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.

And the new chaos is getting neutered quite a bit in AT, and the survivability of Oblits...

Ok, this is getting RIDICULOUS.

This, certainly is not true:


It doesn't matter if it's Imperial or not, facts are facts that a S9 1 shot gun is as good as a 2 Shot S7 Gun (Autocannons, Missile Pods), which is as good as a 4 Shot S6 Gun (Scatter Lasers, Assault Cannons), which is better than S6 3 shot guns (Multi-Lasers, Shurican Cannons).

This covers just about every major "gun" out there reguardless of army's that are capable of downing the Falcon. Not many of them are going to be as good as the Space Marine (BS4) with the Lascannon (S9).

The amount of Lascannon shots (or number of assault cannons/autocannons/missile pods/Scatter Lasers) that it takes to down a Falcon by a BS4 model is 20.5 (assuming no Vectored Engines). Multiply that by 3, 61.5, and that's how many shots in a game you need to bring one down all three. Given that vs. a competent opponent, you will not get that many shots off in a game (terrain is easy to use when your a Fast Skimmer), and any reasonable person who has played with or against the list can tell you how good that is.

This is a problem for any army other than Necrons to deal with for a variety of reasons, not the least of which has to do with the fact that it:

1.) Denies VP's
2.) Easily Scores on Objectives
3.) Not only scores, but can tank shock units off objectives.

And then it gets to do this little job of dropping off units wherever you want on the table, when you want it, with very little chances that your opponent can stop you.

As a Marine & Necron player, I would gladly trade the survivability of my tanks for that of the Holofield+Stones Grav Tank. There isn't anything in the game that durable. Especially while at the same time being that Fast and Versatile when it comes to scoring and objectives.

Hey I'll swap you a falcon for a battlewagon if you want.
I mean, if it's as good as every other main tank out there. That would mean I'd actually have a model for my mainline tank too, sweet!

Quite a few commenst about how many SM lascannons to kill a falcon, mostly trying to work out chance of outright kill and simply taking an average from that one figure.  I think reecius aluded to the fact that multi shots get cumulatively better from earlier immobilses and weapon destroyed results.

Here are the figures for the probability of killing a falcon after X shots, with or without vectored engines, and including all the cumlulative chance of immbilises and weapon destroyed results from the earlier shots.

chance to after x shots vs vector engines

1    1.23
5    8.38
10    20.46
20    48.4
30    71.13
40    85.19

chance to after x shots vs no vector engines
1    4.94
5    22.38
10    39.9
20    65.03
30    80.9
40    90.24

A falcon without Vectored engines is far easier to take down, needing 20.5 shots on average. However, simply downing a Falcon does not take it out of the fight. As others have noted, the payload the Falcon carries is often deadlier than the falcon itself. With vectored engines, they land unharmed and can proceed to attack the next turn.

Also, the Falcon can still shoot if it has any functional weapons. Therefore, it is still a threat and it requires further resources to destroy. Simply immobilising a Falcon does not nuetralize it by any means so long as it has vectored engines. That just multiplies its effectiveness over other vehicles by an even greater degree.

Puree, how did you factor in the increasing damage to a Falcon, that was something i knew was in effect, but that is beyond me as to how to calculate.

Posted By Reecius on 07/24/2007 4:01 PM


Puree, how did you factor in the increasing damage to a Falcon, that was something i knew was in effect, but that is beyond me as to how to calculate.

Conceptually its a simple problem, just the processing that is difficult unless you are some maths savant (which I aint). Fortunately computers have a purpose beyond MMOs and reading dakka.

This thread has gotten a bit off topic. So how about them Chaos rumors?

Ozymandias, King of Kings

cool, that is very handy. I would have a lot of fun with a program like that, coming up with all kinds of probabilities for certain occurances.

.

Posted By puree on 07/24/2007 4:49 PM

A few years ago I wrote a pretty impressive simulator...

...and then promptly threw out your shoulder patting yourself on the back!

Seriously though, it would be nice if you could resurrect that program.

Ellios:  Based on Puree's analysis - roughly 30 lascannon (or equivalent) shots per falcon are needed to attain any sort of reliablility on winning the Falcon's VPs.  That's 90 shots per game vs. 3 falcons, or at best, 15 lascannon (or equivalents) over six turns.  Considering that you can easily run the 3 falcon flying circus in 1000 points - no army that I can think of can bring that kind of firepower.

We playtested against this even with maxed obliterators (which strangely only require 2.7 lascannon (BS4) shots to kill) and they were found wanting.

I do not understand why one unit (falcon) is deemed acceptable, and the other unit unit (obiliterators) are deemed overpowered.

