ITC question

[galahad911]

Explain how the shadowsword wasn't viable or playable before....? The Imperial knight is considerably more broken than the shadow sword with full ranged D rules.

 

It wasn't playable before because you couldn't play with anything with a ranged D weapon. It is playable now, as the ranged D weapon isn't baned outright anymore. Viable, well, no, but it wasn't viable with the D rules out of the book. Focusing on this one D weapon platform, sure it looks like the D weapon nerf is heavy handed. Looking at the whole game, and all the other D weapon platforms out there, the nerf makes a lot more sense. There are more D weapon carriers than just a crappy overpriced one, like all baneblades are.

[Guest]

It wasn't playable before because you couldn't play with anything with a ranged D weapon. It is playable now, as the ranged D weapon isn't baned outright anymore. Viable, well, no, but it wasn't viable with the D rules out of the book. Focusing on this one D weapon platform, sure it looks like the D weapon nerf is heavy handed. Looking at the whole game, and all the other D weapon platforms out there, the nerf makes a lot more sense. There are more D weapon carriers than just a crappy overpriced one, like all baneblades are.

Of the D weapons I own:

Shadowsword (nerfed beyond recognition)

Warhound (also nerfed quite heavily)

GK libby with Vortex of Doom (worthless psychic power now)

Ork Shokk Attack Gun with double 6s (mostly worthless)

 

The weapon nerf is heavy handed if you aren't eldar.

 

And the worst bit is that I've always thought the D melee were just as balanced as the ranged D, but now the melee D is considerably more broken.

[AbusePuppy]

Pax, I think you know by now that rather a large number of people don't share your opinions on how 40K works. You should hardly be surprised by this. You think Dark Angels are great, Wave Serpents are middling, and tons of other stuff most people think is crazy- and I can't prove you wrong, but I can say that it cannot possibly come as a surprise that other people's understanding of what is needed to balance the game will be different than yours.

[Guest]

Pax, I think you know by now that rather a large number of people don't share your opinions on how 40K works. You should hardly be surprised by this. You think Dark Angels are great, Wave Serpents are middling, and tons of other stuff most people think is crazy- and I can't prove you wrong, but I can say that it cannot possibly come as a surprise that other people's understanding of what is needed to balance the game will be different than yours.

Yeah, I hear you.

 

It isn't that I think the DA are great, I just don't like marines that flee on morale checks. I do think they have several underrated units which I advocate when DA is put down, but I do agree that the codex is lacking or equal to the SM one, but never better as a solo act. I strongly suspect that the new SM book will include the DA, as the last one included the BT.

 

As for the Waves, it isn't that they are lacking, far from it, but they really capitalize on the weaknesses of tournament players. My more lacking high AV lists do just fine against Wave Spam, because the AV14 shrugs off the serpent shields without noticing them. My lists have their share of Eldar issues, but the serpent spam has never been a threat.

 

And for the ITC, It's just sad. I mean they indirectly made ranged D weapons more powerful than they were intended by nerfing the save the re-roll and allowing D blasts to hit invisible units directly. But even there, aside from the Eldar and a few FW ranged D, the ranged D is uncommon and hardly broken. I took a shadowsword because I wanted of the novelty of owning a D weapon and one that wouldn't cause issue with my opponent - it still does this to a certain extent, but now it's inclusion is pure novelty as the weapon has no real chance of contributing to the army.

 

On a side note, the easiest way to balance the ranged D weapons would be to disallow moving and firing them. Just a flat, "models that move at all during a turn cannot fire D weapons in the shooting phase, regardless of relentless or slow and purposeful (or other similar abilities)." Would make all those eldar D weapons remain deadly, but they couldn't do the jump out of a transport and D shenanigans, plus the revenant would have to choose to be mobile or deadly.

 

@galahad911: Okay, so I fire a shokk attack gun at a scarab swarm. I roll a 6 and a 4. It's a S10 large blast. That IDs the scarab swarm. If I roll double sixes, it instead resolves as a vortex weapon. A vortex weapon is a D weapon, so it does d2 wounds 2-5 (with cover and invulnerable saves) and 2 wounds on a 6 (without saves). Yeah....When I see nerfed, I'm thinking how little the D weapon is going to do against extremely soft targets.

[pretre]

Shokk Attack Gun viability is a big concern of the competitive community.

