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.

Starweavers are almost identical to how they have been throughout 9th. The shuriken got upgraded but that's true on most new datasheets now (all shuriken weapons). The only thing added was the inability to reroll against it. So you think that one rule makes it super OP?
Drop that rule, add 5 points per shuriken (as all platforms basically have) and it's done. Voidweavers are a different story.

Voss wrote:

 mokoshkana wrote:
Wow, folks are really trying to nerf harlequins into oblivion.
Starweavers and Venoms don't cost the same because they aren't the same. They exist in different armies with different rules. Harlequins have EIGHT units in their entire arsenal. They need to have something that pops.

You're right. They aren't the same: they're strictly better. When better units cost less, the whole points system falls apart.

Thats not how point systems work.

 mokoshkana wrote:
At 2000 points, things should be equal, but comparing unit A to unit B for points X is not feasible. Points are not 1 to 1 across factions. This has never and will never be the case. So a starweaver and a venom are not the same. Venoms can be unlocked for 40 points with kabalites or wracks. Starweavers can be unlocked for 65pts with a troupe (or 50 with voidreavers after the initial detachment tax has been paid).

This.

 bullyboy wrote:
it's typical GW, here is a unit that performed decently before. But, let's throw on a new rule just for good measure!
starweaver should remain as is with a small 5 pt bump due to shuricannon stat boost, but drop the silly no rerolls to hit against it.
As for Voidweaver, same as above except slightly higher bump in points, particularly to the prismatic cannon. If points correct, squadrons won't be an issue.
Oh, and Troupes need Core added.
I'd also then drop Mirror architect to Core only, thus affecting only bikes and Troupes.

I think Blaze of Light or whatever its called gets dropped to Core only - theres too many stacking defensive buffs on the Starweavers/Voidweavers which are throwing them out of whack, making them -1 to hit, no rerolls allowed and they can't be hit on an unmodified 1-3, plus having a 4+ invul save. Its a lot.

I think Starweavers do need much more than a 5 pt bump though. 10-15 is my target.

Voss wrote:

 mokoshkana wrote:

Voss wrote:

 mokoshkana wrote:
Wow, folks are really trying to nerf harlequins into oblivion.
Starweavers and Venoms don't cost the same because they aren't the same. They exist in different armies with different rules. Harlequins have EIGHT units in their entire arsenal. They need to have something that pops.

You're right. They aren't the same: they're strictly better. When better units cost less, the whole points system falls apart.
They need to carry their weight, not be blatantly overpowered.
They very obviously need nerfs, we're not talking about a margin of error that can be factored to a few people getting a bad nights sleep and playing badly. They've universally knocked the entire table over and consistently broke the game in one of the worst possible displays on record. There is no hiding that there is a problem here, its just a question of whether GW will correctly identify and fix what's wrong, rather than flailing wildly with the 'unintended consequences' button.

At 2000 points, things should be equal, but comparing unit A to unit B for points X is not feasible. Points are not 1 to 1 across factions. This has never and will never be the case. So a starweaver and a venom are not the same

I don't agree at all. If SUM(A)=2000 and SUM(B)=2000, there has to be consistency in costs, otherwise you're really getting A=2000+X and B=2000-Y. It hasn't ever been perfect, but it requires at least attempting to get it right (and obviously they didn't even try here)
And its utter nonsense with two units so closely related. Its the same chassis with better special rules (literally +1 invulnerable save, and it also works in melee) and gun. Very obviously, costing less is an unacceptable answer.
You're effectively arguing that if you a Space Marine Rhino and Chaos Space Marine Rhino and they're otherwise the same, the Chaos Rhino should cost _less_ if you give it a havoc launcher.

It doesn't matter if you don't agree, the principles of game design pretty much say otherwise. Your logic also doesn't make sense, points are balanced in aggregate, SUM(A) = SUM(B). There is no +X or -Y, because for every +X in SUM(A) there is also a -X, likewise for every -Y in SUM(B) there is also a +Y. I.E. a Venom might be +X relative to the Starweavers -Y, but the -X that is Kabalites counterbalances this against the +Y that is the Harlequin Troupe - especially keeping in mind that the Venom and the Starweaver are "post-tax" units that can only be unlocked after spending points on another unit to begin with. Then add on top of that the "unpriced upgrades" such as Saedaths and Kabals/Cults/Covens, Strategems, artifacts, psychic powers, aura abilities, etc.

I'm not sure why you're jumping into unit based discounts. The problem is the starweaver is better than the venom but costs less. Whatever you're saying here isn't what's in either codex (and makes it cheaper, which would be absolutely the wrong direction), so has nothing to do with the problem.

Come on, you're not this dense. You have to buy the unit before you can buy the Starweaver or the Venom, as they are dedicated transports and can't be fielded independently. In this case, the price of the Starweaver isn't 80 pts to the Venoms 85 pts, its 145 pts to the Venoms 125 pts once you factor in the cost of the mandatory minimum unit tax. I.E. the Starweaver is effectively 20 pts more expensive than the Venom is - and yes this *IS* how points systems work.

chaos0xomega wrote:


I think Blaze of Light or whatever its called gets dropped to Core only - theres too many stacking defensive buffs on the Starweavers/Voidweavers which are throwing them out of whack, making them -1 to hit, no rerolls allowed and they can't be hit on an unmodified 1-3, plus having a 4+ invul save. Its a lot.

Hard pass on making chapter tactics work only on core. This means it would litterally only affect bikes in the codex.

As a CSM player, having my legion trait not affect everything really makes my coex feel clunky (among other things obviously).

I would up the points before thinking about changing the rest of the codex


Automatically Appended Next Post:

chaos0xomega wrote:


Come on, you're not this dense. You have to buy the unit before you can buy the Starweaver or the Venom, as they are dedicated transports and can't be fielded independently. In this case, the price of the Starweaver isn't 80 pts to the Venoms 85 pts, its 145 pts to the Venoms 125 pts once you factor in the cost of the mandatory minimum unit tax. I.E. the Starweaver is effectively 20 pts more expensive than the Venom is - and yes this *IS* how points systems work.

Come on, you're not this dense. You have to compare the units... Kabalites are nowhere near as good at either melee, shooting or defense than troupes

I saw battalions with 6 troupes and 4 starweavers. So they like troupes

chaos0xomega wrote:


It doesn't matter if you don't agree, the principles of game design pretty much say otherwise. Your logic also doesn't make sense, points are balanced in aggregate, SUM(A) = SUM(B). There is no +X or -Y, because for every +X in SUM(A) there is also a -X, likewise for every -Y in SUM(B) there is also a +Y. I.E. a Venom might be +X relative to the Starweavers -Y, but the -X that is Kabalites counterbalances this against the +Y that is the Harlequin Troupe - especially keeping in mind that the Venom and the Starweaver are "post-tax" units that can only be unlocked after spending points on another unit to begin with. Then add on top of that the "unpriced upgrades" such as Saedaths and Kabals/Cults/Covens, Strategems, artifacts, psychic powers, aura abilities, etc.

