Insectum7 wrote: I see all this fuss about a Raider with a Dark Lance and I look at my Razorback with Twin Lascannon and an HK Missile. My Razorback has a lot more firepower . . . So my guess is the beef with the Raider is not really a complaint about firepower.
Yes, yes but it can like...fly for realz....and totally carry lots of xenos...won't somebody please think of the Mehreens!
. . .
I'm not sure if either of these are serious. I mean, I know the second one is trolling, but I can't tell if he seriously thinks the Raider is not undercosted.
I don't know the cost of the Raider. It certainly could be undercosted. But I also see folks saying that a Dark Lance is too good, when I can stick a Multimelta on an Attack Bike or Land Speeder, in addition to mounting three AT weapons on a Transport.
Insectum7 wrote: I see all this fuss about a Raider with a Dark Lance and I look at my Razorback with Twin Lascannon and an HK Missile. My Razorback has a lot more firepower . . . So my guess is the beef with the Raider is not really a complaint about firepower.
Yes, yes but it can like...fly for realz....and totally carry lots of xenos...won't somebody please think of the Mehreens!
. . .
I'm not sure if either of these are serious. I mean, I know the second one is trolling, but I can't tell if he seriously thinks the Raider is not undercosted.
The Raider is certainly undercosted for the current meta, and should probably 10-15 points more.
I'm poking fun at the complaints that the problem with the Raider is that it flies, it has a gun, and it carries troops....oh the humanity.
harlokin wrote: I'm poking fun at the complaints that the problem with the Raider is that it flies, it has a gun, and it carries troops....oh the humanity.
Consider that Necrons and Marines have had fly removed from units that previously had that ability and that this has essentially made these units unplayable. Now do you see why certain players might take issue with DE getting every good rule on their transports when their faction doesn't have a useable transport for a large chunk of their force?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Insectum7 wrote: Does thd Land Speeder Storm still have the option to get a Multimelta? It's a flying transport, after all. . .
Does the LSS have any ability to carry models that aren't scouts? I don't think that it does and given how bad scouts are that should end the conversation here and now.
Consider that Necrons and Marines have had fly removed from units that previously had that ability and that this has essentially made these units unplayable. Now do you see why certain players might take issue with DE getting every good rule on their transports when their faction doesn't have a useable transport for a large chunk of their force?
Can't comment on the Necrons. The marine transports should not have had Fly in the first place.
The situation is different because Drukhari are almost entirely reliant to their trainsports, for marines its a nice to have if they happen to be good this time around.
Insectum7 wrote: Does thd Land Speeder Storm still have the option to get a Multimelta? It's a flying transport, after all. . .
Does the LSS have any ability to carry models that aren't scouts? I don't think that it does and given how bad scouts are that should end the conversation here and now.
Oh so it's the troops inside the transport that make the Dark Lance OP? That's an interesting take.
The Monolith lost fly and literally can't move on a table with proper terrain density.
The marine transports should not have had Fly in the first place.
This is your subjective opinion.
The situation is different because Drukhari are almost entirely reliant to their trainsports, for marines its a nice to have if they happen to be good this time around.
Foot DE lists have been viable in the past, why shouldn't this style get equal design space? Do the arenas often feature both sides starting out in raiders? Are infiltration missions done by flying venom down a spire's hallways?
It's all well and good if you enjoy transports.list but that isn't the whole of DE lore.
Consider that Necrons and Marines have had fly removed from units that previously had that ability and that this has essentially made these units unplayable. Now do you see why certain players might take issue with DE getting every good rule on their transports when their faction doesn't have a useable transport for a large chunk of their force?
Can't comment on the Necrons. The marine transports should not have had Fly in the first place.
The situation is different because Drukhari are almost entirely reliant to their trainsports, for marines its a nice to have if they happen to be good this time around.
Insectum7 wrote: Oh so it's the troops inside the transport that make the Dark Lance OP? That's an interesting take.
Yes, because things aren't OP in a vacuum. For example, if Rhinos still had their firing port this would surely make a 5-man tactical squad with an MM vastly more powerful than they are under the current rules.
Insectum7 wrote: Oh so it's the troops inside the transport that make the Dark Lance OP? That's an interesting take.
Yes, because things aren't OP in a vacuum. For example, if Rhinos still had their firing port this would surely make a 5-man tactical squad with an MM vastly more powerful than they are under the current rules.
Maybe Marines don't need to be able to fire out of their Transports because they aren't 1W T3 models with no save.
Insectum7 wrote: Maybe Marines don't need to be able to fire out of their Transports because they aren't 1W T3 models with no save.
So why does their transport have a firing hatch literally built into the model? Should we just ignore that Marines seem to have forgotten how to use their equipment between editions?
No, the Marine vehicles should have never had Fly. It was nonsensical lorewise (since they couldn't do anything close to it in-lore) and gameplay-wise it was yet another instance of Marines cannibalizing other races design space.
Now, GW should have written in rules for Hover vehicles allowing them to ignore difficult terrain absolutely. But they didn't. Even so it's no excuse for Primaris vehicles to be flying over large gaps or balancing on the top of 8 storey buildings.
The Monolith OTOH is ridiculous, especially as every other Necron LOW kept the Fly keyword and there's artwork and lore going back 20 years of Monoliths being capable of proper flight.
Insectum7 wrote: Maybe Marines don't need to be able to fire out of their Transports because they aren't 1W T3 models with no save.
So why does their transport have a firing hatch literally built into the model? Should we just ignore that Marines seem to have forgotten how to use their equipment between editions?
So to reiterate, Dark Lance is not OP. Raider possibly undercosted.
Gene St. Ealer wrote: Snipping to point 3... I'll try and rephrase/reframe (and tell me if I got it wrong Yuki). No other AT in the game is as strong and ubiquitous as the dark lance. Certain bespoke weapons are certainly better, multimelta is better... but can anybody bring as much Multimelta to bear per point as DE can bring Dark Lances? I guess you can get more dense with immolators. But you don't have fly, and you don't have open topped.
I don't know if I agree with the point overall but I think that's what he was getting at; not the weapon itself but the packaging of the weapon and the availability.
Of the top DE lists they had between 6 and 7 lances.
6 * .666 * .666 * 5.5 = 14.6
8 * .666 * .666 * 3.5 = 12.3
All the dark lances in a DE army are not terribly much more damage than a single unit of eradicators with a MM at 24".
No one is saying a DL is better than a MM. It is not. It is certainly more mobile and has longer range. Plus it does a reliable minimum 4 damage to make it a much superior heavy infantry killer. You can also split all these shots up at different targets...not a trivial thing ether.
Also...A pure Khabal list can easily get 12 DL and 12 blasters out of 6 raiders with khabs with DL and 2x blaster. Plus you can still fit in drazar a master archon a succubus min wych and a few squad of incubi and a VRB.
Fantastic - out of curiosity, is anyone actually doing that to win events? Or are you just kind of...listing a thing you can do with a 2000pt army?
I frankly don't care what the new super pro 40k players are doing in "competitive" events - largely they are the ones responsible for the terrible state of the game. Because they have clout. They get early model releases and their opinions matter and are part of the playtesting process that has developed. They will be the first to exploit the obviously busted Competitive edge ability which is clearly not intended and literally anyone using it is a certified D bag.
Insectum7 wrote: So to reiterate, Dark Lance is not OP. Raider possibly undercosted.
The Dark Lance contributes to the Raider being OP. The Lance itself may be OP but is currently supplanted by other options due to larger sources of imbalance.
Insectum7 wrote: Maybe Marines don't need to be able to fire out of their Transports because they aren't 1W T3 models with no save.
So why does their transport have a firing hatch literally built into the model? Should we just ignore that Marines seem to have forgotten how to use their equipment between editions?
So to reiterate, Dark Lance is not OP. Raider possibly undercosted.
The DL is indisputably OP compared to a lascannon because it literally costs less(or the same) and is objectively better even against t8 and t9. It is insanely better against everything t7 or less AND is AP-4 all the time. Which actually does matter.
The raider IS undercosted. It is an open topped transport with a 5++ save. It can carry a host of awesome units which are cheap enough not not care about losing 1 or 2 from rolling 1's if it gets destroyed...It flys over walls in an edition that is overcluttered with cover. It carries a standard strong gun with a very clear roll at what it does. It should realistically cost more than an impulsor.
Fly / invune / and open topped are FREE abilities I suppose....granted they are the most important factors to consider on a transport....Meanwhile...toughness and armor save - the least important factors because they can be entirely ignored...those have to come at a hefty price.
Insectum7 wrote: Maybe Marines don't need to be able to fire out of their Transports because they aren't 1W T3 models with no save.
So why does their transport have a firing hatch literally built into the model? Should we just ignore that Marines seem to have forgotten how to use their equipment between editions?
So to reiterate, Dark Lance is not OP. Raider possibly undercosted.
The DL is indisputably OP compared to a lascannon because it literally costs less(or the same) and is objectively better even against t8 and t9. It is insanely better against everything t7 or less AND is AP-4 all the time. Which actually does matter.
The raider IS undercosted. It is an open topped transport with a 5++ save. It can carry a host of awesome units which are cheap enough not not care about losing 1 or 2 from rolling 1's if it gets destroyed...It flys over walls in an edition that is overcluttered with cover. It carries a standard strong gun with a very clear roll at what it does. It should realistically cost more than an impulsor.
Fly / invune / and open topped are FREE abilities I suppose....granted they are the most important factors to consider on a transport....Meanwhile...toughness and armor save - the least important factors because they can be entirely ignored...those have to come at a hefty price.
So what do you think about the Grav Cannon? Iirc it costs less than a Lascannon and is better at AT and against Infantry.
I'm also confused, you both say that the AP-4 matters . . . But that armor save isn't very important. . . Care to square that circle?
Insectum7 wrote: Maybe Marines don't need to be able to fire out of their Transports because they aren't 1W T3 models with no save.
So why does their transport have a firing hatch literally built into the model? Should we just ignore that Marines seem to have forgotten how to use their equipment between editions?
So to reiterate, Dark Lance is not OP. Raider possibly undercosted.
The DL is indisputably OP compared to a lascannon because it literally costs less(or the same) and is objectively better even against t8 and t9. It is insanely better against everything t7 or less AND is AP-4 all the time. Which actually does matter.
The raider IS undercosted. It is an open topped transport with a 5++ save. It can carry a host of awesome units which are cheap enough not not care about losing 1 or 2 from rolling 1's if it gets destroyed...It flys over walls in an edition that is overcluttered with cover. It carries a standard strong gun with a very clear roll at what it does. It should realistically cost more than an impulsor.
Fly / invune / and open topped are FREE abilities I suppose....granted they are the most important factors to consider on a transport....Meanwhile...toughness and armor save - the least important factors because they can be entirely ignored...those have to come at a hefty price.
So what do you think about the Grav Cannon? Iirc it costs less than a Lascannon and is better at AT and against Infantry.
Grav cannons are really good. More comparable to the dessie though...which is always 2 damage instead of sometimes 2 damage if they have a 3+ save. No one takes ether because -1 damage exists.
Insectum7 wrote: So what do you think about the Grav Cannon? Iirc it costs less than a Lascannon and is better at AT and against Infantry.
Mid-strength high ROF weapons are broken due to the new wounding chart. Most posters know this and the proposed rules section keeps running into this issue when they try to ensure that, for example, the HB, Assault Cannon, and Autocannon all have distinct and viable roles without one clearly overshadowing the others without needing to then change every other weapon to match.
I dunno why people are still even arguing, everyone here seems to agree Raiders need to go up 10-15 points as part of the initial round of DE nerfs. Now it's just up to GW to get off the pot and actually do it.
Mid-strength high ROF weapons are broken due to the new wounding chart. Most posters know this and the proposed rules section keeps running into this issue when they try to ensure that, for example, the HB, Assault Cannon, and Autocannon all have distinct and viable roles without one clearly overshadowing the others without needing to then change every other weapon to match.
But the DL isn't a mid-strength high ROF...
Have you considered that perhaps it is the lascannon what is UP instead of every other viable AT weapon being OP?
Xenomancers wrote: Grav cannons are really good. More comparable to the dessie though...which is always 2 damage instead of sometimes 2 damage if they have a 3+ save. No one takes ether because -1 damage exists.
Still better than a Lascannon against vehicles, while also costing less, like the Dark Lance.
Tyran wrote: But the DL isn't a mid-strength high ROF...
Have you considered that perhaps it is the lascannon what is UP instead of every other viable AT weapon being OP?
The lascannon, railguns, and almost every other high S low ROF random damage weapon... We've also seen entire armies updated without these fixes enabled.
Mid-strength high ROF weapons are broken due to the new wounding chart. Most posters know this and the proposed rules section keeps running into this issue when they try to ensure that, for example, the HB, Assault Cannon, and Autocannon all have distinct and viable roles without one clearly overshadowing the others without needing to then change every other weapon to match.
But the DL isn't a mid-strength high ROF...
Have you considered that perhaps it is the lascannon what is UP instead of every other viable AT weapon being OP?
Yeah I'd be more inclined to go that route, personally.
Insectum7 wrote: I see all this fuss about a Raider with a Dark Lance and I look at my Razorback with Twin Lascannon and an HK Missile. My Razorback has a lot more firepower . . . So my guess is the beef with the Raider is not really a complaint about firepower.
Yes, yes but it can like...fly for realz....and totally carry lots of xenos...won't somebody please think of the Mehreens!
. . .
I'm not sure if either of these are serious. I mean, I know the second one is trolling, but I can't tell if he seriously thinks the Raider is not undercosted.
Well, let's test it in any case. GW makes it harder now, but a DL on a Scourge is 15 making the vehicle version 20 ( most likely ). That makes the base raider 65.
TLC was previously 40 so that makes the Razorback 80. 15 points for +1T and +1Save, no 5++, -1M, less capacity, no FLY. Razorback is certainly worse, but simply worse guns notwithstanding.
Xenomancers wrote: Grav cannons are really good. More comparable to the dessie though...which is always 2 damage instead of sometimes 2 damage if they have a 3+ save. No one takes ether because -1 damage exists.
Still better than a Lascannon against vehicles, while also costing less, like the Dark Lance.
It is significantly worse against vehicles and monsters with 4+ saves...Like a raider.
Mid-strength high ROF weapons are broken due to the new wounding chart. Most posters know this and the proposed rules section keeps running into this issue when they try to ensure that, for example, the HB, Assault Cannon, and Autocannon all have distinct and viable roles without one clearly overshadowing the others without needing to then change every other weapon to match.
But the DL isn't a mid-strength high ROF...
Have you considered that perhaps it is the lascannon what is UP instead of every other viable AT weapon being OP?
Is there a difference? Is there a target power level that everything should be aimed at? Cause I don't see it? I see far too many examples of units/weapons which the points are literally backwards based on ability. UP or OP is semantics. There is a big discrepancy is the issue.
Insectum7 wrote: So to reiterate, Dark Lance is not OP. Raider possibly undercosted.
The Dark Lance contributes to the Raider being OP. The Lance itself may be OP but is currently supplanted by other options due to larger sources of imbalance.
The Dark Lance on the Raider in particular is . . . just not priced appropriately. It's included in the price, but the Disintigrator costs 5 points.
It's just the cherry on top of the 85 point transport with T6, Fly, Open Topped, and 5++ Invuln. The real issue with Raiders is their cost versus their resiliency and utility. They carry obsec troops that are very effective on the primary objective, and if you manage to kill the Raider but not the contents, on the next turn they can advance and charge! Like, imagine Wave Serpents carrying Howling Banshees, but at 1/2 to 2/3 the price. It's a very well designed concept for Drukhari, and I applaud GW for it, but it's just a bit too aggressively priced, and I'm not even talking about the obviously broken/unintentional stuff that will get errata'd (razor flails + comp edge, extra 2 cp, dark technomancers + liquifiers).
Some of this could have been adjusted for if weapons that used to get bonuses vs FLY didn't change to get bonuses vs AIRCRAFT, so right now the Raider profile is almost strictly superior in effective defense to something like a Rhino, Impulsor, or Chimera, except vs like a couple niche weapons. And on top of that, they have Fly and Open Topped, and get a literally free best (arguably) anti-tank weapon in the game. Oh, and they can actually cause a wound or two in combat, but I think we can all agree that this last bit is cool and flavourful and not OP (seriously--I like bladevanes they're cool!). I almost wonder if T6 was the actual bridge too far here -- if they were T5, Heavy Bolters would still be pretty decent against them.
Tyran wrote: But the DL isn't a mid-strength high ROF...
Have you considered that perhaps it is the lascannon what is UP instead of every other viable AT weapon being OP?
The lascannon, railguns, and almost every other high S low ROF random damage weapon... We've also seen entire armies updated without these fixes enabled.
The railguns on the Tau units in the Compendium got improved: Dd3+3 for the Swiftstrike, Dd3+6 for Heavy Rail Cannon, with each doing MWs on successful wound rolls instead of 6+ to wound. I'd expect the codex versions to get a similar treatment once that's finally released. Other similar weapons....not so much.
Gadzilla666 wrote: The railguns on the Tau units in the Compendium got improved: Dd3+3 for the Swiftstrike, Dd3+6 for Heavy Rail Cannon, with each doing MWs on successful wound rolls instead of 6+ to wound. I'd expect the codex versions to get a similar treatment once that's finally released. Other similar weapons....not so much.
That doesn't help Tau players who don't own those specific units, does it?
Tyran wrote: But the DL isn't a mid-strength high ROF...
Have you considered that perhaps it is the lascannon what is UP instead of every other viable AT weapon being OP?
The lascannon, railguns, and almost every other high S low ROF random damage weapon... We've also seen entire armies updated without these fixes enabled.
The railguns on the Tau units in the Compendium got improved: Dd3+3 for the Swiftstrike, Dd3+6 for Heavy Rail Cannon, with each doing MWs on successful wound rolls instead of 6+ to wound. I'd expect the codex versions to get a similar treatment once that's finally released. Other similar weapons....not so much.
That's good news, imo. Pulling the S10 from the Broadside Railguns back in 5th(?) was a real shame.
Gadzilla666 wrote: The railguns on the Tau units in the Compendium got improved: Dd3+3 for the Swiftstrike, Dd3+6 for Heavy Rail Cannon, with each doing MWs on successful wound rolls instead of 6+ to wound. I'd expect the codex versions to get a similar treatment once that's finally released. Other similar weapons....not so much.
That doesn't help Tau players who don't own those specific units, does it?
Plus at this rate we could see 10th edition before a new Tau codex (Tau being the faction that probably needs a new codex the MOST since 9th edition almost literally broke their army).
Xenomancers wrote: Grav cannons are really good. More comparable to the dessie though...which is always 2 damage instead of sometimes 2 damage if they have a 3+ save. No one takes ether because -1 damage exists.
Still better than a Lascannon against vehicles, while also costing less, like the Dark Lance.
It is significantly worse against vehicles and monsters with 4+ saves...Like a raider.
But better against many others. The point stand, imo.
Gadzilla666 wrote: The railguns on the Tau units in the Compendium got improved: Dd3+3 for the Swiftstrike, Dd3+6 for Heavy Rail Cannon, with each doing MWs on successful wound rolls instead of 6+ to wound. I'd expect the codex versions to get a similar treatment once that's finally released. Other similar weapons....not so much.
That doesn't help Tau players who don't own those specific units, does it?
Well, no. But my point was that the codex railguns will probably get a similar treatment once the 9th edition Tau codex is released. But not before. Gw is taking a hard "not until your codex" stance on any weapons that aren't directly related to loyalists it seems.
At the risk of adding further fuel to what's become quite the fire, Goonhammer recently put out an interesting article on what it takes in terms of firepower, and points investment, to reach a 95% chance of destroying a Raider:
StrayIight wrote: At the risk of adding further fuel to what's become quite the fire, Goonhammer recently put out an interesting article on what it takes in terms of firepower, and points investment, to reach a 95% chance of destroying a Raider:
StrayIight wrote: At the risk of adding further fuel to what's become quite the fire, Goonhammer recently put out an interesting article on what it takes in terms of firepower, and points investment, to reach a 95% chance of destroying a Raider:
I'm not taking a position here, just hoping that some additional hard data might add something to the conversation around this unit in particular.
6 Assault Helblasters w/ RR1s can take one 80% of the time, but that's not a great metric as you have massive wasted potential ( no -1 assumed ).
Spoiler:
Just was theory crafting how Knight weapons stack up (Chaos Knights are my Primary army, so I think in terms of those weapon profiles more readily).
A Dual Avenger Knight has an evens chance of killing one if it piles all 24 shots into the Raider. If the Raider pops its -1 to hit strat though, it survives with 2 wounds left.
Double Thermal Knight doesn't seem to kill it reliably. Magaera (which is the competitive hotness right now... well, for Knights anyway ) doesn't kill it reliably.
(Base profiles on all these - I'm not factoring in specific traits and the like).
This obviously doesn't say anything definitive other than describing at what point a specific weapons type takes a Raider out of course, but I'm surprised at just how survivable they are in practice.
StrayIight wrote: At the risk of adding further fuel to what's become quite the fire, Goonhammer recently put out an interesting article on what it takes in terms of firepower, and points investment, to reach a 95% chance of destroying a Raider:
I think what a lot of people are forgetting in their mathhammer is that you are not just facing 1 or 2 raiders on the table, but potentially around 8-9. So even if you can kill reliably 1 a turn you will still end up with 4 raiders intact at the end of the game and a whole lot of swarming elves.
10 wounds, Toughness 6, 4+/5++ and the potential to get a -1 to hit through a stratagem makes raiders a surprisingly resilient transport.
If nothing changes I foresee we will see Drukhari players field on average 7-9 of these a game.
Eldarsif wrote: I think what a lot of people are forgetting in their mathhammer is that you are not just facing 1 or 2 raiders on the table, but potentially around 8-9. So even if you can kill reliably 1 a turn you will still end up with 4 raiders intact at the end of the game and a whole lot of swarming elves.
10 wounds, Toughness 6, 4+/5++ and the potential to get a -1 to hit through a stratagem makes raiders a surprisingly resilient transport.
If nothing changes I foresee we will see Drukhari players field on average 7-9 of these a game.
Far less than that many. I think over 6 saturates too much and winning lists lean that way.
It would be important to dump out the right boats, and, to draw out the -1 on a non-key boat if possible.
StrayIight wrote: At the risk of adding further fuel to what's become quite the fire, Goonhammer recently put out an interesting article on what it takes in terms of firepower, and points investment, to reach a 95% chance of destroying a Raider:
I'm not taking a position here, just hoping that some additional hard data might add something to the conversation around this unit in particular.
6 Assault Helblasters w/ RR1s can take one 80% of the time, but that's not a great metric as you have massive wasted potential ( no -1 assumed ).
Spoiler:
Where are you getting these numbers Daed? That website that doesn't work for me?
@Straylight: Same question.
I used https://www.mathhammer8thed.com/web/ (which is admittedly flawed, and badly out of date in terms of features) to just get a rough picture (I don't trust it entirely so paper and calculator to see if we're in the same ball park afterwards.)
I input 24 shots, BS 3, Str 6 AP -2 D 2 as the attacker to represent the Avenger Knight.
T 6, 10 wounds, Invuln of 5 for the Raider.
I just decrease the BS to 4 to represent the -1 strat here.
It's not a great method due to the sites issues, but it gives a somewhat reasonable overview quickly.
(Edit: I get essentially the same result from unitcrunch also for what it's worth - thanks Daedalus!)
I get three Razorbacks with TLAssault Cannons and Storm Bolters average a Raider knock out. That's without a -1 on the Raider, but also without any rerolls for the Razors. I could also add HK missiles for cheap.
A squadron of Attack Bikes kills one in Melta range.
StrayIight wrote: At the risk of adding further fuel to what's become quite the fire, Goonhammer recently put out an interesting article on what it takes in terms of firepower, and points investment, to reach a 95% chance of destroying a Raider:
I'm not taking a position here, just hoping that some additional hard data might add something to the conversation around this unit in particular.
6 Assault Helblasters w/ RR1s can take one 80% of the time, but that's not a great metric as you have massive wasted potential ( no -1 assumed ).
Spoiler:
Where are you getting these numbers Daed? That website that doesn't work for me?
@Straylight: Same question.
I used https://www.mathhammer8thed.com/web/ (which is admittedly flawed, and badly out of date in terms of features) to just get a rough picture (I don't trust it entirely so paper and calculator to see if we're in the same ball park afterwards.)
I input 24 shots, BS 3, Str 6 AP -2 D 2 as the attacker to represent the Avenger Knight.
T 6, 10 wounds, Invuln of 5 for the Raider.
I just decrease the BS to 4 to represent the -1 strat here.
It's not a great method due to the sites issues, but it gives a somewhat reasonable overview quickly.
(Edit: I get essentially the same result from unitcrunch also for what it's worth - thanks Daedalus!)
That's what I generally use as well, but it doesn’t do the probability like Daed's site or whatever Goonhammer is using. Thanks though.
Insectum7 wrote: I get three Razorbacks with TLAssault Cannons and Storm Bolters average a Raider knock out. That's without a -1 on the Raider, but also without any rerolls for the Razors. I could also add HK missiles for cheap.
A squadron of Attack Bikes kills one in Melta range.
Those 390 points of Razorbacks only kill a Raider ~50% of the time in devastator doctrine. You need to average at least 50% more wounds than a target has or you're leaving the death of a key unit to a coinflip.
Also, Razorbacks don't have core so what's getting them rerolls?
Yeah, thought so. It still won't let me input AP either. Thanks anyways Daed.
It should work as long as you do a negative value
That's the problem, it won't let me input the "-". Apparently it's not optimized for phones. It's cool though, Canadian 5th just gave me the important value: 50% more wounds. Cool. Thanks Canadian 5th.
Insectum7 wrote: It takes 7 Raiders with Dark Lances to (average) kill one Raider with a Dark Lance. .666×.666×.666×5=1.477
Takes 5 Raiders to kill a Razorback
Compared to 3 TLAC+SB Razors to kill a Raider. 3-4 TLas HK-Missile Razors to get a Raider.
Yes and? Raiders are 85 point fast, flying TRANSPORTS that bring 11 nasty models with them that also bring some serious chip damage with a free gun. Razorbacks can't fit half the units their army wants to use, pay out the nose for their weapons, and are effectively half as mobile to boot.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gadzilla666 wrote: That's the problem, it won't let me input the "-". Apparently it's not optimized for phones. It's cool though, Canadian 5th just gave me the important value: 50% more wounds. Cool. Thanks Canadian 5th.
It's not as precise as Goonhammers 95% value, but it makes for a good rule of thumb. If you on average just barely kill a target that's a coin flip, if you do 50% more wounds then it takes a lot going wrong to turn that attack into a whiff.
Gadzilla666 wrote: That's the problem, it won't let me input the "-". Apparently it's not optimized for phones. It's cool though, Canadian 5th just gave me the important value: 50% more wounds. Cool. Thanks Canadian 5th.
Not quite. e.g. 5 Assblasters average 10 wounds, but have a 63% chance to pop it.
Really you want to minimize the 2/4/6 results. A raider on 8 wounds can be managed with small arms. In this setup the chance for 2/4/6 is 15%. If your rolls were leading you to 2 or 4 wounds aiming for 50% more isn't going to save you. It will just ensure you overkill more often than underkill.
It all depends on the list though.
Spoiler:
The weapon matters though. This is 10 lascannons with an average 10 wounds and a 63.7% chance to kill, but it has over 20% under 8 wounds for the results and lots of overkill, too. The good thing about LC is that you can probably drop only a couple at a time and reach for some lucky results.
Insectum7 wrote: It takes 7 Raiders with Dark Lances to (average) kill one Raider with a Dark Lance. .666×.666×.666×5=1.477
Takes 5 Raiders to kill a Razorback
Compared to 3 TLAC+SB Razors to kill a Raider. 3-4 TLas HK-Missile Razors to get a Raider.
Yes and? Raiders are 85 point fast, flying TRANSPORTS that bring 11 nasty models with them that also bring some serious chip damage with a free gun. Razorbacks can't fit half the units their army wants to use, pay out the nose for their weapons, and are effectively half as mobile to boot.
Razorbacks are TRANSPORTS too.
Never said anything about Raiders being perfectly pointed, and the only units that I want to take that don't fit in Razorbacks are Terminators.
StrayIight wrote: At the risk of adding further fuel to what's become quite the fire, Goonhammer recently put out an interesting article on what it takes in terms of firepower, and points investment, to reach a 95% chance of destroying a Raider:
I'm not taking a position here, just hoping that some additional hard data might add something to the conversation around this unit in particular.
This seems to be the first article of this type at Goonhammer. Can anyone provide any data for other vehicles for context? They're aiming for a 95% kill chance, but that seems like a very awkward metric. Practically guarantee'd dead versus reasonably dead is an important distinction in a dice game that can have plenty of different circumstances.
Eldarsif wrote: I think what a lot of people are forgetting in their mathhammer is that you are not just facing 1 or 2 raiders on the table, but potentially around 8-9. So even if you can kill reliably 1 a turn you will still end up with 4 raiders intact at the end of the game and a whole lot of swarming elves.
10 wounds, Toughness 6, 4+/5++ and the potential to get a -1 to hit through a stratagem makes raiders a surprisingly resilient transport.
If nothing changes I foresee we will see Drukhari players field on average 7-9 of these a game.
Are people taking raiders outside the role of durable transport? The only way I can see players wanting to take 8-9 raiders is that they'd treat them as main battle tanks, and the dark lance is not good enough to warrant the points. I suppose if the raider were filled with kabalite warriors with blasters, a dark lance, and splinter racks it would be decent, but having an additional four or so raiders kitted out that way in addition to everything else the Drukhari player wants to bring will leave them thin on points.
Never said anything about Raiders being perfectly pointed, and the only units that I want to take that don't fit in Razorbacks are Terminators.
It can be a problem for people whose whole armies are made out of termintors or large chunks being primaris. I ain't gonna lie though, I wish termintors could drive around in rhinos and razorbacks.
StrayIight wrote: At the risk of adding further fuel to what's become quite the fire, Goonhammer recently put out an interesting article on what it takes in terms of firepower, and points investment, to reach a 95% chance of destroying a Raider:
I'm not taking a position here, just hoping that some additional hard data might add something to the conversation around this unit in particular.
This seems to be the first article of this type at Goonhammer. Can anyone provide any data for other vehicles for context? They're aiming for a 95% kill chance, but that seems like a very awkward metric. Practically guarantee'd dead versus reasonably dead is an important distinction in a dice game that can have plenty of different circumstances.
Eldarsif wrote: I think what a lot of people are forgetting in their mathhammer is that you are not just facing 1 or 2 raiders on the table, but potentially around 8-9. So even if you can kill reliably 1 a turn you will still end up with 4 raiders intact at the end of the game and a whole lot of swarming elves.
