Author |
Message |
 |
|
 |
Advert
|
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. |
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/04/26 23:03:41
Subject: Fixing D-Weapons
|
 |
Towering Hierophant Bio-Titan
UK
|
Hi Folks
I appreciate this is a proposed rule but I'd like to discuss the tactical ramification and balance of my suggested changes.
Str D - All weapons that do not roll to hit, that are str D, suffer a -1 result on the destroyer table, against non Gargantuan & non super heavy vehicles. This would stack with the current debuff to D-Scythes.
Changing the rules as little as possible.
Done
The aim is to make d-weapons that can hit lots of targets (blast weapons, 'lines' & templates) to be reasonable. Single-shot D-Weapons are unchanged as they are inherently limited to single targets. This way bans and restrictions can all be avoided, whilst still retaining some wholesomely powerful options. Also, as the rules are written, balance is retained between blast weapon D-weps & template D-weps, following the same intention as GW original rules... that is to modify the Destroyer Table. Because, to be fair, 2-3 template wounds that do D3 wounds each @ AP2, any large MC target should be fearful!
Thoughts?
|
H.B.M.C. wrote:Friend of mine just sent me this:
"The Tyranid Codex, where I learned the truth about despair, as will you. There's a reason why this codex is the worst hell on earth... Hope. ." Too be fair.. it's all worked out quite well!
Heh. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/04/26 23:10:45
Subject: Fixing D-Weapons
|
 |
Sadistic Inquisitorial Excruciator
|
I think the far more reasonable restriction is banning the new Eldar codex outright and refusing to buy any more eldar from GW until they put out something vaguely balanced.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/04/26 23:16:37
Subject: Fixing D-Weapons
|
 |
Veteran Wolf Guard Squad Leader
|
Why would you do this? From my experience Templates are generally only hitting one, maybe two models that are going to suffer from extra wounds from strength D, so why limit templates, and not all strength D? And as a fluff thing, making them less effective against non GC/SH etc doesn't make much sense. D-scythes etc rip holes in reality, so would therefore be more powerful against non GC/SH
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/04/26 23:21:58
Subject: Fixing D-Weapons
|
 |
Screaming Shining Spear
|
Mavnas wrote:I think the far more reasonable restriction is banning the new Eldar codex outright and refusing to buy any more eldar from GW until they put out something vaguely balanced.
Has to be a troll right? Or do people this daft really exist?
|
4000 points: Craftworld Mymeara |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/04/26 23:28:52
Subject: Fixing D-Weapons
|
 |
Jervis Johnson
|
Razerous wrote:Hi Folks
I appreciate this is a proposed rule but I'd like to discuss the tactical ramification and balance of my suggested changes.
Str D - All weapons that do not roll to hit, that are str D, suffer a -1 result on the destroyer table, against non Gargantuan & non super heavy vehicles. This would stack with the current debuff to D-Scythes.
Changing the rules as little as possible.
Done
The aim is to make d-weapons that can hit lots of targets (blast weapons, 'lines' & templates) to be reasonable. Single-shot D-Weapons are unchanged as they are inherently limited to single targets. This way bans and restrictions can all be avoided, whilst still retaining some wholesomely powerful options. Also, as the rules are written, balance is retained between blast weapon D-weps & template D-weps, following the same intention as GW original rules... that is to modify the Destroyer Table. Because, to be fair, 2-3 template wounds that do D3 wounds each @ AP2, any large MC target should be fearful!
Thoughts?
It's a good rule and helps with strength D elsewhere too than just in the Eldar codex. People generally have no issues with single shot strength D, but don't like entire infantry units getting erased 'automatically'. You just need to add that it doesn't apply to stomp attacks, unless you intend it to.
I don't think any further modifications need to be made into the Eldar codex than what you've suggested. After a six or nine month period of evaluating the effects at tournaments we can look at it again.
