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.

 Xerics wrote:
Drop it down to AP5 then. Not as good AP due to its 1 more shot. Heavy bolter has the same range as the scatter laser so 36" shouldnt be the deciding factor here. In reality Lasers should have an infinite range as light travels forever until it hits something, but we'll just go on the 36" to keep it "fair".

But Imperial platforms for the heavy bolter are gak. That makes a huge difference in pricing and balancing the weapon. Eldar have amazing platforms for the scatterlaser. Bringing reality into this game is a fool's errand, as our modern armies are more efficacious than these retro-future armies. Because we can hit things.

Martel732 wrote:

 Xerics wrote:
Drop it down to AP5 then. Not as good AP due to its 1 more shot. Heavy bolter has the same range as the scatter laser so 36" shouldnt be the deciding factor here. In reality Lasers should have an infinite range as light travels forever until it hits something, but we'll just go on the 36" to keep it "fair".

But Imperial platforms for the heavy bolter are gak. That makes a huge difference in pricing and balancing the weapon. Eldar have amazing platforms for the scatterlaser. Bringing reality into this game is a fool's errand, as our modern armies are more efficacious than these retro-future armies. Because we can hit things.

Like on an army of chimeras that also have autocannons and full of troops all for a decently low price? Oh yeah and that have fire points as well.

I just have to ask, what about Blaster armed Trueborn makes them so overpowered that they needed a nerf? I understand that you look at what people use and then take the nerf bat to it but I really don't see where the problem comes in with the Trueborn and Blasters.

A unit of 5 Trueborn with 4 blasters (as that is the maximum number a unit can take) is 115 points, a unit of 5 Fire Dragons is 110 points. The Fire Dragons have one more “special weapon” and come with the same stat line except for a 3+ save over the 5+ of the Trueborn and the Trueborn have one addition close combat attack. Is it the PfP that makes them more powerful and in need of a nerf over the Fire Dragon or is it the over all synergy with our open top vehicles?

In exchange of 1 special weapon for a S1 AP5 splinter rifle, the Blaster Trueborn get a longer range of 6” 1 less AP and Lance. The Fire Dragons get less range AP1 melta and have one additional weapon in the group.

Keep in mind that Splinter Cannons were also changed in this edition to be S1 AP5 so even they can't damage AV10.

I am by no means an expert player and would like to hear the reasoning as to what makes the Trueborn in need of changing while the Fire Dragons don't need to be tweaked so that I can see what I'm failing to take into consideration as the whole or even in part.

LostCorsair wrote:
I just have to ask, what about Blaster armed Trueborn makes them so overpowered that they needed a nerf? I understand that you look at what people use and then take the nerf bat to it but I really don't see where the problem comes in with the Trueborn and Blasters.

A unit of 5 Trueborn with 4 blasters (as that is the maximum number a unit can take) is 115 points, a unit of 5 Fire Dragons is 110 points. The Fire Dragons have one more “special weapon” and come with the same stat line except for a 3+ save over the 5+ of the Trueborn and the Trueborn have one addition close combat attack. Is it the PfP that makes them more powerful and in need of a nerf over the Fire Dragon or is it the over all synergy with our open top vehicles?

In exchange of 1 special weapon for a S1 AP5 splinter rifle, the Blaster Trueborn get a longer range of 6” 1 less AP and Lance. The Fire Dragons get less range AP1 melta and have one additional weapon in the group.

Keep in mind that Splinter Cannons were also changed in this edition to be S1 AP5 so even they can't damage AV10.

I am by no means an expert player and would like to hear the reasoning as to what makes the Trueborn in need of changing while the Fire Dragons don't need to be tweaked so that I can see what I'm failing to take into consideration as the whole or even in part.

Pretty much second this.

Zagman,

I really like what you're trying to do with the erratta.

However, as you write more and more erratas, the hand is becoming heavier and heavier.

While most of your errata people seem to prefer over the current books, it feels like this one just didn't work. It seems like most people - myself included - would prefer the current book to the Dark Eldar erratta you've written up.

I don't want to be insulting - I highly respect your work, and like what you've done with many codecies - but I believe you should revert this one. Perhaps take another pass where less is changed? Or, perhaps, the stock Codex has reasonable external balance vs other Erratta, and could be left as is for now?

This one book (Dark Eldar) seems to be your first flop of any kind. It risks further derailing the project. I'd suggest walking away from it for now (rolling back to stock?). The one true necessary change (no more WWP Wraithguard) was fixed via Alliance rules. Perhaps come back to it later?

I still believe the change to make bladestorm ap 3 is unneeded. Either give it something else of keep it the way it is.
In your comparison you are putting it against an ideal target (marines)(so ap 3 vs 2 changes nothing) and only looking at the shooting comparison when marines offer more options for the same points.
A fair comparison would be 2 kitted out squads functioning against terminators(which would need alot of work to be fixed anyhow.) and seeing how these two units compare.

For example (terminator assault squad assault cannon)
Lets say starting range 12" and first turn to our competitors.(12 so that they are both close-if term deepstriked it would probable be that close...)
Also exclude shrine benefit, command doctrines and the like because they would need increased points to do a comparison.
127 (8+grav gun) vs 130 (10)

10 DA move to 18", Shoot 20 shots, land 13.33 hits, wound 4.44 normal and 2.22 rending*. (1.5) from rending*, (.74) regular. totaling 2.24 dead(so 2 since it is unlikely to kill the third).
Return Fire- 2 storm bolters, 1 assault cannon(ap destroys armour without needing to rend)
4/4 shots, land 2.67/2.67 hits, wound 1.78/2.23, .88/ 2.23 failed armor saves. total dead (3)
This shows that if DA strike first that the terminators die...(lose more points).

But if terminators go first
(simple double storm bolter kills (1.76+2.23) total of 3.99 (so 4 dead)
Return fire (2.24/10*6)=1.334 or 1 kill. so equal numbers( just proves that blood angels terminators are overcosted(should be like grey knights at 30-33 points a model)
The DA squad though is crippled and will die before killing off the terminator squad.

Now lets see how the marines fair?
12" stary
14 bolter, 3 grav. hits 9.33/2, wounds 4.67/1.67, failed saves .78/.1.11, total(1.89) dealing slightly less damage on average than dire avengers but still removing 2 models worth.
Return FIre 2.67/2.67 hits, wounds 1.335/1.78 /.445 rend, failed saves .445/.59/.445, total(1.48) (lost less than the DA squad did.)

Terminators first
8/4, (double .445)rest the same(1.93) still lose not that much and can still damage or win vs the terminators easily.


This shows that while the da can do marginally more damage they are less survivable aka what eldar are hit hard and die fast.
If you then look at atsknf or that fact that spacemarine can actually hold up in cc and are generalists that can handle more situations for 1 point more it seems to be balanced.
Making it ap3 and not wounding to mc's would simple hamper the base troop who cannot take specialized weapons like marines.
When marines die their power drops minimally until their special and heavies are gone.(put out similar till the main guy is dead).
And tactical marines are seen as bad anyways compared to other troops.
Being marginally better than a bad choice is not exactly balanced.