Someone, not naming names, either doesn't like Pete Haines, hates oblits, or loves Eldar. The last one is similar to what Pete Haines did with oblits 'cuz he "just happened" to play IW. All three possibilities are purely hypothetical but I will claim credit if one of them turns out to be true.

I imagine it is because Obliterators cause a lot more direct damage, and in conjunction with the rest of the army are very hard to deal with.

Falcons are more indirect in a game. They don't have a lot of direct damage potential, and if you aren't that worried about the cargo, you try to ignore them after getting a hit that makes them not shoot. Oblits on the other hand are tearing your army apart every phase in shooting, and are hard to negate when you have daemon bombs flying down your neck.

I still see them as equal problems.

Well a Falcon can put 5 str 6 shots and 2 str 8 down range every turn. That ain't chicken feed.

Posted By Ozymandias on 07/24/2007 4:18 PM
This thread has gotten a bit off topic. So how about them Chaos rumors?

Ozymandias, King of Kings

I agree here. Is there anyway we could have the falcon survivability stuff moved to discussions or tactica or somewhere more appropriate?

I've been thinking about this whole reorganization of chaos that seems to be in the works. I like how they are trying to put a focus back onto generic chaos marines. The majority of those who turn to chaos, i feel, are going to be those. Things like berserkers, plauge marines, etc should be placed more in a 'elite' or 'chosen' kind of capacity. These are beings which have been gifted for outstanding service.

However, I have to disagree with the removal or limiting of 'cult' armies. This goes across the board. There are plenty of fluffy instances of cult armies. I don't really see the problem with having cult marines in termie armor, as havoks, or on bikes.... well, plague marines on bikes are just a disgusting thought... all those little fleshy bits falling off as they ride at full speed. i mean, come on. they should get a tank-shock like affect when they charge, else the victim just stands there retching.

And I do have problems with putting limits on people who play properly. No beard, no cheese, no nothin. Those who abuse a list should just be ignored. Unfortunately, people seem to be so obsessed with tourny play and focus on the fact that these combinations are allowed. I agree that limits should be placed in these circumstances. But when I come across an army I probably have no chance of winning against, i'm happy to just focus on taking out the uber-unit or whatever little goal i give myself.

I never really understood why people were so upset with the most recent chaos release for a long time. Sure there were/are some powerful units in there, but i feel everything has a counter. And if there isn't something that is a direct counter for a unit, there's always faith in dice. This game is as much chance as anything else. You can weigh the dice in your favor with tactics, but in the end it's all up to the Dice Gods.

Yes, but imbalanced lists makes for bad games. Play daemonhunters awhile.

Part of the reason the falcon discussion is here, and has it's place, is that the "new" balance won't work with falcons out there. DA, BA, Chaos, and Orks will be pretty much hosed if Zilla, Falcons, and C:SM aren't brought into balance, IF these new armies are balanced against each other.

And I have hopes. For some time now the developers have stated that they want to do legion books, along with legion specific sprues just like the loyalist chapters. It's great if they can put it into operation. But, if it doesn't work out, then a lot of armies are changed dramatically.

The thing is, it has to all be balanced out, and it looks like they are working towards that end.

Only time will tell.

(much easier to glance a falcon and shut down it's firing than to bring it down, Most people seem to be happy with at least that result.)

Am I the only one who finds ColonelEllios' avatar more than a little ironic?

ColonelEllios = bald guy

snake = mathematics

Posted By Toreador on 07/25/2007 9:52 AM
Yes, but imbalanced lists makes for bad games. Play daemonhunters awhile.

Part of the reason the falcon discussion is here, and has it's place, is that the "new" balance won't work with falcons out there. DA, BA, Chaos, and Orks will be pretty much hosed if Zilla, Falcons, and C:SM aren't brought into balance, IF these new armies are balanced against each other. .

...
The thing is, it has to all be balanced out, and it looks like they are working towards that end.

The issue is that GW has said Falcons won't get fixed until Codex Eldar is redone (i.e. 5th ed.). This means that if the new balance doesn't work with Falcons and Nidzilla, there's a 0% of 40K getting balanced before 5th ed. - longer if they keep with the same set of Codexes like with 3rd to 4th.

Posted By Asmodai on 07/25/2007 10:22 PM

The issue is that GW has said Falcons won't get fixed until Codex Eldar is redone (i.e. 5th ed.). This means that if the new balance doesn't work with Falcons and Nidzilla, there's a 0% of 40K getting balanced before 5th ed. - longer if they keep with the same set of Codexes like with 3rd to 4th.

I must have missed that, when did they say they were broken and will get fixed in the next eldar codex?

Falcons work pretty nearly the same as they did in 3rd, and all they changed with the new codex is nerfing spirit stones and increasing the cost of holofields.

