I'd like to see some opinions about my "fix" for these units.

First of all, I would change the Distort rule to the following:
"A weapon with this rule is strength D with a -1 to their roll on the D-chart. D-scythes and Heavy D-scythes roll -2 on the chart instead"
I still think that StrD is perfect to represent Distort, but for balance purposes, it needs to be toned down.

With that in mind, here are the new WraithGuard:
5-10 models at 35ppm, same statline as current, start with the Wraithcannon. Any model may exchange their Wraithcannon for a D-scythe for 5ppm.
With this change, I hope to make them useful without being OP. No longer being able to just remove models on a '6" should help that, while Scythes only cause damage on 4+
I also want the unit to be able to mix weapons. The base cost of the WG unit is now 15pts more, but you can take 2-3 D-scythes rather than committing to the whole unit.

Small change for WraighBlades - They may mix weapons as well, but are otherwise unchanged.

Now the WraithKnight:
-Statline as now, but only 5 wounds. This makes its durability more comparable to an 6HP AV13 Imperial Knight.
-350pt minimum cost, but the 2 shoulder Shuricannons are included as standard. Either Shuricannon can swap for Scatter Laser or Star cannon for 10 pts each
-Standard starting loadout is 2 arm mounted D-cannons. That's right 24" small blast D-cannons, not Heavy Wraithcannons. In this version the HWC doesn't exist
-Both D-cannons can be swapped for Shield & Glaive or Shield & Suncannon for free.

So the idea here is to make the WK slight more expensive (370pts if fully upgraded), slightly less durable (-1W) and by getting rid of the HWC in favor of D-cannons, you force even the shooting WK to get closer and risk more firepower. While Blasts may be more reliable than single shots, also remember that Distort in -1 to the D-chart in this version, so those blasts may hit more reliably, but they only do damage on 3+ and can never roll a '6' to just remove a model.

Thoughts?

-

I prefer ITC's D table to begin with, so in that format, you wouldn't need the -1 modifier.

Martel732 wrote:
I prefer ITC's D table to begin with, so in that format, you wouldn't need the -1 modifier.

I think it is silly that ITC even has to have a ruling about ranged D. By making Distort at -1, I think the only way to get Ranged D is via Tzeentch Psykers, so require you to either roll the power, then have to harness the WC, or take FateWeaver or Magnus. In all those cases, there is a lot that can stop massed ranges D and it is all short ranged.
Basically I am trying to say that ITC made this ruling specifically for Eldar. Tone down Distort and the ITC rule isn't needed.

We could (and probably have) go on and on about how D needs to change, how GMC rules need to be toned down, etc. But I am trying to create changes to the units in the Eldar codex given the official, unmodified by house rules no matter how popular those house rule are, main rules of 40k remain as is.

As a side note, I have always been perplexed as to why the WK got it's own special snowflake Wraithcannons when the D-cannon already existed and was and obvious choice for the WK.
After all, Wraith-constructs are created specifically to carry the warp weapons that are too heavy and dangerous for regular infantry. I get the Suncannon, but Heavy Wraithcannons should never have existed.

-

I'd rather see something more like HoR's distortion fix, skip the Destroyer table all together.

The heavy wraithcannon on the Wraithknight remains Strength D, it's a superheavy. It may need a points hike, but it can have Destroyer.

The wraithcannon on Wraithguard becomes Strength 10/AP1 with Armourbane and Fleshbane.

The d-flail on the Warp Hunter and the heavy d-scythe on the Hemlock become Strength 6/AP2 with Armourbane and Fleshbane.

The d-cannon on the heavy support platform and the Wraithseer, and the d-scythe on the Wraithguard, become Strength 4/AP2 with Armourbane and Fleshbane.

In all cases (except for the Wraithknight) you preserve the weapon's ability to threaten everything while taking away its ability to burn multiple hull points/Wounds per shot and the ability to auto-pen every vehicle easily regardless of armour, and in the case of the wraithcannon you also take away crit-RFP. The d-flail also IDs at Strength 6 instead of Strength 10 under this mechanism.

The downside to this change is that you take the current d-scythe weapons (d-scythe, heavy d-scythe, d-cannon) and make them wound non-vehicle models on a 2+ instead of a 3+, but given that you're also not penetrating every vehicle in the game on a 3+ it may be worthwhile. If you're in a meta where you don't need extra help to kill Gargantuan Creatures it may be worth changing the d-scythe and d-cannon to Poisoned (3+) rather than Fleshbane.


As for the rest of the Wraithguard/Wraithblade unit I'd love to see them start at 40pts/model with two Wounds and two Attacks as well as being able to mix weapons, try to make them worth it when taken on foot.

I always favor simplicity where possible. While Wraithcannons being str10/AP1 and D-scythes being str6/AP2, both with ArmourBane/Flashbane is cool, it isn't as easy as just saying D-1, or D-2.

I remember when Wraithcannons & D-cannons had their own chart: 3+ to wound, to Pen was 1-2 nothing, 3-4 was a glance and 5-6 was a Pen.
I also remember when D-scythes were just str4 AP2 flamers

D-1 or D-2 is the best combination of both the current and old rules.
It would mean the Wraithcannon is basically 3+ to do any kind of damage and D-scythes were 4+ to do any damage
Distortion weapons release a portion of Warp energies onto the enemy, High Toughness or AV should be no protection.

-

I don't think "S10/Armourbane/Fleshbane" is more complicated than "Use this alternate to-wound table, at a modifier, which may deal multiple wounds that may or may not get to be saved separately (nobody ever remembers), and treat it as Strength (something else) for ID purposes".

And the fundamental issue with D-weapons is that they're too good against everything. Making them slightly less good against everything while not addressing the fact that they're still very good against everything isn't really going to fix the problem. Giving them a Strength with Armourbane/Fleshbane keeps them powerful and terrifying without letting them RFP anything you point them at with very little chance of failure the way they do if you let them keep "deal d3 hull points on a 2+/3+".

If you insist that Wraithguard should not have D, than neither should the Wraithknight. All Distort weapon should be functionally the same because they use the same energies.
Only the range and potency should change.

Distort: Armourbane, Fleshbane
Wratihcannon 12" str10, AP1
D-Scythe Template Str5 AP2
D-cannon 24" small blast Str10, AP1

So even the D-cannon, the weapon that literally is named 'D' wouldn't have str D. If you're ok with that, then so am I.
But as long as D is a 40K rule, I think Distort weapons should have it, just modified for balance.

-

IMO - not even worth talking about until LOS goes away - spells like invisibility exist.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
I don't think "S10/Armourbane/Fleshbane" is more complicated than "Use this alternate to-wound table, at a modifier, which may deal multiple wounds that may or may not get to be saved separately (nobody ever remembers), and treat it as Strength (something else) for ID purposes".

And the fundamental issue with D-weapons is that they're too good against everything. Making them slightly less good against everything while not addressing the fact that they're still very good against everything isn't really going to fix the problem. Giving them a Strength with Armourbane/Fleshbane keeps them powerful and terrifying without letting them RFP anything you point them at with very little chance of failure the way they do if you let them keep "deal d3 hull points on a 2+/3+".

A stinger missile is pretty effective at killing everything on the modern battlefield. + every tank has a round that is effective vs any kind of target. I don't see why the most powerful weapons in 40k should be any different. Range is king in warfare. The closer you get the easier you are to kill.

 Xenomancers wrote:
IMO - not even worth talking about until LOS goes away - spells like invisibility exist.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
I don't think "S10/Armourbane/Fleshbane" is more complicated than "Use this alternate to-wound table, at a modifier, which may deal multiple wounds that may or may not get to be saved separately (nobody ever remembers), and treat it as Strength (something else) for ID purposes".

And the fundamental issue with D-weapons is that they're too good against everything. Making them slightly less good against everything while not addressing the fact that they're still very good against everything isn't really going to fix the problem. Giving them a Strength with Armourbane/Fleshbane keeps them powerful and terrifying without letting them RFP anything you point them at with very little chance of failure the way they do if you let them keep "deal d3 hull points on a 2+/3+".

A stinger missile is pretty effective at killing everything on the modern battlefield. + every tank has a round that is effective vs any kind of target. I don't see why the most powerful weapons in 40k should be any different. Range is king in warfare. The closer you get the easier you are to kill.

A) The issue isn't whether the weapon can engage every target, the issue is whether the weapon can destroy any unit you point it at with no chance of failure. I'm not saying distortion weapons shouldn't be able to kill everything, I'm saying they should be less good at it.

B) We're playing a game with space elves and exotic energy weapons where the players have access to perfect information about where the enemy is and when, where every shot has a constant chance of connecting regardless of range, visibility, or movement, where the best-trained ground troops in the game miss one in three shots against an enemy standing five feet away, and where you use full-size indirect-fire howitzers against people about fifty feet away. What happens on a modern battlefield has very, very little bearing on what happens or what should happen in 40k.

 Galef wrote:
I'd like to see some opinions about my "fix" for these units.

