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.

What do you think the appropriate cost of the wraithknight is?

For the purposes of the poll, assume that the wraithknight has the same stats, special rules, wargear, etc. as it does now.

Assume further that, regardless of its price, it must purchase upgrades as normal.

I'm inclined to think it should cost 400 points.

FREE, if you take at least 20 Howling Banshees.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
FREE, if you take at least 20 Howling Banshees.

Why do I get the feeling that you're not being serious?

Probably because you're asking people to pay a ludicrious 400+ pts for a Wraithknight.

As it is now, probably just under 400pts, no more.

However, it SHOULD only be 300 pts with a few nerfs. As an Eldar player for years, I have gone through many editions before the WK became my preferred anti-tank. When it was an MC with str10 guns, it was quite good and I enjoyed fielding 2 of them. When it was rumored to become a LoW & GMC, I was pissed. Suddenly I was going to have to look for other anti-tank options since I was certain it was going to now be 450+ pts.

I was relieved when it only went up to 295, but then immediately realized the hate that it was going to generate. Personally, I would prefer that it stay under 300pts, but that it has a few nerfs. -1W and only 24" range on the Wraithcannons would be a good start.

The biggest issue with the WK is not necessarily its rules, but the rules for GMCs/D-weapons and the fact that the WK is the only "codex" GMC (until the StormSurge, but that this is expensive). All other GMCs are FW and overcosted.

--

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Probably because you're asking people to pay a ludicrious 400+ pts for a Wraithknight.

Thus the reason for the poll. I am asking for general public opinion. What is your actual opinion on the matter?

400 pts is certainly more fair than 295. Given that Tau/Necron/SM are a thing, more than that is probably unfair to Eldar.

 Galef wrote:
As it is now, probably just under 400pts, no more.

What's your standard of comparison?

Traditio wrote:

 Galef wrote:
As it is now, probably just under 400pts, no more.

What's your standard of comparison?

Honestly, Imperial Kinghtss and the fact that the WK is much better. They should be priced similarly. The reasons I would say that IKs still need to be more are because:

1) T8 is roughly equal to AV12, but IK's are AV13 in the front and can get a 4++. Obviously FNP exists and armour saves, blah, blah, but if the initial dice roll to inflict damage is harder, that should count.
2) Even though Poison is nerfed vs GMCs, you can still wound whereas an IK is completely immune. Grav is WAAAAY more common than Haywire
3) IK's can have a D cc weapon AND a big gun at the same time. WK are more specialized as befits Eldar.
4) Way more armies have access to IKs. Sure anyone can technically ally with any other army, but the ally matrix ensures more armies will have "comfortable" access to IKs

The WK would still be "better" than any IK, but pricing them similarly helps

--

:" FNP exists and armour saves, blah, blah"

This more than cancels out AV 13. AV 13 is only decent because S6 can't scratch it. But scatterbikes fly to the sides of the IK and they die the next turn. IK are garbage, even compared to regular MCs. The curse of hull points is a thing.

Galef wrote:Honestly, Imperial Kinghtss and the fact that the WK is much better. They should be priced similarly.

I don't follow you. WKs are much better than IKs, but WKs and IKs should be priced similarly?

I'm not sure that I follow.

1) T8 is roughly equal to AV12, but IK's are AV13 in the front. Obviously FNP exists and armour saves, blah, blah, but if the initial dice roll to inflict damage is harder, that should count.

AV 12 and T8 are incommensurable.

An "explodes" result on AV13 results in 1d3 hullpoints of damage.
One, and only one, wound can be dealt to T8 because of, say, a lascannon shot.

2) Even though Poison is nerfed vs GMCs, you can still wound whereas an IK is completely immune. Grav is WAAAAY more common than Haywire

It would take, for a sternguard veteran, assuming IF chapter tactics:

5/6 X 1/6 X 1/3 (3+ armor save) X 2/3 (5+ FNP) shots to deal a single wound to a wraithknight, assuming no further buffs. That's 10/324 = 5/162. That's more than 30 shots just to deal a single wound to a wraithknight.

That's 3 - 5 man sternguard veteran squads firing within rapidfire distance. To deal 1 wound. And statistically speaking, none of those 30 or so shots are actually going to hit. 5/162 is actually worse odds than 1/30.

No. It's so difficult to deal poison damage to a wraithknight that we should assume it as practically or virtually negligible for points-cost purposes.

3) IK's can have a D cc weapon AND a big gun at the same time. WK are more specialized as befits Eldar.

