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.

 Pyeatt wrote:
Balanced 8% [ 16 ]
Unbalanced (undercosted) 76% [ 151 ]
Unbalanced (overcosted) 8% [ 16 ]
"This is a really uncomfy fence" 8% [ 16 ]
Total Votes : 199


So what I'm seeing is either Morgorth voting 32 times, or 31 people who looooove cheese Eldar.. and Morgorth.

I think it's partly due to the nature of the poll though to be fair. I voted Unbalanced (undercosted) of course, but I don't think the Wave Serpent is undercosted at all... I think it's too good to even be an option in the game. No vehicle should have such great mobility, survivability and firepower in a single package and especially when you can spam it. Making it super-expensive does little to make it less OP, it just means that spamming it is less attractive. So from my perspective the proper option should be "Unbalanced (needs complete retooling to make it fair)".

Tone down serpent shield significantly and then we can talk about points drops. Hell, at this point we could ditch the offensive mode entirely and it would be much less cheesy (although maybe not worth a point drop yet).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Pyeatt wrote:
Balanced 8% [ 16 ]
Unbalanced (undercosted) 76% [ 151 ]
Unbalanced (overcosted) 8% [ 16 ]
"This is a really uncomfy fence" 8% [ 16 ]
Total Votes : 199


So what I'm seeing is either Morgorth voting 32 times, or 31 people who looooove cheese Eldar.. and Morgorth.

One guy said he voted overcosted for the lulz earlier.

I thought this was all satire so I voted "overcosted" lol


Regardless, 183 people voted against morgoths opinion and only 16 people voted with him. This means his "undeniably facts" are not facts at all. I'm not even sure if he understands what the term undeniable means, because if 92% of people disagree with your opinion, theres probably at least a contesting point there rather than just saying "this is impossible to deny" because it would mean admitting to yourself things that would hurt your ego.

 SHUPPET wrote:
I thought this was all satire so I voted "overcosted" lol


Regardless, 183 people voted against morgoths opinion and only 16 people voted with him. This means his "undeniably facts" are not facts at all. I'm not even sure if he understands what the term undeniable means, because if 92% of people disagree with your opinion, theres probably at least a contesting point there rather than just saying "this is impossible to deny" because it would mean admitting to yourself things that would hurt your ego.

He's like a Republican fighting global warming research, lol.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr Morden wrote:


I Killed a Wave Serpent last night with a Sister and a Melta gun - it was glorious - then the Dire Avengers from inside wiped her out and her unit................but she had done the Emperor's work that day

I will marry that sister one day.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MWHistorian wrote:
If Morgoth was posting in jest, I'd consider him a comic genius at this point.

He's kind of like the Ann Coulter of this site " Genocides cool. Women shouldn't vote. I dislike Jews" - Ann Coulter, most likely.

I think a lot of those undercosted votes are probably joke votes. There are 2 out of 16 that have admitted as much so far...

 vipoid wrote:
Also, could you please enlighten us with your list of the top 10 most broken units in 40k?

Also also, why don't you start some threads about the units you consider broken, and see if others share your view? Unless, of course, you're afraid of rebuttal.

1. No thanks, that list would be very long to compile. Half the special characters of the IoM are in the top 10 most broken units in 40K, you have annihilation barges, undercosted Night Scythes, psy henchmen for their undercosted and CAD+allies spammable warp charges, etc.
2. Because it's not about sharing my view.
10% of players play Eldar and most people who even post are always focused on how they've been wronged.
Therefore they will always side against the Eldar (or the Tau, or some other minority Xenos) because that is always a majority vote with the IoM players behind.

The votes on the poll are worthless because of that, they've been cast by people who would like everyone but their army to be nerfed.

Notice how the poll has zero notion of nuance either.
It could be "slightly undercosted", "top-tier", "god-tier".
But no, you've successfully hidden all those votes under the opinion you want to hear.

The fact of the matter is that only slightly undercosted and up units make it into tournament lists, for any army really, so you've just confirmed that indeed, the WS is a good choice. a good unit even. I'll even say it's very good.

That doesn't make it broken, OP, or anything close to the bs you Eldar haters come up with.

morgoth wrote:

1. No thanks, that list would be very long to compile.

What? Writing down 10 units?

morgoth wrote:

2. Because it's not about sharing my view.
10% of players play Eldar and most people who even post are always focused on how they've been wronged.
Therefore they will always side against the Eldar (or the Tau, or some other minority Xenos) because that is always a majority vote with the IoM players behind.

The votes on the poll are worthless because of that, they've been cast by people who would like everyone but their army to be nerfed.

So then, why isn't every Eldar unit as hated as the Wave Serpent?

morgoth wrote:

Notice how the poll has zero notion of nuance either.

Probably because it's an utterly meaningless term.

morgoth wrote:

It could be "slightly undercosted", "top-tier", "god-tier".
But no, you've successfully hidden all those votes under the opinion you want to hear.

I take it the possibility that you're simply wrong, and that the wave serpent is very undercosted, never entered your mind?

 vipoid wrote:
I take it the possibility that you're simply wrong, and that the wave serpent is very undercosted, never entered your mind?

It entered my mind several times, just as every possibility in every discussion.

However, I don't believe that you (and the WSOP crowd) have considered that the Wave Serpent is merely riding on the meta and far less undercosted than the worst offenders.

It doesn't matter, 84% of people who made a decision voted that it is overcosted. It doesn't matter whether they think it is slightly overcosted (which wouldn't be unbalanced), top tier or god tier. They believe it is overcosted. Full stop.
You have successfully hidden the truth from yourself of what people have voted by ignoring once again what others are saying. In huge volume. Your own voice seems to be the only opinion you want to hear.

92% of commenters on this poll disagreed with morgoth, not including the satire votes to underpowered

you lost dude

This post always comes up like every few weeks. And there is always one or two people that make the underpowered claim. Everyone else agrees the the WS is at least slightly OP and/or undercosted. It essentially just becomes an argument with those few people who make ridiculous claims and repeatedly stating they are right. This topic really doesn't need to be made over and over again.

morgoth wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
Also, could you please enlighten us with your list of the top 10 most broken units in 40k?.

1. No thanks, that list would be very long to compile. Half the special characters of the IoM are in the top 10 most broken units in 40K, you have annihilation barges, undercosted Night Scythes, psy henchmen for their undercosted and CAD+allies spammable warp charges, etc.

You really don't help yourself do you... At least back up your claims. A list of 10 things isn't gonna take long to put down is it. Half the special characters in the IoM are more then ten so how can they make the top ten? No wonder there's no room for the WS on your list...

Also, I see you mentioned some Necron units there, a 'Minority Xenos' army. Why don't we see many complaints about those units (not since 6th for NIght Sythes at least). Hmm...maybe because WS are worse?

nedTCM wrote:
This post always comes up like every few weeks. And there is always one or two people that make the underpowered claim. Everyone else agrees the the WS is at least slightly OP and/or undercosted. It essentially just becomes an argument with those few people who make ridiculous claims and repeatedly stating they are right. This topic really doesn't need to be made over and over again.

As said in the first post, this was made to stop other perfectly good threads being derailed with the arguments about Wave Serpents.

nedTCM wrote:
This post always comes up like every few weeks. And there is always one or two people that make the underpowered claim. Everyone else agrees the the WS is at least slightly OP and/or undercosted. It essentially just becomes an argument with those few people who make ridiculous claims and repeatedly stating they are right. This topic really doesn't need to be made over and over again.

The only reason it was created was because that same person derailed another thread, necessitating a new "discussion" to get that thread back on track.

In response to Morgoth, IoM battle brother shenanigans ARE broken IMHO. That doesn't make the Wave Serpent any less OP though, there are lots of major fixes that 40k needs. Annihilation Barges and Night Scythes are pretty bad as well, but not on the same degree as the WS (again, IMHO).

Honestly, I don't think Battle Brothers should even exist.

It just creates too many problems and broken combos in a ruleset that already suffers from abysmal balance.

Clearly the WS is undercosted. Possibly, broken (my understanding of this term is that you basically HAVE to take this unit to be competitive, or else have some very strong counter to it - it warps the metagame).

Here's a good fix, IMHO - just three words:
One Use Only

and why, why, why 60" range... I really have no idea what geedubs developers are smoking (look at the new nid models for example... just, what? You needed to give a faction a boost and you did so by releasing weak units? whut?)

 ImAGeek wrote:

morgoth wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
Also, could you please enlighten us with your list of the top 10 most broken units in 40k?.

1. No thanks, that list would be very long to compile. Half the special characters of the IoM are in the top 10 most broken units in 40K, you have annihilation barges, undercosted Night Scythes, psy henchmen for their undercosted and CAD+allies spammable warp charges, etc.

You really don't help yourself do you... At least back up your claims. A list of 10 things isn't gonna take long to put down is it. Half the special characters in the IoM are more then ten so how can they make the top ten? No wonder there's no room for the WS on your list...

That claim doesn't need any backup, every good player knows of at least 10 units in 40K that are a lot more undercosted than the WS.
The problem with listing them is the sheer number of units making the undercosted list and then the sorting by most/least undercosted in order to come up with a top 10 that will not end up with another long and boring discussion.

 ImAGeek wrote:

Also, I see you mentioned some Necron units there, a 'Minority Xenos' army. Why don't we see many complaints about those units (not since 6th for NIght Sythes at least). Hmm...maybe because WS are worse?

Because Necrons did not dominate late 6th and early 7th, not because they lack undercosted units, but because the army as a whole ends up weaker.

 ImAGeek wrote:

nedTCM wrote:
This post always comes up like every few weeks. And there is always one or two people that make the underpowered claim. Everyone else agrees the the WS is at least slightly OP and/or undercosted. It essentially just becomes an argument with those few people who make ridiculous claims and repeatedly stating they are right. This topic really doesn't need to be made over and over again.

As said in the first post, this was made to stop other perfectly good threads being derailed with the arguments about Wave Serpents.

Which always start with people pretending the WS are OP when it's simply another very good unit in the 40K universe.

morgoth wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
Also, could you please enlighten us with your list of the top 10 most broken units in 40k?

Also also, why don't you start some threads about the units you consider broken, and see if others share your view? Unless, of course, you're afraid of rebuttal.

1. No thanks, that list would be very long to compile. Half the special characters of the IoM are in the top 10 most broken units in 40K, you have annihilation barges, undercosted Night Scythes, psy henchmen for their undercosted and CAD+allies spammable warp charges, etc.
2. Because it's not about sharing my view.

You "named 40% of the list, so why not just finish it out? I'm really interested to see what IoM characters are broken.

10% of players play Eldar and most people who even post are always focused on how they've been wronged.
Therefore they will always side against the Eldar (or the Tau, or some other minority Xenos) because that is always a majority vote with the IoM players behind.

Only 10%? Are you sure?

The votes on the poll are worthless because of that, they've been cast by people who would like everyone but their army to be nerfed.

Assuming bias without evidence is foolish at best.

Notice how the poll has zero notion of nuance either.
It could be "slightly undercosted", "top-tier", "god-tier".
But no, you've successfully hidden all those votes under the opinion you want to hear.

When the goal was to discover if people thought it was under costed (everyone else's opinion) or over costed (your opinion) nothing was hidden.

The fact of the matter is that only slightly undercosted and up units make it into tournament lists, for any army really, so you've just confirmed that indeed, the WS is a good choice. a good unit even. I'll even say it's very good.

That doesn't make it broken, OP, or anything close to the bs you Eldar haters come up with.

Wait, under costed doesn't mean over powered? Under costed means that its power level is higher than it should be. Isn't that the very definition of overpowered?

This shouldn't be a conversation. The WS is OP and its so obviously OP that it's silly.
The meta has to shift around it (even Morgoth admitted that one) and it makes the game un fun.
The question really is: How OP is the WS?

zerosignal wrote:
Clearly the WS is undercosted. Possibly, broken (my understanding of this term is that you basically HAVE to take this unit to be competitive, or else have some very strong counter to it - it warps the metagame).

Here's a good fix, IMHO - just three words:
One Use Only

and why, why, why 60" range... I really have no idea what geedubs developers are smoking (look at the new nid models for example... just, what? You needed to give a faction a boost and you did so by releasing weak units? whut?)

When it does use its 60" range, it's not undercosted anymore because without the twin-link from the scatter laser it cannot hit flyers, and still has AP nothing. 195+ points to send 4.5 S7 AP nothing shots downrange is just very bad for any army (except nids, they get no range).

The nid codex is a bad joke and a prime example of "you basically HAVE to take this unit to be competitive" with flyrants.

The reason the Eldar are always fielding Wave Serpents is that there is no way to make a competitive army without them, not because the WS is all kinds of OP, but because anything else is really bad compared to other armies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:
Wait, under costed doesn't mean over powered? Under costed means that its power level is higher than it should be. Isn't that the very definition of overpowered?

No.

Under costed means that unit falls in the right half of the bell curve and does perform better than average per point.

If that was the meaning of overpowered, then half the units in the game would be listed as OP.

morgoth wrote:

When it does use its 60" range, it's not undercosted anymore because without the twin-link from the scatter laser it cannot hit flyers, and still has AP nothing. 195+ points to send 4.5 S7 AP nothing shots downrange is just very bad for any army (except nids, they get no range).

Except it is still undercosted because it's not like using it at 60" prohibits you from using it with the twin linked bonus at other points in the game...it can still do all the things that make it undercosted.

morgoth wrote:

When it does use its 60" range, it's not undercosted anymore because without the twin-link from the scatter laser it cannot hit flyers, and still has AP nothing. 195+ points to send 4.5 S7 AP nothing shots downrange is just very bad for any army (except nids, they get no range).

Strange here I was playing Csm and Dark angels, with the only way for me to get 4 s7 shots is to take predators, but they don't come with skimmer, fast vehicle or a transport option, and I'm limited to 3 of them due to heavy support, I'd take the wave serpent over it's equal value in points of predators any day.

But wait, the wave serpent doesn't have access to lascannons, so the two aren't comparable.

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:

morgoth wrote:

When it does use its 60" range, it's not undercosted anymore because without the twin-link from the scatter laser it cannot hit flyers, and still has AP nothing. 195+ points to send 4.5 S7 AP nothing shots downrange is just very bad for any army (except nids, they get no range).

Strange here I was playing Csm and Dark angels, with the only way for me to get 4 s7 shots is to take predators, but they don't come with skimmer, fast vehicle or a transport option, and I'm limited to 3 of them due to heavy support, I'd take the wave serpent over it's equal value in points of predators any day.

But wait, the wave serpent doesn't have access to lascannons, so the two aren't comparable.

But they get AP, and rending, and if they were transports would be able to transport somtehing else than crap.

Either way S6-7 AP gak is an Eldar hallmark, it wouldn't make sense to try to compete in that precise band, would it ?

For cheaper, you do get a higher armor hull with 3 Lascan shots, I don't think it's any worse than 4.5 S7 AP- shots.

But then, that Predator isn't a competitive choice, and is probably as undercosted as the 60" backfield serpent shield WS.

morgoth wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Wait, under costed doesn't mean over powered? Under costed means that its power level is higher than it should be. Isn't that the very definition of overpowered?

No.

Under costed means that unit falls in the right half of the bell curve and does perform better than average per point.

If that was the meaning of overpowered, then half the units in the game would be listed as OP.

There isn't a bell curve of power. So what's your definition of overpowered?
There's "balanced" - units that perform equal to their point costs.
"Over costed/underpowered" - units that perform worse than their point costs indicate.
"Under costed/overpowered" - units that perform better than their point costs indicate.

morgoth wrote:
That claim doesn't need any backup

Yes, it does. And you need to provide it.

morgoth wrote:
The problem with listing them is the sheer number of units making the undercosted list and then the sorting by most/least undercosted in order to come up with a top 10 that will not end up with another long and boring discussion.

Tell you what, forget the order. Just name 10 units more OP than the wave serpent.

rigeld2 wrote:

Wait, under costed doesn't mean over powered? Under costed means that its power level is higher than it should be. Isn't that the very definition of overpowered?

The terms are indeed largely interchangeable.

I think the only real difference is that the price is the *only* problem with an undercosted unit. Whereas some Overpowered may be so because of effects that just plain shouldn't exist (and are virtually impossible to price fairly). For example, Invisibility is an effect that just shouldn't exist at all within the game - it's just too overpowering to put a reasonable price on.

rigeld2 wrote:

morgoth wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Wait, under costed doesn't mean over powered? Under costed means that its power level is higher than it should be. Isn't that the very definition of overpowered?

No.

Under costed means that unit falls in the right half of the bell curve and does perform better than average per point.

If that was the meaning of overpowered, then half the units in the game would be listed as OP.

There isn't a bell curve of power. So what's your definition of overpowered?
There's "balanced" - units that perform equal to their point costs.
"Over costed/underpowered" - units that perform worse than their point costs indicate.
"Under costed/overpowered" - units that perform better than their point costs indicate.

Then why aren't you screaming overpowered for every other unit that is under costed ? why that fixation on the WS ? why even reserve that term for it ?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vipoid wrote:

Tell you what, forget the order. Just name 10 units more OP than the wave serpent.

Do you mean more undercosted ? or some other term that doesn't seem to have a clear definition ?

morgoth wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

Tell you what, forget the order. Just name 10 units more OP than the wave serpent.

Do you mean more undercosted ? or some other term that doesn't seem to have a clear definition ?

That's an argument you're having with someone else but good effort to wriggle out of his question.

morgoth wrote:

But they get AP, and rending, and if they were transports would be able to transport somtehing else than crap. When did autocannons have rending? and when was transporting meq's in rhinos any good? Oh when it came to adding more guns in 5th because razorbacks.

Either way S6-7 AP gak is an Eldar hallmark, it wouldn't make sense to try to compete in that precise band, would it ? I thought sending S6/7 down range was a waste of time why would it be the hallmark of an army if it was so bad?

For cheaper, you do get a higher armor hull with 3 Lascan shots, I don't think it's any worse than 4.5 S7 AP- shots. But it has to be stationary to fire all it's guns (loses mobility) or if it moves it fires less, the wave serpent can move 6" and fire all it's guns, or move 12" and fire less. While still transporting stuff

But then, that Predator isn't a competitive choice, and is probably as undercosted as the 60" backfield serpent shield WS. Or maybe because the tri las pred, can generally perform one roll well (antitank/ monstrous creature) and the other role poorly (anti infantry, moving and shooting, transport)

Ah good, the thread has now turned into a semantics debate about the definitions of over powered and under costed in a vague attempt to dodge the real issue.

Being that the wave serpent is clearly significantly stronger than it has any right to be for its point cost.

Which, I mean, really, overpowered/undercosted doesn't matter. Its too strong.

But its a classic tactic of people who won't just admit a certain unit is too strong for the game.

Further, Morgoth, I can't think of 10 units better than the wave serpent. Maybe you should actually argue a point and list these 10 units.

I'll wait.

morgoth wrote:

Do you mean more undercosted ? or some other term that doesn't seem to have a clear definition ?

*shrugs*

Pick one.

I really don't care if you choose to list 10 units more underpriced than the WS, or 10 units more OP than the WS. As I said, the terms are largely interchangeable.

morgoth wrote:
Then why aren't you screaming overpowered for every other unit that is under costed ? why that fixation on the WS ? why even reserve that term for it ?

Because there aren't threads claiming that Anni Barges are fine and balanced and everything is okay.
(Hint - because no one I know thinks they're balanced) I'm here showing you the error of your claims, and that's it.
And I'm not "reserving" any term for it. I'm just pointing out how ludicrous your assertions are.

Do you mean more undercosted ? or some other term that doesn't seem to have a clear definition ?

Since the terms are interchangeable...

In previous threads people have demonstrated mathmatically the point for shot ratio of the serp is higher than other equivalents.
In this thread and previous threads people have shown how the serpent can be used to fill multiple tactical roles for cheaper than the dedicated units for that role.
There have been unit by unit comparisons to show the WS is OP.
There have been tournament results posted which have demonstrated its power.
Now there has also been a poll which has resoundingly shown that the vast majority believe it unbalanced and undercosted.

...

What more evidence do you need?

Mathmatics, statistics, comparisons, opinion polls and demonstrations of battlefield scenarios are not enough evidence for you. Does the flying spaghetti monster need to come down and declare it himself before you accept it?