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.

 Zagman wrote:

1. That have easy access to them in their competitive list. Not many. Necron for example. HP Stripping is the most effective AT. I like how you conveniently ignored the discussion about AV12-.
2. It is a 60" weapon that is twinlinked the majority of the time within 36". I even supplied the statistical different. Without Twinlinking the Serpent Shield is still a phenomenal weapon. I've demonstrated this.
3. You have supplied some evidence, dismissed much more, and used your biased opinion to form a conclusion all while attacking the arguer Ad Hominem.

Oh?! So you don't compete competitively on a high level? Well, isn't that interesting. Because, the guys that do buy the plane tickets, do buy and paint competitive armies disagree with you en masse.

I agree, this argument is all about being good at understanding the implication of 7th edition changes and not being stuck in a 6th edition Wave Serpent Gunboat frame of reference. Open your mind, and stop dismissing arguments out of hand, and stop insulting those who disagree. At the least its just bad form.

Get tacitcal advice from you? Not likely. You've demonstrated a clear close minded outlook at lack of understanding of the finer points of the game and the competitive tournament scene. I will pass on your gracious and pretentious offer.

1. Necron for example do not need any kind of additional AV.
2. You did not supply any data relating the use of a non-TL Wave Serpent Shield and comparing its effectiveness to a TLSL + TLWSS within 36". If you had, it would simply point out that non-TL WSS is rubbish in comparison to the other option, even more so when a WS costs 210 points with 5DA.
3. Everyone makes mistakes, I clearly improve as ad hominem has dropped significantly and measurably since I started arguing on this forum. Evidence is facts, statistics and to an extent, logic and reason. There has been absolutely no such thing from your side of the debate.

There is zero quantification or even qualification of the supposedly über Objective Secured buff that is expected to balance the very real and mathematically proven Jink nerf.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Zagman wrote:

3. You have supplied some evidence, dismissed much more, and used your biased opinion to form a conclusion all while attacking the arguer Ad Hominem.
Oh?! So you don't compete competitively on a high level? Well, isn't that interesting. Because, the guys that do buy the plane tickets, do buy and paint competitive armies disagree with you en masse.

How could you stick those two sentences so close to each other ?

If you want to talk about Strategy and Tactics credentials, we can do that via PM but I think you should realize the top of 40K is very close to the bottom because there are so few people playing it.

morgoth wrote:


Objective Secured is something every army has, and for the price of a WS there could be 4 Rhinos with the rule on the same objective... not really an advantage to the WS is it ?

In the current MSU meta, 2+ Rhinos for each WS are very likely, so I guess the WS doesn't benefit more than others from this rule and is unlikely to Tank Shock anything out of the objectives.

Verdict: worse.

Not even close. Scoring wave serpents is the bees knees. We have a durable fast skimmer gunboat of death. As those other qualities have been changed by this edition, the major thing is that it scores. And that it BEATS other non obj secured units to score. In a malestrom of war mission, a fast skimmer obj secured transport is god. Hell, in any mission. Gone are the days of needing jetbikes to ninja objectives, when you can use a serpent to similar effect.

I remember the days of DAVU and 5 avengers camping in a falcon to score. Then we had to get out of the serpents to score...now the serpent scores so long as it was bought for guardians or avengers. As an eldar player, this is undeniably better. I really could not be happier to see eldar so strong after the dark days of our 4th ed codex in a 6th ed ruleset.

morgoth wrote:

 Zagman wrote:

1. That have easy access to them in their competitive list. Not many. Necron for example. HP Stripping is the most effective AT. I like how you conveniently ignored the discussion about AV12-.
2. It is a 60" weapon that is twinlinked the majority of the time within 36". I even supplied the statistical different. Without Twinlinking the Serpent Shield is still a phenomenal weapon. I've demonstrated this.
3. You have supplied some evidence, dismissed much more, and used your biased opinion to form a conclusion all while attacking the arguer Ad Hominem.

Oh?! So you don't compete competitively on a high level? Well, isn't that interesting. Because, the guys that do buy the plane tickets, do buy and paint competitive armies disagree with you en masse.

I agree, this argument is all about being good at understanding the implication of 7th edition changes and not being stuck in a 6th edition Wave Serpent Gunboat frame of reference. Open your mind, and stop dismissing arguments out of hand, and stop insulting those who disagree. At the least its just bad form.

Get tacitcal advice from you? Not likely. You've demonstrated a clear close minded outlook at lack of understanding of the finer points of the game and the competitive tournament scene. I will pass on your gracious and pretentious offer.

1. Necron for example do not need any kind of additional AV.
2. You did not supply any data relating the use of a non-TL Wave Serpent Shield and comparing its effectiveness to a TLSL + TLWSS within 36". If you had, it would simply point out that non-TL WSS is rubbish in comparison to the other option, even more so when a WS costs 210 points with 5DA.
3. Everyone makes mistakes, I clearly improve as ad hominem has dropped significantly and measurably since I started arguing on this forum. Evidence is facts, statistics and to an extent, logic and reason. There has been absolutely no such thing from your side of the debate.

There is zero quantification or even qualification of the supposedly über Objective Secured buff that is expected to balance the very real and mathematically proven Jink nerf.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Zagman wrote:

3. You have supplied some evidence, dismissed much more, and used your biased opinion to form a conclusion all while attacking the arguer Ad Hominem.
Oh?! So you don't compete competitively on a high level? Well, isn't that interesting. Because, the guys that do buy the plane tickets, do buy and paint competitive armies disagree with you en masse.

