Why does the falcon still have AV out of the gate?

[Oddnerd]

Since I haven't made reference to specific numbers so far here is some stuff taken from the codex:

Falcon - 28dps

Fire Prism Focused Blast - 29.09dps

IG HWT Autocannon - 36dps

IG HWT Lascannon - 41.25dps

It is at the lower end of things, but is still very respectable considering it is constantly firing (it reloads for 3 seconds once every ~14 seconds).

[The Dragon Reborn]

Surprised no ones mentioned FS support, which can give it a bit more oomph.

But on the whole I think with the current nerfs it should be fine, they do go down pretty quick with no energy shield.

[Torpid]

Since I haven't made reference to specific numbers so far here is some stuff taken from the codex:

Falcon - 28dps

Fire Prism Focused Blast - 29.09dps

IG HWT Autocannon - 36dps

IG HWT Lascannon - 41.25dps

It is at the lower end of things, but is still very respectable considering it is constantly firing (it reloads for 3 seconds once every ~14 seconds).

It constantly firing makes it weaker in reality than its dps value shows.

Everytime a lascannon or fire prism shot fires it does way more damage than the dps suggests. And it is far easier and safer to pop out get a shot and pop away than it is to just sit a falcon there shooting at something. Just saying, if it had bigger bursts and more reloads but same dps like the razorback it would be waaaaaay stronger and very op.

The wraithlord brightlance for example only does 20dps and if that thing was on the falcon I think it would be quite broken.

[Adeptus Noobus]

Since I haven't made reference to specific numbers so far here is some stuff taken from the codex:

Falcon - 28dps

Fire Prism Focused Blast - 29.09dps

IG HWT Autocannon - 36dps

IG HWT Lascannon - 41.25dps

It is at the lower end of things, but is still very respectable considering it is constantly firing (it reloads for 3 seconds once every ~14 seconds).

It constantly firing makes it weaker in reality than its dps value shows.

Everytime a lascannon or fire prism shot fires it does way more damage than the dps suggests. And it is far easier and safer to pop out get a shot and pop away than it is to just sit a falcon there shooting at something. Just saying, if it had bigger bursts and more reloads but same dps like the razorback it would be waaaaaay stronger and very op.

The wraithlord brightlance for example only does 20dps and if that thing was on the falcon I think it would be quite broken.

Exactly this. VS vehicles you always prefer more bursty weaponry than constant firing. When it comes to AV, the raw dmg value is way more interesting than the dps because dps values can be misleading (Tac Missile Launcher - 17.81 dps but 130 dmg/hit).

I think the Falcon stats (apart from its T3 transition into a mechanical monstrosity) are fine. You have to look at it in the context of the Eldar army roster. It has nothing going for it in T2 apart from its strong weaponry. Set up a trap for it and in 95% of the time it is dead. A snare almost always means it's dead. It has 8 speed which is the same as the RB and the Rhino (only Wartrukk is faster and more "agile"). It has no smoke bomb to protect itself and its repair support is somewhat fragile considering the army makeup of each faction, meaning you can not just fall back behind your lines to repair and let the heavy hitters hold it for a while because your DAs need to be providing shields and firepower for you to be able to hold a line. It is actually exactly what you expect out of Eldar: a glasscannon. In T2 that is.
The reason right now the Falcon overperforms when compared to the Wraithlord is because the Wraithlord has been nerfed by lowering its hp. It used to be a good choice with the brightlance because it could also hold out a bit longer because it had 200 hp more. Now the Falcon is not only the better choice but also the safer choice IF micro'd correctly.

[Broodwich]

I fully agree that the falcon should have something to distinguish it from other races' transports, but the problem is that AV damage means the falcon has the vehicle armour/mobility/anti-all properties together, which are the defining traits of a tank. That would make the falcon the only Tier 2 unit in the game with all those traits in one.

Ahem, rhino

Plus what others said, I'd take any tank in the game over this transport in combat lol

[Cyris]

I'll just repeat: More complete DA nerfs and the -1 speed might be plenty. If it isn't, I'd like a small AV dps decrease (like down 20% to ~23), not it's complete removal.

