Wych Cult. What do they need.

amorrowlyday wrote:

@ynneadwraith I've thought about treating scourges that way too. After re-reading the jump and jetpack rules they ought definitely be jump units. The simplest solution for them is actually the best one: just give them the relentless usr. Had we come out 15 months later I firmly believe that there is a rather high chance they'd just have it anyway.

To the wyches and GMC's question there isn't a good answer and that is appropriate. The only good solutions to GMC's are fleshbane and ID+AP. Fleshbane seems like a perfectly fluffy way to differentiate between bloodbrides and wyches as well.

Yeah that would most likely be best the only thing I wanted to add in was the JSJ ability that Jetpacks have, which would afford Scourges some modicum of survivability by being able to duck back into cover after they've shot.

Would Relentless allow them to do that anyway?

BetrayTheWorld wrote:

I actually have already gone over this a bit, although it is a long thread. This is what I'd do:

Give wyches rending.
Give wyches the option to purchase squad-wide HWG for 1ppm.
Make wych weapons cost 5 points and all do the same thing: Grant rerolls to wound.
Give bloodbrides/hekatrix/syren +1WS and the ability to buy wych weapons on every model.

...

I'm a big fan of wych weapons all doing the same thing because every time GW releases different rules for each wych weapon, there is one that is clearly better than the others. And they all look so cool, I'd really like to be able to use them all without sacrificing functionality. Also, rerolls to wound creates synergy with rending.

I absolutely agree with the +1WS and the ability to buy Wych Weapons on every model.

Still much prefer Bladestorm over Rending. Functionally identical against the targets you'd actually throw them against, and fluffier. If an elite Guardsman can't hurt a vehicle in CC then I don't think a Wych should be able to either. Punching vehicles to death should be the realm of fantastical daemons, big mechs and genetically engineered supersoldiers. Add onto that that it encroaches on the specialist area of other units, I just don't think it's a good idea.

As for HWG for 1ppm, will that actually do anything more than cut out the cost of a Hekatrix? You can only throw one grenade even if all models have one. Is it the same in CC?

Fundamentally disagree with making all Wych Weapons do the same thing. You've got the opportunity to provide wyches with 3 different tools to increase their effectiveness in 3 different ways. It would be a mistake not to use that.

Make one of them re-roll to wound, make another -1A for enemies, make the 3rd Fleshbane and price them accordingly. That gives Wyches/Bloodbrides the ability to mix-and-match killiness and tarpitiness, depending on what targets you're facing. More flexibility is a good thing

Edit: thinking about it, I don't think we're ever going to persuade each other on the Rending/Bladestorm thing. Shall we draw a line underneath it and just say that we both believe that Wyches need Rending/Bladestorm?

Should let us move forward onto more interesting ideas, like what Wych Weapons should do etc.

My homebrew had razorflails (10 points) reroll to hit and wound, Hydra Gauntlets (15) gave Haywire on a 4+ for each hit (giving them a means of fighting vehicles if you specifically equip them to do so) and Shardnets (15) gave -1 attack to all enemy models in the combat.

I wasn't particularly happy with Razorflails but quite like the other two.

Fleshbane!

Fleshbane everything

Tounguekutter wrote:

Just double checking how are 5 naked bloodbrides 90 points?

We were discussing my proposed system for bloodbrides, in which each would be able to take my suggested form of wych weapons for 5 points per model. That's 90 points for 5 of them. We then compared their damage output with my changes to current Incubi being used in an efficient way.

Ynneadwraith wrote:

If an elite Guardsman can't hurt a vehicle in CC then I don't think a Wych should be able to either.

Apples to oranges. Guardsmen are supposed to go down in droves to a single wych in the fluff. Comparing them on whether they have the skill to damage a vehicle in melee is silly. Guardsmen aren't even really meant for melee. Furthermore, I'm not sure that you've seen some of the things that can be done with a good blade. This video actually goes into detail showing why technique is important when cutting through steel rods and steel sheets with a katana:

My point being that wyches are superhumanly graceful to a degree that no mere human guardsman could hope to match, and that they have 10,000 years to perfect their blade technique, opposed to the 50 or so a human gets before they're no longer fit for fighting. Since the video above shows that cutting through metal isn't about brute force, but rather much about technique, I think that's a solid argument for rending representing masterful technique striking a critical blow.

