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.

If they weren't so careless about how they added Harlequins to the list, nobody would be calling the Eldar broken. It's not Falcons that break the list, but the 3 squads of Harlies that can take a ride in them.

Harlequins are the biggest mistake GW has made in any recently redone codex. (And vectored engines don't help--they should be Wave Serpent only)

Regardless, Mech Eldar is on-par with the other "power" lists, I have my doubts as to whether this will change with the new Chaos codex. It appears to me the new C:CSM will be just as powerful, but in a slightly different way (more along the lines of the other new releases).

Harlequins are the most whined about theory hammer glass tigers I have ever seen. They aren't even close to broken, and fielding three units of them in Falcons leaves little for anyone to deal with in a 1500 pt game. There are so many ways to deal with harlequins it isn't even funny. Taking quins against any kind of horde is absolutely horrible, and almost everyone has something that can get close and shoot them. Putting them in falcons makes them even smaller in squad size and even easier to deal with once they deploy. Bikes and assault troops held in the back lines also do a great job of blocking any falcons trying to dump em in your back lines.

Harlequins have amazing "potential", but in reality are a lot less of a threat than most people give them credit for.

Without those three unstoppable Falcons you wouldn't even have an argument.

Eldar in a single incarnation are very powerful. Mech eldar. Every other incarnation of them is rather reasonable and would probably take somewhat of a stomping from the new Chaos dex.

Toreador is correct, Harlies arent game breaking at all. They are deffintely good, and i am really happy they are back in the game, as i have had a harlie army since way way back when, and i feel that they are one of the abolulte coolest things in the game, but broken they are not. They drop like flies to any kind of shooting.

The falcon, as everyone knows, is just flat out too good. Other than the Falcon, the rest of the army is fairly well blanaced, IMO. The only other unit that I feel is a little too good compared to its equivilant FOC entires is Eldrad, who is crazy good.

But back to the original point, I think it is totally unjustified to ever say you would be happy that someone's army would become invalidated just because you dont like the way they build it. That is flat out immature and mean spirited. We all know how long it takes to build an army and how much money it takes. to express joy at someone else's loss is lame, period.

If you think the rules need to be changed (and i agree, the Chaos codex is broken) then that is fine. But to direct your anger at the people who bought the codex, made a 100% legal army, and then have that taken away, is stupid. Be mad at the game designers for making a crappy product that should have been done right the first time.

First of all, I think we all know what type of person builds and abuses a Chaos army list just because its the most powerful in the game. I'm talking about people who use 180 pt neigh-unstoppable DPs, bike squads to demon-bomb, and infiltrating demonhosts (Greater Demons). It's the same type of player that takes possessed+mut. hull vindicators, or multiple indirect-firing Defilers, or nine Obliterators... It's those players, the ones who played Chaos from the get go because it's the "strongest," those players that I hope scrap their armies, because Chaos is no longer "top dog." I have nothing against people who put effort into LatD lists like HBMC, although that list too can be abused somewhat. I feel for HBMC, but I think he's overreacting as well.

Not to say it hasn't been done with the old Craftworld: Eldar. Similar types of people abused the heck out of the Ranger Disruption table, but since that's gone it doesn't really bear mentioning. I heard many complaints just like HBMCs from the old Craftworld crowd...

So, secondly, how is Mech Eldar so unstoppable? You talk it up but I haven't seen it win consistently. The cornerstone of the Mech Eldar builds I'm familiar with is the three Falcon formation--this formation wouldn't be as useful if you couldn't deploy Harlequins from the Falcons. The other foot-based aspects severely lack the punch needed to "drive up and win" with Mech Eldar, the way you seem to be viewing it.

Please explain--all the "veterans" in my area seem to think Mech Eldar is pants, and I tend to agree.

then open your flipping eyes and go read the tournament results for crying out loud!!!!!!!!!!

I tried to be nice but you are willfully ignorant.

Who won the Adepticon gladiator, the single most ruthless power game, gloves off, anything goes tournament? MECH ELDAR.

Go read the tournament reports for the Vegas GT, eldar all over the top 10.


Apraently you have never read or seen the eldar codex, and the unit fire dragon means nothing to you. If 6 BS4 melta guns at close range lack "punch" then i dont know what game you play.

You and your veteran buddies are plain wrong, 100%, end of story.



You are so so so just plain WRONG! I hope your army bursts into flames because you are lame. That is esentially what you are saying. Because you play the game one way you are hoping that people lose their army that play it differently? that is beyond selfish and stupid.