[Atlas]

I'll just repeat: More complete DA nerfs and the -1 speed might be plenty. If it isn't, I'd like a small AV dps decrease (like down 20% to ~23), not it's complete removal.

I would agree with this sentiment. Scaling and DA's are the Falcon's real problems.

And on broodwich's comment, the LasRhino is an interesting comparison but it's clearly slanted towards the AV department. A hb rhino might as well just be a razorback with more dps and less health.

[egewithin]

IMO, what really makes that AV ( pure lazer ) makes a problem is that it actually has good accuarcy against all targets. Like an anti-everything weapon. I would like to see an accuarcy change, what do you guys think about it?

[Tinibombini]

IMO, what really makes that AV ( pure lazer ) makes a problem is that it actually has good accuarcy against all targets. Like an anti-everything weapon. I would like to see an accuarcy change, what do you guys think about it?

Yes that is a problem that hasn't seemed as apparent until you mentioned it. Just looking at the codex (with the confusingly named venom_canon_pvp damage type) it is doing bonus damage to HI/SHI with no penalty to its accuracy (unless accuracy modifiers are just not listed for it in the codex). I guess it is the least offensive anti-all weapon in the game but ya a change to its accuracy would allow it to have the same anti-vehicle affect while lessening this issue.

[Kvn]

Can we just give the recent nerfs a chance to settle in before asking for its weaponry to be crippled? It has already become, ironically enough, the slowest transport in the game with its recent drop in speed, and the t3 shield is down by almost half. It seems like people are really jumping the gun in regards to asking for its remaining features to be dropped.

[Psycho]

(unless accuracy modifiers are just not listed for it in the codex)

accuracy | huge 1
accuracy | large 0.75
accuracy | medium 0.5625
accuracy | small 0.5625
accuracy | tiny 0.14

This?

Also the falcon has venom_cannon_pvp weapon family while venom brood, carnifex, and HT has brightlance_pvp weapon family. In fact the falcon is the only unit in the entire game that has venom_cannon_pvp weapon family and damage type.

wat

[Tinibombini]

This?

Ahhhh, blindness confirmed. So there is a penalty, just half a log difference compared to most AV. Thanks for showing me that Psycho.

[Forestradio]

Also the falcon has venom_cannon_pvp weapon family while venom brood, carnifex, and HT has brightlance_pvp weapon family. In fact the falcon is the only unit in the entire game that has venom_cannon_pvp weapon family and damage type.

[Adeptus Noobus]

If we cripple the Falcon even more now with the proposed changes, the req/pwr cost must come down as well (significantly). Let us not forget that it is the most expensive transport in the game that doesn't even have the best AV capabilities. That would be the Rhino, which does more AV dmg, has speed 8 as well and has a better escape mechanism than the Falcon as well with the smoke.
I repeat, the Falcon almost has the power cost of a walker and is much more fragile in T2 than the other transport vehicles because of the Elder army roster. Consider on top of that what Kvn said: it is already receiving nerfs.

[Oddnerd]

It is true that the rhino has more AV potential, but it also has terrible accuracy against non-vehicle targets.

As I have said before, a unit must have vehicle armour/high mobility/anti-all weaponry all at once to count as a tank. Unless the codex is incorrect, the rhino has poor accuracy against infantry targets, meaning that is can't reliably snipe infantry models. The falcon has weapon that consistently hits any target and will damage any target. Sure, it isn't as dangerous as a russ or predator, but it is the only T2 unit in the game with all these traits. Other races have managed to scrape by without mobile anti-all damage on a unit with vehicle armour, I don't see why Eldar players are somehow unable to do so as well.

[Kvn]

It is true that the rhino has more AV potential, but it also has terrible accuracy against non-vehicle targets.

Not as terrible as you might think.

As I have said before, a unit must have vehicle armour/high mobility/anti-all weaponry all at once to count as a tank.

There is also the matter of high spike damage, something the Falcon has no claim to whatsoever.

Unless the codex is incorrect, the rhino has poor accuracy against infantry targets, meaning that is can't reliably snipe infantry models.

