Best way to fix Wave Serpents?

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.

**koooaei**

Murrdox wrote:
You'll see about as much consensus on this thread on how to fix the Wave Serpent as you will in your average "Wish List" thread for a new codex or rules edition.

Personally, for me if the Serpent Shield was changed to 1-shot or 12" I'd feel at least a 15 point reduction in the cost of the Wave Serpent would be appropriate. I'm not a fan of either of these options personally, but other people seem to love them. I don't like 1-shot weapons in 40k period, and putting a 12" range on the Serpent Shield is almost the same thing as taking it away entirely. It'll get used about as often as Tank Shocking.

My preferred fix options would be:

1) Range reduced to 36". I think this is a perfectly reasonable fix. It means the Wave Serpent can't fire the Serpent Shield with impunity while out of weapons range of all the opponent's army.
2) Shield must roll each turn after it is fired to recharge. Shield only becomes available next turn on a 4+. Defensive bonuses are still lost as long as the shield is down. I could also see this as being simplified to an "every other turn" use.
3) Wave Serpent comes with the defensive Serpent Shield stock. The ability to fire the Serpent Shield comes as a 20 point upgrade. 20 points is almost expensive as a D-Cannon, so I believe this point cost would be more than balancing.

Just my 2-cents.

Some nice ideas here. I like the recharging system. But what about making it stacking like reserves in 5 ed?

If the shield is fired, it becomes inactive. At the beginning of the controlling player's next shooting phase roll a dice and see if it gets recharged. On a roll of 5+ it gets recharged. Add +1 if the serpend hadn't moved in the movement phase. Add another +1 for every failed recharge attempt since the last use (firing). The roll of 1 is always a failure.

So it's not 1-use, it has the exact same damage output, range and stuff but it has a chance of not recharging. Which is increased if you move for a 'free' jink save. The longer it's in play the more chances of recharging you have. Also, you'd not know if it's gona work or not untill the shooting phase so now it's not a no-brainer option and you have to think about your actions and placing and take the risks like everyone else does.

It's still very strong and capable of alpha-striking but more dangerous in the long-run perspective cause u're not guaranteed to have it next turn.

**Daba**

Mr Morden wrote:
Daba wrote:
Change the number of hits it [serpent shield on shooting mode] causes down to D3+1.

Thats virtually no change and IMO certianly nowhere near enough

it is enough for now. Although powerful, the overall transport is a very expensive unit as far as dedicated goes. If you go much further you have to consider a hefty price reduction. It is a subtle fix but it honestly does the job. Lower average hits means the 60 inch range suddenly isn't soloing units any more at outside their range. The lower but still firepower is useful but your thinking about trading of the shield now and it's not so useful against soft targets with low save which was one target that the ignore cover was super effective against and combines very well with the scatter laser.

The fact that it is not a build that sweeps tournaments heavily implies it needs only a subtle change.

**Mr Morden**

Goldphish wrote:
People are still complaining about both the survivability and the dakka that serpents posses. While it is possible for a serpent to use both in a game, doing so generally lessens their threat to the opponent.

I don't feel like quoting at the moment, but you really need to stop comparing units without taking consideration of its full price. A serpent is minimum 200 points to field.

Serpents do not get to just ignore pens all together, they still take the hull point! So they die just like any vehicle that gets lit up. If they are ignoring pens instead of firing that means they are not killing you for at least 20% of the game unless they are going second, and they only get to do it twice before they die anyway. The defensive qualities of the serpent are over rated. At what point in 6th did we go back to caring about pens?

My solution to the serpent is simple. No one apparently noticed it earlier. Remove the Ignores Cover from the shield's weapon profile. It makes little sense for it to be there and it would balance out the vehicle without over nerfing it. At that point you have a AV12 4/5+ vehicle that can move 12" and fire 2 weapons at full bs, which is ~8 shots a turn. A little high for a transport but you're also paying 200 points for it at minimum and comparing that to the other guns around it isn't that bad. ie misslesides, twin linked tesla, splintercannons, half the ig guns, etc Every army has their cost effective options for blowing people up, or at least the new books do.

Rubbish its 135pts with TL Scatter Laser and Holofields.

