One of the complaints that I hear pop up wit a surprising amount of regularity is that the eldar codex contains too much rending/pseudo-rending. Now, I'll be the first eldar player to admit that our codex could use some adjustments, but I always find it bizarre that people complain about this specifically. Sure, I've had good to-wound rolls where I get a surprising number of pseudo-rends, but there's a reason dire avengers are taken in minimum squad sizes. I tend to go on lengthy rants when in forums, so I'll try to address specific points and remain concise.
"Bladestorm makes eldar so much better at killing everything!"
Not really. on average, 10 shuriken catapults fired by avengers or guardians will get 1 or 2 pseudo-rends. So on average, they're killing rough 1.5 more meq than 10 bolters will. Against anything with a 5+ armor save or worse, they're equally good as bolters.
"Mathhammer is silly! I remember this time where bladestorm caused sooooo many rends!"
I remember the time three wyches took on a double flamer dreadnaught after passing 5 out of 6 6+ feel no pain rolls. That doesn't mean I expect three wyches to perform that well most of the time. Mathematical averages aren't everything, and it's easy to forget that just because X is the average result , it doesn't mean there isn't still a Y% chance you'll get a different result. But it's still the average. Sometimes I'll roll nothing but 6s to wound. Sometimes I'll roll nothing but 1s. Just because I've seen wyches take on a dreadnaught doesn't mean I complain about them being unstoppable walker killer.
"But it's on ALL your weapons!"
Well, sort of. We have pseudo-rending or rending on a lot of our weapons, but certainly not all of them. Let's look at a few.
Shuriken Pistols: Any unit that has shuriken pistols is not scary because they have shuriken pistols. On average, you'll get something like 0.75 pseudo-rends with 10 pistol shots. So more likely than not, a full squad of pistols will kill 1 extra meq. Yay.
Shuriken catapults: Guardians are as durable as guardsmen. You know. Those guys that get made fun of for dying in droves. Except that guardian defenders have shorter range on all but one or two of their guns and cost more. Which isn't to say that guardians are bad, but they're either going to hop out of a serpent to do some drivebye shooting (thus leaving them very exposed to return fire, assault, etc., even with battle focus, or else they're sitting back in cover where they're well out of range to even use the shuriken catapults that are the topic of this thread. Avengers and their catapults have sufficient range to hide after shooting by using battle focus, and that's certainly nice. Compared to tac marines (which are considered a bad unit by some), they have worse armor, worse toughness, no way of hurting AV11+, no special weapons (plasma, flamer, melta, etc.), no ATSKNF, and no krak grenades. Remember, a full-sized avenger squad is killing about 1 or 2 more non-vehicles than 10 bolters most of the time.
TL Catapults: So jetbikes basically. Twin-linked catapults are nice, but they're still firing from 12" away. I'd agree that guardian jetbikes could use a bit of a price hike, so I'll concede that point.
death spinners: These guns have decent rate of fire and high strength fired by a model with good ballistics skill. If you hit a target with low enough intiative or a vehicle, they get even stronger. These things can stack on wounds/glances/pens with scary efficiency. But it's not death spinners themselves I hear complaints about. It's that they're yet another pseudo-rending weapon. You're not at all bothered by the scary-good weapon's high strength and vehicle killing power, but the fact that they'll average one extra kill against meq irritates you?
Night Spinner's guns: Also a pretty solid weapon. That said, how many guys do you normally find yourself catching with a large blast? If the answer is less than 6, you're averaging less than 1 pseudo-rend each time you use the large blast. The torrent is a bit scarier, I think, but it also requires you get pretty close to the enemy to make the most of it. At that point, the enemy will likely be able to charge you. Also, neither of these weapons may be fired if you jink.
Shuriken Cannon: It's relatively affordable, but it's also basically an assault cannon with fewer shots that has no chance of hurting AV 13+. You can sprinkle a lot of them through your army, but I get the impression people aren't normally complaining about the shuriken cannon. Maybe I'm wrong?
Harlequin's Kiss: And harlequins show up in eldar lists all the time, right? Note that we're talking about the kisses from Codex: Eldar here.
"But pseudo-rending lets you hurt monstrous creatures!"
Know what else lets you hurt MCs? Plasma and melta. Also krak grenades, which you can use in melee while avengers are stuck hoping they fail morale without getting swept after an MC charges. Oh, and power fists. On average, a full squad of avengers is putting about 1.5 wounds on an MC. Which isn't terrible, but it's also not good enough for you to rely on it. It's more of a last-ditch effort. I get the impression people are also annoyed that there's a chance that avengers can hurt things of any Toughness 8 or higher, but that's what? Wraithknights? Great Unclean Ones?
I'm not trying to argue that tac marines are amazing here. I'm not trying to claim that pseudo-rending isn't useful. I'm just puzzled as to why people complain so much about a rule that, outside of anecdotes, doesn't actually seem to make too big a difference. If eldar lose all their pseudo-rends in the next book, I won't be terribly upset. It simply doesn't make enough of a difference most games for me to spill any tears over it. You won't be depriving me of a game changing edge. You'll be making my avengers kill one less guy per volley. Why does this rule get so much hate?
My theory: people are frustrated by serpents, wraith knights, and other real issues with the book, and just like to complain about pseudorending on top of it because they like to vent and pseudorending looks good on paper.
People see a min squad of troops with no upgraded weapons and assume they will have the damage output of a bolter or similar infantry gun. So when the most popular Eldar troop gets rending on a standard weapon, it comes across as another eye roll inducing Eldar special rule. Eldar have an obsec trsnsport that is a fantastic gunship, can spam psychic dice/summon demons, giant T8 jump MC AND a basic infantry unit with no upgrades gets rending on its weapons. By itself bladestorm is fine, but it is the combo of everything else that people get pissed about.
The fact that you get rending on models that cost, what, 9 points? That's the issue. Count again how many more wounds you'll do to TEQ compared to bolters for cost. Anyone else has to think about how to deal with 2+ saves and/or MC's, or at least worry about drowning them in wounds, but eldar just roll half a dozen dice and get a rend, problem solved. Not to mention that this problem is solved in the troops slot, which you're already spamming because bikes and serpents are brutally efficient on their own, even without rending.
"On average, a full squad of avengers is putting about 1.5 wounds on an MC." First, it's about 2.22 and second, a 10 man squad of bolter marines in rapidfire range is managing .74 wounds or ~1.76 if they've got a plasma gun and plasma cannon (still notably less and now the marines cost 40 points more than the dire avengers instead of 10 and can't move and fire the plasma cannon).
You're also comparing your 13 point dudes to marines 14 point dudes and complaining about the lack of plasma while forgetting you're more than doubling the cost of the trooper and accepting that every other game he'll kill himself, not to mention that it's 1 guy that can affect a target while the rest of the squad achieves nothing and may not assault if he fires it.
As for krak grenades hurting monsterous creatures, hitting on 4's, wounding on 6's and allowing an armour save means it's going to take 36 grenades on average get a single wound to stick on a wraithknight. That's not something useful at all considering the marines aren't getting an armour save. Even a "normal" MC like something from the 'Nids codex (T6, 3+ Sv) is going to see you fail to stick a wound through on any normal round of combat. You also need to remember that power fists cost 25 points, almost double the cost of the marine you put it on and ensuring that he strikes after everything else if he even survives to get into combat.
No-one bats an eyelid at spiders getting fancy rules since they're FA and you're Eldar. Specialised units can have special rules and that's fine, it's when troops can mow down termies and MC's with ease that raises peoples eyebrows. 19 ppm for less than marine survivability (little to none with all the AP 2/3 around) and no dedicated transport makes it at least somewhat of a tradeoff as well as being more difficult to get the volume of fire that makes pseudo rending such a talking point.
I had to go look up what a nightspinner is, as I've never seen one taken or even heard of them before. They seem ok'ish (which is actually pretty bad for the Eldar codex), but as I was told a while ago about a vaul support batterey, "they suffer from "Not Wraithknight or Fire Prism" disease". Besides, it's an AV 12 skimmer with blast/template weapons. If I shoot it, it either jinks and can't fire or it doesn't and I destroy it.
As 997Turbo mentioned, it's just another helping of special rules for many units in a codex that's already incredibly strong, and the fact theat it's also on a troops unit (meaning everyone will get rended virtually every game) means it's quite obnoxious.
I tend to go on lengthy rants when in forums, so I'll try to address specific points and remain concise.
Not your best try
I think most get upset because of the leap it was from the prior codex in the power level of a basic weapon, combined with extra movement and a massively better transport... all with no significant points increase.
Imagine if bolters became assault 3 shred, marines got +1 T, and Rhinos became 13/12/11 and gained an autocannon... It wouldn't matter how much Mathhammer you threw out to prove it not OP.... People would deservedly hate on it
Take a Tac squad. No upgrades, not even a transport. What can they do? Everything up to and including T7, and they usually still get armor saves.
Take a Guardian squad. No upgrades and they can hurt anything that uses T and they don't get a armor save. An armor save btw that every unit pays for, invalidated by essentially a free upgrade.
It mostly annoys me because for a negligible durability boost (3+/6++ instead of 5+), my Retributors only rend once a game for the same 13 points per model.
Guardians needed buffing from the last codex. That is without a doubt. They were given +1bs, +1ws, + battle focus and + psudo rending.
The issue (as well as what has been mentioned above) is that bs, battle focus and rending on their guns all compliment each other really well so are better than the sum of their parts.
Also jetbikes did not need buffing, neither did shuriken cannons.
It would have been ok if direavengers got the psudo-rending as part of their aspect (for a small points increase) to differentiate the from guardians rather than just +6" range and +1save. Or if bladestorm had just stayed as +1 shot for a loss of shooting for a turn.
Lets compare guardians to a veteran guardsman (almost same stats, same slot). For 2pts you get:
-+2 I.
-+ move and shoot heavy weapons
-+ battle focus
-+ psudo rending on basic guns
-+ access to OS WS rather than OS Chimera.
- unable to take 3 special weapons or doctrines (which are appropriatly costed for the advantage they bring, appart from the plasma gun being 5pts too much.)
Because terminators did not need even more things that kill them easily.
And in a troop slot no less. That kind of ability is not a troop ability.
I'm hoping they keep speeding along with all the codex updates at breakneck speed so they can get back around to some of the ridic 6e books and blanderize them a bit back down here with the rest of us "have-nots."
Furyou Miko wrote: It mostly annoys me because for a negligible durability boost (3+/6++ instead of 5+), my Retributors only rend once a game for the same 13 points per model.
you mean the ones who get an armor save against aything that isn't plasma or a dedicated antitank weapon? Those sisters who aren't mowed down by assault cannons and auto cannons? Did you really call that a negligible durability boost?
The eldar got blade storm and battle focus to compensate for every army in the game getting a FREE damage and mobility boost in 6th edition. That was when they started allowing rapid fire to be able to fire maximum range on the move. Before that, dire avengers could out maneuver people because we got multiple shots 6" farther away than anyone else, and guardians matched range with bolters when moving. With the 20 or so games I got in with the old codex when 6th edition hit, I was taking ridiculous amounts more fire than I had before, even from older codecies. And with wounds from the front the problems exacerbated the longer the game went on. My dire avengers were dying like carapace veterans, without being able to fire back as effectively. People don't see the huge buff that rapid fire got, because the eldar were the only shooty army in the game that relied on the old rapid fire rules to get their damage done. That simply cannot work in thee edition.
Edited for my phone doing really stupid things with the English language...
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: People don't see the huge buff that rapid fire got, because the eldar were the only shooty army in the game that relied on the old rapid fire rules to get their damage done. That simply cannot work in thee edition.
I'm not entirely sure what this sentence means.
Are you trying to say they relied on exploiting the weaknesses of Rapid Fire with their troops, via Assault weapons that had over 12" range.
Yes, but those armies were good in assault, and the grey knights had 24" as opposed to our 18" so they could simply walk away from the dire avengers killing them by the handful. Also, the two armies you mentioned utilize those guns on much more survivable platforms( terminators, strike teams, and warriors) or cheap expendable piles of bodies( termagants)
As I said, the eldar are the only army reliant on their shooting to carry the majority of their damage, that has a maximum 18" range on their basic infantry
I appreciate the feedback, everyone. I hope I don't come across as a dick here. I'm not trying to beat people over the head with rudeness; I'm just trying to understand a common complaint I hear.
A lot of what I'm hearing is that the problem with eldar having a lot of pseudo-rending is that they have it on their troops. I presume because powerful units are usually only found non-troop units for most armies.
If that's the source of everyone's irritation, why is it a source of irritation? I know that people often talk about there being a "troop tax." I certainly know I was frustrated by lacklustre troops in the *last* eldar codex. But would you really rather see all troops in all books feel like a tax, or would you rather have troops be useful in their own right?
Let's take a peek at other troop units that are roughly comparable:
Tac Marines: Already discussed above. A kitted out squad costs more, but can also threaten a wider variety of targets including vehicles (which shuriken catapultsgenerally can't touch unless they're AV 10). So avengers are more specialized but better at their specialization.
Veteran Guardsmen: Broken down above. Lack pseudo-rending, better maximum range (slightly mitigated by battle focus), access to 3 special weapons. No heavy weapon. I'd argue that these guys are pretty comparable. The vets can hunt whatever unit they're equipped to hunt, but usually have to get close to do it. The guardians have the option to sit back, but then they're only firing a single gun. Also, don't vet guarvsmen get carapace armor?
Fire Warriors: Much better range than things with shuriken catapults even after you factor in bladestorm. Can threaten AV 11 at maximum distance. Same armor as avengers. Less mobile, but wounding geq on 2s. Overwatch shenanigans instead of battle focus shenanigans.
Kabalite Warriors: Less durable than avengers, but more durable than guardians (because of PFP). Able to shoot from inside their vehicle. Access to special and heavy weapons. Poison instead of pseudo-rending. Transport is almost mandatory which ups their cost but still has its advantages.
Necron Warriors: Far more durable than either avengers or guardians even before reanimation protocols. Has a similar rule to bladestorm that makes them threatening against vehicles (even things like land raiders or flyers in a pinch) rather than making them more effective against infantry and MCs.
These all seem like reasonably similar units to me. I'm probably letting my pointy-eared bias blind me to something, but it seems like other troops have some sort of range or durability advantage or the ability to tackle vehicles that aren't paper-thin. Guardians/avengers are pretty easy to kill. Guardians especially. In exchange for being easier to kill, they get to kill heavily armored stuff slightly better. Is it rough against terminators? Sure. Terminators are kind of a perfect target for shuriken catapults. But there are multiple threads in proposed rules discussing various problems with that unit.
The fact that shuriken catapults are able to hurt T8 MCs is a good point. After all, those are some of the more annoying threats in the game right now, right? But wouldn't it be better to say, "I wish more units in my codex had ways to deal with MCs," or, "I wish MCs weren't so prevalent and hard to deal with," rather than complaining about units that can discourage them from being spammed slightly? To be fair, we don't see a ton of T8+ stuff around here (outside of a barbed hierodule).
@Poly Ranger: I rather like the idea of taking bladestorm away from guardians and jetbikers and leaving it an avengers-only thing. It would make avengers feel more skilled with their weapons of choice than the millitia.
Wyldhunt wrote: I appreciate the feedback, everyone. I hope I don't come across as a dick here. I'm not trying to beat people over the head with rudeness; I'm just trying to understand a common complaint I hear.
You do, but you play Eldar, We expect no less.
Wyldhunt wrote: A lot of what I'm hearing is that the problem with eldar having a lot of pseudo-rending is that they have it on their troops. I presume because powerful units are usually only found non-troop units for most armies.
If that's the source of everyone's irritation, why is it a source of irritation? I know that people often talk about there being a "troop tax." I certainly know I was frustrated by lacklustre troops in the *last* eldar codex. But would you really rather see all troops in all books feel like a tax, or would you rather have troops be useful in their own right?
You've answered your own question (with the answers from this very thread even!). Your troops shouldn't have stronger stuff than my troops while costing less than my troops. I'm not sure why this isn't sinking in. We've no problem with stuff being better and costing more, or being worse but costing less, it's the annoyance of you getting stuff that significantly better while paying a relatively low price for it. The fact that you do is just another helping of sh*t on the turd sandwich that fighting Eldar is at the moment. Yes, we'd all love for troops to be useful, but they aren't. We are complaining about the imbalance that virtually every other codex's troops are a tax while your aren't to anywhere near the same degree (even though many eldar treat them as a wave serpent tax).
Wyldhunt wrote: Let's take a peek at other troop units that are roughly comparable:
Yes, lets.
Wyldhunt wrote: Tac Marines: Already discussed above. A kitted out squad costs more, but can also threaten a wider variety of targets including vehicles (which shuriken catapultsgenerally can't touch unless they're AV 10). So avengers are more specialized but better at their specialization.
You realise that 10 dire avengers roughly equate to having 5 budget assault cannons, right? For free? Every last bit of damage that marines do relies on their special weapons that they have to pay for. Unless you're trolling (Which I'm beginning to suspect you are), go do some mathhammer vs some common targets about the damage output of DA compared to Marines. Avengers aren't specialised at all, rending lets them kill anything without an AV above 10, marine tac squads can maybe put a minor amount of damage on whatever you kit them to fight, at 10-20 points per weapon while making the rest of the squad useless.
Wyldhunt wrote: Veteran Guardsmen: Broken down above. Lack pseudo-rending, better maximum range (slightly mitigated by battle focus), access to 3 special weapons. No heavy weapon. I'd argue that these guys are pretty comparable. The vets can hunt whatever unit they're equipped to hunt, but usually have to get close to do it. The guardians have the option to sit back, but then they're only firing a single gun. Also, don't vet guarvsmen get carapace armor?
3 specials that double or triple the cost of the trooper and is even less fragile that your guys. I'd suggest you're out of your mind to compare vets against DA point for point. You tell us the vets have a range advantage, then tell us that the vets have to get close while the DA can sit back, bit of a disonance there isn't it? Vets can buy carapace, again, bumping up the cost of the squad. A 10 man vet squad with triple plasma and carapace is putting out 2 armour ignoring wounds on most things for 120, while DA are doing about the same, but their other non-rending shots are more than making up the difference against infantry, since they're 2 shot assault bolters vs Str3 AP- lasguns. Against MC's then the plasma guns have a slight advantage against T6, slightly worse vs T7 and do notably worse vs T8. Not to mention that they're Ld 7, WS3 and I3 vs your Ld 9, WS4 and I5 and can have their actual firepower picked out by positioning or prescision shot while you can continue firing at maximum effectiveness down to the last guy.
Wyldhunt wrote: Fire Warriors: Much better range than things with shuriken catapults even after you factor in bladestorm. Can threaten AV 11 at maximum distance. Same armor as avengers. Less mobile, but wounding geq on 2s. Overwatch shenanigans instead of battle focus shenanigans.
No argument from me that fire warriors are great for 9 ppm. But then, Tau are also quite strong, and marine players have complained about their troops being outranged and wounded on 3's for quite a while now. It also annoys me when Tau players complain about fire warriors not being good, since they are.
Wyldhunt wrote: Kabalite Warriors: Less durable than avengers, but more durable than guardians (because of PFP). Able to shoot from inside their vehicle. Access to special and heavy weapons. Poison instead of pseudo-rending. Transport is almost mandatory which ups their cost but still has its advantages.
They also tend to die to a man when their open topped AV10 carboard box gets blown up. You remember complaining about only being able to hurt AV10 with your rending bolters? These things are AV10 with 2 hull points. They also have to buy their specials rather than getting them built into the squad, again, more than doubling the cost of the trooper. FNP on t3 isn't quite the boon you think it is, especially against something like a wave serpent with multitudes of Str 6/7. Again, no argument that poison is rad, but they face the same issue of not being able to hurt vehicles with poison (discounting their specials they pay for on super fragile platforms).
Wyldhunt wrote: Necron Warriors: Far more durable than either avengers or guardians even before reanimation protocols. Has a similar rule to bladestorm that makes them threatening against vehicles (even things like land raiders or flyers in a pinch) rather than making them more effective against infantry and MCs.
Again, another contender for a codex too strong compared to others. What do they all have in common? Very strong troops. Again, no argument from me that army wide FNP in combination with bolters than can glance a land raider to death is a bit to strong.
Wyldhunt wrote: These all seem like reasonably similar units to me. I'm probably letting my pointy-eared bias blind me to something, but it seems like other troops have some sort of range or durability advantage or the ability to tackle vehicles that aren't paper-thin. Guardians/avengers are pretty easy to kill. Guardians especially. In exchange for being easier to kill, they get to kill heavily armored stuff slightly better. Is it rough against terminators? Sure. Terminators are kind of a perfect target for shuriken catapults. But there are multiple threads in proposed rules discussing various problems with that unit.
The fact that shuriken catapults are able to hurt T8 MCs is a good point. After all, those are some of the more annoying threats in the game right now, right? But wouldn't it be better to say, "I wish more units in my codex had ways to deal with MCs," or, "I wish MCs weren't so prevalent and hard to deal with," rather than complaining about units that can discourage them from being spammed slightly? To be fair, we don't see a ton of T8+ stuff around here (outside of a barbed hierodule).
@Poly Ranger: I rather like the idea of taking bladestorm away from guardians and jetbikers and leaving it an avengers-only thing. It would make avengers feel more skilled with their weapons of choice than the millitia.
You are. In the end, it doesn't really matter how easy to kill DA or similar are since they're safe inside their WS (that is statistically more durable than a land raider), only coming out to rend to death anyone in range if it manages to fall over. It's not just terminators though, everything that's not a vehicle is a perfect target for shuri-cats due to rending. If you didn't have entire units with melta guns, Str10 AP2 ranged weapons on impossibly fast unkillable platforms, transports which are more durable and heavily armed than other factions main battle tanks for cheaper or half a dozen other options to deal with AV then you might have a point.
It would be fair to say that I wish my troops could be armed with half strength assault cannons for free too, but it's just not going to happen is it?
The change to Guardians vs DA also wouldn't change a damn thing since DA are the cheaper way to get WS, so they'll still be the troops of choice the majorty of the time when you're not taking jetbikes. Bladestorm can just bugger right off alltogether.
997Turbo wrote: People see a min squad of troops with no upgraded weapons and assume they will have the damage output of a bolter or similar infantry gun. So when the most popular Eldar troop gets rending on a standard weapon, it comes across as another eye roll inducing Eldar special rule. Eldar have an obsec trsnsport that is a fantastic gunship, can spam psychic dice/summon demons, giant T8 jump MC AND a basic infantry unit with no upgrades gets rending on its weapons. By itself bladestorm is fine, but it is the combo of everything else that people get pissed about.
Summoning Daemons is a mistake from 7th edition. I don't like that a lot unless you are doing so to grant the Grey Knight commander 2+ invul save.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I never find Bladestorm really that good. I mean, the thing that makes Guardian and Dire Avengers too good as troops is Plasma Grenade. S4 Ap4 Blast.
The big issue with the pseudo-rending is that it adds a lot of flexibility to formerly anti-basic-infantry weapons to allow them to engage heavier targets, making for an extremely versatile weapon, in an army of otherwise specialist units and weapons, and particularly in an army or on units that many see as having gotten overbuffed with broad bumps in ballistic skill across the board, fantastic mobility boosts, while the pseudo-rending further reinforces the capability of min/max builds, increasing the killing power of dreaded Wave Serpent and it's often minimum sized Dire Avenger unit in ways that were really unnecessary.
For Guardians specifically, it was also a somewhat lazy way out, instead of creating some sort of unique battlefield role for them that isn't just "horde dire avengers".
Poly Ranger wrote: Guardians needed buffing from the last codex. That is without a doubt. They were given +1bs, +1ws, + battle focus and + psudo rending.
The issue (as well as what has been mentioned above) is that bs, battle focus and rending on their guns all compliment each other really well so are better than the sum of their parts.
Also jetbikes did not need buffing, neither did shuriken cannons.
It would have been ok if direavengers got the psudo-rending as part of their aspect (for a small points increase) to differentiate the from guardians rather than just +6" range and +1save. Or if bladestorm had just stayed as +1 shot for a loss of shooting for a turn.
Lets compare guardians to a veteran guardsman (almost same stats, same slot). For 2pts you get:
-+2 I.
-+ move and shoot heavy weapons
-+ battle focus
-+ psudo rending on basic guns
-+ access to OS WS rather than OS Chimera.
- unable to take 3 special weapons or doctrines (which are appropriatly costed for the advantage they bring, appart from the plasma gun being 5pts too much.)
Don't forget that they nerfed the Chimera too with the latest book
I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at here.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
niv-mizzet wrote: Because terminators did not need even more things that kill them easily.
And in a troop slot no less. That kind of ability is not a troop ability.
I'm hoping they keep speeding along with all the codex updates at breakneck speed so they can get back around to some of the ridic 6e books and blanderize them a bit back down here with the rest of us "have-nots."
I would love for them to re-do Daemons, Tau, and Eldar, and bring them in line with the rest of the 7th ed. books. And then of course, DA and CSM need to just be made better,
@Drasius: Thanks for the response. I'm afraid my forum-fu is a bit weak, so I'll try to respond to each point despite not knowing how to use the quote function properly.
Troop Tax: Hmm. So is the complaint about having bladestorm on troops that eldar can potentially have many shuriken-wielding units? Is it that the points that go into troops feel less wasted than points that go into other armies troops? Some combination of the above? I'm all for having books balanced against each other, but if many books have weak troops that make their players feel like they're wasting points, wouldn't it be better to give lacklustre troop options a slight boost rather than taking things away from the units that carry their weight? That said, I'd probably be fine with bladestorm vanishing altogether. Most games, it simply doesn't do enough for me to miss it all that much. More of a nice bonus than something I can depend on.
Troop Comparisons: You make excellent points here. According to my (very sloppy) number crunching, the difference in killing power between a 10 man marine squad with special and heavy weapons wasn't distressingly different, but the cost for similar results was definitely significant. The difference between marines and avengers still doesn't look too terrible on paper. I believe you're right when it comes to vets, however. As you've pointed out, many of the other troops I brought up were "strong," but not dissimilar in ability to avengers/guardians. I see your points here though.
Regarding the Wave Serpent: I won't argue that the WS isn't broken. I"m of the opinion that it's the main thing in our codex that needs to be fixed.
So, if the issue is that avengers/guardians are just plain better than some other troops, would you say it would be a better move for the game for the next codex to simply remove bladestorm altogether or to increase avenger and guardian costs?
If the latter, how much would you say bladestorm is worth on each unit? If the former, do you feel avengers, guardians, etc. would be worth their current points with such a change? I feel that avengers might be as their range and battle focus means that they can potentially hide behind corners and essentially be a harassment unit. Guardians would become a ~100 point heavy weapon platform like in our last codex. Which is pretty much what they seem to be now, but hopping out of a wave serpent would be a bit riskier for them as they'd have less killing power. Guardian jetbikes would still be a solid choice though.
