Posted By cmann000 on 07/09/2007 4:26 PM
Better known as Slayed One because, quite frankly, in 3rd Ed my Tau army was continually being destroyed by Shooty Marines and Ulthwe!!! (And don't mention Seeding Swarm in my presence....just don't do it... )

• I would choose option 3.  In our rules, difficult terrain (etc) only affects models that actually move through it.  As such, only models that would actually move through the DT to make the assault move should be affected.  Also cleaner than retrospective effects, etc (or the silly "one model is affected, therefore the WHOLE UNIT is affected" syndrome...).
• Force Weapons should count as "Power Weapons" with the additional special rules.  Will clarify if necessary.
• We feel the same way about the WS chart; higher WS actually means something :-) (similarly, so does having a lesser WS....).
• Rending was changed as much for consistency of application as for any reason (we wanted the effect to happen on a 6 To Hit no matter the target; more straightforward and avoids more/inconsistent rules).  Also, the Glancing Hits chart has been toned down significantly (granted, it is easier to penetrate vehicles generally due to the penetrating on 6's rule, but a simple Glancing Hit is less dangerous and therefore not such a problem).  I haven't found any problem with this change, but it is still being tested.
• Those were the old Lance rules; we changed that as being Hull Down (etc) never helped, but we were having trouble ensuring that the BL had greater punch than a LC vs armoured targets, and yet not ensure that it was completely OTT.  We've come up with a new system, where the Lance in question gets a Strength modifer based on the AV/Toughness of the target (essentially the Lance gets +1/+2/+3 to Strength vs AV 12, 13 and 14 and T8, 9 and 10.  It is actually very easy to remember and we've found that it ensures that Lances are better vs the very tough, LC's more of a generalist weapon (longer range, better/same vs lower AVs) and that you can counter it by Hull Down, moving fast, etc.  All testing thus far has been very promising.
• As for Gets Hot!, I would agree with HBMC.  1 wound.  Otherwise would mean that Plasma weaponry for Guard would become even more problematic (more thinking multi-wound characters and a plasma pistol.....).  Curiously enough, if we gave it a Strength value, then High Impact would kick in, and all Armour Saves would be at -1 (vs S7 weapon, etc).  That was not intended.  Just a standard savable wound I think :-)
• It should read "target unit" for the blast marker rules.  Excellent pick up; really appreciated.  I like precision, and I think that we copied that out word-for-word (virtually) from the 4th ed. rulebook a while ago, hence we missed that ambiguity.
• I liked your casualty removal method, but when I raised it at the Rules Council last weekend, the group came up with an even better suggestion.  Thanks for the input nonetheless!

• Good summary. LOL.  GG.

• Your experiences of 3rd ed Tau are one of the chief reasons that I expanded the Revisited Project to be more than just (as it was then) Codex Eldar Revisited :-)
• Yes, my Ulthwe did cause much destruction to the hapless blue-skinned ones.  Then again, a falling leaf would cause a Firewarrior squad to fold in HTH.
• On that note, I still remember with incredulity the time when a Striking Scorpion squad just munched its way through a whole Tau army.......aye aye aye.....3rd ed! The time of static, high strength, low AP heavy weapons and transport-borne assault forces! And what did Tau have?
• Pulse Rifles.  Yay.   No really.....

• Thanks for taking the time to have a look! :-)
• I second HBMC's question; which tables and in which document? This could be rather important.....
• Some of the Codices are still rather nascent and are as much ideas documents as Codices.  CDR (Codex Daemonhunters Revisited) has had the Grey Knights tested quite a bit, but the Inquisitorial elements still need to be playtested and indeed, trimmed back, etc.  Some of the other Codices like CER (Codex Eldar Revisited) where in a similar state a year ago, but they are coming along, becoming more streamlined and elegant.  That being said, it is helpful to know what you like and what seems to just be MRS (More Rules Syndrome).
• Take a look at some of the psychic powers in CER.  They aren't OTT, but they are more dangerous than their underpowered 4th ed. counterparts (more thinking of Eldritch Storm, etc.  Guide and Fortune are more or left as is for instance).
• I agree (more or less) with your summary.  Some of the Codexen have come along quite well; others still need quite a bit of work for them to become truly mature.