The importantace of ignoring the pens is that the pens (if they don't kill you) damage the effectiveness of your vehicle AND the Troops inside - its why Monsterous Creatures are so good (and why Riptides should not be MC)

Oh so its ok if you have the new books but screw everyone else?

**Bharring**

The debate right now seems to be on whether needing the Shields shooting is sufficient. I believe so, but others are arguing otherwise.

On the subject of the Malta Drop, on top of first within 6", (2/3 * 32/36) of shots hurt the Serpent (most downgraded pens to glances). That's more than 3/5, meaning usually a dead Serpent.

Bottom on 1, if he brought his nonsheild guns to bear, you're penning rear armor on 3s, and those can't be downgraded. If, instead, he's hiding, you'll do 2 HP, leaving it almost dead.

Melts Dropping a LR or other AV14 is unlikely to HP them out (needs 4 of 5 to HP). For pens, it (2/3 * 21/36), which is under half. Then, each one has a 1/2 chance to blow it up.

So bringing the one thing that torches AV14 easily but the Serpent is strongest against is moderately better at killing the intended target than the non intended target.

Run these numbers again at 6"+, and the Serpent loses a HP or two, while the LR is fine.

Get access to rear armor, and its laughable.

Replace the Melts with Plasma, and the Serpent is doomed whereas the LR is invulnerable.

Replace with a Tac squad, and they have a chance on Serpent side armor, and would destroy a Serpent's tailpipe, but can't touch a LR on any facing.

The Serpent is designed to survive heavy antitank being shot at it from a gun line. As with anything Eldar, if you fight it's strengths, you'll loose. Its like complaining that Banshees are OP because they beat Tacs in melee. Once you start trying to face it on different terms (shoot the banshees, hide in cover, or flank the Serpent, or force it into hiding), they won't seem so OP.

A gun line with just some high-s shots is what it does well against. Pods for either rear armor or putting a threat on the table, or moving stuff up the table may be required. The only gun lines that might do well are massed mid-S (6/7), ones with far too much survivability (or too many models), or Tau. But you're playing to their strength that way.

Long story short, stop trying to use a hammer to drive a screw.

**AlmightyWalrus**

Bharring wrote:

Long story short, stop trying to use a hammer to drive a screw.

Sure, just give me a screwdriver first.

**Mr Morden**

Indeed - this is just defending the indefensible - happens everytime anyone suggests trying to balance any of the well known broken/OP/Cheese (whatever description you choose) units a few people think the world is ending and scream nerf....and nothing ever gets done.

@ Bharring - so what armies do you have that are successful against Wave Serpent spam - cos at the moment its lot of handwavium and oh its easy to beet them if your not a rubbish player.

**Bharring**

What armies have faced wave serpent spam since the theoretical nerf to its shooting was implemented? Its shooting really needs a nerf. I have never disputed that.

**Mr Morden**

Bharring wrote:
What armies have faced wave serpent spam since the theoretical nerf to its shooting was implemented? Its shooting really needs a nerf. I have never disputed that.

Well some people are still saying that it should not receive any nerf or just drop it down to D3+1 shots..........

**Bharring**

Morden -
Seems insufficient to me, but reducing the Shield portion to a 5+ seems like too much.

I'm still a fan of the 6/12" range option, although the torrent/template (1, not d6+1) idea is interesting.

Part of how it breaks the game is in having an absurdly strong and long range first turn. Armies shouldn't be wiping each other out first turn.

Eldar are master specialists, and the Serpent should be mid range support and stupidly survivable.

I feel the need to reiterate that it's hard to be objective while people are beating your face in with Serpents. Which is the only time most people see the Serpent. I have a problem being objective about the Helldrake.

**nobody**

Bharring wrote:
The debate right now seems to be on whether needing the Shields shooting is sufficient. I believe so, but others are arguing otherwise.

On the subject of the Malta Drop, on top of first within 6", (2/3 * 32/36) of shots hurt the Serpent (most downgraded pens to glances). That's more than 3/5, meaning usually a dead Serpent.

Bottom on 1, if he brought his nonsheild guns to bear, you're penning rear armor on 3s, and those can't be downgraded. If, instead, he's hiding, you'll do 2 HP, leaving it almost dead.

