HomeDark Eldar WikiDark Eldar ResourcesNull CityFAQUsergroupsRegisterLog in
Share | 
 

 Vehicle Defenses

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
AuthorMessage
RegoCrux
Hellion
avatar

Posts : 41
Join date : 2017-10-02

PostSubject: Vehicle Defenses   Sat Oct 21 2017, 13:49

The CWE codex got me thinking and hoping. As some may know I brought up in another thread about Raiders/Venoms/Ravagers moving away from the invulnerable save defense in favor of a hit penalty defense. With the new Alaitoc release I'm thinking this is a real possibility that can be pushed for.

My suggestion would be to give Raiders and Ravagers hit penalty defenses and make the Venom's more robust. Start by making Night Shields something like:

"Your opponent must subtract 1 from the hit rolls of any ranged attacks that target this unit. They must instead subtract 2 at ranges greater than 12""

I know my language is not the best, but I'll leave that to the writers.

The penalties would be too much added on top of the invulnerable saves. It would have to be in place of. Maths...

Guard Lascannon vs. Raider at 6"
Current -> ~4.5 shots to damage
Proposed -> exactly the same!
Guard Lascannon vs. Raider at 16"
Current -> ~4.5 shots to damage
Proposed -> ~9 shots to damage

Other armies and weapons follow a similar, if slightly different, change to the chances. There is little to no difference within 12" and a buff at longer range.

Range defenses do three things for a Drukhari army that I'm really wanting. First, it makes that first turn a little more resilient. But it can be countered. Second, it makes Drukhari speed mean something. It could work in the player's favor to kite raiders and ravagers back to keep them at longer ranges. Doesn't help for securing objectives so even that is a mitigated tactic. Third, it gives somewhat of a buff to make Drukhari worth the points instead of just giving them point drops. Point drops would just make Drukhari a spam army and I don't want that. Not fluffy.

Venoms, with their fragility and need to be closer with the weapons they have, could also get flickerfields to give -1 on top of the night shield. With no invulnerable save it's not as scary as it might sound.

What I'm afraid of is Drukhari getting a 'doctrine' trait like ravenguard/alaitoc/alpha/etc. The reason being that it would be difficult to balance out with armies that don't take that doctrine due to how the vehicles work currently. I think the changes I propose on top of the army trait would be a step too far. It puts too many things to 7+ hits with less counter play. That would leave the vehicles with their static 5++. Which isn't fluffy, doesn't introduce any tactical play/counter play, and most importantly doesn't help vehicles without that army trait.

Now I do realize that is kinda the point. You get a different trait then obviously you don't get a trait bonus you don't pick. Yes yes... But in this case giving it through an army trait presents some issues.

To give a little first turn resilience the vehicles need some kind of buff. If not, then a points drop. Points drops mean more dark lance spam and more models and that's a whole load of issues in itself. Dark lances are one thing I don't think the army is lacking in! Aside from that trait this remains an issue. Yes, this is a problem. Army traits have consistently been a buff ON TOP of already balanced units. Saying the weakness is filled in by the trait gets us into that whole Paying For Privilege problem. Let's stay away from that please! For armies with standard T7, armor 3+ vehicles the alaitoc trait works fine. It is a buff on top of something already good.

The army trait also falls over onto the non-vehicles. Like hordes of grotesques marching down the field. Not fluffy. I'd like it to be a vehicle-unique thing. Pay for it on the vehicles only. It would make things a whole lot easier to balance and understand. And thematic. Themes are important.

It also leaves room open for army variety and distinct roles. Coven units would lose their invulnerable saves in exchange for something like the Nurgle Disgustingly Resilient and a bunch of toughness. Still no armor. Who needs that junk?

So, what do folks think about moving to a range penalty defense? Issues you see? Suggestions on how to make it better? Let me know.
Back to top Go down
Luthon
Slave
avatar

Posts : 10
Join date : 2017-08-27

PostSubject: Re: Vehicle Defenses   Sun Oct 22 2017, 05:26

I'd rather stick with invul saves tbh, I mean sure -1 to hit stuff looks nice but there's too many things that just counter it.

I also think Raiders are pretty good at their price point, maybe dissies should go down in points? Venoms on the other hand, they really need a points decrease and they need to be able to load 6 people like everyone elses small transport vehicle. Like that space marine GT list that ran 6 razorbacks with twin assault cannons, literally 5 points more than a venom without the SC upgrade.
Back to top Go down
Mppqlmd
Hekatrix
avatar

Posts : 1145
Join date : 2017-07-05

PostSubject: Re: Vehicle Defenses   Sun Oct 22 2017, 10:34

I don't like malus to hit as a mecanic. It's unfair, because it penalizes some armies more than others.
If your entire army is "hard to hit", you become a mild annoyance for space marines, and Orkz have almost no chance to hit you. If you are "Hard to hit -2", T'au have no chance to win, but Necrons are only mildly concerned.

Invulnerable saves is the same against everyone.

_________________
My Kabal
Back to top Go down
masamune
Sybarite
avatar

Posts : 397
Join date : 2017-06-22
Location : Paris

PostSubject: Re: Vehicle Defenses   Sun Oct 22 2017, 10:49

(high) Invulnerable saves penalizes armies without much mortal wounds dealers ^^.

_________________
Frenchie, long time painter, trying to get in the 8th edition study, still converting & painting hordes of dark eldars  Twisted Evil
Project log

Dark eldars ~4k points / Battle sisters ~2k points
Back to top Go down
Mppqlmd
Hekatrix
avatar

Posts : 1145
Join date : 2017-07-05

PostSubject: Re: Vehicle Defenses   Sun Oct 22 2017, 10:58

@masamune wrote:
(high) Invulnerable saves penalizes armies without much mortal wounds dealers ^^.

Yes. But that's a build option (most armies can field mortal wounds). The "Hard to hit" affects armies that have a bad BS, and that's not a build option.
You can make sure to have enough MW in your list. You can't make sure you have a better BS than the normal BS of your army.

_________________
My Kabal
Back to top Go down
RedRegicide
Sybarite
avatar

Posts : 447
Join date : 2016-05-20

PostSubject: Re: Vehicle Defenses   Sun Oct 22 2017, 12:35

Also re roll heavy armies (gulliman) won’t be as hurt by this. I do like the idea of incorporating positioning into defence but idk if this would work

_________________
“No. Stop. Don’t go in there. You’ll all be killed,’ Motley murmured sardonically”
Back to top Go down
Faitherun
Kabalite Warrior
avatar

Posts : 169
Join date : 2017-02-13

PostSubject: Re: Vehicle Defenses   Sun Oct 22 2017, 13:46

I'd rather bring back the night shields that reduced range. All ranged weapons must reduce their range by 6" when targeting our vehicles. Keep the Invul saves but add that as an upgrade. Makes us more resilient to small arms fire and the mid-range weapons. Means we haven to be within 9" for bolters to double tap.
Back to top Go down
FuelDrop
Wych
avatar

Posts : 886
Join date : 2015-06-21

PostSubject: Re: Vehicle Defenses   Mon Oct 23 2017, 00:11

I like the invulnerable saves. I also miss the reduced range factor. Of course, with night fighting having faded so far from back when it was a maximum range which our night shields then reduced, making our raiders incredibly survivable during first turn if you got night fighting. It was awesome!

_________________
My homebrew codex is really coming along. Check it out here, and feel free to post a comment!
Back to top Go down
Ikol
Sybarite
avatar

Posts : 427
Join date : 2017-03-20
Location : Perth

PostSubject: Re: Vehicle Defenses   Mon Oct 23 2017, 02:23

I will second (third? (quadruple?!)) that Reduction of Range is a neater way to go about this than stacking ever greater penalties on your opponents rolls to hit.

Maybe a strategy that forces your opponent to reroll successful hits, that costs 2-3CP? Much like Mppqlmd has stated in the discussion on the T'au's new superheavy and here, hit roll penalties are a great way to invalidate entire armies.

At most, at absoloute most you might being able to justify squeezing out a -2 modifier, if it costs a chunk to field, because once you factor in moving and shooting with a heavy weapon, or advancing and firing with an Assault, all of a sudden Guard, T'au, Nids and Orks start needing 7+'s and brilliant snipers and characters start needing 5+'s.

_________________
This world exists because of the things we have done, forever branching to the decisions we make and twisting to what we do not.

Woe to our enemies. We'll tear them apart regardless.
Back to top Go down
FuelDrop
Wych
avatar

Posts : 886
Join date : 2015-06-21

PostSubject: Re: Vehicle Defenses   Mon Oct 23 2017, 02:35

I mean the CWE will be able to throw together a -3 to hit easy enough. Conceal, Hard to Hit, Craftworld. Boom, done.

_________________
My homebrew codex is really coming along. Check it out here, and feel free to post a comment!
Back to top Go down
Ikol
Sybarite
avatar

Posts : 427
Join date : 2017-03-20
Location : Perth

PostSubject: Re: Vehicle Defenses   Mon Oct 23 2017, 03:29

Yes, but also Boom, broken. Conceal is a psychic power that a) can hit only one Unit per turn and b) can fail.

whilst Hard to Hit + Craftworld are flat traits that will remain constant for the entire course of the battle.

_________________
This world exists because of the things we have done, forever branching to the decisions we make and twisting to what we do not.

Woe to our enemies. We'll tear them apart regardless.
Back to top Go down
FuelDrop
Wych
avatar

Posts : 886
Join date : 2015-06-21

PostSubject: Re: Vehicle Defenses   Mon Oct 23 2017, 03:49

Even the static -2 is going to seriously hurt Ork players. -3 is frankly ridiculous, even with the failure chance. I am getting flashbacks to Invisibility from 7th...

_________________
My homebrew codex is really coming along. Check it out here, and feel free to post a comment!
Back to top Go down
lcfr
Sybarite
avatar

Posts : 302
Join date : 2013-10-20
Location : Toronto

PostSubject: Re: Vehicle Defenses   Mon Oct 23 2017, 06:20

Yeah I think reducing range would be fun it just helps against small arms and emphasis our ability to outmaneuver units slower than us.
Back to top Go down
Mppqlmd
Hekatrix
avatar

Posts : 1145
Join date : 2017-07-05

PostSubject: Re: Vehicle Defenses   Mon Oct 23 2017, 11:07

@FuelDrop wrote:
Even the static -2 is going to seriously hurt Ork players. -3 is frankly ridiculous, even with the failure chance. I am getting flashbacks to Invisibility from 7th...

Yes. Alaitoc is currently the only CW doctrine that is worth mentionning IMO. The level of cheese you can melt with it is fascinating. -2 to hit on all your (12pts) rangers and your planes, -3 to hit with conceal. Fascinating.

_________________
My Kabal
Back to top Go down
|Meavar
Wych
avatar

Posts : 658
Join date : 2017-01-26

PostSubject: Re: Vehicle Defenses   Mon Oct 23 2017, 11:59

Jeah the discrepancy between ulthwe and alaitoc doctrines are insane.
Back to top Go down
HERO
Wych
avatar

Posts : 551
Join date : 2012-04-13

PostSubject: Re: Vehicle Defenses   Mon Oct 23 2017, 23:35

@Mppqlmd wrote:
@FuelDrop wrote:
Even the static -2 is going to seriously hurt Ork players. -3 is frankly ridiculous, even with the failure chance. I am getting flashbacks to Invisibility from 7th...

Yes. Alaitoc is currently the only CW doctrine that is worth mentionning IMO. The level of cheese you can melt with it is fascinating. -2 to hit on all your (12pts) rangers and your planes, -3 to hit with conceal. Fascinating.

Conceal is only for infantry and bikers, so the only thing that I can think of that an obtain -3 in the new book are Shadow Spectres and Rangers.

There are no heavy weapon configurations e.g. Hemlock, Falcons, Crimsons, Dark Reapers..etc that I can think of that can reach that level of absurdity.

_________________
HERO's Gaming Blog
A webway to better gaming
Back to top Go down
http://lkhero.blogspot.com/
Ikol
Sybarite
avatar

Posts : 427
Join date : 2017-03-20
Location : Perth

PostSubject: Re: Vehicle Defenses   Tue Oct 24 2017, 04:35

@FuelDrop wrote:
Even the static -2 is going to seriously hurt Ork players. -3 is frankly ridiculous, even with the failure chance. I am getting flashbacks to Invisibility from 7th...

I think you perhaps misunderstood what I meant there, friend.
Though looking at my own comment, I can see quite clearly why you inferred something different.
What I intended to convey is that "Conceal, Hard to Hit, Craftworld. Boom, done." Is also: "Conceal, Hard to Hit, Craftworld. Boom, broken game mechanic."

_________________
This world exists because of the things we have done, forever branching to the decisions we make and twisting to what we do not.

Woe to our enemies. We'll tear them apart regardless.
Back to top Go down
FuelDrop
Wych
avatar

Posts : 886
Join date : 2015-06-21

PostSubject: Re: Vehicle Defenses   Tue Oct 24 2017, 05:14

Ah. Now I understand.

_________________
My homebrew codex is really coming along. Check it out here, and feel free to post a comment!
Back to top Go down
Mppqlmd
Hekatrix
avatar

Posts : 1145
Join date : 2017-07-05

PostSubject: Re: Vehicle Defenses   Tue Oct 24 2017, 09:09

Quote :
There are no heavy weapon configurations e.g. Hemlock, Falcons, Crimsons, Dark Reapers..etc that I can think of that can reach that level of absurdity.

Good point.
Still, having a standard -2 on Hemlock and Rangers is pretty darn cheesy.

_________________
My Kabal
Back to top Go down
Count Adhemar
Dark Lord of Granbretan
avatar

Posts : 6785
Join date : 2012-04-26
Location : London

PostSubject: Re: Vehicle Defenses   Tue Oct 24 2017, 09:20

@HERO wrote:
@Mppqlmd wrote:
@FuelDrop wrote:
Even the static -2 is going to seriously hurt Ork players. -3 is frankly ridiculous, even with the failure chance. I am getting flashbacks to Invisibility from 7th...

Yes. Alaitoc is currently the only CW doctrine that is worth mentionning IMO. The level of cheese you can melt with it is fascinating. -2 to hit on all your (12pts) rangers and your planes, -3 to hit with conceal. Fascinating.

Conceal is only for infantry and bikers, so the only thing that I can think of that an obtain -3 in the new book are Shadow Spectres and Rangers.

There are no heavy weapon configurations e.g. Hemlock, Falcons, Crimsons, Dark Reapers..etc that I can think of that can reach that level of absurdity.

-3 on Shadow Spectres is pretty scary though.

_________________

You have been weighed, you have been measured, and you have been found wanting. In what world could you possibly beat me?
Back to top Go down
 
Vehicle Defenses
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 1 of 1

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
THE DARK CITY :: 

GENERAL DARK ELDAR DISCUSSION

 :: Dark Eldar Discussion
-
Jump to: