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.
2015/05/19 19:16:54
Subject: Zagman's Masochistic Endeavor: A Balance Errata for Codex: Eldar Craftwords
Bharring wrote:Sounds more like it'd be better served by a YMDC thread. (Sounds tenuous to me, but don't have my book on hand.)
Automatically Appended Next Post: For Farsight bomb, possibly make any unit with Shadowsun or Space Pope in them Allies of Convienince with any units with Farsight in them? Or just a 'Must join Bodyguard, no other model may join Bodyguard' on Farsight?
Yep, I'm thinking along these lines, but we should move the Tau discussion over to the Necron Errata, its where they'll be located. I'll be adding DE and Harlequins to this thread eventually.
Rune Stonegrinder wrote:Restrictions: Add "Only one Wraithknight may be selected as a Wraith-Constructs Command Formation/Dataslate per Craftworld Warhost, this does not impact the number of Wraithknights that can be fielded through the Wraith Host Formation."
A game wide restriction of one LOW even in Formations and unbound would solve the problem for every list out there, and the future codices
It would, but I am attemting to marginalize as few players as possible. Imperial Knight players not withstanding. If LoW are properly balanced its not a problem. I think this serves to fix the biggest problem, being able to take virtually unlimited Wraithknight in a Warhost.
This fixes nothing other than wounding result, limits to the jetbike squad make more sense. It was designed to give better heavy weapon options, the existing Scatter was just too good for cost. It was less about EJBs and more about a mono selection for Heavies.
Shuriken
Bladestorm: "When firing a weapon with this special rule, a To wound roll of a 6 is resolved at AP3, but does not wound automatically regardless of toughness."
I agree here helps against MEQ, but still allows terminators to be useful Good, I felt it was better than Psuedo REnding everywhere.
WHY they always have had distort and saw very little fielding, they should keep distort Typo, I'll add it.
Heavy Wraithcannon
Range: 36: Strength: 10 AP: 2 Heavy 1, Distort
Distort: When rolling To Wound against non-vehicle models with this weapon, on a roll of a 6, it wounds automatically regardless of toughness and has the Instant Death Special Rule. Against vehicle models, on a roll of a 6 for armor penetration, it automatically causes a penetrating hit regardless of whether the armor penetration roll was greater than the Armor Value or not.
the 6th rules were fine This should be virtually identical to the 6th Ed rules. Did I miss something?
Treasures of Vaul Eldar Jetbike: "A model riding an Eldar jetbike has a 4+ Armour Save and a twin-linked shuriken catapult. Their unit type also changes to Eldar Jetbike (see Warhammer 40,000: The Rules)."
limits to the wargear are just fine to tone down jetbikes they always were 3+ armor, they were not a problem until this codex allowed all heavy weapons This is a limit meant to make them like other EJBs, serves to tone down Farseers and Bikeseer councils, and balances out bikes quite nicely. I considered the 1:3 wargear allotment, but felt this was a more elegant solution that wen combined with the changes to Scatter Lasers has the desired effect. Instead of fixing one unit, these two changes fixed a lot more than just EJBs.
Wraithknight: 300pts
Wargear: Ghostglaive and Scattershield
May exchange Ghostglaive and Scattershield for.... Suncannon and Scattershield: 20pts; Two Heavy Wraithcannons: 40pts
May take up to two of the following in any combination... Scatter Laser: 10pts each; Shuriken Cannon: 10pts each; Scarcannon: 15pts each
When considering you changed the heavy wraith cannon to distort 300 points is fine, again was the heavy wraith cannons a problem in 6th ed codex, nope
Ranged S10 is nothing to sneeze at, and on that durable of a platform its an appropriate cost. 6th vs 7th still sees over a 50% increase in durability, plus added CC ability, plus added optional and additional weaponry. The 6th edition model was incorrectly priced at 240 so with +50% durability, added CC, and added options 340pts is appropriate, most of that cost is in Durability and CC ability. 40pts to go from a straight melee model to slightly less melee and two S10 ranged attacks is reasonable.
Bharring wrote:Stealth Suits probably only need a points drop. Their weapons should be good.
Why is Marker light/Target Lock so expensive on a Fire Warrior sarge, but so cheap on a Stealth Suits sarge?
Also, changes in ML cover-removal (such as -1 cover save per ML spent), or other ML changes are probably out of scope?
I agree about Stealth Suits.
This is the kind of thing that needs to be recosted, no reason for Fire Warrior Sarge upgrades, especially not at 10 points just for +1LD.
I've tossed this idea around before, it definitely could work well and may ultimately be more balanced. I'm on the fence about changing the rule, but its one I have always liked better than 2 for Ignores Cover.
Automatically Appended Next Post: 5-19-15 Fixed "Distort" Ommission
Added Dark Eldar! I did my best to make them more than Codex: Blaster/Venom Spam or Codex: Eldar Taxi Service.
I really worked to try and make different kinds of armies and playstyles viable. DE felt like the most one dimensional army out there, I endeavored to change that.
Let me know what you think! Don't expect Blaster/Venom spam to work as well as before, but you can put out good amounts of fire power with a lot more boots on the ground. Venoms and Raiders are pricier, but they are more resilient and have larger transport capacities. Blasters, Dark Lances and most upgrades got cheaper, but require you to put more(less costly) boots on the ground to do it.
Here are a couple examples of how it points out. You'll not put out as must Blaster or Darklance Firepower per Point, but you'll end up with much more boots on the ground and heartier transports to boot.
Blaster Trueborn In Venoms or Raiders
Old 5 Trueborn 55pts +4 Blasters 60pts +Splinter Venom 65pts = 180pts
New 7 Trueborn 63pts +2 Blasters 24pts +Splinter Venom 75pts = 162pts
New 10 Trueborn 90pts +4Blasters 48pts +Raider 70pts = 208pts
Ground Warriors with Dark Lances
Old 20 Warriors 160pts +2 Dark Lances 40 = 200pts
New 20 warriors 140pts +2 Dark Lances 30 = 170pts
Ground Trueborn with Dark Lances
Old 5 Trueborn 55pts +2 Dark Lances 40 = 95pts
New 10 Trueborn 90pts +2 Dark Lances 24 = 114pts
New 20 Trueborn 180pts +4 Dark Lances 48pts = 228pts
Also alleviated pressure in the Heavy Support Slot by letting Ravagers Squadron with two Ravagers.
Bharring wrote: Looking at DE, it feels like it might have gone too far, passing from minimal touch balancing to redesign.
Venoms with a capacity of 7? Raiders with 15?
Kalabites at 7 minimum?
It might be best if those things could be left unchanged.
Here is the problem I ran into with Dark Eldar, the codex was written as Codex: Venoms and Blaster Trueborn. The DE book had massive internal and external balance issues that had to be addressed, I will take any suggestions for how I would have addjusted things differently. Out of all the codices, Dark Eldar had the largest internal balance issues and only one externally balanced army design style, this book more than any other required more of a heavy hand because the tweaks that worked for other books, really wouldn't have fixed these issues.
The DE Codex had very few good things in it, and those that were good had to be spammed. If the DE player couldn't field Venoms or Blaster Trueborn, what of use would they be putting on the table? Almost nothing. If DE couldn't spam Blasters or Venoms the book was terrible.