Melts Dropping a LR or other AV14 is unlikely to HP them out (needs 4 of 5 to HP). For pens, it (2/3 * 21/36), which is under half. Then, each one has a 1/2 chance to blow it up.

So bringing the one thing that torches AV14 easily but the Serpent is strongest against is moderately better at killing the intended target than the non intended target.

Run these numbers again at 6"+, and the Serpent loses a HP or two, while the LR is fine.

Get access to rear armor, and its laughable.

Replace the Melts with Plasma, and the Serpent is doomed whereas the LR is invulnerable.

Replace with a Tac squad, and they have a chance on Serpent side armor, and would destroy a Serpent's tailpipe, but can't touch a LR on any facing.

The Serpent is designed to survive heavy antitank being shot at it from a gun line. As with anything Eldar, if you fight it's strengths, you'll loose. Its like complaining that Banshees are OP because they beat Tacs in melee. Once you start trying to face it on different terms (shoot the banshees, hide in cover, or flank the Serpent, or force it into hiding), they won't seem so OP.

A gun line with just some high-s shots is what it does well against. Pods for either rear armor or putting a threat on the table, or moving stuff up the table may be required. The only gun lines that might do well are massed mid-S (6/7), ones with far too much survivability (or too many models), or Tau. But you're playing to their strength that way.

Long story short, stop trying to use a hammer to drive a screw.

I do find it amusing how you assume the Serpent is sitting still, or leaving enough room at the back of the serpent for drop pods to land and disgorge troops into the rear arc, and moving into range where tactical squads charging it are a serious concern.

But, as I stated earlier, I'm fine with the survivability of the Wave Serpent, my beef was with the statement "just bring more heavy weapons." Some armies cannot bring the amount of heavy weapons in a gunline and expect to have them all have LoS. As explained, a moving serpent would need the equivalent of 5 stalkers shooting at the same target to bring down a serpent in one turn. No SM army (outside of the FW siege vanguard list) can do that without dipping into dreadnoughts (which can die frighteningly fast when the serpents decide to go on the offensive). I've also explained that the best weapon for taking down serpents in a Marine list appears to be Grav weapons, as they don't care about penetrating hits, and (depending on interpretation) don't care about jink saves.

My main issue is the shooting. A 60" S7 gun with multiple shots that ignores cover and is usually twin-linked is entirely too good.

**Mr Morden**

Of course with 7th Ed round the corner who knows whats going to happen - but sadly I don't high hopes...............

**Goldphish**

Mr Morden wrote:Rubbish its 135pts with TL Scatter Laser and Holofields.

The importantace of ignoring the pens is that the pens (if they don't kill you) damage the effectiveness of your vehicle AND the Troops inside - its why Monsterous Creatures are so good (and why Riptides should not be MC)

Oh so its ok if you have the new books but screw everyone else?

I didn't say anything about screwing people without a new book, just that people with a new book can do the same thing and generally do. They spam their most effective units.

Bharring wrote:I'm still a fan of the 6/12" range option, although the torrent/template (1, not d6+1) idea is interesting.

Again a solution that effectively removes the weapon portion of the shield.

Part of how it breaks the game is in having an absurdly strong and long range first turn. Armies shouldn't be wiping each other out first turn.

Apparently it isn't breaking the game because you don't see it at tournaments.

nobody wrote:My main issue is the shooting. A 60" S7 gun with multiple shots that ignores cover and is usually twin-linked is entirely too good.

I do find it amusing people keep saying it's twin linked at 60". At 37'-60" you're looking at 2-3 S7 hits with ignores cover on avg, oh nos.
Take away the ignores cover and its laughable.

**Mr Morden**

So its not as good as the most broken things - still broken as everyone but you seem to agree ?

Or is everyone wrong but you?

**nobody**

Goldphish wrote:

nobody wrote:My main issue is the shooting. A 60" S7 gun with multiple shots that ignores cover and is usually twin-linked is entirely too good.

I do find it amusing people keep saying it's twin linked at 60". At 37'-60" you're looking at 2-3 S7 hits with ignores cover on avg, oh nos.
Take away the ignores cover and its laughable.

