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.

Wave Serpents in their current incarnation are more resistant to Lascannons than Land Raiders if they're not shooting their shields. A Land Raider is 250+ points for a transport, so by the Eldar standard it ought to be cheaper, because it's so unfair that a transport is expensive, right?

Yeah serpents are tougher than land raiders and shoot better to! Why do people keep saying this? If they are blowing you off the table with their shields they are not ignoring pens.

Or you will find them overpowred like most people posting on this topic apart from a few hardcore defenders - some of whom happen to be Eldar players (as I am) - as you will know from reading all the varied posts about the Wave Serpent here - it is a problem - ignoring it does not mean it does not exist.....

Serpents are not really a problem. In competitive formats spamming just 5-6 serpents just doesn't do that well. It is more than likely your list building that is not taking heavy armor into considerations.

Which deathstars are those? 6 Serpents cost 900 points fully upgraded.

The cheapest you can get 6 serpents with upgrades is 1200.

Screamerstar to function well is 920 points and does far less damage on average
Seer Council is about 800 points
Beast Star is Probably around 500-600 points
Centurian Star is Probably around 800 points
Ovesastar is 800+

So hardly half the cost. Most of these engage one unit per turn unless they charge....

Most of those units are nearly impossible to kill outside of extremely competitive formats. Serpent spam can falter against most tac lists.

as for caring about 5-10 points per model, yes I care if those are my troops, I want to be able to make use of ways to keep them alive, like cover. Or you know 30+ PPM spawn, or 52 point Beasts of Nurgle, or 43 point Plague drones, or Say Belakor for 350 points. More or less any unit that relies on Shrouding. Or DE jetbikes that cost what 22 points per model or so. 25 point screamers without the Grimoir on them, Flesh hounds, Seekers, Nob Bikers, Lootas,.....the list goes on. There are plenty of units which at least in part rely on cover for their durablility, having a base transport that easily denies it at range is bad IMO.

Except all of those units have another save. Sorry you don't always get your cover save, but that seems to be a rule that's getting passed out to every army.

The thing people fail to realize is that sure it does not sound crazy that you do 300+ points of damage per turn with your shooting against stuff, until you take into account armies that take 2 turns or so to get to you, now those armies are down 600 points before any damage is dealt. At which point playing down 600 points becomes difficult.

Yeah about that. seems people realized at the start of 6th that running a full assault army doesn't work. If you're talking about a short range army with no mobility then...

Now you can say "well you should have long range anti-tank in your army....so for Daemons that would be what exactly? Oh nothing...ok just so we are clear on that.

Or you know the serpents target the long range anti tank first....and then don't worry about it...

Yeah you probably shouldn't let your limited AT die first turn or just bring more of it.

Really against models with a 5+ save, 6 serpents average 28 wounds. SO against say flesh hounds tha tis 455 points.

Against flesh hounds that's at max 320 points, but I don't see too many people running full squads of 20. Even if they did that's only 14 models lost from an entire shooting phases. I'd call that a win if I only lost 224 points from 1200 points of shooting.

You keep saying 1200 points of shooting but that is not the case. Adding the contents of the transport to the cost is not really fair to say since they are troops, do score, and can kill things in addition to the serpents. That is like me costing those Death Stars at 200 or 300 more points to account for troops that must be taken to run the army in the first place. Many armies cannot take lots of effective long range anti tank.

Breng77 wrote:
You keep saying 1200 points of shooting but that is not the case. Adding the contents of the transport to the cost is not really fair to say since they are troops, do score, and can kill things in addition to the serpents. That is like me costing those Death Stars at 200 or 300 more points to account for troops that must be taken to run the army in the first place. Many armies cannot take lots of effective long range anti tank.

Regardless if they can do something, the majority of the time they never get out of the serpent until turn 5 to grab objectives, or maybe they are hiding on a backfield objective. DA are just a tax that just so happens to get out and shoot something once in a while, or dies to a stiff breeze.

The fact is you don't get 6 serpents on the battlefield without spending 1200 points. Its important to recognize that because it shows just how much of a list is devoted to just serpents. If I am playing a 1500 point game, 1200 + a mantleseer is nearly the entire list. If you say 900 some mouthbreather will just go on about how broken eldar are that they can take 6 serpents at 1500 and still have 600 left to bring over-powered wraithknights and gak.

While true the shooting is only coming from 900 points of the army, other units than dire avengers can take them so it is possible to have units that are embarked actually do something. So saying that it is 1200 points of shooting is disingenuous. Much the same as saying screamer star costs 1100 points because I need to bring 2 troops to play the army.

For instance I could take a spirit seer as my lone hq, and field a wraith guard squad in one of this six serpents, or a fire dragon squad, or dark reapers, etc. In fact a serpent list at 1500 points will have more flexibility than most Death Stars because dropping say one serpent does not impact it as much as dropping parts of the star will.

Has a serpent spam list actually won any majors? Compared with Deathstar lists?

So comparing them to other super OP things makes them not OP? Both serpents and Deathstars are bad for the game and both need fixing.

 Daba wrote:
Has a serpent spam list actually won any majors? Compared with Deathstar lists?

No idea - don't play tournaments for the most part - Equally valid - how causal games have won in the first turn or two by Wave Serpent spam?

Comparing broken unit A with Broken Unit B and saying one is less broken than the other does not make it less broken.................

Dire Avengers

Regardless if they can do something, the majority of the time they never get out of the serpent until turn 5 to grab objectives, or maybe they are hiding on a backfield objective

So like win the game maybe? And this is different to most other people's Troops choices how? The difference is each squad they can come with a fast, powerful, well protected gunship..............

