How to fix the Voidraven discussion

I think the void raven being a bomber should not have vector dance, it is bulkier. The razorwing should tho being a fighter. IMHO

For the points, should come with 5+invul and 3 hull points. Missiles need to be cheaper for what little they ever do. Strafing run should be automatic.

It's a bomber. Right now the one use bomb is a joke. The razor wing is better at killing ground targets.
So we should concentrate on making it better in bombing.

BlackDeathstill wrote:

I think the void raven being a bomber should not have vector dance, it is bulkier. The razorwing should tho being a fighter. IMHO

I think that is perfectly fine reasoning.  My reasoning for why I think Vector Dancer would be appropriate for the bomber as well as the fighter is because these are flying craft designed and used ubiquitously by a civilization whose technology is in some instances almost unimaginably superior to our current human technology.  These jets (because let's be honest, they're jet planes) should be so refined that there is basically no other advancements to be made without creating a completely different craft, otherwise the highly competitive dark eldar wouldn't all be using them.  Hence, the maneuverability that the Special rule Vector Dancer is supposed to represent makes sense.

edited to fix quote code

If they remove nightshields and replace them with something better (like a shield with a 3+ inv. Save), the bomb, expensive missiles and scythes would be easier to use, as you wouldnt have to jink all the time. And the bomb should be str 10.

BlackDeathstill wrote:

I think the void raven being a bomber should not have vector dance, it is bulkier. The razorwing should tho being a fighter. IMHO

In addition to waxing poetic about its stealth warfare suite (not represented in game), the description also says it can "dance through the sky with a balletic grace, and the Voidraven's pilot will invariably be a veteran of the death races around the spires of High Commorragh, thinking nothing of breakneck aerial maneuvers that would kill a lesser steersman" (not represented in game).

Calyptra wrote:

the description also says it can "dance through the sky with a balletic grace, and the Voidraven's pilot will invariably be a veteran of the death races around the spires of High Commorragh, thinking nothing of  breakneck aerial maneuvers that would kill a lesser steersman" (not represented in game).

These are Eldar we're talking about.  Every aspect of their technology should be superior to human parallels.  After all, they never had a dark age of technology, had a head start measured in millions of years, and their minds are generally superior.

Didn't know the Voidraven discussion was broken    (sorry i couldn't resist)
Anyway i'm not very experienced in gaming, but have an opinion anyway:

Make them fit their names and apperance.

Give them Vector Strike or something like 5th edition Reaver Bladevanes.
To the Razorwing Jetfighter against flyers and other aerial units at least.

Their pilots are former Reaver pilots anyway so it would even be extremely fluffy and both flyers certainly look like it.

Or give Razorwing Jetfighters other things that make 'em better fighters like improved shooting vs. aerial opponents for example.
Anti air missiles maybe?

Also more than one bomb for the Voidraven Bomber please.
Your ideas about cluster bombs and rearming when in active reserve are very good.
I'd like at least different choices for bombs.

And stealth is a must.

Stealth will not help against dedicated anti-air. And judging by description - it must help.
There is no way that Voidraven can survive Icarus Array fire at the moment, no way at all. It must have a decent invul, 4+ or maybe special rule that ignore Skyfire at least for a turn, kinda technology based invisibility psychic power. Then maybe.

Otherwise this super technological peice of a flyer can and will go down to a simple flakk missile.

And bomb need to be S:D.

That's a great idea! Outright ignoring Skyfire seems like a good representation of how they're supposed to be invisible to anything except the naked eye.

Would it be too powerful? The game, overall, doesn't seem to consider Skyfire to be essential enough to give every army easy access to it.

I'm not condemning the idea. I would, however, like to point out that this idea is an indirect buff to scatbikes, since scatbikes, in that scenario, will likely be the best things for killing it in the game.

BetrayTheWorld wrote:

I'm not condemning the idea. I would, however, like to point out that this idea is an indirect buff to scatbikes, since scatbikes, in that scenario, will likely be the best things for killing it in the game.

Scatbikes will alway be on the table so not like it matters.

BetrayTheWorld wrote:

I'm not condemning the idea. I would, however, like to point out that this idea is an indirect buff to scatbikes, since scatbikes, in that scenario, will likely be the best things for killing it in the game.

The Scatbikes are the ones usually doing that job anyway, so a case of no change.

Imateria wrote:

BetrayTheWorld wrote:

I'm not condemning the idea. I would, however, like to point out that this idea is an indirect buff to scatbikes, since scatbikes, in that scenario, will likely be the best things for killing it in the game.

The Scatbikes are the ones usually doing that job anyway, so a case of no change.