You know what kinds of people play the game to win? competetive people, nothing more, nothing less. That is the difference. I have a LOT of friends who play powerful armies and it is fun to play them. it is a CHALLENGE. when you have two good players with good lists, the game is more engaging, IMO. If you bring a limp you know what of a list, and get your butt handed to you then you need to go back to the old drawing board, or play with like minded people.

How about this, i hope they make EVERY list broken so that people who play poorly and never win games will move onto to something more friendly and stop complaining.

Mech eldar is formed around points denial. If you can't disable the falcons, you can't get points for them. Dragons are much more prevalent in these parts, cheaper and easier to get the kills. When you consider you have on the order of 400pts left after taking tricked out falcons filled with harlequins on the board, of course they are pants.

They consistently place in the top 10 and usually the top 5 in most tournaments I have seen.

Posted By Toreador on 07/23/2007 9:15 AM
WOah.. hold on here. Dark Angels don't suck, they just have a problem competing with certain powerful builds of other lists (zilla, mech eldar, daemon bomb), which is a problem with a lot of armies in the current incarnation. Even min/max marines have issues, so why would DA be any better? They are underpowered compared to most power lists. If this is the level they are shooting for, I have hope. It's a nice fun list.

Court of the Young king was bad, in game and in rules questions, no great loss. Everything can still be used. Viper is still damn good, beating out the warwalker in speed and survivability while being very cheap when outfitted with two shuriken cannnon.

And has been stated time and time again, the falcon is the major problem with the eldar list being powerful. The rest of the list is a very good, and rather balanced list. With a single falcon in the list, it is usually a very competitive game with my DA. Anything more and it's just a points denial game that I can't win.

Time is the only thing that will tell. This is the first step in the world of Chaos. They keep saying that they want to revisit the legions and that is all based on the bean counters I would bet.

Reign in a few codexes, come out with a few more Chaos books, and release a new Ork list and the game would be worlds better. It's not really that far off if they choose to do it.

UW and Confrontation will both be dead in the near future, with maybe UW redoing itself again...

Gah I hate quoting .

If you are weak relative to power game lists you dont win games. That sucks. Hence Dark angels suck.

Viper should not be used. Why? It is not an effecient use of your points. That is the long and the short of it. A unit which is not an worth it's points is no good. The army is meant to be played with 2+ falcons. Your Dark Angels can't deal with it. That is a problem. But you'll learn to live with it for the next five years until the Eldar book is redone. And that's fine because the Dark Angles are underpowered but that how GW wants it.

Your love for confronation has been noted in MANY posts on the Confrontation thread so fine. You don't like it. Is it going to die? Time will tell. They seem happy with AT-43.

I am ok with it, because almost all lists can't deal with 2+ falcons. It's not exactly a great bar to go off of when few if any can compete.

We have tended to play with a "gentleman's agreement" around the shop lately. Certain things aren't fun to game with, so we design more around "fun" lists. It allows things like Sisters and IG to be played. It's a sad state of affairs when you have to agree to not use lists as they can be used.

Oddly it has been happening with a bit of Warmachine/Hordes too, which is meant to be played harshly.

And I love Confrontation as it is, just don't like the road it is going down.

Having been gaming for 25 odd years, few if anything lasts

Posted By Toreador on 07/23/2007 9:23 PM
I am ok with it, because almost all lists can't deal with 2+ falcons. It's not exactly a great bar to go off of when few if any can compete.

We have tended to play with a "gentleman's agreement" around the shop lately. Certain things aren't fun to game with, so we design more around "fun" lists. It allows things like Sisters and IG to be played. It's a sad state of affairs when you have to agree to not use lists as they can be used.

Oddly it has been happening with a bit of Warmachine/Hordes too, which is meant to be played harshly.

And I love Confrontation as it is, just don't like the road it is going down.

Having been gaming for 25 odd years, few if anything lasts

For the record, you just made my point. A gentleman's agreement required to make the effing game somewhat balanced?

That is why I'm irritated with 40K right now. Now you factor in the codex cycle (16 codex at 3 per good year) that means the incredible 2+ Falcon force will remain legal  and dominate the torunament scene for 5 years barring codex creep. That is unworkable, and means either the Eldar will be depowered by White Dwarf, breaking the codex cycle, or  just accepting that they broke the darn thing and doing a global fix. THe biggest problem that GW has is they are trying to fix things in issolation instead of fixing the whole product.

You don't deserve as much frustration as I have, because I can't recall you cheering the desecration of the Chaos book the way some others have, but gimme a break... there are books which needed it more.

One thing I do love about Classic Battletech. 2nd generation rules still legal, 2nd generation sheets still good. Makes me feel warm and fuzzy (kinda like a bottle of dram).

Posted By Reecius on 07/23/2007 12:17 PM

then open your flipping eyes and go read the tournament results for crying out loud!!!!!!!!!!