The wraithknight deals 5 S10, AP 2 attacks on the charge, plus hammer of wrath, plus stomp. That's something.

A wraithknight should be about 100 points more expensive. I argued against that for over a month, then did the math. T8 3+ actually equal to av13/13/12

The suntanning should be cheaper than that, the sword and board slightly more.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
A wraithknight should be about 100 points more expensive. I argued against that for over a month, then did the math. T8 3+ actually equal to av13/13/12

Except, the wraithknight isn't T8 3+. It's T8, 3+ and 5+ FNP.

And I don't think that you're factoring in the possibility of dealing multiple hullpoints to AV with vehicle damage table results.

400 points, -1 point for every post on "nerf Wraithknights" you've made. IOW, zero points.

Seriously, what is the goal of this thread? Is there anything new to discuss about new Wraithknight rules that has not been covered in any of the countless previous threads on Wraithknights and Eldar in general? Or is this just another opportunity for you to express how unhappy you are about them, soon to descend into thinly-veiled accusations about all Eldar players being WAAC TFGs?

 Peregrine wrote:
400 points, -1 point for every post on "nerf Wraithknights" you've made. IOW, zero points.

Seriously, what is the goal of this thread? Is there anything new to discuss about new Wraithknight rules that has not been covered in any of the countless previous threads on Wraithknights and Eldar in general? Or is this just another opportunity for you to express how unhappy you are about them, soon to descend into thinly-veiled accusations about all Eldar players being WAAC TFGs?

The poll is new.

I want actual statistical data on public opinion on what constitutes a fair wraithknight cost.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So far:

38% of pollsters aren't taking the poll seriously.
1 person thinks that the WK current cost is fair.
The remainder think it should cost more than 350 points.

Traditio wrote:
I want actual statistical data on public opinion on what constitutes a fair wraithknight cost.

No you don't. You want a number that you can cite to support your claims that Wraithknights should be more expensive. Or, if the result of the poll is that Wraithknights should be less than 295 points (the option that is currently winning) will you concede defeat on the issue and lobby for its cost to be reduced to match public opinion? Will you go from arguing that Eldar players are WAAC TFGs if they exploit this undercosted unit to praising Eldar players that take such an awesome model despite it having a point cost that is generally agreed to be too high?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Traditio wrote:
38% of pollsters aren't taking the poll seriously.
1 person thinks that the WK current cost is fair.
The remainder think it should cost more than 350 points.

IOW, exactly what I thought: any poll vote that doesn't agree with what you want the result to be is "not taking the poll seriously". You aren't attempting to make an honest survey of opinions, you're just trying to see if you can manufacture some numbers to support your balance proposals.

So you made a poll for opinions that contains wrong answers. Interesting.

 BossJakadakk wrote:
So you made a poll for opinions that contains wrong answers. Interesting.

Explain.

Traditio wrote:

 BossJakadakk wrote:
So you made a poll for opinions that contains wrong answers. Interesting.

Explain.

You're essentially implying that anyone who thinks it's overcosted (EDIT: or even currently costed fairly) isn't taking the poll seriously, meaning those answers are trolls or simply wrong. Yet you provided the access to those answers, and are now discounting those who use them. I don't get the impression you're trying to get any data at all, but are rather attempting to find a reason to further assert your seeming forum-wide constant vendetta against all things "cheese."

Nobody has provided an in-thread argument for why the WK should cost less than it does now, and I've not seen any serious argumentation for such a proposition anywhere else.

This leads me to think that 8 people, thus far, have trolled my poll.

Traditio wrote:
Nobody has provided an in-thread argument for why the WK should cost less than it does now, and I've not seen any serious argumentation for such a proposition anywhere else.

This leads me to think that 8 people, thus far, have trolled my poll.

Why bother having a poll if you're just going to ignore any poll results that don't match up with what you've decided the common discussion on the subject is?

You didn't ask for any arguments or discussion. You simply asked opinions.

Say "Troll my poll" out loud. It makes me smile.

 Peregrine wrote:

Traditio wrote:
Nobody has provided an in-thread argument for why the WK should cost less than it does now, and I've not seen any serious argumentation for such a proposition anywhere else.

This leads me to think that 8 people, thus far, have trolled my poll.

Why bother having a poll if you're just going to ignore any poll results that don't match up with what you've decided the common discussion on the subject is?

Symmetry and completeness.

I want to clarify my answer. I am the 1 person who voted that the WK should remain at the same cost. Not because I think that is a fair cost for the model, but because of the economics of fitting one into my army. Rather than keeping the WK as is, but jacking the points up (creating the need to drop other units in my finely balanced lists), I would MUCH rather have a 295pt WK that is fair for the cost (i.e. nerfed a bit)

Dropping from 6 wounds to 5 is a 17% decrease in durablitly. Making the Wraithcannons only 24" range forces the "shooting" version to be more aggressive and possibly get into unfavorable positions. Both of these would make a "350pt" WK into a "295pts"

Traditio wrote:
Symmetry and completeness.

Why have a poll at all? You're ignoring any answer that doesn't come with an explanation post attached (at least when it disagrees with you, you seem fine with accepting poll votes in your favor that aren't accompanied by an explanation for why that person voted the way they did), so what exactly is this poll accomplishing? You might as well just read Eldar balance threads and say "I see a lot of people arguing that Wraithknights should be nerfed".

(Of course we all know the real answer: doing that wouldn't allow you to cite poll numbers in support of your arguments in your next "nerf Wraithknights" discussion. This isn't a sincere attempt to gain information, it's an attempt to manufacture evidence for your next arguments.)

 Galef wrote:
I want to clarify my answer. I am the 1 person who voted that the WK should remain at the same cost. Not because I think that is a fair cost for the model, but because of the economics of fitting one into my army. Rather than keeping the WK as is, but jacking the points up (creating the need to drop other units in my finely balanced lists), I would MUCH rather have a 295pt WK that is fair for the cost (i.e. nerfed a bit)

Dropping from 6 wounds to 5 is a 17% decrease in durablitly. Making the Wraithcannons only 24" range forces the "shooting" version to be more aggressive and possibly get into unfavorable positions. Both of these would make a "350pt" WK into a "295pts"

"For the purposes of the poll, assume that the wraithknight has the same stats, special rules, wargear, etc. as it does now.

Assume further that, regardless of its price, it must purchase upgrades as normal."

'Real' reason the WK should be cheaper: as we determined in the other thread a (current) equal number of points of Tactical Marines and Rhinos beat a WK 8 on 1 in an objectives match.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
'Real' reason the WK should be cheaper: as we determined in the other thread a (current) equal number of points of Tactical Marines and Rhinos beat a WK 8 on 1 in an objectives match.

So 4 units of Tac Marines with their free rhinos is 280 points. IIRC, the WK kills 6 units before it dies. I propose dropping the WK to an equivalent point value of 210, 3/4 of the cost of those SM units. Maybe add 5 points because it kills 210 points in the given scenario.

Traditio wrote:

 Galef wrote:
I want to clarify my answer. I am the 1 person who voted that the WK should remain at the same cost. Not because I think that is a fair cost for the model, but because of the economics of fitting one into my army. Rather than keeping the WK as is, but jacking the points up (creating the need to drop other units in my finely balanced lists), I would MUCH rather have a 295pt WK that is fair for the cost (i.e. nerfed a bit)

Dropping from 6 wounds to 5 is a 17% decrease in durablitly. Making the Wraithcannons only 24" range forces the "shooting" version to be more aggressive and possibly get into unfavorable positions. Both of these would make a "350pt" WK into a "295pts"

"For the purposes of the poll, assume that the wraithknight has the same stats, special rules, wargear, etc. as it does now.

Assume further that, regardless of its price, it must purchase upgrades as normal."

Which is why I clarified in my first post, that as is, the WK should be just under 400pts. Like 395. 100pts more than it is now, as many other are suggesting. Even though this screws the poll results, I think it is quite safe to assume that the VAST majority of people agree this is the case.

However, my point was that the theory of a WK; something that is the next level up from a Wraithlord with a living pilot and unique wargear, SHOULD cost around double what a WraithLord does.
So when asked "What should a WK cost?" I voted according to that. I then elaborated in the comments to help further flesh out your data.

BossJakadakk wrote:So 4 units of Tac Marines with their free rhinos is 280 points. IIRC, the WK kills 6 units before it dies. I propose dropping the WK to an equivalent point value of 210, 3/4 of the cost of those SM units. Maybe add 5 points because it kills 210 points in the given scenario.

He's referring to the test I conducted in the "do you run a cheesy army" thread. The WK didn't die. It ddn't take a single wound. It ran around slaughtering things with utter impunity. It just didn't kill 8 units in 5 turns.

This doesn't actually prove anything about fair points costs. Had the game gone on to turn 6 or 7, it would have killed more things.

It only proves that a WK can't, in and of itself, reliably beat MSU battle company marines in an objectives game.