How could you stick those two sentences so close to each other ?

If you want to talk about Strategy and Tactics credentials, we can do that via PM but I think you should realize the top of 40K is very close to the bottom because there are so few people playing it.

1. Necron need no additional anti AV, interesting as the vast majority of their AV is... " Melta, Haywire, AP1 are decent AT weapons, the rest is usable against fake armor like AV12- and is more saturation / multitool than AT really. " Such a hypocritical position. Though, I thank you for conceding this point, although it could have been done in a more professional manner. I completely agree, massed S7 weaponry is effective AT. You also talk about such options as being readily available, yet in the majority of competitive armies they are not on or are not points effecient options with Melta being the only one uses for the armies that have it readily available.

2. Guess, I imagined writing this, "2. Yes, because 36" is such a limited range, only a 2/3 chance of hitting vs 8/9 or a 1/4 relative reduction vs Twinlinked. Obviously that makes my argument invalid, how could I have been so foolish. /Sarcasm " which was obviously in reference to a Twinkled Serpent Shield being 75% as effective as the Twinlinked Version and completely able to fire through Cover with no need to Jink return fire. Yes, a Wave Serpent costs between 185-210pts with 5DA, and including the cost of DA is irrelevent unless you are solely looking at the Wave Serpent as a Gunboad. As a Transport that is two Objective Secured unit in a highly mobile platform, still capable of filling a Gunboat role. You still have not addressed the fact that the Wave Serpent can fire at many targets with relative safety while ignoring cover with the Serpent shield with no need to Jink. And that can be done at extreme range with only a 25% loss to the Serpent Shield at ranges >36". And much of the time it is possible to Obscure 25% of the Hull while not granting cover from the TLSL and ignoring cover from the Serpent Shield. That is a 3+ Cover save behind ruins and a 0% loss in firepower vs 6th. It is a minor loss by granting cover from the Underslung Shurriken if taken.

3. Admitting your mistakes is good, although you publicly had not done so and have continued to use Ad Hominem arguments. You have been given many substantiated arguments in multiple threads and are prone to hand waving them away and not responding to them. That is the exact opposite of what you claim. You have established a repeated patter of dismissing out of turn counter arguments including statistics and logical analysis while using Ad Hominem to insult and attack the arguer. Those are both unnecessary and uncalled for.

I guess I did attack you Ad Hominem. Its hard not to after I've been repeatedly been accused of being a bad player, AntiEldar Troll. I supposed I momentarily brought my behavior on par with yours. That is a mistake and you have my apologies. I should not have used snark to insult you or insinuate you are hypocritical idiot.

Insults aside, my point stands. At least in the US, those who are demonstratively the best and most competitive players are effectively and virtually unanimously agreeing that the Wave Serpent was buffed with the transition to 7th. Now, some disagree to what extent the Jink rules apply, but where their agreement is virtually unanimous is that gaining Objective Secured is huge and outweights any negatives in the addition transition and that the potential reduction in shooting is offset with Alpha Strike resistance from being able to Jink 1st turn. And the ability to Jink while Immobilized are all huge boons. 7th edition is not 6th edition. The keys to winning have changed, and Objective Secured is huge especially in progessive scoring missions and the ability to contest and hold an enemy objective. Eldar having the most mobile Objective Secured troops in the game, and the offensive ability to kill enemy OS units while denying and holding their objectives with extremely mobile and resilient Wave Serpents is huge.

You claim superior tactical knowledge with no evidence to support that claim. You have made remarks that seem to indicate you do not play competitive 40k. At the least, it is inappropriate for you to make such unsupported grand overarching claims as to the competitive use of units without proof.

You also keep incorrectly quoting the Torrent of Fire Data. You state the top 5 armies had a 50% win rate against each other and were equal. That was not the case, the data clearly showed Eldar was superior to all others and had a significant advantage as well.

As to your comment that the bottom of 40k and the top are close, is absolutely ridiculous. There is a massive gap between the good 40k players and the bad 40k players. That is easily demonstrated with tournament results. Stratification based upon skill is readily apparent, to say otherwise based on relatively few participants is in bad form. For example, with 256 players at Nova, most of those players will be the respective best players within their local meta, and even then there are clear and repeated stratification in performance with the top players in the nation consistently performing well in a game heavily influenced by dice. There are players that continually dominate in their local Meta independent of army played and edition. A bad 40k player has virtually no chance of beating a good 40k player, that itself is evidence of a large potential gap between the top and bottom.

 Dr. Serling wrote:

Not even close. Scoring wave serpents is the bees knees. We have a durable fast skimmer gunboat of death. As those other qualities have been changed by this edition, the major thing is that it scores. And that it BEATS other non obj secured units to score. In a malestrom of war mission, a fast skimmer obj secured transport is god. Hell, in any mission. Gone are the days of needing jetbikes to ninja objectives, when you can use a serpent to similar effect.

I remember the days of DAVU and 5 avengers camping in a falcon to score. Then we had to get out of the serpents to score...now the serpent scores so long as it was bought for guardians or avengers. As an eldar player, this is undeniably better. I really could not be happier to see eldar so strong after the dark days of our 4th ed codex in a 6th ed ruleset.

Ok, so for missions with objectives, it received the slight upgrade of not having to drop the DA, like every other transport received the same slight upgrade.

How much of an impact do you think that has on the game, considering you can still be tabled when running for objectives, and having your WS on an objective means it's predictably in a spot roughly in the middle of the table where your enemy simply has to assault it ?

morgoth wrote:

 Dr. Serling wrote:

Not even close. Scoring wave serpents is the bees knees. We have a durable fast skimmer gunboat of death. As those other qualities have been changed by this edition, the major thing is that it scores. And that it BEATS other non obj secured units to score. In a malestrom of war mission, a fast skimmer obj secured transport is god. Hell, in any mission. Gone are the days of needing jetbikes to ninja objectives, when you can use a serpent to similar effect.

I remember the days of DAVU and 5 avengers camping in a falcon to score. Then we had to get out of the serpents to score...now the serpent scores so long as it was bought for guardians or avengers. As an eldar player, this is undeniably better. I really could not be happier to see eldar so strong after the dark days of our 4th ed codex in a 6th ed ruleset.

Ok, so for missions with objectives, it received the slight upgrade of not having to drop the DA, like every other transport received the same slight upgrade.

How much of an impact do you think that has on the game, considering you can still be tabled when running for objectives, and having your WS on an objective means it's predictably in a spot roughly in the middle of the table where your enemy simply has to assault it ?

Since almost every mission but purge the alien uses objectives, I would say that it has a huge impact on the game. Yes, other troop transports got obj. secured, and they got better just like the wave serpent did. You can still be tabled and it happens, but plenty of games are not "table or be tabled scenarios". The relic is in the center of the board, but other missions allow objective placement to be almost everywhere(except near the board edge or other objectives) so while it is possible that your serpent could be in the middle of the board and assaulted, that is one of many possibilities of scenario, mission, deployment, etc. Far from predictable.

 Zagman wrote:

1. Necron need no additional anti AV, interesting as the vast majority of their AV is... " Melta, Haywire, AP1 are decent AT weapons, the rest is usable against fake armor like AV12- and is more saturation / multitool than AT really. " Such a hypocritical position. Though, I thank you for conceding this point, although it could have been done in a more professional manner. I completely agree, massed S7 weaponry is effective AT. You also talk about such options as being readily available, yet in the majority of competitive armies they are not on or are not points effecient options with Melta being the only one uses for the armies that have it readily available.

2. Guess, I imagined writing this, "2. Yes, because 36" is such a limited range, only a 2/3 chance of hitting vs 8/9 or a 1/4 relative reduction vs Twinlinked. Obviously that makes my argument invalid, how could I have been so foolish. /Sarcasm " which was obviously in reference to a Twinkled Serpent Shield being 75% as effective as the Twinlinked Version and completely able to fire through Cover with no need to Jink return fire. Yes, a Wave Serpent costs between 185-210pts with 5DA, and including the cost of DA is irrelevent unless you are solely looking at the Wave Serpent as a Gunboad. As a Transport that is two Objective Secured unit in a highly mobile platform, still capable of filling a Gunboat role. You still have not addressed the fact that the Wave Serpent can fire at many targets with relative safety while ignoring cover with the Serpent shield with no need to Jink. And that can be done at extreme range with only a 25% loss to the Serpent Shield at ranges >36". And much of the time it is possible to Obscure 25% of the Hull while not granting cover from the TLSL and ignoring cover from the Serpent Shield. That is a 3+ Cover save behind ruins and a 0% loss in firepower vs 6th. It is a minor loss by granting cover from the Underslung Shurriken if taken.

3. Admitting your mistakes is good, although you publicly had not done so and have continued to use Ad Hominem arguments. You have been given many substantiated arguments in multiple threads and are prone to hand waving them away and not responding to them. That is the exact opposite of what you claim. You have established a repeated patter of dismissing out of turn counter arguments including statistics and logical analysis while using Ad Hominem to insult and attack the arguer. Those are both unnecessary and uncalled for.

I guess I did attack you Ad Hominem. Its hard not to after I've been repeatedly been accused of being a bad player, AntiEldar Troll. I supposed I momentarily brought my behavior on par with yours. That is a mistake and you have my apologies. I should not have used snark to insult you or insinuate you are hypocritical idiot.

Insults aside, my point stands. At least in the US, those who are demonstratively the best and most competitive players are effectively and virtually unanimously agreeing that the Wave Serpent was buffed with the transition to 7th. Now, some disagree to what extent the Jink rules apply, but where their agreement is virtually unanimous is that gaining Objective Secured is huge and outweights any negatives in the addition transition and that the potential reduction in shooting is offset with Alpha Strike resistance from being able to Jink 1st turn. And the ability to Jink while Immobilized are all huge boons. 7th edition is not 6th edition. The keys to winning have changed, and Objective Secured is huge especially in progessive scoring missions and the ability to contest and hold an enemy objective. Eldar having the most mobile Objective Secured troops in the game, and the offensive ability to kill enemy OS units while denying and holding their objectives with extremely mobile and resilient Wave Serpents is huge.

You claim superior tactical knowledge with no evidence to support that claim. You have made remarks that seem to indicate you do not play competitive 40k. At the least, it is inappropriate for you to make such unsupported grand overarching claims as to the competitive use of units without proof.

You also keep incorrectly quoting the Torrent of Fire Data. You state the top 5 armies had a 50% win rate against each other and were equal. That was not the case, the data clearly showed Eldar was superior to all others and had a significant advantage as well.

As to your comment that the bottom of 40k and the top are close, is absolutely ridiculous. There is a massive gap between the good 40k players and the bad 40k players. That is easily demonstrated with tournament results. Stratification based upon skill is readily apparent, to say otherwise based on relatively few participants is in bad form. For example, with 256 players at Nova, most of those players will be the respective best players within their local meta, and even then there are clear and repeated stratification in performance with the top players in the nation consistently performing well in a game heavily influenced by dice. There are players that continually dominate in their local Meta independent of army played and edition. A bad 40k player has virtually no chance of beating a good 40k player, that itself is evidence of a large potential gap between the top and bottom.

1. Err so what is your point exactly ? that you raised an exception that wasn't worth mentioning ? that you were playing around with technicalities ?

2. Extreme range being 36" minus about 3" of hull so let's say within 33" of your enemy. awesome. sounds like one of them long-range weapons really does.

3. Yes, admitting your mistakes is a great thing.

I played RTS competitively, games in which tactical and strategical experience is won at an incredibly faster rate because of the speed of the games, I don't think anyone playing 40K can have an edge on that.

The Torrent of Fire Data, if you care to look at it in detail as I did, shows that the top 5 armies had a 50% win rate against each other - and it's off-topic.

There is always a massive gap between the good and the bad, and that gap is related to the number of people participating in that activity, and how competitive that activity is.

Hint: a barrier of 600 bucks to get a competitive army, plus assembly and painting is going to remove most of the people even interested in competition.

In other words, the people you look up to are "the best among a few thousand people who do play 40K competitively".
And from your own account, you're probably "the best among a few hundred people who do play 40K competitively".

Congratulations to them and to you, but in my book that may be just as good as being top Diamond in SC2, I've done that so I don't really feel the #1 WH40K player is someone I can't trade advice with.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dr. Serling wrote:

Since almost every mission but purge the alien uses objectives, I would say that it has a huge impact on the game. Yes, other troop transports got obj. secured, and they got better just like the wave serpent did. You can still be tabled and it happens, but plenty of games are not "table or be tabled scenarios". The relic is in the center of the board, but other missions allow objective placement to be almost everywhere(except near the board edge or other objectives) so while it is possible that your serpent could be in the middle of the board and assaulted, that is one of many possibilities of scenario, mission, deployment, etc. Far from predictable.

So, how exactly do you think Objective Secured favors the WS more than other DTs ?

Other DT's are not fast skimmers with durability or firepower to match.

Oh you mean, like before, nothing changed ?

That's what I thought.

If anything, OS transports favor other armies with cheaper DTs who can afford to spam them as a secondary objective hugger.

Let alone the point-effectiveness.

I think a lot of you people are confusing these two things:

Dedicated Transports became a lot more useful with v7.

and

The Wave Serpent became better with v7.


Clearly if DTs are more relevant this edition, the WS will still make the cut, more because of its DT capacity than its qualities.

That, however, does not prevent it from being worse.


I can't imagine how crazy it would've been without the Jink nerf... that would've been ... Eldar OP, for real this time

Since armies' win rates against each other in 6th is being brought up.

Here you will find the final chart of 6th ed win results. Taken from Torrent of Fire. Here is the full article. Read the charts by moving along the top until you find the army in question, and then move down along the left-hand column to see their win % against other armies. This is win % over time.

Top five armies win against each other 50% of the time only if you consider a maximum of a 9% deviation. Eldar, Tau, and Daemons were closest to each other, and Daemons still lagged behind ~3% on Tau and ~6% on Eldar.

What this means is, in 6th edition, a coin flip between which armies of the top 5 fought each other by purely statistical results would still see Eldar win.

@Obsidiankatana,

I have read that article and written a conclusion on it:
Here's my conclusion based on your data:

Ludovic wrote:
5 Armies are doing good at the expense of all the others.

Against three of those armies, the Eldar is slightly stronger (51% on average).

The SM have been improving a lot (new codex maybe?), still at 58% win for the Eldar on average, but clearly decreasing, and probably around 54% at the far right of the graph.

It shows that there are a lot of armies feeling the pain of a non-competitive codex, or maybe even non-competitive players.

In my opinion, the top 5 codex are very well balanced against each other, with the worst offender (Eldar) at an average of 51% within the winners' pool, which is very close to the other 4's average (SM 46% Tau 52% Necron 49% Demons 49.75%).

It shows that the Eldar are mostly OP against the non-competitive armies that fare bad against mostly every other army out there, which is certainly a nice-to-have but completely useless in a tournament, where clearly the top 5 Codex seem to be soon tied, and the other armies better wait for another codex or a game-changing something.

It will be *very* interesting to see whether 7th ed keeps that balance or breaks it. or even forges a new one.

If you disagree with my analysis, by all means let's discuss that, in PM or on that ToF article, or in another thread if you'd like.

This one is supposed to be about WS only.

morgoth wrote:

Oh, I hardly care about 6th ed data. New edition makes it irrelevant.

I've made my remarks about Wave Serpents, and they were hand-waved away for being opinions or baseless due to lack of data. My position doesn't change. But for the sake of a recap:

Wave Serpents can no longer go wherever they want, whenever they want, and maintain durability with maximum firepower. In this, they were nerfed.

Wave Serpents are now more durable when taking fire, infinitely more so on turn one or when not moving, serve the role of a transport better, and are one of a very small selection (comparatively across the resources of all armies) of extremely maneuverable, survivable, objective secured scoring units. In this, they were buffed.

There can be no inarguable conclusion on whether or not the overall Wave Serpent was nerfed or buffed. We don't have the time, nor the statistical data to make that call for either case of the debate. We can only formulate informed opinions based on the information we have and our own personal experiences. My findings are as posted, and my overall conclusion is that the Wave Serpent is better. I find that the benefits it received in 7th outweigh the drawbacks imposed by 7th.

there are 3 dedicated transports for troops which have an armour value better than 12: Ghost Arks, land raiders (dark angels and black templars) and Battlewagons (until saturday, when nobs won't be troops any more.)

so your complaint that other armies have it better than eldar because they can spam is ludicrous.

1: spamming small units of troops to get more transports doesn't work. you lose the ability to cause damage to the enemy and, whilst you score more points initially by grabbing objectives, the eldar player will be well through killing your army by turn 3 and can start to go get objectives themselves. I myself ran 2 trukk-rush armies in a row, once against chaos and again against eldar. both times they were tabled due to poor damage output and survivability.

2: Waveserpents are capable of killing almost any dedicated transport in the game with contemptuous ease.with the new shooting rules, half the time they don't even have to fire off their shields, they fire the other 2 S6 guns first, then shields if it somehow survived. against AV11 or worse waveserpents will kill the vehicle. against AV12, they only probably will kill the vehicle. even spamming the opponent will only be taking 2 transport for every one of yours, so spend 2 turns killing them and have done with it.

now I'll list the merits:

Waveserpents are the fastest transports in the game.
Waveserpents are the most durable transports in the game, with the ability to downgrade pens to glances on a 2+, ignore the shot altogether on a 3+, and with the speed to hide behind things & not get shot at all.
Waveserpents are objective secured. now I know you don't rate this for some reason, as obviously the fact that you can put the fastest and most durable transport in the game onto an objective and secure it despite an elites/whatever unit being there already is clearly rubbish, as is being able to glean an extra point through linebreaker on the last turn.
Waveserpents have the greatest damage output of any dedicated transport. the only way they don't is if you have a perfect scenario like a landraider redeemer surrounded by noise marines, in which case it's second. it's an anti-tank unit that excels at removing dedicated transports with armour 12 or less.

and that's the clincher. this game is now about manoeuvrability and scoring, and waveserpents are manoeuvrable and capable of removing the opponents manoeuvrability every shooting phase, whilst scoring and being durable.

that's 4/4 for the waveserpent, compared to a previous 3/4 (manoeuvrable, anti-manoeuvrability, durable but not scoring).

QED, waveserpents are better. unles you want to sit in an empty field and shoot things without trying to get victory points, of course.

morgoth wrote:

 Zagman wrote:

1. Necron need no additional anti AV, interesting as the vast majority of their AV is... " Melta, Haywire, AP1 are decent AT weapons, the rest is usable against fake armor like AV12- and is more saturation / multitool than AT really. " Such a hypocritical position. Though, I thank you for conceding this point, although it could have been done in a more professional manner. I completely agree, massed S7 weaponry is effective AT. You also talk about such options as being readily available, yet in the majority of competitive armies they are not on or are not points effecient options with Melta being the only one uses for the armies that have it readily available.

2. Guess, I imagined writing this, "2. Yes, because 36" is such a limited range, only a 2/3 chance of hitting vs 8/9 or a 1/4 relative reduction vs Twinlinked. Obviously that makes my argument invalid, how could I have been so foolish. /Sarcasm " which was obviously in reference to a Twinkled Serpent Shield being 75% as effective as the Twinlinked Version and completely able to fire through Cover with no need to Jink return fire. Yes, a Wave Serpent costs between 185-210pts with 5DA, and including the cost of DA is irrelevent unless you are solely looking at the Wave Serpent as a Gunboad. As a Transport that is two Objective Secured unit in a highly mobile platform, still capable of filling a Gunboat role. You still have not addressed the fact that the Wave Serpent can fire at many targets with relative safety while ignoring cover with the Serpent shield with no need to Jink. And that can be done at extreme range with only a 25% loss to the Serpent Shield at ranges >36". And much of the time it is possible to Obscure 25% of the Hull while not granting cover from the TLSL and ignoring cover from the Serpent Shield. That is a 3+ Cover save behind ruins and a 0% loss in firepower vs 6th. It is a minor loss by granting cover from the Underslung Shurriken if taken.

3. Admitting your mistakes is good, although you publicly had not done so and have continued to use Ad Hominem arguments. You have been given many substantiated arguments in multiple threads and are prone to hand waving them away and not responding to them. That is the exact opposite of what you claim. You have established a repeated patter of dismissing out of turn counter arguments including statistics and logical analysis while using Ad Hominem to insult and attack the arguer. Those are both unnecessary and uncalled for.

I guess I did attack you Ad Hominem. Its hard not to after I've been repeatedly been accused of being a bad player, AntiEldar Troll. I supposed I momentarily brought my behavior on par with yours. That is a mistake and you have my apologies. I should not have used snark to insult you or insinuate you are hypocritical idiot.

Insults aside, my point stands. At least in the US, those who are demonstratively the best and most competitive players are effectively and virtually unanimously agreeing that the Wave Serpent was buffed with the transition to 7th. Now, some disagree to what extent the Jink rules apply, but where their agreement is virtually unanimous is that gaining Objective Secured is huge and outweights any negatives in the addition transition and that the potential reduction in shooting is offset with Alpha Strike resistance from being able to Jink 1st turn. And the ability to Jink while Immobilized are all huge boons. 7th edition is not 6th edition. The keys to winning have changed, and Objective Secured is huge especially in progessive scoring missions and the ability to contest and hold an enemy objective. Eldar having the most mobile Objective Secured troops in the game, and the offensive ability to kill enemy OS units while denying and holding their objectives with extremely mobile and resilient Wave Serpents is huge.

You claim superior tactical knowledge with no evidence to support that claim. You have made remarks that seem to indicate you do not play competitive 40k. At the least, it is inappropriate for you to make such unsupported grand overarching claims as to the competitive use of units without proof.

You also keep incorrectly quoting the Torrent of Fire Data. You state the top 5 armies had a 50% win rate against each other and were equal. That was not the case, the data clearly showed Eldar was superior to all others and had a significant advantage as well.

As to your comment that the bottom of 40k and the top are close, is absolutely ridiculous. There is a massive gap between the good 40k players and the bad 40k players. That is easily demonstrated with tournament results. Stratification based upon skill is readily apparent, to say otherwise based on relatively few participants is in bad form. For example, with 256 players at Nova, most of those players will be the respective best players within their local meta, and even then there are clear and repeated stratification in performance with the top players in the nation consistently performing well in a game heavily influenced by dice. There are players that continually dominate in their local Meta independent of army played and edition. A bad 40k player has virtually no chance of beating a good 40k player, that itself is evidence of a large potential gap between the top and bottom.

1. Err so what is your point exactly ? that you raised an exception that wasn't worth mentioning ? that you were playing around with technicalities ?

2. Extreme range being 36" minus about 3" of hull so let's say within 33" of your enemy. awesome. sounds like one of them long-range weapons really does.

3. Yes, admitting your mistakes is a great thing.

I played RTS competitively, games in which tactical and strategical experience is won at an incredibly faster rate because of the speed of the games, I don't think anyone playing 40K can have an edge on that.

The Torrent of Fire Data, if you care to look at it in detail as I did, shows that the top 5 armies had a 50% win rate against each other - and it's off-topic.

There is always a massive gap between the good and the bad, and that gap is related to the number of people participating in that activity, and how competitive that activity is.

Hint: a barrier of 600 bucks to get a competitive army, plus assembly and painting is going to remove most of the people even interested in competition.

In other words, the people you look up to are "the best among a few thousand people who do play 40K competitively".
And from your own account, you're probably "the best among a few hundred people who do play 40K competitively".

Congratulations to them and to you, but in my book that may be just as good as being top Diamond in SC2, I've done that so I don't really feel the #1 WH40K player is someone I can't trade advice with.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dr. Serling wrote:

Since almost every mission but purge the alien uses objectives, I would say that it has a huge impact on the game. Yes, other troop transports got obj. secured, and they got better just like the wave serpent did. You can still be tabled and it happens, but plenty of games are not "table or be tabled scenarios". The relic is in the center of the board, but other missions allow objective placement to be almost everywhere(except near the board edge or other objectives) so while it is possible that your serpent could be in the middle of the board and assaulted, that is one of many possibilities of scenario, mission, deployment, etc. Far from predictable.

So, how exactly do you think Objective Secured favors the WS more than other DTs ?

Did I just read that correctly? Did you just say that because of your RTS experience that people who play 40k can't compete with your level of tacticle skill because the RTS plays faster?

This one statement makes it impossible for me to take anything you say seriously anymore. I joined the United States Navy and went to Operations Specialist school. I graduated in the top five of the class. I then went on to train in ship, submarine, and aircraft tactics with some of the worlds best Admirals. It was an environment where everything changed constantly at a lightning fast pace. Any mistakes could cost hundreds if not thousands of lives.

Yet after all of that, even though some of those tactics can be used with wave serpents, I would never try to claim that my top of the world training in tactics would somehow make me a better tactician than anyone that plays 40k. I think it is extremely arrogant of you to somehow think you are a better tactician simply because you play an RTS competitively.

 some bloke wrote:

so your complaint that other armies have it better than eldar because they can spam is ludicrous.

Just as ludicrous as pretending that Objective Secured fully compensates the Jink nerf.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Roadkill Zombie wrote:

Did I just read that correctly? Did you just say that because of your RTS experience that people who play 40k can't compete with your level of tacticle skill because the RTS plays faster?

This one statement makes it impossible for me to take anything you say seriously anymore. I joined the United States Navy and went to Operations Specialist school. I graduated in the top five of the class. I then went on to train in ship, submarine, and aircraft tactics with some of the worlds best Admirals. It was an environment where everything changed constantly at a lightning fast pace. Any mistakes could cost hundreds if not thousands of lives.

Yet after all of that, even though some of those tactics can be used with wave serpents, I would never try to claim that my top of the world training in tactics would somehow make me a better tactician than anyone that plays 40k. I think it is extremely arrogant of you to somehow think you are a better tactician simply because you play an RTS competitively.

That's an interesting point of view.

I think tactics and strategy are universal skills that are not limited to games or the visible part of the military iceberg, or even war / armed conflict.

It's interesting to hear that you believe differently. I still think it's off-topic but whatever.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 some bloke wrote:

QED, waveserpents are better. unles you want to sit in an empty field and shoot things without trying to get victory points, of course.

Wave Serpents are worse, but they may be just as useful because Objective Secured is a thing now.

If you want to ignore the very real possibility and universal validity of winning through elimination, I think it's just as blind as pretending that objective games don't exist.

morgoth wrote:

Just as ludicrous as pretending that Objective Secured fully compensates the Jink nerf.

Perceived Jink nerf. more likely to save your vehicle, but you fire snapshots. how dare you perform CPR, now my chest aches!

morgoth wrote:

Wave Serpents are worse, but they may be just as useful because Objective Secured is a thing now.

If you want to ignore the very real possibility and universal validity of winning through elimination, I think it's just as blind as pretending that objective games don't exist.

Very nice of you to back that up with facts, counter arguments, mathhammer... heck, I'd even settle for another claim that playing computer games makes you better at warhammer. your argument is, quite literally "Does not!".

in 6th, if you end the game with a waveserpent on an objective in the enemys deployment zone, you get nothing. nil poi. now, you'd get 3 points for the objective and 1 for linebreaker. you can leap across the battlefield with a flat-out move to finish the game on an objective and seize victory. but no, you seem to think, in a very naive way, that waveserpents would table your opponent. you must have played against some terrible players to have staked so much hope on your dedicated transports. for the cost of a waveserpent I can get 30 boys, or 60 grots. you'll scarcely put out that many shots in the entire game, let alone that many casualties. I'd love to see your face when you spam waveserpents and someone puts down a green tide, or a tyranid army, and says "table this."

yes, you can win by tabling. no, you won't do that against a clever player. and I'd wager 9 out of 10 games are won by an eldar player having a waveserpent on an objective.

morgoth wrote:


Objective Secured is bs, every transport gets it.
The previous best transport, Land Raider, is now the best Objective Secured Transport and the previous most mobile transport, Wave Serpent, is now the best Objective Secured Mobile Transport.
WOOP DEE fething DOO, that did change a lot to the game didn't it...

Stop touting that as if it were in any way comparable to the clear loss in efficiency of the Wave Serpent as a gunboat, which was its PRIMARY role in any Eldar army for all of 6th edition, and the PRIMARY reason anyone was whining about it.

So... that's a good thing, right?

morgoth wrote:


I think tactics and strategy are universal skills that are not limited to games or the visible part of the military iceberg, or even war / armed conflict.

If you want to ignore the very real possibility and universal validity of winning through elimination, I think it's just as blind as pretending that objective games don't exist.

That's as wrong as you could possibly be. Aiming for elimination will make you lose the game most of the time against any competent player that focuses on objective domination. The latter is they key to winning the game and the WS got significantally better at doing said job - thus are now even better than before.

You shouldn't comment on balance if you keep demonstrating a vast lack of understanding of how 40k works.

Also: bonus points for basically stating "I play Call of Duty online, I know how to war!"

ok there are some handbags on this thread and there needn't be : there isn't much to be said other than what has been said, but in case I missed it there are "these" unforeseen bonuses to WS coupled with some "MITIGATION" techniques:

MITIGATION FACTOR 1)) YOU'RE FORGETTING COVER: You can still hide 25% of your WS to get a cover save. You don't have to Jink. If you use WS offensively (as I sometimes do - it depends on what list turns up) thenyou still can you just need to put them in groups of 2 or 3 and sit the front one 25% behind cover, then the second & third one behind the front one. Job done: in cover excellent move on. Don't underestimate this - I thought that Eldar tanks had to move and I always kept them in cover because I (wrongly) thought the cover save (+HF) was better than a stark naked in the open save.. Don't ask me why I was so silly but I was - I played 3 or 4 games with WS perfectly happily before i realised I could leave them totally in the open and still get cover.. A rule misunderstanding you might say - but trust me: having to think over "is-my-tank-in-cover" on these terms is hardly restrictive.

MITIGATION FACTOR 2)) YOU'RE FORGETTING YOU OFTEN USED WS vs FLIERS ANYWAY: If you DO have to jink to keep your options open you are only REALLY stranded if there are no fliers to take down.. i.e. if you're going to "waste" your after-jink BS 1 shots you might as well "waste" them at something that already needs snap fire to hit: namely fliers.

MITIGATION FACTOR 3)) YOU'RE FORGETTING YOU OFTEN WENT FLAT OUT IN WS TO AVOID MELEE WHEN THE NEED AROSE: if this is the middle of the game it might be *near* that turn when you forgo shooting and go flat out to totally spoil your opponents deep strike thunderhammer plans.. if you don't like your opponents board position you can simply evacuate - if you sense the mood is right you can always time you "once-a-game-flee" to coincide with a "post-jink-get-out-of-jail-escape"

UNFORESEEN BONUS 1)) YOU'RE FORGETTING YOU DON'T ALWAYS GO FIRST, AN YOU'RE FORGETTING YOU'RE SOMETIMES IMMOBILISED: jink now when immobilised? when you haven't moved? YES PLEASE

So. in case you missed all the other good stuff (i.e. holofields got better, you have more reason to keep your defensive shield up etc etc) those are some even better news reasons for your WS to like 7th.

 jy2 wrote:
Better! Lol.

This about sums it up.

Pfff, what is jy2's opinion worth?? It's not like he's an actual competitive player of some sort. Where's our lord and savior to correct this obviously wrong opinion?

I am not an experienced player (to say the least) , but it seems obvious to me that the range given on the serpent shield is a typo. The special rules of the shield are exactly what you would expect for a weapon that is intended to soften up/freeze in place a unit of infantry prior to assault, but the huge range contradicts this.

I am 90% sure that the range is intended to be 6". Otherwise it makes little sense.

Alcibiades wrote:
I am not an experienced player (to say the least) , but it seems obvious to me that the range given on the serpent shield is a typo. The special rules of the shield are exactly what you would expect for a weapon that is intended to soften up/freeze in place a unit of infantry prior to assault, but the huge range contradicts this.

I am 90% sure that the range is intended to be 6". Otherwise it makes little sense.

No, the range of the weapon is correct. Phil Kelly, the writer of the codex, wanted the Wave Serpent in 40k to mimic the one in the game Epic Space Marine. In that game the Wave Serpent shield could be fired a very long distance. Believe it or not, the 40k version is toned WAY down from the Epic version.

 Sigvatr wrote:
Pfff, what is jy2's opinion worth?? It's not like he's an actual competitive player of some sort. Where's our lord and savior to correct this obviously wrong opinion?

I don't really care about jy2's credentials, and I wasn't going for the 'appeal to authority,' but his post hit the nail on its head: "Better! Lol."

That's really all that's needed to be said about Serpents in 7th.

Yes, Serpent spam's difficulty level has increased a bit and might actually require some tactical playing it. I've been on dakka for some time now and I know most of these "bad Eldar players" you've insulted throughout this thread. I've never seen any of them give bad advice. You come here prancing about and claiming you're better than everyone, yet only you seem to have trouble with Serpents in 7th.

It's rare that I say this, but you're really not worth arguing over.

 Thud wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Pfff, what is jy2's opinion worth?? It's not like he's an actual competitive player of some sort. Where's our lord and savior to correct this obviously wrong opinion?

I don't really care about jy2's credentials, and I wasn't going for the 'appeal to authority,' but his post hit the nail on its head: "Better! Lol."

That's really all that's needed to be said about Serpents in 7th.

Don't take offense, I was just referring to the OP having no idea of the game

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Thud wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Pfff, what is jy2's opinion worth?? It's not like he's an actual competitive player of some sort. Where's our lord and savior to correct this obviously wrong opinion?

I don't really care about jy2's credentials, and I wasn't going for the 'appeal to authority,' but his post hit the nail on its head: "Better! Lol."

That's really all that's needed to be said about Serpents in 7th.

Don't take offense, I was just referring to the OP having no idea of the game

None taken.

Can't we all get together and simply vote morgoth off the island?!

morgoth wrote:

 some bloke wrote:

so your complaint that other armies have it better than eldar because they can spam is ludicrous.

Just as ludicrous as pretending that Objective Secured fully compensates the Jink nerf.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Roadkill Zombie wrote:

Did I just read that correctly? Did you just say that because of your RTS experience that people who play 40k can't compete with your level of tacticle skill because the RTS plays faster?

This one statement makes it impossible for me to take anything you say seriously anymore. I joined the United States Navy and went to Operations Specialist school. I graduated in the top five of the class. I then went on to train in ship, submarine, and aircraft tactics with some of the worlds best Admirals. It was an environment where everything changed constantly at a lightning fast pace. Any mistakes could cost hundreds if not thousands of lives.

Yet after all of that, even though some of those tactics can be used with wave serpents, I would never try to claim that my top of the world training in tactics would somehow make me a better tactician than anyone that plays 40k. I think it is extremely arrogant of you to somehow think you are a better tactician simply because you play an RTS competitively.

That's an interesting point of view.

I think tactics and strategy are universal skills that are not limited to games or the visible part of the military iceberg, or even war / armed conflict.

It's interesting to hear that you believe differently. I still think it's off-topic but whatever.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 some bloke wrote:

QED, waveserpents are better. unles you want to sit in an empty field and shoot things without trying to get victory points, of course.

Wave Serpents are worse, but they may be just as useful because Objective Secured is a thing now.

If you want to ignore the very real possibility and universal validity of winning through elimination, I think it's just as blind as pretending that objective games don't exist.

For the record, I never said I think tactics and strategy are limited to the military or war/ armed conflict. That is an assumption you made on your own. The point of what I did say was that going off of your train of logic, because I am a professionally trained strategist and tactician, trained by some of the best tacticians in the world, then apparently I should be better at this game than you because I'm not just an armchair warrior. But I am not arrogant enough to claim that. These people who play at the high competition level put in a lot of thought and time and effort to try to be the best in that competition.

People have shown you time and time again why your assumptions are wrong. They've done it using all the parameters you have asked them to and then some. Show some respect for other forum users and have a little humility. It will get you farther than arrogance every time.