Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I do agree here; no matter what it is currently, it SHOULD be balanced. Not everything should be good in every situation; Sometimes you bring flamers against tank IG, and you try to have as much fun as possible but likely will not win. But the models and weapons in the game Right now that CAN handle everything (Grav Cannons, Wraithknights, Scat Bikes, BikerStars, TWC) are not a good thing for the game. Every weapon SHOULD be good at a specific task, and be able to be chosen for that task. Flamwers for short-range anti infantry, heavy bolters for long range, Plasma for Anti-TEQ, Grav for anti-MC, Melta for Short-range anti-vehicle, Lazcannons for long range. HOW to do this we can debate all the live long day, but the point is that this needs to happen.

 Swampmist wrote:
but the point is that this needs to happen.

Don't hold your breath on that one.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Swampmist wrote:
but the point is that this needs to happen.

Don't hold your breath on that one.

See, this is not a good attitude to have. it's not even like it would be hard to balance. Just looking at marines, a few small changes, a buff to Heavy Bolters and a nerf to grav would go a long way to fixing the problems currently inherit with 40k marines, and then the other armies can be updated similarly.

 Swampmist wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Swampmist wrote:
but the point is that this needs to happen.

Don't hold your breath on that one.

See, this is not a good attitude to have.

It's not a good attitude or a bad attitude, it's simply reality.

You're welcome to have a crack at writing your own house rules and convincing your mates to play with you. That may be a satisfactory solution to you.

However GW have shown over many years and several editions that they have little interest in balancing their game. Even if they did have an interest in doing it, rock-paper-scissors type games are hard to balance in a way that would be satisfactory to everyone because some people are always going to want to do a themed army that consists of only of rocks and scissors. To balance 40k well would require a rewrite of the rules because many of the unbalancing characteristics of 40k are written right in to the core rules.

Maybe GW are finally turning a corner with reopening a channel for feedback in facebook, or maybe it's just a token gesture, we don't know yet....

....but I wouldn't hold your breath on it.

Everyone's talking about grav cents and I'm just sitting here staring at my DA. I guess black knights maybe....?

 kingbobbito wrote:
Everyone's talking about grav cents and I'm just sitting here staring at my DA. I guess black knights maybe....?

Twin linked plasma is pretty good too!

It's great against MC and can be a threat to AV13

But I always used a vet squad with meltas to handle a rough AV target.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
They just aren't .. as good at taking out WKs. But DA have their own shenanigans

They were kind of cheesy with the Rad Grenade so they could ID T4.... I miss that.

I'm curious, for the people who refuse to play against Wraithknights because they don't want to take the tools needed, how do you deal with Wraihtlords?

 Happyjew wrote:
I'm curious, for the people who refuse to play against Wraithknights because they don't want to take the tools needed, how do you deal with Wraihtlords?

My mom prefers to play Orks. I prefer to play Sororitas, often with Astartes allies. Both of us prefer to field armies of infantry backed up by a couple of tanks or walkers.

MC and GMC woes are something I can't comment on at all.

 Happyjew wrote:
I'm curious, for the people who refuse to play against Wraithknights because they don't want to take the tools needed, how do you deal with Wraihtlords?

Wraithlords are slow so you can just kite them around

 Happyjew wrote:
I'm curious, for the people who refuse to play against Wraithknights because they don't want to take the tools needed, how do you deal with Wraihtlords?

Wraithlords are relatively easy to kill. That's why Eldar players prefer wraithknights.

Let's compare:

Sternguard hellfire rounds wound wraithlords on 2s, wraithknights on 6s.
Sniper rifles wound wraithlords on 4s, wraithknights on 6s.

Then, of course, the standard anti-tank weapons are effective against both.

Not to mention the fact that wraithlords don't move 12 inches in the movement phase.

GMCs have ridiculously strong rules. They should not exist in this game.

Traditio wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
I'm curious, for the people who refuse to play against Wraithknights because they don't want to take the tools needed, how do you deal with Wraihtlords?

