolls
Data is fun!
Maybe the issue isn't that the WK is undercosted, but that IK's are overcosted because *vehicles*. The WK having better saves is situational, as well.
However, if you assume scattershield on the WK, then it doesn't have ranged D. Is it's base still undercosted?
It seems like the survivability of a WK is what makes people think it's undercosted, not necessarily the damage output. At least, that's the impression I'm starting to get. But a T8 with a 3+ and *maybe (probably usually)* a 5++ with 6W and FNP. If it has the 5++, its only options are either melee-only D, or a Heavy 3 small blast with AP2. Is 295 absolutely too little to pay for those to be the only two choices?
Remember, we're talking about base, not adding any additional guns, which does add points to the cost. 350 might be fair for the base loadouts, but I'm thinking the additional cost comes mostly from the survivability, I'm not as sold that it needs an increase due to offensive capabilities.
15-25 points more on the base might be fair, as well. How is that "patently false?" The knight gallant costs 325, and though you can say it's defenses are worse than a WK, it has melee D as well as ranged fire. WK gets one or the other. Does the stubber make up for a 5++ and a FNP? Probably not. But even though vehicle rules are poor, there are still advantages as well.
Traditio wrote: Well, it's the next day, and so far, we have the following results:
20% of poll respondents are trolls.
6% think the WK is fine as is...or else answered it inappropriately (I'm looking at you, Galef! )
8% think a relatively minor points increase is called for.
67% think that the WK's points cost needs to skyrocket.
This is about what I would be led to expect based on the poll results in the "Is your army cheesetastic" thread.
Then that might be fair.
Traditio I really don't know how you can claim knowledge of what percentage of poll respondents are trolling.
20% of respondents disagree with you
6% think it's okay (with or without adjustments)
8% think it's a bit undercosted
67% are trolls
Very unlikely. In any given internet community, the trolls, I am willing to wager, are generally in the minority (there are exception to this, I am sure).
It's much more likely that 20% of respondent are trolls than 67%.
It seems like the survivability of a WK is what makes people think it's undercosted, not necessarily the damage output. At least, that's the impression I'm starting to get. But a T8 with a 3+ and *maybe (probably usually)* a 5++ with 6W and FNP. If it has the 5++, its only options are either melee-only D, or a Heavy 3 small blast with AP2. Is 295 absolutely too little to pay for those to be the only two choices?
It's able to run around and kill things with complete impunity for at least a couple of turns. If you manage to take out the thing that can hurt the wraithknight, it can basically just delete problem units for the entire game without real fear of retaliation.
In the SM codex, literally the only way to counter a WK is either: 1. grav spam or 2. drop pod grav or 3. grav-centurion plus librarians.
Are you getting the commonality?
15-25 points more on the base might be fair, as well. How is that "patently false?" The knight gallant costs 325
Maybe the issue isn't that the WK is undercosted, but that IK's are overcosted because *vehicles*. The WK having better saves is situational, as well.
However, if you assume scattershield on the WK, then it doesn't have ranged D. Is it's base still undercosted?
It seems like the survivability of a WK is what makes people think it's undercosted, not necessarily the damage output. At least, that's the impression I'm starting to get. But a T8 with a 3+ and *maybe (probably usually)* a 5++ with 6W and FNP. If it has the 5++, its only options are either melee-only D, or a Heavy 3 small blast with AP2. Is 295 absolutely too little to pay for those to be the only two choices?
Remember, we're talking about base, not adding any additional guns, which does add points to the cost. 350 might be fair for the base loadouts, but I'm thinking the additional cost comes mostly from the survivability, I'm not as sold that it needs an increase due to offensive capabilities.
It needs a huge boost in points simply because of the survivability. If the cheapest Knight(the Knight Gallant, outfitted with one weapon that can only strike at I1 and forces the Knight to pile-in at I1) is 325, then the base Wraithknight should be 375 at least.--or Wraithknights should only be able to be brought in as part of a unique Detachment ala Knights to prevent them from getting the benefits of the main Detachment.
15-25 points more on the base might be fair, as well. How is that "patently false?" The knight gallant costs 325, and though you can say it's defenses are worse than a WK, it has melee D as well as ranged fire. WK gets one or the other. Does the stubber make up for a 5++ and a FNP? Probably not. But even though vehicle rules are poor, there are still advantages as well.
What advantages do vehicles have that GMCs don't?
Superheavy vehicles remain vulnerable to Haywire, Grav, Melta, and Armourbane. GMCs gain an effective immunity to Poison, Sniper, and Instant Death(both the skill and from being doubled out T). They remain vulnerable to Grav...but that's in 4 books total(Cult Mechanicus, Blood Angels, Dark Angels, and Space Marines).
I mean, I guess if you're concerned about Leadership related powers or something for Psykers then I guess GMCs have a weakness...but those things aren't exactly common. So absolutely WKs should be raised in price to 375 minimum.
20% of respondents disagree with you
6% think it's okay (with or without adjustments)
8% think it's a bit undercosted
67% are trolls
Very unlikely. In any given internet community, the trolls, I am willing to wager, are generally in the minority (there are exception to this, I am sure).
It's much more likely that 20% of respondent are trolls than 67%.
Or you've just made yourself such a big target lately that a larger-than-normal portion of posters have decided to troll you.
On the topic of the wraithknight, it is pretty painfully obvious (to me) especially when you see one in a lowish points game that they are the best 295 points you could ever spend. It gets laughable when you see one in a relic, purge, or empy's will game against any army without grav.
niv-mizzet wrote:Or you've just made yourself such a big target lately that a larger-than-normal portion of posters have decided to troll you.
Probably.
That said, I am delighted to note that, in spite of various posters insisting that there's no such thing as a consensus, no such thing as "the public opinion" about things like what a WK should cost, and even in spite of the efforts of the trolls to troll my poll, in fact, the statistical median is pretty much right where I've been insisting it should be.
Roughly half of all poll respondents think that the WK should cost in between 350 and 449 points.
Take the average of that, and that's 400 points.
Just like I've been saying.
See? The public agrees with me, despite the protests of the very vocal outlying minority who like to argue against me.
Do you always wear blinkers or are you simply the troll in this thread?
I voted they are fine as they were and am in no way a troll.
I am simply able to drop a wraithknight without having to cry cheese.
Yes, they are strong, no, they are not 350+ points strong.
The only time they are really an issue is when people run 2-3, then they become a real pain to deal with.
No worse than triptide when it started, or the old lash/oblit spam when that was about.
The main issue is the Eldar book is solid, more so compared to a few of the others, so making a tough list from the book isn't as hard as you have plenty of decent options.
The wraithknight is simply a strong option from the book.
And if in this day and age you can't bring a single wraithknight down, its more of an issue with your own list or play style.
Because then those would be the only options because everyone is a troll. As soon as you dismiss options (ones you created, remember), everyone is a troll because you can't actually filter who is serious and who isn't.
Therefore, the only truthful people are clearly the people saying it should stay the same cost.
niv-mizzet wrote:Or you've just made yourself such a big target lately that a larger-than-normal portion of posters have decided to troll you.
Probably.
That said, I am delighted to note that, in spite of various posters insisting that there's no such thing as a consensus, no such thing as "the public opinion" about things like what a WK should cost, and even in spite of the efforts of the trolls to troll my poll, in fact, the statistical median is pretty much right where I've been insisting it should be.
Roughly half of all poll respondents think that the WK should cost in between 350 and 449 points.
Take the average of that, and that's 400 points.
Just like I've been saying.
See? The public agrees with me, despite the protests of the very vocal outlying minority who like to argue against me.
Okay benefit of the doubt time. If it was house ruled in your games to be 400pts would you be happy for WK's to be fielded against your bare bones marines?
About 81 Str 5 or 6 shots at BS4. That would be 20 Scatter Bikes...
If it was Str 10 AP1 shot by BS 3 (Tau). It would take 17 shots. Think about that... you have stuff in your army that can put out 17 Str10 AP1 shots before a wraithknight rips through your lines? Anything ANYTHING that WK gets in combat with is dead with the exception of dedicated CC deathstar.
Mr. Burning wrote:Okay benefit of the doubt time. If it was house ruled in your games to be 400pts would you be happy for WK's to be fielded against your bare bones marines?
1. My marines aren't bare-bone. I field them mostly with missile launchers, lascannons and plasma cannons. That's not "bare bones." If your idea of bare bones is "without grav, librarians or drop pods," then that's symptomatic of game imbalance.
2. No. Even at 400 points, the WK is simply too durable. A 100 points difference would mean that the Eldar player could take fewer things in his army, sure, but the WK would still be able to run around and kill things with impunity.
Superheavies don't belong in non-apocalypse games. Period.
True traditio, it takes shooting to knock it down.
And it can weather a fair bit of shooting.
Now run the math for grav cents (since we are using predominantly marine weapons in this)
However, to get a "true cost" for a model you can't simply base it off defence only.
If something is tough but does little damage, its simply a tarpit and the expected cost lower etc.
While the wraithknight can cause damage, its nothing spectacular that ends games.
Also, keep in mind that the more people are trying to rocket the costs, the closer it gets to the revenant Titan.
And the revenant is a whole different beast altogether.
Jackal wrote:Now run the math for grav cents (since we are using predominantly marine weapons in this)
That's just it, though:
1. Grav cents are OP 2. Grav is the only reliable way of taking down a WK.
That's unacceptable.
However, to get a "true cost" for a model you can't simply base it off defence only.
If something is tough but does little damage, its simply a tarpit and the expected cost lower etc.
While the wraithknight can cause damage, its nothing spectacular that ends games.
5 S10, AP 2 attacks on the charge.
It would take:
2/3 X 1/2 X 1/4 = 2/24 = 12
12 close combat attacks to kill a landraider.
That's not counting stomp. That's not counting hammer of wrath. That's not taking into account the possibility of the landraider exploding.
If you factor in the ranged D shots, a WK could easily kill a landraider every single turn.
Mr. Burning wrote:Okay benefit of the doubt time. If it was house ruled in your games to be 400pts would you be happy for WK's to be fielded against your bare bones marines?
1. My marines aren't bare-bone. I field them mostly with missile launchers, lascannons and plasma cannons. That's not "bare bones." If your idea of bare bones is "without grav, librarians or drop pods," then that's symptomatic of game imbalance.
2. No. Even at 400 points, the WK is simply too durable. A 100 points difference would mean that the Eldar player could take fewer things in his army, sure, but the WK would still be able to run around and kill things with impunity.
Superheavies don't belong in non-apocalypse games. Period.
So. the poll was pointless then. You havent proposed a rule. And though results tally up with your own bias you are ultgimately going to disregard it anyway.
For the record my main 40k games are/were fluffy narrative style affairs and wanting themes for my armies or battle I am still able to use pods and libbys. is it not fluffy or thematic for a tooled up space marine force to go hunting for bear? I really don't get your position Traditio.
Mr. Burning wrote:So. the poll was pointless then. You havent proposed a rule. And though results tally up with your own bias you are ultgimately going to disregard it anyway.
Actually. I propose 2:
1. The wraithknight should cost 400 points without changing its stats in the least. Further upgrades should be purchased as normal.
2. The wraithknight should only be taken in apocalypse games.
Maybe the issue isn't that the WK is undercosted, but that IK's are overcosted because *vehicles*. The WK having better saves is situational, as well.
However, if you assume scattershield on the WK, then it doesn't have ranged D. Is it's base still undercosted?
It seems like the survivability of a WK is what makes people think it's undercosted, not necessarily the damage output. At least, that's the impression I'm starting to get. But a T8 with a 3+ and *maybe (probably usually)* a 5++ with 6W and FNP. If it has the 5++, its only options are either melee-only D, or a Heavy 3 small blast with AP2. Is 295 absolutely too little to pay for those to be the only two choices?
Remember, we're talking about base, not adding any additional guns, which does add points to the cost. 350 might be fair for the base loadouts, but I'm thinking the additional cost comes mostly from the survivability, I'm not as sold that it needs an increase due to offensive capabilities.
It needs a huge boost in points simply because of the survivability. If the cheapest Knight(the Knight Gallant, outfitted with one weapon that can only strike at I1 and forces the Knight to pile-in at I1) is 325, then the base Wraithknight should be 375 at least.--or Wraithknights should only be able to be brought in as part of a unique Detachment ala Knights to prevent them from getting the benefits of the main Detachment.