Wyldhunt wrote: @Drasius: Thanks for the response. I'm afraid my forum-fu is a bit weak, so I'll try to respond to each point despite not knowing how to use the quote function properly.
Troop Tax: Hmm. So is the complaint about having bladestorm on troops that eldar can potentially have many shuriken-wielding units? Is it that the points that go into troops feel less wasted than points that go into other armies troops? Some combination of the above? I'm all for having books balanced against each other, but if many books have weak troops that make their players feel like they're wasting points, wouldn't it be better to give lacklustre troop options a slight boost rather than taking things away from the units that carry their weight? That said, I'd probably be fine with bladestorm vanishing altogether. Most games, it simply doesn't do enough for me to miss it all that much. More of a nice bonus than something I can depend on.
Troop Comparisons: You make excellent points here. According to my (very sloppy) number crunching, the difference in killing power between a 10 man marine squad with special and heavy weapons wasn't distressingly different, but the cost for similar results was definitely significant. The difference between marines and avengers still doesn't look too terrible on paper. I believe you're right when it comes to vets, however. As you've pointed out, many of the other troops I brought up were "strong," but not dissimilar in ability to avengers/guardians. I see your points here though.
Regarding the Wave Serpent: I won't argue that the WS isn't broken. I"m of the opinion that it's the main thing in our codex that needs to be fixed.
So, if the issue is that avengers/guardians are just plain better than some other troops, would you say it would be a better move for the game for the next codex to simply remove bladestorm altogether or to increase avenger and guardian costs?
If the latter, how much would you say bladestorm is worth on each unit? If the former, do you feel avengers, guardians, etc. would be worth their current points with such a change? I feel that avengers might be as their range and battle focus means that they can potentially hide behind corners and essentially be a harassment unit. Guardians would become a ~100 point heavy weapon platform like in our last codex. Which is pretty much what they seem to be now, but hopping out of a wave serpent would be a bit riskier for them as they'd have less killing power. Guardian jetbikes would still be a solid choice though.
Personally, the way I see it, change Bladestorms effect. Have it always wound on a 6, or make a To Wound roll of 6 become AP 4 or something of the like. And Guardians need to be WS/BS 3 again.
I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at here.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
niv-mizzet wrote: Because terminators did not need even more things that kill them easily.
And in a troop slot no less. That kind of ability is not a troop ability.
I'm hoping they keep speeding along with all the codex updates at breakneck speed so they can get back around to some of the ridic 6e books and blanderize them a bit back down here with the rest of us "have-nots."
I would love for them to re-do Daemons, Tau, and Eldar, and bring them in line with the rest of the 7th ed. books. And then of course, DA and CSM need to just be made better,
Niv-Mizzet said he can't wait for the OP 6ed codexes to be addressed and nerfed. I said that would leave just the Necron Codex on a pedestal since all the other 7th ed codexes are pretty balanced. That's what I was referring to. Should have quoted. Sorry.
Niv-Mizzet said he can't wait for the OP 6ed codexes to be addressed and nerfed. I said that would leave just the Necron Codex on a pedestal since all the other 7th ed codexes are pretty balanced. That's what I was referring to. Should have quoted. Sorry.
Wyldhunt wrote: @Drasius: Thanks for the response. I'm afraid my forum-fu is a bit weak, so I'll try to respond to each point despite not knowing how to use the quote function properly.
Troop Tax: Hmm. So is the complaint about having bladestorm on troops that eldar can potentially have many shuriken-wielding units? Is it that the points that go into troops feel less wasted than points that go into other armies troops? Some combination of the above? I'm all for having books balanced against each other, but if many books have weak troops that make their players feel like they're wasting points, wouldn't it be better to give lacklustre troop options a slight boost rather than taking things away from the units that carry their weight? That said, I'd probably be fine with bladestorm vanishing altogether. Most games, it simply doesn't do enough for me to miss it all that much. More of a nice bonus than something I can depend on.
Troop Comparisons: You make excellent points here. According to my (very sloppy) number crunching, the difference in killing power between a 10 man marine squad with special and heavy weapons wasn't distressingly different, but the cost for similar results was definitely significant. The difference between marines and avengers still doesn't look too terrible on paper. I believe you're right when it comes to vets, however. As you've pointed out, many of the other troops I brought up were "strong," but not dissimilar in ability to avengers/guardians. I see your points here though.
Regarding the Wave Serpent: I won't argue that the WS isn't broken. I"m of the opinion that it's the main thing in our codex that needs to be fixed.
So, if the issue is that avengers/guardians are just plain better than some other troops, would you say it would be a better move for the game for the next codex to simply remove bladestorm altogether or to increase avenger and guardian costs?
If the latter, how much would you say bladestorm is worth on each unit? If the former, do you feel avengers, guardians, etc. would be worth their current points with such a change? I feel that avengers might be as their range and battle focus means that they can potentially hide behind corners and essentially be a harassment unit. Guardians would become a ~100 point heavy weapon platform like in our last codex. Which is pretty much what they seem to be now, but hopping out of a wave serpent would be a bit riskier for them as they'd have less killing power. Guardian jetbikes would still be a solid choice though.
The complaint is that Eldar troops units can deal with any single infantry unit in the game, while every other unit that isn't Firewarriors or Necrons warriors sucks a big bag of d...readnaughts. An assault cannon is 24" Str6 AP4 Assault 4, rending. A Shuri Cat is 18" Str4 AP5 Assault 2, pseudo-rending. Your troops get one each for 13 points. Space Marines can take 1 per 5 men on one of the worst units in the book and it costs 20 points on top of the 40 point chassis and is in elites. The point is that it's much easier to bring 1 or 2 codices back into line rather than buffing the other 15 or more to match. The main issue with making troops feel worthwhile is that then what's the point of having stuff in the Elite/FA/HS slots if troops are just as good? If troops are just as good as E/FA/HS choices, then why not spam them and get ObSec everything and not give up points in Big Guns or Scouring. Troops are meant to be the bulk with other slots providing flavour, but since 40k doesn't work that way anymore (and it's arguable if it ever really did), it's all gone to hell.
As for how to fix it, I'm not 100%, but toning bladestorm down to being "to wound rolls of a 6 forces a re-roll of successful saves" would be my suggestion, though I would be putting Guardians back to BS3 personally for fluff reasons and to differentiate them from DA. Not sure about how i'd adjust points cost given those changes though, I'd have to actually crunch the numbers to get something that ensure they're not too good or too bad. Don't get me started on jetbikes.
How, exactly, are 10 dire avengers equal to 5 assault cannons? I could have sworn that they wounded meq on a 4+, couldn't hurt vehicles above armor 10, and only negated 4+ armor on a 6 to wound. Blade storm is supposed to make up for our inability to take a punch, we have a serious right hand with a glass jaw. The wind riders being the exception, but I count mine as 4+armor so auto cannons and assault cannons can destroy them like the fluff says they should.
The dire avengers have always been stated as being good enough to be comparable to elites of other armies. Literally stated as such in the 4th ed codex. So, try comparing them to other elites instead, and see where they end up.
And yes, we get them as troops, so we get to field more. With unbound, formations, and army specific detachments that is not even an argument. What a lot of people want to see is the guys getting out the the wave serpents to be lackluster enough to validate the wave serpents nonsense. That isn't the case. I nerf the army I play in ways that make sense to me, most don't bother. Doesn't mean I don't know what it is that actually need fixing
vipoid wrote: What if bladestorm was changed to 'to-hit rolls of 6 wound automatically'?
Would that help?
That, is actually legit. The harlequins have similar wargear (but this wouldn't be ap2) and would show how devastating the huge amount of shots fired really are, without destroying everyone's terminators and monstrous creatures. I am so going to see what my group thinks of that change
vipoid wrote: What if bladestorm was changed to 'to-hit rolls of 6 wound automatically'?
Would that help?
That, is actually legit. The harlequins have similar wargear (but this wouldn't be ap2) and would show how devastating the huge amount of shots fired really are, without destroying everyone's terminators and monstrous creatures. I am so going to see what my group thinks of that change
It honestly would make it well-balanced. It most importantly doesn't ignore armor, which is where the hate actually came from. The only question is then how do people feel about it being a (somewhat) lesser version of gauss.
Quickjager wrote: That is an entirely different subject. Lets not get into it,
Agreed.
I agree. I collect 'crons btw so wasn't being biased :-p.
Fair enough. I do agree that Crons are the strongest 7th ed. book so far, but thats beside the point.
Making them auto wound on 6s is a good start, and Guardians being WS/BS 3 needs to happen. My reasoning for that is why would your carpenters and shop keeps be BETTER than Guardsmen, who in all reality, are better skilled then our current-day military. And from a game perspective, Eldar can crap out Twin-linked psychic powers like no one's business, so why would they get that and then STILL have massed BS 4 infantry.
Also, someone earlier mentioned that it wasn't Bladestorm itself thats stupid, but the fact that it combined with everything else is too much. I agree to this statement. Also, when you look at Gauss Flayers, Boltguns, Lasguns, Fleshborers, and Shootas, all of those are well balanced with the rest of the codex. Gauss Flayers can kill vehicles, yes. That is our most reliable way to do so, since we can't take heavy weapons teams or special weapons in squads. Boltguns compliment the tons of specialist weapons and heavy weapons squads they have access to. Lasguns kill things on weight of fire alone, and are supposed to be combined with other things that kill higher T targets and vehicles. Fleshborers are meh, but can be taken in large enough numbers that they hurt. Shootas, same thing.
There is almost no downside to Bladestorm, as there is with every other troop weapon in the game. And why bring heavy weapon squads when your entire troop force can kill terminators and MCs like it's nothing? And then, add in the Serpent Shield, Wraithknights, and super fast jetbikes, it's just too much man.
The specialist thing has been brought up a couple times, so let me expound upon it:
Every codex, even IK to an extent require choices. In a limited point value, we have to balance our lists to take on the various possibilities we could be faced with. Can I kill hordes? Do I have the right tools to deal with armor? What about flyers? And do I have enough obsec?
Every codex, except Eldar. They don't have that problem, because for 200 points you get 2 obsec units, one that can move 12 in and attack with full effectiveness (average of 7.5 TL S6/7 shots) and jink on a 3+, and another that puts out 10 S4 rending shots from an average of 21.5" away.
Light armor? Check. Hordes? Check. Flyers? Check (remember that TL autocannons used to be GK's go-to for anti-flyer). Scoring? Well the vehicle can move 30" if it needs to, so check.
If I want tactical marines to beat 2+ saves, I have to buy a plasma gun, which means that I can't buy a melta or a flamer. And there's no DT I can buy them that puts out that much firepower, so I'll have to use a heavy or elite slot for that. But then will I have enough obsec?
Bladestorm is just another one of the ways Eldar can produce a true TAC list in a way that no other codex can.
greyknight12 wrote: The specialist thing has been brought up a couple times, so let me expound upon it:
Every codex, even IK to an extent require choices. In a limited point value, we have to balance our lists to take on the various possibilities we could be faced with. Can I kill hordes? Do I have the right tools to deal with armor? What about flyers? And do I have enough obsec?
Every codex, except Eldar. They don't have that problem, because for 200 points you get 2 obsec units, one that can move 12 in and attack with full effectiveness (average of 7.5 TL S6/7 shots) and jink on a 3+, and another that puts out 10 S4 rending shots from an average of 21.5" away.
Light armor? Check. Hordes? Check. Flyers? Check (remember that TL autocannons used to be GK's go-to for anti-flyer). Scoring? Well the vehicle can move 30" if it needs to, so check.
If I want tactical marines to beat 2+ saves, I have to buy a plasma gun, which means that I can't buy a melta or a flamer. And there's no DT I can buy them that puts out that much firepower, so I'll have to use a heavy or elite slot for that. But then will I have enough obsec?
Bladestorm is just another one of the ways Eldar can produce a true TAC list in a way that no other codex can.
The wave serpent isn't what is being discussed here, I feel a lot of the issues people have with blade storm is they want the thing in the ridiculous transport to be weak to compensate for its awesomeness. If you put dire avengers in a rhino, no one would have the same level of issue with them as a unit. Even if they are in a falcon, most of your complaints become less of an issue. In this post, the only obnoxious thing is the wave serpent. When I play mine, the range is 6" and my scatter lasers only give the twin linking on a hit roll of 6, not allowed on snapshots. Nobody complains about my eldar, because I recognized how much of it was nonsense.
I know, not everybody will nerf their own army, or there are people who would claim to feel like they are being treated with kid gloves if someone did this. Those people can fight my full strength, non spammy eldar then
As for how to fix it, I'm not 100%, but toning bladestorm down to being "to wound rolls of a 6 forces a re-roll of successful saves" would be my suggestion, though I would be putting Guardians back to BS3 personally for fluff reasons and to differentiate them from DA. Not sure about how i'd adjust points cost given those changes though, I'd have to actually crunch the numbers to get something that ensure they're not too good or too bad. Don't get me started on jetbikes.
That seems reasonable to me. It would reflect the snazzy eldar technology, and it would differentiate the skill levels of aspect warriors and guardians. Though I still like the idea of giving guardians access to an upgrade that boosts their BS to 4 that can be sniped/barraged out.
And I do sort of see peoples' points about bladestorm now. I still feel it gets complained on a bit more than it deserves, and liking shuripults to assault cannons feels a bit unfair, but I see your points.
Though I agree with most of the things that have been said against Bladestorm, I want to bring up a more general concern I have that connects to it. With the things like Bladestorm or Distortion or other abilities that give special power on a To Wound roll of 6, it is incredibly difficult to point cost them effectively. In reality, a squad of Dire Avengers is not going to statistically wipe out a squad of Terminators every turn because of Bladestorm, but the statistical part is not important.
I play against Eldar quite a lot and am lucky enough that my opponent doesn't cheese out his list. I am not overly scared of Bladestorm, because it often doesn't do much. However, on the couple occasions when he has rolled very well with Bladestorm, having to remove 200+points of Terminators really hurt. That is the problem with abilities like this. If you cost the unit on the "potential" damage, the controlling player will usually feel let down at the ineffectiveness of their unit for the points paid. However, if you cost the unit based on the likely damage output, it leaves the gate open for those odd rolls where a very valuable unit gets destroyed by something that is a third of its cost. You are also probably hearing more complaints about this because those memories stick in your head.
Ultimately I would like to see a lot these effects removed or at least changed so that they don't cause a unit to occasionally punch way above their weight class. However, that is just my opinion.
I've had people complain about bladestorm and wave serpents to me when I've mentioned I play Eldar. Out of those things my list has 2 shuriken pistols in it total.
greyknight12 wrote: They don't have that problem, because for 200 points you get 2 obsec units, one that can move 12 in and attack with full effectiveness (average of 7.5 TL S6/7 shots) and jink on a 3+, and another that puts out 10 S4 rending shots from an average of 21.5" away.
I'm curious as to where you are getting an average of 21.5".
n0t_u wrote: I've had people complain about bladestorm and wave serpents to me when I've mentioned I play Eldar. Out of those things my list has 2 shuriken pistols in it total.
I've only heard one player complain about bladestorm, and that was in conjunction with Overwatch and Battle Focus.
greyknight12 wrote: They don't have that problem, because for 200 points you get 2 obsec units, one that can move 12 in and attack with full effectiveness (average of 7.5 TL S6/7 shots) and jink on a 3+, and another that puts out 10 S4 rending shots from an average of 21.5" away.
I'm curious as to where you are getting an average of 21.5".
n0t_u wrote: I've had people complain about bladestorm and wave serpents to me when I've mentioned I play Eldar. Out of those things my list has 2 shuriken pistols in it total.
I've only heard one player complain about bladestorm, and that was in conjunction with Overwatch and Battle Focus.
With regards to range of the Dire Avengers guns - I imagine he is including Battle Focus
A S4 ap5 round is *twice* as likely to kill a Dire Avenger than a Marine.
Naked CSMTac squad vs DAs - same points.
18"+, CSM destroy DAs 12-18", Rends give DA an edge
0-12", CSM destroy DAs Melee, CSM destroy DAs.
Without bladestorm, DAs tie CSM at 12-18".
And that's naked CSM, which cost the same. And are widely considered crap.
DAs should be able to kill CSM under *some* conditions. So flat-out removing Blade storm is rough.
So let's look at Termies.
Tac Termies kill twice as many DAs as Marines at range. While dying about twice as fast as to boltguns. With an extra 6" range. And destroy DAs in melee even more than Tac marines. And can threaten just about anything in melee, especially vehicles.
TH/SS Termies. Die a little faster to DAs than Boltguns, but not much. And thump even more in melee than Tac Termies.
Tides and such:
T6 2+/5++
DA: (2/3)(1/6)(2/3) = 2/27 wounds/shot
Marines: (2/3)(1/6)(1/6) = 1/54 wounds/shot. Yay? But, from a 10-man:
DAs get 1.48 wounds/round
Marines get 0.37 wounds/round.
Melee:
DAs: (1/2)(1/6)(1/6) = 1/72
Marines: (1/2)(1/2)(1/6) = 1/24
DAs do more shooting but less melee for the same points, sure, but neither is effective.
Now, vehicles. Against AV10 at range, its the same. Against AV11/12, Marines have a small chance (2/3)(1/3) to hurt it.
But in melee:
DAs: (0) HP/round
Marines: (2/3)(1/2) = 1/3.
So, again, 10-man vs 10-man, DAs can't hope, CSMs get 3.3... HP, or enough to hull most vehicles.
Bladestorm is good, but its not *that* good.
And the AC comparison? That's a s6 ap4 weapon base. S4ap5 not-real-rending is absurdly worse.
And Guardians? Their guns are basically a way of holding a point. Saying 'come close and I'll bite you'. If they're a threat, try shooting them? Like, with boltguns? They die *four times* as quickly to Boltguns as Marines. So they'll only get in range if you approach them without hurting them, if you ignore them as they approach, or if they have a dedicated Cheese Serpent. Then, they do a little more than their points of any other troops, but they should if they get the drop on you with 12" guns.
All that said, I wouldn't be adverse to:
- Stripping it from Guardians and dropping their WS/BS, provided their points were adjusted (heck, I've suggested removing battle focus, too, in my Eldar suggestions)
-Removing it from ShuriKannons, for consistency if its removed from basic shiriCats
-Possibly replace it on DAs with to-hit-of-6-autowounds. Seems more fluffy than the pseudo-rending.
Alternately, make it AP3.
that said, just removing it would be a hard kick in the groin. How often do you see 9ppm Fire Warriors carrying their Assault2 18" s5 pinning carbines? Never. 18" is short. And Battle focus doesn't come close to closing the additional 6" most infantry get.
Everyone's always complaining about serpents - it's easy to forget how OP everything else in the Eldar codex is. Guardians for example. 10 man with star cannon costs 110 points. It averages 4.5 ap2 wounds to t4 units. Vs T 6 they only average a little less. This unit whilst being cheap is able to handle basically every elite infantry option in the game.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bharring wrote: A S4 ap5 round is *twice* as likely to kill a Dire Avenger than a Marine.
Naked CSMTac squad vs DAs - same points.
18"+, CSM destroy DAs 12-18", Rends give DA an edge
0-12", CSM destroy DAs Melee, CSM destroy DAs.
Without bladestorm, DAs tie CSM at 12-18".
And that's naked CSM, which cost the same. And are widely considered crap.
DAs should be able to kill CSM under *some* conditions. So flat-out removing Blade storm is rough.
So let's look at Termies.
Tac Termies kill twice as many DAs as Marines at range. While dying about twice as fast as to boltguns. With an extra 6" range. And destroy DAs in melee even more than Tac marines. And can threaten just about anything in melee, especially vehicles.
TH/SS Termies. Die a little faster to DAs than Boltguns, but not much. And thump even more in melee than Tac Termies.
Tides and such:
T6 2+/5++
DA: (2/3)(1/6)(2/3) = 2/27 wounds/shot
Marines: (2/3)(1/6)(1/6) = 1/54 wounds/shot. Yay? But, from a 10-man:
DAs get 1.48 wounds/round
Marines get 0.37 wounds/round.
Melee:
DAs: (1/2)(1/6)(1/6) = 1/72
Marines: (1/2)(1/2)(1/6) = 1/24
DAs do more shooting but less melee for the same points, sure, but neither is effective.
Now, vehicles. Against AV10 at range, its the same. Against AV11/12, Marines have a small chance (2/3)(1/3) to hurt it.
But in melee:
DAs: (0) HP/round
Marines: (2/3)(1/2) = 1/3.
So, again, 10-man vs 10-man, DAs can't hope, CSMs get 3.3... HP, or enough to hull most vehicles.
Bladestorm is good, but its not *that* good.
And the AC comparison? That's a s6 ap4 weapon base. S4ap5 not-real-rending is absurdly worse.
And Guardians? Their guns are basically a way of holding a point. Saying 'come close and I'll bite you'. If they're a threat, try shooting them? Like, with boltguns? They die *four times* as quickly to Boltguns as Marines. So they'll only get in range if you approach them without hurting them, if you ignore them as they approach, or if they have a dedicated Cheese Serpent. Then, they do a little more than their points of any other troops, but they should if they get the drop on you with 12" guns.
All that said, I wouldn't be adverse to:
- Stripping it from Guardians and dropping their WS/BS, provided their points were adjusted (heck, I've suggested removing battle focus, too, in my Eldar suggestions)
-Removing it from ShuriKannons, for consistency if its removed from basic shiriCats
-Possibly replace it on DAs with to-hit-of-6-autowounds. Seems more fluffy than the pseudo-rending.
Alternately, make it AP3.
that said, just removing it would be a hard kick in the groin. How often do you see 9ppm Fire Warriors carrying their Assault2 18" s5 pinning carbines? Never. 18" is short. And Battle focus doesn't come close to closing the additional 6" most infantry get.
Serious question...did terminators work their way up the field to shoot at guardians or DA - or did they actually intend to kill something important this game?
ClockworkZion wrote: I'm curious, how does Bladestorm stack up vs. Crons compared to other weapons like Bolters?
blade storm is worthless vs wraiths but serpents are EXCELLENT vs them. Probably the only army that has no trouble bringing them down. Vs immortals and warriors - it's still probably the best you can hope for from a cheap weapon. Rending IMO is one of the more powerful abilities in the game.
ClockworkZion wrote: I'm curious, how does Bladestorm stack up vs. Crons compared to other weapons like Bolters?
blade storm is worthless vs wraiths but serpents are EXCELLENT vs them. Probably the only army that has no trouble bringing them down. Vs immortals and warriors - it's still probably the best you can hope for from a cheap weapon. Rending IMO is one of the more powerful abilities in the game.
Rending is only good on large numbers of dice. Rending is a crap rule on assault cannons, since the Imperium can't mass them up.
Umm, why would Tac Termies work their way up the field to shoot things with drastically shorter range?
And if Guardians and DAs aren't important enough for *storm bolter* shots, why complain about them?
Not saying Termies are a great counter, just saying DAs and Guardians don't kill Termies nearly as readily as most seem to believe. Most think Termies are junk against anything.
Guardians may be cheap compared to Tac Marines, but they cost nearly double basic Guardsmen, and cost the same as a Fire Warrior.
Fire Warriors. 30" range. +1S. 4+ armor. So, stronger hit at well over double range while being more survivable. In exchange for Blade storm and Battle focus. Seems reasonable.
Compared to basic Guardsmen, half the range for +1 BS and S, and 1/6 of all hits rend. Pretty good. For 9ppm vs 5ppm. Doesn't seem unfair. Same survivability, harder hitting gun, but half the range and nearly twice the cost. Not seeing the problem.
Yes, they can move their heavy weapon.
Brightlance vs Lascannon? 12" shorter range, 1 less S at AV12-, one more at AV12. Unless facing Land Raider spam, advantage Lascannon. Cheaper too, I think.
Shuriken Cannon vs Heavy Bolter. +1S and < 1 AP2 wound every other round base ap5 vs 12" more range and stock AP4. Side grade at best. AP4 might not sound like much, but this weapon class is optimal at handling things that are 4+ anyways, so that nearly doubles its output.
Star Cannon vs Plasma Cannon: Same range. 2 shots vs blast. PC has s7 but Gets Hot. Seems fair to me.
Autocannon vs Scatter Laser. +1 S, +12", and AP4 vs twice the shots at AP6. Seems fair.
EML vs ML. Ap4 on the blast + pinning. Simply better.
Lasgun vs Shurikat. Lasgun has twice the range, but shurikats have s4 and pseudorending.
12" is a lot of range. If Guardians always rolled 6s to run, and could depend on it, Imperial would still win on range, because it puts Guard equivalents 6" closer to what kills them easily (anything).
Guardians pay more for their heavy weapons than their imperial counterparts. They tend to be more focused at what they do, but worse at everything else.
I don't get why you think Guardians - heavy weapon or no - outclasses Guardsmen with the same configuration. Especially when you have nearly 2 guardsmen for every Guardian.
"Autocannon vs Scatter Laser. +1 S, +12", and AP4 vs twice the shots at AP6. Seems fair. "
Not even remotely fair. But please continue. For even more lulz, compare it to the assault cannon. SL are one of the biggest cheeses in the game. They have been since 5th at least.
Martel732 wrote: "Autocannon vs Scatter Laser. +1 S, +12", and AP4 vs twice the shots at AP6. Seems fair. "
Not even remotely fair. But please continue. For even more lulz, compare it to the assault cannon. SL are one of the biggest cheeses in the game. They have been since 5th at least.
Don't Scatter Lasers also cause shots at the same target to be twin linked after? Or is that something else?
Martel732 wrote: "Autocannon vs Scatter Laser. +1 S, +12", and AP4 vs twice the shots at AP6. Seems fair. "
Not even remotely fair. But please continue. For even more lulz, compare it to the assault cannon. SL are one of the biggest cheeses in the game. They have been since 5th at least.
Don't Scatter Lasers also cause shots at the same target to be twin linked after? Or is that something else?
Yes, they do that too. They are total BS.
As for bladestorm itself, I guess it's not THAT bad, it's just a kick in the jimmies after all the other Eldar cheese you have to wade through to get to close range against them. CSM was forced to move beyond Codex:helldrake, but Eldar are still in that Codex: Waveserpent zone.
Pop an AV12 tank 48" away.
AC: 2x(2/3)(1/3), half are pens
SL: move up t1. T2 4x(2/3)(1/6).
Assuming they're both in range (likely), they strip the same number of HP, but half of the AC shots are pens. AC outclasses SL.
Shooting DAs or FW, assuming both are in range (advantage: AC), exact same numbers killed.
AC does better at t5+ 4+ or worse, although that's rare.