Ynneadwraith wrote:

Shall we draw a line underneath it and just say that we both believe that Wyches need Rending/Bladestorm?

I mean, I could cease to try to convince you that rending would be better for our army as a whole, and makes plenty of sense fluff-wise, but I can't really honestly say that I believe the above statement, because that would indicate that I think bladestorm is a suitable exchange for rending. I don't, really.

Ynneadwraith wrote:

As for HWG for 1ppm, will that actually do anything more than cut out the cost of a Hekatrix? You can only throw one grenade even if all models have one. Is it the same in CC?

Yes, they recently FAQed it to make it so that only one model could use a HWG in CC. The only difference it will make, really, is that it doesn't matter if 1 specific model dies, your squad can still use a grenade, whereas now, if your grenade carrier gets killed, your squad can no longer throw a single grenade.

Ynneadwraith wrote:

Fundamentally disagree with making all Wych Weapons do the same thing. You've got the opportunity to provide wyches with 3 different tools to increase their effectiveness in 3 different ways. It would be a mistake not to use that.

I don't know your background, so forgive me if I am wrong, but this makes it sound like you haven't been a DE player over multiple editions, seeing different iterations of wych weapons. If the past has shown anything with wych weapons, it's that when there are different options, there is always a clear loser(or two!) among them. I want to be able to use all the wych weapons I paid for in my kits without hamstringing my lists. Making the wych weapons do the same thing, and having that thing be super useful and synergize with their rending makes all wych weapons good.

Ynneadwraith wrote:

Make one of them re-roll to wound, make another -1A for enemies, make the 3rd Fleshbane and price them accordingly. That gives Wyches/Bloodbrides the ability to mix-and-match killiness and tarpitiness, depending on what targets you're facing. More flexibility is a good thing

I doubt anyone is going to give us fleshbane on wyches. That'd be OP, wounding toughness 10 GMCs on 2s with 10 point troopers. And I have no interest in wyches as tarpits. I think that's the least fluffy thing they could possibly be. They're killers. Their rules should reflect that.

BetrayTheWorld wrote:

Ynneadwraith wrote:

Shall we draw a line underneath it and just say that we both believe that Wyches need Rending/Bladestorm?

I mean, I could cease to try to convince you that rending would be better for our army as a whole, and makes plenty of sense fluff-wise

Could you? That would be marvellous. Cos I'm sure most other people are as sick of the endless argument on an entirely subjective topic as I am.

Count Adhemar wrote:

Could you? That would be marvellous. Cos I'm sure most other people are as sick of the endless argument on an entirely subjective topic as I am.

No need to be snarky. If you don't want to participate in the discussion, feel free to bow out, but I'm on topic and being respectful, so I'd appreciate the same courtesy. Further, I don't think you should presume to pass judgement for other people. They're as welcome as you to bow out of the conversation if they aren't interested in it.

I don't consider the topic entirely subjective, because I don't consider the topic to be about a fandex. We were asked what wyches need. I am arguing for what I'd like to see GW realistically do to wyches in order to help bring our codex in line with what it needs to be competitive. Everything I've suggested as been to that end, which to my understanding is the topic at hand. Things like an army NEEDING to have sources of anti-vehicle isn't subjective. It's quite objective, in fact.

Count Adhemar wrote:

BetrayTheWorld wrote:

Ynneadwraith wrote:

Shall we draw a line underneath it and just say that we both believe that Wyches need Rending/Bladestorm?

I mean, I could cease to try to convince you that rending would be better for our army as a whole, and makes plenty of sense fluff-wise

Could you? That would be marvellous. Cos I'm sure most other people are as sick of the endless argument on an entirely subjective topic as I am.

Hear hear. I shall henceforth stop bickering back and forth on this, likely fruitless, wishlisting. As a tie-up, I'll summarise my points.

B T W, correct I am not as experienced a player. Bladestorm is exactly a substitute to Rending for the targets that Wyches should be pitted against i.e. not tanks, that's what Blasters, HWB, HWG, Dark Lances, Heat Lances and all those other A/T options are for. Improve those, rather than making them comparably worse.

