PDA

View Full Version : How do you Falcons to be like...



elvinltl
28-11-2007, 04:37
IMPORTANT: This thread takes on the assumption Falcons are overpowered/unbalanced. For those who feel Falcons are fine, just imagine Falcons are overpowered... Please do not argue how unbalanced or balanced Falcons are because there does not seem to be a crystalised conclusion.

It is time we move on to the next phase about balancing Falcons reasonably because arguing whether Falcons are unbalanced or not is terribly boring and getting nowhere.

How exactly does the 40k community want Falcon to be like?

There is a fine thin line that differentiates Falcon from an overpowered unit and useless unit.
The current Falcons with Holofields can
1) Absorb obscene amount of firepower
2) Transport infantry such as Harlequins and FireDragons with great efficiency and precision
3) Grab objectives on the last turn.
The above 3 Factors are solely dependent on the fact Falcons have Holo-Fields making it a highly indestructable. In addition, it can never be penetrated if it move more then 6" and requires 6s to hit in CC, only can score glancing hits.

Any suggestions how to balance Falcons such that they still appeal to Eldar players? When i mean appeal, it meant an objective measure of funtion Falcons can provide. Strictly NOT relative comparision to the previous Falcons that were considered unbalanced.

I know the community wants Falcon to be more destroyable. Problem is by making it more destroyable...
1) Cannot take on heavy firepower. Because they are more fragile.
2) Cannot provide decent firepower because it will probably spend the game shaken.
3) Cannot effectively transport troops. Just imagine the horror Eldar player will face when the Falcon loaded with FireDragons and Harlequins costing around 250+ points crashes and goes up in smoke on the 2nd turn. I would probably die of Heart Attack. T.T
4) Cannot claim/contest for objectives because they will probably die before the game ends. Thus they cannot turbo-boost to objectives contesting for it.

So to what degree of balance should Falcons undergo? It seems strange because by nerfing Falcons we seemed to be killing Falcons off the Eldar arsenal. They have nothing to offer otherwise unlike FirePrisims which could still hang out behind firing their 60" Prisim Cannons.

Moderators: Could you help me add the word "want" inside the title? I left it out. >.<

deathwing_marine
28-11-2007, 04:46
I think its just holofields that needs tweaking. Possibly d6-1 for damage? Rerolls such as Venerable Dreadnoughts? Any ideas?

Orbital
28-11-2007, 05:17
Where in the world do you get the idea that we here at Warseer are somehow a committee that advises the design team? When you say things like "It is time we move on to the next phase about balancing Falcons" or "Falcons are in Danger of being removed from the real Eldar arsenal", it really makes me wonder whether or not you're aware that this is just a web forum for 40k players or if you think somehow this is a place where you vote on changes you want made to the rules.

I find the basic premise of this thread to be extremely weird.

Spleendokta
28-11-2007, 06:38
Ill use this as my default falcon thread response. Lets all use them then there ballanced.

The_Outsider
28-11-2007, 07:45
I think its just holofields that needs tweaking. Possibly d6-1 for damage? Rerolls such as Venerable Dreadnoughts? Any ideas?

Work as venerable, kept as is otherwise.

Bam! Insta-fix and noone will complain.

Micro
28-11-2007, 10:59
http://warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=115258

elvinltl
28-11-2007, 11:02
Where in the world do you get the idea that we here at Warseer are somehow a committee that advises the design team? When you say things like "It is time we move on to the next phase about balancing Falcons" or "Falcons are in Danger of being removed from the real Eldar arsenal", it really makes me wonder whether or not you're aware that this is just a web forum for 40k players or if you think somehow this is a place where you vote on changes you want made to the rules.

I find the basic premise of this thread to be extremely weird.

Obviously GW people use this forum to look for feedbacks and ideas from the 40k community. We do not give advise but rather feedback to GW about the game... And GW does react to our feedbacks as well, for instance the many many rants and complains about Falcons will probably prompt them to make somes changes in future editions right? After all we are their consumers...

Orbital
28-11-2007, 11:35
Obviously GW people use this forum to look for feedbacks and ideas from the 40k community. We do not give advise but rather feedback to GW about the game... And GW does react to our feedbacks as well, for instance the many many rants and complains about Falcons will probably prompt them to make somes changes in future editions right? After all we are their consumers...
This is so full of assumptions, generalizations, and unsupported arguments that it's hard to even know where to start.

Short response: No, your Warseer thread does not steer the direction of GW rules development in any significant way.

Acheron,Bringer of Terror
28-11-2007, 11:52
Falcons are fine. it is not that their rules are overpowered IMO.

their rules are only overpowered because 4th ed screwed skimmers rules - nothing else!

Vault-Dweller
28-11-2007, 13:19
"Venerable re roll" That would probably work.

Captain Micha
28-11-2007, 13:43
Falcons are fine. it is not that their rules are overpowered IMO.

their rules are only overpowered because 4th ed screwed skimmers rules - nothing else!

so if skimmers are so godly why is it we only see Falcons lasting entire games?
It has nothing to do with skimmers and everything to do with two pieces of upgrades. Most tau players for example fully expect to lose at least 2 skimmers in one game. Sometimes more. And that's not even counting a heavy anti vehicle weapon army.

