Dawn of War Codex

Posted: **Wed 09 May, 2018 5:01 pm**

Kvn wrote:-

Ok, oops, to be fair I did mistakenly think Seer Council had a 50% ranged damage reduction. Must have misheard that recently.

But with the Falcon you're barking up the wrong tree. The Falcon at the moment is easily the strongest transport in the game in part to it giving Eldar staying power, it;s durability come tier 3 and the immense AV damage it does out of the gate. There's a reason this is the most commonly seen transport and despite its cost nearing that of the Wraithlord, people still go for the Falcon because of its (relatively) cheap versatility. It really does not need any buffs.

Posted: **Wed 09 May, 2018 5:54 pm**

Swift wrote: up the wrong tree. The Falcon at the moment is easily the strongest transport in the game in part to it giving Eldar staying power, it;s durability come tier 3 and the immense AV damage it does out of the gate. There's a reason this is the most commonly seen transport and despite its cost nearing that of the Wraithlord, people still go for the Falcon because of its (relatively) cheap versatility. It really does not need any buffs.

I will say once more that I wasn't asking for buffs. I was asking that people stop to consider what was previously mentioned before suggesting things like the Falcon losing its shield or having its av potential locked behind an activated ability.

In addition, I would like to add that part of the reason the Falcon is seen more than other transports is because it is a good generalist choice in addition to its av potential. Most of Eldar T2 is specialized, and designed to be reactive. The Falcon is a safer choice that, while it doesn't have as large an impact that some of the other choices might under the right circumstances, it also doesn't come with as many risks involved, assuming you look after it.

Posted: **Thu 10 May, 2018 1:16 pm**

Kvn wrote:I never said they were. I said that they had the most fragile and expensive transport, which they do. Riku demanded I look at statistics, claiming I was completely wrong. I pointed out that statistics backed me up.

You live in a different reality than we do don't you? If you can't even look at numbers. Then I don't know what to say. May the Emperor be kind to your soul.

Kvn wrote:I pointed out that they lacked the staying power of other factions as-is and asked that the Falcon not be nerfed to the ground on the basis that it had some durability in T3. That is all.

And many people are pointing out that that is just completely wrong. They do not lack staying power. The falcon is not getting nerfed into the ground for the T3 OPenis. It's being nerfed because it's OP in T2 as well.

You also say so many things, like you not going to respond any more. Please be a man of your word...

Posted: **Thu 10 May, 2018 3:57 pm**

Sigh. I had said I wasn't going to bother, but really now. This is just getting silly. For clarity sake, I edited my previous post to make my intention clearer, but seeing as I'm responding to you now I'm breaking that rule anyway so it doesn't really matter.

Dark Riku wrote:You live in a different reality than we do don't you? If you can't even look at numbers. Then I don't know what to say. May the Emperor be kind to your soul.

You asked for numbers. I gave you numbers. Lo and behold, 500 hp (falcon) < 550 (wartrukk) and 600 (razorback) and = 500 (chimera) Apparently, you seem to dispute this. I do not include the numerous and varied means of support since this is meant to be a look at individual durability (which will be explained more in a second) and because we'd be here forever arguing back and forth about all the different abilities that all factions have to support their respective vehicles. By all means Riku, please enlighten me as to how I'm reading these numbers wrong. Oh, and before you do, since you seem to have a hard time understanding what I'm writing...

Durability - du·ra·bil·i·ty - noun - the ability to withstand wear, pressure, or damage.

If you want to dispute that, feel free to go argue with a dictionary, because I'm really not in the mood.

Note, durability =/= survivability. Those are two very different ideas. Durability refers to how much damage something can take before it is destroyed. Survivability refers to how difficult it is to kill something, of which durability is only one particular aspect. My argument was centered on the fact that the Falcon lacked durability, not that it was easy to kill. Still, feel free to bring up these numbers that I'm apparently reading so terribly wrong. I would like to see the hidden code that apparently pushes the Falcon beyond 500 hp in T2 (and no, saying that the other transports have less hp without their respective upgrades doesn't count given they still cost less with them and are in T2 where this entire debate was centered).

Dark Riku wrote:They do not lack staying power.

Eldar do lack staying power Riku. That is literally the point of their faction. The fact that they are faster, deal more damage on average, have more high-impact activated abilities, and do not have the same ability to last in a prolonged stand up fight is the very foundation they are built upon. I will say, yet again, that I am not pointing to this lack of staying power and demanding it be changed. Quite the opposite. I'm saying it's a good thing, as it gives their faction a unique and interesting play-style that I personally really enjoy. I. Am. Not. Asking. For. Buffs. Please try to understand that, as I'm very tired of writing it out.

