What is the appropriate cost for a wraithknight?

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.

**Jacksmiles**

Traditio wrote:
Jackal wrote:Traditio, by your summary you consider librarians, farseers, rhinos etc to be OP as they are auto take units without a tax?

I think that if I made a poll, the majority of people would agree with me in saying that librarians and farseers have the potential to be extremely cheesy, depending on how you run them and what psychic powers you are using.

I don't think that rhinos are publicly considered auto-take.

They are if they're free.

A lot of things have *potential* for cheese. That doesn't make them OP inherently.

**Traditio**

BossJakadakk wrote:They are if they're free.

No, they aren't.

Razorbacks and drop pods are.

And if you're running drop pods, skyhammer is probably the auto-take, not a gladius.

**Jackal**

Sorry, but farseers and librarians by your standards still fit into the category of cheesy units?

So in your eyes, anything with the potential to be a force multiplier is OP too?

I'm sorry, but I'm struggling to take this even slightly serious anymore.
Anyone who does not agree with you must be a troll, any good units are OP or cheesy.

Essentially you wanted to have a rant about getting your arse handed to you by a wraithknight.
As most things these days are certainly OP.

However, for my entertainment, what sort of tournament list would you run?
Bear in mind your hate for anything OP or cheesy.

**Xenomancers**

Definition of OP is simple - too much power(direct or through synergy) for the cost.

**Traditio**

Jackal wrote:
Sorry, but farseers and librarians by your standards still fit into the category of cheesy units?

And I likely have the support of public opinion.

Again, do you want me to make a poll?

So in your eyes, anything with the potential to be a force multiplier is OP too?

Depends on the unit. Markerlights? Op. Chaplains? Probably not.

Anyone who does not agree with you must be a troll

Do you know how bell curves work?

If you take this poll, it basically has a decent bell curve distribution. Except for the "cheaper than now" option, which is an obvious skew. How would you explain the skew of the bell curve?

What is the most likely explanation, applying Occam's razor?

any good units are OP or cheesy.

If by "good" you mean "inordinately effective for its points cost," then yes, they are.

**Galef**

Traditio wrote:
BossJakadakk wrote:They are if they're free.

No, they aren't.

Razorbacks and drop pods are.

And if you're running drop pods, skyhammer is probably the auto-take, not a gladius.

If your running Khan as your HQ and Grav-Cannons with Grav-amps on EVERY 5-man Tac squad, you indeed want to take Rhinos, for 1 reason: Fire Points.
6 Rhinos occupying the centerline can Grav down just about anything without having to move.
You need a few Drop Pods to "close the trap", but rarely have I seen Razorbacks used in my competitive tournament meta

By the way, I have seen this very list kill 2 WraithKnights in the first turn. This was BEFORE the first draft FAQ and the WKs had toe in cover.

--

**Kanluwen**

BossJakadakk wrote:
Traditio wrote:
Jackal wrote:
Traditio, just drop me a PM of your "OP" units.

For any given selection x , if x is considered an auto-take, but is not considered a "tax," then x is probably OP/undercosted.

That's pretty vague. Things can be auto-take and not OP. You need to come up with more specific definitions. I feel like sanguinary priests are auto-take with BA. OP or NOP? Free rhinos are auto take with GSF. OP or NOP? I mean, why wouldn't you take them (if you own them)?

And there's personal preference auto-takes. That's another can of beans though, because I assume you mean competitively. However, competitively people are preparing for things and having lists ready to deal with your "OP" units, so if that's the case, then any comment in this thread that talks about "but the only way to deal with X is Y" is voided. Casual games have every possibility of dealing with my auto-take eldar rangers.

Your auto-take Eldar Rangers are something that any army can deal with. Flamethrowers aren't exactly unheard of.

Kanluwen wrote:
Jackal wrote:

Edit: kanluwen - this was what I pointed out earlier.
A single wraithknight isn't an issue, its when people run 2-3 it becomes an issue.

Putting it bluntly, even a single Wraithknight can be an issue for an army that lacks the tools to counter it--especially if someone doesn't know they are going to be facing a GMC.

But that's kind of a different topic. Talk to your opponent about what you're both bringing.

Oh but here I was thinking that points solved everything...