You have no interest in Wyches being tarpits, but other people might. That's why weapon options are a good idea. Historically Wych Weapons have been unbalanced, but that doesn't mean that the concept of having different weapons do different things is a bad idea. Look at Harlequins. Each of their weapon options (with the exception of power swords) finds utility somewhere. Kiss vs Embrace is a legitimate option, and Caress' have utility on

It's not a 10pt fleshbane trooper. It's a 15pt fleshbane T3 6+/4++ trooper with 2 attacks. Hardly overpowered vs the majority of targets, and you yourself said that we are lacking an effective way of dealing with them. Rather than making Wyches replace other units with A/T function, why not place them into a niche that is both lacking elsewhere in the army and is utterly fluffy (gladiators pulling down gigantic creatures, just like they do in the arenas)?

I agree that DE need more effective anti-tank. I don't see why we should make a unit that is not anti-tank into an anti-tank unit, when we already have anti-tank units that could be improved while Wyches are given another niche that our army is lacking.

B T W, thanks for your thoughtful discussion on this, and I hope none of this has soured our opinions of one-another. You remain someone whose opinion I value highly, but I do think that this conversation has likely run its course.

I don't want you to feel like I'm just saying my points and dropping the mic, so I encourage you to respond and I'll read your points closely, but being brutally realistic I don't think we'll end up convincing each other of anything!

Oh, I should say. Things I absolutely agree with: HWG on each trooper (after your explanation that sounds like a good idea, provided you can still give Hekatrixes some utility), +1WS Hekas/BloodBrides/Sirens, Wych Weapons on every model for Bloodbrides.

Also, if you're looking for one quick fix that would make Wyches more usable, then Rending is absolutely a great idea.

However, if you're looking for a full rewrite then there's so much more you could do to get them filling niches in our army without ousting other units.

Giving a model rending is not synonymous with making them an anti-tank unit. Just because they're CAPABLE of hurting vehicles doesn't mean they're particularly good at doing so. Such would be the case with rending wyches.

In real life, I'm just a dude with a pocketknife, but I can stab a hole in your brake line on your car and watch as you roll into a wall, or hack through/pry loose a battery cable and watch as your vehicle just cuts off. A trained super space elf gladiator with 10,000 years to practice, who has no doubt faced mechanical things similar to dreadnoughts should be able to hurt them. I'm not saying make it a cakewalk, but make it possible. That's what rending does. Makes it possible, while still being unlikely.

And besides that, our army could use some additional SUPPORT weapons that work against vehicles. Not necessarily primary, specialized weapons like dark lances, but rather second line weapons for when you need just that bit of extra anti-vehicle insurance.

As for your ideas on wych weapons, I disagree completely. If we WERE to agree that wyches should have either rending or bladestorm, like it seems we do, then making all wych weapons reroll to wound synergizes perfectly with that ability, and all the other options are moot. Also, we shouldn't be making the wych weapons cost more than 5 points, or they won't be worth buying.

If you've not been convinced by now, you probably won't be. In closing, however, I will say that the people who's strategic and tactical advice I value most who have weighed in on this topic have seemed to agree with me, so I still consider my position to be on a pretty solid foundation.

If I can personally disable a vehicle with a pocketknife, but your version of super space elf gladiators can't, color me unimpressed.

You're right, not going to agree on this. If you can disable a car with a pocket knife, then theres no reason why Cadians shouldn't be able to either (or any other guardsmen for that matter). What people can do with a pocketknife is a poor judge of whether a fictional soldier can destroy a tank.

5pt+ wych weapons would only be too expensive if the benefit isn't worth it.

Make one of them re-roll to wound, one of them fleshbane, one of them -1A and price them all accordingly. Then, alongside HWGs (which is what should be our support A/T) you've got a decent squad that can be tailored to a number of different roles depending on what synergises best with the rest of their army/works best in their meta.

Ynneadwraith wrote:

You're right, not going to agree on this. If you can disable a car with a pocket knife, then theres no reason why Cadians shouldn't be able to either (or any other guardsmen for that matter). What people can do with a pocketknife is a poor judge of whether a fictional soldier can destroy a tank.

