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.

Togusa wrote:"iF yOu LeT tHe CoMpEtItIVe PlAyErS bAlaNcE tHe GaMe It WiLl Be BeTtEr"
So how are we liking that now that we've seen the game become more of a mess than it arguable ever has been?

Problem here is simply if you don't have someone that coordinates changes and a dev team that plays the game, it will be a mess no matter what
and we are still off the mess 7th edition was

Togusa wrote:Weren't Squads of vehicles originally Apocalypse things?

those were a thing to allow tank heavy armies that were otherwise restricted by the force org chart, but stayed after the limitation of the FOG was gone

 Togusa wrote:
"iF yOu LeT tHe CoMpEtItIVe PlAyErS bAlaNcE tHe GaMe It WiLl Be BeTtEr"

So how are we liking that now that we've seen the game become more of a mess than it arguable ever has been?

What are you even talking about

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Custodes wrote:Change Trait 1 of the Magna Imperator shield host fighting style to read: 'Each time a model in a unit with this trait would lose a wound as a result of a mortal wound, roll one D6: on a 5+, that wound is not lost.'

The Emperor's Auspice: Change the cost of this Stratagem to ‘2CP/3CP’

Arcane Genetic Alchemy: Change the cost of this Stratagem to ‘2CP/3CP’

Harlequins wrote:Change the first bullet point of the Characterisation - Blaze of Light to read: ‘Each time an attack is made against a unit with this characterisation, if the attacking model is more than 24" away, an unmodified hit roll of 1-3 for that attack fails, irrespective of any abilities that the weapon or the model making that attack may have.’

Change the unit size of Voidweavers to: ‘1-2 models’.

Capricious Reflections: Change the cost of this Stratagem to ‘2CP’

Genestealer Cults wrote:Add the Core keyword to the Keywords section of the following datasheets: Aberrants, Goliath Truck.

Tau Empire wrote:Change the last bullet point from the Wargear section of the following datasheets - Crisis Battlesuits, Crisis Bodyguards and Broadside Battlesuits to read: ‘This unit can be equipped with up to two of the following, in any combination (Power Rating +1): 1 Gun Drone; 1 Marker Drone; 1 Shield Drone (pg 94-97).’

Remove the Core keyword from the Keywords section of the Broadside Battlesuit datasheet.

Let's see if any of this turns out to be true...

This is the Hellstorm fan dataslate. Not legit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 mokoshkana wrote:
Rumor is that voidweaver squads are going to 1-2 (down from 3) and the prismatic cannon is going up by 10 points. If true, this seems like a nice and tidy fix.

Hellstorm fan dataslate again.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Rihgu wrote:
I saw a different set of leaks, lol.

The set I saw did limit Voidweavers to 1-2, but also... gave Astra Militarum and Chaos Space Marines 200 extra points!

Also Hellstorm dataslate.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYNcXXmRrh8&ab_channel=HellstormWargaming

 mokoshkana wrote:
Rumor is that voidweaver squads are going to 1-2 (down from 3) and the prismatic cannon is going up by 10 points. If true, this seems like a nice and tidy fix.

10 points is insulting. The Voidweaver can take a 30 point increase and still be the best vehicle in the game by a significant margin.

I know it's not been railed against on any discussions I've seen but frankly I'm hoping there are some changes to the custodes shield host traits, specifically emissaries imperiatus. Frankly their traits seem completely BS to me. Always fights first and ignore any modifiers to hit and wound on any attacks (so shooting and melee) is pretty obnoxious. They'd be powerful abilities in a katah but as permanent additions they really hamstring a decent selection of tactics and codex stratagems and I'm not sure they make the game fun.

 Ordana wrote:

 mokoshkana wrote:
Rumor is that voidweaver squads are going to 1-2 (down from 3) and the prismatic cannon is going up by 10 points. If true, this seems like a nice and tidy fix.

10 points is insulting. The Voidweaver can take a 30 point increase and still be the best vehicle in the game by a significant margin.

Exactly. 10 points might be ok if they were also capped to max 3 models per army, like they've alywas been before. But the models well worth 120-130 points each.

 clodax66 wrote:

 mokoshkana wrote:
Rumor is that voidweaver squads are going to 1-2 (down from 3) and the prismatic cannon is going up by 10 points. If true, this seems like a nice and tidy fix.

That looks like a good change. Maybe we will see some haywire voidweaver. Haywire is good but not good as prismatic cannon.

Why would that happen?
Anyone currently running squadrons of 3 is already fine with spending that amount of pts. Now they'd just be spending +10 pts per remaining weaver & reinvesting the remaining pts into the next best thing

I see a lot of people talking about Voidweavers but can I just point out:

85pt Venom:
M16" BS3+ S5 T5 W6 Sv4+, capacity 6
5++ against shooting, -1 to hit against shooting
6 S2 AP-1 D2 shots with Poison 4+

80pt Starweaver:
M16" BS3+ S5 T5 W6 Sv4+, capacity 6
4++ against everything, -1 to hit against everything, hit rolls against it can't be rerolled
6 S6 AP-1 D2 shots
Automatically Advances 6"

Yep, I can see why the Starweaver needed to be 5pts cheaper, to account for its superior guns and better defences.

Venoms paying for the sins of editions past sadly.

Purifying Tempest wrote:
I'd love to see them limit vehicle squadrons to 0-1 selections for the entire game. They've tried it multiple times now and it has led to skew issues.

A 0-1 Voidweaver selection per army still allows players to get to the magical number of 3 without the resulting skew of 9 + garbage lists. I think Squadrons were thought to provide a little more flexibility to using those slots, like getting 3 Voidweavers in a Patrol or allowing other HS options (provided they exist, but Ork buggies are still a thing that would benefit from the lens of getting additional FA options with a set of 3 buggies in 1 slot).

But, no good deed goes unpunished, and this is why we're not allowed to have nice things. I think the mask is off (pun intended) and we're going to see the buggy treatment make a visit to the murder clowns.

Yes, because Guard and their mighty Sentinel and Leman Russ squadrons are so game breaking and OP that the game needs a blanket one-size-fits-all solution to address this.

Tyel wrote:
GW's idea of what rules it gives away for free and what it charges for and how this ties in with their view of seasons is confused and confusing.
But really - just because the February Balance Sheet didn't include points (because want to sell you CA, its totally worth it for tweaking about 3 units per faction, honest) doesn't mean they will do the same in this one. Its very easy to go "yeah hats off we screwed up, the Voidweaver is now 110-120 points." It should really just be in the Eldar Codex FAQ.
Other options are more explicit nerfs. So for example Starweavers and Voidweavers could drop to only a 5++ rather than a 4++. Which might prompt some tears - but its what a Venom has. Which seems to prompt a "No but you see the Venom is overcosted, because its not currently in that 1% pool of datasheets crushing tournaments" from the competitive crowd, but they should just be overruled if you don't want the 7th edition style tier gap between armies to remain.

95 pt starweavers and 120 pt voidweavers are a start, but I don't think you can really get to balance without a rules change. I think they need to lose the -1 to hit no re-roll buff (doesn't entirely make sense to me that the bigger slower star/voidweavers are harder to hit than the smaller faster skyweavers in any case). Another potential rules change that would benefit greatly is to limit the Light Saedaths key ability to infantry (and skyweavers, since they are kinda underpowered/overpriced by comparison) so that the star and voidweavers don't get the benefit of transhuman to-hit. I just really hope they don't overcorrect on this and completely nerf Light (or Harlequins) as a whole.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Change the first bullet point of the Characterisation - Blaze of Light to read: ‘Each time an attack is made against a unit with this characterisation, if the attacking model is more than 24" away, an unmodified hit roll of 1-3 for that attack fails, irrespective of any abilities that the weapon or the model making that attack may have.

Ugh, that would be awful, render the entire power useless and just reinforce its use on boats as opposed to the infantry that its actually there to benefit. Boats will just continue to sit at long range plinking away with their longer range weapons.

As an aside, restricting Voidweavers to 1-2 per unit instead of 1-3 won't change much. Many of the top performing lists are only running 6 and still posting crazy win rates.