And as a fluff thing, making them less effective against non GC/SH etc doesn't make much sense. D-scythes etc rip holes in reality, so would therefore be more powerful against non GC/SH
The fluff argument would be that template hits are indirect hits and you'd be taking cover behind something and doing your best to avoid the blast which would lessen the strength of the hit, unlike with say a direct hit to your body by a zappy laser of doom.
|
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2015/04/26 23:32:11
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/04/26 23:32:09
Subject: Re:Fixing D-Weapons
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Just make it one wound.
Always wounds or pens ignoring armour on a 2+, counts as S10 for instant death purposes, ignores invulnerable saves, cover. FNP and Reanimation on a 6.
Done.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/04/26 23:37:56
Subject: Fixing D-Weapons
|
 |
Sadistic Inquisitorial Excruciator
|
extremefreak17 wrote:Mavnas wrote:I think the far more reasonable restriction is banning the new Eldar codex outright and refusing to buy any more eldar from GW until they put out something vaguely balanced.
Has to be a troll right? Or do people this daft really exist?
No, I refuse to play the new eldar until something is fixed. The first few codices of this edition were fairly balanced. The necron one had some fairly unkillable units, but their firepower was low enough that you could deal with them. The new Eldar codex is only beatable if your opponent builds a bad list and then sucks at the game.
The problem is in a game like this, you can't just go out and paint a whole new army from scratch in a month if your old one becomes totally invalidated. This isn't building a new Magic deck or picking some new spec in a computer game. If the lack of balance gets so bad that you have to go beyond switching out a couple units to remain effective, it's not worth it. If I hadn't already gotten into 40K (i.e. if I had to start over) and I didn't have a huge pile of unpainted stuff, I certainly wouldn't get into this game today.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/04/26 23:45:13
Subject: Fixing D-Weapons
|
 |
Dakka Veteran
|
Mavnas wrote:
No, I refuse to play the new eldar until something is fixed. The first few codices of this edition were fairly balanced. The necron one had some fairly unkillable units, but their firepower was low enough that you could deal with them. The new Eldar codex is only beatable if your opponent builds a bad list and then sucks at the game.
Barring wraithknights, as if they didn't exist, I'd be willing to take just about any Eldar list on without list tailoring against one of my standard All Comers lists and expect to at the very least do well, if not win.
If your definition of "Bad List" is: "Any list that doesn't include wraithknights", then there isn't much for us to talk about. Your friends and local players must really be unpleasant people.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/04/26 23:45:32
There is NO SUCH THING as MORE ADVANCED in 40k!!! There are ONLY 2 LEVELS of RULES: Basic and Advanced. THE END. Stop saying "More Advanced". That is not a recognized thing in modern 40k!!!!
2500
3400
2250
3500
3300 |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/04/26 23:45:13
Subject: Fixing D-Weapons
|
 |
Veteran Wolf Guard Squad Leader
|
Mavnas wrote: extremefreak17 wrote:Mavnas wrote:I think the far more reasonable restriction is banning the new Eldar codex outright and refusing to buy any more eldar from GW until they put out something vaguely balanced.
Has to be a troll right? Or do people this daft really exist?
No, I refuse to play the new eldar until something is fixed. The first few codices of this edition were fairly balanced. The necron one had some fairly unkillable units, but their firepower was low enough that you could deal with them. The new Eldar codex is only beatable if your opponent builds a bad list and then sucks at the game.
The problem is in a game like this, you can't just go out and paint a whole new army from scratch in a month if your old one becomes totally invalidated. This isn't building a new Magic deck or picking some new spec in a computer game. If the lack of balance gets so bad that you have to go beyond switching out a couple units to remain effective, it's not worth it. If I hadn't already gotten into 40K (i.e. if I had to start over) and I didn't have a huge pile of unpainted stuff, I certainly wouldn't get into this game today.
So even if the person you could be playing had no intention of using wraithknights etc in their army, and their list contained nothing generally considered broken, you'd still refuse to play them?