Two melee D weapons, one allows attacks at initiative, iirc. I can't remember if the Colossal rule works like Specialist Weapon in that you won't get the extra attack for the reaper chainsword, but if not, then its melee capability is roughly the same as the sword/board wk, I think.
1. The wraithknight should cost 400 points without changing its stats in the least. Further upgrades should be purchased as normal.
2. The wraithknight should only be taken in apocalypse games.
1: the wraithknight is fine as is.
2: apocalypse isnt a thing anymore.
Look at the force organisation chart, see that slot named "lord of war"?
That means apocalypse has been somewhat integrated into 40k now.
Jackal wrote: So the option I suggest is "op" and not acceptable?
So, in your eyes, what units this day and age are "op"
Yes.
Do you want me to make another poll?
Just so I know what I'm allowed to suggest.
Imagine that, every time we have a disagreement, I make a poll. What would the polls say?
OK, so combat wise it's not much better than a fex against armour.
1. It's a GMC.
2. It's has the jump special rule.
3. It can stomp
4. It combines those CC capabilities with ranged D.
So your factoring the shooting so each shot hits and one of them rolls a 6?
The average result is that one of those D shots will hit and strip 2 hull points.
6 attacks on the charge (including HoW) for a total of:
6/1 X 2/3 X 1/2 = 12/6 = 2 hull points lost
2 hull points + 2 hull points = dead landraider.
That's not even taking stomp into account, and that's assuming the landraider is empty. If the landraider has a unit in it, it's straight screwed when the wraithknight stomps.
I'm assuming your not following the power creep that is the basic 40k meta these days.
Yes, units are stronger than others.
They shouldn't be. That's what the points system is for.
However, you can't simply dismiss them and scream op each time.
Yes. I can. If the capabilities don't match the points cost, I am entitled to scream OP every time.
With regards to unbuffed shooting:
Grav or Str D, is the only way to kill a WK. There are 2 codices with either of those. This is why WK are undercosted.
With regards to melee:
You need high Initiative StrD/Str10 to kill a knight. There are 2 codices that have access to this. This is why WKs are undercosted.
At Traditio, thanks for cathching my math error. But I do take umbrage at your implication of LTP if you cant take care of a WK. Orks struggle there. C'mon bro... some folks have no answer to that thing. Its like asking the Confederate Army to fight Panzer IIs.
doktor_g wrote:You need high Initiative StrD/Str10 to kill a knight. There are 2 codices that have access to this. This is why WKs are undercosted.
S10 isn't much better at killing a wraithknight. Yes, it means you wound on 2s, but the WK still gets its saves (albeit probably only the 5+ invuln) and FNP.
But I do take umbrage at your implication of LTP if you cant take care of a WK.
I didn't intend to imply any such thing. WKs are OP and should not be part of the regular game.
Traditio wrote: Imagine that, every time we have a disagreement, I make a poll. What would the polls say?
Whatever the trolls want it to say, just like this one.
The public disagrees with you. Sorry.
Nope. The public clearly voted that Wraithknights need a reduction in point cost. They have some decent firepower, but a serious "all your eggs in one basket" problem and struggle badly in objective missions (AKA almost all of 40k). It might be superficially impressive to see how much they kill and how tough they are, but none of that matters if you lose the game. So they should probably have about a 50-100 point reduction in cost to bring them in line with MSU free-transport C:SM armies like yours.
It's kind of unfortunate that the real votes were overwhelmed by a bunch of trolls voting for Wraithknight nerfs, but that's what you get with internet polls. Lots of people just don't take them seriously and will vote for the obvious wrong answer because it's funny.
1. The wraithknight should cost 400 points without changing its stats in the least. Further upgrades should be purchased as normal.
2. The wraithknight should only be taken in apocalypse games.
1: the wraithknight is fine as is.
If you have Grav or easy access to Str D, yeah.
2: apocalypse isnt a thing anymore.
Look at the force organisation chart, see that slot named "lord of war"?
That means apocalypse has been somewhat integrated into 40k now.
But only for some armies.
The Eldar Warhost allows for Wraithknights to be taken in much larger numbers than ever before.
Galef wrote: As it is now, probably just under 400pts, no more.
What's your standard of comparison?
Honestly, Imperial Kinghtss and the fact that the WK is much better. They should be priced similarly. The reasons I would say that IKs still need to be more are because:
1) T8 is roughly equal to AV12, but IK's are AV13 in the front and can get a 4++. Obviously FNP exists and armour saves, blah, blah, but if the initial dice roll to inflict damage is harder, that should count.
2) Even though Poison is nerfed vs GMCs, you can still wound whereas an IK is completely immune. Grav is WAAAAY more common than Haywire
3) IK's can have a D cc weapon AND a big gun at the same time. WK are more specialized as befits Eldar.
4) Way more armies have access to IKs. Sure anyone can technically ally with any other army, but the ally matrix ensures more armies will have "comfortable" access to IKs
The WK would still be "better" than any IK, but pricing them similarly helps
--
if an IK was 13/13/12 I would agree - but with 12 side armor and the fact that it needs to make melle to get it's points back I think the WK is much tougher...plus fortune. With Fortune up a WK gets a minimum of a 5+/5+/5+ against non instant death and D weapons. An IK can only ever get 1 save. It's a big difference in ability to stay on the board. Plus you standard melta gun can inflict 2+ HP on you too - WK are typically 1 wound at a time. WK should cost about 30-40 points more than an IK with sword and board.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jackal wrote: Traditio, just drop me a PM of your "OP" units.
Just so I know what I can suggest.
As the way your going at the moment, even howling banshees will be OP soon.
And you do realise in a basic 1,850 game someone can run a warhound with turbolasers right?
Edit: kanluwen - this was what I pointed out earlier.
A single wraithknight isn't an issue, its when people run 2-3 it becomes an issue.
Welp your avatar is a great place to start with OP units. Fatey is probably number 1 in my book.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Nobody will take someone that thinks of Fateweaver as OP seriously. Just remember that.
So what you are trying to say is no one thinks fatey is OP? I really can't tell if you are serious...he is clearly at the top of the list of OP things in this game. Can't be serious.
Edit: kanluwen - this was what I pointed out earlier.
A single wraithknight isn't an issue, its when people run 2-3 it becomes an issue.
Putting it bluntly, even a single Wraithknight can be an issue for an army that lacks the tools to counter it--especially if someone doesn't know they are going to be facing a GMC.
A Wraithknight should not be comparable in cost to a vehicle. It just shouldn't be. The benefits granted to GMCs are far, far too great.
Jackal wrote: Traditio, just drop me a PM of your "OP" units.
For any given selection x , if x is considered an auto-take, but is not considered a "tax," then x is probably OP/undercosted.
That's pretty vague. Things can be auto-take and not OP. You need to come up with more specific definitions. I feel like sanguinary priests are auto-take with BA. OP or NOP? Free rhinos are auto take with GSF. OP or NOP? I mean, why wouldn't you take them (if you own them)?
And there's personal preference auto-takes. That's another can of beans though, because I assume you mean competitively. However, competitively people are preparing for things and having lists ready to deal with your "OP" units, so if that's the case, then any comment in this thread that talks about "but the only way to deal with X is Y" is voided. Casual games have every possibility of dealing with my auto-take eldar rangers.
Edit: kanluwen - this was what I pointed out earlier.
A single wraithknight isn't an issue, its when people run 2-3 it becomes an issue.
Putting it bluntly, even a single Wraithknight can be an issue for an army that lacks the tools to counter it--especially if someone doesn't know they are going to be facing a GMC.
But that's kind of a different topic. Talk to your opponent about what you're both bringing.
A Wraithknight should not be comparable in cost to a vehicle. It just shouldn't be. The benefits granted to GMCs are far, far too great.
Don't get me wrong kanluwen, some armies struggle badly, but going through, the same armies struggle against alot of things.
Orks spring to mind first off.
Book balance is the main issue for that though as Orks really got dealt a bad hand I feel.
And again I agree, you cannot compare a GMC or AV as they are vastly different.
Traditio, by your summary you consider librarians, farseers, rhinos etc to be OP as they are auto take units without a tax?
Jackal wrote:Traditio, by your summary you consider librarians, farseers, rhinos etc to be OP as they are auto take units without a tax?
I think that if I made a poll, the majority of people would agree with me in saying that librarians and farseers have the potential to be extremely cheesy, depending on how you run them and what psychic powers you are using.
I don't think that rhinos are publicly considered auto-take.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Nobody will take someone that thinks of Fateweaver as OP seriously. Just remember that.
So what you are trying to say is no one thinks fatey is OP? I really can't tell if you are serious...he is clearly at the top of the list of OP things in this game. Can't be serious.
For 300 points he's certainly NOT OP, and neither is Belakor for 50 more.
Can't wait until you hear of this formation called The Infernal Tetrad. You'll go insane!
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Nobody will take someone that thinks of Fateweaver as OP seriously. Just remember that.
So what you are trying to say is no one thinks fatey is OP? I really can't tell if you are serious...he is clearly at the top of the list of OP things in this game. Can't be serious.
I've been playing Daemons since the got their own codex back in 5th ed (or was it 4th?). Fateweaver is very, VERY hard to use. He is essentially 300pts just for re-rolling the Warpstrom and getting 1 re-roll per turn. If you can get him into CC, he is dead....like Tau Fire Warriors in CC dead. Psychic powers are quite good, but FAR from reliable. Fateweaver only shows up in competitive Daemon lists because the Daemon player is irrationally afraid of a bad Warp Storm roll. All other "tactics" around using FW are secondary, although knowing a str D power is a nice bonus (but 3 Warp charge to cast is harsh)
IMO, Belakor is indeed better because he has specific powers every game AND is good in CC. He does, however disappear if anything concentrates even an medium amount of fire power his way. Laterly the best all-round Daemon HQ is a regular Lord of Change with Impossibiltiy robes. Durable, better in CC than a regular Bloodthirster, and a good caster.
Back on topic: A WraithKnight is a win-big, lose-big unit. In most games it fills a hole that Eldar have by being durable, able to deal with big targets and a great counter-assault unit. It fails against MSU and Grav spam. What makes it a problem is that the rest of the Eldar army is fantastic at dealing with MSU and Grav-spam. It's really a combination of things that a WK shouldn't be faulted for.
@ Jackal: While I agree that multiple WKs can be a big problem, I have personally seen it fail miserably. I ran 3 in a local "bring your best" tourney and faced 6 Dakka Flyrants. The Dakka Flyrant killed all 18 of my bikes in turn 1 and my WKs could do nothing else for the rest of the game besides kill rippers and Mucolids.
Jackal wrote:Traditio, by your summary you consider librarians, farseers, rhinos etc to be OP as they are auto take units without a tax?
I think that if I made a poll, the majority of people would agree with me in saying that librarians and farseers have the potential to be extremely cheesy, depending on how you run them and what psychic powers you are using.
I don't think that rhinos are publicly considered auto-take.
They are if they're free.
A lot of things have *potential* for cheese. That doesn't make them OP inherently.
Sorry, but farseers and librarians by your standards still fit into the category of cheesy units?
So in your eyes, anything with the potential to be a force multiplier is OP too?
I'm sorry, but I'm struggling to take this even slightly serious anymore.
Anyone who does not agree with you must be a troll, any good units are OP or cheesy.
Essentially you wanted to have a rant about getting your arse handed to you by a wraithknight.
As most things these days are certainly OP.
However, for my entertainment, what sort of tournament list would you run?
Bear in mind your hate for anything OP or cheesy.
Jackal wrote: Sorry, but farseers and librarians by your standards still fit into the category of cheesy units?
And I likely have the support of public opinion.
Again, do you want me to make a poll?
So in your eyes, anything with the potential to be a force multiplier is OP too?
Depends on the unit. Markerlights? Op. Chaplains? Probably not.
Anyone who does not agree with you must be a troll
Do you know how bell curves work?
If you take this poll, it basically has a decent bell curve distribution. Except for the "cheaper than now" option, which is an obvious skew. How would you explain the skew of the bell curve?
What is the most likely explanation, applying Occam's razor?
any good units are OP or cheesy.
If by "good" you mean "inordinately effective for its points cost," then yes, they are.
And if you're running drop pods, skyhammer is probably the auto-take, not a gladius.
If your running Khan as your HQ and Grav-Cannons with Grav-amps on EVERY 5-man Tac squad, you indeed want to take Rhinos, for 1 reason: Fire Points.