First of all, I would change the Distort rule to the following:
"A weapon with this rule is strength D with a -1 to their roll on the D-chart. D-scythes and Heavy D-scythes roll -2 on the chart instead"
I still think that StrD is perfect to represent Distort, but for balance purposes, it needs to be toned down.

With that in mind, here are the new WraithGuard:
5-10 models at 35ppm, same statline as current, start with the Wraithcannon. Any model may exchange their Wraithcannon for a D-scythe for 5ppm.
With this change, I hope to make them useful without being OP. No longer being able to just remove models on a '6" should help that, while Scythes only cause damage on 4+
I also want the unit to be able to mix weapons. The base cost of the WG unit is now 15pts more, but you can take 2-3 D-scythes rather than committing to the whole unit.

Small change for WraighBlades - They may mix weapons as well, but are otherwise unchanged.

Now the WraithKnight:
-Statline as now, but only 5 wounds. This makes its durability more comparable to an 6HP AV13 Imperial Knight.
-350pt minimum cost, but the 2 shoulder Shuricannons are included as standard. Either Shuricannon can swap for Scatter Laser or Star cannon for 10 pts each
-Standard starting loadout is 2 arm mounted D-cannons. That's right 24" small blast D-cannons, not Heavy Wraithcannons. In this version the HWC doesn't exist
-Both D-cannons can be swapped for Shield & Glaive or Shield & Suncannon for free.

So the idea here is to make the WK slight more expensive (370pts if fully upgraded), slightly less durable (-1W) and by getting rid of the HWC in favor of D-cannons, you force even the shooting WK to get closer and risk more firepower. While Blasts may be more reliable than single shots, also remember that Distort in -1 to the D-chart in this version, so those blasts may hit more reliably, but they only do damage on 3+ and can never roll a '6' to just remove a model.

Thoughts?

-

Personally I play with just a '6' result modified to be 2d3 wounds with inv/cover saves allowed and this proves to be a good solution. Nerfing Heavy D-Scythes is really unnecessary, Hemlock isn't really OP.

As to Wraithguard/blades, they are either OP (full scythes/cannon squads with Archon/Gate are indeed an "erase button") or not working at all, so my personal houserule solution is to combine those two units into one entry and limit equipment availability, so even the minimum squad of 5 has to have mixed options, both ranged and melee. A squad of 5 with two Scythes, two Axe&Shield and one Swords makes for a good but not OP bunker for ICs or a strong assault option, without the need of further nerfing Distort.

Warp Hunter is fine if it is just a fancy Heavy D-Scythe variant, i.e. S4 for I.D. purposes, not S10.

I don't use WK, so I don't have personal favourite solution for him, but probably a point adjustment combined with my modified '6' result and point level limit availability.

When I do run distort weapons, I ask my opponent if they want to use the "D" table (as per RAW) or if they prefer I use the 6th edition codex rules for Distort weapons.

Some say D, some say 6th ed codex.

 Galef wrote:
I'd like to see some opinions about my "fix" for these units.

First of all, I would change the Distort rule to the following:
"A weapon with this rule is strength D with a -1 to their roll on the D-chart. D-scythes and Heavy D-scythes roll -2 on the chart instead"
I still think that StrD is perfect to represent Distort, but for balance purposes, it needs to be toned down.

With that in mind, here are the new WraithGuard:
5-10 models at 35ppm, same statline as current, start with the Wraithcannon. Any model may exchange their Wraithcannon for a D-scythe for 5ppm.
With this change, I hope to make them useful without being OP. No longer being able to just remove models on a '6" should help that, while Scythes only cause damage on 4+
I also want the unit to be able to mix weapons. The base cost of the WG unit is now 15pts more, but you can take 2-3 D-scythes rather than committing to the whole unit.

Small change for WraighBlades - They may mix weapons as well, but are otherwise unchanged.

Now the WraithKnight:
-Statline as now, but only 5 wounds. This makes its durability more comparable to an 6HP AV13 Imperial Knight.
-350pt minimum cost, but the 2 shoulder Shuricannons are included as standard. Either Shuricannon can swap for Scatter Laser or Star cannon for 10 pts each
-Standard starting loadout is 2 arm mounted D-cannons. That's right 24" small blast D-cannons, not Heavy Wraithcannons. In this version the HWC doesn't exist
-Both D-cannons can be swapped for Shield & Glaive or Shield & Suncannon for free.

So the idea here is to make the WK slight more expensive (370pts if fully upgraded), slightly less durable (-1W) and by getting rid of the HWC in favor of D-cannons, you force even the shooting WK to get closer and risk more firepower. While Blasts may be more reliable than single shots, also remember that Distort in -1 to the D-chart in this version, so those blasts may hit more reliably, but they only do damage on 3+ and can never roll a '6' to just remove a model.

Thoughts?

-

I think these are pretty reasonable. A few thoughts:

The Distort Rule:
I feel like your changes would work out mechanically, but it creates a very strange "feel" for the weapons. D-strength weapons are generally meant to represent weapons that are so strong they either do damage in excess of that caused by normal weapons or else somehow miraculously fail to harm the target (rolling a 1). With your proposed changes, you end up with this bizarre situation where a D-scythe is either so devastatingly powerful that it calls for the D table, but also so curiously unreliable that it outright fails to harm its target half the time. Distort weapons that only take a -1 to the D-table face the same issue, but to less of an extreme.

Is the goal of this particular change to simply prevent the extreme "crit" result of a 6? Or is it to make D weapons fail to harm their targets 1/3rd or 1/2 of the time? If the former, I'd recommend simply using the ITC rules on the subject. It basically makes D-strength weapons (usually) do multiple wounds/hull points to their targets, but it eliminates the chance of completely obliterating a ~400 point imperial knight with a ~35 point wraith guard.

Again, I think the mechanics here are reasonable, but the feeling of having a "destroyer" weapon that will leave a guardsman unscathed 1/3rd of the time is odd. That's 2/3rds of the time if he has a 4+ cover save or half the time if you're using a d-scythe. Against a guardsman (who is, admittedly, not the ideal target for a distort weapon), you'd actually get a much more potent performance out of a regular old flamer than a d-scythe because it wounds on 3s (instead of 4s) and still gets through his cover and armor (assuming he's not in carapace). A shuriken catapult is more effective against a guardsman than a wraith gun by virtue of having 2 shots and otherwise identical killing power. Which feels odd. Basically, your destroyer weapons remain effective against large single targets, but they become curiously ineffective against smaller targets. This mechanic actually feels more like what I'd expect out of a grav weapon than something that shunts chunks of the target into the warp. Mechanically interesting but thematically confusing.

Mixed Weapons:
As someone who used to field d-scythes in competitive lists and then ended up dropping them, this feels like a pretty significant power boost. Obviously the distort rule changes balance this out a bit, but the main thing that made me drop d-scythes was that I couldn't line them up as effectively as I'd like after deepstriking in with a webway portal. Mixing weapons would let me hit my target with even more guns than normal and save points doing it while also making the unit more generally flexible in role.

I'm not sure mixing weapons is hugely beneficial to wraith blades. You'd basically get to thin the herd a bit with initiative 4 attacks, but you'd give up a lot of punch against tougher targets to do it.

I'm not sure how I feel about the mixed weapon thing overall, but I thought I'd point out those considerations.

WraithKnight:
Looks good. The 5 wounds thing is a little fiddly. The price hike is the major improvement here. The other changes seem fine, but 24" of range and 1 wound were never the big problems with the wraith knight.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

nou wrote:

 Galef wrote:


As to Wraithguard/blades, they are either OP (full scythes/cannon squads with Archon/Gate are indeed an "erase button") or not working at all, so my personal houserule solution is to combine those two units into one entry and limit equipment availability, so even the minimum squad of 5 has to have mixed options, both ranged and melee. A squad of 5 with two Scythes, two Axe&Shield and one Swords makes for a good but not OP bunker for ICs or a strong assault option, without the need of further nerfing Distort.

Warp Hunter is fine if it is just a fancy Heavy D-Scythe variant, i.e. S4 for I.D. purposes, not S10.

I don't use WK, so I don't have personal favourite solution for him, but probably a point adjustment combined with my modified '6' result and point level limit availability.

Wraithguard/blades:
Interesting. Does that work well for you? 40k generally rewards specialization over generalization. I mostly use my wraith guard as knight hunters, so trading distort weapons for melee options that I can't generally use until turn 3 (I either deepstrike them or wave serpent them up the field) seems like a waste of points. But the mental image is a neat one.

Warp Hunter:
The thing about the warp hunter is that it's an extremely cheap way to get multiple strength D shots on a durable, mobile platform that doesn't need line of sight to fire and can potentially shoot at the enemy on turn 1. People around here can deal with them, but they do so by forcing it to jink.

Wraith Knight:
I'm not sure availability is really the core issue with wraith knights. They just need to be about 150 points more expensive. They aren't innately broken (any more so than an imperial knight anyway), but they're way too cheap for what you get. Nerfing D a bit (which is a topic unto itself) wouldn't hurt though. Really, I don't mind facing two or even 3 wraith knights if they constitute ~800 or ~1200 of your army.