IN conclusion the change advocated for would not be beneficial to balancing. Increasing the rate of fire, lowering the strength, and giving auto wound on 6's(no rend) would work and is a change I can advocate for (shred seems like it would be too op.... according to other forms)

The thing I hated about the recent DE Codex was that they whilst they made Wyches a integral part of DE culture and warfare (pretty much the same thing) they screwed them over completely in the rules - they were bad in the previous codex but they made them worse in the new one. Its one of the main reasons I looked at but would not purchase the codex

A Dark Eldar Wych is a exceptionally well trained and highly skilled gladiatorial fighter, simply dropping their points is totally the wrong way to approach them IMO.

Wyches should be at least WS 4 (remember the same as Guardians!) and Bloodbrides WS 6 - remember a Succubus is IIRC WS8?
Give them a optional poisoned weapons upgrade - its their kind of thing
I would seriously look at the 7th ed Howling Banshee upgrade as well and consider some of their abilities.....
I would go for a 4++ dodge against Close Combat, 5++ against overwatch and shooting (but not template, blast or ordinance weapons)

As I pointed out in another thread - High WS is massively undervalued and implemented and its sickening how often a high WS character versus a stationary vehicle or say a Gretchin can miss on a 3+. If you have double or better WS than your opponent you should hit on 2's.

It seems to me that the DE could use a couple new units. Since we are not using the light hand here anyway.

Xerics wrote:I don't really agree with the scatter laser changes 100% I would think if the power is going to be less then the AP should also be lower. If you are going to reduce it down to Heavy Bolter STR then give it the Heavy Bolter AP Value.

Martel732 wrote:

 Xerics wrote:
I don't really agree with the scatter laser changes 100% I would think if the power is going to be less then the AP should also be lower. If you are going to reduce it down to Heavy Bolter STR then give it the Heavy Bolter AP Value.

Absolutely not. It gets four shots at 36". If I had my way, that weapon would be GONE. I've been facing it for 15 years now and I'm sick to death of it. It was overpowered from day one because of the platforms that Eldar can mount it on. And now scatbikes are a thing. Feth this weapon.

Xerics wrote:Drop it down to AP5 then. Not as good AP due to its 1 more shot. Heavy bolter has the same range as the scatter laser so 36" shouldnt be the deciding factor here. In reality Lasers should have an infinite range as light travels forever until it hits something, but we'll just go on the 36" to keep it "fair".

If you to back to the first page I believe I did a statistical breadown of all the weapon changes and the S5 Scatterlaser still performs well and has a niche that is not easily filled. I suppose it could get AP5... but then it is a double Range Burst Cannon on BS4 on many platforms for the same cost as on a BS3 Crisis. Heavy 4 S5 AP6 is pretty much a sweet spot and gives the Scatter laser a real place for general utility and GEQ targeting, plus its range is still very useful over the Shuriken Cannon and Rate of Fire and cost over the Starcannon.

Take a look at the mathhammer comparison of the weapons and let me know what you think.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

LostCorsair wrote:I just have to ask, what about Blaster armed Trueborn makes them so overpowered that they needed a nerf? I understand that you look at what people use and then take the nerf bat to it but I really don't see where the problem comes in with the Trueborn and Blasters.

A unit of 5 Trueborn with 4 blasters (as that is the maximum number a unit can take) is 115 points, a unit of 5 Fire Dragons is 110 points. The Fire Dragons have one more “special weapon” and come with the same stat line except for a 3+ save over the 5+ of the Trueborn and the Trueborn have one addition close combat attack. Is it the PfP that makes them more powerful and in need of a nerf over the Fire Dragon or is it the over all synergy with our open top vehicles?

In exchange of 1 special weapon for a S1 AP5 splinter rifle, the Blaster Trueborn get a longer range of 6” 1 less AP and Lance. The Fire Dragons get less range AP1 melta and have one additional weapon in the group.

Keep in mind that Splinter Cannons were also changed in this edition to be S1 AP5 so even they can't damage AV10.

I am by no means an expert player and would like to hear the reasoning as to what makes the Trueborn in need of changing while the Fire Dragons don't need to be tweaked so that I can see what I'm failing to take into consideration as the whole or even in part.

I really don't hate Blaster armed Trueborn, I really don't. What I didn't like was how front loaded and designed to be spammed the squad was. My changes were meant to put more bodies in play and keep functionality and power level. Internal balance was the concern.

Fire Dragons are not also able to be put in a cheap and effective dedicated transport with 18" range. Its not a terribly good comparision, FDs have to get out of their transport to fire and then have to footslog it. Also, with transport their cost is quite a bit higher.

My goals was to change the inherent design and necessity to spam certain units. I wanted to change the frontloading of Trueborn and Scourges being cheap and having access to all four Special/Heavy weapons out of the gate. I also wanted to do it in a way that didn't overly nerf the DE dex. Obviously there is pretty strong sentiment that I missed the mark.

Bharring wrote:Zagman,

I really like what you're trying to do with the erratta.

However, as you write more and more erratas, the hand is becoming heavier and heavier.

While most of your errata people seem to prefer over the current books, it feels like this one just didn't work. It seems like most people - myself included - would prefer the current book to the Dark Eldar erratta you've written up.

I don't want to be insulting - I highly respect your work, and like what you've done with many codecies - but I believe you should revert this one. Perhaps take another pass where less is changed? Or, perhaps, the stock Codex has reasonable external balance vs other Erratta, and could be left as is for now?

This one book (Dark Eldar) seems to be your first flop of any kind. It risks further derailing the project. I'd suggest walking away from it for now (rolling back to stock?). The one true necessary change (no more WWP Wraithguard) was fixed via Alliance rules. Perhaps come back to it later?

This Errata is the first one to have truly negative feedback. I am open to all suggestions on how to internally balance it. I didn't like how heavy of a hand I was using either, and I noticed it. But, could not come up with any other ideas to re balance it.


This is why I created a rough draft for each codex, putting down my initial thoughts on how to go about it. I am open to any and all ideas of how to affect greater internal balance without trashing external balance. I'm not opposed to scrapping it and starting over, I would just prefer to have community driven input for the DE Errata as I'm much more likely to succeed that way.

No one has yet put forth any ideas on how to affect greater internal and external balance within the DE codex. Start from scratch, put down a list of the biggest problems that need correcting. Obviously my ideas on how to do it were met with great resistance.

You aren't being insulting, only one member was directly insulting. You've been nothing but respectful and have consistently offered constructive criticism. I have no problem admitting when I'm wrong, so long as the exchange is done in a respectful and adult manner.




Start from the Stock DE book and spitball your ideas for the Errata, I would love to hear them.