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/04/26 23:54:53
Subject: Fixing D-Weapons
|
 |
Hoary Long Fang with Lascannon
|
The only real change from moving from the Distort rule to outright D weapons is the performance vs. monstrous creatures and vehicles.
The old S10 version would instakill anything T5 or less anyway. Now it is actually weaker because it has a chance to do fewer wounds on the d3 roll. Of course the T6 MCs now have to worry since they can lose more wounds per hit.
Vehicles/buildings likewise get hammered now with the multiple hull points.
The thing is all the D weapons are on slow, high cost units with low range. 12' Wraithcannons, 24' D cannon, and template D-scyhes.
This isn't exactly frightening. You can still assault most of this stuff with at most one round of shooting or overwatch. Yes, D-scythes are still a pain but they always were. Nothing changes here.
Vehicles and MCs will still be able to out maneuver this. Heck all your swooping Hive Lords and Demon Princes don't really have to worry about it at all if they stay 12' from the Wraithcannons.
Space Marines too can just continue the melta/plasma drop units. At 275 points, a 5 man WG squad offers lots of room for counters.
Just watch and see. Your precious Cent stars and Flyrants will still be a thing even after this.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/04/27 00:03:51
Subject: Fixing D-Weapons
|
 |
Regular Dakkanaut
|
Durandal wrote:The only real change from moving from the Distort rule to outright D weapons is the performance vs. monstrous creatures and vehicles.
The old S10 version would instakill anything T5 or less anyway. Now it is actually weaker because it has a chance to do fewer wounds on the d3 roll.
Except that SD counts as S10 for ID so in fact it is the exact same against T5- and better against T6+
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/04/27 00:12:58
Subject: Fixing D-Weapons
|
 |
Sadistic Inquisitorial Excruciator
|
BetrayTheWorld wrote:Mavnas wrote:
No, I refuse to play the new eldar until something is fixed. The first few codices of this edition were fairly balanced. The necron one had some fairly unkillable units, but their firepower was low enough that you could deal with them. The new Eldar codex is only beatable if your opponent builds a bad list and then sucks at the game.
Barring wraithknights, as if they didn't exist, I'd be willing to take just about any Eldar list on without list tailoring against one of my standard All Comers lists and expect to at the very least do well, if not win.
If your definition of "Bad List" is: "Any list that doesn't include wraithknights", then there isn't much for us to talk about. Your friends and local players must really be unpleasant people.
My problem is that they can field large numbers of bikes + some D-weapons. Without the knights, the D-weapon ranges are low enough that the game is winnable, but I'd want to paint a whole bunch of tanks, which amounts to starting my list from scratch basically. Now if the D weapons were just str 10, I'd be comfortable just throwing in some AV14 tanks to counter bike spam and accept that some of them will blow up to Str. 10 fire. With D weapons, there's no roll to pen, there's not single damage point.
Consider:
Str 10AP2 vs AV14, 3 HP:
50% nothing happens
16.66% Lose 1 hull point
28.88% Lose 1 hull point + bad stuff
5.55% Explodes!
Average damage: .6 HP
Str D vs AV14, 3 HP:
16.66% Nothing bad happens
22.22% Lose 1 hull point
22.22% Lose 2 hull points
22.22% Lose 3 hull points
16.66% MASSIVE OVERKILL!! (Also no saves allowed if you had cover or something)
Average damage (not counting Overkill):
Average damage: 2 HP
So not counting the the chance to just wipe out anything with no saves, you still have a weapon that 3x as effective as a S 10 gun. None of the D options are priced appropriately and they're more common than S10 guns in other codices.
Any fix that doesn't put D-weapons in the same league as normal weapons isn't a fix. And any D-weapon fix doesn't fix the brokenness of the rest of the codex, though at that point tailored lists might be able to play against it. Automatically Appended Next Post: Durandal wrote:The thing is all the D weapons are on slow, high cost units with low range. 12' Wraithcannons, 24' D cannon, and template D-scyhes.
Isn't the WK 36" and only 295? (Compared to an IK, he's cheap.) Also, can't you deep strike some of those things perfectly with a WWP?
This isn't exactly frightening. You can still assault most of this stuff with at most one round of shooting or overwatch. Yes, D-scythes are still a pain but they always were. Nothing changes here.
Yeah, if your unit can tank 5-15 Str D hits on the overwatch from the Scythes, you should totally be good.
Just watch and see. Your precious Cent stars and Flyrants will still be a thing even after this.
I have neither of those things, and I was hoping to be able to continue playing this game without having those things. Cent star being as expensive as it is, I simply counter with MSU.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/04/27 00:17:14
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/04/27 00:17:26
Subject: Fixing D-Weapons
|
 |
Screaming Shining Spear
|
Mavnas wrote: extremefreak17 wrote:Mavnas wrote:I think the far more reasonable restriction is banning the new Eldar codex outright and refusing to buy any more eldar from GW until they put out something vaguely balanced.
Has to be a troll right? Or do people this daft really exist?
No, I refuse to play the new eldar until something is fixed. The first few codices of this edition were fairly balanced. The necron one had some fairly unkillable units, but their firepower was low enough that you could deal with them. The new Eldar codex is only beatable if your opponent builds a bad list and then sucks at the game.
The problem is in a game like this, you can't just go out and paint a whole new army from scratch in a month if your old one becomes totally invalidated. This isn't building a new Magic deck or picking some new spec in a computer game. If the lack of balance gets so bad that you have to go beyond switching out a couple units to remain effective, it's not worth it. If I hadn't already gotten into 40K (i.e. if I had to start over) and I didn't have a huge pile of unpainted stuff, I certainly wouldn't get into this game today.
Right then, have fun off in lala land. Meanwhile, back in the real world, most of us know that GW is in fact not going to do anything about it. Why would you punish the players? What am I supposed to do with my 4000+ points of Eldar in the meanwhile? People are just trying do their best here with what they have to work with, and then you chime in with your toxic nonsense.
|
4000 points: Craftworld Mymeara |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/04/27 03:10:01
Subject: Fixing D-Weapons
|
 |
Killer Klaivex
Oceanside, CA
|
Durandal wrote:
The thing is all the D weapons are on slow, high cost units with low range. 12' Wraithcannons, 24' D cannon, and template D-scyhes.
This isn't exactly frightening.
Actually, it's terrifying.
First, lets tackle the slow units:
Archon webway + 5 wraithguard + wave serp transport are going to murder 2 squads and harm a 3rd.
Unit deep strikes without scatter, disembarking 6" and leaving the archon behind.
Wraith scythes run 6" (without rolling, matchless agility page 95), and then fire after running (battle focus, page 145).
That 12" out of the back hatch gives you plenty of movement to get the perfect spread for the shot. Wall of death will seriously tear up another unit, while the 2D6+4 S6 shots from the serpent will harm a 3rd unit.
Wraithguard (wraith cannons) near the spirit seer re-roll to hit. I don't know about you, but I'm not fond of 10 tries for a 6 against my FMC. And again, disembark + battle focus gives you plenty of range.
Then the short range:
165 points for 3 D blasts, indirect fire, and 12 wounds at T7, that's pretty brutal. But what if you can't close in on the enemy? Great. That buffer zone gives your bikes all the living space they need. 36" range, and darting back 2D6" after firing. If the opponent doesn't advance into the D-cannons threat range, he has very little to deal with your ~72 S6 shots.
-Matt
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/04/27 03:11:30
Subject: Re:Fixing D-Weapons
|
 |
Regular Dakkanaut
Dallas, Texas
|
I think the attraction of D is cracking 900 point deathstar units. That's where multi-wound even matters. After getting my ass stomped by so many deathstars over the years I'm glad that one army at least has a pretty solid anti-star weapon.
|
Drive closer! I want to hit them with my sword! |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/04/27 03:32:33
Subject: Fixing D-Weapons
|
 |
Growlin' Guntrukk Driver with Killacannon
|
The answer IMHO is to demand Unbound being recognized as just as valid as CAD. 7th rulebook is totally okay with Unbound and every 7th Codex was written with Unbound in mind. Embrace it. MSU is the D-killer! And nobody does MSU better than Unbound! I'll play any list as long as it's 100% codex legal (non-FW, Non escalation only, Apocalypse only, that Reverent Titan was OP) anytime. Bring nuttin but WraithKnights or Wraiths or Imperial Knights (good god GW has gotten really lazy with its names!). Hell, bring em all at the same time. I'll play you.
Unbound lists will humble you.
|
Fighting crime in a future time! |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/04/27 03:52:59
Subject: Re:Fixing D-Weapons
|
 |
Towering Hierophant Bio-Titan
UK
|
Am I correct in thinking Stomp attacks have their own table? Rolling a 6 on a stomp is brutal but its cc so again inherently limited.
Two key things my rule does, very neatly
1) Reduces the chance to wound/pen (but you still get cool d-level extra wounds)
2) Removes the 6 (no saves) as an option vs non-big things.
You still have access to a 6 result via cc or single shot weapons.
|
H.B.M.C. wrote:Friend of mine just sent me this:
"The Tyranid Codex, where I learned the truth about despair, as will you. There's a reason why this codex is the worst hell on earth... Hope. ." Too be fair.. it's all worked out quite well!
Heh. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/04/27 04:01:30
Subject: Re:Fixing D-Weapons
|
 |
Sadistic Inquisitorial Excruciator
|
Razerous wrote:Am I correct in thinking Stomp attacks have their own table? Rolling a 6 on a stomp is brutal but its cc so again inherently limited.
Two key things my rule does, very neatly
1) Reduces the chance to wound/pen (but you still get cool d-level extra wounds)
2) Removes the 6 (no saves) as an option vs non-big things.
You still have access to a 6 result via cc or single shot weapons.
'
Yes, stomp is it's own very much weaker table. The 6 removes everything under the template, but 2-5 do S6AP4 wounds... that's right AP4. Marines, crisis suits, enemy jetbikes, etc. can all handle that.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/04/27 04:08:49
Subject: Fixing D-Weapons
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
I like it razerous. I personally just think a blanket -1 on D chart for shooting strD is super simple and eliminates what most people's problems are with strD. Still gives stomp and CC access to the 6 result which I think makes sense.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/04/27 04:13:55
Subject: Fixing D-Weapons
|
 |
Monstrous Master Moulder
Cleveland, Ohio, USA
|
Chancetragedy wrote:I like it razerous. I personally just think a blanket -1 on D chart for shooting strD is super simple and eliminates what most people's problems are with strD. Still gives stomp and CC access to the 6 result which I think makes sense.
The 6 result doesn't bother me. The D3 hullpoints/wounds per hit does. MCs and Vehicles become liabilities with D weapons on the board if they're this available.
|
They are my bulwark against the Terror. They are the Defenders of Humanity. They are my Space Marines, and they shall know no fear. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/04/27 04:18:44
Subject: Fixing D-Weapons
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
But there is a good chance those types of models survive a few shots and aren't just auto removed with the 6 result. I can dig a change to D, but for me personally Im not down for anything that starts getting to intricate. Is love a solution that's elegant in its simplicity. However it happens I'd support a change to how D currently operates with its proliferation that appears to be coming.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/04/27 04:19:46
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/04/27 04:49:46
Subject: Fixing D-Weapons
|
 |
Sadistic Inquisitorial Excruciator
|
This still leaves D weapons just under 3 times as good as a S10AP2 attack on vehicles and over twice as good as AP1. That might be fine if they were only available on very expensive super heavies, but when you're talking about being able to spam them...