AC does better against penning anything AV11+, better at HPing anything AV12+. AV10 front armor isn't common.
So SL does better at more common infantry, unless they're t5+.
AC does better against AV11+.
AC has better range
AC is cheaper on Guardsmen than SL is on Guardians (what we're talking about).
It looks close to me.
Automatically Appended Next Post: As for twin linking, let's factor it in! Yay, in this case, the Guardian gets to twinlink all his other shots! Which, as infantry, is 0.
Shuriken Cannon vs Heavy Bolter. +1S and < 1 AP2 wound every other round base ap5 vs 12" more range and stock AP4. Side grade at best. AP4 might not sound like much, but this weapon class is optimal at handling things that are 4+ anyways, so that nearly doubles its output.
Martel732 wrote: "Autocannon vs Scatter Laser. +1 S, +12", and AP4 vs twice the shots at AP6. Seems fair. "
Not even remotely fair. But please continue. For even more lulz, compare it to the assault cannon. SL are one of the biggest cheeses in the game. They have been since 5th at least.
Don't Scatter Lasers also cause shots at the same target to be twin linked after? Or is that something else?
Yep.
But, it's fair really because getting a single hit with 4 BS4 shots is reeeeally hard.
SL generate twice as many wounds against most infantry models. That's the most relevant stat in most circumstances. The SL is just there to twin link the bigger guns in the anti-tank case. You can rationalize all you want, but the SL is a total cheese weapon.
" (what we're talking about). "
I'm talking about SL in general. Not guardians. I can't tell you the last time I saw a foot guardian. I think it was 3rd edition.
So SL is +12 inches. nice.
ACAPs 4+ saves, and rends.
Against GEQ, AC denies their save
Against MEQ and TEQ, AC rends about once every other round
Against light vehicles (AV10-11), AC = SL Against mid vehicles (AV12), AC pens where SL glances.
Against heavy vehicles (AV13+), AC can still pen, SL cannot.
(AC actually outperforms Lascannons vs AV14, if you're not looking to explodes)
For 12" range, that's a lot of wins in the AC category.
Or did you want to compare it to the ShuriKanon? One more shot, ap4 vs ap5, actual-rending vs only-infantry. Same range.
Assault cannon is a crap weapon because of what platforms can purchase the assault cannon.
SL is both an amazing weapon AND comes on amazing platforms. The SL is so much better in practice I want to melt down all my models with ACs with a heat gun. Yes, the Eldar are THAT frustrating. The range difference alone makes an enormous difference on the table top.
This thread is about Blade storm. In particular, the current parts are about Guardians vs Guardsmen.
The other relevant part could be twin linking Cannons. Basically, one extra shot each round. With only a 1/6 chance to rend. A twin linked bs4 shuriken cannon is nearly as good against infantry and still much worse against armor than an Assault Cannon.
Bharring wrote: This thread is about Blade storm. In particular, the current parts are about Guardians vs Guardsmen.
The other relevant part could be twin linking Cannons. Basically, one extra shot each round. With only a 1/6 chance to rend. A twin linked bs4 shuriken cannon is nearly as good against infantry and still much worse against armor than an Assault Cannon.
It's hard to look at blade storm in a vacuum. It's hard to keep threads like these on track because of all the problems with Eldar in 6/7th ed. Eldar units are functionally superior to the sum of their parts. Imperial units have a tendency to be functionally worse than the sum of their parts.
So SL is +12 inches. nice.
ACAPs 4+ saves, and rends.
Against GEQ, AC denies their save
Against MEQ and TEQ, AC rends about once every other round
Against light vehicles (AV10-11), AC = SL Against mid vehicles (AV12), AC pens where SL glances.
Against heavy vehicles (AV13+), AC can still pen, SL cannot.
(AC actually outperforms Lascannons vs AV14, if you're not looking to explodes)
For 12" range, that's a lot of wins in the AC category.
Or did you want to compare it to the ShuriKanon? One more shot, ap4 vs ap5, actual-rending vs only-infantry. Same range.
Assault Cannon is an amazing weapon.
You're right.
Well, you've taken a Scatter Laser on your Guardians, so I'll counter by taking an assault cannon in my IG Infantry Squad. Oh... wait...
So SL is +12 inches. nice.
ACAPs 4+ saves, and rends.
Against GEQ, AC denies their save
Against MEQ and TEQ, AC rends about once every other round
Against light vehicles (AV10-11), AC = SL Against mid vehicles (AV12), AC pens where SL glances.
Against heavy vehicles (AV13+), AC can still pen, SL cannot.
(AC actually outperforms Lascannons vs AV14, if you're not looking to explodes)
For 12" range, that's a lot of wins in the AC category.
Or did you want to compare it to the ShuriKanon? One more shot, ap4 vs ap5, actual-rending vs only-infantry. Same range.
Assault Cannon is an amazing weapon.
You're right.
Well, you've taken a Scatter Laser on your Guardians, so I'll counter by taking an assault cannon in my IG Infantry Squad. Oh... wait...
Possibly something of an aside, but one thing that really depresses me is the sheer variety of weapons Eldar get, whilst DE are basically stuck with 'lances', 'poison', 'more lances' and 'more poison'.
That's why I didn't include it orignally. I was asked to write that one up.
Im not really sure what heavy weapons are available where in IG armies. I was just comparing Eldar heavy weapons with Imperial heavy weapons. Originally left out the Assault Cannon because it seemed too rare.
vipoid wrote: Possibly something of an aside, but one thing that really depresses me is the sheer variety of weapons Eldar get, whilst DE are basically stuck with 'lances', 'poison', 'more lances' and 'more poison'.
Yeah, the DE get the shaft for sure. Much worse than IoM. No argument here. But I'd say that both IoM and DE have popguns compared to Eldar.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bharring wrote: That's why I didn't include it orignally. I was asked to write that one up.
Im not really sure what heavy weapons are available where in IG armies. I was just comparing Eldar heavy weapons with Imperial heavy weapons. Originally left out the Assault Cannon because it seemed too rare.
Yeah. Rare, indeed. Because it's overcosted and almost every platform that can take it has a fatal flaw. As an imperial player, I'd take SL over almost anything in my arsenal and then have other plans for anything I can spam down with S6.
ClockworkZion wrote: I'm curious, how does Bladestorm stack up vs. Crons compared to other weapons like Bolters?
blade storm is worthless vs wraiths but serpents are EXCELLENT vs them. Probably the only army that has no trouble bringing them down. Vs immortals and warriors - it's still probably the best you can hope for from a cheap weapon. Rending IMO is one of the more powerful abilities in the game.
Rending is only good on large numbers of dice. Rending is a crap rule on assault cannons, since the Imperium can't mass them up.
This is very true. Rending on a single 4 shot weapon is about equal to useless - when you stick it on a volume of fire of 20 and bs4 9 point units...now you have a sqaud thats about as effective or in a lot of cases more effective as plasmaguns vs heavy infantry. It's not hard to understand that rending requires volume of fire to be effective.
vipoid wrote: Possibly something of an aside, but one thing that really depresses me is the sheer variety of weapons Eldar get, whilst DE are basically stuck with 'lances', 'poison', 'more lances' and 'more poison'.
I never understood why the DE never had more blast template weapons. For units that move fast and are hard hitting, you think they would have more bombs, or indirect-fire weapons; hell biological warfare seems right up their alley with being able to deny maneuvering options.
ClockworkZion wrote: I'm curious, how does Bladestorm stack up vs. Crons compared to other weapons like Bolters?
blade storm is worthless vs wraiths but serpents are EXCELLENT vs them. Probably the only army that has no trouble bringing them down. Vs immortals and warriors - it's still probably the best you can hope for from a cheap weapon. Rending IMO is one of the more powerful abilities in the game.
Rending is only good on large numbers of dice. Rending is a crap rule on assault cannons, since the Imperium can't mass them up.
This is very true. Rending on a single 4 shot weapon is about equal to useless - when you stick it on a volume of fire of 20 and bs4 9 point units...now you have a sqaud thats about as effective or in a lot of cases more effective as plasmaguns vs heavy infantry. It's not hard to understand that rending requires volume of fire to be effective.
Tell that to the teeming hordes who don't understand why I hate the assault cannon.
Bharring wrote: If we're talking IG squad or Tac Marines versus Guardians or Dire Avengers, I call bull.
If we aren't comparing to Bladestorm platforms, not sure this is the thread for it.
As I said, you can't talk about Bladestorm in a vacuum. See, Bladestorm mostly comes into play AFTER people have trudged through all the other Eldar tricks. Bladestorm is the final insult before we get to assault the space elves. And is usually enough to finish off weakened squads.
OP, can you please change the title of this thread to "This Week's Eldar Complaint Thread"?
Seriously, though, Bladestorm is not going anywhere. GW just reprinted it in the Harlequin Codex. More likely is that the Wave Serpent and Battle Focus get the nerf bat, and DAs get a point increase.
ClockworkZion wrote: I'm curious, how does Bladestorm stack up vs. Crons compared to other weapons like Bolters?
blade storm is worthless vs wraiths but serpents are EXCELLENT vs them. Probably the only army that has no trouble bringing them down. Vs immortals and warriors - it's still probably the best you can hope for from a cheap weapon. Rending IMO is one of the more powerful abilities in the game.
Rending is only good on large numbers of dice. Rending is a crap rule on assault cannons, since the Imperium can't mass them up.
This is very true. Rending on a single 4 shot weapon is about equal to useless - when you stick it on a volume of fire of 20 and bs4 9 point units...now you have a sqaud thats about as effective or in a lot of cases more effective as plasmaguns vs heavy infantry. It's not hard to understand that rending requires volume of fire to be effective.
Tell that to the teeming hordes who don't understand why I hate the assault cannon.
I don't think you should hate assault cannons. When I take 3 Storm Talons they do their job quite well. You just can't get enough of them for cheap enough unless you spam storm talons. Their cost should be reduced on everything! considering the 24" nonsense.
Asmodas wrote: OP, can you please change the title of this thread to "This Week's Eldar Complaint Thread"?
Seriously, though, Bladestorm is not going anywhere. GW just reprinted it in the Harlequin Codex. More likely is that the Wave Serpent and Battle Focus get the nerf bat, and DAs get a point increase.
As I said, Bladestorm is not in a vacuum so it's hard for me to say just how strong it is. This idea seems fine to me.
ClockworkZion wrote: I'm curious, how does Bladestorm stack up vs. Crons compared to other weapons like Bolters?
blade storm is worthless vs wraiths but serpents are EXCELLENT vs them. Probably the only army that has no trouble bringing them down. Vs immortals and warriors - it's still probably the best you can hope for from a cheap weapon. Rending IMO is one of the more powerful abilities in the game.
Rending is only good on large numbers of dice. Rending is a crap rule on assault cannons, since the Imperium can't mass them up.
This is very true. Rending on a single 4 shot weapon is about equal to useless - when you stick it on a volume of fire of 20 and bs4 9 point units...now you have a sqaud thats about as effective or in a lot of cases more effective as plasmaguns vs heavy infantry. It's not hard to understand that rending requires volume of fire to be effective.
Tell that to the teeming hordes who don't understand why I hate the assault cannon.
I don't think you should hate assault cannons. When I take 3 Storm Talons they do their job quite well. You just can't get enough of them for cheap enough unless you spam storm talons. Their cost should be reduced on everything! considering the 24" nonsense.
I seem to be lacking this piece of equipment in my codex. I'm sticking with hating assault cannons.
It's impossible to deconvolute. Bladestorm is indeed OP as the Eldar codex is currently constituted. It's just another synergy on top of other synergies. Take away some of the Eldar's tricks, and it might become fair. Give the Eldar a reason to field units on foot, and T3 4+ might become a thing. But as it stands now, Bladestorm is too much and T3 4+ might as well not exist.
He was saying that bladestorm never matters until after the game is lost. Everything else is just stupid good.
So, for clarification, isn't it reasonable to suppose that the problems he has are everything else, not Bladestorm?
DAs do *not* cost less than CSMs. They cost 1ppm less than Loyalists, but they get ATSKNF and Chapter Tactics.
So, you could say they cost less than Loyalist marines, but I think its fair to say they cost the same as Marines.
The Assault Cannon is derailing this thread, too. Its rarety was why it wasn't in the original writeup. It was written up at someone's request.
This thread is *supposed* to be about Bladestorm.
How bout this: For 1ppm, should naked Loyalist Marines be able to beat Dire Avengers in *all* circumstances?
Bladestorm is a major obstacle in making 2+ armor economically viable in the game. But I really don't use 2+ armor anyway. Because it sucks against things other than Bladestorm, but maybe not quite as badly. Maybe a Deathwing player should chime in.
Loyalist marines are a strange case again of the whole being less than the sum of its parts.
Most chapter tactics don't matter. Most of the time, ATSKNF doesn't matter. Most of the time, frag grenades don't matter. Most of the time, krak greandes don't matter. Most of the time, bolters can't inflict significant damage on my foe. And against Eldar, most of the time turns into none of time.
He was saying that bladestorm never matters until after the game is lost. Everything else is just stupid good.
So, for clarification, isn't it reasonable to suppose that the problems he has are everything else, not Bladestorm?
DAs do *not* cost less than CSMs. They cost 1ppm less than Loyalists, but they get ATSKNF and Chapter Tactics.
So, you could say they cost less than Loyalist marines, but I think its fair to say they cost the same as Marines.
The Assault Cannon is derailing this thread, too. Its rarety was why it wasn't in the original writeup. It was written up at someone's request.
This thread is *supposed* to be about Bladestorm.
How bout this: For 1ppm, should naked Loyalist Marines be able to beat Dire Avengers in *all* circumstances?
Ooooh are we talking DA? I thought we were talking Guardians this way we compare the most basic of the basic. If we start talking DA it gets a little.... testy, because we all know the reason someone takes DA.
Bharring wrote: A S4 ap5 round is *twice* as likely to kill a Dire Avenger than a Marine.
Naked CSMTac squad vs DAs - same points.
18"+, CSM destroy DAs 12-18", Rends give DA an edge
0-12", CSM destroy DAs Melee, CSM destroy DAs.
Without bladestorm, DAs tie CSM at 12-18".
And that's naked CSM, which cost the same. And are widely considered crap.
DAs should be able to kill CSM under *some* conditions. So flat-out removing Blade storm is rough.
So let's look at Termies.
Tac Termies kill twice as many DAs as Marines at range. While dying about twice as fast as to boltguns. With an extra 6" range. And destroy DAs in melee even more than Tac marines. And can threaten just about anything in melee, especially vehicles.
TH/SS Termies. Die a little faster to DAs than Boltguns, but not much. And thump even more in melee than Tac Termies.
Tides and such:
T6 2+/5++
DA: (2/3)(1/6)(2/3) = 2/27 wounds/shot
Marines: (2/3)(1/6)(1/6) = 1/54 wounds/shot. Yay? But, from a 10-man:
DAs get 1.48 wounds/round
Marines get 0.37 wounds/round.
Melee:
DAs: (1/2)(1/6)(1/6) = 1/72
Marines: (1/2)(1/2)(1/6) = 1/24
DAs do more shooting but less melee for the same points, sure, but neither is effective.
Now, vehicles. Against AV10 at range, its the same. Against AV11/12, Marines have a small chance (2/3)(1/3) to hurt it.
But in melee:
DAs: (0) HP/round
Marines: (2/3)(1/2) = 1/3.
So, again, 10-man vs 10-man, DAs can't hope, CSMs get 3.3... HP, or enough to hull most vehicles.
Bladestorm is good, but its not *that* good.
And the AC comparison? That's a s6 ap4 weapon base. S4ap5 not-real-rending is absurdly worse.
And Guardians? Their guns are basically a way of holding a point. Saying 'come close and I'll bite you'. If they're a threat, try shooting them? Like, with boltguns? They die *four times* as quickly to Boltguns as Marines. So they'll only get in range if you approach them without hurting them, if you ignore them as they approach, or if they have a dedicated Cheese Serpent. Then, they do a little more than their points of any other troops, but they should if they get the drop on you with 12" guns.
All that said, I wouldn't be adverse to:
- Stripping it from Guardians and dropping their WS/BS, provided their points were adjusted (heck, I've suggested removing battle focus, too, in my Eldar suggestions)
-Removing it from ShuriKannons, for consistency if its removed from basic shiriCats
-Possibly replace it on DAs with to-hit-of-6-autowounds. Seems more fluffy than the pseudo-rending.
Alternately, make it AP3.
that said, just removing it would be a hard kick in the groin. How often do you see 9ppm Fire Warriors carrying their Assault2 18" s5 pinning carbines? Never. 18" is short. And Battle focus doesn't come close to closing the additional 6" most infantry get.
One of our tau players uses the pinning carbines religiously, because pinning is GOOD. He uses a more mobile tau methodology to make it work, and I actually enjoy playing against it, as opposed to most tau armies.
@Bharring, lets just trade then... All my SM tacticals get Dire weapons and options, and all of your Dires take Bolters and SM heavies... shouldn't matter... since they're roughly equal in your opinion. You're weaker, but get more movement and are faster in combat... should be just fine.
I'd take this trade any day and twice on Sunday... how are the Eldar doing on your end?
So I die twice as fast as Marines to boltgun wounds, *and* Marines get the harder-hitting gun? Wtf?
I'm not arguing that the Boltgun is better than the Avenger Shuriken Catapult.
(That said, boltgun + battle focus vs 18" range means I get a *lot* of rounds of shooting before Marines ever get in range. So it wouldn't be a complete loss).
I'm arguing that, if the DA gun were outright worse, DAs would be outright worse than Marines. They pay a lot of points for that gun.
Automatically Appended Next Post: T3 -> T4 is huge
4+ -> 3+ is huge
Automatically Appended Next Post: @Lobukia,
In what situations should Marines be able to beat DAs? In what situations, if any, should DAs be able to beat Marines?
As has been stated, the only REALLY hard complaint against eldar is their serpents, and to a lesser extent the scatter laser.
When I reworked the math for the V.D.R., I noticed that the fewer options an army had for chassis design, the cheaper the guns were, especially when the vehicles had to take expensive upgrades like skimmer, or had to have terrible armor like war walkers. Just my $.02
Bharring wrote: So I die twice as fast as Marines to boltgun wounds, *and* Marines get the harder-hitting gun? Wtf?
I'm not arguing that the Boltgun is better than the Avenger Shuriken Catapult.
(That said, boltgun + battle focus vs 18" range means I get a *lot* of rounds of shooting before Marines ever get in range. So it wouldn't be a complete loss).
I'm arguing that, if the DA gun were outright worse, DAs would be outright worse than Marines. They pay a lot of points for that gun.
Automatically Appended Next Post: T3 -> T4 is huge
4+ -> 3+ is huge
Automatically Appended Next Post: @Lobukia,
In what situations should Marines be able to beat DAs? In what situations, if any, should DAs be able to beat Marines?
You are wrong t3 compared to t4 is quite insignificant when you compare the cost of t4 to t3. If i could take all my marines for less points at t3 I would, In a heartbeat.
I think any standard infantry having "special" guns is a slippery slope.
Really, except maybe Splinter Rifles, I think any standard "assault rifle" could, and should, be represented by a combination of S, AP and weapon type.
If we take the Bolter as a base line (and there's nothing inherently wrong with a bolter, it just pales in comparison to all the other options about) then variations on that can probably decently represent most line infantry weapons.
Historically, Catapults have been superior to Bolters, but would anyone find issue with 24", S4, Ap4, Assault 2, costed appropriately? (Eldar players try and be objective!)
Bharring wrote: So I die twice as fast as Marines to boltgun wounds, *and* Marines get the harder-hitting gun? Wtf?
I'm not arguing that the Boltgun is better than the Avenger Shuriken Catapult.
(That said, boltgun + battle focus vs 18" range means I get a *lot* of rounds of shooting before Marines ever get in range. So it wouldn't be a complete loss).
I'm arguing that, if the DA gun were outright worse, DAs would be outright worse than Marines. They pay a lot of points for that gun.
Automatically Appended Next Post: T3 -> T4 is huge
4+ -> 3+ is huge
Automatically Appended Next Post: @Lobukia,
In what situations should Marines be able to beat DAs? In what situations, if any, should DAs be able to beat Marines?
You are wrong t3 compared to t4 is quite insignificant when you compare the cost of t4 to t3. If i could take all my marines for less points at t3 I would, In a heartbeat.
So you're saying you'd play Sisters? A Battle Sister is -1T/S/WS/I for -2pts.
Bharring wrote: So I die twice as fast as Marines to boltgun wounds, *and* Marines get the harder-hitting gun? Wtf?
I'm not arguing that the Boltgun is better than the Avenger Shuriken Catapult.
(That said, boltgun + battle focus vs 18" range means I get a *lot* of rounds of shooting before Marines ever get in range. So it wouldn't be a complete loss).
I'm arguing that, if the DA gun were outright worse, DAs would be outright worse than Marines. They pay a lot of points for that gun.
Automatically Appended Next Post: T3 -> T4 is huge
4+ -> 3+ is huge
Automatically Appended Next Post: @Lobukia,
In what situations should Marines be able to beat DAs? In what situations, if any, should DAs be able to beat Marines?
You are wrong t3 compared to t4 is quite insignificant when you compare the cost of t4 to t3. If i could take all my marines for less points at t3 I would, In a heartbeat.
So you're saying you'd play Sisters? A Battle Sister is -1T/S/WS/I for -2pts.
Yeah sisters all much better than tactical marines - hands down better options. Let me take sister squads instead of tacs - I'd love that.
See, it's the whole, "Bladestorm is yet another thing you have to go through when facing eldar," that makes me quirk an eyebrow. We all know that serpents and some other eldar stuff needs to be toned down. I'm just perplexed that so many people think that bladestorm is one of those things.
When people say it's "yet another thing," that they have to deal with, and when they say, "Well, it won't really matter 'cause serpents," it makes me wonder if what they mean is, "Serpents are too good by themselves, therefore I'm frustrated with everything int he eldar book"
Is bladestorm itself, not serpents, not scatter lasers, but bladestorm itself actually causing people huge problems? I realize that nothing in a codex "exists in a vacuum," but my question is whether it's a problem in and of itself. When people say, "Well, it's a problem because you also have serpents and scatter lasers (and so on) to deal with, bladestorm is ridiculous!" From this, it sounds like bladestorm isn't really the issue. It sounds like the issue is the genuinely OP stuff that kills enough of your army for pretty much anything to be a threat to the remainder.
Those five man squads of avengers that your opponent is using to spam serpents are only doing about 1 rend each time they shoot, and they very possibly aren't inflicting any other wounds on top of that rend.
So much hate? I play eldar and I've never had a single person complain about bladestorm. They're too busy complaining about serpents and WK. There are definitely OP things in that codex, bladestorm isn't one of them.
My own complaint about bladestorm as an Eldar player is that it makes it psychologically difficult to justify taking, say, Dark Reapers or Shining Spears. Why should I spend points taking anti-MEQ specialists when I can just mass shuriken fire on them instead? It also further marginalizes Howling Banshees, but Howling Banshees are so worthless already that seeing them further marginalized is more laughable than anything else.
I want to play the "army of specialists" with dozens of moving parts all singing in perfect harmony, working together to destroy my enemies. In practice, though, it's way easier and more cost-effective just to mass shuriken weaponry for every nonvehicle threat and fill in with anti-tank as necessary.
Marsyas wrote: My own complaint about bladestorm as an Eldar player is that it makes it psychologically difficult to justify taking, say, Dark Reapers or Shining Spears. Why should I spend points taking anti-MEQ specialists when I can just mass shuriken fire on them instead? It also further marginalizes Howling Banshees, but Howling Banshees are so worthless already that seeing them further marginalized is more laughable than anything else.
I want to play the "army of specialists" with dozens of moving parts all singing in perfect harmony, working together to destroy my enemies. In practice, though, it's way easier and more cost-effective just to mass shuriken weaponry for every nonvehicle threat and fill in with anti-tank as necessary.
I'm with you there - why would you take an AP 3 weapon when your basic weapon has AP2 potential and is more effective for the cost. That about sums this debate up doesn't it? Gardians are more effective against meq than reapers?
Martel732 wrote: "Autocannon vs Scatter Laser. +1 S, +12", and AP4 vs twice the shots at AP6. Seems fair. "
Not even remotely fair. But please continue. For even more lulz, compare it to the assault cannon. SL are one of the biggest cheeses in the game. They have been since 5th at least.
Don't Scatter Lasers also cause shots at the same target to be twin linked after? Or is that something else?
Yes, they do that too. They are total BS.
As for bladestorm itself, I guess it's not THAT bad, it's just a kick in the jimmies after all the other Eldar cheese you have to wade through to get to close range against them. CSM was forced to move beyond Codex:helldrake, but Eldar are still in that Codex: Waveserpent zone.
I think you have the Scatter Laser rules wrong... It allows any model with the Scatter Laser to reroll any subsequent weapons that that same model fires. The Laser Lock is wasted on models with only Scatter Lasers as weapons. It's very useful, but it's definitely not as powerful as what you guys have stated above.
As for Bladestorm.. The weapons that have it are typically short-ranged.
130 points of avengers will kill something like 4 marines. 120 points of reapers will kill something like 4 marines, but they'll do it from across the board with thicker armor while also having the option of shooting krak missile equivalents into vehicles, MCs, etc. They also ignore jink. They have fewer bodies, so they're more susceptible to return fire, but their reach helps mitigate this against some armies.
Bharring wrote: So I die twice as fast as Marines to boltgun wounds, *and* Marines get the harder-hitting gun? Wtf?
I'm not arguing that the Boltgun is better than the Avenger Shuriken Catapult.
(That said, boltgun + battle focus vs 18" range means I get a *lot* of rounds of shooting before Marines ever get in range. So it wouldn't be a complete loss).
I'm arguing that, if the DA gun were outright worse, DAs would be outright worse than Marines. They pay a lot of points for that gun.
Automatically Appended Next Post: T3 -> T4 is huge
4+ -> 3+ is huge
Automatically Appended Next Post: @Lobukia,
In what situations should Marines be able to beat DAs? In what situations, if any, should DAs be able to beat Marines?
You are wrong t3 compared to t4 is quite insignificant when you compare the cost of t4 to t3. If i could take all my marines for less points at t3 I would, In a heartbeat.
So you're saying you'd play Sisters? A Battle Sister is -1T/S/WS/I for -2pts.
Yeah sisters all much better than tactical marines - hands down better options. Let me take sister squads instead of tacs - I'd love that.
Funny, because my opinion is that the points cost different represents a lot of BIG buffs between the two units. I mean those two points over my Battle Sisters gets you:
+1 WS +1 S
+1 T
+1 I
+Combat Squads
+ATSKNF +Chapter Tactics (which you can probably call a flat trade for Acts of Faith, but only just barely since Chapter Tactics get more uses)
That's a marked increase for a very small increase. The only advantage Sisters get is an extra T3 body on the table for every 6 Marines you take. And I mean the extra bodies help, but when your entire army is a 24" range army (sans Exorcists or FW Avengers) then you tend to lose those extra bodies pretty quickly.