Wraithlords are relatively easy to kill. That's why Eldar players prefer wraithknights.

Let's compare:

Sternguard hellfire rounds wound wraithlords on 2s, wraithknights on 6s.
Sniper rifles wound wraithlords on 4s, wraithknights on 6s.

Then, of course, the standard anti-tank weapons are effective against both.

Not to mention the fact that wraithlords don't move 12 inches in the movement phase.

GMCs have ridiculously strong rules. They should not exist in this game.

I can't help but notice that rather than addressing the question you've just made a poor point about what things are wounded on and complained about Wraithknights.

pm713 wrote:
I can't help but notice that rather than addressing the question you've just made a poor point about what things are wounded on and complained about Wraithknights.

Reading comprehension. It's a thing.

I answered the question.

The strongly implied answer was: "You can use sniper rounds, sternguard hellfire ammunition rounds and the traditional anti-tank weapons."

I would say that I can understand how confusion could arise...

...

...

...

But that would be a lie on my part.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Grizzyzz wrote:I agree to an extent. I think there are major changes to be made. Making any weapon useful in every situation is where I respectfully disagree. Where I think single shot weapons currently need to be better (hp canned them) I don't think one made for a tank should be directly effective against a MC. And of course vice versa.

What's the saying? Don't show up with a knife to a gun a fight.

Megaman comes to mind. Imagine the following case:

I ask someone about a given megaman game. He then tells me that all of the bosses, except for the first, are extremely easy.

I then ask another player what he thought, and he tells me that its IMPOSSIBLE to beat any of the bosses, except for one, beyond the first one.

I, of course, played the same game, and I thought that all of the bosses were challenging to varying degrees, but were neither extremely easy nor impossible.

Why do we have these different opinions?

Whose opinion is most "valid"?

pm713 wrote:
I can't help but notice that rather than addressing the question you've just made a poor point about what things are wounded on and complained about Wraithknights.

I think they were trying to show that common methods of dealing with Wraithlords are ineffective against Wraithknights.

I'm also pretty sure they were assuming you were trying to say that people should just treat Wraithknights like they would a Wraithlord with a few extra wounds.

Pouncey wrote:I think they were trying to show that common methods of dealing with Wraithlords are ineffective against Wraithknights.

I'm also pretty sure they were assuming you were trying to say that people should just treat Wraithknights like they would a Wraithlord with a few extra wounds.

As I said!

Reading comprehension.

It's a thing.

And you apparently have it, at least.

Traditio wrote:

pm713 wrote:
I can't help but notice that rather than addressing the question you've just made a poor point about what things are wounded on and complained about Wraithknights.

Reading comprehension. It's a thing.

I answered the question.

The strongly implied answer was: "You can use sniper rounds, sternguard hellfire ammunition rounds and the traditional anti-tank weapons."

I would say that I can understand how confusion could arise...

...

...

...

But that would be a lie on my part.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Grizzyzz wrote: You gave a terrible answer. Anti tank weapons and snipers work poorly and hellfire are available in about two armies.

Traditio wrote:

Pouncey wrote:I think they were trying to show that common methods of dealing with Wraithlords are ineffective against Wraithknights.

I'm also pretty sure they were assuming you were trying to say that people should just treat Wraithknights like they would a Wraithlord with a few extra wounds.

As I said!

Reading comprehension.

It's a thing.

And you apparently have it, at least.

I'd like to recommend not being so hostile though. When you're trying to convince someone of something, insulting them is typically the wrong way to go about it. Very counter-productive.