Really cant believe how people could think the Serpent is all fine... must be the eldarland-tauland-Syndrome...

*irony on*

no, the codex and the serpent is all fine... youre just a poor general, youre list is poor or whatever else if you cant beat eldar. It isnt that hard. Dont blame the codex... Its just that every smart general tends to like eldar and therefore some people think its the codex... And you know, just the smartest Generals can make it to the last rounds of a tournament. See the logic?

*irony off*

Do you also think the hellturkey is fine?

Really?

As I said before. Make the shield one shot only with removal of its defnsive effect after the shot and the rest can stay as it is.

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Daba wrote:
Has a serpent spam list actually won any majors? Compared with Deathstar lists?

No idea - don't play tournaments for the most part - Equally valid - how causal games have won in the first turn or two by Wave Serpent spam?

Well, you can measure tournaments from people who are there and record or recall what happened.

With casual games, I could say 'none' and there's literally no way of tracking one way or another.

Without this data, you can't really say whether it's OP or not, it's just based on feeling (note my feeling is that it is overturned, too good). With tournament data, we DO see Helldrakes being taken, and is usually the only (non token) presence CSM have allied to Daemons. We have some evidence there. I similarly expect Wave Serpents to occupy a similar role and make often appearances.

Looking at the stats, most people know the unit is broken: 112 dakkanauts already proposed a way to fix it. And the vast majority focused on the Shield.

I am missing a "no need to fix it at all" option for those who say it is not broken. Perhaps even a full "Is it broken?" poll, with multiple options such as Serpents, Riptides, Heldrakes, Wraithknights and all the "stars".

 Daba wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Daba wrote:
Has a serpent spam list actually won any majors? Compared with Deathstar lists?

No idea - don't play tournaments for the most part - Equally valid - how causal games have won in the first turn or two by Wave Serpent spam?

Well, you can measure tournaments from people who are there and record or recall what happened.

With casual games, I could say 'none' and there's literally no way of tracking one way or another.

Without this data, you can't really say whether it's OP or not, it's just based on feeling (note my feeling is that it is overturned, too good). With tournament data, we DO see Helldrakes being taken, and is usually the only (non token) presence CSM have allied to Daemons. We have some evidence there. I similarly expect Wave Serpents to occupy a similar role and make often appearances.

I'll let tournament players answer if it shows up lots or a little - the difficulty with this particular vehicle is that the Eldar don't get another DT so for their mandatory Troops choice - unless you go for loads of Jetbikes then its pretty much a no brainer I think? So it should be in tournament lists I should think?

Are not a lot of Eldar lists based around this? 4x 5 Dire Avengers in Wave Serpent with scatter lasers, Shuriken-cannon and holo fields

It's not broken, just too good/above the curve. Broken implies something else, and thigs can be broken without even being too good (eg ATSKNF) because they 'break' normal game interaction, or make it a non game (D-weapons), neither of which the Wave Serpent does; if it did it would be over Deathstars in tournament choice.

Maybe but "broken" means to me "its too good" for the game...

 Mr Morden wrote:
Maybe but "broken" means to me "its too good" for the game...

They are distinct as broken can be used for something that is too bad, as well as separately having game breaking bugs/interactions, or makes the game degenerate. The Wave Serpent is none of those things so cannot be described as broken.

Semantics.

Broken as in "not working properly". ATSKNF, Look out Sir!, Mandrakes and Serpents are all, imo, broken. And for different reasons.

A rule that ignores a vast part of the game´s mechanics and applies to nearly half the armies, a rule that goes silly really fast and breaks the narrative and the suspension of unbelief, a unit so bad it gives the other player an unfair advantage, and a unit so good it gives you an unfair advantage.

All of them should be fixed one way or another.

Breng77 wrote:So comparing them to other super OP things makes them not OP? Both serpents and Deathstars are bad for the game and both need fixing.

Daba wrote:Has a serpent spam list actually won any majors? Compared with Deathstar lists?

This was my point, deathstars win competitive formats where people are playing to win. Serpent spam doesn't. It's obviously not on the same level.

Breng77 wrote:For instance I could take a spirit seer as my lone hq, and field a wraith guard squad in one of this six serpents, or a fire dragon squad, or dark reapers, etc. In fact a serpent list at 1500 points will have more flexibility than most Death Stars because dropping say one serpent does not impact it as much as dropping parts of the star will.

It's funny that is what most competitive lists do, but then they are not running 5-6 serpents anymore. ie they start dropping serpents to take units that are competitive and offer options that a list full of serpents doesn't.

Mr Morden wrote: how causal games have won in the first turn or two by Wave Serpent spam?

I can understand this because I have done it to people before. Neither one of us enjoyed the game, but they wanted to play. The vast majority of these games though the opponent has zero tactics in mind, they have a random assortment of models, varying degrees of rule knowledge usually none, and just play terrible. This is where a lot of the hate for competitive units comes from I think. No one forgets getting tabled and they will always try to find and excuse. It had to be the other army it was over powered.

So like win the game maybe? And this is different to most other people's Troops choices how? The difference is each squad they can come with a fast, powerful, well protected gunship..............

You can't blame a player for taking their best troop choices.

MasterOfGaunts wrote:Really cant believe how people could think the Serpent is all fine... must be the eldarland-tauland-Syndrome...

no, the codex and the serpent is all fine... youre just a poor general, youre list is poor or whatever else if you cant beat eldar. It isnt that hard. Dont blame the codex... Its just that every smart general tends to like eldar and therefore some people think its the codex... And you know, just the smartest Generals can make it to the last rounds of a tournament. See the logic?

Do you also think the hellturkey is fine?