Wyldhunt wrote:


Wraithguard/blades:
Interesting. Does that work well for you? 40k generally rewards specialization over generalization. I mostly use my wraith guard as knight hunters, so trading distort weapons for melee options that I can't generally use until turn 3 (I either deepstrike them or wave serpent them up the field) seems like a waste of points. But the mental image is a neat one.

Warp Hunter:
The thing about the warp hunter is that it's an extremely cheap way to get multiple strength D shots on a durable, mobile platform that doesn't need line of sight to fire and can potentially shoot at the enemy on turn 1. People around here can deal with them, but they do so by forcing it to jink.

Wraith Knight:
I'm not sure availability is really the core issue with wraith knights. They just need to be about 150 points more expensive. They aren't innately broken (any more so than an imperial knight anyway), but they're way too cheap for what you get. Nerfing D a bit (which is a topic unto itself) wouldn't hurt though. Really, I don't mind facing two or even 3 wraith knights if they constitute ~800 or ~1200 of your army.

My experience with Warp Hunter might be biased, because I rarely play against armies with a lot of high value targets and my opponents can usually wreck it turn 2 or 3, so it HAS TO be effective to be worth it's points. Just as Hemlock has to, because it is often confronted with two FMCs which can always outmanouver him. But I personally dislike any "flip-of-a-coin" weapons/units, so as I sad eariler, my Warp Hunter has a D-Scythe rule, not original Dispersed rule by FW.

As to Wraithguard/blades, my intention is quite simple: I like the models and their individual rules and feels, but squad of 5 is overspecialized to an extent of being an "erase button", so it becames an unit with "real fear" special rule i.e. it makes opponents uneasy and for a good reason. It is also too easy to use and almost a "god mode 40K". I wanted to be able to actually use my models in varied ways in many, many games without my opponents complaining. With such self-imposed restrictions, my squad of 5 is actually a nice Elite choice adding flavour to otherwise T3 army. And I defiantely agree, that nerfing D-Scythes to wounding on 4+ makes them even more specialised and worth their points only against specific armies.

One important note, to better understand where those changes come from: I'm a narrative/spectacle/one-off-scenarios player, not a tournaments participant, so my "meta" is completely different than usual. 450 pts double D WK would never ever get his points back in my games and drown in cheap infantry... If faced by three, I would probably run in circles around them minding my own bussiness and win the mission, except for scenarios specially tailored for such three knights armies to be center pieces.

D is not a problem in it's current format. All D weapons are short range with limited mobility options - minus a wraith-knight (which is only about 100-150 points under-costed).

Put WG in a wave serpent and you are over 300 points and close to 400 with the template version. Easy to beat. Only viable way to run them is with WWP (soulburst made this crazy - but soulburst is actually the problem).

D cannons are just area denial - you walk into a D cannon it is YOUR FAULT. I can name a lot of other units that will obliterate you if you walk into their range (way worse than D cannons) Think TWC, wolfen, harliquins, Grav cannons.

My solution to this problem? At least when it comes to eldar is increase the cost of a WK to 420 points and remove the most stupid rule ever created known as soul-burst.

Warphunters don't really bother me because if you make them jinx they are worthless - hemlocks are expensive and are are d-1 with no AA defense and also - make them jinx and they are worthless.

Nerf distort and WG will never be chosen over fire-dragons and eldar shadow weavers will be the only eldar artillery fielded because they have to be to complete craftworld warhosts.

So what is the best way to make the WK appropriate and keep it UNDER 400pts?
I've already suggested the way I think it should be:
-Make it only 5 wounds to balance out its durability to an Imperial knight
-24" D-cannons instead of 36" Wraithcannons

I'll amend my previous proposed change to Distort in that instead of -1, I'll take a page out of Forge World and say that only Scythes are -1 as they are now, but that on Wraithcannons & D-cannons any result of a '6' on the D-chart counts as a '5'
In this way, the weapons still do damage on 2+, but can never flat out remove a model with no saves.

-

 Galef wrote:
So what is the best way to make the WK appropriate and keep it UNDER 400pts?
I've already suggested the way I think it should be:
-Make it only 5 wounds to balance out its durability to an Imperial knight
-24" D-cannons instead of 36" Wraithcannons

I'll amend my previous proposed change to Distort in that instead of -1, I'll take a page out of Forge World and say that only Scythes are -1 as they are now, but that on Wraithcannons & D-cannons any result of a '6' on the D-chart counts as a '5'
In this way, the weapons still do damage on 2+, but can never flat out remove a model with no saves.

-

So you think it's okay that a model can have a 2++ rerollable save and ignore the most powerful weapon type in the game 35/36 times? Personally this issue bothers me much more than a low rate of fire weapon having a chance to 1 shot something on the roll of a 6. At the very least - the distort rule should prevent saves from being rerolled but I think it's okay that they blow stuff up with no save at all. Something I would be okay with for the distort rule. Instead of d6+6 wound on a roll of a 6 - keep the d3 wounds but still keep the no saves and count at str 10 for ID. This would give super heavies and MC with 4+ wounds able to take a hit and still survive (albeit heavily wounded).

How about this.
Distort
2+ to wound and cause d3 wounds - saves can not be rerolled. On a 6 no saves of any kind allowed. str 10 for ID
Distort Scythe
4+ to wound and causes d3 wounds. str 4 for ID.

I think S10 Instant Death AP1 is what they were before. That's still pretty damn good.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I think S10 Instant Death AP1 is what they were before. That's still pretty damn good.

It's weak as hell. It's basically a meltagun at that profile vs all but a very small list of things.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galef wrote:
So what is the best way to make the WK appropriate and keep it UNDER 400pts?
I've already suggested the way I think it should be:
-Make it only 5 wounds to balance out its durability to an Imperial knight
-24" D-cannons instead of 36" Wraithcannons

I'll amend my previous proposed change to Distort in that instead of -1, I'll take a page out of Forge World and say that only Scythes are -1 as they are now, but that on Wraithcannons & D-cannons any result of a '6' on the D-chart counts as a '5'
In this way, the weapons still do damage on 2+, but can never flat out remove a model with no saves.

-

In regards to the WK - I say just increase it's point cost - no reason to nerf it. Maybe make it I4 so it doesn't just 1 shot an IK before it gets to attack. If you wanted to take the nerf approach I see nothing wrong with your suggestion - def make it I4 in that case though.

I'd be ok with I4. The only reason I prefer the nerf approach is because raising its points cost nerfs the ability to bring other choices.
While I agree that the WK as it is now is too cheap, raising its points cost would not stop players from bringing them, but would instead force them to drop whole units elsewhere in the army.
Instead of taking 6 units of Scatterbikes, they'll only bring 5. That doesn't make a noticeable change.

Making the WK have less wounds, and require it to get closer, have I4, or not be able roll a true '6' on the D-chart are noticeable changes.

-

 Galef wrote:
I'd be ok with I4. The only reason I prefer the nerf approach is because raising its points cost nerfs the ability to bring other choices.
While I agree that the WK as it is now is too cheap, raising its points cost would not stop players from bringing them, but would instead force them to drop whole units elsewhere in the army.
Instead of taking 6 units of Scatterbikes, they'll only bring 5. That doesn't make a noticeable change.

Making the WK have less wounds, and require it to get closer, have I4, or not be able roll a true '6' on the D-chart are noticeable changes.

-

I agree with all of that. Great points.

Less scatterbikes is less scatterbikes. Eldar armies are supposed to be small, right? They're dying or something?

The WK is a super heavy. It should be brutally effective, but pay for the privilege. At least, that's my view.

Martel732 wrote:
Less scatterbikes is less scatterbikes. Eldar armies are supposed to be small, right? They're dying or something?

The WK is a super heavy. It should be brutally effective, but pay for the privilege. At least, that's my view.

And is a view that I think plenty of people have.
My view comes from the days when the WK was introduced as merely Heavy Support MCs. I used to be able to bring 2 under 500pts as my primary anti-tank back in 6th ed.
Making them GMC LoW made sense, but for crying out loud they did not need to keep the same statline on top of all the GMC bonuses
Had GW accounted for this and made adjustments, the resulting unit could have stayed around 300pts, yet been just as durable as they were previously.

By raising it to 400+pts, you make a single 7th ed WK worse than two 6th ed WKs. At that point, I'd rather just go back to having them be Heavy Support MCs so I can comfortably take 2 again.

One of the main reasons people call for a points increase is because WKs compare to IKs which are about 400pts.
But let's break that down:
6W = 6HPs
T8 is roughly equal to AV12. IK's have AV13 in the Front
Scattersheild 5++ is roughly equal to Ion shield 4++. Ion shield only affects 1 facing, but the WK's is only 5++ and can't even be taken on the Wratihcannon variant.
Up to this point, the IK is more durable than the WK
But then we account for Armour and FNP, which I think even you will agree makes the WK way more durable.