Obviously they are aware of how beefy the holo+stone combo is, and decided to leave it alone...

Just be happy they "fixed" the starcannon...

Like I said...it's not the Falcons but what's in them that counts. Making harlies 0-3 and allowing them to ride in Falcons are the two most unbalancing things GW did for this recent codex. I don't hear anybody complaining up-and-down about Fire Prisms, and defensively the two vehicles are the same!

If your opponent is using tri-Falcon, there are ways to counter and minimize the damage he does.

If you could only put regular aspects in Falcons, people wouldn't be complaining as much. Fire Dragons would be the best choice for it (as always) and aren't nearly as dangerous as properly used harlies are.

Posted By puree on 07/26/2007 3:41 AM

Posted By Asmodai on 07/25/2007 10:22 PM

The issue is that GW has said Falcons won't get fixed until Codex Eldar is redone (i.e. 5th ed.). This means that if the new balance doesn't work with Falcons and Nidzilla, there's a 0% of 40K getting balanced before 5th ed. - longer if they keep with the same set of Codexes like with 3rd to 4th.

I must have missed that, when did they say they were broken and will get fixed in the next eldar codex?

From the Gav interview still on the front page of N&R: " The only time rules would change would be in a new Codex: Eldar, which obviously won¡¦t be for many years yet."

Posted By Asmodai on 07/26/2007 4:28 AM

Posted By puree on 07/26/2007 3:41 AM

Posted By Asmodai on 07/25/2007 10:22 PM

The issue is that GW has said Falcons won't get fixed until Codex Eldar is redone (i.e. 5th ed.). This means that if the new balance doesn't work with Falcons and Nidzilla, there's a 0% of 40K getting balanced before 5th ed. - longer if they keep with the same set of Codexes like with 3rd to 4th.

I must have missed that, when did they say they were broken and will get fixed in the next eldar codex?

From the Gav interview still on the front page of N&R: " The only time rules would change would be in a new Codex: Eldar, which obviously won¡¦t be for many years yet."

Ah - I had already read that, he didn't say or admit that falcons were broken or would be fixed in the next codex, just that any changes would have to wait for the next codex. I read that as a sort of obvious throw away answer that any changes to eldar would obviously have to wait for the next codex, nothing to do with GW saying falcons would be 'fixed'.

Posted By puree on 07/26/2007 4:51 AM

Posted By Asmodai on 07/26/2007 4:28 AM

Posted By puree on 07/26/2007 3:41 AM

Posted By Asmodai on 07/25/2007 10:22 PM

The issue is that GW has said Falcons won't get fixed until Codex Eldar is redone (i.e. 5th ed.). This means that if the new balance doesn't work with Falcons and Nidzilla, there's a 0% of 40K getting balanced before 5th ed. - longer if they keep with the same set of Codexes like with 3rd to 4th.

I must have missed that, when did they say they were broken and will get fixed in the next eldar codex?

From the Gav interview still on the front page of N&R: " The only time rules would change would be in a new Codex: Eldar, which obviously won¡¦t be for many years yet."

Ah - I had already read that, he didn't say or admit that falcons were broken or would be fixed in the next codex, just that any changes would have to wait for the next codex. I read that as a sort of obvious throw away answer that any changes to eldar would obviously have to wait for the next codex, nothing to do with GW saying falcons would be 'fixed'.

Right and Siren Princes and Iron Warriors with 9 Oblits and 4 Vindicators were weren't broken and weren't guaranteed to be fixed in the next Codex either.

You can file 'Falcons won't get nerfed' next to 'Terminators will still have 2 assault cannons' and 'Marines won't come in combat squads' in the 'Yeah Right' rumours bin.

GW seems to be more perceptive to these sort of issues now then they were in third.

Posted By Asmodai on 07/26/2007 6:00 AM

Posted By puree on 07/26/2007 4:51 AM

Posted By Asmodai on 07/26/2007 4:28 AM

Posted By puree on 07/26/2007 3:41 AM

Posted By Asmodai on 07/25/2007 10:22 PM

The issue is that GW has said Falcons won't get fixed until Codex Eldar is redone (i.e. 5th ed.). This means that if the new balance doesn't work with Falcons and Nidzilla, there's a 0% of 40K getting balanced before 5th ed. - longer if they keep with the same set of Codexes like with 3rd to 4th.

I must have missed that, when did they say they were broken and will get fixed in the next eldar codex?

From the Gav interview still on the front page of N&R: " The only time rules would change would be in a new Codex: Eldar, which obviously won¡¦t be for many years yet."