The Codex is correct, however, what's on paper isn't always the same as what's in practice. The Rhino is still fully capable of sniping infantry models with sudden hits at unexpected times. It isn't as good at this as it used to be, but it is still much more capable of it than your standard lascannon if for no other reason than it shoots much faster.

The falcon has weapon that consistently hits any target and will damage any target. Sure, it isn't as dangerous as a russ or predator, but it is the only T2 unit in the game with all these traits. Other races have managed to scrape by without mobile anti-all damage on a unit with vehicle armour, I don't see why Eldar players are somehow unable to do so as well.

You see, this here is what I'm starting to get tired of. You keep saying "it has the traits of a tank" or "it does anti-all" without saying what is inherently imbalanced about this. Look at the Falcon. What does it bring to the table? It has the least t2 health of any transport, it is slower than any other transport, it has no abilities until t3, it supports an army that doesn't want to be losing a lot of models, it carries infantry which have better modes of transportation (gates) and are only 0.5 speed slower while using fleet, and has no special traits such as fast-repair support or globals designed to back it up. Now look at the cost:

Falcon - 360/90 or 460/125 with upgrade
Rhino - 250/45 or 350/45 with HBolter and 350/60 with Las
Razorback - 280/60 or 380/90 with upgrade
Wartrukk- 200/30 or 300/60 with upgrade
Chimera - 300/60 or 385/85 with beacon

Given that the Falcon is an obscenely expensive investment in comparison to every other transport in the game, it damn well better be doing something that they can't. I will ask again, if you remove the av damage, or cripple its accuracy so that it can't hit infantry, what is the point of ever considering buying it? In what situation would it possibly be useful?

I apologize if I sound harsh here, but this is getting somewhat tiresome given that people are looking at this purely seem to be looking at this in such a narrow viewpoint. Yes, the Falcon gets a trait unique to it, but it pays for that in every other way you can think of. Even its t3 shield isn't as strong as it once was (300 hp as opposed to 500). When you get right down to it, the measly 28 dps of the Falcon's main gun isn't as scary as you're making it out to be.

[Oddnerd]

You see, this here is what I'm starting to get tired of. You keep saying "it has the traits of a tank" or "it does anti-all" without saying what is inherently imbalanced about this. Look at the Falcon. What does it bring to the table? It has the least t2 health of any transport, it is slower than any other transport, it has no abilities until t3, it supports an army that doesn't want to be losing a lot of models, it carries infantry which have better modes of transportation (gates) and are only 0.5 speed slower while using fleet, and has no special traits such as fast-repair support or globals designed to back it up. Now look at the cost:

Falcon - 360/90 or 460/125 with upgrade
Rhino - 250/45 or 350/45 with HBolter and 350/60 with Las
Razorback - 280/60 or 380/90 with upgrade
Wartrukk- 200/30 or 300/60 with upgrade
Chimera - 300/60 or 385/85 with beacon

Given that the Falcon is an obscenely expensive investment in comparison to every other transport in the game, it damn well better be doing something that they can't. I will ask again, if you remove the av damage, or cripple its accuracy so that it can't hit infantry, what is the point of ever considering buying it? In what situation would it possibly be useful?

Maybe I didn't make it clear, but this is a hypothetical argument. That means I don't have to operate under the assumption that the patch 2.6 falcon nerfs are set in stone, or that its cost must remain at its current 360/90. I actually made a point of saying that my proposed loss of AV damage would have to be accompanied by a significant cost reduction and possibly some other benefits, including having the 2.6 nerfs reverted, and maybe being given more HP and a starting shield (though one less potent than the T3 shield), maybe being given some more AI damage, and maybe something else I haven't thought of but more experienced players could suggest.

It seems as though I am being asked to defend the argument that the falcon should straight-up have its AV damage removed, but have all the other proposed changes also kept in place and have its cost remain the same, which would be a flat out nerf to the point of uselessness. This is not my argument, of course. I haven't actually read through the argument between you and Tini in full, but I see why he uses the term "moving the goalposts" to describe your method of argument.


As for what is inherently imbalanced about the falcon meeting my definition of a tank, it is my belief that in DOW2 a unit with the properties of a tank should not be accessible in T2. I think a unit that is threatening to any other unit should not be available until T3.