You don't always get to talk to your opponent about what you're both bringing. Two people getting in a pick-up game without having met before(the constant example used by AoS detractors about the no points system) aren't going to be conversing about what they're bringing. They're already at the shop/club/whatever, probably with a couple of lists on hand to get games rolling quick.

A Wraithknight should not be comparable in cost to a vehicle. It just shouldn't be. The benefits granted to GMCs are far, far too great.

Specifically SHV, you mean, right?

To any vehicle. SHVs are still vulnerable to the same thing their normal counterparts are(Haywire, Melta, Armourbane, Lance, and Assault). The only difference is that SHVs have an in-built protection against things that degrade the value of their armor facings...unless it's something that only counts the armor facing as lower(like Lance weapons) and against automatically being removed from play/Exploded.

GMCs gain protections from the things that traditionally have been the bane of MCs--Poisoned weapons, Sniper, etc. The only thing that MCs are vulnerable to that still affect GMCs are Fleshbane.

**Jacksmiles**

Traditio wrote:
Jackal wrote:
Sorry, but farseers and librarians by your standards still fit into the category of cheesy units?

And I likely have the support of public opinion.

Again, do you want me to make a poll?

I'm not sure why we should care if you want to make a poll or not. Your choice, bruh.

any good units are OP or cheesy.

If by "good" you mean "inordinately effective for its points cost," then yes, they are.

Anything you get for free in a formation, then? 0 points with any kind of effectiveness is inordinately effective for its points cost.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
How can a WK NOT be comparable in cost to any vehicle at all? There are vehicles that run the gamut in points costs.

**Traditio**

BossJakadakk wrote:Anything you get for free in a formation, then? 0 points with any kind of effectiveness is inordinately effective for its points cost.

I've taken up this argument elsewhere. I simply reject the premises. You're not paying 0 points for a rhino. You're paying 1000+ points for the battlecompany, which can include rhinos.

**Jackal**

Wow, I should have just asked what you thought wasn't cheesy.
Would have had a shorter list.

Feel free to make a poll again if you want, gives me some amusement I guess.

So in your world models or units that work as a force multiplier shouldn't be allowed.
What about chapter tactics? KFF meks?

I'm sorry, but being a good option does not make it OP.
Just means it's better than flash gitz type units and that it's playable.

And I would explain the skew as public opinion.
No 2 people think identically.
So naturally you would have alot of differing opinions.

Now take into account the armies they play, if they are casual, tournament or both etc.

It's a mix of public opinions based on a ton of variables.
Something you can't apply a pattern to.

**Jacksmiles**

Traditio wrote:
BossJakadakk wrote:Anything you get for free in a formation, then? 0 points with any kind of effectiveness is inordinately effective for its points cost.

I've taken up this argument elsewhere. I simply reject the premises. You're not paying 0 points for a rhino. You're paying 1000+ points for the battlecompany, which can include rhinos.

You can reject the premise all you want, it doesn't change the fact that you get a shiny extra obsec unit at no additional cost other than having to take one or two units (that also get obsec and their own shiny extra boxes) that you may not have otherwise. The benefits outweigh the cost.

**Traditio**

BossJakadakk wrote:
Traditio wrote:
BossJakadakk wrote:Anything you get for free in a formation, then? 0 points with any kind of effectiveness is inordinately effective for its points cost.

I've taken up this argument elsewhere. I simply reject the premises. You're not paying 0 points for a rhino. You're paying 1000+ points for the battlecompany, which can include rhinos.

You can reject the premise all you want, it doesn't change the fact that you get a shiny extra obsec unit at no additional cost other than having to take one or two units (that also get obsec and their own shiny extra boxes) that you may not have otherwise. The benefits outweigh the cost.

Ok. Then you run a battle company with 10 free rhinos. Don't use grav, librarians, drop pods or razorbacks.

Enjoy losing most of your games.

**Xenomancers**

Galef wrote:
Xenomancers wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Nobody will take someone that thinks of Fateweaver as OP seriously. Just remember that.

So what you are trying to say is no one thinks fatey is OP? I really can't tell if you are serious...he is clearly at the top of the list of OP things in this game. Can't be serious.

I've been playing Daemons since the got their own codex back in 5th ed (or was it 4th?). Fateweaver is very, VERY hard to use. He is essentially 300pts just for re-rolling the Warpstrom and getting 1 re-roll per turn. If you can get him into CC, he is dead....like Tau Fire Warriors in CC dead. Psychic powers are quite good, but FAR from reliable. Fateweaver only shows up in competitive Daemon lists because the Daemon player is irrationally afraid of a bad Warp Storm roll. All other "tactics" around using FW are secondary, although knowing a str D power is a nice bonus (but 3 Warp charge to cast is harsh)

IMO, Belakor is indeed better because he has specific powers every game AND is good in CC. He does, however disappear if anything concentrates even an medium amount of fire power his way. Laterly the best all-round Daemon HQ is a regular Lord of Change with Impossibiltiy robes. Durable, better in CC than a regular Bloodthirster, and a good caster.

Back on topic: A WraithKnight is a win-big, lose-big unit. In most games it fills a hole that Eldar have by being durable, able to deal with big targets and a great counter-assault unit. It fails against MSU and Grav spam. What makes it a problem is that the rest of the Eldar army is fantastic at dealing with MSU and Grav-spam. It's really a combination of things that a WK shouldn't be faulted for.

@ Jackal: While I agree that multiple WKs can be a big problem, I have personally seen it fail miserably. I ran 3 in a local "bring your best" tourney and faced 6 Dakka Flyrants. The Dakka Flyrant killed all 18 of my bikes in turn 1 and my WKs could do nothing else for the rest of the game besides kill rippers and Mucolids.

Forgive me but isn't the general idea with deamons to fly around with 5+ flying casters summoning daemonets and flikering flame everything to death with reroll 1's from fateweaver? This specific list crushed me when I was running a very strong marine list with a gravstar. I also think you undervalue the warpstorm table...if warpstorm is going your way it's pretty hard to lose with daemons. When your dreadknight turns into a herald...its basically GG.

**Jackal**

Even though most games are objective based, in which this list is a nightmare to face due to the sheer volume of obsec units.

Double edged sword though as in a KP based game it hurts to have that many fragile units.

Edit: Xenomancers, look at the big picture there though.
You had alot of points in something that is essentially wasted against daemons.
Against alot of other armies that unit would destroy most things in its way.

It's simply a really bad match up for grav to face daemons.

**Sgt_Smudge**

Traditio wrote:
Jackal wrote:
Traditio, just drop me a PM of your "OP" units.

For any given selection x , if x is considered an auto-take, but is not considered a "tax," then x is probably OP/undercosted.

So melta guns should be just as valid as flamers against blob guard? So, for this case, the flamers are easily an auto-take against guardsmen. Does that make flamers OP?

**Traditio**

Sgt_Smudge wrote:So melta guns should be just as valid as flamers against blob guard? So, for this case, the flamers are easily an auto-take against guardsmen. Does that make flamers OP?

You always try to twist my words and try to spin them in the most ridiculous fashion.

Use common sense, SS.

Auto-take simpliciter, not with respect to a given opponent. Flamers are not auto-take simpliciter.

You don't see the flamer entry in the codex, look at the points cost, and, independently of any knowledge of the opponents you'll be facing, declare: "THIS IS THE UPGRADE I NEED! THIS IS THE ONE! OBVIOUSLY!"

**Jacksmiles**

Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Traditio wrote:
Jackal wrote:
Traditio, just drop me a PM of your "OP" units.

For any given selection x , if x is considered an auto-take, but is not considered a "tax," then x is probably OP/undercosted.

So melta guns should be just as valid as flamers against blob guard? So, for this case, the flamers are easily an auto-take against guardsmen. Does that make flamers OP?

Tactical marines just got OP.

**Sgt_Smudge**

Traditio wrote:
Sgt_Smudge wrote:So melta guns should be just as valid as flamers against blob guard? So, for this case, the flamers are easily an auto-take against guardsmen. Does that make flamers OP?

You always try to twist my words and try to spin them in the most ridiculous fashion.

Use common sense, SS.

Auto-take simpliciter, not with respect to a given opponent. Flamers are not auto-take simpliciter.

You don't see the flamer entry in the codex, look at the points cost, and, independently of any knowledge of the opponents you'll be facing, declare: "THIS IS THE UPGRADE I NEED! THIS IS THE ONE! OBVIOUSLY!"

Not according to your statement.
Use a correct statement, one that I cannot mis-interpret, and we might get somewhere.

