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.

 Red Corsair wrote:


While I also agree I think it is important to distinguish the differences in the game he is advocating. Competitive 40k simply does not exist. House ruled, comp'd to hell and back 40k is what we are left with and that makes for serious inconsistencies between regions. That's why I always consider it an argument made from false authority when someone prefaces a post with, I am a seasoned top table GT player. Who cares? It's irrelevant when you consider how much variation exists from book to book, then you have to multiply it by: regional comps, missions, terrain etc etc. The TO's can't even decide how many CAD's to allow between tournaments.

Even if ITC comes up with some middle ground, this book craps all over true 40k. Which is real;ly saying something because normal 40k was already a troublesome ruleset.

The game is troublesome for people who play to win, only want to play RAW, and aren't considerate of their opponents. It is harder for these folks than 6e, because building and painting 40 jetbikes is WAY more effort than building and painting 6 wave serpents.

The game is fine in the tournament scene where such things are fixed; it's fine in the casual scene where players are, you know, reasonable human beings; and it's certainly fine as a game to play between friends competitively -- in the sense that you WANT to win, but that it isn't the ONLY thing that matters.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 warboss wrote:

 JGrand wrote:

Is it also news to you that you can take multiple CAD each with a LOW?

I should clarify--I have been posting and almost exclusively post about competitive play.

*snip*

My vote in all of this is just to ban all Superheavies/Gargantuan creatures (including IKs). Solves most problems easily.

Most every big event I've seen the rules posted allows two sources/detachments so that means two gargantuan WK.

As for the last part, I agree. I'm unabashedly critical of the post 6e army style and strongly prefer on faction in one detachment with no superheavies, gargs, forts beyond aegis. or fliers in "normal" 40k games of 2k pts or less..

Most tournaments are 2 CAD, and they can't be identical (including taking two Decurion style of the same faction). And ITC are 1 Superheavy or Gargantuan LoW.

I think having 1 big monster on the table is pretty cool, myself... and for me, awesomeness on the table is very important

 JGrand wrote:

Hahahaha It's a Jump Gargantuan Creature, it can in fact move 12" and AFAIK still run. What do you mean they have trouble getting there?

I was talking about the Wraithguard. I mentioned that I'd imagine Gargantuan/LOW/Superheavies will continue to face restrictions. Restrictions that are nothing new. How is this a problem?

It's a negative all around.

1. You piss off the Eldar players who want to play with the stuff that's in their book.
2. You piss off the players who do not want to play against it if you allow them their choices.

The 12" D shots on expensive 3+ save models? The D flamers that can't roll the 6? Those things aren't that bad. Mind you, I'd rather not have D in regular 40k, but it isn't that scary if you re-think how to build.

You mean the 12" SD shots on T6, 3+ save models that can be transported across the field in a Fast Skimmer?

mercury14 wrote:
Yriel? Any news on poor old Yriel? I painted him so nicely!

I don't know what that is, but I shall help champion your cause.

Any news on Yriel? This person painted them so nicely.

 Talys wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:


While I also agree I think it is important to distinguish the differences in the game he is advocating. Competitive 40k simply does not exist. House ruled, comp'd to hell and back 40k is what we are left with and that makes for serious inconsistencies between regions. That's why I always consider it an argument made from false authority when someone prefaces a post with, I am a seasoned top table GT player. Who cares? It's irrelevant when you consider how much variation exists from book to book, then you have to multiply it by: regional comps, missions, terrain etc etc. The TO's can't even decide how many CAD's to allow between tournaments.

Even if ITC comes up with some middle ground, this book craps all over true 40k. Which is real;ly saying something because normal 40k was already a troublesome ruleset.

The game is troublesome for people who play to win

It's very hard to take you seriously when you make posts containing this.

 JGrand wrote:

Really? Restrictive?

The Windrider one is a copy-paste of the average meta Eldar army prior to the 6th edition codex.

Farseer on bike? Check.
Warlocks on bikes? Check.
Bikes? Check.
Vypers? Check.

