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.

Is it not also (at least within 6th/7th) the first time that TOs have banned a non-FW unit?

 TheNewBlood wrote:
With regards to the title, I do not intend to cause any offense. I apologize if it offends people. I changed the title from "A Player's Guide to Adapting" because I felt it conveyed the wrong message. If need be, I will change it back.

However, my sentiment regarding the title remains the same. Eldar have a bad reputation in many circles. I have seen firsthand how many TFG play Eldar. The last tournament I attended was won by Tau/Eldar with Serpent spam and summoned Demonettes.

By no means am I saying that all Eldar players are like that. Several of the posters here are proof enough that most Eldar players are friendly and willing to tone down their lists if need be. But the article I linked to conveys the mindset of many non-Eldar players at the moment: that Eldar are the most broken and easiest to abuse army in the game. Their knee-jerk reaction is to be angry and dissapointed with the new codex, and frankly they have every right to be.

I am not trying to tell people how to run their army or be the final arbiter of what is fair or not. I am simply putting out suggestions as to what Eldar players can do to avoid the perception of being TFG.

Don't let people try to put you down for it. It is a decent thing you are trying to encourage here, and posters like Khaine's Wrath and Pyeatt who state that 'the rules allow me to take such units at such a price and damn anyone elses enjoyment' (paraphrased), are the ones which make it obvious why a broken codex is a bad thing - because there will always be people who abuse it and then try and claim their superiority over others as though it has nothing to do with the strength of the codex. So don't feel shamed - YOU are the type of eldar player that others respect.

Nova banned it not becausee it was non-FW, it was based because it did not fit the rules that had already been laid out by their event.

It was banned because of the slot change, not because it was directly targetted.

I get tthat, I was just wondering if its the first time a a codex unit was banned

 astro_nomicon wrote:
I get tthat, I was just wondering if its the first time a a codex unit was banned

NoVa are already disallowing several other codex Lords of War like Stompas and Necron Obelisk/Tesseract vaults when they made the ruling. It then extends to Lord of Skulls in Daemonkin and now the Eldar dex that released since making that decision.

Adepticon champs 2015 had a similar ban via the restriction on the cost of Lords of War (so Stompa and Tesseract Vault were not allowed IIRC).

Poly Ranger wrote:

 TheNewBlood wrote:
With regards to the title, I do not intend to cause any offense. I apologize if it offends people. I changed the title from "A Player's Guide to Adapting" because I felt it conveyed the wrong message. If need be, I will change it back.

However, my sentiment regarding the title remains the same. Eldar have a bad reputation in many circles. I have seen firsthand how many TFG play Eldar. The last tournament I attended was won by Tau/Eldar with Serpent spam and summoned Demonettes.

By no means am I saying that all Eldar players are like that. Several of the posters here are proof enough that most Eldar players are friendly and willing to tone down their lists if need be. But the article I linked to conveys the mindset of many non-Eldar players at the moment: that Eldar are the most broken and easiest to abuse army in the game. Their knee-jerk reaction is to be angry and dissapointed with the new codex, and frankly they have every right to be.

I am not trying to tell people how to run their army or be the final arbiter of what is fair or not. I am simply putting out suggestions as to what Eldar players can do to avoid the perception of being TFG.

Don't let people try to put you down for it. It is a decent thing you are trying to encourage here, and posters like Khaine's Wrath and Pyeatt who state that 'the rules allow me to take such units at such a price and damn anyone elses enjoyment' (paraphrased), are the ones which make it obvious why a broken codex is a bad thing - because there will always be people who abuse it and then try and claim their superiority over others as though it has nothing to do with the strength of the codex. So don't feel shamed - YOU are the type of eldar player that others respect.

Trust me when I tell you, I am not one of those guys. And I never will be. If I use those units, it will be in moderation and in a very competitive way.