10 wounds, Toughness 6, 4+/5++ and the potential to get a -1 to hit through a stratagem makes raiders a surprisingly resilient transport.
If nothing changes I foresee we will see Drukhari players field on average 7-9 of these a game.
Are people taking raiders outside the role of durable transport? The only way I can see players wanting to take 8-9 raiders is that they'd treat them as main battle tanks, and the dark lance is not good enough to warrant the points. I suppose if the raider were filled with kabalite warriors with blasters, a dark lance, and splinter racks it would be decent, but having an additional four or so raiders kitted out that way in addition to everything else the Drukhari player wants to bring will leave them thin on points.
I have not seen a top list with more than 6 so far. The top 2 from that 8 round event was 6 and 4. No one takes them just to take them empty, they are not good enough to just take without a purpose (85pts for 10w mobile single DL is not good enough by it self lol). They take them b.c they need them. If you need 3 you take 3, if you need 5 you take 5.
Edit: Maybe if venoms were cheaper people would take them empty? But not a raider, not anymore at least back in the day with old vehicles rules (3rd-5th for example) empty raiders were really good b.c movement blocks, tie ups in melee, charge blocks, etc... and DE had beaststars as well as terrain had real rules so you could have things out of transports and live.
The raider got major buffs with no real points increase and this is almost certainly part of the problem. I don't however think its good enough to run by itself. The key thing is that it helps your equally buffed up characters+wyches+incubi+DT wracks etc who are getting Eradicator level returns on so many units in the game (especially Marines). Running an empty raider makes about as much sense as foot-slogging the above units. You could, but why?
Second order mathhammer (I'm going to push this term even if it makes no sense) is cool and can give you a clearer idea of how the game works - rather than averagehammer which is more useful for optimising lists. But it can mislead if you don't give all the information. Because okay - ignoring the rule of 3 - it might be useful to know I'd need 4-5 squads of Suppressors to get a 95% chance of killing a raider. But if I were to have them in my army, what's my chances of killing 2? Or even 3? Or my chances of killing one and leaving another with say 2-4 wounds that other units in my army can easily pick off? I think emphasising the 95% probably gives you an exaggerated perception of resilience - which you would see for other units if you did the same sort of calculations.
The real problem I think is how "good" invul saves are now, in part because GW have handed out AP to everyone for no points. If the Raider was in fact a flying Rhino and nothing else, it would be worse at taking fire from most active sources in the game. One day massed autocannons will be meta viable, but I'm not sure its today.
The real problem I think is how "good" invul saves are now, in part because GW have handed out AP to everyone for no points. If the Raider was in fact a flying Rhino and nothing else, it would be worse at taking fire from most active sources in the game. One day massed autocannons will be meta viable, but I'm not sure its today.
Definitely some truth to this. The Lascannon profile for example, is problematic for two reasons: Yeah, the damage is swingy - it sucks when you roll a 1 and you effectively shot a las-gun at a target, but they also only give you a single shot. You shoot one at my Knight, and after you roll to hit, wound, you still have a 50% chance of that attack doing nothing - because I can have a 4++. Much of the AP that you likely are paying for in the weapons profile, may as well not be present.
Raiders will shrug off a full third of all damage thrown at them, regardless of it's source, because of that 5++. And again, that's after you pass two other points of failure.
This quickly becomes a discussion of a possible mechanical problem in 40K rather than anything to do with Raiders specifically though.
Never said anything about Raiders being perfectly pointed, and the only units that I want to take that don't fit in Razorbacks are Terminators.
It can be a problem for people whose whole armies are made out of termintors or large chunks being primaris. I ain't gonna lie though, I wish termintors could drive around in rhinos and razorbacks.
Well once upon a time they could... I'm pretty sure in the 2e launch White Dwarf the BA army took a rhino for that exact purpose. The major issue I've had with assault termies is that thier delivery systems costs as much, if not more than the unit it's self... However thats getting sidetracked...
Are people taking raiders outside the role of durable transport? The only way I can see players wanting to take 8-9 raiders is that they'd treat them as main battle tanks, and the dark lance is not good enough to warrant the points. I suppose if the raider were filled with kabalite warriors with blasters, a dark lance, and splinter racks it would be decent, but having an additional four or so raiders kitted out that way in addition to everything else the Drukhari player wants to bring will leave them thin on points.
I have not seen a top list with more than 6 so far. The top 2 from that 8 round event was 6 and 4. No one takes them just to take them empty, they are not good enough to just take without a purpose (85pts for 10w mobile single DL is not good enough by it self lol). They take them b.c they need them. If you need 3 you take 3, if you need 5 you take 5.
Edit: Maybe if venoms were cheaper people would take them empty? But not a raider, not anymore at least back in the day with old vehicles rules (3rd-5th for example) empty raiders were really good b.c movement blocks, tie ups in melee, charge blocks, etc... and DE had beaststars as well as terrain had real rules so you could have things out of transports and live.
I'd agree a single DL isn't enough to warrant getting an otherwise empty Raider. However, I don't think I'm alone in thinking that sub 90ts for a fast, flying, really quite durable (that 5++ is so good), open topped transport would be quite a bargain. I think almost every army could put such a transport to good use.
The force multiplication affect is simply huge – Liquifiers (especially DT), Kalabite Squads (that can bring a couple of blasters, their own DL, and a phantasm GL) can fire with relative impunity out of their surprisingly hard to crack flying boxes.
That you get a DL on top of this is means that the Raider is simply, and quite utterly amazing.
Whilst you may be buying the Raider for the transport of (upto) 11 unfriendly space elves, you do also get a really nice weapon (which may have a re-roll depending on selections). Granted 1 won't do much, but when you take 4-6 raider you can easily end up with ½ a dozen DLs. I think this is clearly a contributory factor to the players feeling that when they bring 2k of Drukhari they’ve got an extra 200 or so points on the field.
To me a reasonable ‘best case’ of under costing is raising the Raider (inc DL) by 15 (if not 20) points to account for the DL. So those 4/6 Raiders are, at present bring an extra 60 – 120 points (4 x 15 pts and 6 x 20pts).
The ‘Worst Case’ is 6 Raiders bring 6 DL, which is the equivalent firepower of 2 Ravagers (already pretty appealing prices at sub 150pts), which would put the ‘extra’ capability from 6 Raiders to just above 275 pts…
The real problem I think is how "good" invul saves are now, in part because GW have handed out AP to everyone for no points. If the Raider was in fact a flying Rhino and nothing else, it would be worse at taking fire from most active sources in the game. One day massed autocannons will be meta viable, but I'm not sure its today.
Definitely some truth to this.
The Lascannon profile for example, is problematic for two reasons: Yeah, the damage is swingy - it sucks when you roll a 1 and you effectively shot a las-gun at a target, but they also only give you a single shot.
You shoot one at my Knight, and after you roll to hit, wound, you still have a 50% chance of that attack doing nothing - because I can have a 4++. Much of the AP that you likely are paying for in the weapons profile, may as well not be present.
Raiders will shrug off a full third of all damage thrown at them, regardless of it's source, because of that 5++. And again, that's after you pass two other points of failure.
This quickly becomes a discussion of a possible mechanical problem in 40K rather than anything to do with Raiders specifically though.
And without the Invul they would be a PoS vehicle that wouldn't live long enough to want one and would need to be cheaper.
The real problem I think is how "good" invul saves are now, in part because GW have handed out AP to everyone for no points. If the Raider was in fact a flying Rhino and nothing else, it would be worse at taking fire from most active sources in the game. One day massed autocannons will be meta viable, but I'm not sure its today.
Definitely some truth to this.
The Lascannon profile for example, is problematic for two reasons: Yeah, the damage is swingy - it sucks when you roll a 1 and you effectively shot a las-gun at a target, but they also only give you a single shot.
You shoot one at my Knight, and after you roll to hit, wound, you still have a 50% chance of that attack doing nothing - because I can have a 4++. Much of the AP that you likely are paying for in the weapons profile, may as well not be present.
Raiders will shrug off a full third of all damage thrown at them, regardless of it's source, because of that 5++. And again, that's after you pass two other points of failure.
This quickly becomes a discussion of a possible mechanical problem in 40K rather than anything to do with Raiders specifically though.
it is not inherently a mechanical problem if some or all of the AP stat of a weapon can be wasted due to an invuln.
Already, the strength, AP and damage stats of a weapon are all conditional upon the stats of the target. firing S9 at T6 wastes 2 points of strength. Firing AP-3 at sv 4+/5++ wastes 2 points of AP. That's an inefficient target to shoot then - good thing there are S6/S7 Ap-/Ap-1 weapons that you can fire that won't waste any stats at all.
Currently I feel like 10-15pts undercosted, but the defensive stats it has in comparison with the 'standard vehicle chassis' are good for the game, not bad. It is good for the game to have a vehicle that exists that makes high-AP high-strength antitank weapons less optimal and makes mid-strength low-AP weapons like autocannons more optimal. Not having there be one optimal class of weapon to kill X category of thing is good.
it is not inherently a mechanical problem if some or all of the AP stat of a weapon can be wasted due to an invuln.
I'm not really saying it is. The AP 'waste' is a secondary thing, just an added additional thought. The point was more about how Invuln saves effect the efficiency and reliability of single shot, high damage weapons. It becomes a binary, 'on or off' effect compared to anything with a higher rate of fire.
The real problem I think is how "good" invul saves are now, in part because GW have handed out AP to everyone for no points. If the Raider was in fact a flying Rhino and nothing else, it would be worse at taking fire from most active sources in the game. One day massed autocannons will be meta viable, but I'm not sure its today.
Definitely some truth to this.
The Lascannon profile for example, is problematic for two reasons: Yeah, the damage is swingy - it sucks when you roll a 1 and you effectively shot a las-gun at a target, but they also only give you a single shot.
You shoot one at my Knight, and after you roll to hit, wound, you still have a 50% chance of that attack doing nothing - because I can have a 4++. Much of the AP that you likely are paying for in the weapons profile, may as well not be present.
Raiders will shrug off a full third of all damage thrown at them, regardless of it's source, because of that 5++. And again, that's after you pass two other points of failure.
This quickly becomes a discussion of a possible mechanical problem in 40K rather than anything to do with Raiders specifically though.
it is not inherently a mechanical problem if some or all of the AP stat of a weapon can be wasted due to an invuln.
Already, the strength, AP and damage stats of a weapon are all conditional upon the stats of the target. firing S9 at T6 wastes 2 points of strength. Firing AP-3 at sv 4+/5++ wastes 2 points of AP. That's an inefficient target to shoot then - good thing there are S6/S7 Ap-/Ap-1 weapons that you can fire that won't waste any stats at all.
Currently I feel like 10-15pts undercosted, but the defensive stats it has in comparison with the 'standard vehicle chassis' are good for the game, not bad. It is good for the game to have a vehicle that exists that makes high-AP high-strength antitank weapons less optimal and makes mid-strength low-AP weapons like autocannons more optimal. Not having there be one optimal class of weapon to kill X category of thing is good.
Tyel wrote: The raider got major buffs with no real points increase and this is almost certainly part of the problem.
The Drukhari transports (and troops) got a crippling hike in points in the Munitorum Field Manual, for no reason apparent at the time.
Are you talking the 2020 MFM? Because in 2021 they went down 5pts.
No the Raider with DL at the start of 8th was 85 and the DC was 80, they changed the points b.c DC was clearly better for less points and the Raider with DL went down in points (Edit: this was 2018 CA I believe), in 9th it went back up to 85pts.
"oy lads, ladsladslads I know you're about to do that ol' one minute average damage calculation on those two weapons you can take on the bleedin' unit we always seem to get the bloody weapons costs wrong on, but what's all this then there's a sale on down at nandos?"
"oy oy oy oy, feth this runnin' then I'll just bloody flip 'em around again that seemed to get the spankers off our backs for a few months last time!"
Never said anything about Raiders being perfectly pointed, and the only units that I want to take that don't fit in Razorbacks are Terminators.
It can be a problem for people whose whole armies are made out of termintors or large chunks being primaris. I ain't gonna lie though, I wish termintors could drive around in rhinos and razorbacks.
Well once upon a time they could... I'm pretty sure in the 2e launch White Dwarf the BA army took a rhino for that exact purpose. The major issue I've had with assault termies is that thier delivery systems costs as much, if not more than the unit it's self... However thats getting sidetracked...
Are people taking raiders outside the role of durable transport? The only way I can see players wanting to take 8-9 raiders is that they'd treat them as main battle tanks, and the dark lance is not good enough to warrant the points. I suppose if the raider were filled with kabalite warriors with blasters, a dark lance, and splinter racks it would be decent, but having an additional four or so raiders kitted out that way in addition to everything else the Drukhari player wants to bring will leave them thin on points.
I have not seen a top list with more than 6 so far. The top 2 from that 8 round event was 6 and 4. No one takes them just to take them empty, they are not good enough to just take without a purpose (85pts for 10w mobile single DL is not good enough by it self lol). They take them b.c they need them. If you need 3 you take 3, if you need 5 you take 5.
Edit: Maybe if venoms were cheaper people would take them empty? But not a raider, not anymore at least back in the day with old vehicles rules (3rd-5th for example) empty raiders were really good b.c movement blocks, tie ups in melee, charge blocks, etc... and DE had beaststars as well as terrain had real rules so you could have things out of transports and live.
I'd agree a single DL isn't enough to warrant getting an otherwise empty Raider. However, I don't think I'm alone in thinking that sub 90ts for a fast, flying, really quite durable (that 5++ is so good), open topped transport would be quite a bargain. I think almost every army could put such a transport to good use.
The force multiplication affect is simply huge – Liquifiers (especially DT), Kalabite Squads (that can bring a couple of blasters, their own DL, and a phantasm GL) can fire with relative impunity out of their surprisingly hard to crack flying boxes.
That you get a DL on top of this is means that the Raider is simply, and quite utterly amazing.
Whilst you may be buying the Raider for the transport of (upto) 11 unfriendly space elves, you do also get a really nice weapon (which may have a re-roll depending on selections). Granted 1 won't do much, but when you take 4-6 raider you can easily end up with ½ a dozen DLs. I think this is clearly a contributory factor to the players feeling that when they bring 2k of Drukhari they’ve got an extra 200 or so points on the field.
To me a reasonable ‘best case’ of under costing is raising the Raider (inc DL) by 15 (if not 20) points to account for the DL. So those 4/6 Raiders are, at present bring an extra 60 – 120 points (4 x 15 pts and 6 x 20pts).
The ‘Worst Case’ is 6 Raiders bring 6 DL, which is the equivalent firepower of 2 Ravagers (already pretty appealing prices at sub 150pts), which would put the ‘extra’ capability from 6 Raiders to just above 275 pts…
Of the two I'd lean towards the former.
Empty raider is pointless, there are a lot of units with better anti-tank shooting than Raider. Ravager is even worst because it could get only 1 reroll on his 3 shots.
The benefit of having fast transport with units is that it give you board control and deny the opponent primary and secondary points. Because its more effective to kill Raider in melee, but than the infantry pop up and you just get outscored, without you having chance to catch up latter rounds, where drukhari have lost most of the army.
There is a reason drukhari have such enormousness average points score. It`s also probably super bad experience, because people feel they can`t do nothing to change the score.
From other side it prevent passive and boring gameplay, that was becoming popular with DG and DA releases.
The mechanical issue I think is that many armies don't have effective S6/S7 AP-1 2 damage style guns. There is also I suspect a meta issue - in that if you were to pack loads of these and run into DG you'd be stuffed.
On paper for instance a raider takes 7/9 times more damage from an autocannon than a rhino - while the rhino only takes 25% more damage from a lascannon (50% from a dark lance/melta). So if autocannons were point for point as effective as say lascannons, and as prevalent in the meta, you'd find raiders were comparably soft. But they aren't. And it seems unlikely to imagine they ever will be.
Raiders should probably go back to T5, as it would boost both S5 and S6 weapons against them. Or you could adopt the rule of 3 for transports, which sort of alienates from a collectors standpoint but from a pure "game balance and encouraging variety" might not be the worst thing in the world.
Tyel wrote: The mechanical issue I think is that many armies don't have effective S6/S7 AP-1 2 damage style guns. There is also I suspect a meta issue - in that if you were to pack loads of these and run into DG you'd be stuffed.
On paper for instance a raider takes 7/9 times more damage from an autocannon than a rhino - while the rhino only takes 25% more damage from a lascannon (50% from a dark lance/melta). So if autocannons were point for point as effective as say lascannons, and as prevalent in the meta, you'd find raiders were comparably soft. But they aren't. And it seems unlikely to imagine they ever will be.
Raiders should probably go back to T5, as it would boost both S5 and S6 weapons against them. Or you could adopt the rule of 3 for transports, which sort of alienates from a collectors standpoint but from a pure "game balance and encouraging variety" might not be the worst thing in the world.
"A unit that exists is inconvenient to target with the weapons that I am skewing into currently, therefore that unit must be nerfed statwise so that I don't have to change the weapons I'm taking to counter it."
They're clearly, obviously undercosted by about the intended cost of a dark lance. At current point costs, they'd be just about fine if they didnt have a gun, maybe a little less undercosted than a disintegrator. People whine about the lethality of the game, but then also whine that if they took a balanced TAC list some of their guns would always be sub-optimal.
You want a meta where games last on average to turn 4/5 instead of to turn 3/4? introduce new units with balanced, but distinct defenses into the meta.
.....Also how the feth are Necron vehicles not inherently problematic if Drukhari vehicles are problematic? They've got invulns AND always-on transhuman phys! A melta gun wounds them on FOURS, not threes! Necron ghost arcs are less efficient to shoot with meltaguns, lascannons, autocannons, literally anything than drukhari raiders, they've got different firepower but it's tough to argue that they don't have MORE firepower (20 S4 Ap-1 d1 shots within 12") - why is this unit basically a nothing in the meta and drukhari raiders are somehow the biggest problems in the world?
Could it be, that maybe, the models INSIDE the transport are vastly more threatening?
the_scotsman wrote: Could it be, that maybe, the models INSIDE the transport are vastly more threatening?
Than basic Necron Warriors? Say it ain't so. Ghost Arks are also quite pricy at... 145 points I think?
FWIW yes, I think its the units inside offering Eradicator level returns rather than just the raider.
But I'm still going to maintain most armies can't efficiently bring a lot of autocannon style weapons - they are often strangely overcosted. Speaking of Necrons, see... uh, Enmitic Exterminators (and other such weapons) which seem to be damage 1 for reasons unknown to science. Not sure the triple annihilation barge can ride again.
By contrast while we had this strange wave when people couldn't bring nu-MM style weapons, but that seems to be lifting (unfortunately not for Necrons, because of the first codex curse).
the_scotsman wrote: Could it be, that maybe, the models INSIDE the transport are vastly more threatening?
Than basic Necron Warriors? Say it ain't so. Ghost Arks are also quite pricy at... 145 points I think?
FWIW yes, I think its the units inside offering Eradicator level returns rather than just the raider.
But I'm still going to maintain most armies can't efficiently bring a lot of autocannon style weapons - they are often strangely overcosted. Speaking of Necrons, see... uh, Enmitic Exterminators (and other such weapons) which seem to be damage 1 for reasons unknown to science. Not sure the triple annihilation barge can ride again.
By contrast while we had this strange wave when people couldn't bring nu-MM style weapons, but that seems to be lifting (unfortunately not for Necrons, because of the first codex curse).
Ghost arks are pricy at 145pts - they also have 14 wounds and 3+ base saves, and their 1cp defensive stratagem is +1 to that invuln save rather than -1 to hit, which is far less counter-able.
Everyone always gets it twisted - I'm not saying Ghost arks or any necron vehicle are particularly OP. What I'm saying is that the argument of "drukhari vehicles are inherently OP because of their low-T invuln save statline" is and always has been horse crap and it is proven by the fact that necron vehicles have an even more extreme version of that defensive paradigm and are in no way dominating the meta since their release months ago.
Regular destroyers, annihilation barges, Triarch Stalker with Particle Shredder, Doom Scythe loses out on 3pts of AP on its death ray but is otherwise a pretty effective piece dealing 9 wounds to a Raider with its shooting.
Generally, in my opinion anyway, a pretty good return for a non-suicide unit targeting its optimal target should be about 35-50%. Assuming a DL raider is undercosted by about 10-15pts, necrons have plenty of units that achieve that optimal point return.
You don't think there is a big difference between something costing 145pts and something costing under 100pts? times 6 what is usually run in DE lists that is a 270pts difference.
And if the only thing that gets changed point wise are the lances on the raiders, then the adaptation to it is just going to be that the DE players will cut courts out, and everything else in the lists will stay the same. And I guess when that happens we can wait another 6 months to another CA or FAQ, right?
Karol wrote: You don't think there is a big difference between something costing 145pts and something costing under 100pts? times 6 what is usually run in DE lists that is a 270pts difference.
And if the only thing that gets changed point wise are the lances on the raiders, then the adaptation to it is just going to be that the DE players will cut courts out, and everything else in the lists will stay the same. And I guess when that happens we can wait another 6 months to another CA or FAQ, right?
Yeah, you can actually do the math to figure out exactly how many points a particular weapon is removing per shot. Determine how many lascannons it takes to bring a particular thing down, divide by the points value of the thing, and you've got the value of points that is removed by every weapon shot.
Every weapon save for the new Heavy Bolter profile (or any S5 weapon with low AP) is more efficient at taking down drukhari raiders at their current point cost than any Necron vehicle with Quantum Shielding.
This is not an argument that Drukhari Raiders are not currently undercosted - they are. This is an argument that drukhari raiders do not need stats removed to be inherently balanced, they just need to be properly pointed. Necron vehicles (and, incidentally, drukhari vehicles before the codex which were very nearly the same) were present in the meta before the codex without issues, and it wasn't like people were taking a lot of Heavy Bolters in their lists to counteract them. I believe that currently, Ravagers ARE properly pointed, and a pretty balanced unit - the value of a Dark Lance is about 20 points, so a Dark Lance raider should be about 100 points vs the Ravager's 140.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Echoing Yukishiro1: Everyone here seems to agree that Raiders are underpriced (and most seem to agree by how much), so what are we arguing about?
Presumably, that it is unfair for raiders to be properly priced for their points because T6 Sv4+ 5++ invuln is an inherently unfair defensive statline. that appeared to be what was proposed by Tyel, if I misinterpreted that my bad.
My point being that having a faction whose vehicles are not T7 3+ no invuln is a good thing actually and a thing we should have more of. If SM are going to be 1/3 of the meta then every other army should be as distinct defensively from space marines as is possible, or else every army ever is going to be tailored to beat space marines and coincidentally will be optimal against everybody else.
SM players should WANT every xenos faction to have a wonky, distinct defensive statline that discourages the particular types of weapons that blow up T7 3+. Make necrons and drukhari have weird low-T good invuln vehicles, make Nid Monsters mid-toughness low-save TONS of wounds, make Ork things super high toughness low save mid-wounds so they're really hard to harm with low strength weaponry but meltas and lascannons can blow them sky high.
Automatically Appended Next Post: not every army requires representing the difficulty in killing them the same exact way.
Ork trukks could be T8 W5 Sv4+ to represent that autocannon shells and rockets and lower-strength AT weaponry often blows off unnecessary chunks but a solid hit from a melta or lascannon will often ignite the crude fuel and blow it sky-high in a single shot. Nid monsters could be T6 Sv4+ W24 to represent it being extremely easy to cause SOME harm but the creature having a massive bulk and basically no non-redundant organs that means it's impossible for a single antitank shot to cause critical damage.
the_scotsman wrote: Regular destroyers, annihilation barges, Triarch Stalker with Particle Shredder, Doom Scythe loses out on 3pts of AP on its death ray but is otherwise a pretty effective piece dealing 9 wounds to a Raider with its shooting.
Generally, in my opinion anyway, a pretty good return for a non-suicide unit targeting its optimal target should be about 35-50%. Assuming a DL raider is undercosted by about 10-15pts, necrons have plenty of units that achieve that optimal point return.
I tend to agree on your ratios (although 35% is getting increasingly marginal as the gave moves forward) - and with you in general on 40k so don't take it personally - but I don't think this is right.
So a destroyer is 55 points. Before any buffs/nerfs:
3*2/3*7/6*1/2*2/3*2=1.555. 1.55*85/10=13.22. 13.22/55=24% return. Even if the raider was say 100 points, that's only a 28% return.
Currently Raiders out-shoot Destroyers before any boosts. (2/3*2/3*55=24.44. 24.44/85=28.75% return.)
Particle Shredder Stalker, rerolling 1s to hit is 135 points.
8*2/3*7/6*1/2*2/3*2=4.148. So a 26% return on an 85 point raider. Rising to 30.72% if the raider was at 100 points.
The annihilation barge is a fairer shout I think - although I'm not sure whether you'd go tesla or gauss.
10*1*2/3*1/2=3.33.
3*1*1/2*1/2=0.75.
3*2/3*1/2*2/3*2=1.33.
So in theory lets say 4.66 with the gauss. So quite a bit better - a 31.7% return on the raider at 85 points, rising to 36.8% at 100. All in all its not great.
Karol wrote: You don't think there is a big difference between something costing 145pts and something costing under 100pts? times 6 what is usually run in DE lists that is a 270pts difference.
And if the only thing that gets changed point wise are the lances on the raiders, then the adaptation to it is just going to be that the DE players will cut courts out, and everything else in the lists will stay the same. And I guess when that happens we can wait another 6 months to another CA or FAQ, right?
Yeah before DE no one played the Ghost Ark and after DE no one still will, so taking DE out of the meta means nothing to the Ghost Ark which tells me that the Ghost ark is over costed not necessarily the Raider under costed.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Echoing Yukishiro1: Everyone here seems to agree that Raiders are underpriced (and most seem to agree by how much), so what are we arguing about?
Presumably, that it is unfair for raiders to be properly priced for their points because T6 Sv4+ 5++ invuln is an inherently unfair defensive statline. that appeared to be what was proposed by Tyel, if I misinterpreted that my bad.
My point being that having a faction whose vehicles are not T7 3+ no invuln is a good thing actually and a thing we should have more of. If SM are going to be 1/3 of the meta then every other army should be as distinct defensively from space marines as is possible, or else every army ever is going to be tailored to beat space marines and coincidentally will be optimal against everybody else.
SM players should WANT every xenos faction to have a wonky, distinct defensive statline that discourages the particular types of weapons that blow up T7 3+. Make necrons and drukhari have weird low-T good invuln vehicles, make Nid Monsters mid-toughness low-save TONS of wounds, make Ork things super high toughness low save mid-wounds so they're really hard to harm with low strength weaponry but meltas and lascannons can blow them sky high.
Automatically Appended Next Post: not every army requires representing the difficulty in killing them the same exact way.
Ork trukks could be T8 W5 Sv4+ to represent that autocannon shells and rockets and lower-strength AT weaponry often blows off unnecessary chunks but a solid hit from a melta or lascannon will often ignite the crude fuel and blow it sky-high in a single shot. Nid monsters could be T6 Sv4+ W24 to represent it being extremely easy to cause SOME harm but the creature having a massive bulk and basically no non-redundant organs that means it's impossible for a single antitank shot to cause critical damage.
Oh, we're in complete agreement on that. Which is why waayyy back on page 10 I said:
Gadzilla666 wrote:
the_scotsman wrote: An army with a gigantic play percentage as big as marines (rarely under 1 in 3 players) is obviously going to have a difficult time getting over a 50% winrate unless the balance of the game is an absolute joke. It's pretty clear that the marine lists focusing on mobility and durability seem to be doing alright dealing with the splash of the - again, seriously broken pre-FAQ version of - the drukhari list, while the marine chapters like Salamanders and Space wolves that generally rely on overwhelming damage are not doing so hot.
I'm sorry, looking at lists with stuff like 9 MM attack bikes or 3 squads of eradicators I just don't think people aren't tailoring NOW. They're just tailoring their lists to the exact opposite thing that DE and Harlequins are, and obviously that's one-sided as feth.
Yeah, the points efficiency of melta falls off a cliff against an army like Dark Eldar. Hopefully if they become more prevalent that means we'll see less melta spam and more vehicles will become field able. That would be nice. More variety in defensive profiles = less weapon spam. Go TAC or go home.
Some just want to keep spamming the same stuff though, it seems.
the_scotsman wrote: Could it be, that maybe, the models INSIDE the transport are vastly more threatening?
Than basic Necron Warriors? Say it ain't so. Ghost Arks are also quite pricy at... 145 points I think?
FWIW yes, I think its the units inside offering Eradicator level returns rather than just the raider.
But I'm still going to maintain most armies can't efficiently bring a lot of autocannon style weapons - they are often strangely overcosted. Speaking of Necrons, see... uh, Enmitic Exterminators (and other such weapons) which seem to be damage 1 for reasons unknown to science. Not sure the triple annihilation barge can ride again.
By contrast while we had this strange wave when people couldn't bring nu-MM style weapons, but that seems to be lifting (unfortunately not for Necrons, because of the first codex curse).
I think that you have obsession to kill the raiders, killing the raiders will not win you the game.
Tao can kill the raiders, but wytches have strat to ignore OW(Book and Rust) and have option of relic that stop the fallback.
CWE can kill 2-4 raiders, but even than drukhari have more than enough units to do massive damage and take control of the board.
Orc can kill raiders just by volume and have the attacks to kill what is insight, but DE have alot of fight last and strive have fight first and double activation wytches could sweep a lot of bois.Broken socumbus could probably kill the entire squad alone.
More than i think, the real issue is the book of rust, it just provide to many tools that stop counter play and the drukhari having so much CP to fuel that.
I know it`s supposed to be mixed army, but still having 2-5 more CP is super busted, when you have such good options,
Atleast they can make triple patrol coast 2 CP(Start with 10), to force DE players to have harder decisions what to take.
As harlequin player, i also like to have multiple detachment, extra roles, extra relics, but than i start the game with 5 CP.
Having 3 detachment types for paying 2 CP seem really reasonable to me and you can have 3 all in real spade raid, that was the idea of mixed detachment, not having triple patrols, that give you access to extra characters slots.
The ability to include random socumbus in coven or kebal without using traits should also be gone, if it`s not allowed for all other factions.
There should also be more limitations of using the strive cult, but i have the serious suspicion the next book will be as broken as this one and than we will cry about Admech, sisters and whatever thing they include in it.
the_scotsman wrote: Regular destroyers, annihilation barges, Triarch Stalker with Particle Shredder, Doom Scythe loses out on 3pts of AP on its death ray but is otherwise a pretty effective piece dealing 9 wounds to a Raider with its shooting.