[Kvn]

Maybe I didn't make it clear, but this is a hypothetical argument. That means I don't have to operate under the assumption that the patch 2.6 falcon nerfs are set in stone, or that its cost must remain at its current 360/90. I actually made a point of saying that my proposed loss of AV damage would have to be accompanied by a significant cost reduction and possibly some other benefits, including having the 2.6 nerfs reverted, and maybe being given more HP and a starting shield (though one less potent than the T3 shield), maybe being given some more AI damage, and maybe something else I haven't thought of but more experienced players could suggest.

All balance concerns must be taken into consideration. Given that the 2.6 changes are out there, they must be accounted for. To ignore them is just silly given that they're put in place specifically to decrease the potency of the unit in question.

And I already explained why giving it AI damage was pointless, and why giving it a shield would never be accepted. Unless the price reduction was massive it wouldn't make any difference, and the Falcon would still just be an objectively worse version of the Razorback on a faction which had no use for it.

The problem with assuming that someone else will come up with a better option is that, in all likelihood, they wont. Until another possability is proposed, there is nothing there for the argument of something "more experienced players could suggest" as that's all empty assumptions.

It seems as though I am being asked to defend the argument that the falcon should straight-up have its AV damage removed, but have all the other proposed changes also kept in place and have its cost remain the same, which would be a flat out nerf to the point of uselessness.

Because that's almost exactly what you're asking. Locking the av behind another t3 upgrade would make the Falcon nerfed to the point of uselessness, even with your proposed changes made to its base stats for reasons I have gone over many times at this point.

This is not my argument, of course. I haven't actually read through the argument between you and Tini in full, but I see why he uses the term "moving the goalposts" to describe your method of argument.

Please, by all means, point me to an example of where I "moved the goalposts". I have been quite clear on my arguments, and have remained firmly in the same position that I started in. You are the one who is asking for massive nerfs with vague, unspecified changes made to compensate for them.

[Oddnerd]

All balance concerns must be taken into consideration. Given that the 2.6 changes are out there, they must be accounted for. To ignore them is just silly given that they're put in place specifically to decrease the potency of the unit in question.

This is where the argument ends then. If I can't even make basic hypothetical assumptions, this was completely pointless from the start.

[Kvn]

This is where the argument ends then. If I can't even make basic hypothetical assumptions, this was completely pointless from the start.

Basic hypothetical assumptions are perfectly fine when supported by fact. When you work under the assumption that none of the other changes being listed matter, that's when you get the issue we have here.

[Kvn]

Nothing vague or unspecified about the compensatory change that oddnerd proposed. Well you have to read it, if you don't read his post then i guess you could say he was vague....

You know Tini, I respect you as a player, but man are you petty and selective. If you'd been reading the discussion, you'd see why this point was moot, and why his later suggestions were considered vague and indistinct. Maybe you should take your own advice here.

[Tinibombini]

Nothing vague or unspecified about the compensatory change that oddnerd proposed. Well you have to read it, if you don't read his post then i guess you could say he was vague....

You know Tini, I respect you as a player, but man are you petty and selective. If you'd been reading the discussion, you'd see why this point was moot, and why his later suggestions were considered vague and indistinct. Maybe you should take your own advice here.

My mistake then. I will trust that it has been rendered moot as you say and will delete the comment.

[Black Relic]

Falcon - 360/90 or 460/125 with upgrade
Rhino - 250/45 or 350/45 with HBolter and 350/60 with Las
Razorback - 280/60 or 380/90 with upgrade
Wartrukk- 200/30 or 300/60 with upgrade
Chimera - 300/60 or 385/85 with beacon

I find this a bit misleading since the Falcon's upgrade is in t3. And I think the Falcon having AV decent AV is the point of the argument. In this case i would say the LAs rhino is better is in every way to the Falcon in t2 and call the Falcon decently balanced.

But I am with Kvn on seeing how the Falcon plays out. The Speed nerf is huge making any snare even more of a danger. Plague Marines will still be able to catch a Flacon if a shot connects. IDK, i see the speed increase really affecting survivability of the Falcon in t2 and even go as far to say that it need to go back up.

