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.

Wyldhunt wrote:
I'm not really clear on why you're upping the cost of bright lances here. They're a solid gun, but they're also a single shot weapon. The lance rule is nice against AV 13+, but even then, you're only glancing the heavy targets half the time. Against light vehicles, it's a less powerful lascannon. Have you been running into problems with serpent-mounted bright lances? Because upping the cost of the lance gives people one less reason to use it over a scatter laser.

It's to put the costing in line with the Falcon turret. Here's the rundown:

WS versus Falcon
-- Turret weapons: TL / Not TL
-- Shuriken Cannon: 0pts / 0pts
-- Starcannon: 5pts / 5pts
-- Scatter Laser: 5pts / 10pts
-- Brightlance: 5pts / 10pts
-- Eldar ML: 15pts / 15pts

I really don't know how to explain this, other than an editing error by GW. So I figure, this is where to start correcting things.

They aren't twinlinked because the Falcon turret is there to, primarily, fire the large Pulse Laser.

SLs were, in theory, better on the Falcon because it had a powerful main gun (Serpent Shield shooting being so good wasn't intentional).

Brightlance, in theory, synergizes quite well with the Pulse Laser, so at the same cost, it seemed to be the obvious choice.

So it may have been a mistake, but probably not in editing in this case.

(Even at +5 points, my pair of falcons is one SL one BL.)

One more thing to note ladies and gents, almost every army at 500pts can field mobile troops and still support a ranged option for AV fire.

-- AS: Canonness, 2x BSS in Immolator (MM), Exorcist
-- AM: LC, 2x Meltavets in Chimera, LR Exterminator
-- CSM: Sorceror ML2, 2x CSM in Rhinos, Predator
-- Daemons: Daemon Prince, 2x Troops (all have DS), Soul Grinder
-- DE: Archon, 2x Kabalites w/Raider, Talos
-- Eldar: Autarch, 2x DA squad in Wave Serpent (70 points free)
-- Necrons: Lord, 5x Immortals in Night Scythe, 10x Warriors in Ghost Ark
-- Orks: Warboss, 2x Tankbustas, 2x Boyz, 4x Trukks
-- SM: Librarian, 2x Tacs w/Rhinos, Venerable Dreadnought
-- Tau: Ethereal, 2x FW w/Devilfish, Hammerhead
-- Tyranid: Tyrant, 2-3x Termagants, Carnifex

Balance isn't perfect here, or symmetry. Just trying to make a point. You need to drop the WS to near the price of a Devilfish if it's ranged capacity is removed. Right now it's way undercosted, but it still supports a lot of the HS work for an Eldar list. 2x Falcons with min DA troops would serve a similar function.

Edit: and thank you for the explanation Bharring. I am likewise not really convinced the WS needs the help given how good its "main gun" already is!

I play corsairs for the most part, so I know how the dedicated transport falcon looks(it's pretty sweet)

While updating the old V.D.R. I had to proof test it against current vehicles, a lot of them. What I discovered was that any BS4 platform that had a twin linked weapon ended up way overcosted. So, I dug around. When I was looking at I.A. 11 Doom of Mymearra, I noticed that the eldar and corsair versions of their AA tank were the exact same cost(despite the craft world version having BS3 as opposed to BS4)
When they twin link a weapon at BS4, they cost it as if it were BS3. This math worked on every twin linked weapon I put it up against. That's why the waveserpent gets a price savings on heavy weapons on the turret, they don't feel the difference in accuracy is worth increasing the point cost by another 5 when it is twin linked.

My$.02

Decided to tweak everything a bit. Removing TL on the WS turret is not an option due to modeling issues. New concept:

-- WS - Brightlance and Scatter Laser turret upgrades increased to 10pts (points standardized with Falcon)
-- WS - A Serpent Field may not benefit from Laser Lock. (Unconventional Weapon)
-- WS - A Serpent Field is not affected by a "Weapon Destroyed" result. However, significant damage to the Wave Serpent hull results in instability in projecting the Serpent Field. This is translated to the Serpent Field gaining the "Gets Hot" rule the first time a Wave Serpent suffers a penetrating hit. (Unconventional Weapon)

Getting rid of the Serpent Field TL reduces the average # of hits from 4 to 3. Minor nerf. Adding "Gets Hot" after a pen hit means the Serpent Field can still fire as normal in turn 1. Which is ok -- the WS is nearly the same price as a LR Exterminator and is a de facto HS option. However, spamming it as an offensive weapon the entire game now has drawbacks. Without the shield up for the 2+ glance save, you will eventually get tagged with "Gets Hot" in addition to normal Pen damage. If you spam the Serpent Field indiscriminately once you take a pen hit, you're liable to start knocking out your own vehicles. In 4 turns of shooting, a "Gets Hot" WS will statistically lose about 1.5HP.

Opinions?