Who won the Adepticon gladiator, the single most ruthless power game, gloves off, anything goes tournament? MECH ELDAR.

Go read the tournament reports for the Vegas GT, eldar all over the top 10.

Apraently you have never read or seen the eldar codex, and the unit fire dragon means nothing to you. If 6 BS4 melta guns at close range lack "punch" then i dont know what game you play.

You and your veteran buddies are plain wrong, 100%, end of story.

 

   Thank you for confirming that you're basing your assumptions upon tournament data. I more-or-less discount tournament results, especially those at Adepticon. The Gladiator tournament was not your run-of-the-mill, average and balanced tournament. From what I know about it, I'm not surprised Mech Eldar won--the mission progression favored the list drastically.

    As far as being wrong, well, you're just plain wrong. I've seen Mech Eldar played several different ways by different, highly skilled and in some cases GT-winning players; using lists I (and you) would consider very powerful. I have not in my experience been convinced that Mech Eldar is worth all of the moaning you hear about it around here, using the basis of standard missions.

You know what kinds of people play the game to win? competetive people, nothing more, nothing less. That is the difference. I have a LOT of friends who play powerful armies and it is fun to play them. it is a CHALLENGE. when you have two good players with good lists, the game is more engaging, IMO. If you bring a limp you know what of a list, and get your butt handed to you then you need to go back to the old drawing board, or play with like minded people.

   There is a very large difference between playing competitively, and playing "competitively" by breaking an army list. I have no respect for an opponent that makes the transgressions I listed above; playing with an abusive list just isn't fair, and Chaos is the only Codex left capable of playing unfairly (meaning there's practically  nothing any other codex army can do against your units). Certain people still make the choice to abuse obviously broken units/combinations, and those people don't deserve your respect, because in all liklihood they heard about said broken combination and built their army to exploit it. I respect an opponent that wins with style and a unique army far more than an opponent that wins with their army list, and most Chaos generals tend to be lacking on the former.

   Truly competitive gamers seek to prove their skill through playing the game, not breaking an army list. For example, Falcons are good, but they're not broken. Obliterators are good, because they are broken. People who purposely abuse lists (like Iron Warriors) "official" though they may be, are simply cowards. It's a fine distinction that experienced gamers eventually learn to make.

Wait, so Falcons aren't broken but Obliterators are.

WOW. Now that's just amazing.

Falcons are neigh unkillable when used right. Ever played a mission OTHER than Seek and Destroy, where you use objectives that have things to do with scoring units? Yeah, Falcons tend to dominate those by tank shocking units off objectives and/or just being alive to go claim them. Play Cleanse vs. Mech Eldar with 3 Holofield Grav Tanks and tell me how well that goes for you. Harlies+Falcons are indeed very broken, however the real problem comes from what you can do when you have a unit that durable.

I don't know how you're going to discount tournament results like Adepticon or the other GT's/RT's that show things like Mech Eldar and Godzilla Nids are as competitive as the "old" chaos you hate so much was.

Mmm...I see I should've specified Voodoo.

I've been discounting the recent GT results because no precedent has been set. That is, Vegas GT is the first one of the past year or so that had a clear preponderance of Eldar armies.

Adepticon I absolutely disregard, because they were using non-standard missions.

As far as seek-and-destroy (are you admitting this is a weakness of Falcon lists? Escalation also seems to screw them over pretty big), I did say "standard missions," of which there are 5.

Posted By efarrer on 07/23/2007 11:48 PM

That is why I'm irritated with 40K right now. Now you factor in the codex cycle (16 codex at 3 per good year) that means the incredible 2+ Falcon force will remain legal  and dominate the torunament scene for 5 years barring codex creep. That is unworkable, and means either the Eldar will be depowered by White Dwarf, breaking the codex cycle, or  just accepting that they broke the darn thing and doing a global fix. THe biggest problem that GW has is they are trying to fix things in issolation instead of fixing the whole product.

 

40k isn't first and foremost a tourney game, whilst one would hope things are reasonably balalnced, in a game with so many options it is pretty darn inevitable that in a given environment 1 or 2 lists are going to be dominant in that environment.

Could GW make the falcon list less nasty, yes, and without codex creep in the way you seem to imply.  It only takes 1 list with a decent anti falcon unit to make the all falcon lists suddenly risky for a tourney. Its quite possible to have such a unit which doesn't impact much beyond falcons (or skimmers in general).