Dark Riku wrote:The falcon is not getting nerfed into the ground for the T3 OPenis. It's being nerfed because it's OP in T2 as well.

Reading comprehension man. If you'd looked at what I wrote instead of jumping to conclusions, you'd know I wasn't debating the official changes at all (in fact, I support them for the most part). I was debating people who were suggesting much larger nerfs, as stated in the post above this one.

Posted: **Sat 12 May, 2018 4:38 pm**

Dark Riku wrote:... and the fact that the falcon does a shitton of damage and AV damage on top of that. Yeah, lets only take the upgrades on the other vehicles. But not on the falcon. Such a great way of looking at things!

Dark Riku wrote:You have to see the bigger picture...

Posted: **Sat 12 May, 2018 4:53 pm**

Dark Riku wrote:
Dark Riku wrote:... and the fact that the falcon does a shitton of damage and AV damage on top of that. Yeah, lets only take the upgrades on the other vehicles. But not on the falcon. Such a great way of looking at things!
Dark Riku wrote:You have to see the bigger picture...

Nice way of dodging the question man.

Posted: **Sat 12 May, 2018 4:55 pm**

I CBA to spend any more time on this or you

So just look deeper. You can figure it out! I hope.

Posted: **Sat 12 May, 2018 5:01 pm**

Dark Riku wrote:I CBA to spend any more time on this or you
So just look deeper. You can figure it out! I hope.

If you're going to spend so much time insulting me about "not being able to understand numbers" about the durability of a given unit, and then can't be asked to provide said numbers when I bring them out, you don't have much of an argument to begin with. For the future, please try to keep to facts instead of petty remarks.

Posted: **Sat 12 May, 2018 5:43 pm**

I can give you all the numbers, but it won't help if you just ignore them.
Little tip. Don't only look at 1 single aspect. A unit isn't only it's HP.

And yes, it's very frustrating having to deal with people like you. So I'm not going to bother.
But dumb posts have to be called out.

Posted: **Sat 12 May, 2018 7:47 pm**

Dark Riku wrote:I can give you all the numbers, but it won't help if you just ignore them.
Little tip. Don't only look at 1 single aspect. A unit isn't only it's HP.

And yes, it's very frustrating having to deal with people like you. So I'm not going to bother.
But dumb posts have to be called out.

Riku... seriously... I have laid out the numbers you're so insistent on multiple times now. The one ignoring them is you. If it's so frustrating, then maybe actually back up your insults instead of just "dealing with people like me."

As for your mention of av damage on the Falcon, you seem to have completely misunderstood the argument (or actively chose to derail it) as it was never a contest of "which transport could defeat the others 1v1" but "which transports were the most durable." Having av damage does not make the Falcon survive more rockets/lascannon shots.

Posted: **Sat 12 May, 2018 9:04 pm**

And you still don't seem to understand that it's useless to compare such things.
"CSM have less HP than TACS, buff CSM plx." k thx bye.

And even if you wanted to compare them, it makes absolutely 0 sense to include the upgrades and then not look at everything else the vehicles have.

Posted: **Sat 12 May, 2018 9:38 pm**

Dark Riku wrote:And you still don't seem to understand that it's useless to compare such things.
"CSM have less HP than TACS, buff CSM plx." k thx bye.

I was comparing the Falcon within the confines of its utility as a transport, in answer to other people doing the same and asking it be nerfed very heavily. It's pretty pointless to say "no don't nerf unit plz" if I can't give a reason why.

Dark Riku wrote:And even if you wanted to compare them, it makes absolutely 0 sense to include the upgrades and then not look at everything else the vehicles have.

...Are you serious right now?

Dark Riku wrote:Kvn... Falcon is not fragile compared to the other transports at all, look up the stats, seriously.

This. This is why. This is the reason this entire discussion started. You said Falcon wasn't fragile in comparison to the other transports. I pointed out that it had the least max hp in T2 of the other transports. You said to look up the stats. I did, and posted them here. Riku, if you can't be bothered to remember what it is we're discussing, you really shouldn't be fighting this hard for it.

Posted: **Sat 12 May, 2018 10:06 pm**

Kvn wrote:I was comparing the Falcon within the confines of its utility as a transport, in answer to other people doing the same and asking it be nerfed very heavily. It's pretty pointless to say "no don't nerf unit plz" if I can't give a reason why.