That only works if you are required to take -y. As they aren't people just take op stuff. Sorry. Your logic sucks and been proven wrong in practice.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:


I think Blaze of Light or whatever its called gets dropped to Core only - theres too many stacking defensive buffs on the Starweavers/Voidweavers which are throwing them out of whack, making them -1 to hit, no rerolls allowed and they can't be hit on an unmodified 1-3, plus having a 4+ invul save. Its a lot.

Hard pass on making chapter tactics work only on core. This means it would litterally only affect bikes in the codex.

As a CSM player, having my legion trait not affect everything really makes my coex feel clunky (among other things obviously).

I would up the points before thinking about changing the rest of the codex

The assumption is troupes will be FAQd to be core. Just because one specific doctrine might affect core only doesn't mean that others will, CSM will be fine. Either way, it seems pretty likely that Voidweaves/Starweavers will be losing some of their defensive tech no matter what, the problem here exceeds what can be solved by a points adjustment.

Come on, you're not this dense. You have to compare the units... Kabalites are nowhere near as good at either melee, shooting or defense than troupes

Right, which is why the Harlequins + Starweaver cost 20 pts more than the Kabalites + Venom. Duh. But to say that Kabalites aren't as good as Troupes pretty dumb argument because Kabalites in a Venom are used differently from Harlequins a Starweaver, and in that sense Kabalites are actually better at shooting than Harlequins are because the Venom can sit at longer range and have the Kabalites fire their longer range weapons from it in relative safety, whereas in order for the Harlequins to do the same they have to enter closer range where they and the Voidweaver lose the benefit of Blaze of Light unless your positioning is impeccable and you manage to neutralize any potential threats before they have an opportunity to attack you. The melee and defensive advantages of the Harlequins themselves mater for little with the way they are being used, as most players are using the Starweavers/Voidweavers as mobile gunboats and avoiding disembarking the Harlequins from them until they've shot most of the opposing army to shreds to the point that they don't pose much of a threat to the Harlequins anymore.

That only works if you are required to take -y. As they aren't people just take op stuff. Sorry. Your logic sucks and been proven wrong in practice.

Errr... no? In this scenario the "-Y", i.e. the Starweaver, is the OP stuff, which you aren't required to take but want to take, but is counterbalanced by the non-OP Harlequin Troupe which you *must* take in order to take the Starweaver. The logic works fine.

So is Trajaan fine and doesn't need a point increase because he has limitations (HAS to be the Warlord) and you can have a limited number of him?

SemperMortis wrote:

 mokoshkana wrote:
Wow, folks are really trying to nerf harlequins into oblivion.

Starweavers and Venoms don't cost the same because they aren't the same. They exist in different armies with different rules. Harlequins have EIGHT units in their entire arsenal. They need to have something that pops.

Bud, starweavers and Voidweavers are broken levels of OP. It doesn't matter that this detachment style army only has 8 datasheets, i'm sorry that is irrelevant. Your units should not be head and shoulders better point for point than everyone else just because you only have fewer choices.

Venoms are noticeably worse than Starweavers, go compare those Starweavers to 70pt Trukkz if you really want to see how stupid it is. That Trukk has a single big shoota 3 shots at S5 no AP hitting on 5s. it has no durability boosts except -1dmg to S7 and below, its noticeably slower and has no synergy with basically anything in the codex except to act as either a mobile bunker OR a delivery system for trukkboyz. So for 10pts you are getting what amounts to 2 better versions of a Heavy Bolter (a 10pt weapon in and of itself) -1 to hit and a 4+ invuln. Yeah they need to cost a LOT MORE than they currently do.

The entire game is filled with unit X being better than unit Y for fewer points. It is LITERALLY how they design the game. They make things cheap in order to sell models. It doesn't matter whether it is right or wrong, this is how they "balance" the game.

I haven't played with my Harlequins yet in 9ed (outside of a wandering players patrol in my first of two CWE games), but after looking at the voidweaver last night, I think an easy fix is to remove blast from the Prismatic cannon in addition to dropping the squad size and increasing the cost of the prismatic cannon. Being 3d3 shots with blast makes it stupidly effective at dealing with 6+ units sized.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 mokoshkana wrote:
Wow, folks are really trying to nerf harlequins into oblivion.

Starweavers and Venoms don't cost the same because they aren't the same. They exist in different armies with different rules. Harlequins have EIGHT units in their entire arsenal. They need to have something that pops.

Yeaaa...but...it pops waaaay too much and they can easily soup. I'm willing to bet that any dataslate changes will ( at best ) place Harlies into a background detachment that just drags along whatever the optimum number of Voidweavers would be.

So if they background detachment it, they can only take 4 (at the proposed squad reduction change) in a patrol detachment without losing army rules. If they take 6, then they'd be giving up a host of CWE/DE rules, and two extra voidweavers aren't that good.

 mokoshkana wrote:


I haven't played with my Harlequins yet in 9ed (outside of a wandering players patrol in my first of two CWE games), but after looking at the voidweaver last night, I think an easy fix is to remove blast from the Prismatic cannon in addition to dropping the squad size and increasing the cost of the prismatic cannon. Being 3d3 shots with blast makes it stupidly effective at dealing with 6+ units sized.

blast does litterally nothing until you get to 11+ model squads (which no one plays because of coherency) for the voidweaver

 mokoshkana wrote:


I haven't played with my Harlequins yet in 9ed (outside of a wandering players patrol in my first of two CWE games), but after looking at the voidweaver last night, I think an easy fix is to remove blast from the Prismatic cannon in addition to dropping the squad size and increasing the cost of the prismatic cannon. Being 3d3 shots with blast makes it stupidly effective at dealing with 6+ units sized.

Doesn't blast not help at all at 6 models? You've already got a minimum of 3. Yes, it helps at 11 though. I don't think Blast is the issue here but I could be wrong.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 mokoshkana wrote:
Wow, folks are really trying to nerf harlequins into oblivion.

Starweavers and Venoms don't cost the same because they aren't the same. They exist in different armies with different rules. Harlequins have EIGHT units in their entire arsenal. They need to have something that pops.

Yeaaa...but...it pops waaaay too much and they can easily soup. I'm willing to bet that any dataslate changes will ( at best ) place Harlies into a background detachment that just drags along whatever the optimum number of Voidweavers would be.

 mokoshkana wrote:
So if they background detachment it, they can only take 4 (at the proposed squad reduction change) in a patrol detachment without losing army rules. If they take 6, then they'd be giving up a host of CWE/DE rules, and two extra voidweavers aren't that good.

I'm not sure the soup topic is really worth discussing much here in terms of avoiding Voidweaver nerfs -- the truly degenerate Harlequins lists don't need to soup right now.

Vehicle squadrons continue to be an issue. There's no need to haver them anymore.

 oni wrote:
Vehicle squadrons continue to be an issue. There's no need to haver them anymore.

Again, no.

Ork buggies and voidweavers were the only ones that were an issue.

Voidweavers would still overperform even if you could only take 3 in a list.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 oni wrote:
Vehicle squadrons continue to be an issue. There's no need to haver them anymore.

Again, no.

Ork buggies and voidweavers were the only ones that were an issue.

Voidweavers would still overperform even if you could only take 3 in a list.

To their point squadrons turn balancing on it's head. 3 Voidweavers? No matter how powerful they'll have a much more limited impact. Same goes for 3 squigbuggies. It's also part of why they made DPs the "same" sheet back in 8th.

