Dawn of War Codex

Based on my experience in both 1v1 and 3v3 the falcon seems to perform so well that it essentially is a mandatory pick in almost all situations.

Other races have transports, but their transports only have anti-infantry damage, meaning they have the critical weakness of not contributing to the army's AV. This seems to be good design - T2 vehicles are either walkers, which have the weakness of poor mobility, or transports, which do not have significant anti-vehicle capability. It seems like this is a core design principle of this game that no Tier 1 or Tier 2 unit gets to have everything at once. The falcon seems to be a Tier 3 unit that has found its way into Tier 2 of the Eldar roster.

Why not reduce the cost of the falcon by 100/30, bringing into the price range of other transports, and let the AV damage and shield be bought together as a Tier 3 upgrade to let it scale into Tier 3 better than other transports? This might make sense given that fire prisms are utterly useless at front line combat the way other races tanks are. The falcon could essentially upgrade to fill this niche in the eldar army which the fire prism fails to.

It is not as though the Eldar lack sources of AV... they have brightlances, fire dragons, warp spider snare, banshee executioner, and even the heavy weapons of the FS and WSE.

It's a 500 hp transport with no t2 upgrade in a race with expensive reinforcement. It is already getting its speed and shield nerfed. Losing its av leaves it as a worse, more expensive Razorback.

To answer the subject line: Because DoW would be really boring if every race had exactly the same strengths and weaknesses.

Digging slightly deeper, I think Falcon was potent but reasonable until 2.5 with the DA change. Getting them back in line will make the Falcon fine, especially if it really does lose 1 speed and have the T3 shield nerfs. I'm hoping the Wraithlord gets another small buff at the same time, it would be great to see them more.

Kvn wrote:It's a 500 hp transport with no t2 upgrade in a race with expensive reinforcement. It is already getting its speed and shield nerfed. Losing its av leaves it as a worse, more expensive Razorback.

Other races' transports have no AV damage and they get by just fine (and power armour races have much worse reinforcement costs than Eldar).

Cyris wrote:To answer the subject line: Because DoW would be really boring if every race had exactly the same strengths and weaknesses.

I definitely agree with this; in principle I am all for asymmetrical roster design between races - it is just that the trait that makes the falcon unique also makes it function as a "tank", which is something that I feel belongs in T3. I believe in another thread you brought up the design problem of anti-all weaponry (in the context of IG HWTs). In this case the eldar have an anti-all weapon attached to a fast vehicle with long range, available in T2. I just wonder if there could be a way to make the falcon distinct from other races' transports without making it a mindless autocannon on wheels.

Oddnerd wrote:Other races' transports have no AV damage and they get by just fine

And they have upgrades, abilities, and traits in t2 to help them get by. For example: Smoke launcher (SM) durability upgrades (SM, Orks) a fodder-style front line to support (Orks, IG) added firepower when garrisoned (IG) or just a much cheaper cost (Orks). Without its av, the falcon has nothing out of the gate. It would just be a sub-par transport.

Oddnerd wrote:(and power armour races have much worse reinforcement costs than Eldar).

They also die less.

You say it's a t3 unit, but it's damage, despite being av, is not all that high. The Falcon can't compete with high-end units such as tanks or elite infantry. It's a strong t2 vehicle, certainly, but not as much as that.

Kvn wrote:The Falcon can't compete with high-end units such as tanks or elite infantry. It's a strong t2 vehicle, certainly, but not as much as that.

While I completely agree with you defending the Falcon, that last statement is not entirely true Come T3 and the energy shield, a Falcon can threaten and even go toe to toe with a unupgraded Leman Russ.

Cyris wrote:To answer the subject line: Because DoW would be really boring if every race had exactly the same strengths and weaknesses.

Digging slightly deeper, I think Falcon was potent but reasonable until 2.5 with the DA change. Getting them back in line will make the Falcon fine, especially if it really does lose 1 speed and have the T3 shield nerfs. I'm hoping the Wraithlord gets another small buff at the same time, it would be great to see them more.