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/04/27 04:53:10
Subject: Fixing D-Weapons
|
 |
Regular Dakkanaut
Latveria
|
Make it so that you can use cover and invuln against 6's on the D table. Tada! No longer broken.
While we're at it make 6's to stomp S:10 AP:2 instead of literally stomped out of existence.
|
Playing:
Main:
-Chaos Daemons
-Sometimes CSM allies for Daemons
Alts:
-Dark Angels
-Inquisition, nobody expects the imperial
-Officio Assassinorum
-Legion of the Damned |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/04/27 06:50:09
Subject: Fixing D-Weapons
|
 |
Hurr! Ogryn Bone 'Ead!
A Place
|
@Razerous
I think you are missing something. The problem is not str D, nobody complains when there is a Shadowsword in their opponents army after all. The problem is Eldar have str D coming out their bum.
Any nerfing of str D, while it may alleviate the Eldar problem, will also make Lords of War like the Shadowsword go from "rarely worth taking" to "a waste of a plastic."
If you really want to fix distort weapons then make them what they were in the old book. If you want to fix all D weapons then first change distort weapons back, then make D weapons powerful but expensive and impossible to spam outside of apoc.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/04/27 06:59:22
Subject: Fixing D-Weapons
|
 |
!!Goffik Rocker!!
|
extremefreak17 wrote:Mavnas wrote: extremefreak17 wrote:Mavnas wrote:I think the far more reasonable restriction is banning the new Eldar codex outright and refusing to buy any more eldar from GW until they put out something vaguely balanced.
Has to be a troll right? Or do people this daft really exist?
No, I refuse to play the new eldar until something is fixed. The first few codices of this edition were fairly balanced. The necron one had some fairly unkillable units, but their firepower was low enough that you could deal with them. The new Eldar codex is only beatable if your opponent builds a bad list and then sucks at the game.
The problem is in a game like this, you can't just go out and paint a whole new army from scratch in a month if your old one becomes totally invalidated. This isn't building a new Magic deck or picking some new spec in a computer game. If the lack of balance gets so bad that you have to go beyond switching out a couple units to remain effective, it's not worth it. If I hadn't already gotten into 40K (i.e. if I had to start over) and I didn't have a huge pile of unpainted stuff, I certainly wouldn't get into this game today.
Right then, have fun off in lala land. Meanwhile, back in the real world, most of us know that GW is in fact not going to do anything about it. Why would you punish the players? What am I supposed to do with my 4000+ points of Eldar in the meanwhile? People are just trying do their best here with what they have to work with, and then you chime in with your toxic nonsense.
Weather you like it or not, some people WILL deny you games simply cause you're playing eldar and it's perfectly fine. As an eldar player, you have to acknowledge that the hate is not coming out of nowhere. When was the last time someone started a thread about denying games to orks, BA, DA or CSM?
You must understand that it's not about what you actually bring that turns people down. It's about what you can bring. Unless the opponent is allready familliar with you avoiding broken stuff, you're doomed to be treated like that eldar guy and have to earn some trust beforehand to be a welcommed opponent.
Imagine yourself meeting a person with a gun. He might not use it against you but you try to avoid him cause you never know beforehand.
|
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2015/04/27 07:07:46
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/04/27 12:06:43
Subject: Fixing D-Weapons
|
 |
Veteran Wolf Guard Squad Leader
|
koooaei wrote: extremefreak17 wrote:Mavnas wrote: extremefreak17 wrote:Mavnas wrote:I think the far more reasonable restriction is banning the new Eldar codex outright and refusing to buy any more eldar from GW until they put out something vaguely balanced.
Has to be a troll right? Or do people this daft really exist?
No, I refuse to play the new eldar until something is fixed. The first few codices of this edition were fairly balanced. The necron one had some fairly unkillable units, but their firepower was low enough that you could deal with them. The new Eldar codex is only beatable if your opponent builds a bad list and then sucks at the game.