Generally, in my opinion anyway, a pretty good return for a non-suicide unit targeting its optimal target should be about 35-50%. Assuming a DL raider is undercosted by about 10-15pts, necrons have plenty of units that achieve that optimal point return.
I tend to agree on your ratios (although 35% is getting increasingly marginal as the gave moves forward) - and with you in general on 40k so don't take it personally - but I don't think this is right.
So a destroyer is 55 points. Before any buffs/nerfs:
3*2/3*7/6*1/2*2/3*2=1.555. 1.55*85/10=13.22. 13.22/55=24% return. Even if the raider was say 100 points, that's only a 28% return.
Currently Raiders out-shoot Destroyers before any boosts. (2/3*2/3*55=24.44. 24.44/85=28.75% return.)
Particle Shredder Stalker, rerolling 1s to hit is 135 points.
8*2/3*7/6*1/2*2/3*2=4.148. So a 26% return on an 85 point raider. Rising to 30.72% if the raider was at 100 points.
The annihilation barge is a fairer shout I think - although I'm not sure whether you'd go tesla or gauss.
10*1*2/3*1/2=3.33.
3*1*1/2*1/2=0.75.
3*2/3*1/2*2/3*2=1.33.
So in theory lets say 4.66 with the gauss. So quite a bit better - a 31.7% return on the raider at 85 points, rising to 36.8% at 100. All in all its not great.
Doom scythe is probably the best bet - if raiders are 100 that'd be something like a 40-45% return as it comes within 1 wound of killing on average.
the_scotsman wrote: Could it be, that maybe, the models INSIDE the transport are vastly more threatening?
Than basic Necron Warriors? Say it ain't so. Ghost Arks are also quite pricy at... 145 points I think?
FWIW yes, I think its the units inside offering Eradicator level returns rather than just the raider.
But I'm still going to maintain most armies can't efficiently bring a lot of autocannon style weapons - they are often strangely overcosted. Speaking of Necrons, see... uh, Enmitic Exterminators (and other such weapons) which seem to be damage 1 for reasons unknown to science. Not sure the triple annihilation barge can ride again.
By contrast while we had this strange wave when people couldn't bring nu-MM style weapons, but that seems to be lifting (unfortunately not for Necrons, because of the first codex curse).
I think that you have obsession to kill the raiders, killing the raiders will not win you the game.
Tao can kill the raiders, but wytches have strat to ignore OW(Book and Rust) and have option of relic that stop the fallback.
CWE can kill 2-4 raiders, but even than drukhari have more than enough units to do massive damage and take control of the board.
Orc can kill raiders just by volume and have the attacks to kill what is insight, but DE have alot of fight last and strive have fight first and double activation wytches could sweep a lot of bois.Broken socumbus could probably kill the entire squad alone.
More than i think, the real issue is the book of rust, it just provide to many tools that stop counter play and the drukhari having so much CP to fuel that.
I know it`s supposed to be mixed army, but still having 2-5 more CP is super busted, when you have such good options,
Atleast they can make triple patrol coast 2 CP(Start with 10), to force DE players to have harder decisions what to take.
As harlequin player, i also like to have multiple detachment, extra roles, extra relics, but than i start the game with 5 CP.
Having 3 detachment types for paying 2 CP seem really reasonable to me and you can have 3 all in real spade raid, that was the idea of mixed detachment, not having triple patrols, that give you access to extra characters slots.
The ability to include random socumbus in coven or kebal without using traits should also be gone, if it`s not allowed for all other factions.
There should also be more limitations of using the strive cult, but i have the serious suspicion the next book will be as broken as this one and than we will cry about Admech, sisters and whatever thing they include in it.
The top DE army which was mix of CWE and DE, he also didn't use the +CP 2-3 patrols, he used a Battalion, he paid for a Patrol, and then paid for a Spearhead. So he is down 4CP.
Players don't seem to understand that taking only Patrols is not a buff, its more or less equal to a Battalion with musical chairs as to what gets the limited 2 fast and heavy slots (If you take 2 Coven patrols and 1 wych patrol, well the Coven has 4 fast and 4 heavy slots but the Wych has only 2 and if you wanted Beasts, Hellions, and Reavers then you are out of luck), if you take 3 Patrols yes over all its more troops but its also more tax in HQ's and less slots, especially if you want Kabal, coven, and wych, now its only 2 heavy, elite, and fast for each. Really by limiting the FoC slots the DE player is getting only 2 free CP.
When I play 2-3 Patrols I have to take 2 Wych ones b.c I want to have Hellions, Reavers, and Beasts, that means no matter what my next patrol is heavily limited or I have to add in Kabal into a Wych or Coven detachment and that Kabal units doesn't get any Obsessions so I either take my Archon and Court with obsessions or I take my Coven with Obsessions, its a hard option for me. So having +2CP feels more like a DE sneaking compensation strategy that Vect would do.
If Wrackifiers wasn't so strong or even a thing no one would notice or care that DE gets 2 more CP.
Finally other armies can do similar things too, UM can start with more, Red Scorpions gets a free LoW detachment, and many others can start with more CP too. DE just does at the cost of FoC juggling.
Finally other armies can do similar things too, UM can start with more, Red Scorpions gets a free LoW detachment, and many others can start with more CP too. DE just does at the cost of FoC juggling.
Neither army has had 5 seats in top 8 or a 76% win rate though.
My GK have a psychic power that lets them just gain a CP, I don't think many people consider GK the secret power army of 9th ed.
Finally other armies can do similar things too, UM can start with more, Red Scorpions gets a free LoW detachment, and many others can start with more CP too. DE just does at the cost of FoC juggling.
Neither army has had 5 seats in top 8 or a 76% win rate though.
My GK have a psychic power that lets them just gain a CP, I don't think many people consider GK the secret power army of 9th ed.
That has to do with nerfing DT not a CP issue as DT literally doesn't use any CP. And you also ignore the top list had -4CP with no triple patrols, so its not the bonus 2 CP winning games.
Yeah before DE no one played the Ghost Ark and after DE no one still will, so taking DE out of the meta means nothing to the Ghost Ark which tells me that the Ghost ark is over costed not necessarily the Raider under costed.
Edit: Grammar
I am not sure I am understanding your line of argument here. Because other armies stuff is overcosted it is okey for DE stuff to be over costed and better, because the weaker armies don't get played?
That doesn't make much sense. 3 patrols is a strict advantage over 1 bat in almost every way except the 3rd required HQ, but what DE army would ever not want 3 HQs - and being able to take more than 3 if you want is a lot more potential flexibility as well? If you want to take 3 of something instead of 2 of it, just take a double patrol of that thing. The only way 3 patrols would ever be more limiting than on bat that can take everything is if you wanted some niche list that takes 3+ of one force org slot of one subfaction, AND 3+ of a different one, AND then choices from a third subfaction in a different force org slot as well.
And of course they even thought of that and threw you a bone with the realspace raid detachment if you really, really want that.
Yeah before DE no one played the Ghost Ark and after DE no one still will, so taking DE out of the meta means nothing to the Ghost Ark which tells me that the Ghost ark is over costed not necessarily the Raider under costed.
Edit: Grammar
I am not sure I am understanding your line of argument here. Because other armies stuff is overcosted it is okey for DE stuff to be over costed and better, because the weaker armies don't get played?
The Argument is IMO the Raider actually is fine and its most other transports that are not, no one has been using them for a reason, so instead of crying "OMG a useful transport we must nerf it" maybe look at the gakky ones no one uses and ask "Wait why are my transport so crappy?"
Also its DT that makes Raiders feel strong, outside of DT the Raider does the same thing they always have been for 23yrs, rush up, shoot once, and unload murdering melee units.
the_scotsman wrote: Could it be, that maybe, the models INSIDE the transport are vastly more threatening?
Than basic Necron Warriors? Say it ain't so. Ghost Arks are also quite pricy at... 145 points I think?
FWIW yes, I think its the units inside offering Eradicator level returns rather than just the raider.
But I'm still going to maintain most armies can't efficiently bring a lot of autocannon style weapons - they are often strangely overcosted. Speaking of Necrons, see... uh, Enmitic Exterminators (and other such weapons) which seem to be damage 1 for reasons unknown to science. Not sure the triple annihilation barge can ride again.
By contrast while we had this strange wave when people couldn't bring nu-MM style weapons, but that seems to be lifting (unfortunately not for Necrons, because of the first codex curse).
I think that you have obsession to kill the raiders, killing the raiders will not win you the game.
Tao can kill the raiders, but wytches have strat to ignore OW(Book and Rust) and have option of relic that stop the fallback.
CWE can kill 2-4 raiders, but even than drukhari have more than enough units to do massive damage and take control of the board.
Orc can kill raiders just by volume and have the attacks to kill what is insight, but DE have alot of fight last and strive have fight first and double activation wytches could sweep a lot of bois.Broken socumbus could probably kill the entire squad alone.
More than i think, the real issue is the book of rust, it just provide to many tools that stop counter play and the drukhari having so much CP to fuel that.
I know it`s supposed to be mixed army, but still having 2-5 more CP is super busted, when you have such good options,
Atleast they can make triple patrol coast 2 CP(Start with 10), to force DE players to have harder decisions what to take.
As harlequin player, i also like to have multiple detachment, extra roles, extra relics, but than i start the game with 5 CP.
Having 3 detachment types for paying 2 CP seem really reasonable to me and you can have 3 all in real spade raid, that was the idea of mixed detachment, not having triple patrols, that give you access to extra characters slots.
The ability to include random socumbus in coven or kebal without using traits should also be gone, if it`s not allowed for all other factions.
There should also be more limitations of using the strive cult, but i have the serious suspicion the next book will be as broken as this one and than we will cry about Admech, sisters and whatever thing they include in it.
The top DE army which was mix of CWE and DE, he also didn't use the +CP 2-3 patrols, he used a Battalion, he paid for a Patrol, and then paid for a Spearhead. So he is down 4CP.
Players don't seem to understand that taking only Patrols is not a buff, its more or less equal to a Battalion with musical chairs as to what gets the limited 2 fast and heavy slots (If you take 2 Coven patrols and 1 wych patrol, well the Coven has 4 fast and 4 heavy slots but the Wych has only 2 and if you wanted Beasts, Hellions, and Reavers then you are out of luck), if you take 3 Patrols yes over all its more troops but its also more tax in HQ's and less slots, especially if you want Kabal, coven, and wych, now its only 2 heavy, elite, and fast for each. Really by limiting the FoC slots the DE player is getting only 2 free CP.
When I play 2-3 Patrols I have to take 2 Wych ones b.c I want to have Hellions, Reavers, and Beasts, that means no matter what my next patrol is heavily limited or I have to add in Kabal into a Wych or Coven detachment and that Kabal units doesn't get any Obsessions so I either take my Archon and Court with obsessions or I take my Coven with Obsessions, its a hard option for me. So having +2CP feels more like a DE sneaking compensation strategy that Vect would do.
If Wrackifiers wasn't so strong or even a thing no one would notice or care that DE gets 2 more CP.
Finally other armies can do similar things too, UM can start with more, Red Scorpions gets a free LoW detachment, and many others can start with more CP too. DE just does at the cost of FoC juggling.
It's 2 free CP for just building a list. And you're complaining that it makes it hard to get everything you want?
Ultras need to spend the points for Gulliman for their extra CP (unless you're talking about something else that I don't know about). And I just checked the rules for Red Scorpions in the Compendium. Where are they getting this free LoW detachment?
the_scotsman wrote: Could it be, that maybe, the models INSIDE the transport are vastly more threatening?
Than basic Necron Warriors? Say it ain't so. Ghost Arks are also quite pricy at... 145 points I think?
FWIW yes, I think its the units inside offering Eradicator level returns rather than just the raider.
But I'm still going to maintain most armies can't efficiently bring a lot of autocannon style weapons - they are often strangely overcosted. Speaking of Necrons, see... uh, Enmitic Exterminators (and other such weapons) which seem to be damage 1 for reasons unknown to science. Not sure the triple annihilation barge can ride again.
By contrast while we had this strange wave when people couldn't bring nu-MM style weapons, but that seems to be lifting (unfortunately not for Necrons, because of the first codex curse).
I think that you have obsession to kill the raiders, killing the raiders will not win you the game.
Tao can kill the raiders, but wytches have strat to ignore OW(Book and Rust) and have option of relic that stop the fallback.
CWE can kill 2-4 raiders, but even than drukhari have more than enough units to do massive damage and take control of the board.
Orc can kill raiders just by volume and have the attacks to kill what is insight, but DE have alot of fight last and strive have fight first and double activation wytches could sweep a lot of bois.Broken socumbus could probably kill the entire squad alone.
More than i think, the real issue is the book of rust, it just provide to many tools that stop counter play and the drukhari having so much CP to fuel that.
I know it`s supposed to be mixed army, but still having 2-5 more CP is super busted, when you have such good options,
Atleast they can make triple patrol coast 2 CP(Start with 10), to force DE players to have harder decisions what to take.
As harlequin player, i also like to have multiple detachment, extra roles, extra relics, but than i start the game with 5 CP.
Having 3 detachment types for paying 2 CP seem really reasonable to me and you can have 3 all in real spade raid, that was the idea of mixed detachment, not having triple patrols, that give you access to extra characters slots.
The ability to include random socumbus in coven or kebal without using traits should also be gone, if it`s not allowed for all other factions.
There should also be more limitations of using the strive cult, but i have the serious suspicion the next book will be as broken as this one and than we will cry about Admech, sisters and whatever thing they include in it.
The top DE army which was mix of CWE and DE, he also didn't use the +CP 2-3 patrols, he used a Battalion, he paid for a Patrol, and then paid for a Spearhead. So he is down 4CP.
Players don't seem to understand that taking only Patrols is not a buff, its more or less equal to a Battalion with musical chairs as to what gets the limited 2 fast and heavy slots (If you take 2 Coven patrols and 1 wych patrol, well the Coven has 4 fast and 4 heavy slots but the Wych has only 2 and if you wanted Beasts, Hellions, and Reavers then you are out of luck), if you take 3 Patrols yes over all its more troops but its also more tax in HQ's and less slots, especially if you want Kabal, coven, and wych, now its only 2 heavy, elite, and fast for each. Really by limiting the FoC slots the DE player is getting only 2 free CP.
When I play 2-3 Patrols I have to take 2 Wych ones b.c I want to have Hellions, Reavers, and Beasts, that means no matter what my next patrol is heavily limited or I have to add in Kabal into a Wych or Coven detachment and that Kabal units doesn't get any Obsessions so I either take my Archon and Court with obsessions or I take my Coven with Obsessions, its a hard option for me. So having +2CP feels more like a DE sneaking compensation strategy that Vect would do.
If Wrackifiers wasn't so strong or even a thing no one would notice or care that DE gets 2 more CP.
Finally other armies can do similar things too, UM can start with more, Red Scorpions gets a free LoW detachment, and many others can start with more CP too. DE just does at the cost of FoC juggling.
It's 2 free CP for just building a list. And you're complaining that it makes it hard to get everything you want?
Ultras need to spend the points for Gulliman for their extra CP (unless you're talking about something else that I don't know about). And I just checked the rules for Red Scorpions in the Compendium. Where are they getting this free LoW detachment?
Yes I am complaining b.c I've been asking GW to undo the Subfaction mess from day one, i hate it. 2CP isn't game breaking either.
TBF, CSM still have red corsairs which also pay for themselves... when we are on that front.
I don't think it's good design, a unit should be picked upon it's own merits not what it has when it get's supercharged by presumably getting shouted at like yugioh cards.
It looks like Drukhari has one of the best transports in the game now, at least, that's why I signed when I was offered the army I would adjust the stuff that goes on top of the transports (Wracks with liquifiers) before the transport itself.
We are strong, that's why I tone down my lists until the rest of the people has it's 9th edition codexes, when things are going to change for sure. Admech lists are pretty hard for me even with their 8th edition Codex, so I guess it's going to be one of our counters.
Just wait for the rest to judge. We are not at the same level right now, and that's a bummer. I have to say though, that being a direct counter to Marines feels good.
Denegaar wrote: It looks like Drukhari has one of the best transports in the game now, at least, that's why I signed when I was offered the army I would adjust the stuff that goes on top of the transports (Wracks with liquifiers) before the transport itself.
We are strong, that's why I tone down my lists until the rest of the people has it's 9th edition codexes, when things are going to change for sure. Admech lists are pretty hard for me even with their 8th edition Codex, so I guess it's going to be one of our counters.
Just wait for the rest to judge. We are not at the same level right now, and that's a bummer. I have to say though, that being a direct counter to Marines feels good.
Just wait for orks and admech which surely will curb the DE out of the meta to make other armies viable....
that's the same argument that was brought forth by gw and whilest some missmatches are natural in a asymetrically faction system i fail to see how 76 % in general is good and dandy when the next book is a bunch of Bel akor day 1 dlc.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Echoing Yukishiro1: Everyone here seems to agree that Raiders are underpriced (and most seem to agree by how much), so what are we arguing about?
Because I don't think people agree how much. Open topped used to come with a negative...now it doesn't. Open topped is the main issue here combined with the invune. The DL is just icing as it is straight up better than a lascannon...and the codex came out at the beginning of the same edition.
Yeah before DE no one played the Ghost Ark and after DE no one still will, so taking DE out of the meta means nothing to the Ghost Ark which tells me that the Ghost ark is over costed not necessarily the Raider under costed.
Edit: Grammar
I am not sure I am understanding your line of argument here. Because other armies stuff is overcosted it is okey for DE stuff to be over costed and better, because the weaker armies don't get played?
The Argument is IMO the Raider actually is fine and its most other transports that are not, no one has been using them for a reason, so instead of crying "OMG a useful transport we must nerf it" maybe look at the gakky ones no one uses and ask "Wait why are my transport so crappy?"
Also its DT that makes Raiders feel strong, outside of DT the Raider does the same thing they always have been for 23yrs, rush up, shoot once, and unload murdering melee units.
K - Youll have no problem with me bringing 95 point implusors then in our next game?
Some people think they are under by as little as 10 points. I'm on the other end and think they are at least 30 points under costed. I also think that the bump to T6 is a significant reason why they became overpowered over night.
K - Youll have no problem with me bringing 95 point implusors then in our next game?
Yeah, you could absolutely bring 95pt impulsors to a game against me. That's much closer to what they should actually cost.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Cynista wrote: Some people think they are under by as little as 10 points. I'm on the other end and think they are at least 30 points under costed. I also think that the bump to T6 is a significant reason why they became overpowered over night.
Were there tons of people in the meta playing mass S5/S6 firepower to justify this being the reason they're suddenly so good?
or was that basically nonexistent in favor of melta on everything, against which the change from T5-T6 is meaningless?
You could add 30pts to Raiders, if you really thought it made that big a difference, and that would probably go a long way to balancing the army along with removing the obviuos broken combos, but then you'd just have yet another siuation of super overtuned infantry with super overcosted transports. It'd be no different than the situation with intercessors/necron warriors/orks/ whatever else throughout 8th - people would just spam the infantry unit and never bother with the transport if a raider was bumped up 40% in point cost.
the_scotsman wrote: Could it be, that maybe, the models INSIDE the transport are vastly more threatening?
Than basic Necron Warriors? Say it ain't so. Ghost Arks are also quite pricy at... 145 points I think?
FWIW yes, I think its the units inside offering Eradicator level returns rather than just the raider.
But I'm still going to maintain most armies can't efficiently bring a lot of autocannon style weapons - they are often strangely overcosted. Speaking of Necrons, see... uh, Enmitic Exterminators (and other such weapons) which seem to be damage 1 for reasons unknown to science. Not sure the triple annihilation barge can ride again.
By contrast while we had this strange wave when people couldn't bring nu-MM style weapons, but that seems to be lifting (unfortunately not for Necrons, because of the first codex curse).
I think that you have obsession to kill the raiders, killing the raiders will not win you the game.
Tao can kill the raiders, but wytches have strat to ignore OW(Book and Rust) and have option of relic that stop the fallback.
CWE can kill 2-4 raiders, but even than drukhari have more than enough units to do massive damage and take control of the board.
Orc can kill raiders just by volume and have the attacks to kill what is insight, but DE have alot of fight last and strive have fight first and double activation wytches could sweep a lot of bois.Broken socumbus could probably kill the entire squad alone.
More than i think, the real issue is the book of rust, it just provide to many tools that stop counter play and the drukhari having so much CP to fuel that.
I know it`s supposed to be mixed army, but still having 2-5 more CP is super busted, when you have such good options,
Atleast they can make triple patrol coast 2 CP(Start with 10), to force DE players to have harder decisions what to take.
As harlequin player, i also like to have multiple detachment, extra roles, extra relics, but than i start the game with 5 CP.
Having 3 detachment types for paying 2 CP seem really reasonable to me and you can have 3 all in real spade raid, that was the idea of mixed detachment, not having triple patrols, that give you access to extra characters slots.
The ability to include random socumbus in coven or kebal without using traits should also be gone, if it`s not allowed for all other factions.
There should also be more limitations of using the strive cult, but i have the serious suspicion the next book will be as broken as this one and than we will cry about Admech, sisters and whatever thing they include in it.
The top DE army which was mix of CWE and DE, he also didn't use the +CP 2-3 patrols, he used a Battalion, he paid for a Patrol, and then paid for a Spearhead. So he is down 4CP.
Players don't seem to understand that taking only Patrols is not a buff, its more or less equal to a Battalion with musical chairs as to what gets the limited 2 fast and heavy slots (If you take 2 Coven patrols and 1 wych patrol, well the Coven has 4 fast and 4 heavy slots but the Wych has only 2 and if you wanted Beasts, Hellions, and Reavers then you are out of luck), if you take 3 Patrols yes over all its more troops but its also more tax in HQ's and less slots, especially if you want Kabal, coven, and wych, now its only 2 heavy, elite, and fast for each. Really by limiting the FoC slots the DE player is getting only 2 free CP.
When I play 2-3 Patrols I have to take 2 Wych ones b.c I want to have Hellions, Reavers, and Beasts, that means no matter what my next patrol is heavily limited or I have to add in Kabal into a Wych or Coven detachment and that Kabal units doesn't get any Obsessions so I either take my Archon and Court with obsessions or I take my Coven with Obsessions, its a hard option for me. So having +2CP feels more like a DE sneaking compensation strategy that Vect would do.
If Wrackifiers wasn't so strong or even a thing no one would notice or care that DE gets 2 more CP.
Finally other armies can do similar things too, UM can start with more, Red Scorpions gets a free LoW detachment, and many others can start with more CP too. DE just does at the cost of FoC juggling.
It's 2 free CP for just building a list. And you're complaining that it makes it hard to get everything you want?
Ultras need to spend the points for Gulliman for their extra CP (unless you're talking about something else that I don't know about). And I just checked the rules for Red Scorpions in the Compendium. Where are they getting this free LoW detachment?
Yes I am complaining b.c I've been asking GW to undo the Subfaction mess from day one, i hate it. 2CP isn't game breaking either.
Well if it isn't that big of a deal why are you defending it so hard? And you still haven't explained how Red Scorpions are getting that free LoW detachment.
Xenomancers wrote:
Gadzilla666 wrote: Echoing Yukishiro1: Everyone here seems to agree that Raiders are underpriced (and most seem to agree by how much), so what are we arguing about?
Because I don't think people agree how much. Open topped used to come with a negative...now it doesn't. Open topped is the main issue here combined with the invune. The DL is just icing as it is straight up better than a lascannon...and the codex came out at the beginning of the same edition.
You only disagree because you're comparing them to the currently overpriced Impuslor. Raiders need to go UP (but not by as much as you think), and Impulsors need to come DOWN.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Echoing Yukishiro1: Everyone here seems to agree that Raiders are underpriced (and most seem to agree by how much), so what are we arguing about?
Because I don't think people agree how much. Open topped used to come with a negative...now it doesn't. Open topped is the main issue here combined with the invune. The DL is just icing as it is straight up better than a lascannon...and the codex came out at the beginning of the same edition.
Yeah before DE no one played the Ghost Ark and after DE no one still will, so taking DE out of the meta means nothing to the Ghost Ark which tells me that the Ghost ark is over costed not necessarily the Raider under costed.
Edit: Grammar
I am not sure I am understanding your line of argument here. Because other armies stuff is overcosted it is okey for DE stuff to be over costed and better, because the weaker armies don't get played?
The Argument is IMO the Raider actually is fine and its most other transports that are not, no one has been using them for a reason, so instead of crying "OMG a useful transport we must nerf it" maybe look at the gakky ones no one uses and ask "Wait why are my transport so crappy?"
Also its DT that makes Raiders feel strong, outside of DT the Raider does the same thing they always have been for 23yrs, rush up, shoot once, and unload murdering melee units.
K - Youll have no problem with me bringing 95 point implusors then in our next game?
Me? Yes, 100%, I think its way over costed and bringing them opens up an entirely new playstyle that marines are not able to do right now effectively at all, b.c why take them when another squad is better. It gives you less boots on the ground but equal wounds and protection for less for a turn of huge movement. I also think Tauroxs and Primes are 10-15pts too much, Rhino are 10pts over, Ghost Arks 25-30pts over costed, Devilfish 10pts over, Trukks 10pts over, and some others.
PS: My favorite game in the history of all of 40k was 7th against White Scar when they got free Rhinos and filled them full of Tac marines with 2 specials, Disembark, shoot and getting a free re-embarkment back into the rhino. Good times, games are more fun with different levels of armor on the table.
Before this iteration of the Raider, *ALL* APC/IFVs were grossly overcosted. So much so that there's even a colloquialism for the phenomenon: Land Raider Syndrome.
The premium hybrid-transports have paid has been ridiculous, and absolutely should be rectified. The game would be much better off if more factions could viably field a mechanized infantry formation should the player choose to.
Were there tons of people in the meta playing mass S5/S6 firepower to justify this being the reason they're suddenly so good?
or was that basically nonexistent in favor of melta on everything, against which the change from T5-T6 is meaningless?
You could add 30pts to Raiders, if you really thought it made that big a difference, and that would probably go a long way to balancing the army along with removing the obviuos broken combos, but then you'd just have yet another siuation of super overtuned infantry with super overcosted transports. It'd be no different than the situation with intercessors/necron warriors/orks/ whatever else throughout 8th - people would just spam the infantry unit and never bother with the transport if a raider was bumped up 40% in point cost.
In theory it's easier for many armies to readjust to DE if their S5 and S6 guns each move up a breakpoint against Raiders. Heavy Bolters, Assault Cannons and a dozen other weapons across the game become more viable against them.
And 115 points would not be super overcosted or anywhere near it.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Echoing Yukishiro1: Everyone here seems to agree that Raiders are underpriced (and most seem to agree by how much), so what are we arguing about?
Because I don't think people agree how much. Open topped used to come with a negative...now it doesn't. Open topped is the main issue here combined with the invune. The DL is just icing as it is straight up better than a lascannon...and the codex came out at the beginning of the same edition.
Yeah before DE no one played the Ghost Ark and after DE no one still will, so taking DE out of the meta means nothing to the Ghost Ark which tells me that the Ghost ark is over costed not necessarily the Raider under costed.
Edit: Grammar
I am not sure I am understanding your line of argument here. Because other armies stuff is overcosted it is okey for DE stuff to be over costed and better, because the weaker armies don't get played?
The Argument is IMO the Raider actually is fine and its most other transports that are not, no one has been using them for a reason, so instead of crying "OMG a useful transport we must nerf it" maybe look at the gakky ones no one uses and ask "Wait why are my transport so crappy?"
Also its DT that makes Raiders feel strong, outside of DT the Raider does the same thing they always have been for 23yrs, rush up, shoot once, and unload murdering melee units.
K - Youll have no problem with me bringing 95 point implusors then in our next game?
Me? Yes, 100%, I think its way over costed and bringing them opens up an entirely new playstyle that marines are not able to do right now effectively at all, b.c why take them when another squad is better. It gives you less boots on the ground but equal wounds and protection for less for a turn of huge movement. I also think Tauroxs and Primes are 10-15pts too much, Rhino are 10pts over, Ghost Arks 25-30pts over costed, Devilfish 10pts over, Trukks 10pts over, and some others.
PS: My favorite game in the history of all of 40k was 7th against White Scar when they got free Rhinos and filled them full of Tac marines with 2 specials, Disembark, shoot and getting a free re-embarkment back into the rhino. Good times, games are more fun with different levels of armor on the table.
Well then that is the answer. Not much point playing the game if everyone knows the rules are unfair. Be adults - discuss what needs to change. Institute the change. GW has proven again and again to suck at making rules. Who cares if it is house rules? You will be having more fun - you might even get a following if enough people start doing it.
The issue with gladius is it was a marine horde. It worked. The army should play more like custodians and less like AM though.
Were there tons of people in the meta playing mass S5/S6 firepower to justify this being the reason they're suddenly so good?
or was that basically nonexistent in favor of melta on everything, against which the change from T5-T6 is meaningless?
You could add 30pts to Raiders, if you really thought it made that big a difference, and that would probably go a long way to balancing the army along with removing the obviuos broken combos, but then you'd just have yet another siuation of super overtuned infantry with super overcosted transports. It'd be no different than the situation with intercessors/necron warriors/orks/ whatever else throughout 8th - people would just spam the infantry unit and never bother with the transport if a raider was bumped up 40% in point cost.
In theory it's easier for many armies to readjust to DE if their S5 and S6 guns each move up a breakpoint against Raiders. Heavy Bolters, Assault Cannons and a dozen other weapons across the game become more viable against them.
And 115 points would not be super overcosted or anywhere near it.
In your eyes, a 33% increase in durability against specifically S5 and S6 weaponry (doubt people were shooting many lasguns at raiders), an increase in transport capacity by 1, and an increase in firepower against 4+ wound targets by 35% is worth an increase in overall cost by 40%?
I guess I disagree, particularly given that previously, and I'm pretty certain I have noted this before in this thread, you used to be able to give Raiders a 6+ fnp by sticking them in Black Heart, meaning they got less durable against S4, S7, S8 and S9 weapons with the update.
I do not think a Dark Lance is only a 15pt gun on a vehicle target. The difference between a Raider and a Ravager should not be 25 points when a ravager is literally the same thing with 2 additional dark lances.
Were there tons of people in the meta playing mass S5/S6 firepower to justify this being the reason they're suddenly so good?
or was that basically nonexistent in favor of melta on everything, against which the change from T5-T6 is meaningless?
You could add 30pts to Raiders, if you really thought it made that big a difference, and that would probably go a long way to balancing the army along with removing the obviuos broken combos, but then you'd just have yet another siuation of super overtuned infantry with super overcosted transports. It'd be no different than the situation with intercessors/necron warriors/orks/ whatever else throughout 8th - people would just spam the infantry unit and never bother with the transport if a raider was bumped up 40% in point cost.