You also had Mek Gunz ( whose leadership makes them think twice now ). Into the future you risk LRBTs getting out of hand when they get buffed. If the get T9 and you can take 9 of them PLUS TCs, well...it's going to be stupid.

Without squadrons you can have units that might be a little OP, but that work within context of the army. With them it becomes a lot harder to prevent spam and find that tipping point between uber glass cannon and brick.

 oni wrote:
Vehicle squadrons continue to be an issue. There's no need to haver them anymore.

I'm not seeing the issue with squadrons of Sentinals, Kanz, Speeders, Grot tanks, Armiger knights, etc. What's your problem with them?

chaos0xomega wrote:


Right, which is why the Harlequins + Starweaver cost 20 pts more than the Kabalites + Venom. Duh. But to say that Kabalites aren't as good as Troupes pretty dumb argument because Kabalites in a Venom are used differently from Harlequins a Starweaver, and in that sense Kabalites are actually better at shooting than Harlequins are because the Venom can sit at longer range and have the Kabalites fire their longer range weapons from it in relative safety, whereas in order for the Harlequins to do the same they have to enter closer range where they and the Voidweaver lose the benefit of Blaze of Light unless your positioning is impeccable and you manage to neutralize any potential threats before they have an opportunity to attack you. The melee and defensive advantages of the Harlequins themselves mater for little with the way they are being used, as most players are using the Starweavers/Voidweavers as mobile gunboats and avoiding disembarking the Harlequins from them until they've shot most of the opposing army to shreds to the point that they don't pose much of a threat to the Harlequins anymore.

Bad logic, your argument is now that Harlequins+Starweaver cost 20pts more than the kabalites and venom and therefore its fine because kabalites are good at ranged compared to harlequins and starweaver. Ok well lets do a comparison.

Kabalites + Venom = 115pts. 125 if you upgrade to the splinter cannon which...obviously you will. You end up with 6 splinter cannon shots and 5 Splinter Rifle shots, strength is basically irrelevant Cannon ends up with 4 hits, and 2 wounds at -1AP the rifles end up with 3.3 hits and 1.6 wounds at no AP. Against a 3+ save target the cannon works out to 2dmg the rifles work out to 0.5 So grand total against any target T3-T8 is 2.5dmg

The Starweaver with troupe inside is 145pts, At the same 24' range it gets 6 shots, 4 hits and against T3 its 3.3 wounds, against T4-5 its 2.6, T6 its 2, and against T7-8 its 1.33 Its also -1 AP and 2 dmg except on 6s to wound its -3AP. Against 3+ armor T3 = 3.3 wounds with a 55% chance of more thanks to shuriken, T4-5 its 2.6dmg with a 43% chance of more dmg thanks to shuriken, against T6 its 2dmg with a 33% chance of more dmg thanks to shuriken and finally at T7-8 its 1.33 dmg on average with 22% chance of extra dmg thanks to shuriken.

So right off the bat...not really. T3-T5 the Starweaver is better at ranged combat, at T6 its 0.5dmg worse and at T7-8 its 1.17dmg worse.

More importantly to this useless scenario, a DE player isn't going to use a Venom as a mobile firing platform to protect a small squad of kabalites, hes generally rushing them forward to get into CC as quickly as possible, and usually is using wracks not kabalites. So yes a Starweaver is better than a Venom point for point and when you put units in them, the starweaver is still better in most scenarios

chaos0xomega wrote:

That only works if you are required to take -y. As they aren't people just take op stuff. Sorry. Your logic sucks and been proven wrong in practice.

Errr... no? In this scenario the "-Y", i.e. the Starweaver, is the OP stuff, which you aren't required to take but want to take, but is counterbalanced by the non-OP Harlequin Troupe which you *must* take in order to take the Starweaver. The logic works fine.

Err....Yes? and t hose Harlequins Troupes are also OP compared to similar points value of other troops. Yeah Kabalites are better at ranged combat because and only because they have ranged 24' guns while the troupes only have access to pistols. But what happens to those numbers when the 2 units get into CC? A Troupe has 5 attacks without any buffs, hitting on 3s at S3 -1AP. And for 1CP they average 2-3 Mortal wounds against their target with Harlequins kiss. How do those Kabalites do? 11 attacks at S3 no AP. Not as good I would say.

 mokoshkana wrote:
The entire game is filled with unit X being better than unit Y for fewer points. It is LITERALLY how they design the game. They make things cheap in order to sell models. It doesn't matter whether it is right or wrong, this is how they "balance" the game.

I have lots of datasheets in my codex, if you are saying the game is balanced based on forcing me to take a few bad units to compensate for the OP ones...well you've never played competitive 40k. My Burna's and Nobz are horrible, so I don't take them. Instead I take 3 units of Kommandos who are somewhat competitive, even after GW did their best to screw them over. I have Killa Kanz, Bonebreakers and Gunwagonz, they are terrible, that makes up for my Mek gunz being good right? No, I don't take the bad stuff, I just take 3 units of Mek gunz.

It is ok for a unit to be slightly better pt for pt than comparable units if it also has a downside or the other unit is better in some other way, in this case...that isn't happening, Starweavers are just better than any other transport in the game right now, and they don't pay a realistic points value for the difference.

Again, a Starweaver is 10pts more expensive than a Trukk.
Trukk is Movement 12 compared to the Starweavers 16
Trukk is WS5 to the Starweavers 3
Trukk is BS5 to the Starweavers 3
Trukk is S6(5-4) to the Starweavers S5
Trukk is T6 to the Starweavers T5
Trukk has 10 wounds to the Starweavers 6
Trukk has 3 attacks to the Starweavers 4
Trukk is LD6 to the Starweavers 8.
Trukk has 3 S5 shots no AP 1dmg to the Starweavers 6 S6 shots -1AP 2dmg (Shuriken)
Trukk has no invuln to the Starweavers 4+ Invuln
Trukk does not have a -1 to hit modifier to the Starweavers -1 to hit AND no re-rolls to hit

So the starweaver is significantly faster, significantly better at ranged combat, significantly better in CC, has units that actively want to be transported, very durable vs almost everything in the game with its -1 to hit, no re-rolls and 4+ invuln. All of that for 10ppm More than a Trukk. So yes its too good for its points value compared to a Trukk.

 mokoshkana wrote:
I haven't played with my Harlequins yet in 9ed (outside of a wandering players patrol in my first of two CWE games), but after looking at the voidweaver last night, I think an easy fix is to remove blast from the Prismatic cannon in addition to dropping the squad size and increasing the cost of the prismatic cannon. Being 3d3 shots with blast makes it stupidly effective at dealing with 6+ units sized.