This is the crux of the problem. Falcon supported by 3x DAs, which can lay down perfect cover energy shields, means that the falcon's sustainability in T2 is very high and it can chip away at either vehicles or infantry. If something dangerous approaches (either vehicle or infantry) DAs can get in or fleet to avoid being bled. I see this in Nurland's stream all the time.

The synergy is much better than other combinations of transports and basic units b/c of the broken DAs and the built in AV (meaning you don't have to concern yourself with microing another AV unit). It is very potent and really only vulnerable to other cheese like PM spams and AC, but that is just b/c those are also broken.

Tinibombini wrote:This is the crux of the problem. Falcon supported by 3x DAs, which can lay down perfect cover energy shields, means that the falcon's sustainability in T2 is very high and it can chip away at either vehicles or infantry.

If the problem is the support offered by Dire Avengers, why are you asking that the Falcon itself be nerfed?

Tinibombini wrote:If something dangerous approaches (either vehicle or infantry) DAs can get in or fleet to avoid being bled. I see this in Nurland's stream all the time.

Again, the damage of the Falcon isn't all that high. It's a soft av source, and it only has 500 hp. Two volleys on rear armor from pretty much any hard av will kill it before the Avengers can repair it back up.

Tinibombini wrote:The synergy is much better than other combinations of transports and basic units

You seem to be leaving out the Chimera.

Tinibombini wrote: b/c of the broken DAs and the built in AV (meaning you don't have to concern yourself with microing another AV unit).

With respect, I strongly disagree. The Falcon's av damage won't force off an enemy vehicle quickly enough to prevent it from seriously damaging your units. If you want to threaten anything larger than a Wartruk, another source of av is essential. The Falcon will definitely help with supplemental damage, but it's not often that you'll find one able to solo another vehicle in a single engagement unless the opponent just forgets about it.

Tinibombini wrote: It is very potent and really only vulnerable to other cheese like PM spams and AC, but that is just b/c those are also broken.

It's also very vulnerable to standard units such as Lascannons due to having very little hp. If it gets snared in front of one, it's basically dead, and has nothing like smoke launchers or extra repair speed to keep itself alive until it gets the shield in t3.

As it stands, both the Falcon and the Dire Avengers are getting some forceful nerfs in 2.6. Seeing as most of its other abilities are being toned down pretty heavily, it isn't unreasonable to ask that the Falcon keep its av. Eldar t2 is already a lot weaker than it used to be without removing an important part of their one generalist purchase.

Kvn wrote:

As it stands, both the Falcon and the Dire Avengers are getting some forceful nerfs in 2.6. Seeing as most of its other abilities are being toned down pretty heavily, it isn't unreasonable to ask that the Falcon keep its av. Eldar t2 is already a lot weaker than it used to be without removing an important part of their one generalist purchase.

I would ask you to read my post again. I did not ask for a nerf, I was discussing why the AV on the falcon may seem to be OP. The very thing I quote is Cyris' post. Please don't mischaracterize my post.

Also, I left out the chimera on purpose b/c the chimera does not have AV capability. I even specifically said that a feature of the falcon is that you get some AV without having to micro another AV-bearing unit. So I think the synergy is still better, in addition to the fact that DAs are better than GM with shields, nades, fleet and soft detection.

You also seem to be discounting that 3 x DAs gives some stupid AV damage with 3 x nades in the current meta.

When you said that a vehicle stronger than a wartruck will threaten, what are you thinking of? Against a dread/tyrant guard, all DAs hop and you micro away forever and can control the engagement. I consider razorback and chimera to be about the same as a wartruck in this example.

Tinibombini wrote:I would ask you to read my post again. I did not ask for a nerf, I was discussing why the AV on the falcon may seem to be OP. The very thing I quote is Cyris' post. Please don't mischaracterize my post.

You asked that the Falcon's av damage be removed and pushed back to t3 as an upgrade. That is unquestionably a nerf.

Tinibombini wrote:Also, I left out the chimera on purpose b/c the chimera does not have AV capability.

Yet you didn't seem to have any trouble comparing the other transports to the Falcon. Selective comparisons are a terrible way to go about making a point. Either include everything that has to be said, or nothing.