In theory it's easier for many armies to readjust to DE if their S5 and S6 guns each move up a breakpoint against Raiders. Heavy Bolters, Assault Cannons and a dozen other weapons across the game become more viable against them.
And 115 points would not be super overcosted or anywhere near it.
In your eyes, a 33% increase in durability against specifically S5 and S6 weaponry (doubt people were shooting many lasguns at raiders), an increase in transport capacity by 1, and an increase in firepower against 4+ wound targets by 35% is worth an increase in overall cost by 40%?
I guess I disagree, particularly given that previously, and I'm pretty certain I have noted this before in this thread, you used to be able to give Raiders a 6+ fnp by sticking them in Black Heart, meaning they got less durable against S4, S7, S8 and S9 weapons with the update.
I do not think a Dark Lance is only a 15pt gun on a vehicle target. The difference between a Raider and a Ravager should not be 25 points when a ravager is literally the same thing with 2 additional dark lances.
115 would be on the high end of where they should be. 5 intercessors is 100 points...110 with a dessie...you realize 5 intercessors will never kill a raider in game right? So many units need fixes. I havnt seen a single ravager in 9th ed being played ether...I wonder why...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Amishprn86 wrote: Imagine with the Ravager was like the Falcon and Razorback that could transport 6 models and loses open top lol. I think it would break the community.
Falcon is very good currently. Probably the best unit CWE have access too atm. It doesn't have an invune though and it's transport ability is not that useful but you'll take it as it really doesn't pay for it. Imagine the wave serpant was open topped though...Pretty sure CWE would be a top army in that situation.
Xenomancers wrote: Falcon is very good currently. Probably the best unit CWE have access too atm. It doesn't have an invune though
What do we reckon's the over-under on Sprit Stones getting shifted to that away from a FNP?
Xenomancers wrote: Imagine the wave serpant was open topped though...Pretty sure CWE would be a top army in that situation.
...but what does the pipe dream of turning the WS into a hardier Ravager that can pack in 12 Dark Reapers have to do with the price of fish? It's a non sequitur.
In your eyes, a 33% increase in durability against specifically S5 and S6 weaponry (doubt people were shooting many lasguns at raiders), an increase in transport capacity by 1, and an increase in firepower against 4+ wound targets by 35% is worth an increase in overall cost by 40%?
I guess I disagree, particularly given that previously, and I'm pretty certain I have noted this before in this thread, you used to be able to give Raiders a 6+ fnp by sticking them in Black Heart, meaning they got less durable against S4, S7, S8 and S9 weapons with the update.
I do not think a Dark Lance is only a 15pt gun on a vehicle target. The difference between a Raider and a Ravager should not be 25 points when a ravager is literally the same thing with 2 additional dark lances.
You say that like it is trivial. It's not and the meta obviously agrees, as every DE player is taking a lot of them and other players are struggling with them specifically. The durability increase is also against S10 weapons, even if they are relatively rare. The more breakpoints that change as result of a toughness increase, the more valuable it is and 5 to 6 is a big one because of how many weapons it effects. If an Infantry unit that is T5 saw a jump to T6 I would expect a decent price jump, not 5 points for the entire squad. We have to remember that this mid strength tier catergory of weapons represents the largest in the game, I think?
An obvious unit comparison that has been brought up a lot is the Ghost Ark which is clearly overpriced at 145 points but, even a more reasonable 130 points is still over 50% more than a Raider. So yes, I do believe that the Raider in its current form is undercosted by a significant amount.
As I said it would not be hard for most factions in the game to adjust to a strong DE if their Heavy Bolters were wounding Raiders on 4's. We'd even see a a meta shift away from melta to something more balanced.
Or just up the price by more than a token amount. Either is fine.
Were there tons of people in the meta playing mass S5/S6 firepower to justify this being the reason they're suddenly so good?
or was that basically nonexistent in favor of melta on everything, against which the change from T5-T6 is meaningless?
You could add 30pts to Raiders, if you really thought it made that big a difference, and that would probably go a long way to balancing the army along with removing the obviuos broken combos, but then you'd just have yet another siuation of super overtuned infantry with super overcosted transports. It'd be no different than the situation with intercessors/necron warriors/orks/ whatever else throughout 8th - people would just spam the infantry unit and never bother with the transport if a raider was bumped up 40% in point cost.
In theory it's easier for many armies to readjust to DE if their S5 and S6 guns each move up a breakpoint against Raiders. Heavy Bolters, Assault Cannons and a dozen other weapons across the game become more viable against them.
And 115 points would not be super overcosted or anywhere near it.
Are you saying Raiders should take a 30 PPM nerf and be made more vulnerable to anti-infantry weapons? Or just one or the other? You'd also make them less durable against all the S10 floating around.
Were there tons of people in the meta playing mass S5/S6 firepower to justify this being the reason they're suddenly so good?
or was that basically nonexistent in favor of melta on everything, against which the change from T5-T6 is meaningless?
You could add 30pts to Raiders, if you really thought it made that big a difference, and that would probably go a long way to balancing the army along with removing the obviuos broken combos, but then you'd just have yet another siuation of super overtuned infantry with super overcosted transports. It'd be no different than the situation with intercessors/necron warriors/orks/ whatever else throughout 8th - people would just spam the infantry unit and never bother with the transport if a raider was bumped up 40% in point cost.
In theory it's easier for many armies to readjust to DE if their S5 and S6 guns each move up a breakpoint against Raiders. Heavy Bolters, Assault Cannons and a dozen other weapons across the game become more viable against them.
And 115 points would not be super overcosted or anywhere near it.
Are you saying Raiders should take a 30 PPM nerf and be made more vulnerable to anti-infantry weapons? Or just one or the other? You'd also make them less durable against all the S10 floating around.
I'm saying it is currently worth between 100 and 115 to be in the playable range. I have no issue with it's stats. It just needs to pay proper points.
Xenomancers wrote: Falcon is very good currently. Probably the best unit CWE have access too atm. It doesn't have an invune though
What do we reckon's the over-under on Sprit Stones getting shifted to that away from a FNP?
Xenomancers wrote: Imagine the wave serpant was open topped though...Pretty sure CWE would be a top army in that situation.
...but what does the pipe dream of turning the WS into a hardier Ravager that can pack in 12 Dark Reapers have to do with the price of fish? It's a non sequitur.
I was merely demonstrating the power of open topped. It is not trivial at all. It probably should represent at least 20-30% increase in cost to a comparable unit that isn't open topped.
FNP is better than an invune in some situations but a 5++ I would say is probably worth double to a 6+++ on a vehicle. It is possible they will just change spirit stones to be 5++ saves but I kinda like them with 6+ FNP. My ulthwe would really appreciate a 5++ on those serpents though . I doubt they will make the change. Personally I think spirt stones should function more like ork ramshackle and reduce damage to 1 on a 6.
If Raiders were raised to 120 points *AND THAT WAS IT* then okay, lets see how that works.
The concern is we get 120 point raiders and 20 point Incubi and 12 point Wyches and DT is just removed and Competitive Edge is just removed while Drazar/Archon/Succubus all go up 30 points. etc etc etc.
Basically a current DE army is moved from 2000 points to 2500 points and actively made worse at the same time. And sorry - they don't need nerfs anywhere like that.
Cynista wrote: It should never have been only 85 points in the first place.
As I did point out before: at current price, ghost arks are more durable for the points than raiders, even disregarding the fact that ghost arks regenerate, resurrect nearby models, and dont go from 5++ to 6++ in melee.
The reason Raiders are seen as a problem and Ghost Arks are seen as UP is THE MODELS INSIDE.
Cynista wrote: It should never have been only 85 points in the first place.
As I did point out before: at current price, ghost arks are more durable for the points than raiders, even disregarding the fact that ghost arks regenerate, resurrect nearby models, and dont go from 5++ to 6++ in melee.
The reason Raiders are seen as a problem and Ghost Arks are seen as UP is THE MODELS INSIDE.
Yea, I'm pretty sure putting them at 120 would break the army. That's an extra 210 points for the standard build -- 720 points in total. People are indeed focusing on raiders too much.
Cynista wrote: It should never have been only 85 points in the first place.
As I did point out before: at current price, ghost arks are more durable for the points than raiders, even disregarding the fact that ghost arks regenerate, resurrect nearby models, and dont go from 5++ to 6++ in melee.
The reason Raiders are seen as a problem and Ghost Arks are seen as UP is THE MODELS INSIDE.
No it isn't, but you're entitled to your opinion.
Ghost Arks are currently 60 points more than Raiders, you would expect them to be somewhat more durable. Importantly, they are not open topped. I'd rather have a Dark Lance than a Flayer array but that is a preference. A difference of 20 points looks infinitely more balanced and since the Ghost Ark would probably be undercosted itself much below 130....... you have your answer
Cynista wrote: It should never have been only 85 points in the first place.
As I did point out before: at current price, ghost arks are more durable for the points than raiders, even disregarding the fact that ghost arks regenerate, resurrect nearby models, and dont go from 5++ to 6++ in melee.
The reason Raiders are seen as a problem and Ghost Arks are seen as UP is THE MODELS INSIDE.
No it isn't, but you're entitled to your opinion.
Ghost Arks are currently 60 points more than Raiders, you would expect them to be somewhat more durable. Importantly, they are not open topped. I'd rather have a Dark Lance than a Flayer array but that is a preference. A difference of 20 points looks infinitely more balanced and since the Ghost Ark would probably be undercosted itself much below 130....... you have your answer
A DL does on average a wound to an ark. But obviously it would be one shot through for 5 damage once a game. The Ark does .7 to 1.5 to a Raider.
A nonsensical scenario, but there it is. Then the Ark brings back 26 points a turn. If you presume it resurrects once then the Ark and Raider are only 34 points apart for healing, 3+, and 4 wounds.
I take an Ark in place of a Technomancer, because when the Warriors get low I can rez them and stuff them inside to ship them off elsewhere. The utility is quite large. I basically get a technomancer and then a durable transport for an extra 65 points.
Youre not getting it. Im saying that, right now, shooting a lascannon, melta, autocannon, bolter, missile launcher, any weapon youd care to name at a Raider removes more points from the board than if you shot the same gun at a ghost ark. It is not more durable in general, it's nearly twice as durable for roughly 1.5x the cost.
Youre making the argument that raiders durability is somehow a problem, yet a whole class of much MUCH more durable vehicles, which are durable in exactly the same way, are in no way problematic.
Awww, you can only wound a raider on 4s with a s6 weapon? Same with a necron vehicle. You can also only wound a necron vehicle on 4s with a S7, S8, S9 or S12 weapon.
Your preference for having 1 S8 ap-4 d3+3 shot rather than 20 s4 ap-1 d1 shots is also pretty funny, because they happen to do the same exact damage to a rhino. Cant wipe a MEQ or GEQ squad with a dark lance though.
A DL does on average a wound to an ark. But obviously it would be one shot through for 5 damage once a game. The Ark does .7 to 1.5 to a Raider.
A nonsensical scenario, but there it is. Then the Ark brings back 26 points a turn. If you presume it resurrects once then the Ark and Raider are only 34 points apart for healing, 3+, and 4 wounds.
I take an Ark in place of a Technomancer, because when the Warriors get low I can rez them and stuff them inside to ship them off elsewhere. The utility is quite large. I basically get a technomancer and then a durable transport for an extra 65 points.
You have to factor in Open Topped as well. More than anything else, let the meta do the talking. Nobody takes Ghost Arks outside weird move blocking builds. This is just one comparison as well, Raiders compare extremely favourably to every other transport in the game
No, you're not getting it. Raider's durability isn't a problem, the durablity for the points cost is. That would still be an issue at 95 points and no amount of 5000 word essays will change that - and I won't read them
Cynista wrote: It should never have been only 85 points in the first place.
As I did point out before: at current price, ghost arks are more durable for the points than raiders, even disregarding the fact that ghost arks regenerate, resurrect nearby models, and dont go from 5++ to 6++ in melee.
The reason Raiders are seen as a problem and Ghost Arks are seen as UP is THE MODELS INSIDE.
No it isn't, but you're entitled to your opinion.
Ghost Arks are currently 60 points more than Raiders, you would expect them to be somewhat more durable. Importantly, they are not open topped. I'd rather have a Dark Lance than a Flayer array but that is a preference. A difference of 20 points looks infinitely more balanced and since the Ghost Ark would probably be undercosted itself much below 130....... you have your answer
A LOT of those Raiders are carrying Wychs and Incubi. Open Topped doesn't do a lot for those (unless Splinter Pistols worry you). Fix DT and those Wracks get a lot less use from it too. Fix the broken stuff, kick DL Raiders to 95-100 PPM, then see what happens. I don't like the idea of slapping a 35% price hike on a unit in one fell swoop. I've had it happen, it isn't pleasant.
Raiders might well need to go up more than 10-15 points, but that seems like a good starting point. Raiders up 10-15, DT fixed to either not work with auto-hitting weapons or make them lose auto-hitting when you overcharge them, Stupid Succubus nerfed...that might be enough, it might not be, but it'd be a lot better to do that yesterday than to wait 3 months then suddenly nerf the faction into oblivion in one lazy stroke.
I've said many times in this thread that I wouldn't nerf anything outside of the broken interactions mentioned above. And what's more I don't think I'd hike the points for any other units apart from the Raider, because I think that would fundamentally fix the problem alone. I'm certainly not supporting the idea of GSC type nerfs and points hikes.
Were there tons of people in the meta playing mass S5/S6 firepower to justify this being the reason they're suddenly so good?
or was that basically nonexistent in favor of melta on everything, against which the change from T5-T6 is meaningless?
You could add 30pts to Raiders, if you really thought it made that big a difference, and that would probably go a long way to balancing the army along with removing the obviuos broken combos, but then you'd just have yet another siuation of super overtuned infantry with super overcosted transports. It'd be no different than the situation with intercessors/necron warriors/orks/ whatever else throughout 8th - people would just spam the infantry unit and never bother with the transport if a raider was bumped up 40% in point cost.
In theory it's easier for many armies to readjust to DE if their S5 and S6 guns each move up a breakpoint against Raiders. Heavy Bolters, Assault Cannons and a dozen other weapons across the game become more viable against them.
And 115 points would not be super overcosted or anywhere near it.
Are you saying Raiders should take a 30 PPM nerf and be made more vulnerable to anti-infantry weapons? Or just one or the other? You'd also make them less durable against all the S10 floating around.
I'm saying it is currently worth between 100 and 115 to be in the playable range. I have no issue with it's stats. It just needs to pay proper points.
Xenomancers wrote: Falcon is very good currently. Probably the best unit CWE have access too atm. It doesn't have an invune though
What do we reckon's the over-under on Sprit Stones getting shifted to that away from a FNP?
Xenomancers wrote: Imagine the wave serpant was open topped though...Pretty sure CWE would be a top army in that situation.
...but what does the pipe dream of turning the WS into a hardier Ravager that can pack in 12 Dark Reapers have to do with the price of fish? It's a non sequitur.
I was merely demonstrating the power of open topped. It is not trivial at all. It probably should represent at least 20-30% increase in cost to a comparable unit that isn't open topped.
FNP is better than an invune in some situations but a 5++ I would say is probably worth double to a 6+++ on a vehicle. It is possible they will just change spirit stones to be 5++ saves but I kinda like them with 6+ FNP. My ulthwe would really appreciate a 5++ on those serpents though . I doubt they will make the change. Personally I think spirt stones should function more like ork ramshackle and reduce damage to 1 on a 6.
The value of open topped depends on the units eligible to be transported. DE have no transportable equivalent to Fire Dragons or Dark Reapers, so the comparison is pretty off, no?
There's no way that at the minute a Disintegrator is worth more than a Dark Lance, but check out those lists - the fat that will be trimmed is the "maybe CP a Phantasm" or "do I use the Comorragh Drift this turn" options first and foremost as they're nice but not a regular feature.
Cynista wrote: It should never have been only 85 points in the first place.
As I did point out before: at current price, ghost arks are more durable for the points than raiders, even disregarding the fact that ghost arks regenerate, resurrect nearby models, and dont go from 5++ to 6++ in melee.
The reason Raiders are seen as a problem and Ghost Arks are seen as UP is THE MODELS INSIDE.
So I think we're edging closer to the root problem. Most people in this thread agree that there's no point in taking empty Raiders, but everyone seems to agree that Raiders are really good for what they do (which is the job of a transport as the average person would expect--faster movement than on foot and a safer delivery method).
So, really, it comes down to the units inside the Raider that most people are tipping on. I think we can all agree that it's disingenuous to say that every unit combination with a raider is OP or overtuned.
Personally, I'm not too scared of a fully kitted out kabalite or even your base wyches in a raider. They'll hurt but not much more than other units, like Mortifiers, heavy weapon squads, repentia, etc. They'll rarely be able to guarantee a kill unless they're shooting at a five wound squad. Same with wracks.
Incubi and certain combos that GW should probably take a closer look at (DT wracks, certain succubus builds, etc.) though, I've resigned myself that if they get properly delivered, they'll murder whatever they target, which should be something of either greater points value or a high priority target.
But at the end of the day, cracking the transport is the hard part. Once out in the open, just about every Drukhari infantry will get neutered by even your average bolter fire. However, flat nerfing the raiders seems like a heavy handed approach which may encourage players to lean more heavily into 'broken' builds.
I'm probably misremembering this, but wasn't there an edition of 40k where units transported in an Open-Topped vehicle could take damage from certain shooting attacks? I doubt GW would be willing to drastically patch a BRB rule like that, but if the power imbalance comes from the transportees...
(edit: I would expect that the BRB rule be patched rather than just Dark Eldar transports out of an overabundance of fairness - it might be gross for units that weren't all that broken to have to abide by it, but I just don't think it would be right to hit just Dark Eldar with that nerf and it'd be better to future proof it against upcoming codices that might end up having similar issues with their transports)
Amishprn86 wrote: When I play 2-3 Patrols I have to take 2 Wych ones b.c I want to have Hellions, Reavers, and Beasts, that means no matter what my next patrol is heavily limited or I have to add in Kabal into a Wych or Coven detachment and that Kabal units doesn't get any Obsessions so I either take my Archon and Court with obsessions or I take my Coven with Obsessions, its a hard option for me. So having +2CP feels more like a DE sneaking compensation strategy that Vect would do.
No, that's complete gak. You realise that if Chaos Daemons want to take a couple of Khorne units in a Nurgle Detachment they don't get +2 CP and they lose their chapter tactic on both the Nurgle AND the Khorne units in the Detachment right?
You're playing a completely busted army, just god damn acknowledge that you like it being busted instead of that gak about it feeling good to get free dessert because you ate your brocolli while every other army in the game is eating rock bread, making an army should not be a picnic, you should have to make hard decisions. Aeldari soup being good is nice, but they haven't put up the same numbers of GT top 4s have they?
Also its DT that makes Raiders feel strong, outside of DT the Raider does the same thing they always have been for 23yrs, rush up, shoot once, and unload murdering melee units.
Except Raiders used to be 3,5 damage on average instead of 5 and T5 instead of T6.
waefre_1 wrote: I'm probably misremembering this, but wasn't there an edition of 40k where units transported in an Open-Topped vehicle could take damage from certain shooting attacks?
Flamers gave D3 (or maybe D6 hits) to the guys inside the transport.
We still have the court as a potential problem as it featured quite heavily.
I also don't think they intended the extra transport capacity to let grots in over characters.
Rule of unintended consequences.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
waefre_1 wrote: I'm probably misremembering this, but wasn't there an edition of 40k where units transported in an Open-Topped vehicle could take damage from certain shooting attacks? I doubt GW would be willing to drastically patch a BRB rule like that, but if the power imbalance comes from the transportees...
waefre_1 wrote: I'm probably misremembering this, but wasn't there an edition of 40k where units transported in an Open-Topped vehicle could take damage from certain shooting attacks? I doubt GW would be willing to drastically patch a BRB rule like that, but if the power imbalance comes from the transportees...
(edit: I would expect that the BRB rule be patched rather than just Dark Eldar transports out of an overabundance of fairness - it might be gross for units that weren't all that broken to have to abide by it, but I just don't think it would be right to hit just Dark Eldar with that nerf and it'd be better to future proof it against upcoming codices that might end up having similar issues with their transports)
I believe you are right yes. But I think it was specifically when using flamer template weapons, and it was one of the early times when you got D6 or D3 hits on a unit inside the OT transport. Probably around 5 or 6th edition if i'm remembering correctly.
It was template weapons, though quite honestly it should've applied to Blast Weapons as well (just an opinion, since Open Topped vehicles were the best ones and had no drawbacks).
What we need is Open Topped Ghost Arks again and firing points back. There's no point in getting the transports that are expensive when it takes away firepower from an army to begin with. Not that Guard have many units they would want to transport but at least Chimeras get SOME Lasgun shots from embarked models.
Matt.Kingsley wrote: Open-topped Vehicles also modified the vehicle damage roll, so they could be destroyed in a single shot more easily or lose more functionality.
Which really wasn't a downside because you were looking to glance vehicles to death for the most part.
Matt.Kingsley wrote: Open-topped Vehicles also modified the vehicle damage roll, so they could be destroyed in a single shot more easily or lose more functionality.
Which really wasn't a downside because you were looking to glance vehicles to death for the most part.
In 6th and 7th, sure. Not in 5th or earlier though, unless you were killing it through imobilised and wqeapon destroyed results (which Open-topped helped you get AND also let you have a chance of getting a Wrecked result).
Matt.Kingsley wrote: Open-topped Vehicles also modified the vehicle damage roll, so they could be destroyed in a single shot more easily or lose more functionality.
Which really wasn't a downside because you were looking to glance vehicles to death for the most part.
In 6th and 7th, sure.
Not in 5th or earlier though.
Absolutely though, especially as one that started the game in 3rd/4th with Necrons. Immobile vehicles were pretty useless.
Yeah, this is a great idea. To get at specifically dark tech flamer builds, we should nerf trukk boyz and genestealer cults too! Itd be great if we could nerf the actual problem, but at least it wouldnt impact any space marine armies.
the_scotsman wrote: Yeah, this is a great idea. To get at specifically dark tech flamer builds, we should nerf trukk boyz and genestealer cults too! Itd be great if we could nerf the actual problem, but at least it wouldnt impact any space marine armies.
I heard flamers in open-topped transports were OP, when are we nerfing Burna Boys
the_scotsman wrote: Yeah, this is a great idea. To get at specifically dark tech flamer builds, we should nerf trukk boyz and genestealer cults too! Itd be great if we could nerf the actual problem, but at least it wouldnt impact any space marine armies.
it is what GW always have done. 5 tyrants and spammed cmds are a problem, lets put in rule of 3 for everyone. Ultramarines getting too much out of their re-rolls with Gullimans, the fix to it is to rise the point costs of all vehicles, even for armies that don't get re-rolls.
The main drawback to Open-Topped used to be +1 on the vehicle damage table. All open topped transports save one (battlewagon) are T5 or T6, all closed-topped transports are T7 or T8. Putting a roof on a battlewagon removes Open Topped and adds +1 Toughness.
Seems to me like in the edition they removed universal special rules, they worked in the drawback to open topped in a manner that avoids universal special rules.
This is like arguing that space marines no longer have their power armor represented because it doesnt say "Power Armor" anywhere on their datasheet.
just for curiosity, is this thread longer or shorter than the "Nerf IHs" thread we started back in late 8th, or the Nerf Castellan thread? It feels like this one is not going away any time soon, and I remember the knights one was about 20-30 pages.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: just for curiosity, is this thread longer or shorter than the "Nerf IHs" thread we started back in late 8th, or the Nerf Castellan thread? It feels like this one is not going away any time soon, and I remember the knights one was about 20-30 pages.
nobody gets mad when a xenos army is op they just hate on space marines shushhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: just for curiosity, is this thread longer or shorter than the "Nerf IHs" thread we started back in late 8th, or the Nerf Castellan thread? It feels like this one is not going away any time soon, and I remember the knights one was about 20-30 pages.
Tomorrow of the goons at Goonhammer is writing an article on suggested rulechanges (or point changes) for drukhari. We will have that to discuss in this thread
Perhaps we can thus get it to 35 pages, preferably without adding discussions about old edition rules and other offtopic (though interesting for veteran players like me) content ?
Flamers hitting guys inside open top was a rule in 6th and it ruined open top vehicles, they became 100% unplayable. After playing DE in 6th with that rule I'll never play anyone again with flamers if that rule comes back.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: just for curiosity, is this thread longer or shorter than the "Nerf IHs" thread we started back in late 8th, or the Nerf Castellan thread? It feels like this one is not going away any time soon, and I remember the knights one was about 20-30 pages.
Tomorrow of the goons at Goonhammer is writing an article on suggested rulechanges (or point changes) for drukhari. We will have that to discuss in this thread
Perhaps we can thus get it to 35 pages, preferably without adding discussions about old edition rules and other offtopic (though interesting for veteran players like me) content ?
Its easy, remove DT, fix Comp edge, +1CP to fly-fy, and raise courts +2pts each model.
admittedly +15pts to raider, +5pts to dark lance, -5pts to disintegrator would be a quick-fix points nerf that would probably balance out pretty much all variants of competitive lists. not necessarily TOTALLY fair to the raider, but if you're going to do a knee-jerk nerf it's a better idea than trying to make a snap judgement on which exact units need point hikes and how perfectly to do that to prevent whackamole syndrome.
Removing Blade Artists and +2CP from patrols would be in my first round of nerfs, just like removing Bolter Discipline and the whole 'go ahead, take Successor Chapters without giving anything up in exchange!' would have been in my first round of nerfs for space marines. stupid, extraneous special rules that make the army less fun to play as and against, aren't really necessary, and are super difficult to track in terms of how much power they are adding to the army, BEFORE you go and kneecap random units points or abilities.
But GW gonna GW and they love leaving the seven-layer dip of nonsensical special rules while making the core units' stats worse and worse and worse.
My round one nerf list would be:
-remove +2cp
-remove Blade Artists
-rework compedge to not interact with razorflails (just change to 'attack rolls' from 'attacks)
-remove or basically remove dark tech (make only +1 to wound, make MWs trigger off wound rolls of 1, and make it no longer All-Consuming would be my nerf)
Watch competitive lists for another month, if Drukhari are still above 55% after, add in Raider point nerf (+20pts to DL raider +10pts to Dissie raider) to shave ~100pts off of competitive builds.
the_scotsman wrote: admittedly +15pts to raider, +5pts to dark lance, -5pts to disintegrator would be a quick-fix points nerf that would probably balance out pretty much all variants of competitive lists. not necessarily TOTALLY fair to the raider, but if you're going to do a knee-jerk nerf it's a better idea than trying to make a snap judgement on which exact units need point hikes and how perfectly to do that to prevent whackamole syndrome.
Removing Blade Artists and +2CP from patrols would be in my first round of nerfs, just like removing Bolter Discipline and the whole 'go ahead, take Successor Chapters without giving anything up in exchange!' would have been in my first round of nerfs for space marines. stupid, extraneous special rules that make the army less fun to play as and against, aren't really necessary, and are super difficult to track in terms of how much power they are adding to the army, BEFORE you go and kneecap random units points or abilities.
But GW gonna GW and they love leaving the seven-layer dip of nonsensical special rules while making the core units' stats worse and worse and worse.
My round one nerf list would be:
-remove +2cp
-remove Blade Artists
-rework compedge to not interact with razorflails (just change to 'attack rolls' from 'attacks)
-remove or basically remove dark tech (make only +1 to wound, make MWs trigger off wound rolls of 1, and make it no longer All-Consuming would be my nerf)
Watch competitive lists for another month, if Drukhari are still above 55% after, add in Raider point nerf (+20pts to DL raider +10pts to Dissie raider) to shave ~100pts off of competitive builds.
Yeah, this is where I am, though I'd also add some nerf to the Archon Court (maybe specifically nuking them from eligibility for WWSWF). I think the Raider needs to go up, sorry Amish. But otherwise I wouldn't go crazy with the nerfs at this stage.
the_scotsman wrote: admittedly +15pts to raider, +5pts to dark lance, -5pts to disintegrator would be a quick-fix points nerf that would probably balance out pretty much all variants of competitive lists. not necessarily TOTALLY fair to the raider, but if you're going to do a knee-jerk nerf it's a better idea than trying to make a snap judgement on which exact units need point hikes and how perfectly to do that to prevent whackamole syndrome.
Removing Blade Artists and +2CP from patrols would be in my first round of nerfs, just like removing Bolter Discipline and the whole 'go ahead, take Successor Chapters without giving anything up in exchange!' would have been in my first round of nerfs for space marines. stupid, extraneous special rules that make the army less fun to play as and against, aren't really necessary, and are super difficult to track in terms of how much power they are adding to the army, BEFORE you go and kneecap random units points or abilities.
But GW gonna GW and they love leaving the seven-layer dip of nonsensical special rules while making the core units' stats worse and worse and worse.
My round one nerf list would be:
-remove +2cp
-remove Blade Artists
-rework compedge to not interact with razorflails (just change to 'attack rolls' from 'attacks)
-remove or basically remove dark tech (make only +1 to wound, make MWs trigger off wound rolls of 1, and make it no longer All-Consuming would be my nerf)
Watch competitive lists for another month, if Drukhari are still above 55% after, add in Raider point nerf (+20pts to DL raider +10pts to Dissie raider) to shave ~100pts off of competitive builds.
WTF why remove Blade Artists? Its on the datasheets and its extremely minor, thats basically rewriting all the datasheets and a stupid knee jerk with no taught at all. Why should Marines get -1AP in shooting and melee for full turns on full weapons when we get it 1/6 the time only in melee, how silly.
PS, old DE still took 3 patrols and gain +D3 CP from the Haemonculus, so that has not change, its funny how everyone hate it now when its been like that for a very long time.
the_scotsman wrote: Yeah, this is a great idea. To get at specifically dark tech flamer builds, we should nerf trukk boyz and genestealer cults too! Itd be great if we could nerf the actual problem, but at least it wouldnt impact any space marine armies.
it is what GW always have done. 5 tyrants and spammed cmds are a problem, lets put in rule of 3 for everyone. Ultramarines getting too much out of their re-rolls with Gullimans, the fix to it is to rise the point costs of all vehicles, even for armies that don't get re-rolls.
You're oversimplifying.
In any case I played GK last night.
I would up losing 10 wounds from 3 psilencer wounds. It's impressive to get whalloped by 6 shot guns doing 2 to 4 damage.
Blade Artists is going nowhere, GW currently has a hard-on for such army wide rules.