Blast does nothing to fix the Voidweaver. Almost nobody is running squads of 10+ so there is no point to the blast rule on the weapon, and in most circumstances, its still better to hit the target with the 2 shot profile anyway. How strong is that 2 shot profile btw? Oh yeah, S12 -4AP and 2D3 dmg. Not bad for a model with a 90pt price tag, thank god its the only gun it has right? Oh yeah, its also got what amounts to 2 Heavy bolters that are just better. The Shuriken cannons should honestly be about 30pts for just those 2 weapons, the Prismatic is better than a 20pt Lascannon by far, so hitting it with a 25pt price tag would be fair in my opinion. So thats 55pts out of the 90 it costs in just 2 weapons. In order for my Trukkz to get a 5+ Invuln save I have to buy a 20pt ugprade (Fortress on Wheels) You get a 4+ invuln save, you also get native -1 to hit and its also blindingly fast. yeah, just changing the maingun isn't going to fix how broken this unit is. I am going to laugh my ass off though when GW does their balance update and taps it ever so lovingly with the nerf hammer, giving it something ridiculous like a 5-10pt price increase while they were happy to slap the Rukkatrukk with a 20pt price hike and non-competitive units like the Beastboss on Squigosaur with a 35pt price hike.

 bullyboy wrote:
Starweavers are almost identical to how they have been throughout 9th. The shuriken got upgraded but that's true on most new datasheets now (all shuriken weapons). The only thing added was the inability to reroll against it. So you think that one rule makes it super OP?
Drop that rule, add 5 points per shuriken (as all platforms basically have) and it's done. Voidweavers are a different story.

See above for a points/stats comparison between a Trukk and a Starweaver and get back to me if you think the biggest difference between those 2 units is the no re-rolls and 5 more points.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 oni wrote:
Vehicle squadrons continue to be an issue. There's no need to haver them anymore.

Again, no.

Ork buggies and voidweavers were the only ones that were an issue.

Voidweavers would still overperform even if you could only take 3 in a list.

Tired of this nonsensical argument. Ork buggies were nowhere near broken and you can easily prove this by a few different factors. 1: Top players will always migrate towards the most OP armies out at the moment. Nanavati has played orkz in the past (8th) when he thought they were the best faction out at the time. Not many if any top players changed to orkz. In comparison though, a lot of brand new Ad-mech and Drukhari armies appeared. And now with Harlequins out a lot of Space Clown armies.

Broken armies with issues have 65%+ win rates week after week. Orkz didn't achieve that. They had a week or a tournament here or there where they did exceptionally well but that was it. Compare that to Drukhari and now Harlequins dominating entire weekends week after week.

And finally, a basic comparison. Against a Space Marine, the most broken, OP Buggy in the entire game was the Squigbuggy, if you buffed it with Freeboota proc (Kill an enemy unit) AND it was the Speed WAAAGH turn it works out to 10.5 shots, 5.25 hits, 3.5 wounds at -3AP for 2.91 failed saves and 3 Dead Marines. That is a single Rukkatrukk with a once a game buff, At half range and after his army proc'd the best kulture for them.

A Single Voidweaver right now using the secondary weapons profile averages 6 shots at S5 -3AP 1dmg and 6 shots at S6 -1AP 2dmg. That works out to 4 hits for each one, 2.66 wounds for each one and the big gun gets 2.2dmg and the little gun gets 2.66dmg So without a single buff, literally NOT 1 BUFF, not even using the Shuriken rule, no re-rolls, no +1 to hit/wound no stratagems, no once a game buffs etc this thing averages 2 dead Marines a turn. But hey, its not like Harlequins have an abundance of re-rolls to hit or wound...i mean something stupid like a rule called "Luck of the Laughing God" or some such nonsense. That only slightly increases the dmg output, especially if you choose to shoot at a big target and use the main weapon profile which is S12 -4AP 2D3 dmg, so you almost guarantee 2 hits a turn and 2 wounds a turn for 8dmg on average....but lets not even get into that portion.

The "you have to compare X+Y to A+B" argument would make sense if there was *any* fat in the Harlequins roster.

Instead:
Voidweaver - best vehicle in the game.
Starweaver - best transport in the game.
Troupes are probably the best troops in the game.
The bikes are excellent.
And finally, the inevitable 4 man of Troupe Master, Shadowseer, Death Jester and Solitaire have to be up there for the best bunch of characters a list could have.

Its surely not surprising why this faction is scoring a 75% win rate in tournaments.

There's usually no fat in any top tier armies. That tends to be what makes them top tier. Unless you go looking for it - there is no tax in any half way sensible Harlequins list.

By comparison some kablites in a venom is a bad unit in a fairly priced (which means mediocre) transport. The Venom was fine up until about 3 months ago - but apparently is overcosted for... reasons. The Starweaver is just better. And now the whole Harlequin range is.

Open question from someone with no stake or to be honest particular knowledge of the Modern Game?

How effective are these regular patches? I know many folk for a long while wanted more regular balance patches. But I’m also aware that getting what you want isn’t necessarily getting what you wanted. After all, they could be done monthly, but if they only jump up and down on broken bits whilst calling your Mum a slag, what’s the point?

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Open question from someone with no stake or to be honest particular knowledge of the Modern Game?

How effective are these regular patches? I know many folk for a long while wanted more regular balance patches. But I’m also aware that getting what you want isn’t necessarily getting what you wanted. After all, they could be done monthly, but if they only jump up and down on broken bits whilst calling your Mum a slag, what’s the point?

They aren't effective for the most part. They are generally stupid with a few accidental buffs/nerfs that make sense.

Case and point, The last one nerfed the Beastboss on squigosaur with a 35pt price hike...it wasn't used in competitive games already, the 35pt price hike just ensured nobody would use it. But its ok, they realized they were heavy handed there and hit our only competitive CC option with a 20% increase in cost. But hey that's fine because they simultaneously gave us 5pt price cuts on Meganobz and Killakanz which made them....still bad.

Semper, you have a Trukk problem, not a starweaver problem. Nobody was bitching about starweavers throughout 9th and they were 80pts. Remove the reroll rule, bump points by 5pts per shuricannon and you are done. Pure and simple. Anything else and it goes too far.
Voidweaver get similar treatment (points bumps for shuricannons) plus additional charge for prismatic cannon and things get better.
I’d also make mirror architect core only (as long as troupes get core).

You start there and then monitor next events.

SemperMortis wrote:

 mokoshkana wrote:
The entire game is filled with unit X being better than unit Y for fewer points. It is LITERALLY how they design the game. They make things cheap in order to sell models. It doesn't matter whether it is right or wrong, this is how they "balance" the game.

I have lots of datasheets in my codex, if you are saying the game is balanced based on forcing me to take a few bad units to compensate for the OP ones...well you've never played competitive 40k. My Burna's and Nobz are horrible, so I don't take them. Instead I take 3 units of Kommandos who are somewhat competitive, even after GW did their best to screw them over. I have Killa Kanz, Bonebreakers and Gunwagonz, they are terrible, that makes up for my Mek gunz being good right? No, I don't take the bad stuff, I just take 3 units of Mek gunz.

Competitive 40k is a joke. When army A can go first and remove 25%+ percent of army B before Army B has a single chance to act, balance is already out the window.

I've been playing CWE since the end of 6ed, and every time a codex comes out there is a nice healthy mixture of OP stuff and complete trash. It more or less changes from codex to codex, but the internal balance is never there. That is across all armies. This isn't a game designed to be competitive, its designed to sell models.

As to your other points, you chose a HORDE army, which will have weight of dice. When you lost infantry models, you don't really care because you have a lot of them. Elite armies don't have bodies all over the place.