• Ummm...what you said about Stormtroopers.  Yeah. 

First of all to get some disclaimers out of the way:

1) Due to recent reformatting, I realize I don't actually have MSWord on my PC, thus why I was having difficulty viewing the tables. Using another computer (at work) with up-to-date software yeilded perfect results, so no worries there (at least for me).

2) In my excitement, I glanced through your BGB:R and two of the CD:Rs, and decided to comment. Now that I've had more time to review and digest a greater variety of your work, I feel that you've actually done a great job at developing a new (and obviously much more fun) game system, with surprisingly few loopholes (allthough you could still use some editing work--lots of simple keyboard input errors and such; I'd point some out but it's frustrating to not simply be able to correct the text and have to instead type it out--again--so that you can go find it--but that's another worry)

So, that said, I'll reserve my judgement on your CD:Rs thus far. However, a few things still cause me to raise questions (and yes--I've done a lot of thinking about game mechanics over the years, as I've never been fully satisfied with 40k (been playing since later 3rd about a year prior to the shenanigans of TVDR and TAR). I'll try and put them in sequence, and may add some later, so here are the initial ones--

---You've both lowered the point cost of land raiders (to 200/225 pts respectively) and yet the new rules system allows them to move, fire all weapons, drop an assault unit, assault with it, and score multiple hits due to twin-linking (a rule I love, BTW--fantastic idea!!), and yet reduced their points cost? This seems like far too much of a good thing, especially given the new damage tables. Add this to the fact that you've reinstated the "hull down=glancing only" rule which so unbalanced tracked vehicles in 3rd edition--how do you avoid tanks absolutely dominating a game? Perhaps there's something I've missed (I realize they're not invulnerable, but still...there have to be balance issues here...)

---Anti-tank weapons are still just as effective against infantry as tanks--will you do anything to resolve this? (I.E. a lascannon is better than a heavy bolter against a marine, so why take the bolter? Horde armies don't seem to have gained much in threat or defence to force opponents to bring diversified weapons--and if an opponent does bring anti-infantry weapons, then the vehicles will dominate resulting in a spiralling conundrum...

---You've done a decent job of matching "units to the fluff," but occasional discrepencies such as the aforementioned Grey Knight (Retributor?) Squad (the one with the melta-bombs-by-a-special-name) seem to deviate from the fluff. The only justification I can see for a change like this is to make the GK valid as a stand-alone force, which is dubious in the face of fluff, and redundant in the face of Storm Troopers with 4 special weapons as well as melta bombs that hit walkers on better than a 6+...

---Why give marines true grit? It makes the terminators rediculously deadly (and assault terminators don't seem to have much over regulars in your rules--they don't have storm bolters and so lose true grit, and while they strike at initiative surely won't do as much damage as slightly fewer power fist attacks...perhaps if they could assault after teleporting more frequently than shooty termies?) Granted, true grit is oh-so-cool and very characterful, but your regular tac marines only have a bolter (as far as I can tell) and so gain no benefit--it just seems poorly integrated as a whole...

---Why the distinction between teleportation and deep strike? I had trouble catching the difference, as it seems significant but in viewing BGB:R doesn't seem different at all...

---Your weapon-price balancing seems a bit off. For instance, in the CD:Eldar:R, the star cannon costs nearly as much as a scatter laser, and is clearly a far superior choice. "Band-aids" such as "only able to glance" don't feel right, when a scatter laser of the same strength can penetrate, at a measly AP 6...it just doesn't follow common sense. And lance weapons seem incredibly good under your rules--and yet they have nearly the same point-cost as under the current system...

---And finally, a general interest question; do games last past turn 3? With the "increase in lethality" of basic infantry armament (which is obvious) combined with the increased utility of all weapons (move-and-shoot heavies, move-and-rapid-fire full range bolters, etc) a tremendous amount of havok seems likely from each shooting phase--perhaps so much that the turn order makes it impossible to "strike back" (i.e. you lose so much in one turn that you're crippled for the rest of the game)

Questions like these are what I was getting at when I said "careful not to stretch the creative liscence." It is admirable that you're doing playtesting, and we all know that GW does far too little of that for their products to be much of a guide, but when you change simply this much, I fail to see the improvement in balance (an improvement in fun, no doubt). Horde-type armies, by my estimation, don't seem any more attractive than they are in the regular rules. Anti-Infantry heavy weapons seem trumped by anti-tank heavy weapons, once again caused by the inadvertent swing in increased lethality of marine forces.