It is almost as if the latest codex tends to do well. Aside from the abomination that is DA every new codex has had its fun in 6th. CSM had to wait for the hellturkey faq, but before that it was a terrible unit that no one would touch. Nids might be the next DA, but people are still building lists. So I'd wait and see. Do we all get to cry when your codex gets updated? Just wait a month or two when IG lists start pounding out the top 8s.

da001 wrote:Looking at the stats, most people know the unit is broken: 112 dakkanauts already proposed a way to fix it. And the vast majority focused on the Shield.

Most people are generally not competitive or even semi competitive in their list building. Playing against a semi competitive list like serpent spam with your fluff list generally doesn't end well. It usually leads to a lot of resentment to make up for the players own faults.

Are not a lot of Eldar lists based around this? 4x 5 Dire Avengers in Wave Serpent with scatter lasers, Shuriken-cannon and holo fields

Nope, drop the shuri cannons as its a waste of points, and you only need 1-3 for competitive lists. You can't fit in a deathstar if you take 6.

da001 wrote:Broken as in "not working properly". ATSKNF, Look out Sir!, Mandrakes and Serpents are all, imo, broken. And for different reasons.

A rule that ignores a vast part of the game´s mechanics and applies to nearly half the armies, a rule that goes silly really fast and breaks the narrative and the suspension of unbelief, a unit so bad it gives the other player an unfair advantage, and a unit so good it gives you an unfair advantage.

All of them should be fixed one way or another.

Hey we agree on something! but probably not the way you would think. There are many USR's in this game that need to be nerfed. ATSKNF, Ignores Cover, Sv re-rolls to name a couple. These rules generally promote strategies that are not fun for either player. When you can outright ignore basic rules of the game and deny your opponent their armies special touch you're not promoting a fun gaming environment. A great example, White scares are a great army now, space marines are actually seeing top 8s again. Then you factor in that silly =I= book and you realize every player can screw white scars over for less than 50 points. What a great way to play! Or the general annoyance of people everywhere tau and their markerlights/buffmander. What other army can in general remove so many USRs from an opposing army or give so many to their own? It's just bad rules design.

Now the serpent shield does have ignores cover which I agree is silly. Anything with the possibility of firing 7 S7 shots doesn't need ignores cover. Glancing other vehicles to death is too easy, but for the most part no one takes vehicles with less than Av12 anymore except fliers so it's not that game breaking. It is a problem though since it hamstrings game design in the future. Everytime GW writes in one of these USR's that ignores rules they are promoting the type of play that casual players don't like.

I don't think the serpent is over powered, I think its a very competitive choice for eldar. Every army has competitive choices though. The fact is most players are casual and don't enjoy playing or building competitive lists. If you're about to play an eldar player and he pulls out 6 serpents. Let him know you want a friendly game. Its the same if you come across any of the deathstars, you don't have to play against these people or they can play a more casual friendly list.

Wasn't that way in our area. Screamerstars were in play well before Tau and Eldar.

 Goldphish wrote:
(...)

da001 wrote:Looking at the stats, most people know the unit is broken: 112 dakkanauts already proposed a way to fix it. And the vast majority focused on the Shield.

Most people are generally not competitive or even semi competitive in their list building. Playing against a semi competitive list like serpent spam with your fluff list generally doesn't end well. It usually leads to a lot of resentment to make up for the players own faults.

I see two words in your sentence that draw my attention:
1) Resentment created by something (a game) intended to be fun.
2) Searching for the "fault" in either fluffy or competitive players to explain the "resent".

I enjoy competitions but I do not think 40k is made for that, so I do not go to 40k tournaments. I play "for fun" like in "fun for both players, no matter who wins". I particularly enjoy tight games and using fluffy lists. I will like to play against an Eldar player without the absolute lack of balance between my fluffy list and a competitive list. Either the other player does not take Serpents, Wraithknights, Seerstars and the like or I am forced to play "competitive" choices instead of those I enjoy (like heldrake spam or screamerstar or centurion star or whatever boring, lame, copy-pasted "star" from the Internet). Either way, one of the two players must use a list he doesn´t like. And buy models he doesn´t like. And even play a game in a way he doesn´t like. I assure you I see no point in wasting my small amount of spare time in a game that generates resentment in me, no matter whose fault it is.

I don´t think this is fair, and thus I advocate for house ruling ("fixing") clearly broken units. Heldrakes, Screamerstars... and Serpents. As you said, the Serpent Alpha Strike is not fun. And I don´t think it is the other player´s "fault" for fielding an army no longer "competitive". This resentment is caused by a problem in the game itself, a problem that can be easily fixed. A problem the creators acknowledged and left to the players to solve.

This way both players can take whatever list they want, and still enjoy a tight, interesting battle, instead of the game reduced to Star Unit A Vs Star Unit B, which I (as many other players) find boring to no end.

da001 wrote:Broken as in "not working properly". ATSKNF, Look out Sir!, Mandrakes and Serpents are all, imo, broken. And for different reasons.

A rule that ignores a vast part of the game´s mechanics and applies to nearly half the armies, a rule that goes silly really fast and breaks the narrative and the suspension of unbelief, a unit so bad it gives the other player an unfair advantage, and a unit so good it gives you an unfair advantage.

All of them should be fixed one way or another.

Hey we agree on something! but probably not the way you would think. There are many USR's in this game that need to be nerfed. ATSKNF, Ignores Cover, Sv re-rolls to name a couple. These rules generally promote strategies that are not fun for either player. When you can outright ignore basic rules of the game and deny your opponent their armies special touch you're not promoting a fun gaming environment. A great example, White scares are a great army now, space marines are actually seeing top 8s again. Then you factor in that silly =I= book and you realize every player can screw white scars over for less than 50 points. What a great way to play! Or the general annoyance of people everywhere tau and their markerlights/buffmander. What other army can in general remove so many USRs from an opposing army or give so many to their own? It's just bad rules design.

