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.

I'd like to see some opinions about my "fix" for these units.

First of all, I would change the Distort rule to the following:
"A weapon with this rule is strength D with a -1 to their roll on the D-chart. D-scythes and Heavy D-scythes roll -2 on the chart instead"
I still think that StrD is perfect to represent Distort, but for balance purposes, it needs to be toned down.

With that in mind, here are the new WraithGuard:
5-10 models at 35ppm, same statline as current, start with the Wraithcannon. Any model may exchange their Wraithcannon for a D-scythe for 5ppm.
With this change, I hope to make them useful without being OP. No longer being able to just remove models on a '6" should help that, while Scythes only cause damage on 4+
I also want the unit to be able to mix weapons. The base cost of the WG unit is now 15pts more, but you can take 2-3 D-scythes rather than committing to the whole unit.

Small change for WraighBlades - They may mix weapons as well, but are otherwise unchanged.

Now the WraithKnight:
-Statline as now, but only 5 wounds. This makes its durability more comparable to an 6HP AV13 Imperial Knight.
-350pt minimum cost, but the 2 shoulder Shuricannons are included as standard. Either Shuricannon can swap for Scatter Laser or Star cannon for 10 pts each
-Standard starting loadout is 2 arm mounted D-cannons. That's right 24" small blast D-cannons, not Heavy Wraithcannons. In this version the HWC doesn't exist
-Both D-cannons can be swapped for Shield & Glaive or Shield & Suncannon for free.

So the idea here is to make the WK slight more expensive (370pts if fully upgraded), slightly less durable (-1W) and by getting rid of the HWC in favor of D-cannons, you force even the shooting WK to get closer and risk more firepower. While Blasts may be more reliable than single shots, also remember that Distort in -1 to the D-chart in this version, so those blasts may hit more reliably, but they only do damage on 3+ and can never roll a '6' to just remove a model.

Thoughts?

-

I prefer ITC's D table to begin with, so in that format, you wouldn't need the -1 modifier.

Martel732 wrote:
I prefer ITC's D table to begin with, so in that format, you wouldn't need the -1 modifier.

I think it is silly that ITC even has to have a ruling about ranged D. By making Distort at -1, I think the only way to get Ranged D is via Tzeentch Psykers, so require you to either roll the power, then have to harness the WC, or take FateWeaver or Magnus. In all those cases, there is a lot that can stop massed ranges D and it is all short ranged.
Basically I am trying to say that ITC made this ruling specifically for Eldar. Tone down Distort and the ITC rule isn't needed.

We could (and probably have) go on and on about how D needs to change, how GMC rules need to be toned down, etc. But I am trying to create changes to the units in the Eldar codex given the official, unmodified by house rules no matter how popular those house rule are, main rules of 40k remain as is.

As a side note, I have always been perplexed as to why the WK got it's own special snowflake Wraithcannons when the D-cannon already existed and was and obvious choice for the WK.
After all, Wraith-constructs are created specifically to carry the warp weapons that are too heavy and dangerous for regular infantry. I get the Suncannon, but Heavy Wraithcannons should never have existed.

-

I'd rather see something more like HoR's distortion fix, skip the Destroyer table all together.

The heavy wraithcannon on the Wraithknight remains Strength D, it's a superheavy. It may need a points hike, but it can have Destroyer.

The wraithcannon on Wraithguard becomes Strength 10/AP1 with Armourbane and Fleshbane.

The d-flail on the Warp Hunter and the heavy d-scythe on the Hemlock become Strength 6/AP2 with Armourbane and Fleshbane.

The d-cannon on the heavy support platform and the Wraithseer, and the d-scythe on the Wraithguard, become Strength 4/AP2 with Armourbane and Fleshbane.

In all cases (except for the Wraithknight) you preserve the weapon's ability to threaten everything while taking away its ability to burn multiple hull points/Wounds per shot and the ability to auto-pen every vehicle easily regardless of armour, and in the case of the wraithcannon you also take away crit-RFP. The d-flail also IDs at Strength 6 instead of Strength 10 under this mechanism.

