Switch Theme:

Warhammer 40,000 Revisited Project homepage...  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in au
Fresh-Faced New User




Already done.
Characters Joining Units Before The Game
It is possible for an Independent Character to start the game attached to a unit. This may be on the tabletop, starting in a transport or coming from a table edge attached to the unit. The only requirements are that there must be sufficient room for the character (eg Room For Da Boss in a transport) and that the character and the unit that he is to be attached to enter the game on the same turn. For instance, if the Reserves rule is in effect, both the character and the unit must arrive on the same turn or they will have to enter separately. The same is true for units that Deep Strike, Teleport or Tunnel. Note that it is also permissible for an Independent Character to enter the game in an undedicated transport subject to the same requirements (such as an Eldar Farseer in a Falcon). Any character that is going to join a unit in these ways must declare it before the game begins or at the appropriate time (ie Reserve rolls are made for the units). If there is no declaration, it will be assumed that the character is not attached.

There's the rule on p51 of v2.8 and on p54 of v2.9. Also, there is no restriction on this being declared in list creation. It is in fact done on the whim of the player before the game starts or even just before he rolls reserves. ^_^
Ultimately the IC being able to join anybody is balanced by the fact he can always be targetted as a seperate unit in H2H. The only way to "hide" him is to give him a retinue. In the current Space Marine codex the retinue is of normal marines. You may want your IC with your Veterans but he won't be hidden anymore in assault.

This one time people were frequently asking the Space Emperor Questions about like shooting psycannons at turbo-boosting bikes or which units could ride in drop pods.

The Space Emperor told everyone to watch his website and he would answer them. But as time went on there were no answers, just price increaces.

Meanwhile Mr. Warmachine was answering questions left right and center. So more and more poeple were listening to Mr. Warmachine.

So when the Space Emperor got around to answering the questions no one cared anymore.

This made the Space Emperor very (x2) sad so he raised prices some more. 
   
Made in us
Executing Exarch





Los Angeles

Page 58: Jump Packs In The Assault Phase
It would appear that jump packers do not need to make a dangerous terrain check if they use their 12? assault move to land in difficult terrain. Is this correct or an oversight.

Page 61: Bikes In The Assault Phase
For each subsequent Phase of combat after the turn the Bikes charge (or are charged), and until they leave that combat (either by catching a fleeing enemy, running away ? even if caught, of if they Consolidate), all the Bikes will halve their base Initiative to a minimum of 1.

Do you round up or down in the case of odd initiatives?

**** Phoenix ****

Threads should be like skirts: long enough to cover what's important but short enough to keep it interesting. 
   
Made in us
Executing Exarch





Los Angeles

beyond.wudge

Page 54, version 2.9
Characters Joining Units Before The Game:
It is possible for an Independent Character to start the game attached to a unit. This may be on the tabletop, starting in a transport or coming from a table edge attached to the unit. The only requirements are that there must be sufficient room for the character (eg Room For Da Boss in a transport) and that the character and the unit that he is to be attached to enter the game on the same turn. For instance, if the Reserves rule is in effect, both the character and the unit must arrive on the same turn or they will have to enter separately. The same is true for units that Deep Strike, Teleport or Tunnel. Note that it is also permissible for an Independent Character to enter the game in an undedicated transport subject to the same requirements (such as an Eldar Farseer in a Falcon). Any character that is going to join a unit in these ways must declare it before the game begins or at the appropriate time (ie Reserve rolls are made for the units). If there is no declaration, it will be assumed that the character is not attached.


According to this, both units (the IC and the squad) must enter the board at the same time if they are going to be joined together. This is no change from the 4th edition rules. However if you are rolling reserves, it is possible that the IC and the unit come in on different turns and would thus not be able to be deployed together. I was suggesting that they be joined in the army list and rolled for and deployed as a single unit. The rule above does not allow for this. It merely allows for joining of an IC to a unit upon deployment.

**** Phoenix ****

Threads should be like skirts: long enough to cover what's important but short enough to keep it interesting. 
   
Made in us
Executing Exarch





Los Angeles

Page 66: Walkers In Assault
select one enemy model in each round of combat to single out and attack. They only make one Attack against this model, and it hits on a 4+ and at normal Initiative levels. The Walker?s or Monstrous Creature?s remaining Attacks will be made as normal against the enemy models within the Monstrous Creature?s Kill Zone; and

So every round a walker can make a single attack that hits on a 4+ regardless of weapon skill? This seems a little silly. I?m going to be rather upset when a space marine dreadnaught charges and Eldar Avatar and gets to hit (with one attack a round) on a 4+ (instead of needing a 6) because he?s ?singling out? the Avatar (the only model the dreadnaught is in hand to hand with). I?m not sure why the 4+ was stipulated specifically but perhaps you guys may want to reconsider what that reason was and make sure it applies properly.

**** Phoenix ****

Threads should be like skirts: long enough to cover what's important but short enough to keep it interesting. 
   
Made in au
Been Around the Block



Sydney, Australia

Ok, got a bit of work to do here :-)
 
Phoenix
I always love your input; I love finding out the things where rules that were intended to achieve one thing lead to something completely different :-)
  • that is a superb loophole that you discovered... the idea behind the rule of a Walker/MC singling out a single model was to deal with the hidden powerfist issue (back when a Wraithlord would usually be defeated by the Tac Squad + Power Fist).  Things have changed somewhat since then and we were actually thinking of deleting this ability.  HTH power of the Walkers & MCs has gone up, and due to our changes in the grenade rules, squads don't have to rely just on the power fist anymore.  We originally made it a 4+ just for balance and predictability (flat 50%; stop the Avatar from picking out the power fist on 2's), but I never considered the loophole that you have discovered.  Fantastic work ;-)  I suspect that we'll just delete this rule and be done with it (not needed as it once was).
  • You are correct about attaching ICs, etc; uses the 4th ed way of doing things (with a bit more clarification here and there).  I think what Wudge and Makaleth were referring to was that IC + retinue = one unit for Reserves purposes, etc.  I find your idea very interesting; there has never been any demand from within the group for the ability that you propose, but then again, I for one can't see any reason why we shouldn't implement it.  One of the things that has mitigated it somewhat is that our Escalation doesn't function like GW Escalation (you split your force into two halves, one wave on Turn 2, one wave on Turn 3; much more control).  However, doesn't help re: Reserves......hmmm.......I think I'll throw it in there, we'll see how often it is used and take it from there.  Anyone else in the group have comments on this point?
  • Hmmm....mainly Marines have "bikes" per se and as such are usually I4, but it could be possible to put an I5 character on a bike.....in this case, I'd say round down (it is what we usually do).  The Initiative penalty is meant to represent the bulkiness and awkwardness of using a bike in HTH post-charge, so rounding down would seem to make sense in this context.  HBMC, any thoughts on that? This is your rule after all :-)
  • Interesting point regarding Fall Back moves; to my mind, it was intended that units always get the "last chance" test for regrouping, even if it was caused by their initial Fall Back move.  However, it would often be the case that where a unit Falls Back and immediately hits their table edge, it is entirely possible that they would not be able to regroup anyway, say due to enemy models being within 6" (at least, that is what I observed from time to time.
Also, a general question to the group (& everyone); does anyone remember that +1 modifier to regrouping if no enemy units are in LOS? I can't remember having remembered it :-)  Is it MRS (More Rules Syndrome)?
Beyond Wudge
  • I concur with all your points, although I'll expand in a subsequent post to the Colonel shortly....
  • Just so you know, really not sure if I would make the SL a Pinning weapon.  I may unofficially test it (ie not put it in the Codex), but given the similarities to the Sunrifle (ie massed laser shots), you never know; would be a very interesting mechanic for it.
  • I hate your Landspeeders with Heavy Flamers.  Burninating my Rangers indeed.....
Makaleth
  • I'll take it from here :-)
ColonelEllios
  • I'll address your points shortly in a subsequent post; I want to get the above posted first, and then I'll answer your queries :-)

"If Rhinos are fragile, protect them. Deploy accordingly, accept sacrifices (one or two mightn't make it there), use tougher vehicles to shield them, and... *deep breath* use tactics." - HBMC 
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

Never considered it against one big target.

In any case, we're removing the targeted attack from Walkers. Truth is they don't need it. They're powerful enough without it. A 10-man Marine Squad w/Fist vs a Wraithlord can end in victory with either side. Walkers can pick out the Fist, then it always ends in victory for the Wraithlord.

BYE

Industrial Insanity - My Terrain Blog
"GW really needs to understand 'Less is more' when it comes to AoS." - Wha-Mu-077

 
   
Made in au
Been Around the Block



Sydney, Australia

Colonel
 
Let me being by saying that I appreciate the time and effort that you have invested thus far into the Eldar heavy weapon analysis thus far; I appreciate people external to the group asking the "why" and "how" questions; challenges our assumptions and conclusions, and this usually leads to better rules.
 
Starcannons
 
I've been thinking about your comments quite a bit and trying to weigh them up.  My conclusion (in a strange way) is that both HBMC and yourself are correct.  Allow me to explain...
 
One of the big issues with 40K is of course the meta-game.  We have tried to address and tweak some of these issues through mission design, Scenario Special Rules and adding new mechanics like Disruption to the game (for example, Disruption represents the ability of some units like Rangers, etc to cause havoc behind enemy lines, gain intel about enemy movements which gives you a tactical advantage, etc.  BTW, it is one of my favourite rules to date, as the value of units isn't only tied to their ability to kill things, take damage and hold objectives :-).  However, some things of the meta-game cannot be address via rules and the like, such as the armies that people bring to the table and as we all know, this skews things somewhat.
 