Ah - I had already read that, he didn't say or admit that falcons were broken or would be fixed in the next codex, just that any changes would have to wait for the next codex. I read that as a sort of obvious throw away answer that any changes to eldar would obviously have to wait for the next codex, nothing to do with GW saying falcons would be 'fixed'.

Right and Siren Princes and Iron Warriors with 9 Oblits and 4 Vindicators were weren't broken and weren't guaranteed to be fixed in the next Codex either.

You can file 'Falcons won't get nerfed' next to 'Terminators will still have 2 assault cannons' and 'Marines won't come in combat squads' in the 'Yeah Right' rumours bin.

GW seems to be more perceptive to these sort of issues now then they were in third.

Lol - I don't disagree with that, I was just commenting that at first I thought you were saying GW had actually said falcons would be fixed (and therefore saying they were 'broken' as is), but thats not really true.

Actually there was one major change, ok, two.

First of all hull down was changed so that it only works 50% of the time now. Before a falcon would have to maneuver to get good open shots on an enemy vehicle, otherwise it was always glancing, and a falcon would eventually lose in those shootouts with less armour and immobilized counting as a destroying hit. Now the Falcon is at least 50% more survivable than any other non fast skimmer vehicle in cover.
Vectored engines cured the Falcon's other weakness of being a skimmer. Now it can land and deploy troops, or even become a basic pillbox. You still have to commit resources to taking it out, and cargo it carries can continue on with the mission, instead of dying in a fiery wreck.

Actually, ANY cargo is bad. Fire Dragons is what I see most often, and by themselves they aren't bad. When they have a guaranteed delivery system they become too good. In fact anything that is almost guaranteed to get there makes it a tremendous delivery system as even a land raider has problems with that! Even with only Aspects in them, (which I prefer) you are denying VP, and can still tank shock and hold objectives.

They aren't broken, just SHOOT THEM MORE, I think was the response. Yeah,... um... don't you think we are trying?

There are definitely going to have to be a lot of test games of Chaos vs Eldar to see if the new Chaos can hang....

Posted By ColonelEllios on 07/26/2007 3:50 AM

Falcons work pretty nearly the same as they did in 3rd, and all they changed with the new codex is nerfing spirit stones and increasing the cost of holofields.

Obviously they are aware of how beefy the holo+stone combo is, and decided to leave it alone...

Just be happy they "fixed" the starcannon...

Like I said...it's not the Falcons but what's in them that counts. Making harlies 0-3 and allowing them to ride in Falcons are the two most unbalancing things GW did for this recent codex. I don't hear anybody complaining up-and-down about Fire Prisms, and defensively the two vehicles are the same!

If your opponent is using tri-Falcon, there are ways to counter and minimize the damage he does.

If you could only put regular aspects in Falcons, people wouldn't be complaining as much. Fire Dragons would be the best choice for it (as always) and aren't nearly as dangerous as properly used harlies are.

You are aware that the movement of immobilised to 5 reduces the odds of Falcon destruction considerably, right.

And to follow up, Prisms are complained about, especially in combination with Falcons, and they are what make up the Flying Circus.

Two things about the prism. It can't hold troops of any kind AND having only 1 real weapon it can be neutralized much easier. Neutralized, I am saying, which isn't a good thing. It is still amazingly survivable, is denying your opponent VP and can Tank Shock. It takes the same amount of firepower to immobilize and destroy the beast. It's still bad, just not the amazing bad that is the Falcon. For it's points, it is hands down the best tank in the game.

Are you serious?

Fire Prisms are "amazing bad" because of Falcons?

You can only have 3 heavy support in any list...

This is completely ridiculous. Have fun b*tching about Falcons because you refuse to acknowledge that there are ways to counter; I've given suggestions and explained why they aren't broken, but my ministrations have fallen upon deaf ears.

Looking forward to 5+ years of Falcon domination,

   Yours Truly  :S

P.S.--I don't think Chaos is going to be weakened by the new 'Dex...just changed.

Ellios:You never responded to what I said about swapping a battlewagon for a falcon. Do you think that it is a fair swap? I mean, a kitted out battle wagon costs as much as a kitted out falcon.

What do you think? Trade?
And battlewagons are 0-1 too.

No, Prisms are nasty, just not the same nasty as Falcons. Mostly this is because falcons can do all the same task a prism can, but also can carry cargo.

And yes, I am serious. We have discussed and played all kinds of scenarios with kitted falcon lists vs other army lists. A lot of lists just can't even compete. It's not even worth playing with them against a 3 Falcon/Prism list. If you can't see this, then you aren't playing the same game. The proof is out there, you just have to take the blinders off. We have provided the proof, and the statistics. You back it up with theories?

Chaos is going to be much less of what it was. A lot of the sure fire lists are no longer there. We will see how it will compete.