Slayer222 wrote:I still believe the change to make bladestorm ap 3 is unneeded. Either give it something else of keep it the way it is.
In your comparison you are putting it against an ideal target (marines)(so ap 3 vs 2 changes nothing) and only looking at the shooting comparison when marines offer more options for the same points.
A fair comparison would be 2 kitted out squads functioning against terminators(which would need alot of work to be fixed anyhow.) and seeing how these two units compare.

For example (terminator assault squad assault cannon)
Lets say starting range 12" and first turn to our competitors.(12 so that they are both close-if term deepstriked it would probable be that close...)
Also exclude shrine benefit, command doctrines and the like because they would need increased points to do a comparison.
127 (8+grav gun) vs 130 (10)

10 DA move to 18", Shoot 20 shots, land 13.33 hits, wound 4.44 normal and 2.22 rending*. (1.5) from rending*, (.74) regular. totaling 2.24 dead(so 2 since it is unlikely to kill the third).
Return Fire- 2 storm bolters, 1 assault cannon(ap destroys armour without needing to rend)
4/4 shots, land 2.67/2.67 hits, wound 1.78/2.23, .88/ 2.23 failed armor saves. total dead (3)
This shows that if DA strike first that the terminators die...(lose more points).

But if terminators go first
(simple double storm bolter kills (1.76+2.23) total of 3.99 (so 4 dead)
Return fire (2.24/10*6)=1.334 or 1 kill. so equal numbers( just proves that blood angels terminators are overcosted(should be like grey knights at 30-33 points a model)
The DA squad though is crippled and will die before killing off the terminator squad.

Now lets see how the marines fair?
12" stary
14 bolter, 3 grav. hits 9.33/2, wounds 4.67/1.67, failed saves .78/.1.11, total(1.89) dealing slightly less damage on average than dire avengers but still removing 2 models worth.
Return FIre 2.67/2.67 hits, wounds 1.335/1.78 /.445 rend, failed saves .445/.59/.445, total(1.48) (lost less than the DA squad did.)

Terminators first
8/4, (double .445)rest the same(1.93) still lose not that much and can still damage or win vs the terminators easily.


This shows that while the da can do marginally more damage they are less survivable aka what eldar are hit hard and die fast.
If you then look at atsknf or that fact that spacemarine can actually hold up in cc and are generalists that can handle more situations for 1 point more it seems to be balanced.
Making it ap3 and not wounding to mc's would simple hamper the base troop who cannot take specialized weapons like marines.
When marines die their power drops minimally until their special and heavies are gone.(put out similar till the main guy is dead).
And tactical marines are seen as bad anyways compared to other troops.
Being marginally better than a bad choice is not exactly balanced.

IN conclusion the change advocated for would not be beneficial to balancing. Increasing the rate of fire, lowering the strength, and giving auto wound on 6's(no rend) would work and is a change I can advocate for (shred seems like it would be too op.... according to other forms)

An example using only TEQ is not appropriate as it is picking the one target profile where Bladestorm is not effective. Effectively having Rending on the vast majority of weapons in an army is a bit crazy. Bladestorm to AP3 improves interenal balance for the Shuriken Cannon vs Starcannon, otherwise a perfectly good and balanced weapon, the Starcannon, is never fielded becasue almost every model in the DE army has psuedo rending.

The AP3 bladestorm change only affects a very small subset of units, GC with T8+(for S4) and T10(for S6) or any model with a 2+AS, of which that is a very small subset of the potential targets out there. Against the vast majority of the common targets it is unchanged, and only that small subset which reduces the efficacy of all Shuriken Weapons. Internal balance among weapon selection is greatly improved for heavy weapons, and it also gives arguably the best special rule on any infantry weapon in the game inefficient targets.

Using TEQ as the only comparison is not right, vs everything else they are still very solid weapons with good rates of damage output.

The problem with changing or adding a different rule is affects much greater targets in the game.


Yes, Eldar are specialists and their non specialist troops should excel against every target projile short of AV, with unmodified Bladestorm they have no bad targets, none. Marines have to take specials weapon upgrades to perform certain tasks whereas the Eldar chooser certain units which specialize in certain tasks. Having the ultimate generalist infantry weapon seems make that a moot point. And again, vs the vast majority of targets in the game, just look at the troops section of every army, Bladestorm performs just as well as it did before, its only against specialized defenses ie 2+ AS and GMCs does Bladestorm potentially come up short, that that is only on infantry, the Shuriken Cannon still performs against GMCs up to T9.

Mr Morden wrote:The thing I hated about the recent DE Codex was that they whilst they made Wyches a integral part of DE culture and warfare (pretty much the same thing) they screwed them over completely in the rules - they were bad in the previous codex but they made them worse in the new one. Its one of the main reasons I looked at but would not purchase the codex

A Dark Eldar Wych is a exceptionally well trained and highly skilled gladiatorial fighter, simply dropping their points is totally the wrong way to approach them IMO.

Wyches should be at least WS 4 (remember the same as Guardians!) and Bloodbrides WS 6 - remember a Succubus is IIRC WS8?
Give them a optional poisoned weapons upgrade - its their kind of thing
I would seriously look at the 7th ed Howling Banshee upgrade as well and consider some of their abilities.....
I would go for a 4++ dodge against Close Combat, 5++ against overwatch and shooting (but not template, blast or ordinance weapons)

As I pointed out in another thread - High WS is massively undervalued and implemented and its sickening how often a high WS character versus a stationary vehicle or say a Gretchin can miss on a 3+. If you have double or better WS than your opponent you should hit on 2's.

This looks like something that is outside the scope of what I'm trying to do. Would simply changing Dodge to work against Overwatch be enough? The fewer changes the better.

Martel732 wrote:It seems to me that the DE could use a couple new units. Since we are not using the light hand here anyway.

That is something I'd like to avoid at all costs.

"That is something I'd like to avoid at all costs."

Seems rather minor compared to what I'd prefer to do. Tear down the whole system and rebuild with D10's or D20's.

Martel732 wrote:
"That is something I'd like to avoid at all costs."

Seems rather minor compared to what I'd prefer to do. Tear down the whole system and rebuild with D10's or D20's.

See the picture posted earlier from The Dark City. Somebody sounds like they need a hug. Besides, I happen to like how 40k uses D6's.

Look Zagman, I know I may sound rude at times, and for that I apologize. But while you accuse me of not giving constructive feedback, you yourself have not been open to feedback either. Instead of listening to the feedback you've been given, you've done noting but defend your ideas despite evidence to the contrary.

I know the place where you're coming from. You have put a lot of effort into these Errata, and while I don't agree with all of the changes to the core and in some of the other factions, it's clear that they are meeting with more success than this one. I understand wanting to defend what you have built up and defend it from people you perceive as attacking it, but like I said earlier, sometimes the most constructive criticism you can receive is when to stop and start over.

@Zagman: I notice you like to use terms like internal and external balance. that is fine but as I don't know you personally these terms don't provide me with adequate insight into your overall reasoning and conclusion. To better understand your line of reasoning and how you come to your conclusions I'm going to ask some questions some of which will cross over.