Sorry if this seems like so much conjecture, and I know it's a lot to respond to, but I don't have any gaming buddies currently and I can't get 40k off my mind (thanks to you lot!)

1. We play terrain-heavy.  Sounds simple, but make a difference.  Not so much of a rules issue, but important to note.
2. We are changing how the standard scenarios work. (will address below).  Essentially, more Night Fight, Concealment, etc.  Can't always assume LOS, etc.
3. The Reserves Scenario Special Rule allows you to start any/all models off the table (not available in all missions; see below).
4. New deployment rule called "Mobile Reserves". Essentially, all Calvary/Beasts, Bikes, Jetbikes & Vehicles that are Type: Scout (ala Vypers, Landspeeders and Piranhas) can all start off the table in all missions.  Currently, no Reserve roll required but they must come in on turn 2 (our Reserves rules permit you to choose not to roll until later turns, so this is a big deal).  This was intended to address the issue that fast + fragile things got hammered if they got the second turn, whereas durable untils (even if slow) could adapt to either (essentially, why spend 1500pts on a Vyper army if you could spend 1500pts on a Wraithlord army? The Wraithlord army can adapt to either, the Vyper army is finished (all things being equal) if it doesn't get first turn to get moving).  Extreme example, but makes the point.  There is also a cost if you keep things off the table (may get first turn anyway, etc).
5. The Disruption Scenario Special Rule.  Dependant on the rolls, some enemy units may start the game off-table, or pinned/stunned (or you may get modifiers to getting the first turn). Essentially, some models in each army provide disruption points; 1 disruption roll bought for 5 disruptions points. Maximum of 12 disruption rolls per army. Strategy Ratings contribute disruption points to each army, irrespective of models.  That's how it works currently, but is still to be tested more thoroughly.

• Alpha missions are defined by the lack of VPs and are purely objective-centric. However, they can get a bit boring with no Scenario Special Rules at all.  So, we have kept the essential character of Alpha Missions as VPs are never used, but the other Scenario Special Rules apply on a sliding scale (of sorts).  Certain SSRs apply on a 2+ (like Infiltrate, Deep Strike, etc); your bread and butter SSRs.  Some are on a 4+ (Concealment, Disruption, etc).  Some only on a 6 (Escalation, Night Fight).  So, you usually know what is available in Alpha, but it is not certain (forces adaptation). However, keeps essential character of Alpha intact.
• Gamma becomes the "random" mission rather than just the middle mission. All SSR's apply on a 4+.  Quite possible that no two Gamma games would be the same :-)
• Omega is has all rules applying, except Escalation and Night Fight on a 4+.

• All Mathhammering is appreciated.  Haven't had a chance to do a Rending analysis yet.
• It happens; heck, we write the rules and sometimes forget what they say.....

• Good to hear that it wasn't a problem in our end (a relief!).
• I think that Wudge addressed many of your points, but I will address the Eldar HW situation as there is a bit of a story to it...