Tinibombini wrote: I even specifically said that a feature of the falcon is that you get some AV without having to micro another AV-bearing unit.

Except that you do still need to micro another av unit since the Falcon's soft av won't be enough to threaten a vehicle by itself...

Tinibombini wrote:So I think the synergy is still better, in addition to the fact that DAs are better than GM with shields, nades, fleet and soft detection.

They are also more expensive, bleed harder, and have slower repair speed. All three of which make them less supportive of the transport than Guardsmen. Are they better in a stand up fight? Yes, but that's not what we're discussing here.

Tinibombini wrote:You also seem to be discounting that 3 x DAs gives some stupid AV damage with 3 x nades in the current meta.

Which requires your opponent to both sit perfectly still and not be paying attention. It's a change I never liked, but it's not something you can actually rely on.

Tinibombini wrote:When you said that a vehicle stronger than a wartruck will threaten, what are you thinking of?

Exactly what I said. "If you want to threaten anything larger than a Wartruk, another source of av is essential".

Tinibombini wrote:Against a dread/tyrant guard, all DAs hop and you micro away forever and can control the engagement.

What you're describing is using four squads to gang up on one. That's a very bad example. The enemy army in that situation isn't going to sit back and do nothing while you kite forever.

Tinibombini wrote:I consider razorback and chimera to be about the same as a wartruck in this example.

Are you seriously comparing the razorback and chimera to a wartruck...?

Look, I get that you aren't happy with Eldar going off some of your other posts, but asking that their av sources be removed (such as your brightlance comment in the other thread) isn't the way to go about fixing it. Eldar are already getting nerfed. Wait until that settles in before looking to make drastic changes like this.

Kvn wrote:
You asked that the Falcon's av damage be removed and pushed back to t3 as an upgrade.

Where? please quote it.

Kvn wrote:
Look, I get that you aren't happy with Eldar going off some of your other posts, but asking that their av sources be removed (such as your brightlance comment in the other thread)

Another mischaracterization. I just asked a question given that there had been changes to the eldar composition between the when the upgrade was added and the current meta.

I really think you are just looking to argue without even trying to understand what I wrote for discussion. w/e

^^yeah that's was Oddnerd's original request, not his.

That said I don't think the falcon will need any further changes now that it's base speed is being decreased. Now that it's going to be slower, it's worse at chasing and cheesing out vehicle kills, and not as annoyingly hard to catch. I hate the current meta of triple DA>>double shrui>>falcon, but thats an issue of supporting units being stronger than they need to be and simply nerfing the falcon will not fix the underlying issues there. DA nerfs I can fully get behind, but I don't have a problem with the falcon still having its soft AV damage.

Crewfinity wrote:^^yeah that's was Oddnerd's original request, not his.

That said I don't think the falcon will need any further changes now that it's base speed is being decreased. Now that it's going to be slower, it's worse at chasing and cheesing out vehicle kills, and not as annoyingly hard to catch. I hate the current meta of triple DA>>double shrui>>falcon, but thats an issue of supporting units being stronger than they need to be and simply nerfing the falcon will not fix the underlying issues there. DA nerfs I can fully get behind, but I don't have a problem with the falcon still having its soft AV damage.

If only everyone had your reading comprehension.

Tinibombini wrote:Where? please quote it.

My mistake. As pointed out, that was oddnerd who posted it. I was under the impression that you were the original poster for some reason, and I apologize for that.

Tinibombini wrote:Another mischaracterization. I just asked a question given that there had been changes to the eldar composition between the when the upgrade was added and the current meta.

In all fairness, your first post was made to reinforce what the OP was saying. That pretty heavily implies that you agree with what was being addressed, rather than opting for a different approach. If you don't want people to make assumptions, you have to offer your own views in a clear and concise manner.

Tinibombini wrote:I really think you are just looking to argue without even trying to understand what I wrote for discussion. w/e

I'm glad you have such a low opinion of me that you think I would do something so petty. As I said, I read what you posted, but was under the false impression that you were the one who'd posted the initial comment as well.

Tinibombini wrote:If only everyone had your reading comprehension.

See above.

Kvn wrote:
In all fairness, your first post was made to reinforce what the OP was saying. That pretty heavily implies that you agree with what was being addressed, rather than opting for a different approach. If you don't want people to make assumptions, you have to offer your own views in a clear and concise manner.

Fine, but even now you are not reading very carefully. My post quoted Cyris' post which was about nerfing DAs and not the Falcon. I said that was the crux of the problem. As in, the central issue was DAs. So pretty much the opposite of what OP was saying.

Let's stop arguing semantics and all just agree that dire avengers are overpowered at the moment

[*]

Crewfinity wrote:Let's stop arguing semantics and all just agree that dire avengers are overpowered at the moment

Given that they were just nerfed, I would beg to differ.

Oh I meant in 2.5, I haven't had a chance to play against eldar in 2.6 yet and see how those changes panned out

Kvn wrote:[*]

Crewfinity wrote:Let's stop arguing semantics and all just agree that dire avengers are overpowered at the moment

Given that they were just nerfed, I would beg to differ.

Imo, those nerfs aren't enough. Still too good for too cheap and while the exarch nerfs are sufficient, the base squad needs to be looked at again imo.

Answering the original topic (i know, a rarity) the Falcon is also a lot more expensive than other transports, almost as much as a walker. Strong? Yes. OP? No. I'm fine with it as is.

After review, the falcon could most definitely have its AV damage removed or significantly diminished until Tier 3, and it would function quite fine, assuming that its total DPS didn't drop too much, and that a minor power cost reduction was made.

I will firmly stand behind my statement earlier in a different thread that the faclon is the strongest performing unit in this patch. It moves very fast, does very good damage to infantry and vehicles alike, and has a suppression effect tied to its weaponry, as if to provide insult with injury.

Just to keep things short, I think the logical layout sort of plays out like this:
-The falcon over performs internally and externally. It out classes all other transports in T2. It's AV is good enough that it has pushed the Wraithlord completely out of the meta. It rivals tanks in T3 with an upgrade that is far too cheap compared to its counter parts (Just think, normally you pay 100 req and 30 power to increase a vehicles hp pool by 200. The falcon pays 100-35 to increase its effective health pool by 500! And that 500 extra health regenerates at an incredible rate).
-DA's are over performing in T1 and are leading to early game advantage for Eldar players. Early game advantage is being translated into Falcon rushing and achieving an almost undeniable power bash.
-DA's supporting falcon, being that they shoot at full range, make the falcon very hard to kill and very hard to approach from the sheer weight of firepower that it brings to bear.
-Counter becomes incredibly difficult, if not impossible once T3 upgrade is in place.

Let me come at this from a different angle. Seeing as people here are asking for the Falcon to lose its av damage, let me ask, in what situation would you ever buy it after such a huge nerf?

Eldar don't want to use it for in-field reinforcement since they don't want to be losing models in the first place, and they certainly don't need its mobility seeing as it has only 0.5 more speed now than a fleeting infantry squad and gates are so much easier to manage. Given that people are asking for further nerfs to Dire Avengers, it seems pretty self-explanatory that Eldar isn't hurting for piercing damage, so the supplemental fire of the Falcon wouldn't help anything. To top it off, the Falcon itself has no support abilities of any kind to offer the army it's meant to be aiding.

Pretty much what you're left with is a 500 hp vehicle roadblock for almost a hundred power, which doesn't get all that much better in t3 now that the shield lost over a third of its efficiency. Its damage output would be negligible, and there wouldn't be much reason to invest such a huge cost (almost on par with the dedicated heavy walkers of other races, which is massive for a transport) on something that only could make for a minor shield.

In fact, if you really wanted vehicle armor, you could get a Wraithlord for almost the same cost which would have twice as much hp, more piercing damage (48 vs 28) and melee resist to help protect it from close-combat squads. And, to top it off, the option to get a brightlance for the purposes of supplemental av. Given that the Wraithlord is already pretty weak in its current state, having the Falcon be completely outclassed by it would be a very bad thing.