I've seen many calls for it's removal, and they seem to hinge not on it's amazing effectiveness (cos it ain't powerful) but that it doesn't tickle some people's g-spot as 'thematic'
the_scotsman wrote: Yeah, this is a great idea. To get at specifically dark tech flamer builds, we should nerf trukk boyz and genestealer cults too! Itd be great if we could nerf the actual problem, but at least it wouldnt impact any space marine armies.
it is what GW always have done. 5 tyrants and spammed cmds are a problem, lets put in rule of 3 for everyone. Ultramarines getting too much out of their re-rolls with Gullimans, the fix to it is to rise the point costs of all vehicles, even for armies that don't get re-rolls.
You're oversimplifying.
In any case I played GK last night.
I would up losing 10 wounds from 3 psilencer wounds. It's impressive to get whalloped by 6 shot guns doing 2 to 4 damage.
They seem potentially well equipped to punch DE.
So what more did the GK do (in terms of putting up a fight) ? I was also thinking that their psy power astral aim was great to deal with hidden raiders, but aside from that I don't know.
What was the final score ? What did he have left (in terms of units alive) at the end of the game ?
harlokin wrote: Blade Artists is going nowhere, GW currently has a hard-on for such army wide rules.
I've seen many calls for it's removal, and they seem to hinge not on it's amazing effectiveness (cos it ain't powerful) but that it doesn't tickle some people's g-spot as 'thematic'
The typical argument used against blade artist is that it does too little for too much time wasted.
harlokin wrote: Blade Artists is going nowhere, GW currently has a hard-on for such army wide rules.
I've seen many calls for it's removal, and they seem to hinge not on it's amazing effectiveness (cos it ain't powerful) but that it doesn't tickle some people's g-spot as 'thematic'
The typical argument used against blade artist is that it does too little for too much time wasted.
Matt.Kingsley wrote: Open-topped Vehicles also modified the vehicle damage roll, so they could be destroyed in a single shot more easily or lose more functionality.
Which really wasn't a downside because you were looking to glance vehicles to death for the most part.
It was a downside.
Barrage and template weapons were the bane of opened top. It was a long time ago but I played GK against DE quite often. I can remember my tempest flamers on the dreadknights being a source of major fear as not only did they do a lot of damage to the vehicle they also fried some dudes inside. open topped only being a positive is a massive joke. It is a new problem from 8th and 9th. It has always had a negative.
Blade Artists feels like a rule which would have been cool circa 3rd edition to indicate that DE were the choppy/spiky Eldar faction - but I sort of feel fluffwise that ship has sailed and mechanically having to fish out the 6s to wound is kind of annoying.
Moreover it offers no tactical value. If you were hitting someone to potentially get those 6s to wound, you were always going to hit them anyway. I mean you could argue this is true of Combat Doctrines - but the super doctrine does sort of encourage build variation by chapter. Necrons may end up often following a script - but you can deviate if you want to.
the_scotsman wrote: admittedly +15pts to raider, +5pts to dark lance, -5pts to disintegrator would be a quick-fix points nerf that would probably balance out pretty much all variants of competitive lists. not necessarily TOTALLY fair to the raider, but if you're going to do a knee-jerk nerf it's a better idea than trying to make a snap judgement on which exact units need point hikes and how perfectly to do that to prevent whackamole syndrome.
Removing Blade Artists and +2CP from patrols would be in my first round of nerfs, just like removing Bolter Discipline and the whole 'go ahead, take Successor Chapters without giving anything up in exchange!' would have been in my first round of nerfs for space marines. stupid, extraneous special rules that make the army less fun to play as and against, aren't really necessary, and are super difficult to track in terms of how much power they are adding to the army, BEFORE you go and kneecap random units points or abilities.
But GW gonna GW and they love leaving the seven-layer dip of nonsensical special rules while making the core units' stats worse and worse and worse.
My round one nerf list would be:
-remove +2cp
-remove Blade Artists
-rework compedge to not interact with razorflails (just change to 'attack rolls' from 'attacks)
-remove or basically remove dark tech (make only +1 to wound, make MWs trigger off wound rolls of 1, and make it no longer All-Consuming would be my nerf)
Watch competitive lists for another month, if Drukhari are still above 55% after, add in Raider point nerf (+20pts to DL raider +10pts to Dissie raider) to shave ~100pts off of competitive builds.
WTF why remove Blade Artists? Its on the datasheets and its extremely minor, thats basically rewriting all the datasheets and a stupid knee jerk with no taught at all. Why should Marines get -1AP in shooting and melee for full turns on full weapons when we get it 1/6 the time only in melee, how silly.
PS, old DE still took 3 patrols and gain +D3 CP from the Haemonculus, so that has not change, its funny how everyone hate it now when its been like that for a very long time.
Because if you're looking to reduce the power of an army overall I would always rather start with blanket, army-wide rules that provide ambiguous power to various units than by whackamoling units, particularly if that rule was just added and is not established as a signature rule that is important to the faction's fluff. I would add a special rule to Bloodbrides giving them -3AP on natural wound rolls of 6. That's also why I'd be inclined to change army-wide abilities like DT before touching the units that interact with it - especially if every list is picking that one specific rule.
Like I said: back when marines were problematic, Bolter Drill would be the first rule I would consider removing. If Orks were overperforming using their melee units I'd consider altering 'ere we Go before altering Boyz or whatever.
I consider 'we need this rule because Other Army Gets Other Rule' to be an identical statement to Karol's wonderful spite-based worldview of 'other armies were nerfed in this stupid way so your army should be nerfed the same way.'
Agreed with the_scotsman. If certain units overperform then you nerf those units; if the whole army overperforms then look for things the whole army shares. Admittedly I'm not a DE player, but Blade Artists seems very secondary as an army-wide rule compared to Power From Pain, and less tied to their identity given that it just appeared.
I mean, they could just do a points cost pass and hike them all up 10%, but thanks to granularity and relative cost (base model vs wargear) issues, that's more difficult and more likely to have unintended consequences.
harlokin wrote: Blade Artists is going nowhere, GW currently has a hard-on for such army wide rules.
I've seen many calls for it's removal, and they seem to hinge not on it's amazing effectiveness (cos it ain't powerful) but that it doesn't tickle some people's g-spot as 'thematic'
The typical argument used against blade artist is that it does too little for too much time wasted.
And it is, i ignore it for the most part unless it might be important, i hate these types of rules honestly.
Daedalus81 wrote:63 to 70
He had WWSWF on 2 GMDKs and a 10 man that he kept move and shoot or safe with astral.
He blocked me from midboard scramblers and scored his with dynamic insertion. Made good use of gate to pressure.
If not for my screw ups I should have won with 90 points, but he was also restrained with two large squads so hard to say how it might have changed.
I should note lots of warding staves and 3++ saves and -1 to wound.
Thats pretty close and sounds like a good match, this is bringing back 5th memories (nightmares) with my DE when GK's got their new book lol.
He had WWSWF on 2 GMDKs and a 10 man that he kept move and shoot or safe with astral.
He blocked me from midboard scramblers and scored his with dynamic insertion. Made good use of gate to pressure.
If not for my screw ups I should have won with 90 points, but he was also restrained with two large squads so hard to say how it might have changed.
I should note lots of warding staves and 3++ saves and -1 to wound.
OK thanks, I didn't think of warding staves. I don't understant how kept the grand masters from dying though. For me they fold to dark lances and mass liquifier hits. Anyway it is good to read accounts of how an army can resist to Druk dominance (even if helped by a screw up).
He had WWSWF on 2 GMDKs and a 10 man that he kept move and shoot or safe with astral.
He blocked me from midboard scramblers and scored his with dynamic insertion. Made good use of gate to pressure.
If not for my screw ups I should have won with 90 points, but he was also restrained with two large squads so hard to say how it might have changed.
I should note lots of warding staves and 3++ saves and -1 to wound.
OK thanks, I didn't think of warding staves. I don't understant how kept the grand masters from dying though. For me they fold to dark lances and mass liquifier hits. Anyway it is good to read accounts of how an army can resist to Druk dominance (even if helped by a screw up).
You don't necessarily need to passive-aggressively indicate that a person playing against a strong army and winning only did so because the person playing the stronger army must have fethed up. I promise it will not have any impact on whether or not daddy GW nerfs the strong army or how hard.
harlokin wrote: Blade Artists is going nowhere, GW currently has a hard-on for such army wide rules.
I've seen many calls for it's removal, and they seem to hinge not on it's amazing effectiveness (cos it ain't powerful) but that it doesn't tickle some people's g-spot as 'thematic'
The typical argument used against blade artist is that it does too little for too much time wasted.
And that's why itd be one of the first things on the chopping block for me. Competitive de lists appear to be principally melee-focused, they are overperforming, and no drukhari player appears to particularly care about the rule. So cut it and see what happens before going after units that appear to be overperforming.
I also view the +2CP as something akin to the whole Successor Chapter issue - a bonus that no other army gets for no adequately explored reason and that every power-gamer is taking advantage of for obvious reasons. When certain chapters are strongest, they get instantly swapped out for whatever the best combination of two successor chapter traits is, for obvious reasons - literally every army in the game would adopt this practice if you could take custom traits and retain all the core faction bonus relics/bonus strats/bonus traits etc. Maybe its not contributing much to the overall dominance of the army. Maybe it is. I'd remove it before I start hitting individual units, were you to crown me "GW balance god."
If you wanted me to balance harlequins, step numero uno would be removing the 1cp strat that lets you double-dip on Pivotal Roles - all that does is increase the power of the army without it being any kind of core part of the harlequins' lore.
If you wanted me to balance sisters, the whole 'rites' bonus rule thing would be first to go. To whom is "+1 to advance and charge rolls army-wide" core to sisters' identity?
The only time I'd start by hitting individual units is if people were clearly and obviously spamming one particular unit to the exclusion of all others - which is why id put a raider nerf high up on my list of priorities. People seem to be taking a lot of them. Not the top of my list of priorities, but high up there. Start with the wonky stuff, cut that out, and then raiders would be second pass.
Tyel wrote: Blade Artists feels like a rule which would have been cool circa 3rd edition to indicate that DE were the choppy/spiky Eldar faction - but I sort of feel fluffwise that ship has sailed and mechanically having to fish out the 6s to wound is kind of annoying.
Moreover it offers no tactical value. If you were hitting someone to potentially get those 6s to wound, you were always going to hit them anyway. I mean you could argue this is true of Combat Doctrines - but the super doctrine does sort of encourage build variation by chapter. Necrons may end up often following a script - but you can deviate if you want to.
As a GSC player I find the complaints at blade artist fething hilarious. Like 90% of the GSC book (even non neo GEQ) is flat -1 ap and on a 6 to wound bounces all the way to -4 and nobody seems to care. But apparently the jump from -1 to -2 is suddenly a bridge to far?
EDIT: BTW not meaning to call you out specifically Tyel, you are just the most recent to touch on the general subject.
Well, if you check stats you will see that Renegade Knights have over 58% WR this year(were not affected at all of DGDA) and IK have over 48% WR, even through knights are considered garbage and less common less people are bringing anti-tank. Probably their plan is to outplay knights on points and having extra S5-S6 weapons to kill marines is better and bringing alot of expensive S8 weapons is not optimal because of transhuman.
I'm completely against removing army rules if that army overperforms, especially in the case of the DE dex which is really really really well done.
The codex for the most part is well balanced internally AND externally. It is really just a few interactions and maybe one undercosted model which are causing the W/L ratio skyrocketing. We all know which are the suspects, so I don't see why firing with a shotgun at the target when you can snipe it.
catbarf wrote: Agreed with the_scotsman. If certain units overperform then you nerf those units; if the whole army overperforms then look for things the whole army shares. Admittedly I'm not a DE player, but Blade Artists seems very secondary as an army-wide rule compared to Power From Pain, and less tied to their identity given that it just appeared.
I mean, they could just do a points cost pass and hike them all up 10%, but thanks to granularity and relative cost (base model vs wargear) issues, that's more difficult and more likely to have unintended consequences.
The main issues with 8th and now 9th are chapter tactics and their equivalent. I said this way back in the early days of the index and I stand by it now. You cannot possibly implement accurate points to a faction whos special rules are so different and have zero cost.
People are actually starting to look past the impact too. Take the dark lance for example, it was literal garbage 2 months ago and all they did were change two things.
1 was a nerf moving it from assault to heavy on vehicles.
The other was giving it flat min damage.
Now suddenly it's busted?
Heres a hint fellas, it's not, what is busted is a free trait that lets you reroll a single hit roll per unit. That's fething massive especially when the idiots at GW were supposed to be applying core in order to remove rerolling (usually only 1's BTW) from the game on transports and they managed to give totally free chapter master rerolls on every unit with a single shot anywhere on the table.
I would personally LOVE if easily accounted for rules like blade artist were added to every faction, but cult creeds, regimental doctrines etc etc were all completely removed. It would make the game so much cleaner and more easily balanced. But hey fellas, I am sure someone out their is going to try to convince me that Army wide obsec and a free pregame move is totally in line with and equal in value to +1 leadership and turn rapid fire 1 weapons into assault 1 when advancing lmao.
Drazhar and Archons have no business being on that list. Drazhar's inclusion is specifically to punish players bringing Court of the Archon for While We Stand We Fight. Nerfing one unit because another unit does something sneaky is the height of stupidity.
Likewise, neither Trueborn, nor their gatekeeping Archons are issues.
Seems like the "OP-ness" isn't really "x" unit at "y" price point imo.
It seems like Drukhari simply has a plethora of tools that are really geared towards maximizing the mission objectives.
I'm not convinced that nerfing problematic units by simply raising the cost would change all that much. All that'll do is maybe make the army a little more one-dimensional.
Correct me if I wrong,please, but this army is a nuclear meta buster. At least from my point of view, most armies in 9th were very elite oriented.
The way to counter Drukhari, is either the weight of the dice in small arms or horde armies.
My old 8th edition Ork list with spammed mek gunz and several large blobs of orks and gretchin units. (yes, against DT liquifier list can nuke this list but you can still win if your screening game is good).
Take your tournament winning DE list.
Pick up a raider and a squad of Incubi and walk off. Then play the game.
You can say "well it will play about the same and all those units are still as good" - but the loss of those units will be noticeable, and the win rate will go down accordingly.
Take your tournament winning DE list.
Pick up a raider and a squad of Incubi and walk off. Then play the game.
You can say "well it will play about the same and all those units are still as good" - but the loss of those units will be noticeable, and the win rate will go down accordingly.
You still have the General's knowledge.
You still have the General's opponent's knowledge.
I doubt just dropping a raider and a squad of Incubi is going to affect the outcome in recent tournament winners as much.
FWIW though, the suggestion in that latest Goonhammer to fix Druhari I really don't have a problem with. I'm just not that convinced that it's going to change all that much. (to be fair, I really like his DT's suggestion to fix the liquifier).
catbarf wrote: Agreed with the_scotsman. If certain units overperform then you nerf those units; if the whole army overperforms then look for things the whole army shares. Admittedly I'm not a DE player, but Blade Artists seems very secondary as an army-wide rule compared to Power From Pain, and less tied to their identity given that it just appeared.
I mean, they could just do a points cost pass and hike them all up 10%, but thanks to granularity and relative cost (base model vs wargear) issues, that's more difficult and more likely to have unintended consequences.
The main issues with 8th and now 9th are chapter tactics and their equivalent. I said this way back in the early days of the index and I stand by it now. You cannot possibly implement accurate points to a faction whos special rules are so different and have zero cost.
People are actually starting to look past the impact too. Take the dark lance for example, it was literal garbage 2 months ago and all they did were change two things.
1 was a nerf moving it from assault to heavy on vehicles.
The other was giving it flat min damage.
Now suddenly it's busted?
Heres a hint fellas, it's not, what is busted is a free trait that lets you reroll a single hit roll per unit. That's fething massive especially when the idiots at GW were supposed to be applying core in order to remove rerolling (usually only 1's BTW) from the game on transports and they managed to give totally free chapter master rerolls on every unit with a single shot anywhere on the table.
I would personally LOVE if easily accounted for rules like blade artist were added to every faction, but cult creeds, regimental doctrines etc etc were all completely removed. It would make the game so much cleaner and more easily balanced. But hey fellas, I am sure someone out their is going to try to convince me that Army wide obsec and a free pregame move is totally in line with and equal in value to +1 leadership and turn rapid fire 1 weapons into assault 1 when advancing lmao.
I would argue that increasing the average damage from 3.5 to 5 is a more significant change than making the hit roll go from .66 to .87.
Sterling191 wrote: Drazhar and Archons have no business being on that list. Drazhar's inclusion is specifically to punish players bringing Court of the Archon for While We Stand We Fight. Nerfing one unit because another unit does something sneaky is the height of stupidity.
Likewise, neither Trueborn, nor their gatekeeping Archons are issues.
Yea that guys tempered approach is good.
That said some of his arguments are terrible.
Raiders should go up 10-15 for sure but him starting off by suggesting their prevalence as the evidence is garbage. DE have always been a transport heavy faction. I've been playing them since 98 and even back then it was not uncommon to see 4-5 raiders. The only thing that changed that over the years was the venoms introduction, at which point you saw 6+ venoms.
I also have no idea why he sees the Master Archon as a problem lol. Again, just because it was popular at the top tables? I mean, you see fowl blight spawn or chief apothecaries in most lists too. That's competitive 40k for you.
I also don't really agree with his fix for Dark Tech, because it doesn't actually do anything meaningful. Your still guaranteed 3 rounds of fire (with at least 5 liquifiers) even if you failed every shrug. Just remove the +1 damage and allow it to combine with another trait.
catbarf wrote: Agreed with the_scotsman. If certain units overperform then you nerf those units; if the whole army overperforms then look for things the whole army shares. Admittedly I'm not a DE player, but Blade Artists seems very secondary as an army-wide rule compared to Power From Pain, and less tied to their identity given that it just appeared.
I mean, they could just do a points cost pass and hike them all up 10%, but thanks to granularity and relative cost (base model vs wargear) issues, that's more difficult and more likely to have unintended consequences.
The main issues with 8th and now 9th are chapter tactics and their equivalent. I said this way back in the early days of the index and I stand by it now. You cannot possibly implement accurate points to a faction whos special rules are so different and have zero cost.
People are actually starting to look past the impact too. Take the dark lance for example, it was literal garbage 2 months ago and all they did were change two things.
1 was a nerf moving it from assault to heavy on vehicles.
The other was giving it flat min damage.
Now suddenly it's busted?
Heres a hint fellas, it's not, what is busted is a free trait that lets you reroll a single hit roll per unit. That's fething massive especially when the idiots at GW were supposed to be applying core in order to remove rerolling (usually only 1's BTW) from the game on transports and they managed to give totally free chapter master rerolls on every unit with a single shot anywhere on the table.
I would personally LOVE if easily accounted for rules like blade artist were added to every faction, but cult creeds, regimental doctrines etc etc were all completely removed. It would make the game so much cleaner and more easily balanced. But hey fellas, I am sure someone out their is going to try to convince me that Army wide obsec and a free pregame move is totally in line with and equal in value to +1 leadership and turn rapid fire 1 weapons into assault 1 when advancing lmao.
I would argue that increasing the average damage from 3.5 to 5 is a more significant change than making the hit roll go from .66 to .87.
Ah but thats not the point is it?
The point is that one applies to every DE build that uses Dlances. that 20% increase in accuracy combines with the damage buff and only applies to black heart. Thats the problem.
I honestly don't know, I didnt track whether every single competitive de list used Black Heart, I thought several went for PT instead.
Of the top 10 finishers at Dallas, one went for PT, mostly for the redeploy (it was the Goonhammer guy IIRC). One went Obsidian Rose. The rest went for Black Heart.
The DT change isn't enough. DT should just only give the +1 to wound when used with auto-hitting weapons, that makes it still strong but not ridiculous any more.
The Drazhar change is quite clever, and has little impact on the actual points value of an army, but a significant impact on the army's ability to take safe WWSWF, so I think it's a great idea.
Sterling191 wrote: Drazhar and Archons have no business being on that list. Drazhar's inclusion is specifically to punish players bringing Court of the Archon for While We Stand We Fight. Nerfing one unit because another unit does something sneaky is the height of stupidity.
Likewise, neither Trueborn, nor their gatekeeping Archons are issues.
They propose the increases, because they dont want to hit the core infantry units, most of the people want to use.
The way they propose DT nerf is the only think i don`t really like, i`m not convinced paying 20 points for 2 ligifiers to kill single MEQ is worth it.
DT design was problematic since the release, it was just the best way to play shooting drukhari, who lacked reliable D2 and D3 weapons and keep the army afloat at the end of the edition.
I think DT should just not work with flamers and if people stop taking them, GW could always make them cheaper. The only issue is i`m not convince people will continue to play coven, since Talos and Grotesque are just bad.
Grotesque with this defensive stats 40 pts and bladeguard 35 pts? Hello GW ??? Helloo ?
Talos for 110 pts losing his defense and with the increase of damage, will probably stay garbage the edition, it just don`t have the wounds or the damage to be competitive.
yukishiro1 wrote: The DT change isn't enough. DT should just only give the +1 to wound when used with auto-hitting weapons, that makes it still strong but not ridiculous any more.
I'd still take it. But, I wouldn't make it all-consuming then.
catbarf wrote: Agreed with the_scotsman. If certain units overperform then you nerf those units; if the whole army overperforms then look for things the whole army shares. Admittedly I'm not a DE player, but Blade Artists seems very secondary as an army-wide rule compared to Power From Pain, and less tied to their identity given that it just appeared.
I mean, they could just do a points cost pass and hike them all up 10%, but thanks to granularity and relative cost (base model vs wargear) issues, that's more difficult and more likely to have unintended consequences.
The main issues with 8th and now 9th are chapter tactics and their equivalent. I said this way back in the early days of the index and I stand by it now. You cannot possibly implement accurate points to a faction whos special rules are so different and have zero cost.
People are actually starting to look past the impact too. Take the dark lance for example, it was literal garbage 2 months ago and all they did were change two things.
1 was a nerf moving it from assault to heavy on vehicles.
The other was giving it flat min damage.
Now suddenly it's busted?
Heres a hint fellas, it's not, what is busted is a free trait that lets you reroll a single hit roll per unit. That's fething massive especially when the idiots at GW were supposed to be applying core in order to remove rerolling (usually only 1's BTW) from the game on transports and they managed to give totally free chapter master rerolls on every unit with a single shot anywhere on the table.
I would personally LOVE if easily accounted for rules like blade artist were added to every faction, but cult creeds, regimental doctrines etc etc were all completely removed. It would make the game so much cleaner and more easily balanced. But hey fellas, I am sure someone out their is going to try to convince me that Army wide obsec and a free pregame move is totally in line with and equal in value to +1 leadership and turn rapid fire 1 weapons into assault 1 when advancing lmao.
I would argue that increasing the average damage from 3.5 to 5 is a more significant change than making the hit roll go from .66 to .87.
Well you are getting both. Black heart getting a free reroll be squad is huge. Obsidian getting a free reroll to wound per unit is also huge. It also works from inside the transort! Yet at the same time removed flayed skulls reroll 1s from inside the transport? WTF?
Im tellin yah - the stuff that is crushing tournaments is busted. Succubus relics and WL traits are silly. Drazar is just flat OP. Raiders costing to little is actually more of an issue for kabal focus armies which are being avoided because melee is better this eddition due to objective game. If it was about pure attrition in combat. Obsidian and DH raider boats spam is utterly insane.
yukishiro1 wrote: The DT change isn't enough. DT should just only give the +1 to wound when used with auto-hitting weapons, that makes it still strong but not ridiculous any more.
I'd still take it. But, I wouldn't make it all-consuming then.
It'd stay all-consuming, and stay +1W and +1D for weapons that don't auto hit. It'd still be powerful enough to be all-consuming IMO. You could just nerf the whole thing to +1 to W and make it not all consuming I guess, if that seemed like a better solution.
yukishiro1 wrote: The DT change isn't enough. DT should just only give the +1 to wound when used with auto-hitting weapons, that makes it still strong but not ridiculous any more.
I'd still take it. But, I wouldn't make it all-consuming then.
When you nerf something - you shouldn't also buff it at the same time. LOL.
catbarf wrote: Agreed with the_scotsman. If certain units overperform then you nerf those units; if the whole army overperforms then look for things the whole army shares. Admittedly I'm not a DE player, but Blade Artists seems very secondary as an army-wide rule compared to Power From Pain, and less tied to their identity given that it just appeared.
I mean, they could just do a points cost pass and hike them all up 10%, but thanks to granularity and relative cost (base model vs wargear) issues, that's more difficult and more likely to have unintended consequences.
The main issues with 8th and now 9th are chapter tactics and their equivalent. I said this way back in the early days of the index and I stand by it now. You cannot possibly implement accurate points to a faction whos special rules are so different and have zero cost.
People are actually starting to look past the impact too. Take the dark lance for example, it was literal garbage 2 months ago and all they did were change two things.
1 was a nerf moving it from assault to heavy on vehicles.
The other was giving it flat min damage.
Now suddenly it's busted?
Heres a hint fellas, it's not, what is busted is a free trait that lets you reroll a single hit roll per unit. That's fething massive especially when the idiots at GW were supposed to be applying core in order to remove rerolling (usually only 1's BTW) from the game on transports and they managed to give totally free chapter master rerolls on every unit with a single shot anywhere on the table.
I would personally LOVE if easily accounted for rules like blade artist were added to every faction, but cult creeds, regimental doctrines etc etc were all completely removed. It would make the game so much cleaner and more easily balanced. But hey fellas, I am sure someone out their is going to try to convince me that Army wide obsec and a free pregame move is totally in line with and equal in value to +1 leadership and turn rapid fire 1 weapons into assault 1 when advancing lmao.
You don't think changing the damage of a weapon from d6 to 3+d3 could make it OP?
You think 50% more average damage with half the standard deviation is nothing?
yukishiro1 wrote: The DT change isn't enough. DT should just only give the +1 to wound when used with auto-hitting weapons, that makes it still strong but not ridiculous any more.
I'd still take it. But, I wouldn't make it all-consuming then.
When you nerf something - you shouldn't also buff it at the same time. LOL.
Heh... but honestly the other non-all consuming custom obsession isn't all that.
Well...scratch that, there's one if I remember that ignores covers. Nevermind, that'd be stupid lol.
catbarf wrote: Agreed with the_scotsman. If certain units overperform then you nerf those units; if the whole army overperforms then look for things the whole army shares. Admittedly I'm not a DE player, but Blade Artists seems very secondary as an army-wide rule compared to Power From Pain, and less tied to their identity given that it just appeared.
I mean, they could just do a points cost pass and hike them all up 10%, but thanks to granularity and relative cost (base model vs wargear) issues, that's more difficult and more likely to have unintended consequences.
The main issues with 8th and now 9th are chapter tactics and their equivalent. I said this way back in the early days of the index and I stand by it now. You cannot possibly implement accurate points to a faction whos special rules are so different and have zero cost.
People are actually starting to look past the impact too. Take the dark lance for example, it was literal garbage 2 months ago and all they did were change two things.
1 was a nerf moving it from assault to heavy on vehicles.
The other was giving it flat min damage.
Now suddenly it's busted?
Heres a hint fellas, it's not, what is busted is a free trait that lets you reroll a single hit roll per unit. That's fething massive especially when the idiots at GW were supposed to be applying core in order to remove rerolling (usually only 1's BTW) from the game on transports and they managed to give totally free chapter master rerolls on every unit with a single shot anywhere on the table.
I would personally LOVE if easily accounted for rules like blade artist were added to every faction, but cult creeds, regimental doctrines etc etc were all completely removed. It would make the game so much cleaner and more easily balanced. But hey fellas, I am sure someone out their is going to try to convince me that Army wide obsec and a free pregame move is totally in line with and equal in value to +1 leadership and turn rapid fire 1 weapons into assault 1 when advancing lmao.
You don't think changing the damage of a weapon from d6 to 3+d3 could make it OP?
You think 50% more average damage with half the standard deviation is nothing?
Average is one way to look at it. Minimum is a really a lot more relevant though. Min 4 is VERY powerful. 1 shotting attack bikes...gravis...custodian teramintors...and 3 wounds autokilling 10/12 wound units is the key.
Ordana wrote: You don't think changing the damage of a weapon from d6 to 3+d3 could make it OP?
You think 50% more average damage with half the standard deviation is nothing?
It's definitely significant, I just wouldn't call it OP when Attack Bikes and Land Speeders with Multimeltas are a thing, or when Razorbacks mount TL Lascannons.
Tbh, I'd prefer Lascannons go to D3+3 damage.
I also wouldn't be surprised if Bright Lances got the same buff, in which case we're looking at Wave Serpents with two of those bad boys.
I definitely would not call it OP. Especially when it was considered worthless prior and the only change was the boost to min damage, plus a nerf from assault to heavy.
What takes it over the edge is when you start applying free re-rolls to hit from black heart or to wound from obsidian rose.
Re-rolls have been a plague on the game forever. Instead of cutting them out and removing them except on extremely rare units they continue to hand them out like candy. It's a cheap and easy way to generate excitement for a faction.
I'll reiterate that the hardest things to balance are auras and chapter traits. It's just impossible to price the way they have it set up.
I'd love to see Auras replaced by targeted abilities (like the chapter masters ability) them reign in the rerolls in the game making them rare and removing chapter traits and instead just giving factions benefits from taking certain detachments.
There is no way anyone can convince me that an obliterator from black legion and one from Iron Warriors should ever be the same price lol.
Or a dark lance from a Black heart raider as opposed to a flayed skull raider.
For some reason folks chose to look past that and act like applying point increases and even decreases will ever work when there are intangibles like that.
I'm not convinced that raiders are the problem either. However, there does seem to be an internal balance problem for DE. Yes they are a transport faction, but they have 2 transports and competitive lists are only spamming one of the two. If you increase the raider by 10 points my question would be does that help the internal balance of raider vs. venom? Is that enough of a points hike to make venoms viable?
I am not convinced by their DT fix. Covens come with fnps anyway, which makes them more resistant to mortal wounds anyway. I still think this comes down to internal balance. If you went with the goonhammer change, would you start to see any other coven show up in competitive lists? As long as there is really only 1 option the codex is poorly designed within itself.
RandomHeretic wrote: I'm not convinced that raiders are the problem either. However, there does seem to be an internal balance problem for DE. Yes they are a transport faction, but they have 2 transports and competitive lists are only spamming one of the two. If you increase the raider by 10 points my question would be does that help the internal balance of raider vs. venom? Is that enough of a points hike to make venoms viable?
Making a raider 95 points base doesnt make the 75 point base Venom any more attractive.
I'm of the idea that rules should be great, fun and fluffy.
If the unit ends up too strong (or too weak), the point cost is the lever to push/pull to balance it.