That said, I did note that you said that anti-vehicle weapons were effective against both. Though I have no actual frame of reference for saying this, if I wanted to take out something as tall as a building and made of tough stuff, I'd probably favor a rocket launcher or laser cannon over special acid-bearing ammunition for .75 cal shells or 1.00 cal sniper rifles. Both of those weapon choices bring the movie Independence Day to mind, with the US Air Force fighting city-sized spaceships using missiles with a one-pound warhead. I thought of shelling them with artillery from afar. My dad suggested dropping 2,000 pound bombs all over the top of it. Then he reconsidered and suggested placing nuclear blasts on opposite ends, one on top, one below, to try to flip it and make the crew and troops inside go squish against their bulkheads and then break it in half when it slams against the ground.

I mean, Anti-tank weapons are fine against a Wraithlord in general, except for maybe melta guns. And a good amount of armies have poison, so the hellfire shell example does actually make sense. Another option is simply tarpitting the Wraithlord, seeing as it doesn't have stomp, and if you can ignore it's armor in CC you can get a good amount of wounds in as it lacks an invuln or a FNP.

pm713 wrote:
You gave a terrible answer. Anti tank weapons and snipers work poorly and hellfire are available in about two armies.

1. I could make the same general point (about being available to a limited number of armies) against the people crying: "USE THE NEW SHINY GRAV CENTURIONS!!!!!"

2. Your point about snipers being ineffective is factually inaccurate. A wraithlords is 120 points per model without upgrades. It has 3 wounds and a 3+ armor save. It doesn't have an invuln. It can't be upgraded to have an invuln. It doesn't have FNP. It has, furthermore, an 18 inch threat range.

Roll 3 6s to wound on sniper rounds, and the wraithlord is dead.

Let's do some mathhammer. 12 ppm per sniper, and you could take 10 snipers vs that one wraithlord. Let's assume BS 3:

10/1 (10 shots) X 1/2 (to hit) X 1/2 (to wound) X 1/3 (3+ armor save) X 1/3 (3 wounds) = 10/36 = 5/18.

A little less than a third of all shots fired by snipers would deal a fatal blow to a wraithlord.

And that's BS 3. Vanilla marine snipers have better odds.

Note, finally, this doesn't take into account the fact that snipers resolve wounds at AP 2 on 6s to hit.

 Swampmist wrote:
I mean, Anti-tank weapons are fine against a Wraithlord in general, except for maybe melta guns. And a good amount of armies have poison, so the hellfire shell example does actually make sense. Another option is simply tarpitting the Wraithlord, seeing as it doesn't have stomp, and if you can ignore it's armor in CC you can get a good amount of wounds in as it lacks an invuln or a FNP.

Anti tank - Cover and high T make it surprisingly tough against them.

Poison - Is it that common? The only armies I can think of having it are Dark Eldar, Space Marines and Nurgle Daemons. So not that common although I think Dark Eldar would do well with their amount of poison.

Tarpittting - Watch for flamers if you have low armour and T and you're close but otherwise a good solution.

Traditio wrote:

pm713 wrote:
You gave a terrible answer. Anti tank weapons and snipers work poorly and hellfire are available in about two armies.

1. I could make the same general point (about being available to a limited number of armies) against the people crying: "USE THE NEW SHINY GRAV CENTURIONS!!!!!"

2. Your point about snipers being ineffective is factually inaccurate. A wraithlords is 120 points per model without upgrades. It has 3 wounds and a 3+ armor save. It doesn't have an invuln. It can't be upgraded to have an invuln. It doesn't have FNP. It has, furthermore, an 18 inch threat range.

Roll 3 6s to wound on sniper rounds, and the wraithlord is dead.

Let's do some mathhammer. 12 ppm per sniper, and you could take 10 snipers vs that one wraithlord. Let's assume BS 3:

10/1 (10 shots) X 1/2 (to hit) X 1/2 (to wound) X 1/3 (3+ armor save) X 1/3 (3 wounds) = 10/36 = 5/18.

A little less than a third of all shots fired by snipers would deal a fatal blow to a wraithlord.

And that's BS 3. Vanilla marine snipers have better odds.

Note, finally, this doesn't take into account the fact that snipers resolve wounds at AP 2 on 6s to hit.