Rumor is that voidweaver squads are going to 1-2 (down from 3) and the prismatic cannon is going up by 10 points. If true, this seems like a nice and tidy fix.

I really think Voidweavers need to be up 30-45 pts, don't think 10 is going to cut it, but we'll see. I'm not convinced that capping them to 6 is going to change anything based on what I've seen locally. Starweavers need to be up 15pts minimum. Putting Voidweavers up to 120 and Starweavers up to 95 would mean most lists are going to have to cut 3 Voidweavers or 4 Starweavers (or some combination thereof) in order to maintain the rest of their list (or they make steep cuts elsewhere to maintain their weavers).

Fast moving, hard hitting, versatile profiles on inexpensive units have always been so bad in 40k who could have foreseen this would backfire? Clearly this needed to be tested by the community before the noble design team could act.

stratigo wrote:
Venoms paying for the sins of editions past sadly.

Exactly. Never forget that GW still tries to 'fix' problems with the rules that haven't been problems for editions. It's why Flying Hive Tyrants still suffer, and it's why Venoms will continue to suffer.

I thought about it, and honestly... after some thought... I'm pretty comfortable sitting with vehicle squadrons getting a check put on them. I'm not some tournament player, I'm not a filthy casual getting clubbed at tournaments either, but I have watched those two players interact and seen how utterly soul crushing it was for a player in a pick up game to get a match up against a copy of the Adepticon winning list. That's not going to be a happy experience, probably for either player unless the net-list player is a bit sadistic.

Sure, there's plenty of examples of units that get hurt by that (P.Engines, LRBT, whatever), but there's plenty more that have just been problematic from the start: Buggies, Voidweavers, roaming bands of P.Engines were even a bit of an issue earlier in the life of the AS Codex. Ironstriders also had their moment of fun in the sun with lots of Ad Mech lists running a (un)healthy swath of chicken walkers.

The best part is, if me and my friends don't see a problem with any of those units and a player really wants to play his 9 LRBT army... why would we deny him? It is easy enough to say: yeah, play whatcha want, we don't mind.

But tournament players? That's a different beast and such compromises can't really be made. The experiment has been tried a few times to pretty, immediate, disastrous results. Allowing an army to skew that hard on 1 unit within the rules creates the potential that 1 points swing or one weapon modification makes a huge problem for a large portion of the game, especially at the highest levels. Yikes. You're just sitting on a box of grenades every time they touch those dataslates.

At least in my world, we're free to ignore rules when it suits the flavor of the game someone wants to play (or when something stupid like this happens).

Wow, folks are really trying to nerf harlequins into oblivion.

Starweavers and Venoms don't cost the same because they aren't the same. They exist in different armies with different rules. Harlequins have EIGHT units in their entire arsenal. They need to have something that pops.

 mokoshkana wrote:
Wow, folks are really trying to nerf harlequins into oblivion.

Starweavers and Venoms don't cost the same because they aren't the same. They exist in different armies with different rules. Harlequins have EIGHT units in their entire arsenal. They need to have something that pops.

You're right. They aren't the same: they're strictly better. When better units cost less, the whole points system falls apart.
They need to carry their weight, not be blatantly overpowered.

They very obviously need nerfs, we're not talking about a margin of error that can be factored to a few people getting a bad nights sleep and playing badly. They've universally knocked the entire table over and consistently broke the game in one of the worst possible displays on record. There is no hiding that there is a problem here, its just a question of whether GW will correctly identify and fix what's wrong, rather than flailing wildly with the 'unintended consequences' button.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

stratigo wrote:
Venoms paying for the sins of editions past sadly.

Exactly. Never forget that GW still tries to 'fix' problems with the rules that haven't been problems for editions. It's why Flying Hive Tyrants still suffer, and it's why Venoms will continue to suffer.

I still discover new nerfs for the dark reapers every time i look at their datasheet lol

 mokoshkana wrote:
Wow, folks are really trying to nerf harlequins into oblivion.

Starweavers and Venoms don't cost the same because they aren't the same. They exist in different armies with different rules. Harlequins have EIGHT units in their entire arsenal. They need to have something that pops.