However, there is another solution, given that 40k is a hobby more than a tourney system then acknowlege that fact, and think again about how tourneys are run. Changing from VP totaling, to fixed points for any win changed the viability of some lists. Go even more radical, think of other ways of evening the playing field for different kinds of lists. For 2 day events something as simple as playing 3 (or 4) 1000 pts on day 1 and 3 1750 pt games on day 2 (using same codex) would probably alter things a lot, a lot of lists play very differently at smaller vs larger points (nids very obviously if you want nidzilla). Smaller games would also possibly allow an extra game which can again alter things slightly as more games puts more emphasis on consistency. Maybe allow players to handicap themselves points wise in return for extra points per game, play with 50pts less and get an extra 1 point per game played irrespective of win/loss and allow that to be usd 3 times for 150pts = 3pts, do you max out your list and lose to someone who went the extra point per game but was still a good enough player to score wins.  There are probably all sorts of things that you can do that change the environment that the players have to plan for, tourney organisers need to take some blame if they aren't looking at new ways of taking a general hobby game and turning it into a competitve tourney scene.

 

 

Posted By ColonelEllios on 07/23/2007 4:17 AM

Posted By H.B.M.C. on 07/22/2007 4:59 AM
Are you really that stupid Ellios?

Hmmm...sounds an awful lot like the whining I've heard from the last two Codex releases...

Yep...almost exactly the same!

Ellios, the next time someone asks you a question like the one above, do us a favour and save us all a lot of time by simply answering 'Yes'.

BYE

Posted By ColonelEllios on 07/24/2007 5:24 AM

Mmm...I see I should've specified Voodoo.

I've been discounting the recent GT results because no precedent has been set. That is, Vegas GT is the first one of the past year or so that had a clear preponderance of Eldar armies.

Adepticon I absolutely disregard, because they were using non-standard missions.

As far as seek-and-destroy (are you admitting this is a weakness of Falcon lists? Escalation also seems to screw them over pretty big), I did say "standard missions," of which there are 5.

Mech Eldar did exceptional at the last UKGT final and that was using the latest codex.  They weren't "overall" but came in third due to the scoring system.  If you sort by VP's, Eldar came on top, beating IW.

I don't see Adepticon being discounted because of specialist missions, all they did was use Objectives and mixed things up to help keep things different and to try and curb extreme armies.

Vegas was simply the first US GT that had Mech Eldar as a possiblity.  I was at the Baltimore GamesDay and the highest scoring Eldar army (battle points wise) was run by someone from my shop running...full on Mech Eldar.

And no, I'm not calling Seek-and-Destroy a weakness of the Falcon lists, but it's merely the mission which doesn't give them even more of an advantage.  They still have a huge advantage in denying you 500+VP's by keeping their tanks nearly unkillable, they can play VP denial better than anyone else in the game.  They simply don't have the possibility to claim objectives/table quarters/deployment zone/center of the board as easily as they do now with the abilities to tank shock units off them as well as the ability to reliably stay alive to the point where said objectives CAN be claimed.

Also escallation hurting Mech Eldar?  If anything an army with that much speed is doing just fine by escallation, they get to react to opponents deployment and they can always count on being moving fast, unlike the slight risk run by not having enough terrain to hide skimmers behind in missions where they start on the board.

And FYI, it's not just "Falcons" that are the problem, Fire Prisms count too just they're not as abusable since they can be neutralized in terms of killing power much easier than Falcons can (ie Falcons can always be counted on to transport what you want, where you want, when you want), but they still present all the real inherent advantages stated above in relations to VP Denial and objective claiming.  The problem is the combo of Holofields+Spirit Stones on a Fast Skimming Tank. 

If you can't see that, I'm not sure what else can be said.

Posted By ColonelEllios on 07/24/2007 4:15 AM

   There is a very large difference between playing competitively, and playing "competitively" by breaking an army list. I have no respect for an opponent that makes the transgressions I listed above; playing with an abusive list just isn't fair, and Chaos is the only Codex left capable of playing unfairly (meaning there's practically  nothing any other codex army can do against your units). Certain people still make the choice to abuse obviously broken units/combinations, and those people don't deserve your respect, because in all liklihood they heard about said broken combination and built their army to exploit it. I respect an opponent that wins with style and a unique army far more than an opponent that wins with their army list, and most Chaos generals tend to be lacking on the former.

   Truly competitive gamers seek to prove their skill through playing the game, not breaking an army list. For example, Falcons are good, but they're not broken. Obliterators are good, because they are broken. People who purposely abuse lists (like Iron Warriors) "official" though they may be, are simply cowards. It's a fine distinction that experienced gamers eventually learn to make.

In anaswer to your first sentence. Yes there is a difference between people who play competitvely and those who "break army lists". The people who "break" army lists win. You obviously haven't seen what mech Eldar or tyranids can do to the "broken chaos lists". Way to aint chaos players with a huge effing brush on the last sentence of your first paragraph.