But maybe that's just a "the grass is greener" thing cropping up.
Wyldhunt wrote: 130 points of avengers will kill something like 4 marines. 120 points of reapers will kill something like 4 marines, but they'll do it from across the board with thicker armor while also having the option of shooting krak missile equivalents into vehicles, MCs, etc. They also ignore jink. They have fewer bodies, so they're more susceptible to return fire, but their reach helps mitigate this against some armies.
While the avengers take up troop slots
Its honestly a psychological thing.
You expect something like Reapers to kill things since thats what they are bought for.
Having a troop choice being able to manhandle terminators while costing the same as other troops would sour anyone's apples.
"+1 WS +1 S
+1 T
+1 I
+Combat Squads
+ATSKNF +Chapter Tactics (which you can probably call a flat trade for Acts of Faith, but only just barely since Chapter Tactics get more uses) "
Mostly irrelevant against Eldar scatterlasers. Maybe IH chapter tactics.
ClockworkZion wrote: So you're saying you'd play Sisters? A Battle Sister is -1T/S/WS/I for -2pts.
Yeah sisters all much better than tactical marines - hands down better options. Let me take sister squads instead of tacs - I'd love that.
I hope this is sarcasm and not hyperbole that's gotten so over the top that it no longer realizes it's hyperbole.
Because that would be sad.
It's a consequence of firepower making it so everyone just wants to lose the least points as possible when that IA pie plate comes in. Or your squad takes 23 hits from scatterlasers.
Bharring wrote: So I die twice as fast as Marines to boltgun wounds, *and* Marines get the harder-hitting gun? Wtf?
I'm not arguing that the Boltgun is better than the Avenger Shuriken Catapult.
(That said, boltgun + battle focus vs 18" range means I get a *lot* of rounds of shooting before Marines ever get in range. So it wouldn't be a complete loss).
I'm arguing that, if the DA gun were outright worse, DAs would be outright worse than Marines. They pay a lot of points for that gun.
Automatically Appended Next Post: T3 -> T4 is huge
4+ -> 3+ is huge
Automatically Appended Next Post: @Lobukia,
In what situations should Marines be able to beat DAs? In what situations, if any, should DAs be able to beat Marines?
You are wrong t3 compared to t4 is quite insignificant when you compare the cost of t4 to t3. If i could take all my marines for less points at t3 I would, In a heartbeat.
So you're saying you'd play Sisters? A Battle Sister is -1T/S/WS/I for -2pts.
Yeah sisters all much better than tactical marines - hands down better options. Let me take sister squads instead of tacs - I'd love that.
I hope this is sarcasm and not hyperbole that's gotten so over the top that it no longer realizes it's hyperbole.
Martel732 wrote: "Autocannon vs Scatter Laser. +1 S, +12", and AP4 vs twice the shots at AP6. Seems fair. "
Not even remotely fair. But please continue. For even more lulz, compare it to the assault cannon. SL are one of the biggest cheeses in the game. They have been since 5th at least.
Don't Scatter Lasers also cause shots at the same target to be twin linked after? Or is that something else?
Yes, they do that too. They are total BS.
As for bladestorm itself, I guess it's not THAT bad, it's just a kick in the jimmies after all the other Eldar cheese you have to wade through to get to close range against them. CSM was forced to move beyond Codex:helldrake, but Eldar are still in that Codex: Waveserpent zone.
I think you have the Scatter Laser rules wrong... It allows any model with the Scatter Laser to reroll any subsequent weapons that that same model fires. The Laser Lock is wasted on models with only Scatter Lasers as weapons. It's very useful, but it's definitely not as powerful as what you guys have stated above.
As for Bladestorm.. The weapons that have it are typically short-ranged.
I have them right. Even without laser lock, SL are still total BS compared to other weapons of its type.
Martel732 wrote: It's a consequence of firepower making it so everyone just wants to lose the least points as possible when that IA pie plate comes in. Or your squad takes 23 hits from scatterlasers.
The marginal benefit is tiny and the marginal cost is huge.
For every 20 marines you have roughly 23 sisters in terms of points. Those marines are harder to kill, more deadly, and better equipped, with better rules and a much wider variety of units backing them up (sisters don't even have an MBT, for feth's sake).
People who claim that the two less points that sisters cost give them some kind of realistic, meaningful advantage are, frankly, fooling themselves.
"Those marines are harder to kill, more deadly, and better equipped, with better rules and a much wider variety of units backing them up (sisters don't even have an MBT, for feth's sake). "
I know it seems like that. But none of that matters against the scatter laser. It doesn't care what rules marines have or don't have. It just makes them dead. From a safe distance, I might add.
There is no seems. I deny your weasel wording-- it flat out is that way, as an undeniable truth.
Just on equippable weapons alone, Marines have FAR more options to deal with guardians and their transports-- Sisters have exactly three, and all of them require that the sisters be within range of bladestorm.
So what? Take out bladestorm and we have the most useless and inflexible troops in the game. Every troop has its perks, IG have staying power in numbers, Tau are strong long range support, marines have the most versatile troops able to accomplish any job on the board, tyranids and ork eat you if you get in assault range , necrons eat through vehicle like they were butter and Eldar, well if you get in shooting range you get fethed, luckily they are T3, 5+(4+) at best and only 12'(18') range.
The main problem with guardians and avengers is that they get the toughest transport in the game so its very difficult to pop the can open to deal with them before they disembark and unload their payload. But guys, the pseudorending is literally their ONLY redeeming feature.
Martel732 wrote: "+1 WS +1 S
+1 T
+1 I
+Combat Squads
+ATSKNF +Chapter Tactics (which you can probably call a flat trade for Acts of Faith, but only just barely since Chapter Tactics get more uses) "
Mostly irrelevant against Eldar scatterlasers. Maybe IH chapter tactics.
Multi-wound models T3 suffer ID vs Scatterlasers. Also Sisters have no Invul better than a 4+ outside of the Crusader (who can tank wounds okay, but suffers if they get into melee (mostly because of their I3 and 1 attack).
Arnais wrote: So what? Take out bladestorm and we have the most useless and inflexible troops in the game. Every troop has its perks, IG have staying power in numbers, Tau are strong long range support, marines have the most versatile troops able to accomplish any job on the board, tyranids and ork eat you if you get in assault range , necrons eat through vehicle like they were butter and Eldar, well if you get in shooting range you get fethed, luckily they are T3, 5+(4+) at best and only 12'(18') range.
The main problem with guardians and avengers is that they get the toughest transport in the game so its very difficult to pop the can open to deal with them before they disembark and unload their payload. But guys, the pseudorending is literally their ONLY redeeming feature.
Marines are the least versatile troops able to half-ass any job on the board. One melta per 5 guys is really good at stripping hull points.
There is no seems. I deny your weasel wording-- it flat out is that way, as an undeniable truth.
Just on equippable weapons alone, Marines have FAR more options to deal with guardians and their transports-- Sisters have exactly three, and all of them require that the sisters be within range of bladestorm.
Yeah. Sisters don't have great options - they are a terrible army at that and probably the worst. Their troops aren't that bad though. They are better than tacs because they do the same amount of dmg and are cheaper - their weaker toughness doesn't come into play vs most everything that shoots at them and they have the same save. Doubling out toughness is the only time it really matters - youll hear no argument from me that SMHQ is better than ASHQ.
There is no seems. I deny your weasel wording-- it flat out is that way, as an undeniable truth.
Just on equippable weapons alone, Marines have FAR more options to deal with guardians and their transports-- Sisters have exactly three, and all of them require that the sisters be within range of bladestorm.
Yeah. Sisters don't have great options - they are a terrible army at that and probably the worst. Their troops aren't that bad though. They are better than tacs because they do the same amount of dmg and are cheaper - their weaker toughness doesn't come into play vs most everything that shoots at them and they have the same save. Doubling out toughness is the only time it really matters - youll hear no argument from me that SMHQ is better than ASHQ.
I disagree about the shooting. On average Sisters have to roll saves vs more wounds on average, which means on average you'll take wounds more often and take more casualties. the only trade off vs Blade Storm is 1:6 of the 1:6 rending shots will be saved through Shield of Faith.
Bharring wrote: So I die twice as fast as Marines to boltgun wounds, *and* Marines get the harder-hitting gun? Wtf?
I'm not arguing that the Boltgun is better than the Avenger Shuriken Catapult.
(That said, boltgun + battle focus vs 18" range means I get a *lot* of rounds of shooting before Marines ever get in range. So it wouldn't be a complete loss).
I'm arguing that, if the DA gun were outright worse, DAs would be outright worse than Marines. They pay a lot of points for that gun.
Automatically Appended Next Post: T3 -> T4 is huge 4+ -> 3+ is huge
Automatically Appended Next Post: @Lobukia, In what situations should Marines be able to beat DAs? In what situations, if any, should DAs be able to beat Marines?
You are wrong t3 compared to t4 is quite insignificant when you compare the cost of t4 to t3. If i could take all my marines for less points at t3 I would, In a heartbeat.
Sisters are PA T3 and are cheaper than marines. And are generally considered worse.
Marsyas wrote: My own complaint about bladestorm as an Eldar player is that it makes it psychologically difficult to justify taking, say, Dark Reapers or Shining Spears. Why should I spend points taking anti-MEQ specialists when I can just mass shuriken fire on them instead? It also further marginalizes Howling Banshees, but Howling Banshees are so worthless already that seeing them further marginalized is more laughable than anything else.
I want to play the "army of specialists" with dozens of moving parts all singing in perfect harmony, working together to destroy my enemies. In practice, though, it's way easier and more cost-effective just to mass shuriken weaponry for every nonvehicle threat and fill in with anti-tank as necessary.
I'm with you there - why would you take an AP 3 weapon when your basic weapon has AP2 potential and is more effective for the cost. That about sums this debate up doesn't it? Gardians are more effective against meq than reapers?
They absolutely are not, the dark reapers can fire on the run, wound on3+ and have a 3' range advantage. And if you are facing bikes(as in the bike squads everyone on the internet is taking) you see a substantial increase in capability. They are in no way better at taking down meq.
Automatically Appended Next Post: This thread is about blade storm, why are we all talking about waveserpent and scatter lasers?
Bharring wrote: So I die twice as fast as Marines to boltgun wounds, *and* Marines get the harder-hitting gun? Wtf?
I'm not arguing that the Boltgun is better than the Avenger Shuriken Catapult.
(That said, boltgun + battle focus vs 18" range means I get a *lot* of rounds of shooting before Marines ever get in range. So it wouldn't be a complete loss).
I'm arguing that, if the DA gun were outright worse, DAs would be outright worse than Marines. They pay a lot of points for that gun.
Automatically Appended Next Post: T3 -> T4 is huge
4+ -> 3+ is huge
Automatically Appended Next Post: @Lobukia,
In what situations should Marines be able to beat DAs? In what situations, if any, should DAs be able to beat Marines?
You are wrong t3 compared to t4 is quite insignificant when you compare the cost of t4 to t3. If i could take all my marines for less points at t3 I would, In a heartbeat.
Hrm, how are we comparing T3 to T4 in terms of cost? And are we doing so without accidentally pulling other advantages into that comparison?
Because, lets face it, a lot of Marine units have other advantages beyond just T4 over most T3 units. Not only do they have higher T, but usually a better Sv and Ld as well. Meanwhile, a WS4 BS2 S3 T4 I2 A2 6+sv Furious Chargin' Ork pays 1ppm over a WS3 BS3 S3 T3 I3 A1 Ld7 5+sv guardsman and most people would take the Ork statline for 6pts if they could over the IG statline at 5pts, all other things being equal.
There is no seems. I deny your weasel wording-- it flat out is that way, as an undeniable truth.
Just on equippable weapons alone, Marines have FAR more options to deal with guardians and their transports-- Sisters have exactly three, and all of them require that the sisters be within range of bladestorm.
Why are you arguing about Sisters vs Marines in a thread about Eldar?
Oh, right, Sisters players think everything is about them.
Perhaps make a new thread about this if you wish to debate it further, rather than clutter up this one.
There is no seems. I deny your weasel wording-- it flat out is that way, as an undeniable truth.
Just on equippable weapons alone, Marines have FAR more options to deal with guardians and their transports-- Sisters have exactly three, and all of them require that the sisters be within range of bladestorm.
Marsyas wrote: My own complaint about bladestorm as an Eldar player is that it makes it psychologically difficult to justify taking, say, Dark Reapers or Shining Spears. Why should I spend points taking anti-MEQ specialists when I can just mass shuriken fire on them instead? It also further marginalizes Howling Banshees, but Howling Banshees are so worthless already that seeing them further marginalized is more laughable than anything else.
I want to play the "army of specialists" with dozens of moving parts all singing in perfect harmony, working together to destroy my enemies. In practice, though, it's way easier and more cost-effective just to mass shuriken weaponry for every nonvehicle threat and fill in with anti-tank as necessary.
I'm with you there - why would you take an AP 3 weapon when your basic weapon has AP2 potential and is more effective for the cost. That about sums this debate up doesn't it? Gardians are more effective against meq than reapers?
They absolutely are not, the dark reapers can fire on the run, wound on3+ and have a 3' range advantage. And if you are facing bikes(as in the bike squads everyone on the internet is taking) you see a substantial increase in capability. They are in no way better at taking down meq.
Automatically Appended Next Post: This thread is about blade storm, why are we all talking about waveserpent and scatter lasers?
Because you can't separate Bladestorm from the context of C:Eldar. If Eldar only had Bladestorm, it would be fine.
Seriously, MEQ suck because for 110 points you can get a Guardian squad with a Scatter Laser?
So it can kill less than 1 Marine a round?
I fail to see how that makes *blade storm* broken, but you are certainly overstating things in either case.
Sisters were brought up to show that players *do* pick t4 over t3 at just +2ppm. And that's another 3+ unit. Troops involved here are t3 4+ or 5+. And the 4+ version is actually only 1ppm cheaper...
Get over the Scatter Laser. Sure, Eldar are broken. But the Scatter Laser, itself, isn't removing heaps of Marines.
And not all incoming fire is s6. Might feel like it when you can shrug off so much s3/s4 shooting like Marines. But to Sisters or Eldar infantry, s3/s4 *is* a threat.
" But the Scatter Laser, itself, isn't removing heaps of Marines."
It is when there are 16 of them on the board.
Furthermore, if there existed a 36" gun S4 that had say, 8 shots, that weapon would most certainly be a threat to marines. S4 is often not a threat because the unit or stat profile of the weapon stinks. Go get close to 90 shoota boyz and come tell me how S4 is not a threat to marines.
What S6 DOES do is reduces marine's defenses to the same as a sister and very close to that of a DA.
Martel732 wrote: " But the Scatter Laser, itself, isn't removing heaps of Marines."
It is when there are 16 of them on the board.
Furthermore, if there existed a 36" gun S4 that had say, 8 shots, that weapon would most certainly be a threat to marines. S4 is often not a threat because the unit or stat profile of the weapon stinks. Go get close to 90 shoota boyz and come tell me how S4 is not a threat to marines.
What S6 DOES do is reduces marine's defenses to the same as a sister and very close to that of a DA.
I will indulge your hyperbole and do the math.
16 Scatter Lasers = 64 shots.
64 * 2/3 * 5/6 * 1/3 = 11.85 dead marines.
Even the most point efficient Scatter Laser platform can only carry 6 (3 AV10 open-topped walkers for 210 points).
90 Shoota Boyz is 630 points and kills 10 marines.
Azreal13 wrote: Oh, right, Sisters players think everything is about them.
OR it could be because a Marine player said he'd happily trade his T4 models for T3 ones for a points drop and the Sisters players were pointing out the logical fallacies with that statement.
Nice ad hominem fallacy btw.
Automatically Appended Next Post: EDIT: I'm curious what Scatterlasers have to do with Bladestorm being potentially OP. Because I thought the thread was just looking at the Bladestorm rule, not taking a bunch of upgrades (which on most models cost a fair number of points) to make Bladestorm better.
Martel732 wrote: " But the Scatter Laser, itself, isn't removing heaps of Marines."
It is when there are 16 of them on the board.
Furthermore, if there existed a 36" gun S4 that had say, 8 shots, that weapon would most certainly be a threat to marines. S4 is often not a threat because the unit or stat profile of the weapon stinks. Go get close to 90 shoota boyz and come tell me how S4 is not a threat to marines.
What S6 DOES do is reduces marine's defenses to the same as a sister and very close to that of a DA.
I will indulge your hyperbole and do the math.
16 Scatter Lasers = 64 shots.
64 * 2/3 * 5/6 * 1/3 = 11.85 dead marines.
Even the most point efficient Scatter Laser platform can only carry 6 (3 AV10 open-topped walkers for 210 points).
90 Shoota Boyz is 630 points and kills 10 marines.
It has not hyperbole; I've seen both on the table before, and the 16 scatter lasers was much more difficult to death with because their table coverage compared to the 18" shoota. Those 64 shots start coming in turn 1 with no real effort needed on the part of the Eldar player and never stop. The shoota boyz, by necessity, can't be mechanized and have to walk to within 18". All kinds of things can go wrong with that. And some of those scatter lasers were backed up by SS as well.
Azreal13 wrote: Oh, right, Sisters players think everything is about them.
OR it could be because a Marine player said he'd happily trade his T4 models for T3 ones for a points drop and the Sisters players were pointing out the logical fallacies with that statement.
Nice ad hominem fallacy btw.
Automatically Appended Next Post: EDIT: I'm curious what Scatterlasers have to do with Bladestorm being potentially OP. Because I thought the thread was just looking at the Bladestorm rule, not taking a bunch of upgrades (which on most models cost a fair number of points) to make Bladestorm better.
As has been stated, it's hard to separate the rule from its codex. It's probably not OP in a vacuum, but it doesn't exist in a vacuum. That makes it very hard to say. Honestly, I would that Bladestorm is being dumped on because it is just part of the Eldar beat downs being handed out. And, as I mention, making 2+ save units worse than they already are.
Azreal13 wrote: Oh, right, Sisters players think everything is about them.
OR it could be because a Marine player said he'd happily trade his T4 models for T3 ones for a points drop and the Sisters players were pointing out the logical fallacies with that statement.
Azreal13 wrote: Oh, right, Sisters players think everything is about them.
OR it could be because a Marine player said he'd happily trade his T4 models for T3 ones for a points drop and the Sisters players were pointing out the logical fallacies with that statement.
Nice ad hominem fallacy btw.
Specific never disproves general.
So on topic discussion is off topic and just attention-seeking according to you? Seriously, can we just get back on topic or are you just going to continue to post off-topic complaints from now until a mod locks the thread?
@Martel732 I get that things are hard to separate in a vacuum, but at the end of the day when we're looking at one specific rule we should be looking at it in a vacuum. Otherwise we can get way off course with discussions why things aren't OP because of OP combinations in other books.
When I'm deciding what troops to bring, its quite useful to know how hated Bladestorm will be, so we can try to have the maximum amount of fun. More DAs, drop in some Guardians, or would they rather see Rangers? Answers to the 'is Bladestorm OP' question help me with those decisions.
(Playing my Tau tonight anyways, but next week. If Harlies don't eat too many points...)
I would really love to see the list that's bringing 16 Scatter Lasers to the board turn 1. That's more than an entire army's worth in most cases. Even in the extreme cases where that may happen, most of them will be on extremely fragile platforms (Vypers/Warwalkers).
Bharring wrote: When I'm deciding what troops to bring, its quite useful to know how hated Bladestorm will be, so we can try to have the maximum amount of fun. More DAs, drop in some Guardians, or would they rather see Rangers? Answers to the 'is Bladestorm OP' question help me with those decisions.
(Playing my Tau tonight anyways, but next week. If Harlies don't eat too many points...)
Honestly with how short range most Shuriken weapons are, I see a lot of dead Eldar before they really get a good chance to fire back against most targets. About the best you could probably do it 10 DA in a WS rolling up, then hopping out the next turn to potentially kill a squad, but things like 20 Guardians are going to have a fair number dead before they can really effectively bring their weapons to bear. I almost see BS being more useful as a counter-charge protection than a straight up offensive thing.
Azreal13 wrote: Oh, right, Sisters players think everything is about them.
OR it could be because a Marine player said he'd happily trade his T4 models for T3 ones for a points drop and the Sisters players were pointing out the logical fallacies with that statement.
Nice ad hominem fallacy btw.
Specific never disproves general.
So on topic discussion is off topic and just attention-seeking according to you? Seriously, can we just get back on topic or are you just going to continue to post off-topic complaints from now until a mod locks the thread?
@Martel732 I get that things are hard to separate in a vacuum, but at the end of the day when we're looking at one specific rule we should be looking at it in a vacuum. Otherwise we can get way off course with discussions why things aren't OP because of OP combinations in other books.
EDIT: Typo.
I'm afraid I just find it endlessly amusing how Sisters players relentlessly martyr themselves and are totally humourless about their faction. It is almost like you're not a proper Sisters player unless you're miserable and po-faced about it.
I'm afraid I just find it endlessly amusing how Sisters players relentlessly martyr themselves and are totally humourless about their faction. It is almost like you're not a proper Sisters player unless you're miserable and po-faced about it.
I have a sense of humor about Sisters (I mean why else would me avatar be humor based?). Honestly the only reason I brought them up in this thread is that they are the closest T3 models to Marines (being that they shoot the same and wear the same 3+ save) to show why being T3 isn't really an automatic boon just because they're cheaper.
Stating facts about why a statement is incorrect doesn't mean you don't have a sense of humor, it just means you prefer some accuracy in claims being made. But go on, keep digging that hole about how horrible Sisters players are.
I'm actually with xFinality on the Scatter Laser thing. What kind of list runs 16 Scatter Lasers? I mean that pretty much leaves you with no heavy armor support, and you're probably not actually benefiting from the TL rule since it makes you roll the Scatter Laser shots first, then all weapons rolled after them can potentially get the TL. Also Laser Lock only effects that model's shots meaning that it's useless to Guardians.
Azreal13 wrote: I'm just stating an opinion I've formed based on my experiences on Dakka.
By continuing to argue the point rather than laughing it off, you're not really doing much to dispel my preconceptions.
"Stop telling me that my accusations about your character are wrong and just let me insult you with no argument!"
Yeah no, when gak comes out of your mouth (or in this case, is posted to a public forum on the internet) I have every right to challenge it, even if you think it makes me a killjoy. You want me to have fun? Start by keeping your gak to yourself so we can have friendly conversations without the name calling. Because nothing kills the mood faster than someone who spews gak everywhere.
I think Bladestorm is a decent ability. Nothing too bad to really get your knickers in a twist about.
I'm not an Eldar player but play against them often. Bladestorm is fluffy and characterful **
Most threads like this, particularly when discussing a strong Codex is that one small ability opens the floodgates to all things players don't like.
The Eldar book is strong. Most would agree the strongest on the market atm.
There are a couple of things that go too far imo:
Waveserpents, only the most delusional Eldar diehard would consider this a reasonable unit.
Jetbikes, maybe not a widespread gripe but I play DE so maybe I'm a little envious. I want my bikes like these.
For the sake of this topic you absolutely can look at Bladestorm in a vaccuum. Read the lines for the ability as a stand alone statement in relation to the rulebook and the ability sits just right in the game.
It is the fact that it is a small piece of a very strong, fluid book full of synergy and decent abilities that is gets tarred with a broadstroke brush of "OP Eldar"
In an ideal world this would be the benchmark book (WS aside) to which all others were brought up to meet. Not ripping one of the very few well written books we have in the game to pieces.
**
I do think for fluff reasons more than anything Bladestorm should only be available to DA. There needs to be a greater distinction between the most ancient Aspect Warriors and the Eldar shopkeepers and the like.
I can see where you're coming from Wildboar, but while the Eldar book is offensively strong, outside of WS reducing pens to glances with the SS, I think that it'd doesn't have that much defense compared to other armies. Crons vs Eldar should be an interesting game in my book just because you have two armies who are complete opposites in how they approach the game (dealing wounds vs not taking wounds) and if anything the way they play now vs each other makes the War on Heaven a little easier to visualize as something truly epic.
xFinality wrote: I would really love to see the list that's bringing 16 Scatter Lasers to the board turn 1. That's more than an entire army's worth in most cases. Even in the extreme cases where that may happen, most of them will be on extremely fragile platforms (Vypers/Warwalkers).
Warwalkers in ruins can be frustrating to remove. On other boards, they might actually be able to get behind LOS blocking terrain after firing. I believe it was four WS and two squads of scatter walkers. That's extreme? Okay.
xFinality wrote: I would really love to see the list that's bringing 16 Scatter Lasers to the board turn 1. That's more than an entire army's worth in most cases. Even in the extreme cases where that may happen, most of them will be on extremely fragile platforms (Vypers/Warwalkers).
Warwalkers in ruins can be frustrating to remove. On other boards, they might actually be able to get behind LOS blocking terrain after firing. I believe it was four WS and two squads of scatter walkers. That's extreme? Okay.
The extreme part is more how lopsided the list seems when you put that many of a single weapon on the table (outside of Leafblower Guard).
If memory serves, there might have been a squad of scatter/starcannon walkers. So that's a few less shots coming in ,but replaced with TL S6 AP 2. It was a slaughter. That I DO remember.
If memory serves, there might have been a squad of scatter/starcannon walkers. So that's a few less shots coming in ,but replaced with TL S6 AP 2. It was a slaughter. That I DO remember.
S6 can't scratch AV13, much less AV14. With Leman Russ tanks, Vindicators, Predators, Land Raiders, and Knights in the game that kind of overspecialization is just asking for a bad match up in tournament play.
If memory serves, there might have been a squad of scatter/starcannon walkers. So that's a few less shots coming in ,but replaced with TL S6 AP 2. It was a slaughter. That I DO remember.
S6 can't scratch AV13, much less AV14. With Leman Russ tanks, Vindicators, Predators, Land Raiders, and Knights in the game that kind of overspecialization is just asking for a bad match up in tournament play.
It's easy enough for WS to get the sides of Rhino hulls.
Land Raiders are laughably bad.
That leaves Russes and Knights. I think this game might have been before knights, and I"m not sure how much Eldar care about Russes.
What do Eldar bring to counter knights and does this help my BA at all? Probably not.
ClockworkZion wrote: I can see where you're coming from Wildboar, but while the Eldar book is offensively strong, outside of WS reducing pens to glances with the SS, I think that it'd doesn't have that much defense compared to other armies. Crons vs Eldar should be an interesting game in my book just because you have two armies who are complete opposites in how they approach the game (dealing wounds vs not taking wounds) and if anything the way they play now vs each other makes the War on Heaven a little easier to visualize as something truly epic.