So rather than making it pay for said durability (that btw it was not originally designed for like the IK), why not just drop a wound. That's almost a 17% drop in durability. And Grav exists, which barely touches IKs.
The GMC rules still need to be toned down (like poison only being -1 instead of a flat 6, for example), but when they do, I want to make sure it doesn't completely nerf the propsed changes to the WK.

-

 Xenomancers wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I think S10 Instant Death AP1 is what they were before. That's still pretty damn good.

It's weak as hell. It's basically a meltagun at that profile vs all but a very small list of things.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galef wrote:
So what is the best way to make the WK appropriate and keep it UNDER 400pts?
I've already suggested the way I think it should be:
-Make it only 5 wounds to balance out its durability to an Imperial knight
-24" D-cannons instead of 36" Wraithcannons

I'll amend my previous proposed change to Distort in that instead of -1, I'll take a page out of Forge World and say that only Scythes are -1 as they are now, but that on Wraithcannons & D-cannons any result of a '6' on the D-chart counts as a '5'
In this way, the weapons still do damage on 2+, but can never flat out remove a model with no saves.

-

In regards to the WK - I say just increase it's point cost - no reason to nerf it. Maybe make it I4 so it doesn't just 1 shot an IK before it gets to attack. If you wanted to take the nerf approach I see nothing wrong with your suggestion - def make it I4 in that case though.

Oh sorry, I didn't realize a S10 AP1 Instant Death gun was weak.

If you want the heavy support version, there's the wraithlord.

I'd redesign the WK to be 500 pts with 8 wounds like a Stormsurge. It should be badass. Maybe give it IWND as well.

There should rarely be multiples of these things. In fact, one could make them 0-1 to represent this.

Martel732 wrote:
If you want the heavy support version, there's the wraithlord.

I'd redesign the WK to be 500 pts with 8 wounds like a Stormsurge. It should be badass. Maybe give it IWND as well.

There should rarely be multiples of these things. In fact, one could make them 0-1 to represent this.

Those would be great changes....for the Revenant Titan. Currently, a 900pt Revenant Titan can be killed just as easily as a 300pt WK. That's an issue
Eldar have super heavies already on par with that. Revenants are described as being rare because the number of twins required to pilot them are being born less often.
While WKs are described as INCREASING in number as many existing Revenant pilots are dying, and the living twin chooses to be encased in the WK with the soul of its dead twin.

I see the WK as equivalent to the Riptide, not the Stormsurge, but even if you want to equate it with the StormSurge, even those can be take in units of 3.

But since you bring up the Wraithlord, I have some idea for it as well. First off, you should be able to squad them. Carnifex, Dreadnoughts, the aforementioned Riptides and Stormsurges, can all be taken in units. WLs should be able to as well.
WLs should also have a rule that allows them to add 3" anytime they move, run or assault, or just get a flat 9" move in the movement phase. Let's call it "Wratih stride" or something
Their legs alone are as tall as a Dreadnought, there is no reason for them to only be able to move 6".

-

The Wraithlord needs to be improved to be closer to the Riptide, although obviously not as incredibly abusive. Increased movement could be part of that. Perhaps an extra wound and a 5++, but no layered saves. The WK is a GMC, not an MC. It is a tier above the Riptide, hence the comparison to a Stormsurge.

I was not aware of the fluff on the WK. Okay then, no 0-1, but they should still be Stormsurge-esque in their battlefield role in my view. More well rounded, though, capable of shooting and melee.

Martel732 wrote:
The Wraithlord needs to be improved to be closer to the Riptide, although obviously not as incredibly abusive. Increased movement could be part of that. Perhaps an extra wound and a 5++, but no layered saves. The WK is a GMC, not an MC. It is a tier above the Riptide, hence the comparison to a Stormsurge.

I was not aware of the fluff on the WK. Okay then, no 0-1, but they should still be Stormsurge-esque in their battlefield role in my view. More well rounded, though, capable of shooting and melee.

If the WL was buffed to be similar, but not as good as, the 6th ed WK, then I would probably agree with a 400+pts WK as it is now.

So what about the following:
Wraithlord: statline as now, but 4 wounds and FNP 5+ 150pts base, may take all the current options
Has the "Wraith strider" special rule: Add 3" to the WLs move, run or assault movements.
Also has the option to take 1 D-cannon for lets say 35pts. It always bothered me that they couldn't take a Distort weapon despite that being the reason Wraith constructs exist.

That, I think, would make it equate to the Riptide without being as abusive. If this was available, I would be fine with a 400pt WK as it is.

-

I'd prefer to give Wraithlord 5++ instead of FNP. That leaves it susceptible to poison rounds as it should be.

1-D cannon seems reasonable in the current game for sure.

It's so frustrating how many ways you can make a unit reasonable but GW never seems to find them.

Yeah I'd be happy with the wraith-lord being able to take a twin linked D cannon getting +1 wound and 5++ save for around 180 points with the +3 to movement. Increase base attacks to 4 also. It's sword should also give it str 10 in cc - not str 9.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Yeah I'd be happy with the wraith-lord being able to take a twin linked D cannon getting +1 wound and 5++ save for around 180 points with the +3 to movement. Increase base attacks to 4 also. It's sword should also give it str 10 in cc - not str 9.

The more things that can double out Wraiths, bikes and TWC the better imo. T5 should not be a magic refuge from danger like it currently is.

Martel732 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Yeah I'd be happy with the wraith-lord being able to take a twin linked D cannon getting +1 wound and 5++ save for around 180 points with the +3 to movement. Increase base attacks to 4 also. It's sword should also give it str 10 in cc - not str 9.

The more things that can double out Wraiths, bikes and TWC the better imo. T5 should not be a magic refuge from danger like it currently is.

I agree with all of this, minus the twin-linked D-cannon. I don't know if that's necessary.
I also don't know about the 5++. WG & WKs get a ++ from wrist mounted shield. The Wraithlord doesn't have one (nor does a bit exist for it, unlike a D-cannon you could just strap on its shoulder) and it's model doesn't need to be updated as it looks great.

I think FNP is appropriate for Wraith Constructs as they are not made of flesh, but I agree the standard 5+ is too strong against small arms. How about 6+ FNP? That way it 'step-stones' as they get bigger: WG have no FNP, WL has 6+, WK has 5+.
The ForgeWorld Wraith Seer has a ++ shield because it is special.

-

6+ FNP is fine I think. But that's not going to be as good vs AP 3 and better, which was what I was trying to help it against without invalidating poison. I guess the shield accessory is where these things get their invulns from though.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
...Oh sorry, I didn't realize a S10 AP1 Instant Death gun was weak.

This is the new state of affairs in Proposed Rules, apparently. If it isn't Destroyer, rapid-fire S7, AP2, or otherwise capable of outperforming scatterbikes/easily one-rounding Riptides it is 'weak'.

Martel732 wrote:
6+ FNP is fine I think. But that's not going to be as good vs AP 3 and better, which was what I was trying to help it against without invalidating poison. I guess the shield accessory is where these things get their invulns from though.

Once you add the 4th wound on it and give it more movement, the WL actually because pretty decent. 4 wounds with no 5++ work out mathematically the same as 3 wounds with a 5++.
The T8 means anti-tank weapons need to fire at it anyway and a 5++ isn't going to do jack against Grav Cannons. The FNP 6+ is to give it something, but it still needs to conform to the standards set by its model and the models of WG and WK (no shield, no ++)

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
...Oh sorry, I didn't realize a S10 AP1 Instant Death gun was weak.

This is the new state of affairs in Proposed Rules, apparently. If it isn't Destroyer, rapid-fire S7, AP2, or otherwise capable of outperforming scatterbikes/easily one-rounding Riptides it is 'weak'.

You forgot rapid fire Str 6.

Also, since it has Move Through Cover, you can arrange to give it a cover save. Farseers can protect it with Forewarning or Shrouding, and Spiritseers have access to Shrouding too. (Or Invisibility, but invis makes me cry.)

I am not a big fan of 6+ Fnp on a single model because it boigs the game down more so then ever coiming into effect even tough it can be balanced.

Also since when is T5 a hiding from danger toughness, sure there's less that instagibs you but that is about it. The big values are 8 and above since you start to become immune to most basic weapons (especially bolters) fire wich is a big thing.

You said it. Proof from being doubled out is huge.

The single biggest change I'd make is to the D table, so that a 6 becomes 3 wounds/hull points with no saves of any kind allowed instead of the OTT 6+D6 it currently is.

I'd make the Wraithknight 300pts base but with no weapons of anykind, with each weapon taken indavidually. Heavy Wraithcannons can be taken at 50pts each (and don't have to be taken as a pair), Sun Cannon is 20pts (and becomes S7, AP2, Heavy 2, Large Blast), Ghost Sword is 50pts and Scattershield is 20pts. Shoulder weapons stay the same but Scatter Lasers get a 5pt increase.

Wraithlord gets reduced to S7 and T7, gains an extra Wound, Attack and FNP, reduced to 100pts base and starts with double Shurican Cannons on the shoulders. Ghost Sword grants S10.