Venerable reroll would be best.

jfjnpxmy
28-11-2007, 13:47
I think the real problem with Falcons isn't balance, but their name. Why is an alien race that's likely never heard of Falcons naming their transport after it? I hereby demand Games Workshop rename them Moxyfroovian Hoojeefrips.

Captain Micha
28-11-2007, 13:49
Falcon is probably what we humans call them. Just like Devilfish, Hammerhead etc etc

jfjnpxmy
28-11-2007, 13:54
Falcon is probably what we humans call them. Just like Devilfish

"Vernicious Grue"


, Hammerhead

"Ulreathon"


YOU HEAR ME, GAMES WORKSHOP? YOU CHANGE THE NAMES. YOU CHANGE THEM ALL.

golembane
28-11-2007, 14:43
The problem with falcons is almost everyone comes equipped to deal with marines, and Eldar are not marines. As a Hybrid tau force I have no problem unloading enough shots into a falcon to make it eat dirt four or five times over(Have you ever seen what 3 markerlights, 4 stealth suits, and 3 crisis suits opening up on the rear side of a Falcon can do to that tank?). When people come with tons of 1-2 shots high powered weapons, of course its going to go to waste on the Eldar as a whole. Sometimes more shots is a far better option then stronger shots, especially in the case of Falcons where their armor is paper thin. Enough shots can and will kill any model with only moderate issues.

Want to talk overpowered... try a ten man wraithguard unit, a 'lock with conceal, and a 'Seer walking along with Fortune. Have you seen the amount of firepower that unit can absorb before even one model goes down? Could kill 2-3 Falcons in the time it takes to wipe out even 1-2 models. Falcons, no prob... down with the true nemesis, Wraithguard!

The_Outsider
28-11-2007, 16:22
Want to talk overpowered... try a ten man wraithguard unit, a 'lock with conceal, and a 'Seer walking along with Fortune. Have you seen the amount of firepower that unit can absorb before even one model goes down? Could kill 2-3 Falcons in the time it takes to wipe out even 1-2 models. Falcons, no prob... down with the true nemesis, Wraithguard!

One slight difference - that wraitguard unit (inc. 'seer with gubbins) probably costs a LOT more than a falcon.

Brushmonkey
28-11-2007, 16:30
Its not the holofields that are the problem I feel. Its the SPirit Stones that accompany them. Always being able to move to safety after being shot is VERY powerful. If they worked a little more like last edition then we probably wouldn't be having this discussion (as we weren't with the last codex).

Oh and it's pretty retarded for this thread to assume that holotanks are overpowered and then try and steer GWs thoughts. Perhaps GW likes their holotanks just the way they are!

ChaosMaster
28-11-2007, 17:12
This thread takes on the assumption Falcons are overpowered/unbalanced.
But apparently does not take on the assumption that yet another thread on this topic is superfluous. :D

A lot of 40K players have been buying, collecting, building and painting models for 40K for many years. We purchase the models we like. The rules for those models change every time a new Codex is issued. Sometimes these revisions mean that the models become reduced in game effectiveness and everyone says they are "nerfed" and on other revisions those models become more game effective and everyone says they are "cheesy". This applies to models in all the different 40K army ranges. For example, Chaos Possessed and Spawn are supposedly now "nerfed" while Falcons since last year are suddenly "cheesy".

Well, for those of us who buy the models we like and who use them occasionally in games, all the whining about "nerfed" and "cheesy" is superfluous, because we still like the models and still play with them regardless of the changes to the rules for those models in the latest Codex. We have no control over what GW gives us for the latest rules for our models, but we still try to enjoy them no matter which way the rules go and it does not add to the fun of playing with them to hear a bunch of whining babies complaining that our models are "cheese" when we also play with them when they are "nerfed". Get over it, the Codex rules will change again in 3 to 5 years and then everyone will have something else to whine about.

Custard
28-11-2007, 17:24
How exactly does the 40K community want Falcon to be like?

If you're going to be taking the view that people who think it is balanced as it is, must pretend they are not, then there's not a lot of point "gathering" views, as the collected viewpoint will be skewed.

Tbh, I think topics about Falcons are in need of a good whack with the nerf-bat. :D

Orbital
28-11-2007, 17:46
The problem with falcons is...
Boy, have I ever read this sentence a lot in the last few days.


Want to talk overpowered... try a ten man wraithguard unit, a 'lock with conceal, and a 'Seer walking along with Fortune.
A "lock"... that made me laugh. :)

Wraithguard are little bundles of hell on feet, no doubt about it... but three things rob them of their "true nemesis" title are:
- Their cost. Points-wise, a squad of 10 with a "lock" is approaching 400 points. This is bound to make any experienced player cringe; does any unit offer good ROI at 400 points?
- Their range. 12" shots are decent, but not amazing. The Wraithguard have to get into range if they want to put those guns to work. This leads us to our next problem...
- Their speed. No fleet of foot for these guys, and you can't cram more than 5 of them into a Wave Serpent at a time. If you can't outrun them on foot then you've got to give some serious thought to your army's mobility.

Now take into consideration their ho-hum close-combat skills and the low rate of fire for the Wraithcannons and you have some very solid reasons to think twice about taking Wraithguard. And I kinda like that... no unit should be a full-on "no brainer"; plusses and minuses should always make you think before you spend the points.