Grav weapons are amongst the most expensive weapon options because of their wide range of valid targets. The points reflect this. However, the grav-amp skews this.

**Traditio**

Sgt_Smudge wrote:Not according to your statement.
Use a correct statement, one that I cannot mis-interpret, and we might get somewhere.

Or you could use common sense and stop attempting deliberately to misinterpret me.

You know.

The polite, non-troll thing to do.

**Kanluwen**

BossJakadakk wrote:

How can a WK NOT be comparable in cost to any vehicle at all? There are vehicles that run the gamut in points costs.

You're right that there are vehicles that "run the gamut in points costs", but again:
It doesn't matter because even the most undercosted vehicle is still vulnerable to the stuff that every other vehicle is vulnerable to.

That is what I'm trying to get across here. You seem to be laser focused on the idea of the Wraithknight being reasonably costed, and it's not. It's nowhere NEAR reasonably costed. Even if it were bumped up to the price of a Knight, it would still be undercosted given that:
A) It benefits from Eldar Warhost bonuses.
B) It, currently,(the big FAQ is going to address this) can gain cover saves as easily as any infantry models can.
C) When granted its survival benefits by becoming GMCs removed the weaknesses it had as a MC(and even when it had those weaknesses, it was still considered underpriced by many).

There's three issues that need to be addressed there, in addition to or instead of the points issue.
One of those issues(Cover) is being addressed, one can be addressed fairly easily(Wraithknights gain the special rule "Torn Between Two Realms" negating the benefits of the Warhost bonuses by virtue of fluff. The Wraithknights are piloted by the living and the dead, make up some fluffy reasoning for it), and the last requires addressing GMCs as a whole--of which the remainder are not really considered issues, aside from their own unique weapon profiles/special rules(Supremacy Armour immediately springs to mind here).

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Not according to your statement.
Use a correct statement, one that I cannot mis-interpret, and we might get somewhere.

Grav weapons are amongst the most expensive weapon options because of their wide range of valid targets. The points reflect this. However, the grav-amp skews this.

Grav-Amp skews this, but that only affects Centurions and Marine Grav-Cannons.

**Sgt_Smudge**

Traditio wrote:
Sgt_Smudge wrote:Not according to your statement.
Use a correct statement, one that I cannot mis-interpret, and we might get somewhere.

Or you could use common sense and stop attempting deliberately to misinterpret me.

You know.

The polite, non-troll thing to do.

Common sense?

"2 assault marines without jump packs"
"Do not use drop pods, psykers or grav"
"Absolutely no changes to the army as I've presented it."

I rest my case.

Also, I apologise for all the trolls in this thread. Skewing those results away from the true poll result, which now lacks all validity.

**Traditio**

Sgt_Smudge wrote:Also, I apologise for all the trolls in this thread. Skewing those results away from the true poll result, which now lacks all validity.

The poll clearly shows that public opinion agrees with me.

The trolls will disagree with this interpretation.

But it should be obvious to any non-biased observer that this is the case.

**Deadnight**

Traditio wrote:
Sgt_Smudge wrote:Also, I apologise for all the trolls in this thread. Skewing those results away from the true poll result, which now lacks all validity.

The poll clearly shows that public opinion agrees with me.

The trolls will disagree with this interpretation.

But it should be obvious to any non-biased observer that this is the case.

Confirmation bias means you only see what you want to see.

**Traditio**

Deadnight wrote:Confirmation bias means you only see what you want to see.

I agree. Thus all the people in this thread attempting to devalue the results of the poll.

**Jacksmiles**

Kanluwen wrote:
BossJakadakk wrote:

How can a WK NOT be comparable in cost to any vehicle at all? There are vehicles that run the gamut in points costs.

You're right that there are vehicles that "run the gamut in points costs", but again:
It doesn't matter because even the most undercosted vehicle is still vulnerable to the stuff that every other vehicle is vulnerable to.

That is what I'm trying to get across here. You seem to be laser focused on the idea of the Wraithknight being reasonably costed, and it's not. It's nowhere NEAR reasonably costed. Even if it were bumped up to the price of a Knight, it would still be undercosted given that:
A) It benefits from Eldar Warhost bonuses.
B) It, currently,(the big FAQ is going to address this) can gain cover saves as easily as any infantry models can.
C) When granted its survival benefits by becoming GMCs removed the weaknesses it had as a MC(and even when it had those weaknesses, it was still considered underpriced by many).

There's three issues that need to be addressed there, in addition to or instead of the points issue.
One of those issues(Cover) is being addressed, one can be addressed fairly easily(Wraithknights gain the special rule "Torn Between Two Realms" negating the benefits of the Warhost bonuses by virtue of fluff. The Wraithknights are piloted by the living and the dead, make up some fluffy reasoning for it), and the last requires addressing GMCs as a whole--of which the remainder are not really considered issues, aside from their own unique weapon profiles/special rules(Supremacy Armour immediately springs to mind here).

I think I see. So what you mean is something more don't compare it to vehicles of similar costs to gauge it's cost/power effectiveness? That makes sense. Initially I was thinking you meant don't let it be comparable in cost to vehicles, which didn't make sense because no matter what it costs, it'll be a comparable cost to *some* vehicle somewhere.

A) Do people run these? I get it's a force multiplier but that shouldn't matter in the context of Traditio's rules because there's a tax to get those special rules. I almost hate to say it, but "I reject the premises" of this one.

To you, however, I will say I understand this point. Run a warhost, with a wraithhost, and suddenly it has guaranteed 6" battle focus. It's a force multiplier, and it's pretty damn strong.

B) Absolutely. Grade-A ridiculously weird stuff. Glad it's being fixed.

C) Fair enough.

Honestly, I agree with your points, and respect your opinions. You actually define your views and give me reasoning that isn't vague to support your position. I can see how the WK is undercosted in this light.

**Xenomancers**

Jackal wrote:
Even though most games are objective based, in which this list is a nightmare to face due to the sheer volume of obsec units.

Double edged sword though as in a KP based game it hurts to have that many fragile units.

Edit: Xenomancers, look at the big picture there though.
You had alot of points in something that is essentially wasted against daemons.
Against alot of other armies that unit would destroy most things in its way.

It's simply a really bad match up for grav to face daemons.

Grav star can shred no doubt but...The list has hard counters. Daemons basically can do well in any matchup - their biggest issue is killing themselves with warpstorm/perils. Which is why fatey is so popular and hence OP - his buffs army wide are pretty insane too. I think hes probably the best 300 points you can spend in 40k.

**Sgt_Smudge**

Traditio wrote:
Deadnight wrote:Confirmation bias means you only see what you want to see.

I agree. Thus all the people in this thread attempting to devalue the results of the poll.

Works both ways.

This poll lacks both internal and external validity. The existence of troll or biased results means that this is no longer fair to determine, and as we have small (and debatably influenced) sample size, it cannot be generalised to a wider 40k population.
The thread itself is a good idea - a question that is widely debated - but as a means to an end? It is sadly useless.

**Jacksmiles**

Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Traditio wrote:
Deadnight wrote:Confirmation bias means you only see what you want to see.

I agree. Thus all the people in this thread attempting to devalue the results of the poll.
Works both ways.

I honestly don't think those words will mean anything here.

**Traditio**

Sgt_Smudge wrote:This poll lacks both internal and external validity. The existence of troll or biased results means that this is no longer fair to determine, and as we have small (and debatably influenced) sample size, it cannot be generalised to a wider 40k population.
The thread itself is a good idea - a question that is widely debated - but as a means to an end? It is sadly useless.

Spoken like a cigarette company attempting to devalue a study showing that smoking tobacco causes cancer.

**Sgt_Smudge**

BossJakadakk wrote:
Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Traditio wrote:
Deadnight wrote:Confirmation bias means you only see what you want to see.

I agree. Thus all the people in this thread attempting to devalue the results of the poll.
Works both ways.

I honestly don't think those words will mean anything here.

Agreed. It's worth saying a last time.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Traditio wrote:
Sgt_Smudge wrote:This poll lacks both internal and external validity. The existence of troll or biased results means that this is no longer fair to determine, and as we have small (and debatably influenced) sample size, it cannot be generalised to a wider 40k population.
The thread itself is a good idea - a question that is widely debated - but as a means to an end? It is sadly useless.

Spoken like a cigarette company attempting to devalue a study showing that smoking tobacco causes cancer.

I'm genuinely curious as to how you came to that conclusion. Would you please enlighten me?