5pt+ wych weapons would only be too expensive if the benefit isn't worth it.

Make one of them re-roll to wound, one of them fleshbane, one of them -1A and price them all accordingly. Then, alongside HWGs (which is what should be our support A/T) you've got a decent squad that can be tailored to a number of different roles depending on what synergises best with the rest of their army/works best in their meta.

I don't agree. Fleshbane on wych weapons would be viewed as OP unless it's overpriced, and if it's overpriced, why not just take Eldar warlocks as allies instead, who have fleshbane by default along with their psychic powers? And -1A against a single model in base contact isn't useful. Previously, they gave -1A to ALL units in base contact with that particular model. When you limit it to 1 unit, an offensive weapon upgrade becomes better ALL the time because it improves multiple instances of it's use instead of taking a single attack away from the opposing unit, which isn't very compelling. And before anyone argues against me mentioning allies, isn't the POINT of altering our army to make it feel like we don't NEED allies to function at a good, competitive level? So if we're always overshadowed by Eldar allies, and we're content to make decisions that cause it to remain so, then why have this conversation to begin with? That's rhetorical. No answer required.

That said, I thought you agreed to stop repeating your arguments after last time, and agreed that this wasn't going to be about getting the last word and "dropping the mic".

I'm content to let the conversation end right here, without me repeating information I've already conveyed earlier in the thread. I agree to disagree.

Count Adhemar wrote:

Could you? That would be marvellous. Cos I'm sure most other people are as sick of the endless argument on an entirely subjective topic as I am.

I don't know about other people, but I am.
Just sayin.

Edit: Look, don't take this the wrong way @betray. It's not that we are not interested in the original discussion, we are just not interested in a discussion with somebody who will never (under any circumstances) change his mind.

What's the point in posting if it doesn't change anything. At all.

I admire your passion for your suggestions and I think you really believe in what you are saying, after all you are objectively a very good player. But good rules don't need to come from good players.

There is this RTS game called "Command and Conquer Kane's Wrath" and I am not a good player. Yet, I made a gameplay mod that fixed its terrible balance and everybody agrees that the game vastly improved due to my mod (even pro players said that).

I am not saying that my suggestions regarding 40K are better than yours, I do not claim that. But it also doesn't make yours superior in any way either.

The Strange Dark One wrote:

Count Adhemar wrote:

Could you? That would be marvellous. Cos I'm sure most other people are as sick of the endless argument on an entirely subjective topic as I am.

I don't know about other people, but I am.
Just sayin.

Being tired of a debate in a thread is no excuse for basically telling someone to shut up. That violates the rules of this forum, and we should all probably ignore the fact that Count Adhemar even said it. Count Adhemar knows this, I'm sure.

If you aren't happy with the direction the debate is going, or that you feel a thread has been concluded for you, you don't have to participate in it's continuation, but that doesn't mean that other people who ARE interested in the discussion need be deprived of their ability to do so just because you're done with it. Be done. Let other people not be. Live and let live, right?

BetrayTheWorld wrote:

Live and let live, right?

Look mate, I know you don't mean it but the way you write is completely and absolutely domineering. It doesn't allow anyone else's ideas or thoughts to exist in the conversation. Its not even a conversation. It's like your trying to fight a war that no one else is fighting. In a proper conversation, even in a forum there should be idea 1 (thesis) and idea 2(antithesis) it doesn't matter whether ideas 1 and 2 are opposite of each other or just different, the end result should be to try and make idea 1.5, a synthesis or bridge between the two. Both people don't need to be in the middle of the bridge but as long as you acknowledge the other person's idea and take a single step forward that's all that's needed. To you that may be just how you write but to me, i find your writing to be very argumentative and agressive without stepping into the other side's shoes, which may have been why the count snapped at you.

Take it as you will, we all just need to chill. We're humans not Dark Eldar, let's not be at each other's throats. Especially in a forum I love as much as this one.

BetrayTheWorld wrote:

If you aren't happy with the direction the debate is going, or that you feel a thread has been concluded for you, you don't have to participate in it's continuation

In order for anyone to be unhappy about the direction a debate is going in it would first need to actually be going in a direction rather than round and round in circles. It would also need to be a debate rather than an endless repetition of the same opinion (by both sides).

I've agreed to differ. Ynneadwraith has agreed to differ and finally you seem to have agreed to differ so please, for the love of Jeebus can we move on?

Barrywise wrote:

the end result should be to try and make idea 1.5, a synthesis or bridge between the two.

I don't subscribe to the modern philosophy of participation trophies and pandering. I'm sorry. If a bridge needs to be built and 2 people are arguing about how, one engineer and 1 pizza maker plus his friends who loudly support his idea, I'm 99.999% going with the engineer. Not all ideas are built equally, and "pizza man bridge" should be argued against, regardless of how many friends the pizza guy has. Sometimes, quite often in fact, democracy fails to choose the best result. That is a failing of democracy.

I'm not claiming to be the engineer vs. a pizza guy in this situation, only pointing out that your argument against my general character(or your perception of my character) is flawed. While I may seem arbitrarily argumentative to you, communities need people like me, because regardless of whether I'm the engineer, or just a dissenting voice from the norm, I will always argue against "pizza man bridge", even if it's the unpopular position and makes people dislike me personally. Someone has to do it.

That said, it's never my intent to offend anyone here, my arguments are quite simply more fact-based than my detractors(usually), and I don't view opinions as able to alter facts. I can and have been proven wrong before, and am open to being persuaded to alter my position when an argument is compelling.

@amorrowlyday can attest to the fact that when I am incorrect, I give credit where credit is due, adjust my perspective, and move on in possession of a more intellectually sound position. It's happened with him a couple times recently.

Anyhow, this discussion on me personally has gone far enough, I think. It was spurred on by a comment that shouldn't have been made to begin with, by a person who, due to his position here, made it seem OK for others to join the attack another person here who hasn't been disrespectful to anyone else. This thread made me change my signature in order to, hopefully, better prepare people to interact with me. Let's move on.

I just wanted to say that I was impressed and convinced by Betray the World's arguments in favor of his proposed changes to Wyches. I used to dismiss Rending out of hand as a cop-out change precisely because of its simplicity but now I see that it would suit the unit rather well and is fluffy (in our opinion) to boot. I think his illustration with the Samurai is an excellent way to demonstrate why it would be fluffy for Wyches but not Guardsmen. I don't know what my IQ is but I'm into my final semester as a Philosophy and History double major and I've seen an argument or two in my day and I have to reiterate he is a good arguer. I find argumentation is something of a lost art and I wish it would lose the connotation of social strife that it has now. I'll cut myself off now before I ramble further, but in fairness he did keep a level head and it becomes of everyone else to do the same.

BetrayTheWorld wrote:

I don't agree. Fleshbane on wych weapons would be viewed as OP unless it's overpriced, and if it's overpriced, why not just take Eldar warlocks as allies instead, who have fleshbane by default along with their psychic powers? And -1A against a single model in base contact isn't useful. Previously, they gave -1A to ALL units in base contact with that particular model. When you limit it to 1 unit, an offensive weapon upgrade becomes better ALL the time because it improves multiple instances of it's use instead of taking a single attack away from the opposing unit, which isn't very compelling. And before anyone argues against me mentioning allies, isn't the POINT of altering our army to make it feel like we don't NEED allies to function at a good, competitive level? So if we're always overshadowed by Eldar allies, and we're content to make decisions that cause it to remain so, then why have this conversation to begin with? That's rhetorical. No answer required.

That said, I thought you agreed to stop repeating your arguments after last time, and agreed that this wasn't going to be about getting the last word and "dropping the mic".

I'm content to let the conversation end right here, without me repeating information I've already conveyed earlier in the thread. I agree to disagree.

Alas, I gave in to the very real temptation to continue. As you likely well know it's very difficult to walk away from a debate with things left unsaid.

Seeing as I appear to be incapable of leaving this, shall we move forward at least into a better discussion of why we think various things should be the way they are?

Couple of clarifications first. I don't think I said that it should necessarily be -1A in base contact. If you believe that a blanket -1A for a Shardnet would be a better justification of the price, and offer more options for varied unit tactics then that was what I was intending anyway.

Apologies, but I'm confused somewhat about your argument regarding allies. In the first instance, you state 'at that point, why not just use Warlocks', and then go on to say 'isn't the point that we shouldn't feel like you need to take allies?'. Wouldn't the optimum solution to that be

Also, I'd like some clarification on why you believe that Fleshbane for a Wych Weapon would be in any way overpowered? At face value, I suppose 15pts for 2 Fleshbane attacks might be considered powerful against GMCs, but considering that a squad of 9 Wyches, plus a Raider to get them where they need to go, that's a lot of points investment for 6 Fleshbane attacks that still need to get through a 3+ with FnP.

By OP, do you mean 'OP compared to other units in 40k' or 'OP compared to other Wych Weapons'?

Lastly, I don't quite follow the logical leap that a Fleshbane Wych Weapon must be overcosted in order not to be OP. Could you please walk me through the logic of that assumption?

Hypothetically, wouldn't there be a possible "goldilocks" points cost for a Wych weapon that conferred Fleshbane without making the unit/model overpowered or not worth taking?

Ynneadwraith wrote:

Alas, I gave in to the very real temptation to continue. As you likely well know it's very difficult to walk away from a debate with things left unsaid.

Agreed and I thin response was well tempered.

Ynneadwraith wrote:

Seeing as I appear to be incapable of leaving this, shall we move forward at least into a better discussion of why we think various things should be the way they are?

Good Framing.

Ynneadwraith wrote:

Couple of clarifications first. I don't think I said that it should necessarily be -1A in base contact. If you believe that a blanket -1A for a Shardnet would be a better justification of the price, and offer more options for varied unit tactics then that was what I was intending anyway.

Such a limitation would negate a call for multiple which is a foundational point to your argument of a variety of viable weapons.

Ynneadwraith wrote:

Apologies, but I'm confused somewhat about your argument regarding allies. In the first instance, you state 'at that point, why not just use Warlocks', and then go on to say 'isn't the point that we shouldn't feel like you need to take allies?'. Wouldn't the optimum solution to that be

This is a misrepresentation of their argument. The argument was actually that in order for a troops unit to have more or less universal access to fleshbane it would have to be so overcosted as to be untenable in order for I presume the community at large to accept it. The warlocks observation is simply a point of notice that there both is a stated price point for a fleshbane dude, and that the body attached to it provides more overall utility if they are anywhere close in price. This observation is wholly within the realm of reasonable to be held by someone with a stated aim of 'isn't the point that we shouldn't feel like you need to take allies?'

Ynneadwraith wrote:

Also, I'd like some clarification on why you believe that Fleshbane for a Wych Weapon would be in any way overpowered? At face value, I suppose 15pts for 2 Fleshbane attacks might be considered powerful against GMCs, but considering that a squad of 9 Wyches, plus a Raider to get them where they need to go, that's a lot of points investment for 6 Fleshbane attacks that still need to get through a 3+ with FnP.

This is a SIGNIFICANTLY better point of reference for the previous paragraph as while I do understand Betrays argument I reject the fundamental premise: that GW cares what it's playerbase outside whomever a given work is written for thinks. I fully accept that something as short sighted as fleshbane wyches at 10ppm could absolutely happen because GW damn the spehs maehreens.

Ynneadwraith wrote:

By OP, do you mean 'OP compared to other units in 40k' or 'OP compared to other Wych Weapons'?

The OP here means OP in general from the overarching purview of the playerbase. You can tell because they already made an argument 2 pages back that if weapons are different 1 will necessarily be OP. They take that as a given condition.

Ynneadwraith wrote:

Lastly, I don't quite follow the logical leap that a Fleshbane Wych Weapon must be overcosted in order not to be OP. Could you please walk me through the logic of that assumption?

I completely agree and second this. Though then reject everything everyone has said as I firmly believe fleshbane AND rending as squad wide USRS makes an excellent differentiator between wyches and bloodbrides.

@Tounguekutter

No. There can not be a singular goldilocks pricepoint because such a point would effect the viability of either wyches or bloodbrides in such a way as to cause them to totally eclipse the other. The only way to avoid this is to ensure they have vastly distinct roles like Kabalites vs Trueborn.

@amorrowlyday: Thanks for translating for me. You're my spirit animal.

@Ynneadwraith: Below is the response I wrote to you before I knew amorrowlyday explained much of my position in clear, concise language. In addition, I addressed the final point that he didn't agree with as well:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In your example, getting the fleshbane weapon costs 15 points on top of the wych that costs 10. That's 25 points. My point was that, at that price level, you may as well be paying 35 points and getting a warlock that has fleshbane, a 4++ both in AND out of combat, WS4 and psychic powers.

You're also on the hook for buying the rest of the wych squad that does NOT have fleshbane, so it isn't particularly efficient, either, depending on what OTHER things get changed about wyches. If we look at bloodbrides instead, assuming all bloodbrides could take the fleshbane weapons, we get even closer to the cost of warlocks who are still superior due to their additional psychic powers and 4++ outside of combat.

But regardless, it doesn't really matter. I don't want to keep going back and forth on the issue. The primary point of contention is whether they should be able to hurt vehicles or not. I think they should, you think otherwise. I feel like a lot of this stuff is just over-complicating the fix.

Even if they get the bladestorm version you recommended instead of rending, the rerolls to wound will synergize so well with bladestorm/rending that I doubt the fleshbane weapon would be worth taking, were it even an option. Because it would have to be priced in the area you mentioned(15 points) whereas someone could just get rerolls to wound with their rending weapon for 5 points. And higher than 5 points for a weapon that does nothing more than let you reroll to wound is too expensive, because at 10 points you could just buy another wych, providing another full compliment of attacks, which is better than rerolling failed wounds. Do you see what I'm saying? There's an interconnected web of cost vs. benefit analysis that makes pricing of certain things HAVE to be in certain areas in order to be balanced, while simultaneously preventing them from being good purchases at that price point against the other options available.

Illustration:
Wych w/ 15 point fleshbane weapon = 25 points
2 Wyches w/Rending + reroll weapon = 30 points

@amorrowlyday I think I see your point. Basically if the price for a fleshbane wych weapon was <X (where X is the hypothetical goldilocks point) it would make Wyches more useful than Bloodbrides and if the weapon was >X then Bloodbrides would be more useful than Wyches. X is not a possible points cost because there cannot (should not ) be fractions of points. In other words you're advocating for Wyches and Bloodbrides to have different roles like Kabalites and Trueborn do. Did I understand what you're trying to say correctly? If so I agree and I'd like to see Wyches and Bloodbrides mirror Kabalites and Trueborn insomuch as both pairs of units fulfill separate roles.

Spot on. Though I think, and I can't be certain without hammering it out, that the relationship is in inversion from what your suggesting. For some reason I feel like even in a vacuum cheaper creates an inherent advantage for boating over MSU. As an example while I've been having great success with shredders on kabbies, the only builds that showed up on other peoples radar, and then only through the results of mathhammer, were trueborn and scourge squads. My inclination is that this is likely caused by an internalized desire to minimize FOC waste on cheap weapons with a desire for redundancy when the weapon costs more than a single body.

For full disclosure: I fully see the difference between them both as being that wyches kill tanks, carnifexes, and non-CC meq. Bloodbrides kill wraithknights and nick primarchs. Succubi wound primarchs, and Lilith fights them to a standstill.

amorrowlyday wrote:

I fully see the difference between them both as being that wyches kill tanks, carnifexes, and non-CC meq. Bloodbrides kill wraithknights and nick primarchs. Succubi wound primarchs, and Lilith fights them to a standstill.

Sounds about right in terms of roles. Although I'm assuming when you say wyches kill tanks you mostly mean AV 11 or 10.

amorrowlyday wrote:

wyches kill tanks, carnifexes, and non-CC meq. Bloodbrides kill wraithknights and nick primarchs. Succubi wound primarchs, and Lilith fights them to a standstill.

I could get behind this as a general framework of what to expect from each of these models, from a design standpoint. Lelith need's tweaking(not to be confused with twerking), if not a complete redesign. I think giving her a rule where she always wounds on a fixed number, but not poison, would pretty much get her to a good place. Maybe give her rending too, even though it won't change much for her except on attacks vs. vehicles.

That said, I'm not very familiar with rules for primarch's, so I might be way off the mark with where she'd need to be.