• Shuriken Cannon is R30", S5, AP4, Assault 4.  It is essentially a heavy bolter with a bit less range but another shot.  Now, the reduced range is usually irrelevant for most Eldar platforms (as they are fast enough). The S5, AP 4, Assault 4 means that it can be fired by infantry on the move (Dire Avenger Exarch), wounds T3 on 2+ and cuts through all armour that is not 3+ or better.  It is essentially the GEQ/Fire Warrior killer. Catapace armour Guardsmen are its favourite target.  It is a medium-infantry hunter.
• Scatter Laser is R36", S6, AP6, Heavy 4.  It is the ultimate generalist weapon (barring perhaps the Autocannon).  First of all, the AP 6 is irrelevant vs vehicles, so it is an excellent transport hunter.  Secondly, wounds basic infantry on 2+ and will ignore Gaunt saves, so in that respect it is slightly better than the Shuriken Cannon vs pure hordes (T3, 6+ save).  However, it loses out vs Shuriken Cannon when pointed at T3 infantry with 5+/4+ save.  Scatter Laser won't cut through it, the Shuriken Cannon slices through a 4+ save. It is a generalist weapon, but loses out to the ShC in this area. Granted, it is still a bit better overall so it is a bit more expensive.
• Starcanon has been the hardest to work out.  The problem was never firing 3 shots that wounded Marines on 2's and cut through their save (when compared to things like the Plasma Cannon, especially as we don't use the 4th ed style of blast marker placement.....).  The problem was that it could do this, hunt transports, kill 2+ save types, have a crack (occasionally) vs Monstrous Creatures, hunt hordes, clean your house, mow the lawn and win you the game.  The only real weakness it had was vs AV 13/14, but then we have Lances :-)
• So, we ran through many versions and tested them.  We have tried reducing it to 2 shots, cutting Strenght to 5, AP 3, one shot with small blast marker, etc, etc, etc.  The problem was that most of these "solutions" cut too heavily into its anti-MEQ ability (which is the point of the weapon; it should mule-kick infantry ie wound Marines on 2+ and ignore their saves).  Also, stylistically, it is a plasma weapon.  It should be dangerous vs Marines, etc.  Wounding basic Marines on 3's never seemed right to me.  Most were nerfs rather than solitions.
• We addressed the horde-hunting issues with the changes to the other HWs (and are usually cheaper as well).  So, the only problem that remained was the anti-vehicle capacity.  We trialled a -1 AP version (de facto S5 vs vehicles), but this seemed slightly odd.  Then we realised that as our Glancing Hits table was less nasty than the GW table (balanced against vehicles generally as you Penetrate more often), reducing all hits to Glancing really worked.  It meant that it was king vs MEQs, ShC and SL kill hordes, EML and Bright Lances kill vehicles (amongst other things).
• So, currently R36:, S6, AP 2, Heavy 3 and Glancing Hits only.  The biggest testament to the fact that this works is that most of my play-test armies have only included a few Starcannons and often, none at all.  I find each of the Eldar HWs attractive for their points.

• Shuriken Cannon - 15pts
• Scatter Laser - 20pts
• BL, Starcannon, EML - 25pts 

• Shuriken Cannon - 20pts
• Scatter Laser - 25pts
• BL, Starcannon, EML - 30pts 

• I find that the overal lethality of the game is actually similar as making certain units/types more powerful simply means that they get taken to begin with (at least in our group).  I've personally found that we achieved similar lethality, but in more limited ways.  That being said, it goes both ways.  Durability has been increased for some units (like Walkers) and speed can be an actual shield (like for Vypers and other vehicles that are Type: Scout), rather than just a fluff shield.  However, good to keep in mind. 
• Curiously enough, horde armies are still very tough to beat.  Key thing is that many things are faster (running and fleet; 3" and 6" flat respectively that ignore difficult terrain) which is relevant for assault armies (consider foot-slogging Orks) and shooty hordes (like Guard) get more versatiliy from their weapons (fire control, can shoot HW on the move with -1 to BS, etc).  Vehicles are tough, but not OTT just yet, but there is still balancing work to be done.  Let me put it this way; I have only seen MEQ and other low model count armies (Eldar) wiped out to the man.  Never happens to hordes.  They can be beaten, but I've always found them reasonably tough in Revisited, however that is still in movement....

I'm still more on the side of conjecture than criticism right now, but this is a great discussion and I'm still full of questions!

--The Starcannon "fix" has always been something I've mulled over in my head quite a lot. Obviously the current fix feels like a cop-out, but I wonder if you ever playtested the following for the starcannon:

S- 7 Ap- 2 Heavy 2 36"

Here is my thinking on the matter--The star cannon isn't supposed to be dedicated anti-infantry (although your justification for this is entirely logical). In my mind, the Star Cannon was always more ubiquitous with the current assault [donkey-]cannon in the C:SM. Your general, specialized anti-everything weapon that is necessary for most army builds, but too expensive or limited in availability to appear in large numbers (UNlike the donkey-cannon). Seeing as though the Eldar have no "plasma-rifle equivalent" weapon, I always thought "well, the star cannon is a "plasma" weapon, why not  bring it into a similar role?" The S-7 Ap-2 profile follows precedent for imperial plasma weapons, and provides the Eldar army with a generalized anti-everything weapon that isn't as brutal to MEQs or indeed light infantry as the previous (and your) starcannon version seems to be.