Your second paragraph is kinda the proff in the pudding. Obis die to anything s8 that ignores armour. It should take five hits to remove an obi squad from the game. I can't recall how many hits are required to remove falcons but it ain't five.

You want to know how many shots it takes to reliably destroy a fully kitted out falcon by a SM with a las cannon? about 27, give or take. That is flipping insane. That is far and away more broken than Obliterators, who I agree are undercosted for what they can do.

Ellios, you are more than entitled to your opinions on the game, but you obviously don't have the firmest grasp on what you are talking about. For that matter, you really dont know how to discuss a topic very cogently either.

You are making 100% arbitrary and uninformed statements about the game and from this foundation of sand, you are making sweeping conclusions about what you think should happen. That is the absoulte wrong way to argue a point because no one is going to put any stock in what you are saying. Also, that is the best way to screw the game up.

If you are going to make assertions like you are, you need:
1.) Facts not opinions
2.) To have more than a rudimentary knowledge of the topic
3.) The maturity to admit when you are wrong, which you are.

You can not on a whim say one army or the other is for cowards or people who lack imagination because that is an assinine statement and is purely subjective, most likely based on your experiance of getting beat by said army. You cant just discount one tournament that you obviously know very little about because of an uninformed opinion as to what goes on at said tournament. And, by the way, Vegas is not the only major tourny so far to use the new Eldar, it is the 4th, IIRC, and in every tourny eldar have perofrmed VERY well. Further, you can't say the game does not revolve around statistics and math and then offer no proof as to why it does not, but then go on to use maths to prove your point.

All you do is make yourself look bad and bring on ridicule.

If you think i, or anyone else here is an idiot and that we are wrong, then fine, prove it. If you just stomp your feet and scream that we are dumb and people that use armies you dont like are worthy of contempt, you sound just like the whinny, immature child you accuse choas players of being.

And like I have said for awhile. I really think that if the rules for fast moving skimmer was brought inline with "hull down" or obscured, it would fix the issue entirely.

Posted By Reecius on 07/24/2007 9:11 AM
You want to know how many shots it takes to reliably destroy a fully kitted out falcon by a SM with a las cannon? about 27, give or take. That is flipping insane. 

1/9 glances kill; about 1/2 cause a glance. That's about 18-20 shots. I've been seeing a lot of padded numbers when talking about Falcons. You have nearly 70% error. Also, it takes (very approximately) 13-15 lascannon shots to kill a monolith (assuming no hull down), a vehicle with a similar cost and durability to a tricked out Falcon, to put things into perspective. Not so awe inspiring now, eh?

 For that matter, you really dont know how to discuss a topic very cogently either.

Do you really think I was trying to be cogent (or even that serious) in my first reply?

You are making 100% arbitrary and uninformed statements about the game and from this foundation of sand, you are making sweeping conclusions about what you think should happen. That is the absoulte wrong way to argue a point because no one is going to put any stock in what you are saying. Also, that is the best way to screw the game up.

Ah yes...so because you have two or three "friends" who mindlessly back up what you're saying, you're right; right? If my statements are opinion, yours are no different.

If you are going to make assertions like you are, you need:
1.) Facts not opinions
2.) To have more than a rudimentary knowledge of the topic
3.) The maturity to admit when you are wrong, which you are.

You can not on a whim say one army or the other is for cowards or people who lack imagination because that is an assinine statement and is purely subjective, most likely based on your experiance of getting beat by said army. You cant just discount one tournament that you obviously know very little about because of an uninformed opinion as to what goes on at said tournament. And, by the way, Vegas is not the only major tourny so far to use the new Eldar, it is the 4th, IIRC, and in every tourny eldar have perofrmed VERY well. Further, you can't say the game does not revolve around statistics and math and then offer no proof as to why it does not, but then go on to use maths to prove your point.

I made it very clear, since my first reply, what type of Chaos general I was alluding to. HBMC, for his part, seems to think my statements are directed at him, a person I've never met in my life. For all that he wishes to whine and call me stupid, it's really so much "the pot calling the kettle black." At least I was smart enough not to choose an army to fall in love with out of a campaign book with half-arsed rules support... This game changes, and every time it changes it screws over someone new. Once again, to put my feelings in short, every person who's posted in this thread whining about the new 'dex needs to "join the club." (yes, I did the bold/italic for HBMC; it's that important)

All you do is make yourself look bad and bring on ridicule.

I bring on ridicule because I'm not afraid to criticize people for having a ridiculous viewpoint and operating in an egocentric bubble. Falcons are not unkillable or broken, and Chaos players are not the first ones to lose variety or viability of an army, nor are they the first to argue about it. And, seeing as though it's the only truly broken codex remaining, I believe it's high time that it got its kimuppants (sp?).