Wraithguard and Blades become T5, 2W each. Wraithcannons have S10, AP1, Fleshbane and Armourbane whilst D-Scythes have S4, AP2, Fleshbane, Armourbane. Wraithblades also become A2 base. Inreased to 35ppm each, can be taken in squads of 3 minimum and Guard and Blades can mix and match their weapon load outs from the current options.

Heavy D-Scythes, D-Cannon and D-Flail become S6, AP2, Fleshbane, Armourbane.

"Wraithlord gets reduced to S7 and T7, gains an extra Wound, Attack and FNP, reduced to 100pts base and starts with double Shurican Cannons on the shoulders. Ghost Sword grants S10.
"

That's too cheap for that, imo.

Martel732 wrote:
"Wraithlord gets reduced to S7 and T7, gains an extra Wound, Attack and FNP, reduced to 100pts base and starts with double Shurican Cannons on the shoulders. Ghost Sword grants S10.
"

That's too cheap for that, imo.

It's a difficult one to judge, he's going to be very tanky but still only moves 6" a turn and it's damage output is only about equal to that of a War Walker which would cost about half the points. I wouldn't be opposed to it going back to it's current base cost of 120pts.

 Imateria wrote:




Wraithlord gets reduced to S7 and T7, gains an extra Wound, Attack and FNP, reduced to 100pts base and starts with double Shurican Cannons on the shoulders. Ghost Sword grants S10.

Hmm. That's mechanically sound, but I don't like it for a few reasons. Becoming T7 with FNP makes them step on the toes of the talos. I kind of like the way the non-wraithbone MC is susceptible to strength 4 attacks but has FNP to make up for lower toughness while the "eldar dreadnaught" (as it was once known) is immune to small arms fire entirely. Forcing it to have a pair of shooting weapons takes away from some cool conversion/modeling opportunities, though that's a minor nitpick. Finally, I'm not sure this really does much to address the wraith lord's main problems. It would still be inefficient as a ranged fire platform., and t would still be have trouble getting across the board in one piece to bring its melee prowess to bare.

Admittedly, these are all minor pretty minor complaints. I wouldn't shed any tears if something like your changes came to be in the next codex.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galef wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
6+ FNP is fine I think. But that's not going to be as good vs AP 3 and better, which was what I was trying to help it against without invalidating poison. I guess the shield accessory is where these things get their invulns from though.

Once you add the 4th wound on it and give it more movement, the WL actually because pretty decent. 4 wounds with no 5++ work out mathematically the same as 3 wounds with a 5++.
The T8 means anti-tank weapons need to fire at it anyway and a 5++ isn't going to do jack against Grav Cannons. The FNP 6+ is to give it something, but it still needs to conform to the standards set by its model and the models of WG and WK (no shield, no ++)

I very much like the idea of giving it 4 wounds and a minor speed boost. Adding 3" to movement would feel appropriate for eldar, pair well with a craftworld warhost's rules, and allow it to both seek cover and get into combat more easily. I"m not a big fan of the FNP part. As stated above, it feels like it's stepping on the talos's toes (so to speak), and 6+ FNP falls in the "nice to have, but basically worthless" category. I wouldn't hate having it, but it's not really effective enough to be considered much of a "fix" either. :(

One thing I've thought of is letting them ride in Wave Serpents, taking up the entire transport capacity. I mean if Dreadnauts can ride on Storm Ravens, why not?

 Imateria wrote:
One thing I've thought of is letting them ride in Wave Serpents, taking up the entire transport capacity. I mean if Dreadnauts can ride on Storm Ravens, why not?

I don't know about that. Dreads don't actually ride "in" the Storm Raven, they are magnetize underneath it. So unless we want Wraithlords surfing on Serpents Teenwolf style, I don't think that would work.
At this point, though, I'd be happy if WLs just got 4 wounds and +3" to move, run, and charge (#Wraith Stride). Make both those changes for free and it's instantly playable without being OP.
Everything else (like the sword only granting S9 and not having the option for a D-cannon) is just a nit-pick.

-

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
...Oh sorry, I didn't realize a S10 AP1 Instant Death gun was weak.

This is the new state of affairs in Proposed Rules, apparently. If it isn't Destroyer, rapid-fire S7, AP2, or otherwise capable of outperforming scatterbikes/easily one-rounding Riptides it is 'weak'.

A riptide is totally capable of 1 rounding a wraithgard unit. How will str 10 ap1 shots do against a riptide? Well. Even with a 5++ and 5+ FNP about 40% of wounds will be ignored. So after after rolls to hit we are looking at 1-2 wounds...on a model that has 5. On a unit that moves 6 inches per turn with a 12 inch weapon that is not acceptable. Ofc we are talking about a situation that will never happen outside of a WWP archon whcih costs 95 points min and the riptide can still intercept half the squad to death. All of these disadvatnages to average 2ish wounds on a target with str 10 ap1? Thats 'what I mean by weak...If we talking about killing landraiders melta guns will do it better as str 8 melta is better than str10 vs AV 13 and 14 by a large margin. The only advantage would be ID t5 units - which isn't exactly an important roll in this game. Increase the cost of the weapon if it is too much (its not - WG don't show up in tournament lists for a reason).

Pretty sure that Riptide cares about the Instant Death clause you willfully ignored but what do I know?

Str 10 AP 1 instant death is an interesting statline because it kinda makes land raiders a little better.

Wait. Are you saying flat out Instant Death? Not just on a 'to wound' roll of 6?

If that is the case, than I'd propose the following:
Distort: "A weapon with this rule has the Armour Bane, Flesh Bane and Instant Death special rules"

Wratihcannon: 12" Str10 Ap1 Assault 1
Heavy WC is the same but 36" (or we ditch the HWC and the WK get D-cannons instead)
D-cannon: 24" str10 Ap1 Heavy 1 small Blast
D-scythe: Template str4 Ap2
Heavy D-scythe: Template str4 Ap2 Torrent

Thoughts?
Personally, I think Instant Death on a 2+ is a bit much, but only on a 6 is weak sauce too. How about Instant Death on a 'to wound' roll of 5+?

-

Yes. Flat out instant death, all the time. feth your MCs.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Pretty sure that Riptide cares about the Instant Death clause you willfully ignored but what do I know?

I did miss The instant death part. With ID they would actually be better vs a lot of things. I could probably live with s10 ap1 instant death if eternal warrior changes to the way gargantuan creatures treat instant death.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galef wrote:
Wait. Are you saying flat out Instant Death? Not just on a 'to wound' roll of 6?

If that is the case, than I'd propose the following:
Distort: "A weapon with this rule has the Armour Bane, Flesh Bane and Instant Death special rules"

Wratihcannon: 12" Str10 Ap1 Assault 1
Heavy WC is the same but 36" (or we ditch the HWC and the WK get D-cannons instead)
D-cannon: 24" str10 Ap1 Heavy 1 small Blast
D-scythe: Template str4 Ap2
Heavy D-scythe: Template str4 Ap2 Torrent

Thoughts?
Personally, I think Instant Death on a 2+ is a bit much, but only on a 6 is weak sauce too. How about Instant Death on a 'to wound' roll of 5+?

-

Make the instant death an initiative test.

 Galef wrote:
Wait. Are you saying flat out Instant Death? Not just on a 'to wound' roll of 6?

If that is the case, than I'd propose the following:
Distort: "A weapon with this rule has the Armour Bane, Flesh Bane and Instant Death special rules"

Wratihcannon: 12" Str10 Ap1 Assault 1
Heavy WC is the same but 36" (or we ditch the HWC and the WK get D-cannons instead)
D-cannon: 24" str10 Ap1 Heavy 1 small Blast
D-scythe: Template str4 Ap2
Heavy D-scythe: Template str4 Ap2 Torrent

Thoughts?
Personally, I think Instant Death on a 2+ is a bit much, but only on a 6 is weak sauce too. How about Instant Death on a 'to wound' roll of 5+?

-

I think you are forgetting that Riptides can nova for 3++. With a ROF 1 instant death gun, it could still take you all game to kill it. Leave it on a 2+. No initiative test. Just die.

 Xenomancers wrote:
...With ID they would actually be better vs a lot of things...

SINCE WHEN WAS THE PROBLEM WITH DISTORTION WEAPONS THAT THEY WEREN'T GOOD ENOUGH?

Fair enough, Martel

How do you feel about the Scythes being Str4 Ap2? With Armour Bane and Flesh Bane, I feel it is kind of arbitrary and only really prevents them from hurting AV12+ reliably.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
...With ID they would actually be better vs a lot of things...

SINCE WHEN WAS THE PROBLEM WITH DISTORTION WEAPONS THAT THEY WEREN'T GOOD ENOUGH?

The point is that a str10 AP1 gun with Instant Death is flat out better vs MCs that D.
One of the major points in this discussion is to tone down Distort weapons, not make them better.

But overall, making them Str10 Ap1 instant death makes them better vs MCs, but worse vs Vehicles (since D does D3 HPs). Considering the power level between MCs and Vehicles, this can only be a good thing for the game.

-

 Galef wrote:
Fair enough.