I have a friendly tournament coming up. The rules were written for it today. As the new book hasn't been released yet, the TO made some big calls. The wraithknight is banned. I have no problem with that as he's always banned gargantuan monstrous creatures. He also bans imperial Knights. So, no complaints from me there.

He has also decided to ban all ranged D. Not really something he had to state before. Again it doesn't bother me that much, because I still think the codex is deadly.

Interestingly he has said that he doesn't think there will be a ban on it in the future. But will see what the book brings. Mostly because he knows people won't spam them.

I've been an iyanden player for years. I'm gutted I can't run a wraith host without being TFG. But I won't change the rules just to take them. I either won't take them, or it'll be in moderation in a competitive environment.

I have played chaos Khorne for as long as I can remember. So I know what it's like to be on the back foot ALL the time. For the odds to always be against me. BUT. Not once did it cry about it.

Exalted. Play the way you want to, within the context of you own local play environment.

as i dont fully understand the extent of rumours going round etc, could someone please tell me whether a 1500 point army, with 5 d-scythe guard and 5 cc guard is spam? or should i change the d-scythe to wraith cannon?

but basically, what i understand is that as long as you play fluff armies (apart from saim hann?) - you wont be TFG? is this a fair analogy? if im chatting rubbish just say

 astro_nomicon wrote:
Is it not also (at least within 6th/7th) the first time that TOs have banned a non-FW unit?

Nova ban all super heavy and gargantuan LoWs including baneblades and stompas and tesseract vault both made by gw.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Colonel Nicholson wrote:
as i dont fully understand the extent of rumours going round etc, could someone please tell me whether a 1500 point army, with 5 d-scythe guard and 5 cc guard is spam? or should i change the d-scythe to wraith cannon?

but basically, what i understand is that as long as you play fluff armies (apart from saim hann?) - you wont be TFG? is this a fair analogy? if im chatting rubbish just say

There might be some slight knee jerk reaction to the idea of d scythe str d however I don't foresee major tournaments banning dscythe d. Once people play vs it they will realize it's not so bad. It's essentially str 10 ap2 that can do multi wounds but also fails to wound 33% of the time. Kinda rough vs vehicles but in most cases it has a limited range so it's not that much better then melta. In other words IMHO it's fine. Now if you run around with 2+ wraith knights w d canons then that's somethingelse

might sell the WG to get more aspect stuff - the biel-tan formation looks pretty cool as a concept (and has loads of fluff)

Mike Brandt did make a very good point in his post -- that the -1 D-Scythe Wraithguard aren't as broken as the D implies. While it's a great weapon against Deathstars, Vehicles, and MCs, it's quite bad against many other units like Khorne Dogs or even Guard Blobs. Because it fails to wound entirely on a 1 or 2, it's effectively back to being a S4 AP2 Flamer against T3 targets, and most T3 targets have only a single wound, so the multiple wounds from a D-weapon doesn't do any additional damage. It's still a very nasty weapon and it's still a buff in general, the D-scythe's buff still retains some moderation.

 Thariinye wrote:
Mike Brandt did make a very good point in his post -- that the -1 D-Scythe Wraithguard aren't as broken as the D implies. While it's a great weapon against Deathstars, Vehicles, and MCs, it's quite bad against many other units like Khorne Dogs or even Guard Blobs. Because it fails to wound entirely on a 1 or 2, it's effectively back to being a S4 AP2 Flamer against T3 targets, and most T3 targets have only a single wound, so the multiple wounds from a D-weapon doesn't do any additional damage. It's still a very nasty weapon and it's still a buff in general, the D-scythe's buff still retains some moderation.

Right, and that's why the NOVA Open TOs are considering allowing it. It just seems too good to me though. The Wraithcannon, however, is still the full D, and should be treated as such (i.e. banned).

 TheNewBlood wrote:

 Thariinye wrote:
Mike Brandt did make a very good point in his post -- that the -1 D-Scythe Wraithguard aren't as broken as the D implies. While it's a great weapon against Deathstars, Vehicles, and MCs, it's quite bad against many other units like Khorne Dogs or even Guard Blobs. Because it fails to wound entirely on a 1 or 2, it's effectively back to being a S4 AP2 Flamer against T3 targets, and most T3 targets have only a single wound, so the multiple wounds from a D-weapon doesn't do any additional damage. It's still a very nasty weapon and it's still a buff in general, the D-scythe's buff still retains some moderation.

Right, and that's why the NOVA Open TOs are considering allowing it. It just seems too good to me though. The Wraithcannon, however, is still the full D, and should be treated as such (i.e. banned).

I think banning it is a little unfair. Especially for those of us that have invested decent money in to them.

My proposal, and I hate that I'm going to suggest this, mostly as my gaming group are fine with it as it is, but apply the same -1 penalty to the D strength that the scythes get and they're not that bad. Considering they used to be strength 10, not wounding on a 1 or a 2 actually makes them a little worse.

 Khaine's Wrath wrote:

 TheNewBlood wrote:

 Thariinye wrote:
Mike Brandt did make a very good point in his post -- that the -1 D-Scythe Wraithguard aren't as broken as the D implies. While it's a great weapon against Deathstars, Vehicles, and MCs, it's quite bad against many other units like Khorne Dogs or even Guard Blobs. Because it fails to wound entirely on a 1 or 2, it's effectively back to being a S4 AP2 Flamer against T3 targets, and most T3 targets have only a single wound, so the multiple wounds from a D-weapon doesn't do any additional damage. It's still a very nasty weapon and it's still a buff in general, the D-scythe's buff still retains some moderation.

Right, and that's why the NOVA Open TOs are considering allowing it. It just seems too good to me though. The Wraithcannon, however, is still the full D, and should be treated as such (i.e. banned).

I think banning it is a little unfair. Especially for those of us that have invested decent money in to them.

My proposal, and I hate that I'm going to suggest this, mostly as my gaming group are fine with it as it is, but apply the same -1 penalty to the D strength that the scythes get and they're not that bad. Considering they used to be strength 10, not wounding on a 1 or a 2 actually makes them a little worse.

I agree that is one solution. I can see tournaments adopting something similar to it. The problem is that it could be argued that it still makes Wraithguard too good for their points cost.

I personally would advocate for the 6th ed. Distort rules, but go right ahead if your gaming group is fine with it. Different house rules will work better with different people.

I think you're missing my point my friend. I don't like the fact that an imperial knight errant can drop a large blast on my war walkers that haven't got the speed to get away,

Not liking something, and recognizing that something is overpowered, are different things.

IK are competitive, adamantine lance is borderline overpowered, but the new IK and bikes just blow them out of the water.

A squad of DW terminators with upgrades costs 270 points.
10 Jetbikes costs 270 points and will kill 3-4 terminators at 36 range per turn.

Are we even playing the same game?

Not entirely sure that's a fair comparison though. Terminators are inherently bad for the points cost and almost always have been.

Technically, you're not playing the same game when going against Codex: Scabikers and D weapons. Though in your case you are comparing armies at literally the opposite ends of the 40k power scale.

Technically you're not playing the same game? So, technically speaking, how many games have you played against this book?

 Khaine's Wrath wrote:

Poly Ranger wrote:

 TheNewBlood wrote:
With regards to the title, I do not intend to cause any offense. I apologize if it offends people. I changed the title from "A Player's Guide to Adapting" because I felt it conveyed the wrong message. If need be, I will change it back.

However, my sentiment regarding the title remains the same. Eldar have a bad reputation in many circles. I have seen firsthand how many TFG play Eldar. The last tournament I attended was won by Tau/Eldar with Serpent spam and summoned Demonettes.

By no means am I saying that all Eldar players are like that. Several of the posters here are proof enough that most Eldar players are friendly and willing to tone down their lists if need be. But the article I linked to conveys the mindset of many non-Eldar players at the moment: that Eldar are the most broken and easiest to abuse army in the game. Their knee-jerk reaction is to be angry and dissapointed with the new codex, and frankly they have every right to be.

I am not trying to tell people how to run their army or be the final arbiter of what is fair or not. I am simply putting out suggestions as to what Eldar players can do to avoid the perception of being TFG.

Don't let people try to put you down for it. It is a decent thing you are trying to encourage here, and posters like Khaine's Wrath and Pyeatt who state that 'the rules allow me to take such units at such a price and damn anyone elses enjoyment' (paraphrased), are the ones which make it obvious why a broken codex is a bad thing - because there will always be people who abuse it and then try and claim their superiority over others as though it has nothing to do with the strength of the codex. So don't feel shamed - YOU are the type of eldar player that others respect.

Trust me when I tell you, I am not one of those guys. And I never will be. If I use those units, it will be in moderation and in a very competitive way.

I have a friendly tournament coming up. The rules were written for it today. As the new book hasn't been released yet, the TO made some big calls. The wraithknight is banned. I have no problem with that as he's always banned gargantuan monstrous creatures. He also bans imperial Knights. So, no complaints from me there.

He has also decided to ban all ranged D. Not really something he had to state before. Again it doesn't bother me that much, because I still think the codex is deadly.

Interestingly he has said that he doesn't think there will be a ban on it in the future. But will see what the book brings. Mostly because he knows people won't spam them.

I've been an iyanden player for years. I'm gutted I can't run a wraith host without being TFG. But I won't change the rules just to take them. I either won't take them, or it'll be in moderation in a competitive environment.

I have played chaos Khorne for as long as I can remember. So I know what it's like to be on the back foot ALL the time. For the odds to always be against me. BUT. Not once did it cry about it.

Fair enough - it just sounded that that was what you were advocating in this thread. I apologise if that is not what you are like/meant to convey. At least you are not seeming to put posts down just to get a rise out of people, unlike Pyeatt. The issue is there WILL be people who will assume a superiority complex due to this codex... even more so than the last one. (Not saying that will be a majority - but even the odd ones will start to get grating on the nerves).

 Khaine's Wrath wrote:
Not entirely sure that's a fair comparison though. Terminators are inherently bad for the points cost and almost always have been.

They are both legal units in the same game. It's an entirely fair comparison.

 Khaine's Wrath wrote:
Technically you're not playing the same game? So, technically speaking, how many games have you played against this book?

Touche. Again, we don't have the codex I hand yet, so we're limited only to the information that has been spoiled to us. I still think that the points made regarding jetbikes are valid.

 Thariinye wrote:
Mike Brandt did make a very good point in his post -- that the -1 D-Scythe Wraithguard aren't as broken as the D implies.

I think not as broken is the right way to pitch it.
I'm not sold on wraith guard with cannons being better than fire dragons.
I think firedragons are going to be doing the same job, for less points. Strength D vs S8 Melta with an extra +1 to the damage table is pretty much a wash. Either unit will destroy what it's pointed at.

-Matt

 HawaiiMatt wrote:

 Thariinye wrote:
Mike Brandt did make a very good point in his post -- that the -1 D-Scythe Wraithguard aren't as broken as the D implies.

I think not as broken is the right way to pitch it.
I'm not sold on wraith guard with cannons being better than fire dragons.
I think firedragons are going to be doing the same job, for less points. Strength D vs S8 Melta with an extra +1 to the damage table is pretty much a wash. Either unit will destroy what it's pointed at.

-Matt

Sort of. Both will remove vehicles from the table, or drop small units like Devestator squads in the same amount of time.

However, against things with good Invuln saves, multi wound blobs, or high toughness MCs, D is superior by leaps and bounds. D is also a much harder counter to Deathstar type units, and is better against things that rely on Invisibility. For example, if you're facing a Daemon Prince with Invisiblity, one Fire Dragon getting a 6 to hit is going to strip a wound. One Wraithguard getting a 6 to hit is going to strip d3 wounds and possibly instantly remove it from the table.

In most situations, they're going to be the same. But the bigger and scarier the targets get, the more the Wraithguard will be worth the points. So I guess it depends on the enemy.

Requizen wrote:

 HawaiiMatt wrote:

 Thariinye wrote:
Mike Brandt did make a very good point in his post -- that the -1 D-Scythe Wraithguard aren't as broken as the D implies.

I think not as broken is the right way to pitch it.
I'm not sold on wraith guard with cannons being better than fire dragons.
I think firedragons are going to be doing the same job, for less points. Strength D vs S8 Melta with an extra +1 to the damage table is pretty much a wash. Either unit will destroy what it's pointed at.

-Matt

Sort of. Both will remove vehicles from the table, or drop small units like Devestator squads in the same amount of time.

However, against things with good Invuln saves, multi wound blobs, or high toughness MCs, D is superior by leaps and bounds. D is also a much harder counter to Deathstar type units, and is better against things that rely on Invisibility. For example, if you're facing a Daemon Prince with Invisiblity, one Fire Dragon getting a 6 to hit is going to strip a wound. One Wraithguard getting a 6 to hit is going to strip d3 wounds and possibly instantly remove it from the table.

In most situations, they're going to be the same. But the bigger and scarier the targets get, the more the Wraithguard will be worth the points. So I guess it depends on the enemy.

And for the cost, you're getting twice as many firedragon shots. I'd rather have twice the volume than bank on rolling both 6's to hit and 6's to wound/destroyer table.
If my quick math is right, Vs Multi-wound blobs, it has to be T5 or T4 with 3+ invul (or eternal warrior). Anything else puts the advantage in the hands of twice as many shots.

the difference is that fire dragons have different outputs based on the unit it is targeting.

D does not. It has the same impact on a 3 point gretchin as a 400pt vehicle.

that is the issue, there is no concept of scaling.

 HawaiiMatt wrote:

Requizen wrote:

 HawaiiMatt wrote:

 Thariinye wrote:
Mike Brandt did make a very good point in his post -- that the -1 D-Scythe Wraithguard aren't as broken as the D implies.

I think not as broken is the right way to pitch it.
I'm not sold on wraith guard with cannons being better than fire dragons.
I think firedragons are going to be doing the same job, for less points. Strength D vs S8 Melta with an extra +1 to the damage table is pretty much a wash. Either unit will destroy what it's pointed at.

-Matt

Sort of. Both will remove vehicles from the table, or drop small units like Devestator squads in the same amount of time.

However, against things with good Invuln saves, multi wound blobs, or high toughness MCs, D is superior by leaps and bounds. D is also a much harder counter to Deathstar type units, and is better against things that rely on Invisibility. For example, if you're facing a Daemon Prince with Invisiblity, one Fire Dragon getting a 6 to hit is going to strip a wound. One Wraithguard getting a 6 to hit is going to strip d3 wounds and possibly instantly remove it from the table.

In most situations, they're going to be the same. But the bigger and scarier the targets get, the more the Wraithguard will be worth the points. So I guess it depends on the enemy.

And for the cost, you're getting twice as many firedragon shots. I'd rather have twice the volume than bank on rolling both 6's to hit and 6's to wound/destroyer table.
If my quick math is right, Vs Multi-wound blobs, it has to be T5 or T4 with 3+ invul (or eternal warrior). Anything else puts the advantage in the hands of twice as many shots.

True, I won't argue that. But if you play in a meta with things like TWC Deathstar, Grimoire'd and Invis'd Daemons, or Orikanstar, then that's not that uncommon. I just think both have their place.

Personally, my Necrons are much more scared of the Wraithguard. Fire Dragons only give a -1 to RP against certain units - only T4 or lower are Warriors, Crypteks, Immortals, Flayed Ones, and Scarabs. Everything else is T5 or higher. Wraiths and Lychguard in particular couldn't care less about the Fire Dragon's guns. But Wraithguard with SD? That scares me.

I suppose it's different for other armies who don't have RP

Requizen wrote:

 HawaiiMatt wrote:

Requizen wrote:

 HawaiiMatt wrote:

 Thariinye wrote:
Mike Brandt did make a very good point in his post -- that the -1 D-Scythe Wraithguard aren't as broken as the D implies.

I think not as broken is the right way to pitch it.
I'm not sold on wraith guard with cannons being better than fire dragons.
I think firedragons are going to be doing the same job, for less points. Strength D vs S8 Melta with an extra +1 to the damage table is pretty much a wash. Either unit will destroy what it's pointed at.

-Matt

Sort of. Both will remove vehicles from the table, or drop small units like Devestator squads in the same amount of time.

However, against things with good Invuln saves, multi wound blobs, or high toughness MCs, D is superior by leaps and bounds. D is also a much harder counter to Deathstar type units, and is better against things that rely on Invisibility. For example, if you're facing a Daemon Prince with Invisiblity, one Fire Dragon getting a 6 to hit is going to strip a wound. One Wraithguard getting a 6 to hit is going to strip d3 wounds and possibly instantly remove it from the table.

In most situations, they're going to be the same. But the bigger and scarier the targets get, the more the Wraithguard will be worth the points. So I guess it depends on the enemy.

And for the cost, you're getting twice as many firedragon shots. I'd rather have twice the volume than bank on rolling both 6's to hit and 6's to wound/destroyer table.
If my quick math is right, Vs Multi-wound blobs, it has to be T5 or T4 with 3+ invul (or eternal warrior). Anything else puts the advantage in the hands of twice as many shots.

True, I won't argue that. But if you play in a meta with things like TWC Deathstar, Grimoire'd and Invis'd Daemons, or Orikanstar, then that's not that uncommon. I just think both have their place.

Personally, my Necrons are much more scared of the Wraithguard. Fire Dragons only give a -1 to RP against certain units - only T4 or lower are Warriors, Crypteks, Immortals, Flayed Ones, and Scarabs. Everything else is T5 or higher. Wraiths and Lychguard in particular couldn't care less about the Fire Dragon's guns. But Wraithguard with SD? That scares me.

I suppose it's different for other armies who don't have RP

This is why tournaments are considering allowing the ranged D option. It is a hard counter to most of the "deathstar" units played at the highly competitive level.

The problem is, as Leth said, that D doesn't scale at all. It is effective at countering deathstars, but it's even more effective at countering everything else.

I would rather address the root of the problem(Invis, 2+re-roll etc) than to bring in a nuke(d weapons) as an excuse to include them.

the arms races helps no one

 Leth wrote:
I would rather address the root of the problem(Invis, 2+re-roll etc) than to bring in a nuke(d weapons) as an excuse to include them.

the arms races helps no one

I'm not saying that including D weapons is a good idea, only that at a tournament level it would provide a counter to the popular deathstars.

Besides, most tournaments have house rules regarding the examples you mentioned, ex: ITC changing 2++ re-roll to 2++/4++. and allowing Blast weapons to shoot at invisible units/scatter onto them.

 TheNewBlood wrote:

 Leth wrote:
I would rather address the root of the problem(Invis, 2+re-roll etc) than to bring in a nuke(d weapons) as an excuse to include them.

the arms races helps no one

I'm not saying that including D weapons is a good idea, only that at a tournament level it would provide a counter to the popular deathstars.

Besides, most tournaments have house rules regarding the examples you mentioned, ex: ITC changing 2++ re-roll to 2++/4++. and allowing Blast weapons to shoot at invisible units/scatter onto them.

Exactly and I agree with that approach. I think when something breaks the bank you make a change to limit it, not remove it