The downside to this change is that you take the current d-scythe weapons (d-scythe, heavy d-scythe, d-cannon) and make them wound non-vehicle models on a 2+ instead of a 3+, but given that you're also not penetrating every vehicle in the game on a 3+ it may be worthwhile. If you're in a meta where you don't need extra help to kill Gargantuan Creatures it may be worth changing the d-scythe and d-cannon to Poisoned (3+) rather than Fleshbane.


As for the rest of the Wraithguard/Wraithblade unit I'd love to see them start at 40pts/model with two Wounds and two Attacks as well as being able to mix weapons, try to make them worth it when taken on foot.

I always favor simplicity where possible. While Wraithcannons being str10/AP1 and D-scythes being str6/AP2, both with ArmourBane/Flashbane is cool, it isn't as easy as just saying D-1, or D-2.

I remember when Wraithcannons & D-cannons had their own chart: 3+ to wound, to Pen was 1-2 nothing, 3-4 was a glance and 5-6 was a Pen.
I also remember when D-scythes were just str4 AP2 flamers

D-1 or D-2 is the best combination of both the current and old rules.
It would mean the Wraithcannon is basically 3+ to do any kind of damage and D-scythes were 4+ to do any damage
Distortion weapons release a portion of Warp energies onto the enemy, High Toughness or AV should be no protection.

-

I don't think "S10/Armourbane/Fleshbane" is more complicated than "Use this alternate to-wound table, at a modifier, which may deal multiple wounds that may or may not get to be saved separately (nobody ever remembers), and treat it as Strength (something else) for ID purposes".

And the fundamental issue with D-weapons is that they're too good against everything. Making them slightly less good against everything while not addressing the fact that they're still very good against everything isn't really going to fix the problem. Giving them a Strength with Armourbane/Fleshbane keeps them powerful and terrifying without letting them RFP anything you point them at with very little chance of failure the way they do if you let them keep "deal d3 hull points on a 2+/3+".

If you insist that Wraithguard should not have D, than neither should the Wraithknight. All Distort weapon should be functionally the same because they use the same energies.
Only the range and potency should change.

Distort: Armourbane, Fleshbane
Wratihcannon 12" str10, AP1
D-Scythe Template Str5 AP2
D-cannon 24" small blast Str10, AP1

So even the D-cannon, the weapon that literally is named 'D' wouldn't have str D. If you're ok with that, then so am I.
But as long as D is a 40K rule, I think Distort weapons should have it, just modified for balance.

-

IMO - not even worth talking about until LOS goes away - spells like invisibility exist.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
I don't think "S10/Armourbane/Fleshbane" is more complicated than "Use this alternate to-wound table, at a modifier, which may deal multiple wounds that may or may not get to be saved separately (nobody ever remembers), and treat it as Strength (something else) for ID purposes".

And the fundamental issue with D-weapons is that they're too good against everything. Making them slightly less good against everything while not addressing the fact that they're still very good against everything isn't really going to fix the problem. Giving them a Strength with Armourbane/Fleshbane keeps them powerful and terrifying without letting them RFP anything you point them at with very little chance of failure the way they do if you let them keep "deal d3 hull points on a 2+/3+".

A stinger missile is pretty effective at killing everything on the modern battlefield. + every tank has a round that is effective vs any kind of target. I don't see why the most powerful weapons in 40k should be any different. Range is king in warfare. The closer you get the easier you are to kill.

 Xenomancers wrote:
IMO - not even worth talking about until LOS goes away - spells like invisibility exist.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
I don't think "S10/Armourbane/Fleshbane" is more complicated than "Use this alternate to-wound table, at a modifier, which may deal multiple wounds that may or may not get to be saved separately (nobody ever remembers), and treat it as Strength (something else) for ID purposes".

And the fundamental issue with D-weapons is that they're too good against everything. Making them slightly less good against everything while not addressing the fact that they're still very good against everything isn't really going to fix the problem. Giving them a Strength with Armourbane/Fleshbane keeps them powerful and terrifying without letting them RFP anything you point them at with very little chance of failure the way they do if you let them keep "deal d3 hull points on a 2+/3+".