How do you feel about the Scythes being Str4 Ap2? With Armour Bane and Flesh Bane, I feel it is kind of arbitrary and only really prevents them from hurting AV12+ reliably.

To my mind the point about making them S4/Ap2 Armourbane/Fleshbane is to make the choice between scythes/wraithcannons more relevant (because the wraithcannon actually works against vehicles, and the scythe is vastly, vastly better against non-vehicle targets).

The added benefit is to take the extra rule they had to have that treated them as S4 for purposes of Instant Death, and drop it and just make the gun S4.

But now we have to deal with the fact that D-scythes are vastly better. Instead of wounding/penning on 3+ doing D3 wounds/HPs, they now wound on 2+ causing Instant death and can still cause Pens (though not as easily)
While this makes the Wraithcannon the obvious choice for anti-tank, I can't see anyone ever not taking the Scythes unless you could mix them within units.
But a unit with 3 Scythes and 2 cannons would suddenly become the new standard must take for all Eldar

-

 Xenomancers wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Pretty sure that Riptide cares about the Instant Death clause you willfully ignored but what do I know?

I did miss The instant death part. With ID they would actually be better vs a lot of things. I could probably live with s10 ap1 instant death if eternal warrior changes to the way gargantuan creatures treat instant death.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galef wrote:
Wait. Are you saying flat out Instant Death? Not just on a 'to wound' roll of 6?

If that is the case, than I'd propose the following:
Distort: "A weapon with this rule has the Armour Bane, Flesh Bane and Instant Death special rules"

Wratihcannon: 12" Str10 Ap1 Assault 1
Heavy WC is the same but 36" (or we ditch the HWC and the WK get D-cannons instead)
D-cannon: 24" str10 Ap1 Heavy 1 small Blast
D-scythe: Template str4 Ap2
Heavy D-scythe: Template str4 Ap2 Torrent

Thoughts?
Personally, I think Instant Death on a 2+ is a bit much, but only on a 6 is weak sauce too. How about Instant Death on a 'to wound' roll of 5+?

-

Make the instant death an initiative test.

But why do we need to change EW for you to be comfortable with it? Wraithguard were already fine in the previous codex.

 Galef wrote:
But now we have to deal with the fact that D-scythes are vastly better. Instead of wounding/penning on 3+ doing D3 wounds/HPs, they now wound on 2+ causing Instant death and can still cause Pens (though not as easily)
While this makes the Wraithcannon the obvious choice for anti-tank, I can't see anyone ever not taking the Scythes unless you could mix them within units.
But a unit with 3 Scythes and 2 cannons would suddenly become the new standard must take for all Eldar

-

I'm not the one saying "put ID as stock on all distortion weapons". I think that'd be an incredibly bad idea.

I'm also worried that this discussion has been derailed into "how can we make this gun kill Riptides reliably?", ignoring the fact that the Riptide is an overpowered unit and any gun that will kill Riptides reliably is going to be much more overpowered against the entire rest of the game. You know, the part not composed of Riptides.

I meant heavy wraith cannon primarily. D-scythes should be much weaker.

So Wraithcannons Str10 Ap1 Armourbane, Fleshbane ID,
Scythes only srt4 Ap2 Armourbane, Fleshbane, but without ID?

That would work for me. At that point, you could swap Cannons for Scythe at no additional cost.

 Galef wrote:
So Wraithcannons Str10 Ap1 Armourbane, Fleshbane ID,
Scythes only srt4 Ap2 Armourbane, Fleshbane, but without ID?

That would work for me. At that point, you could swap Cannons for Scythe at no additional cost.

I'd rather see a general overhaul to ID/EW before just up and attaching ID to a weapon, but absent said overhaul I'd call that a reasonable stopgap.

 Galef wrote:
So Wraithcannons Str10 Ap1 Armourbane, Fleshbane ID,
Scythes only srt4 Ap2 Armourbane, Fleshbane, but without ID?

That would work for me. At that point, you could swap Cannons for Scythe at no additional cost.

I'd be good with that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
...With ID they would actually be better vs a lot of things...

SINCE WHEN WAS THE PROBLEM WITH DISTORTION WEAPONS THAT THEY WEREN'T GOOD ENOUGH?

IMO D is already a little weak. So is str10.

I'm simply talking about in comparison to the insane defense units can get. Invis and 2++ save make D weapons look like bolters.

This is why in the other thread I gave particularly strong weapons a penalty on invuln saves. Like the hammerhead rail gun was -3 or -4. Lascannons were -1.

Martel732 wrote:
This is why in the other thread I gave particularly strong weapons a penalty on invuln saves. Like the hammerhead rail gun was -3 or -4. Lascannons were -1.

I feel like that defeats the purpose of invul saves, but I agree that stronger low ROF weapons need a boost in this edition. Some way to blanket them doing D3 wounds or HPs would be nice

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Galef wrote:
So Wraithcannons Str10 Ap1 Armourbane, Fleshbane ID,
Scythes only srt4 Ap2 Armourbane, Fleshbane, but without ID?

That would work for me. At that point, you could swap Cannons for Scythe at no additional cost.

I'd be good with that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
...With ID they would actually be better vs a lot of things...

SINCE WHEN WAS THE PROBLEM WITH DISTORTION WEAPONS THAT THEY WEREN'T GOOD ENOUGH?

IMO D is already a little weak. So is str10.

I'm simply talking about in comparison to the insane defense units can get. Invis and 2++ save make D weapons look like bolters.

This is a problem with the game power creep on defensive buffs. The game should never have gotten to 2++ in the first place, let alone rerollable 2++

 Galef wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
This is why in the other thread I gave particularly strong weapons a penalty on invuln saves. Like the hammerhead rail gun was -3 or -4. Lascannons were -1.

I feel like that defeats the purpose of invul saves, but I agree that stronger low ROF weapons need a boost in this edition. Some way to blanket them doing D3 wounds or HPs would be nice

It doesn't defeat the purpose. Plasma, for example, would have a 0 modifier. Your personal little iron halo should NOT be effective vs a massive rail gun round. I had the hammerhead rail gun also inflicting 4 wounds/hull points.

I had been playing around with the idea that maybe Lascannons and similar weapons inflict a penalty on invuln and Melta Weapons inflict penalty on FNP rolls or something like that. Off topic but now you know.

I don't even think the guns need Flesh bane (as S10 is gonna wound on a 2+). However, I don't see why someone here wants to change the EW mechanic just because there are units resistant to a S10 AP1 Instant Death Weapon.

Agreeing with anomanderRake here: everything should be nerfed.

ALso you're discussing absurdities comparing Ridiculously OP stuf with simply OP stuff. Everything discussed here should be taken down a notch. A big buff tanky unit should not die to one single quick round of shooting from any unit or from every unit depending on your perspective.

Nerfing everything was quite unpopular in 3rd, and it doesn't drive sales well. Go do the math.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I had been playing around with the idea that maybe Lascannons and similar weapons inflict a penalty on invuln and Melta Weapons inflict penalty on FNP rolls or something like that. Off topic but now you know.

I don't even think the guns need Flesh bane (as S10 is gonna wound on a 2+). However, I don't see why someone here wants to change the EW mechanic just because there are units resistant to a S10 AP1 Instant Death Weapon.

...Is there a point at which your proposed power-creep will produce weapons that ignore Invuls and FNP entirely and you'll start proposing a new 'super-Invulnerable' save on top of the 'armour' and 'Inuvlnerable' saves on our models' profiles that now exist only to make lasguns worse?

Well, I won't. Hammerhead rail gun should equal death for a lot of things.

Martel732 wrote:
Well, I won't. Hammerhead rail gun should equal death for a lot of things.

So if you're writing yourself into such a corner that Poisoned (2+) on a Troops unit is no longer worthy of comment and you need to start considering an Invul-penetrating value on your weapons...could it be time to make things less killy/less tough instead of proposing constant across-the-board buffs?

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Well, I won't. Hammerhead rail gun should equal death for a lot of things.

So if you're writing yourself into such a corner that Poisoned (2+) on a Troops unit is no longer worthy of comment and you need to start considering an Invul-penetrating value on your weapons...could it be time to make things less killy/less tough instead of proposing constant across-the-board buffs?

No. Because the Hammerhead can only kill ONE thing VERY dead. I'd make weapons that scoop marines or even 4+ units off the table like chattel more expensive or more difficult to get access to. As it stands now, low ROF weapons need to be MUCH more killy and other types of weapons need to have more liabilities.

Martel732 wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Well, I won't. Hammerhead rail gun should equal death for a lot of things.

So if you're writing yourself into such a corner that Poisoned (2+) on a Troops unit is no longer worthy of comment and you need to start considering an Invul-penetrating value on your weapons...could it be time to make things less killy/less tough instead of proposing constant across-the-board buffs?

No. Because the Hammerhead can only kill ONE thing VERY dead. I'd make weapons that scoop marines or even 4+ units off the table like chattel more expensive or more difficult to get access to. As it stands now, low ROF weapons need to be MUCH more killy and other types of weapons need to have more liabilities.

Finally. I'm getting somewhere.