It's not really that restrictive. It means you have to dust off some models you put on the shelf for the Wraithknight and Serpent bandwagon and actually use them again.

It is restrictive in the sense that people are claiming that an Eldar army can have 30 obj sec Scatterbikes, three WK, a psystar that casts on a 3+, and other goodies all at once.

If we go off the rumors, taking a Bikeseer, 3 Bikelocks, 3x3 Scatbikes, and a Viper is close to 600 points. Add three WK to the list and we are closing in on 1500. Even adding 13 more Scat Bikes to the mix and we have:

Bikeseer
3 Bikelocks
3 WKs
Arbitrary Viper
22 Scatbikes

at 1850

There isn't too much variety here. While some may claim that variety isn't needed in a list like this, let's be serious--if one can kill 26 MEQ and a Viper, the opponent is left with three (admittedly strong) units. That still doesn't win an objective game though. Moreover, a list like this will go down hard to Grav Bikes+two units of drop pod Cents.

Again--Eldar are going to be very strong. They are going to force people to readjust. They are also probably not the end of 40k.

You've added 3 WKs to the list. That is already more than enough and that's 1500 points. Average games are now about 1850. You can add another if you want and have points spare. Or you could add an Imperial Knight for comedy value just to make your opponent deal with 3 GCs with ranged SD, massed S6 firepower (Oh hey, hordes counter SD right? Stomp plus 18 shots per bike unit says....) and the Knight's assorted ordnance.

The problem with a blanket ban on Superheavies/Gargantuans? It hits the characters and Monstrous Creatures that have randomly been stuck there. The problem with a points cap for LoWs or whatever? GW do silly things and underpoint units like the WK by an obscene amount. The problem with banning specific units from specific books? It feels like you're pretty much victimising one player over another because their army won the GW Edition Power Lottery (Chaos Space Marines 3.5 - there, I said it. UNLEASH THE HATE).

I honestly feel that the addition of Superheavies and Gargantuan Creatures was not needed for 'normal' 40k. I disliked Escalation but at least it pretended to try to balance it by giving the alternative Warlord traits that boosted things up. 7th ed made no effort to do so.

And yeah, it is a Power Lottery.

But I'll tell you one thing. I bet in 3 editions time Chaos 3.5 will still be spoken in a voice reserved only for criminals, fiends and politicians and no one will remember Eldar 7.

mercury14 wrote:
Yriel? Any news on poor old Yriel? I painted him so nicely!

From what I recall, what little was said is that a.) he exists, b.) he doesn't have a D weapon, and c.) he gives his full-time precision shots rule to the unit of Rangers that he's with. Pathfinders appear to be out.

 Raesvelg wrote:

mercury14 wrote:
Yriel? Any news on poor old Yriel? I painted him so nicely!

From what I recall, what little was said is that a.) he exists, b.) he doesn't have a D weapon, and c.) he gives his full-time precision shots rule to the unit of Rangers that he's with. Pathfinders appear to be out.

Uh....wrong SC there I think. Yriel is the Corsair prince. Ya'll be thinking Ilric there (or whatever his name is).

 Raesvelg wrote:

mercury14 wrote:
Yriel? Any news on poor old Yriel? I painted him so nicely!

From what I recall, what little was said is that a.) he exists, b.) he doesn't have a D weapon, and c.) he gives his full-time precision shots rule to the unit of Rangers that he's with. Pathfinders appear to be out.

I think that's Illic you're thinking of.

Yriel... I haven't heard a peep of an update on him....

 DarkStarSabre wrote:

 Raesvelg wrote:

mercury14 wrote:
Yriel? Any news on poor old Yriel? I painted him so nicely!

From what I recall, what little was said is that a.) he exists, b.) he doesn't have a D weapon, and c.) he gives his full-time precision shots rule to the unit of Rangers that he's with. Pathfinders appear to be out.

Uh....wrong SC there I think. Yriel is the Corsair prince. Ya'll be thinking Ilric there (or whatever his name is).

DERP.

Yeah, it's been one of those days. Apologies lol.