Personally, I'd use an Exorcist.

Also, Vanilla Marines only get sniper rifles on Scouts, which are BS3 except the Sergeant.

Pouncey wrote:I'd like to recommend not being so hostile though. When you're trying to convince someone of something, insulting them is typically the wrong way to go about it. Very counter-productive.

That said, I did note that you said that anti-vehicle weapons were effective against both. Though I have no actual frame of reference for saying this, if I wanted to take out something as tall as a building and made of tough stuff, I'd probably favor a rocket launcher or laser cannon over special acid-bearing ammunition for .75 cal shells or 1.00 cal sniper rifles. Both of those weapon choices bring the movie Independence Day to mind, with the US Air Force fighting city-sized spaceships using missiles with a one-pound warhead. I thought of shelling them with artillery from afar. My dad suggested dropping 2,000 pound bombs all over the top of it. Then he reconsidered and suggested placing nuclear blasts on opposite ends, one on top, one below, to try to flip it and make the crew and troops inside go squish against their bulkheads and then break it in half when it slams against the ground.

How much larger is a human being than a brown recluse?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Pouncey wrote:Also, Vanilla Marines only get sniper rifles on Scouts, which are BS3 except the Sergeant.

That's actually not true as of the 7th ed codex. Scouts are now BS4; furthermore, if you run them in a gladius strike force, they can reroll 1s to hit when you use the devastator and tactical combat doctrines.

Traditio wrote:

pm713 wrote:
You gave a terrible answer. Anti tank weapons and snipers work poorly and hellfire are available in about two armies.

1. I could make the same general point (about being available to a limited number of armies) against the people crying: "USE THE NEW SHINY GRAV CENTURIONS!!!!!"

2. Your point about snipers being ineffective is factually inaccurate. A wraithlords is 120 points per model without upgrades. It has 3 wounds and a 3+ armor save. It doesn't have an invuln. It can't be upgraded to have an invuln. It doesn't have FNP. They have, furthermore, an 18 inch threat range.

Roll 3 6s to wound on a sniper round, and the wraithlord is dead.

Let's do some mathhammer. 12 ppm per sniper, and you could take 10 snipers vs that one wraithlord. Let's assume BS 3:

10/1 (10 shots) X 1/2 (to hit) X 1/2 (to wound) X 1/3 (3+ armor save) X 1/3 (3 wounds) = 10/36 = 5/18.

A little less than a third of all shots fired by snipers would deal a fatal blow to a wraithlord.

And that's BS 3. Vanilla marine snipers have better odds.

Note, finally, this doesn't take into account the fact that snipers resolve wounds at AP 2 on 6s to hit.

Where on Earth is an 18" threat range coming from? Last I checked the ability to shoot a scatter laser constituted a threat.

Yeah roll 3 6's out of cover and it's gone. If you roll all ones to hit it does nothing. Luck is not a valid counter.

Half your snipers will miss. A further half will fail to wound. One of those will rend. So to survive the Wraithlord needs to pass two 3+ saves. Which seems pretty likely. That's without cover and when would you not have it in cover?

Even with that then you've done your opponent a favour by wasting that many points on scouts. One or two armies may have better snipers but largely snipers are a waste.

Traditio wrote:

Pouncey wrote:I'd like to recommend not being so hostile though. When you're trying to convince someone of something, insulting them is typically the wrong way to go about it. Very counter-productive.

That said, I did note that you said that anti-vehicle weapons were effective against both. Though I have no actual frame of reference for saying this, if I wanted to take out something as tall as a building and made of tough stuff, I'd probably favor a rocket launcher or laser cannon over special acid-bearing ammunition for .75 cal shells or 1.00 cal sniper rifles. Both of those weapon choices bring the movie Independence Day to mind, with the US Air Force fighting city-sized spaceships using missiles with a one-pound warhead. I thought of shelling them with artillery from afar. My dad suggested dropping 2,000 pound bombs all over the top of it. Then he reconsidered and suggested placing nuclear blasts on opposite ends, one on top, one below, to try to flip it and make the crew and troops inside go squish against their bulkheads and then break it in half when it slams against the ground.