Yeaaa...but...it pops waaaay too much and they can easily soup. I'm willing to bet that any dataslate changes will ( at best ) place Harlies into a background detachment that just drags along whatever the optimum number of Voidweavers would be.

Voss wrote:

 mokoshkana wrote:
Wow, folks are really trying to nerf harlequins into oblivion.

Starweavers and Venoms don't cost the same because they aren't the same. They exist in different armies with different rules. Harlequins have EIGHT units in their entire arsenal. They need to have something that pops.

You're right. They aren't the same: they're strictly better. When better units cost less, the whole points system falls apart.
They need to carry their weight, not be blatantly overpowered.

They very obviously need nerfs, we're not talking about a margin of error that can be factored to a few people getting a bad nights sleep and playing badly. They've universally knocked the entire table over and consistently broke the game in one of the worst possible displays on record. There is no hiding that there is a problem here, its just a question of whether GW will correctly identify and fix what's wrong, rather than flailing wildly with the 'unintended consequences' button.

At 2000 points, things should be equal, but comparing unit A to unit B for points X is not feasible. Points are not 1 to 1 across factions. This has never and will never be the case. So a starweaver and a venom are not the same. Venoms can be unlocked for 40 points with kabalites or wracks. Starweavers can be unlocked for 65pts with a troupe (or 50 with voidreavers after the initial detachment tax has been paid).

I am on board with them being reigned in a bit, but lets not throw the baby out with the bath water and take them from hero to zero.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 mokoshkana wrote:
Wow, folks are really trying to nerf harlequins into oblivion.

Starweavers and Venoms don't cost the same because they aren't the same. They exist in different armies with different rules. Harlequins have EIGHT units in their entire arsenal. They need to have something that pops.

Yeaaa...but...it pops waaaay too much and they can easily soup. I'm willing to bet that any dataslate changes will ( at best ) place Harlies into a background detachment that just drags along whatever the optimum number of Voidweavers would be.

Allies have and will always be a problem. There is no way to balance two things that interact with one another. The traveling player rule should be narrative/open only.

it's typical GW, here is a unit that performed decently before. But, let's throw on a new rule just for good measure!

starweaver should remain as is with a small 5 pt bump due to shuricannon stat boost, but drop the silly no rerolls to hit against it.

As for Voidweaver, same as above except slightly higher bump in points, particularly to the prismatic cannon. If points correct, squadrons won't be an issue.

Oh, and Troupes need Core added.

I'd also then drop Mirror architect to Core only, thus affecting only bikes and Troupes.

 mokoshkana wrote:

Voss wrote:

 mokoshkana wrote:
Wow, folks are really trying to nerf harlequins into oblivion.

Starweavers and Venoms don't cost the same because they aren't the same. They exist in different armies with different rules. Harlequins have EIGHT units in their entire arsenal. They need to have something that pops.

You're right. They aren't the same: they're strictly better. When better units cost less, the whole points system falls apart.
They need to carry their weight, not be blatantly overpowered.

They very obviously need nerfs, we're not talking about a margin of error that can be factored to a few people getting a bad nights sleep and playing badly. They've universally knocked the entire table over and consistently broke the game in one of the worst possible displays on record. There is no hiding that there is a problem here, its just a question of whether GW will correctly identify and fix what's wrong, rather than flailing wildly with the 'unintended consequences' button.

At 2000 points, things should be equal, but comparing unit A to unit B for points X is not feasible. Points are not 1 to 1 across factions. This has never and will never be the case. So a starweaver and a venom are not the same

I don't agree at all. If SUM(A)=2000 and SUM(B)=2000, there has to be consistency in costs, otherwise you're really getting A=2000+X and B=2000-Y. It hasn't ever been perfect, but it requires at least attempting to get it right (and obviously they didn't even try here)
And its utter nonsense with two units so closely related. Its the same chassis with better special rules (literally +1 invulnerable save, and it also works in melee) and gun. Very obviously, costing less is an unacceptable answer.

You're effectively arguing that if you a Space Marine Rhino and Chaos Space Marine Rhino and they're otherwise the same, the Chaos Rhino should cost _less_ if you give it a havoc launcher.

