Sunday, April 19, 2015

Dealing with El-D-ar - Pre-Codex Thoughts

As should be expected, a lot of players are asking - even before the Codex releases - "What is NOVA going to do about the new Eldar?!"

The biggest concern is their mass access to Strength D on non-SH/Garg platforms.

First off, the Wraithknight.

This is now a Gargantuan Lord of War. Under NOVA's 40K GT army construction rules, these are not allowed.

So, with regard to the GT, at least unless we change the rule just to make an exception for Eldar (which seems an unlikely and unwise path to take), Wraithknights won't be hunky dory.

The real question applies to the large number of units choices across the codex who can select D otherwise.

Artillery - D cannon artillery
Hemlock Wraithfighters - D blast (at -1 on the chart)
Wraithguard - D shots (presumably at their 3-edition-long 12" range) or -1D templates

So what's to be done here and what's the import.

First off, on the Templates, we don't use Promethium relays ... ipso facto, people aren't going to torrenting D across the board from 32 point models.

Additionally, the honest truth about S-D at -1 on the chart is it is a LOT less powerful. 3+ to wound things means 1/3 of all hits fail outright, regardless of target T. Additionally, while they do cause d3 wounds, they never cause d6 or ignore invulnerable saves. Furthermore, the Hemlock's D blasts never ignore cover saves.

If you want to look at it in a couple of examples, some targets are badly hammered by these and some would actually be worse off if faced with much weaker weapons.

For example, Necrons obviously are hurt when their Decurion MSU units no longer have 3+ saves followed by 4+ reanimation ... especially so in the case of the Template weapon and its ability to simply ignore all of their saves on a 3+.

Vehicles are badly battered regardless due to the # of hull points inflicted by the "median" D impacts. That said, things like Knights are suddenly dependent on things like Adamantine Lance to even survive ... which is interesting.

Common "star" units like Khorne dogs, on the other hand, are not hurt very much at all (At least in comparison to other weapon options). For example, a S8 AP- template weapon inflicts more damage on a Khorne Dog, on average, than a SD AP2 template that is resolved at S4. Most people would have complained in the OPPOSITE direction (aka "it's too weak") if D-Scythes were made S8AP-.

If you run the numbers and compare as well the ability of Wraith units and the like to survive sustained shooting and/or find their way out of combat with even relatively weak units, you will start to see that the -1D hits are not nearly as game busting as the unmodified ones are.

So with NO codex, no ability to make firm decisions, and only initial thoughts, it certainly has come up in discussions to simply modify it so that any D weapon not carried by a Super Heavy or Gargantuan suffers -1 on the D chart. This actually nerfs them substantially against *most* targets while retaining their high potency against "single target" type items like Monsters and Vehicles.

Food for thought as we go through the next couple weeks awaiting a codex release and sufficient time to make smart decisions about what rulings to follow (if any).

One thing is true and needs to be stated - players do NOT like D as a general rule. They also don't like invulnerable units that are very difficult or near-impossible to kill (this applies to everything from jet-stars to certain entire decurion army builds). For some reason, the reaction to both Super Heavies and D in general at NOVA in those events which allowed them has been especially severe, and we're not the only ones to see that. If you look at the recent LVO poll, ranged D was especially decried by attendees who experienced it.

There's something about a game that takes your opponent completely out of the picture which is not very engaging (ipso facto: all the hate for watching someone roll a 6 and tell you to pick up your models with no recourse ... and all the hate for watching a single unit bounce all the attacks of your entire army with 0 casualties).

It bears reminding that no one has ever played Games Workshop's game at Tournaments "entirely by the book," from missions to points to the works. Even those who argue stridently for "pure" 40k will always caveat "well, except obviously you can't do Unbound" or "well, except obviously you can't do Forge World" or "well, except obviously you can't play totally unmodified book missions, you need to add points and stuffs!" We'll continue at NOVA to leverage community feedback and wise decision making toward *trying* to host the most fair, universally appealing tournament format possible/out there.

30 comments:

  1. The more I consider it, the less I care about ranged D on the scale of Wraithguard/Vaul's support weapons. Those weapons mostly scare things like deathstars, Imp Knights, and Flyrants--aka the easy mode 40k units. Then again, I understand that this rationale is based more on my dislike of these crutches than anything else.

    Ranged D does seems like it will push the game toward MSU, and I am fine with that. It takes far more skill to manage a bunch of units than to push around an unkillable deathstar or three arbitrarily allowed Superheavies.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Good points Mike. I see events either only allowing one or just not at all with the ranged D. If only the regular D guns were -1 to the D table - then things would be ok. Amazing for punching a vehicle or multi wound creature - but meh versus the small stuff. But shit they should have let bikes just have those guns too hahaha.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Only if they charged 15 points each ... that'd be fair I think.

      Delete
  3. So basically, if it's an Imperial Knight, it's all right, but if it sits in a Lord of War slot, batten down the hatches, cause a shit storms arriving! I still don't see what the difference is between a GC Wraithknight and an Imperial Knight.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The only people who see a difference are a large swathe of mid-rangers who invested in Knight armies ... many b/c they believed it was an auto-win button. The flipside is that Knights require you to invest one of your two detachments in a handful of models with serious movement issues that prevent them being ALL that good at mission ... whereas not only can Wraithknights just jump right over things you block with, they can be taken as a single item within an impressively diverse Eldar detachment. The difference between iKnights and other SH/Gargs is actually pretty dramatic in terms of how it plays out within a detachment-restrictive tournament or list construction setting.

      Delete
    2. Honestly, my point of contention is this: we treat the models themselves as very important. It's why we give out scores for paint and loads of points for expertly crafted armies. So what we have now is a ban on models. Models whose rules are seen as a threat to the balance of the game that in this event is played competitively. What we're telling that player who lovingly and painstakingly made a masterpiece out of the Tesseract Vault (an amazing figure) that because GW cranked its power to 12, his figure is not allowed. I hate this. I hate it because in a year where the tournament is getting more accepting (Forge World rules), it is also restrictive.

      So what's the solution? Rewrite D, stomp and thunderblitz. You've already deviated from the rules. You've banned unbound and placed a limit on detachments. Think about this though. You scale back the actual things that people take exception to and you maximize the amount of happy people. Does it take more work? Sure, but in the end, it allows for more variety in armies and allows for the coolest looking models to be fielded.

      Delete
    3. The Imperial Knight distinction is bad and arbitrary. It is a superheavy that is randomly allowed simply because they have their own codex and a bunch of people own them.

      I get that you have to look out for attendance, but there is something fundamentally hypocritical about the decision to allow Knights (there always has been, and it isn't just NOVA either).

      I tend to think the game is a ton better and more diverse when we just decide to leave apochammer where it belongs or create another format for those who want to play that way. Again--I get the decision, but I doubt there is anyone emotionally invested in their Ad Crutch list.

      Delete
    4. Actually, the distinction is pretty good in the scope of limited detachments. Adding an IK to your army eats a detachment slot. Adding one to your Eldar army does not.

      Fun fact: A Castigator Imperial Knight used as a Lord of War slot is banned.

      Delete
  4. I agree with these restrictions. The one thing I'll mention is maybe make the wraithknight a jump MC in lieu of excluding it as a GC? It'll still be devastatingly powerful with distort guns/real D closecombat sword, while not having the stomp 6 everyone hates (I think stomp is the worst part of superheavy walkers/GCs). Still have it take up a LoW slot and then you can only have 1/CAD (though you can go warhost and take 3-4 still). But that's really no worse than current 3-4 wraithknight builds, and they did go up in points while not getting a buff to their durability (as a MC, not as a GC).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What if you gave a flat out (non stacking) -1 to all rolls on the D, Stomp and Thunderblitz tables. No more auto removal of units or models, but still better than S10.

      You could also simplify it by just ignoring those results and treating them as the weaker results.

      Delete
    2. What if you gave a flat out (non stacking) -1 to all rolls on the D, Stomp and Thunderblitz tables. No more auto removal of units or models, but still better than S10.

      You could also simplify it by just ignoring those results and treating them as the weaker results.

      Delete
  5. It's worth pointing out that D-scythes can't benefit from Promethium Pipelines because they aren't flame-weapons as described in the rulebook.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Why not just modify Destroyer so that it inflicts D3 wounds, where a 2-3 inflicts a -1 save mod, a 4-5 inflicts a -2 save mod, and a 6 a -3 save mod? Make the D less "I autonuke", but make more consistently dangerous against Deathstars? Or some other tweak to make it less Russian Roulette?

    ReplyDelete
  7. It's worth pointing out that D-scythes can't benefit from Promethium Pipelines because they aren't flame-weapons as described in the rulebook.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Hey mike, if you include MC's in that -1 to D weapons then you also take out a very useful tool in the newest Khorne Demonkin book. It already has a nasty handicap of striking at I1, so if you hit it with the -1D penalty and still allow things like AdLance, then we go back to the earlier problem of Knights being very difficult to get off the table. What I propose, take it for what it's worth, is that we go with the rules as written for D and over the next couple months gather as much info about it, then re-visit the issue... If there even turns out to be an issue.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He was talking specifically about ranged str d not any melee version.

      Delete
  9. Something you've probably already given thought to, but in relation to the Wraithknight: If you're banning it, what do people who want to bring the Wraith Host formation do? Are they forbidden from bringing it entirely because they cannot bring a WK, or will they be able to bring the formation sans WK?

    Many people are also concerned about the new Windrider Jetbikes -- at least their firepower if they are all allowed Scatter Lasers. Are there any plans regarding balancing for this unit, say restricting the ratio of heavy weapons?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Mike,

    I completely disagree with changing a bass mechanic for a new codex coming out. Did you ban chaos daemon flamers when they came out and auto killed everything? If you are going to change weapon characteristics foe your event then you have no choice but to change the following four items as well:

    INVISIBILITY
    GRIMOIRE
    FORTUNE
    KNIGHTS STOMPS OF A 6

    I get and understand the worry of players to "D". But dropping a daemon save to a 2++, re rolling 2+/2++/2+++ is worse. Along with being invisible. If this thought is for the "greater good", then more should be "changed".

    With respect ,

    Aaron

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with Aarons sentiments there are things that are just not fun to play against. I spend 400-500 bucks to attend an event and then I just spend a game removing models based 100% on my opponents ability to roll 6's(stomp/D) or I get to sit and do absolutely nothing as my opponent makes me pick up models(2+ re-rolls). I have no problem losing, but when its known from the start that there is nothing I can do it is frustrating.

      It is just not fun to play everything right and then lose because they rolled one 6 and just pick up models regardless of value or how much I invested in it.

      We saw what happened in 5th and 6th when these extreme units arrived, it made it so only so many counters existed and killed a lot of the variety I have been seeing and enjoying since the start of 7th.

      Delete
    2. I agree with Aaron whole heartily... I've been playing since second editiong and there's always something (except for the recieving player base) to complain about when new codexes come out. Then people figure a way to deal with it and all's well with the world. But that doesn't change the fact we can't exclude some units just because people QQ too much in forums and complain about a game system that was built to be broken. If someone wants to build the list that's unbeatable, more power to them I say. For those who want to play to have fun, then do it, but to say to those who've spent their hard earned money and time into builing these awesome models and tell them they can't use them... it doesn't make sense to me.

      Another thing about banning certain units from codexes, it's one of the stupidest ideas I've ever heard of. Imagine using space marines and telling them they can't use a cen start anymore, or no thunderwolf calvary. You're taking away things that make a list viable under normal tournament rules.

      I say wait until the codex is actually released, give it a few months and see how the meta changes for eldar. On the other side every army has something to deal with these OP units that are being rewritten for the umpteenth time. Quit your bitching about something that's going to be obsolete in six months time.

      Delete
    3. Aaron is making a lot of sense.

      Delete
  11. So the frustration here is over slightly Nerfing wraith guard standard guns and artillery?

    Because to allow wraithknights would require me to make exception to an existing rule for the GT in order for eldar players to use their big toys? Because I didn't hear these complaints about every other super heavy / gargantuan lord disallowed. I want ti be clear I understand

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think IMO that most people appreciate the step you are taking to try and make changes to increase the enjoyment for a majority of people. I think that now people see that you are willing to make changes they are asking that you take it a step further and look at these other issues that are present that we have kinda let slide.

      Excuse me while I put on my overqualified PhD student hat *hat on*

      I would seriously look at the information on"learned helplessness" and see the effects it can have on people(and then look at how people on forums are responding). While it is just a game of toy soldiers many of us have invested our hearts and souls into the game. To just feel like there is nothing you can do over and over, it is heart breaking.

      Delete
    2. I get what you're saying Mike. Where was the flipping of tables when the Necron Decurion was introduced with the ability to take 10 Obelisks/Tesseract Vaults?

      I still would rather see the D, Stomp and Thunderblitz tables altered and allow super heavies than have figures be banned.

      Delete
  12. Mike,

    The issue for me is how can you change a codex mechanic for one and not attempt to balance others. Yeah a few d shots on some units is meh in my opinion. What is worse is things like invisibility, grimoire, fortune equaling rerollable 2+/3+/2++/3++ saves, and knight stomps of 6. Those 4 make it very unfun to as many players as potentially wraithguard with d cannons and artillery with d blasts.

    I understand attempting to balance the game somewhat because we have to try as to's. But this would be the first time Nova has changed a codex mechanic such as a shooting profile. If you do that in my opinion you have to change the 4 above as they are inherently worse than a few d weapon shots.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Just a devil's advocate here (not an Eldar player either!) but if grimoire and fortune and rerollable deathstars are more of an issue, isn't the D weaponry risk of rolling a 6 the counter to those things you've mentioned? I don't know what to do with our local tournies with ranged D either... but we tend to follow what the big tournies decide (assume they know what they're doing by now!)... I don't really know if the new Eldar dex is completely over the top or not as I haven't played against it yet. Same boat as most everyone else really. Last Eldar dex was super strong for certain, but was it's great success in big tournies due in part to the comp imposed on counters to their strengths or in limiting detachments so those strong single books dominated? I don't know, it takes a smarter guy than me to figure all that out, but I think I'm going to try out a few games against it first. Wraithknight and all, and see what kind of impact it has. On paper I'm not real happy with what I've seen, but oftentimes something looks a lot worse than it ends up being.

      Delete
  13. The biggest issue I see with banning the WK is that Imp Knights ARE still allowed. The ban should not be on LoWs (cuz Ghaz, Logan & Draigo are sooo OP!), but the ban should rather be on Super Heavies and Gargantuan creatures.

    That would put the Imp Knight and the WK in the same category (which they should be). If people just HAVE to bring their Imp Knights, then restrict "Knights" to 1 per army. That way Eldar can only bring 1 WK, and Imperials only get 1 Imp knight.

    Without units on the board that have more than 4 hull point/wounds, StrD on Wraithguard suddenly doesn't get its points back.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Imp knights and wraithknights are not the same if they were then wraithknights with the melee str d wouldn't cost 105 points less then the knight lancer and still be better.

      Delete
  14. If I may, I think a big thing to remember is most of the time when people think D they think an untouchable titan dropping multiple five inch blasts across the board. A few wraithguard seem very tame in comparison to that, especially when their transport isn't as strong as it was.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I say keep the same rules that everyone wanted before the elder codex dropped including the ban on LoW. Because you will ruin the event by making elder the special exception. And simply revert ranged str d back to the older codex distortion rule that everyone was fine with before str d became an issue.
    It's a clean and simple fix and keeps everything the same as it was when elder players were fine with those units and rules.

    ReplyDelete