Our gaming group doesn't have a dedicated Dark Eldar player, Orks are only getting off the ground in my collection, no SOB and we have a small Necron force.  Our core armies are Eldar, Guard, Marines, Chaos, Nids (hence why we have Codexen for them) and I think that it is fair to say that our environment is fairly MEQ heavy (as the primary Guard and Nid player are the same person for instance :-).  It is not only about MEQs, but they are rather prevalent.
 
When HMBC and I started CER a few years ago (heck...end of 2003), balancing the Eldar HW's was top of our list.  The biggest issue (with which we are all familiar), was the Starcannon's ability to do everything, but hunting AV13/14 (and then one used Lances).  This versatility came in two forms:
  • the ability to hunt all forms of infantry more consistently that the ShC and SL; and
  • the ability to hunt vehicles.
These were the two chief problems.  We sought to address them, but ensuring that the ShC and SL could hunt other forms of infantry in a more cost-effective fashion than the StC and to ensure that the SL became the premier anti-light/medium vehicle hunter (note that we didn't identify all of this from the start; it has taken a few years to development to get to this point :-)
 
I ran some numbers yesterday regarding the Eldar HW's vs particular targets, and if you send an email to milesteg@mac.com, more than happy to email a copy of the document to you (it is very much a draft document, so not really suitable for general distribution).  The testing confirmed what we already knew; the ShC is the best anti-GEQ weapon, the SL is superb vs hordes, can do a reasonable job vs Marines (even if in cover) and is superb vs AVs 10 & 11.  StC scythes through Marines (but then, we already knew that...).
 
I think that one of the chief factors that would cause people to gravitate towards the StC is the meta-game issue of what armies people bring to the table.  I agree; if you have no idea what is coming and if you were taking a true "all-comers" list, it is arguable that one could rely on StC's and BL's to deal with virtually all targets (not as efficiently as some of the other weapons, but they would be able to manage).  I agree that it is somewhat peverse, that after all of this work, we still seem to be in a 3rd ed situation of StCs and BLs across the board.
 
That being said, matters change (for instance), if horde armies are more prevalent or if AV 10/11 vehicles are used with greater regularity.  Say there are a number of DE player and Ork players using Raiders and Trukks en masse; the Scatter Laser truly comes into its own in these situation.  With the current StC "glancing hits only" rule, the ability to penetrate on a 6 make a massive difference (I've been on the receiving end with Wave Serpents vs Autocannons; hence my utter hatred for them :-).  However, if you face the MEQ horde of doom far more regularly, then the StC is the better choice.  If hordes and AV 10/11 vehicles just don't get used (everyone plays Deathwing!), the obviously the relative value of the weapon is changed considerably.
 
I sincerely believe that the current Eldar HW lineup is balanced in the abstract; each weapon has its particular type of target and if you encounter that target, it shines.  However, if that target is only rarely present, then of course, its relative value in that environment diminishes.  To this end, I considered the implications of making the StC the "big gun" as you described it and making it a true generalist weapon (ie R36", S7, AP 2, Heavy 2).
 
We are familiar with the change in role; it can strike MCs & Walkers more effectively, becomes a good light-medium vehicle hunting weapon and does a reasonably job vs MEQS.  However, it is for these very reasons why I believe that this would only lead to more Eldar list taking nothing but StCs and Lances.
 
Why? Well, the current StC has the primary anti-MEQ role, secondary anti-MC/Walker role and tertiary anti-vehicle role.  Lances take care of heavier vehicles and you can muddle through the rest (like hordes, etc).
 
Your proposed StC is still reasonable vs MEQs, but then its role changes to primarily anti-light/medium vehicle, secondary anti-MC/Walker (but better than before), tertiary anti-MEQ.  However, you then pick up the MEQ/GEQ slack with particular hunters in that range (say take a unit of Dark Reapers for anti-MEQ work, or Mr Generalist himself, the Fire Prism).  This does not however change the fact that the StC becomes even more the primary weapon of choice.
 
It could then deal with lighter vehicles and due to being able to penetrate AV 12 on 6s, would negate the Scatter Laser in this role.  Yes, the Scatter Laser is better vs hordes, but you have Shuriken Cannons for that (and on weapon mounts where it is that or TL-ShCats and that's it).  Essentially, Eldar armies could still just rely on StCs and BLs to deal with most things, and then just have one or two specific hunters as required (Fire Prisms could do both; excellent choice here).
 
Why would this be problematic? If you have no idea what is coming, the StC would be better than (really) almost any other choice.  It would become the default weapon on Vypers, War Walkers, etc.  Heck, what other weapon would be perfectly suited to being paired with the Falcon's Pulse Laser (as indeed, it is a mini-Pulse Laser in many respects).  Scatter Lasers on Falcons would never be seen, etc.
 
The reason that we are familiar with this mechanic is due to our extensive experience with Autocannons.  They are (due to High Impact) a superb generalist weapon.  Essentially, these StCs would have all that generalist power, AP 2 for increased power vs harder targets and the shorter range can be mitigated by the Eldar's superior movement.
Most of HBMC's Guards lists at 1850 have anywhere from 6-8 Autocannons.  I can get that in 1-2 units (Vypers, War Walkers, etc).  Once again, the perverse outcome is that the StC becomes the generalist weapon of choice, you take some Lances to deal with armour and then some horde hunters like Shuriken Cannons, where indeed you can't take anything else? These three would become the Eldar's "holy trinity" of heavy weapons (backed up by the supreme generalist, the Prism Cannon).
 
So, whether we adopt your suggestion or stick with what we have, StC and BLs can be massed in all-comers lists with reasonable effectiveness.  However, under the current situation, the SL's supremacy vs AV 10/11 types is not affected and there is stil a role for them.  Yes, in MEQ-heavy environments the StC is the better choice, but where the gaming enivornment has a multitude of different targets, this is shifted.
 
Just another quick point, I agree that with singular StCs, a 5/10pt difference won't be enough to stop people if it is worth it.  However, I have seen a noticeable difference in pts where these weapons are en masse (like a full War Walker squadron).  3 WW's with Scatter Lasers is 240pts; with StCs, it is 270.  Over 2 squadrons, that is 90pts and that makes a difference (I was using such a force recently, and the pts difference was truly noticeable.  To do what else I needed to do, I had to take 3 WWs with Scatter Lasers, with interesting results).
On a Falcon or Wave Serpent, 5pts is a statistic.  In a War Walker squadron, it is a tragedy :-) (anyone get the inverted reference? Work with me people....).
 
On a side note, I could happily live with your StC if that is what GW decided to do (when I play 4th ed games).  However, I do not believe that it will achieve the balance that you desire.  That being said, I agree that our solution can have the appearance of a "band aid" approach.  It was actually the product of several discussions about the Stc, but there may be better way of achieving this goal.  I will consider it :-)
 
 
A few other random points....
 
Weapon Ranges
 
Just so you know, the greater speed of things in Revisited has led to a rebalancing of weapon ranges.  For example, many of the Eldar psychic powers have increased in range from 18" to 24", as 18" just isn't what it used to be (for example, in 4th ed it meant that you were definitely outside of the assault range of  enemy infantry, and only just in range of jump packers.  In Revisited, you are close to the assault range of standard infantry (due to running), within range of Fleeting models and definitely within range of jump packers who can run).  In order to achieve the similar result (ie need to get close to use the power but will only be in assault range of very fast models), 24" is required instead of only 18".
 
Same goes for 24" vs 30" for the ShC.  The Invisible protection of War Walkers (for instance) is not as powerful as it is in 3rd/4th ed, as things are faster.  Many of my snipers have fallen to Rhinos charging forward 16" and then storm boltering them to death.  That 6" makes a big difference in Revisited, and indeed, it may turn out that it needs the full 36" after all (won't go into the current version, but something in the back of my mind).  24" means that fragile WWs will need to get far too close to do anything.  Indeed, 30" may not actually be enough, but we'll see.
 
Playtest it a few times and you'll see what I mean; small changes in movement rules end up making a big difference we find (good differences, but it is more than it sounds...3" sounds small, but oh the difference it makes to foot sloggers...).
 
Glancing Hits
Just another thing that is useful to know when thinking about this stuff, Glancing Hits are about as half as deadly as they used to be (4th ed Glancing Hit kills a vehicle 1/6 of the time; in Revisited, is it 1/12 of the time).  This means that only being able to glance means more than it used to.  Indeed, it also means that the difference between glancing on 6's and penetrating on 6's makes an enormous difference.
 
Being an Eldar player, I am very familiar with being glanced (and destroyed) by S6 vs AV 12 skimmers. Doesn't work like it used to; you really need S7 for the AV 12 to fear them (this was deliberate).  I bring this up as the ShC's ability to glance AV 11 is not as comparable to the ability of the SL to penetrate the Rhino on a 6.  It is not just that the SL glances twice as often, and is therefore twice as deadly, but it is a few orders of magnitude more deadly
 
Shuriken Cannon vs AV 11 (BS 4)
 
4 shots, 2.66 hits, 0.44 glancing hits, therefore 3.7% chance of Rhino being destroyed.
 
Scatter Laser vs AV 11 (BS 4)
 
4 shots, 2.66 hits, 0.88 damaging hits (0.44 glancing, 0.44 penetrating), glancing hit = 1/27 chance to destroy, penetrate = 2/9 chance to destroy), therefore total chance of 25.96% chance of Rhino being destroyed.
 
I believe that is about 7 times as deadly; see the difference? :-)
 
 
Sorry if I've missed anything; really should post this now....thanks for the input; I appreciate kicking the ideas around.  After all, we may end up disagreeing, but the analysis can't hurt the project in the end.

"If Rhinos are fragile, protect them. Deploy accordingly, accept sacrifices (one or two mightn't make it there), use tougher vehicles to shield them, and... *deep breath* use tactics." - HBMC 
   
Made in au
Fresh-Faced New User




The way we've played ICs and joining units is essentially that pre-game you could attach them full stop and they were treated as one unit until you unattached the IC or his unit obviously died. Milesteg, basically half the reason this rule exists in Revisited was for my Terminator ICs to be able to deepstrike with a Terminator squad. Please modify the rule to count the IC and his attached unit as one unit for reserves, deepstrike, infiltration, etc.

This is important given I'm going to probably be submitting that the Terminator retinue in the SM codex be cut out. The reason for this is currently you can't get normal Veterans for your Commander's retinue since his retinue is not made up of 1st Company Marines but of marines from the Commander's company itself. If he can't get 1st Company Marines without Terminator armour why could he get a 1st Company Terminator retinue?

Ofcourse I may talk to H.B.M.C about rethinking Veterans as less pure 1st Company troopers but instead including Space Marines who may just be Veteran (i.e. very experienced) Tactical Squads in a force thats been fighting in a long campaign, were seperated for a long time and had no opportunity to be inducted or even were never inducted into 1st company because it was full and every squad already had a Veteran Sergeant (it would happen). His retinue thus may be made up of marines with Veteran stat lines and they may even have been trained mid-campaign in the use of Terminator armour. With other rules like "Only max 20 Assault or 20 Devastator Marines" getting dropped as MRS and the fact the codecies are meant to be able to represent more than a pristine force (i.e. Guard remnant squads) then I think this is entirely do-able in a vanilla codex without being unfluffy. Regardless, just change the IC rule lols.

This one time people were frequently asking the Space Emperor Questions about like shooting psycannons at turbo-boosting bikes or which units could ride in drop pods.

The Space Emperor told everyone to watch his website and he would answer them. But as time went on there were no answers, just price increaces.

Meanwhile Mr. Warmachine was answering questions left right and center. So more and more poeple were listening to Mr. Warmachine.

So when the Space Emperor got around to answering the questions no one cared anymore.

This made the Space Emperor very (x2) sad so he raised prices some more. 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran





@ Milesteg:

Thank you for that excellent, carefully thought out responce!

My grasp of statistical analysis is eclipsed by yours when going as far as figuring in the vehicle damage tables, but if my math is roughly correct, a S 7 Heavy 2 weapon causes about .44 damaging hits against AV 12 @ BS4, meaning it is approximately half as deadly as the scatter laser is to AV11, to put things into perspective. Number of shots is an incredibly important consideration against vehicles. [as an aside, it would be interesting to see the breakdown of the "glance only" starcannon thrown into this mix]

I see now that the Heavy 2 S 7 starcannon is probably a more ideal fix for 4th edition, and slightly less so for "Revisited."

This discussion has given me a greater appreciation for why GW made the "fixed" starcannon the way it is ( S6  Heavy 2)

I guess I hadn't realized how much more prevalent AV 11 and light-vehicle hunting is in "Revisited." Admittedly I didn't realize how prevalent transports can be--I read through your Transport section but didn't fully realize the change it would cause in the gaming environment.

The two "options," if you will, in my mind between the Heavy 3 and Heavy 2 variety of Starcannon are very closely matched. The S7 variety makes me nervous the same as it does you--at being too good a generalist weapon. At the same time, the Heavy 3 S 6 variety makes me equally nervous in pretty much nullifying the usefulness of other anti-infantry weapons against infantry targets. Granted, Scatter Lasers remain important, but only because of the "patch" to the starcannon that says "only glance." Indeed, one is motivated to take Scatter Lasers only because they can hunt light vehicles.

I should probably mention that I've played Eldar as my "main" army since the beginning. Most experienced Eldar generals (indeed most "veterans" in my experience) realize the importance (and efficiency) of taking units with "dedicated" roles (in fact I ascribe to this as much as possible in my imperial armies, although it's tougher than in Eldar). I see this causing a problem in that, considering infantry targets only, the Star Cannon comes out on top as the ideal "generalist" weapon, in that three shots is usually sufficient against horde-type opponents that you rarely miss the 4th shot of the other "lighter" weapons, making your current Starcannon ideal against all infantry. This causes an issue when you consider the fact that the anti-tank weapons are spectacular at their roles (the missile launcher with "Guided" is also an ideal light/fast-vehicle hunter, and the Brightlance reigns supreme) so I don't see the scatter laser as being overly important when considering vehicles. Therefore (and I could be wrong) I would think the tendancy would be to give those units which you decide to be anti-infantry all starcannons so that they can engage any target effectively, and give those other units which you decide to be anti-tank a mix of EML and BL. This is what I would do, at least, given the current state of C:ER. In this situation, you can see that your "glance only" fix becomes mostly redundant since the starcannon will be engaging infantry the entire time, and therefore your desired "balancing" efforts really have little to no effect (with a 30" range Shuriken Cannon, and the maneuverability of the Eldar units, why ever bother paying the extra 5 pts for a Scatter laser? It gets left in the cold currently by occupying its own too-middle-ground).

It is for these reasons that I see the number of shots (3) being the main (rather serious) issue with the Starcannon:Revisited, and not it's ability to compete with the scatter laser against light vehicles (the 4th shot is more important against vehicles than infantry anyways, so the SL still comes out ahead, even without the "glancing" fix since they're the same S). If you think Heavy 2 is the ideal fix, S 6 leaves the weapon a bit short-handed, and so one must compensate by upping it to S 7. Bottom line, it appears to me that the number of shots is the most important factor, and I strongly believe (as happy and effective as they might be) that weapon "patches" to keep them "toned-down" should be avoided.

Perhaps it's just me (and I hope I'm not beating a dead horse at this point--it's not my intent) but a Heavy 2 S 7 starcannon might just occupy a slightly more favorable middle ground... With only 2 shots you're not going to be making any great strides against GEQ or horde units, and you're not going to be showing up the primary anti-tank weapons. Indeed, against light vehicles the Scatter laser would still be preferrable due to its 4 shots, since 2 shots against a fast-moving target isn't what anyone would call ideal; and against AV 12 and above, while the Starcannon can cause damage, the true anti-tank weapons would still outshine it in this capacity.  Additionally, those who favor speed in their skimmers would have to consider the "main weapon" status of the Starcannon, giving the Scatter laser yet another edge.

Overall, we're practically splitting hairs as we're discussing very very fine distinctions between the two "options", and I hope that this isn't frustrating anyone (I rather enjoy it, which you might know if you've followed any of my posts in other threads).

Also, concerning the S7 Heavy 2 starcannon in relation to the Autocannon of the Imperials, it should be noted that a starcannon with "main weapon" status (same as an Autocannon) doesn't fit quite as well into the Eldar vehicle's hardpoints as it does in the Imperial forces. For instance, the Autocannon is "very effective" as you describe it when viewed in comparison to the other imperial weapons (heavy bolter/plasma cannon); moreso, in fact, than a S7 Heavy 2 starcannon would be in the Eldar army. This is because most imperial vehicles only ever worry about one main weapon (chimeras), and are tracked vehicles, whereas this obviously is not the case in the Eldar force. Imperial armies also demonstrate a greater availability of the Autocannon than Starcannons are in Eldar armies due to point cost differentials (this may be contributing to the Heavy 2 starcannon = the uber anti-vehicle perception--your average Imperial army has twice as many Autocannon than the typical, balanced Eldar army would have of Starcannon).  Also, the destructive capacity of the suggested Starcannon over the other Eldar weapons is less than the perceived differences between the Imperial counterparts. While I believe that using the Autocannon as a reference point is very useful when considering a S 7 Heavy 2 starcannon, one must also keep in mind the tendencies of the disparate armies.

I hope I've added constructively to your efforts; I'll go back to perusing the files for now!


Ba-zziiing!



 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran





Some more interesting figures:

For this breakdown I will assume that simply causing damage is the important factor--I will not bother to figure in damage table probabilities.

Starcannon @ S7 AP2 Heavy 2 @ BS4

Vs. AV 10  1.32 hits  x  .66 chance to = AV  = .87 damage rolls (.65 pen)

Vs. AV 11  1.32 hits x .5 chance to = AV  = .66 damage rolls  (.44 pen)

Vs. AV 12  1.32 hits x  .33 chance to = AV =  .44  damage rolls  (.22 pen)

Vs. AV 12 moving fast (BS4-1)  = .33 damage rolls (.166 pen)

Vs. AV 13  1.32 hits x  .166 chance to = AV =  .22 damage rolls 

Scatter Laser @ S6  AP6  Heavy 4 @ BS4

v. AV 10  = 2.64 hits  x  .5 chance to =AV =  1.32 damage rolls ( .88 pen)

v AV 11  =  2.64 hits x  .33  chance to =AV =  .87  damage rolls ( .44 pen)

v AV 12 =  2.64 hits  x .166 chance to =AV =  .44 damage rolls

Missile Launcher @ S8  AP3  Heavy 1 @ BS 4

v. AV 10= .66 hits  x  .83 chance to =AV =  .55 damage rolls (.44 pen)

v. AV 11= .66 hits x  .66 chance to =AV =  .44 damage rolls (.33 pen)

v. AV 12= .66 hits  x  .5 chance to =AV =  .33 damage rolls (.22 pen)

v. AV 12 moving fast = .33 damage rolls (.22 pen)

v. AV 13= .66 hits x .33 chance to =AV =  .22 damage rolls (.11 pen)

v. AV 14= .66 hits x .166 chance to = AV =  .11 damage rolls

So these numbers demonstrate approximately what you have been saying. A 2-shot starcannon is slightly better than a missile launcher at cracking AV 12 unless it's Moving Fast in which case they are tied. As you can see the Scatter Laser is ideal at hunting light vehicles in this configuration, and the missile launcher undoubtedly is preferred over the Starcannon for dedicated tank hunting due to its ability to penetrate higher armor values and negate hull down.

Given the fact that the two weapons are the same point cost, the missile launcher hast 48" range, Guided, and ignores HD/SMF (and better anti-GEQ/Horde abilities), I'd say it's a rather balanced deal. I try not to repeat myself, but I honestly think that purposely skewing the starcannon towards anti-infantry roles in addition to giving it 3 shots is just asking for a repeat of the weapon loadouts that were common to 3rd edition Eldar.


Ba-zziiing!



 
   
Made in us
Executing Exarch





Los Angeles

Vehicles:
Well I finished up the vehicle section and all the rules seem to be well written. My only complaint is that the vehicle section itself does not have the rules for Tank Shock. They have been included way down in the document under the advanced rule. I would suggest putting them up with the vehicle movement rules for clarity (particularly since there are many references to tank shock in various other vehicle rules)

My concern after reading the rules is that vehicles seem extremely powerful. Under 4ed rules, vehicles seemed fairly balanced. They were relatively tough and dished out a fair amount of fire power. There were a few cases where their point cost should probably have been reduced to come in line with their power (the land raider really needed it) but for the most part, things worked. It seems that now with the advent of a much less deadly glancing chart, improved hull down rules, split fire weapon systems, increased infantry lethality (5+ cover saves, longer range weapons, improved rapid fire, etc.) and improved transport rules, that vehicles will be dominant under revised rules. How much have you guys found this to be the case? Are we back to 3rd edition rhino rush tactics? Are armored company style armies the be all end all of ?take all comers? lists? Do elder skimmer armies of doom dominate? I have yet to read though any of the codices so I don?t know if the increased over all power of vehicles is off set by a similar increase in point cost but my first impression is that armor sounds extremely powerful. Possibly to the point of being broken. In 4th edition, armies with no vehicles were viable as were armies with some vehicles and armies with all vehicles. Is this still the case?

**** Phoenix ****

Threads should be like skirts: long enough to cover what's important but short enough to keep it interesting. 
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

It seems that now with the advent of a much less deadly glancing chart, improved hull down rules, split fire weapon systems, increased infantry lethality (5+ cover saves, longer range weapons, improved rapid fire, etc.) and improved transport rules, that vehicles will be dominant under revised rules.


Improved Hull down? In what sense? Hull Down/Smoked vehicles, along with Skimmers moving fast, can all be penetrated now rather than everything being converted to glancing - it's not the all-or-nothing nature of 3rd Ed Hull Down, nor is it the half-assed compromise of 4th Ed 'obscurement'. And with increased infantry lethality, doesn't that bring things on par?

As far as Rhino rushing goes, troops can only disembark and assault from a vehicle that has moved 8" or less. If you remember in 3rd you could move 12" (16" in our rules) and still jump out and assault. Rather than cutting out the idea of the Rhino rush completely, we've simply slowed it down a few inches. Combined with the fact that AV11 can be penetrated even when Smoked, its not a no brainer to rush forward with Rhinos.

Skimmers still have a few issues related mostly to cost, but, again, the ability to penetrate them even when moving fast is a major counter (Autocannons really come into their own against fast moving AV12 targets).

Infantry heavy armies are still very dangerous, and with the general increased speed of everything, footsloggers can get across the table (Orks can move 6", then run 3", mean that in 2 turns they've moved what they would now do in 3 turns in 4th). Speeds things up.

BYE


Industrial Insanity - My Terrain Blog
"GW really needs to understand 'Less is more' when it comes to AoS." - Wha-Mu-077

 
   
Made in au
Been Around the Block



Sydney, Australia

Posted By Phoenix on 07/16/2007 2:45 PM
Vehicles:
Well I finished up the vehicle section and all the rules seem to be well written. My only complaint is that the vehicle section itself does not have the rules for Tank Shock. They have been included way down in the document under the advanced rule. I would suggest putting them up with the vehicle movement rules for clarity (particularly since there are many references to tank shock in various other vehicle rules)