I'm not trying to convince you to change, but I'm curious if you tried out this possibility. I've always wondered how it would work, but don't have a group of peers interested in playing "non-official" games.

Also, I looooove what you did for the Autocannon. This weapon always felt out of place and sorely needed something, and your "high impact" solution is, well, the cat's meow! Great job there. I think that your incarnation of the Autocannon will acheive similar results as the Star Cannon I suggested, and so provides a nice point of reference. Thoughts?

1. The Starcannon changes from being a general anti-MEQ weapon to being much more of a generalist weapon (a scary Autocannon with less range essentially).
2. This would mean that it is more (primarily) of an anti-Terminator/MC/light-medium vehicle weapon that it is currently, with anti-MEQ work being secondary.  Indeed, this is a reversal of the current situation.
3. It would mean that the Starcannon would somewhat tread on the Scatter Laser's toes as the ultimate generalist weapon (I would need to run the maths vs different AVs, etc), but being able to penetrate on 6's would mean that Starcannons would be superb vs AV 12, especially enemy Eldar armies with transports... :-)
4. The difference in anti-MEQ power is not so much of a problem as Eldar have plenty of ways to kill Marines.  It would simply mean that anti-MEQ work would need to be done by other things (but would limit units like Vypers that rely on the primary weapon such as the Starcannon for their anti-MEQ effectiveness, so other units would take over I suppose...).
5. Eldar currently don't have a Strength 7 shooting weapon (well, generic HW, etc).  Interesting dynamic change.
6. It would probably cost the same no. of points as now.

Okay, it seems a comparison of the weapons is in order. I won't mention the Shuriken Cannon, since you did a great job with fixing that and it doesn't need to be mentioned.

So the main point of contention when considering a S-7 AP-2 Heavy 2 36" Starcannon is it's place in comparison with the S-6 AP-6 Heavy 4 36" Scatter Laser. I ran some quick numbers against MEQs and here's what I got:

Open Ground @ BS3:  Scatter Laser-- .5676  kill/round   Star Cannon-- .86 kill/round   meaning the starcannon is ~30% more successful than a Scatter Laser against MEQs

In Cover @ BS3:  Scatter Laser-- .5676 kill/round  Star Cannon-- .5676 Kill/round 

And so we see that, against MEQs, the SL/StC matchup is actually more even with a two-shot profile than your current 3-shot profile.

Now the next consideration is why I favor the S7 Heavy 2 profile--it makes the Starcannon an exceptionally well-rounded weapon (able to hurt walkers/transport/tanks (i.e. heavy targets) better than a scatter laser), while still being outcompeted by EML and BL for true anti-tank duty. Obviously, the S7 star cannon won't be as useful as a BL with its lance ability against AV 13 or 14, but it is provides a hope against AV13 (although it can never pentrate AV13, which I consider to be the "primary" tracked-tank armor, which is worth noting). Granted, it gains the ability to penetrate fast-moving skimmers, but at BS3 it's not much more of a threat than anything else that can (i.e. Eldar/Tau generals won't suddenly start complaining about the Star Cannon as the best anti-tank weapon in the game--it certainly isn't as rediculously good as the 4th edition donkey-cannon...). And, thanks to your "guided" rule for the Missile Launcher (it's tough to run the math on this one) it should remain the premeire medium-vehicle/skimmer weapon because it negates the BS modifiers.

Yes, with a S-7 profile the starcannon does gain a boost in power, a considerable one under your "Revised" rules set, but I don't think it has much room to go OTT. If anything, it would remove the Starcannon from remaining the premiere anti-infantry weapon, leaving the Scatter Laser as the undisputed "king of the hordes," whereas your current incarnation of the Star Cannon seems to give it more competition than a Heavy 2 profile would. In other words, it seems to me that a Heavy 3 Starcannon harkens back to the old days of the uber-starcannon issues, in that you were better off with a Starcannon than practically any other weapon. Other than the cost difference, your current star cannon is hands-down the ideal anti-infantry weapon, whereas using a Heavy 2 profile with S7 would put it more into the middle ground that Autocannons tend to fill in Imperial lists--very useful anti-skimmer, anti-MEQ and Walker, but not so good as to be the "only" weapon option. I think that GW actually came pretty close to "getting it right" with only two shots, because the Scatter Laser/Shuriken Cannon remain superb weapons due to their rate of fire, but a Star cannon with three shots definitely outshines the other anti-infantry options more than I think a two-shot version would. And, you get to avoid rules that feel (at least to me) so much like a "band-aid" on a known problem "that we didn't feel particularly motivated to fix" such as "only glances" which stands out like a sore thumb against a rule system that already takes into account AP -  weapons. It feels like the game designers contradicting themselves for loss of a better solution, and this should be avoided at all costs (what, do you want to be like GW? Oh...ok then!    )

Milesteg's synopsis about a S 7 heavy 2 profile seems pretty accurate to me, but I personally feel that the Heavy 2 version is far superior to a Heavy 3 profile with a " 'cause we have to" restriction thrown in.

EDIT: Holy crap Makaleth...there's a reason that you don't hit "submit" a thousand times. Really, if you're that frustrated, pay for cable access!!!

EDIT EDIT: I also just re-checked your rules for the Shuriken Cannon. I forgot you made it Assault 4. I like the S5  AP4 change a lot, and Assault 4 seems fluffy to me as well (and scary) but I think you should drop the range to 24" as was. Upping it to 30" begins to overlap severely with the Scatter Laser at a much cheaper cost. In fact, despite your attempts otherwise, I think your current "Revised" Eldar Weapon breakdown is very, very close to the totally redundant 3rd edition codex weapon situation. All you'll see are Star Cannon, Shuriken Cannon and Bright Lances. Currently, these are the obvious "best" choices, and the cost difference is not only a sub-optimal way to encourage weapon diversity, but I think we've been shown that a high cost for an awesome weapon doesn't discourage taking it in force at all. Look at the assault cannon...

My first thought is:

Mike - hit reply once!!!!!

My second thought is:

No. I like the Starcannon as it is. It's meant to be the best infantry killer in the game, capable of tackling any target no matter the armour. It cuts a bloody, plasma-y swathe through the enemy and no other weapon is its equal.

This, of course, is balanced by the fact that it can't really hurt vehicles. The Starcannon in 3rd Ed was too powerful not because of it's AP2 or 3 shots, but mainly because it made the other Eldar heavy weapons redundant. Who needed Shuri-Cannons and Scatter Lasers when the Starcannon did everything they did but better?

Right now we have achieved balance with the Eldar weapons:

1. Shuri-Cannon - Eliminates medium infantry types, can't really damage vehicles, has a shorter-than-average range.
2. Scatter Laser - Eliminates light infantry, can tackle light vehicles with ease, decent range.
3. Starcannon - Eliminates heavy infantry, and everything below that actually, decent range, cannot hurt vehicles.
4. Bright Lance - Ineffective against infantry, destroyes vehicles, decent range.
5. EML - Generalist. AP4 Pinning Blast is nice, S8 AP3 makes it a good all round weapon. Excellent range.

Turning the Starcannon into an AP2 Autocannon skews this. That and it has no place. All the bases are covered with the Eldar weapon lineup. You change the Starcannon into an AP2 Autocannon and suddenly there's no heavy infantry killer, and the EML ceases to be worthwhile (2 S7 > 1 S8 vs AV12 and below, and they're equal at AV13 - ask any Guard player about why Autocannons rule over ML's).

So no, I don't like the idea of an S7 AP2 Heavy 2 Starcannon. S6 AP3 Heavy 3/Glance Only works far better IMO.

BYE

Posted By H.B.M.C. on 07/12/2007 6:01 AM
No. I like the Starcannon as it is. It's meant to be the best infantry killer in the game, capable of tackling any target no matter the armour. It cuts a bloody, plasma-y swathe through the enemy and no other weapon is its equal.