If the falcon lost its AV damage then it could easily be given something else or have other pending nerfs reverted. If you took away the AV damage, you could justify making it the fastest transport, or perhaps giving it the longest range anti-infantry weapon. You could even give it the shield early on (maybe with a 2.5/1 ratio and less regen).

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, and I would suggest that this is the precise reason why the falcon is externally imbalanced (particularly in 1v1) and internally imbalanced to the point that the perfectly functional wraithlord has been rendered obsolete.

Oddnerd wrote:If the falcon lost its AV damage then it could easily be given something else or have other pending nerfs reverted. If you took away the AV damage, you could justify making it the fastest transport, or perhaps giving it the longest range anti-infantry weapon. You could even give it the shield early on (maybe with a 2.5/1 ratio and less regen).

And the problem with that is either it's pointless (speed and range are useless as they are irrelevant to the already speed and piercing dps heavy Eldar builds) or it would never be allowed (people are still really annoyed by the shield at 3/1 efficiency in t3, so a 2.5/1 efficiency in t2 is out of the question). Again, there would be no reason to ever buy it when you have other things that already do the same job but better, and in a lot of cases, with lest cost on your economy and micro.

Oddnerd wrote: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.

There are plenty of units like that. For example, Ogryns have all the traits of Nobs. SHI armor, large healthpools, heavy melee, the only thing they're missing is the ability to break suppression, which they can still do with 2/3 IG commanders. But despite having the traits of Nobs, they're not Nobs themselves. Just like that, just because the Falcon has traits of a tank, it is not a tank itself. There is no tank that would lose to a t2 Falcon because it is weaker, does less damage, and for the purposes of ai, has no splash. Saying it has the traits of a tank is a really poor argument since it is nowhere near that level of performance.

Oddnerd wrote:to the point that the perfectly functional wraithlord been rendered obsolete.

You see, this here is something I really can't agree with. The Wraithlord is weak. There's not a lot of angles to go about contesting that. It has the lowest health of any melee walker aside from DD, while still being priced at the same range, and has no dedicated ranged options to transition with. The reason people don't buy it isn't because the Falcon is super OP. It's because the Wraithlord is too cost inefficient to be considered in a most cases.

Kvn wrote:There are plenty of units like that. For example, Ogryns have all the traits of Nobs. SHI armor, large healthpools, heavy melee, the only thing they're missing is the ability to break suppression, which they can still do with 2/3 IG commanders. But despite having the traits of Nobs, they're not Nobs themselves.

That is a tangential point though, because nobs and ogryns are a dedicated melee unit. That unit type is fair in any tier as along as the stats are scaled to the tier at which they become available. I am specifically pointing to units that qualify as "tanks" and saying they do not belong in any tier other than 3. The combination of vehicle armour, high mobility, and anti-all weaponry is something I feel should be exclusive to T3.

Oddnerd wrote:That is a tangential point though, because nobs and ogryns are a dedicated melee unit. That unit type is fair in any tier as along as the stats are scaled to the tier at which they become available. I am specifically pointing to units that qualify as "tanks" and saying they do not belong in any tier other than 3. The combination of vehicle armour, high mobility, and anti-all weaponry is something I feel should be exclusive to T3.

I wouldn't strictly agree. That type of thing isn't tier-dependent any more than the SHI of the Ogryns. So long as it has a proper drawback to keep it in line, there shouldn't be an issue. Given that the Falcon has only 500 hp out of the gate with no way of upping its survivability until later, and recently lost some of the speed it relied on, it certainly has quite a big drawback. Remember, this thing is head and shoulders above a standard transport in terms of cost, and it is most certainly not a tank in any sense of the word gameplay wise.

I don't think I agree that Eldar don't use the falcon for reinforcement because there units are too expensive. The primary unit that is reinforced in the current meta are DAs - 27 req a model. Shootas are 27 req a model to reinforce. I don't think anyone considers Orks too expensive to reinforce.