Not playing DE I have no idea if the current rules are "great, fun and fluffy", but the army as a whole is definitely on a broken level so it should be toned down.
45-55% win rate is the sweet spot, anyhting over or under that should be addressed.
Rihgu wrote: If you get first turn, I guess? Not sure how you can build a list around that, though. After turn 1, if they have already moved, I think you're SOL.
Oh, yeah - ATM going first is pretty much your only hope. But if you don't have to kill the raiders straight away then you should need 20% less firepower than the current theorycrafting is assuming, which might make it less of a impossibility.
Red Corsair wrote: The venom took a hit based on the way hit mods work in 9th, and then took another further hit when they changed the splinter canon.
I actually think the venom is probably priced about right, definitely leaning on the high side but I think thats better then being too cheap.
You do realize the splinter cannon is straight buffed over it's current iterations? Plus it got an additional transport capacity. I do think the venom is about right - it is however overcosted compared to a starweaver which is just flat out better for no reason other than the same person who said raiders should be 85 points said a starweaver should be 80... Starweavers with a 4++ and a -1 16" move and fly should be 100 points min. Then the venom looks just fine at 85 points.
sanguine40k wrote: Question regarding killing raiders - would dropping them down to bottom bracket be (almost) as effective as destroying them?
Bottom bracket drops them to M6 and BS5+, making them slower than the infantry that they are carrying and halving the effectiveness of their DL.
Also, even with a maxed advance roll, provided you are set up 24" away the DT Wrack liquifiers they're carrying won't be in range T1.
Then, next turn it is easier to mop up the last 2 wounds to crack them open to get at the gooey innards surely?
Mostly the point is to kill the very strong squad on the inside of the raider, which can often make its points back in a single round of melee combat or shooting in the case of DT wracks.
The raider's only job is to move forward once, and then exist for one turn. Everything past that point is gravy! a gravy boat, so to speak.
to be clear, I actually don't think it makes that much sense to nerf raiders that much as 'the source of all evil.' it's just that nerfing them is a convenient way to nerf courts, wyches, wracks, kabs, etc etc etc all at once. If you started out the gate and nerfed, say, wcyhes and incubi, I think there's enough gas in the tank that kabalites or even non-DT wracks could still be relatively problematic.
Very serious about this. If Space marines could take raiders for all their units they would.
If CWE could...they would.
If tyranids could...they would.
Pretty much every army would. Raiders are certainly an issue. Why were they not an issue in 8th? Probably because spamming dessie cannons was even more an issue? and CWE Harlies and DE have a lot of top end units that weren't really benefitted by radiers much?
Wracks before wanted to be on the table with their 4++ free save from Rakarth.
Warriors wernt really taken much because everyone was taking wracks.
Wyches werent a popular unit and anyone bringing them was taking 20 man units from deep strike.
Plus the raider was clearly the worse choice between it and the venom...MY DE list had A LOT of venoms...
The game has changed now though. 10 man units get a lot more out of stratagems...you want to use those stratagems. ECT. The culmination effect here is there are very few DE units that don't become better when you put them in a raider. It is clear. They are the primary issue.
I agree it is the way DE should be playing...with lots of transports. They just need to pay properly for these benifits.
Every army in the game would also take eradicators if they could, or repentia if they could etc etc.
That's a really silly way to look at it honestly.
Your other points are also pretty inaccurate.
Nearly every point on that list is subjective.
For example I had been favoring raiders with dissy canons over venoms since the prior codex dropped. More bang for the buck and measurements taken from a long hull are almost always more useful then that tiny 60mm base.
Hardly anyone has the fabled Yacht club because raiders are not only expensive, they werent stuffed into army deals like venoms PLUS they are largely a PITA to assemble and paint. Folks like me that had the choice between the two seemed to be in agreement the raider was better well before this last book.
The main issues with 8th and now 9th are chapter tactics and their equivalent. I said this way back in the early days of the index and I stand by it now. You cannot possibly implement accurate points to a faction whos special rules are so different and have zero cost.
We had like a month of 8th without chapter tactics, Space Marines players hated that.
I'm not going to question the fact that they make a mess of balance, you are right about that. But people want their sub-faction rules and that kinda trounces balance.
Red Corsair wrote: Every army in the game would also take eradicators if they could, or repentia if they could etc etc.
That's a really silly way to look at it honestly.
No it isn't because it shows where there might be a problem. Not everyone is going to take Repentia if they could, but everyone will take Raiders and Eradicators because they do stupid stuff for the points.
Xenomancers wrote: The venom took a hit based on the way hit mods work in 9th, and then took another further hit when they changed the splinter canon.
I actually think the venom is probably priced about right, definitely leaning on the high side but I think thats better then being too cheap.
You do realize the splinter cannon is straight buffed over it's current iterations? Plus it got an additional transport capacity. I do think the venom is about right - it is however overcosted compared to a starweaver which is just flat out better for no reason other than the same person who said raiders should be 85 points said a starweaver should be 80... Starweavers with a 4++ and a -1 16" move and fly should be 100 points min. Then the venom looks just fine at 85 points.
People seriously think , that the harlis transport is properly costed at 100pts?
Half the problems with them and DE raiders come from the fact, that for what ever reason, GW design team thought that the way to counter DE would be to break their transports , to shot the living hell out of t3 troops that are inside them. What they either didn't know or didn't understand though, is that with the core rules terrain change, 9th is an enviroment with ton of LoS blocking terrain. Meaning the shoting down of raiders, or starweavers, doesn't happen because they sit safely behind terrain and unlike all the tracked transports, they do not have to worry about terrain because they can fly.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
yukishiro1 wrote: I dunno, space marines don't even take eradicators much any more since MM attack bikes are basically just better.
That is true. The difference between something like SM, which in some versions are a very good army, and harlis or DE, is that the eldar armies are more or less pre build for players.
If someone plays DE, there is no reason not to take 6 raiders, with the taxi share rules they have. There is going to be 3 units of DT wrecks with liquifires, there is going to be the razorflail succubus etc. There army list, to a degree, write themselfs. IH at least run on a broken interaction between new rules and really old FW units, which GW probably didn't even consider when writing the 2.0 codex. DE on the other hand are fit in to one book, which was cut in two parts to sell the event book, but at its core it is a one book pre build army. You can even see it in the point costs, the optimal lists just click the right way, there are no strange left over point, they can even fit stuff like courts and get the three patrol bonus which on its own is not broken, and even with the other stuff DE have is not the thing that makes them a bit too good, but it is just another very efficient thing.
It is as if someone sat down, wrote a list with units they want to use, and then wrote the rules and points cost for it.
That is true. The difference between something like SM, which in some versions are a very good army, and harlis or DE, is that the eldar armies are more or less pre build for players.
If someone plays DE, there is no reason not to take 6 raiders, with the taxi share rules they have. There is going to be 3 units of DT wrecks with liquifires, there is going to be the razorflail succubus etc. There army list, to a degree, write themselfs. IH at least run on a broken interaction between new rules and really old FW units, which GW probably didn't even consider when writing the 2.0 codex. DE on the other hand are fit in to one book, which was cut in two parts to sell the event book, but at its core it is a one book pre build army. You can even see it in the point costs, the optimal lists just click the right way, there are no strange left over point, they can even fit stuff like courts and get the three patrol bonus which on its own is not broken, and even with the other stuff DE have is not the thing that makes them a bit too good, but it is just another very efficient thing.
I can assure you all that when I get around to building my own DE force there will be zero raiders & zero wracks in it.
A razor sucubus.... Sure, maybe. (I do need 1 model to be the leader afterall) But honestly I'll likely go with a Homunculus for theme.
The problem lies mainly with the transports. And their ability to take dark lances. This allows them to spread out multiple anti tank weapons across multiple vehicles which are almost impossible to all be killed in one or two turns.
A raider has a 5++ invul, 10W and it can fly. And it can take a super effective anti tank weapon which is the dark lance. (Besides carrying troops).
Imagine the humble Rhino. The Rhino cannot fly, nor can it carry a multi melta, or a lascannon, and it does not have an invul save. Now, if you suddenly made the Rhino come with a default 5++, and it can fly, plus I can take a multi melta on the Rhino, and it only cost 85 or 90 points only to do all that. Now you can bet suddenly all space marine armies will take 6 Rhinos. Because now, suddenly, even the combat focused armies will have at least 6 anti tank guns which cannot easily be all silenced. (Not unless you killed 6 Rhinos).
See, once you place it in a context with a comparable transport. It becomes super clear how powerful the raider is.
I mean, they’re like 8th edition impulsors but open topped. Imagine if you could have taken the shield dome AND missile for LESS points. Sure 1 less toughness but vs the weapons that target them, t6 vs t7 is not a break point that is worth much.
Oh, and you can carry blood angels inside an iron hands impulsor, and for that “inconvenience”, they give you 2 extra CP.
It just feels like there isn’t any real trade offs in the codex. You get to have your cake, eat it, and still there’s another cake.
TangoTwoBravo wrote: Raiders should absolutely go up in points and should only be able to carry Drukhari with the same Kabal/Coven/Cult keyword or the mercenary types.
Going up 5-10pts is moot to me so sure, but only carrying XYZ is silly as no other army is force into 3 mini armies and all other armies can take any units as well, i can put a Priest, Arcos, and BSS in a single Rhino for SoB, but Arcos and Priest are different keywords and should be their own faction (if going by how DE sub factions works), so why do other armies get to do it and we can't? If you remove all this 3 subfaction no one would notice the difference.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Quasistellar wrote: I mean, they’re like 8th edition impulsors but open topped. Imagine if you could have taken the shield dome AND missile for LESS points. Sure 1 less toughness but vs the weapons that target them, t6 vs t7 is not a break point that is worth much.
Oh, and you can carry blood angels inside an iron hands impulsor, and for that “inconvenience”, they give you 2 extra CP.
It just feels like there isn’t any real trade offs in the codex. You get to have your cake, eat it, and still there’s another cake.
Impulsor is grossly over costed, the problem isn't the raider is amazing, its that other transports are trash, Do you see Impulsors, Taurox/Primes, Chimeras, etc.. on the table? No, did you before DE update? No, why? B.c they all suck. So you really can't say the Raide ris understand compare to something that is over costed (Now if you say the Raider is over costed via a stats and gun perspective then sure I can understand that). I've see a little over 200 SM lists in 9th (games watched, played, players written, etc...) and not a single Impulsor was used. B.c why? Why take it when a 2nd units is better? That things needs to be 80pts before upgrades (cheaper than what goes in it B.c there is no way its viable otherwise).
Is the raider a bit too cheap? Sure but not by much, maybe 5pts-10pts at most, its other things that are the problem like DT, Court, etc... If you take 8 Raiders with 8 units of Kabals I don't think you'll have any unhappy opponents, its when you add in DT flamers in them and 15-30 Incubi combine with too much Obscuring. Kabals can't hide behind obscuring at all where Incubi can until they are able to pounce.
Point costs are one thing, but rules are another. With the amount of LoS blocking terrain required and used in 9th. A transport with flight is incomperably better then one without it.
DE are dominating right now, not because some units are too powerful, even if some rule interactions are too strong, but because of the fact that in todays 9th ed 6 raiders have no efficient counter, and if the raiders don't get stopped then DE can charge and shot the living hell out of opposing army.
And no I don't think that all armies should be able to kill 6 raiders with shoting turn 1. But there has to be some middle ground between that, DE having no way of being stopped, as long as there is terrain on the table.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ccs 797783 11117745 wrote:
I can assure you all that when I get around to building my own DE force there will be zero raiders & zero wracks in it.
A razor sucubus.... Sure, maybe. (I do need 1 model to be the leader afterall) But honestly I'll likely go with a Homunculus for theme.
.
And I played a termintor army in 9th for GK. Doesn't mean that anyone around the world playing the few GK players, would have expected to see any termintors till the PA book came out.
People are going to run wrecks, raiders etc. I don't think it is fair to base an argument about a books imbalance, with the counter argument of "but, I don't use it" .
TangoTwoBravo wrote: Raiders should absolutely go up in points and should only be able to carry Drukhari with the same Kabal/Coven/Cult keyword or the mercenary types.
Going up 5-10pts is moot to me so sure, but only carrying XYZ is silly as no other army is force into 3 mini armies and all other armies can take any units as well, i can put a Priest, Arcos, and BSS in a single Rhino for SoB, but Arcos and Priest are different keywords and should be their own faction (if going by how DE sub factions works), so why do other armies get to do it and we can't? If you remove all this 3 subfaction no one would notice the difference.
The DE sub factions have their sub faction traits, so your SoB comparison is not a good one. I said I am fine with the mercenary types (Incubi etc) riding in Raiders that have an Obsession etc. Those are closer to the Priest/Arcoflaggelants in keyword/game design. Ecclesiarch Battle Conclave folks are like the Blades for Hire, so the Drukhari transportation freedom is an outlier.
Not that anyone takes SM transports, but a Ultramarines Razorback cannot transport Imperial Fists.
TangoTwoBravo wrote: Raiders should absolutely go up in points and should only be able to carry Drukhari with the same Kabal/Coven/Cult keyword or the mercenary types.
Going up 5-10pts is moot to me so sure, but only carrying XYZ is silly as no other army is force into 3 mini armies and all other armies can take any units as well, i can put a Priest, Arcos, and BSS in a single Rhino for SoB, but Arcos and Priest are different keywords and should be their own faction (if going by how DE sub factions works), so why do other armies get to do it and we can't? If you remove all this 3 subfaction no one would notice the difference.
The DE sub factions have their sub faction traits, so your SoB comparison is not a good one. I said I am fine with the mercenary types (Incubi etc) riding in Raiders that have an Obsession etc. Those are closer to the Priest/Arcoflaggelants in keyword/game design. Ecclesiarch Battle Conclave folks are like the Blades for Hire, so the Drukhari transportation freedom is an outlier.
Not that anyone takes SM transports, but a Ultramarines Razorback cannot transport Imperial Fists.
SoB could have been multi sub factions and GW chose not to, SoB has 3 subfactions too why didn't they get 3 subfaction army? Thats the point GW chose only us to do this stupid jumping through hoops crap to play our army, and the result is we can mix and match units in Transports.
Even if you could only have DT inside DT, its not going to change much at all b.c now the DL instead of re-roll 1 hit it wounds on a 2+ with 5-7D, i'm sure people will complain about raiders still and not about DT the real problem, heck i've seen and even done this, take PGL's so you can advance and shooting the DT flamers not even charging to shoot the DL so being BH had no difference.
Also about UM razorback carrying IF's, that is true SM also are not forced to take different detachment to even get rules for 2/3's of their book, thats like saying "First born and Primaris must be in different detachments" you know darn well marines would get a free detachment for each one of those.
Really we could have had a better system and then i wouldn't care, if we were something like this "As long as the detachment has an HQ for a <Obsession> all units in the detachment gain their <obsession> even if another <Obsession> was in the same detachment." then yes make it so onyl <obsession> and Blades for hire can go into a transport b.c now we can play my army in 1 detachment like every other army can. This would also make it so Drazhar can't be a long HQ funny enough that many wants to happen.
Also about UM razorback carrying IF's, that is true SM also are not forced to take different detachment to even get rules for 2/3's of their book, thats like saying "First born and Primaris must be in different detachments" you know darn well marines would get a free detachment for each one of those.
But DE don't pay anything for being "forced" to run 3 patrols. In fact they get only boon from it. Primaris not being able to ride in classic marine stuff and vice versa is a problem. Losing rules if you mix marines is a bad thing. Being "forced" in to taking 3 units of DT wrecks , isn't much forcing if DE players take them for powerful rules.
TangoTwoBravo wrote: Raiders should absolutely go up in points and should only be able to carry Drukhari with the same Kabal/Coven/Cult keyword or the mercenary types.
Going up 5-10pts is moot to me so sure, but only carrying XYZ is silly as no other army is force into 3 mini armies and all other armies can take any units as well, i can put a Priest, Arcos, and BSS in a single Rhino for SoB, but Arcos and Priest are different keywords and should be their own faction (if going by how DE sub factions works), so why do other armies get to do it and we can't? If you remove all this 3 subfaction no one would notice the difference.
The DE sub factions have their sub faction traits, so your SoB comparison is not a good one. I said I am fine with the mercenary types (Incubi etc) riding in Raiders that have an Obsession etc. Those are closer to the Priest/Arcoflaggelants in keyword/game design. Ecclesiarch Battle Conclave folks are like the Blades for Hire, so the Drukhari transportation freedom is an outlier.
Not that anyone takes SM transports, but a Ultramarines Razorback cannot transport Imperial Fists.
SoB could have been multi sub factions and GW chose not to, SoB has 3 subfactions too why didn't they get 3 subfaction army? Thats the point GW chose only us to do this stupid jumping through hoops crap to play our army, and the result is we can mix and match units in Transports.
Even if you could only have DT inside DT, its not going to change much at all b.c now the DL instead of re-roll 1 hit it wounds on a 2+ with 5-7D, i'm sure people will complain about raiders still and not about DT the real problem, heck i've seen and even done this, take PGL's so you can advance and shooting the DT flamers not even charging to shoot the DL so being BH had no difference.
Also about UM razorback carrying IF's, that is true SM also are not forced to take different detachment to even get rules for 2/3's of their book, thats like saying "First born and Primaris must be in different detachments" you know darn well marines would get a free detachment for each one of those.
Really we could have had a better system and then i wouldn't care, if we were something like this "As long as the detachment has an HQ for a <Obsession> all units in the detachment gain their <obsession> even if another <Obsession> was in the same detachment." then yes make it so onyl <obsession> and Blades for hire can go into a transport b.c now we can play my army in 1 detachment like every other army can. This would also make it so Drazhar can't be a long HQ funny enough that many wants to happen.
Um, isn't that how a Realspace Raid works already? Or are you complaining about having to take 1 of each HQ and troops type?
TangoTwoBravo wrote: Raiders should absolutely go up in points and should only be able to carry Drukhari with the same Kabal/Coven/Cult keyword or the mercenary types.
Going up 5-10pts is moot to me so sure, but only carrying XYZ is silly as no other army is force into 3 mini armies and all other armies can take any units as well, i can put a Priest, Arcos, and BSS in a single Rhino for SoB, but Arcos and Priest are different keywords and should be their own faction (if going by how DE sub factions works), so why do other armies get to do it and we can't? If you remove all this 3 subfaction no one would notice the difference.
The DE sub factions have their sub faction traits, so your SoB comparison is not a good one. I said I am fine with the mercenary types (Incubi etc) riding in Raiders that have an Obsession etc. Those are closer to the Priest/Arcoflaggelants in keyword/game design. Ecclesiarch Battle Conclave folks are like the Blades for Hire, so the Drukhari transportation freedom is an outlier.
Not that anyone takes SM transports, but a Ultramarines Razorback cannot transport Imperial Fists.
SoB could have been multi sub factions and GW chose not to, SoB has 3 subfactions too why didn't they get 3 subfaction army? Thats the point GW chose only us to do this stupid jumping through hoops crap to play our army, and the result is we can mix and match units in Transports.
Even if you could only have DT inside DT, its not going to change much at all b.c now the DL instead of re-roll 1 hit it wounds on a 2+ with 5-7D, i'm sure people will complain about raiders still and not about DT the real problem, heck i've seen and even done this, take PGL's so you can advance and shooting the DT flamers not even charging to shoot the DL so being BH had no difference.
Also about UM razorback carrying IF's, that is true SM also are not forced to take different detachment to even get rules for 2/3's of their book, thats like saying "First born and Primaris must be in different detachments" you know darn well marines would get a free detachment for each one of those.
Really we could have had a better system and then i wouldn't care, if we were something like this "As long as the detachment has an HQ for a <Obsession> all units in the detachment gain their <obsession> even if another <Obsession> was in the same detachment." then yes make it so onyl <obsession> and Blades for hire can go into a transport b.c now we can play my army in 1 detachment like every other army can. This would also make it so Drazhar can't be a long HQ funny enough that many wants to happen.
Um, isn't that how a Realspace Raid works already? Or are you complaining about having to take 1 of each HQ and troops type?
No b.c you have to take 1 of each, what if I don't lie coven? No i have to take the HQ and a troop, thats still not giving me options and is still a page of text to understand a rule, my way is simple and easy, only take a few sentence and everyone understand it.
Why would you not run draz, an archon and a succubus? I would get it if the stuff coming with the was bad, but the DE lists can easily build a triple patrol list with zero bad units in it. Cabalites and trueborn are cheap and good. Witchs are very good, and Wrecks are too good.
helions, raiders, courts, nothing that the DE lists run is bad, even the tax units aren't really tax, because they are , at worse, good.
TangoTwoBravo wrote: Raiders should absolutely go up in points and should only be able to carry Drukhari with the same Kabal/Coven/Cult keyword or the mercenary types.
Going up 5-10pts is moot to me so sure, but only carrying XYZ is silly as no other army is force into 3 mini armies and all other armies can take any units as well, i can put a Priest, Arcos, and BSS in a single Rhino for SoB, but Arcos and Priest are different keywords and should be their own faction (if going by how DE sub factions works), so why do other armies get to do it and we can't? If you remove all this 3 subfaction no one would notice the difference.
The DE sub factions have their sub faction traits, so your SoB comparison is not a good one. I said I am fine with the mercenary types (Incubi etc) riding in Raiders that have an Obsession etc. Those are closer to the Priest/Arcoflaggelants in keyword/game design. Ecclesiarch Battle Conclave folks are like the Blades for Hire, so the Drukhari transportation freedom is an outlier.
Not that anyone takes SM transports, but a Ultramarines Razorback cannot transport Imperial Fists.
SoB could have been multi sub factions and GW chose not to, SoB has 3 subfactions too why didn't they get 3 subfaction army? Thats the point GW chose only us to do this stupid jumping through hoops crap to play our army, and the result is we can mix and match units in Transports.
Even if you could only have DT inside DT, its not going to change much at all b.c now the DL instead of re-roll 1 hit it wounds on a 2+ with 5-7D, i'm sure people will complain about raiders still and not about DT the real problem, heck i've seen and even done this, take PGL's so you can advance and shooting the DT flamers not even charging to shoot the DL so being BH had no difference.
Also about UM razorback carrying IF's, that is true SM also are not forced to take different detachment to even get rules for 2/3's of their book, thats like saying "First born and Primaris must be in different detachments" you know darn well marines would get a free detachment for each one of those.
Really we could have had a better system and then i wouldn't care, if we were something like this "As long as the detachment has an HQ for a <Obsession> all units in the detachment gain their <obsession> even if another <Obsession> was in the same detachment." then yes make it so onyl <obsession> and Blades for hire can go into a transport b.c now we can play my army in 1 detachment like every other army can. This would also make it so Drazhar can't be a long HQ funny enough that many wants to happen.
Um, isn't that how a Realspace Raid works already? Or are you complaining about having to take 1 of each HQ and troops type?
No b.c you have to take 1 of each, what if I don't lie coven? No i have to take the HQ and a troop, thats still not giving me options and is still a page of text to understand a rule, my way is simple and easy, only take a few sentence and everyone understand it.
So you are complaining about the 1 HQ + 1 troops of each subfaction tax. But isn't that the tradeoff? In a Realspace Raid you get everything in one detachment, and everything gets an appropriate Obsession, but you have to pay the HQ + troops tax. If you don't want all three subfactions you go with multiple patrols, with the requisite costs of that setup, but everything still gets an Obsession. It's a choice.
At this point everyone knows what the problems are for DE and the obvious solutions, it's just up to GW to get off the pot and do something about them.
I can assure you all that when I get around to building my own DE force there will be zero raiders & zero wracks in it.
A razor sucubus.... Sure, maybe. (I do need 1 model to be the leader afterall) But honestly I'll likely go with a Homunculus for theme.
.
And I played a termintor army in 9th for GK. Doesn't mean that anyone around the world playing the few GK players, would have expected to see any termintors till the PA book came out.
People are going to run wrecks, raiders etc. I don't think it is fair to base an argument about a books imbalance, with the counter argument of "but, I don't use it" .
Oh I'm 100% sure plenty of people, likely the vast majority, will run Raiders, Wracks, Witches, etc. Majority =/= everyone
On balance.... You've misunderstood. I've made no argument about balance based on what I'll (eventually) run.
Balance is rarely ever a concern to me when I plan out a force. I look at the pages, make a list of all the models I like (then their rules) and ask "Can I build a {Drukari} force MY WAY, by the rules?" In this case, yes, yes I can. I can make a Drukari list with only 1 actual elf in it. And, since I can just pay another CP & put that elf in strategic reserve, I could likely get away with never owning the model. I will own 1 elf though as it's possible some mission rule will block using strat reserves & I'd be stuck having brought an illegal list....
Will this list work well? Will it be trash? Something in-between? I guess we'll find out in around 8 months (I'm only building 2 talos/cronos per month) based on the state of the rules at that time.
Oh I'm 100% sure plenty of people, likely the vast majority, will run Raiders, Wracks, Witches, etc. Majority =/= everyone
We have a term for something like this, we call it hair spliting. A few years ago a baby fell off a balcony here from 7th floor. Survived with minory injuries. But that does not change the fact that falling of the 7th floor is and should be considered deadly.
It is a question of probability, the chance that someone is going to face on a regular basis multiple DE armies with 9 talos in it, no raiders etc is low enough to be considered all.
Will this list work well? Will it be trash? Something in-between? I guess we'll find out in around 8 months (I'm only building 2 talos/cronos per month) based on the state of the rules at that time.
This goes beyond my level of understanding, so it is hard for me to comment. All I know is that within todays core terrain rules, a DE army has no bad sides or bad match ups, as the goons showed that no army has a 50%+ win rate vs DE.
Being super efficient, broken etc can happen and GW generaly does fix it. But the problem of flying skimmers and LoS terrain already existed with harlequins. And GW did nothing to fix it, because to fix it they would either have to re write the terrain rules and give something to armies like DE or Harlis to keep them still working, or leave them to be bad.
A points hike, unless it makes DE unplayable, will not fix anything. People will just cut a court but the core of the lists will stay the same. The other way GW could fix it is for them to force people to play on pre build tables with specific numbers of LoS terrain. If a DE player can no longer hide his entire army turn 1, to blow up and lock their opponents on turn 2 in practicaly every game, it could help. The problem with a such a fix is that there is zero practical way to enforce or implement it. GW could do it, but then they would have to have a book for it. Which means, that with how fast" GW reacts to core rules problems , we would see it maybe autum 2022.
My dudes were not that good in 9th, although way better then they were in 8th, but I liked how balanced the meta was. A ton of armies around 50% win rate, only harlequins being the broken faction, but multiple different factions being in the 55%+ tier. The game didn't need something like the DE right now. Worse thing this may generate resentment in the future.
Neophyte2012 wrote: An article discussed about how to reasonably nerf DE back into a "very strong but not utterly broken" status. It may be worth a look here:
Generally speaking, what they proposed includes:
1. Points increase for Raider
2. Points increase for Master Archon and Master Succubus and Drazhar
3. Dark Technomancer model take mortal wound for firing auto hit weapons.
4. Triple Patrol give no additional CP. Keep a 3 Patrol DE army at 12 starting CPs.
I think these are all reasonable, what do you guys think?
I'm a little perplexed at why the master archon keeps coming up as needing a points increase. From the discussions I've seen and had, most people consider it a form of tax and if they could take something cheaper or more interesting, they would. The standard upgrades are for if you're going to take him as a tax, you might as well make him decent at something, so eternal hatred djinn blade it is.
I'm a little perplexed at why the master archon keeps coming up as needing a points increase. From the discussions I've seen and had, most people consider it a form of tax and if they could take something cheaper or more interesting, they would. The standard upgrades are for if you're going to take him as a tax, you might as well make him decent at something, so eternal hatred djinn blade it is.
The argument in the article isn't that he's problematic, more that the Master Archon upgrade is required if you intend to take Trueborn - who are very good and have been present in most competitive lists. They felt it's easier to put the tax on him, than on the Trueborn themselves. There's probably an argument to be made there.
I'm not sure personally Trueborn are a huge issue given that they're as self limiting as they are, but I suppose you could say as you will in all likelihood be taking them, that that extra tax paid to on the Archon, has a secondary impact on the rest of the list. I suspect that's Goonhammer's logic here.
Nerfing the Master Archon because Trueborn are too good makes absolutely zero sense because the Archon himself isn't really good, and you aren't obligated to take him. However if you have one, there's ZERO reason not to take Trueborn.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Nerfing the Master Archon because Trueborn are too good makes absolutely zero sense because the Archon himself isn't really good, and you aren't obligated to take him. However if you have one, there's ZERO reason not to take Trueborn.
It is easier to do that for GW, then split the trueborn and warriors in to two separate unit options. And saying one doesn't take a master archon is like saying DA don't take a master apothecary on a bike. Maybe someone doesn't, but it doesn't happen often.
Still point changes can achive two things. Either they will have zero impact and DE players will just drop a court or something inconsequential from their lists. Or the army suddenly can fit 4 or less raiders in to a normal size army, and stops working.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Nerfing the Master Archon because Trueborn are too good makes absolutely zero sense because the Archon himself isn't really good, and you aren't obligated to take him. However if you have one, there's ZERO reason not to take Trueborn.
It is easier to do that for GW, then split the trueborn and warriors in to two separate unit options. And saying one doesn't take a master archon is like saying DA don't take a master apothecary on a bike. Maybe someone doesn't, but it doesn't happen often.
Still point changes can achive two things. Either they will have zero impact and DE players will just drop a court or something inconsequential from their lists. Or the army suddenly can fit 4 or less raiders in to a normal size army, and stops working.
Karol, trueborn were a separate unit entry once upon a time.
There's nothing stopping GW from actually bothering and reimplementing options.
I think 20 points to have a 2 blasters and a dark lance hit on 2s rather than 3s is about right. Unclear its meaningfully overpowered. (I guess yes, your splinter rifles also hit on 2s, but... who cares?)
If anything the rule is bad because you either go with this loadout or you don't bother with Trueborn at all.
Tyel wrote: I think 20 points to have a 2 blasters and a dark lance hit on 2s rather than 3s is about right. Unclear its meaningfully overpowered. (I guess yes, your splinter rifles also hit on 2s, but... who cares?)
If anything the rule is bad because you either go with this loadout or you don't bother with Trueborn at all.
It is 235pts to take 10 models in a raider for 4 shots. If you are taking more Kabals anyways in Black heart, take away the Trueborn buff to spend those points on other blasters you actually gain more hits (20pts gets you 2 more blasters), so really you are putting more eggs in one basket (which has pros and cons) but its not more "hits" from dark weapons than just taking even 1 more gun at with all kabals at 3+ BS.