How much larger is a human being than a brown recluse?

Much larger, except Brown Recluse bites rarely kills. It just makes you very, very sick.
So unless you want a weapon that makes wraithknights waste a turn vomiting, that's not a very good example.

Traditio wrote:

Pouncey wrote:I'd like to recommend not being so hostile though. When you're trying to convince someone of something, insulting them is typically the wrong way to go about it. Very counter-productive.

That said, I did note that you said that anti-vehicle weapons were effective against both. Though I have no actual frame of reference for saying this, if I wanted to take out something as tall as a building and made of tough stuff, I'd probably favor a rocket launcher or laser cannon over special acid-bearing ammunition for .75 cal shells or 1.00 cal sniper rifles. Both of those weapon choices bring the movie Independence Day to mind, with the US Air Force fighting city-sized spaceships using missiles with a one-pound warhead. I thought of shelling them with artillery from afar. My dad suggested dropping 2,000 pound bombs all over the top of it. Then he reconsidered and suggested placing nuclear blasts on opposite ends, one on top, one below, to try to flip it and make the crew and troops inside go squish against their bulkheads and then break it in half when it slams against the ground.

How much larger is a human being than a brown recluse?

I've never seen a Brown Recluse in person, and I really would rather not at any point in my life. I've seen photos of untreated bites...

I get your point though.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Pouncey wrote:Also, Vanilla Marines only get sniper rifles on Scouts, which are BS3 except the Sergeant.

That's actually not true as of the 7th ed codex. Scouts are now BS4; furthermore, if you run them in a gladius strike force, they can reroll 1s to hit when you use the devastator and tactical combat doctrines.

Well, at least I have that to look forward to when I return to playing the game. Doubt I'll ever use a Gladius Strike Force though, my games tend to be very low points because my mom and I are agonizingly slow.

CthuluIsSpy wrote:Much larger, except Brown Recluse bites rarely kills. It just makes you very, very sick.
So unless you want a weapon that makes wraithknights waste a turn vomiting, that's not a very good example.

Have you seen images of brown recluse bites?

A single brown recluse bite can cause necrosis.

Will one brown recluse bite kill you? Maybe not. Will several? I'll leave that for your consideration.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

pm713 wrote:Where on Earth is an 18" threat range coming from? Last I checked the ability to shoot a scatter laser constituted a threat.

"Without upgrades."

They have shuriken catapults. You can upgrade to scatter lasers for 15 points per laser.

Yeah roll 3 6's out of cover and it's gone. If you roll all ones to hit it does nothing. Luck is not a valid counter.

Half your snipers will miss. A further half will fail to wound. One of those will rend. So to survive the Wraithlord needs to pass two 3+ saves. Which seems pretty likely. That's without cover and when would you not have it in cover?

Even with that then you've done your opponent a favour by wasting that many points on scouts. One or two armies may have better snipers but largely snipers are a waste.

As I said:

Reading comprehension. It's a thing. Learn some.

pm713 wrote:

Traditio wrote:

pm713 wrote:
You gave a terrible answer. Anti tank weapons and snipers work poorly and hellfire are available in about two armies.

1. I could make the same general point (about being available to a limited number of armies) against the people crying: "USE THE NEW SHINY GRAV CENTURIONS!!!!!"

2. Your point about snipers being ineffective is factually inaccurate. A wraithlords is 120 points per model without upgrades. It has 3 wounds and a 3+ armor save. It doesn't have an invuln. It can't be upgraded to have an invuln. It doesn't have FNP. They have, furthermore, an 18 inch threat range.

Roll 3 6s to wound on a sniper round, and the wraithlord is dead.