A stinger missile is pretty effective at killing everything on the modern battlefield. + every tank has a round that is effective vs any kind of target. I don't see why the most powerful weapons in 40k should be any different. Range is king in warfare. The closer you get the easier you are to kill.

A) The issue isn't whether the weapon can engage every target, the issue is whether the weapon can destroy any unit you point it at with no chance of failure. I'm not saying distortion weapons shouldn't be able to kill everything, I'm saying they should be less good at it.

B) We're playing a game with space elves and exotic energy weapons where the players have access to perfect information about where the enemy is and when, where every shot has a constant chance of connecting regardless of range, visibility, or movement, where the best-trained ground troops in the game miss one in three shots against an enemy standing five feet away, and where you use full-size indirect-fire howitzers against people about fifty feet away. What happens on a modern battlefield has very, very little bearing on what happens or what should happen in 40k.

 Galef wrote:
I'd like to see some opinions about my "fix" for these units.

First of all, I would change the Distort rule to the following:
"A weapon with this rule is strength D with a -1 to their roll on the D-chart. D-scythes and Heavy D-scythes roll -2 on the chart instead"
I still think that StrD is perfect to represent Distort, but for balance purposes, it needs to be toned down.

With that in mind, here are the new WraithGuard:
5-10 models at 35ppm, same statline as current, start with the Wraithcannon. Any model may exchange their Wraithcannon for a D-scythe for 5ppm.
With this change, I hope to make them useful without being OP. No longer being able to just remove models on a '6" should help that, while Scythes only cause damage on 4+
I also want the unit to be able to mix weapons. The base cost of the WG unit is now 15pts more, but you can take 2-3 D-scythes rather than committing to the whole unit.

Small change for WraighBlades - They may mix weapons as well, but are otherwise unchanged.

Now the WraithKnight:
-Statline as now, but only 5 wounds. This makes its durability more comparable to an 6HP AV13 Imperial Knight.
-350pt minimum cost, but the 2 shoulder Shuricannons are included as standard. Either Shuricannon can swap for Scatter Laser or Star cannon for 10 pts each
-Standard starting loadout is 2 arm mounted D-cannons. That's right 24" small blast D-cannons, not Heavy Wraithcannons. In this version the HWC doesn't exist
-Both D-cannons can be swapped for Shield & Glaive or Shield & Suncannon for free.

So the idea here is to make the WK slight more expensive (370pts if fully upgraded), slightly less durable (-1W) and by getting rid of the HWC in favor of D-cannons, you force even the shooting WK to get closer and risk more firepower. While Blasts may be more reliable than single shots, also remember that Distort in -1 to the D-chart in this version, so those blasts may hit more reliably, but they only do damage on 3+ and can never roll a '6' to just remove a model.

Thoughts?

-

Personally I play with just a '6' result modified to be 2d3 wounds with inv/cover saves allowed and this proves to be a good solution. Nerfing Heavy D-Scythes is really unnecessary, Hemlock isn't really OP.

As to Wraithguard/blades, they are either OP (full scythes/cannon squads with Archon/Gate are indeed an "erase button") or not working at all, so my personal houserule solution is to combine those two units into one entry and limit equipment availability, so even the minimum squad of 5 has to have mixed options, both ranged and melee. A squad of 5 with two Scythes, two Axe&Shield and one Swords makes for a good but not OP bunker for ICs or a strong assault option, without the need of further nerfing Distort.

Warp Hunter is fine if it is just a fancy Heavy D-Scythe variant, i.e. S4 for I.D. purposes, not S10.

I don't use WK, so I don't have personal favourite solution for him, but probably a point adjustment combined with my modified '6' result and point level limit availability.

When I do run distort weapons, I ask my opponent if they want to use the "D" table (as per RAW) or if they prefer I use the 6th edition codex rules for Distort weapons.

Some say D, some say 6th ed codex.

 Galef wrote:
I'd like to see some opinions about my "fix" for these units.

First of all, I would change the Distort rule to the following:
"A weapon with this rule is strength D with a -1 to their roll on the D-chart. D-scythes and Heavy D-scythes roll -2 on the chart instead"
I still think that StrD is perfect to represent Distort, but for balance purposes, it needs to be toned down.

With that in mind, here are the new WraithGuard:
5-10 models at 35ppm, same statline as current, start with the Wraithcannon. Any model may exchange their Wraithcannon for a D-scythe for 5ppm.
With this change, I hope to make them useful without being OP. No longer being able to just remove models on a '6" should help that, while Scythes only cause damage on 4+
I also want the unit to be able to mix weapons. The base cost of the WG unit is now 15pts more, but you can take 2-3 D-scythes rather than committing to the whole unit.

Small change for WraighBlades - They may mix weapons as well, but are otherwise unchanged.

Now the WraithKnight:
-Statline as now, but only 5 wounds. This makes its durability more comparable to an 6HP AV13 Imperial Knight.
-350pt minimum cost, but the 2 shoulder Shuricannons are included as standard. Either Shuricannon can swap for Scatter Laser or Star cannon for 10 pts each
-Standard starting loadout is 2 arm mounted D-cannons. That's right 24" small blast D-cannons, not Heavy Wraithcannons. In this version the HWC doesn't exist
-Both D-cannons can be swapped for Shield & Glaive or Shield & Suncannon for free.

So the idea here is to make the WK slight more expensive (370pts if fully upgraded), slightly less durable (-1W) and by getting rid of the HWC in favor of D-cannons, you force even the shooting WK to get closer and risk more firepower. While Blasts may be more reliable than single shots, also remember that Distort in -1 to the D-chart in this version, so those blasts may hit more reliably, but they only do damage on 3+ and can never roll a '6' to just remove a model.

Thoughts?

-

I think these are pretty reasonable. A few thoughts:

The Distort Rule:
I feel like your changes would work out mechanically, but it creates a very strange "feel" for the weapons. D-strength weapons are generally meant to represent weapons that are so strong they either do damage in excess of that caused by normal weapons or else somehow miraculously fail to harm the target (rolling a 1). With your proposed changes, you end up with this bizarre situation where a D-scythe is either so devastatingly powerful that it calls for the D table, but also so curiously unreliable that it outright fails to harm its target half the time. Distort weapons that only take a -1 to the D-table face the same issue, but to less of an extreme.

Is the goal of this particular change to simply prevent the extreme "crit" result of a 6? Or is it to make D weapons fail to harm their targets 1/3rd or 1/2 of the time? If the former, I'd recommend simply using the ITC rules on the subject. It basically makes D-strength weapons (usually) do multiple wounds/hull points to their targets, but it eliminates the chance of completely obliterating a ~400 point imperial knight with a ~35 point wraith guard.

Again, I think the mechanics here are reasonable, but the feeling of having a "destroyer" weapon that will leave a guardsman unscathed 1/3rd of the time is odd. That's 2/3rds of the time if he has a 4+ cover save or half the time if you're using a d-scythe. Against a guardsman (who is, admittedly, not the ideal target for a distort weapon), you'd actually get a much more potent performance out of a regular old flamer than a d-scythe because it wounds on 3s (instead of 4s) and still gets through his cover and armor (assuming he's not in carapace). A shuriken catapult is more effective against a guardsman than a wraith gun by virtue of having 2 shots and otherwise identical killing power. Which feels odd. Basically, your destroyer weapons remain effective against large single targets, but they become curiously ineffective against smaller targets. This mechanic actually feels more like what I'd expect out of a grav weapon than something that shunts chunks of the target into the warp. Mechanically interesting but thematically confusing.

Mixed Weapons:
As someone who used to field d-scythes in competitive lists and then ended up dropping them, this feels like a pretty significant power boost. Obviously the distort rule changes balance this out a bit, but the main thing that made me drop d-scythes was that I couldn't line them up as effectively as I'd like after deepstriking in with a webway portal. Mixing weapons would let me hit my target with even more guns than normal and save points doing it while also making the unit more generally flexible in role.

I'm not sure mixing weapons is hugely beneficial to wraith blades. You'd basically get to thin the herd a bit with initiative 4 attacks, but you'd give up a lot of punch against tougher targets to do it.