Now the serpent shield does have ignores cover which I agree is silly. Anything with the possibility of firing 7 S7 shots doesn't need ignores cover. Glancing other vehicles to death is too easy, but (...)

I don´t think we agree on something, we agree on everything

You are just not using the word "overpowered", you are using expressions such as "highly competitive" and "best choice" for the Serpent. You are deliberately trying to avoid the word "overpowered" using synonyms.

for the most part no one takes vehicles with less than Av12 anymore except fliers so it's not that game breaking. It is a problem though since it hamstrings game design in the future. Everytime GW writes in one of these USR's that ignores rules they are promoting the type of play that casual players don't like.

Well said!

And why does "nobody" uses AV12 vehicles? Because stuff like the Serpent. By fixing the Serpent (and the rest of broken units), all of a sudden lots and lots of new units and lists are suddenly playable again, perhaps not at tournament levels, but enough for casual games even against a competitive player using the best possible list.

It is all a matter of how much overpowered are "good lists" against "bad lists". I think the gap is too big right now.

I don't think the serpent is over powered, I think its a very competitive choice for eldar. Every army has competitive choices though. The fact is most players are casual and don't enjoy playing or building competitive lists. If you're about to play an eldar player and he pulls out 6 serpents. Let him know you want a friendly game. Its the same if you come across any of the deathstars, you don't have to play against these people or they can play a more casual friendly list.

But I don´t want that. I want to play against your Serpents, no matter how many of them, with a normal list, and still be able to give you a good fight.

I don´t want you to be forced to choose between not being able to play with a casual player without causing resentment and not fielding the Serpents you bought and paint. And I don´t want me to be forced to choose between getting heldrakes/screamerstar and being unable to play against a competitive player.

I think the best solution I've seen here is to swap the take-all-comers gunship with megashields with the humble little transport sat in the heavy support slot.

it's as if when they were holding interviews for who will do what...;

writers - "okay, so who's going to be the dedicated anti-tank of the army?"
Fire Dragons: "well we've got melt-"
Wave Serpent: "I'll deal with the tanks!!!!"
Fire Dragons: "bu-"
Writers: "excellent! now, who will be the hard to kill behemoth of the army?"
Wraithknight: "well, I happen to be toughness eigh-"
Waveserpent: "I'll downgrade all penetrating hits to glancing hits, and then ignore them on a 4+ anyway!!!!"
Wraithknight: "but I-"
Writers: "Brilliant! now, who will be the fast moving shooting unit of the army?"
Warp Spiders: "We can move at an incrdib-"
Wave Serpent: "I WILL MOVE AS FAST AS POSSIBLE AND STILL SHOOT AND GET A COVER SAVE TOO!"
Warp Spiders: "But we're th-"
Writers: "okay waveserpent, you can do that too. so who's going to be the dedicated transport of the army?"
Falcon: "well I'm a reasonably balanced uni-"
Waveserpent: "I have the largest troop capacity and more guns than you!! I'll carry the troops!!"
Falcon: "I think that's a little unf-"
Writers: "okay Waveserpent, you get that too. now, who will be the guy to get linebreaker? It can't be you waveser-"
Waveserpent: "I will dump a unit that has done nothing but ride around all game in the opponents deployment zone, contest their objective and take linebreaker!!!!!"

honestly, I'm surprised the waveserpent isn't a flier with hover mode.

 Daba wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
Maybe but "broken" means to me "its too good" for the game...

They are distinct as broken can be used for something that is too bad, as well as separately having game breaking bugs/interactions, or makes the game degenerate. The Wave Serpent is none of those things so cannot be described as broken.

I call it broken for reasons I have already said you call it something else - nothing changes the fact that its too good -hence broken.

Even by your defination Wave Serpent spam often makes the game less fun - hence degnerates the game..........

da001 worte "Lots of great stuuff" and exalted in repsonse to the Goldphish - which seemed to be mostly you must play a competative list or you are playing wrong..........Oh and playing with the hardest units makes you a better player?

da001 wrote:I see two words in your sentence that draw my attention:
1) Resentment created by something (a game) intended to be fun.
2) Searching for the "fault" in either fluffy or competitive players to explain the "resent".

I should of clarified my statement better. Player A brings a non competitive list against Player B who is using a semi or even a very competitive list. Neither side will have fun in this engagement more than likely. Player A will more than likely get boarded and what else can he say except the other army was obviously over powered! We should nerf it all! or he could re-evaluate what happened and what he can do next time to make sure both players have a good time.

I enjoy competitions but I do not think 40k is made for that, so I do not go to 40k tournaments. I play "for fun" like in "fun for both players, no matter who wins". I particularly enjoy tight games and using fluffy lists. I will like to play against an Eldar player without the absolute lack of balance between my fluffy list and a competitive list. Either the other player does not take Serpents, Wraithknights, Seerstars and the like or I am forced to play "competitive" choices instead of those I enjoy (like heldrake spam or screamerstar or centurion star or whatever boring, lame, copy-pasted "star" from the Internet). Either way, one of the two players must use a list he doesn´t like. And buy models he doesn´t like. And even play a game in a way he doesn´t like. I assure you I see no point in wasting my small amount of spare time in a game that generates resentment in me, no matter whose fault it is.

This is the exact attitude I am talking about with a casual player. You want to play non competitive lists in a game that has competitive formats. You can't expect every unit in the game to be equal or balanced and players will always find the best units / unit combinations. It's a two player game and at some point you have to ask the other person what they think is fun. They might like playing semi competitive games where as you might want to play non competitive games. Lowering the standard for everyone just because you don't find competitive formats any fun seems wrong.