My concern after reading the rules is that vehicles seem extremely powerful. Under 4ed rules, vehicles seemed fairly balanced. They were relatively tough and dished out a fair amount of fire power. There were a few cases where their point cost should probably have been reduced to come in line with their power (the land raider really needed it) but for the most part, things worked. It seems that now with the advent of a much less deadly glancing chart, improved hull down rules, split fire weapon systems, increased infantry lethality (5+ cover saves, longer range weapons, improved rapid fire, etc.) and improved transport rules, that vehicles will be dominant under revised rules. How much have you guys found this to be the case? Are we back to 3rd edition rhino rush tactics? Are armored company style armies the be all end all of “take all comers” lists? Do elder skimmer armies of doom dominate? I have yet to read though any of the codices so I don’t know if the increased over all power of vehicles is off set by a similar increase in point cost but my first impression is that armor sounds extremely powerful. Possibly to the point of being broken. In 4th edition, armies with no vehicles were viable as were armies with some vehicles and armies with all vehicles. Is this still the case?
We are still working this through to be sure; the short version is that it is under testing, but we haven't found enormous problems to date.  What we've been focusing on recently is tweaking a few of the anti-tank options for infantry (like grenades and the like).  Vehicle-heavy or all-vehicle armies have been scary, but not invincible, however we still need to keep testing how these work against more general lists or infantry lists.  I suspect that more tweaks will be in the pipeline.
 
Tank Shock rules have been moved to the general vehicles section in the latest (and final) version of v0.2.9 :-)


"If Rhinos are fragile, protect them. Deploy accordingly, accept sacrifices (one or two mightn't make it there), use tougher vehicles to shield them, and... *deep breath* use tactics." - HBMC 
   
Made in au
Been Around the Block



Sydney, Australia

ColonelEllios
No problem; I like detailed analysis and consideration :-)
I think that this situation is a case of choosing which weapon system the Starcannon will tread on and which is the least problematic (and can be dealt with elsewhere such as weapon prices and availability; I'm reviewing things right now on that front....).
Personally, I think that the Heavy 3, S6 Starcannon causes (overall) less problems that the S7 Autocannon variety.  I continue to work on its special rules, but the overwhelming generality of the S7 option is too problematic for my opinion.  Heavy 3 Starcannons (due to meta-game issues) tread on the toes of the ShC and SL; the S7 StC treads on the toes of most things (and argubly, could invalidate the Scatter Laser vs vehicles, but then again, that is an open question).
It's one of those things were after all of the analysis is complete, we may simply come to differing conclusions.  I think that I can still tweak the Eldar HW's to balance them even more finely; working on it :-)

Thanks for the comments! We may ultimately disagree on this point (when all is said and done), but I still find the insights very useful.

"If Rhinos are fragile, protect them. Deploy accordingly, accept sacrifices (one or two mightn't make it there), use tougher vehicles to shield them, and... *deep breath* use tactics." - HBMC 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran





Hmmm...

We don't necessarily have to disagree. I'm not sure which option is better myself--but the "glance only" fix does irritate me for the aforementioned reasons (it's easy to get the impression that the game designers opted for a "quick fix" although I'm sure it works just fine between you and yours).

Both options have their own problems. It's true, the "glance only" fix is indeed effective, if a bit...bulky. After writing up that analysis, I sat back and said, "okay, how would I fill any 8 weapon slots in my Eldar army if the Starcannon was X  or if it was X..." To be blunt (I'm a big fan of balanced army builds) the two loadouts I settled on (something like 2-3 starcannon, 2 scatter laser, 2 EML and 1-2 BL) didn't vary by more than one starcannon. The scatter lasers and other weapons are necessary whether Starcannons are S 6 Heavy 3 Glance Only or S7 Heavy 2. Ultimately it's a decision about game balance--obviously GW thought that the Heavy 3 starcannon was too effective in general (especially against the overly-prevalent MEQ armies) and I'm inclined to agree, although moreso because it was too good against Infantry. Making it S7 risks making it too good against Tanks while slightly decreasing its ability to hurt MEQs.

So, given a lot of thought on the matter, I think that either choice is likely to be about as balanced as possible. Personally I don't see a need for a specifically anti-MEQ weapon as the Eldar have other, more specialized ways of dealing with MEQ that are too often unused (such as Dark Reapers), thus I favor the "generalist" variety of weapon slightly.

Ultimately it's a matter of choice regarding which direction you want the army to take. I don't think it's a good thing that 3 starcannons can put out 9 shots for only 60 points--glance only or not. I'm actually beginning to sympathize with GW's decision to stick with a Heavy 2 S 6 starcannon more and more--I would agree that three shots is simply handing an easier win to the Eldar general. I strongly suspect that such an amount of anti-MEQ firepower in such a small package (only taking up a few hardpoints for a lot of return) is likely unbalancing. In fact, I suspect it's not as long as the opponent is using lots of transports due to the "glance only" rule, but in a long-range slugfest I think a Heavy 3 Starcannon is likely to prove too good a deal. By the same token a Heavy 2 S 7 starcannon would be generally more balanced, while maintaining a premium value on the "lesser" weapons (without the need of a "band-aid" ruling).


Ba-zziiing!



 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K Proposed Rules
Go to: