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.

  It takes GW to nerf a unit they made too powerful ?  I bring this up because of all I've been reading about uber Falcons and how they are a bear to bring down because of their rules in  the latest codex.   The main thing I think of that approaches this were the obliterators
in the chaos codex being a straight up toughness 5.  They continued that way for what seemed like a year, then their toughness changed.  From what I'd read at the time,  the reason being given for the change was that the proofreaders had missed the entry all that time.
  With that in mind, how long do you guys think the Falcon will continue as is?

1 year minimum

since the falcon pretty much hasn't changed in like 10 years and because of the comparative weak AV is balanced out by upgrades and the SMF rule they will leave it the same to keep people interested in taking it/buying the models.

 

in fact what they did was improve the fire prism version so that people would start taking them as well.

 

 

Falcons were always this way. I wouldn't mind seeing them dropped down a notch, same time the asscannon goes to 2 shots, drop pods can crash, or a new Ork codex comes out.

Make it three shots and you have yourself a deal, sir!

I was talking to Phil Kelly about this during the LVGT.

He was admiring my army, and were discussing how everyone thought that guardian were rubbish, and that I liked them. Then I asked him about falcons...and how hard they were to bring down. (Paraphrasing) He explained that the eldar have a lot of weak units, but Falcons are supposed to be tough to represent how advanced Eldar technology is.


And they are not all that powerful as everyone seems to think since these days they can be stunned to stop shooting, and a payload of 6 is very small.

The only problem with the Falcon is in any mission where you get bonus points for being in an enemy deployment zone, or on an objective, etc.

Posted By Phoenix on 06/04/2007 4:06 PM

I was kind of surprised they didn't change the rules for them between 3rd and 4th edition. I'm also kind of surprised shining spears didn't become the best unit in the codex so I guess GW can't be depended on to do total pendulum swings every edition.

Unless you play an army with no really reliable way of tackling skimmers of course. Say an army entirely composed of BS2 troops with only one squad weapon above 24" in range, for example.
Then you are pretty much boned as I understand it.
(I'll do the next two posts myself:
"But you can have Zzap guns, they are awesome!"
They are also crewed by T2 cowards and have a range of 24. So not really much of a problem for a clever opponent.)
[/obligitary Da Boss "Orks suck" whinge]
Carry on.

Posted By Da Boss on 06/05/2007 8:32 AM
Unless you play an army with no really reliable way of tackling skimmers of course. Say an army entirely composed of BS2 troops with only one squad weapon above 24" in range, for example.
Then you are pretty much boned as I understand it.

But who would play an army like that?  Nobody - that's who!