Kabalites and Witches at 7 instead of 5: Both decreased in cost, but increased in minimum squad size.... why?
Kabalite Warriors
40% increase in models and only a 22.5% increase in base cost.
Kabalite Trueborn
40% increase in models and only a 14.5% increase in base cost.
Wyches
40% increase in models and only a 12% increase in base cost.
Bloodbrides
40% increase in models and only a 7.7% increase in base cost.
Before Wyches were absolutely worthless, Bloodbrides were even more worthless and Warriors and Trueborn were only used to get Blasters. Now, Blaster are cheaper, actually costed appropriately, but it is a bit tougher to spam them, you have to put more boots on the ground to do so.
Venoms with a capacity of 7? Raiders with 15?
Venoms had to have 7 if I increased minimum squad size. Raiders at 15 allowed for some more the use of larger squads, for example 10 Wyches in a Raider was 155ts, now 15 Wyches in a Raider is 170pts without any upgrades for anything, and that Raider is now significantly more Durable. 50% more infantry and a more durable transport for 15pts.
The problem with the last two DE codices was can be summed up with this 55pts for Trueborn just to get 60pts in Blasters to put in a 65pts Venom. 180pts just used for Special Weapon and a spammable Venom. Or 105pts for 5 Warriors in a Venom, pretty much just for the Venom. Or just take 65pts Venoms in Fast Attack... etc. The bodies were only used for their Special weapons and for their Transport and were cheap enough to Spam, this is a huge problem, especially for internal balance and needed to be addressed.
This was the most elegant way I could find to improve the internal balance of the DE codex, just decreasing the cost of the less used units wouldn't have done it, as Venom Spam just wasn't going to get shifted, neither were Trueborn Spamming, etc. You are now forced to put more models in play, take a a few less Venoms, and opens up other options for army builds. Yes, this was the biggest codex change, but notice all I did was tweak unit costs, minimum squad sizes, and upgrade costs and drastically improved internal balance while creating more varied and viable army builds. I think external balance is on point as well, but that is a bit tough to guage as this was the most complicated Errata I've created.
I'm open for other suggestions as well and if a better solution that creates better internal balance, more varied lists, and good external balance is proposed I'm all for it.
Perhaps if Venoms are OP, their price should go up?
Perhaps, if BlasterBorn are OP, but other Trueborn need help, the Blaster on Trueborn should go up in price? Perhaps the 3rd/4th could cost more than the 1st/2nd?
Just spitballing ideas.
2015/05/22 16:32:32
Subject: Zagman's Balance Errata: Codex: Eldar Craftwords and Codex: Dark Eldar
Bharring wrote: Perhaps if Venoms are OP, their price should go up?
Perhaps, if BlasterBorn are OP, but other Trueborn need help, the Blaster on Trueborn should go up in price? Perhaps the 3rd/4th could cost more than the 1st/2nd?
Just spitballing ideas.
I thought about this, but if Venoms strictly go up in price external balance suffers. If BlasterBorn go up, then external balance suffers. Sure, we could recost these options to create internal balance, but at the cost of external Balance.
The Venom itself is not OP, its the extremely cheap and easy access to the Venom that is the problem. DE troops aren't good, and only used for cheap access to Venoms, to meet requirements, and sometimes Special Weapons. Trueborn are just Special Weapon platforms.
What my changes did is attempt to preserve External balance while drastically increasing Internal balance. It also opens up more ways to play the army, actually opens up the ways the army was intended to be able to operate, but the combination of dirt cheap units, single minded access to Specials, and must have Transports almost all other options for DE are just too inefficient and poorly balanced Externally that they are non options. This has been the major problem with DE in 5th, 6th, and 7th. Sure, we saw some other things that could be useful, or something that became powerful with BBs, but mostly the Codices suffered greatly and kept being funneled into a single army build.
Sure, you can't do strict Blaster or Venom Spam as well, but what you can do is put a lot more models on the table with lots more options and available choices and the vehicles you put down are more resilient as well. Enough so that external balance should be maintained around the right point while internal balance drastically improves.
It boiled down to troops were too cheap yet not worth their points, but had access to lots of necessary Specials, and their transports were too good and too readily available. So you minimized infantry investment, maximized expensive weapon investment, and maximized transport investment. That is balanced, far from it, even if the end result could compete at approximately the right level. Now troops are worth their points, but cost you only marginally more in a total investment Specials are cheaper but harder to gain access to in some ways while easier in other less used options, and Transports are still great, just less spammable. All good things IMO.
Are you thinking of bringing back any of the old DE characters?
Also what made you keep the venom blade in the "weapons of torture" section instead of putting it in the "melee weapons"?
Also also, many people might think it weird to have numbers of 7 or 15 for transport capacity but honestly they're just numbers, people will get over themselves eventually. Now I'll just have to see if my friends will be willing to let me try this out.
Thank you for everything you're doing Zagman. I presume after you're finished with everything GW might just have to add a fifth Chaos God
Godspeed.
2015/05/22 20:24:14
Subject: Zagman's Balance Errata: Codex: Eldar Craftwords and Codex: Dark Eldar
Barrywise wrote: Are you thinking of bringing back any of the old DE characters?
Also what made you keep the venom blade in the "weapons of torture" section instead of putting it in the "melee weapons"?
Also also, many people might think it weird to have numbers of 7 or 15 for transport capacity but honestly they're just numbers, people will get over themselves eventually. Now I'll just have to see if my friends will be willing to let me try this out.
Thank you for everything you're doing Zagman. I presume after you're finished with everything GW might just have to add a fifth Chaos God
Godspeed.
As much as I would love to readd characters, that goes beyond the scope of this Errata. I'm trying to keep as light of a touch as possible.
I didn't move from Weapons of Torture to Melee Weapons because there was a pressing balance issue with the classification. Sure, it would have been nice to have more options, but in this case it isn't really necessary.
I take it you like the Dark Eldar Errata? If you can find people to let you try it out, or better yet use the Errata for their army as well the feedback will be invaluable.
I play mostly aspect hosts so I'll put my pennies towards that stuff mainly
Dive avengers
All the exarch upgrades are cheaper, awsome, but what about the twin linked option (I use it the most mainly because it looks badass) its not really super useful for a bs 5(6 with formation) model, perhaps it should be cheaper. Or go back to the 5th ed Dex where it simply doubled the amount of shots exarchs could make. The same argument also apples to WS exarchs as well.
Autarchs - they always feel so useless and bland compared to farseers, I've really only used them for reserves or now a days with wings and a banshee mask to tie up squads from 20 inches off. Power weapons are overvalued yes, but I still fail to see one being used as they should be, front line commanders like SM captains are and that's a shame to me.
Bladestorm- I like the changes, means we need to get ap2 in our lists now (esp assuming you'll heavily discount termites) and loosing the auto wound doesn't really matter as 6s wound up to tough 8 anyway so its w/e
Everything else looks fine to me, I'd play by those rules with bells on if it ment my space elves would stop attracting the evil eye.
Keep up the fine work sir.