Tell me about making the weapons that scoop units off the table like chattel becoming harder to get access to. Tell me about the liabilities that should be given to other types of weapons. Tell me about attempts to balance the game, not about efforts to enforce power creep.

This was always part of my vision. However a lot of my ideas are in context of a d10 sytem to increase granularity of units and reduce bloody rerolls.

Weapon systems that have a high damage output vs single hard targets or multiple elite infantry have to be limited and/or expensive or else you get 7th. But this requires a ground up reimagining.

Martel732 wrote:
This was always part of my vision. However a lot of my ideas are in context of a d10 sytem to increase granularity of units and reduce bloody rerolls.

Weapon systems that have a high damage output vs single hard targets or multiple elite infantry have to be limited and/or expensive or else you get 7th. But this requires a ground up reimagining.

So you need a ground-up reimagining of the system and d10s instead of working with what's already in front of you?

Consider the concept of the Formation system. The weakness of the CAD has always been how easy it is to decide you're going to take a minimum cheap-as-possible selection of core units (ten naked Fire Warriors and an Ethereal run to 140pts) so you can max out the big flashy selections (the rest of a 1,250pt list could be four Riptides), but suddenly we've got this meta-detachment concept that could let us say "you must take a Farseer, three Guardian Defender squads, a War Walker, a Vyper, and a support platform before you can take any Wraithknights". And people insist on focusing on the free-stuff problem and arguing to get rid of formations.

I say keep formations, nay, embrace formations. Open up the existing tables a bit to allow for more flexible army builds, but if you're going to make a game where a grot is allowed to coexist with a Warlord you've got to have some sort of mechanism for controlling how much stuff of what size you can get.

As for stat granularity I don't think a d10 system is necessary, if the current system were handled more carefully. We've got stat range that isn't being covered (1 model = 1 Wound is one of the few things Age of Sigmar got rid of that I really do agree with), saves that don't mean much because GW's been too generous with AP/Ignores Cover. As for rerolls GW's been more generous with them than they should, but they're a significant speed-of-play improvement over modifiers. The player doesn't have to add or subtract anything in his head, all he has to do is say "Right, these ones failed, I'm going to roll them again now."

So you could switch everything over to d10s, and it might even work, but I don't think it'd inherently work any better or worse than d6s do now.

They work better because they create much needed mathematical space in the game. Go visit the terminator thread. No one can agree on anything because there is literally no space left in the game.

No space between a storm bolter and a heavy bolter.
No space between terminator armor and centurion armor/broadside armor
No space between regular powerfists and terminator powerfists.

Another big part of me doesn't want to work with GW's system because it's so terrible.

Martel732 wrote:
...No space between a storm bolter and a heavy bolter....

Based on the assumption that anything below S6 is irrelevant. There's a lot of mathematical space left in Strength/Toughness below 6 that the Terminator thread seems to have forgotten about.

...No space between terminator armor and centurion armor/broadside armor...

Based on undervaluing 2+ armour. Also based on a bizarre (to me) refusal to consider any change to Terminators' default armaments. And almost certainly on the new Broadside model becoming much bigger than the old one without much of a change to its rules.

I agree that the Terminator/Centurion/XV8-tier/Wraithguard design space is a little saturated, but to me the fact that Forge World has put thirteen different Terminator-armoured units on the table in 30k without running out of space to do interesting and viable things with a T4/2+ armour unit says there are solutions to the problem that don't involve moving to a d10.

...No space between regular powerfists and terminator powerfists...

I'm not certain why this is an issue. A powerfist on a Strength 4 model is going to wound anything short of a superheavy on a 2+, would the moral superiority of having Terminator powerfists get a Strength higher than 8 really have much of an effect on the game?

To my mind the increased melee punch of the unit is represented by the saturation of powerfist attacks and access to the chainfist, not by whether one powerfist in a vacuum is better than another.

...Another big part of me doesn't want to work with GW's system because it's so terrible...

I've spent a lot of time hacking on the bones of the system building things out of Mordheim, and the more I do that the more I'm convinced the foundations are solid. The system is functional. It's been wildly abused by throwing open the doors to big squadrons of heavy artillery, taking disadvantages away from a lot of effects, and tacking on a poorly-thought-out psychic system, but the foundations are solid.

"Based on the assumption that anything below S6 is irrelevant."

This is largely true in most games, unfortunately. S6 is THE critical breaking spot for weapon strengths in 7th ed. S6 can kill Imperial knights. S5 can do nothing. Which one am I ALWAYS going to choose?

Martel732 wrote:
"Based on the assumption that anything below S6 is irrelevant."

This is largely true in most games, unfortunately. S6 is THE critical breaking spot for weapon strengths in 7th ed. S6 can kill Imperial knights. S5 can do nothing. Which one am I ALWAYS going to choose?

This is Proposed Rules.

I could tell you I've made a T10 unit with a rerollable 2+ Invulnerable save, a rerollable 2+ FNP, an Assault 30 weapon that fires D-strength/AP1 Large Blasts at BS10 and 120" range, and comes in units of 10-30 at 2pts/model in Troops.

I choose not to because I'm trying to design balanced units, not to design units that allow me to win games.

I regard the fact that there exist guns that are good against the vast majority of possible targets as a problem to be addressed rather than an example to be emulated.

You have the power to see GW's screwups and avoid them, not plunge gleefully into the same pit.

That's true, but to make Str 6 NOT the sweet spot, we have to change a LOT. And those changes have cascading effects. The problems are actually much more subtle than one would think. Flipping through the Eldar codex, the scatterlaser doesn't SEEM like a problem.

But then you look at all the other codexes and then the BRB. Then see how people use them in practice. AV 12 is pretty common. But you can't know that without looking at all other codices. And because of GW's system, AV12 is a steep point where Str 5 does nothing ever and Str 6 can kill AV 12 given enough shots. This makes incidental Str 6 not a threat, but MASS str 6 is a huge problem for medium/light vehicles. Str 6 also wounds T4 on a 2+, which is the most common Toughness for elite infantry.

Their screwups are both subtle and super far-reaching, and so fixing them is probably not actually possible with a reasonable amount of text. It's actually easier to adjust point values, imo. Which is where the whole scatterbikes being 37 pts as opposed to 27 pts thing came from. Because they are indeed worth every bit of 37 pts.

I'd be quite happy (as an Eldar player) if Scatter lasers were Str5 and Windriders had a 4+ armour & Skilled Rider (which should be standard for all Eldar jetbikes)
The unit would still be good and worth 27ppm, without being "OMG can kill every unit in the game"
It's enough of a nerf to be noticeable and silence all but the most egregious haters, while not so devastating that Windriders get shelved

-

 Galef wrote:
I'd be quite happy (as an Eldar player) if Scatter lasers were Str5 and Windriders had a 4+ armour & Skilled Rider (which should be standard for all Eldar jetbikes)
The unit would still be good and worth 27ppm, without being "OMG can kill every unit in the game"

-

See? That's not THAT big of a numerical shift, and yet, it makes an ENORMOUS difference. I want a D10 system so you don't see such radical shifts from a single point of anything. I'd almost argue that 27 ppm might be a bit high for that. That's a huge swing.

Martel732 wrote:

I'd almost argue that 27 ppm might be a bit high for that. That's a huge swing.

Well, I didn't make a change to the points because I am trading 3+ armour for 4+ AND Skilled rider (which adds +1 to Jink saves). So a vanilla 17pt Windrider is still as durable as a Marine if they Jink (more so because it's a 3+ cover save). So a 27ppm Scatterbike only has a Str5 gun and 4+ armour, but it can choose to Jink with a 3+

-

Wraithknight is easy, give it a 100 point increase.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
Wraithknight is easy, give it a 100 point increase.

As long as that includes the 2 Shuricannons as the basic build, sure. And can be swapped for Scatter laser or Star cannon for 5pts each
I am very insistent on this because the Wraithlord comes with Shuricats or Flamers as standard, so the WK should also come standard with 2 mini-guns (mini compared to the other choices it can take)

Maybe keep the WK at 300pts with JUST the 2 Shuricannons and may add one of the following:
2 Heavy Wraithcannons ....100pts
Ghostglave and Scattershield ...100pts
Suncannon and Scattershield ....50pts (cuz let's be honest, this is by far the worst choice)
May trade either Shuricannon for Scatter laser or Starcannon for 5pts each

-

 Galef wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

I'd almost argue that 27 ppm might be a bit high for that. That's a huge swing.

Well, I didn't make a change to the points because I am trading 3+ armour for 4+ AND Skilled rider (which adds +1 to Jink saves). So a vanilla 17pt Windrider is still as durable as a Marine if they Jink (more so because it's a 3+ cover save). So a 27ppm Scatterbike only has a Str5 gun and 4+ armour, but it can choose to Jink with a 3+

-

I"m being impartial here and saying that that might not even be a 27 point model. Jinking tanks your firepower badly and so can't be counted for much on a unit that wants to shoot back. Jinking is fantastic on transports, though. Or assault units.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
Wraithknight is easy, give it a 100 point increase.

But the rest of it isn't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galef wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
Wraithknight is easy, give it a 100 point increase.

As long as that includes the 2 Shuricannons as the basic build, sure. And can be swapped for Scatter laser or Star cannon for 5pts each
I am very insistent on this because the Wraithlord comes with Shuricats or Flamers as standard, so the WK should also come standard with 2 mini-guns (mini compared to the other choices it can take)

Maybe keep the WK at 300pts with JUST the 2 Shuricannons and may add one of the following:
2 Heavy Wraithcannons ....100pts
Ghostglave and Scattershield ...100pts
Suncannon and Scattershield ....50pts (cuz let's be honest, this is by far the worst choice)
May trade either Shuricannon for Scatter laser or Starcannon for 5pts each

-

That's probably fine. The WK is just getting a ton of perks from GMC status and not paying for them currently. Giving it some guns standard is a non-issue for me. In fact, it's guns are really a secondary issue for me period. Even the D cannons. D cannons help keep high cost models in check. It's all the GMC perks it gets for basically nothing. Like the poison thing. Really, Gdubs?

Yeah, I agree on the poison thing. At most it should be -1 to the poison roll needed, not a flat 6.
But Stomp needs to be addressed too. It shouldn't be able to flat out remove models on a 6. Maybe just D6 "hits" at the model's base Str, AP1?

 Galef wrote:
Yeah, I agree on the poison thing. At most it should be -1 to the poison roll needed, not a flat 6.
But Stomp needs to be addressed too. It shouldn't be able to flat out remove models on a 6. Maybe just D6 "hits" at the model's base Str, AP1?

OH, yeah that too. Nice Guillman bro. Too bad my 295 pt WK just removed him from play.

 Galef wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
Wraithknight is easy, give it a 100 point increase.

As long as that includes the 2 Shuricannons as the basic build, sure. And can be swapped for Scatter laser or Star cannon for 5pts each
I am very insistent on this because the Wraithlord comes with Shuricats or Flamers as standard, so the WK should also come standard with 2 mini-guns (mini compared to the other choices it can take)

Maybe keep the WK at 300pts with JUST the 2 Shuricannons and may add one of the following:
2 Heavy Wraithcannons ....100pts
Ghostglave and Scattershield ...100pts
Suncannon and Scattershield ....50pts (cuz let's be honest, this is by far the worst choice)
May trade either Shuricannon for Scatter laser or Starcannon for 5pts each

-

Could go for that

Martel732 wrote:
That's true, but to make Str 6 NOT the sweet spot, we have to change a LOT. And those changes have cascading effects. The problems are actually much more subtle than one would think. Flipping through the Eldar codex, the scatterlaser doesn't SEEM like a problem.

But then you look at all the other codexes and then the BRB. Then see how people use them in practice. AV 12 is pretty common. But you can't know that without looking at all other codices. And because of GW's system, AV12 is a steep point where Str 5 does nothing ever and Str 6 can kill AV 12 given enough shots. This makes incidental Str 6 not a threat, but MASS str 6 is a huge problem for medium/light vehicles. Str 6 also wounds T4 on a 2+, which is the most common Toughness for elite infantry.

Their screwups are both subtle and super far-reaching, and so fixing them is probably not actually possible with a reasonable amount of text. It's actually easier to adjust point values, imo. Which is where the whole scatterbikes being 37 pts as opposed to 27 pts thing came from. Because they are indeed worth every bit of 37 pts.

Back up a step.

You're trying to change the game around the scatterbike to make it not the one-stop answer to everything.

Instead of changing the scatterbike to make it not the one-stop answer to everything.

Why are you so attached to the existence of a Troops model with a four-shot S6 weapon that you'd rather move to a d10 system THAN NERF THE SCATTERBIKE?

I'm all about nerfing the scatterbike. But there are a lot of problems, and many of them are subtle. Subtle to the point that it MAY be easier to adjust points. A points increase is a nerf as well. That's all I'm saying.

Martel732 wrote:
I'm all about nerfing the scatterbike. But there are a lot of problems, and many of them are subtle. Subtle to the point that it MAY be easier to adjust points. A points increase is a nerf as well. That's all I'm saying.

So can you stop trying to use the fact that S6-spam is too good against everything as a justification to change the entire system instead of just changing the S6-spam?

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I'm all about nerfing the scatterbike. But there are a lot of problems, and many of them are subtle. Subtle to the point that it MAY be easier to adjust points. A points increase is a nerf as well. That's all I'm saying.

So can you stop trying to use the fact that S6-spam is too good against everything as a justification to change the entire system instead of just changing the S6-spam?

No, because there are a LOT of other problems that require a system change. Like all the units with 2+ armor, when some should be better than others, but all should be better than 3+. There is nothing between 2+ and 3+ and we need it badly. An Imperial knight is no tougher on the side than a dreadnought or the front of a Chimera? Nope. We need more possible AVs as well. Only having five choices: 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 is also becoming disastrous. All these lack of granularity problems are interrelated and difficult to address in the current system. S6 shouldn't be THAT much better than S5, but it is. Spamming just makes it even BETTER.

Martel732 wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I'm all about nerfing the scatterbike. But there are a lot of problems, and many of them are subtle. Subtle to the point that it MAY be easier to adjust points. A points increase is a nerf as well. That's all I'm saying.

So can you stop trying to use the fact that S6-spam is too good against everything as a justification to change the entire system instead of just changing the S6-spam?

No, because there are a LOT of other problems that require a system change. Like all the units with 2+ armor, when some should be better than others, but all should be better than 3+. There is nothing between 2+ and 3+ and we need it badly. An Imperial knight is no tougher on the side than a dreadnought or the front of a Chimera? Nope. We need more possible AVs as well. Only having five choices: 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 is also becoming disastrous. All these lack of granularity problems are interrelated and difficult to address in the current system. S6 shouldn't be THAT much better than S5, but it is. Spamming just makes it even BETTER.

Problems like...?

Durability is not solely a function of armour save; T, Wounds, and Invulnerable saves all matter.

Are you telling me that a Centurion (T5/2W/2+), a Terminator (T4/1W/2+/5++) and a Broadside (T4/2W/2+) can't be differentiated enough by the three other variables they get to deal with beyond armour?

A 6-HP Imperial Knight that's immune to the vehicle damage table and has a built-in Invulnerable save is no tougher than the side of a Dreadnaught or the front of a Chimera? Really?

"Are you telling me that a Centurion (T5/2W/2+), a Terminator (T4/1W/2+/5++) and a Broadside (T4/2W/2+) can't be differentiated enough by the three other variables they get to deal with beyond armour? "

Yes, that's what I'm saying because toughness on infantry only has two main values, 3 and 4, and wounds only have two main values, 1 and 2. There is not enough granularity. Period.

This lack of granularity is how terminators end up being what they are.

Also, the magical bump from T4 to T5 and then onto T6 needs to go away as well.

Martel732 wrote:
"Are you telling me that a Centurion (T5/2W/2+), a Terminator (T4/1W/2+/5++) and a Broadside (T4/2W/2+) can't be differentiated enough by the three other variables they get to deal with beyond armour? "

Yes, that's what I'm saying because toughness on infantry only has two main values, 3 and 4, and wounds only have two main values, 1 and 2. There is not enough granularity. Period.

This lack of granularity is how terminators end up being what they are.

Also, the magical bump from T4 to T5 and then onto T6 needs to go away as well.

These "main values" and the "magical bump" you're talking about are constructs of the units that have been designed for this system, not of the fact that we're using d6s.

I'd also appreciate it if you could establish your conclusion by establishing your conclusion instead of by repeating yourself. Tell me why the current system lacks granularity without using the phrase "there is not enough granularity" for a couple of paragraphs.

Well we can agree to disagree on this topic. The fix that works best in my mind involves a die shift. It's an easy way to remove a lot of rerolls and a lot of units stepping on each other's toes.

If you don't agree, I'm happy to read counter proposals. I don't care for Lanrak's tables as they currently are constituted, but they are one possibility I admit.

But personally, I think it would add a lot of list building strategy if terminators were 2+, broadsides/Riptides 3+, marines 4+, aspect armor 5+, etc on a D10.

Even if we keep the AP system, there is now a broad spectrum of APs possible that will clearly differentiate the different weapons. (Like the problem bolters currently have)

We can also stretch the toughness values since we now take tests on a D10. We can slot the scatterlaser in a niche where it is actually not very effective vs marines or medium vehicles.

Martel732 wrote:
...Well we can agree to disagree on this topic...

...I didn't agree to disagree. I'm tired of Proposed Rules getting clogged up with people spouting the "change the dice, solve all problems!" line without a shred of reasoning behind it.

Repeatedly saying "but d10s will give us much-needed granularity!" doesn't prove that d10s will provide much-needed granularity. And telling me "...we can agree to disagree on this topic..." isn't going to convince me you're taking this position for an actual reason.

Well I just posted it up above. More armor types lead to more weapon types. That alone helps break up the stagnation a lot. Assuming you keep the AP system.