I don´t think this is fair, and thus I advocate for house ruling ("fixing") clearly broken units. Heldrakes, Screamerstars... and Serpents. As you said, the Serpent Alpha Strike is not fun. And I don´t think it is the other player´s "fault" for fielding an army no longer "competitive". This resentment is caused by a problem in the game itself, a problem that can be easily fixed. A problem the creators acknowledged and left to the players to solve.

This way both players can take whatever list they want, and still enjoy a tight, interesting battle, instead of the game reduced to Star Unit A Vs Star Unit B, which I (as many other players) find boring to no end.

This solution only works if everyone in your meta agrees to it, but what happens when you have that one guy or new players want to join in? Their idea of fun might not mesh with yours.What they think is fair might be different.

You are just not using the word "overpowered", you are using expressions such as "highly competitive" and "best choice" for the Serpent. You are deliberately trying to avoid the word "overpowered" using synonyms.

You got me here! Good job, but really it's because very few units in this game are really overpowered. It's usually a combination of units that make something over powered.

And why does "nobody" uses AV12 vehicles? Because stuff like the Serpent. By fixing the Serpent (and the rest of broken units), all of a sudden lots and lots of new units and lists are suddenly playable again, perhaps not at tournament levels, but enough for casual games even against a competitive player using the best possible list.

Because guns exist in this game and the hull point system is dumb. A tank with decent armor and save happens to be good, who would of guessed. How many other vehicles have decent armor and a save? oh fliers.

It is all a matter of how much overpowered are "good lists" against "bad lists". I think the gap is too big right now.

There will always be a gap, unless you take the power level into the dirt non competitive lists just won't win often against competitive lists. It's just kinda how it works.

But I don´t want that. I want to play against your Serpents, no matter how many of them, with a normal list, and still be able to give you a good fight.

Then bring a competitive list. I play Dark Angels, I don't even have a competitive list. I still understand that it isn't my opponents fault that his <insert netlist> rolled me. Making every codex as terrible as mine though would just make for really boring games.

I don´t want you to be forced to choose between not being able to play with a casual player without causing resentment and not fielding the Serpents you bought and paint. And I don´t want me to be forced to choose between getting heldrakes/screamerstar and being unable to play against a competitive player.

Then don't play the game? Find people that want to play the game the same as you or don't get angry when you get tabled.

which seemed to be mostly you must play a competative list or you are playing wrong..........Oh and playing with the hardest units makes you a better player?

I never said anything of the kind good sir. I said that playing non competitive lists against a competitive list and then complaining about losing is wrong.

Playing with the hardest units, I assume you mean strongest, doesn't mean anything. What about the guy who picked up <whatever> and decided he was going to build an army just because of that unit. If it happens to be the riptide, or hellturkey, or serpent, or whatever can you really fault him? Some of the strongest units are also some of the coolest.

Then bring a competitive list. I play Dark Angels, I don't even have a competitive list. I still understand that it isn't my opponents fault that his <insert netlist> rolled me. Making every codex as terrible as mine though would just make for really boring games.

Making every Codex (and Codex Unit) viable would make for better games than the present situation where some units (and Codexs) are better - why defend this as you seem to be doing - it only promotes the usage of certain units. Why should the DA codex be bad and others ok and some really good - I can't understand why anyone would want or defend this situation?

Yes by all means the game style should be discussed with the players involved - but again if no one is having fun because one list is default poor and the other default good - that's a problem with the units and the codex not just the players?

The problem is currently that everyone seems to agree that certain units are too good for the points (broken, cheese, whatever you want to call it) but any attempt to bring them into line with other units is seen an attack on "competitive" players who need these OP units? Otherwise apart form the discussion about how and which units to change - why else do a few people defend them and scream nerf - rather than balance?

You can't expect every unit in the game to be equal or balanced and players will always find the best units / unit combinations.

Thats right, but why dont fix Units that has been identified as too strong for their costs relative to the other ones? In this special case, the serpent.

Mr Morden wrote:Making every Codex (and Codex Unit) viable would make for better games than the present situation where some units (and Codexs) are better - why defend this as you seem to be doing - it only promotes the usage of certain units.

I would love it if GW could write better, but I am not GW. I just play within the confines of their game.

Why should the DA codex be bad and others ok and some really good - I can't understand why anyone would want or defend this situation?

I never said that I'd like for some units to be better or worse. I'd love for every unit to be as good as the serpent, but overall the eldar codex has just as many glaring problems as any other codex. Eldar just have a few units that are really good in the current meta.

Yes by all means the game style should be discussed with the players involved - but again if no one is having fun because one list is default poor and the other default good - that's a problem with the units and the codex not just the players?

If I run an Eldar list of all guardians. Should I be competitive? That is really what you're arguing for.

The problem is currently that everyone seems to agree that certain units are too good for the points (broken, cheese, whatever you want to call it) but any attempt to bring them into line with other units is seen an attack on "competitive" players who need these OP units? Otherwise apart form the discussion about how and which units to change - why else do a few people defend them and scream nerf - rather than balance?

Because lets say that you make enough noise and GW decides to nerf wave serpents. Then eldar players will switch to mass warp spiders or whatever and then it will be that unit that's overpowered. Any kind of nerf needs to be justified. It has to have an impact on the overall game.

Why don't we see posts about how a unit that most armies can take, and is a battle brother, happens to give almost every worth while USR to any unit it is combined with?

Why hasn't anyone just said, take away the serpents ignores cover and leave it at that. Now its just a platform that avg 8 shots a turn and you get all your saves against it.