What are the overall factors that you look for when considering a Codex's internal balance?

What are the overall factors that you look for when considering a Codex's external balance?

When considering the Codex's balance do you only look at it as a self contained Codex or are you judging it on the ability to take other Codex's detachments? The ability to have battle brothers and such changes things drastically and many Dark Eldar Players already feel like the Dark Eldar Codex only exists to supplement the Eldar Codex. Despite this many Dark Eldar Players don't want to use Battle Brothers but instead want to run pure Dark Eldar lists.

Do you take into consideration, that "internally" the Dark Eldar have no Psykers of their own?

That we lack real artillery of our own? We have no Vaul's Wrath Support batteries, prism tanks or Wraithknights to barrage/template our enemies with from afar, we need to get in their face and start shooting/assaulting to reduce what the enemy can do to us next turn and to minimize our losses as we don't have anything that can just stand on the edge of the map behind an aegis defense line.

Our Army is based heavily on being front loaded, our flyers come in unload their payload and then we have no more blast templates besides Short/mid-ranged ranged weapons such as the shredder, grenades, and Dark-Scyths.

Footlogging Kabarites is like footslogging Imperial guard excpet for the fact that the Imperial Guard have the before mentioned artillery to create a gunline. WWP in Trueborn with 2 blasters and 1 Darklance means that the Darklance is snapfiring so we only have 2 blasters to count on from the Trueborn and an additional Blaster/Hayware grenade/blaster pistol (depending on how we equiped an Archon to support them), then the next turn they are shot to death with a +5 armor and a (6+ maybe 5+ FnP depending on turn).

Unlike the Eldar, a pure Dark Eldar list doesn't have anyway to manipulate reserve rolls and both the front ended firepower of the Flyers and a WWP still subject to getting good rolls for them to come in at a crucial moment.

The change in price for heavy weapons for Kabalites make them cheaper to put on a unit but those same Heavy Weapons still remains snapfire while on a moving transport making it pretty much a waste of points unless I'm having them take an objective I'm going to be sitting on they don't contribute much to the actual fight.

Despite having night vision we also lack anyway of guaranteeing a battle will be a night fight and that benefit only has any meaning on turn 1 as it ends right after.

Anyway, I have ranted enough and with that said I'll finish by saying that these are my questions and thoughts on the matter. As stated before I'm not a great player but am interested in hearing what you have to say or feel I need correcting on.

Edit: The reason why I don't propose alternatives is because I don't view myself as qualified to do such. I worry that any changes I might propose would be more on the side of wishlisting rather then doing much to help game balance but maybe by bringing these things up it might have you see something you overlooked while working on it.

 TheNewBlood wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
"That is something I'd like to avoid at all costs."

Seems rather minor compared to what I'd prefer to do. Tear down the whole system and rebuild with D10's or D20's.

See the picture posted earlier from The Dark City. Somebody sounds like they need a hug. Besides, I happen to like how 40k uses D6's.

Look Zagman, I know I may sound rude at times, and for that I apologize. But while you accuse me of not giving constructive feedback, you yourself have not been open to feedback either. Instead of listening to the feedback you've been given, you've done noting but defend your ideas despite evidence to the contrary.

I know the place where you're coming from. You have put a lot of effort into these Errata, and while I don't agree with all of the changes to the core and in some of the other factions, it's clear that they are meeting with more success than this one. I understand wanting to defend what you have built up and defend it from people you perceive as attacking it, but like I said earlier, sometimes the most constructive criticism you can receive is when to stop and start over.

We are definitely having a communication breakdown. I am open to feedback, I really am. If you put forth an argument, structure it well, and its valid I'm very much likely to change my conclusions. I've already admitted that I am more than happy to start completely over with the DE Errata, but I want a direction from those that napalmed the original. If I don't have direction on where to take if, I'm doomed to repeat my same mistakes.

I had absolutely no problem with changing anything I did in the first draft of the errata, everything is subject to change. Pick something and tell me why it needs to change. So far the prevailing concerns were reducing the number of DE vehicles, I believed that the increased durability was enough to offset that. Show me I'm wrong. DE AT is too far reduced, I tried to give them alternatives to compensate, or drop costs in places to make up for it. Just show me I'm wrong with the 2/5 Heavy/Specials.


Would removing the 2/5 Heavy restriction and reverting back to the stock 4 be enough for Trueborn and Scourges?? The only real reduction to DE AT came from this modification. Is it enough? I wanted an incentive for not min/maxing Trueborn and Scourges, but obviously the way I wanted to do it was met with a lot of resistance.

Or alternatively, assume a revert back to the original, what changes need to be made. I am completely open to suggestions. I did get defensive because I wasn't seeing any constructive suggestions and only attacks. I am open to feedback, but it needs to be structured and communicated well. Repeated telling me I know nothing of DE without offering alternate suggestions is not productive.

This looks like something that is outside the scope of what I'm trying to do. Would simply changing Dodge to work against Overwatch be enough? The fewer changes the better.

IMO - absolutely not - Wyches are a travesty at present - especially when compared to Craftworld brethrin - they need a lot of help and just reducing pts is IMO insulting .............

Maybe Trueborn and Scourges need more of a role differentiation. I think instead of limiting the number of weapons that can be taken, it would be better to limit the type.

Trueborn: Up to four models may take one of the following special weapons:
-Shardcarbine: Free
-Shredder: 5 points
-Blaster: 10 points
In addition, up to two models may take one of the following heavy weapons:
-Splinter Cannon: 10 points
-Dark Lance: 15 points

Scourges: up to four models may take one of the following weapons:
-Shredder: 5 points
-Heat Lance: 10 points
-Haywire Blaster: 15 points

Trueborn get a discounted price on the standard heavy weapons to compensate for the cost of their transport, but can't take the exotic heavy weapons.
Scourges get access to the exotic heavy weapons and have their own delivery system, but have fewer options.

IMO this strikes a good balance between the two units internally.

LostCorsair wrote:
@Zagman: I notice you like to use terms like internal and external balance. that is fine but as I don't know you personally these terms don't provide me with adequate insight into your overall reasoning and conclusion. To better understand your line of reasoning and how you come to your conclusions I'm going to ask some questions some of which will cross over.

What are the overall factors that you look for when considering a Codex's internal balance?

What are the overall factors that you look for when considering a Codex's external balance?

When considering the Codex's balance do you only look at it as a self contained Codex or are you judging it on the ability to take other Codex's detachments? The ability to have battle brothers and such changes things drastically and many Dark Eldar Players already feel like the Dark Eldar Codex only exists to supplement the Eldar Codex. Despite this many Dark Eldar Players don't want to use Battle Brothers but instead want to run pure Dark Eldar lists.

Do you take into consideration, that "internally" the Dark Eldar have no Psykers of their own?