Venoms can be unlocked for 40 points with kabalites or wracks. Starweavers can be unlocked for 65pts with a troupe (or 50 with voidreavers after the initial detachment tax has been paid).

I'm not sure why you're jumping into unit based discounts. The problem is the starweaver is better than the venom but costs less. Whatever you're saying here isn't what's in either codex (and makes it cheaper, which would be absolutely the wrong direction), so has nothing to do with the problem.

I am on board with them being reigned in a bit, but lets not throw the baby out with the bath water and take them from hero to zero.

Great. That wasn't on the table. But it should have a cost that reflects its abilities- and since its strictly better than other light vehicles of the same type, it should cost more. That isn't complicated or tossing babies.

Found the real dataslate:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Found the real dataslate:

Spoiler:

I know its a joke, but do people really complain about riders not being glued to venoms/raiders/starweavers/voidweavers?

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Found the real dataslate:

Spoiler:

I know its a joke, but do people really complain about riders not being glued to venoms/raiders/starweavers/voidweavers?

I don't think so. It's just a hilarious way to poke at bandwagoners.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Found the real dataslate:

Spoiler:

I know its a joke, but do people really complain about riders not being glued to venoms/raiders/starweavers/voidweavers?

I don't think so. It's just a hilarious way to poke at bandwagoners.

Gotta disagree, it just looks ugly. I didn't bother with the Warriors for my two Ghost Arks for example.

Voss wrote:


You're effectively arguing that if you a Space Marine Rhino and Chaos Space Marine Rhino and they're otherwise the same, the Chaos Rhino should cost _less_ if you give it a havoc launcher.

TBF... that should be Rhino (with Space Marine Rules) and a Chaos Rhino (with Chaos Space Marine Rules). A unit in a vacuum can be perfectly balanced... until you start tossing in sympathetic rules, a la Custodies and the power of their Strats.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I don't think so. It's just a hilarious way to poke at bandwagoners.

And Guard players with Valks, apparently.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:


all of them except GK?

No idea, that is why I put forth a question. I don't ask rethorical questions.

Rumor is that voidweaver squads are going to 1-2 (down from 3) and the prismatic cannon is going up by 10 points. If true, this seems like a nice and tidy fix.

Which means armies are going to run 3 units of 2 each. even with -1 per squadron and a 10pts drop, then things are too awesome not to use.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:


I don't think so. It's just a hilarious way to poke at bandwagoners.

Be a GK player in 8th. Build the army properly, unlike me, and have 3 NDKs and 2 GMs in it with strikes and interceptors. Army is really bad anyway for most of 8th ed. In 9th it reverts to its pre PA status, specially your power armoured unit. Codex comes out and your army is finaly fun to play. Nerf bat, take this evil bandwagoner, this will teach you to play WAAC armies.

It is like one guy who started marines in 8th with me. Picked IH, had horrible time entire edition, then army becomes the WAAC doom machine, because he must have been guided by a prophetic vision starting his w40k collecting with a Dark Empire and 2 Know No Fear halfs. People sure did show him what they think about WAAC bandwagoners, mostly refusing to play against him. Even those that a month before that were tabling him.

 Blackie wrote:

 Ordana wrote:

 mokoshkana wrote:
Rumor is that voidweaver squads are going to 1-2 (down from 3) and the prismatic cannon is going up by 10 points. If true, this seems like a nice and tidy fix.

10 points is insulting. The Voidweaver can take a 30 point increase and still be the best vehicle in the game by a significant margin.

Exactly. 10 points might be ok if they were also capped to max 3 models per army, like they've alywas been before. But the models well worth 120-130 points each.

Are you sure they are worth as a Razorback?

Maybe I did never realize how powerful a Razorback is....

The Deer Hunter wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

 Ordana wrote:

 mokoshkana wrote:
Rumor is that voidweaver squads are going to 1-2 (down from 3) and the prismatic cannon is going up by 10 points. If true, this seems like a nice and tidy fix.

10 points is insulting. The Voidweaver can take a 30 point increase and still be the best vehicle in the game by a significant margin.

Exactly. 10 points might be ok if they were also capped to max 3 models per army, like they've alywas been before. But the models well worth 120-130 points each.

Are you sure they are worth as a Razorback?