[Guest]

Shokk Attack Gun viability is a big concern of the competitive community.

I know...

 

Though that said, ITC isn't just being used competitively. I see less and less casual 40k players. 40k is becoming the next warmachine.

[pretre]

I know...

 

Though that said, ITC isn't just being used competitively. I see less and less casual 40k players. 40k is becoming the next warmachine.

ITC is being used for casual games? O RLY?

[generalripphook]

Being a blast weapon unsaved wounds against scarabs double.

[Skkipper]

Itc is for events where people travel sometimes great distances to play games with rules that makes the event palatable for most gamers. The bigger problem is I currently can't take forgeworld with the demonkin book.

[Torg]

OK - I am looking for this "ITC" modified D weapon table… which you speak of.  I don't see it in the FAQ on the ITC site … in fact the D/L from the site says it was last edited sometime in Feb.

 

- I am probably just missing it...

 

0d

[Guest]

Being a blast weapon unsaved wounds against scarabs double.

Oh, right. How could I forget that? Yeah, loads less issues now.

 

OK - I am looking for this "ITC" modified D weapon table… which you speak of.  I don't see it in the FAQ on the ITC site … in fact the D/L from the site says it was last edited sometime in Feb.

 

- I am probably just missing it...

 

0d

It's actually in the list Format, not the FAQ. Here Specifically in "Rules Alterations" which is above Missions and Below Sportsmanship.

[generalripphook]

Just saying Pax if you are going to use an example make it completely valid to support your case. 

 

I do agree that with the prevalence of D weapons now the previous D weapon units should probably be adjusted in cost so they are equally viable as some of the Eldar weapons. However since that probably wont be the case for a while I support D weapons being nerfed until everyone has "equal" access.

[Guest]

I do agree that with the prevalence of D weapons now the previous D weapon units should probably be adjusted in cost so they are equally viable as some of the Eldar weapons. However since that probably wont be the case for a while I support D weapons being nerfed until everyone has "equal" access.

So, if we gave everyone "equal" D weapon access, you'd be fine with them un-nerfed?

 

I fully support nerfing them for non-apoc 40k, I just thought that the nerf in question was too extreme and doesn't address the eldar issues very well. I also think that D weapons should be nerfed across the board, not just ranged D weapons.

 

PS: I had been forgetting the double damage from blasts. I have less issues with the D weapon nerf now. I was just blown away that my Shadowsword would struggle against rippers. Not that swarms were ever a great D weapon target, but it seems like a horrible disaster that the super apoc weapon would fail to kill space ants....

[Guest]

Just saying Pax if you are going to use an example make it completely valid to support your case.

You mean the shadowsword? I used it because I own it and it's the primary model affected by this change for games of non-apocalypse.

 

But, if you want a better example, pick one.

 

I think the big issue with the eldar D weapons is their mobility, especially putting those D scythes inside transports. This ruling really doesn't help against the D Scythes, as even with -1 on the table, looking at 2 wounds on 3+ which deny FNP, armor and cover. Given that you can take them in units of more than 1, you are still looking at an incredibly quick way to melt vehicles and MCs.

 

If instead, you nerfed [ranged] D weapons so they couldn't move and fire, you'd nerf all the major broken applications of D weapons. They can't be used in a transport surprise capacity. Even the Revenant would become more balanced, as it would become feasible to actually catch it in assault (where it is very weak). Meanwhile, units like the shadowsword remain fluffy and balanced.

[AbusePuppy]

The Shadowsword wasn't a good unit during 6th edition when Str D was crazy-broken. It wasn't good during early 7th before the changes were implemented. It's not good now.

 

It went from mediocre to bad to bad. Why are you complaining that a bad units isn't good following a rules change? You're going to need something much more relevant than that- because as Pretre has already pointed out, the Shadowsword wasn't even legal to use under ITC prior to this. Neither was the Warhound. Neither was the Revenant.

 

The move-and-fire thing doesn't affect what is arguably the second-strongest Eldar Str D weapon, the D-Cannon (as it's artillery and can't move+fire anyways.) Solutions need to fix all of the problematic elements, not just some of them.

[Guest]

The move-and-fire thing doesn't affect what is arguably the second-strongest Eldar Str D weapon, the D-Cannon (as it's artillery and can't move+fire anyways.) Solutions need to fix all of the problematic elements, not just some of them.