Tinibombini wrote:I don't think I agree that Eldar don't use the falcon for reinforcement because there units are too expensive. The primary unit that is reinforced in the current meta are DAs - 27 req a model. Shootas are 27 req a model to reinforce. I don't think anyone considers Orks too expensive to reinforce.

Shootas also have more reliable dps (less need for reinforcing every model), a relatively beefy die-last leader, the ability to suppress on demand at long range, a much healthier economy to support them, and a transport that is only a fraction of the cost of the Falcon.

Kvn wrote:

Tinibombini wrote:I don't think I agree that Eldar don't use the falcon for reinforcement because there units are too expensive. The primary unit that is reinforced in the current meta are DAs - 27 req a model. Shootas are 27 req a model to reinforce. I don't think anyone considers Orks too expensive to reinforce.

Shootas also have more reliable dps (less need for reinforcing every model), a relatively beefy die-last leader, the ability to suppress on demand at long range, a much healthier economy to support them, and a transport that is only a fraction of the cost of the Falcon.

Nice strawman. You said:

Kvn wrote: Eldar don't want to use it for in-field reinforcement since they don't want to be losing models in the first place....

Setting aside the fact that it is trite to say that Eldar don't want to lose models, since no one wants to lose models, your position seems to be based on the fact that eldar models are expensive. You have stated the same in other posts in this thread as well as other threads.

I said said that I don't think it applies b/c the unit most commonly (by a large degree) being reinforced is only 27 req. That costs the same as a shoota model. Is 27 req expensive? Is 27 req expensive for Eldar but not for Orks? (these are rhetorical questions) If you think it is and said, then you would have actually responded to what I wrote.

Instead you listed a bunch of things that fully upgraded shootas can do. Great, fully upgraded DAs can do a bunch of stuff too. Most relevant in terms of bleed, since that is relevant to what we are talking about, is the ability to have perfect cover (x3 for 3x DAs).

Anyways, I guess I throw in the towel since you will probably just change move the goalposts or mischaracterize/misread what I wrote again.

Tinibombini wrote:
Nice strawman. You said:

Kvn wrote: Eldar don't want to use it for in-field reinforcement since they don't want to be losing models in the first place....

You seem to be confused on the meaning of "Strawman"

Tinibombini wrote:Setting aside the fact that it is trite to say that Eldar don't want to lose models, since no one wants to lose models, your position seems to be based on the fact that eldar models are expensive. You have stated the same in other posts in this thread as well as other threads.

Because they are, and because they don't want to. I'm having a hard time understanding what point you're trying to make here.

Tinibombini wrote:I said said that I don't think it applies b/c the unit most commonly (by a large degree) being reinforced is only 27 req. That costs the same as a shoota model. Is 27 req expensive? Is 27 req expensive for Eldar but not for Orks? (these are rhetorical questions) If you think it is and said, then you would have actually responded to what I wrote.

Yes. As a matter of fact, it is more expensive for Eldar to lose a 27 rec unit than it is for Orks to lose a 27 rec unit. As I stated above, the Orks have an economy better able to support losing those units, and while it isn't as extensive as something like Tyranids or IG, they're more readily able to bounce back from those casualties. The Eldar eco is much less forgiving.

Tinibombini wrote:Instead you listed a bunch of things that fully upgraded shootas can do. Great, fully upgraded DAs can do a bunch of stuff too. Most relevant in terms of bleed, since that is relevant to what we are talking about, is the ability to have perfect cover (x3 for 3x DAs).

And those things that Dire Avengers do don't come into play when discussing how much they bleed in field while supported by a transport... The whole point of what I brought up was in relation to Shoota bleed and how it compared to the Dire Avengers. Believe it or not, I wasn't just listing empty facts for the sake of upping my word-count.

Tinibombini wrote:Anyways, I guess I throw in the towel since you will probably just change move the goalposts or mischaracterize/misread what I wrote again.

You see, this here is a strawman. A baseless accusation of "you would probably do this" in an attempt to make someone look bad. Once again, the only thing I've misread about what you wrote was your name early on in the post, and confused you for the OP. All the rest I've answered in kind.