Eldar can run entire armies around with 3+ & 2+ cover saves (often even in the open) and rerolls galore. With lots of ability to exploit psychic power like Invisibility, the horrible things you can do with seer councils and farseers, Jump MC's with Gargantuan Creature statlines, and more, Eldar really don't come out bad in the resiliency department.
If memory serves, there might have been a squad of scatter/starcannon walkers. So that's a few less shots coming in ,but replaced with TL S6 AP 2. It was a slaughter. That I DO remember.
S6 can't scratch AV13, much less AV14. With Leman Russ tanks, Vindicators, Predators, Land Raiders, and Knights in the game that kind of overspecialization is just asking for a bad match up in tournament play.
It's easy enough for WS to get the sides of Rhino hulls.
Land Raiders are laughably bad.
That leaves Russes and Knights. I think this game might have been before knights, and I"m not sure how much Eldar care about Russes.
WS can do more to Rhino hulls from the side with just the Serpent Shield, the Laser at that point is just salt on the wound.
Vaktathi wrote:
ClockworkZion wrote: I can see where you're coming from Wildboar, but while the Eldar book is offensively strong, outside of WS reducing pens to glances with the SS, I think that it'd doesn't have that much defense compared to other armies. Crons vs Eldar should be an interesting game in my book just because you have two armies who are complete opposites in how they approach the game (dealing wounds vs not taking wounds) and if anything the way they play now vs each other makes the War on Heaven a little easier to visualize as something truly epic.
Between the capability for routine 3+ jink saves, even in the open, lots of abilities to gain 2+ or 3+ cover saves on other units and reroll failed saves through psychic powers along with lots of ability to exploit psychic power like Invisibility, Jump MC's with Gargantuan Creature statlines, and more, Eldar really don't come out bad in the resiliency department.
Crons have at least some Ignores Cover (Tomb Blades), but I see where you're coming from there. Honestly I'm more for Runes of Fate on Eldar than Telepathy, but that's just me. And Crons are able to wound Wraithknights more readily than most armies (outside of Dark Eldar).
But yeah, I get what you're saying, but the entire Necron army is built around tanking, unlike the Eldar where some things are able to tank in certain circumstances.
Martel732 wrote: Because so many Eldar are riding in very effective AV 12 vehicles with jink, I'd argue that they are more resilient than most marine lists.
Maybe in your local meta. Not everyone plays the Wave Serpent spam.
I'd love to see Falcons as a DT in the next codex just so people had options of other things to take outside of the WS if they want to put things in a transport.
Crons have at least some Ignores Cover (Tomb Blades), but I see where you're coming from there. Honestly I'm more for Runes of Fate on Eldar than Telepathy, but that's just me. And Crons are able to wound Wraithknights more readily than most armies (outside of Dark Eldar).
But yeah, I get what you're saying, but the entire Necron army is built around tanking, unlike the Eldar where some things are able to tank in certain circumstances.
The problem is most of the squishy things hide inside the super hard to kill things, and those that can't usually aren't taken, and the resilient stuff is available in just about every part of the army.
Martel732 wrote: Because so many Eldar are riding in very effective AV 12 vehicles with jink, I'd argue that they are more resilient than most marine lists.
Maybe in your local meta. Not everyone plays the Wave Serpent spam.
I'd love to see Falcons as a DT in the next codex just so people had options of other things to take outside of the WS if they want to put things in a transport.
My question unfortunately then would have to be, why take the falcon over the Wave Serpent? You're still getting more average firepower out of the WS and more potential resiliency, on top of higher transport capacity and lower cost. The Falcon just gets a Pulse Laser. :(
If they dropped the shield as a weapon and just made it a 5+ invul save, there might be some competition, it'd make for a more interesting and focused unit, something that you could move around with and not necessarily need to jink or that could still have some protection from Ignores Cover weapons, but that wouldn't simultaneously exceed the firepower capability of the Falcon, particularly in an anti-medium-tank role.
I stand by the SS needing a nerf (my opinion was drop it to D3+1 shots a 24" and make it One Use Only) myself.
And yes, currently Falcons don't have much for options, which is silly since they're basically the Eldar equiv to the Razorback (I'd take them with Fire Dragons for instance) but that is an issue more with the WS being too good and the Falcon being too limited (not to mention the roles are reversed. The Falcon is supposed to the gun tank but it comes across as more of the weaker transport option).
I run corsairs for the most part, and a falcon dedicated transport is pretty boss! As was stated before, their are op things in the eldar dex, this is about blade storm. If we took away blade storm, you wouldn't see people suddenly OK with waveserpents, wraithknights,and scatter lasers. They would want those dropped too. At that point you are looking at the 4th ed codex. And that is entirtely unfair. The wraithknight should be a low, the serpent shield should max at 6", and scatter lasers should only twinlinked things on a 6 to hit (non snapshots) I had a thread where I did these things on here somewhere. People asked me to boost other options to make up for it! LOL.
ClockworkZion wrote: I stand by the SS needing a nerf (my opinion was drop it to D3+1 shots a 24" and make it One Use Only) myself.
Just make it a 5++ save.
A shield doesn't need to also be a weapon.
I'm fine with it being a weapon to match the fluff (especially old fluff for Epic) but it needs to be balanced in the game.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: I run corsairs for the most part, and a falcon dedicated transport is pretty boss! As was stated before, their are op things in the eldar dex, this is about blade storm. If we took away blade storm, you wouldn't see people suddenly OK with waveserpents, wraithknights,and scatter lasers. They would want those dropped too. At that point you are looking at the 4th ed codex. And that is entirtely unfair. The wraithknight should be a low, the serpent shield should max at 6", and scatter lasers should only twinlinked things on a 6 to hit (non snapshots) I had a thread where I did these things on here somewhere. People asked me to boost other options to make up for it! LOL.
I'd be fine with the Wraithknight being a LoW. At most I'd only (personally) want to run one outside of Apoc and that'd free up a HS slot for a Doomweaver or War Walkers or something.
Bladestorm I honestly feel is fine when everything else is taken into account (like the weapon's short range and how Rapid Fire is a LOT better than it used to be in terms of how it moves and fires), it's just some other things that need to be fixed (like the Serpent Shield, the Falcon not being a DT option forcing people who need to mech up a unit or two to have to run WS and the Laser Lock needs some tweaking).
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: I run corsairs for the most part, and a falcon dedicated transport is pretty boss! As was stated before, their are op things in the eldar dex, this is about blade storm. If we took away blade storm, you wouldn't see people suddenly OK with waveserpents, wraithknights,and scatter lasers. They would want those dropped too. At that point you are looking at the 4th ed codex. And that is entirtely unfair. The wraithknight should be a low, the serpent shield should max at 6", and scatter lasers should only twinlinked things on a 6 to hit (non snapshots) I had a thread where I did these things on here somewhere. People asked me to boost other options to make up for it! LOL.
There are just a number of things with the Eldar book in general. They got a huge boost in multiple areas with the last book, including lots of changes to otherwise longstanding basics. Shuriken weapons got Blade Storm which made them much more powerful. BS across the board was raised to 4 from 3 on most vehicles and some infantry. Access to Twin Linked became much more widespread thanks to Laserlock. Etc.
It all piled up to make Eldar a whole lot more powerful, beyond what was really necessary. Any one thing in particular was probably fine, but, to illustrate as an example, when an underslung Shuriken cannon went from killing an average of 0.42 MEQ's per turn (just used as a general basic measurement of anti-infantry firepower) to killing an average of 1.04 in conjunction with a laser-lock Scatterlaser, a roughly 250% increase in killing power, that was a bit much.
ClockworkZion wrote: I stand by the SS needing a nerf (my opinion was drop it to D3+1 shots a 24" and make it One Use Only) myself.
That might be fine too with the one-use provision. I just think the 5+ invul would be easiest.
And yes, currently Falcons don't have much for options, which is silly since they're basically the Eldar equiv to the Razorback (I'd take them with Fire Dragons for instance) but that is an issue more with the WS being too good and the Falcon being too limited (not to mention the roles are reversed. The Falcon is supposed to the gun tank but it comes across as more of the weaker transport option).
Yeah, they seemed to take one hint from the previous codex and avoided making the Falcon overpowered again like it was in 4E, but then turned right around and made the exact same mistake with the Wave Serpent
Wyldhunt wrote: 130 points of avengers will kill something like 4 marines. 120 points of reapers will kill something like 4 marines, but they'll do it from across the board with thicker armor while also having the option of shooting krak missile equivalents into vehicles, MCs, etc. They also ignore jink. They have fewer bodies, so they're more susceptible to return fire, but their reach helps mitigate this against some armies.
Yes, they ignore jink, they have weapon options that you can pay additional points for, and yes, they have a 3+ save instead of a 4+. But they're a dedicated anti-MEQ unit. They should be better at it, full stop. It shouldn't be "they have the same lethality, except they have longer range." A specialist unit should do the thing it specializes in better than a generalist unit in the same army.
I say the One Use Only because the weapon is describe to be used in "extremis". If it's only for emergencies then it shouldn't get to be used regularly.
stopcallingmechief wrote: Great post. how many DA does it take to kill a 6 man squad of white scars vs the jinx ignoring reapers. Frankly DA are decent yet i consider them nothing more than a serpent tax. And while upgrades to a tac squad are not free, taking a combi melta and meltagun in a squad is very nice over non upgradable DA When your running into a vehicle heavy army
Yes, Dark Reapers are better against targets with jink. That is the only thing they are better against. So you have to decide which you value more: increased effectiveness against targets with jink or objective secured. I favor objective secured.
They are better at killing anything with 3+
Or 4+. The range they have allows them to destroy things without fear of reprisal. If my DA kill 4 marines at maximum range, I have to hope to get out of los, or they will gun me down afterward. Reapers have a chance to blow open their transport, and then crush them from a distance without having to put themselves in harms way or even move. The idea the DA are as good at killing them as reapers is a falsehood.
Also, let's not forget that reapers have the same transport options as the DA. so that is also a wash.
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: They are better at killing anything with 3+
Or 4+. The range they have allows them to destroy things without fear of reprisal. If my DA kill 4 marines at maximum range, I have to hope to get out of los, or they will gun me down afterward. Reapers have a chance to blow open their transport, and then crush them from a distance without having to put themselves in harms way or even move. The idea the DA are as good at killing them as reapers is a falsehood.
Also, let's not forget that reapers have the same transport options as the DA. so that is also a wash.
The transport isn't actually a wash, though: DA waveserpents are also objective secured. DAs are also much better able to get out of LOS thanks to being able to run after (or before) they shoot. The comparison doesn't happen in a vacuum, though. It's not just a question of, "which should I take to counter MEQs?" It's actually, "Given that I am already bringing troops that bring bladestorm to the table, is it worth it to also spend some of my army points on a unit that specializes in killing marines and marine equivalents?"
Don't get me wrong. I love my dark reapers. I used to run them in every list I built. But unless I'm going rangers as a troop choice (yes, rangers have rending, but they also only have one shot each), I don't actually need them.
See, I only have one aspect warrior unit I run anymore, and that's scorpions. My blade storm comes from jetpack corsairs/walkers ,jetbikes, and the harlequins. If they didn't do what they do, my entire army would fold up like wet tissue. We don't get waveserpents, we get falcons and a venom without splinter cannons or an invulnerable save.
As I've said before, blade storm is fine. The rest of the things mentioned are the major issue. If those were addressed, no one would think blade storm was a problem at all. If the eldar only had access to imperial tech( in regards to vehicles) then this conversation wouldn't be happening. Without this rule and battle focus, our troops would be garbage.
As I've said before, blade storm is fine. The rest of the things mentioned are the major issue. If those were addressed, no one would think blade storm was a problem at all. If the eldar only had access to imperial tech( in regards to vehicles) then this conversation wouldn't be happening. Without this rule and battle focus, our troops would be garbage.
Edit for autocorrect
This pretty much sums up my thoughts on the matter at this time. I don't know if I'd say our troops were "garbage" without bladestorm, but they'd be a lot more lacklustre. Avengers would still be able to Move-shoot-move with bladestorm, and guardians would be able to pull of similar tricks while hiding in cover (possibly with a buff from a warlock on), but they'd essentially be a minor annoyance that hoped it got lucky and killed a couple ground trips while also cowering behind cover all game. Bladestorm, to me, generally isn't a game winner. It's a nice minor boost that makes my avengers (who can't hurt armor at all unlike many troops) be able to do a bit more against heavily armored targets.
As for dark reapers vs avengers, hiding behind cover with a (fleet) run move is not so easy as people seem to think, especially if you're doing it with a squad large enough to reliably do any sort of damage. Reapers are hit pretty hard by anything with decent range, but when they're out of enemy range, their long-distance shots are a huge boon. And again, they kill marines just fine. They kill bikes very well. They are a solid choice for bullying many vehicles. They wound most MCs on a 2 or 3 while ignoring armor. Winged MCs still don't jink. In a pinch, you can even shoot them at flyers and have them do okay. Four or eight shots is more likely to hit something than not when snap shooting. The only major downside to reapers is that each model is pricy, so losing a single guy is a lot nastier than losing a single avenger. But now I'm derailing my own thread. <_<
Azreal13 wrote: Oh, right, Sisters players think everything is about them.
OR it could be because a Marine player said he'd happily trade his T4 models for T3 ones for a points drop and the Sisters players were pointing out the logical fallacies with that statement.
To be fair, Tactical Marines are pretty lousy. You always end up buying Bikers or Scouts instead for a reason. I'd rather pay for a minimum squad with two Meltas to cheaply suicide into a vehicle while the Bikers do cleanup.
Then again, Tempestus does that better, so there ya go. The specific niche for Sisters has been lost. And the sisters players that read this won't have a sense of humor about it.
What I get from this thread is four camps:
-Bladestorm is fine. But Eldar is broken.
-Bladestorm is a little strong, could be nerfed. But Eldar is broken
-Bladestorm would be rough. It is broken. Rarely matters, though, because so much of CW Eldar is so broken.
(I'm between camp 1 and 2.)
Camp 1 seems to be the most popular, followed by camp 2. There are a few very vocal members of camp 3, though.
(My ideal nerf would be, strip from everything but DAs, change it on DAs to auto-wound on 6-to-hit, and drop Guardians and DAs by 1ppm each.)
"-Bladestorm is a little strong, could be nerfed. But Eldar is broken"
I'm here, but barely. I LIKE bladestorm because it nerfs MCs. I really dislike MCs in general, as I feel most of them are overpowered cheese. Most of them are just much tougher than tanks, and that annoys me. It gives me satisfaction to see them cut apart by millions of little ginsu stars.
At the same time, bladestorm takes a big dump on 2+ armor, which is already incredibly dubious except on MCs or EWICs. Sanguinary guard: victims. Terminators: victims. Meganobz: Victims, but at least take twice as many shots to kill. Broadsides: victims if the right weapons get close enough. 2+ armor is already frankly terrible for the cost and bladestorm makes this worse.
So I am now tempted to say that bladestorm is fine, other than the fact that it hammers units that can't afford to be hammered any more.
I'm here, but barely. I LIKE bladestorm because it nerfs MCs. I really dislike MCs in general, as I feel most of them are overpowered cheese. Most of them are just much tougher than tanks, and that annoys me. It gives me satisfaction to see them cut apart by millions of little ginsu stars.
Whilst I certainly agree about MCs, this seems like a poor solution. It screws over any armies not lucky enough to have Bladestorm and further punishes those MCs that are actually reasonable.
I think the best fix to MCs is to fix MCs. In particular, stop making MCs with no real weaknesses or drawbacks (a MC shouldn't have incredible mobility, insane melee/shooting damage output and be extremely durable).
I'm here, but barely. I LIKE bladestorm because it nerfs MCs. I really dislike MCs in general, as I feel most of them are overpowered cheese. Most of them are just much tougher than tanks, and that annoys me. It gives me satisfaction to see them cut apart by millions of little ginsu stars.
Whilst I certainly agree about MCs, this seems like a poor solution. It screws over any armies not lucky enough to have Bladestorm and further punishes those MCs that are actually reasonable.
I think the best fix to MCs is to fix MCs. In particular, stop making MCs with no real weaknesses or drawbacks (a MC shouldn't have incredible mobility, insane melee/shooting damage output and be extremely durable).
It is a poor solution, largely because of what it does to 2+ armor units.
Azreal13 wrote: Oh, right, Sisters players think everything is about them.
OR it could be because a Marine player said he'd happily trade his T4 models for T3 ones for a points drop and the Sisters players were pointing out the logical fallacies with that statement.
To be fair, Tactical Marines are pretty lousy. You always end up buying Bikers or Scouts instead for a reason. I'd rather pay for a minimum squad with two Meltas to cheaply suicide into a vehicle while the Bikers do cleanup.
Then again, Tempestus does that better, so there ya go. The specific niche for Sisters has been lost. And the sisters players that read this won't have a sense of humor about it.
The specific niche for the Sisters isn't lost because they can still bring something the Tempestus can't: a scouting squad of 4 meltas that can get ignores cover.
Seriously though, despite differences in fluff, Sisters have long been a slightly harder version of the Marine codex to try and win with. I won't pretend otherwise, especially when that's how GW keeps designing their rules. The closest thing they function like is Marines, they use the same wargear as Marines, and the Exorcist is basically just a quirky Predator when you get down to it. I love the flavor, but damn does the faction need an overhaul to feel more unique.
Now I'm not saying we need sniper flamethrowers...
..but some toys you don't see elsewhere would be nice.
As for Tacticals I really don't find them lousy. They are the perfect middle of the road unit in the game, being able to do a little of everything, without being over specialized. Sure, that is a bit of a weakness, but it's also a strength. Not every army gets the ability for their core troop choice to be able to be given any kind of job and count on it being able to preform at least competently and I don't think it should be dismissed to lightly.
"Sure, that is a bit of a weakness, but it's also a strength. Not every army gets the ability for their core troop choice to be able to be given any kind of job and count on it being able to preform at least competently and I don't think it should be dismissed to lightly."
The problem is that they are not competent. They shoot like 9 pt models, hand to hand like 7 pt models, and fight MCs like 5 pt models. For all this, they cost 14 pts, but at no actual point in a battle do they function like 14 pt models. Not a strength imo. I avoid them as much as possible.
In my experience, there is a direct correlation between number of tactical marines and likelihood of being tabled as well.
Bharring wrote: Mostly agree. No-drawback MCs are causing real problems.
MC's are about the only thing you can put on the board that's actually difficult to kill, I don't see that as a problem...Personally I think all MC are fine as long as they don't have FNP and I think toe in cover should be removed as a rule, you should have to be obstructed to gain a save. Tanks could probably do with an armor save too - then there really wouldn't be much advantage ether way between MC and tanks - and there shouldn't be.
On the topic of blade storm. The power of AP2 should not be available on a standard weapon imo. I know the squads can't take specialist weapons for the most part I just think maybe making them assualt 3 rather than blade storm would be a better option than giving them pseudo rending.
Martel732 wrote: "Sure, that is a bit of a weakness, but it's also a strength. Not every army gets the ability for their core troop choice to be able to be given any kind of job and count on it being able to preform at least competently and I don't think it should be dismissed to lightly."
The problem is that they are not competent. They shoot like 9 pt models, hand to hand like 7 pt models, and fight MCs like 5 pt models. For all this, they cost 14 pts, but at no actual point in a battle do they function like 14 pt models. Not a strength imo. I avoid them as much as possible.
In my experience, there is a direct correlation between number of tactical marines and likelihood of being tabled as well.
What 7pt model goes at I4 with WS/S/T4? What 5pt model comes with Krak Grenades that they can use at WS/I4? The shooting is the only one I'll give you, but the only models I know who are BS4 with Bolters are Sisters and CSM. And between Marines and Sisters, Marines are the sturdier troop choice. The only unit I know that matches Marines in stats are CSM and they're only 1pt cheaper losing both Chapter Tactics and ATSKNF.
Bharring wrote: Mostly agree. No-drawback MCs are causing real problems.
On the topic of blade storm. The power of AP2 should not be available on a standard weapon imo. I know the squads can't take specialist weapons for the most part I just think maybe making them assualt 3 rather than blade storm would be a better option than giving them pseudo rending.
Just ran some sloppy math on that. Wouldn't that actually increase how effective shuriken catapults are against hordes and marines and leave them roughly equally effective against terminators? Plus, it increases the overall potential for damage, so if you get obscenely lucky, you can now kill up to 30 bodies instead of 20.
Edit: Making the shuripults Assault 3 would also basically give them 4th edition's version of Bladestorm without the drawback at a lower cost than in the old book. And people complained about *old* Bladestorm to no end despite the drawback.
As for not having (pseudo)rending on basic weapons, does this apply to shooting only? How do you feel about daemonettes, genestealers, and marines with Raptor chapter tactics?
Bharring wrote: Mostly agree. No-drawback MCs are causing real problems.
On the topic of blade storm. The power of AP2 should not be available on a standard weapon imo. I know the squads can't take specialist weapons for the most part I just think maybe making them assualt 3 rather than blade storm would be a better option than giving them pseudo rending.
Just ran some sloppy math on that. Wouldn't that actually increase how effective shuriken catapults are against hordes and marines and leave them roughly equally effective against terminators? Plus, it increases the overall potential for damage, so if you get obscenely lucky, you can now kill up to 30 bodies instead of 20.
Edit: Making the shuripults Assault 3 would also basically give them 4th edition's version of Bladestorm without the drawback at a lower cost than in the old book. And people complained about *old* Bladestorm to no end despite the drawback.
As for not having (pseudo)rending on basic weapons, does this apply to shooting only? How do you feel about daemonettes, genestealers, and marines with Raptor chapter tactics?
For the most part it is with the shooting weapons. Daemonettes and genestealers have the problem of having to footslog their way into combat while being very squishy so its more a matter of being able to immediately deliver pseudo rending attacks with little risk involved in delivering them. I can't say anything on the matter of Raptors though since I am unfamiliar with them.
Bharring wrote: Mostly agree. No-drawback MCs are causing real problems.
On the topic of blade storm. The power of AP2 should not be available on a standard weapon imo. I know the squads can't take specialist weapons for the most part I just think maybe making them assualt 3 rather than blade storm would be a better option than giving them pseudo rending.
Just ran some sloppy math on that. Wouldn't that actually increase how effective shuriken catapults are against hordes and marines and leave them roughly equally effective against terminators? Plus, it increases the overall potential for damage, so if you get obscenely lucky, you can now kill up to 30 bodies instead of 20.
Edit: Making the shuripults Assault 3 would also basically give them 4th edition's version of Bladestorm without the drawback at a lower cost than in the old book. And people complained about *old* Bladestorm to no end despite the drawback.
As for not having (pseudo)rending on basic weapons, does this apply to shooting only? How do you feel about daemonettes, genestealers, and marines with Raptor chapter tactics?
I'm not a fan of rending on daemonetts ether, it's fine on genestealers because they are expensive, raptors have rending? wha?
They could still put a hurting on some terminators at about the same rate - correct, though they would lose the ability to drop entire squads of them with small standard deviations - which is my problem with them currently. I'm fine with guardians dropping 1-2 terms in a round of shooting. I'm not fine with them rolling 6 rends on 20 dice and rolling a whole squad (this isn't that unlikely) the potential power of rending is too high for weapons with this volume of fire. This would also hurt them vs MC - which they are far too effective at removing even without the help of pseudo rending.
Martel732 wrote: "Sure, that is a bit of a weakness, but it's also a strength. Not every army gets the ability for their core troop choice to be able to be given any kind of job and count on it being able to preform at least competently and I don't think it should be dismissed to lightly."
The problem is that they are not competent. They shoot like 9 pt models, hand to hand like 7 pt models, and fight MCs like 5 pt models. For all this, they cost 14 pts, but at no actual point in a battle do they function like 14 pt models. Not a strength imo. I avoid them as much as possible.
In my experience, there is a direct correlation between number of tactical marines and likelihood of being tabled as well.
What 7pt model goes at I4 with WS/S/T4? What 5pt model comes with Krak Grenades that they can use at WS/I4? The shooting is the only one I'll give you, but the only models I know who are BS4 with Bolters are Sisters and CSM. And between Marines and Sisters, Marines are the sturdier troop choice. The only unit I know that matches Marines in stats are CSM and they're only 1pt cheaper losing both Chapter Tactics and ATSKNF.
The 7 and 5 aren't accurate, but tac marines in hand to hand almost always ends badly, despite their gear and stats. I really do feel like tac marines are paying extra points to accomplish the same net effect as much cheaper models in hand to hand. Maybe the 7 and 5 are accurate, since marines end up doing no better than models without WS/S/T4 and models without krak grenades.
Bharring wrote: Mostly agree. No-drawback MCs are causing real problems.
As for not having (pseudo)rending on basic weapons, does this apply to shooting only? How do you feel about daemonettes, genestealers, and marines with Raptor chapter tactics?
I'm not a fan of rending on daemonetts ether, it's fine on genestealers because they are expensive, raptors have rending? wha?
They could still put a hurting on some terminators at about the same rate - correct, though they would lose the ability to drop entire squads of them with small standard deviations - which is my problem with them currently. I'm fine with guardians dropping 1-2 terms in a round of shooting. I'm not fine with them rolling 6 rends on 20 dice and rolling a whole squad (this isn't that unlikely) the potential power of rending is too high for weapons with this volume of fire. This would also hurt them vs MC - which they are far too effective at removing even without the help of pseudo rending.
^discalimer: I messed up the quote boxes above, so it looks like the wrong people are saying the wrong things. Oops.
As someone else pointed out though, do we really want there to be one less way for people to deal with MCs out there? I don't usually see bladestorm as a reliable way of bringing an MC down, but its absence certainly wouldn't help reign them in. I do see your point about terminators, but isn't that more of an issue with terminator survivability than with just bladestorm? There are whole threads up right now dedicated to discussing the lacklustre survivability of terminators and ways to fix it, and I'm pretty sure those threads don't exist solely because of bladestorm. It doesn't take much of a mathematical deviation for a plasgun and combi plas to kill of four terminators or for their bolter buddies to get lucky and take out a fifth terminator.
The Raptors are a loyalist marine chapter. Forgeworld gave them chapter tactics that let them treat certain bolt weapons as heavy 1 rending weapons. I bring them up because you said you didn't like the idea of rending on a basic gun. Raptors have certain limitations with their rending, but they can still get an awful lot of it if they want it. Also, there's the the point about snipers having their own sorta-rending effect. I'm guessing your issue probably isn't with single-shot weapons but with multi-shot rending weapons, at which point we just need to figure out how likely it is for such things to actually cause problems. As I've said previously in this thread, bladestorm usually doesn't make much of a difference in my games. It usually lets me kill 2 or 3 extra guys over the course of the game.
Bharring wrote: Mostly agree. No-drawback MCs are causing real problems.
On the topic of blade storm. The power of AP2 should not be available on a standard weapon imo. I know the squads can't take specialist weapons for the most part I just think maybe making them assualt 3 rather than blade storm would be a better option than giving them pseudo rending.
Just ran some sloppy math on that. Wouldn't that actually increase how effective shuriken catapults are against hordes and marines and leave them roughly equally effective against terminators? Plus, it increases the overall potential for damage, so if you get obscenely lucky, you can now kill up to 30 bodies instead of 20.
Edit: Making the shuripults Assault 3 would also basically give them 4th edition's version of Bladestorm without the drawback at a lower cost than in the old book. And people complained about *old* Bladestorm to no end despite the drawback.
As for not having (pseudo)rending on basic weapons, does this apply to shooting only? How do you feel about daemonettes, genestealers, and marines with Raptor chapter tactics?
For the most part it is with the shooting weapons. Daemonettes and genestealers have the problem of having to footslog their way into combat while being very squishy so its more a matter of being able to immediately deliver pseudo rending attacks with little risk involved in delivering them. I can't say anything on the matter of Raptors though since I am unfamiliar with them.
The Raptors thing can be potentially nasty:
Legendary Marksmen: Any unit with this special rule that does not move in the Movement phase of their turn may choose to gain the Rending special rule when firing in the Shooting phase of that turn with boltguns, combi-weapons fired as boltguns or bolt pistols.
It's a free chapter tactic thing from FW. Non-bulky units have scout too.
Martel732 wrote: "Sure, that is a bit of a weakness, but it's also a strength. Not every army gets the ability for their core troop choice to be able to be given any kind of job and count on it being able to preform at least competently and I don't think it should be dismissed to lightly."
The problem is that they are not competent. They shoot like 9 pt models, hand to hand like 7 pt models, and fight MCs like 5 pt models. For all this, they cost 14 pts, but at no actual point in a battle do they function like 14 pt models. Not a strength imo. I avoid them as much as possible.
In my experience, there is a direct correlation between number of tactical marines and likelihood of being tabled as well.
What 7pt model goes at I4 with WS/S/T4? What 5pt model comes with Krak Grenades that they can use at WS/I4? The shooting is the only one I'll give you, but the only models I know who are BS4 with Bolters are Sisters and CSM. And between Marines and Sisters, Marines are the sturdier troop choice. The only unit I know that matches Marines in stats are CSM and they're only 1pt cheaper losing both Chapter Tactics and ATSKNF.
The 7 and 5 aren't accurate, but tac marines in hand to hand almost always ends badly, despite their gear and stats. I really do feel like tac marines are paying extra points to accomplish the same net effect as much cheaper models in hand to hand. Maybe the 7 and 5 are accurate, since marines end up doing no better than models without WS/S/T4 and models without krak grenades.
Just because they can't beat down units that are designed to handle close combat better doesn't make them bad. They are generalists, they can do a little of everything and that gives you flexibility. If you're trying to use them to fight a melee unit like Genestealers then the problem isn't the Marines, it's you for using them poorly.
20 shots getting 6 rends being not that unlikely? What?
(2/3)hit (1/6) rends = (1/9) rends/shot.
To average 6 rends, you would need 54 shots.
That's 27 guardians.
I can't run off the odds of 6 rends out of 20 shots off the top of my head, but with each event being independent, less than half the expected value with decent quantities involved... I'm prepared to say the odds are tiny without numbers.
Odds of even 3 rends aren't great.
Add to it, if you're talking a full unit of Termies (5, we'll say), those 6 rends, even if they turn up, are more likely than not gonna leave at leave at least one.
Your numbers are *very* far off.
Vs Termies:
(2/3)(1/3)(1/6) = 1/27 failed armor saves
(2/3)(1/6)(2/3) = 2/27 failed invulns
For every 27 shots, 3 dead Termies.
So 10 Guardians who are allowed within 12" of Tactical Terminators *unmolested* kill fewer than 3 tactical terminators.
For the lulz, let's see what Tac Termies do to Guardians:
(2/3)(2/3)(1) = 4/9. For every 9 shots, four guardians die.
So this melee unit with twice the range doesn't outshoot the super a short-range shooting unit. But does do substantial damage to it.
So if you let them waltz up and unload point blank against something they will fold like wet paper against in melee. On the other hand, shoot first, with your 12" range advantage, and you'll outshoot the shooty unit with an almost-only-melee unit easily. At least they cost more.
Killing less than 3 Termies with a full 10-man Guardian squad doesn't seem so wrong.
" They are generalists, they can do a little of everything and that gives you flexibility"
Flexibility without efficacy is a waste of points, in my experience. Failing a little less badly than a guardsmen at these tasks is not worth their points, imo. In my view, they can accomplish very little, so putting them on the table destines them to be used "poorly", since there is no job they are good at.
At least DA are anti-MC.
Massed S6/7 shooting gives the Eldar true flexibility. The options available to tac squads gives the illusion of flexibility only.
When you are crunching numbers, consider that the Eldar like to hand out buffs like candy. What changes when they have a Guide up? When the target is under Doom?
Re-rolling to wound with rending weapons is particularly nice.
Martel732 wrote: " They are generalists, they can do a little of everything and that gives you flexibility"
Flexibility without efficacy is a waste of points, in my experience. Failing a little less badly than a guardsmen at these tasks is not worth their points, imo. In my view, they can accomplish very little, so putting them on the table destines them to be used "poorly", since there is no job they are good at.
At least DA are anti-MC.
Massed S6/7 shooting gives the Eldar true flexibility. The options available to tac squads gives the illusion of flexibility only.
DA can't crack tanks, DA have to take more saves versus being shot at, DA are easier to AP out of saves.
Evaluating only a unit's strengths compared to another unit's weaknesses is a serious fallacy.
Martel732 wrote: " They are generalists, they can do a little of everything and that gives you flexibility"
Flexibility without efficacy is a waste of points, in my experience. Failing a little less badly than a guardsmen at these tasks is not worth their points, imo. In my view, they can accomplish very little, so putting them on the table destines them to be used "poorly", since there is no job they are good at.
At least DA are anti-MC.
Massed S6/7 shooting gives the Eldar true flexibility. The options available to tac squads gives the illusion of flexibility only.
DA can't crack tanks, DA have to take more saves versus being shot at, DA are easier to AP out of saves.
Evaluating only a unit's strengths compared to another unit's weaknesses is a serious fallacy.
Tac squads in practice can't crack tanks either. That's the problem. They can only do it on paper.
Nevelon wrote: When you are crunching numbers, consider that the Eldar like to hand out buffs like candy. What changes when they have a Guide up? When the target is under Doom?
Re-rolling to wound with rending weapons is particularly nice.
With 7th edition's psychic powers I don't think the buffs are going out "like candy". it's more likely that a few buffs are given out with as many dice as possible (using a warp charge to ignore perils on the Farseer).
Nevelon wrote: When you are crunching numbers, consider that the Eldar like to hand out buffs like candy. What changes when they have a Guide up? When the target is under Doom?
Re-rolling to wound with rending weapons is particularly nice.
With 7th edition's psychic powers I don't think the buffs are going out "like candy". it's more likely that a few buffs are given out with as many dice as possible (using a warp charge to ignore perils on the Farseer).
I watched a game where the Eldar player was pulling off around four a turn consistently.
Nevelon wrote: When you are crunching numbers, consider that the Eldar like to hand out buffs like candy. What changes when they have a Guide up? When the target is under Doom?
Re-rolling to wound with rending weapons is particularly nice.
With 7th edition's psychic powers I don't think the buffs are going out "like candy". it's more likely that a few buffs are given out with as many dice as possible (using a warp charge to ignore perils on the Farseer).
I watched a game where the Eldar player was pulling off around four a turn consistently.
And how many psykers did they bring exactly? Because I'm willing that 4 a turn is only a fraction of the total powers they had available to them.
Martel732 wrote: " They are generalists, they can do a little of everything and that gives you flexibility"
Flexibility without efficacy is a waste of points, in my experience. Failing a little less badly than a guardsmen at these tasks is not worth their points, imo. In my view, they can accomplish very little, so putting them on the table destines them to be used "poorly", since there is no job they are good at.
At least DA are anti-MC.
A full dire avenger squad will put about 2 wounds on an MC assuming it doesn't get a cover or invul save. Marines with plasma or meltas (plus their kraks) can do comparable damage while also being able to threaten vehicles. That 3+ armor is also a pretty nice bonus. I've picked my marines back up recently, and my goodness does 3+ armor and toughness 4 make a difference over my squishy eldar. I know lots of stuff "negates" your high toughness and armor, but those options are generally paying for the priveledge, and using cover can significantly mitigate the ability to ignore armor.
When my avengers go on the offensive, they usually kill a few things, and then they're soon shot to bits or start getting pummelled in assault. That last bit can be mitigated with a shimmershield, but they still aren't going to be winning that fight. When my marines go on the offensive, they usually kill a few things, then possibly kill more things in assault, at some point get shot at and shake off much of the damage, then get assaulted and kill a thing or two, then lose combat and turn around to kill more things because of ATSKNF. Being a survivable generalist has its advantages. But seriously, the marine discussion has been going on for pages. It really deserves its own thread. Not that we haven't had such a thread just recently.
Nevelon wrote: When you are crunching numbers, consider that the Eldar like to hand out buffs like candy. What changes when they have a Guide up? When the target is under Doom?
Re-rolling to wound with rending weapons is particularly nice.
With 7th edition's psychic powers I don't think the buffs are going out "like candy". it's more likely that a few buffs are given out with as many dice as possible (using a warp charge to ignore perils on the Farseer).
I watched a game where the Eldar player was pulling off around four a turn consistently.
And how many psykers did they bring exactly? Because I'm willing that 4 a turn is only a fraction of the total powers they had available to them.
It was only a fraction. They had several pskyers for sure. But isn't that something eldar are good at? Spamming psykers?
Bharring wrote: Mostly agree. No-drawback MCs are causing real problems.
As for not having (pseudo)rending on basic weapons, does this apply to shooting only? How do you feel about daemonettes, genestealers, and marines with Raptor chapter tactics?
I'm not a fan of rending on daemonetts ether, it's fine on genestealers because they are expensive, raptors have rending? wha?
They could still put a hurting on some terminators at about the same rate - correct, though they would lose the ability to drop entire squads of them with small standard deviations - which is my problem with them currently. I'm fine with guardians dropping 1-2 terms in a round of shooting. I'm not fine with them rolling 6 rends on 20 dice and rolling a whole squad (this isn't that unlikely) the potential power of rending is too high for weapons with this volume of fire. This would also hurt them vs MC - which they are far too effective at removing even without the help of pseudo rending.
^discalimer: I messed up the quote boxes above, so it looks like the wrong people are saying the wrong things. Oops.
As someone else pointed out though, do we really want there to be one less way for people to deal with MCs out there? I don't usually see bladestorm as a reliable way of bringing an MC down, but its absence certainly wouldn't help reign them in. I do see your point about terminators, but isn't that more of an issue with terminator survivability than with just bladestorm? There are whole threads up right now dedicated to discussing the lacklustre survivability of terminators and ways to fix it, and I'm pretty sure those threads don't exist solely because of bladestorm. It doesn't take much of a mathematical deviation for a plasgun and combi plas to kill of four terminators or for their bolter buddies to get lucky and take out a fifth terminator.
The Raptors are a loyalist marine chapter. Forgeworld gave them chapter tactics that let them treat certain bolt weapons as heavy 1 rending weapons. I bring them up because you said you didn't like the idea of rending on a basic gun. Raptors have certain limitations with their rending, but they can still get an awful lot of it if they want it. Also, there's the the point about snipers having their own sorta-rending effect. I'm guessing your issue probably isn't with single-shot weapons but with multi-shot rending weapons, at which point we just need to figure out how likely it is for such things to actually cause problems. As I've said previously in this thread, bladestorm usually doesn't make much of a difference in my games. It usually lets me kill 2 or 3 extra guys over the course of the game.
Yeah my issue is totally with volume of fire with rending weapons. A few (2-4) shots rending is okay. A lot of shots - crazy stuff starts happening.
Martel732 wrote: " They are generalists, they can do a little of everything and that gives you flexibility"
Flexibility without efficacy is a waste of points, in my experience. Failing a little less badly than a guardsmen at these tasks is not worth their points, imo. In my view, they can accomplish very little, so putting them on the table destines them to be used "poorly", since there is no job they are good at.
At least DA are anti-MC.
A full dire avenger squad will put about 2 wounds on an MC assuming it doesn't get a cover or invul save. Marines with plasma or meltas (plus their kraks) can do comparable damage while also being able to threaten vehicles. That 3+ armor is also a pretty nice bonus. I've picked my marines back up recently, and my goodness does 3+ armor and toughness 4 make a difference over my squishy eldar. I know lots of stuff "negates" your high toughness and armor, but those options are generally paying for the priveledge, and using cover can significantly mitigate the ability to ignore armor.
When my avengers go on the offensive, they usually kill a few things, and then they're soon shot to bits or start getting pummelled in assault. That last bit can be mitigated with a shimmershield, but they still aren't going to be winning that fight. When my marines go on the offensive, they usually kill a few things, then possibly kill more things in assault, at some point get shot at and shake off much of the damage, then get assaulted and kill a thing or two, then lose combat and turn around to kill more things because of ATSKNF. Being a survivable generalist has its advantages. But seriously, the marine discussion has been going on for pages. It really deserves its own thread. Not that we haven't had such a thread just recently.
It's hard to avoid comparisons when talking about DA.
Nevelon wrote: When you are crunching numbers, consider that the Eldar like to hand out buffs like candy. What changes when they have a Guide up? When the target is under Doom?
Re-rolling to wound with rending weapons is particularly nice.
With 7th edition's psychic powers I don't think the buffs are going out "like candy". it's more likely that a few buffs are given out with as many dice as possible (using a warp charge to ignore perils on the Farseer).
I watched a game where the Eldar player was pulling off around four a turn consistently.
And how many psykers did they bring exactly? Because I'm willing that 4 a turn is only a fraction of the total powers they had available to them.
It was only a fraction. They had several pskyers for sure. But isn't that something eldar are good at? Spamming psykers?
You're being misleading pretending they can just it without a serious commitment. Yes they can spam psykers, and if they want the reliability of their powers like they had in 5th they actually have to. It's the only way they can throw enough dice at the attempts to manifest them somewhat reliably. Just taking a Farseer (or two) or just Eldrad isn't really enough to ensure you have enough dice to ensure getting one power off (since it's possible to counter blessings), much less 4. So in goes up to 350 points of level 1 psykers to add up to 10 dice to the pool.
Heck Daemons can do a better job spamming dice without much effort off a single FOC. As can Tyranids.
Nevelon wrote: When you are crunching numbers, consider that the Eldar like to hand out buffs like candy. What changes when they have a Guide up? When the target is under Doom?
Re-rolling to wound with rending weapons is particularly nice.
With 7th edition's psychic powers I don't think the buffs are going out "like candy". it's more likely that a few buffs are given out with as many dice as possible (using a warp charge to ignore perils on the Farseer).
But if those few buffs are going where they are needed every round, it’s all good.
I’ll admit to being a little biased here. I’ve not spammed librarians with my marines. The buffs per point/slot they can crank out are not the best. I hurts that they don’t get divination, so need to hope I roll the buffs I want. Not the best baseline to work from. But I’ve been working up an Eldar army for an escalation league. And while I can’t get every power off every turn, even with just a farseer and a warlock I had a very strong force multiplier.
Relevant to this thread, I was able to kill a riptide, mostly due to bladestorm. Helped by the fact that it was debuffed by the seer.
The bottom line for me is that bladestorm, in practice, is more useful than frag/krak grenades, S4, WS4. Oh, and ATSKNF. Because dead marines don't take fear or morale tests.
I am very grateful I don't play in your meta, Martel.
(Reliably handing out Twinlink x4:
2xFarseer
WC1 Guide 3-dice each for a 1/8 chance of failure. EV 1.66 successes
WC2 Prescience 3-dice each for a 1/2 chance of failure for an EV of 1
So 12 dice
Average 3.5
2xML3 = +6
Add 2-3 warlocks.
So 270 points naked, consuming both HQ slots and all WC dice, has roughly an EV of 2.66.
Factor in that EV rises much faster than 'Reliable' counts.
And occasional denials.
On some squishy t3 models
It takes an absurd amount to be throwing 4+ Twinlink powers reliably each round.
Martel732 wrote: The bottom line for me is that bladestorm, in practice, is more useful than frag/krak grenades, S4, WS4.
So it's more useful than taking less wounds, doing more wounds, being able to glance most vehicles to death with melee alone, being able to charge into combat at initative, and having a free grenade that is anti-vehicle?
Seriously, Marines have a LOT going for them and it seems you're ignoring all of it just because someone's weapon (that has 6" inches less range than yours) on a unit with a worse save and worse toughness MIGHT ignore your armor IF they roll good on the wound rolls. And the one that the same range of your Bolt Pistol is in the same boat but it on a unit that's AP'd by your basic gun.
Martel732 wrote: The bottom line for me is that bladestorm, in practice, is more useful than frag/krak grenades, S4, WS4.
So it's more useful than taking less wounds, doing less wounds, being able to glance most vehicles to death with melee alone, being able to charge into combat at initative, and having a free grenade that is anti-vehicle?
Seriously, Marines have a LOT going for them and it seems you're ignoring all of it just because someone's weapon (that has 6" inches less range than yours) on a unit with a worse save and worse toughness MIGHT ignore your armor IF they roll good on the wound rolls. And the one that the same range of your Bolt Pistol is in the same boat but it on a unit that's AP'd by your basic gun.
Yeah totally reasonable.
In practice, tac marines never make it to melee with vehicles. Or at best, very rarely. They get shot to death by Xeno firepower before they make it. Likewise, they don't get to charge because they are shot to death. They don't get to use grenades because they get shot to death. Yeah, they take damage, but can't DEAL damage.
Bharring wrote: But live Marines do. And 1-2 recovered Tac marines can tie up something light, or have a reasonable chance to do a HP to a rear-armor AV10.
1-2 Bladestorm Eldar typically have a 1/36 chance to not keep running, and if they stay, have a reasonable chance to pop a grot.
Both T4 and 3+ individually do more each game than Bladestorm.
Everyone I play with knows how ATSKNF works, and they make sure that it doesn't get to. There's a reason I didn't list T4 and 3+ on the list of things I'd give up for bladestorm. But the grenades and S/WS? Useless.
Martel732 wrote: The bottom line for me is that bladestorm, in practice, is more useful than frag/krak grenades, S4, WS4.
So it's more useful than taking less wounds, doing less wounds, being able to glance most vehicles to death with melee alone, being able to charge into combat at initative, and having a free grenade that is anti-vehicle?
Seriously, Marines have a LOT going for them and it seems you're ignoring all of it just because someone's weapon (that has 6" inches less range than yours) on a unit with a worse save and worse toughness MIGHT ignore your armor IF they roll good on the wound rolls. And the one that the same range of your Bolt Pistol is in the same boat but it on a unit that's AP'd by your basic gun.
Yeah totally reasonable.
In practice, tac marines never make to melee with vehicles. Or at best, very rarely. They get shot to death by Xeno firepower before they make it. Likewise, they don't get to charge because they are shot to death. They don't get to use grenades because they get shot to death. Yeah, they take damage, but can't DEAL damage.
If my Sisters can make it into melee with 30 Devourer Gaunts, Marines can definitely do it better. Seriously, I'm starting to wonder how you actually play because it seems like you don't do anything but complain how "weak" Marines are despite the loads of bonuses they get for the game.
I'm not trying to say you're a bad player, but I have to wonder because my experience has been that bad players are the ones who complain the loudest about how weak their toys are.
Then again we also know you play in a very crappy meta and I really don't think your personal experiences are indicative of the game everyone else is playing. Mostly because most of us don't deal with Tau armies who refuse to put more terrain on the table.
@Xenomancers: That's understandable, but do you often/consistently find that bladestorm is making a significant difference? As previously pointed out by Bharring, rending six times with a single volley isn't terribly likely.
I've had games where my avengers have had insanely lucky rolls that kill off more than their fair share of guys. I've had games where I can't seem to land more than one or two wounds that may or may not stick. I've had wyches survive flamer dreadnaughts thanks to 6+ FNP. I've had terminators drop like flies to splinter rifles because my opponent couldn't seem to stop rolling 1s.
Lucky/unlucky rolls happen, and they tend to stick out in our minds, but they aren't what you balance a unit around. I might help if someone could figure out how to mathhammer the likelihood of getting a significant number of rends. Say the 5 rends in your example. I'm pretty sure that Bharring is right and that it's not going to be happening very often.
In regards to psykers, eldar do spam them pretty well, and they do make a pretty significant difference. When they work. If you take a lone farseer you're going to be surprised by how unreliable your psychic powers are these days. If you roll exclusively on Runes of Fate, you're guaranteed to get Guide, but you only have about 50/50 odds of getting doom. Both powers are great, but doom gets shut down pretty easily if there's a psyker in the target squad. You can make your powers more reliable by getting more dice, but warlocks are pricey and only work as their own unit if you get several hundred points worth of them and stick them on jet bikes. And then you have an expensive unit that your farseer(s) will want to focus on protecting.
If your farseer isn't on a jetbike, he's only casting powers when he's out of his wave serpent and thus exposed to return fire. It only takes one well-placed multi-laser shot to kill him.
So yes, eldar psychic powers are (mostly) pretty good, but not as reliable as you'd think. You're just as likely to get death mission as doom.
Martel732 wrote: The bottom line for me is that bladestorm, in practice, is more useful than frag/krak grenades, S4, WS4.
So it's more useful than taking less wounds, doing more wounds, being able to glance most vehicles to death with melee alone, being able to charge into combat at initative, and having a free grenade that is anti-vehicle?
Seriously, Marines have a LOT going for them and it seems you're ignoring all of it just because someone's weapon (that has 6" inches less range than yours) on a unit with a worse save and worse toughness MIGHT ignore your armor IF they roll good on the wound rolls. And the one that the same range of your Bolt Pistol is in the same boat but it on a unit that's AP'd by your basic gun.
Yeah totally reasonable to be that salty.
Except that math shows that Tactical Marines aren't durable or offensive for the cost. People take Bikers, Scouts, and Sternguard for a reason, ya know.
I'd rather take an army of Dire Avengers to Tactical Marines, since they actually specialize. You claim Marines can handle tanks, but they really can't. A single Melta Gun isn't good. Combi-Weapons are 5 points too much for what they do, and to use other AT available you have to stand still. And then you talk about killing many vehicles in melee, which is ridiculous. If someone can get their Tactical Squad into melee with your tanks, I would consider you to be a bad player. They aren't fast. At all.
People take bikes over tacs because they're simply better than marines for the points cost, and the bad internal balance of marine bikes only has so much impact on the bladestorm rule. I don't typically see people taking scouts over tac marines around here. Taking sternguard is a reasonable alternative to tacs is only an option for a certain chapter or something isn't it? How do sternguard compare to avengers? I know that hellfire rounds are terrifying.
Sternguard are a quality unit. Sternguard have true versatility, not fake versatility like tactical squads. I never meant to imply marines don't have good units. They do. But none of them are in the troop section.
And I've popped quite a few tanks with Tac squads. LR kills I think are at 1, but lots of other tanks have gambled and lost.
If Rending shouldn't be on basic troops because AP2 is too good, why are AP2 weapons OK?
PG/combiPG 5-man tacs?
Grav Bikes, with 9 AP2 shots in a basic 5-man?
And why all the focus on SMs? If you don't want the generalists, why not take specialists instead?
Basically, what's being said, is that specialists (Guardians or DAs) are marginally outperforming generalists (Tacs) at what they're specialized for (placing sometimes-AP2 wounds on elite infantry at short/very short range)? Isn't that how it should be?
If you want an army of specialists, play an army of specialists?
(Yeah, I got overly indignant to those numbers. I'd need to pull out pen&paper to do the numbers right, but the nature of the game means these things happen. And they are hard to forget. Like when 6xFragons + 6xSpiders didn't even do a HP to an in-melta-range Raider. They happen. They certainly color our perceptions. But we need to try not to get too worked up over dice happening. Happens to everyone.)
Bharring wrote: Are you familiar with the term Threat in Being?
And I've popped quite a few tanks with Tac squads. LR kills I think are at 1, but lots of other tanks have gambled and lost.
If Rending shouldn't be on basic troops because AP2 is too good, why are AP2 weapons OK?
PG/combiPG 5-man tacs?
Grav Bikes, with 9 AP2 shots in a basic 5-man?
And why all the focus on SMs? If you don't want the generalists, why not take specialists instead?
Basically, what's being said, is that specialists (Guardians or DAs) are marginally outperforming generalists (Tacs) at what they're specialized for (placing sometimes-AP2 wounds on elite infantry at short/very short range)? Isn't that how it should be?
If you want an army of specialists, play an army of specialists?
(Yeah, I got overly indignant to those numbers. I'd need to pull out pen&paper to do the numbers right, but the nature of the game means these things happen. And they are hard to forget. Like when 6xFragons + 6xSpiders didn't even do a HP to an in-melta-range Raider. They happen. They certainly color our perceptions. But we need to try not to get too worked up over dice happening. Happens to everyone.)
Alright I haven't said much but, you saying 1 Tac Squad killed a LR by themselves is POSSIBLE, but so damn unlikely. Also no one wants generalists in their armies these days, because it means you paying points for a unit that has the ineffectiveness of everything and the points of the effectiveness of all. Either make Tac. Marines good at SOMETHING besides soaking up punishment (which get circumvented half the time because everyone has specialists), or make them REALLY good at soaking up punishment.
Martel732 wrote: The bottom line for me is that bladestorm, in practice, is more useful than frag/krak grenades, S4, WS4.
So it's more useful than taking less wounds, doing more wounds, being able to glance most vehicles to death with melee alone, being able to charge into combat at initative, and having a free grenade that is anti-vehicle?
Seriously, Marines have a LOT going for them and it seems you're ignoring all of it just because someone's weapon (that has 6" inches less range than yours) on a unit with a worse save and worse toughness MIGHT ignore your armor IF they roll good on the wound rolls. And the one that the same range of your Bolt Pistol is in the same boat but it on a unit that's AP'd by your basic gun.
Yeah totally reasonable to be that salty.
Except that math shows that Tactical Marines aren't durable or offensive for the cost. People take Bikers, Scouts, and Sternguard for a reason, ya know.