Who was doing that?

Posted: **Sat 12 May, 2018 10:10 pm**

Torpid wrote:Who was doing that?

Reg9678 wrote:-Falcon seems to be too a good as an allrounder especially in comparison to other transport units and it's kinda cheap price. In 2.8, there are some nerfs incoming for it and we'll have to see how they turn out but imo a further decrease for it's chase and av ability might be reasonable

Posted: **Sun 13 May, 2018 12:09 am**

Yeah. Well he's not wrong. Compared to all the other transport it bashes gens way better. Slaughters them in 1on1 combat, in fact, beats every single vehicle in T2 in 1on1 combat other than the default chaos dread and Tdreads. While doing much more damage to infantry not just on a dps level but in reality whilst chasing and kiting because of the 100% FOTM. And on top of that being the best scaling due to it having an energy shield in spite of being extremely hard to kill since its on the race that fucks up set-up-teams the easiest - eldar.

Most OP unit in the game.

Posted: **Sun 13 May, 2018 12:14 am**

Torpid wrote:Yeah. Well he's not wrong. Compared to all the other transport it bashes gens way better. Slaughters them in 1on1 combat, in fact, beats every single vehicle in T2 in 1on1 combat other than the default chaos dread and Tdreads. While doing much more damage to infantry not just on a dps level but in reality whilst chasing and kiting because of the 100% FOTM. And on top of that being the best scaling due to it having an energy shield in spite of being extremely hard to kill since its on the race that fucks up set-up-teams the easiest - eldar.

Most OP unit in the game.

I have already gone to great lengths to explain why I disagree with this. I'm not doing it again.

Posted: **Sun 13 May, 2018 1:26 am**

Kvn wrote:
I have already gone to great lengths to explain why I disagree with this. I'm not doing it again.

He wasn't specifically talking within the confines of the utility of the falcon as a transport. But more hinting at how powerful the falcon is, part of which is because of it being a relatively cheap T2 vehicle that transport infantry and reinforces.

Though with all that said I think the upcoming patch's proposed changes probably will be sufficient to bring the falcon back into place. But, my point is, currently it's the most OP thing in the game.

Posted: **Sun 13 May, 2018 1:43 am**

Torpid wrote:He wasn't specifically talking within the confines of the utility of the falcon as a transport. But more hinting at how powerful the falcon is,

As I have already said, the Falcon comes with its own set of weaknesses and drawbacks to help counteract its unique damage type.

Torpid wrote: part of which is because of it being a relatively cheap T2 vehicle that transport infantry and reinforces.

As I have already said, it is the most expensive transport in the game. Even when upgraded, the other transports remain less expensive, meaning that it is the furthest thing from a "cheap" transport vehicle.

Torpid wrote:Though with all that said I think the upcoming patch's proposed changes probably will be sufficient to bring the falcon back into place. But, my point is,

As I have already said, I support most of the upcoming changes. My dispute was with the additional nerfs proposed by other players on top of those upcoming nerfs.

Torpid wrote:currently it's the most OP thing in the game.

As I have already said, I strongly disagree with this...

Posted: **Sun 13 May, 2018 1:52 am**

Being expensive has little to do with it from a balance standpoint as it's one of the first things that'd be considered for change if a unit underperforms or overperforms. You're out of your mind if you think it'd stay at that cost if its AV capability got removed, or that it has no bearing on the cost in the first place.

Posted: **Sun 13 May, 2018 2:00 am**

Kvn wrote:
Torpid wrote:He wasn't specifically talking within the confines of the utility of the falcon as a transport. But more hinting at how powerful the falcon is,

As I have already said, the Falcon comes with its own set of weaknesses and drawbacks to help counteract its unique damage type.

Torpid wrote: part of which is because of it being a relatively cheap T2 vehicle that transport infantry and reinforces.

As I have already said, it is the most expensive transport in the game. Even when upgraded, the other transports remain less expensive, meaning that it is the furthest thing from a "cheap" transport vehicle.

As I have already said, I strongly disagree with this...

Yes, but essentially the fundamental issue is that the extra boons it has far outweigh the extra cost it has to other transports - 30 power out the gate (1.5x power cost). For about 3x gen bashing effectiveness. ~3x compositional effectiveness (due to its inter economic and compositional synergies with eldar and its AV capacity) and about... 1.5x more anti-infantry effectiveness.