6 Rhinos occupying the centerline can Grav down just about anything without having to move.
You need a few Drop Pods to "close the trap", but rarely have I seen Razorbacks used in my competitive tournament meta
By the way, I have seen this very list kill 2 WraithKnights in the first turn. This was BEFORE the first draft FAQ and the WKs had toe in cover.
Jackal wrote: Traditio, just drop me a PM of your "OP" units.
For any given selection x , if x is considered an auto-take, but is not considered a "tax," then x is probably OP/undercosted.
That's pretty vague. Things can be auto-take and not OP. You need to come up with more specific definitions. I feel like sanguinary priests are auto-take with BA. OP or NOP? Free rhinos are auto take with GSF. OP or NOP? I mean, why wouldn't you take them (if you own them)?
And there's personal preference auto-takes. That's another can of beans though, because I assume you mean competitively. However, competitively people are preparing for things and having lists ready to deal with your "OP" units, so if that's the case, then any comment in this thread that talks about "but the only way to deal with X is Y" is voided. Casual games have every possibility of dealing with my auto-take eldar rangers.
Your auto-take Eldar Rangers are something that any army can deal with. Flamethrowers aren't exactly unheard of.
Edit: kanluwen - this was what I pointed out earlier. A single wraithknight isn't an issue, its when people run 2-3 it becomes an issue.
Putting it bluntly, even a single Wraithknight can be an issue for an army that lacks the tools to counter it--especially if someone doesn't know they are going to be facing a GMC.
But that's kind of a different topic. Talk to your opponent about what you're both bringing.
Oh but here I was thinking that points solved everything...
You don't always get to talk to your opponent about what you're both bringing. Two people getting in a pick-up game without having met before(the constant example used by AoS detractors about the no points system) aren't going to be conversing about what they're bringing. They're already at the shop/club/whatever, probably with a couple of lists on hand to get games rolling quick.
A Wraithknight should not be comparable in cost to a vehicle. It just shouldn't be. The benefits granted to GMCs are far, far too great.
Specifically SHV, you mean, right?
To any vehicle. SHVs are still vulnerable to the same thing their normal counterparts are(Haywire, Melta, Armourbane, Lance, and Assault). The only difference is that SHVs have an in-built protection against things that degrade the value of their armor facings...unless it's something that only counts the armor facing as lower(like Lance weapons) and against automatically being removed from play/Exploded.
GMCs gain protections from the things that traditionally have been the bane of MCs--Poisoned weapons, Sniper, etc. The only thing that MCs are vulnerable to that still affect GMCs are Fleshbane.
BossJakadakk wrote:Anything you get for free in a formation, then? 0 points with any kind of effectiveness is inordinately effective for its points cost.
I've taken up this argument elsewhere. I simply reject the premises. You're not paying 0 points for a rhino. You're paying 1000+ points for the battlecompany, which can include rhinos.
BossJakadakk wrote:Anything you get for free in a formation, then? 0 points with any kind of effectiveness is inordinately effective for its points cost.
I've taken up this argument elsewhere. I simply reject the premises. You're not paying 0 points for a rhino. You're paying 1000+ points for the battlecompany, which can include rhinos.
You can reject the premise all you want, it doesn't change the fact that you get a shiny extra obsec unit at no additional cost other than having to take one or two units (that also get obsec and their own shiny extra boxes) that you may not have otherwise. The benefits outweigh the cost.
BossJakadakk wrote:Anything you get for free in a formation, then? 0 points with any kind of effectiveness is inordinately effective for its points cost.
I've taken up this argument elsewhere. I simply reject the premises. You're not paying 0 points for a rhino. You're paying 1000+ points for the battlecompany, which can include rhinos.
You can reject the premise all you want, it doesn't change the fact that you get a shiny extra obsec unit at no additional cost other than having to take one or two units (that also get obsec and their own shiny extra boxes) that you may not have otherwise. The benefits outweigh the cost.
Ok. Then you run a battle company with 10 free rhinos. Don't use grav, librarians, drop pods or razorbacks.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Nobody will take someone that thinks of Fateweaver as OP seriously. Just remember that.
So what you are trying to say is no one thinks fatey is OP? I really can't tell if you are serious...he is clearly at the top of the list of OP things in this game. Can't be serious.
I've been playing Daemons since the got their own codex back in 5th ed (or was it 4th?). Fateweaver is very, VERY hard to use. He is essentially 300pts just for re-rolling the Warpstrom and getting 1 re-roll per turn. If you can get him into CC, he is dead....like Tau Fire Warriors in CC dead. Psychic powers are quite good, but FAR from reliable. Fateweaver only shows up in competitive Daemon lists because the Daemon player is irrationally afraid of a bad Warp Storm roll. All other "tactics" around using FW are secondary, although knowing a str D power is a nice bonus (but 3 Warp charge to cast is harsh)
IMO, Belakor is indeed better because he has specific powers every game AND is good in CC. He does, however disappear if anything concentrates even an medium amount of fire power his way. Laterly the best all-round Daemon HQ is a regular Lord of Change with Impossibiltiy robes. Durable, better in CC than a regular Bloodthirster, and a good caster.
Back on topic: A WraithKnight is a win-big, lose-big unit. In most games it fills a hole that Eldar have by being durable, able to deal with big targets and a great counter-assault unit. It fails against MSU and Grav spam. What makes it a problem is that the rest of the Eldar army is fantastic at dealing with MSU and Grav-spam. It's really a combination of things that a WK shouldn't be faulted for.
@ Jackal: While I agree that multiple WKs can be a big problem, I have personally seen it fail miserably. I ran 3 in a local "bring your best" tourney and faced 6 Dakka Flyrants. The Dakka Flyrant killed all 18 of my bikes in turn 1 and my WKs could do nothing else for the rest of the game besides kill rippers and Mucolids.
Forgive me but isn't the general idea with deamons to fly around with 5+ flying casters summoning daemonets and flikering flame everything to death with reroll 1's from fateweaver? This specific list crushed me when I was running a very strong marine list with a gravstar. I also think you undervalue the warpstorm table...if warpstorm is going your way it's pretty hard to lose with daemons. When your dreadknight turns into a herald...its basically GG.
Even though most games are objective based, in which this list is a nightmare to face due to the sheer volume of obsec units.
Double edged sword though as in a KP based game it hurts to have that many fragile units.
Edit: Xenomancers, look at the big picture there though.
You had alot of points in something that is essentially wasted against daemons.
Against alot of other armies that unit would destroy most things in its way.
It's simply a really bad match up for grav to face daemons.
Jackal wrote: Traditio, just drop me a PM of your "OP" units.
For any given selection x , if x is considered an auto-take, but is not considered a "tax," then x is probably OP/undercosted.
So melta guns should be just as valid as flamers against blob guard? So, for this case, the flamers are easily an auto-take against guardsmen. Does that make flamers OP?
Sgt_Smudge wrote:So melta guns should be just as valid as flamers against blob guard? So, for this case, the flamers are easily an auto-take against guardsmen. Does that make flamers OP?
You always try to twist my words and try to spin them in the most ridiculous fashion.
Use common sense, SS.
Auto-take simpliciter, not with respect to a given opponent. Flamers are not auto-take simpliciter.
You don't see the flamer entry in the codex, look at the points cost, and, independently of any knowledge of the opponents you'll be facing, declare: "THIS IS THE UPGRADE I NEED! THIS IS THE ONE! OBVIOUSLY!"
Jackal wrote: Traditio, just drop me a PM of your "OP" units.
For any given selection x , if x is considered an auto-take, but is not considered a "tax," then x is probably OP/undercosted.
So melta guns should be just as valid as flamers against blob guard? So, for this case, the flamers are easily an auto-take against guardsmen. Does that make flamers OP?
Sgt_Smudge wrote:So melta guns should be just as valid as flamers against blob guard? So, for this case, the flamers are easily an auto-take against guardsmen. Does that make flamers OP?
You always try to twist my words and try to spin them in the most ridiculous fashion.
Use common sense, SS.
Auto-take simpliciter, not with respect to a given opponent. Flamers are not auto-take simpliciter.
You don't see the flamer entry in the codex, look at the points cost, and, independently of any knowledge of the opponents you'll be facing, declare: "THIS IS THE UPGRADE I NEED! THIS IS THE ONE! OBVIOUSLY!"
Not according to your statement.
Use a correct statement, one that I cannot mis-interpret, and we might get somewhere.
Grav weapons are amongst the most expensive weapon options because of their wide range of valid targets. The points reflect this. However, the grav-amp skews this.
How can a WK NOT be comparable in cost to any vehicle at all? There are vehicles that run the gamut in points costs.
You're right that there are vehicles that "run the gamut in points costs", but again:
It doesn't matter because even the most undercosted vehicle is still vulnerable to the stuff that every other vehicle is vulnerable to.
That is what I'm trying to get across here. You seem to be laser focused on the idea of the Wraithknight being reasonably costed, and it's not. It's nowhere NEAR reasonably costed. Even if it were bumped up to the price of a Knight, it would still be undercosted given that:
A) It benefits from Eldar Warhost bonuses.
B) It, currently,(the big FAQ is going to address this) can gain cover saves as easily as any infantry models can.
C) When granted its survival benefits by becoming GMCs removed the weaknesses it had as a MC(and even when it had those weaknesses, it was still considered underpriced by many).
There's three issues that need to be addressed there, in addition to or instead of the points issue.
One of those issues(Cover) is being addressed, one can be addressed fairly easily(Wraithknights gain the special rule "Torn Between Two Realms" negating the benefits of the Warhost bonuses by virtue of fluff. The Wraithknights are piloted by the living and the dead, make up some fluffy reasoning for it), and the last requires addressing GMCs as a whole--of which the remainder are not really considered issues, aside from their own unique weapon profiles/special rules(Supremacy Armour immediately springs to mind here).
Not according to your statement.
Use a correct statement, one that I cannot mis-interpret, and we might get somewhere.
Grav weapons are amongst the most expensive weapon options because of their wide range of valid targets. The points reflect this. However, the grav-amp skews this.
Grav-Amp skews this, but that only affects Centurions and Marine Grav-Cannons.
Sgt_Smudge wrote:Also, I apologise for all the trolls in this thread. Skewing those results away from the true poll result, which now lacks all validity.
The poll clearly shows that public opinion agrees with me.
The trolls will disagree with this interpretation.
But it should be obvious to any non-biased observer that this is the case.
Sgt_Smudge wrote:Also, I apologise for all the trolls in this thread. Skewing those results away from the true poll result, which now lacks all validity.
The poll clearly shows that public opinion agrees with me.
The trolls will disagree with this interpretation.
But it should be obvious to any non-biased observer that this is the case.
Confirmation bias means you only see what you want to see.
How can a WK NOT be comparable in cost to any vehicle at all? There are vehicles that run the gamut in points costs.
You're right that there are vehicles that "run the gamut in points costs", but again:
It doesn't matter because even the most undercosted vehicle is still vulnerable to the stuff that every other vehicle is vulnerable to.
That is what I'm trying to get across here. You seem to be laser focused on the idea of the Wraithknight being reasonably costed, and it's not. It's nowhere NEAR reasonably costed. Even if it were bumped up to the price of a Knight, it would still be undercosted given that:
A) It benefits from Eldar Warhost bonuses.
B) It, currently,(the big FAQ is going to address this) can gain cover saves as easily as any infantry models can.
C) When granted its survival benefits by becoming GMCs removed the weaknesses it had as a MC(and even when it had those weaknesses, it was still considered underpriced by many).
There's three issues that need to be addressed there, in addition to or instead of the points issue.
One of those issues(Cover) is being addressed, one can be addressed fairly easily(Wraithknights gain the special rule "Torn Between Two Realms" negating the benefits of the Warhost bonuses by virtue of fluff. The Wraithknights are piloted by the living and the dead, make up some fluffy reasoning for it), and the last requires addressing GMCs as a whole--of which the remainder are not really considered issues, aside from their own unique weapon profiles/special rules(Supremacy Armour immediately springs to mind here).
I think I see. So what you mean is something more don't compare it to vehicles of similar costs to gauge it's cost/power effectiveness? That makes sense. Initially I was thinking you meant don't let it be comparable in cost to vehicles, which didn't make sense because no matter what it costs, it'll be a comparable cost to *some* vehicle somewhere.
A) Do people run these? I get it's a force multiplier but that shouldn't matter in the context of Traditio's rules because there's a tax to get those special rules. I almost hate to say it, but "I reject the premises" of this one.