I'm well aware that the Scatter Laser is required to make it twin-linked, I was rushing to post and I should have mentioned that. As for the range, on a standard board 60" may as well read "full board" since on a standard 4x6 board the only way the full 60" really becomes noticeable is in short table edge deployment.

The ignores cover is a portion of the problem, but the 60" range (which again, basically means full board) should be brought down in any reasonable modification.

**Daba**

Mr Morden wrote:
Bharring wrote:
What armies have faced wave serpent spam since the theoretical nerf to its shooting was implemented? Its shooting really needs a nerf. I have never disputed that.

Well some people are still saying that it should not receive any nerf or just drop it down to D3+1 shots..........

Because dropping it down to D3+1 is actually a decent sized nerf? Which is like a 40% decrease in firepower for that weapon? No one thought that doing that also affects it's range performance as it's suddenly doing half the damage at 60"?

Don't underestimate how much of a change that actually is.

**koooaei**

You know what's annoying me in that d6+1? This +1 part. Even more than d6

Don't know why. Maybe because my lootas shoot d3 and not d2+1 or something

**Daba**

koooaei wrote:
You know what's annoying me in that d6+1? This +1 part. Even more than d6 Don't know why. Maybe because my lootas shoot d3 and not d2+1 or something

The worst thing about Lootas is it's D3 x guys in the unit, so you a roll of a 1 is really bad for them. If it were D3 each, they would at least average out a bit more nicely.

**Ashiraya**

Just make the SS a template already.

Or hell, nerf it to the ground. It should not be that much stronger than the Falcon.

**Murrdox**

Daba wrote:
koooaei wrote:
You know what's annoying me in that d6+1? This +1 part. Even more than d6 Don't know why. Maybe because my lootas shoot d3 and not d2+1 or something

The worst thing about Lootas is it's D3 x guys in the unit, so you a roll of a 1 is really bad for them. If it were D3 each, they would at least average out a bit more nicely.

The first 5 or 6 games I played with my Lootas I played them this way. It made rolling the Lootas' to-hit rolls take a lot longer (roll 10 dice, count up the number of attacks on each one, add those up, count out that many dice, and then roll AGAIN to actually shoot). But it was really awesome and my Lootas were devastating, and pretty reliable most of the time to get a good number of shots off.

Then they FAQed it.

**Farseer Morlengal**

Tossing in my 2 cents as well...

Most people who are content with things are usually don't go onto the internet to crusade for everything being just fine. That in mind, I'm always skeptical of bad reports I read online. Reading so many complaints here, I'm inclined to agree that something has to be done (drawing on arguments I read earlier) to reduce the gap between competitive play and casual play. However, I'm inclined towards a gentle change (perhaps out of Eldar bias), as many of the Competitive Players I've read here seem to think that little or no change is needed. I also think a gentle touch would do best to satisfy everybody involved.

I understand that we can't change GW, but I agree with previous posters on the subject of House Rules. But that's an internal gaming-group matter (or sometimes just between the two playing a match), though I do think that the internet can give us good ideas for these House Rules. I've seen many great answers here.

Back to the fixes. Of the arguments on fixing the Wave Serpent Shield, most of what (I can remember) I've read up until now seems to be divided into two categories: Fix the Defense or Fix the Offence. I'll start with Offence.

Daba wrote:
Change the number of hits it [serpent shield on shooting mode] causes down to D3+1.

I like this idea, though I think we should also strip away the Ignore Cover. In terms of 40k-Meta, Ignore Cover never felt right with me in an edition that scaled back cover saves but made it easier to get those cover saves. I'll have to run the numbers on those as well. To the point, because I liked this idea, I decided to do a little bit of amateur math. As I don't engage in a lot of Mathammer, I take no offense if anybody wants to laugh at my n00bish flailing.

Spoiler:

On the subject of fixing the defense, as I don't have all of the required codecies, I'd like to request for someone to do the math on comparing various options for killing the Wave Serpent if it's Shield's Save were instead 3+. Or 4+. I'd would ask for both with and without jink+holo fields, but I don't want to take to much of your time.

How would the results compare to 2+? If there isn't a change, then is problem inherent in the Wave Serpent is in the Jink save? At least that's the next question I'd like to consider, because from what (I can remember) I've read, the argument involving the Jink Save seems to be that in combination with it's offensive strike.