It is pulled back in line by nerfing that gen bashing capacity and the anti infantry one. Probably could do with a build time increase as well to weaken the composition effectiveness, that or more power cost.

Atm I'd pay for the current falcon if it was ~130 power. I think making it 130 power is not a preferable way to balance it however and also very unfair to OM and nids who suck vs it.

Posted: **Sun 13 May, 2018 2:13 am**

Torpid wrote:For about 3x gen bashing effectiveness.

Which is getting cut in half.

Torpid wrote:~3x compositional effectiveness (due to its inter economic and compositional synergies with eldar and its AV capacity) and about... 1.5x more anti-infantry effectiveness.

Do you really think the Falcon has 3x the compositional effectiveness of something like IG who can support their transport with mass repairs and reinforce for much cheaper/much more quickly? Of Space Marines, who actually benefit from the increased mobility? Of Orks who get both mobility and reinforcement?

Simply claiming that the Falcon has 3x better synergy with Eldar than any other transport is a gross exaggeration. It has a better damage type, and has better buffs from heroes and such. It also suffers from high cost, low speed, reinforcing a race that doesn't want to be losing models, and acting as a transport for a race that already has numerous other means of mobility (troops under FoF being 1.5 speed faster than the Falcon itself, and gates being instantaneous static transport).

Torpid wrote:It is pulled back in line by nerfing that gen bashing capacity and the anti infantry one. Probably could do with a build time increase as well to weaken the composition effectiveness, that or more power cost.

Losing 25% of its accuracy on the move is more than just an anti-infantry nerf.

Torpid wrote:Atm I'd pay for the current falcon if it was ~130 power. I think making it 130 power is not a preferable way to balance it however and also very unfair to OM and nids who suck vs it.

And this is another gross exaggeration. Paying 130 power for a Falcon would be ridiculous. Paying almost as much as a Fire Prism's cost for a 500hp gunboat style unit is way over the top.

Posted: **Sun 13 May, 2018 2:15 am**

Psycho wrote:Being expensive has little to do with it from a balance standpoint as it's one of the first things that'd be considered for change if a unit underperforms or overperforms. You're out of your mind if you think it'd stay at that cost if its AV capability got removed, or that it has no bearing on the cost in the first place.

Being expensive has everything to do with it from a balance perspective. How many times have people defended Nobz in their current state by saying they're crazy expensive (which they are)? If someone says they want to nerf something with no mention of price changes, you don't just assume the price will be shifted accordingly. You can only assume that they want the changes they mention or else you just get a mess of people assuming different things based on their on notions of what would be fair for a given change.

Posted: **Sun 13 May, 2018 2:35 am**

Am I one of said people?

Posted: **Sun 13 May, 2018 2:39 am**

Psycho wrote:Am I one of said people?

One of the people who defended Nobz based on their price? I don't know. I wasn't keeping track of the names.

One of the people who would make an assumption about prices being changed when nerfs are proposed with no mention of prices? Again, I don't know. I can't read your mind (another reason why making assumptions is a bad idea) and don't know your thought process or what you would consider to be a fair adjustment.

Posted: **Sun 13 May, 2018 2:40 am**

Kvn wrote:
Dark Riku wrote:Kvn... Falcon is not fragile compared to the other transports at all, look up the stats, seriously.

This. This is why. This is the reason this entire discussion started. You said Falcon wasn't fragile in comparison to the other transports. I pointed out that it had the least max hp in T2 of the other transports. You said to look up the stats. I did, and posted them here. Riku, if you can't be bothered to remember what it is we're discussing, you really shouldn't be fighting this hard for it.

And I already numerously pointed out you can't just look at a single value only, ignoring everything else, while also cherry picking which upgrades you are going to count.
Don't come up with some bullshit either. 1 "less" speed (speed 7 is still fucking fast and able to outrun anything speed 8 can) and 50 less HP (compared to upgraded vehicles that still can't compare in the slightest to the falcon) does not make it more fragile. AV weapons kill the before mentioned vehicles in equal amount of shots.

Posted: **Sun 13 May, 2018 2:44 am**

Kvn wrote:One of the people who defended Nobz based on their price? I don't know. I wasn't keeping track of the names.

One of the people who would make an assumption about prices being changed when nerfs are proposed with no mention of prices? Again, I don't know. I can't read your mind (another reason why making assumptions is a bad idea) and don't know your thought process or what you would consider to be a fair adjustment.

So you're purely running on assumptions at this point. At least I hope they're assumptions, and not trying to frame me as having another guy's views to point out a contradiction that isn't there.