The problem is in a game like this, you can't just go out and paint a whole new army from scratch in a month if your old one becomes totally invalidated. This isn't building a new Magic deck or picking some new spec in a computer game. If the lack of balance gets so bad that you have to go beyond switching out a couple units to remain effective, it's not worth it. If I hadn't already gotten into 40K (i.e. if I had to start over) and I didn't have a huge pile of unpainted stuff, I certainly wouldn't get into this game today.
Right then, have fun off in lala land. Meanwhile, back in the real world, most of us know that GW is in fact not going to do anything about it. Why would you punish the players? What am I supposed to do with my 4000+ points of Eldar in the meanwhile? People are just trying do their best here with what they have to work with, and then you chime in with your toxic nonsense.
Weather you like it or not, some people WILL deny you games simply cause you're playing eldar and it's perfectly fine. As an eldar player, you have to acknowledge that the hate is not coming out of nowhere. When was the last time someone started a thread about denying games to orks, BA, DA or CSM?
You must understand that it's not about what you actually bring that turns people down. It's about what you can bring. Unless the opponent is allready familliar with you avoiding broken stuff, you're doomed to be treated like that eldar guy and have to earn some trust beforehand to be a welcommed opponent.
Imagine yourself meeting a person with a gun. He might not use it against you but you try to avoid him cause you never know beforehand.
So hypothetically, I go to a new store with my Guardian army, and try and get a game, but just because it's Eldar, no one plays it, how do I earn 'some trust' so I can get a game
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/04/27 12:59:03
Subject: Fixing D-Weapons
|
 |
Towering Hierophant Bio-Titan
UK
|
obsidiankatana wrote:Chancetragedy wrote:I like it razerous. I personally just think a blanket -1 on D chart for shooting strD is super simple and eliminates what most people's problems are with strD. Still gives stomp and CC access to the 6 result which I think makes sense.
The 6 result doesn't bother me. The D3 hullpoints/wounds per hit does. MCs and Vehicles become liabilities with D weapons on the board if they're this available. MC's and vehicles are wounded and Penned on 3's and 4's with Str D blast or template weapons. Each hit takes off D3 wounds/hullpoints... fine. Str D is meant to be scary... However you can still take cover/invulnerable saves, still have FNP. I would definitely disagree with the usage of 'Liabilities'.
NL_Cirrus wrote:@Razerous
I think you are missing something. The problem is not str D, nobody complains when there is a Shadowsword in their opponents army after all. The problem is Eldar have str D coming out their bum.
Any nerfing of str D, while it may alleviate the Eldar problem, will also make Lords of War like the Shadowsword go from "rarely worth taking" to "a waste of a plastic."
If you really want to fix distort weapons then make them what they were in the old book. If you want to fix all D weapons then first change distort weapons back, then make D weapons powerful but expensive and impossible to spam outside of apoc.
Yes the problem is Str D, wounding and (more importantly) penning on 2's en-mass with blast or templates. And the problem is then rolling a 6, meaning guardsman now equates to a bloodthirster.
A few things about the Shadowsword.. is it range D blast? If so, I'm all for giving it the blanet -1. Another key point... careful about using sub-optimal/overpriced units like the Shadowsword as comparison. Can be misleading!
I do think single-shot Str D should be unmodified. A bs4 model will roll a 6 11% of the time. Potential but not ground breaking.
|
H.B.M.C. wrote:Friend of mine just sent me this:
"The Tyranid Codex, where I learned the truth about despair, as will you. There's a reason why this codex is the worst hell on earth... Hope. ." Too be fair.. it's all worked out quite well!
Heh. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/04/27 15:07:34
Subject: Fixing D-Weapons
|
 |
Did Fulgrim Just Behead Ferrus?
|
Razerous wrote:
NL_Cirrus wrote:@Razerous
I think you are missing something. The problem is not str D, nobody complains when there is a Shadowsword in their opponents army after all. The problem is Eldar have str D coming out their bum.
Any nerfing of str D, while it may alleviate the Eldar problem, will also make Lords of War like the Shadowsword go from "rarely worth taking" to "a waste of a plastic."