Vehicle squadrons more or less exist only because of the limitations that arise from the force org chart and rule of three. The majority of squadroned models are light vehicles that individually bring minimal capability relative to other options that they might be competing with for precious elites/fast/heavy slots, etc. For example, if you could only bring a single Killa Kan per Heavy Support slot, then they would almost never get fielded because why on earth would you waste one of your precious few heavy support slots in your army list on 1 killa kan, when that same heavy support slot could instead be used to take a deff dreads, mek gunz, battlewagons, gunwagons, kill rigs, lootas, etc. A single killa kan, no matter how well priced, just won't deliver that much capability to the table relative to the other options that the same slot unlocks. Thus, they are available in squadrons because collectively multiple Killa Kans together can deliver capability comparable to what the other options in that slot unlock. Similarly, Eldar Vypers and War Walkers would probably almost never be fielded if they were one model per Fast Attack slot, because there are much better uses for the FA slot within the army list. Likewise, things like Leman Russ squadrons exist because it was quickly realized that guard needed better FOC economy in order to be able to field a capable list - you couldn't have guard tie up their 3 heavy support choices to field 3 leman russes - for one thing thats not enough leman russes, but it also prevents them from using those slots to also field Hydras, Manticores, Basilisks/artillery pieces, heavy weapons teams, and other units that are basically essential to the army being able to effectively compete and function.

Since rule of three was introduced however, I think they have been misapplying the underlying logic behind what should and shouldn't be squadroned in order to circumvent the army building limitations imposed by that restriction, which I think is where some of the problems with them come from. Like, I don't think the Voidweaver really needs to be fieldable in squadrons because it can pack a lot of punch for a light vehicle (though some of the other Aeldari HS options that it would be competing with in a "soup" list might remove a single Voidweaver from consideration vs other uses for the HS slot), but if you were building a mono-Harlequin army you have no other Heavy Support options, so rule of 3 imposes a pretty severe list-building consequence on you that can only be bypassed by squadroning the vehicles to allow a Harlequin player to spend points on additional models - or introducing a new Heavy Support choice for the army. Effectively it would cap the Harlequins at only ever being able to spend a max of 270 pts on heavy support choices (whereas you can spend over 700 points on Fast choices before locking out, likewise HQ is good for over 500 pts, only elites is really comparable but you can easily spend in excess of 300 pts on death jesters and a solitaire with upgrades. Basically being limited to 1 Voidweaver/slot would be extremely detrimental to Harlequin listbuilding (epecially above 2000 pts, if you're playing the 3000 pt Onslaught game size you've maxed out your HS slots at 360pts for 4 Voidweavers and the entire FOC sans Troops at around 2100-2200 pts incl. upgrades to take max Troupe Masters/Shadow weavers/Death Jesters + 1 Solitaire., leaving you with only Troupes and Starweavers to spend your remaining points on). So, they need to be able to field more than the cap allowed by rule of three... but being able to field 3 per slot probably isn't the correct answer either.

In short, killing vehicle squadrons creates more problems than it solves. FOC slots are effectively another form of points system, even though the community doesn't generally treat it as such. Changing the FOC economy of a unit by changing its unit type (i.e. Heavy Support to Elites) or altering the size of the unit can have much bigger impacts on balance than most people realize.

EviscerationPlague wrote:
So is Trajaan fine and doesn't need a point increase because he has limitations (HAS to be the Warlord) and you can have a limited number of him?

Thats a different discussion. What we're discussing is whether or not points comparisons between Starweavers and Venoms - which are essentially two almost identical units - are valid. Thats altogether different from discussing whether a given unit is overpowered/undercosted or not.

SemperMortis wrote:

Bad logic, your argument is now that Harlequins+Starweaver cost 20pts more than the kabalites and venom and therefore its fine because kabalites are good at ranged compared to harlequins and starweaver. Ok well lets do a comparison.
Kabalites + Venom = 115pts. 125 if you upgrade to the splinter cannon which...obviously you will. You end up with 6 splinter cannon shots and 5 Splinter Rifle shots, strength is basically irrelevant Cannon ends up with 4 hits, and 2 wounds at -1AP the rifles end up with 3.3 hits and 1.6 wounds at no AP. Against a 3+ save target the cannon works out to 2dmg the rifles work out to 0.5 So grand total against any target T3-T8 is 2.5dmg

The Starweaver with troupe inside is 145pts, At the same 24' range it gets 6 shots, 4 hits and against T3 its 3.3 wounds, against T4-5 its 2.6, T6 its 2, and against T7-8 its 1.33 Its also -1 AP and 2 dmg except on 6s to wound its -3AP. Against 3+ armor T3 = 3.3 wounds with a 55% chance of more thanks to shuriken, T4-5 its 2.6dmg with a 43% chance of more dmg thanks to shuriken, against T6 its 2dmg with a 33% chance of more dmg thanks to shuriken and finally at T7-8 its 1.33 dmg on average with 22% chance of extra dmg thanks to shuriken.

So right off the bat...not really. T3-T5 the Starweaver is better at ranged combat, at T6 its 0.5dmg worse and at T7-8 its 1.17dmg worse.

Talk about bad logic. Your argument is basically that the Starweavers + Harlequins are worse than a Venom + Kabalites, even though the Starweaver/Harlies cost 20 pts more and - by your own math - are worse against half of the potential profiles they might target. Spend the remaining 20pts on the Venom/Kabalites to bring them to points parity on a splinter cannon on the unit, a shredder, and I dunno, a phantasm grenade launcher and suddenly the Venom system is better than the Starweaver system against pretty much everything.

You've also failed to take into account the other capabilities available to both armies. In Drukhari those Kabalites can be given dark lances, blasters, etc. You have literally dozens of other options across HQ, Elites, Troops, Fast, and Heavy choices to also field other long range heavy weapons and other capabilities far more powerful than anything the Harlequins can field. On the flip side, Harlequins have basically no other long range heavy weapon options other than the Voidweaver (aside from the max 3 Death Jesters you can field or the Skyweavers which, yay more shuricannons and haywire blasters), and any of the weapon options you can give the Harlequins riding the Starweaver can't be fired from a safe distance. Likewise, they have limited recourse in melee to take down heavier targets other than spending CP to activate Harlequin Kiss/Embrace/Caress weapons to dish mortal wounds, etc. In essence, Harlequins need cost-effective access to tools like Starweavers to make up for shortfalls in other parts of their list.

More importantly to this useless scenario, a DE player isn't going to use a Venom as a mobile firing platform to protect a small squad of kabalites, hes generally rushing them forward to get into CC as quickly as possible, and usually is using wracks not kabalites. So yes a Starweaver is better than a Venom point for point and when you put units in them, the starweaver is still better in most scenarios

I've seen plenty of DE players using their Venoms as gunboats for their kabalites, not sure why you would insist otherwise. As for Wracks, they are (or at least were until recently, not sure if they've been nerfed further in the last couple months) one of the most points efficient units in the entire game, so I'm really not sure you're making the argument that you think you're making.

Err....Yes? and t hose Harlequins Troupes are also OP compared to similar points value of other troops. Yeah Kabalites are better at ranged combat because and only because they have ranged 24' guns while the troupes only have access to pistols. But what happens to those numbers when the 2 units get into CC? A Troupe has 5 attacks without any buffs, hitting on 3s at S3 -1AP. And for 1CP they average 2-3 Mortal wounds against their target with Harlequins kiss. How do those Kabalites do? 11 attacks at S3 no AP. Not as good I would say.

Not sure what any of this has to do with the actual quote you responded to, which was about the value and relation of Starweaver relative to the Harlequin Troupe. In this case you're comparing a 65 pt unit (really more like 70 since you evidently spent 5 pts to get a Harlequins kiss) against a unit that would presumably be 30 pts cheaper since you didn't indicate any unit upgrades for them - again, bad logic, I would certainly hope a unit that costs 75% more would have a good time in that situation. The simple solution to your "useless scenario" is that the Kabalites remain embarked on their boat so that the Harlequin players can't charge them directly. If we must fight, then I'm going to insist on parity, so the unit has a splinter cannon, shredder, and phantasm grenade launcher as we indicated before - since you dropped an extra 5 points on a harlequins kiss lets also give the Sybarite a power sword. If I'm being charged then I'm going to spend a CP for overwatch, that should get me about .75 dead Harlequins before you have an opportunity to swing by my math (not including Power From Pain or other abilities, etc.), not game-changing, I'll still lose the unit, but I'll feel better about it. If the situation is reversed though (since you indicated 11 S3 attacks), before we charge we're going to shoot - because I spent those points on those weapons and I want to use them, so thats approx. 3.1 dead Harlequins, and then I kill another ~2 on the charge, thereby wiping the squad - again not including any benefits or bonuses to either side from power from pain, etc. Good trade.

So the starweaver is significantly faster, significantly better at ranged combat, significantly better in CC, has units that actively want to be transported, very durable vs almost everything in the game with its -1 to hit, no re-rolls and 4+ invuln. All of that for 10ppm More than a Trukk. So yes its too good for its points value compared to a Trukk.

But you aren't comparing a trukk to a starweaver, you're comparing a trukk of boyz to a starweaver of players, because you can neither field the Trukk nor the Starweaver without a unit to ride in it. In this case the 145 pt starweaver + 5 harlequins (no upgrades) is being compared to a Trukk + whatever unit you can stick in it for comparable cost (can't do boyz because you only have pts for 8 of them but you have to field a min unit of 10). If you really wanted to keep it apples to apples pts wise, you're looking at 3 Starweavers + 15 Harlequins (again, no upgrades) vs 3 Trukks + 30 boyz + 45 more pts of upgrades (not sure what to do with it, Kombi-Skorcha + Big Shoota per squad?). It would be situational, but the Orks can win.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Open question from someone with no stake or to be honest particular knowledge of the Modern Game?
How effective are these regular patches? I know many folk for a long while wanted more regular balance patches. But I’m also aware that getting what you want isn’t necessarily getting what you wanted. After all, they could be done monthly, but if they only jump up and down on broken bits whilst calling your Mum a slag, what’s the point?

Not really effective at all, I don't think they are looking beyond faction v faction winrates with their data, i.e. they don't have the granularity of knowing what units were included in lists or how they performed on the table beyond recognizing that certain units were very obviously covered in a large number of lists because they can see them on the tables everywhere. This explains why certain units which are obviously very visible might get hit with a stick while one-off characters or units with a less distinctive table presence sometimes go unnoticed. As such they are basing all their balancing decisions around getting factions closer to 50% WR, which is great - but in many cases leaves entire sections of a codex unplayable and suffering from poor internal balance issues.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Open question from someone with no stake or to be honest particular knowledge of the Modern Game?

How effective are these regular patches? I know many folk for a long while wanted more regular balance patches. But I’m also aware that getting what you want isn’t necessarily getting what you wanted. After all, they could be done monthly, but if they only jump up and down on broken bits whilst calling your Mum a slag, what’s the point?

They sort of work(ed).

The 1st dataslate nerfed Orks (success but badly done), DE (fail) and AdMech (success) and buffed Knights (success), Necrons (partial success), CSM/Guard (fail).

The 2nd dataslate nerfed DE again (success).

The now twice yearly planned CA/MFM combo number 1 (Nachmund) also improved things, just slowly/incrementally.

The issues have been:
The new codexes that came out are too strong, making the succcesful nerfs look stupid and the buffs almost irrelevant.
The nerf to Orks is awful game design. Maybe the next MFM points update will come out and the six month physical book lag time will finally catch up and they will up the cost of all buggies and then remove the dataslate change.
The nerf to Aircraft was 50:50 good/bad design. It protects from undercosted aircraft being spammed, but just stop doing that and it will be fine.
They haven't addressed many other weak factions.

The 3rd dataslate will really tell us how (or if) these work.
IgnoreLOS shooting. Like aircraft, it doesn't NEED a rule limiting it, just stop undercosting it. But will this be dataslate 3's clunky fix?
Death Guard/Sisters - will they get new rules similar to Necrons?
Space Marines - do they join the above even though there must be a codex on the way?
Thousand Son/Grey Knights - will they get any love or will they nerf the factions above enough that they become 'competitive' again.
AdMech/Orks - similar to TS/GK but need less love. Yes I know the Ork codex is full of trash and needs points reductions on a ton of units.
Harlequins - require a massive nerf.
Eldar/Tau/Custodes - require a solid nerf.
Tyranids - are they bold enough to pre nerf the new codex?
Knights - are they bold(er) enough to pre nerf the codex after nids?

It will be interesting to see if they bring forward points from the next MFM (1st dataslate style) or just do points of their own, or if they are truly limited to adding/removing rules/keywords.

If so, maybe Harlequins will get a new rule:
All Plays Are Tragedies - At the start of each battle round your opponent also gets a set of luck dice, they can use them to force you to re-roll your succesful hits, wounds, saves.

 bullyboy wrote:
Semper, you have a Trukk problem, not a starweaver problem. Nobody was bitching about starweavers throughout 9th and they were 80pts. Remove the reroll rule, bump points by 5pts per shuricannon and you are done. Pure and simple. Anything else and it goes too far.
Voidweaver get similar treatment (points bumps for shuricannons) plus additional charge for prismatic cannon and things get better.
I’d also make mirror architect core only (as long as troupes get core).

You start there and then monitor next events.

I'll be blunt, I never played a competitive Harlequins list pre codex...probably because they weren't broken OP and being chased by all of the meta (except that fusion spam they had for a bit), but in there 8th edition codex were they 4+ invuln, -1 to hit in all phases? Also, lets talk about those Shuriken cannons, they gained -1AP AND they doubled in dmg. TO put that another way, against Marines (Assuming no shuriken proc for either weapon) the OLD shuriken cannon got 3 shots, 2 hits, 1.33 wounds and did a grand total of.... 0.44dmg to a Marine. The new Shuriken cannon does 3 shots, 2 hits 1.33 wounds and a grand total of....1.33dmg For those bad at math, that is 3x as much as before. So please explain to me why their basic gun tripling its dmg output is worth only 5pts per gun? ATM the Shuriken is I believe a 5pt upgrade, At least on the Vyper it is, on most platforms its free. Ironically, the significantly worse heavy Bolter is a 10pt upgrade for most factions, case and point, the IG infantry squad can take 1 in a heavy weapon's team for 10pts, its 15pts on the leman russ, for SM's its 10pts on a tac squad and 15pts each on a Predator. But for some reason, on Harlies and Eldar, the Shuriken cannon which is +1S AND has a special ability to proc the AP to -3, its somehow only 5pts. Its almost like...its dramatically under priced for what it does and needs to be priced closer to 10-15pts not 5.