Come watch me and my friends play good games poorly on Boss Room Ahead
Have a wonderful day
2015/05/23 18:32:20
Subject: Zagman's Balance Errata: Codex: Eldar Craftwords and Codex: Dark Eldar
Reducing the cost of Demi-Klaives to 5pts isn't effective because as Demi-klaives stand they are effectively an expensive downgrade on regular Klaives. In other words, if you do the math, you'll see there are basically no situations when +1A and AP3 is a better option than the regular +1S. A better change would be to just make them a flat +1A upgrade to regular Klaives and give them an appropriate points cost.
2015/05/25 05:28:07
Subject: Zagman's Balance Errata: Codex: Eldar Craftwords and Codex: Dark Eldar
Chronos is too slow to keep up with the rest of the army. Both are too slow to really keep up with the rest of the DE. Fleet give them an edge and niche in quickness they need, it's also fitting with the DE infantry.
Thanks for the link, the mentioned rewrite is way too massive and out of scope for this project. Some of the criticism isn't terrible good, one guy didn't read any of it. I'd love feedback from the player that says he did well with unique DE builds, I've never seen it competitively... And I'll be the first to admit they aren't my speciality. And everyone gripes about balance, but wants round numbers and spam able units.
Steveh15 wrote:Reducing the cost of Demi-Klaives to 5pts isn't effective because as Demi-klaives stand they are effectively an expensive downgrade on regular Klaives. In other words, if you do the math, you'll see there are basically no situations when +1A and AP3 is a better option than the regular +1S. A better change would be to just make them a flat +1A upgrade to regular Klaives and give them an appropriate points cost.
Technically they are better against T6 3+ AS. Also only equivalent against GEQ. Not really worth it, but is it necessary to change.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Homeskillet wrote:OK, I've had a little time to digest the DE stuff. Those are fairly massive changes, and I get why you made them. Still not sure whether I like the mandatory larger squads or not, but I'd certainly play around with it and see how it shakes out on the table top. I just personally look at the DE as the ultimate MSU army, and should excel at zipping across the board in smaller units, dealing the "death of a thousand cuts". My only suggested changes are:
1. Make Drazhar cheaper still. even at 170 nobody would play him, unfortunately. He should really be a 130-150 pt melee beatstick due to the limited way in which he can be used (i.e. with Incubi)
2. Maybe allow Warriors to take a Heavy weapon for every 6 guys, so they can get 3 in a blob squad? May give more reason for people to do evil footdar? The DE heavy weapons really aren't super devastating as it is, being Splinter Cannons and Dark Lances.
3. Allow Pain Engines to be taken IN ANY COMBINATION. Boom, blew yo' mind. Even with fleet, they are slow, tough, but only mildly survivable monsters. Allowing each Pain Engine squad to have the FNP buff brings them up a huge notch, and supports the rest of the army well by being able to spread the FNP love. With that change, it would make more sense to keep the Spirit Probe expensive, codex price.
Thanks buddy.
I think, even with the larger mandatory squad sizes they aren't much more expensive and still pull off extremes MSU in effectively the same way. 48 vs 40pts for a troop isn't a cost prohibitive increase.
1. I agree, I didn't want to be too drastic, 130-150 is probably appropriate.
2. More Heavies in the Warriors would be good. They could be Special or Heavy as well as an option. Even four Dark Lances in 20 Warriors isn't crazy. Costs what 200pts for four Lances, it'd definitely be a new style! But, three is probably the sweet spot.
3. Definitely. I had the same though, mixed squads would be excellent. I could see 2 Talos and a Chonos charging up the field.
Keep the feedback coming, and let's put those DE on the table.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/05/25 05:37:01
Zagman wrote: Thanks for the link, the mentioned rewrite is way too massive and out of scope for this project. Some of the criticism isn't terrible good, one guy didn't read any of it. I'd love feedback from the player that says he did well with unique DE builds, I've never seen it competitively... And I'll be the first to admit they aren't my speciality. And everyone gripes about balance, but wants round numbers and spam able units.
Yeah, I found their respond to be very...Dark Eldar-esque.
any idea on how to improve hellions? almost no one uses them.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/05/25 20:59:35
2015/05/25 21:12:11
Subject: Zagman's Balance Errata: Codex: Eldar Craftwords and Codex: Dark Eldar
Zagman wrote: Thanks for the link, the mentioned rewrite is way too massive and out of scope for this project. Some of the criticism isn't terrible good, one guy didn't read any of it. I'd love feedback from the player that says he did well with unique DE builds, I've never seen it competitively... And I'll be the first to admit they aren't my speciality. And everyone gripes about balance, but wants round numbers and spam able units.
Yeah, I found their respond to be very...Dark Eldar-esque.
any idea on how to improve hellions? almost no one uses them.
What killed me was that I also made any potential non blaster venom spam armies better, haha.
I thought about a points drop for Hellions, 1-2 ppm, I don't want to go crazy, just make them balanced. Cheaper Seargent and weapon upgrades makes them an ok harassment unit. Putting them on the table near a Chronos for 4+ FNP is solid. Can't reinvent the wheel,must small changes.
I was thinking along the same lines in a point drop but that wouldn't really fix their problem. Grenades isn't an option. Not fluffy and usually people don't take them because they die so easily.
Toughness increase -no
Armor save increase- no
I guess they're fine as is. If you're gonna use them then you'll have to know their limitations, standard Dark Eldar play style.
2015/05/26 01:49:20
Subject: Zagman's Balance Errata: Codex: Eldar Craftwords and Codex: Dark Eldar
Barrywise wrote: I was thinking along the same lines in a point drop but that wouldn't really fix their problem. Grenades isn't an option. Not fluffy and usually people don't take them because they die so easily.
Toughness increase -no
Armor save increase- no
I guess they're fine as is. If you're gonna use them then you'll have to know their limitations, standard Dark Eldar play style.
Yeah, they are just one of those units. Will problem drop them by a point, at least Splinter Pods are kind of useful.
Hellions: 60pts, 12pts/model
One model may be upgraded to a Helliarch... 5pts
The Helliarch may replace their Hellglaive with one of the following... Splinter Pistol and Powersword: 5pts; Splinter Pistol and Stunclaw: 10pts; Splinter Pistol and Agoniser: 10pts;
5-26-15 Change To
Pain Engine Squad
A Pain Engine Squad consists of 1-3 Talos and Chronos Pain Engines in any combination
Talos: 100pts
Special Rules: Add Fleet
Chronos: 90pts
Special Rules: Add Fleet
Any model may take one of the following... Spirit Probe: 20pts/model; Spirit Vortex: 20pts/model
Barrywise wrote: Some more responses on the link from earlier if you're interested.
Thanks for pointing me back to that thread. Its quite a bit of negative feedback.
I really love how I am accused of this massive failure to understand the Dark Eldar when virtually every bit of negative feedback is pointed at how I am lowing their ability to spam Blasters, Dark Lances, Splinter Cannons, Venoms, and Raiders. I'm accused of wanting to nerf DE Anti Tank when I made Ravagers 10pts cheaper, allowed twice as many to be fielded, made Dark Lances cheaper, made Blasters cheaper, affordable Blast Pistols, made Splinter Cannons cheaper, and made most infantry cheaper. Its like I might have recognized my changes reduced DEs most common and spammable forms of AT and made lots of smaller changes to compensate. I'm accused of making vehicles worse by making them more expensive, but the bonus durability from having both Flickerfields and Nightshields on both Raiders and Venoms stock at a discount is ignored. I'm accused of making Warriors and Trueborn worse because they cost more, despite them all getting cheaper and putting more boots on the ground.