If you really want to fix distort weapons then make them what they were in the old book. If you want to fix all D weapons then first change distort weapons back, then make D weapons powerful but expensive and impossible to spam outside of apoc.
Yes the problem is Str D, wounding and (more importantly) penning on 2's en-mass with blast or templates. And the problem is then rolling a 6, meaning guardsman now equates to a bloodthirster.
A few things about the Shadowsword.. is it range D blast? If so, I'm all for giving it the blanet -1. Another key point... careful about using sub-optimal/overpriced units like the Shadowsword as comparison. Can be misleading!
I do think single-shot Str D should be unmodified. A bs4 model will roll a 6 11% of the time. Potential but not ground breaking.
You're still missing the point. The purpose of the Shadowsword is specifically to be a titan hunter. That is its designed and intended role, and you're paying 450pts for a single 5" D blast. And now your blanket rule removes its purpose. That is why you don't create blanket rules like that, because it has an unintended ripple effect on other things.
|
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/04/27 15:20:21
Subject: Fixing D-Weapons
|
 |
Monstrous Master Moulder
Cleveland, Ohio, USA
|
Razerous wrote:MC's and vehicles are wounded and Penned on 3's and 4's with Str D blast or template weapons. Each hit takes off D3 wounds/hullpoints... fine. Str D is meant to be scary... However you can still take cover/invulnerable saves, still have FNP. I would definitely disagree with the usage of 'Liabilities'.
3+ wounds. It's never a 4+. And you can't take FNP, by the very virtue of it being Str D. Might be fine for you, not for me. The solution to MCs used to be poison weapons, low AP, or some combination thereof. Plasma comes to mind. Taking Guardsmen vet squads as an example, 6pt model + 15pt weapon = 21pts that inflicts maximum 2 wounds vs MC. A squad thereof runs 60+90 = 150pts (vet squad 3x plasma) and inflicts a maximum of 6 wounds. The eldar D-scythe unit runs 210pts and instead inflicts 5d3 wounds, so between 5 and 15. Taking the maximum on both ends - Vet squad pays 25pts per wound, WG pays 14pts per wound. Admittedly this comparison is unrealistic, as asking for 5 results of a 3 on a D3 is asking as much as 3 rapid firing plasma guns all hitting and wounding, but therein lies my problem. Melta, or other such high strength low AP, as well as high strength high ROF used to be the answer to armor or vehicles ( HP/Wound stripping or punching through saves / fishing for pens). D weapons combine both, and eldar pay no more for them than they used to pay for Str10.
And if the argument should arise that their Str D is short ranged, on high-cost models, etc - you know how much other armies pay for their ranged strength D? They can't even get it outside LoW slots.
Automatically Appended Next Post: As well, D-scythes ignore cover by virtue of being templates and D-Cannon Vaul's Wrath are barrage weapons - thus ignoring directional cover.
|
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2015/04/27 15:23:01
They are my bulwark against the Terror. They are the Defenders of Humanity. They are my Space Marines, and they shall know no fear. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/04/27 15:29:46
Subject: Re:Fixing D-Weapons
|
 |
Towering Hierophant Bio-Titan
UK
|
Guys, come on.. read the OP.
The -1 is blanet for all D-weapons (blast & templates) but doesn't apply when targetting super heavies or G-creatures.
Also this stacks with the inbuilt -1 already existing on D-scythes.
D-scythes wounding on 4's, doing D3 wounds, AP2, Str 10 and ignoring cover, automatically hitting and getting multiple hits = Good/Reasonable. Also gives balance between Single shot/Blast and Template weapons.
|
H.B.M.C. wrote:Friend of mine just sent me this:
"The Tyranid Codex, where I learned the truth about despair, as will you. There's a reason why this codex is the worst hell on earth... Hope. ." Too be fair.. it's all worked out quite well!
Heh. |
|
 |
 |
|