Posted: **Sun 13 May, 2018 2:58 am**

Dark Riku wrote:And I already numerously pointed out you can't just look at a single value only, ignoring everything else, while also cherry picking which upgrades you are going to count.

Given that you're actively ignoring the point of the argument, trying to cherry pick results while dodging the point, and STILL refusing to bring up the numbers you claim prove that the Falcon is more durable than other transports. The entire argument was that it was more fragile in T2 and therefore only included upgrades in T2 and units available in T2.

Dark Riku wrote:Don't come up with some bullshit either. 1 "less" speed (speed 7 is still fucking fast and able to outrun anything speed 8 can)

Except that 1 extra speed can make a big difference given that it determines how fast you can get away from something. Speed 7 and 8 units may be able to escape from the same things, but speed 8 units will get away sooner, and often spare themselves from taking extra fire.

Dark Riku wrote:and 50 less HP (compared to upgraded vehicles that still can't compare in the slightest to the falcon) does not make it more fragile.

Missile launchers, Brightlances, Beamy Lootas, and autocannons (both Chaos and IG version) will take an extra shot to kill a 550 hp transport instead of a 500 hp transport. That is the definition of "more fragile." Lascannons will technically kill it at the same number of shots, but they will leave it at 5hp beforehand as opposed to 55hp which opens up a whole lot of other options that I won't bother to get into right now.

Dark Riku wrote: AV weapons kill the before mentioned vehicles in equal amount of shots.

Read above.

Posted: **Sun 13 May, 2018 3:00 am**

Psycho wrote:So you're purely running on assumptions at this point. At least I hope they're assumptions, and not trying to frame me as having another guy's views to point out a contradiction that isn't there.

What are you talking about? I never accused you of making that argument. I said that the argument had been made in the past by others. The point of what I said was that you can't just ignore the cost of a unit and assume it would be changed accordingly. I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that I'm trying to frame you for something.

Posted: **Sun 13 May, 2018 3:23 am**

/facedesk

Posted: **Sun 13 May, 2018 4:57 am**

Kvn wrote:The point of what I said was that you can't just ignore the cost of a unit and assume it would be changed accordingly.

Dawn of War Codex

2.8 Non-Consensus Thread (Part 2 of 2)

Re: 2.8 Non-Consensus Thread (Part 2 of 2)

Re: 2.8 Non-Consensus Thread (Part 2 of 2)

Re: 2.8 Non-Consensus Thread (Part 2 of 2)

Re: 2.8 Non-Consensus Thread (Part 2 of 2)

Re: 2.8 Non-Consensus Thread (Part 2 of 2)

Re: 2.8 Non-Consensus Thread (Part 2 of 2)

Re: 2.8 Non-Consensus Thread (Part 2 of 2)

Re: 2.8 Non-Consensus Thread (Part 2 of 2)

Re: 2.8 Non-Consensus Thread (Part 2 of 2)

Re: 2.8 Non-Consensus Thread (Part 2 of 2)

Re: 2.8 Non-Consensus Thread (Part 2 of 2)

Re: 2.8 Non-Consensus Thread (Part 2 of 2)

Re: 2.8 Non-Consensus Thread (Part 2 of 2)

Re: 2.8 Non-Consensus Thread (Part 2 of 2)

Re: 2.8 Non-Consensus Thread (Part 2 of 2)

Re: 2.8 Non-Consensus Thread (Part 2 of 2)

Re: 2.8 Non-Consensus Thread (Part 2 of 2)

Re: 2.8 Non-Consensus Thread (Part 2 of 2)

Re: 2.8 Non-Consensus Thread (Part 2 of 2)

Re: 2.8 Non-Consensus Thread (Part 2 of 2)

Re: 2.8 Non-Consensus Thread (Part 2 of 2)

Re: 2.8 Non-Consensus Thread (Part 2 of 2)

Re: 2.8 Non-Consensus Thread (Part 2 of 2)

Re: 2.8 Non-Consensus Thread (Part 2 of 2)

Re: 2.8 Non-Consensus Thread (Part 2 of 2)

Re: 2.8 Non-Consensus Thread (Part 2 of 2)

Re: 2.8 Non-Consensus Thread (Part 2 of 2)

Re: 2.8 Non-Consensus Thread (Part 2 of 2)

Re: 2.8 Non-Consensus Thread (Part 2 of 2)

Re: 2.8 Non-Consensus Thread (Part 2 of 2)