To you, however, I will say I understand this point. Run a warhost, with a wraithhost, and suddenly it has guaranteed 6" battle focus. It's a force multiplier, and it's pretty damn strong.
B) Absolutely. Grade-A ridiculously weird stuff. Glad it's being fixed.
C) Fair enough.
Honestly, I agree with your points, and respect your opinions. You actually define your views and give me reasoning that isn't vague to support your position. I can see how the WK is undercosted in this light.
Jackal wrote: Even though most games are objective based, in which this list is a nightmare to face due to the sheer volume of obsec units.
Double edged sword though as in a KP based game it hurts to have that many fragile units.
Edit: Xenomancers, look at the big picture there though.
You had alot of points in something that is essentially wasted against daemons.
Against alot of other armies that unit would destroy most things in its way.
It's simply a really bad match up for grav to face daemons.
Grav star can shred no doubt but...The list has hard counters. Daemons basically can do well in any matchup - their biggest issue is killing themselves with warpstorm/perils. Which is why fatey is so popular and hence OP - his buffs army wide are pretty insane too. I think hes probably the best 300 points you can spend in 40k.
Deadnight wrote:Confirmation bias means you only see what you want to see.
I agree. Thus all the people in this thread attempting to devalue the results of the poll.
Works both ways.
This poll lacks both internal and external validity. The existence of troll or biased results means that this is no longer fair to determine, and as we have small (and debatably influenced) sample size, it cannot be generalised to a wider 40k population.
The thread itself is a good idea - a question that is widely debated - but as a means to an end? It is sadly useless.
Sgt_Smudge wrote:This poll lacks both internal and external validity. The existence of troll or biased results means that this is no longer fair to determine, and as we have small (and debatably influenced) sample size, it cannot be generalised to a wider 40k population.
The thread itself is a good idea - a question that is widely debated - but as a means to an end? It is sadly useless.
Spoken like a cigarette company attempting to devalue a study showing that smoking tobacco causes cancer.
Sgt_Smudge wrote:This poll lacks both internal and external validity. The existence of troll or biased results means that this is no longer fair to determine, and as we have small (and debatably influenced) sample size, it cannot be generalised to a wider 40k population.
The thread itself is a good idea - a question that is widely debated - but as a means to an end? It is sadly useless.
Spoken like a cigarette company attempting to devalue a study showing that smoking tobacco causes cancer.
I'm genuinely curious as to how you came to that conclusion. Would you please enlighten me?
Sgt_Smudge wrote:I'm genuinely curious as to how you came to that conclusion. Would you please enlighten me?
So long as there are personal interests involved, there's always going to be controversy over data. Snack food companies, cigarette companies, soda companies, etc. You name it. If there's a study which is bad for business, they'll try to devalue that study.
Same in politics with respect to public opinion polls.
Same with basically anything.
You have a personal interest in devaluing the poll.
At any rate, for all non-biased observers, I wish to offer a brief defense of the poll:
The results of the poll are basically what you should expect in a poll of this kind. To use a classic line, "most people are average." In public opinion, this means that people tend to gravitate to whatever cultural zeitgeist it is of which they are a part. Truly outlying opinions are rare.
Note, of course, that not all outlying opinions are of the troll-variety, and I perhaps spoke too hastily in saying that all persons who clicked on the "it needs to be cheaper" option are trolls. Some people genuinely might believe this, though it is an outlying opinion.
It is, of course, often easy to confuse the two, and people often think of me as a troll simply because of the content of what I say. I'm not a troll. I just have a habit of expressing unpopular opinions. [Though I do sometimes troll; the comment about how the tau player needs to expand his army...with orks...comes to mind. That was hilarious to me, and I do hope that at least some persons reading it laughed with me.]
At any rate, what you should expect in a poll of this kind is that most of the votes will gravitate around either one option or a cluster of options, and that deviations from this "normal" opinion will be comparatively rare. This will look like a standard bell curve, in all likelihood.
If you take a look at this poll, it basically looks like a bell curve, with the exception of the "it should be cheaper" option and the "over 500 points" option.
Both of these are easily explained:
"Over 500" is much more general than the other options, thus grouping a lot of disparate opinions together.
At least some of the "it should be cheaper" responses are trolls.
Note, of course, that this doesn't invalidate the entire poll. The deviations are clearly spotted and explained away, and the general trend of the poll is perfectly clear. The presence of the inevitable minority of dishonest answers doesn't invalidate an entire poll (otherwise, polling would be inherently useless).
Traditio wrote: I agree. Thus all the people in this thread attempting to devalue the results of the poll.
People like you, you mean? Or are we supposed to forget how you insisted on devaluing the results of the poll when it disagreed with you, and only accepted that it is valid once the vote started to go your way?
Peregrine wrote:People like you, you mean? Or are we supposed to forget how you insisted on devaluing the results of the poll when it disagreed with you, and only accepted that it is valid once the vote started to go your way?
At no point was the poll not going my way. Yes, "less than now" held the largest percentage individually, but collectively, "more than now" held the largest share even then.
An Imperial knight costs 375 as a base paladin and is generally agreed to be a properly pointed super heavy. Wraithknights wipe the floor with them. They strike first in CC/their weapons are generally better at killing things that can kill them/ WK has more resiliency to damage. Just about the only advantage a kngiht has over a wraith knight is they can handle hordes because they have decent dakka. So I think any response under 375 flat out wrong based on these points. The question remains how much better is a WK than a IK. It's hard to say, I think given the chance an IK can keep up in the damage output category but its far more susceptible to being destroyed. To me this seems like a 40-60 point advantage. So I'll be fair and say it should cost something like 420 points.
SS on the other hand are also too cheap. They should probably cost roughly 460 points. Can anyone deny that a SS is superior to both platforms?
How can a WK NOT be comparable in cost to any vehicle at all? There are vehicles that run the gamut in points costs.
You're right that there are vehicles that "run the gamut in points costs", but again:
It doesn't matter because even the most undercosted vehicle is still vulnerable to the stuff that every other vehicle is vulnerable to.
That is what I'm trying to get across here. You seem to be laser focused on the idea of the Wraithknight being reasonably costed, and it's not. It's nowhere NEAR reasonably costed. Even if it were bumped up to the price of a Knight, it would still be undercosted given that:
A) It benefits from Eldar Warhost bonuses.
B) It, currently,(the big FAQ is going to address this) can gain cover saves as easily as any infantry models can.
C) When granted its survival benefits by becoming GMCs removed the weaknesses it had as a MC(and even when it had those weaknesses, it was still considered underpriced by many).
There's three issues that need to be addressed there, in addition to or instead of the points issue.
One of those issues(Cover) is being addressed, one can be addressed fairly easily(Wraithknights gain the special rule "Torn Between Two Realms" negating the benefits of the Warhost bonuses by virtue of fluff. The Wraithknights are piloted by the living and the dead, make up some fluffy reasoning for it), and the last requires addressing GMCs as a whole--of which the remainder are not really considered issues, aside from their own unique weapon profiles/special rules(Supremacy Armour immediately springs to mind here).
I think I see. So what you mean is something more don't compare it to vehicles of similar costs to gauge it's cost/power effectiveness? That makes sense. Initially I was thinking you meant don't let it be comparable in cost to vehicles, which didn't make sense because no matter what it costs, it'll be a comparable cost to *some* vehicle somewhere.
A) Do people run these? I get it's a force multiplier but that shouldn't matter in the context of Traditio's rules because there's a tax to get those special rules. I almost hate to say it, but "I reject the premises" of this one.
Yup. People run them. There's not a huge tax, as people can run a Wind Rider Battlehost as the "tax". The only real tax unit in there is arguably the Vyper.
To you, however, I will say I understand this point. Run a warhost, with a wraithhost, and suddenly it has guaranteed 6" battle focus. It's a force multiplier, and it's pretty damn strong.
You don't need to run a Wraithhost. You can just run a Wraith Construct; which are Wraithguard, Wraithlords, or Wraithknights.
Wonder which one people will pick.
B) Absolutely. Grade-A ridiculously weird stuff. Glad it's being fixed.
C) Fair enough.
Honestly, I agree with your points, and respect your opinions. You actually define your views and give me reasoning that isn't vague to support your position. I can see how the WK is undercosted in this light.
Truthfully, I think I would be far more amenable to the Tyranid GMCs being pointed the same as the Wraithknight currently is.
Update. My opinion has over 60 percent of the vote thus far, even including the trolls.
In fact, even taken individually, my opinion has the largest share of the votes.
When can I start claiming the support of public opinion?
On this topic: Never.
You've admitted in an earlier post that, to some extent or another, that trolls have more than likely been involved with the poll in this thread. This means that any results that your poll yields are meaningless unless you can identity all the trolls that voted in the poll and which option they voted for, then remove their votes and tally the remaining results. This is practically impossible and therefore by both the likely scenario of people trolling the poll as well as by your own admission that trolls likely voted in the poll, you cannot draw any conclusions from the poll, which most definitely means you cannot start claiming the support of public opinion.
You are riding the general consensus that Wraithknights more than likely need a change, and are trying to use the results of a poll that has been invalidated by the presence of disingenuous answers being submitted to justify an argument that, as far as I can tell, is being disagree with by a significant number (if not a majority) of people.
It has been solidly established that there are trolls who have voted in the thread (believe it or not, I was not one of them). You claim that the trolls only voted for a particular result, conveniently leaving the results you want to use to support your argument as valid (since the trolls didn't vote for that option according to you). But how can you know this? How can you assume that the trolls only voted for any given set of options and left the other ones alone? You're trying to argue that the results of a poll that has clearly been invalidated by the presence of trolls is actually valid. You are wrong. You need something else to argue with, because the results of this polls are utterly useless to everyone.
Back on topic: All I've seen in this thread can be summarised by the following statement:
The Wraithknight needs a change.
This does support your argument that a points cost increase is in order, but that is definitely not the only option that this statement supports, with many other users commenting on this thread talking about features other than points costs that could also be the subject of change.
Consider the following example: You could nerf a number of things about the Wraithknight (e.g. its weaponry and number of "Wounds") and then it could not only be a unit that is more fair on the tabletop, but also worth less than 295 points. I find it funny that not only does your poll not take this sort of reasoning and option into account due to the lack of specificity in the poll question, but you also seem to completely ignore this possibility (which is evidenced by the fact that you've labelled everyone who voted for that option as a troll).
IllumiNini wrote:You've admitted in an earlier post that, to some extent or another, that trolls have more than likely been involved with the poll in this thread. This means that any results that your poll yields are meaningless unless you can identity all the trolls that voted in the poll and which option they voted for, then remove their votes and tally the remaining results.
False. I've already provided arguments to the contrary.
If you wish to disagree with me, then address those arguments.
This is practically impossible and therefore by both the likely scenario of people trolling the poll as well as by your own admission that trolls likely voted in the poll, you cannot draw any conclusions from the poll, which most definitely means you cannot start claiming the support of public opinion.
Again, no. Yes, trolls are likely to somewhat skew poll results, but they won't affect the overall trends of the poll. The poll result is precisely what I would expect, with some slight skew on the "less than now" side, for a standard bell curve.
How can you assume that the trolls only voted for any given set of options and left the other ones alone?
I can't. However, I've already shown why this doesn't matter.
Consider the following example: You could nerf a number of things about the Wraithknight (e.g. its weaponry and number of "Wounds") and then it could not only be a unit that is more fair on the tabletop, but also worth less than 295 points. I find it funny that not only does your poll not take this sort of reasoning and option into account due to the lack of specificity in the poll question, but you also seem to completely ignore this possibility (which is evidenced by the fact that you've labelled everyone who voted for that option as a troll).
All of this is irrelevant to my question. My question is not whether the WK needs fixing or how it might be fixed. My question is what constitutes a fair points cost for the wraithknight.
The average response is essentially my response: 400 points.
IllumiNini wrote:You've admitted in an earlier post that, to some extent or another, that trolls have more than likely been involved with the poll in this thread. This means that any results that your poll yields are meaningless unless you can identity all the trolls that voted in the poll and which option they voted for, then remove their votes and tally the remaining results.
False. I've already provided arguments to the contrary.
If you wish to disagree with me, then address those arguments.
This is practically impossible and therefore by both the likely scenario of people trolling the poll as well as by your own admission that trolls likely voted in the poll, you cannot draw any conclusions from the poll, which most definitely means you cannot start claiming the support of public opinion.