This, of course, is balanced by the fact that it can't really hurt vehicles. The Starcannon in 3rd Ed was too powerful not because of it's AP2 or 3 shots, but mainly because it made the other Eldar heavy weapons redundant. Who needed Shuri-Cannons and Scatter Lasers when the Starcannon did everything they did but better?

Right now we have achieved balance with the Eldar weapons:

1. Shuri-Cannon - Eliminates medium infantry types, can't really damage vehicles, has a shorter-than-average range.
2. Scatter Laser - Eliminates light infantry, can tackle light vehicles with ease, decent range.
3. Starcannon - Eliminates heavy infantry, and everything below that actually, decent range, cannot hurt vehicles.
4. Bright Lance - Ineffective against infantry, destroyes vehicles, decent range.
5. EML - Generalist. AP4 Pinning Blast is nice, S8 AP3 makes it a good all round weapon. Excellent range.

Turning the Starcannon into an AP2 Autocannon skews this. That and it has no place. All the bases are covered with the Eldar weapon lineup. You change the Starcannon into an AP2 Autocannon and suddenly there's no heavy infantry killer, and the EML ceases to be worthwhile (2 S7 > 1 S8 vs AV12 and below, and they're equal at AV13 - ask any Guard player about why Autocannons rule over ML's).

1) How does changing the Starcannon from S6 AP 2 Heavy 3 36" to S7 Heavy 2 invalidate it as an infantry killer? I'd hardly call that an absence of a heavy-infantry killer (the current Star Cannon is C:Eldar at Heavy 2 S6 fills this role quite nicely for me, but it would certainly lack the punch needed in "Revisited"...) As my math above showed, without cover a Heavy 2 S7 starcannon is superior to a Scatter Laser against MEQs, and equal when cover is involved--this difference is only exacerbated when talking about your Revisited Terminators (heaviers infantry there is!)

2) The EML would still be very worthwhile, especially considering your improvements to Pinning, Blast Weapons and the addition of the Guided rule. No, I don't see how a S7 Heavy 2 starcannon under your "Revisited" system would nullify the EML at all... And it certainly would be far inferior to the Lance rule of the Brightlance...

3) With a 3-Shot S6 starcannon, you are already invalidating the other anti-infantry weapons. Who cares about AP4 when you can get AP 2 with 6" more range for only 10 more points? Who cares about four shots at S6 AP 6 when you can get 3 at S6 AP 2 at the exact same range for 5 points more? I'm honestly surprised that you think you have the weapons balanced, when all I see is a veritable repeat of the weapon lineup from the 3rd edition codex. No, when considering infantry my experience screams at me that having 3 shots is the problem, and was the root cause to the Starcannon outshining other anti-infantry weapons.

On a similar note, the SLaser has no more business being able to penetrate or not than a Starcannon ought to (which is why I don't like the "fix" of only allowing glancing). If you bumped the Starcannon to Heavy 2 S 7, it would be able to penetrate AV 12, true, but it has only a 16% chance to do this, putting it a quarter-step ahead of the Scatter Laser, which has the same chance to cause damage at BS3 but with no option to penetrate with a "6". In other words, the difference is slight. I think this would be compensated well by the 5 point difference in cost. Also, the difference between getting two shots and four is quite large when talking about dependability.

4) Finally, the Eldar currently (and in "Revisited" have no weapon of wide applicability. The EML comes closest for maximum flexibility. The only place where your "no penetrating hits" rule comes into effect is against AV 11, which may I add is quite rare, and side-shots rarer; so really the two weapons are just about even when it comes to hunting light vehicles since both of them can only ever glance AV 12. This is why the "glance only" fix bugs me that much--it hardly makes enough difference to be worth putting down in print. The extra shot of the scatter laser alone already makes it a better armor hunter than the Starcannon--anyone who used Star Cannons in 3rd edition will tell you that yes, they can hunt vehicles, but no, at BS 3 they aren't so great at it. The Star Cannon with 3 shots was overpowered before not because it was useful against infantry and vehicles, but because it made the other anti-infantry weapons redundant against infantry. It costs so little to get that sweet sweet AP 2 that the "lower" weapons just never made the cut, and you could easily build a list to fit the handful of extra points you need for Starcannons.