And finally, this point is just for you Reecius; terrain placement, mission objectives, the random variability of die rolls, and the skill of your opponent cannot be represented mathematically (in the case of die rolls not in any single game; there's not enough rolling done), and thus this is not a game purely of "math and statistics" as you would have us believe.

I don't feel that a single falcon or prism is broken. The problem is when you have multiples on the board.

Okay, a marine shooting. 2/3 hit, 2/3 glance and on a tricked out falcon or prism 1/36 kill. (yes, I am not counting immobilized since vectored engines do save it, and it still can shoot and or deliver cargo at that point)

So lets say that you have 6 las cannons shooting over 6 turns at a single falcon trying to get a kill. Figure up the odds, and then figure it up against,.. say... a Land Raider or even a predator. What are the chances then? Now figure it out with 2+ falcons or prisms.

Terrain placement doesn't count as much for falcons as it does any other vehicle. A falcon can truly zip across the board in the open and still have a great chance of surviving the return fire and delivering cargo. Few other transports can do that! You don't need to figure any other statistics into mathhammer to even prove this point, but since you insist. A falcon is a master of both terrain and mission. Because of it's speed and survivability it can limit fire lanes and move to position itself to take objectives much easier than any other vehicle. Skill only makes this unit meaner. An unskilled opponent can scoot a falcon around the board and count on it surviving a skilled player can make it a scalpel.

Luck is your only saving grace, and sometimes it happens. But luck cannot be counted on.

I do play eldar, and against eldar. I have my eyes wide open on this one.

Posted By ColonelEllios on 07/24/2007 10:27 AM

Posted By Reecius on 07/24/2007 9:11 AM
You want to know how many shots it takes to reliably destroy a fully kitted out falcon by a SM with a las cannon? about 27, give or take. That is flipping insane. 

1/9 glances kill; about 1/2 cause a glance. That's about 18-20 shots. I've been seeing a lot of padded numbers when talking about Falcons. You have nearly 70% error. Also, it takes (very approximately) 13-15 lascannon shots to kill a monolith (assuming no hull down), a vehicle with a similar cost and durability to a tricked out Falcon, to put things into perspective. Not so awe inspiring now, eh?

Well average is 20.5 marine lascannon shots for a Falcon and 13.5 for a Monolith.
That's over 50% more shots for the lith, yes I would consider that a big deal.

Hopefully in 5th edition we will get a fix (since the Eldar codex won't be revamped for years) and the stupid skimmer/glace rules will change. It's amazing a skimmer moving no farther than a ground vehicle can land and dump it's passengers yet still be moving so fast it can't be hit.
Changing it to 12" would make sense.
Though the entire vehicle rules should be overhauled but that's a different matter.

I love how that many shots to kill a Falcon is somehow "OK" and makes it doable to kill 3 Holofield+Stone Skimmers in a 1500 point came (or even 1750 for that matter).

Considering no matter what Gav Thorpe says, the best way to kill a Falcon with Marines is to use Lascannons or Assault Cannons, which have the same chance of glancing per shot fired, there is no way that you're going to get that many shots on a Grav Tank all game to pull it off.

And I also love how all the points about how it is very overpowering are completely ignored, but lets all do the happy dance that Chaos can't take a Demon Prince that moves 12" a turn with T5 and a 2+/5+ save and 3 Wounds because it was so terrible.

And FYI, I play Marines, Necrons, and Orks. So no Chaos lamenting or love lost here, but to hear this kind of stuff is beyond amazing.

The Falcon is the new Wraithlord

I don't lament chaos losing things, to bring greater balance. I feel sorry for the lost options, but we don't exactly know if they will come back or not at this point, so I am not going too crazy.

I await to see if it has balance. If they can do that, I will like it. Otherwise it is a complete waste.

The Eldar list is really only broken because of the falcon, and when it is tricked out and or in multiples. Prisms and Waveserpents aren't even that bad in comparison. A prism is still points denial, but destroy a weapon and it becomes tank shock only. Waveserpent doesn't have holofields. It's the falcon that is the standout problem.

Yep.
The falcon is the major problem with the list alright.

Toreador, you were right, i screwed up my math. the chances are .666 to hit then .666 to glance, then .028 to kill, so it does take more shots than i had said, i was going too fast and multiplied the last figure by .083 thinking that it was 1 in 12 to roll box cars, but that is obviosuly incorrect, i forgot that the odds of that with two dice is 1 in 36, as with two dice there are a total of 36 possible results.