I'd rather take an army of Dire Avengers to Tactical Marines, since they actually specialize. You claim Marines can handle tanks, but they really can't. A single Melta Gun isn't good. Combi-Weapons are 5 points too much for what they do, and to use other AT available you have to stand still. And then you talk about killing many vehicles in melee, which is ridiculous. If someone can get their Tactical Squad into melee with your tanks, I would consider you to be a bad player. They aren't fast. At all.
Bikers are relentless moving them good grav caddies, they take Sternguard for ammo, and they take scouts becuase they want cheap troops for more toys.
That doesn't make Marines bad, it means just means they are looking for generalists to play an army with. There is a difference between "actually bad" and "I want a specialist who can handle a specific role better".
If that were true, Tacs would cost:
Shooting of a Kalabite (11ppm?)
+Durability of a Necron Warrior (12 ppm?)
+CC of a Scorpion (16 ppm?
And so would be at nearly 50 points.
But they're 13/14 ppm instead.
Saying LR kills are at 1 was to point out that they won't kill LR stuff often - its the medium/light vehicles they really threaten.
(Fun fact -
2x(2/3)(>50%)(1/3) = > (2/9) chance of popping a Land Raider with a 5-man melts/combimelta squad in one go.
Almost as unlikely as getting a Rending wound from a single DA!)
Marines are good at plenty.
At any range or in melee they destroy Guardians. By numbers or by points. By a very large margin.
At 18+", within 12", or in melee they destroy DAs, with Bladestorm giving DAs a marginal lead at 12-18". For the same cost.
Marines are better per point at either choppy or shooty than most troops. But, when it comes to Bladestorm-bearing troops, they're better at both. Per point.
Just a few examples of who they beat easily per-point:
In shooty, by points:
Kalabites
Wyches
Guardian Defenders
Storm Guardians
DAs (usually)
Wind riders
Rangers
Wraithblades
Rippers
Genestealers
Ork Choppa Boys
Ork Shoota Boys
Harlequin Troups
In melee:
Fire Warriors
Kroot
Kalabites
Guardians
DAs Wind riders
Rangers
Wraithguard
Guardsmen
Necron Warriors
Immortals
By no means a complete list. Are there *any* non-SM troops in the game not on either list?
Regardless, Marines trump all Bladestorm troops in both shooting and melee. So how does that matchup make Bladestorm OP?
You keep ignoring that Bladestorm allows them to hurt models by far out of the threat range of any other troop. Why don't people complain about Gauss? Because it still allows an armor save YOU PAID FOR. You pay nothing for Bladestorm, it is icing on the cake. Quit trying to make this thread something it isn't (which was done quite well).
Those lists were a specific response to a specific statement.
If Guardians aren't paying anything for Bladestorm, why are they nearly twice as expensive as the comparable Guardsmen?
If DAs aren't paying for Bladestorm, why do they cost the same as CSM?
Gauss Rifles - and Bolters - don't allow Guardians (or Guardsmen) to take the armor saves they paid for.
Do you really think Eldar platforms with Bladestorm in numbers doesn't actually pay for it?
Automatically Appended Next Post: (Also, plenty of troops can threaten Termies. Perhaps not quite as well as DAs per point, but they're usually much more survivable. Usually much better than Guardians, though, per point.)
Bharring wrote: Those lists were a specific response to a specific statement.
If Guardians aren't paying anything for Bladestorm, why are they nearly twice as expensive as the comparable Guardsmen?
If DAs aren't paying for Bladestorm, why do they cost the same as CSM?
Gauss Rifles - and Bolters - don't allow Guardians (or Guardsmen) to take the armor saves they paid for.
Do you really think Eldar platforms with Bladestorm in numbers doesn't actually pay for it?
Automatically Appended Next Post: (Also, plenty of troops can threaten Termies. Perhaps not quite as well as DAs per point, but they're usually much more survivable. Usually much better than Guardians, though, per point.)
Guardians are essentially Veteran Guardsmen w/ I5 and WS4, oh hey I can toss around pointless comparisons as well. As for why DA cost as much as CSM, simple they give you choices (oh look I can do that as well), you get counter-attack blablahblah. Look explain to me why Bladestorm is okay, plain and simple, Bladestorm realistically isn't going anywhere especially after the Harle 'dex drop; but it sure as hell is not paid for.
Also wet T-shirt saves have never been taken seriously by anyone, THOSE are just icing on the cake.
Do any non-SM armies hate bladestorm? The only real arguments are that they kill marines too easily but marines are only half off the armies; so do the other half hate the rule?
Personally I think that it's fine due to their short ranged guns.
Quickjager,
So, your problem is how easily they kill Tactical Terminators?
We've looked at Guardians. Tac Termies don't quite outshoot Guardians, *assuming Guardians get within 12" unmolested*. And Tac Termies aren't a ranged unit.
So, let's look at Termie killing:
5 CSM, PG/combi:
3x2x(2/3)(1/2)(1/6) = 6x(1/18)
2x2x(2/3)(5/6)(2/3) = 4x(10/27
Umm, my back/midfielders can put out decent anti-infantry fire at 24"? Not great, but much better than currently. So they do the job they have now, but instead of having that bite against MCs that wander too close, they do most of that damage, but now do decent damage at longer range than most of my Eldar infantry.
I like how they are now more, but boltguns instead of shurikats would make them absurd at mid range. A huge buff.
SGTPozy wrote: Do any non-SM armies hate bladestorm? The only real arguments are that they kill marines too easily but marines are only half off the armies; so do the other half hate the rule?
Personally I think that it's fine due to their short ranged guns.
The guys and gals in my Dark Eldar army have decided you don't even need Bladestorm to rip the shirts off their backs...
As I mentioned earlier I think Bladestorm itself is fine, it is the combination of lots of Eldar goodies/general ill feeling towards the dex as a whole that is the problem in the discussion on this thread.
On the surface, all you have to do is look at the rest of the Eldar wargear. I think they have more AP2 or better ranged wargear than any other army by a pretty good margin, including AP2 templates, multi-shot blast, and single shot large blast. Throw in basic firearms that are psuedo rending and it just feels like its piling on to those armies that pay a premium for 2+ armour saves.
SGTPozy wrote: Do any non-SM armies hate bladestorm? The only real arguments are that they kill marines too easily but marines are only half off the armies; so do the other half hate the rule?
Personally I think that it's fine due to their short ranged guns.
I hate them with my Tyranids...nothing like making TMCs even more squishy.
SGTPozy wrote: Do any non-SM armies hate bladestorm? The only real arguments are that they kill marines too easily but marines are only half off the armies; so do the other half hate the rule?
Personally I think that it's fine due to their short ranged guns.
I hate them with my Tyranids...nothing like making TMCs even more squishy.
I hate them as Necrons, though now I still get a decent save against it, so I have little right to complain. And I also hate it as Tyranids. And everyone says it balances well with their short ranged guns, but I'd kill for 2 shots at 18" instead of 12, and be able to run before or after. THAT is what makes up for their range. So, essentially, they have a 24" threat range in the shooting phase.
SGTPozy wrote: Do any non-SM armies hate bladestorm? The only real arguments are that they kill marines too easily but marines are only half off the armies; so do the other half hate the rule?
Personally I think that it's fine due to their short ranged guns.
I hate them with my Tyranids...nothing like making TMCs even more squishy.
I hate them as Necrons, though now I still get a decent save against it, so I have little right to complain. And I also hate it as Tyranids. And everyone says it balances well with their short ranged guns, but I'd kill for 2 shots at 18" instead of 12, and be able to run before or after. THAT is what makes up for their range. So, essentially, they have a 24" threat range in the shooting phase.
Aren't Fleshborers the only 12" gun in the Nids army?
Bharring wrote: Quickjager,
So, your problem is how easily they kill Tactical Terminators?
We've looked at Guardians. Tac Termies don't quite outshoot Guardians, *assuming Guardians get within 12" unmolested*. And Tac Termies aren't a ranged unit.
So, let's look at Termie killing:
5 CSM, PG/combi:
3x2x(2/3)(1/2)(1/6) = 6x(1/18)
2x2x(2/3)(5/6)(2/3) = 4x(10/27
Comes out to (49/27) vs (56/27).
Seems quite close to me, considering all the other advantages CSM have.
So how is killing Tac termies such a big deal, when DAs do it barely any better than PG Marines for the same cost?
Add in the fact that Dire Avengers don't have to be in Rapid Fire range, can actually reach 18" thanks to running and the Serpent, and that CSM's have gak transport options, seems totally fair.
OH YEAH THAT IS RIGHT THEY STILL HAVE KRAK GRENADES THAT ALLOW THEM TO MAGICALLY CATCH UP WITH TANKS AND BLOW THEM UP
I seriously wonder if you guys really play this game or not.
As has been previously pointed out, this isn't a discussion of the serpent. We all know the serpent needs to be fixed.
Avengers effectively have a 24" range plus a fleet run move if they want it (though they're then not also running into/behind cover). This is quite useful in game and relevant to the discussion.
The fact that chaos marines have crappy transports is not being contested. No one is really even saying that chaos marines/marines are amazing nor are they attacking them for being overpowered. Chaos marinse are being used as an example here because they have the same cost as avengers and are therefore being used as an example of what a similarly-costed troop unit is capable of. Your caps lock is not helpful to this discussion.
In an effort to address valid concerns about the effectiveness of comparable troops...
The example you quoted is pointing out that, despite their effectiveness against costly units with 2+ saves (terminators) being criticized, they actually come out very similar in killing power against such targets compared to (chaos) marines with a plasma gun/combi-plas loadout.
So on average, they're not doing tremendously better against terminator equivalents (better, but not tremendously). They're averaging 1 or 2 extra kills against marine equivalents. They're averaging even fewer extra kills against 4+ armor units because 4+ armor is more likely to fail its save regardless of rending, and they're performing identically in killing power (at optimal range) against lightly armored targets.
This means that they are, in fact, slightly better at killing non-vehicles than comparable units. For this ability, they trade the durability/vehicle killing power/ATSKNF of tac marines, the high strength (which threatens some transports) and range of fire warriors, and the vehicle-threatening power and durability of necron warriors. They're relatively squishy, but they hit hard. The turn after they do slightly-better-than-marine damage to a target unit, they will generally suffer fairly significant casualties as bolters wound them on threes, their 4+ save gives out or is ignored, etc.
@Arbiter Shade: 'Nid MCs do have it rough in the survivability department. I hope you can take some comfort in the knowledge that it takes an average of 390 points worth avenger shooting to kill a 6 wound MC. Also, your biovores are beautifully equipped for dealing with avengers and even guardians if you find they're giving you too much trouble.
@Krodarklorr: I'm pretty sure your durability will let you weather a volley of shuriken fire in style. If I were in charge of my craftworld's bone singers, I'd be tempted to have them swap out the ability to kill an extra marine or two for the ability to glance vehicles to death with troop guns.
Why do all eldar players view the bladestorm platoforms as if they were somehow walking the board? What happens more offten then not, is 2-3 turns of hammering with serpents and WK and then DA with blade storm mop up the left overs or focus fire stuff that was not dead/run away.
The idea that somehow eldar trade their super shoting for less durability is so laughable, when the armies are made out of serpents, t8 jump MC and stuff that gives out invisibility.
Alright I'm done, if you are really going to compare CSM troops with a plasma gun and combi-plas which they do have to pay for AND one is a one time use. It isn't conducive to argue this with you, all I'm hearing is they are as effective at killing things but more effective at killing other much more expensive things. You say this "ability" is what makes them so expensive and useful. I'm just hearing the Eldar players like the status quo what else is new.
Makumba wrote: Why do all eldar players view the bladestorm platoforms as if they were somehow walking the board? What happens more offten then not, is 2-3 turns of hammering with serpents and WK and then DA with blade storm mop up the left overs or focus fire stuff that was not dead/run away.
The idea that somehow eldar trade their super shoting for less durability is so laughable, when the armies are made out of serpents, t8 jump MC and stuff that gives out invisibility.
Isn't that kind of just an argument for bladestorm itself not being a problem though? We know serpents, wraith knights, etc. need to be toned down. That makes complete sense to me, and I'd like to see it happen. I won't cry at the loss of bladestorm (as it generally makes relatively little difference), but it would make my avengers feel a bit more bland.
So if an eldar army is, as you say, made out of serpents and knights, presumably meaning that they do most of the heavy lifting, why remove bladestorm on top of that? Part of the reason for this thread is figuring out why there is such dislike for a rule that, in my experience, is usually pretty inoffensive.
So yes, please fix serpents. Please fix wraithknights. Please fix invisibility. And once all that is done, look at bladestorm and tell me if and why it's broken.
@Quickjager,
The reason I'm so rabid in this thread is because I *don't* like the status quo. Per Wyld above, we with him.
We all know WKs and Serpents are bashing peoples faces in. But some of us want to play Eldar, and have a good game (defined by us as *both* players having a great time). To do this, we need to figure out what really is ruining peoples' days. This is why we're trying to prevent this thread from being all about Serpents again.
As for the comparison of DAs to CSM, in that case, points for the PG/combined were factored in (7DA vs 5CSM), but one-use wasn't.
From what I see, Bladestorm seems reasonable balance-wise, but not reasonable in a lot of peoples' eyes. Means I should probably run fewer DAs and more of other Aspects in my games. I'll try to keep that in mind.
I had someone walk past a game I was playing, where my opponent had removed all my DAs by top of 1 (UltraMarine Tacs are quite scary to Footdar, especially en masse, but still was a crazy lucky feat). The passerby took the time to stop and point out how terrible the game was going to be for Marines. Because I still had Bladestorm on Battlefocus models. On Rangers and Banshees. I really think he was overstating it. (My opponent loved that game).
I have been successful in making enjoyable lists, but better understanding of the situation should lead to more options for those games. If this thread were nothing but 'WSOP', it wouldn't be very helpful.
I'm sure a lot of eldar players, myself included, would be happy if the Offensive capabilities of the WS shield were dropped for something like if you desactivate the shield the WS becomes assault vehicle and enemy units in the front arc at 6' from the WS have to take a pinning check.
It is unfair to judge guardians and avengers by their transports,
By the same standards tactical SM are all overpowered because for 35 points they can objective secure with a drop pod, deploy safely wherever they want and get an almost assured alpha strike to deal with the most dangerous units/vehicles by flooding them in plasma and melta.
All but the most die hard WAAC gamers agree about Wave Serpents.
I do feel however that its not just about fixing those broken units but also the poorer ones to make Banshees an actual viable option instead of Dire Avengers.................
I did have a fun game where my opponents Scorpions Shuriken pistols did more damage in shooting than they did in H-To-H against my Sisters- although I did have to remind him that they could fire and he was pretty dismissive of their pistols until he actually fired them.....................but then he was a novice player and thought haywire grenades were not worth it again explained how they could be used in both missile and melee phases - lost me an Exorcist ;(
Bharring wrote: Umm, my back/midfielders can put out decent anti-infantry fire at 24"? Not great, but much better than currently. So they do the job they have now, but instead of having that bite against MCs that wander too close, they do most of that damage, but now do decent damage at longer range than most of my Eldar infantry.
I like how they are now more, but boltguns instead of shurikats would make them absurd at mid range. A huge buff.
1 shot at 24 is decent?...wow. Let me tell you something about 1 str 4 shot at range 24...it's so worthless - most the time you wont even remember to shoot it.
Arnais wrote: I'm sure a lot of eldar players, myself included, would be happy if the Offensive capabilities of the WS shield were dropped for something like if you desactivate the shield the WS becomes assault vehicle and enemy units in the front arc at 6' from the WS have to take a pinning check.
It is unfair to judge guardians and avengers by their transports,
By the same standards tactical SM are all overpowered because for 35 points they can objective secure with a drop pod, deploy safely wherever they want and get an almost assured alpha strike to deal with the most dangerous units/vehicles by flooding them in plasma and melta.
Drop pods are in no way nearly as good as WS. A tactical marine alpha strike is a joke and opponents and set up in ways to minimize drop pod alpha strikes in general. Drop pods aren't as good as Xeno generals claim, because I OWN drop lists consistently, but have beaten Eldar once since their 6th ed codex dropped. That's not even remotely comparable. Players have been dealing with drop pods since 5th ed and they aren't any scarier now than they were then.
(This post refers to swapping ShuriCats for Boltguns on Guardians)
9ppm would be a little high if that were their only responsibility. But holding a position comes first. Then, potshots with a heavy weapon. And then they'd still get 2xS4 within 12". Finally, if the opponent avoids all that, they still would shoot like Marines.
So 13-14 Guardians would kill 1 Tac Termie that waltzed up in front of them without the Guardians being shot. Not as good as 3, but who lets Guardians get away with that anyways?
Ask Ork or Nid players what they think of that!
But who really cares about a boltgun shot?
Marines? It only has a 1/9 chance of killing a Marine, right? So 13/9 ppm/shot killed. Not terrible.
DAs? 2/9 chance, or 26/9 ppm/shot. Nice.
Orkz? 1/3 chance, only 18/9 ppm/shot. Adds up.
Termies? 1/18 chance. So expensive, though, so 20/9 ppm/shot. Does some damage.
Guardians? 4/9 chance. *36*/9 ppm! Thats who really cares!
Boltguns aren't the trash you seem to think they are.
But the price paid to get those shots is high. Boltguns are indeed awful. They've been awful since 5th and were super awful in 2nd. Marines in general have poor firepower across the board for their price. The exceptions are what you see spammed over and over.
I don't like blade storm from a "fun" perspective because it doesn't let me roll dice. I just see my opponent's dice and pick up models that normally would get a save. While that's fine for more powerful stuff, I don't think that ability should ever be on a basic troop gun.
I think the most fun part of the game is when you have two squads shooting or fighting that can both hit each other, both wound each other, and both take saves.
I play marines because I like being able to roll saves against junk instead of just watching my opponent's dice on his turn. It keeps me more involved in the game. But the sheer amount of stuff in the game now that tells me I don't get to roll crap is getting ridiculous.
But doesn't a PG/combiPG squad do the same? Or Grav bikers?
Granted, its 5 in that squad compared to 7 DAs, for the points. But it does about the same to armor saves, and a lot more to AVs.
And Guardians *are* APed by Boltguns...
(
I picked Marines because I wanted reasonably survivable basic troops that were generalists. And could kit them out for specific roles. More choppy than the shooty, more shooty than the choppy.
I picked Eldar because I wanted short-range infantry, each really good at what they did, but fell apart if not kept safe. With ways to keep them safe, but unable to do much until they engage.
I picked Tau, because I wanted to do Xenos mech, and Serpents OP. And I like their look.
)
I think it's an even worse feeling that SS/SL give marines a save, but it just doesn't matter because wound spam.
I think I said this several pages ago, but bladestorm is just one more unfun rule to deal with in a book filled with unfun units to go up against. Units that literally make other lists' units die in place after having accomplished nothing.
Why are people comparing a one use weapon, the combi-plasma, that also has the Gets Hot special rule to a weapon that has no similar downside? Why is that not apart of this conversation that you are trying to control? I don't think that Bladestorm is OP, I do think that it is an unnecessary additional buff on top of everything else. DA's are more resilient to small arms fire because they have more wounds to go through than that five man CSM squad that also has a chance of killing itself with Gets Hot. In the current meta more wounds is more important that armor saves because of things like Bladestorm and all of the high AP weapons that have become more and more prevalent as each new codex gets released.
I understand that people want to paint this conversation in a way that we talk about DA vs Terminators with both sides walking across the board at each other with no cover between them, but that is ludicrous. If all Eldar had was Bladestorm then it would probably be okay, but they have Battle Focus, the WS, and plenty of other little toys to play with. Bladestorm is basically a multiplier that just adds on to an already unbalanced equation, that is all anyone is saying. If they changed Bladestorm and nothing else, nothing would change. If they changed everything else and left Bladestorm alone, I don't know. It still might be rather annoying but it is something that is hard to judge based on all the other crap you can get.
I will tell you that when I was playing my Eldar army I never used the Serpent Shield as a weapon and only played two of them with 9 man DA squads with Warlocks attached. Bladestorm made them dangerous enough that I could move my WS's into position and unload them at any target I wanted and take them off the table regularly. So yeah, from my perspective Bladestorm alone is a little silly, I may have had to point a larger amount of points than the target sometimes but I could do it in a way that allowed little retaliation.
"Why are people comparing a one use weapon, the combi-plasma, that also has the Gets Hot special rule to a weapon that has no similar downside?"
Because proponents of marine efficacy want to act like access to gear is the same as having the gear for free and ignore the 14 pt dead weight model that is carrying it as well as the cost of the plasma gun/combi-gun. The IG does it so much better than marines. Cheap guy, potent gun, done.
Marines have efficacious units. Tac squads, regardless of gear, are not one of them.
In terms of marine durability, they are taking it from both ends from the proliferation of AP 2 as well as high ROF S6+ attacks. Both of these mechanics just wreck marines by invalidating their save, their T, or sometimes both. But maybe even worse than this is the marine's inability to remove the sources of AP2/ROF S6+ from the table. Poor firepower is now an unforgivable sin in 40K.
"Its not like Marines never remove other units from the table that way. I see it happen/do it all the time. "
We have very different experiences. I struggle to remove anything from good lists with tac squads. In a wall of WS/WK, for example, they have no targets at all.
"What role do you see DAs and Guardians playing?"
Right now they are life support systems for WS. If that weren't true, the situation becomes more complex.
Martel - PG and Combi - and the guys carrying them *were* factored in. In fact, DAs payed 1 more point in that analysis. Saying otherwise is just spouting FUD.
The point of comparing them to Tacs is (1), people keep bringing them up, and (2), if DAs compare reasonably to a unit most consider garbage, then they should be reasonable. If they compare reasonably to something broken, they're probably broken.
As for S6 spam or AP3 killing Marines almost as well as DAs (not true anyways - DAs die faster by 50% more to s6 that doesn't AP), DAs die even easier to S5 or AP4.
And Marines sure don't lack the ability to remove high-volume Bladestorm from the table.
The easiest way to take down Eldar is to be 'more Eldar' than them.
Get in behind a Wave Serpent, and the AV10 with no shield is now just the back-end of a Rhino.
Dark Reapers ignore Jink, so send your bikes the other way around.
Fighting Guardians with Marines? Get your Bolters to 23" range and they'll have trouble getting into 12", where you get to assault them. 3s to hit, 3s to wound and only cover saves can protect them.
As for Bladestorm, it is a bit too ubiquitous. I try to keep it out of my lists, but Windrider Jetbikes get it. 60-ish points for a 3-wound ShuriCannon is too good to pass up.
How do you get get 50% more to a scattler laser? The math is almost the same except the save rate is 50% instead of 66%.
I wasn't specifically referring to your analysis, but I could see how you would take it that way. It also didn't help the CSM that they had to be within 12" to do that, and the DA could do it safely from 18".
Bharring wrote: DAs would need 2x the number to be as resilient as Marines to small arms (boltguns).
Guardians would need 4x.
(Also, Warlocks can't currently join DAs, and haven't since the current codex released)
What role do you see DAs and Guardians playing? Should they really do less/the same damage in shooting than Marines, in all circumstances?
Its not like Marines never remove other units from the table that way. I see it happen/do it all the time.
(CombiPlas is 1-shot, but if Termies or equivalents are a threat, they are charging next round anyways)
To the Warlock point, I did not know that. In my defense Eldar have never really been an army I cared to play. I only played them a couple of times when the 6th codex came out because I was given a free army by a friend who was getting out of the game. After playing a couple of games with them I sold the army.
Yes, DA take more wounds than Marines to bolters...great, what is the point in saying that? Are bolters currently the top tier of the meta? Are they something that we build armies around in order to deal with? The most common place weapons will wound Marines and DA's on 2+ some of them ignore army and some of them do not. DA save 16% less times than Marines. There are very few AP4 high strength weapons that are going to be fired with any regularity at DAs.
In a Marine vs DA fight, the Marines will probably win out. But really this game is not won and loss on your troops, so many list take minimum troop choices that we affectionately call them a tax. It is only in maelstrom missions that you start to see more than minimum troops and people are certainly NOT using them for their offensive capabilities.
So you are right, in a straight up fight DA are not to bad compared to some other troop choices, Bladestrom puts them towards the higher end of the pack when it comes to potential. But as I said in my previous point, as much as you want to frame this conversation in that way, that isn't how this game is played. I wish this game played in such a way where troops had a larger impact on the game rather than just being their to capture objectives. I wish we played a game with more restrictions on how many non-troop choices you could take. Infact, my ideal would be to do something similar to Deadzone, which is basically saying only one non-troop for every troop choices or something similar.
With the way this game is set up and the way the current meta is, troops are a tax that don't generally apply to the games outcome except for surviving long enough to hold objectives. Because of that what is more valuable than an elite generalist is a cheap and efficient fodder. Guardians are cheap and efficient fodder. DA allow access to the most powerful dedicated transport out there. The fact that both Guardians and DA can put the hurt on any non AV unit in the game because of their psuedo rending that doesn't require additional points is what takes them from being a tax to being a tax that might actually accomplish something. SM can take a plasma/combiplasma, but why would I waste the points on my troop tax when I could just take some Sternguard and do the same thing? We are forced to take troops, most times we want to minimize how many points they are going to cost us. Eldar troops just come out as more appealing when you look at it from the cost perspective.
You point out two things I'd like to address. First, that avengers allow cheap access to the serpent. As previously mentioned, the serpent is broken. We all know this. The question is whether or not bladestorm itself is also broken. Avengers can cheaply unlock another serpent. Okay. That doesn't really have much direct bearing on bladestorm. I don't say this to be rude but to try and keep this conversation from devolving into yet another "wave serpents OP," thread.
Second, you mention that avengers can harm any non AV unit in the game. This is certainly nice for the avengers, but marines aren't exactly incapable of hurting targets themselves. Plasma and melta both ignore armor. They also threaten armor. I'm not going to say that krak grenades are a cure-all, but you *do* have the option to lob a strength 6 attack in shooting or to have nothing but strength 6 attacks in melee against especially hardy targets.
Bladestorm *does* let avengers hurt any non-av target in the game, but they're certainly not alone in that.
You point out two things I'd like to address. First, that avengers allow cheap access to the serpent. As previously mentioned, the serpent is broken. We all know this. The question is whether or not bladestorm itself is also broken. Avengers can cheaply unlock another serpent. Okay. That doesn't really have much direct bearing on bladestorm. I don't say this to be rude but to try and keep this conversation from devolving into yet another "wave serpents OP," thread.
Second, you mention that avengers can harm any non AV unit in the game. This is certainly nice for the avengers, but marines aren't exactly incapable of hurting targets themselves. Plasma and melta both ignore armor. They also threaten armor. I'm not going to say that krak grenades are a cure-all, but you *do* have the option to lob a strength 6 attack in shooting or to have nothing but strength 6 attacks in melee against especially hardy targets.