So no, I don't like the idea of an S7 AP2 Heavy 2 Starcannon. S6 AP3 Heavy 3/Glance Only works far better IMO.

BYE

Posted By Makaleth on 07/12/2007 3:45 PM
Hmm,

So that's what happens when your computer freezes as soon as you hit reply (Mental note - It does go through)

Note: All Eldar pretty much are BS4 under revisited rules, Milesteg will have a fit and collapse otherwise (Actually, Eldar being BS3 was the whole reason that this project started)

While I do agree with Colonel about the Star Cannon being better than the shuriken cannon and scatter laser (It does cost a lot more though, 10 points is a whole heavy bolter and a bit)

I'll disagree that the lower powered weapons never get a go,
6 scatter lasers or shuriken cannons on war walkers it noticably cheaper than the star cannon variety and don't tend to waste points (IE on hordes they are the best setup you can have really) where as scatter lasers only tend to get their value against elite infantry (not hordes)

Ah, point taken about the BS4 Makaleth. Regardless, this doesn't change the numbers much, and favors a 3-shot starcannon above other weapons even more.

BTW--A difference of 15-20 points didn't stop people from loading up on the Star Cannons in the old Eldar Codex... 

Now, please understand I'm not trying to make this into a black-and-white issue. Obviously the "lower" weapons still get a go (especially on Vypers, Jetbikes, and the twin-linked catapult upgrades). But if you were to publish such an Eldar codex as it is with the heavy weapons as they are, I am convinced you'd see the return of lists with a dozen starcannons in them, and the mandatory shuriken cannon upgrades on the vehicles. Perhaps your gaming group isn't slanted towards playtesting abusive lists, but isn't that what playtesting is about? What happens when you cram as many Star Cannons as possible into a list (not excepting the minimum necessary anti-tank mind you)? What happens when you take no Starcannons? I'm sure you'd see a disturbing difference.

I have what I like to think of as a firm grasp on game mechanics and the implication of changes in the rules set, especially with the recent experience of the new Codex:Eldar, as well as transitioning between game editions twice (from 3rd to 3.5 to 4th). I'm an experienced 40k gamer, and I just don't see based on my experience how a 24" Shuriken Cannon would be less useful when every platform it's mounted on can move 12-16" a turn (granted it wouldn't be shooting with Fleet, but regardless infantry are faster under your system). I understand your concern about Invisible units (such as war walkers) but honestly I don't see any problem with 24" weapons...they seem to work just fine under the current rule set and would work even better under "Revisited," and would certainly be more protected than currently with rules like Invisible. A 24" range would justify the 10 points cheaper than everything else, but honestly with S5 AP4 and Assault 4 30" it probably deserves to be priced with the scatter laser. After all, S5 can glance up to AV 11!

I respect the fact that you're playtesting and that the codex is still under development--that's why I'm bringing this up. I guess I would just like to hear HBMC's explanation of why he feels as though the weapons are fine (examples from games? What weapon loadouts do you use in your playtested army lists?), and also as I originally asked if you considered testing a S7 Ap2 Starcannon, because I've always had a keen interest in the Eldar heavy weapons and think this is the ideal answer (and thus would like to hear how it tested), and if you won't consider testing why is the idea so OTT that you won't?

Yours truly,

Intensely Curious

Posted By Makaleth on 07/12/2007 4:00 PM
Also,
IC's can join units if they are their retinue (IE this has to have been worked out in the army list before the game - Not just a whim before each individual battle) I'm not to sure if we ahave actually written up a specific rules section on this, but maybe we should add a paragraph in the IC section.

Just so I'm clear here, you mean to say that any squad in the army could be made into a retinue for an independent character so long as it was decided in the list creation and noted in the army list?  That is more or less what I am sugesting (although multiple force org slots would still be used).  This would eliminate the planing holes that arise when the unit you plan to have your IC with ends up showing up at a significantly different time than the IC.

Although this may also be a can of worms you guys don't really want to open.