It's fun to see that Hollismason has shut up about the Dark Reapers after saying this:

Hollismason wrote:Flyrants are in fact Flyers.

I mean if you get stuff like that wrong and then choose to just silently change the topic of the discussion it'd be more proper if you just walked away instead of kept rambling about something else.

 Therion wrote:
It's fun to see that Hollismason has shut up about the Dark Reapers after saying this:

Hollismason wrote:Flyrants are in fact Flyers.

I mean if you get stuff like that wrong and then choose to just silently change the topic of the discussion it'd be more proper if you just walked away instead of kept rambling about something else.

If he left, then why are you still bringing it up?

 Accolade wrote:

 Darkseid wrote:

 JGrand wrote:

Make the unbeatable list then.

New Eldar are not unbeatable and some of the changes are good and necessary.
But GW got overboard and has shown more evidently than ever that there is no play-testing and no quality control involved.

Many people who are angry, simply wish for a quality game which GW can't deliver.

Can't or won't?

Little of column a, little of column b...

 DarkStarSabre wrote:
o.

And yeah, it is a Power Lottery.

Its a lottery that Eldar keep on winning (and some armies like Dark Angels never win)

But I'll tell you one thing. I bet in 3 editions time Chaos 3.5 will still be spoken in a voice reserved only for criminals, fiends and politicians and no one will remember Eldar 7.

I will take you up on that bet. I think this is worse than 3.5 - true 3.5 had plenty of broken stuff but also plenty of reasonably balanced and even overpriced stuff. You didnt have to try hard to make a balancedlist like you do with this one.

I mean if you get stuff like that wrong and then choose to just silently change the topic of the discussion it'd be more proper if you just walked away instead of kept rambling about something else.

EVen if he is wrong, we dont have the full rules yet, only abridged. Reapers might still have the ability.

 Red Corsair wrote:

 Talys wrote:


The game is troublesome for people who play to win

It's very hard to take you seriously when you make posts containing this.

Why don't you quote the whole sentence?

The game is troublesome for people who play to win, only want to play RAW, and aren't considerate of their opponents.

It's very hard to take serious people who quote out of context. I said, "and", which in the English language means that all 3 criteria must be met.

 Accolade wrote:

 Therion wrote:
It's fun to see that Hollismason has shut up about the Dark Reapers after saying this:

Hollismason wrote:Flyrants are in fact Flyers.

I mean if you get stuff like that wrong and then choose to just silently change the topic of the discussion it'd be more proper if you just walked away instead of kept rambling about something else.

If he left, then why are you still bringing it up?

Because he didn't? Reading comprehension? The previous page is littered with his spam about Dark Reapers countering Tyrants when it's both false and based on a rule he doesn't understand. It puts his ability as a 40K gamer in question, and it's hard to take his following spam about Wraithguard and Wraithknights being overpowered and uncounterable very seriously. JGrand on the other hand is a known commodity who knows the ins and outs of this game, and yet he has to defend himself against assailants who can't even grasp the rules of the game.

Chad Warden wrote:

 DarkStarSabre wrote:
o.

And yeah, it is a Power Lottery.

Its a lottery that Eldar keep on winning (and some armies like Dark Angels never win)

But I'll tell you one thing. I bet in 3 editions time Chaos 3.5 will still be spoken in a voice reserved only for criminals, fiends and politicians and no one will remember Eldar 7.

I will take you up on that bet. I think this is worse than 3.5 - true 3.5 had plenty of broken stuff but also plenty of reasonably balanced and even overpriced stuff. You didnt have to try hard to make a balancedlist like you do with this one.

Eh, I don't know about that.

Let's be honest here. After Chaos 3.5 we got...

A travesty of a Codex in 4th edition
A codex in 6th edition that seemed 'okay' - and after seeing Dark Angels and Daemons we thought...hey, that's their new power balance....then the Taudar Nation attacked.

We also got to Witness 4th Ed. Space Marines (which was basically Chaos 3.5 with the word Chaos removed).

I still feel like I'm paying for the Sins of Haines.

Chaos 3.5 was THE best codex that GW ever released. It had awesome fluff, interesting rules. The only reason people rant about it was that it was "too complicated ". To even talk about it in the same breath as the new Eldar book is crazy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DarkStarSabre wrote:

Chad Warden wrote:

 DarkStarSabre wrote:
o.

And yeah, it is a Power Lottery.

Its a lottery that Eldar keep on winning (and some armies like Dark Angels never win)

But I'll tell you one thing. I bet in 3 editions time Chaos 3.5 will still be spoken in a voice reserved only for criminals, fiends and politicians and no one will remember Eldar 7.

I will take you up on that bet. I think this is worse than 3.5 - true 3.5 had plenty of broken stuff but also plenty of reasonably balanced and even overpriced stuff. You didnt have to try hard to make a balancedlist like you do with this one.

Eh, I don't know about that.

Let's be honest here. After Chaos 3.5 we got...

A travesty of a Codex in 4th edition
A codex in 6th edition that seemed 'okay' - and after seeing Dark Angels and Daemons we thought...hey, that's their new power balance....then the Taudar Nation attacked.

We also got to Witness 4th Ed. Space Marines (which was basically Chaos 3.5 with the word Chaos removed).

I still feel like I'm paying for the Sins of Haines.

Brilliant post!!

 Therion wrote:

 Accolade wrote:

 Therion wrote:
It's fun to see that Hollismason has shut up about the Dark Reapers after saying this:

Hollismason wrote:Flyrants are in fact Flyers.

I mean if you get stuff like that wrong and then choose to just silently change the topic of the discussion it'd be more proper if you just walked away instead of kept rambling about something else.

If he left, then why are you still bringing it up?

Because he didn't? Reading comprehension? The previous page is littered with his spam about Dark Reapers countering Tyrants when it's both false and based on a rule he doesn't understand. It puts his ability as a 40K gamer in question, and it's hard to take his following spam about Wraithguard and Wraithknights being overpowered and uncounterable very seriously. JGrand on the other hand is a known commodity who knows the ins and outs of this game, and yet he has to defend himself against assailants who can't even grasp the rules of the game.

Right, and Hollismason seems (since I can't speak for him) to have taken the point and stopped posting about it. The topic ended until you felt the need to keep kicking sand in his direction. Should he had continued after that, sure go ahead, continue to prove his points (and apparently his knowledge since this seems to be a 40k knowledge-swinging party) wrong. Otherwise just leave it alone.

There IS a topic here, folks. Get back to it, or stop posting in the thread.

I haven't seen it posted yet but any word on Scorpion Exarch's claw? Does it still strike at initiative or is it just a power fist now?

 pretre wrote:
So he deploys on the table instead, not that big a deal.

The point is that there seems to be the thought in that particular post a Wraith knight is so powerful it can stand alone for a turn against a full army's shooting. This is pretty much in line with most of the hyperbole in this thread about how unbeatable Wraith Knights are.

Relapse wrote:

 pretre wrote:
So he deploys on the table instead, not that big a deal.

The point is that there seems to be the thought in that particular post a Wraith knight is so powerful it can stand alone for a turn against a full army's shooting. This is pretty much in line with most of the hyperbole in this thread about how unbeatable Wraith Knights are.

Since the new wraithknight was killed by 2 surviving deathwing knights in GW's faceoff, I would hardly say that it's unbeatable

 Talys wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 pretre wrote:
So he deploys on the table instead, not that big a deal.

The point is that there seems to be the thought in that particular post a Wraith knight is so powerful it can stand alone for a turn against a full army's shooting. This is pretty much in line with most of the hyperbole in this thread about how unbeatable Wraith Knights are.

Since the new wraithknight was killed by 2 surviving deathwing knights in GW's faceoff, I would hardly say that it's unbeatable

That's it, right on the button. I saw an Eldar army fielding three Wraithknights lose them all to Ork close combat by turn six, sealing an Ork victory. That particular game is on youtube.

Relapse wrote:

 pretre wrote:
So he deploys on the table instead, not that big a deal.

The point is that there seems to be the thought in that particular post a Wraith knight is so powerful it can stand alone for a turn against a full army's shooting. This is pretty much in line with most of the hyperbole in this thread about how unbeatable Wraith Knights are.

To be fair, neither my Death Korps nor Marine army could kill a Wraithknight with an entire turn of shooting, even within decent range. T8 6 wounds, 3+, what is it, 4 or 5++? Immune to all small arms, so out of my 1750 IG force my two battlecannons can theoretically hurt it, as can my vanquisher (used to one shot them with Beast Slayer rounds - my IG may not be good, but by the throne, they hurt Eldar, or used to), and I have a smattering of special weapons.

If everything was in range, my entire force could use the following

1 S:8 Ap3 large blast (BS4)
1 S8 AP3 7'' blast (TL)
1 S:8 Ap2 direct shot or small blast (with instant death, which does nothing) (BS4)
2 S:9 Ap2 shots (one TL)
2 S:8 Ap1 shots
4: S:6 Ap4 shots
7 Krak Grenades
4 S7 AP2 shots (BS4)

With absolutely everything in my army capable of hurting a wraithknight unloading (within grande throwing range mind you - many of these are 24'' range or less weapons) I would do 2.213244 wounds to the Wraithknight. Tha't s calculating with a 5++, as I don't recall its saves overly well, and no FNP which is apparently readily achievable. (I also assumed the blasts hit, as the probability for that is something I don't feel like calculating, and the WK has a large footprint - I also made a mistake in all the St 6 Ap4 were calculated against a 5+, not the 3+ the WK would be getting).

And that's a Guard list with three Leman Russes (Vanquisher, Battle Tank, Annihilator), a Macharius Battle Tank (A "Superheavy" more expensive than a Wraithknight with a TL battle cannon with a 7'' blast, two HBs and two Heavy Stubbers, one twin-linked), two infantry platoons with three infantry sections each and a command section all with specials (half flamer, half grenade with a melta in each), a Grenadier squad with two plasma guns and a decked out command squad with a big leadership bubble and granted PE: Infantry to units near him. Not an optimal army to be sure, but at 1750 it will do 2 wounds on average to a 295 point model.

You know what else is in that price range?

Abaddon, and I murder the hell out of him if he were on his own. Hell, I'll knock out Stompas with a few decent rolls in a turn (or one really lucky HK missile....), which is700 points. Having a wraithknight tank an army is a totally legitimate expectation, I'd wager - what can possible kill one at range, and of those who can engage it in melee, what are the odds they won't die in return?

And yet, Orks were able to tear down three in one game. I'm not being snarky or dismissing your experience here, but based from what I've seen in multiple games I am stating that these critters are not unbeatable.

Relapse wrote:
And yet, Orks were able to tear down three in one game. I'm not being snarky or dismissing your experience here, but based from what I've seen in multiple games I am stating that these critters are not unbeatable.

I think he is describing trying to shoot one to death in a single turn before reserves show up. Killing one or more over the course of ~6 or so turns is not hard at all. Also, those orks would get murdered now with stop attacks, wouldn't even be close.

Woah that's a lot of words.

First off the guy posted that they worked against FLIERS, we don't know what that means, but it's gonna be pretty dumb if they can shoot Flying Vehicles and not Flying Monstrous Creatures.

He lumped anything that flies into one category.

So I'm assuming they work against all fliers, which as a word used can be applied to Flying Monstrous Creatures.

They are Fliers, They Fly, what do Flying Monstrous Creatures do?

Says so right in the name, they Fly.

Until he comes out and says " No, it is only flying vehicles or Flyer" then we should assume that he means all Fliers as that's easier than assuming he just means Vehicles or Monstrous Creatures, or anything that uses the Flight rule.

Edit:

Wraithknights are horribly broken. They're undercosted and even if you don't use the STD shooting weapon and instead go for the STD Sword and Shield , it's still brokenly powerful.

gak like that ruins the game for competitive , pick up, and Friendly games.