Let's do some mathhammer. 12 ppm per sniper, and you could take 10 snipers vs that one wraithlord. Let's assume BS 3:

10/1 (10 shots) X 1/2 (to hit) X 1/2 (to wound) X 1/3 (3+ armor save) X 1/3 (3 wounds) = 10/36 = 5/18.

A little less than a third of all shots fired by snipers would deal a fatal blow to a wraithlord.

And that's BS 3. Vanilla marine snipers have better odds.

Note, finally, this doesn't take into account the fact that snipers resolve wounds at AP 2 on 6s to hit.

Where on Earth is an 18" threat range coming from? Last I checked the ability to shoot a scatter laser constituted a threat.

Yeah roll 3 6's out of cover and it's gone. If you roll all ones to hit it does nothing. Luck is not a valid counter.

Half your snipers will miss. A further half will fail to wound. One of those will rend. So to survive the Wraithlord needs to pass two 3+ saves. Which seems pretty likely. That's without cover and when would you not have it in cover?

Even with that then you've done your opponent a favour by wasting that many points on scouts. One or two armies may have better snipers but largely snipers are a waste.

The 18" threat range comes from its shuriken catapults. They were assuming a Wraithlord completely barren of upgrades.

 Pouncey wrote:

pm713 wrote:

Traditio wrote:

pm713 wrote:
You gave a terrible answer. Anti tank weapons and snipers work poorly and hellfire are available in about two armies.

1. I could make the same general point (about being available to a limited number of armies) against the people crying: "USE THE NEW SHINY GRAV CENTURIONS!!!!!"

2. Your point about snipers being ineffective is factually inaccurate. A wraithlords is 120 points per model without upgrades. It has 3 wounds and a 3+ armor save. It doesn't have an invuln. It can't be upgraded to have an invuln. It doesn't have FNP. They have, furthermore, an 18 inch threat range.

Roll 3 6s to wound on a sniper round, and the wraithlord is dead.

Let's do some mathhammer. 12 ppm per sniper, and you could take 10 snipers vs that one wraithlord. Let's assume BS 3:

10/1 (10 shots) X 1/2 (to hit) X 1/2 (to wound) X 1/3 (3+ armor save) X 1/3 (3 wounds) = 10/36 = 5/18.

A little less than a third of all shots fired by snipers would deal a fatal blow to a wraithlord.

And that's BS 3. Vanilla marine snipers have better odds.

Note, finally, this doesn't take into account the fact that snipers resolve wounds at AP 2 on 6s to hit.

Where on Earth is an 18" threat range coming from? Last I checked the ability to shoot a scatter laser constituted a threat.

Yeah roll 3 6's out of cover and it's gone. If you roll all ones to hit it does nothing. Luck is not a valid counter.

Half your snipers will miss. A further half will fail to wound. One of those will rend. So to survive the Wraithlord needs to pass two 3+ saves. Which seems pretty likely. That's without cover and when would you not have it in cover?

Even with that then you've done your opponent a favour by wasting that many points on scouts. One or two armies may have better snipers but largely snipers are a waste.

The 18" threat range comes from its shuriken catapults. They were assuming a Wraithlord completely barren of upgrades.

Which is never going to be seen.

Pounce wrote:The 18" threat range comes from its shuriken catapults. They were assuming a Wraithlord completely barren of upgrades.

I half suspect that he doesn't even bother reading my posts in their entirety. He often replies to my postings in a way that completely miss the point of -- often completely misrepresent -- what I've actually said.

Thus the hostility.

Traditio wrote:

Pounce wrote:The 18" threat range comes from its shuriken catapults. They were assuming a Wraithlord completely barren of upgrades.

I half suspect that he doesn't even bother reading my posts in their entirety. He often replies to my postings in a way that completely miss the point, often completely misrepresent, what I've actually said.

Thus the hostility.

Excuse me if I get bored of childish whining. But I would add I do read your posts. Perhaps my interpretation is altered by.... well how stupid some things you've said are.