Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.)

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.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

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.

"Marines are better per point at either choppy or shooty than most troops"

I don't think this is actually true. Not per point.

Who do they beat in neither?

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?

Bharring wrote:
Who do they beat in neither?

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.

Pozy brings up a excellent point, they have a short range. Which would balance them out, if... well wave... serpent...

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

7 DAs:
7x2x(2/3)(1/3)(1/6) = 14x(1/27)
7x2x(2/3)(1/6)(2/3) = 14x(3/27)

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?

 Quickjager wrote:
Pozy brings up a excellent point, they have a short range. Which would balance them out, if... well wave... serpent...

What has bladestorm on the serpent? (I'm not too familiar with Eldar).

Lets go about it another way, how would you feel with Guardians that have a bolter?

EDIT: Sorry Pozy I was refering to the fact they have a fast transport.

Under mount. Either TL Shurikat (12", less than 1 AP2 every 3 rounds), or Shurikannon (less than 1 AP2 every 2 rounds).

He means transporting the Guardians.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Guardians would be leaping for joy with the Boltgun. Probably not the Lasgun, but it would have its uses.

Bharring wrote:
Under mount. Either TL Shurikat (12", less than 1 AP2 every 3 rounds), or Shurikannon (less than 1 AP2 every 2 rounds).

He means transporting the Guardians.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Guardians would be leaping for joy with the Boltgun. Probably not the Lasgun, but it would have its uses.

Okay, now they have the boltgun equipped their ppm stays the same; how do your tactics in the game change?

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.

Arbiter_Shade wrote:

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.

 krodarklorr wrote:

Arbiter_Shade wrote:

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

7 DAs:
7x2x(2/3)(1/3)(1/6) = 14x(1/27)
7x2x(2/3)(1/6)(2/3) = 14x(3/27)

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 'WS OP', 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 ;(