Maybe I did never realize how powerful a Razorback is....

The logic is broken units are fine if you can't use a lot of them. That makes also zero sense.

 Togusa wrote:
"iF yOu LeT tHe CoMpEtItIVe PlAyErS bAlaNcE tHe GaMe It WiLl Be BeTtEr"

So how are we liking that now that we've seen the game become more of a mess than it arguable ever has been?

Gonna agree this was a pretty bad take on the issue. Competitive players have zero input on the game balance except that they are effectively doing the playtesting AFTER release which is a bit bassackwards. I do think competitive players have a bit of input in that regard, i mean, Drukhari/Ad-Mech sat at the top of the meta for almost a year before being dethroned very recently by Custards and Tau and now Harlies/Eldar. Those players were actively screaming "ORKZ IZ OP! NERF!" So yea, maybe they do have some input, but not in the way you are thinking.

Sumilidon wrote:

I suspect you may be the idiot. It is very well documented that GW balance is driven heavily by tournament results and very little by playtester. Point and case is that if it were the latter which was the most important, they wouldn't be released so broken. They are however quick to swing the nerf bat after major tournament wins as that represents a significant amount of data for them to base the nerfs upon. Where else would they get that amount of info? Watching youtube games? Do you clubs submit your game results to GW directly??

As for not doing anything - so you claim. Fact was however that the factions on release were powerful and then nerfed. Want to restore balance? the counter to nerfs are buffs. Maybe then they could return armies to their actual point values in some case and make their codexes valid again.

Yes, its driven by Tournament results...which is actually a good thing, GW has never been more responsive to game imbalance....ever. Keep in mind, they are fixing a problem they themselves created because they don't want to hire full time Playtesters and listen to them. But that doesn't mean that its the tournament scene that is coming out with these ridiculous rules. Nope, that falls firmly on the mentally challenged game devs. You know, the ones who listened to the competitive players that a 90pt Rukkatrukk was OP! with its average 3.5 S5 AP-2 2dmg hits a turn and said ...yes, OP bad. And nerfed it into oblivion and then proceeded to create voidweavers which with just their secondary guns average 4 S6 Ap-2 2dmg hits a turn (Shuriken) while also making the maingun head and shoulders better, the model faster and more durable and layering on even more rules to make it broken.

tneva82 wrote:

If they wanted balance they wouldn't need tournament stats. 40k isn't complex game. It's dead easy with elementary school kid who can read english able to create best lists and spot issues.

Gw could fix 99%+ issues by just reading through codex pre-release.

But balance is bad for profit margin. Shifting imbalance meanwhile good. Guess you can tell what gw goes for...

I mean..its slightly harder than that, but not nearly as hard that they should be coming out with the power differences we are seeing. Anyone with half a brain could have taken 2 seconds to look at the Voidweaver, compared it to current 9th edition units and said...yes, 120pts minimum. With the main gun, 130pts. Instead they said "90 seems like a good starting point" I mean...it literally is the exact same price as Ork buggies but is better in every single way imaginable. You can't accidentally do that.

 mokoshkana wrote:
Wow, folks are really trying to nerf harlequins into oblivion.

Starweavers and Venoms don't cost the same because they aren't the same. They exist in different armies with different rules. Harlequins have EIGHT units in their entire arsenal. They need to have something that pops.

Bud, starweavers and Voidweavers are broken levels of OP. It doesn't matter that this detachment style army only has 8 datasheets, i'm sorry that is irrelevant. Your units should not be head and shoulders better point for point than everyone else just because you only have fewer choices.

Venoms are noticeably worse than Starweavers, go compare those Starweavers to 70pt Trukkz if you really want to see how stupid it is. That Trukk has a single big shoota 3 shots at S5 no AP hitting on 5s. it has no durability boosts except -1dmg to S7 and below, its noticeably slower and has no synergy with basically anything in the codex except to act as either a mobile bunker OR a delivery system for trukkboyz. So for 10pts you are getting what amounts to 2 better versions of a Heavy Bolter (a 10pt weapon in and of itself) -1 to hit and a 4+ invuln. Yeah they need to cost a LOT MORE than they currently do.