I put out the premise of trying to break the DE steroetype of being only spam Heavies in as many Venoms(Maybe Raiders) as possible, and when I make changes I'm accused of some great travesty when any change reduces their ability to spam Heavy weapons. And when I'm accused of not understanding all the other viable DE builds a person supplies weak experiential evidence about a local league and their build isn't even using core DE, but a mixed Freakshow.
Reading that thread makes me feel like the vast majority missed the point of my Balance Errata. They seem to be completely unaware of the concept of internal balance, focused solely on buffing to reach external balance focused around the current meta. They seem to be completely unaware that the best and most powerful units/builds in every Codex I've done have been nerfed in some way and yet when that applied to DE spamming of Venoms and Special weapons it is somehow unfair. None of them investigated far enough to realize that the changes have destroyed the Grav Stars, nerfed the Decurion, balanced the Wraithknight, fixed the Scatterbikes, nerfed the Buffcommander, etc etc.
Its amazing the arguments aimed at defending the status quo. There was no mention of the positive changes in the codex to any of the myriad of units that weren't used in Spam lists. I'm accused of not understanding the DE dex at all, and based on most of those responses I think I understand it quite well. Balance has to be aimed at the most common/powerful/spammed/broken units as well as the overcosted/unused/inefficient/terrible units bringing everything towards balance. When the book as a standalone has only one really viable build that is a sign of terrible internal balance even if that one list reaches acceptable external balance. We've seen that over the years as codices age ie 5th Ed Necrons had optoins that were just too good and anything but those spammed units Wraiths, Destroyer Lords, Night Scythes and Annihilation barges were pretty much worthless barring a couple of minor exceptions yet the external balance was powerful and WraithwingTeslaCrons was a powerful and common list.
The end result is pretty simple, I reduced the most common and most powerful build in DE while simultaneously helping all of the ugly stepchild units. Even the reduction to spam resulted in more boots on the ground and cheaper less spammable options to compensate. More viable builds of moderate to good power become available. The real question is was enough done or too much done to reach internal balance and whether the external balance would be comparable to my other Errata.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Added some of the changes me and Homeskillet were discussing.
5-27-15 Changed To
Drazhar: 150pts
5-27-15 Changed
Kalabite Warriors: 49pts, 7pts/model
Units Composition: 7 Kabalite Warriors
May include up to thirteen additional Kabalite Warriors... 7pts/model
May upgrade all Kabalite Warriors to Kabalite Trueborn, changing the unit's Battlefield Rold to Elites... 2pts/model
One Kabalite Warrior may be upgraded to a Sybarite: 5pts
One Kabalite Truebore may be upgraaded to a Dracon: 5pts
The Sybarite or Dracon may replace their splinter rifle with one of the following... Blast Pistol: 7pts
One Kabalite Warrior for every five models may take an item from the Special Weapons list.
One Kabalite Warrior for every five models may take an item from the Heavy Weapons list.
Up to two Kabalite Trueborn fore every five models may take items from the Special Weapons list.
One Kabalite Trueborn for every five models may take items from the Heavy Weapons list.
Also, to anyone looking at these Balance Errata the goal was to use the lightest hand as possible using points as the primary mechanism of change, using weapon profile changes as well as Unit Composition more sparingly. Altering model stats even more sparingly, and lastly rewriting or adding new rules only when absolutely necessary.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/05/28 04:11:21
I see your still at this game, Zagman. I credit you that you've stuck by this project and put a lot of effort into it. You even seem to have some decent ideas.
However, the bad far outweigh the good. While I don't play Dark Eldar (Yet!), The Dark City are the recognized experts at playing them.
Here are some choice quotes from their reaction to your errata:
Squidmaster: With respect, most of this erratta seems to be about making things cheaper (with the exception of Warriors) without actually improving anything. It doesn't address any balance issues or fix borken/useless units, which is what I would want from an erratta.
Calyptra: I not only think he's wrong about that, I think he's so wrong that I think he fundamentally misunderstands Dark Eldar.
The Shredder: Numbers like 12 and 7 make it a massive pain to build an army to an exact figure like 1500pts. Simple as that.
JackKnife01: This just...no. No....just no......he has completely missed the other strategies. Numbers ofbstartong doesn't bother me, unless they made them more expensive. Venom spam is not the only way to go. My list has done well.
CurstAlchemist: I agree with those that think he hates our anti-vehicle. These changes heavily reduce our ability to field DL weapons while forcing us to increase the number of infantry with their low armor saves. The increase in cost for Raiders and base line Kabalite warriors means we can field less Raider Dark Lances. The reduction in vehicles means the added protection is being used against more focused fire do to fewer vehicles on the field.
Trueborn are more expensive to field and have the number of special and heavy weapons they can carry cut in half. Scourges also lose half of their special/heavy weapons further reducing the number of anti-vehicle weapons.
Giving us the ability to field 2 ravagers in a unit might seem like he is try to help us make up for the loss so that we aren't taking up 2 heavy slots but it also means Ravagers are easier to nullify their shooting on by forcing a jink on a unit instead of doing it to two different targets.
The point value shifting seems, to me, to be a smoke screen to conceal his desire to limit the number of targets we can field while inceasing the unit sizes and reduction of the number of anti-vehicle weapons we can take or use effectively during the game.
Leninade:Reducing the amount of vehicles a Dark Eldar army can field is a nonstarter, just no. What's more is that the humble raider is already twice the cost of its more heavily armored marine equivalent. The reason Dark Eldar players field so many vehicles is because we're forced to make do, not because they're so much better than anyone else's vehicles. A lascannon spam list where every squad takes a transport would function similarly to a dark lance spam list. You don't typically see lascannon spam because they're simply not that good. I don't see how revisions that nerf one of the weaker books and attack the inherent design of the faction could be a good idea.
These responses state it better than I can. As far as internal balance goes, there's more to it than shifting points costs around. There is much more to Dark Eldar than simply spamming Venoms and Blasterborn (and that was last codex). It's a matter of synergy and how units work together, and you seem to have misunderstood it with Dark Eldar.
It was also admitted in that thread that you have never played with Dark Eldar, only against them. I have to ask: What are you doing FAQing Dark Eldar and changing their codex, when you yourself don't play them.
I don't want to sound too harsh. I'm sure that your approach would do wonders for the armies you play. Stick to those armies, and leave the space elves alone.
I'm still waiting for you to offer quality suggestions. You are quick to criticize but offer nothing of substance. I've played Eldar across multiple editions.
Why if I was writing an Errata for all armies would I errata DE?? Well, I'm Errating all armies... Have you missed where I've repeatedly asked for feedback and suggestions from those more experienced? People are quick to criticize but don't seem to be willing to offer constructive criticism or useful feedback.
They may be the experts on Dark Eldar, but not a one of them has posted here or in that thread with any constructive criticism. Everything I Addressed in the previous post has merit. They keep speaking of this myriad of other strategies that I'm missing, yet how many have they put forward? I get it, Freakshow... Keep them coming, I happened to be aware of that one. How have my changes failed to benefit those strategies? How could a light touch be employed to improve them?
Everyone has also missed the part about wanting to use a light tough, using point costs as the primary change to codices. Using weapon and unit composition changes more sparingly. Changing direct stats even more sparingly. And lastly changing adding or rewriting rules only when necessary. I'm not attempting to rewrite the DE codex, but tweak it towards better balance internally and externally. It won't be perfect, it's a poorly written codex and I'm working under "light touch" constraints.
I am asking, how do I balance DE with a light tough to achieve the goals of this project? I'm receptive to constructive feedback and willing to make changes.
You've been quick to criticize, yet have not formulated very good arguments. You've made statements as fact, have used few examples, and stopped responding to counter arguments. For instance, why Scatter Lasers became S5 and Baldestorm became AP3 to improve internal balance, improve external balance, and create an actual choice.
As far as DE is concerned, I'm welcoming feedback, but blanket criticism in a thread on a totally different forum where none of the posters care to elaborate or even post here is of little use. I've read those responses and see little value in them, not a one includes anything of use, or are their responses taken in context of the other Errata. Their baseline for balance is going to be way off.
I'm still sitting here waiting for constructive feedback. I'd love for an experienced DE player to step in and explain the myriad of viable DE builds and synergies I've missed. I've not seen them competitively. Hell, I've asked for them to be pointed out. So far the overwhelming answer has been anger at Vehicles are more expensive, I apparently hate Blasters and Lances despite making them cheaper, and that I understand nothing about the codex. I'd love for someone to explain how I worsened internal balance. I'd love for someone to tell me how I've missed the mark externally compared to my other errata. I'd love for someone to tell me what I've broken in the errata, what is too good, what is horrible, etc. I've repeatedly asked for that feedback. And I've gotten little. Blanket attacks with nothing constructive aren't helpful.
And who are you to criticize? You don't play DE? Have anything besides an appeal to authority? You've mentioned SM Errata problems... Yet never elaborated on them. I'd be happy to have the discussion in the relevant thread. Your Eldar fix addressed some of the big things, but did it reall address internal balance? External balance? Besides fixing the utterly broken and telling players to play nice?
If I've done such a terrible job, I'd like to know how this Errata worsened Internal and External Balance?
Zagman wrote: I'm still waiting for you to offer quality suggestions. You are quick to criticize but offer nothing of substance. I've played Eldar across multiple editions.
Did you not read the thread I linked to? I have offered "quality" i.e. obvious changes in both this thread and in other threads.
Why if I was writing an Errata for all armies would I errata DE?? Well, I'm Errating all armies... Have you missed where I've repeatedly asked for feedback and suggestions from those more experienced? People are quick to criticize but don't seem to be willing to offer constructive criticism or useful feedback.
I'll give you a small hint: if people aren't responding en masse, then either your thread is absolutely brilliant or absolutely terrible. You can guess what my opinion is. I'm only here to point out the flaws because nobody else seems to have bothered to care.
They may be the experts on Dark Eldar, but not a one of them has posted here or in that thread with any constructive criticism. Everything I Addressed in the previous post has merit. They keep speaking of this myriad of other strategies that I'm missing, yet how many have they put forward? I get it, Freakshow... Keep them coming, I happened to be aware of that one. How have my changes failed to benefit those strategies? How could a light touch be employed to improve them?
There's a reason I copypasted their quotes here; they've decided not to touch your errata with a ten foot barge pole. Perhaps, if you actually played Dark Eldar, you would know more about their lists construction. Funnily enough, a dirty little secret is that Wyches can be effective, just not on their own. There are Coven lists as well, which you haven't bothered to address. Your "light touch" would neuter most of the Faction's ability to handle tanks/vehicles.
Everyone has also missed the part about wanting to use a light tough, using point costs as the primary change to codices. Using weapon and unit composition changes more sparingly. Changing direct stats even more sparingly. And lastly changing adding or rewriting rules only when necessary. I'm not attempting to rewrite the DE codex, but tweak it towards better balance internally and externally. It won't be perfect, it's a poorly written codex and I'm working under "light touch" constraints.
I am asking, how do I balance DE with a light tough to achieve the goals of this project? I'm receptive to constructive feedback and willing to make changes.
Changing points costs is not a light touch. Changing points costs can alter the very structure of an army. For example, with Kabalites going to 7 minimum at 49 points, it's better to take 5 Wyches at 50 points because Wyches are, believe it or not, better than Kabalites when put on the same points level. You have also make already expensive skimmers more expensive, ensuring that the overall cost of extremely fragile and unsurvivable units goes up. Tweaking points costs amounts to changing the way the army works, and you don't seem to understand that.
You've been quick to criticize, yet have not formulated very good arguments. You've made statements as fact, have used few examples, and stopped responding to counter arguments. For instance, why Scatter Lasers became S5 and Baldestorm became AP3 to improve internal balance, improve external balance, and create an actual choice.
As far as DE is concerned, I'm welcoming feedback, but blanket criticism in a thread on a totally different forum where none of the posters care to elaborate or even post here is of little use. I've read those responses and see little value in them, not a one includes anything of use, or are their responses taken in context of the other Errata. Their baseline for balance is going to be way off.
The reason I stopped responding was that I frankly had better things to do than try to walk through how bad these erratas are. Your changes don't create better balance or improve choice, they only make different choices obvious. For example, with your change to Bladestorm and Scatter Lasers, the Starcannon or stock Shuriken Cannon is now simply better in every circumstance. A lot of what I've been arguing is blatantly obvious; I'm just pointing out what you are failing to see.
I'm still sitting here waiting for constructive feedback. I'd love for an experienced DE player to step in and explain the myriad of viable DE builds and synergies I've missed. I've not seen them competitively. Hell, I've asked for them to be pointed out. So far the overwhelming answer has been anger at Vehicles are more expensive, I apparently hate Blasters and Lances despite making them cheaper, and that I understand nothing about the codex. I'd love for someone to explain how I worsened internal balance. I'd love for someone to tell me how I've missed the mark externally compared to my other errata. I'd love for someone to tell me what I've broken in the errata, what is too good, what is horrible, etc. I've repeatedly asked for that feedback. And I've gotten little. Blanket attacks with nothing constructive aren't helpful.
And who are you to criticize? You don't play DE? Have anything besides an appeal to authority? You've mentioned SM Errata problems... Yet never elaborated on them. I'd be happy to have the discussion in the relevant thread. Your Eldar fix addressed some of the big things, but did it reall address internal balance? External balance? Besides fixing the utterly broken and telling players to play nice?
If I've done such a terrible job, I'd like to know how this Errata worsened Internal and External Balance?
Sometimes the most constructive piece of criticism you can receive is when to simply stop, throw out what you've done so far, and start anew.
Hate to break it to you: that was the experienced Dark Eldar players' feedback. You aren't going to get somebody to explain in depth how to play one of the hardest armies in 40k to you by just asking on an internet forum. Especially not when you've some in with your own preconceived notions about how the army is "supposed" to play.
While I don't play Dark Eldar, I have done something that you apparently haven't: actually read through the codex enough times to get an understanding of how the army plays on the tabletop and how the various units work together.
This errata is simply Codex: -1. You haven't done anything to fix the fundamental problems of the army: underpowered Wyches, useless Hellions, Pain Engines being useless outside of Coven formations, the total unviability of any sort of footslogging units, and a disconnect between the part of the army that wants to chop things to pieces and the part that wants to shoot everything dead.
Warhammer 40k is a fundamentally imbalanced game. Internal balance in an army isn't about taking everything down in power level, it's about building everything up to the same standard of power within the army. All your errata would do is put Dark Eldar at the same level as CSM, Orks, and Dark Angels. Your Eldar errata fails to recognize how internally balanced most of the units already are, and simply brings everything down to the same level of sub-optimal usability.
I haven't taken to your other erratas because I don't play those armies, so I'm not in a position to comment on them. They have just as many problems as these erratas. because you insist on using points values as the only method of "balancing" armies.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/05/28 17:38:35
Bharring wrote: The touch in your errattas are certainly becoming heavier handed.
DE definitely was more heavier handed than I would of liked. I am gladly accepting suggestions for how to balance them internally an externally with a minimum amount of change. Nothing I did in my rough draft needs to be set in stone. Anything that accomplishes the same goal in a better fashion will be well received.
Zagman wrote: I'm still waiting for you to offer quality suggestions. You are quick to criticize but offer nothing of substance. I've played Eldar across multiple editions.
Did you not read the thread I linked to? I have offered "quality" i.e. obvious changes in both this thread and in other threads.
By quality changes you mean just don't take anything with a Dcannon and if you take Jetbikes, 1 per 3 max. That really doesn't amount to anything usable. It certainly doesn't help the subpar units nor does it create balanced choices. Intentionally choosing suboptimal choices does not make a useful change.
Why if I was writing an Errata for all armies would I errata DE?? Well, I'm Errating all armies... Have you missed where I've repeatedly asked for feedback and suggestions from those more experienced? People are quick to criticize but don't seem to be willing to offer constructive criticism or useful feedback.
I'll give you a small hint: if people aren't responding en masse, then either your thread is absolutely brilliant or absolutely terrible. You can guess what my opinion is. I'm only here to point out the flaws because nobody else seems to have bothered to care.
You have a very aggressive and inflammatory posting style. I still welcome you to contribute in a civil and constructive manner. So far passive aggressive or outright rude comments are all you've contributed.
They may be the experts on Dark Eldar, but not a one of them has posted here or in that thread with any constructive criticism. Everything I Addressed in the previous post has merit. They keep speaking of this myriad of other strategies that I'm missing, yet how many have they put forward? I get it, Freakshow... Keep them coming, I happened to be aware of that one. How have my changes failed to benefit those strategies? How could a light touch be employed to improve them?
There's a reason I copypasted their quotes here; they've decided not to touch your errata with a ten foot barge pole. Perhaps, if you actually played Dark Eldar, you would know more about their lists construction. Funnily enough, a dirty little secret is that Wyches can be effective, just not on their own. There are Coven lists as well, which you haven't bothered to address. Your "light touch" would neuter most of the Faction's ability to handle tanks/vehicles.
I did not address Covens at that point in time, they are a supplement that would be addressed at one point in time. Wyches are overcosted for what they do, in every list I've looked at or experience I've had I have not sceen them be effective. Pray tell. Nuetered all AT.... Cheaper Blasters, Cheaper Darklances, Blast Pistols as a viable upgrade... additional weapon selections for units... cheaper Ravagers with better optional upgrades and the ability to Squadron... The only thing I did that "nuetered" is reduced the spamming of heavy weapons on two Squads, of which require more less costly bodies to field the same amount. Upgraded Transports also makes it possible to filed those units. Yes the Venom and Raider got more expensive, but they got significantly more durable at a discount. 15pts for both Flickerfields and Nightshields on Raiders and 10pts for Night Shields on Venoms with upgraded transport capacity for both. I thought that was a very fair as Nightshields alone are a 33% increase in Jinking durability and Flickerfields are a 50% increase in durability when not Jinking. This was done in way meant to compensate for the lowered abilty to Spam them and Specails.
I'd be happy if any experienced DE player submitted a Balance Errata aimed at the same relative power level of the other errata. I'd welcome it and defer on much of what I did.
Everyone has also missed the part about wanting to use a light tough, using point costs as the primary change to codices. Using weapon and unit composition changes more sparingly. Changing direct stats even more sparingly. And lastly changing adding or rewriting rules only when necessary. I'm not attempting to rewrite the DE codex, but tweak it towards better balance internally and externally. It won't be perfect, it's a poorly written codex and I'm working under "light touch" constraints.
I am asking, how do I balance DE with a light tough to achieve the goals of this project? I'm receptive to constructive feedback and willing to make changes.
Changing points costs is not a light touch. Changing points costs can alter the very structure of an army. For example, with Kabalites going to 7 minimum at 49 points, it's better to take 5 Wyches at 50 points because Wyches are, believe it or not, better than Kabalites when put on the same points level. You have also make already expensive skimmers more expensive, ensuring that the overall cost of extremely fragile and unsurvivable units goes up. Tweaking points costs amounts to changing the way the army works, and you don't seem to understand that.
Changing points costs is the simplest way to re-balance choices. The goal was to make playing the army ie rules and unit capabilities to be unchanged where the Errata is used at Army construction instead of having to constantly refer to the Errata to play the army. This was my approach, and given that premis I attempted to make it work. Everything can be balanced to a large degree by points costs, as it is the metric we are given to assess worth of a unit. Unsurvivability of a unit goes up, by reducing the loss per model and making those skimmers significantly more durable compared to their cost. That is the opposite of what you just said. Raiders with Nightshields and Flickerfields for 15pts is significantly more durable than the 27% increase in cost would indicate. +33% while Jinking, +50% when not jinking in the open. The only time it is not more durable is when it has a 5+ or better Cover save. Now, if you are suggesting those upgrades aren't worth 15pts on a Raider and should have increased cost by 10pts ie 18% instead I'd be listening as I was debating between those two values for the unit. I tried to make them more durable for their cost, so spamming them to maximize target saturation wasn't as necessary. Did I overshoot the mark? I am well aware tweaking points can change the way an army works, the goal was to tweak them in a way that aided internal and external balance.
You've been quick to criticize, yet have not formulated very good arguments. You've made statements as fact, have used few examples, and stopped responding to counter arguments. For instance, why Scatter Lasers became S5 and Baldestorm became AP3 to improve internal balance, improve external balance, and create an actual choice.
As far as DE is concerned, I'm welcoming feedback, but blanket criticism in a thread on a totally different forum where none of the posters care to elaborate or even post here is of little use. I've read those responses and see little value in them, not a one includes anything of use, or are their responses taken in context of the other Errata. Their baseline for balance is going to be way off.
The reason I stopped responding was that I frankly had better things to do than try to walk through how bad these erratas are. Your changes don't create better balance or improve choice, they only make different choices obvious. For example, with your change to Bladestorm and Scatter Lasers, the Starcannon or stock Shuriken Cannon is now simply better in every circumstance. A lot of what I've been arguing is blatantly obvious; I'm just pointing out what you are failing to see.
Here you go again, making blanket claims as if your work is law sprinkled with passive aggressive tone and direct insults. Shuriken Cannon is now simply better?? Really, I did quite a bit of math backed up with logical application of experience and it disagrees with you. Or did you skip over the damage vs targets data that I provided? The end result is a more equal choice between the three. Each has a role, and all are better balanced against each other than before. Blantanly obvious, well if it is so obvious point it out, I'm pretty quick and have played this game for a long time and have played most of the armies, at pretty competitive levels at times, I'll catch on.
I'm still sitting here waiting for constructive feedback. I'd love for an experienced DE player to step in and explain the myriad of viable DE builds and synergies I've missed. I've not seen them competitively. Hell, I've asked for them to be pointed out. So far the overwhelming answer has been anger at Vehicles are more expensive, I apparently hate Blasters and Lances despite making them cheaper, and that I understand nothing about the codex. I'd love for someone to explain how I worsened internal balance. I'd love for someone to tell me how I've missed the mark externally compared to my other errata. I'd love for someone to tell me what I've broken in the errata, what is too good, what is horrible, etc. I've repeatedly asked for that feedback. And I've gotten little. Blanket attacks with nothing constructive aren't helpful.
And who are you to criticize? You don't play DE? Have anything besides an appeal to authority? You've mentioned SM Errata problems... Yet never elaborated on them. I'd be happy to have the discussion in the relevant thread. Your Eldar fix addressed some of the big things, but did it reall address internal balance? External balance? Besides fixing the utterly broken and telling players to play nice?
If I've done such a terrible job, I'd like to know how this Errata worsened Internal and External Balance?
Sometimes the most constructive piece of criticism you can receive is when to simply stop, throw out what you've done so far, and start anew.
Then offer a suggest of what the new framework should look like. You've yet to put forth a single suggestion.
Hate to break it to you: that was the experienced Dark Eldar players' feedback. You aren't going to get somebody to explain in depth how to play one of the hardest armies in 40k to you by just asking on an internet forum. Especially not when you've some in with your own preconceived notions about how the army is "supposed" to play.
My preconceived notions are based upon how I've seen the army play, how I see people construct those armies, and what I read about those armies from people to play them. And the overwhelming negative feedback which affected my view of how the army plays was spot on. People were pissed they couldn't spam heavies in certain units and spamming vehicles was a touch harder. There were significant cost drops or allowing larger units sizes across other units meant to make those units more viable. Outside of the Freakshow, I am at a loss how to play even semeicompettive DE without playing by my preconcieved notions.
While I don't play Dark Eldar, I have done something that you apparently haven't: actually read through the codex enough times to get an understanding of how the army plays on the tabletop and how the various units work together.
I've read through it a number of times as well as well as read tacticas put out on the different units by multiple people as well as looked at commonly constructed lists. And how do units work together that have been completely ruined by my Errata? I'd love to hear just two or three examples.
This errata is simply Codex: -1. You haven't done anything to fix the fundamental problems of the army: underpowered Wyches, useless Hellions, Pain Engines being useless outside of Coven formations, the total unviability of any sort of footslogging units, and a disconnect between the part of the army that wants to chop things to pieces and the part that wants to shoot everything dead.
It is not Codex -1. Quite a bit was buffed through either cost decreases, cheaper wargear options, more numerous upgrade opportunities, the ability to take squads, or receiving options for or built in flickerfields and nightshields. Which are now cheaper, can be fielded 15strong with transport, have one melee upgrade per three models at a cheaper cost, Hellions got a bit cheaper and cheaper upgrades, Pain engines are cheaper, can be be taken as mixed squads and gained Fleet to increase their ability to cross the table as being to slow and too expensive and taking up a Heavy slot needed for Ravagers were their big problems. Cheaper and more numberous Chronos in addition to cheaper footslogging troops and more heavy optiosn for said troops seem to help. Yes, there is a disconnect between the shooty and choppy bits, and how may I ask can that easily be rectified?
Warhammer 40k is a fundamentally imbalanced game. Internal balance in an army isn't about taking everything down in power level, it's about building everything up to the same standard of power within the army. All your errata would do is put Dark Eldar at the same level as CSM, Orks, and Dark Angels. Your Eldar errata fails to recognize how internally balanced most of the units already are, and simply brings everything down to the same level of sub-optimal usability.
Yes, there is fundamental imbalance, but relative balance ie using points to pay for a unit's ability to affect the game is possible. It is why we have points costs to begin with, 2000pts of one army should be roughly equal to 2000pts of another army with skill and list synergy being the biggest factors in power on the table. If you disagree with this, why use point values at all? The goal was to approach a roughly equal power level, one that was around or slightly higher than the first half dozen 7th edition codices. The goal wasn't to bring DE up to Eldar, but to buff DE where they needed it, curb their most abusive spam while maintaining the relative power of the codex and bringing the other codice in line. My Eldar codex leave quite a few of the internally blaanced units alone with only very minor changes, usually to exarch wargear. It was the clearly undercosted/overpowered units that got addressed ie Anything with a Dweapon, Scatterbikes, Farseers, Warp Spiders etc and to buff up the clear losers in the codex ie Wraithlords, Shining Spears, Storm Guardians etc. Tell me how I ruined internal balance? Which of those units was internally and externally balanced that no longer is. Of course Eldar as a book needed to come down, just as my Errata for CSM and Orks has boosted them up towards that same relative point. If you take each book that I've Errated and take their most competitive builds they should all have been taken down a notch or two, increased in cost so you'll have to sacrifice something or in some cases just no longer be possible, while if you too a list of all the terrible units you should find that they have better more cost effective options and you'll find yourself with a surplus of points left over to purchase more units. One of the tests I was doing was looking at lists in the army list section and applying the Errata, universally anything labeled competitive cost more, had it capabilities reduced, or was no longer possible, while the lists marked as casual found themselves with additional points to spend. That has been one of the litmus tests I have been using
I haven't taken to your other erratas because I don't play those armies, so I'm not in a position to comment on them. They have just as many problems as these erratas. because you insist on using points values as the only method of "balancing" armies.
Your biggest gripe seems to be using Points as the metric to affect balance. What is the better method? Especially one that could be easily applied. These Errata have little effect beyond the list building stage, it is why I wanted to alter rules as little as possible and keep the changes centered around points and sometimes unit composition. What is the better way, especially one that won't require someone to constantly be consulting the Errata during their game?
See the Blue.
Automatically Appended Next Post: After running the math I realized that by giving Flickerfields and Nightshield to both Venoms and Raiders increased durability but not significantly enough to warrant the full increase in cost. +50% durability with Flickerfield and +33% Durability with Nighshields does not take into affect natural 5+ or even 4+ cover saves which rapidly degrades the added bonus to durability. A +27% and +18% increase in cost for Raiders and Venoms respectively was too much and has been changed to a +18% and +9% increase in cost to yield a greater durability per point. Essentially the Raider is paying 5pts for Flickerfields and 5pts for Nightshields while the venom is paying 5pts for Nightshields.
One of the major reasons for adding both Flickerfields and Nightshields to both transports was to increase their ability to deliver assault units up the field where both increases to durability would be used. This along with larger capacities was meant to offer better assault out of an open topped transport opportunity.
TheNewBlood wrote: I see your still at this game, Zagman. I credit you that you've stuck by this project and put a lot of effort into it. You even seem to have some decent ideas.
However, the bad far outweigh the good. While I don't play Dark Eldar (Yet!), The Dark City are the recognized experts at playing them.