Aren't those stuck at only 24" of range without ability to move and fire? What is the threat?

[pretre]

Aren't those stuck at only 24" of range without ability to move and fire? What is the threat?

Not sure if serious...

 

Good thing your opponent never needs to get within 24" of you. Also, good that there's no way to get infiltrate on them. :)

[Guest]

The Shadowsword wasn't a good unit during 6th edition when Str D was crazy-broken. It wasn't good during early 7th before the changes were implemented. It's not good now.

 

It went from mediocre to bad to bad. Why are you complaining that a bad units isn't good following a rules change? You're going to need something much more relevant than that- because as Pretre has already pointed out, the Shadowsword wasn't even legal to use under ITC prior to this. Neither was the Warhound. Neither was the Revenant.

First, I explained that the main reason I care about the shadowsword is because it's the model I own.

 

Second, it was/is worth the points, especially in apocalypse where It can use it's full range. Is it broken or OP, certainly not, but it really isn't weak either.

 

 

Not sure if serious...

 

Good thing your opponent never needs to get within 24" of you. Also, good that there's no way to get infiltrate on them. :)

Well, I've mostly dismissed them (a mistake?). Seem like a really easy unit to avoid if for some reason the 24" range is horribly threatening to your army. Plus their leadership isn't very high and can't really be raised beyond attaching an IC to the unit.

 

Even with infiltration, that's 18" away if I've got any LOS, and that's after I roll off to place my own infiltrators first. Very easy to avoid/deny placement. And even there, if I sieze, that's an easy turn 1 charge for bikes, jump infantry or cavalry. Seems like a real gamble.

[pretre]

Well, glad we've sorted that then. :)

[Torg]

SORTED!   

[fluger]

Well, I've mostly dismissed them (a mistake?). Seem like a really easy unit to avoid if for some reason the 24" range is horribly threatening to your army. Plus their leadership isn't very high and can't really be raised beyond attaching an IC to the unit.

 

Put it in cover as close to the start line as possible.  Cover as much of the middle of the board as possible.  Nothing wants to come through that zone and being barrage means you don't even need LoS.  This is a great bunker for a walking farseer too and if you go with divination, you can get an ignores cover buff which REALLY ups the killing power.  

 

Let me just say that in the 6th ed codex I used this setup and it was REALLY effective, having it go up to a D weapon only makes it better (same points cost too!).  

[Guest]

Put it in cover as close to the start line as possible.  Cover as much of the middle of the board as possible.  Nothing wants to come through that zone and being barrage means you don't even need LoS.  This is a great bunker for a walking farseer too and if you go with divination, you can get an ignores cover buff which REALLY ups the killing power.  

 

Let me just say that in the 6th ed codex I used this setup and it was REALLY effective, having it go up to a D weapon only makes it better (same points cost too!).  

But it's only a small blast, right?

 

Don't get me wrong, it does seem threatening, just avoidable and not very potent in assault. Yeah, cover would help, but only so much.

 

You're probably looking at three D cannons for 150-ish pts and the 100pt farseer? That's a land raider in cost. Yeah, it would be annoying and powerful against some opponents, but it doesn't strike me as overpowered in the slightest, that's all.

 

 

The move-and-fire thing doesn't affect what is arguably the second-strongest Eldar Str D weapon, the D-Cannon (as it's artillery and can't move+fire anyways.) Solutions need to fix all of the problematic elements, not just some of them.

Would you really need to nerf this one?

 

EDIT: I do see rather major issues if fielding an Unbound army, as having 20 units of 1 D cannon would be really annoying.

[pretre]

Umm. Again, not sure if serious...

 

3 D Small Blasts for 250 points with the old D table? Yes, there was a reason to nerf it.

[Guest]

Umm. Again, not sure if serious...

 

3 D Small Blasts for 250 points with the old D table? Yes, there was a reason to nerf it.

3 D small blasts that have only 24" of range, can't move and fire, can't charge, can't fire while snapping, have extremely limited leadership, and auto-fails sweeps, for 250pts?

 

Does it really need more nerfing?

[pretre]

3 D small blasts that have only 24" of range, can't move and fire, can't charge, can't fire while snapping, has extremely limited leadership, and auto-fails sweeps, for 250pts?

 

Does it really need more nerfing?

Umm. You were serious?

 

Okay then. You have a very different perspective on the world.