I'm not sure how I feel about the mixed weapon thing overall, but I thought I'd point out those considerations.

WraithKnight:
Looks good. The 5 wounds thing is a little fiddly. The price hike is the major improvement here. The other changes seem fine, but 24" of range and 1 wound were never the big problems with the wraith knight.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

nou wrote:

 Galef wrote:


As to Wraithguard/blades, they are either OP (full scythes/cannon squads with Archon/Gate are indeed an "erase button") or not working at all, so my personal houserule solution is to combine those two units into one entry and limit equipment availability, so even the minimum squad of 5 has to have mixed options, both ranged and melee. A squad of 5 with two Scythes, two Axe&Shield and one Swords makes for a good but not OP bunker for ICs or a strong assault option, without the need of further nerfing Distort.

Warp Hunter is fine if it is just a fancy Heavy D-Scythe variant, i.e. S4 for I.D. purposes, not S10.

I don't use WK, so I don't have personal favourite solution for him, but probably a point adjustment combined with my modified '6' result and point level limit availability.

Wraithguard/blades:
Interesting. Does that work well for you? 40k generally rewards specialization over generalization. I mostly use my wraith guard as knight hunters, so trading distort weapons for melee options that I can't generally use until turn 3 (I either deepstrike them or wave serpent them up the field) seems like a waste of points. But the mental image is a neat one.

Warp Hunter:
The thing about the warp hunter is that it's an extremely cheap way to get multiple strength D shots on a durable, mobile platform that doesn't need line of sight to fire and can potentially shoot at the enemy on turn 1. People around here can deal with them, but they do so by forcing it to jink.

Wraith Knight:
I'm not sure availability is really the core issue with wraith knights. They just need to be about 150 points more expensive. They aren't innately broken (any more so than an imperial knight anyway), but they're way too cheap for what you get. Nerfing D a bit (which is a topic unto itself) wouldn't hurt though. Really, I don't mind facing two or even 3 wraith knights if they constitute ~800 or ~1200 of your army.

Wyldhunt wrote:


Wraithguard/blades:
Interesting. Does that work well for you? 40k generally rewards specialization over generalization. I mostly use my wraith guard as knight hunters, so trading distort weapons for melee options that I can't generally use until turn 3 (I either deepstrike them or wave serpent them up the field) seems like a waste of points. But the mental image is a neat one.

Warp Hunter:
The thing about the warp hunter is that it's an extremely cheap way to get multiple strength D shots on a durable, mobile platform that doesn't need line of sight to fire and can potentially shoot at the enemy on turn 1. People around here can deal with them, but they do so by forcing it to jink.

Wraith Knight:
I'm not sure availability is really the core issue with wraith knights. They just need to be about 150 points more expensive. They aren't innately broken (any more so than an imperial knight anyway), but they're way too cheap for what you get. Nerfing D a bit (which is a topic unto itself) wouldn't hurt though. Really, I don't mind facing two or even 3 wraith knights if they constitute ~800 or ~1200 of your army.

My experience with Warp Hunter might be biased, because I rarely play against armies with a lot of high value targets and my opponents can usually wreck it turn 2 or 3, so it HAS TO be effective to be worth it's points. Just as Hemlock has to, because it is often confronted with two FMCs which can always outmanouver him. But I personally dislike any "flip-of-a-coin" weapons/units, so as I sad eariler, my Warp Hunter has a D-Scythe rule, not original Dispersed rule by FW.

As to Wraithguard/blades, my intention is quite simple: I like the models and their individual rules and feels, but squad of 5 is overspecialized to an extent of being an "erase button", so it becames an unit with "real fear" special rule i.e. it makes opponents uneasy and for a good reason. It is also too easy to use and almost a "god mode 40K". I wanted to be able to actually use my models in varied ways in many, many games without my opponents complaining. With such self-imposed restrictions, my squad of 5 is actually a nice Elite choice adding flavour to otherwise T3 army. And I defiantely agree, that nerfing D-Scythes to wounding on 4+ makes them even more specialised and worth their points only against specific armies.

One important note, to better understand where those changes come from: I'm a narrative/spectacle/one-off-scenarios player, not a tournaments participant, so my "meta" is completely different than usual. 450 pts double D WK would never ever get his points back in my games and drown in cheap infantry... If faced by three, I would probably run in circles around them minding my own bussiness and win the mission, except for scenarios specially tailored for such three knights armies to be center pieces.

D is not a problem in it's current format. All D weapons are short range with limited mobility options - minus a wraith-knight (which is only about 100-150 points under-costed).

Put WG in a wave serpent and you are over 300 points and close to 400 with the template version. Easy to beat. Only viable way to run them is with WWP (soulburst made this crazy - but soulburst is actually the problem).

D cannons are just area denial - you walk into a D cannon it is YOUR FAULT. I can name a lot of other units that will obliterate you if you walk into their range (way worse than D cannons) Think TWC, wolfen, harliquins, Grav cannons.

My solution to this problem? At least when it comes to eldar is increase the cost of a WK to 420 points and remove the most stupid rule ever created known as soul-burst.

Warphunters don't really bother me because if you make them jinx they are worthless - hemlocks are expensive and are are d-1 with no AA defense and also - make them jinx and they are worthless.

Nerf distort and WG will never be chosen over fire-dragons and eldar shadow weavers will be the only eldar artillery fielded because they have to be to complete craftworld warhosts.

So what is the best way to make the WK appropriate and keep it UNDER 400pts?
I've already suggested the way I think it should be:
-Make it only 5 wounds to balance out its durability to an Imperial knight
-24" D-cannons instead of 36" Wraithcannons

I'll amend my previous proposed change to Distort in that instead of -1, I'll take a page out of Forge World and say that only Scythes are -1 as they are now, but that on Wraithcannons & D-cannons any result of a '6' on the D-chart counts as a '5'
In this way, the weapons still do damage on 2+, but can never flat out remove a model with no saves.

-

 Galef wrote:
So what is the best way to make the WK appropriate and keep it UNDER 400pts?
I've already suggested the way I think it should be:
-Make it only 5 wounds to balance out its durability to an Imperial knight
-24" D-cannons instead of 36" Wraithcannons

I'll amend my previous proposed change to Distort in that instead of -1, I'll take a page out of Forge World and say that only Scythes are -1 as they are now, but that on Wraithcannons & D-cannons any result of a '6' on the D-chart counts as a '5'
In this way, the weapons still do damage on 2+, but can never flat out remove a model with no saves.

-

So you think it's okay that a model can have a 2++ rerollable save and ignore the most powerful weapon type in the game 35/36 times? Personally this issue bothers me much more than a low rate of fire weapon having a chance to 1 shot something on the roll of a 6. At the very least - the distort rule should prevent saves from being rerolled but I think it's okay that they blow stuff up with no save at all. Something I would be okay with for the distort rule. Instead of d6+6 wound on a roll of a 6 - keep the d3 wounds but still keep the no saves and count at str 10 for ID. This would give super heavies and MC with 4+ wounds able to take a hit and still survive (albeit heavily wounded).

How about this.
Distort
2+ to wound and cause d3 wounds - saves can not be rerolled. On a 6 no saves of any kind allowed. str 10 for ID
Distort Scythe
4+ to wound and causes d3 wounds. str 4 for ID.

I think S10 Instant Death AP1 is what they were before. That's still pretty damn good.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I think S10 Instant Death AP1 is what they were before. That's still pretty damn good.

It's weak as hell. It's basically a meltagun at that profile vs all but a very small list of things.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galef wrote:
So what is the best way to make the WK appropriate and keep it UNDER 400pts?
I've already suggested the way I think it should be:
-Make it only 5 wounds to balance out its durability to an Imperial knight
-24" D-cannons instead of 36" Wraithcannons

I'll amend my previous proposed change to Distort in that instead of -1, I'll take a page out of Forge World and say that only Scythes are -1 as they are now, but that on Wraithcannons & D-cannons any result of a '6' on the D-chart counts as a '5'
In this way, the weapons still do damage on 2+, but can never flat out remove a model with no saves.

-

In regards to the WK - I say just increase it's point cost - no reason to nerf it. Maybe make it I4 so it doesn't just 1 shot an IK before it gets to attack. If you wanted to take the nerf approach I see nothing wrong with your suggestion - def make it I4 in that case though.

I'd be ok with I4. The only reason I prefer the nerf approach is because raising its points cost nerfs the ability to bring other choices.
While I agree that the WK as it is now is too cheap, raising its points cost would not stop players from bringing them, but would instead force them to drop whole units elsewhere in the army.
Instead of taking 6 units of Scatterbikes, they'll only bring 5. That doesn't make a noticeable change.

Making the WK have less wounds, and require it to get closer, have I4, or not be able roll a true '6' on the D-chart are noticeable changes.

-

 Galef wrote:
I'd be ok with I4. The only reason I prefer the nerf approach is because raising its points cost nerfs the ability to bring other choices.
While I agree that the WK as it is now is too cheap, raising its points cost would not stop players from bringing them, but would instead force them to drop whole units elsewhere in the army.
Instead of taking 6 units of Scatterbikes, they'll only bring 5. That doesn't make a noticeable change.

Making the WK have less wounds, and require it to get closer, have I4, or not be able roll a true '6' on the D-chart are noticeable changes.

-

I agree with all of that. Great points.

Less scatterbikes is less scatterbikes. Eldar armies are supposed to be small, right? They're dying or something?

The WK is a super heavy. It should be brutally effective, but pay for the privilege. At least, that's my view.

Martel732 wrote:
Less scatterbikes is less scatterbikes. Eldar armies are supposed to be small, right? They're dying or something?

The WK is a super heavy. It should be brutally effective, but pay for the privilege. At least, that's my view.

And is a view that I think plenty of people have.
My view comes from the days when the WK was introduced as merely Heavy Support MCs. I used to be able to bring 2 under 500pts as my primary anti-tank back in 6th ed.
Making them GMC LoW made sense, but for crying out loud they did not need to keep the same statline on top of all the GMC bonuses
Had GW accounted for this and made adjustments, the resulting unit could have stayed around 300pts, yet been just as durable as they were previously.

By raising it to 400+pts, you make a single 7th ed WK worse than two 6th ed WKs. At that point, I'd rather just go back to having them be Heavy Support MCs so I can comfortably take 2 again.

One of the main reasons people call for a points increase is because WKs compare to IKs which are about 400pts.
But let's break that down:
6W = 6HPs
T8 is roughly equal to AV12. IK's have AV13 in the Front
Scattersheild 5++ is roughly equal to Ion shield 4++. Ion shield only affects 1 facing, but the WK's is only 5++ and can't even be taken on the Wratihcannon variant.
Up to this point, the IK is more durable than the WK
But then we account for Armour and FNP, which I think even you will agree makes the WK way more durable.

So rather than making it pay for said durability (that btw it was not originally designed for like the IK), why not just drop a wound. That's almost a 17% drop in durability. And Grav exists, which barely touches IKs.
The GMC rules still need to be toned down (like poison only being -1 instead of a flat 6, for example), but when they do, I want to make sure it doesn't completely nerf the propsed changes to the WK.

-

 Xenomancers wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I think S10 Instant Death AP1 is what they were before. That's still pretty damn good.

It's weak as hell. It's basically a meltagun at that profile vs all but a very small list of things.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galef wrote:
So what is the best way to make the WK appropriate and keep it UNDER 400pts?
I've already suggested the way I think it should be:
-Make it only 5 wounds to balance out its durability to an Imperial knight
-24" D-cannons instead of 36" Wraithcannons

I'll amend my previous proposed change to Distort in that instead of -1, I'll take a page out of Forge World and say that only Scythes are -1 as they are now, but that on Wraithcannons & D-cannons any result of a '6' on the D-chart counts as a '5'
In this way, the weapons still do damage on 2+, but can never flat out remove a model with no saves.

-

In regards to the WK - I say just increase it's point cost - no reason to nerf it. Maybe make it I4 so it doesn't just 1 shot an IK before it gets to attack. If you wanted to take the nerf approach I see nothing wrong with your suggestion - def make it I4 in that case though.