Bladestorm *does* let avengers hurt any non-av target in the game, but they're certainly not alone in that.
18" range is infinitely better than krak grenades.
Martel732 wrote: Marines have efficacious units. Tac squads, regardless of gear, are not one of them.
Maybe when you play, but in my experience that is simply not true.
What exactly do they do for you? And furthermore, how many of those things were preventable by your opponent?
I play Sisters, aka the extra squishy Tactical Marines and do fine with them. Adding in options like Chapter Tactics (replacing AoF & Shield of Faith), the statline bonus (+1WS/S/T/I for 1pt), Combat Squads (basically 1pt), and ATSKNF (free) and I can't see HOW they are so bad.
Also you keep comparing the strengths of specialists to Tact Marines but ignore all penalties they have. .
Tact Marines have no real weaknesses, they're just not god-tier in every single thing they can do. That doesn't make them bad. Playing them poorly makes them bad.
There is no way to play a unit poorly that has no real capability/pt to begin with. Their primary strength is bullet catcher in a game about devastating offense. They are in the wrong game; they are an artifact from 3rd. They are bad because their offense, in practice, is terrible. They are so generalized that they can't do anything cost effectively. Add this up over several squads, and you have a dumpster fire.
Again, what exactly are people doing with tac squads to make them so great? Tac marines alleged lack of weakness is completely overshadowed by their lack of strengths in the current meta in my view.
Martel732 wrote: Marines have efficacious units. Tac squads, regardless of gear, are not one of them.
Maybe when you play, but in my experience that is simply not true.
What exactly do they do for you? And furthermore, how many of those things were preventable by your opponent?
I play Sisters, aka the extra squishy Tactical Marines and do fine with them. Adding in options like Chapter Tactics (replacing AoF & Shield of Faith), the statline bonus (+1WS/S/T/I for 1pt), Combat Squads (basically 1pt), and ATSKNF (free) and I can't see HOW they are so bad.
Also you keep comparing the strengths of specialists to Tact Marines but ignore all penalties they have. .
Tact Marines have no real weaknesses, they're just not god-tier in every single thing they can do. That doesn't make them bad.
That pretty well sums up my thoughts on tac marines. When people talk about marines, they often say something to the effect of, "Marines are a forgiving army to play." I think that's pretty accurate. They don't excel at anything, but they're not bad at most things either. Plus, they're durable enough that they'll usually have a few bodies left over to keep fighting with even if they fail to kill something on the first try. I know plenty of things out there can deal handily with marines, but it's generally something very powerful/expensive that you want to be using on something more important than a tac squad or else it's an option made specifically to deal cost-effectively with marines. Or they just pile on the shots which means they aren't shooting at other things in your army.
Actually, I find marines extremely UNforgiving. Mainly because your return fire is usually weak compared to incoming fire. You only have a few units that are actually fearsome, and if those get focused down, your list is basically helpless.
This is why you see so many biker/cent lists that involve invisibility.
Martel732 wrote: There is no way to play a unit poorly that has no real capability/pt to begin with. Their primary strength is bullet catcher in a game about devastating offense. They are in the wrong game; they are an artifact from 3rd. They are bad because their offense, in practice, is terrible. They are so generalized that they can't do anything cost effectively. Add this up over several squads, and you have a dumpster fire.
Again, what exactly are people doing with tac squads to make them so great?
You answer comes from the question: What are Tact Marines real weaknesses? The list is REALLY short compared to most units.
And if you're losing your Tact Marines all the time you're doing something very wrong. Like standing out in the middle of the table, without cover and not trying to protect your models. Your Rhinos can turbo boost for example. USE IT. Shoot your Tacts, then turbo-boost the Rhino between the biggest threat and the Marines.
Or you can ram Rhinos up in your opponent's face turn 1 (12" move + 6" flat out to go 18" a turn, meaning you can cross the No Man's Land on most deployments in one turn, doing this with enough targets can prevent your opponent from effectively being able to respond to every threat, especially when paired with other high priority threats like your HS slots).
The few things that are actual weaknesses for Marines (AP3, AP2) can be countered with cover, creating LoS blocking through screening and playing smart. Just running your stuff up the board like you're playing the Green Tide is just asking for trouble.
Seriously, all I ever hear you do is bitch about how bad Marines are, and how you can't compete with any other army because of it. If you hate your Marines so much wtf are you playing them?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote: Actually, I find marines extremely UNforgiving. Mainly because your return fire is usually weak compared to incoming fire. You only have a few units that are actually fearsome, and if those get focused down, your list is basically helpless.
This is why you see so many biker/cent lists that involve invisibility.
Funny, because I never see that list. That list didn't even do well at LVO. Sure it looks good on paper, but when against people who know how to pick it apart it isn't that good.
Martel732 wrote: There is no way to play a unit poorly that has no real capability/pt to begin with. Their primary strength is bullet catcher in a game about devastating offense. They are in the wrong game; they are an artifact from 3rd. They are bad because their offense, in practice, is terrible. They are so generalized that they can't do anything cost effectively. Add this up over several squads, and you have a dumpster fire.
Again, what exactly are people doing with tac squads to make them so great?
You answer comes from the question: What are Tact Marines real weaknesses? The list is REALLY short compared to most units.
And if you're losing your Tact Marines all the time you're doing something very wrong. Like standing out in the middle of the table, without cover and not trying to protect your models. Your Rhinos can turbo boost for example. USE IT. Shoot your Tacts, then turbo-boost the Rhino between the biggest threat and the Marines.
Or you can ram Rhinos up in your opponent's face turn 1 (12" move + 6" flat out to go 18" a turn, meaning you can cross the No Man's Land on most deployments in one turn, doing this with enough targets can prevent your opponent from effectively being able to respond to every threat, especially when paired with other high priority threats like your HS slots).
The few things that are actual weaknesses for Marines (AP3, AP2) can be countered with cover, creating LoS blocking through screening and playing smart. Just running your stuff up the board like you're playing the Green Tide is just asking for trouble.
Seriously, all I ever hear you do is bitch about how bad Marines are, and how you can't compete with any other army because of it. If you hate your Marines so much wtf are you playing them?
They're what I have. And I'm not giving GW the kind of jack it would take to change. That said, I really bought in in 3rd edition, where marines were very, very good. I expected them to be toned down over time, but it's gotten a bit silly I think.
No one is running marines up the center of the board and hoping for the best. It's about the crippling firepower of Xeno lists vs the mediocre return fire of marines.
"can prevent your opponent from effectively being able to respond to every threat"
Well built Xeno lists can respond to most marine threats.
"how bad Marines are"
Tac marines. C:SM is full of nasty stuff. Just none of it is in the troop section. And I hate how the term "generalist" is used as an excuse to have crap capabilities. Doing nothing well is not useful in this kind of game.
Martel732 wrote: They're what I have. And I'm not giving GW the kind of jack it would take to change. That said, I really bought in in 3rd edition, where marines were very, very good. I expected them to be toned down over time, but it's gotten a bit silly I think.
Seeing as Marines have gotten a lot cheaper since 3rd and gained options they used to pay for (grenades) for free as well as gained free USRs I have to heavily disagree with your assessment that they got "worse".
Martel732 wrote: No one is running marines up the center of the board and hoping for the best. It's about the crippling firepower of Xeno lists vs the mediocre return fire of marines.
It's not using screening, cover, and learning how to properly wield a Marine army to counter that "crippling firepower" (that's mounted on more fragile everything). Inversely the most durable Xenos (Necrons) has the least crippling firepower.
Seriously, if you can't win with Marines the problem isn't that your army is "underpowered", it's you at this point. There are a LOT of ways to mitigate the things you complain about (not to mention most Marine weapons AP a majority of Xenos options out there) but you just keep bitching about the 1-2 things they specialize in while ignoring the things that make them easier to take down. It's like complaining that Fire Dragons are good at killing tanks while ignoring that they don't do well against hordes or close-combat units.
SGTPozy wrote: Do any non-SM armies hate bladestorm? The only real arguments are that they kill marines too easily but marines are only half off the armies; so do the other half hate the rule?
Personally I think that it's fine due to their short ranged guns.
I hate them with my Tyranids...nothing like making TMCs even more squishy.
I hate them as Necrons, though now I still get a decent save against it, so I have little right to complain. And I also hate it as Tyranids. And everyone says it balances well with their short ranged guns, but I'd kill for 2 shots at 18" instead of 12, and be able to run before or after. THAT is what makes up for their range. So, essentially, they have a 24" threat range in the shooting phase.
Aren't Fleshborers the only 12" gun in the Nids army?
Umm, I believe Spinefists are as well, but yes. I was simply referring to rapid firing Gauss rifles. I only get 2 shots at 12", not 18.
I'd love the option to not pay for grenades that I don't want or use.
They had ATSKNF in 3rd, which was completely OP at the time, but now it has been reduced to almost a disadvantage.
"(that's mounted on more fragile everything"
Maybe you better look at WS and Riptides again. The sad part is that with MCs and superior vehicles, you can create a lot of Xeno lists that play more durable than a marine list, because those same MCs and vehicles make a mockery of marine vehicles and power armor.
SGTPozy wrote: Do any non-SM armies hate bladestorm? The only real arguments are that they kill marines too easily but marines are only half off the armies; so do the other half hate the rule?
Personally I think that it's fine due to their short ranged guns.
I hate them with my Tyranids...nothing like making TMCs even more squishy.
I hate them as Necrons, though now I still get a decent save against it, so I have little right to complain. And I also hate it as Tyranids. And everyone says it balances well with their short ranged guns, but I'd kill for 2 shots at 18" instead of 12, and be able to run before or after. THAT is what makes up for their range. So, essentially, they have a 24" threat range in the shooting phase.
Aren't Fleshborers the only 12" gun in the Nids army?
Umm, I believe Spinefists are as well, but yes. I was simply referring to rapid firing Gauss rifles. I only get 2 shots at 12", not 18.
Tyranids were mentioned that's why I was curious. And Tyranids can get 3 shots at 18" for less than a Dire Avenger costs IIRC.
SGTPozy wrote: Do any non-SM armies hate bladestorm? The only real arguments are that they kill marines too easily but marines are only half off the armies; so do the other half hate the rule?
Personally I think that it's fine due to their short ranged guns.
I hate them with my Tyranids...nothing like making TMCs even more squishy.
I hate them as Necrons, though now I still get a decent save against it, so I have little right to complain. And I also hate it as Tyranids. And everyone says it balances well with their short ranged guns, but I'd kill for 2 shots at 18" instead of 12, and be able to run before or after. THAT is what makes up for their range. So, essentially, they have a 24" threat range in the shooting phase.
Aren't Fleshborers the only 12" gun in the Nids army?
Umm, I believe Spinefists are as well, but yes. I was simply referring to rapid firing Gauss rifles. I only get 2 shots at 12", not 18.
Tyranids were mentioned that's why I was curious. And Tyranids can get 3 shots at 18" for less than a Dire Avenger costs IIRC.
This is true, which is why I love Warriors. However, there is no rending on them, they're usually BS 3, and the internet hates Warriors anyway. >.>
Martel732 wrote: I'd love the option to not pay for grenades that I don't want or use.
They had ATSKNF in 3rd, which was completely OP at the time, but now it has been reduced to almost a disadvantage.
Funny because Grendades tend to be great when you need an extra blast template, or need some S6 AP4 vs a tank or MC.
And yes, they've fixed ATSKNF over the editions, but they've also given a lot of bonuses to Marines since then.
Seriously, I'm of the opinion that you just don't have any tactical depth with how you play Marines. I just can't see any evidence that supports any other position at this point because all you do is cry about how bad your Tact Marines are and complain about their FREE bonuses. Like said FREE grenades.
Martel732 wrote: I'd love the option to not pay for grenades that I don't want or use.
They had ATSKNF in 3rd, which was completely OP at the time, but now it has been reduced to almost a disadvantage.
Funny because Grendades tend to be great when you need an extra blast template, or need some S6 AP4 vs a tank or MC.
And yes, they've fixed ATSKNF over the editions, but they've also given a lot of bonuses since then.
Seriously, I'm of the opinion that you just don't have any tactical depth with how you play Marines. I just can't see any evidence that supports any other position at this point because all you do is cry about how bad your Tact Marines are and complain about their FREE bonuses. Like said FREE grenades.
A bonus that has no useful in-game effect is not a bonus. If you are using krak grenades against an MC, you've already lost.
If I have no tactical depth, then why can I beat other marine lists very frequently? Could it be that they can't burn my list to the ground where it stands? Or that maybe they are using the same crappy tac marines? Like all these drop lists people complain about. I've been fighting those since 5th, and that was back when SW were totally broken. The difference is that drop lists put themselves in harm's way. They can't just sit there and point from all the way across the board and have me pick up entire units.
Martel732 wrote: A bonus that has no useful in-game effect is not a bonus.
Seriously? You can't be swept in close combat, and auto-rally and act as normal without firing snap shots or being restricted in how you move and it has "no in game effect"?
And if someone is dedicated enough firepower to completely kill a Tact Marine unit then they're not using it to target other parts of your army. So the THREAT of the models is still beneficial.
Martel732 wrote: If I have no tactical depth, then why can I beat other marine lists very frequently? Could it be that they can't burn my list to the ground where it stands? Or that maybe they are using the same crappy tac marines?
Or they're just worse players than you. I see no evidence of competence in how you play. All I see is someone who cries on the internet about his units not being the best thing ever with no drawbacks.
ATSKNF is a disadvantage more often than it is not. When used with calgar it becomes VERY potent but outside of that - which requires a 275 point non psyker. It's a disadvantage every time because then you can't shoot at the close combat squad that's killing you the next turn because 3 marines that have 3 CC attacks refused to die for the good of the whole!
Having a free bonus like...ignore night fight - or being able to shoot after run are advantages ALL the time...you don't see me complaining about that crap. All armies get free bonuses. Look at daemons - they can remove your best unit and place herald in it's place on 3d6 leadership test thats failed...wow...ATSKNF is REALLY potent. What it really comes down to is that without grav guns marines would be the worst army in the game...thats right - the worst.
Xenomancers wrote: ATSKNF is a disadvantage more often than it is not. When used with calgar it becomes VERY potent but outside of that - which requires a 275 point non psyker. It's a disadvantage every time because then you can't shoot at the close combat squad that's killing you the next turn because 3 marines that have 3 CC attacks refused to die for the good of the whole!
Having a free bonus like...ignore night fight - or being able to shoot after run are advantages ALL the time...you don't see me complaining about that crap. All armies get free bonuses. Look at daemons - they can remove your best unit and place herald in it's place on 3d6 leadership test thats failed...wow...ATSKNF is REALLY potent. What it really comes down to is that without grav guns marines would be the worst army in the game...thats right - the worst.
Those bonuses are more on par with Chapter Tactics which confers rules like re-rolling ones for bolters and giving you Tank Hunters.
ATSKNF is better than Fearless which is what most other armies have to contend with as an option (preventing them from going to ground, or breaking combat against things they can't hurt, like an Ironclad Dreadnought).
Martel732 wrote: A bonus that has no useful in-game effect is not a bonus.
Seriously? You can't be swept in close combat, and auto-rally and act as normal without firing snap shots or being restricted in how you move and it has "no in game effect"?
And if someone is dedicated enough firepower to completely kill a Tact Marine unit then they're not using it to target other parts of your army. So the THREAT of the models is still beneficial.
Martel732 wrote: If I have no tactical depth, then why can I beat other marine lists very frequently? Could it be that they can't burn my list to the ground where it stands? Or that maybe they are using the same crappy tac marines?
Or they're just worse players than you. I see no evidence of competence in how you play. All I see is someone who cries on the internet about his units not being the best thing ever with no drawbacks.
I didn't ask for them to be the best thing ever. I'm just tired of people pointing to non-bonuses of the marines. As someone else mentioned, ATSKNF is actually a disadvantage quite frequently. I've played without the rule to prove a point a few times, and both sides agreed that the outcome was not changed. I'd gladly give back a ton of the bonuses that marines get for "free" in exchange for a single rule that means something in practice. WS4, S4, I4, frag grenades, krak greandes, and ATSKNF are all useless in most situations. Mostly because most marines are shot and killed before any of that stuff means a thing.
Martel732 wrote: I didn't ask for them to be the best thing ever. I'm just tired of people pointing to non-bonuses of the marines. As someone else mentioned, ATSKNF is actually a disadvantage quite frequently. I've played without the rule to prove a point a few times, and both sides agreed that the outcome was not changed.
You actively ignore the fact that as generalists they can't be specialists. The bonuses they have are balanced with VERY few real weaknesses and the ability to threaten most of the things in the game.
And I can sit here and think of a whole list of reasons why you aren't benefiting from ATSKNF. At the end of the day your anecdotes on why Tact Marines are so bad are pointless though. They don't disprove anything, all they do is tell us that they don't work for you which, as I've pointed out already, could come down to a LOT of reasons beyond "they're bad".
Martel732 wrote: I didn't ask for them to be the best thing ever. I'm just tired of people pointing to non-bonuses of the marines. As someone else mentioned, ATSKNF is actually a disadvantage quite frequently. I've played without the rule to prove a point a few times, and both sides agreed that the outcome was not changed.
You actively ignore the fact that as generalists they can't be specialists. The bonuses they have are balanced with VERY few real weaknesses and the ability to threaten most of the things in the game.
And I can sit here and think of a whole list of reasons why you aren't benefiting from ATSKNF. At the end of the day your anecdotes on why Tact Marines are so bad are pointless though. They don't disprove anything, all they do is tell us that they don't work for you which, as I've pointed out already, could come down to a LOT of reasons beyond "they're bad".
Then explain how they work for anyone. What are they doing with them?
"You actively ignore the fact that as generalists they can't be specialists"
No, I'm not. I'm saying that generalists are bad in 7th ed.
krodarklorr wrote: If it makes you feel any better, I hate ATSKNF with a passion, mainly because I've been given a bunch of new rules that they straight up ignore.
Just kill them, then they won't be ignoring your rules. They'll be dead. They can't hurt you back very well.
krodarklorr wrote: If it makes you feel any better, I hate ATSKNF with a passion, mainly because I've been given a bunch of new rules that they straight up ignore.
Just kill them, then they won't be ignoring your rules. They'll be dead. They can't hurt you back very well.
That's easier said then done in an army that lacks low AP weaponry to spam.
krodarklorr wrote: If it makes you feel any better, I hate ATSKNF with a passion, mainly because I've been given a bunch of new rules that they straight up ignore.
Just kill them, then they won't be ignoring your rules. They'll be dead. They can't hurt you back very well.
That's easier said then done in an army that lacks low AP weaponry to spam.
Admittedly, there is a group of lists that the marine schtick works better against than others. But wound spam always works; AP is irrelevant. In many ways, this is superior, as cover does not help against that approach in any way.
Martel732 wrote: I didn't ask for them to be the best thing ever. I'm just tired of people pointing to non-bonuses of the marines. As someone else mentioned, ATSKNF is actually a disadvantage quite frequently. I've played without the rule to prove a point a few times, and both sides agreed that the outcome was not changed.
You actively ignore the fact that as generalists they can't be specialists. The bonuses they have are balanced with VERY few real weaknesses and the ability to threaten most of the things in the game.
And I can sit here and think of a whole list of reasons why you aren't benefiting from ATSKNF. At the end of the day your anecdotes on why Tact Marines are so bad are pointless though. They don't disprove anything, all they do is tell us that they don't work for you which, as I've pointed out already, could come down to a LOT of reasons beyond "they're bad".
Then explain how they work for anyone. What are they doing with them?
I can't speak for everyone but I use my Battle Sister Squads (aka my extra squishy version of the same thing as Tacts without all the trimmings) help crack tanks, tie up shooty units so the rest of my army can function, threaten MCs with Krak grenades (killed a Tyrannocyte that way a couple weeks ago), hold objectives, flush units out of cover ( mostly with flamer templates)....
I use them as a multi-tool, choosing a job for each unit as I need it and doing what I can to make it work (through use of terrain, cover, screening models, ect).
krodarklorr wrote: If it makes you feel any better, I hate ATSKNF with a passion, mainly because I've been given a bunch of new rules that they straight up ignore.
Just kill them, then they won't be ignoring your rules. They'll be dead. They can't hurt you back very well.
That's easier said then done in an army that lacks low AP weaponry to spam.
Admittedly, there is a group of lists that the marine schtick works better against than others. But wound spam always works; AP is irrelevant. In many ways, this is superior, as cover does not help against that approach in any way.
Well, that is one thing I love from Fantasy, but meh. There's been numerous times where I could have Feared/Swept/made a unit run off the board, but has been averted thanks to that rule.
krodarklorr wrote: If it makes you feel any better, I hate ATSKNF with a passion, mainly because I've been given a bunch of new rules that they straight up ignore.
Just kill them, then they won't be ignoring your rules. They'll be dead. They can't hurt you back very well.
That's easier said then done in an army that lacks low AP weaponry to spam.
Just spam wraiths dude. Plus immortals are pretty spam-able are they not? Gauss is pretty dang nice if you ask me. It's no bladestorm - but it's nice.
Xenomancers wrote: ATSKNF is a disadvantage more often than it is not. When used with calgar it becomes VERY potent but outside of that - which requires a 275 point non psyker. It's a disadvantage every time because then you can't shoot at the close combat squad that's killing you the next turn because 3 marines that have 3 CC attacks refused to die for the good of the whole!
Having a free bonus like...ignore night fight - or being able to shoot after run are advantages ALL the time...you don't see me complaining about that crap. All armies get free bonuses. Look at daemons - they can remove your best unit and place herald in it's place on 3d6 leadership test thats failed...wow...ATSKNF is REALLY potent. What it really comes down to is that without grav guns marines would be the worst army in the game...thats right - the worst.
Those bonuses are more on par with Chapter Tactics which confers rules like re-rolling ones for bolters and giving you Tank Hunters.
ATSKNF is better than Fearless which is what most other armies have to contend with as an option (preventing them from going to ground, or breaking combat against things they can't hurt, like an Ironclad Dreadnought).
Fearless is better IMO. Can't be gunned off an objective unless you kill every model. I've actually lost a few points in tournaments for this exact reason. It's only advantage is not being able to be swept off the board vs a squad they got unlucky against. however most everything that gets into assualt with marines wrecks them easily so you really just want them to die most of the time. Chapter tactics are nice - wont dispute that - they aren't free bonuses though. You have to take crappy marines to take advantage of most of them and their benefits are only chapter wide...since you are basically forced to run allies to be competitive with marines it makes them even less important.
Martel, have you considered trying IG out? I don't mean this in a snarky way, but you seem to value your armor, toughness, weapon skill, ability to not die in combat, chapter tactics, etc. very lowly while placing great emphasis on ranged offense. I know you don't want to spend a lot of money on a new army, but it sounds like you might simply prefer a playstyle that lets you keep your distance with cheap models.
Or you might even consider trying out chaos marines. I'm not a huge fan of the current chaos book, but you *can* spam cultists cheaply (as far as points anwyay), and you trade off all those pesky disadvantages like chapter tactics plus and they shall know no fear for a very modest points reduction. Then most of your models will still be usable.
Wyldhunt wrote: Martel, have you considered trying IG out? I don't mean this in a snarky way, but you seem to value your armor, toughness, weapon skill, ability to not die in combat, chapter tactics, etc. very lowly while placing great emphasis on ranged offense. I know you don't want to spend a lot of money on a new army, but it sounds like you might simply prefer a playstyle that lets you keep your distance with cheap models.
Or you might even consider trying out chaos marines. I'm not a huge fan of the current chaos book, but you *can* spam cultists cheaply (as far as points anwyay), and you trade off all those pesky disadvantages like chapter tactics plus and they shall know no fear for a very modest points reduction. Then most of your models will still be usable.
If I were given a do-over, I'd probably have an IG list.
At the same time, I love the fluff of the BA, but their table top models just can't live up to it. Or get even close, really. The BA codex doesn't mention being mowed down wholesale by scatterlasers before they can get their choppy on in their glorious history.
Xenomancers wrote: Fearless is better IMO. Can't be gunned off an objective unless you kill every model. I've actually lost a few points in tournaments for this exact reason. It's only advantage is not being able to be swept off the board vs a squad they got unlucky against. however most everything that gets into assualt with marines wrecks them easily so you really just want them to die most of the time. Chapter tactics are nice - wont dispute that - they aren't free bonuses though. You have to take crappy marines to take advantage of most of them and their benefits are only chapter wide...since you are basically forced to run allies to be competitive with marines it makes them even less important.
I disagree on your assessments for the most part. Fearless models are just as likely to be stuck in melee as Tact Marines, and I don't see Marines as "crappy". I see some people bitching about their models not getting enough bonuses on what is a very good all rounder option with no major drawbacks, but I don't see an actual bad option there.
The only reason I'm moving from Sisters to Eldar over Marines at this point is for a change of playstyles as Marines play almost identically with the differences coming down to weapon options. And I'm looking for a change of pace. It's been 5 years, I think it's a good time to shake things up for myself personally.
In my *very last game*, I had a decent size SM unit break (against Eldar). Thanks to ATSKNF, they still got to charge some DAs the next round. So I didn't have to look far for an example of that rule kicking some ass.
Perhaps not how you play, but the way we play, there is more to the game than firepower alone. And firepower isnt always s6+ ap3-.
(Did IG not exist in 3rd? Because it sounds like that's what you're asking for.)
krodarklorr wrote: If it makes you feel any better, I hate ATSKNF with a passion, mainly because I've been given a bunch of new rules that they straight up ignore.
Just kill them, then they won't be ignoring your rules. They'll be dead. They can't hurt you back very well.
That's easier said then done in an army that lacks low AP weaponry to spam.
Just spam wraiths dude. Plus immortals are pretty spam-able are they not? Gauss is pretty dang nice if you ask me. It's no bladestorm - but it's nice.
I would much rater not "spam" anything, since there are so many good options in this codex now. And I'm not saying I can't deal with marines, I'm just debating that Marines aren't as bad as he's making them out to be.
Bharring wrote: In my *very last game*, I had a decent size SM unit break (against Eldar). Thanks to ATSKNF, they still got to charge some DAs the next round. So I didn't have to look far for an example of that rule kicking some ass.
Perhaps not how you play, but the way we play, there is more to the game than firepower alone. And firepower isnt always s6+ ap3-.
(Did IG not exist in 3rd? Because it sounds like that's what you're asking for.)
I started BA in 2nd, though. I was about to quit when 3rd came out. At first it was novel to be strong, but 3rd eventually got very boring because of how OPBA in particular were. I skipped 4th, and then came back in with the White Dwarf codex in 5th.
People where I play maximize S6+ shooting precisely because it is so universally good.
Note that we're talking about the kisses from Codex: Eldar here.