MasterOfGaunts wrote: Thats right, but why dont fix Units that has been identified as too strong for their costs relative to the other ones? In this special case, the serpent.

There will always be units that are stronger than their points costs. I would love it if GW made all units this way, but they don't. Sooner or later people figure it out whats units work better and that's the unit that gets played everywhere and gets splashed on the internet.

Games were made to be fun and competitive otherwise we wouldn't keep score. I think it's fun to play against strong lists because it makes you think about your list building. You have to try and find unit combinations that work better. Sure we could all just play our favorite units and have a beer and pretzel game and it would be fun for a while. but some people like to play competitively. Sooner or later I am going try and make my army better, and I am preparing for you to do the same. This type of mentality leads to netlisting because there will always be an optimal list.

 Goldphish wrote:

da001 wrote:I see two words in your sentence that draw my attention:
1) Resentment created by something (a game) intended to be fun.
2) Searching for the "fault" in either fluffy or competitive players to explain the "resent".

I should of clarified my statement better. Player A brings a non competitive list against Player B who is using a semi or even a very competitive list. Neither side will have fun in this engagement more than likely. Player A will more than likely get boarded and what else can he say except the other army was obviously over powered! We should nerf it all! or he could re-evaluate what happened and what he can do next time to make sure both players have a good time.

I can think of two perfectly viable solutions after the re-evaluation:

Option 1: The casual player (who is partly responsible for the "fun" factor in the game) may buy a set of rather expensive competitive units and create a competitive combo, even if he dislikes the models or the background of the units. He may then waste a lot of time painting models he doesn´t like and, if the meta doesn´t change, then finally be able to play a list he doesn´t like. This involve months of work and lots of money for this player.

Option 2: The competitive player (who is also partly responsible for the "fun" factor in the game) may openly admit that the unit X is overpowered, and accept a minor change during a game against an obvious fluffy list. For example, if you want to use lots of Serpents against a normal list, the change "once shot the Shield is lost" is enough. It doesn´t turn the Serpent into a bad unit, at all. This takes five seconds and nobody is forced to waste money or time in something he does not like.

Resentment appears when, while trying to reach a compromise, it is obvious that a person thinks the other part should spend money and time to get into his "superior" solution, when there is no need. It costs you nothing to fix the Serpents.

I enjoy competitions but I do not think 40k is made for that, so I do not go to 40k tournaments. I play "for fun" like in "fun for both players, no matter who wins". I particularly enjoy tight games and using fluffy lists. I will like to play against an Eldar player without the absolute lack of balance between my fluffy list and a competitive list. Either the other player does not take Serpents, Wraithknights, Seerstars and the like or I am forced to play "competitive" choices instead of those I enjoy (like heldrake spam or screamerstar or centurion star or whatever boring, lame, copy-pasted "star" from the Internet). Either way, one of the two players must use a list he doesn´t like. And buy models he doesn´t like. And even play a game in a way he doesn´t like. I assure you I see no point in wasting my small amount of spare time in a game that generates resentment in me, no matter whose fault it is.

This is the exact attitude I am talking about with a casual player. You want to play non competitive lists in a game that has competitive formats.

It hasn´t. GW has made a lot of efforts to make clear the game is not intended for competitive purposes.

You can't expect every unit in the game to be equal or balanced and players will always find the best units / unit combinations.

I am not expecting that. There is but a handful of broken units.

It is all about the size of the gap between "bad lists" and "good lists". There will always be a gap. It just happens that it is too big right now.

It's a two player game and at some point you have to ask the other person what they think is fun. They might like playing semi competitive games where as you might want to play non competitive games.

I enjoy competitive games, as long as both players have a chance of winning.

If the game is one sided, it is not fair competition. I don´t enjoy unfair competitions. It doesn´t matter if I win or I lost, I just do not enjoy it. My defeats are useless because I learn nothing and my victories are hollow because I feel like cheating. That´s the reason I usually put " " in "competitive" players. Competition is worthless without balance.

Lowering the standard for everyone just because you don't find competitive formats any fun seems wrong.

It is not just "me": the majority of the players are casual, not competitive. You said so recently, and polls are quite clear in this regard. The guy with the 4 Heldrakes that insists they are not overpowered is seen as TFG, because he can potentially turn a game into a drama.

And it is not "lowering the standard". It is raising the standard: fixing the game making it fair for both players. That´s what real competition is about: see who is a better player in a fair match.

I don´t think this is fair, and thus I advocate for house ruling ("fixing") clearly broken units. Heldrakes, Screamerstars... and Serpents. As you said, the Serpent Alpha Strike is not fun. And I don´t think it is the other player´s "fault" for fielding an army no longer "competitive". This resentment is caused by a problem in the game itself, a problem that can be easily fixed. A problem the creators acknowledged and left to the players to solve.

This way both players can take whatever list they want, and still enjoy a tight, interesting battle, instead of the game reduced to Star Unit A Vs Star Unit B, which I (as many other players) find boring to no end.

This solution only works if everyone in your meta agrees to it, but what happens when you have that one guy or new players want to join in? Their idea of fun might not mesh with yours.What they think is fair might be different.

You are right. That´s the difficult part: you declare heldrakes overpowered, fix them in a group, and eventually meet someone who just bought 4 heldrakes. And claims they are not overpowered, just strong.

Time and patience are good tools. And a lot of talking and negotiation.

What I find completely unfair is that the rest of the players (the majority) should buy and paint a lot of new stuff they don´t like just to play with the 4-heldrakes guy, or accept that they are somehow "worse players" because they cannot defeat his list.

You are just not using the word "overpowered", you are using expressions such as "highly competitive" and "best choice" for the Serpent. You are deliberately trying to avoid the word "overpowered" using synonyms.

You got me here! Good job, but really it's because very few units in this game are really overpowered. It's usually a combination of units that make something over powered.

I think we all know some units that are "too good", either alone or when working with others.

(...)

It is all a matter of how much overpowered are "good lists" against "bad lists". I think the gap is too big right now.

There will always be a gap, unless you take the power level into the dirt non competitive lists just won't win often against competitive lists. It's just kinda how it works.

The size of the gap is what matters. It is not fixing every unit, just a handful of them.

But I don´t want that. I want to play against your Serpents, no matter how many of them, with a normal list, and still be able to give you a good fight.

Then bring a competitive list.

Look at the bolded part. You are asking me to buy and paint units I don´t like in order to play. I am not asking you to pay more money or do anything, I am asking you to forfeit an advantage based on fairness

I play Dark Angels, I don't even have a competitive list. I still understand that it isn't my opponents fault that his <insert netlist> rolled me. Making every codex as terrible as mine though would just make for really boring games.

The Dark Angels codex is not terrible. It is quite good. It has lots of options and fun. Games are boring only if one-sided.

The only reason you think otherwise is because you are only thinking on a handful of completely broken lists. If Serpents, Screamerstars and the rest are fixed, you will suddenly be able to play Dark Angels the way you want. Tournaments see only, how many, ten different lists? Fifteen? By fixing what is broken, we all win.

I don´t want you to be forced to choose between not being able to play with a casual player without causing resentment and not fielding the Serpents you bought and paint. And I don´t want me to be forced to choose between getting heldrakes/screamerstar and being unable to play against a competitive player.

Then don't play the game? Find people that want to play the game the same as you or don't get angry when you get tabled.

Not playing the game because a handful of players like one-sided games? Nonsense. The other solutions are ok though.

which seemed to be mostly you must play a competative list or you are playing wrong..........Oh and playing with the hardest units makes you a better player?

I never said anything of the kind good sir.

Neither did I said the first part. You got my quotes mixed with another person, Mr Morden. It is quite confussing if you start "da001 said" and then put Mr Morden´s words.

I said that playing non competitive lists against a competitive list and then complaining about losing is wrong.

Sure. But then again many competitive players claim that "X is not overpowered" just to get players to play with. And then not-competitive players feel cheated.

It is something you just (sort of) admitted doing a couple of posts before (the "you got me there!" part), and it is common. In the four heldrake example aforementioned, the heldrake player will tipically get no games from many players, except when he finds a newb who can be tricked into a game by claiming that Heldrakes are not that overpowered. Cue arguments, resentment and senseless drama. People complain because they feel cheated.

Playing with the hardest units, I assume you mean strongest, doesn't mean anything. What about the guy who picked up <whatever> and decided he was going to build an army just because of that unit. If it happens to be the riptide, or hellturkey, or serpent, or whatever can you really fault him? Some of the strongest units are also some of the coolest.

To begin with, that´s rare. Most players spamming the few broken units do it because winning, even when it is achieved using unfair advantages, means a lot to them. But I do know some! And you know what? They are the first in proposing a way to field the units they like without causing a drama. I know a Heldrake guy that uses the rule: "a flyer can use a template weapon only when hovering", and only uses a 180º arc from the mouth. And I saw an Elysian fluffy player (lots of veterans in chimeras, stormtroopers and vendettas) to nerf the Vendettas in different ways back in 5th.

Imagine you go to a place and meet one stranger. You look at his list and there are two options: either he is using a competitive list or he is not. What stops you for accepting a nerf in the Serpents when playing with the second list? What´s the point of winning with an obviously superior list?

Competition is only worthy when you prove your skill against the other player´s on an equal footing. Winning means nothing otherwise.

Just for fun, I decided to play around with the "Bring more anti-tank weapons" statement that was mentioned earlier with the assumption that the opponent was playing Space Marines.

Wave Serpents have 3 HP, 12/12/10, 4+ cover if they move (and are in the open) and can downgrade pens to glances on a 2+ (if I'm incorrect, someone please let me know). With the assumption that the entire Space Marine army can shoot at one and the Wave Serpent does not fire the shield, you'd need the following (on average) amounts of the traditional SM anti-tank weapons to glance out a Wave Serpent in 1 turn:

18 Missile Launchers
(this would be the equivalent of 3 Dev Squads and 6 Tactical Squads).



14 Lascannons
(still 6 Tacticals, but only 2 Dev squads).



Now, obviously this would a perfectly average roll, which gives the opportunity for different results (the Marine Player could hit with everything while the Eldar player could flub his holofields), but in general, in order for anti-tank weapons to really work on a wave serpent, you'd need a staggering amount of them, or pray that you can tease out the Serpent Shield shots and hope you have enough weapons left over after he's done.

I can math out other weapons if people want, but it turns out that depending on the venue, Grav weapons seem to be the best solution. I say "depending on the venue" because they can kill a Serpent in two immobilize results (or bikes can immobilize with 1, and then assault and krak/meltabomb it) if your venue ruled that grav weapons ignore vehicle cover saves.

 Goldphish wrote:

Mr Morden wrote:Making every Codex (and Codex Unit) viable would make for better games than the present situation where some units (and Codexs) are better - why defend this as you seem to be doing - it only promotes the usage of certain units.

I would love it if GW could write better, but I am not GW. I just play within the confines of their game.

Why should the DA codex be bad and others ok and some really good - I can't understand why anyone would want or defend this situation?

I never said that I'd like for some units to be better or worse. I'd love for every unit to be as good as the serpent, but overall the eldar codex has just as many glaring problems as any other codex. Eldar just have a few units that are really good in the current meta.

Yes by all means the game style should be discussed with the players involved - but again if no one is having fun because one list is default poor and the other default good - that's a problem with the units and the codex not just the players?

If I run an Eldar list of all guardians. Should I be competitive? That is really what you're arguing for.

The problem is currently that everyone seems to agree that certain units are too good for the points (broken, cheese, whatever you want to call it) but any attempt to bring them into line with other units is seen an attack on "competitive" players who need these OP units? Otherwise apart form the discussion about how and which units to change - why else do a few people defend them and scream nerf - rather than balance?

Because lets say that you make enough noise and GW decides to nerf wave serpents. Then eldar players will switch to mass warp spiders or whatever and then it will be that unit that's overpowered. Any kind of nerf needs to be justified. It has to have an impact on the overall game.

Why don't we see posts about how a unit that most armies can take, and is a battle brother, happens to give almost every worth while USR to any unit it is combined with?

Why hasn't anyone just said, take away the serpents ignores cover and leave it at that. Now its just a platform that avg 8 shots a turn and you get all your saves against it.

MasterOfGaunts wrote: Thats right, but why dont fix Units that has been identified as too strong for their costs relative to the other ones? In this special case, the serpent.

There will always be units that are stronger than their points costs. I would love it if GW made all units this way, but they don't. Sooner or later people figure it out whats units work better and that's the unit that gets played everywhere and gets splashed on the internet.

Games were made to be fun and competitive otherwise we wouldn't keep score. I think it's fun to play against strong lists because it makes you think about your list building. You have to try and find unit combinations that work better. Sure we could all just play our favorite units and have a beer and pretzel game and it would be fun for a while. but some people like to play competitively. Sooner or later I am going try and make my army better, and I am preparing for you to do the same. This type of mentality leads to netlisting because there will always be an optimal list.

Again whats with the negativity - oh we can't and shouldnot chnage anything cos it means nothing and soemthing else will just take its place.......? Thats just nonsense - if you fix the really broken things - then the universe gets better and games get closer....and likely more fun.

If you you are stuck with nothing will ever change (and we shouldn;t bother) and eventyually everyone will just play the cheese untis and be unhappy.........

nobody wrote:
(...)

I like this kind of stuff. Thank you.

I see now nobody can shed some light on this matter

 Goldphish wrote:
(...)
Because lets say that you make enough noise and GW decides to nerf wave serpents.

You are assuming that

1: GW listens to their customers and cares about the general quality of their game, carefully analizing the valuable feedback the Internet provides.
2: They only hear some things and ignore others. If they nerfed all the units everyone is asking them to nerf then lots of new lists will be usable, and the game will be vastly improved.

Then eldar players will switch to mass warp spiders or whatever and then it will be that unit that's overpowered.

Doesn´t matter. The gap will get shorter, and the game will be better.

Any kind of nerf needs to be justified. It has to have an impact on the overall game.

Yeah, we agree on that.

A nerf is justified if a unit or collection of units is so powerful it is damaging the game as a whole.

(...)
Games were made to be fun and competitive otherwise we wouldn't keep score. I think it's fun to play against strong lists because it makes you think about your list building. You have to try and find unit combinations that work better.

List building is a form of competition, which means that it is only meaningful in a balanced game.

There is no skill implied in doing a Serpent spam list. It is obvious from day one that the unit is broken. That´s not thinking or making good decisions in list building. If the game were balanced, finding the combination of units that will give you an edge (instead of a major advantage) against another player would be really noteworthy.

(...)This type of mentality leads to netlisting because there will always be an optimal list.

I disagree.

First: If the game is balanced enough there would be so much variety that any list, no matter how good, will suffer against some lists and be quite strong against another. And since casual players (the majority) will take units thinking on personal preference, there will be no way to unify the lists.

Second: It would be an improvement. If the game gets more variety and fairness, that´s good enough. Not solving a glaring problem because "if we do so another, smaller problem may appear" sounds odd.

Nobody -

That is still *far* fewer Lascannons or Missile Launchers than can take out a Land Raider.

How does it compare to Ghost Arcs, Predators, or Hammerheads?

Besides, massed s7 is what you want if you're going to shoot a Serpent to death. And with it's shield up, it doesn't have much in the way of dakka. And it melts to rear armor or melee. Honestly, Marines should be looking to drop it with Krak grenades.

Bharring wrote:
Nobody -

That is still *far* fewer Lascannons or Missile Launchers than can take out a Land Raider.

How does it compare to Ghost Arcs, Predators, or Hammerheads?

Besides, massed s7 is what you want if you're going to shoot a Serpent to death. And with it's shield up, it doesn't have much in the way of dakka. And it melts to rear armor or melee. Honestly, Marines should be looking to drop it with Krak grenades.

Land raiders are also almost twice the price, bring less overall firepower, and are much slower, as well as vulnerability to Melta. I'll happily work out the others later tonight when I'm on my desktop.

And I agree, I was mainly pointing out "bring more anti-tank" against wave serpents isn't that great of an idea.

The massed str 7 marines can bring are the stalker and riflemen dreads (there are also skyhammer stormtalons, but they are a special case for being the most likely to be able to get rear shots with their turret), and TL BS4 autocannons need a total of 20 shots to glance down a serpent. In other words, you'd need a combination of 5 stalkers or rifleman dreads to glance one down. I should point out that the following turn all those dreads are likely gone thanks to AV 12 vs 4-5 serpent shields

As far as krak grenades go, the only two units marines have that are likely to get a charge on a serpent normally are assault marines and bikes, and bikes I addressed in my prior post.


EDIT: Did you mean Ghost Ark or Annihilation Barge? The Ghost Ark is in kinda funny company there.