Here are some choice quotes from their reaction to your errata:
Squidmaster: With respect, most of this erratta seems to be about making things cheaper (with the exception of Warriors) without actually improving anything. It doesn't address any balance issues or fix borken/useless units, which is what I would want from an erratta.
Calyptra: I not only think he's wrong about that, I think he's so wrong that I think he fundamentally misunderstands Dark Eldar.
The Shredder: Numbers like 12 and 7 make it a massive pain to build an army to an exact figure like 1500pts. Simple as that.
JackKnife01: This just...no. No....just no......he has completely missed the other strategies. Numbers ofbstartong doesn't bother me, unless they made them more expensive. Venom spam is not the only way to go. My list has done well.
CurstAlchemist: I agree with those that think he hates our anti-vehicle. These changes heavily reduce our ability to field DL weapons while forcing us to increase the number of infantry with their low armor saves. The increase in cost for Raiders and base line Kabalite warriors means we can field less Raider Dark Lances. The reduction in vehicles means the added protection is being used against more focused fire do to fewer vehicles on the field.
you missed one:
Ispa wrote:
Real talk, not everyone is going to like it. that's a fact of life just move on and you do you.
2015/05/28 21:08:27
Subject: Re:Zagman's Balance Errata: Codex: Eldar Craftwords and Codex: Dark Eldar
TheNewBlood wrote: I see your still at this game, Zagman. I credit you that you've stuck by this project and put a lot of effort into it. You even seem to have some decent ideas.
However, the bad far outweigh the good. While I don't play Dark Eldar (Yet!), The Dark City are the recognized experts at playing them.
Here are some choice quotes from their reaction to your errata:
Squidmaster: With respect, most of this erratta seems to be about making things cheaper (with the exception of Warriors) without actually improving anything. It doesn't address any balance issues or fix borken/useless units, which is what I would want from an erratta.
Calyptra: I not only think he's wrong about that, I think he's so wrong that I think he fundamentally misunderstands Dark Eldar.
The Shredder: Numbers like 12 and 7 make it a massive pain to build an army to an exact figure like 1500pts. Simple as that.
JackKnife01: This just...no. No....just no......he has completely missed the other strategies. Numbers ofbstartong doesn't bother me, unless they made them more expensive. Venom spam is not the only way to go. My list has done well.
CurstAlchemist: I agree with those that think he hates our anti-vehicle. These changes heavily reduce our ability to field DL weapons while forcing us to increase the number of infantry with their low armor saves. The increase in cost for Raiders and base line Kabalite warriors means we can field less Raider Dark Lances. The reduction in vehicles means the added protection is being used against more focused fire do to fewer vehicles on the field.
you missed one:
Ispa wrote:
Real talk, not everyone is going to like it. that's a fact of life just move on and you do you.
I forgot about that one, I literally Laughed Out Loud in my office the first time I saw that and again just now. People probably think I'm losing it!
Not everyone is going to be happy, but I truly am trying to implement a fair balance Errata across the board and am trying to understand exactly where I went wrong with my first draft. The last thing I want to do is ruin a Codex and leave anyone anywhere near as underpowered as some of the codices are now. Now, that doesn't mean I have anything against knocking down certain things that are out of scope power wise.
I have been glancing at DE lists and comparing using the Errata, and giving the cost savings in some places and the cost increases in others it looks that the overall effect isn't removing DEAT, but results in similar capabilities with more models in play. Sure, they have to spend more to bring 10 Scourges or Trueborn instead of 5, but they are saving enough points or putting more durable Transports in play. Compared to the competitive lists from other codices DE are fairing better. Casual lists are basically getting more bang for their buck across the board.
Old 5 Scourges with 4x Blasters 140pts
New 5 Scourges with 2x Blasters 99pts
New 10 Scourges with 4x Blasters 199pts
Old 5 Scourges with 4x Haywire 120pts
New 5 Scourges with 2x Haywire 95pts Loses 2xHaywire
New 10 Scourges with 4x Haywire 190pts Gains 5 Scourges for 70pts
This is definitely a loss for Scourges, but is that the only use for scourges? How do we make them more viable for other uses that just spam Special/Heavy choices?
Old 5 Trueborn(55) with 4x Blasters(60) in a DL Raider(60) is 175pts
New 7 Trueborn(63) with 2xBlaster(24) in DL Raider(70pts) is 157pts Loses 2xBlasters and Gains Nightshields and Flickerfields and 2 model
New 10 Trueborn(90pts) with 4xBlasters(48) in DL Raider(70) is 208pts 33pts more than 5man squad and gains 5 models, Nightshields and Flickerfields.
This is arguable, sure it costs more for the same amount of Specials, but it does come with tangible benefits. 5 bodies and a more durable transport.
I am seeing the problems trying to fit in tons of Haywire Blasters, it is definitely harder to spam them now, and more costly. AT is somewhat helped by buffs to the Pain Engins ie cheaper Talos, and definitely by decreasing the cost of the Ravager. 10pts per model cheaper and more options means that Ravagers can now have Flickerfields for the same cost they were before. Squadroned with Flickerfields means they don't even need to Jink to benefit with more flexibility in the Heavy Slot.
When looking at my changes in relation to the Coven, almost everything in the Coven's got cheaper, but with the changes to Battle Brothers the Freakshow suffers somewhat, ie mixing ICs. Stackable negatives to Leadership from Freakish Spectacle is interesting. I wish I had more experience to know if a -1 per instance of the special rules is balanced, or if stacking is balanced. With almost every model in the Freakshow getting better, does Freakish Spectacle put them over the top?
Is the army wide reduction in spammable Haywire the real problem? I feel Darklight potential is still in the army. I feel like the army will be putting more bodies on the table and DE vehicles are going to be surprisingly hardier and with built in Nightshields and Flickerfields anything assault oriented out of a Raider or Venom is going to have greatly improved odds of reaching their targets.
I don't really agree with the scatter laser changes 100% I would think if the power is going to be less then the AP should also be lower. If you are going to reduce it down to Heavy Bolter STR then give it the Heavy Bolter AP Value.
Successful trades/sales: tekn0v1king
2015/05/28 22:51:57
Subject: Zagman's Balance Errata: Codex: Eldar Craftwords and Codex: Dark Eldar
Xerics wrote: I don't really agree with the scatter laser changes 100% I would think if the power is going to be less then the AP should also be lower. If you are going to reduce it down to Heavy Bolter STR then give it the Heavy Bolter AP Value.
Absolutely not. It gets four shots at 36". If I had my way, that weapon would be GONE. I've been facing it for 15 years now and I'm sick to death of it. It was overpowered from day one because of the platforms that Eldar can mount it on. And now scatbikes are a thing. Feth this weapon.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/05/28 22:54:19
2015/05/28 22:56:49
Subject: Zagman's Balance Errata: Codex: Eldar Craftwords and Codex: Dark Eldar
Drop it down to AP5 then. Not as good AP due to its 1 more shot. Heavy bolter has the same range as the scatter laser so 36" shouldnt be the deciding factor here. In reality Lasers should have an infinite range as light travels forever until it hits something, but we'll just go on the 36" to keep it "fair".
~3000 (Fully Painted)
Coming Soon!