Trueborn cost points for the upgrade though? So if they are too good then just increase their cost rather than the master archon taken as a tax to get them.
A 1ppm increase for trueborn upgrade cost is the same overall increase as a 10pts increase to the master archon upgrade. Scales better too (e.g. if you had 5 in a venom you’d pay half as much but get less benefit as you have 1 blaster rather than 2 and a DL).
Karol, trueborn were a separate unit entry once upon a time.
There's nothing stopping GW from actually bothering and reimplementing options.
I have a pdf of a GK codex where they could take stormshields and thunderhammers on their termintors, and so what you think GW is going to bring those back?
They are an upgrade now. GW is not going to reimplement them as a separate option unless they make a separate box for them. Which can of course be as little as an extra pricy warrior box with a trueborn sprue thrown in. But till that happens, we have what we have.
I'm a little perplexed at why the master archon keeps coming up as needing a points increase. From the discussions I've seen and had, most people consider it a form of tax and if they could take something cheaper or more interesting, they would. The standard upgrades are for if you're going to take him as a tax, you might as well make him decent at something, so eternal hatred djinn blade it is.
The argument in the article isn't that he's problematic, more that the Master Archon upgrade is required if you intend to take Trueborn - who are very good and have been present in most competitive lists. They felt it's easier to put the tax on him, than on the Trueborn themselves. There's probably an argument to be made there.
I'm not sure personally Trueborn are a huge issue given that they're as self limiting as they are, but I suppose you could say as you will in all likelihood be taking them, that that extra tax paid to on the Archon, has a secondary impact on the rest of the list. I suspect that's Goonhammer's logic here.
So why make the master archon cost 10pts more and not make the trueborn upgrade +3pts instead of +2pts...
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Nerfing the Master Archon because Trueborn are too good makes absolutely zero sense because the Archon himself isn't really good, and you aren't obligated to take him. However if you have one, there's ZERO reason not to take Trueborn.
It is easier to do that for GW, then split the trueborn and warriors in to two separate unit options. And saying one doesn't take a master archon is like saying DA don't take a master apothecary on a bike. Maybe someone doesn't, but it doesn't happen often.
Still point changes can achive two things. Either they will have zero impact and DE players will just drop a court or something inconsequential from their lists. Or the army suddenly can fit 4 or less raiders in to a normal size army, and stops working.
A court is not 'something inconsequential' from competitive drukhari player's lists. It's like a 140pt unit that's central to one of the secondaries a lot of these competitive lists take...
A squad of suppressors costs how much? And honestly, when was the last time anyone used them? They have exactly one purpose, and do it badly. If I recall the costs, a squad of suppressors is almost twice the cost of the current Raider?
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: A squad of suppressors costs how much? And honestly, when was the last time anyone used them? They have exactly one purpose, and do it badly. If I recall the costs, a squad of suppressors is almost twice the cost of the current Raider?
100 points.
A volley of shooting should bring a raider down 50%.
Automatically Appended Next Post: An autocannon support turret is 90 points and has about the same damage output.
An autocannon support turret is 90 points and has about the same damage output.
And non of the speed or the ability to shot through terrain, mean the only way a DE player is going to let someone shot their raiders with a turret is if it doesn't impact the game.
Tyran wrote: Getting a conscript screen should also help, bubble-warp is the best counter against fast charges after all.
And yes, I'm aware that would mean giving up doctrines, but I don't think doctrines help that much against DE.
That's some of the problem. Guardsmen (and I think also conscripts, though its been ages since I've seen those) cost 5.5ppm, and there's a whole lot of units that are perfectly capable of hitting the same level of points return as, to use an example, Suppressors vs Raiders just slamming into a GEQ screen unit and gobbling them up.
A 10-wych squad is only about 120pts usually. That eats a 55pt guardsman squad, that's the exact same points return as your suppressors vs Raider. Blend-O-Matic succubus is still only 60 points - if you 'block' her with a guardsman squad, ta-da, she made her points back!
Tyran wrote: +15 points is not "almost twice the cost".
I know that Raiders are undercosted, but if you refuse to adapt to them, they should kick your ass. That's not a balance problem.
Considering the slots one gives up and the fact that even 3 units of suppressors are not going to counter 6 raiders. This is not a question of adapting. All the best players in the US, knew what DE do, they tested it. And it seems like the conclusion was the options are to either lose vs DE, because there is no reliable way to counter them, and have a positive win rate vs other armies, or play DE. This is a dictionery definition of a balance problem. One army having an above 50% win rate vs all armies. All of them, not just marines.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: A squad of suppressors costs how much? And honestly, when was the last time anyone used them? They have exactly one purpose, and do it badly. If I recall the costs, a squad of suppressors is almost twice the cost of the current Raider?
100 points.
A volley of shooting should bring a raider down 50%.
Automatically Appended Next Post: An autocannon support turret is 90 points and has about the same damage output.
Sure without re-roll but with core rolls or its 7.25D also in some factions they can ignore the -1 to hit, they cot so much b.c they are 12" with fly. Meaning you can stay out of danger with them.
A court is not 'something inconsequential' from competitive drukhari player's lists. It's like a 140pt unit that's central to one of the secondaries a lot of these competitive lists take...
If the army still runs everything else and functions the same, it very much is unimportant. Same way it was not important when Ynnari went from legions of dark reapers to 1-3 units of dark reapers. A consequential change to an army is something like a cmd spam list, when GW decides cmds should be a 0-1 option. Or when GW decides they do not want to see salamander lists build out of aggresors. Those are consequential changed.
Even if the lack of court would drop DE by 10% in win rates, they would still be the top army win rate wise in the entire game. And I don't think the lack of courts, would impact the DE army that much.
I played a typical tournament DT list with liquifiers against a mono-DeathGuard list with Morty (a good tourny player) and barely lost the game on points. While the +1 dmg from DT's rule helped my rolls to wound on 4+, it's the -2AP on the liquifier that did the heavy lifting forcing DG units to take their invulnerable saves. Obviously the disgusting resilient neutered the dmg down to just a regular flamer.
The dice gods were interesting here in that each time I shot at a tough unit like blightlords or deathshrouds, it took 4 flamer to do an average of 5 wounds. One shooting round I was able to kill 3 of those models getting great rolls and my opponent's rolls failed him a bit, but most of the time it's just one base plus residual wounds to another base just from the liquifier shots.
Tried two units of 5man flamers against Morty. Don't do it. Dark Lance/Blasters all the way with splinter shots to chip at him (I still couldn't kill him as my list was geared towards spamming DT liquifiers, not enough dark light shots and splinter shots just generally tickles Morty).
Sidebar: I really need to pick better secondary in this game. I had assassinate/WWSWF/linebreaker. Assassinate was my weakest one as he only had 3 characters (including Morty). Mandrakes for teleport homer???? (if I can even FIND mandrakes!).
I'm just not convinced Drukhari are OP. (exceptions to Succubus's Competitive Edge + Razorflail interaction... that's just plain dumb and its obvious that this is broken as all get out).
Hear me out please.
I certainly would agree that the current DT obsession + liquifier is super strong, but they're only super strong against things like multi-wound, power armored elite armies.
Against armies that can field a ton of 1 wound models, they don't care if the liquifier is 2D or 1D. It's just another flamer weapon.
My DG opponent also has a DeathSkull Ork army with massed smasha cannons. I can certainly see this army being a hard counter to bust open the Raiders. (smasha wounding on 6 on 2d6? < shudders > ). We're planning a Ork v. DE game soon, so I may update this post with the results.
The meta still need to work itself out too, and maybe shift away from the pre-Drukhari elite-space low model-count marine armies. I dunno...maybe not. Could a Deathwing inner-circle list be of a counter to DT Drukhari list? (I'm spitballing here, that's the one you can't even wound the model on 1, 2 or 3...right?).
Even if GW takes on the Goonhammer's recommendations, I'm not sure that's going to have much impact at the top tables in this current meta. These guys are good generals too.
From my perspective, Drukhari is ironically the first army in 9ed that has the potential to field a robust TAC list with a Triple Patrol or a RSR detachment (hell maybe even a RSR brigade!), as evidenced by the top table winners in recent tournaments.
-Two or three black heart Raiders with 2 units of warriors each with blaster. Each raider setup rerolling misses for 1 DL and 2 blasters. An almost ravager unit.
-Two DT Raiders with one wrack (2 liquifier) and one 3x Liquifier-Grots.
-decide going DT liquifier Taloi and/or Ravagers
-spice rest of army with wych cult units for close combat goodness.
EVEN with the desired changes this thread has asked for comes into fruition, where the DE generals may have to drop a unit or so... it's still going to look very much like the above.
Isn't that more of an indication that this current codex simply has effective tools against the current meta? Rather that the army is too powerful? I will concede though, if by the end of summer Drukhari is still curb stomping tournaments after seeing additional codex releases (next are Mechanicus, Orks and Thousand suns???), then yeah I'd be onboard with GW apply the nerf bats.
Sure without re-roll but with core rolls or its 7.25D also in some factions they can ignore the -1 to hit, they cot so much b.c they are 12" with fly. Meaning you can stay out of danger with them.
'You have to nail the DE down turn 1, because turn two they are in your face engaging your entire army with shoting and melee. And there is 6 raidders plus support stuff to take care of. how many units of suppressors , assuming one has access to them or something similar in their army, do you think people should take, and how efficient would they be vs stuff like DE soups, SoB, demons or marines etc?
Tyran wrote: Getting a conscript screen should also help, bubble-warp is the best counter against fast charges after all.
And yes, I'm aware that would mean giving up doctrines, but I don't think doctrines help that much against DE.
That's some of the problem. Guardsmen (and I think also conscripts, though its been ages since I've seen those) cost 5.5ppm, and there's a whole lot of units that are perfectly capable of hitting the same level of points return as, to use an example, Suppressors vs Raiders just slamming into a GEQ screen unit and gobbling them up.
A 10-wych squad is only about 120pts usually. That eats a 55pt guardsman squad, that's the exact same points return as your suppressors vs Raider. Blend-O-Matic succubus is still only 60 points - if you 'block' her with a guardsman squad, ta-da, she made her points back!
Conscripts are 5ppm.
A conscript screen with a Company Commander with Pietrov's Mk. 45 would be a good way to go. Even if DE trade up against it, it's still going to absorb the charge for not much loss (60 points dead is not even half of one unit).
EDIT Also, am unfamiliar with the defensive profile of wyches but the conscripts might actually hit pretty hard right back, given how many attacks you can do and access to Fight Twice. Big problem is hitting on a 5+.
The problem is not that a unit of conscripts is going to be traded favorably for a DE player. But the fact that he is going to be doing it with 6 raiders to 5-6 units. Maybe for horde armies it could work with spreading etc. But then there would be the problem of DE just being closer to the center objectives, being easily able to move from flank to flank. All while staying outside of LoS . One or two turns of not scoring primaris neds in a lost game in most cases.
Karol wrote: Considering the slots one gives up and the fact that even 3 units of suppressors are not going to counter 6 raiders. This is not a question of adapting. All the best players in the US, knew what DE do, they tested it. And it seems like the conclusion was the options are to either lose vs DE, because there is no reliable way to counter them, and have a positive win rate vs other armies, or play DE. This is a dictionery definition of a balance problem. One army having an above 50% win rate vs all armies. All of them, not just marines.
Then take more slots.
Moreover, Raiders are likely going to continue being a very strong unit for the foreseeable future even after nerfs. So yes you are going to need a specific tool against T6 Sv4+. As for the "there is no reliable way to counter them, and have a positive win rate vs other armies", that's a problem of the tournament format and the idiocy of wanting one list to counter everything.
Because sure DE needs nerfs, in that I agree, but DE and Marines are very different targets, and thus logically should have different weaknesses.
Sure without re-roll but with core rolls or its 7.25D also in some factions they can ignore the -1 to hit, they cot so much b.c they are 12" with fly. Meaning you can stay out of danger with them.
'You have to nail the DE down turn 1, because turn two they are in your face engaging your entire army with shoting and melee. And there is 6 raidders plus support stuff to take care of. how many units of suppressors , assuming one has access to them or something similar in their army, do you think people should take, and how efficient would they be vs stuff like DE soups, SoB, demons or marines etc?
This is not true at all, DE needs 2 turns, you can not get out of the boat turn 1 and charge unless the other player got first and rushed 12" up the mid table. DT flamers might be able to get within range to shoot turn 1 but not melee other than Mandrakes or a suicide reaver unit. Which again the problem is DT. Sometime some units won't get out for 3 turns even.
If you're worried about Raiders, as a DE player here are some marine units I'm afraid of:
-Eradicators
-HB Rapier Carrier
-HB devestator squad
-Hurricane Bolter Centurian (White Scars doubly so)
-Volkite Contemptors
-I'm sure I'm missing other units...
You guys have the tools to bust out the DL Raiders, and frankly they're not all that much different than previous editions. Priced about the same too.
whembly wrote: If you're worried about Raiders, as a DE player here are some marine units I'm afraid of:
-Eradicators
-HB Rapier Carrier
-HB devestator squad
-Hurricane Bolter Centurian (White Scars doubly so)
-Volkite Contemptors
-I'm sure I'm missing other units...
You guys have the tools to bust out the DL Raiders, and frankly they're not all that much different than previous editions. Priced about the same too.
Where are those quad-Autocannon Dreadnoughts when you need 'em?
Although Assault Cannons look like they win out over Autocannons by virtue of the number of shots. 6 at S6 AP-1 edges out 2 at S7 -1 2D. Assault Cannons also happen to be absolutely ideal for dealing with the Raider's inhabitants too.
Ye olde Predator Destructor with its D3 autocannon and dual Heavy Bolters looks nice too.
Eradicators have terrible points efficiency vs raiders and have trouble even hitting them before you want them to because of the 24" range, if you're scared of eradicators as a DE player you need to do the math and realize you should be smiling if you see someone with a bunch of eradicators in their list, not grimacing.
It shows the basic issue, though: there isn't really anything that's particularly efficient at shooting raiders. Real AT is points inefficient, high volume mid-S is actually not nearly as good as it used to be thanks to the boost to T6. Twin volkite contemptors are really one of the only choices that is legitimately scary to DE.
Hahahah what? Heavy erads without the mm upgrade deal 7.5 damage to a raider outside of melta range and with the -1 to hit from moving, with no chapter tactics no rerolls no bonuses no nothing, add any of those, a captain aura, a lieutenant aura, whatever and they ace a raider just fine.
Eradicators don't get nullified by "defensive abilities", you don't survive a fething eradicator squad. They get nullified by fething point cost. You beat them by not presenting a single thing in your entire army list that's a single model worth over ~130 points, which is what these drukhari lists do, and once you do that, you can trade up for eradicators.
Quasistellar wrote: I mean, they’re like 8th edition impulsors but open topped. Imagine if you could have taken the shield dome AND missile for LESS points. Sure 1 less toughness but vs the weapons that target them, t6 vs t7 is not a break point that is worth much.
Oh, and you can carry blood angels inside an iron hands impulsor, and for that “inconvenience”, they give you 2 extra CP.
It just feels like there isn’t any real trade offs in the codex. You get to have your cake, eat it, and still there’s another cake.
Quasistellar wrote: I mean, they’re like 8th edition impulsors but open topped. Imagine if you could have taken the shield dome AND missile for LESS points. Sure 1 less toughness but vs the weapons that target them, t6 vs t7 is not a break point that is worth much.
Oh, and you can carry blood angels inside an iron hands impulsor, and for that “inconvenience”, they give you 2 extra CP.
It just feels like there isn’t any real trade offs in the codex. You get to have your cake, eat it, and still there’s another cake.
Amazing run down.
Except for the lack of acknowledgement that the Raider has a 4+ while the Impulsor has a 3+.
whembly wrote: If you're worried about Raiders, as a DE player here are some marine units I'm afraid of:
-Eradicators
-HB Rapier Carrier
-HB devestator squad
-Hurricane Bolter Centurian (White Scars doubly so)
-Volkite Contemptors
-I'm sure I'm missing other units...
You guys have the tools to bust out the DL Raiders, and frankly they're not all that much different than previous editions. Priced about the same too.
Where are those quad-Autocannon Dreadnoughts when you need 'em?
Although Assault Cannons look like they win out over Autocannons by virtue of the number of shots. 6 at S6 AP-1 edges out 2 at S7 -1 2D. Assault Cannons also happen to be absolutely ideal for dealing with the Raider's inhabitants too.
Ye olde Predator Destructor with its D3 autocannon and dual Heavy Bolters looks nice too.
Nah, preds are too overpriced and HBs are S5, you want the new primaris autocannon turret thingy or you want the suppressors if youre going the autocannon route. But MMs are so bonkers underpriced that it actually seems like (to me) they're the superior choice.
2 MM attack bikes in melta range deal 6.5 to a raider with no anything for 110pts. Suppressors do 5.3 for 100, an Invictor Warsuit can deal 5.6 with its shooting and 7 in melee to a second raider for 160 but it's totally dependent on going first.
I dont actually think a list spamming attack bikes is like 'haha, you didn't take options to deal with the drukhari properly, like autocannons'. Autocannons actually deal with them less efficiently, and generally trade a bit worse because you've got single targets that cost 55pts instead of usually around 150pts with the attack bikes.
Yeah, attack bikes are way better than eradicators vs DE (like they are better than eradicators vs almost everything, but moreso). The twin volkite contemptor is still the best, though, not so much because it's better against raiders as because it's good against everything in the DE book, and also has a good defensive profile as well vs most DE stuff.
Ultramarines successor melee army with Born Heroes and Whirlwind of Rage with three invictor warsuits with the autocannons.
That's my starting point for a marine anti-drukhari list. Start those puppies right up on the starting gate 9" away from the pile of Raiders, then if you don't go first take a moment, sigh heavily, cry a single tear, and deploy them farther back with the 2cp strat.
with the chapter tactics combo, each dread should be able to just about one-shot a raider in melee, pile in if you can to the unit inside to get protection from shooting, and the various gunsyguns on the dreads ought to score you another raider and a half. you got 1500pts to figure out how to kill 1.5 more raiders top of turn 1.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Amishprn86 wrote: A lot also forget that the raider is only 6+++ in melee and the flamers can't shoot in melee either.
If they are within 12" of you they are within charging range.
raiders are pretty big and disembark from the hull, though. it's usually pretty easy to prevent a charger from getting in just on the pile in move. If you CAN tag the liquifier squads then fantastic, absolutely do so, it'll limit their impact, but I would avoid considering it to be a core part of your strategy and if you're at the point where you crack them before they've moved, they're basically not your concern anyway, they're out of the game.
whembly wrote: If you're worried about Raiders, as a DE player here are some marine units I'm afraid of:
-Eradicators
-HB Rapier Carrier
-HB devestator squad
-Hurricane Bolter Centurian (White Scars doubly so)
-Volkite Contemptors
-I'm sure I'm missing other units...
You guys have the tools to bust out the DL Raiders, and frankly they're not all that much different than previous editions. Priced about the same too.
Where are those quad-Autocannon Dreadnoughts when you need 'em?
Although Assault Cannons look like they win out over Autocannons by virtue of the number of shots. 6 at S6 AP-1 edges out 2 at S7 -1 2D. Assault Cannons also happen to be absolutely ideal for dealing with the Raider's inhabitants too.
Ye olde Predator Destructor with its D3 autocannon and dual Heavy Bolters looks nice too.
Nah, preds are too overpriced and HBs are S5, you want the new primaris autocannon turret thingy or you want the suppressors if youre going the autocannon route. But MMs are so bonkers underpriced that it actually seems like (to me) they're the superior choice.
2 MM attack bikes in melta range deal 6.5 to a raider with no anything for 110pts. Suppressors do 5.3 for 100, an Invictor Warsuit can deal 5.6 with its shooting and 7 in melee to a second raider for 160 but it's totally dependent on going first.
I dont actually think a list spamming attack bikes is like 'haha, you didn't take options to deal with the drukhari properly, like autocannons'. Autocannons actually deal with them less efficiently, and generally trade a bit worse because you've got single targets that cost 55pts instead of usually around 150pts with the attack bikes.
I get 2 Attack Bikes landing 7.3 wounds once you count for their Bolters . . . 7.68 If they're in Tactical Doctrine. 8.56 if you charge it afterwards? (4 attacks each?) MVP Attack Bikes for 9th I guess.
It's a good point but I won't be purchasing any Primaris Autocannon Chair. It's true though that the major "expense" is generally the platform rather than the weapon, and Predators certainly cost more. The Predator Autocannon does the same damage as the Primaris Chair itself, so the HBs are kinda gravy. Plus you can mount an HK and Storm Bolter (if you really want to) for cheap. Personally I'm looking for solutions within my collection. Razorbacks, Preds, Dreads, Bikes, Devs, etc.
whembly wrote: If you're worried about Raiders, as a DE player here are some marine units I'm afraid of:
-Eradicators
-HB Rapier Carrier
-HB devestator squad
-Hurricane Bolter Centurian (White Scars doubly so)
-Volkite Contemptors
-I'm sure I'm missing other units...
You guys have the tools to bust out the DL Raiders, and frankly they're not all that much different than previous editions. Priced about the same too.
Where are those quad-Autocannon Dreadnoughts when you need 'em?
Although Assault Cannons look like they win out over Autocannons by virtue of the number of shots. 6 at S6 AP-1 edges out 2 at S7 -1 2D. Assault Cannons also happen to be absolutely ideal for dealing with the Raider's inhabitants too.
Ye olde Predator Destructor with its D3 autocannon and dual Heavy Bolters looks nice too.
Nah, preds are too overpriced and HBs are S5, you want the new primaris autocannon turret thingy or you want the suppressors if youre going the autocannon route. But MMs are so bonkers underpriced that it actually seems like (to me) they're the superior choice.
2 MM attack bikes in melta range deal 6.5 to a raider with no anything for 110pts. Suppressors do 5.3 for 100, an Invictor Warsuit can deal 5.6 with its shooting and 7 in melee to a second raider for 160 but it's totally dependent on going first.
I dont actually think a list spamming attack bikes is like 'haha, you didn't take options to deal with the drukhari properly, like autocannons'. Autocannons actually deal with them less efficiently, and generally trade a bit worse because you've got single targets that cost 55pts instead of usually around 150pts with the attack bikes.
I get 2 Attack Bikes landing 7.3 wounds once you count for their Bolters . . . 7.68 If they're in Tactical Doctrine. 8.56 if you charge it afterwards? (4 attacks each?) MVP Attack Bikes for 9th I guess.
It's a good point but I won't be purchasing any Primaris Autocannon Chair. It's true though that the major "expense" is generally the platform rather than the weapon, and Predators certainly cost more. The Predator Autocannon does the same damage as the Primaris Chair itself, so the HBs are kinda gravy. Plus you can mount an HK and Storm Bolter (if you really want to) for cheap. Personally I'm looking for solutions within my collection. Razorbacks, Preds, Dreads, Bikes, Devs, etc.
Yeah, and you would want to charge it, make it so if it survives the turn it either won't get to shoot or will get to shoot you on a 6, and what's inside has to get out if it wants to act.
dakkapreds not gonna do it if you ask me. Just too crazy overpriced, and its just a dumb brick once they close to melee.
yukishiro1 wrote: Eradicators have terrible points efficiency vs raiders and have trouble even hitting them before you want them to because of the 24" range, if you're scared of eradicators as a DE player you need to do the math and realize you should be smiling if you see someone with a bunch of eradicators in their list, not grimacing.
It shows the basic issue, though: there isn't really anything that's particularly efficient at shooting raiders. Real AT is points inefficient, high volume mid-S is actually not nearly as good as it used to be thanks to the boost to T6. Twin volkite contemptors are really one of the only choices that is legitimately scary to DE.
I only mentioned eradicators because I was playing against WhiteScars, and he had a 3 man and (I think) 4 man unit. He outflanked them and was able to destroy 3 Raiders in turn 2. I knew they were coming and took the tradeoff, but then my units were stuck footslogging and impacted my game.
But, yeah Twin volkite contemptors are really REALLY good. If I were playing a TAC marine/CSM list, I'd take 3 of them and pay the CP costs. They're that good.
EDIT: just read 2 MM attack bikes are 110pt. Thats definitely a viable option too.
Yeah, and you would want to charge it, make it so if it survives the turn it either won't get to shoot or will get to shoot you on a 6, and what's inside has to get out if it wants to act.
dakkapreds not gonna do it if you ask me. Just too crazy overpriced, and its just a dumb brick once they close to melee.
I agree that the Predator is overpriced, and on bigger boards I'd consider it more because of the range opportunity, but the Primaris Chair looks like a one-shot Dark Lance kill to me I think that the very low Movement on that thing would be a liability too. I would think that there would be some Raiders you'd want to stop first before others, and having only a 3" Move could limit the available targets further.
The Pred can still fire into CC too, so not totally a dumb brick. I do miss the days when tanks could drive through infantry though. . .
A 33% chance of nullification is 100% nullification, news at 11
Marines moved away from useing eradictors a their anti tank months ago, because they were too slow and too vunerable. But lets assume someone does run them as his anti tank. An army that has to pop 3-4 raiders on turn one, can not risk a 1/3 of chance a squad doing nothing, because even a 1W transport is a problem. To balance the possible 1/3 chance to fail, you would have to run back up extra units, and marines are not point and slot efficient enough to do that right now. So yeah it is a news, and a bad one for marines.
This is not true at all, DE needs 2 turns, you can not get out of the boat turn 1 and charge unless the other player got first and rushed 12" up the mid table. DT flamers might be able to get within range to shoot turn 1 but not melee other than Mandrakes or a suicide reaver unit. Which again the problem is DT. Sometime some units won't get out for 3 turns even.
DE player goes first. I now have one turn to take his transports down, before he starts nuking.
DE players goes second. If I swarm the middle objectivces, assuming I have the speed to do it. The DE player will nuke those units, I will not get to score and it will be just as good, as if the DE player went first. And for DE the units don't get out till turn 3, because the army is so efficient that they often don't have to do it.
Quasistellar wrote: I mean, they’re like 8th edition impulsors but open topped. Imagine if you could have taken the shield dome AND missile for LESS points. Sure 1 less toughness but vs the weapons that target them, t6 vs t7 is not a break point that is worth much.
Oh, and you can carry blood angels inside an iron hands impulsor, and for that “inconvenience”, they give you 2 extra CP.
It just feels like there isn’t any real trade offs in the codex. You get to have your cake, eat it, and still there’s another cake.
Amazing run down.
Except for the lack of acknowledgement that the Raider has a 4+ while the Impulsor has a 3+.
More or less that part is irrelevant. The 5++ save is going to provide more or the same protection to weapons shooting at a t6+ target more often than not. Nether of these units is particularly durable though.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The gladiator reaper would be simply amazing against DE....If only it wasn't massively overcosted...had fly instead of not...
Still though.
The main gun does 5.2 damage
The secondaries do 2.4
and the rocket does 1.5
Practically 1 shots a raider plus it's great against everything inside no matter what it is.
I just can't believe GW thought this thing should be 240 points...
It is almost as if GW didn't know that they designed their game in a such a way, that without everything being LoS blocking terrain the game is unfun for everyone not having turn 1 first, and with proper amounts of terrain it is more or less balanced, unless mass flying transports are involved.
There is two armies with those in 9th, 3 if one counts soups, and all are doing above avarge win rate wise. Plus the fact that somehow transports with fly were spared the fate of primaris, IG etc vehicles is a big boon too.
Quasistellar wrote: I mean, they’re like 8th edition impulsors but open topped. Imagine if you could have taken the shield dome AND missile for LESS points. Sure 1 less toughness but vs the weapons that target them, t6 vs t7 is not a break point that is worth much.
Oh, and you can carry blood angels inside an iron hands impulsor, and for that “inconvenience”, they give you 2 extra CP.
It just feels like there isn’t any real trade offs in the codex. You get to have your cake, eat it, and still there’s another cake.
Amazing run down.
Except for the lack of acknowledgement that the Raider has a 4+ while the Impulsor has a 3+.
More or less that part is irrelevant. The 5++ save is going to provide more or the same protection to weapons shooting at a t6+ target more often than not. Nether of these units is particularly durable though.
Lol, I’d trade 3+ for 4+ save 7 days a week and twice on Sunday if I could have a 5++ and fly and open topped. I won’t argue against impulsors being overpriced garbage that were bad before DE dropped, because that’s what they are.
Also FYI folks, space marines winrates seem to be plummeting. You’d better believe that if they had the tools to deal with DE without losing to the field, there’d be tons of players doing it. Eradicators are a boogie man that haven’t been significant for months.
All the “meta will adjust” people VASTLY underestimate how quickly good players adapt. The meta HAS adjusted.
I love the anecdotal story with the DE player that “almost” lost a game vs a good DG tourney player while picking bad secondaries and says essentially that means DE probably aren’t OP. I had a good chuckle.
Most reasonable folks (even DE players) do realize nerfs are needed- the real question is which nerfs.
I disagree with the suggestion of increasing master archon cost. I don’t see any problems there. I also don’t know what should be done with dark technomancers aside from just deleting it because it’s stupid and invalidates other covens.
Karol wrote: It is almost as if GW didn't know that they designed their game in a such a way, that without everything being LoS blocking terrain the game is unfun for everyone not having turn 1 first, and with proper amounts of terrain it is more or less balanced, unless mass flying transports are involved.
There is two armies with those in 9th, 3 if one counts soups, and all are doing above avarge win rate wise. Plus the fact that somehow transports with fly were spared the fate of primaris, IG etc vehicles is a big boon too.
Maybe there is too much Obscuring and not enough Barricades on tables so you can't hide 100% of all fly vehicles and if you are charged you can hold positions for +1 to hit (in OW or melee) and a +1 to saves also in combat for a 2+ save marine or 1+ for SH's and Custodes while having -2" to charges.
Its almost like GW was smarter than the community this time saying you need a bit of a spread of terrain.
Are people still saying that we should wait and see or that we just need to get good? The Drukhari took the top five spots at the Dallas GT (the basis for the Goonhammer article posted a few pages back). This was a large multi-round event.
Karol wrote: It is almost as if GW didn't know that they designed their game in a such a way, that without everything being LoS blocking terrain the game is unfun for everyone not having turn 1 first, and with proper amounts of terrain it is more or less balanced, unless mass flying transports are involved.
There is two armies with those in 9th, 3 if one counts soups, and all are doing above avarge win rate wise. Plus the fact that somehow transports with fly were spared the fate of primaris, IG etc vehicles is a big boon too.
ooh, ooh, let me guess which broken flying transports you're talking about, uhhhh.....Space wolves!
no no no, Tau!
no, Craftworld Eldar, right?
IG?
Admech?
Grey Knights?
gosh, its almost like tons of factions have transports with FLY huh - if that's the case, how is the fact that they fly the thing that makes them broken do you figure?
Karol wrote: It is almost as if GW didn't know that they designed their game in a such a way, that without everything being LoS blocking terrain the game is unfun for everyone not having turn 1 first, and with proper amounts of terrain it is more or less balanced, unless mass flying transports are involved.
There is two armies with those in 9th, 3 if one counts soups, and all are doing above avarge win rate wise. Plus the fact that somehow transports with fly were spared the fate of primaris, IG etc vehicles is a big boon too.
ooh, ooh, let me guess which broken flying transports you're talking about, uhhhh.....Space wolves!
no no no, Tau!
no, Craftworld Eldar, right?
IG?
Admech?
Grey Knights?
gosh, its almost like tons of factions have transports with FLY huh - if that's the case, how is the fact that they fly the thing that makes them broken do you figure?
Its almost like the issue is price...which it is. Storm Raven would be straight baller if it wasn't over 300 points LOL.
Karol wrote: It is almost as if GW didn't know that they designed their game in a such a way, that without everything being LoS blocking terrain the game is unfun for everyone not having turn 1 first, and with proper amounts of terrain it is more or less balanced, unless mass flying transports are involved.
There is two armies with those in 9th, 3 if one counts soups, and all are doing above avarge win rate wise. Plus the fact that somehow transports with fly were spared the fate of primaris, IG etc vehicles is a big boon too.
Maybe there is too much Obscuring and not enough Barricades on tables so you can't hide 100% of all fly vehicles and if you are charged you can hold positions for +1 to hit (in OW or melee) and a +1 to saves also in combat for a 2+ save marine or 1+ for SH's and Custodes while having -2" to charges.
Its almost like GW was smarter than the community this time saying you need a bit of a spread of terrain.
Edit: spelling.
Terrain is certainly an issue - terrain should be random. Not regulated. Some should be dense - some sparce. Then we could get somewhere. Mandatory city fight terrain makes melee to strong. Because for some dumb reason - this games rule dictate that it should be easier to move through walls than shoot through them and OFC...terrain is indestructable...that is another issue.
Quasistellar wrote: I mean, they’re like 8th edition impulsors but open topped. Imagine if you could have taken the shield dome AND missile for LESS points. Sure 1 less toughness but vs the weapons that target them, t6 vs t7 is not a break point that is worth much.
Oh, and you can carry blood angels inside an iron hands impulsor, and for that “inconvenience”, they give you 2 extra CP.
It just feels like there isn’t any real trade offs in the codex. You get to have your cake, eat it, and still there’s another cake.
Amazing run down.
Except for the lack of acknowledgement that the Raider has a 4+ while the Impulsor has a 3+.
More or less that part is irrelevant. The 5++ save is going to provide more or the same protection to weapons shooting at a t6+ target more often than not. Nether of these units is particularly durable though.
Just sayin. If you're going to note the difference in toughness between the two units, not mentioning the armor stands out. Small arms can make a difference when dealing with vehicles these days. My Nids can get good AT numbers by sheer volume of Devourer shots, and a point of difference in the armor counts. A squad of 30 DevilGaunts puts 9 wounds on a Raider instead of 6 because of the 4+.
Nah, preds are too overpriced and HBs are S5, you want the new primaris autocannon turret thingy or you want the suppressors if youre going the autocannon route. But MMs are so bonkers underpriced that it actually seems like (to me) they're the superior choice.
2 MM attack bikes in melta range deal 6.5 to a raider with no anything for 110pts. Suppressors do 5.3 for 100, an Invictor Warsuit can deal 5.6 with its shooting and 7 in melee to a second raider for 160 but it's totally dependent on going first.
I dont actually think a list spamming attack bikes is like 'haha, you didn't take options to deal with the drukhari properly, like autocannons'. Autocannons actually deal with them less efficiently, and generally trade a bit worse because you've got single targets that cost 55pts instead of usually around 150pts with the attack bikes.
The problem with bikes is that DL aces them. I actually quite like the way things are set up. Eradicators are stronger and tougher. Bikes are more flexible.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
the_scotsman wrote: then if you don't go first take a moment, sigh heavily, cry a single tear, and deploy them farther back with the 2cp strat.
Quasistellar wrote: I mean, they’re like 8th edition impulsors but open topped. Imagine if you could have taken the shield dome AND missile for LESS points. Sure 1 less toughness but vs the weapons that target them, t6 vs t7 is not a break point that is worth much.
Oh, and you can carry blood angels inside an iron hands impulsor, and for that “inconvenience”, they give you 2 extra CP.
It just feels like there isn’t any real trade offs in the codex. You get to have your cake, eat it, and still there’s another cake.
Amazing run down.
Except for the lack of acknowledgement that the Raider has a 4+ while the Impulsor has a 3+.
More or less that part is irrelevant. The 5++ save is going to provide more or the same protection to weapons shooting at a t6+ target more often than not. Nether of these units is particularly durable though.
Just sayin. If you're going to note the difference in toughness between the two units, not mentioning the armor stands out. Small arms can make a difference when dealing with vehicles these days. My Nids can get good AT numbers by sheer volume of Devourer shots, and a point of difference in the armor counts. A squad of 30 DevilGaunts puts 9 wounds on a Raider instead of 6 because of the 4+.
\
The armor only matters against ap 0 and ap -1. Already bad profiles for shooting vehicles.
The armor only matters against ap 0 and ap -1. Already bad profiles for shooting vehicles.
You can say that all you want but when I'm looking at a single unit of Termagants putting 18 wounds across two Raiders, I'm gonna be rethinking "good weapon profiles".
Technomancers automatically hurts if you automatically hit.
No more mixing and matching outside of Realspace Raids.
My Black Heart / Cult of Strife list is impacted by the first three changes. Here's my original list exactly at 2000pts, designed to maximize the BH reroll misses in darklight spam list:
I can literally drop all my PGL and Grisly Trophies. That 60 pts right there. So if you pointed out how powerful BH is with Raiders, this recommended change isn't going to help alot.
Let's try another list, that's a derivative of some of the top armies in that recent Dalla GT. This is a RealSpace Raider list combining good Black Heart, Dark Technomancer and Cult of Strife rules and units, with 5 points to spare:
Battle Size: 3. Strike Force (101-200 Total PL / 1001-2000 Points)
Detachment Command Cost
Obsession: Cult of Strife: The Spectacle of Murder, Kabal of the Black Heart: Thirst for Power, Realspace Raid
. *Custom Coven*: Dark Technomancers (All-Consuming)
Technomancers automatically hurts if you automatically hit.
In this list, I'm again, costing 60pts more than originally price, so I'm 55pts over...
+5 Archon
+5 Succabus
+50 for Raiders
So I'd drop the blast pistol from the Archon, and 2x Clawed Fiends.
Now, with the DT change, I probably wouldn't field Taloi with Dual-liquifier, however I don't have to enhance it everytime. But, they do get 5+ FnP and the Haemonculus can heal it a flat 3 wounds a turn. I'm not too concern for the wrack units as it's the "bearer's unit suffers 1 mortal wound after shooting this weapon". I have 3 non-liquifier wracks I can allocate the wound too AND they get a 5+ FnP, so at worst I get 3 turns of shooting before it may impact the liquifier model. The Groteques are 4 wound models that has 5+FnP as well, so I'm not too concerned about this particular recommendation by Goon.
Overall, do you see these changes affecting the roster construction, if at all?
The one thing I would absolutely hope GWFAQ, is to prohibit the razorflail succubus' Competitive Advantage rule to proc on the razorflail's "2 attacks for 1" rule.
As for the other recommendation's by Goon:
12CP for triple patrols instead of 14CP
I'm okay with this, but seems meaningless. Drukhari roster construction using patrols will leave the player with a crap load of CPs. Going from 14 to 12 isn't going to change much how these lists are constructed or how it's played on the tabletop. A more impactful change would be to make it cost 1 CP instead of refunding all of the CP and and maybe no WL refund.
No more mixing and matching outside of Realspace Raids.
This is the only one that I really disagree with. I'm not sure what problems this solves and it only unnecessarily restricts roster construction.
You’re right in that it doesn’t change MUCH. But it does shave off those little extras that DE really shouldn’t be getting. It would be interesting at that point to at least see results. I also agree on there being almost no good solution to Dark Technomancers without a significant rewrite. Even 1 mortal wound the way it’s worded (to the unit, and not the shooting model) isn’t likely enough to stop people taking them. They’d have to always give mortal wound to the model that fires to even start to be a real nerf in a 5 turn game. Again, that trait is just bad for the game IMO.
The MW from DT needs to go on THE BEARER, not THE BEARER'S UNIT. Same as overcharged plasma. You're already getting a better benefit, because you're wounding better against all toughness, whereas overcharged plasma is only benefiting against T4, T7, and T8. The risk should match the reward.
whembly wrote: FWIW, bias warning here, long time DE player.
I played a typical tournament DT list with liquifiers against a mono-DeathGuard list with Morty (a good tourny player) and barely lost the game on points. While the +1 dmg from DT's rule helped my rolls to wound on 4+, it's the -2AP on the liquifier that did the heavy lifting forcing DG units to take their invulnerable saves. Obviously the disgusting resilient neutered the dmg down to just a regular flamer.
The dice gods were interesting here in that each time I shot at a tough unit like blightlords or deathshrouds, it took 4 flamer to do an average of 5 wounds. One shooting round I was able to kill 3 of those models getting great rolls and my opponent's rolls failed him a bit, but most of the time it's just one base plus residual wounds to another base just from the liquifier shots.
Tried two units of 5man flamers against Morty. Don't do it. Dark Lance/Blasters all the way with splinter shots to chip at him (I still couldn't kill him as my list was geared towards spamming DT liquifiers, not enough dark light shots and splinter shots just generally tickles Morty).
Sidebar: I really need to pick better secondary in this game. I had assassinate/WWSWF/linebreaker. Assassinate was my weakest one as he only had 3 characters (including Morty). Mandrakes for teleport homer???? (if I can even FIND mandrakes!).
I'm just not convinced Drukhari are OP. (exceptions to Succubus's Competitive Edge + Razorflail interaction... that's just plain dumb and its obvious that this is broken as all get out).
Hear me out please.
I certainly would agree that the current DT obsession + liquifier is super strong, but they're only super strong against things like multi-wound, power armored elite armies.
Against armies that can field a ton of 1 wound models, they don't care if the liquifier is 2D or 1D. It's just another flamer weapon.
My DG opponent also has a DeathSkull Ork army with massed smasha cannons. I can certainly see this army being a hard counter to bust open the Raiders. (smasha wounding on 6 on 2d6? < shudders > ). We're planning a Ork v. DE game soon, so I may update this post with the results.
The meta still need to work itself out too, and maybe shift away from the pre-Drukhari elite-space low model-count marine armies. I dunno...maybe not. Could a Deathwing inner-circle list be of a counter to DT Drukhari list? (I'm spitballing here, that's the one you can't even wound the model on 1, 2 or 3...right?).
Even if GW takes on the Goonhammer's recommendations, I'm not sure that's going to have much impact at the top tables in this current meta. These guys are good generals too.
From my perspective, Drukhari is ironically the first army in 9ed that has the potential to field a robust TAC list with a Triple Patrol or a RSR detachment (hell maybe even a RSR brigade!), as evidenced by the top table winners in recent tournaments.
-Two or three black heart Raiders with 2 units of warriors each with blaster. Each raider setup rerolling misses for 1 DL and 2 blasters. An almost ravager unit.
-Two DT Raiders with one wrack (2 liquifier) and one 3x Liquifier-Grots.
-decide going DT liquifier Taloi and/or Ravagers
-spice rest of army with wych cult units for close combat goodness.
EVEN with the desired changes this thread has asked for comes into fruition, where the DE generals may have to drop a unit or so... it's still going to look very much like the above.
Isn't that more of an indication that this current codex simply has effective tools against the current meta? Rather that the army is too powerful? I will concede though, if by the end of summer Drukhari is still curb stomping tournaments after seeing additional codex releases (next are Mechanicus, Orks and Thousand suns???), then yeah I'd be onboard with GW apply the nerf bats.
I think this might be too narrow of a consideration since not everyone has the benefits of DG.
At DAO #4 DE beat #14 DG ( no Morty ) - 72 to 67
He also lost to #1 DE - 85 to 78
#16 DG lost to #5 DE ( almost all vehicles ) - 72 to 44
#49 DG lost to #51 DE - to 78 to 68
The DG player who took all vehicles benefitted from disgustingly resilient less and so functioned less like other DG armies who had some wins and some very close losses to DE. QED perhaps?
Insectum7 wrote: You can say that all you want but when I'm looking at a single unit of Termagants putting 18 wounds across two Raiders, I'm gonna be rethinking "good weapon profiles".
Yes, 210 points of models can almost but not quite kill an 85 point model with average rolls. Clearly, this is a reliable winning strategy...
Also, how are those 90 shots dealing 18 wounds across 2 T6 4+ armor models?
Gadzilla666 wrote: The MW from DT needs to go on THE BEARER, not THE BEARER'S UNIT. Same as overcharged plasma. You're already getting a better benefit, because you're wounding better against all toughness, whereas overcharged plasma is only benefiting against T4, T7, and T8. The risk should match the reward.
Becomes a problem in units with grots that are already wounded.
Gadzilla666 wrote: The MW from DT needs to go on THE BEARER, not THE BEARER'S UNIT. Same as overcharged plasma. You're already getting a better benefit, because you're wounding better against all toughness, whereas overcharged plasma is only benefiting against T4, T7, and T8. The risk should match the reward.
That violates one of the basic rules of the game, though, in that you can't have multiple models in a unit all wounded. It works for wracks, but not for any of the multi-wound, multi-model units that can take DT weapons (grots, talos).
Gadzilla666 wrote: The MW from DT needs to go on THE BEARER, not THE BEARER'S UNIT. Same as overcharged plasma. You're already getting a better benefit, because you're wounding better against all toughness, whereas overcharged plasma is only benefiting against T4, T7, and T8. The risk should match the reward.
I'd be okay with it functioning like overcharged plasma (where you'd have to roll a 1 in order to blow up). So, for Liquifiers, if you choose to enhance it roll a D6 and on a 1 the firing model suffers a MW. (or is it the model is just removed? If so, then Taloi would need a different tweak).
Gadzilla666 wrote: The MW from DT needs to go on THE BEARER, not THE BEARER'S UNIT. Same as overcharged plasma. You're already getting a better benefit, because you're wounding better against all toughness, whereas overcharged plasma is only benefiting against T4, T7, and T8. The risk should match the reward.
Becomes a problem in units with grots that are already wounded.
yukishiro1 wrote:That violates one of the basic rules of the game, though, in that you can't have multiple models in a unit all wounded. It works for wracks, but not for any of the multi-wound, multi-model units that can take DT weapons (grots, talos).
Right, both of you. Switch it to UNMODIFIED WOUND ROLLS OF 1 then. And instead of MWs, just THE BEARER IS DESTROYED. Again, same risk/reward as plasma.
whembly wrote: FWIW, bias warning here, long time DE player.
I played a typical tournament DT list with liquifiers against a mono-DeathGuard list with Morty (a good tourny player) and barely lost the game on points. While the +1 dmg from DT's rule helped my rolls to wound on 4+, it's the -2AP on the liquifier that did the heavy lifting forcing DG units to take their invulnerable saves. Obviously the disgusting resilient neutered the dmg down to just a regular flamer.
The dice gods were interesting here in that each time I shot at a tough unit like blightlords or deathshrouds, it took 4 flamer to do an average of 5 wounds. One shooting round I was able to kill 3 of those models getting great rolls and my opponent's rolls failed him a bit, but most of the time it's just one base plus residual wounds to another base just from the liquifier shots.
Tried two units of 5man flamers against Morty. Don't do it. Dark Lance/Blasters all the way with splinter shots to chip at him (I still couldn't kill him as my list was geared towards spamming DT liquifiers, not enough dark light shots and splinter shots just generally tickles Morty).
Sidebar: I really need to pick better secondary in this game. I had assassinate/WWSWF/linebreaker. Assassinate was my weakest one as he only had 3 characters (including Morty). Mandrakes for teleport homer???? (if I can even FIND mandrakes!).
I'm just not convinced Drukhari are OP. (exceptions to Succubus's Competitive Edge + Razorflail interaction... that's just plain dumb and its obvious that this is broken as all get out).
Hear me out please.
I certainly would agree that the current DT obsession + liquifier is super strong, but they're only super strong against things like multi-wound, power armored elite armies.
Against armies that can field a ton of 1 wound models, they don't care if the liquifier is 2D or 1D. It's just another flamer weapon.
My DG opponent also has a DeathSkull Ork army with massed smasha cannons. I can certainly see this army being a hard counter to bust open the Raiders. (smasha wounding on 6 on 2d6? < shudders > ). We're planning a Ork v. DE game soon, so I may update this post with the results.
The meta still need to work itself out too, and maybe shift away from the pre-Drukhari elite-space low model-count marine armies. I dunno...maybe not. Could a Deathwing inner-circle list be of a counter to DT Drukhari list? (I'm spitballing here, that's the one you can't even wound the model on 1, 2 or 3...right?).
Even if GW takes on the Goonhammer's recommendations, I'm not sure that's going to have much impact at the top tables in this current meta. These guys are good generals too.
From my perspective, Drukhari is ironically the first army in 9ed that has the potential to field a robust TAC list with a Triple Patrol or a RSR detachment (hell maybe even a RSR brigade!), as evidenced by the top table winners in recent tournaments.
-Two or three black heart Raiders with 2 units of warriors each with blaster. Each raider setup rerolling misses for 1 DL and 2 blasters. An almost ravager unit.
-Two DT Raiders with one wrack (2 liquifier) and one 3x Liquifier-Grots.
-decide going DT liquifier Taloi and/or Ravagers
-spice rest of army with wych cult units for close combat goodness.
EVEN with the desired changes this thread has asked for comes into fruition, where the DE generals may have to drop a unit or so... it's still going to look very much like the above.
Isn't that more of an indication that this current codex simply has effective tools against the current meta? Rather that the army is too powerful? I will concede though, if by the end of summer Drukhari is still curb stomping tournaments after seeing additional codex releases (next are Mechanicus, Orks and Thousand suns???), then yeah I'd be onboard with GW apply the nerf bats.
I think this might be too narrow of a consideration since not everyone has the benefits of DG.
At DAO #4 DE beat #14 DG ( no Morty ) - 72 to 67
He also lost to #1 DE - 85 to 78
#16 DG lost to #5 DE ( almost all vehicles ) - 72 to 44
#49 DG lost to #51 DE - to 78 to 68
The DG player who took all vehicles benefitted from disgustingly resilient less and so functioned less like other DG armies who had some wins and some very close losses to DE. QED perhaps?
Yeah, my DG opponent had zero vehicles. All Blightlords (10man unit and 2x 5man unit), Deathshrouds(2x 5man unit? Maybe one was 3man unit), 3 big unit of poxbringers, Morty and 2 other characters. A DG vehicle list wouldn't fair good against DE. I did recommend to him to some how get 3 volkite contemptors lol. I tried to ignore morty and that was a mistake (I thought I could whittle down his blightlords and deathshroud in one turn before I turn my attention to him).
Insectum7 wrote: You can say that all you want but when I'm looking at a single unit of Termagants putting 18 wounds across two Raiders, I'm gonna be rethinking "good weapon profiles".
Yes, 210 points of models can almost but not quite kill an 85 point model with average rolls. Clearly, this is a reliable winning strategy...
Also, how are those 90 shots dealing 18 wounds across 2 T6 4+ armor models?
Single minded annihilation for 180 shots.
If you add Kronos then it gets up to 20.4 wounds, with Symbiostorm 27.
addnid wrote: It makes a lot more sense to just say DT simply doesn’t work on Liquefiers.
What other weapons would we enhance it then in a wrack obsession?
I think possible fix is to give the player a choice, choose the +1 wound or +1 to damage. Either that, or simply raise the cost to liquifiers.
Shaving 2 cp and 60-80 points is really not going to be enough. Not against Drukari players who know what they are doing
Yeah, I echo this sentiment.
One thing for sure, GW will nuke raiders, liquefiers, etc... to orbit in the next CA points adjustment, that's for sure.
I like your idea of choosing +1 to wound or +1 damage on DT liquiefiers, but then we have a points issue. Raising the cost of liquiefiers just for DT seems heavy handed, but perhaps that is what needs to be done.
Otherwise make it a real suicide weapon, two mortal wounds after firing a liquiefier
So wracks get 4 mortals after shooting two of them, 3 grots each shooting one take a whooping 6 mortals, now that is dark tech for you
Otherwise you will be getting 30 point liquiefiers my Drukari friends in the next point cost update. Something is going to give. I agree with whembley it is potentially going to be nasty… I am a GSC player, I remember… your nerf bat beating will be twice as hard as what we got, if it is proportionate…
Insectum7 wrote: You can say that all you want but when I'm looking at a single unit of Termagants putting 18 wounds across two Raiders, I'm gonna be rethinking "good weapon profiles".
Yes, 210 points of models can almost but not quite kill an 85 point model with average rolls. Clearly, this is a reliable winning strategy...
A full unit of Hive Guard with Impaler Cannons with "good weapon profiles" averages 7 wounds to the Termagants 9 and costs 60 points more.
The anti-raider go-to for Nids would be Shock Cannons, which are absolutely ideal against Raiders, having only a -1 save (An AP Xeno poo-pooed) and still wounding on .666 with their S7, plus Mortal Wound bonuses against Vehicles. They get 11 wounds average and also cost 210. So the ideal weapon only gets 20%ish more wounds for the same cost.
The Exocrine if it fires twice nets 8.2 wounds, costing 170
So the Termagants with their Devourers are landing right in the area of major AT options for the Nids, while also being exquisite for anti-light-infantry work. A major reason why they are so effective is because the Raider only has a 4+ save.
Insectum7 wrote: You can say that all you want but when I'm looking at a single unit of Termagants putting 18 wounds across two Raiders, I'm gonna be rethinking "good weapon profiles".
Yes, 210 points of models can almost but not quite kill an 85 point model with average rolls. Clearly, this is a reliable winning strategy...
Also, how are those 90 shots dealing 18 wounds across 2 T6 4+ armor models?
Single minded annihilation for 180 shots.
If you add Kronos then it gets up to 20.4 wounds, with Symbiostorm 27.
^What he said. Although I don't know Symbiostorm, which must be in PA?
Insectum7 wrote: You can say that all you want but when I'm looking at a single unit of Termagants putting 18 wounds across two Raiders, I'm gonna be rethinking "good weapon profiles".
Yes, 210 points of models can almost but not quite kill an 85 point model with average rolls. Clearly, this is a reliable winning strategy...
Also, how are those 90 shots dealing 18 wounds across 2 T6 4+ armor models?
Single minded annihilation for 180 shots.
If you add Kronos then it gets up to 20.4 wounds, with Symbiostorm 27.
So that's 210 points, 2CP, and it assumes that your opponent doesn't use a -1 to hit strategy. It also requires you to be within 18" of the raider so it gives them an entire turn to move where they like.
So that's 210 points, 2CP, and it assumes that your opponent doesn't use a -1 to hit strategy. It also requires you to be within 18" of the raider so it gives them an entire turn to move where they like.
Yeah, this isn't exactly a winning move.
It is not a reliable way to do it, but it is going to be hilarious when it happens.
Moreover it is a way to point the opportunity that T6 4+ is somewhat vulnerable to bolter fire. Traditional AT may not very efficient vs Raiders, but having your Marines fire at a wounded Raider does have a better chance of taking those few remaining wounds than if they were firing at a more traditional T7 Sv3+ profile.
Insectum7 wrote: You can say that all you want but when I'm looking at a single unit of Termagants putting 18 wounds across two Raiders, I'm gonna be rethinking "good weapon profiles".
Yes, 210 points of models can almost but not quite kill an 85 point model with average rolls. Clearly, this is a reliable winning strategy...
Also, how are those 90 shots dealing 18 wounds across 2 T6 4+ armor models?
Single minded annihilation for 180 shots.
If you add Kronos then it gets up to 20.4 wounds, with Symbiostorm 27.
So that's 210 points, 2CP, and it assumes that your opponent doesn't use a -1 to hit strategy. It also requires you to be within 18" of the raider so it gives them an entire turn to move where they like.
Yeah, this isn't exactly a winning move.
Canadian 5th strikes again!
Considering it takes three Attack Bikes (165) to kill one Raider I'm not seeing any problems here if it takes 210 point to nearly kill two.
I'm shooting multiple Raiders with multiple units in a single turn. The Devilgaunts coming up from tunnels via Trygon or Jormangunder (which I play), so happily able to get in range of multiple Raiders. I fire Hive Guard at one Raider, which the opponent pops the -1 Strat on, and then the Devilgaunts fire at other ones. The Fire Twice strat is used at the end of the round so I just figure where to put it later. Easy peasy.
I'm sure you're just blowing the doors off of DE with this tournament-viable TAC list. What does this do against DG or DA? How does it tackle Necrons? Harlequins? Sisters?
I'm sure you're just blowing the doors off of DE with this tournament-viable TAC list. What does this do against DG or DA? How does it tackle Necrons? Harlequins? Sisters?
I'm sure you're just blowing the doors off of DE with this tournament-viable TAC list. What does this do against DG or DA? How does it tackle Necrons? Harlequins? Sisters?
Blah blah blah. No point engaging further.
Does your list actually beat a competitive DE list or is this all worthless theory crafting?
I don't think you've ever played DE if you think you can use deep strike to deliver 30 devilgaunts into a place where they can shoot more than one raider. Sounds a lot like theorycrafting that hasn't seen the real table. It just doesn't work, the thing about DE that is so strong is they just have so many piles of stuff that they will easily screen you out from DSing a 30-blob anywhere useful.
yukishiro1 wrote: I don't think you've ever played DE if you think you can use deep strike to deliver 30 devilgaunts into a place where they can shoot more than one raider. Sounds a lot like theorycrafting that hasn't seen the real table. It just doesn't work, the thing about DE that is so strong is they just have so many piles of stuff that they will easily screen you out from DSing a 30-blob anywhere useful.
Insectum just plays with his same casual meta year in and year out so he knows which opponents will make positioning errors to be exploited before he even sits down to play the game. His ideas simply don't work against a wider pool of highly skilled players.
yukishiro1 wrote: I don't think you've ever played DE if you think you can use deep strike to deliver 30 devilgaunts into a place where they can shoot more than one raider. Sounds a lot like theorycrafting that hasn't seen the real table. It just doesn't work, the thing about DE that is so strong is they just have so many piles of stuff that they will easily screen you out from DSing a 30-blob anywhere useful.
I mean, if they want to screen out to protect their Raiders from Devilgaunts. . . so I can shoot their infantry with Devilgaunts, that seems perfectly fine by me. It doesn't matter, the point is that because Raiders have only a 4+ they become more susceptible to small arms fire. A five man Tac squad with a Lascannon will average more damage to the Raider by rapid-firing their Bolters in Tactical Doctrine than with the Lascannon.
Insectum just plays with his same casual meta year in and year out so he knows which opponents will make positioning errors to be exploited before he even sits down to play the game. His ideas simply don't work against a wider pool of highly skilled players.
Canadian 5th has neither an argument, nor a point, so he resorts to asking for personal tourney results. I'll call it a victory.
Well he missed both DevilGaunts and Shock Cannons, both of which appear to get better results. The Shock Cannons because they get bonus MWs and the DevilGaunts because they spit a badjillion shots.
yukishiro1 wrote: I don't think you've ever played DE if you think you can use deep strike to deliver 30 devilgaunts into a place where they can shoot more than one raider. Sounds a lot like theorycrafting that hasn't seen the real table. It just doesn't work, the thing about DE that is so strong is they just have so many piles of stuff that they will easily screen you out from DSing a 30-blob anywhere useful.
I mean, if they want to screen out to protect their Raiders from Devilgaunts. . . so I can shoot their infantry with Devilgaunts, that seems perfectly fine by me. It doesn't matter, the point is that because Raiders have only a 4+ they become more susceptible to small arms fire. A five man Tac squad with a Lascannon will average more damage to the Raider by rapid-firing their Bolters in Tactical Doctrine than with the Lascannon.
I'm not trying to be rude, but it is super obvious from these comments that you haven't actually played vs a competitive DE list played by a competent player. What you wrote re: your plan to kill a bunch of raiders with deepstruck devilgaunts was just downright silly and a really prime example of theorycrafting that doesn't take into account how the game is actually played. If you put 210 points of gaunts in deepstrike they will absolutely screen you out so all you can shoot them at is one unit of crap, so conrgatulations, you just used 210 points of gaunts to kill...some mandrakes? An empty raider that's already delivered its dudes?
And then 10 wyches kills like 20 of your gaunts and traps the rest in combat to use as a shield.
This is what makes DE so strong - they have have piles and piles of cheap but extremely lethal junk they can afford to just toss away because they've got, well, pile and piles of it.
yukishiro1 wrote: I don't think you've ever played DE if you think you can use deep strike to deliver 30 devilgaunts into a place where they can shoot more than one raider. Sounds a lot like theorycrafting that hasn't seen the real table. It just doesn't work, the thing about DE that is so strong is they just have so many piles of stuff that they will easily screen you out from DSing a 30-blob anywhere useful.
I mean, if they want to screen out to protect their Raiders from Devilgaunts. . . so I can shoot their infantry with Devilgaunts, that seems perfectly fine by me. It doesn't matter, the point is that because Raiders have only a 4+ they become more susceptible to small arms fire. A five man Tac squad with a Lascannon will average more damage to the Raider by rapid-firing their Bolters in Tactical Doctrine than with the Lascannon.
Insectum just plays with his same casual meta year in and year out so he knows which opponents will make positioning errors to be exploited before he even sits down to play the game. His ideas simply don't work against a wider pool of highly skilled players.
Canadian 5th has neither an argument, nor a point, so he resorts to asking for personal tourney results. I'll call it a victory.
Well he missed both DevilGaunts and Shock Cannons, both of which appear to get better results. The Shock Cannons because they get bonus MWs and the DevilGaunts because they spit a badjillion shots.
Your answer to Raiders is not the 36" no LOS gun, but the 24" gun because it can do a MW on a 4+? Your either not going to be in range, not have LoS or have moved so far forward the rest of the DE will wipe you off the table.
And Devilgaunt deepstrike requires you to get first turn, them not to screen with anything, kill 2 Raiders and then die to the contents of those raiders, who make their points back on your gaunts regardless.
) doesn't kill it reliably.
Thanks anyways Daed.
. I doubt they will make the change. Personally I think spirt stones should function more like ork ramshackle and reduce damage to 1 on a 6.