A space marine firing a las cannon would have the following chance of destroying a fully kitted Falcon:

1 x .666 to hit = .666 x .666 to glance = .4435 x .028 to destroy = .0124. Therefore, the odds are about 1.24% for a one shot one kill.

or fractionally

2/3 x 2/3 = 4/9 x 1/36 = 1/81 = 0.0123

If i have made any errors please correct me, but according to this, it takes 81 shots to reliably destroy a falcon.

81 shots

54 hit

36 glances

1 result of box cars

However, in this examply, you would also role every other result on the damage table multiple times, which means the tank would have been destroyed due to multiple imobolized and weapon destroyed results.

with 36 rolls on the damage table, you would also have 5 weapon destroyed results, 3 immobilized and 27 stunned results, with only results of 4 and 4 or higher doing anything substantial to the vehicle.

This is not even remotely close in comparison to the Monolith. A space marine firing a las cannon at a monolith has a

2/3 to hit x 1/6 to pen = 1/9 x 1/2 to destroy = 1/18

or

2/3 to hit x 1/6 to glance = 1/9 x 1/6 to destroy on a glance = 1/54

As you can see, a monolith is far less survivable than a falcon.

But for one shot one kill against a Falcon, it is 1 in 81. That is insane.

Ellios, I apologize for antagonizing you, but your attitudes about the game rub me the wrong way and i am sure you feel the same way about me, which is fine.

My point is this:

I dont want anyone's army to be invalidated. I know how much time and energy it takes to build a force and to have it become invalid is just plain unfair. To call someone who takes a legal army breaking the rules is just wrong. In order to break a rule, you have to do something that is prohibited by the rules, which a legal list does not do. You may not like, but that does not make it wrong.

To say that everyone who plays a certain army is a coward or small minded is just as idiotic as saying all jewish people are greedy or some other racial or cultural stereotype. It is absolutely incorrect. Unless you have met every single chaos player in the world and they were catagorically jerks, then you have made a statement that is not founded in fact and is pure conjecture (and mean spirited conjecture at that).

So by all means, continue to spout your half crocked ideas that are not based on fact or even experiance from the sounds of it, and we will continue to laugh.

"Ellios, I apologize for antagonizing you..."

    Well, I guess that's as close to "sorry, I was wrong" as I'm ever gonna get...

On a serious note, I have two important points to make here:

The first is that unfortunately, Reecius and Toreador are both guilty of padding the numbers, if inadvertently. This is because you have calculated the chance of straight-up killing a Falcon, which is first and foremost not a fair way to talk about its survivability. Vectored Engines only work once, and destroying an immobile Falcon is usually a joke for any army capable of immobilizing one in the first place (so...uh...all of them...). If you have experience as an Eldar general, you realize this is true; an immobilized Falcon is as good as dead (and your opponent can generally ignore it until he has the firepower to finish it off--its not going anywhere). The squad inside can't get where you were planning on getting them, and subsequently die, and the Falcon causes minimal shooting damage with its BS 3 and loss of mobility. You also immediately get 1/2 VPs for an immobile vehicle, making the comparison even more unfair because you're ignoring the possibility of Immobilized on a Falcon and not on a Monolith (or any other vehicle used for comparison) thus making the Falcon seem even more imbalanced, especially considering that with vectored engines, immobilization means essentially the same thing for a Falcon as any other vehicle.

Secondly, you're also falsely inflating the worth of the Falcon by parading around the fact that it's "50% more survivable than a Monolith." This fact seems impressive, until you realize that a Falcon doesn't have the benefit of AV 14, meaning it's vulnerable to more than twice the variety of weapons than a Monolith would ever have to worry about. This is why using Lascannons as a basis for your argument is another inadvisable move; it's basically misleading. While a Lascannon is just about the only weapon in a Marine army capable of truly threatening a Monolith, there are many times the number of weapons that pose a serious threat to a Falcon. Seeing as though 50%=1/2, and it's vulnerable to approximately twice as many weapons, 50%+50% = 1/2 + 1/2 = 1, so it's actually a wash.

So there we have it; even the MathHammer proves that a Falcon is no more impressive than any other main battle tank in the same class. (Indeed, a high-AV tank with Hull-Down can be more survivable than a Falcon...not to mention Smoke Launchers...)

Perhaps this is where Gav's advice of "using less Lascannon-like weapons..." comes from?

Falcon lists are only broken is certain meta-game environments (i.e. those dominated by Imperial armies). Players complain about not being able to kill a Falcon by shooting all their lascannons at it--and they fail to realize that just about every other heavy/special weapon in their army can also threaten it. If you're having problems with close-in Falcons, you don't have enough special weapons, or enough weapon variety; it's the only possible answer.

EDIT: Please accept that I'm not downplaying the Falcon either--it's very tough to deal with if taken in numbers; but it's not impossible to deal with, nor is it "broken." Your opponent can still do something about them. It's powerful, but no more worth complaining about than 'Zilla Nids or any other top-tier list. Also, the Falcon is not "the new Wraithlord" for several reasons--it gets no cover save, can be killed in one hit, needs to be carrying even more points worth of infantry to accomplish anything, can be stopped from shooting until it's dead, and has BS 3. It has nothing over the Wraithlord as a dominant Heavy Support choice other than speed and transport capacity (which you still need to fill).

Wow.

Just, Wow.

Are you seriously saying that what you are posting is any possible stand in for real analysis, or even any kind of rebuttle?

You threw around some numbers you pull out of the air, backed up with assumptions and conjecture, again! You prove nothing, you have no facts, hahahah, the one bit of math you use is rediculous, 50% + 50% = 1, what were you adding? what was the point of that?



is this a joke? What did you prove? i dont even know what you were TRYING to prove!

I could go on and pick this apart but it is so wrong in so many places that it would take too long and it would probably not teach you anything.

Holy smokes, i dont know if i should laugh or cry.



The only possible answer is that at this point, i am wasting my time in responding to this.

Posted By Reecius on 07/24/2007 1:13 PM

You threw around some numbers you pull out of the air, backed up with assumptions and conjecture, again! You prove nothing, you have no facts, hahahah, the one bit of math you use is rediculous, 50% + 50% = 1, what were you adding? what was the point of that?

I was afraid you wouldn't understand that bit.

1) A falcon is 50% more survivable than a Monolith using lascannons as a basis for the math

2) A falcon is vulnerable to twice as many weapons as a monolith

3) 50% more surviveable, but to twice as many weapons, means that you have a "wash," or no difference in surviveability

4) 50% + 50% = 100% (or 1), or alternatively 50% - 50% = 0%; by mathematical definition (I probably haven't presented it correctly) something that is 50% less vulnerable than something else, but only to half of the factors, means that it is 0% less vulnerable, or just as vulnerable to being blown up as, in this case, a monolith.

Using math was probably the wrong way for me to go--it's not my strongest ability. I was trying to represent the falsehood of your argument with numbers; perhaps I should try it another way:

If every army used an even spread of the available weapons (instead of massing up on lascannons) a Monolith would be just as well off as a Falcon.
That is to say, while a Falcon is 50% more survivable to a lascannon shot, it's 100% less survivable to, say, an autocannon shot, because autocannon can't hurt the Monolith. It's a wash.


Even if I'm wrong, or I make no sense, this still rings true:

Falcon lists are only broken is certain meta-game environments (i.e. those dominated by Imperial armies). Players complain about not being able to kill a Falcon by shooting all their lascannons at it--and they fail to realize that just about every other heavy/special weapon in their army can also threaten it. If you're having problems with close-in Falcons, you don't have enough special weapons, or enough weapon variety; it's the only possible answer. (i.e. your las/plas squads can use the plasma gun against a Falcon, but not a Monolith)

Okay, simple response as I am at work and don't have the time.

The Falcon is more maneuverable than the monolith, and can actually use fire lanes to control what is shot at it. Most armies barring guard can't field many multiple shot low strength weapons, and as has been said much earlier in another thread they are even worse at causing damage to a Falcon than a las cannon as it takes many more shots to get a scoring hit. Figure the probabilities if you want, but they are much worse.

One of the balancing factors in the old dex has been mitigated with vectored engines. Immobilizing the falcon allows it to offload it's cargo and then act as a pillbox, which is still quite a threat.

How many points is a tricked Falcon? How about a Pred with the new pts? It can't even carry passengers AND has to seek cover to have a 50% chance to make it a glance!

Most armies fielding las-cannon equivalents have to remove those to field the multiple shot lower strength weapons, which take more hits to bring down a falcon, which pretty much is a wash if not a worse chance. You need more AC and AutoC to bring down a Falcon than you do LC. You just don't get that many AT choices in most armies.

Eldar have just as much a problem bringing down falcons, and have those multi shot lower strength weapons.
Guard have a horrible problem with it.
Orks right now have almost no chance.
SOB and Daemonhunters can't fight themselves out of a wet paper bag.
Dark Eldar have the same issue as imperials.
Chaos pretty much = Imperial
Zilla nids seems to be good against most anything. Normal nids... not that many good AT weapons.
Tau and Necrons I don't have much experience with vs Eldar. The would seem to have a better chance of it..... So are those the magical two you were talking about not having problems?

The fact is that the imperial armies have some of the better way to deal with the Falcon, and they have a hard time of it.