I should not have to have a sit down with my opponent before a game and agree to only use certain units in order to have a good time.

That's not the same as saying, I want everything to be easy. It's saying there shouldn't have to be a "discussion" on how if you play a specific army , a specific way I don't want ot play with you and it will be unenjoyable.

The onus shouldn't be on the player to have to carefully pick his army so that he won't pick something that's going to make his opponent feel bad. He should just be able to pick units and play a game that on both sides is balanced.

It's on the game designer to make a game, that is easy to play, easy to understand, fun to play.

It's not on you the player to fix the game designers mistakes.

Guys I used to play WK's and I can tell you they are far from unbeatable. Centurions eat them for lunch, stern guard that DS eat them for lunch, Ork loots eat tem for lunch, surprisingly wrecks do pretty good against hem in CC, Several DS DE units with lance weapons crush them, and Grey Knights torture them. I have also played against them and still don't find them as a hard nut to crack as I am hearing here. People prepared to play against Knights will have the same luck against the WK.

All you people crying about the Eldar codex....have you played against the Necron decurion? Four rounds from my DE and I think I finally killed a few models. Adjust and adapt. Knights were the "unbeatable list" and "broken" until people adapted....now they are no big deal. As for the people screaming they refuse to play Eldar.... I hope I get you in a tournament...means more beer time and points for me.

I tried wading through the tirade of tears in this topic but could not find anything on the avatar. Is he now considered a LOW and if so any stat changes for him? I miss fielding my avatar. Any data on the Vyper yet?

 MajorStoffer wrote:
Having a wraithknight tank an army is a totally legitimate expectation, I'd wager - what can possible kill one at range, and of those who can engage it in melee, what are the odds they won't die in return?

CentStar should pretty much wipe one off the map, and that's a pretty popular build right now.

Entertainingly, a Dire Avenger Shrine formation from the new Warhost set for Eldar can swat one down if you take 10 DAs in each squad. Sure, that's 30 Dire Avengers, and you'll need to be driving them up Wave Serpents to make the range, which is WAY more points than the Wraithknight is worth, but it's entertaining. Could probably manage it with smaller squads when you factor in the Wave Serpents (particularly Brightlance Serps if those make a comeback since Laser Lock appears to be gone), but I just like the idea of doing it strictly with Bladestorm.

30 Skitarii Vanguard can kill it with just radium shots, and that's actually cheaper than the WK. Marginally. Plus their big formation lets them all start scouted on, so even with their 18" range it isn't totally unrealistic.

Daemon Flying Circus lists can just Psychic Shriek it down with minimal risk if they roll reasonably well.

Grey Knights can Gate in, hit it with a bunch of psychics/psycannon rends and kill it in pretty much the same way, albeit with more risk.

Harlequins can kill it with Neurodisruptors if they get close enough. Which is tricky, but possible. Plus there's a lot of Bladestorm shooting they can throw at it regardless.

That's just what I can think of off the of my head, considering armies I've played against, or considered playing, and just utilizing less than a full army. When you consider the idea that your opponent is gonna be starting with his entire army trying to kill your one Wraithknight, it gets a lot easier to do. Armies like Necrons can just throw metric tons of Gauss and Tesla at it, and it will die, ditto for Tau and the fact that everything they have, pretty much, can wound it on at least a 6+.

Some lists can do it pretty readily; for others, it's tough to do, but not impossible. And unfortunately there are a bunch out there that just can't pull it off with any sort of reliability. Ultimately it's the kind of tactic that'll depend heavily on what you're facing, and what Warlord Traits/other special rules are in play. If your opponent rolled Divide to Conquer, it offsets the Autarch bonus, for example, and you could wind up with your list trickling in in the face of overwhelming firepower.

Relapse wrote:
And yet, Orks were able to tear down three in one game. I'm not being snarky or dismissing your experience here, but based from what I've seen in multiple games I am stating that these critters are not unbeatable.

Was that before or after WK gained the Stomp rule?