That we lack real artillery of our own? We have no Vaul's Wrath Support batteries, prism tanks or Wraithknights to barrage/template our enemies with from afar, we need to get in their face and start shooting/assaulting to reduce what the enemy can do to us next turn and to minimize our losses as we don't have anything that can just stand on the edge of the map behind an aegis defense line.

Our Army is based heavily on being front loaded, our flyers come in unload their payload and then we have no more blast templates besides Short/mid-ranged ranged weapons such as the shredder, grenades, and Dark-Scyths.

Footlogging Kabarites is like footslogging Imperial guard excpet for the fact that the Imperial Guard have the before mentioned artillery to create a gunline. WWP in Trueborn with 2 blasters and 1 Darklance means that the Darklance is snapfiring so we only have 2 blasters to count on from the Trueborn and an additional Blaster/Hayware grenade/blaster pistol (depending on how we equiped an Archon to support them), then the next turn they are shot to death with a +5 armor and a (6+ maybe 5+ FnP depending on turn).

Unlike the Eldar, a pure Dark Eldar list doesn't have anyway to manipulate reserve rolls and both the front ended firepower of the Flyers and a WWP still subject to getting good rolls for them to come in at a crucial moment.

The change in price for heavy weapons for Kabalites make them cheaper to put on a unit but those same Heavy Weapons still remains snapfire while on a moving transport making it pretty much a waste of points unless I'm having them take an objective I'm going to be sitting on they don't contribute much to the actual fight.

Despite having night vision we also lack anyway of guaranteeing a battle will be a night fight and that benefit only has any meaning on turn 1 as it ends right after.

Anyway, I have ranted enough and with that said I'll finish by saying that these are my questions and thoughts on the matter. As stated before I'm not a great player but am interested in hearing what you have to say or feel I need correcting on.

Edit: The reason why I don't propose alternatives is because I don't view myself as qualified to do such. I worry that any changes I might propose would be more on the side of wishlisting rather then doing much to help game balance but maybe by bringing these things up it might have you see something you overlooked while working on it.

Internal Balance: I define internal balance as having the majority, ideally all, of the choices in a codex being of equal relative value, ie for their cost in points bring a roughly equal ability to affect the game to the table. These ways are likely very different, but everything should be viable. This extends to upgrades on units as well. Ideally all choices in an army have merit and there are no standouts or must avoids. If anything is an autoinclude or a no chance in hell its not balanced. A good example is the Wraithknight vs the Wraithlord, the Storm Guardian vs the Windrider Jetbike, Terminators vs Tacticals, etc. Anytime you see almost exclusively one way to field a unit or army it is a sign of internal balance problems ie WhiteScar Grav Bikers. With good internal balance the gap between optimal and sub-optimal is closed significantly.

External Balance: I define external balance as all codices having a roughly equal ability to affect the game when compared to cost in points. Points should buy you roughly equal capabilities, although though differing mechanisms, to affect the game around you. This includes the potential synergy and combinations. For instance a unit may be balanced ie Grav Centurions, but when giving the ability for synergy, ie Tigerious and Driago or borrowed BB Pods, creates an unbalanced unit with capabilities far exceeding its cost in point. Sometimes this is a direct unit comparison when they are similar enough ie BA Tacticals vs SM Chapter Tactics Tacticals or Soulgrinders vs Defilers, etc. Othertimes its a net affect of a unit and it a bit more abstract, the unit's durability, offensive capabilities, mobility, and potential special rules have to be considered. Ie comparing a 19ppm Warp Spider with a 17ppm Assault marine, or a 295pts Wraithknight to a well 195pts of anything else.

When looking at balance I do try and look at what combinations are possible, this is a reason to my overall changes to Battle Brothers, ie downgrading them to Allies of Convenience. This alone eliminates almost all combinations which provided synergy vastly in excess of their cost, ie WWP WraithScythe, borrowed pods for AdMech, or Grav Cents, DE Taxi Service, etc. All are things that provide vast amounts of Synergy that take relatively balanced units and through a particular combination allow levels of power far in excess of what is available to most options. It was one of the biggest reasons I made the change to BB. Under my changes, DE are in no way supplementing Eldar, except on their own footing.

I understand DE have no Psykers, but that doesn't' change internal balance concerns, and as far as external balance is concerned as long as DE and Psykers are costed appropriately for their ability to affect the game not having them matters far less. I understand DE don't have Artillery, and they aren't the only army lacking certain unit types either, and if DE are costed appropriately for their abilities balance can be attained. Codices do not have to be equal in all ways, from from it, but should for thier cost in points bring an equal ability to affect the game to the table.

I do understand how frontloaded DE are designed to be. Glass Cannons are also more difficult to balance than slow and steadies, too little punch or durability and the suffer like DE, too much punch and durability and they are OP ie Eldar. This is something that can be balanced around IMO, it just takes work.

Footslogging DE do die like Guardsman, I agree. Its why I gave them a bit of a points drop either 1-2pts per model to help balance out their losses before FNP kick in. I also tried to improve both transports durability/cost ratio. Artillery is arguably necessary, as is the Gunline aspect of it. WWP Archon with Trueborn 115pts for 5 Trueborn with 4 Blasters. Now you could do 7 Trueborn with two Blasters and one upgraded to a Dracon with a Blast Pistol for 99pts. 16pts cheaper, netted you 2 additional bodies and costs you effectively one Blaster Shot. Alternatively you could then field 10 Trueborn wtih 4 Blasters and a Blast Pistol Dracon for 150pts. 35pts nets you an additional five Trueborn and an additional Blast Shot or its 23pts for 5 Trueborn effectively. This excludes the Achon's Wargear upgrades getting cheaper(18pts less if he goes Blast Pistol Shadowfield), so the ultimate effect will be significantly more DE bodies on the table at a marginal cost. And for an additional 69pts it could have been 15 Trueborn with 6 Blasters and a Blast Pistol Dracon for 219pts. Not quite twice the firepower as the MinMax Blaster Trueborn squad but it brings tripple the model count and an upgraded Sergeant.

I completely agree, DE don't have a way to manipulate Reserve Rolls just like a couple of other armies out there. It would be fitting for them to have some way of doing so.

Kabalite Warriors and Heavy weapons... I certainly would put a Darklance on a unit meant to be moving, but 5pts for a Sybarite and 7pts for a Blast Pistol isn't bad, but better yet use the Assault Weapon Heavy Weapons. The Dark Lance or Splinter Cannon would be ok in a unit of 15 in a Raider. Probably not great, or you could simply use the Assault Heavy Weapons like the Heatlance or Haywire Blaster, 15 Warriors with 3 Blasters and 3 Haywire Blasters is 171pts 183pts with a Blast Pistol Sybarite. Sure, these may not be optimal or ideal loadouts, but they are many times more flexible than the stock DE codex for Kabalite Warriors. Could look at min 5x Warriors with Blaster in Dual Cannon Venom for 120pts becomes 7xWarriors with Blaster in Dual Cannon Venom for 131pts. 11pts got you two additional bodies and a more resilient transport thanks to Nightshields. 10pts more gets you a Heatlance as well. The goal was to keep capabilities close, increase viable options, increase model count and resilience per point of transports, etc. Either way, it certainly was not well received, not in the slightest.


I hope I was able to answer the questions you asked, I was a bit pressed for time so my answer isn't terribly thorough.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mr Morden wrote:

This looks like something that is outside the scope of what I'm trying to do. Would simply changing Dodge to work against Overwatch be enough? The fewer changes the better.

IMO - absolutely not - Wyches are a travesty at present - especially when compared to Craftworld brethrin - they need a lot of help and just reducing pts is IMO insulting .............

I completely agree Wyches are a travesty at present. Lots of armies look that way compared to the Craftworld, less so compared to my Errataed Craftworld. Insulting was not the intent. Any suggestions for how so fix Wyches in the easiest and simplest way possible? I considered allowing Dodge to apply to Overwatch as well, but that is a rule rewrite and not enough on its own.

TheNewBlood wrote:Maybe Trueborn and Scourges need more of a role differentiation. I think instead of limiting the number of weapons that can be taken, it would be better to limit the type.

Trueborn: Up to four models may take one of the following special weapons:
-Shardcarbine: Free
-Shredder: 5 points
-Blaster: 10 points
In addition, up to two models may take one of the following heavy weapons:
-Splinter Cannon: 10 points
-Dark Lance: 15 points

Scourges: up to four models may take one of the following weapons:
-Shredder: 5 points
-Heat Lance: 10 points
-Haywire Blaster: 15 points

Trueborn get a discounted price on the standard heavy weapons to compensate for the cost of their transport, but can't take the exotic heavy weapons.
Scourges get access to the exotic heavy weapons and have their own delivery system, but have fewer options.

IMO this strikes a good balance between the two units internally.

I didn't limit the number of weapons that could be taken, only incresaed the number of cheaper models you had to field to get that amount. Its a subtle difference.

So, now you can field Blaster Trueborn cheaper.... 20pts discount. So, can you give me one instance where a player would ever take more than five Trueborn? I was attempting to incentive a large squad, taking 10 cheaper Trueborn to get 4 Specials instead of having access to all of your heavies at your minimum squad size like many do.

And now Scourges are just 20pts more expensive for Haywire Blasters and again zero incentive to every field more than the minimum...

I guess I'm not seeing how this is role differentiation or how these suggestions are helpful. At least from an internal/external balance standpoint.

Wyches

Minimum:

Poisoned Weapons (2+) as stock
Dodge works against Overwatch
Bloodbrides become WS6

@Zagman: Thank you for taking the time to reply and I want to make something clear about my post (not sure if you took it this way but it is also for anyone else reading the thread), the questions and statements about Psykers and artillery is in no way me trying to ask/wishlist for these things. I like the way Dark Eldar plays and don't want them to become Space Elf Guardsmen.

With that said I'm also seeing where you have made a mistake on or forgot to include in your Errata. If you look at the foot note for Haywire Blasters and Heatlances they are restricted to Scourges only. Unless you amend this with your Errata Trueborn are still unable to take these weapons.

The way our army currently works is to get our hard hitters into melee as quickly as possible and to use our mobility to keep our gunboats and venoms from being charged if we can. This is why the Darklance is almost never taken on Kabalites and Trueborn, any movement and they snapfire so we would rather have any other weapon with range. Blaster Pistols also tend to get ignored as our objective is usually to stay away and the short range means we are definitely getting charged if we want that model to fire.

I believe that these are some of the reasons your errata has met with so much resistance.

I would also like to say that while the drop in price for Sybarite/Deacon upgrades is nice as well as the cost of their upgrades, many of us would rather just give them haywire grenades and keep the Splinter Rifle. As Splinter Rifles are Rapid Fire not assault it is better, at least in my mind, to get those extra shots with the free splinter rifle then plan for a charge at close range that will most likely get them killed.

Additional Note: Splinter Carbines, which are assault but have a shorter range than the Splinter Rifles, are limited to Scourges.

 Zagman wrote:

TheNewBlood wrote:Maybe Trueborn and Scourges need more of a role differentiation. I think instead of limiting the number of weapons that can be taken, it would be better to limit the type.

Trueborn: Up to four models may take one of the following special weapons:
-Shardcarbine: Free
-Shredder: 5 points
-Blaster: 10 points
In addition, up to two models may take one of the following heavy weapons:
-Splinter Cannon: 10 points
-Dark Lance: 15 points

Scourges: up to four models may take one of the following weapons:
-Shredder: 5 points
-Heat Lance: 10 points
-Haywire Blaster: 15 points

Trueborn get a discounted price on the standard heavy weapons to compensate for the cost of their transport, but can't take the exotic heavy weapons.
Scourges get access to the exotic heavy weapons and have their own delivery system, but have fewer options.

IMO this strikes a good balance between the two units internally.

I didn't limit the number of weapons that could be taken, only incresaed the number of cheaper models you had to field to get that amount. Its a subtle difference.

So, now you can field Blaster Trueborn cheaper.... 20pts discount. So, can you give me one instance where a player would ever take more than five Trueborn? I was attempting to incentive a large squad, taking 10 cheaper Trueborn to get 4 Specials instead of having access to all of your heavies at your minimum squad size like many do.

And now Scourges are just 20pts more expensive for Haywire Blasters and again zero incentive to every field more than the minimum...

I guess I'm not seeing how this is role differentiation or how these suggestions are helpful. At least from an internal/external balance standpoint.

The problem is that the larger unit of cheap models is more expensive points-wise that the smaller unit of expensive models. Add to that the cost of the weapons themselves, and the result is a net price increase for essentially that same result.

Trueborn are a weird unit; the only other unit comparable in terms of role is Chaos Chosen. They are designed to be a small unit of Elites whose strength lies in their ability to take lots of special weapons. For a unit like that, there doesn't need to be an incentive to field a larger unit; they are designed to have a small footprint.

There never was an incentive to field more than the minimum size of Scourges either. Even in the old codex, people who did use them only did so in squads of five for the dual Haywire. This is why I support more of a differentiation in role; they are similarly designed units that are clashing against each other in the current codex.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr Morden wrote:
Wyches

Minimum:

Poisoned Weapons (2+) as stock
Dodge works against Overwatch
Bloodbrides become WS6

A change to Dodge would be the simplest means of making Wyches effective while keeping them in line with the established lore.

"Dodge: models with this special rule gain a 4++ invulnerable save in the Assault Phases of both players' turns."

 TheNewBlood wrote:

Spoiler:

 Zagman wrote:

TheNewBlood wrote:Maybe Trueborn and Scourges need more of a role differentiation. I think instead of limiting the number of weapons that can be taken, it would be better to limit the type.