The Energy shield however was too powerful imo and needed a nerf. But thats my 2 cents.

[Dark Riku]

Not as terrible as you might think.

"Not as good as you might think." This is such a vague and useless statement.

It has the least t2 health of any transport, it is slower than any other transport

They all have less or in the case of the chimera and rhino equal HP without upgrades. And even with upgrades it's only 50 (trukk) and 100 (rb) more than the falcon.

Falcon - 360/90 or 460/125 with upgrade
Rhino - 250/45 or 350/45 with HBolter and 350/60 with Las
Razorback - 280/60 or 380/90 with upgrade
Wartrukk- 200/30 or 300/60 with upgrade
Chimera - 300/60 or 385/85 with beacon

Given that the Falcon is an obscenely expensive investment in comparison to every other transport in the game, it damn well better be doing something that they can't.

The investment for the falcon is more than justified by it's performance. "Obscenely expensive investment" is such a ridiculous untrue statement.

On another note. Nobody else looking at these number while taking into account all other things like race, eco, etc goes : "Damn the RB sucks balls." ?

[Kvn]

"Not as good as you might think." This is such a vague and useless statement.

Thank you for this clear and concise rebuttal. You'll have to forgive me if I don't have the means of testing exactly how much it hits per second at the moment, but that was never meant to be an exact statistic. It was a general comparison, which I emphasized by pointing out that it may just be a case of it firing faster and therefor having more opportunities to hit.

They all have less or in the case of the chimera and rhino equal HP without upgrades. And even with upgrades it's only 50 (trukk) and 100 (rb) more than the falcon.

100 hp is a pretty big deal on a 500 hp vehicle. We've already seen in the case of the Wraithlord how drastically a 20% increase or decrease to health can affect a unit's performance.

The investment for the falcon is more than justified by it's performance. "Obscenely expensive investment" is such a ridiculous untrue statement.

That is what I was getting at. It definitely does justify its cost, something I was implying it wouldn't do were its weapon changed in such a drastic way. Notice I never asked for a price decrease or said otherwise.

On another note. Nobody else looking at these number while taking into account all other things like race, eco, etc goes : "Damn the RB sucks balls." ?

Given that the Razorback offers the defensive smoke shell and mobility to a durable but otherwise slow faction, I don't see it that way, but at the same time I don't main SM so I'm not as familiar with it as someone who does.

[Dark Riku]

100 hp is a pretty big deal on a 500 hp vehicle. We've already seen in the case of the Wraithlord how drastically a 20% increase or decrease to health can affect a unit's performance.

That still makes your previous statement about th HP very wrong... The 100HP is only on the upgraded RB which cost more than a falcon while not having AV dmg...

[Kvn]

That still makes your previous statement about th HP very wrong... The 100HP is only on the upgraded RB which cost more than a falcon while not having AV dmg...

And is accessible in t2, comes with the smoke shell by default to allow for much greater defensive abilities, provides mobility to a faction that needs it, or any of the other numerous points I mentioned previously...

I understand what you're getting at, but I ask that you please look at the greater picture of what I was saying before getting hung up on something like that. I clearly labeled the costs of all the transports with and without their upgrades. It's not like I was trying to hide it.

[Dark Riku]

...

Non of this has anything to do with what I was pointing out. -.-

Plus, the falcon is as fast as the other transports. Another thing wrong in your statement that I didn't bother to point out.

This is why I am wasting less and less times on this forum... Just get that you were wrong and move on.
These are simple facts. Nothing to discuss about.

[Kvn]

Plus, the falcon is as fast as the other transports. Another thing wrong in your statement that I didn't bother to point out.

This is why I am wasting less and less times on this forum... Just get that you were wrong and move on.
These are simple facts. Nothing to discuss about.

Chimera, Razorback, Rhino - speed 8

Wartrukk - speed 9

Falcon - speed 7

From the 2.6 balance chages:

Falcon:
- Falcon Speed reduced from 8 to 7.

Maybe get your own facts straight before criticizing others.

[Atlas]

Andddddd I think I'm going to call a quick check here. Keep it clean, folks.