But not always. Some people buy actual anti-air stuff. If there is air that is immune to anti-air stuff, that is going to discourage those people from spending points on anti-air at all, when they could get something with more universal appeal like scatbikes, who wouldn't be effected by the change.

Again, I'm not necessarily opposed to the idea. We just have to think about the implications that it entails. For instance, not only will ground to air anti-air platforms not be able to hit it except on 6's, but other flyers, specifically made to shoot down bombers wouldn't be able to hit it except on 6's.

Perhaps it'd be better to make the rule something like "The skyfire special rule does not function against a voidraven bomber if the posessor of the rule is not also a flyer."

That would give the voidraven it's stealth bomber feel, protecting it from ground-based anti-air while still allowing fighters, who's stated purpose is to destroy bombers, their ability to function as well.

Well, lets be frank. People who take anti-air do not take it to do kill DE flyers, they take it to kill Flying Demons and down skimmers.

And who want to take Scatter Bikes will take them anyway.

Quote :

For instance, not only will ground to air anti-air platforms not be able to hit it except on 6's, but other flyers, specifically made to shoot down bombers wouldn't be able to hit it except on 6's.

Well - at least for one turn, there is a restriction. One use.

Again, like I said, I don't disagree with the general idea. What I DO disagree with, however, is anyone who argues to make a change to the game that would indirectly empower a unit like scatbikes, then complains that scatbikes are too powerful.

I also don't agree that small, incremental increases in a unit's effectiveness don't end up pushing people who wouldn't otherwise take a unit into doing so. I analyze what my army list is capable of dealing with, including all major changes in the current meta in my thought process every time I put a list together. So if an army got access to a flyer that could make skyfire not function for a turn, that would absolutely influence whether or not I spring for the 50 points for that quad gun or not. And if I did not, those points would probably go towards scatbikes for just the reasons we've already outlined.

I also really don't like the idea of cutting the balls off of units that are specifically meant to hunt other flyers, like other faction's fighters, when many are similarly high priced compared to the bomber we're talking about. A large part of the reason the bomber is overpriced is the cheap access armies can get to anti-air, in the form of quad guns and/or optional skyfire on ground units, like provided by Tau velocity tracker gear. Without those functioning against it for a turn, denying intercept skyfire from ground units, it is far more capable of doing its job, even if it IS still vulnerable to fighter jets. Fighter jets aren't its problem, so I don't see making them inneffective against it for a turn to be the solution.

What about just making them immune to Interceptor? Semi-fluffy rule that could work. Then allow Skyfire as normal.

Going back to different bombs/missiles, is Armorbane unreasonable to ask for? Make the Bomber able to be kitted out to hunt infantry or armor.

Sarkesian wrote:

What about just making them immune to Interceptor? Semi-fluffy rule that could work. Then allow Skyfire as normal.

I actually like that idea, and think it fits better with the stealth bomber idea. Can't intercept them because you didn't see them coming.

Exactly! Interceptor is my biggest issue in my meta. This rule works fine for me as I'm sure it would help many others.

My original thought was taken from the Star Wars Miniatures game, where one character has a rule that he cannot be attacked until he had attacked. It just seemed a little ridiculous to make the bomber invulnerable until it had attacked or dropped its bomb.

We already have that rule in 40k. Scorpions have a variant if they infiltrated and there is a niche character that has a similar rule as well.

Nothing wrong with using an existing rule instead of creating a new one if that is the case.

I like the "cannot be attacked until it has attacked" rule but that would mean that once it unleashed its payload it would get shot down as easily as a regular flier, so I would want to combine that with something else to add a little survivability. Skyfire weapons not from a Flyer firing at BS 2 makes sense to me, representing that although they don't benefit from Radar or targeting weapons they're still designed to target fliers whereas ground infantry and vehicles are not. Just a thought.

How about -2 on the damage tables and 1 more HP. Choice of bombs needing 1 turn to reload maybe?

@BlackDeathstill That would definitely make it a lot tougher but I don't see how that makes sense for Dark Eldar vehicles. With your changes that would make the Voidraven bomber significantly more durable than a Land Raider. There is no explanation in the fluff for that change and it doesn't represent anything that the Voidraven does do (stealth, maybe speed) well. The reload bombs idea could be an fun perk, but I personally would rather pay fewer points for a finite number of bombs.

Hmm?! I see your point. I guess it really just needs the bomb count fixed.

So taking into account things we've discussed, the changes needed are:

1. Immune to Interceptor Fire
2. More bomb types
3. More than 1 bomb
4. Stock missiles
5. (Maybe) Immune to attacks until after it has attacked
6. (Maybe) Reload bomb takes 1 turn

If these changes went through, what would you price The Voidraven at?