Oh sorry, I didn't realize a S10 AP1 Instant Death gun was weak.

If you want the heavy support version, there's the wraithlord.

I'd redesign the WK to be 500 pts with 8 wounds like a Stormsurge. It should be badass. Maybe give it IWND as well.

There should rarely be multiples of these things. In fact, one could make them 0-1 to represent this.

Martel732 wrote:
If you want the heavy support version, there's the wraithlord.

I'd redesign the WK to be 500 pts with 8 wounds like a Stormsurge. It should be badass. Maybe give it IWND as well.

There should rarely be multiples of these things. In fact, one could make them 0-1 to represent this.

Those would be great changes....for the Revenant Titan. Currently, a 900pt Revenant Titan can be killed just as easily as a 300pt WK. That's an issue
Eldar have super heavies already on par with that. Revenants are described as being rare because the number of twins required to pilot them are being born less often.
While WKs are described as INCREASING in number as many existing Revenant pilots are dying, and the living twin chooses to be encased in the WK with the soul of its dead twin.

I see the WK as equivalent to the Riptide, not the Stormsurge, but even if you want to equate it with the StormSurge, even those can be take in units of 3.

But since you bring up the Wraithlord, I have some idea for it as well. First off, you should be able to squad them. Carnifex, Dreadnoughts, the aforementioned Riptides and Stormsurges, can all be taken in units. WLs should be able to as well.
WLs should also have a rule that allows them to add 3" anytime they move, run or assault, or just get a flat 9" move in the movement phase. Let's call it "Wratih stride" or something
Their legs alone are as tall as a Dreadnought, there is no reason for them to only be able to move 6".

-

The Wraithlord needs to be improved to be closer to the Riptide, although obviously not as incredibly abusive. Increased movement could be part of that. Perhaps an extra wound and a 5++, but no layered saves. The WK is a GMC, not an MC. It is a tier above the Riptide, hence the comparison to a Stormsurge.

I was not aware of the fluff on the WK. Okay then, no 0-1, but they should still be Stormsurge-esque in their battlefield role in my view. More well rounded, though, capable of shooting and melee.

Martel732 wrote:
The Wraithlord needs to be improved to be closer to the Riptide, although obviously not as incredibly abusive. Increased movement could be part of that. Perhaps an extra wound and a 5++, but no layered saves. The WK is a GMC, not an MC. It is a tier above the Riptide, hence the comparison to a Stormsurge.

I was not aware of the fluff on the WK. Okay then, no 0-1, but they should still be Stormsurge-esque in their battlefield role in my view. More well rounded, though, capable of shooting and melee.

If the WL was buffed to be similar, but not as good as, the 6th ed WK, then I would probably agree with a 400+pts WK as it is now.

So what about the following:
Wraithlord: statline as now, but 4 wounds and FNP 5+ 150pts base, may take all the current options
Has the "Wraith strider" special rule: Add 3" to the WLs move, run or assault movements.
Also has the option to take 1 D-cannon for lets say 35pts. It always bothered me that they couldn't take a Distort weapon despite that being the reason Wraith constructs exist.

That, I think, would make it equate to the Riptide without being as abusive. If this was available, I would be fine with a 400pt WK as it is.

-

I'd prefer to give Wraithlord 5++ instead of FNP. That leaves it susceptible to poison rounds as it should be.

1-D cannon seems reasonable in the current game for sure.

It's so frustrating how many ways you can make a unit reasonable but GW never seems to find them.

Yeah I'd be happy with the wraith-lord being able to take a twin linked D cannon getting +1 wound and 5++ save for around 180 points with the +3 to movement. Increase base attacks to 4 also. It's sword should also give it str 10 in cc - not str 9.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Yeah I'd be happy with the wraith-lord being able to take a twin linked D cannon getting +1 wound and 5++ save for around 180 points with the +3 to movement. Increase base attacks to 4 also. It's sword should also give it str 10 in cc - not str 9.

The more things that can double out Wraiths, bikes and TWC the better imo. T5 should not be a magic refuge from danger like it currently is.