And again, I brought up trukkz because its my factions version of the Starweaver, someone else brought up Venoms, want to compare it to Rhinos? How about Chimeras or Necron Ghost Ark's? I can go through every faction if you really want, the point being that the starweaver is honestly the best, most under priced transport currently in the game.

 mokoshkana wrote:
Competitive 40k is a joke. When army A can go first and remove 25%+ percent of army B before Army B has a single chance to act, balance is already out the window.

I've been playing CWE since the end of 6ed, and every time a codex comes out there is a nice healthy mixture of OP stuff and complete trash. It more or less changes from codex to codex, but the internal balance is never there. That is across all armies. This isn't a game designed to be competitive, its designed to sell models.

As to your other points, you chose a HORDE army, which will have weight of dice. When you lost infantry models, you don't really care because you have a lot of them. Elite armies don't have bodies all over the place.

The irony of your statement here is astounding. For starters, the first premise you put out "competitive 40k is a joke" ...well its a board game with a winner and a loser, by its very existence its competitive, so if its a joke than the game can't be saved and should be scrapped because its garbage. That isn't the case though, its just incompetent rules writers.

Next thing, you've been playing CWE since 6th, you have been playing arguably the most broken army edition to edition ever. 6th they were top dogs, 7th they were top dogs, 8th they were top dogs and now here we are in 9th and its looking like they are yet again top dogs.

Next argument "its designed to sell models" I can prove you wrong with a host of examples, but lets go with my current favorite example...Kommandos. GW finally released a good plastic Kommando model for the first time ever. I know of almost no ork players who owned ANY Kommandos prior to this except home made kommandos because the old FineCrap models were garbage and too expensive. GW gave us the rules for the new kommandos and they were actually competitive, awesome right? Well here is the kicker, THE NEW MODEL WASNT EVEN OUT YET! And the best part, right before they released the new model for sale, THEY NERFED THE RULES MAKING THEM 20% WORSE! LOL. GW is a successful company in spite of itself, rather than because of itself.

And finally, I chose a Horde army...Orkz aren't Horde in 9th, in fact, in 8th they were only Horde when the meta shifted so dramatically that the only way to have a chance of winning was to flood objectives with cheap disposable bodies and hope for the best. In 9th we had Buggy spam which was good for a bit, and our current top build is the AoR which is Speed Freakz so low model count high maneuverability. Orkz are routinely fielding fewer infantry models than Custodes and harlequins. I am the exception to that rule with my Alphork strike list, but even I admit against new Tau, Custodes, Harlies, Eldar and even Crusher stampede...it just doesn't stand a chance. So if you don't play competitive, maybe you shouldn't comment on competitive since you don't know what you are talking about by your own admission?

EightFoldPath wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Open question from someone with no stake or to be honest particular knowledge of the Modern Game?

How effective are these regular patches? I know many folk for a long while wanted more regular balance patches. But I’m also aware that getting what you want isn’t necessarily getting what you wanted. After all, they could be done monthly, but if they only jump up and down on broken bits whilst calling your Mum a slag, what’s the point?

They sort of work(ed).

The 1st dataslate nerfed Orks (success but badly done), DE (fail) and AdMech (success) and buffed Knights (success), Necrons (partial success), CSM/Guard (fail).

The 2nd dataslate nerfed DE again (success).

The now twice yearly planned CA/MFM combo number 1 (Nachmund) also improved things, just slowly/incrementally.

The issues have been:
The new codexes that came out are too strong, making the succcesful nerfs look stupid and the buffs almost irrelevant.
The nerf to Orks is awful game design. Maybe the next MFM points update will come out and the six month physical book lag time will finally catch up and they will up the cost of all buggies and then remove the dataslate change.
The nerf to Aircraft was 50:50 good/bad design. It protects from undercosted aircraft being spammed, but just stop doing that and it will be fine.
They haven't addressed many other weak factions.

The 3rd dataslate will really tell us how (or if) these work.
IgnoreLOS shooting. Like aircraft, it doesn't NEED a rule limiting it, just stop undercosting it. But will this be dataslate 3's clunky fix?
Death Guard/Sisters - will they get new rules similar to Necrons?
Space Marines - do they join the above even though there must be a codex on the way?
Thousand Son/Grey Knights - will they get any love or will they nerf the factions above enough that they become 'competitive' again.
AdMech/Orks - similar to TS/GK but need less love. Yes I know the Ork codex is full of trash and needs points reductions on a ton of units.
Harlequins - require a massive nerf.
Eldar/Tau/Custodes - require a solid nerf.
Tyranids - are they bold enough to pre nerf the new codex?
Knights - are they bold(er) enough to pre nerf the codex after nids?

It will be interesting to see if they bring forward points from the next MFM (1st dataslate style) or just do points of their own, or if they are truly limited to adding/removing rules/keywords.

If so, maybe Harlequins will get a new rule:
All Plays Are Tragedies - At the start of each battle round your opponent also gets a set of luck dice, they can use them to force you to re-roll your succesful hits, wounds, saves.

I would add on that CA2022 compounded some of these issues by changing points around in ways that were hilariously out of touch with the modern game, exacerbating how stupid all the 'balance' changes seemed when the next 3 (possibly 4) codexes made every nerf every army that was already available at that time received seem idiotic in retrospect.

chaos0xomega wrote:

Talk about bad logic. Your argument is basically that the Starweavers + Harlequins are worse than a Venom + Kabalites, even though the Starweaver/Harlies cost 20 pts more and - by your own math - are worse against half of the potential profiles they might target. Spend the remaining 20pts on the Venom/Kabalites to bring them to points parity on a splinter cannon on the unit, a shredder, and I dunno, a phantasm grenade launcher and suddenly the Venom system is better than the Starweaver system against pretty much everything.

Bud, I am using the scenario created by others above, don't flaw my logic by using the stated scenario. As far as points parity, go for it I don't give a damn, but you won't win against harlies by keeping a venom at max range with splint shots flicking out, especially since your entire army is -1 to hit

chaos0xomega wrote:
You've also failed to take into account the other capabilities available to both armies. In Drukhari those Kabalites can be given dark lances, blasters, etc. You have literally dozens of other options across HQ, Elites, Troops, Fast, and Heavy choices to also field other long range heavy weapons and other capabilities far more powerful than anything the Harlequins can field. On the flip side, Harlequins have basically no other long range heavy weapon options other than the Voidweaver (aside from the max 3 Death Jesters you can field or the Skyweavers which, yay more shuricannons and haywire blasters), and any of the weapon options you can give the Harlequins riding the Starweaver can't be fired from a safe distance. Likewise, they have limited recourse in melee to take down heavier targets other than spending CP to activate Harlequin Kiss/Embrace/Caress weapons to dish mortal wounds, etc. In essence, Harlequins need cost-effective access to tools like Starweavers to make up for shortfalls in other parts of their list.

If you really want to make this argument that the Starweaver with a troupe is worse or at least as good as the venom with kabalites you can simply look at tournament results to be proven wrong. Last GT I was at was completely dominated by Harlies, Tau, Custards and new Eldar. DE didn't even make a top 10 appearance. And those Harly players were absolutely bringing Troupes in Starweavers. And again i'll point out that "They have to be OP because of shortfalls in other places" is a really dumb argument.

chaos0xomega wrote:
I've seen plenty of DE players using their Venoms as gunboats for their kabalites, not sure why you would insist otherwise. As for Wracks, they are (or at least were until recently, not sure if they've been nerfed further in the last couple months) one of the most points efficient units in the entire game, so I'm really not sure you're making the argument that you think you're making.

So you've been to a host of GT's where the DE player forgoes scoring objectives with his troop choices to sit back and fire kabalites...ok. I'm going to assume they lost horribly.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Not sure what any of this has to do with the actual quote you responded to, which was about the value and relation of Starweaver relative to the Harlequin Troupe. In this case you're comparing a 65 pt unit (really more like 70 since you evidently spent 5 pts to get a Harlequins kiss) against a unit that would presumably be 30 pts cheaper since you didn't indicate any unit upgrades for them - again, bad logic, I would certainly hope a unit that costs 75% more would have a good time in that situation. The simple solution to your "useless scenario" is that the Kabalites remain embarked on their boat so that the Harlequin players can't charge them directly. If we must fight, then I'm going to insist on parity, so the unit has a splinter cannon, shredder, and phantasm grenade launcher as we indicated before - since you dropped an extra 5 points on a harlequins kiss lets also give the Sybarite a power sword. If I'm being charged then I'm going to spend a CP for overwatch, that should get me about .75 dead Harlequins before you have an opportunity to swing by my math (not including Power From Pain or other abilities, etc.), not game-changing, I'll still lose the unit, but I'll feel better about it. If the situation is reversed though (since you indicated 11 S3 attacks), before we charge we're going to shoot - because I spent those points on those weapons and I want to use them, so thats approx. 3.1 dead Harlequins, and then I kill another ~2 on the charge, thereby wiping the squad - again not including any benefits or bonuses to either side from power from pain, etc. Good trade.

Again, if you think this scenario in the game will work out like this, by all means take some DE to the field against a harlequins list. Get back to me with the results, i'm sure the competitive meta is just a bunch of numpties and its actually you piloting those OP Kabalites/Venoms that would knock harlequins down from their 75%+ win/loss rate.

chaos0xomega wrote:
But you aren't comparing a trukk to a starweaver, you're comparing a trukk of boyz to a starweaver of players, because you can neither field the Trukk nor the Starweaver without a unit to ride in it. In this case the 145 pt starweaver + 5 harlequins (no upgrades) is being compared to a Trukk + whatever unit you can stick in it for comparable cost (can't do boyz because you only have pts for 8 of them but you have to field a min unit of 10). If you really wanted to keep it apples to apples pts wise, you're looking at 3 Starweavers + 15 Harlequins (again, no upgrades) vs 3 Trukks + 30 boyz + 45 more pts of upgrades (not sure what to do with it, Kombi-Skorcha + Big Shoota per squad?). It would be situational, but the Orks can win.

Same point as above, but since i play orkz and have played a very similar scenario to this (was 2 trukkz with trukkboyz vs 2 Starweavers with troupes) i can tell you as a matter of fact those orkz lose. Of course the difference is that those trukkz never even reach combat to disgorge their passengers anyway because the Voidweavers kill them before they leave deployment zone but that is neither here nor there. Trust me when I say you don't want to compare a Harlequin Troupe to an Ork boyz mob, its a bit onesided to say the least.

GW have deemed that the new shuricannon is worth +5pts on its existing platforms (look at all aeldari vehicles with it). No reason starweaver should be penalized more than others.

SemperMortis wrote:
So if you don't play competitive, maybe you shouldn't comment on competitive since you don't know what you are talking about by your own admission?

I'm just going to cut to the chase on this one. I know what a balanced game looks like, and this isn't it. I'm sorry my exterior take (relative to the 40k tourney scene) rubs you the wrong way.

The game has never, and will never be balanced. They couldn't balance it with X factions, so why would they add new factions and expect it to be balanced. This is a MODEL company. They don't care about balance. Everything is just for show to keep the money rolling in.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Open question from someone with no stake or to be honest particular knowledge of the Modern Game?

How effective are these regular patches? I know many folk for a long while wanted more regular balance patches. But I’m also aware that getting what you want isn’t necessarily getting what you wanted. After all, they could be done monthly, but if they only jump up and down on broken bits whilst calling your Mum a slag, what’s the point?

They offer notable benefit. Bear in mind the level of hyperbole and lack of nuance is worse than ever.* So while they are a significant improvement over what we had before, it is still merely a dent to just how bad balance is, and that triggers dissatisfaction. Many individuals are unwilling to process or express nuanced opinions, so any level of dissatisfaction turns into the thing being 1-star totally awful garbage that does nothing.

Put in other words; if it doesn't fix the majority of problems in the game all at once many people will react as though it does nothing.

*Personal rule of thumb; ignore reactions that are 100% positive or 100% negative, read the remainder to get an actual assessment on a given release/development.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 mokoshkana wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
So if you don't play competitive, maybe you shouldn't comment on competitive since you don't know what you are talking about by your own admission?

I'm just going to cut to the chase on this one. I know what a balanced game looks like, and this isn't it. I'm sorry my exterior take (relative to the 40k tourney scene) rubs you the wrong way.

The game has never, and will never be balanced. They couldn't balance it with X factions, so why would they add new factions and expect it to be balanced. This is a MODEL company. They don't care about balance. Everything is just for show to keep the money rolling in.

Balance isn't an on/off switch, it is a gradient. More balance is *good* for sales, because it is good for gameplay. Poor balance may sell extra models now but it drives people away from the game. Selling extra of the meta option will never make up for selling less of everything else.

GW only gets away with having balance this bad because of popularity inertia, and even then it is abundantly clear that past improvements have always led to increases in popularity and overall sales.

 bullyboy wrote:
GW have deemed that the new shuricannon is worth +5pts on its existing platforms (look at all aeldari vehicles with it). No reason starweaver should be penalized more than others.

Despite my arguments that the comparison between Venoms and Starweavers is improper and baseless, I would argue that at 90 points its probably still too cheap and that the built in 4++, 6" auto-advance, and Mirage Launchers justify a 5-10 pt hike on their own.

Again, if you think this scenario in the game will work out like this, by all means take some DE to the field against a harlequins list. Get back to me with the results, i'm sure the competitive meta is just a bunch of numpties and its actually you piloting those OP Kabalites/Venoms that would knock harlequins down from their 75%+ win/loss rate.

Never said I piloted anything to success, but, well, I have people with names like "TJ Lannigan" and "Sean Nayden" in my local meta, so Ive certainly seen what an actual competitive meta looks like and what actual competitive players do, so... theres that.

 oni wrote:
Vehicle squadrons continue to be an issue. There's no need to haver them anymore.

Sorry Guard. I guess there’s no need to take basilisks, hydras, wyverns, leman russes, hellhounds, etc anymore. First flyers now squadrons.