Trueborn: Up to four models may take one of the following special weapons:
-Shardcarbine: Free
-Shredder: 5 points
-Blaster: 10 points
In addition, up to two models may take one of the following heavy weapons:
-Splinter Cannon: 10 points
-Dark Lance: 15 points

Scourges: up to four models may take one of the following weapons:
-Shredder: 5 points
-Heat Lance: 10 points
-Haywire Blaster: 15 points

Trueborn get a discounted price on the standard heavy weapons to compensate for the cost of their transport, but can't take the exotic heavy weapons.
Scourges get access to the exotic heavy weapons and have their own delivery system, but have fewer options.

IMO this strikes a good balance between the two units internally.

I didn't limit the number of weapons that could be taken, only incresaed the number of cheaper models you had to field to get that amount. Its a subtle difference.

So, now you can field Blaster Trueborn cheaper.... 20pts discount. So, can you give me one instance where a player would ever take more than five Trueborn? I was attempting to incentive a large squad, taking 10 cheaper Trueborn to get 4 Specials instead of having access to all of your heavies at your minimum squad size like many do.

And now Scourges are just 20pts more expensive for Haywire Blasters and again zero incentive to every field more than the minimum...

I guess I'm not seeing how this is role differentiation or how these suggestions are helpful. At least from an internal/external balance standpoint.

The problem is that the larger unit of cheap models is more expensive points-wise that the smaller unit of expensive models. Add to that the cost of the weapons themselves, and the result is a net price increase for essentially that same result.

Trueborn are a weird unit; the only other unit comparable in terms of role is Chaos Chosen. They are designed to be a small unit of Elites whose strength lies in their ability to take lots of special weapons. For a unit like that, there doesn't need to be an incentive to field a larger unit; they are designed to have a small footprint.

There never was an incentive to field more than the minimum size of Scourges either. Even in the old codex, people who did use them only did so in squads of five for the dual Haywire. This is why I support more of a differentiation in role; they are similarly designed units that are clashing against each other in the current codex.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr Morden wrote:
Wyches

Minimum:

Poisoned Weapons (2+) as stock
Dodge works against Overwatch
Bloodbrides become WS6

A change to Dodge would be the simplest means of making Wyches effective while keeping them in line with the established lore.

"Dodge: models with this special rule gain a 4++ invulnerable save in the Assault Phases of both players' turns."

Yes, the units are more expensive, but in a lot of cases its marginal and is bringing more bodies or more durable transports to help compensate. My goal was similar capability/cost with the addition of more models in play and incentivizing different approaches than the Min/Max. Blaster Trueborn don't need a points drop, externally they were ok. But, internally they were not, nor was there any reason to ever field other unit sizes.

This was something I tried to address with the errata, and the part that was most resisted. I am aware there never was an incentive to ever field more than the minimum, and I saw that as a problem that needed to be addressed. My attempt was to do it in a way that maintained external balance yet increased internal options and reduced auto taking minimum squads. When there is only one way to field a squad, and all other options including larger squad sizes are terrible, its a clear sign of poor internal balance within the unit and or army.

Making one cheaper and the other more expensive for a very similar role doesn't seem to differentiate them much either. And as another poster mentioned, I forgot to include my removal of the "Scourges only" restriction for Haywire and Heat Lances opening up Assault version of Heavy weapons to Warriors and Trueborn. 115pts for 5 Trueborn with 4 Blasters vs 97pts for 7 Trueborn with 2 Blasters and either a Heatlance or Haywire Blaster seems like a solid deal. Well and +5pts required for a tougher transport.

Also, what do you think about adding a rule for DE vehicles saying that damage from an explosion is only S3 to the occupants. I''m trying to find ways for more DE bodies to be on the field and not just be liabilities.


Wyches, I'm definitely adding the 4++ Dodge to apply to Overwatch. It definitely should be that way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

LostCorsair wrote:
@Zagman: Thank you for taking the time to reply and I want to make something clear about my post (not sure if you took it this way but it is also for anyone else reading the thread), the questions and statements about Psykers and artillery is in no way me trying to ask/wishlist for these things. I like the way Dark Eldar plays and don't want them to become Space Elf Guardsmen.

With that said I'm also seeing where you have made a mistake on or forgot to include in your Errata. If you look at the foot note for Haywire Blasters and Heatlances they are restricted to Scourges only. Unless you amend this with your Errata Trueborn are still unable to take these weapons.

The way our army currently works is to get our hard hitters into melee as quickly as possible and to use our mobility to keep our gunboats and venoms from being charged if we can. This is why the Darklance is almost never taken on Kabalites and Trueborn, any movement and they snapfire so we would rather have any other weapon with range. Blaster Pistols also tend to get ignored as our objective is usually to stay away and the short range means we are definitely getting charged if we want that model to fire.

I believe that these are some of the reasons your errata has met with so much resistance.

I would also like to say that while the drop in price for Sybarite/Deacon upgrades is nice as well as the cost of their upgrades, many of us would rather just give them haywire grenades and keep the Splinter Rifle. As Splinter Rifles are Rapid Fire not assault it is better, at least in my mind, to get those extra shots with the free splinter rifle then plan for a charge at close range that will most likely get them killed.

Additional Note: Splinter Carbines, which are assault but have a shorter range than the Splinter Rifles, are limited to Scourges.

I understood you, no ones wants just different models for the same armies. Each needs its own unique feel and playstyle.

I did forget to remove that footnote!! Thanks for pointing it out. My intent was to open up Heavy Weapon usage to alleviate Anti AV problem and to give alternatives dependency on Blasterborn and Haywire Scourges as for Anti AV.

How does open access for Warriors and True born to the other Heavy Weapon options change things? Having access to assault Heavy Weapons lots of options are opened up. It also makes Scourges less the go to.

The goal was to shift around capabilities without reducing DE's ability and power level on an external basis. I had no desire to drop thier overall power level, the goal was to keep it consistent while bringing lots of things up and to incentivize other unit choices and options. I also wanted to create incentives for not just taking min squads.

Thank you for pointing that out.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
6-2-15 Change To

Heavy Weapons
Haywire Blaster: 10pts
Heat Lance: 10pts
Splinter Cannon: 10pts
Dark Lance: 15pts
*Remove "Scourges Only"

6-2-15 Change To

Dodge: Change To "A model with this special rule has a 4+ Invulnerable Save against all Wounds inflicted in the Assault Phase."

A change to Dodge would be the simplest means of making Wyches effective while keeping them in line with the established lore.

"Dodge: models with this special rule gain a 4++ invulnerable save in the Assault Phases of both players' turns."

Can't see how giving Wyches Poisoned weapons is such a massive issue or make unit leaders WS5 and Blood Brides WS6? Both are completely in keeping with the Fluff....and make them good at what thye do.

Because, as bad as they are now, 10ppm units that always wound on 2s and have a 4++ in CC (+FnP usually) would be stupidly OP.

Wraithknight: 300pts
Wargear: Ghostglaive and Scattershield
May exchange Ghostglaive and Scattershield for.... Suncannon and Scattershield: 20pts; Two Heavy Wraithcannons: 40pts
May take up to two of the following in any combination... Scatter Laser: 10pts each; Shuriken Cannon: 10pts each; Scarcannon: 15pts each

I think the points cost might be a bit on the high side for the heavy wraithcannons variant. The two S10 shots with distort are good, but when you compare the shooting from them vs another superheavy (IK), they don't look quite as good. A S9 AP1 large blast with melta can potentially kill lots more infantry than the 2 max that the wraithknight can (although the WK can potentially kill 2 non-adjacent vehicles a turn). And then the IK still has Str D in combat. Certainly agree with the WK going up in points though.

 Cytharai wrote:

Wraithknight: 300pts
Wargear: Ghostglaive and Scattershield
May exchange Ghostglaive and Scattershield for.... Suncannon and Scattershield: 20pts; Two Heavy Wraithcannons: 40pts
May take up to two of the following in any combination... Scatter Laser: 10pts each; Shuriken Cannon: 10pts each; Scarcannon: 15pts each

I think the points cost might be a bit on the high side for the heavy wraithcannons variant. The two S10 shots with distort are good, but when you compare the shooting from them vs another superheavy (IK), they don't look quite as good. A S9 AP1 large blast with melta can potentially kill lots more infantry than the 2 max that the wraithknight can (although the WK can potentially kill 2 non-adjacent vehicles a turn). And then the IK still has Str D in combat. Certainly agree with the WK going up in points though.

Ranged S10 is nothing to sniff at. The previous 240pt Wraithknight was overdurable/undercosted. For 100pts you gain over +50% durability. 150% durability vs wounds, 300% durability vs poison, ID resistance, Stomp, and the ability to shoot target multiple models as well as equip shoulder weaponry. That is a very fair price. And Ranged S10 is very valuable. It costs 100+ point for a single Railhead.

If Eldar really wanted to get lots of S10 shooting they could just go with Vauls D-cannons and get 6 small blasts for around the same cost. Or shuttle some wraithguard around in a wave serpent.

As for durability, I would call IK's comparable (immunity to S6 shooting, has an invuln etc). At 340 points would a Knight be worth it without a reaper chainsword and being armed only with two heavy wraithcannons? Sorry for the IK comparisons, they're my only "mainstream" superheavy to compare to. Last editions Wraithknight was certainly durable, but you could get the same amount of durability out of two Wraithlords for the same points(ish). Wraithlords weren't considered "overdurable" I think, just too slow.

Or if you look at forgeworld superheavies, for 564 points, you can get a barbed heirodule that has 12 S10 shots at AP3 vs two Wraithknights with 4 S10 AP2 distort shots, that cost 120 points more. Sure two gargantuan creatures running around provides bigger threat bubbles around the board and more effective wounds, but much lower damage output.

I'm not arguing that the Wraithknight is costed appropriately right now, I would just prefer that it goes back to non-gargantuan and have a price hike.

 Cytharai wrote:
If Eldar really wanted to get lots of S10 shooting they could just go with Vauls D-cannons and get 6 small blasts for around the same cost. Or shuttle some wraithguard around in a wave serpent.

As for durability, I would call IK's comparable (immunity to S6 shooting, has an invuln etc). At 340 points would a Knight be worth it without a reaper chainsword and being armed only with two heavy wraithcannons? Sorry for the IK comparisons, they're my only "mainstream" superheavy to compare to. Last editions Wraithknight was certainly durable, but you could get the same amount of durability out of two Wraithlords for the same points(ish). Wraithlords weren't considered "overdurable" I think, just too slow.

Or if you look at forgeworld superheavies, for 564 points, you can get a barbed heirodule that has 12 S10 shots at AP3 vs two Wraithknights with 4 S10 AP2 distort shots, that cost 120 points more. Sure two gargantuan creatures running around provides bigger threat bubbles around the board and more effective wounds, but much lower damage output.

I'm not arguing that the Wraithknight is costed appropriately right now, I would just prefer that it goes back to non-gargantuan and have a price hike.

I would have preferred reverting it back as well, cut there was initial opposition to changing the unit type.

The Wraithknight is more durable than an IK though. Take a Meltagun Hit, almost guaranteed a Pen, maybe an Ion Save, and a 1/3 chance of 2-4HP instead of 1. Whereas that same hit only deals an unsaved wound 1/3 of the time barring cover saves. Against AP1/2 weaponry the IKs are significantly more vulnerable. Being immune to S5 does not make up for that difference.

Two GCs instead of one is big, the chance of ID is a factor, as is BS4, AP2, and double durability. I'd call it fairly well balanced actually.

I really think the problem with it last edition was that GW basically made it a SH without giving it SH rules.

Melta VS IK, assuming Melts range (2d6):
Glance: (11%)(1/2) = 0.055
Pen, no boom: (72%)(1/2)(2/3) = 0.24
Pen, plus boom: (72%)(1/2)(1/3)(d3+1) = 0.36
Total: EV of about 2/3 HP per hit.

WK:
Wound: (1/2)(2/3 FnP) = 0.33 Wounds.

So on one of the best anti-vehicle weapons, deployed perfectly, the WK takes twice the shots to kill. With a highly specialized anti-tank weapon.

Outside Malta range?
IK:
Glance: (1/6)(1/2) = 1/12
Pen, no boom: (1/6)(1/2)(2/3) = 1/18
Pen, plus boom: (1/6)(1/2)(1/3)(d3+1) = 1/12
EV of 8/36 HP/shot.

WK is still at 1/3 HP/shot.

Melta outside half range is *more* deadly to a WK by a 3:2 ratio.

And the numbers get much, much worse for AP2/1 weapons. And even more so for lower S.

Sure, Haywire and in-Melta-range Melts melt IKs faster. Anti vehicle weapons will do that.

But Poison and Fleshbane and Rending kill WKs far faster than IKs.

And everything in between - the weapons not specifically to kill heavy vehicles - the WK dies a lot faster.

(Side note - D weapons and Lance weapons also kill the WK much faster than the IK.)

I'm not saying the WK shouldn't cost more. I'm saying that its not as durable as the IK.

But you if you look at something like a daemon prince with a balesword, that's designed to murdilate anything non vehicle in CC, even a gargantuan wraithknight crumples with no real effort. Although I do realize it's much harder for them to do that now with the gotta land wait a turn and then charge rules we have right now. Without D weapons (which I don't want at all) WK are going to go back to about how they were last codex, you bring 1-3, and your enemy just avoids them and kills off the other eldar as much as possible while just eating the two S10 shots a turn.

Edit - maybe it's the black mace I'm thinking of? I dunno I've only ever been on the receiving end of daemon prince instant death so I try to block that from my memory lol

2nd Edit - Friend just brought up a good point, are we still saying that GMC's can get toe-in cover in ruins? Cause that would significantly change my durability standpoint for the WK

Stomp is a gamechanger. You can't really tarpit it anymore, and you can't usually make something it doesn't want to charge. Much like the IK.