Again, no. Yes, trolls are likely to somewhat skew poll results, but they won't affect the overall trends of the poll. The poll result is precisely what I would expect, with some slight skew on the "less than now" side, for a standard bell curve.
How can you assume that the trolls only voted for any given set of options and left the other ones alone?
I can't. However, I've already shown why this doesn't matter.
You still seem to be under the impression that we're dealing with a normal amount of bias as a result of trolling, which we're not. And even if we are (by some miracle) dealing with no more bias than is usual for polls like these, we have no way of actually knowing that. Therefore, all your arguments as to why the data can still be used are irrelevant, and poll results are still unusable.
Consider the following example: You could nerf a number of things about the Wraithknight (e.g. its weaponry and number of "Wounds") and then it could not only be a unit that is more fair on the tabletop, but also worth less than 295 points. I find it funny that not only does your poll not take this sort of reasoning and option into account due to the lack of specificity in the poll question, but you also seem to completely ignore this possibility (which is evidenced by the fact that you've labelled everyone who voted for that option as a troll).
All of this is irrelevant to my question. My question is not whether the WK needs fixing or how it might be fixed. My question is what constitutes a fair points cost for the wraithknight.
The average response is essentially my response: 400 points.
Then be more specific with the poll question, because it currently does not specify that that the Wraithknight should remain unchanged except for points (which people were smart enough to infer).
IllumiNini wrote:You still seem to be under the impression that we're dealing with a normal amount of bias as a result of trolling, which we're not. And even if we are (by some miracle) dealing with no more bias than is usual for polls like these, we have no way of actually knowing that. Therefore, all your arguments as to why the data can still be used are irrelevant, and poll results are still unusable.
Can you demonstrate that we are dealing with extraordinary amounts of trolling to such an extent that it could skew the overall trends of that poll?
If you can't, then we are perfectly entitled to assume that the poll is accurate.
Then be more specific with the poll question, because it currently does not specify that that the Wraithknight should remain unchanged except for points (which people were smart enough to infer).
IllumiNini wrote:You still seem to be under the impression that we're dealing with a normal amount of bias as a result of trolling, which we're not. And even if we are (by some miracle) dealing with no more bias than is usual for polls like these, we have no way of actually knowing that. Therefore, all your arguments as to why the data can still be used are irrelevant, and poll results are still unusable.
Can you demonstrate that we are dealing with extraordinary amounts of trolling to such an extent that it could skew the overall trends of that poll?
If you can't, then we are perfectly entitled to assume that the poll is accurate.
As is everyone else. Even if I cannot assume that the results are unreasonable, you have no reason to assume that there results are reasonable, especially considering the amount of disagreement, argument, and general dislike of you and your opinions that you that you seem to so easily inspire.
So even if I'm wrong in assuming the results are unusable, you do not have a good enough reason to assume the results are reasonable and usable. The presence of trolling at a level you cannot prove is within reason is a prime example of why this is the case.
Then be more specific with the poll question, because it currently does not specify that that the Wraithknight should remain unchanged except for points (which people were smart enough to infer).
See the OP.
But I wasn't talking about the original post, I was talking about the poll question. It is quite easy to add the required specificity into the question without turning the question into an essay.
IllumiNini wrote:As is everyone else. Even if I cannot assume that the results are unreasonable, you have no reason to assume that there results are reasonable, especially considering the amount of disagreement, argument, and general dislike of you and your opinions that you that you seem to so easily inspire.
So even if I'm wrong in assuming the results are unusable, you do not have a good enough reason to assume the results are reasonable and usable. The presence of trolling at a level you cannot prove is within reason is a prime example of why this is the case.
I've already provided sufficient arguments against this, and the reasons why your arguments are just, at their core, faulty are patently evident to any non-biased observer (e.g., if they wished to troll me, why would they vote in agreement with my opinion?), that I simply won't deal further with these objections from you (which, I suspect, are probably troll-ish in nature).
I'll let the facts stand as they are for any non-biased observers who may be watching.
But I wasn't talking about the original post, I was talking about the poll question.
Traditio wrote: (e.g., if they wished to troll me, why would they vote in agreement with my opinion?)
Perhaps they're trolling me, not you, and voting in opposition to my argument regardless of their real beliefs? Perhaps they're just trolls in general, and think that 400 point Wraithknights are so obviously absurd that it's the comedy option? There's just as much evidence for either of those theories as there is for your theory that everyone voting against your position is a troll.
25% of the respondents think that the Wraithknight needs to be cheaper or stay exactly the same. 75% think it needs a price bump, most of these think it needs at least 100pts tacked onto the price.
Of those 25% who think its price fine or to expensive, I would hazard a guess that most are Eldar players who don't want to have to try tactics to win a game and instead like the ability to spam "I WIN" buttons everywhere, IE Wraith Knights, Scatbikes, Spiders.
Sorry if that offends you handful of Eldar players who think the Wraithknight is fine for its price but, either your blind or just trolling, either way. The Eldar Codex needs a complete rewrite with a lot of nerfs. AS does Tau/SM and Necron.
SemperMortis wrote: 25% of the respondents think that the Wraithknight needs to be cheaper or stay exactly the same. 75% think it needs a price bump, most of these think it needs at least 100pts tacked onto the price.
Of those 25% who think its price fine or to expensive, I would hazard a guess that most are Eldar players who don't want to have to try tactics to win a game and instead like the ability to spam "I WIN" buttons everywhere, IE Wraith Knights, Scatbikes, Spiders
That's basically how I'm reading the poll results.
Matt.Kingsley wrote: The vast majority, if not all, of the posters who picked the 'less than 295pts' option came from the thread that started this topic in the first place.
A thread that like many of Traditio's others quickly descends into madness because he's either a troll or just overly stubborn and is 'never wrong'.
In that thread Traditio went on about Free Rhinos from the gladius not being cheese while the WK is, even though one gives you 250-350 free points of models and the other is considered to be 100 points too cheap.
Many posters then showed him that no, free Rhinos are just as erroneous and cheesy and a 'free 100pt' WK and then did the math to show him that in 11/12 BRB missions the WK will lose to equal points of Marines in Rhinos, as it couldn't even kill the full 280 points of models.
Come this thread which is so obviously made for Traditio to come back and go 'nah ah x% of people think the WK is too cheap and therefor cheese' because he dug himself into a hole and wouldn't back down. People that disagreed with him in the other thread and proved him wrong then came here in response and voted the poll option that by Traditio's normal logic should be the preffered one, it should be cheaper as it couldn't kill 280 points of marines. Marines are the standard therefore the WK needs to be reduced to at most 280pts, preferably 250.
Do I truly believe it? No, however the rabbit hole that is Traditio's many threads indicates that it should be the case.
It's nothing more than people who are sick of Traditio constantly making new threads to dodge answering when it gets too hot under the collar for him/her after having their own logic turned against them.
Matt.Kingsley wrote:It's nothing more than people who are sick of Traditio constantly making new threads
If you're so sick of them, you're under no obligation to participate in them.
So not only are you still apparently "Waiting on numbers" as if they're supposed to be able to tell you about your own opinions on the issues I raised (referring to the this thread), but you've missed a fundamental point Matt.Kingsley's post:
People are getting sick of you and your threads/posts. Yes, they're not obliged to comment on what you've said or even acknowledge you've said anything, but the question you've got to ask yourself is why people are getting sick of you and your content. Only when you ask yourself that question as well as put a stop to stupid habits such as ignoring people and not admitting you were wrong can you actually get the genuine results you want out of these polls and genuine discussion in your threads (instead of what it always seems to devolve into)
SemperMortis wrote: 25% of the respondents think that the Wraithknight needs to be cheaper or stay exactly the same. 75% think it needs a price bump, most of these think it needs at least 100pts tacked onto the price.
Of those 25% who think its price fine or to expensive, I would hazard a guess that most are Eldar players who don't want to have to try tactics to win a game and instead like the ability to spam "I WIN" buttons everywhere, IE Wraith Knights, Scatbikes, Spiders.
Sorry if that offends you handful of Eldar players who think the Wraithknight is fine for its price but, either your blind or just trolling, either way. The Eldar Codex needs a complete rewrite with a lot of nerfs. AS does Tau/SM and Necron.
I'm not offended in the slightest, although I do think that you WK/Eldar haters should L2P. It's not like the meta hasn't moved in a huge way since Necrons.
Now if you were saying that the old books need updates, that'd be different...
SemperMortis wrote: 25% of the respondents think that the Wraithknight needs to be cheaper or stay exactly the same. 75% think it needs a price bump, most of these think it needs at least 100pts tacked onto the price.
Of those 25% who think its price fine or to expensive, I would hazard a guess that most are Eldar players who don't want to have to try tactics to win a game and instead like the ability to spam "I WIN" buttons everywhere, IE Wraith Knights, Scatbikes, Spiders.
Sorry if that offends you handful of Eldar players who think the Wraithknight is fine for its price but, either your blind or just trolling, either way. The Eldar Codex needs a complete rewrite with a lot of nerfs. AS does Tau/SM and Necron.
I'm not offended in the slightest, although I do think that you WK/Eldar haters should L2P. It's not like the meta hasn't moved in a huge way since Necrons.
Now if you were saying that the old books need updates, that'd be different...
Tell you what. You play orks.
And then come back to me about how people need to L2P.
I'll be waiting to hear all about your win/tie/loss ratio.
To you, however, I will say I understand this point. Run a warhost, with a wraithhost, and suddenly it has guaranteed 6" battle focus. It's a force multiplier, and it's pretty damn strong.
You don't need to run a Wraithhost. You can just run a Wraith Construct; which are Wraithguard, Wraithlords, or Wraithknights.
Wonder which one people will pick.
B) Absolutely. Grade-A ridiculously weird stuff. Glad it's being fixed.
C) Fair enough.
Honestly, I agree with your points, and respect your opinions. You actually define your views and give me reasoning that isn't vague to support your position. I can see how the WK is undercosted in this light.
Truthfully, I think I would be far more amenable to the Tyranid GMCs being pointed the same as the Wraithknight currently is.
Their GMCs need help, yo.
I just meant for it to have battle focus, the wraithhost is needed. Isn't it? I'll double check, but I think the warhost only makes battle focus a guaranteed 6" and doesn't actually grant it to units that don't have it, while the wraithhost does give its units battle focus. Then again, battle focus isn't really the big problem with the WK haha
I don't know enough about Tyranid GMCs, except I would instantly agree that anything that is a GMC should be on the same rough power level as other things classed GMC.
SemperMortis wrote: 25% of the respondents think that the Wraithknight needs to be cheaper or stay exactly the same. 75% think it needs a price bump, most of these think it needs at least 100pts tacked onto the price.
Of those 25% who think its price fine or to expensive, I would hazard a guess that most are Eldar players who don't want to have to try tactics to win a game and instead like the ability to spam "I WIN" buttons everywhere, IE Wraith Knights, Scatbikes, Spiders.
Sorry if that offends you handful of Eldar players who think the Wraithknight is fine for its price but, either your blind or just trolling, either way. The Eldar Codex needs a complete rewrite with a lot of nerfs. AS does Tau/SM and Necron.
I'm not offended in the slightest, although I do think that you WK/Eldar haters should L2P. It's not like the meta hasn't moved in a huge way since Necrons.
Now if you were saying that the old books need updates, that'd be different...
The L2P argument is my favorite when coming from Eldar Players. I understand you have two other armies, good for you. That doesn't mean that you get to tell others to L2P. My Ork army has very little chance to win against Eldar Lists. Every single Ork build except for the Zhadsnarkz Biker boyz list which isn't even able to place in the top 50 at LVO, has a distinct disadvantage against Eldar.
So how do I L2P against an Eldar Player who likes to bring WK's and Spam Scatbikes? What tactics would you suggest. Also if you suggest "use the terrain" im going to write you off completely as a useful contributor on these boards and label you as one of the Eldar Fan Boyz who can't win without using the Easy mode army.
No, having those armies doesn't mean I get to tell haters like you to L2P. You hating on the other armies is what means I get to tell you to L2P.
And L2P includes learning the meta.
If you want to play competitively, start by shelving your Orks. If you refuse to play a competitive Codex in whatever meta happens to be dominant, that is your failure, and you are not doing it right.
If you honestly believe that Eldar are "easy mode", then by all means, prove us right by taking them to an auto-pilot Tournament win.
I think its pretty uncontroversial to say that the Wraithknight is, if not THE most powerful single unit in the game, easily within the top 10.
Its a meta-defining unit. If your army can't deal with at least one wraithknight, you're not going to win tournaments.
It really doesn't help that Eldar also got other meta-defining units (Scatterbikes, Warp Spiders and Wraithguard) that complement the WK nicely.
So what could we compare the WK to?
An Imperial Knight is an obvious choice. My personal favourite comparison though is the D-Thirster.
The D-Thirster is a staple of Daemonkin and now Daemon armies, as it allows a reliable way for Daemons to take down high AV targets that they were previously lacking. Its rare to see a KDK army without them.
So lets look at the Combat WK vs the Combat D-Thirster. For only 20pts more, the WK has:
+ 2T (Immunity to S4 attacks)
+ 4S
+ Always On FNP + D-Weapon Strikes at I5
+ Stomp (!!!)
+ Resistance to Instant Death / Stomp
+ Resistance to Poison.
- Weaponskill
- Swooping mode
- Attacks.
Personally, the -WS and A aren't big deals to me. Stomp makes up for a few lost attacks easily; and in 95% of combats the WS loss won't matter. The swooping mode is also pretty meh; a D-thirster wants to be in combat, so essentially if it flies T1 it doesn't make combat until turn 3 at best - or deepstriking it doesn't make combat until T4.
Against things like Knights, a D-weapon WK is leagues ahead of the D-weapon bloodthirster because it strikes before the Knights.
What about compared to SHV's?
The WK is kind of a weird case because its T8, which crosses a lot of thresholds in the game. A T6 GMC would be a different story. (Unless its the Stormsurge, which again has quirks). T8 makes it immune to S4 (ie, the bulk of most army's infantry shooting and close combat attacks). It pushes most army's volume-of-fire attacks that they use to deal with light vehicles (scatterlasers or broadside missiles) to 5's or 6's to wound, and are AP4 or worse. Even armies' high S low ROF attacks like Melta or Lascannon are ineffective, because they're still wounding on 4's against effectively 12 wounds (FNP & 5++).
Couple that innate resistance from high Toughness with the innate bonuses of GMC's. They gain resistance to the type of attacks one would usually rely on to take out other MC's - poison, sniper and instant death. The remaining rules that work on them are Rending and Fleshbane which is handed out *very* sparingly (Poison 2+ is more common, but useless). Compare that to SHV's which are equally as susceptible to nearly all anti-vehicle tech: haywire, melta, lance and gauss all still work.
What you end up with is a unit that requires a very narrow range of weapons to kill efficiently and has very little fear of being in combat. Most armies would struggle to kill it even with an entire army's weight of firepower in a turn, or possibly even 2 turns.
The weapons that DO work against Wraithknights are essentially Grav. The combat units that work are... superfriends wolf units. Both of which also occupy places in the 'top 10 powerful units'.
And that is just for the combat knight... and the cannon knight is considered MORE powerful.
IMO, a Wraithknight could easily be 100pts more and it would still be very aggressively costed. So I vote 400-449 pts.
JohnHwangDD wrote: No, having those armies doesn't mean I get to tell haters like you to L2P. You hating on the other armies is what means I get to tell you to L2P.
And L2P includes learning the meta.
If you want to play competitively, start by shelving your Orks. If you refuse to play a competitive Codex in whatever meta happens to be dominant, that is your failure, and you are not doing it right.
If you honestly believe that Eldar are "easy mode", then by all means, prove us right by taking them to an auto-pilot Tournament win.
So because I feel that the wraithknight is significantly under priced I am "Hating" on your army? That is a flawed statement from the start
So if I want to play competitively I need to shelve the Army that I have spent years collecting, assembling and painting and go out and buy a whole new army that is the current Cheese? Do you really not see why that is offensive to so many people. I am happy for you that you have enough money that your comfortable buying around a thousand dollars worth of Plastic toys every year or so to compete in your meta but most of us simply can not afford to do that.
As far as Eldar being Easy Mode? well go take a look at any recent major tournament. The 2016 LVO had 3 Eldar armies in the top 8 alone. (The most btw) on top of the fact that ITC nerfed Eldar with their rules and yet wow they won 1st and 2nd place not to mention they also scored the highest average of any other army (except random armies that only had 1-2 people and both played well EG Renages). So I think calling Eldar the Easy Mode army is a fair statement.
JohnHwangDD wrote: No, having those armies doesn't mean I get to tell haters like you to L2P. You hating on the other armies is what means I get to tell you to L2P.
So because I feel that the wraithknight is significantly under priced I am "Hating" on your army? That is a flawed statement from the start
So if I want to play competitively I need to shelve the Army that I have spent years collecting, assembling and painting and go out and buy a whole new army that is the current Cheese? Do you really not see why that is offensive to so many people. I am happy for you that you have enough money that your comfortable buying around a thousand dollars worth of Plastic toys every year or so to compete in your meta but most of us simply can not afford to do that.
As far as Eldar being Easy Mode? well go take a look at any recent major tournament. The 2016 LVO had 3 Eldar armies in the top 8 alone. (The most btw) on top of the fact that ITC nerfed Eldar with their rules and yet wow they won 1st and 2nd place not to mention they also scored the highest average of any other army (except random armies that only had 1-2 people and both played well EG Renages). So I think calling Eldar the Easy Mode army is a fair statement.
You were hating on more than just the WK, basically everything Decurion forward.
If you want to play competitively, YES, you fething damn well do need to shelve your Orks. Don't like it? Too fething bad. That's how things go. And no, it shouldn't be at all offensive to anybody. If you want to compete, you need to play to compete. That means doing your homework and picking a competitive army from the get-go. You chose not to do that. That's not my fault. That is your fault. And fact is, from a competitive standpoint, I've shelved armies for years on end. Others have, too. There's nothing wrong with shelving an army. What is wrong is to complain that one made bad choices in the meta, and to blame others for those poor decisions.
What a top-level player does, and what you can do are two different things. In a mirror match, I suspect any of those 3 Eldar players could beat you convincingly Orks vs Orks, or Eldar vs Eldar. If Eldar allow a scrub like you to play at in the finals, I'd be shocked.
BTW, you should read Sirlin's definition of "scrub" - it's entirely apt.
SemperMortis wrote: So if I want to play competitively I need to shelve the Army that I have spent years collecting, assembling and painting and go out and buy a whole new army that is the current Cheese? Do you really not see why that is offensive to so many people. I am happy for you that you have enough money that your comfortable buying around a thousand dollars worth of Plastic toys every year or so to compete in your meta but most of us simply can not afford to do that.
Yes, that's what "play competitively" means. If you aren't taking the best possible lists then you aren't playing competitively. It's entirely ok to say that you don't have any interest in playing competitively and would rather continue playing the same army you've already collected for fluff/painting/whatever reasons, but don't try to redefine "competitive" into something that it isn't.
Peregrine wrote:Yes, that's what "play competitively" means. If you aren't taking the best possible lists then you aren't playing competitively. It's entirely ok to say that you don't have any interest in playing competitively and would rather continue playing the same army you've already collected for fluff/painting/whatever reasons, but don't try to redefine "competitive" into something that it isn't.
I believe that SemperMortis is effectively saying what I've been saying:
All armies, reasonably constructed (and this, in the broadest, most common sense understanding, not in the way that you understand it), should be equally good, independently of player skill.
I understand that players of the higher tier codices who've opted to spam the most broken options in those codices, and most especially the WAAC types, won't like this. They've got a lot invested in making sure that their army has an unfair advantage.
But ultimately, I don't sympathize with such people.
And apparently, neither do the respondents to this poll.
Peregrine wrote:Yes, that's what "play competitively" means. If you aren't taking the best possible lists then you aren't playing competitively. It's entirely ok to say that you don't have any interest in playing competitively and would rather continue playing the same army you've already collected for fluff/painting/whatever reasons, but don't try to redefine "competitive" into something that it isn't.
I believe that SemperMortis is effectively saying what I've been saying:
All armies, reasonably constructed (and this, in the broadest, most common sense understanding, not in the way that you understand it), should be equally good, independently of player skill.
I understand that players of the higher tier codices who've opted to spam the most broken options in those codices, and most especially the WAAC types, won't like this. They've got a lot invested in making sure that their army has an unfair advantage.
But ultimately, I don't sympathize with such people.
And apparently, neither do the respondents to this poll.
There should always be races and units which are better than others at specializing in a battlefield role. the races of 40k should never be equally as good. There should not however be armies which are auto win.
WK are still only a very small part of the problem.
All armies should be equal in regards to capability of destroying units. They should however have different weaknesses that are core to their overall feel and should have different tools for the destruction of said units.
So 13% of respondents think the Wraithknight is overcosted? I would say that is definitely a strong minority. After all, if 13% of your wedding cake had no frosting wouldn't you complain?
TheCustomLime wrote: So 20% of respondents think the Wraithknight is overcosted? I would say that is definitely a strong minority. After all, if 20% of your wedding cake had no frosting wouldn't you complain?
TheCustomLime wrote: So 20% of respondents think the Wraithknight is overcosted? I would say that is definitely a strong minority. After all, if 20% of your wedding cake had no frosting wouldn't you complain?
So how does this sound: 350pts for a 5 wound WK that comes stock with shoulder guns (swap for any for free)? So counting the current points for adding the guns, that is a 25pt increase for a 17% decrease in durability (-1W).
Galef wrote: So how does this sound: 350pts for a 5 wound WK that comes stock with shoulder guns (swap for any for free)? So counting the current points for adding the guns, that is a 25pt increase for a 17% decrease in durability (-1W).
I'll take it over the current incarnation for sure. We can use ITC invisibility to make invis cent star vulnerable to D-scythes.
Galef wrote: So how does this sound: 350pts for a 5 wound WK that comes stock with shoulder guns (swap for any for free)? So counting the current points for adding the guns, that is a 25pt increase for a 17% decrease in durability (-1W).
At this point, I feel like I have the public opinion numbers not to negotiate on this point:
400 point wraithknight. Wraithknight keeps its current statline. Must purchase upgrades as normal. Limit 1 per 1600 points (i.e., for every wraithknight you bring, you MUST have 1200 points of non-super heavy things).
This is the bare minimum that public opinion supports.
Galef wrote: So how does this sound: 350pts for a 5 wound WK that comes stock with shoulder guns (swap for any for free)? So counting the current points for adding the guns, that is a 25pt increase for a 17% decrease in durability (-1W).
At this point, I feel like I have the public opinion numbers not to negotiate on this point:
400 point wraithknight. Wraithknight keeps its current status. Must purchase upgrades as normal. Limit 1 per 1600 points (i.e., for every wraithknight you bring, you MUST have 1200 points of non-super heavy things).
You don't at all. The poll isn't even relevant to your weird limit per 1600. It also lacks the specifics to back your point value. The poll could mean people are split between wanting it at 350 or 450.
That's before we bring in other arguments such as the Wraithknight is already fairly priced as it essentially costs 400+ now due to the units you have to buy to unlock it. Like Gladius "free but not free" transports.
Galef wrote: So how does this sound: 350pts for a 5 wound WK that comes stock with shoulder guns (swap for any for free)? So counting the current points for adding the guns, that is a 25pt increase for a 17% decrease in durability (-1W).
400 point wraithknight. Wraithknight keeps its current statline. Must purchase upgrades as normal. Limit 1 per 1600 points (i.e., for every wraithknight you bring, you MUST have 1200 points of non-super heavy things).
This is the bare minimum that public opinion supports.
No, it didn't. They supported a 100 point price hike.
Galef wrote: So how does this sound: 350pts for a 5 wound WK that comes stock with shoulder guns (swap for any for free)? So counting the current points for adding the guns, that is a 25pt increase for a 17% decrease in durability (-1W).
At this point, I feel like I have the public opinion numbers not to negotiate on this point:
400 point wraithknight. Wraithknight keeps its current statline. Must purchase upgrades as normal. Limit 1 per 1600 points (i.e., for every wraithknight you bring, you MUST have 1200 points of non-super heavy things).
Oh, but then Wraithknights are underpowered because those points aren't JUST for the Wraithknight. You have to pay for all other units in order to take one - I mean, isn't that your justification as to why free transports are okay? devils advocate/
This is the bare minimum that public opinion supports.
44% of the poll demands a 400 point or higher wraithknight.
Another 26% or so demands at LEAST a 350 point wraithknight.
When I say "400 points," I'm making demands on the lighter side.
The poll isn't even relevant to your weird limit per 1600.
In the other poll, more than a third of poll respondents demanded that superheavies be banned from the normal game outright. In thread respondents who voted that they be permitted submitted a points restriction analogous to that present in 30k (a maximum of 25% of your forces can be superheavy).
It also lacks the specifics to back your point value. The poll could mean people are split between wanting it at 350 or 450.
Lolno. 41% demanding more than 400 points is not a "split."
That's before we bring in other arguments such as the Wraithknight is already fairly priced as it essentially costs 400+ now due to the units you have to buy to unlock it.
You don't have the support of public opinion on this one. Sorry.
The poll isn't even relevant to your weird limit per 1600.
In the other poll, more than a third of poll respondents demanded that superheavies be banned from the normal game outright. In thread respondents who voted that they be permitted submitted a points restriction analogous to that present in 30k (a maximum of 25% of your forces can be superheavy). The other thread is irrelevant to this one. Stop trying to use unrelated evidence.
It also lacks the specifics to back your point value. The poll could mean people are split between wanting it at 350 or 450.
Lolno. 41% demanding more than 400 points is not a "split." He's not referring to that.
That's before we bring in other arguments such as the Wraithknight is already fairly priced as it essentially costs 400+ now due to the units you have to buy to unlock it.
You don't have the support of public opinion on this one. Sorry. The oh-so sanctimonious "public opinion" in this thread is by no means comprehensive, nor is it particularly accurate. Not to mention that people may support a price increase, but not alongside the other gamut of changes you've made. In order to test that, you'd need another poll - and that wasn't an invitation to do so.
44% of the poll demands a 400 point or higher wraithknight.
Another 26% or so demands at LEAST a 350 point wraithknight.
When I say "400 points," I'm making demands on the lighter side.
56% of the poll does not. The public opinion is not on your side.
The poll isn't even relevant to your weird limit per 1600.
In the other poll, more than a third of poll respondents demanded that superheavies be banned from the normal game outright. In thread respondents who voted that they be permitted submitted a points restriction analogous to that present in 30k (a maximum of 25% of your forces can be superheavy).
This is not that poll. If you were going to add restrictions like that you should have asked first.
It also lacks the specifics to back your point value. The poll could mean people are split between wanting it at 350 or 450.
Lolno. 41% demanding more than 400 points is not a "split."
That's before we bring in other arguments such as the Wraithknight is already fairly priced as it essentially costs 400+ now due to the units you have to buy to unlock it.
You don't have the support of public opinion on this one. Sorry.
That is not a good counter argument. The public majority can be wrong. And you don't know why the voted the way they did or what their complete opinion is.
44% of the poll demands a 400 point or higher wraithknight.
Another 26% or so demands at LEAST a 350 point wraithknight.
When I say "400 points," I'm making demands on the lighter side.
The poll isn't even relevant to your weird limit per 1600.
In the other poll, more than a third of poll respondents demanded that superheavies be banned from the normal game outright. In thread respondents who voted that they be permitted submitted a points restriction analogous to that present in 30k (a maximum of 25% of your forces can be superheavy).
It also lacks the specifics to back your point value. The poll could mean people are split between wanting it at 350 or 450.
Lolno. 41% demanding more than 400 points is not a "split."
That's before we bring in other arguments such as the Wraithknight is already fairly priced as it essentially costs 400+ now due to the units you have to buy to unlock it.
You don't have the support of public opinion on this one. Sorry.
1. No you're twisting data to force your opinion down our throats again.
2. That poll actually shows that most people do NOT want superheavies banned. This certainly doesn't support your point and implies that most people disagree with it.
3. 58% "demand" that it be less than 400 therefore you are incorrect. That's your logic here or will you admit I'm right?
4. That made me laugh. You almost never have public support and that never impedes you. It simply applies your own logic so you have 2 options: Admit I am right and you are wrong or admit you are wrong about the Gladius Transports.
Isn't it funny how 2 other people brought up similar if not identical issues to the ones I did? Almost as if one poster here is wrong...
Traditio wrote: You don't have the support of public opinion on this one. Sorry.
Nor do you. You currently (as of typing this) have the support of 63 people who think it should be 400+ points, 120 people who think the cost should be more.
Out of what? How many thousands of people play? How many people who read these threads and don't vote, because they don't care?
Wolfblade wrote: Woah woah woah. If you get to claim 38% is a strong minority where therected are only 2 options, do I get to claim 13% is a strong minority here?.
Also by your logic, 59% want it to cost LESS than 400pts. You're still a minority.
1. Your math is wrong. 100-44 = 56, not 59.
2. We need not quibble over the numbers. A 395 point wraightknight (easily supported by the poll numbers) is not substantially different from a 400 point one.
TheCustomLime wrote:56% of the poll does not. The public opinion is not on your side.
Did you add the percentages together?
26 + 44 = 70%. And if we add in the other 10 percent who voted "300-350," that's an 80% consensus that the wraithknight needs to cost more.
Of that 80%, more than half thinks that it needs to be more than 400 points.
Tradito... did you even read my post? I was responding to your assertion that 44% of respond agreed to a 400 or higher price point somehow gives you some authority. My response was that it also means that 56% does not support your assertion. That means the public opinion is not on your side.
This is not that poll.
So what? The fact remains that public opinion is on my side in my demand.
No it is not. Public majority opinion is a) Superheavies shouldn't be banned and b) That Wraithknights should cost more. That's it.
TheCustomLime wrote:Tradito... did you even read my post? I was responding to your assertion that 44% of respond agreed to a 400 or higher price point somehow gives you some authority. My response was that it also means that 56% does not support your assertion. That means the public opinion is not on your side.
It's overhwelmingly on my side if we discount the votes of the people who don't think that the wraithknight should be more expensive at all.
So, think of it this way:
Should the wraithknight cost more? Roughly 80 percent say yes.
How much more? Of those who think it should cost more, more than half say "at least 400 points."
No it is not.
Is the wraithknight a superheavy or not?
Is it the public opinion that superheavies should either be banned outright or else restricted?
Wolfblade wrote: Woah woah woah. If you get to claim 38% is a strong minority where therected are only 2 options, do I get to claim 13% is a strong minority here?.
Also by your logic, 59% want it to cost LESS than 400pts. You're still a minority.
1. Your math is wrong. 100-44 = 56, not 59.
2. We need not quibble over the numbers. A 395 point wraightknight (easily supported by the poll numbers) is not substantially different from a 400 point one.
1. Fair enough, we all am keeping mistakes.
2. Can I claim that 13% strong minority now?
TheCustomLime wrote:Tradito... did you even read my post? I was responding to your assertion that 44% of respond agreed to a 400 or higher price point somehow gives you some authority. My response was that it also means that 56% does not support your assertion. That means the public opinion is not on your side.
It's overhwelmingly on my side if we discount the votes of the people who don't think that the wraithknight should be more expensive at all.
So, think of it this way:
Should the wraithknight cost more? Roughly 80 percent say yes.
How much more? Of those who think it should cost more, more than half say "at least 400 points."
But your original opinion was still unsupported by public majority. So by your logic you were wrong. And you can't discount those votes. If we are just going to arbitrarily exclude votes, I'm going to say the people who supported a price hike are trolls and their votes are not valid. Wow, 100% support for me! I'm so right Tradito you don't know even know.
No it is not.
Is the wraithknight a superheavy or not?
Is it the public opinion that superheavies should either be banned outright or else restricted?
The results of the poll indicated that superheavies and gmcs should not be banned.
TheCustomLime wrote:Tradito... did you even read my post? I was responding to your assertion that 44% of respond agreed to a 400 or higher price point somehow gives you some authority. My response was that it also means that 56% does not support your assertion. That means the public opinion is not on your side.
It's overhwelmingly on my side if we discount the votes of the people who don't think that the wraithknight should be more expensive at all.
IOW - "If you ignore the results, I'm right!"
No it is not.
Is the wraithknight a superheavy or not?
Is it the public opinion that superheavies should either be banned outright or else restricted?
TheCustomLime wrote:But your original opinion was still unsupported by public majority. So by your logic you were wrong. And you can't discount those votes. If we are just going to arbitrarily exclude votes, I'm going to say the people who supported a price hike are trolls and their votes are not valid. Wow, 100% support for me! I'm so right Tradito you don't know even know.
Ok. Let's entertain this for a moment.
What points cost does the poll support?
The results of the poll indicated that superheavies and gmcs should not be banned.
"Is it the case that this apple is either blue or red?"
"Apples are not blue!!!"
I'm sorry, but what you wrote is a non-answer to what I asked.
Is it the public opinion that superheavies should either be banned outright or else restricted?
Doesn't look like it. Though I'm sure you're gonna try to twist it to be. Somehow (currently) 35% of people thinking they don't "belong" in normal games is giving you the idea that this "public" wants them banned outright or else restricted. I really don't follow. 1 in 3 people dislike it. Okay. That's a minority.
Traditio wrote: I want actual statistical data on public opinion on what constitutes a fair wraithknight cost.
No you don't. You want a number that you can cite to support your claims that Wraithknights should be more expensive. Or, if the result of the poll is that Wraithknights should be less than 295 points (the option that is currently winning) will you concede defeat on the issue and lobby for its cost to be reduced to match public opinion? Will you go from arguing that Eldar players are WAACTFGs if they exploit this undercosted unit to praising Eldar players that take such an awesome model despite it having a point cost that is generally agreed to be too high?
Is it the public opinion that superheavies should either be banned outright or else restricted?
Doesn't look like it. Though I'm sure you're gonna try to twist it to be. Somehow (currently) 35% of people thinking they don't "belong" in normal games is giving you the idea that this "public" wants them banned outright or else restricted. I really don't follow. 1 in 3 people dislike it. Okay. That's a minority.
There are three options:
1. Superheavies should be banned.
2. Superheavies should be permitted, but restricted.
3. Superheavies should be permitted without restriction.
The poll I conducted only gave the choice between 1 and not 1 (lumping 2 and 3 together).
You can have voted against 1, but still think 2 as opposed to 3. If you read the in-poll responses, you'll find, among those who voted for not 1, strong support for 2.
TheCustomLime wrote:But your original opinion was still unsupported by public majority. So by your logic you were wrong. And you can't discount those votes. If we are just going to arbitrarily exclude votes, I'm going to say the people who supported a price hike are trolls and their votes are not valid. Wow, 100% support for me! I'm so right Tradito you don't know even know.
Ok. Let's entertain this for a moment.
What points cost does the poll support?
If you exclude the votes for a price hike, 295 and below.
The results of the poll indicated that superheavies and gmcs should not be banned.
"Is it the case that this apple is either blue or red?"
"Apples are not blue!!!"
I'm sorry, but what you wrote is a non-answer to what I asked.
Wraithknights are GMCs. People in that thread mostly voted in favor of GMCs/SHs to be included. Some requested restrictions for Lords of War in general including things like the Baneblade and Malcador whether it be a percentage restrictions or minimum points requirement.
Is it the public opinion that superheavies should either be banned outright or else restricted?
Doesn't look like it. Though I'm sure you're gonna try to twist it to be. Somehow (currently) 35% of people thinking they don't "belong" in normal games is giving you the idea that this "public" wants them banned outright or else restricted. I really don't follow. 1 in 3 people dislike it. Okay. That's a minority.
There are three options:
1. Superheavies should be banned.
2. Superheavies should be permitted, but restricted.
3. Superheavies should be permitted without restriction.
The poll I conducted only gave the choice between 1 and not 1 (lumping 2 and 3 together).
You can have voted against 1, but still think 2 as opposed to 3. If you read the in-poll responses, you'll find, among those who voted for not 1, strong support for 2.
Oh look someone changed their standards!
Any claim that people think they should be restricted currently lacks any support. The available data shows that the majority have no desire to ban superheavies. That is all. No significant support for your point at all. Come back when you have support.
Is it the public opinion that superheavies should either be banned outright or else restricted?
Doesn't look like it. Though I'm sure you're gonna try to twist it to be. Somehow (currently) 35% of people thinking they don't "belong" in normal games is giving you the idea that this "public" wants them banned outright or else restricted. I really don't follow. 1 in 3 people dislike it. Okay. That's a minority.
There are three options:
1. Superheavies should be banned.
2. Superheavies should be permitted, but restricted.
3. Superheavies should be permitted without restriction.
The poll I conducted only gave the choice between 1 and not 1 (lumping 2 and 3 together).
You can have voted against 1, but still think 2 as opposed to 3. If you read the in-poll responses, you'll find, among those who voted for not 1, strong support for 2.
Incorrect again.
It's a binary poll - The only options are "To ban, or not to ban."
I guess that's what happens when you use a blanket ruling.
I fail to see how you can pull any kind of statistics on this, and YOUR view, as you stated, was to ban ALL SHV/GMC - including the Malcador, before people called you out on it - is still the minority.
TheCustomLime wrote:If you exclude the votes for a price hike, 295 and below.
And with that, I'll simply ignore your further postings.
Good day.
But Tradito, you said:
Tradito wrote:It's overhwelmingly on my side if we discount the votes of the people who don't think that the wraithknight should be more expensive at all.
Is it the public opinion that superheavies should either be banned outright or else restricted?
Doesn't look like it. Though I'm sure you're gonna try to twist it to be. Somehow (currently) 35% of people thinking they don't "belong" in normal games is giving you the idea that this "public" wants them banned outright or else restricted. I really don't follow. 1 in 3 people dislike it. Okay. That's a minority.
There are three options:
1. Superheavies should be banned.
2. Superheavies should be permitted, but restricted.
3. Superheavies should be permitted without restriction.
The poll I conducted only gave the choice between 1 and not 1 (lumping 2 and 3 together).
You can have voted against 1, but still think 2 as opposed to 3. If you read the in-poll responses, you'll find, among those who voted for not 1, strong support for 2.
But those who voted for Not-1, regardless of being 2 or 3, are still in the minority. It's a poll with two options. There's really no way to tell how that 35% of Not-1 breaks down between 2 and 3. Regardless of how it breaks down, though, both 2 and 3 combined make up 35%, a minority, compared to 65% of respondents being fine with SH as they are.
Strong support within a minority is still only a majority of a minority. Let's say 20% of people want them in with restrictions, that leaves 15% of people wanting them banned outright. Suddenly, the people who agree with you about banning SH is even lower, in fact I would argue you no longer have strong support. But I can't say that, because we don't know how it actually breaks down.
Sgt_Smudge wrote:You made the same point. Why is Custom not able to make the point? Is it because you cannot defend it?
1. The point that I made actually made sense in the context in which I presented it. It was not intended as a "troll."
2. Custom was just flat out trolling me. I'm not going to have conversations with people who are clearly attempting to troll me.
But for what it's worth, Smudge, I present these considerations, not to you and to Custom, but to any who may be reading and are judging the matter without bias:
80% of all respondents agree that the wraithknight should cost more.
When evaluating the appropriate points increase for a wraithknight, should we factor in the opinions of those who do not recognize a need for a points increase at all?
The answer, it seems to me, is self-evidently "no." If you are in the business of selling television sets, you simply don't take into account the opinions of those who are not interested in purchasing television sets. You attend to the opinions of the potential buyers and price accordingly.
Even so, the opinion that the wraithknight needs a points increase is in the overwhelming majority (80%).
How, then, should we calculate the appropriate price increase? By attending to the majority opinion among those who recognize a points increase in the first place.
If you doubt that this line of reasoning has any validity, and if you are willing to give ear to the arguments of Custom, then simply consider this fact:
When I asked him what points increase the poll actually supports, he responded, not with an analysis of the poll results on its own merits, but with a response designed to troll, not only me, but all of us, I say, who consider the wraithknight unfair.
And further consider, I say, that in spite of the overwhelming public opinion in my favor, a select few, a very vocal subset of the obvious minority, continues to raise trifling objection.
Ponder that, and the motivations of the objectors immediately becomes obvious.
And further consider, I say, that in spite of the overwhelming public opinion in my favor, a select few, a very vocal subset of the obvious minority, continues to raise trifling objection.
So if the poll regarding SHV/GMC hits a 80/20 ratio, you'll drop your campaign to use "public opinion" as proof they need to go away?
Sgt_Smudge wrote:You made the same point. Why is Custom not able to make the point? Is it because you cannot defend it?
1. The point that I made actually made sense in the context in which I presented it. It was not intended as a "troll."
2. Custom was just flat out trolling me. I'm not going to have conversations with people who are clearly attempting to troll me.
How telling that Tradito considers his own logic as trolling when it's used against him.
But for what it's worth, Smudge, I present these considerations, not to you and to Custom, but to any who may be reading and are judging the matter without bias:
80% of all respondents agree that the wraithknight should cost more.
When evaluating the appropriate points increase for a wraithknight, should we factor in the opinions of those who do not recognize a need for a points increase at all?
The answer, it seems to me, is self-evidently "no." If you are in the business of selling television sets, you simply don't take into account the opinions of those who are not interested in purchasing television sets. You attend to the opinions of the potential buyers and price accordingly.
But this isn't about sales. This about how much a Wraithknight should cost. And if you're going to make assertions of how many people want a price hike and how much you should consider negative votes. Otherwise the poll is disingenuous at best. I mean, c'mon, you really can't see how your arbitrary your lines in the sand are?
Sgt_Smudge wrote:You made the same point. Why is Custom not able to make the point? Is it because you cannot defend it?
1. The point that I made actually made sense in the context in which I presented it. It was not intended as a "troll."
I'm not saying it was a troll. I'm saying you disregarded a part of your study, and they when someone else does so, you chastise them. Why the double standard?
Also, IOW: "It's trolling unless I do it."
2. Custom was just flat out trolling me. I'm not going to have conversations with people who are clearly attempting to troll me.
You got any evidence for that? As far as any right minded observer would see (to use your own style of description) Custom was asking a valid question - why can you ignore parts of data and they can't?
Is it because it affects your result? If not, why omit it?
But for what it's worth, Smudge, I present these considerations, not to you and to Custom, but to any who may be reading and are judging the matter without bias:
80% of all respondents agree that the wraithknight should cost more.
When evaluating the appropriate points increase for a wraithknight, should we factor in the opinions of those who do not recognize a need for a points increase at all?
Absolutely. If you want to foster an atmosphere of hospitality and support, discuss with the less-than group about why they think so on an equal field. Then you can challenge their views in a fair and equal manner. After all, their right to free speech should be upheld and supported.
The answer, it seems to me, is self-evidently "no." If you are in the business of selling television sets, you simply don't take into account the opinions of those who are not interested in purchasing television sets. You attend to the opinions of the potential buyers and price accordingly.
Except this analogy falls flat, as the people who do not buy TV sets are not affected - people in 40k always have the risk of running into a Wraithknight, assuming the conditions for the right criteria are met (points, army, houserules)
Even so, the opinion that the wraithknight needs a points increase is in the overwhelming majority (80%).
How, then, should we calculate the appropriate price increase? By attending to the majority opinion among those who recognize a points increase in the first place.
If you doubt that this line of reasoning has any validity, and if you are willing to give ear to the arguments of Custom, then simply consider this fact:
When I asked him what points increase the poll actually supports, he responded, not with an analysis of the poll results on its own merits, but with a response designed to troll, not only me, but all of us, I say, who consider the wraithknight unfair.
He gave back a quote which reversed your own statement, which failed to accommodate for the ACTUAL result of the study. You showed extreme investigator bias, and therefore Custom's remark is valid.
And further consider, I say, that in spite of the overwhelming public opinion in my favor, a select few, a very vocal subset of the obvious minority, continues to raise trifling objection.
Ponder that, and the motivations of the objectors immediately becomes obvious.
I see that you are desperate to spin the results of any poll you are in to support your statement, and claim a moral high ground each time.
I cannot support your viewpoint when you move the goalposts in such a gross manner.
SemperMortis wrote: So if I want to play competitively I need to shelve the Army that I have spent years collecting, assembling and painting and go out and buy a whole new army that is the current Cheese? Do you really not see why that is offensive to so many people. I am happy for you that you have enough money that your comfortable buying around a thousand dollars worth of Plastic toys every year or so to compete in your meta but most of us simply can not afford to do that.
Yes, that's what "play competitively" means. If you aren't taking the best possible lists then you aren't playing competitively. It's entirely ok to say that you don't have any interest in playing competitively and would rather continue playing the same army you've already collected for fluff/painting/whatever reasons, but don't try to redefine "competitive" into something that it isn't.
You seem to be putting words in my mouth, let me rephrase what my point is to see if you can understand it better, and tradito came close to understanding it.
1: Every Army SHOULD be different, each army should excel at some aspects and not at others
2: Every army SHOULD be competitive against one another, otherwise you don't have competitive play you have Rock Paper Scissors.
3: Every Army should be balanced internally AND externaly.
At the moment their are 3 Codex's that are winning everything in ITC (Eldar SM and KDK) with Tau and Necron falling just short, every other codex can't even come close to placing next to those beasts.
Of the 3 best codex's at the moment, Eldar are head and shoulders above everyone else. They are not competitive, they are broken.
When I say competitive, I mean I would like my army to have a fair chance of playing against every other army out there. Just because I chose Orks doesn't mean I should be relegated to the "Non-competitive" table for fun/fluffy lists.
Is this a straight knock at Eldar? no, they didn't get to choose the incompetent moron who wrote their codex so badly that it has more units that are broken then are ok. What it is though is an attempt to get people to understand that since everyone who plays the game is paying money to this company the least they can do is come out with content that is balanced against one another and not completely slanted in a couple factions favor.
In any game there are always going to be broken units to an extent, the problem is that GW seems to think only 2-3 factions should be worth a damn and everyone else should just suck it up.
I spend money on a game just as you do, I should have the same opportunity to win as you, maybe not the same out come but we should at least start on equal footing.
I would love to play Eldar, but I'm afraid I'd be seen as a TFG for doing so. One of the big reasons behind that is the Wraithknight. It's a cool unit to me. Iconic even. But as it stands right now it's undercosted, and one of the reasons why there is so much hate towards Eldar (and by extension, some of their players). I think 100 or so points should be added onto it. Maybe that would go a ways towards reducing some of the hate that they get, as it would (hopefully) bring the codex a tad more back in line.
When a poll vote is 80/20 in favor of Traditio's side it's an "overwhelming majority" and the opinion of anyone who voted for the minority can be ignored.
When a poll is 66/33 against Traditio's side it's a "significant minority" on his side that needs to be considered, and really it should be even more because most of the people who voted against him at least partially agree with him (because reasons).
It's amazing what a difference of only 13% can mean in interpreting a poll.
When a poll vote is 80/20 in favor of Traditio's side it's an "overwhelming majority" and the opinion of anyone who voted for the minority can be ignored.
When a poll is 66/33 against Traditio's side it's a "significant minority" on his side that needs to be considered, and really it should be even more because most of the people who voted against him at least partially agree with him (because reasons).
It's amazing what a difference of only 13% can mean in interpreting a poll.
No no, it's not because they're the minortiy.
They can just be ignored because they're trolls or something, and the actual result is 100% agree with Traditio (even if they voted more than 400, which wasn't what his suggestion/opinion was in the first place).
War Kitten wrote: I would love to play Eldar, but I'm afraid I'd be seen as a TFG for doing so. One of the big reasons behind that is the Wraithknight. It's a cool unit to me. Iconic even. But as it stands right now it's undercosted, and one of the reasons why there is so much hate towards Eldar (and by extension, some of their players). I think 100 or so points should be added onto it. Maybe that would go a ways towards reducing some of the hate that they get, as it would (hopefully) bring the codex a tad more back in line.
If you play Eldar like TFG, then, yeah, you'll be seen as TFG. If you're cool, then you're cool.
If you like the Wraithknight, get the Wraithknight.
If you believe it's undercosted, play fewer points. Or play overcosted units to balance.
I have ZERO problems with super heavies in the game. I DO have a problem with certain super heavies that are seriously out of balance and need adjustments and the inequity between GMC and SHV. I actually think when looking at the balance of super heavies one should compare them to the Imperial Knights. They have proven themselves to be fairly well balanced IMO. Some of you people need to stop trying to put words in peoples' mouths so to speak. It doesn't help you argument and makes you look like a tool.
On a side note this game has a LOT of balancing issues. It is alright for some armies to be a little stronger and others a little weaker, but the current disparity is way too much. I will admit as being a former Marines player (Could no longer stomach the serious BS that was done to my Iron Hands) most of the various marine factions can be OP (with a few exceptions due to seriously bad chapter tactics). However, imo, the Space Marines are hardly the worst offender though they suffer from the OP or crap syndrome.
)
