I imagine anyone who visits this place regularly has probably heard this schpeel or one just like it a billion times already, so feel free to ignore me. I'm under no illusions that I'm trodding unexplored territory here. I stopped playing 40K about 8 years ago as I was just tired of my friend's Eldar running circles around my marines like they were nothing. Marines frankly just couldn't move and shoot, I tried Terminators simply for the reason they were one of the few units that could equip assault weapons so they could move and shoot farther than 12". We played about 10 matches, one draw, the rest were just embarrassing slaughters. I'm willing to admit that he's a better player than me but whatever combo I tried just failed miserably.
I think 8th Ed is a good one, I'm very happy Marine infantry has the ability to move around a bit and shoot, both in the same round now. I like how they've made vehicles into units with the same stat blocks instead of a whole separate mini system to fight with. But I've been reading the boards about Eldar and I just couldn't see how they can field so many awesome units, so today I bought the codex and I am shocked at all the built in advantages. To name a few:
1) Eldar Fusion Gun is the same stats as the Marine Melta Gun, and they cost the same. That is balance. However, the Bright Lance which is basically the same as the Multi Melta, is 7 pts cheaper and has 50% more range. That is not balanced. For the record, the Marines need to spend 13pts for the Tac Marine or 16pts for the Sternguard to gear a melta, while the Eldar Fire Dragon costs 5pts, and also doesn't eat the -1 penalty to hit for firing assault after advancing, so this seeming parity in cost/ability is actually quite heavily skewed towards Eldar, resulting in it not being balanced.
2) Space Marine Chapter Tactics apply to only infantry, bikers, Dreadnoughts, while Eldar Craftworld traits apply to their entire Detachment. That is not balanced. Honestly, of all the "balance" issues, you'd think this one would be a no brainer, but still they tilt it heavily towards Eldar. I'd like my speeders, tanks, transports, fliers to get to get that bonus too, but apparently the folks at GW think just Eldar should have that.
3) Eldar Wraithlords have higher T, more wounds, more speed, and a free but functional CCW with strong AP and wound values, while the Marine Dreadnought is slower, softer, and has to buy a very expensive CCW or simply go without and hope they don't get tied up for the remainder of the fight with any 5 man squad with a 4+ or better save.
4) Eldar squad leaders have +1A like most squad leaders, but also +1W, along a random additional useful ability based on what type of Exarch it is, which others don't get. Not balanced.
5) Space Marine scouts have to pay thru the nose to include "scout" gear. Putting them at 50% more expense than Eldar Rangers who get their sniper rifles for free and their cloaks included, who's cloaks not only add to cover save but come with an awesome -1 to Hit as well. Lovely. Also, not balanced.
6) For 2 more points than a Marine pays for a just a Missile Launcher, Dark Reapers get a better weapon AND the awesome unit that fires it, hitting on 3+ no matter what, with a solid 3+ armor save to boot. And all the units in the squad can take it. Want that 10 man squad to get the most from whatever guarantee-to-hit/wound buff your dirt cheap psykers are going to slap on it? No wasted space there.
7) Prism Tank have 3 useful firing profiles and shoot twice while still moving half their 16" speed? Gimme a break.
Some of this stuff is pretty subjective, and I get that they need to differentiate the races, but some of it isn't. When you give one group like the Eldar the clear superiority in both numbers AND quality on gear and units that have direct analogues in other armies, you've messed something up. I really don't know why Eldar don't run the tables at tournaments. I can think of 3 or 4 combinations of Eldar units, fluffy ones even, that would be all but unstoppable by anything other than a purpose built army. I can think of several more that are just absurd yet legal(1500pts, 50x Dark Reapers + Eldrad) that I honestly don't even know what anyone would bring up to stop.
1) No, having guns in different codex costing the same is not balance. Having guns costing the same for different units in the same codex isn't even balanced. The cost of weapons and units should be based in the coherence of the force. I'm not gonna expect Tau meele units to be as point efficient as Genestealer or Khorne Berzerkers.
2)With this I agree, but I'm not gonna explain myself again because all that could be said about this, has been said already.
3) I don't agree with this. The Space Marine Dreadnought is, by his point, mathematically better than the Wraithlord. But, whats the problem with the Wraithlord being more powerfull than a Dreadnought, if they have different costs?
4) This is nonsense. They are a special kind of unit champion. Whats the problem with that.
5) I believe Eldar should have better scouts and snipers than space marines, so I'm totally fine with Eldar Pathfinders being better than SM Scouts, with or without Sniper Rifles.
6) Dark Reapers are a little busted right now, but thats doesn't has anything to do with SM.
7) Those seem a little over the top right now too. But again, nothing to do with SM.
1)
Brightlance is the LasCannon equivelent, not the MultiMelta equivelent. It doesn't have the Melta quasi-rule (Melta weapons can roll 2 dice and take the higher on the damage roll in half range).
Compared to the LC, it's -1 S -12" range, +1 AP, and a little cheaper. It's hard to call the Brightlance a win over the Lascannon.
2)
Yeah, it's unbalanced. But Alaitoc didn't get Raven Guard's Infiltrate, so there's that. That would have been truly broken.
3)
Dreads have better ranged weapons, and don't degrade. A kitted Dread and an kitted Wraithlord cost about the same, and can perform at about the same. Give the Dread a CCW and TLLC, and give the Wraithlord a sword and 2xBL and they cost the same.
4) Eldar Exarchs are *not* sarges. First, they are exemplars of the shrine, not squad leaders. They do not give +1 LD. They are not just more-experienced Eldar. Aspect Warriors are Eldar wearing armor. Exarchs are armor wearing a now-joined Eldar. They are not physically the same in the way that a SM Sarge is the same as a SM Battle Brother. They should have to pay for their Exarchs, but don't confuse them for Sarges.
5) Rangers only get those for free if you don't count the 4 points they pay over Guardians to get them. They're S/T 3 5+ base. Scouts are S/T 4 4+ base. Of course the Scouts should pay more.
6) Reapers are OP. No argument there. The "guarentee" powers do have some downsides, and the character-buffs SMs have have some upsides. Not enough to make Reapers balanced, but they exist.
7) Even firing twice, the Fire Prism does much less to damage to a heavy target than a LasPred. It has three modes, but any one of them is inferior to the equivelent with one fire mode.
CWE is OP, but some of these points are offbase.
I do think CWE are going to run tournies. Although not with Eldrad.
Make sure you specify "Of the codecies, if you ignore AdMech and GK" when saying SM are bottom tier. We don't need another superthread about how SM are the worst, except for half the armies, and except for another half the armies.
Bharring wrote: Make sure you specify "Of the codecies, if you ignore AdMech and GK" when saying SM are bottom tier. We don't need another superthread about how SM are the worst, except for half the armies, and except for another half the armies.
I can't be expected to include GK in any balance discussions if GW won't make the same commitment.
Bharring wrote: Make sure you specify "Of the codecies, if you ignore AdMech and GK" when saying SM are bottom tier. We don't need another superthread about how SM are the worst, except for half the armies, and except for another half the armies.
I can't be expected to include GK in any balance discussions if GW won't make the same commitment.
What about AdMech? They're obviously intended to be a real army unlike Grey Knights. Though admittedly AdMech turned out really well in Chapter Approved and might do better (emphasis on "might").
Bharring wrote: Make sure you specify "Of the codecies, if you ignore AdMech and GK" when saying SM are bottom tier. We don't need another superthread about how SM are the worst, except for half the armies, and except for another half the armies.
I can't be expected to include GK in any balance discussions if GW won't make the same commitment.
What about AdMech? They're obviously intended to be a real army unlike Grey Knights. Though admittedly AdMech turned out really well in Chapter Approved and might do better (emphasis on "might").
AdMech at least has a cool monofaction build, which involves their main man who offers something besides "REROLLS LOL" and they're insulated against future nerfhammers. I can't envision a smite nerf not hurting Grey Knights, and as we've seen, Guilliman list popularity has already hurt every other incarnation of power armored genetically mutated bros.
The Cawlbot gunline isn't winning anything though. It's not even placing. Whether or not a build is "cool" has nothing to do with its placement on a tier list, the Morty/Magnus power couple is dumb as gak and its still a top tier build.
Arachnofiend wrote: The Cawlbot gunline isn't winning anything though. It's not even placing. Whether or not a build is "cool" has nothing to do with its placement on a tier list, the Morty/Magnus power couple is dumb as gak and its still a top tier build.
Look i'm not here to defend the current state of the game.
It's patently absurd that chaos has multiple top-tier lists and the natural counter army only shows up when it's soup'd into IG.
Argument: Space Marines are the worst codex army in the game with the exception of Grey Knights who are discounted as a non-army. They are a mono-build faction that relies on a singular, super-powerful character choice that has been slipping out of winning tables in recent months as new codexes have been released.
Rebuttal: Adeptus Mechanicus is worse; they are similarly mono-build and reliant on their super-powerful character choice, except they have never appeared at top tables and didn't even get the chance to slip out.
Counter-argument: Yeah but Cawl's canticles gimmick is cool.
I don't understand how you don't see how your argument doesn't hold up.
....I'm sure I should take unsupported claims of what is and isn't balance from a dude whose main premise for the imbalance is that Eldar and marines were imbalanced 9 years ago and who hasn't seemed to play a single actual game against them in 8th. that's probably a good indicator that he is infallible and knows exactly what he's talking about.
Arachnofiend wrote: Argument: Space Marines are the worst codex army in the game with the exception of Grey Knights who are discounted as a non-army. They are a mono-build faction that relies on a singular, super-powerful character choice that has been slipping out of winning tables in recent months as new codexes have been released.
Rebuttal: Adeptus Mechanicus is worse; they are similarly mono-build and reliant on their super-powerful character choice, except they have never appeared at top tables and didn't even get the chance to slip out.
Counter-argument: Yeah but Cawl's canticles gimmick is cool.
I don't understand how you don't see how your argument doesn't hold up.
I'm not having a serious discussion about balance in this thread. This was a thread comparing Eldar to Marines.
AdMech are obviously hurting. But they are placing in tournaments without a gut wrenching pile of IG soup, on the same overall level as GK WITH soup. I believe they are also on the same level of non-Guilliman marines.
Anyway this is a pointless discussion.
Without Guilliman can marines stand up to Eldar? No. Not even close.
I love how the OP conveniently forgot to mention things like assault cannon Razorbacks, Guileman, being able to ally with Imperium, and Stormravens.
I could make any codex sound better than another if I cherry-picked my facts, too. I mean, Grey Knight units are *all psykers*! How is that balanced?! (/s)
clownshoes wrote: Dear space marine player, go suck on chapter approved. At least you have a codex.
Thank you,
From everyone still using an index.
I imagine one your codex drops you'll beat marines 7 ways till Sunday...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
HuskyWarhammer wrote: I love how the OP conveniently forgot to mention things like assault cannon Razorbacks, Guileman, being able to ally with Imperium, and Stormravens.
I could make any codex sound better than another if I cherry-picked my facts, too. I mean, Grey Knight units are *all psykers*! How is that balanced?! (/s)
Well their smite is reduced to a 12" range and capped at 1 mortal wound for starters. Granted a brother captain can, I think, double the range of smites.
They increased the cost of all those things you also cherry picked, just sayin.
Give all combinations of ADEPTUS ASTARTES/HERETIC ASTARTES INFRANTY/BIKER +1 wound. Helps line infantry and doesn't help the stuff that's already good.
HuskyWarhammer wrote: I love how the OP conveniently forgot to mention things like assault cannon Razorbacks, Guileman, being able to ally with Imperium, and Stormravens.
I could make any codex sound better than another if I cherry-picked my facts, too. I mean, Grey Knight units are *all psykers*! How is that balanced?! (/s)
Well their smite is reduced to a 12" range and capped at 1 mortal wound for starters. Granted a brother captain can, I think, double the range of smites.
They increased the cost of all those things you also cherry picked, just sayin.
Even with guilliman we are getting slaughtered at tournies.
The suggestion of "just add IG" are just a step above "well just play a different army."
And the "well at least you guys have a codex" cries are getting old. At least you have hope things will get better for you. And if they do get better you know who they get worse for, yeah those armies with Codexes that are terrible (GK + SM).
I hesitate to throw Cawlbots in because there are rumors of some crazy forgeworld to the rescue cash grab but as they stand now I'd agree they are worse that Guillamarines.
I'm holding out hope for primarchs for all of the chapters (since GW has shown they don't mind these models being over-powered and undercosted)...
HuskyWarhammer wrote: I love how the OP conveniently forgot to mention things like assault cannon Razorbacks, Guileman, being able to ally with Imperium, and Stormravens.
I could make any codex sound better than another if I cherry-picked my facts, too. I mean, Grey Knight units are *all psykers*! How is that balanced?! (/s)
Well their smite is reduced to a 12" range and capped at 1 mortal wound for starters. Granted a brother captain can, I think, double the range of smites.
They increased the cost of all those things you also cherry picked, just sayin.
The joke
Your head
Maybe once people stop echoing this same line it'll be a joke...
>In b4 this dissolves into another "just ally in Guard" and "Guard are OP" thread, but anyway.
On topic:
OP, why are you not used to this now? Eldar have always been better than the other codexs by a decent margin throughout the games history, Baring that one brief moment in 4th when they where merely good and not gamebreaking (and boy did we know about it - "Eldar are unplayable and broken", "Eldar nerfed to useless" threads abound). Just look at 6th and 7th with the Scatbikes and Wraithbrigade, Orthe codex that basically had not bad units (or at least 'bad' by other factions standards).
You do have some valid points, such as the Fire Prism being an unholy mess of death and terror (and people still conplain about the Russ, really?) and the Dark Reapers being a bit iffy, but for the most part your complaints come across as a knee jerk reaction.
The Dreadnought is amazingly good, Scouts are decent and the Bright Lance is more of a weak lascannon than a cheap melta gun.
Read a bit more and try to do a real comparison before you post, it might help your case a bit better (not that I can talk).
Bharring wrote: 1)
Brightlance is the LasCannon equivelent, not the MultiMelta equivelent. It doesn't have the Melta quasi-rule (Melta weapons can roll 2 dice and take the higher on the damage roll in half range).
Compared to the LC, it's -1 S -12" range, +1 AP, and a little cheaper. It's hard to call the Brightlance a win over the Lascannon.
2)
Yeah, it's unbalanced. But Alaitoc didn't get Raven Guard's Infiltrate, so there's that. That would have been truly broken.
3)
Dreads have better ranged weapons, and don't degrade. A kitted Dread and an kitted Wraithlord cost about the same, and can perform at about the same. Give the Dread a CCW and TLLC, and give the Wraithlord a sword and 2xBL and they cost the same.
4) Eldar Exarchs are *not* sarges. First, they are exemplars of the shrine, not squad leaders. They do not give +1 LD. They are not just more-experienced Eldar. Aspect Warriors are Eldar wearing armor. Exarchs are armor wearing a now-joined Eldar. They are not physically the same in the way that a SM Sarge is the same as a SM Battle Brother. They should have to pay for their Exarchs, but don't confuse them for Sarges.
5) Rangers only get those for free if you don't count the 4 points they pay over Guardians to get them. They're S/T 3 5+ base. Scouts are S/T 4 4+ base. Of course the Scouts should pay more.
6) Reapers are OP. No argument there. The "guarentee" powers do have some downsides, and the character-buffs SMs have have some upsides. Not enough to make Reapers balanced, but they exist.
7) Even firing twice, the Fire Prism does much less to damage to a heavy target than a LasPred. It has three modes, but any one of them is inferior to the equivelent with one fire mode.
CWE is OP, but some of these points are offbase.
I do think CWE are going to run tournies. Although not with Eldrad.
1) No its not the LC equivalent, it is the Multimelta equivalent. The melta quasi rule comes in exactly once per melta per fight. It is irrelevant. If the SM Hvy Weapon list included a BL for 20 points over a MM at 27, you'd never see any, ANY, marine army take a MM. Hell you barely see them now. And yea, the LC has 12" more range, but I think we can all agree the 12" between 12-24 is a lot more important than 24-36, and 36-48 is even less critical. I never called a BL over a LC, I called it a win over the MM. Which it is, hands down.
3) Yes, that is my point. You kit both the Wraithlord and Dread to roughly equal firepower, they cost almost the same, yet the wraithlord will be cheaper. ALSO, the Wraith is 2" faster, has +1T, and +2W over the Dread. That is my issue.
4) Yes, they are "Sarges". You have an infantry unit, their leader is a bit tougher for the same points. That little bit tougher they are is more for Eldar. They get more. If I waved a magic wand and said all Marine Sgt also get +1W you'd agree that was worth something? Would change their value on the board? Of course it would, because it's more.
5) Are you seriously using another Eldar unit to justify how much more Rangers pay? As to the importance of the extra S/T and armor do you really think that is the primary factor in picking a stealthed long range sniper unit? And even if it was, we are talking 50% more. You tell me you would stack 30 Rangers vs. 20 Scouts?
6) A Las Pred doesn't have the option to pop a tank on round 1, then fire 2D6 S6 AP -3 D1 shots against a mob unit the next. You know what fires 2D6 S6 shots at AP -3 in the Marine arsenal? Nothing, nothing at all does that. A marine army would pay 155pts just for that, let alone the ability to rip into tanks.
Bharring wrote: 1) Brightlance is the LasCannon equivelent, not the MultiMelta equivelent. It doesn't have the Melta quasi-rule (Melta weapons can roll 2 dice and take the higher on the damage roll in half range).
Compared to the LC, it's -1 S -12" range, +1 AP, and a little cheaper. It's hard to call the Brightlance a win over the Lascannon.
2) Yeah, it's unbalanced. But Alaitoc didn't get Raven Guard's Infiltrate, so there's that. That would have been truly broken.
3) Dreads have better ranged weapons, and don't degrade. A kitted Dread and an kitted Wraithlord cost about the same, and can perform at about the same. Give the Dread a CCW and TLLC, and give the Wraithlord a sword and 2xBL and they cost the same.
4) Eldar Exarchs are *not* sarges. First, they are exemplars of the shrine, not squad leaders. They do not give +1 LD. They are not just more-experienced Eldar. Aspect Warriors are Eldar wearing armor. Exarchs are armor wearing a now-joined Eldar. They are not physically the same in the way that a SM Sarge is the same as a SM Battle Brother. They should have to pay for their Exarchs, but don't confuse them for Sarges.
5) Rangers only get those for free if you don't count the 4 points they pay over Guardians to get them. They're S/T 3 5+ base. Scouts are S/T 4 4+ base. Of course the Scouts should pay more.
6) Reapers are OP. No argument there. The "guarentee" powers do have some downsides, and the character-buffs SMs have have some upsides. Not enough to make Reapers balanced, but they exist.
7) Even firing twice, the Fire Prism does much less to damage to a heavy target than a LasPred. It has three modes, but any one of them is inferior to the equivelent with one fire mode.
CWE is OP, but some of these points are offbase.
I do think CWE are going to run tournies. Although not with Eldrad.
1) No its not the LC equivalent, it is the Multimelta equivalent. The melta quasi rule comes in exactly once per melta per fight. It is irrelevant. If the SM Hvy Weapon list included a BL for 20 points over a MM at 27, you'd never see any, ANY, marine army take a MM. Hell you barely see them now. And yea, the LC has 12" more range, but I think we can all agree the 12" between 12-24 is a lot more important than 24-36, and 36-48 is even less critical. I never called a BL over a LC, I called it a win over the MM. Which it is, hands down.
3) Yes, that is my point. You kit both the Wraithlord and Dread to roughly equal firepower, they cost almost the same, yet the wraithlord will be cheaper. ALSO, the Wraith is 2" faster, has +1T, and +2W over the Dread. That is my issue.
4) Yes, they are "Sarges". You have an infantry unit, their leader is a bit tougher for the same points. That little bit tougher they are is more for Eldar. They get more. If I waved a magic wand and said all Marine Sgt also get +1W you'd agree that was worth something? Would change their value on the board? Of course it would, because it's more.
5) Are you seriously using another Eldar unit to justify how much more Rangers pay? As to the importance of the extra S/T and armor do you really think that is the primary factor in picking a stealthed long range sniper unit? And even if it was, we are talking 50% more. You tell me you would stack 30 Rangers vs. 20 Scouts?
6) A Las Pred doesn't have the option to pop a tank on round 1, then fire 2D6 S6 AP -3 D1 shots against a mob unit the next. You know what fires 2D6 S6 shots at AP -3 in the Marine arsenal? Nothing, nothing at all does that. A marine army would pay 155pts just for that, let alone the ability to rip into tanks.
It seems like you're trying to pick hairs and exaggerate to make your point, but it's simply not accurate. For example:
6 - You are *vastly* overstating the firepower if you think a fire prism is going to frequently "pop a tank on round 1." Even with both shots, it's only going to pump out an average of something like 3-4 wounds against the average tank. A las pred is going to do about double that.
Perhaps your "hysterical" rant would do with a dose of calm reality. I mean, you're here trying to argue that bright lances aren't lascannon analogues, but of melta...? Dafuq...?
Edit: as an aside, I think this is why so many people dislike SM players. Despite their special snowflake treatment and blatantly OP models, a loud few never stop complaining while the rest of us just want to have a fun game.
Galas wrote: 1) No, having guns in different codex costing the same is not balance. Having guns costing the same for different units in the same codex isn't even balanced. The cost of weapons and units should be based in the coherence of the force. I'm not gonna expect Tau meele units to be as point efficient as Genestealer or Khorne Berzerkers.
100% agree. The alternative is to having 15 different armies all with the same units and costs. This relates to the theme for the army; it’s how GW can make different armies feel different on the table.
This reminds me of a friend of mine, who is mainly a marine player. He was shocked that dire avengers are only 12 points, as their guns are "so much better than bolters". He still thinks they are way better than tactical Marines. I guess he has a point if you completely ignore the strength, toughness and save characteristics, and their lack of special weapons (I think they're reasonably balanced, not necessarily better/worse).
My point: Eldar rules and buffs can seem powerful, I get that, but keep in mind that the units receiving these effects are generally not that powerful/tough (the nasty ones currently are reapers, shining spears and the flyers afaik). If it seems powerful, try mathing it out. This usually gives me some perspective (or sometimes confirms something as being very powerful, but then at least my cries of "omg so op nerf now plix" are less subjective).
Sidenote: fire prisms only become competitive (if that) when you take at least 2 and use a 1cp stratagem. A single stationary prism is flat out worse than a laspred. The profiles are a trap; the lance is almost always worse than the d3 shots version, and there are far more efficient ways to kill meqs (so the dispersed profile is hardly ever used too). You expect to use the middle profile with these tanks.
Bharring wrote: 1)
Brightlance is the LasCannon equivelent, not the MultiMelta equivelent. It doesn't have the Melta quasi-rule (Melta weapons can roll 2 dice and take the higher on the damage roll in half range).
Compared to the LC, it's -1 S -12" range, +1 AP, and a little cheaper. It's hard to call the Brightlance a win over the Lascannon.
2)
Yeah, it's unbalanced. But Alaitoc didn't get Raven Guard's Infiltrate, so there's that. That would have been truly broken.
3)
Dreads have better ranged weapons, and don't degrade. A kitted Dread and an kitted Wraithlord cost about the same, and can perform at about the same. Give the Dread a CCW and TLLC, and give the Wraithlord a sword and 2xBL and they cost the same.
4) Eldar Exarchs are *not* sarges. First, they are exemplars of the shrine, not squad leaders. They do not give +1 LD. They are not just more-experienced Eldar. Aspect Warriors are Eldar wearing armor. Exarchs are armor wearing a now-joined Eldar. They are not physically the same in the way that a SM Sarge is the same as a SM Battle Brother. They should have to pay for their Exarchs, but don't confuse them for Sarges.
5) Rangers only get those for free if you don't count the 4 points they pay over Guardians to get them. They're S/T 3 5+ base. Scouts are S/T 4 4+ base. Of course the Scouts should pay more.
6) Reapers are OP. No argument there. The "guarentee" powers do have some downsides, and the character-buffs SMs have have some upsides. Not enough to make Reapers balanced, but they exist.
7) Even firing twice, the Fire Prism does much less to damage to a heavy target than a LasPred. It has three modes, but any one of them is inferior to the equivelent with one fire mode.
CWE is OP, but some of these points are offbase.
I do think CWE are going to run tournies. Although not with Eldrad.
1) No its not the LC equivalent, it is the Multimelta equivalent. The melta quasi rule comes in exactly once per melta per fight. It is irrelevant. If the SM Hvy Weapon list included a BL for 20 points over a MM at 27, you'd never see any, ANY, marine army take a MM. Hell you barely see them now. And yea, the LC has 12" more range, but I think we can all agree the 12" between 12-24 is a lot more important than 24-36, and 36-48 is even less critical. I never called a BL over a LC, I called it a win over the MM. Which it is, hands down.
3) Yes, that is my point. You kit both the Wraithlord and Dread to roughly equal firepower, they cost almost the same, yet the wraithlord will be cheaper. ALSO, the Wraith is 2" faster, has +1T, and +2W over the Dread. That is my issue.
4) Yes, they are "Sarges". You have an infantry unit, their leader is a bit tougher for the same points. That little bit tougher they are is more for Eldar. They get more. If I waved a magic wand and said all Marine Sgt also get +1W you'd agree that was worth something? Would change their value on the board? Of course it would, because it's more.
5) Are you seriously using another Eldar unit to justify how much more Rangers pay? As to the importance of the extra S/T and armor do you really think that is the primary factor in picking a stealthed long range sniper unit? And even if it was, we are talking 50% more. You tell me you would stack 30 Rangers vs. 20 Scouts?
6) A Las Pred doesn't have the option to pop a tank on round 1, then fire 2D6 S6 AP -3 D1 shots against a mob unit the next. You know what fires 2D6 S6 shots at AP -3 in the Marine arsenal? Nothing, nothing at all does that. A marine army would pay 155pts just for that, let alone the ability to rip into tanks.
It seems like you're trying to pick hairs and exaggerate to make your point, but it's simply not accurate. For example:
6 - You are *vastly* overstating the firepower if you think a fire prism is going to frequently "pop a tank on round 1." Even with both shots, it's only going to pump out an average of something like 3-4 wounds against the average tank. A las pred is going to do about double that.
Perhaps your "hysterical" rant would do with a dose of calm reality. I mean, you're here trying to argue that bright lances aren't lascannon analogues, but of melta...? Dafuq...?
Edit: as an aside, I think this is why so many people dislike SM players. Despite their special snowflake treatment and blatantly OP models, a loud few never stop complaining while the rest of us just want to have a fun game.
Well I don't expect a Prism to destroy a tank in one round, very few units can destroy another 13W unit in one round, but it is to be considered a legit threat as opposed to be ignored like say, a bunch of cultists. And in addition to threatening tank units, it has a lot of long range shots to pour down on tough infantry. Its flexible. And a LOT cheaper than a Las Pred, which is my central point here. Marines have units to match Eldar, they just have to spend significantly more points to keep up. And why do you folks confuse the BL with a LC? If I pick an LC it's because I want 48" range and wound on a 3+ against even T8, which the LC does. I wouldn't trade an LC for a BL. I would however trade a Multi Melta in a heartbeat for a Bright Lance. If you went to any SM player and said "hey, would you trade the reroll on damage at half range for another 12" on the Multi Melta, would you take it?" The answer would be every time, HELL YEA. And if I then said ok, you got it pal, also, I'm refunding you 7pts on the weapon, you'd be like, no way man, that's too generous. Multi Meltas should be cheaper is my point, that is why you hardly ever see them. For Eldar, they are cheaper. Like most of their stuff that works more efficenently.
Bharring wrote: 1) Brightlance is the LasCannon equivelent, not the MultiMelta equivelent. It doesn't have the Melta quasi-rule (Melta weapons can roll 2 dice and take the higher on the damage roll in half range).
Compared to the LC, it's -1 S -12" range, +1 AP, and a little cheaper. It's hard to call the Brightlance a win over the Lascannon.
2) Yeah, it's unbalanced. But Alaitoc didn't get Raven Guard's Infiltrate, so there's that. That would have been truly broken.
3) Dreads have better ranged weapons, and don't degrade. A kitted Dread and an kitted Wraithlord cost about the same, and can perform at about the same. Give the Dread a CCW and TLLC, and give the Wraithlord a sword and 2xBL and they cost the same.
4) Eldar Exarchs are *not* sarges. First, they are exemplars of the shrine, not squad leaders. They do not give +1 LD. They are not just more-experienced Eldar. Aspect Warriors are Eldar wearing armor. Exarchs are armor wearing a now-joined Eldar. They are not physically the same in the way that a SM Sarge is the same as a SM Battle Brother. They should have to pay for their Exarchs, but don't confuse them for Sarges.
5) Rangers only get those for free if you don't count the 4 points they pay over Guardians to get them. They're S/T 3 5+ base. Scouts are S/T 4 4+ base. Of course the Scouts should pay more.
6) Reapers are OP. No argument there. The "guarentee" powers do have some downsides, and the character-buffs SMs have have some upsides. Not enough to make Reapers balanced, but they exist.
7) Even firing twice, the Fire Prism does much less to damage to a heavy target than a LasPred. It has three modes, but any one of them is inferior to the equivelent with one fire mode.
CWE is OP, but some of these points are offbase.
I do think CWE are going to run tournies. Although not with Eldrad.
1) No its not the LC equivalent, it is the Multimelta equivalent. The melta quasi rule comes in exactly once per melta per fight. It is irrelevant. If the SM Hvy Weapon list included a BL for 20 points over a MM at 27, you'd never see any, ANY, marine army take a MM. Hell you barely see them now. And yea, the LC has 12" more range, but I think we can all agree the 12" between 12-24 is a lot more important than 24-36, and 36-48 is even less critical. I never called a BL over a LC, I called it a win over the MM. Which it is, hands down.
3) Yes, that is my point. You kit both the Wraithlord and Dread to roughly equal firepower, they cost almost the same, yet the wraithlord will be cheaper. ALSO, the Wraith is 2" faster, has +1T, and +2W over the Dread. That is my issue.
4) Yes, they are "Sarges". You have an infantry unit, their leader is a bit tougher for the same points. That little bit tougher they are is more for Eldar. They get more. If I waved a magic wand and said all Marine Sgt also get +1W you'd agree that was worth something? Would change their value on the board? Of course it would, because it's more.
5) Are you seriously using another Eldar unit to justify how much more Rangers pay? As to the importance of the extra S/T and armor do you really think that is the primary factor in picking a stealthed long range sniper unit? And even if it was, we are talking 50% more. You tell me you would stack 30 Rangers vs. 20 Scouts?
6) A Las Pred doesn't have the option to pop a tank on round 1, then fire 2D6 S6 AP -3 D1 shots against a mob unit the next. You know what fires 2D6 S6 shots at AP -3 in the Marine arsenal? Nothing, nothing at all does that. A marine army would pay 155pts just for that, let alone the ability to rip into tanks.
It seems like you're trying to pick hairs and exaggerate to make your point, but it's simply not accurate. For example:
6 - You are *vastly* overstating the firepower if you think a fire prism is going to frequently "pop a tank on round 1." Even with both shots, it's only going to pump out an average of something like 3-4 wounds against the average tank. A las pred is going to do about double that.
Perhaps your "hysterical" rant would do with a dose of calm reality. I mean, you're here trying to argue that bright lances aren't lascannon analogues, but of melta...? Dafuq...?
Edit: as an aside, I think this is why so many people dislike SM players. Despite their special snowflake treatment and blatantly OP models, a loud few never stop complaining while the rest of us just want to have a fun game.
Well I don't expect a Prism to destroy a tank in one round, very few units can destroy another 13W unit in one round, but it is to be considered a legit threat as opposed to be ignored like say, a bunch of cultists. And in addition to threatening tank units, it has a lot of long range shots to pour down on tough infantry. Its flexible. And a LOT cheaper than a Las Pred, which is my central point here. Marines have units to match Eldar, they just have to spend significantly more points to keep up. And why do you folks confuse the BL with a LC? If I pick an LC it's because I want 48" range and wound on a 3+ against even T8, which the LC does. I wouldn't trade an LC for a BL. I would however trade a Multi Melta in a heartbeat for a Bright Lance. If you went to any SM player and said "hey, would you trade the reroll on damage at half range for another 12" on the Multi Melta, would you take it?" The answer would be every time, HELL YEA. And if I then said ok, you got it pal, also, I'm refunding you 7pts on the weapon, you'd be like, no way man, that's too generous. Multi Meltas should be cheaper is my point, that is why you hardly ever see them. For Eldar, they are cheaper. Like most of their stuff that works more efficenently.
So...now you're complaining that a Laspred has to pay more to do a better job at taking out tank units...and barely even more. A laspred runs 190 while a fire prism is 180 with moderate equipment (targeting matrix and stones or engines). You're upset that a tank that costs about the same trades high wound-killing specialty for target versatility against hordes. It's ridiculous.
And your argument about BL/melta is a farce on its face, seriously.
I think you're throwing a mountainous fit about an ant hill. Maybe it'd be good to take some time reading through lists and forums, considering you're just now relearning things? Better to take a measured approach than fly off the handle.
No way the Eldar missile launcher is the same as the imperial missile launcher, it's the equivalent of a multi melta EXCEPT MORE BETTER. If I told you you could have a multi melta, except double the range, less AP, but with an optional anti infantry attack youd be like, "bro" and I'd be like "bro" and then you'd take it on completely different platforms from multi meltas and you'd use it as a backfield gunline weapon and not a close range anti tank weapon like a multi melta because it would have a totally different role, not at all related to other weapons that I don't want to compare to because I'm engaged in willful ignorance of data that backs up my presupposed conclusion.
HuskyWarhammer wrote: I love how the OP conveniently forgot to mention things like assault cannon Razorbacks, Guileman, being able to ally with Imperium, and Stormravens.
I could make any codex sound better than another if I cherry-picked my facts, too. I mean, Grey Knight units are *all psykers*! How is that balanced?! (/s)
So basically you're saying the units that are getting price increases and will continue to receive them are your argument for it being a good codex.
Under your logic, the 6th edition Tyranid codex was fantastic.
I hope this thread goes on for fifty pages, just so I can link to it every time someone goes "nuh uh!" to a claim that space Marine players are entitled.
the_scotsman wrote: I hope this thread goes on for fifty pages, just so I can link to it every time someone goes "nuh uh!" to a claim that space Marine players are entitled.
mmmm people get passionate about the game, the grass is greener on the other side etc...
Frankly i find the proposed rules section more for entertainment than actually to achieve anything seeing as how GW doesn't really pop in to see what we're saying
Op I overreacted. I've been seeing a lot of 'Boltguns should be just as strong as Avenger SC' and such lately.
There isn't much disagreement with CWE being OP. But there has been so much FUD about it here lately that it gets people up in arms.
Back to the specific points:
1. When my CWE want to take a Lascannon, they sigh and take a Brightlance. If they want to take a multimeta, they are SOL. Marines usually take a Lascannon over a MultiMelta. When they do take the MM, it's because 2d6 take the highest is impactful, if you're going to be close anyways. MM is a close range weapon. The long-range one shot AT gun for Eldar is the Brightlance.
3) The Wraithlord is marginally cheaper in some configurations. But the Dread typically has better shooting. So, after 5 wounds, the Wraithlord gets much worse. The Dread gets no worse until completely killed.
4) I agree we should have to pay for Exarchs. That was a huge disappointment. But what I'm saying is they are *not* squad leaders. They aren't Eldar anymore. Their +1W is fluffy. A Sarge getting +1W would not be. But the Exarchs *should* pay for it.
5) My point was Rangers should pay less than Sniper Scouts. Not that they should pay that much more.
6) Marines CAN pay less for that firepower. 4 Plas Cannons in a Dev squad. 4d3 S7 AP-3 shots for fewer points. Not as substantially better as the LasPred vs the anti-tank beam, but still better per point. As for the third profile, it's weaker than the better anti-tank profile. So Marines can get more efficiency for either type of dakka, but can t swap mid game.
CWE are OP. But some of this stuff deserves a second look.
Despite all the arguing on this thread it seems that everyone is on the same page that the “craft world” tactics applying to all units not just infantry bikes or some walkers is pretty broken and should not be the rule. And if you can get agreement on Dakka on an issue that the issue is bad then there is pretty great evidence that a mistake was made. Clearly of all issues GW should address this issue as it is one of the clearest to fix if they are serious about balance.
Marines without Guilliman are inferior only to Eldar, AM and Tyranids. Against index armies they'll always have balanced matches, and in many cases they will be superior.
Against semi-competitive (if we cut Guilliman why should other factions bring their best combos?) tyranids and eldar lists they have concrete possibilities of winning the game, even if those xenos have the edge. AM is the most effective army in the game, everyone will struggle against guardsmen.
Eldar are very strong, but not even remotely as OP as they were in 7th edition.
Eldar are strong, definitely in the top half of the codecies. I'd definitely rank IG and Tyranids as being more powerful. Not sure about where it stands in relation to CSM.
however, unlike IG and Tyranids, Eldar don't have near as much viability spread within the faction. On a competitive level, the codex basically gets shrunken down to Reapers, Spears, Hemlocks and Rangers. Other units can find niche roles, but the power gaps are clear.
Gwarok wrote: I imagine anyone who visits this place regularly has probably heard this schpeel or one just like it a billion times already, so feel free to ignore me. I'm under no illusions that I'm trodding unexplored territory here. I stopped playing 40K about 8 years ago as I was just tired of my friend's Eldar running circles around my marines like they were nothing. Marines frankly just couldn't move and shoot, I tried Terminators simply for the reason they were one of the few units that could equip assault weapons so they could move and shoot farther than 12". We played about 10 matches, one draw, the rest were just embarrassing slaughters. I'm willing to admit that he's a better player than me but whatever combo I tried just failed miserably.
I think 8th Ed is a good one, I'm very happy Marine infantry has the ability to move around a bit and shoot, both in the same round now. I like how they've made vehicles into units with the same stat blocks instead of a whole separate mini system to fight with. But I've been reading the boards about Eldar and I just couldn't see how they can field so many awesome units, so today I bought the codex and I am shocked at all the built in advantages. To name a few:
1) Eldar Fusion Gun is the same stats as the Marine Melta Gun, and they cost the same. That is balance. However, the Bright Lance which is basically the same as the Multi Melta, is 7 pts cheaper and has 50% more range. That is not balanced. For the record, the Marines need to spend 13pts for the Tac Marine or 16pts for the Sternguard to gear a melta, while the Eldar Fire Dragon costs 5pts, and also doesn't eat the -1 penalty to hit for firing assault after advancing, so this seeming parity in cost/ability is actually quite heavily skewed towards Eldar, resulting in it not being balanced.
2) Space Marine Chapter Tactics apply to only infantry, bikers, Dreadnoughts, while Eldar Craftworld traits apply to their entire Detachment. That is not balanced. Honestly, of all the "balance" issues, you'd think this one would be a no brainer, but still they tilt it heavily towards Eldar. I'd like my speeders, tanks, transports, fliers to get to get that bonus too, but apparently the folks at GW think just Eldar should have that.
3) Eldar Wraithlords have higher T, more wounds, more speed, and a free but functional CCW with strong AP and wound values, while the Marine Dreadnought is slower, softer, and has to buy a very expensive CCW or simply go without and hope they don't get tied up for the remainder of the fight with any 5 man squad with a 4+ or better save.
4) Eldar squad leaders have +1A like most squad leaders, but also +1W, along a random additional useful ability based on what type of Exarch it is, which others don't get. Not balanced.
5) Space Marine scouts have to pay thru the nose to include "scout" gear. Putting them at 50% more expense than Eldar Rangers who get their sniper rifles for free and their cloaks included, who's cloaks not only add to cover save but come with an awesome -1 to Hit as well. Lovely. Also, not balanced.
6) For 2 more points than a Marine pays for a just a Missile Launcher, Dark Reapers get a better weapon AND the awesome unit that fires it, hitting on 3+ no matter what, with a solid 3+ armor save to boot. And all the units in the squad can take it. Want that 10 man squad to get the most from whatever guarantee-to-hit/wound buff your dirt cheap psykers are going to slap on it? No wasted space there.
7) Prism Tank have 3 useful firing profiles and shoot twice while still moving half their 16" speed? Gimme a break.
Some of this stuff is pretty subjective, and I get that they need to differentiate the races, but some of it isn't. When you give one group like the Eldar the clear superiority in both numbers AND quality on gear and units that have direct analogues in other armies, you've messed something up. I really don't know why Eldar don't run the tables at tournaments. I can think of 3 or 4 combinations of Eldar units, fluffy ones even, that would be all but unstoppable by anything other than a purpose built army. I can think of several more that are just absurd yet legal(1500pts, 50x Dark Reapers + Eldrad) that I honestly don't even know what anyone would bring up to stop.
Crybaby rant over, GO MARINES!
Marines have +1S, +1T compared to Eldars. NOT BALANCED! Checkmate, marine players.
Crazyterran wrote: I think the Marines, GK, Chaos Marines (the book proper) suffer from being the first three out, and likely finished before 8th dropped.
I'd say it's just like Ad-mech, almost directly translated from 7th and not really thought through
The have-not codices will get rebalanced in March, I'd wager. The BA codex seems like it has a lot of special stuff in it. Maybe not Eldar good, but god help the weabo Eldar if the BA reach them.
shortymcnostrill wrote: My point: Eldar rules and buffs can seem powerful, I get that, but keep in mind that the units receiving these effects are generally not that powerful/tough (the nasty ones currently are reapers, shining spears and the flyers afaik). If it seems powerful, try mathing it out. This usually gives me some perspective (or sometimes confirms something as being very powerful, but then at least my cries of "omg so op nerf now plix" are less subjective).
And ofc, one thing marine players (and many others) conveniently forget about Eldar units like Dark Reapers is that they are specialized to the point they have no meat shields for the special/heavy weapons. Every guy lost is a big gun lost and it's been like that ever since Aspect Warriors were introduced. Losing one to protect the more valuable Exarch is worth it, but it's still a bigger loss than losing a bullet stopper marine or IG trooper to save a squad Lascannon.
shortymcnostrill wrote: My point: Eldar rules and buffs can seem powerful, I get that, but keep in mind that the units receiving these effects are generally not that powerful/tough (the nasty ones currently are reapers, shining spears and the flyers afaik). If it seems powerful, try mathing it out. This usually gives me some perspective (or sometimes confirms something as being very powerful, but then at least my cries of "omg so op nerf now plix" are less subjective).
And ofc, one thing marine players (and many others) conveniently forget about Eldar units like Dark Reapers is that they are specialized to the point they have no meat shields for the special/heavy weapons. Every guy lost is a big gun lost and it's been like that ever since Aspect Warriors were introduced. Losing one to protect the more valuable Exarch is worth it, but it's still a bigger loss than losing a bullet stopper marine or IG trooper to save a squad Lascannon.
The meat shields for Guard are 4 points so they don't care. The supposed meat shields for Marine weapons are 13 points minimum.
The meat shield concept doesn't work with models that cost that much.
shortymcnostrill wrote: My point: Eldar rules and buffs can seem powerful, I get that, but keep in mind that the units receiving these effects are generally not that powerful/tough (the nasty ones currently are reapers, shining spears and the flyers afaik). If it seems powerful, try mathing it out. This usually gives me some perspective (or sometimes confirms something as being very powerful, but then at least my cries of "omg so op nerf now plix" are less subjective).
And ofc, one thing marine players (and many others) conveniently forget about Eldar units like Dark Reapers is that they are specialized to the point they have no meat shields for the special/heavy weapons. Every guy lost is a big gun lost and it's been like that ever since Aspect Warriors were introduced. Losing one to protect the more valuable Exarch is worth it, but it's still a bigger loss than losing a bullet stopper marine or IG trooper to save a squad Lascannon.
The meat shields for Guard are 4 points so they don't care. The supposed meat shields for Marine weapons are 13 points minimum.
The meat shield concept doesn't work with models that cost that much.
It works great for Devastators and it's basically the only reason anyone actually uses tactical squads. Devastators pay 5 points for a cherub which can absorb a lascannon wound. Regular 13 point Marines in cover are quite durable and it can make sense to have a couple in your Dev squad. Ultramarines (with Guilliman) or Salamanders tac squads do fine just camping in cover with a lascannon, because they have respectable firepower and are hard to kill efficiently -- the unit absorbs small arms fire better than naked Guardsmen and anti-tank fire better than even the cheapest vehicles.
Dark Reapers are great, sure, and because they can hide in cover at 36-48" they're reasonably durable, but this really is a big disadvantage for most Aspect Warriors. It's why Fire Dragons are a suicide unit. Even Guardian units are extremely fragile for their cost.
Do people just not put things in vehicles?
I stuff my valuable things in rhinos which "aren't cost effective" but the fact that people don't ever bother to shoot at a rhino for the most part makes them worth it. Then with guys in deep strike they can't be shot there either sooooopo
Use rhinos dammit!
Yes a rhino costs the same as a tac squad but it fits 2 and shrugs off mall arms fire
Galas wrote: 1) No, having guns in different codex costing the same is not balance. Having guns costing the same for different units in the same codex isn't even balanced. The cost of weapons and units should be based in the coherence of the force. I'm not gonna expect Tau meele units to be as point efficient as Genestealer or Khorne Berzerkers.
Coherence of the force and utility of the model in question.
I.E. a <weapon> in the hands of a AM Sergeant should cost less than the same <weapon> in the hands of a Scion Tempestor. This is because the Tempestor has BS3+ WS3+ and other stats that are better than the Sergeant, so that weapon is worth more on the field.
KingCorpus wrote: I read this whole thread and it gave me a huge headache from the amount of bellyaching.
There's a reason why every codex has different point values, and stats. An army may seem strong in one way but won't be in another.
If you are amazed with how good Eldar are, maybe space marines aren't the army for you. Heretic.
I couldn't agree more that there is a reason for different point values, and that they need to differentiate the codexes. But it is a trade off of quality vs. quantity, and as far as I can tell Eldar get both. Yes, armies should be strong one way and not another, but where is the weakness for Eldar? They have very versatile, fast, strong and CHEAP units in all categories. A Vyper is the same thing as a Marine land speeder, base unit. Same stats exactly, they are just a platform to put weapons on at that point. Except it's 20pts cheaper. I could see that if the Vyper had a really poor selection of weapons to put on there, but they don't, their options for weapons are just as good if not better than the Land Speeder. For the same price as a base land speeder with just a Hvy Bolter, a Vyper can get a Shuriken Cannon and a Bright Lance. A marine speeder would have to swap out it's Hvy Bolter to get a Multi Melta, which is basically a 24" Bright lance, and still pay 17pts more, for less. These numbers are pretty straightforward. Also, whatever Craftworld benefit the Eldar is using will benefit the Vyper, whereas a Marine Chatper Tactic does not affect Land Speeders. This is also huge.
Another thing that was bugging me is that as I was trying to make a list that included vehicles, there isn't much you can do to customize them past weapons. Often tanks or whatever will move, and they will take a -1 hit when they do with most of their weapons. So I kept coming back to Land Raiders and Storm Ravens just for Power of the Machine Spirit, which mitigates that move and shoot penalty. Something so important they felt only 300pt+ vehicles get it. I found myself wishing it was an option you could buy for Predators or any vehicle really, and thinking I'd pay 10, 15, 20pts even for that. Hitting with your heavy weapons for marines is pretty critical as you won't have that many. But not an option. Unless you are Eldar, in case not only is it an option on almost any vehicle, it's only 5pts. Does anyone ever not take the Targeting Matrix for so cheap? You'd be crazy not to.
Even transportation is messed up with Marines. Centurion Assault Squads, and Flamer Aggressors, pretty sweet units if you can get them to the party. Sort of like Wraithguards/blades. So put them in a vehicle and get them to the party! Except while the standard Eldar transport can transport any standard non-Jump Eldar infantry, Marines seem to have oddly forbidden a lot of their own units to get on their own transports, even the "Dedicated" ones. Sure, I'd like to stick 5 Hellblasters and a Character of some stripe into a Razorback and shoot them up the field, but I can't, because dumbass Archmagos Cawl somehow made Primaris armor incompatible with everything not made by him. Presumably its a trademark issue he's still working out with the High Lords of Terra or something. So now I have to drop 300+pts on a Repulsor if my Primaris guys ever need a lift. Don't get me wrong, a Repulsor is a mean beast all on its own, but a little much just to get my boys in the game. Not to mention, between Centurions, Aggressors, Wraithguard, the Wraithguard once again have better base unit stats, for the lowest cost. The Centurion Devastators are 80pts alone to the Wraithguard 23? What frigging metric are they using over there to make a Centurion base model 3 times the price, the Assault ones are just over twice. And again don't get me wrong, a Cent Dev with Launchers and Twin LC is mean, but at 155pts we've moved out of close combat infantry comparisons and moved on to a WraithLord with 2 BL's and a Ghostglaive, for all in intents and purposes far better AND cheaper than the most lavishly geared Centurion.
So I agree, there should be trade offs. My point is with the Eldar you don't need to make any.
I love how the OP, when confronted with data that disproves his point, just changes the topic. He/she also just ignores context that takes away from his point (e.g., that CTM only works against the closest target - a huge drawback).
Or complains that he can't customize vehicles as much as he wants, yet has access to the most customization options for infantry by far - and then says Eldar have no trade-offs. Eldar. Whose infantry are among the *least* customizable in the game and are T3.
fraser1191 wrote: Do people just not put things in vehicles?
I stuff my valuable things in rhinos which "aren't cost effective" but the fact that people don't ever bother to shoot at a rhino for the most part makes them worth it. Then with guys in deep strike they can't be shot there either sooooopo
Use rhinos dammit!
Yes a rhino costs the same as a tac squad but it fits 2 and shrugs off mall arms fire
That made sense when you could shoot out of them. Now while it does protect the passengers it also means they aren't contributing anything. Couple that with disembark only at start of move and it doesn't really help close range shooty squad or melee squads.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
HuskyWarhammer wrote: I love how the OP, when confronted with data that disproves his point, just changes the topic. He/she also just ignores context that takes away from his point (e.g., that CTM only works against the closest target - a huge drawback).
Or complains that he can't customize vehicles as much as he wants, yet has access to the most customization options for infantry by far - and then says Eldar have no trade-offs. Eldar. Whose infantry are among the *least* customizable in the game and are T3.
He did say that he was hysterical. (at least I assume that's what he meant)
Fact: Based on recent tournament results codex Eldar, IG and CSM are demonstrably in a better position than SM (it gets worse if you play any other faction than Ultras)
This is not whining nor up for debate. Check October results from BoK or any other amalgamation of larger tournament results. The results I can find for November are even worse.
Fact: SM just had their most competitive codex options increased in point values.
Opinion: Relatively little was done to codexes which are performing better than SM aside from the uber-nerf to Mal-lords and we'll see how that effects Chaos.
This imbalance will get worse as time goes on because the eldar and Nids codexes just came out and once they have been digested will continue to push SM to the bottom. The changes to the SM codex will push it ever further out of the competitive tier relegating it to a fulffy/casual army. If codexes keep coming out in balance with the most recent ones SM will be the outlier with Ad Mech and GK as significantly under powered/overcosted.
Fact: having a wider model range or being good in previous editions has no bearing on the competitive strength of SM.
Opinion: The choice between a $^it sandwich and a douche bag is not really a strength. Competitive strength is not the only metric by which an army can be judged and it is unfair that some of you guys are stuck with sculpts from the 90s but I want to be able to play my army that I have collected and painted over the last 10-20 years in my local meta. At this point I get leaf-blowered off the table by eldar dark reaper spam, morty+magnus, genestealers and dakka flexes and IG tanks+artillery+scions. This is even with playing them as black ultramarines because eff templars am I right?
We can talk about why this is the current state of the meta or we can insult marine players about wanting an army that can compete with the other armies with codexes without replacing 90% of their army with IG.
bananathug wrote: .Opinion: Relatively little was done to codexes which are performing better than SM aside from the uber-nerf to Mal-lords and we'll see how that effects Chaos.
Without addressing if they are performing better worse...
...Have we already forgotten about the commisar nerf?
...How about the more recent conscript nerf?
...Or the gutting of soulburst?
..The scion nerf?
Again, someone complains about "SM haters" and hangs themselves on the cross while demonstrating how blatantly, factually wrong their "opinion" is.
Arachnofiend wrote: The Cawlbot gunline isn't winning anything though. It's not even placing. Whether or not a build is "cool" has nothing to do with its placement on a tier list, the Morty/Magnus power couple is dumb as gak and its still a top tier build.
Look i'm not here to defend the current state of the game.
It's patently absurd that chaos has multiple top-tier lists and the natural counter army only shows up when it's soup'd into IG.
Insert BERT DER FLERFF argument here:
Dunno why i cant stop giggling from the BERT DER FRERFF! Honestly though this forum should have a generic rant thread
HuskyWarhammer wrote: I love how the OP, when confronted with data that disproves his point, just changes the topic. He/she also just ignores context that takes away from his point (e.g., that CTM only works against the closest target - a huge drawback).
Or complains that he can't customize vehicles as much as he wants, yet has access to the most customization options for infantry by far - and then says Eldar have no trade-offs. Eldar. Whose infantry are among the *least* customizable in the game and are T3.
I stopped bringing ctm on my tanks because any opponent that isn't a complete potato will simply make sure a less valuable unit is closer. That machine spirit stuff works all the time, and is on expensive vehicles with tons of guns (i.e. worth more).
This thread is hilarious, I'm still facepalming over the "bright lances are meltas" bit xD
** @op: not trying to be mean here, but come on. If the brightlance is the eldar multimelta then what is their lascannon? The multimelta (and regular meltas for that matter, not sure why you're focusing on multimeltas) has the same damage profile as the bright lance when out of half range. The lance has a longer range and does not offer an incentive for getting closer. This means it's a gun you want to use from as far away as possible without moving and hopefully in cover. Just like you would use a lascannon. The bright Lance is as close to a lascannon as eldar weapons get (also regarding ease of access/number of platforms).
What then is our multimelta you ask? Well we don't have one. We don't have grav guns either for that matter, and there are plenty more examples (in both directions). I consider this a good thing. They are supposed to be a separate army/race; not just space marines with different hats.
But I've been reading the boards about Eldar and I just couldn't see how they can field so many awesome units, so today I bought the codex and I am shocked at all the built in advantages. To name a few:
I do a ton of number crunching every time a new Aeldari (heh, that name change...) gets released, so I can give you a few insights into how their units work. Feel free to pick my brain about the specifics if something I say comes off as ludicrous. Also, I apologize in advance for spelling errors; I'm typing on my phone. XD
1) Eldar Fusion Gun is the same stats as the Marine Melta Gun, and they cost the same. That is balance. However, the Bright Lance which is basically the same as the Multi Melta, is 7 pts cheaper and has 50% more range. That is not balanced. For the record, the Marines need to spend 13pts for the Tac Marine or 16pts for the Sternguard to gear a melta, while the Fire Dragon costs 5pts, and also doesn't eat the -1 penalty to hit for firing assault after advancing, so this seeming parity in cost/ability is actually quite heavily skewed towards Eldar, resulting in it not being balanced.
The first thing you can do to make your life easier is to completely ignore the points costs of the equipment and unequipped models, because the only things that matter are how much damage a unit can dish out or withstand compared to its total cost. Movement helps it deliver or escape damage, but it all comes down to the total cost paid compared to performance.
Regarding the Fire Dragon and Tac/Sternguard meltas, there are tradeoffs. Fortunately, in 8th edition everything can split fire, so you no longer waste Boltgun shots at the hard target you're trying to meltas, so sprinkling a few of them into your force adds some flexibility, and at least everything can now damage everything else. Aeldari cannot do that; if they want meltaguns, they have to buy a minimum of 5, and each loss hurts. I don't count Storm Guardians for that purpose because they're worse than Guardian Defenders against pretty much everything except IG infantry, and even then you need a unit of 8 with 2 Flamers to achieve that kind of efficiency. I refuse to pay the same price (7+17 for both, not 5+17 ike you said, by the way) for a Storm Guardian over a Fire Dragon.
Let's take a look at the relative resilience of a Fire Dragon (24pts) and a Tactical Marine w/Meltaguns (30pts). It's a convenient comparison because they have (almost) the same damage output, and the only difference in their defensive profile is their toughness, so we can see just if the difference in points seems to match the amount of additional firepower the Marine can withstand. Here's how many BS3+ Boltgun or Plasmagun (uncharged) shots it takes to kill, on average, one Fire Dragon or one Tactical Marine. Seems reasonable, since one of those guns is common, and the other is usually pointed as infantry with good armour saves. Note that I'm saying shots, not models equipped with one weapon or the other, and that confine the number of shots you need to multiply the reciprocals of the chances to hit, wound, and fail a save. In some cases, you'd also end up dividing by wounds inflicted, but these are W1 models, and I'm not giving them any fancy saves from other sources.
Those numbers tell us that, on average, the Marine can withstand 33% more firepower from Boltguns, and 25% more firepower from Plasmaguns compared to the Dragon. A Tactic Marine with a Meltagun costs 25% more than a Fire Dragon, so these numbers actually favour the Marine. Sure, the Fire Dragon gets a small re-roll against monsters and vehicles, is a little faster, and is more accurate when Advancing, but the Marine gets a some more strength, a pistol, and ATSKNF. Overall, I'd say they're pretty well balanced against one another in 8th edition.
2) Space Marine Chapter Tactics apply to only infantry, bikers, Dreadnoughts, while Eldar Craftworld traits apply to their entire Detachment. That is not balanced. Honestly, of all the "balance" issues, you'd think this one would be a no brainer, but still they tilt it heavily towards Eldar. I'd like my speeders, tanks, transports, fliers to get to get that bonus too, but apparently the folks at GW think just Eldar should have that.
I agree with you that the Alaitoc attribute is too powerful, and that the Craftworld attributes should favour specific units and strategies, rather than being army-wide bonuses. Having said that, I wouldn rather see Craftworld attibutes, Chapter Tactics, etc. calibrated to roughly the power level of the Ulthwe attribute (+20% resilience). Alaitoc increases in power the lower the opposing BS, making it disproportionately powerful against entire Codices, which shouldn't happen. Writing an email to GW's rules team about the Craftworld attributes is on my to-do list, including changing the Ulthwe attribute to provide more incentive for psykers and Guardians. A work in progress.
3) Eldar Wraithlords have higher T, more wounds, more speed, and a free but functional CCW with strong AP and wound values, while the Marine Dreadnought is slower, softer, and has to buy a very expensive CCW or simply go without and hope they don't get tied up for the remainder of the fight with any 5 man squad with a 4+ or better save.
The easiest way to look at the problem is to compare similar configurations. Let's start with mixed loadouts leaning toward melee.
These two models have the same cost, the same purpose (rush into combat, guns blazing) and similar damage output against medium infantry, with a slight edge to the Wraithlord within 12". (Incidentally, that's how I recommend equipping most Wraithlords). As you said, the Wraithlord has higher toughness, wounds, and movement, which are valid concerns (leadership, too, but who cares?). Now, we could probably argue all day about whether the Wraithlord's degrading profile is enough of a penalty for having the extra stats, but I'm content to say "sometimes, but not quite". It does change how you treat them, though; you should commit to killing a Deadnought in one turn if possible, but you can afford to whittle down a Wraithlord slowly to mess with its damage output.
Regarding the Ghostglaive and DCCW, they're roughly equivalent, but they have different preferred targets. The DCCW does slightly less damage per attack, but it wounds easier against super tough targets (a corner case, I know), and the reliable damage makes it better suited to go after models with a modest number of wounds. Amusingly, Wraithguard are its favourite victims! The Ghostglaive has higher variance, and so it's better for attacking bigger targets, since rolling a 1 or 2 for damage against a W3 model is a huge drop in efficiency. Of course, the Wraithlord can call back on its fists for reliability, but I'd always recommend the having a Ghostglaive as an option for threatening T7+ or Sv2+ models, since that's what you'll usually try to chase down with the Wraithlord.
Things change once you start putting anti-vehicle guns on both models.
The Dreadnought now inflicts an average of 3.92 damage (2.94 moving) to a T7 3+ target, and the Wraithlord inflicts an average of 3.11 damage (2.33 moving) outside 12" against a T7 3+ target. The catch is that the Wraithlord should be moving because a substantial chunk of its total damage output (not included above) is from its melee attacks, whereas the Dreadnought benefits more from sitting still in the backfield due to its long range. As such, the Wraithlord is now more likely to get tied up by chaff units, removing its ranged output. In this case, the Dreadnought doesn't care much about its lower movement.
Overall, I think Wraithlords still are better than Dreadnoughts as in-your-face bullies, but they don't do the fire support role as well as the Dreadnought can. Mainly due tongue lower toughness, the rnnged Dreadnought should probably be about 10% cheaper than it is now, and 15% cheaper for the melee build.
4) Eldar squad leaders have +1A like most squad leaders, but also +1W, along a random additional useful ability based on what type of Exarch it is, which others don't get. Not balanced.
I think everything should cost points according to its capabilities, so you won't get any argument about this one from me. Nobody's squad leaders should be free, and I'd like to see a cool ability on all of them. That's another reason why extra care has to be taken with balancing Chapter Tactics and Craftworld attributes, since they cost nothing.
5) Space Marine scouts have to pay thru the nose to include "scout" gear. Putting them at 50% more expense than Eldar Rangers who get their sniper rifles for free and their cloaks included, who's cloaks not only add to cover save but come with an awesome -1 to Hit as well. Lovely. Also, not balanced.
You're right about the Sniper Rifles and Camo Cloaks costing too much on the Scouts, but oddly enough it doesn't matter. Let's load up some Scouts with Sniper Rifles and Camo Cloaks, then compare them to Rangers. Since you're concerned with their resilience, we'll start shooting them with Boltguns and Plasmaguns again. They'll both be in cover to get the most out of their gear.
The Ranger costs 12pts and the Scout costs 19pts, so the Scout costs 58% more. However, the Scout is 100% more resistant to Boltgun fire than the Ranger, although it is only 17% more resistant to Plasmaguns. In all fairness, the Scouts also have only 63% of the damage output of the Rangers per point spent on them.
However, if we're actually being smart about this, we won't bother putting Sniper Rifles and Camo Cloaks on the Scouts. Why? Because those "upgrades" aren't needed for the Scouts to do their job. Without the Camo Cloak, the numbers look like this:
I bet this is how GW dropped the cost of Rangers. Since we're now talking about 11pts Scouts, they're actually more resilient than Rangers per point spent to both Boltguns and Plasmaguns. This is why Camo Cloaks don't matter, but what about Sniper Rifles? Well, it's because pretty much every Sniper Rifle in 40k is much less efficient for killing characters compared to the other weapons, even if it means having to blast a path to anparticular character. Mobility will serve you lot better than a Sniper Rifle, so use deep striking, bikes, and landspeeders to swoop in an pick off a character after killing the other nearby models. I think the only character I'd really want Sniper Rifles for is The Changeling because it's both highly valuable AND super squishy.
All this talk of Sniper Rifles and Camo Cloaks is tangential to the real value of Scouts, though, which you ignored completely: Scouts are far better at their job than Rangers are because they are set up in the deployment phase. That makes them superior to other infiltrating units for their primary purpose, which is blocking reinforcements and claiming objectives. I would trade away my Rangers for Scouts if I could.
6) For 2 more points than a Marine pays for a just a Missile Launcher, Dark Reapers get a better weapon AND the awesome unit that fires it, hitting on 3+ no matter what, with a solid 3+ armor save to boot. And all the units in the squad can take it. Want that 10 man squad to get the most from whatever guarantee-to-hit/wound buff your dirt cheap psykers are going to slap on it? No wasted space there.
Missile Launchers are terrible guns, even the Aeldari Missile Launchers, so it's not hard to outclass them. Regarding the Dark Reapers, I'll first direct your attention back to the first section, where I explained why T3 vs. T4 is a big deal. Using exactly the same reasoning, if you wanted to make Dark Reapers T4, you'd have to make them roughly 25% more expensive, which pushes them up to 34pts each. Compare that to a Lascannon Devastator at 38pts, and you'll see that the current cost of the Reapers is not so unreasonable after all. I get why you're frustrated about the flat 3+ to hit, especially when moving, but how often to they (or Devastators) have to move? Reapers also can never get +1 to hit. Sure, the Exarch re-rolls 1s, but that effect is not as strong as the Signum, and remember that there is no option for ablative models in Aspect Warrior squads. Plus, the Marines get slightly better melee ability to fend of deep strikers, and have ATSKNF. Honestly, Dark Reapers and Devastators are comparable value.
Regarding the buffs, you know that you can just stick a cheap Captain near a few Devastator squads and get a benefit that's equivalent to what a Farseer can provide, right? No need for psychic tests, either. Autarchs do something similar for the Aeldari, and whether you choose them or a Farseer to buff your units depends on your army composition.
Regarding "dirt cheap psykers", they're as cheap as they are because they can barely do anything except use their psychic powers. Even so, their contribution is roughly on par with that of the other units if you figure out their effects on a per-point basis. Often times it would be preferable to just take more of the other units instead, but you have to take HQs, and the flexibility of the psychic powers is handy. Large, expensive units benefit more from per-unit re-rolls, and since Reapers are expensive with proportional firelower, they're then unit that benefits the most from, say, Guide. Wraithguard w/Wraithcannons are another example.
7) Prism Tank have 3 useful firing profiles and shoot twice while still moving half their 16" speed? Gimme a break.
I have a few surprises for you. The Fire Prism only has two useful firing modes: Lance is only good against T6 3+ multiwound models, barely better than Focused for that task, and only when you're not using the Linked Fire strategem. Allowing the Fire Prism to shoot twice while moving at half speed brings its firepower up to a level that isn't embarassing. Compare 4 Lascannon shots from a 190pts Predator to 2 Focused Prism Cannon salvos from a 160pts Fire Prism moving half speed against a T7 3+ target (e.g., each other). The Predator costs 19% more, but it inflicts 46% more damage on average. Linked Fire is the only reason Fire Prisms are good, but it costs a steady drip of CP and requires at least two Fire Prisms.
Some of this stuff is pretty subjective, and I get that they need to differentiate the races, but some of it isn't. When you give one group like the Eldar the clear superiority in both numbers AND quality on gear and units that have direct analogues in other armies, you've messed something up. I really don't know why Eldar don't run the tables at tournaments. I can think of 3 or 4 combinations of Eldar units, fluffy ones even, that would be all but unstoppable by anything other than a purpose built army. I can think of several more that are just absurd yet legal(1500pts, 50x Dark Reapers + Eldrad) that I honestly don't even know what anyone would bring up to stop.
Crybaby rant over, GO MARINES!
Subjectivity isn't the problem; you simply haven't done the calculations that would have shown most of your claims to be unjustified. That's good news, though, because now you have fewer things to complain about! Regarding those 50 Dark Reapers, they're surprisingly lacklustre against W1 infantry (even Marines!), so mixing in some Guardians/Dire Avengers and Swooping Hawks would be much better than Dark Reapers alone.
I'm sorry but ATSKNF has only ever been used by me once, to save the last guy in the squad. But in the whopping 5 games I've played I rerolled my morale check once.
Unless they give me a reason to take a 10 man squad then yes I'll be praising it, but I can't see that happening so in my eyes it's pretty useless
But I've been reading the boards about Eldar and I just couldn't see how they can field so many awesome units, so today I bought the codex and I am shocked at all the built in advantages. To name a few:
I do a ton of number crunching every time a new Aeldari (heh, that name change...) gets released, so I can give you a few insights into how their units work. Feel free to pick my brain about the specifics if something I say comes off as ludicrous. Also, I apologize in advance for spelling errors; I'm typing on my phone. XD
1) Eldar Fusion Gun is the same stats as the Marine Melta Gun, and they cost the same. That is balance. However, the Bright Lance which is basically the same as the Multi Melta, is 7 pts cheaper and has 50% more range. That is not balanced. For the record, the Marines need to spend 13pts for the Tac Marine or 16pts for the Sternguard to gear a melta, while the Fire Dragon costs 5pts, and also doesn't eat the -1 penalty to hit for firing assault after advancing, so this seeming parity in cost/ability is actually quite heavily skewed towards Eldar, resulting in it not being balanced.
The first thing you can do to make your life easier is to completely ignore the points costs of the equipment and unequipped models, because the only things that matter are how much damage a unit can dish out or withstand compared to its total cost. Movement helps it deliver or escape damage, but it all comes down to the total cost paid compared to performance.
Regarding the Fire Dragon and Tac/Sternguard meltas, there are tradeoffs. Fortunately, in 8th edition everything can split fire, so you no longer waste Boltgun shots at the hard target you're trying to meltas, so sprinkling a few of them into your force adds some flexibility, and at least everything can now damage everything else. Aeldari cannot do that; if they want meltaguns, they have to buy a minimum of 5, and each loss hurts. I don't count Storm Guardians for that purpose because they're worse than Guardian Defenders against pretty much everything except IG infantry, and even then you need a unit of 8 with 2 Flamers to achieve that kind of efficiency. I refuse to pay the same price (7+17 for both, not 5+17 ike you said, by the way) for a Storm Guardian over a Fire Dragon.
Let's take a look at the relative resilience of a Fire Dragon (24pts) and a Tactical Marine w/Meltaguns (30pts). It's a convenient comparison because they have (almost) the same damage output, and the only difference in their defensive profile is their toughness, so we can see just if the difference in points seems to match the amount of additional firepower the Marine can withstand. Here's how many BS3+ Boltgun or Plasmagun (uncharged) shots it takes to kill, on average, one Fire Dragon or one Tactical Marine. Seems reasonable, since one of those guns is common, and the other is usually pointed as infantry with good armour saves. Note that I'm saying shots, not models equipped with one weapon or the other, and that confine the number of shots you need to multiply the reciprocals of the chances to hit, wound, and fail a save. In some cases, you'd also end up dividing by wounds inflicted, but these are W1 models, and I'm not giving them any fancy saves from other sources.
Those numbers tell us that, on average, the Marine can withstand 33% more firepower from Boltguns, and 25% more firepower from Plasmaguns compared to the Dragon. A Tactic Marine with a Meltagun costs 25% more than a Fire Dragon, so these numbers actually favour the Marine. Sure, the Fire Dragon gets a small re-roll against monsters and vehicles, is a little faster, and is more accurate when Advancing, but the Marine gets a some more strength, a pistol, and ATSKNF. Overall, I'd say they're pretty well balanced against one another in 8th edition.
2) Space Marine Chapter Tactics apply to only infantry, bikers, Dreadnoughts, while Eldar Craftworld traits apply to their entire Detachment. That is not balanced. Honestly, of all the "balance" issues, you'd think this one would be a no brainer, but still they tilt it heavily towards Eldar. I'd like my speeders, tanks, transports, fliers to get to get that bonus too, but apparently the folks at GW think just Eldar should have that.
I agree with you that the Alaitoc attribute is too powerful, and that the Craftworld attributes should favour specific units and strategies, rather than being army-wide bonuses. Having said that, I wouldn rather see Craftworld attibutes, Chapter Tactics, etc. calibrated to roughly the power level of the Ulthwe attribute (+20% resilience). Alaitoc increases in power the lower the opposing BS, making it disproportionately powerful against entire Codices, which shouldn't happen. Writing an email to GW's rules team about the Craftworld attributes is on my to-do list, including changing the Ulthwe attribute to provide more incentive for psykers and Guardians. A work in progress.
3) Eldar Wraithlords have higher T, more wounds, more speed, and a free but functional CCW with strong AP and wound values, while the Marine Dreadnought is slower, softer, and has to buy a very expensive CCW or simply go without and hope they don't get tied up for the remainder of the fight with any 5 man squad with a 4+ or better save.
The easiest way to look at the problem is to compare similar configurations. Let's start with mixed loadouts leaning toward melee.
These two models have the same cost, the same purpose (rush into combat, guns blazing) and similar damage output against medium infantry, with a slight edge to the Wraithlord within 12". (Incidentally, that's how I recommend equipping most Wraithlords). As you said, the Wraithlord has higher toughness, wounds, and movement, which are valid concerns (leadership, too, but who cares?). Now, we could probably argue all day about whether the Wraithlord's degrading profile is enough of a penalty for having the extra stats, but I'm content to say "sometimes, but not quite". It does change how you treat them, though; you should commit to killing a Deadnought in one turn if possible, but you can afford to whittle down a Wraithlord slowly to mess with its damage output.
Regarding the Ghostglaive and DCCW, they're roughly equivalent, but they have different preferred targets. The DCCW does slightly less damage per attack, but it wounds easier against super tough targets (a corner case, I know), and the reliable damage makes it better suited to go after models with a modest number of wounds. Amusingly, Wraithguard are its favourite victims! The Ghostglaive has higher variance, and so it's better for attacking bigger targets, since rolling a 1 or 2 for damage against a W3 model is a huge drop in efficiency. Of course, the Wraithlord can call back on its fists for reliability, but I'd always recommend the having a Ghostglaive as an option for threatening T7+ or Sv2+ models, since that's what you'll usually try to chase down with the Wraithlord.
Things change once you start putting anti-vehicle guns on both models.
The Dreadnought now inflicts an average of 3.92 damage (2.94 moving) to a T7 3+ target, and the Wraithlord inflicts an average of 3.11 damage (2.33 moving) outside 12" against a T7 3+ target. The catch is that the Wraithlord should be moving because a substantial chunk of its total damage output (not included above) is from its melee attacks, whereas the Dreadnought benefits more from sitting still in the backfield due to its long range. As such, the Wraithlord is now more likely to get tied up by chaff units, removing its ranged output. In this case, the Dreadnought doesn't care much about its lower movement.
Overall, I think Wraithlords still are better than Dreadnoughts as in-your-face bullies, but they don't do the fire support role as well as the Dreadnought can. Mainly due tongue lower toughness, the rnnged Dreadnought should probably be about 10% cheaper than it is now, and 15% cheaper for the melee build.
4) Eldar squad leaders have +1A like most squad leaders, but also +1W, along a random additional useful ability based on what type of Exarch it is, which others don't get. Not balanced.
I think everything should cost points according to its capabilities, so you won't get any argument about this one from me. Nobody's squad leaders should be free, and I'd like to see a cool ability on all of them. That's another reason why extra care has to be taken with balancing Chapter Tactics and Craftworld attributes, since they cost nothing.
5) Space Marine scouts have to pay thru the nose to include "scout" gear. Putting them at 50% more expense than Eldar Rangers who get their sniper rifles for free and their cloaks included, who's cloaks not only add to cover save but come with an awesome -1 to Hit as well. Lovely. Also, not balanced.
You're right about the Sniper Rifles and Camo Cloaks costing too much on the Scouts, but oddly enough it doesn't matter. Let's load up some Scouts with Sniper Rifles and Camo Cloaks, then compare them to Rangers. Since you're concerned with their resilience, we'll start shooting them with Boltguns and Plasmaguns again. They'll both be in cover to get the most out of their gear.
The Ranger costs 12pts and the Scout costs 19pts, so the Scout costs 58% more. However, the Scout is 100% more resistant to Boltgun fire than the Ranger, although it is only 17% more resistant to Plasmaguns. In all fairness, the Scouts also have only 63% of the damage output of the Rangers per point spent on them.
However, if we're actually being smart about this, we won't bother putting Sniper Rifles and Camo Cloaks on the Scouts. Why? Because those "upgrades" aren't needed for the Scouts to do their job. Without the Camo Cloak, the numbers look like this:
I bet this is how GW dropped the cost of Rangers. Since we're now talking about 11pts Scouts, they're actually more resilient than Rangers per point spent to both Boltguns and Plasmaguns. This is why Camo Cloaks don't matter, but what about Sniper Rifles? Well, it's because pretty much every Sniper Rifle in 40k is much less efficient for killing characters compared to the other weapons, even if it means having to blast a path to anparticular character. Mobility will serve you lot better than a Sniper Rifle, so use deep striking, bikes, and landspeeders to swoop in an pick off a character after killing the other nearby models. I think the only character I'd really want Sniper Rifles for is The Changeling because it's both highly valuable AND super squishy.
All this talk of Sniper Rifles and Camo Cloaks is tangential to the real value of Scouts, though, which you ignored completely: Scouts are far better at their job than Rangers are because they are set up in the deployment phase. That makes them superior to other infiltrating units for their primary purpose, which is blocking reinforcements and claiming objectives. I would trade away my Rangers for Scouts if I could.
6) For 2 more points than a Marine pays for a just a Missile Launcher, Dark Reapers get a better weapon AND the awesome unit that fires it, hitting on 3+ no matter what, with a solid 3+ armor save to boot. And all the units in the squad can take it. Want that 10 man squad to get the most from whatever guarantee-to-hit/wound buff your dirt cheap psykers are going to slap on it? No wasted space there.
Missile Launchers are terrible guns, even the Aeldari Missile Launchers, so it's not hard to outclass them. Regarding the Dark Reapers, I'll first direct your attention back to the first section, where I explained why T3 vs. T4 is a big deal. Using exactly the same reasoning, if you wanted to make Dark Reapers T4, you'd have to make them roughly 25% more expensive, which pushes them up to 34pts each. Compare that to a Lascannon Devastator at 38pts, and you'll see that the current cost of the Reapers is not so unreasonable after all. I get why you're frustrated about the flat 3+ to hit, especially when moving, but how often to they (or Devastators) have to move? Reapers also can never get +1 to hit. Sure, the Exarch re-rolls 1s, but that effect is not as strong as the Signum, and remember that there is no option for ablative models in Aspect Warrior squads. Plus, the Marines get slightly better melee ability to fend of deep strikers, and have ATSKNF. Honestly, Dark Reapers and Devastators are comparable value.
Regarding the buffs, you know that you can just stick a cheap Captain near a few Devastator squads and get a benefit that's equivalent to what a Farseer can provide, right? No need for psychic tests, either. Autarchs do something similar for the Aeldari, and whether you choose them or a Farseer to buff your units depends on your army composition.
Regarding "dirt cheap psykers", they're as cheap as they are because they can barely do anything except use their psychic powers. Even so, their contribution is roughly on par with that of the other units if you figure out their effects on a per-point basis. Often times it would be preferable to just take more of the other units instead, but you have to take HQs, and the flexibility of the psychic powers is handy. Large, expensive units benefit more from per-unit re-rolls, and since Reapers are expensive with proportional firelower, they're then unit that benefits the most from, say, Guide. Wraithguard w/Wraithcannons are another example.
7) Prism Tank have 3 useful firing profiles and shoot twice while still moving half their 16" speed? Gimme a break.
I have a few surprises for you. The Fire Prism only has two useful firing modes: Lance is only good against T6 3+ multiwound models, barely better than Focused for that task, and only when you're not using the Linked Fire strategem. Allowing the Fire Prism to shoot twice while moving at half speed brings its firepower up to a level that isn't embarassing. Compare 4 Lascannon shots from a 190pts Predator to 2 Focused Prism Cannon salvos from a 160pts Fire Prism moving half speed against a T7 3+ target (e.g., each other). The Predator costs 19% more, but it inflicts 46% more damage on average. Linked Fire is the only reason Fire Prisms are good, but it costs a steady drip of CP and requires at least two Fire Prisms.
Some of this stuff is pretty subjective, and I get that they need to differentiate the races, but some of it isn't. When you give one group like the Eldar the clear superiority in both numbers AND quality on gear and units that have direct analogues in other armies, you've messed something up. I really don't know why Eldar don't run the tables at tournaments. I can think of 3 or 4 combinations of Eldar units, fluffy ones even, that would be all but unstoppable by anything other than a purpose built army. I can think of several more that are just absurd yet legal(1500pts, 50x Dark Reapers + Eldrad) that I honestly don't even know what anyone would bring up to stop.
Crybaby rant over, GO MARINES!
Subjectivity isn't the problem; you simply haven't done the calculations that would have shown most of your claims to be unjustified. That's good news, though, because now you have fewer things to complain about! Regarding those 50 Dark Reapers, they're surprisingly lacklustre against W1 infantry (even Marines!), so mixing in some Guardians/Dire Avengers and Swooping Hawks would be much better than Dark Reapers alone.
I thought this was a pretty good read. Personally I have more gripe with eldar stratagems than than their actual units.
fraser1191 wrote: I'm sorry but ATSKNF has only ever been used by me once, to save the last guy in the squad. But in the whopping 5 games I've played I rerolled my morale check once.
Unless they give me a reason to take a 10 man squad then yes I'll be praising it, but I can't see that happening so in my eyes it's pretty useless
Fair enough, ATSKNF is no longer the beast it used to be, but it still comes up once in a while. You're right about how there's little incentive to run large squads, a problem which most of my Aeldari lists have as well. Frankly, it's safe to ignore almost every Morale mechanic in 8th edition. The biggest exceptions I can think of right now are blobs of 20 Iyanden Guardian Defenders and stacking leadership modifiers to boost Mind War. Even then, then former is best when spewing 40 Guardians out of the Webway, and the latter has too many moving parts to be a consistent plan.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Did you REALLY list the pistol as a benefit for anything for the Sternguard vs Fire Dragon argument?
First of all, I was comparing Fire Dragons to Tactical Marines w/meltas, not Sternguard; if I had compared the Sternguard, I would have spent time on their increased damage output.
You laugh, but depending on how easily your other units can respond to your meltas getting tied up in combat, a pistol can be a significant benefit. There are times when it's better to stay in combat, fire your pistols, and get the first round of attacks than it is to fall back and lose all of your damage for that turn from your melta unit. That pair of events is equivalent to rapid firing your bolters at close range, except that your melee opponent (now more depleted) gets to swing back. Meanwhile, the rest of your firepower that would have otherwise tried to wipe out the unit tying up your meltas can fire at something else.
Fire Dragons are terrible at the above option, and their best way to preserve their firepower in that situation cost 2 CP. Marines, however, are pretty good at staying stuck in for a turn.
The problem I have with this analysis is you are assuming point cost based on resilience to small arms fire. I'm never getting shot at by small arms fire.
I get shot by 8 dakka flyrants (192 s6 shots) guard mortars (10d6 s4 shots) and other guns that don't care if it takes 9 or 6 shots to kill my unit because they are going to kill whatever they shoot at.
You fail to take into account the -2 to hit rangers which increases the number of bolter shots to kill them to 10 which equals the scouts with camo cloaks on. And I would argue that deepstrike > infiltrate because if I infiltrate on an objective you just deepstrike in and you are guaranteed alpha strike. Cheaper troops + better guns + alpha strike = your objective.
Also you are underestimating the value of sniper riffles in ITC missions. Primaris psychers are one of the more powerful imperial units and ranger snipers destroy them.
Reapers = las cannon devastators?? That's why you see so many devastator squads at top tables in tournaments...The 3+ always hit is huge, it removes the benefit of entire armies (-1 to hit) makes flyers a joke to hit and allows moving + shooting which is huge. Being able to hide them out of LOS on turn 1 and then move into firing position against the hordes of -1 to hit armies out there significantly increases their survival and ability to hit vs las cannon devs which would take a -2 to do that same thing (reducing their effectiveness by 100% .33 to .66)
Fire dragons, could be a good point. I've yet to see them in a competitive list though so they probably do suck.
I agree with the other posters that say point cost/weapon effectiveness in a vacuum is not a good way to determine what should cost what. It is a great starting point but abilities like always hitting on a 3+ (crulexes are very popular, supersonic, tigerius...) shooting twice due to a psychic power, move shoot move all taken together with a unit that pays less for it's offensive output make a pure "if these two models were sitting in a open field shooting bolters at each other" a pretty basic analysis which would form a great starting point for creating balance cannot seriously be the final arbitrator or balance in a game that has as many factors as 40k.
Units need to be looked at in relation to the current meta. T4 3+ is about as survivable as T3 4+ vs the type/amount of fire-power armies are facing today. It is even worse for small model count armies because there is so much more firepower coming towards your units. Without some tricks 1 even 2 w models are scooped up off the table.
Being able to survive turn 1 alpha strike is probably the most important defensive trait a unit can have. That's why no LOS weapons are so valuable, deepstrike and inversely deepstrike prevention (screens, chaff, auspex scan, eldar kill your deepstrikers dead strat...) There is too much shooting in this game to be worried about 14% difference in survivablility to small arms fire when there are armies out there putting out 192 s6 shots and 9 smites or hell even the standard 5x assault cannon razorbacks w/ guilliman re-rolls and a storm raven. If that can reach you and shoot you how many reapers/marines does it kill
- no mods 72 s6 -1 shots re-rolling all misses (.88 x .88 x .5 x 72 = 28 or all of your reapers in the 3 squads of 9)
But that will never happen because the razors will need to move, your reapers will be out of los and range, the stormraven can't be within gman's bubble and still in range of the reapers, your reapers will have a -1 to hit or a -2 with strat or conceal, you would have gone first and destroyed 3 of the razorbacks or 2 of the razor backs and the stormraven, your reapers will be in some insanely durable wave serpents...
Arachnofiend wrote: Argument: Space Marines are the worst codex army in the game with the exception of Grey Knights who are discounted as a non-army. They are a mono-build faction that relies on a singular, super-powerful character choice that has been slipping out of winning tables in recent months as new codexes have been released.
Rebuttal: Adeptus Mechanicus is worse; they are similarly mono-build and reliant on their super-powerful character choice, except they have never appeared at top tables and didn't even get the chance to slip out.
Counter-argument: Yeah but Cawl's canticles gimmick is cool.
I don't understand how you don't see how your argument doesn't hold up.
You realize there was a like 20+ page thread where he whined the entire time about how marines suck, never mind all the winning they're doing, they suck anyway?
Arachnofiend wrote: Argument: Space Marines are the worst codex army in the game with the exception of Grey Knights who are discounted as a non-army. They are a mono-build faction that relies on a singular, super-powerful character choice that has been slipping out of winning tables in recent months as new codexes have been released.
Rebuttal: Adeptus Mechanicus is worse; they are similarly mono-build and reliant on their super-powerful character choice, except they have never appeared at top tables and didn't even get the chance to slip out.
Counter-argument: Yeah but Cawl's canticles gimmick is cool.
I don't understand how you don't see how your argument doesn't hold up.
You realize there was a like 20+ page thread where he whined the entire time about how marines suck, never mind all the winning they're doing, they suck anyway?
Tyranids did a lot of winning with the 6th edition codex too.
I am primarily a space marine player (variant, but irrelevant). I respect my spiritual liege (bobby g) who makes marines competitive (plus asscan razors and storm ravens). I firmly believe a faction should be judged by it's outliers, not it's core. All marines aspire to be ultramarines, and now we know why.
Op is just a troll, in fact about 10 years ago there was another troll on these forums named Gwar that would also argue the most simpleminded of points to the point that it would turn into flame wars.
That being said the units might be alitlle of when you compare them in a vacuum, as an eldar player I could easily whine about how broken space marines are as we don't have any 2+ armor vehicles, or the ability to wound landraiders on a 3+ from more than 12 inches away, or t5 2w jumptroops, or transports that fly, or centurians......ectect
bananathug wrote: The problem I have with this analysis is you are assuming point cost based on resilience to small arms fire. I'm never getting shot at by small arms fire.
I get shot by 8 dakka flyrants (192 s6 shots) guard mortars (10d6 s4 shots) and other guns that don't care if it takes 9 or 6 shots to kill my unit because they are going to kill whatever they shoot at.
I'm surprised that you consider plasma to be "smalls arms fire", then go on to talk about the dangers of S4 and S6, both at AP0. I get that you're talking about volume of fire, but I was comparing the models' resilience vs. two completely different shot qualities. Both considerations matter, but I focused on quality because that's how to determine which weapons are best used against which targets; you can split fire, but you can't split strength, AP, and damage.
Just for fun, I ran the numbers on the dakka flyrants and mortars vs. Marines; the flyrant pays a minimum of 55.69 pts per wound (PPW, 37.91 with Smite) and the mortars pay 30.86 PPW vs. Marines. Meanwhile, here's what some Aeldari units can do:
I chose the above units because they can usually apply their damage on turn 1; the Guardians are in there because they are good candidates for Webway Strike. As you can see, the mortars compare favourably to most of these units, and then flyrant is average among that list (much worse when Smite is denied). Reaper Exarchs are terrifying and are phenomenal for shredding mortar teams. Swooping Hawks are great too, as are Guardian Defenders, but the Defenders are much less likely to get into range even with Webway Strike. Keep in mind that all of these models are quite fragile except for the Fire Prism, lest we resume the "OMG Aeldari are OP" theme of this thread. I'm most familiar with Aeldari, so those are the examples I'm using.
You fail to take into account the -2 to hit rangers which increases the number of bolter shots to kill them to 10 which equals the scouts with camo cloaks on. And I would argue that deepstrike > infiltrate because if I infiltrate on an objective you just deepstrike in and you are guaranteed alpha strike. Cheaper troops + better guns + alpha strike = your objective.
Paradoxically, Rangers are among the units least likely to benefit from the Alaitoc attribute because they often get placed outside of their deployment zone, or at least on the fringes of the army. Only deep strikers are less likely to be protected. Speaking of deep strike and infiltration, the Scouts/Rangers are supposed to be 55pts/60pts speed bumps for deep strikers to protect the rest of the army. If the opponent doesn't kill them, great, but they're worth fielding even if they get shot or chopped to bits immediately.
Also you are underestimating the value of sniper riffles in ITC missions. Primaris psychers are one of the more powerful imperial units and ranger snipers destroy them.
Even as I type this post, Chapter Approved has raised the cost of Primaris Psykers to 46pts (including force staff), but I still wasn't particularly concerned about them before. Now they're roughly equivalent to Spiritseers, but with a worse save and crappier non-Smite powers (I expect a cost increase for Spiritseers later.) They're still dangerous, but not so bad if you have a few decent psykers of your own, and their limited range gives you time shoot them with whichever weapons you want if you absolutely must have them dead.
Reapers = las cannon devastators?? That's why you see so many devastator squads at top tables in tournaments...The 3+ always hit is huge, it removes the benefit of entire armies (-1 to hit) makes flyers a joke to hit and allows moving + shooting which is huge. Being able to hide them out of LOS on turn 1 and then move into firing position against the hordes of -1 to hit armies out there significantly increases their survival and ability to hit vs las cannon devs which would take a -2 to do that same thing (reducing their effectiveness by 100% .33 to .66)
Alright, fair enough; it's true that Reapers excel against the popular to-hit penalties. Otherwise, the comparison to the Lascannon Devastator still holds, assuming that we're shooting at vehicles. In that role, the two units are priced pretty well against each other, but I admit that the context is narrower than I originally claimed. My bad. You probably don't see them at the top tables because Guilliman likes to charge forward. It would be funny to see a bunch of Devastator Squads clustered around Guilliman as they all trudge up the field, though, but each squad should probably have a lot of regular Marines for some anti-infantry firepower and ablative wounds. The Devastators would still be hitting 56% - 75% of then time depending on whether they were suffering -1 or -2.
Fire dragons, could be a good point. I've yet to see them in a competitive list though so they probably do suck.
My main issue with Fire Dragons is this: why would I drop 10 Fire Dragons when I can drop 10 Wraithguard? Fire Dragons might be alright in a transport, though, where their squishiness isn't as much of a liability, and losing a Dragon to the wreck wouldn't be as painful as losing a Wraithguard.
I agree with the other posters that say point cost/weapon effectiveness in a vacuum is not a good way to determine what should cost what. It is a great starting point but abilities like always hitting on a 3+ (crulexes are very popular, supersonic, tigerius...) shooting twice due to a psychic power, move shoot move all taken together with a unit that pays less for it's offensive output make a pure "if these two models were sitting in a open field shooting bolters at each other" a pretty basic analysis which would form a great starting point for creating balance cannot seriously be the final arbitrator or balance in a game that has as many factors as 40k.
40k is a simple game that pretends to be complex, and it has only two factors: 1) probability and 2) position; every other consideration can be reduced to one of those two. Probability is what a model can do, and position is the circumstances in which that probability is applied. Having said that, I agree with you that the context in which a unit is likely to excel depends heavily on how well the opposing models leverage probability and position. Everything you described above has an opportunity cost in points or time, and it all goes into the same evaluation.
Units need to be looked at in relation to the current meta. T4 3+ is about as survivable as T3 4+ vs the type/amount of fire-power armies are facing today. It is even worse for small model count armies because there is so much more firepower coming towards your units. Without some tricks 1 even 2 w models are scooped up off the table.
I agree with everything except the second sentence; T4 3+ is nothing like T3 4+ unless you're talking about a S5 AP-4 weapon, and I can't think of such a weapon right now. There are 3 broad target categories in 40k: 1) W1 infantry (GEQ, MEQ), 2) mutliwound medium/heavy infantry/bikes (includes Terminators, and light vehicles too), and 3) vehicles with T6-T8 3+ and 6-26 (or more) wounds. If you look at the weapons, each one tends to be specialized against at one of these broad target types. Weapons that are good against the vehicles tend to be decent against multi-wound infantry and bikes, though, so it's no surprise that "elite" armies suffer splash damage from players loading up on anti-vehicle weapons. Interestingly, shuriken weapon scales up pretty well against tough targets, so Aeldari can always improvise a workable (if not ideal) solution to any target priority problem.
Being able to survive turn 1 alpha strike is probably the most important defensive trait a unit can have. That's why no LOS weapons are so valuable, deepstrike and inversely deepstrike prevention (screens, chaff, auspex scan, eldar kill your deepstrikers dead strat...)
Alpha strike is, indeed, the most important part of 40k, and it's the first thing I complained about on GW's recent survey. Going second is often like starting the game with 15%-20% fewer points, and the disparity snowballs from there. Also, the more LOS blocking terrain you add to reduce alpha strike, the more powerful mobile armies with good guns and melee will become there's a happy medium in there somewhere, which we seem to squabble about endlessly.
There is too much shooting in this game to be worried about 14% difference in survivablility to small arms fire when there are armies out there putting out 192 s6 shots and 9 smites or hell even the standard 5x assault cannon razorbacks w/ guilliman re-rolls and a storm raven. If that can reach you and shoot you how many reapers/marines does it kill
- no mods 72 s6 -1 shots re-rolling all misses (.88 x .88 x .5 x 72 = 28 or all of your reapers in the 3 squads of 9)
You're really going all-in on this "small arms fire" straw man. Normally, when I work out a unit's resilience, I compare Boltguns, Heavy Bolters, Assault Cannons, Plasma, Krak Missiles, and Lascannons, which gives me a variety of strength and AP. The only reason I stuck to Boltguns and Plasma (still "small arms", really?) in this thread is because I wanted to compare two weapons that inflicted only 1 wound per attack (because the targets were W1), but had radically different strength and AP.
Regarding Guilliman, if I could pay 400pts for a M8" token (let alone a model) with only his XIII Primarch ability affecting a faction keyword of my choice, it would be in every 2000pts list I ever wrote. He literally doubles the damage output of his assault cannon army if you consider both the anti-infantry and anti-vehicle numbers.
But that will never happen because the razors will need to move, your reapers will be out of los and range, the stormraven can't be within gman's bubble and still in range of the reapers, your reapers will have a -1 to hit or a -2 with strat or conceal, you would have gone first and destroyed 3 of the razorbacks or 2 of the razor backs and the stormraven, your reapers will be in some insanely durable wave serpents...
Wait, what? You just spent a bunch of time telling me about how overwhelming shooting renders comparing unit statlines obsolete (which is flat-out wrong), and now you're saying that your assertion has been undone by the core shooting rules, a few CP, a couple of transports, and terrain. None of those things are unique to Aeldari, either. Even those "insanely durable" Wave Serpents can't use their shields defensively against the Guilliman assault cannons or the flyrants, so why make a big deal of them?
That being said the units might be alitlle of when you compare them in a vacuum, as an eldar player I could easily whine about how broken space marines are as we don't have any 2+ armor vehicles, or the ability to wound landraiders on a 3+ from more than 12 inches away, or t5 2w jumptroops, or transports that fly, or centurians......ectect
You're right about the Aeldari lack of 2+ vehicles and Centurions, but they don't need either of those things. Frankly, their model line is beyond saturation as it is. Regarding the Land Raiders, the Focused shots from Fire Prisms can wound on 3+ from 60", and a trio of Linked Prisms can easily kill a Land Raider in one turn. Aeldari might not have T5 W2 jump troops, but they can drop 20 T6 W3 3+ Wraithguard with Wraithcannons outside 9" on turn 1. Regarding flying transports, technically all the Aeldari transports have the Fly keyword; they aren't as fast as aircraft, but they can still "tank shock" to mess up enemy shooting and keep firing after wandering out of combat in subsequent turns.
DJ Illuminati wrote: Op is just a troll, in fact about 10 years ago there was another troll on these forums named Gwar that would also argue the most simpleminded of points to the point that it would turn into flame wars.
That being said the units might be alitlle of when you compare them in a vacuum, as an eldar player I could easily whine about how broken space marines are as we don't have...transports that fly...
>>Checks the Eldar codex.
>>All Eldar transports have the Fly keyword.
DJ Illuminati wrote: Op is just a troll, in fact about 10 years ago there was another troll on these forums named Gwar that would also argue the most simpleminded of points to the point that it would turn into flame wars.
That being said the units might be alitlle of when you compare them in a vacuum, as an eldar player I could easily whine about how broken space marines are as we don't have...transports that fly...
>>Checks the Eldar codex.
>>All Eldar transports have the Fly keyword.
Oh excuse me, I need to point out the forest hidden behind all those trees.............what I was referring to was stormravens, however 20 years of skimmers and flyers has caused me to forget that keywords for skimmers is now the same as the flyers that cannot be assaulted by normal units and move great differences.......
Way to focus on the hyperspecific and miss the point......
That being said the units might be alitlle of when you compare them in a vacuum, as an eldar player I could easily whine about how broken space marines are as we don't have any 2+ armor vehicles, or the ability to wound landraiders on a 3+ from more than 12 inches away, or t5 2w jumptroops, or transports that fly, or centurians......ectect
You're right about the Aeldari lack of 2+ vehicles and Centurions, but they don't need either of those things. Frankly, their model line is beyond saturation as it is. Regarding the Land Raiders, the Focused shots from Fire Prisms can wound on 3+ from 60", and a trio of Linked Prisms can easily kill a Land Raider in one turn. Aeldari might not have T5 W2 jump troops, but they can drop 20 T6 W3 3+ Wraithguard with Wraithcannons outside 9" on turn 1. Regarding flying transports, technically all the Aeldari transports have the Fly keyword; they aren't as fast as aircraft, but they can still "tank shock" to mess up enemy shooting and keep firing after wandering out of combat in subsequent turns.
You and I are kinda making the same point, there are toys that eldar don't get such as primaris marines, landraiders, or stormravens, because we have our own toys that other armies don't, and while we can drop two units in deepstrike for 3cp, space marines can deepstrike much more of their army with droppods for a few points per squad. Just like how our psychic powers at different and our troop are very different.
It's like two roads from point a to point b, one road is short but has a low speed limit while the other road is longer and you can drive much faster...........yet both roads take the same amount of time to get to the destination. Looking at individual units in a vacuum is pointless when the entire codex is made up of variables and modifiers the completely change the way you field a unit on the actual table.......
Also, the cost of 3 fireprisms naked is much higher than a single landraiders, and they are not transports, it is closer to 2 prisms to 1 lr for points cost.....
-CWE is OP.
-Many of the places where CWE look OP are not actually OP upon closer examination.
-Alaitoc should not be what it is
-Exarchs should cost more points, if they get the +1W
-Brightlance is a weaker Lascannon, not a stronger MM - and is OK, relative to that.
-Wraithlord is marginally better than a Dread at the same points - but not substantially so,
-Fire Prism isn't OP. Marines can do anything it can do better for cheaper, but the Fire Prism has more versatility. A tradeoff.
-Sniper Scouts w/Cloaks cost a little too much. But Scouts perform the non-Sniper role that both typically fill much better for 1 ppm less. However, that's because Alpha-denial is much more impactful than Snipers. Overall, non-Sniper scouts and Rangers are a tradeoff.
-Inability to arm everyone in a squad with a special/heavy is also the ability to take ablaitive wounds. Another tradeoff.
-Centurians are bad in this edition.
-T4, is frequently undervalued. Not the end-all-be-all, but an important consideration.
Surprisingly, 'Dark Reapers are OP' isn't unanimous. It's widely agreed (and I agree), but not everyone thinks so.
Automatically Appended Next Post: One addtional point:
Autarchs: customization limited to what exists in the Clampacks
Captains: They moved from the wonderful FC kit to some decent-looking Clampacks. But still have *all* the options you'd expect!
Clearly, SMOP (kidding). Seriously, though, I'm glad SM retained that customization, even as other factions are losing theirs.
DJ Illuminati wrote: Op is just a troll, in fact about 10 years ago there was another troll on these forums named Gwar that would also argue the most simpleminded of points to the point that it would turn into flame wars.
That being said the units might be alitlle of when you compare them in a vacuum, as an eldar player I could easily whine about how broken space marines are as we don't have...transports that fly...
>>Checks the Eldar codex.
>>All Eldar transports have the Fly keyword.
Oh excuse me, I need to point out the forest hidden behind all those trees.............what I was referring to was stormravens, however 20 years of skimmers and flyers has caused me to forget that keywords for skimmers is now the same as the flyers that cannot be assaulted by normal units and move great differences.......
Way to focus on the hyperspecific and miss the point......
I was being cheeky about the keywords, nothing more
the_scotsman wrote: ....I'm sure I should take unsupported claims of what is and isn't balance from a dude whose main premise for the imbalance is that Eldar and marines were imbalanced 9 years ago and who hasn't seemed to play a single actual game against them in 8th. that's probably a good indicator that he is infallible and knows exactly what he's talking about.
This 100%. Why dont you play a few games then get back to us with actual in-game evidence. As it stands I'm an Eldar player and my buddies BA give me a run for my money pretty regularly.
the_scotsman wrote: No way the Eldar missile launcher is the same as the imperial missile launcher, it's the equivalent of a multi melta EXCEPT MORE BETTER. If I told you you could have a multi melta, except double the range, less AP, but with an optional anti infantry attack youd be like, "bro" and I'd be like "bro" and then you'd take it on completely different platforms from multi meltas and you'd use it as a backfield gunline weapon and not a close range anti tank weapon like a multi melta because it would have a totally different role, not at all related to other weapons that I don't want to compare to because I'm engaged in willful ignorance of data that backs up my presupposed conclusion.
Well I'm generally on the same page with you, but assuming you are referring to the Reaper Launcher when you say Eldar Missle Launcher, it really is much closer to the Marine ML It's anti tank profile isn't just similar, it's identical for starters, so that alone should clue you in. Also, it has a secondary anti infantry profile, like the Marine ML, and which the MM doesn't. And personally I'd prefer the Reaper anti infantry to the Marine one anyday. Of course the real piece of BS is that the unit the Reaper Launcher goes on is really good and only 5 freakin points, whereas the cheapest possible unit that the Marines can slap one on is 11, a scout, and only one per squad, and it takes a hit penalty when it moves, sigh. Oh well.
He was being sarcastic - he's not usually bitter and prone to hyperbole. I think he's just fed up with a lot of these claims.
The Reaper Launcher is closest to the IoMML. But the Eldar Missile Launcher is another weapon. It's identical to the IoM missile launcher, except it's Frag missile is AP-1.
The point of his post is that it's clear that the CWEML is similar to the IoMML, not the MM, much like how the Brightlance is similar to the LC not the MM. It's been pointed out quite a bit.
The Reaper Launcher doesn't always hit on 3's, the Reaper does. So an Index Autarch with one still suffers penalties. Not much disagreement, though, on Reapers being OP (some say not much, but the majority of people say clearly OP).
Also, note that the Reaper ML's Krak is 3 damage, not d6 damage. There are times (3W no-FnP) where that's better, but it's usually quite a bit worse than D6 damage.
I'm still confused as to why people keep comparing the BL to the LC. A standard heavy weapon has a profile that includes range, times it can fire, S, AP, Damage value. The CL has 3 of these in common with the Melta, and only one with the LC. Maybe Eldar don't see this because they don't have a MM equivalent and so naturally compare it to the LC. And I can see that. So I guess my argument isn't so much that the BL is underpriced, I'd pay a bit more for 1S even with lower AP, but that the MM is way overpriced for it's range. Which is why you don't hardly ever see a MM being equipped on Marine units.
But trust me, if MM cost 20 pts and had a 36", and ditch the reroll damage at half range because really, how often does that ever get used, like once per game per gun at most and never that really, you'd see Marine units equipping them all the time. Dev Squads would be replete with them.
If you were to frame the argument "The MM is crap compared to the LC", you'd have a very different sort of discussion. It's easier to have reasonable discussions about internal codex balance than external.
I think you have a good point. If you overtuned the MM, you'd see drop-MMdev squads do some real damage - but that'd take quite a bit, because Pods suck so much right now.
I really think the inside-12"-range is a very nice rule, but not nice enough for the price that MM pays.
As is, you do see the BL-equivelent - the LC - on Tacs/Devs much more than MM. It's a really, really nice weapon.
Automatically Appended Next Post: But because of the price of the platforms we can take it on, I'd definitely take the +12" range +1S 1-worse AP for 5pts that the LC has over the BL. Devs might find value in getting the BL over the LC, but Guardians, Serpents, Falcons, WarWalkers, and just about everything else would rather have the LC over the BL.
Multi-melta sucks without comparing it to anything, really. It's too expensive for a single S8 shot that gets a so-so bonus inside 12". If it's Str also, say doubled to S16 inside melta range, then I could see the cost. But for a 50/50 to wound? Nope.
The Multi Melta is a mediocre weapon at best, outclassed at Long Range by the lascannon and at Short Range by the melta gun itself, and assault.
At mid-range, Plasma does perfectly adequately and more cheaply than a multi-melta while remaining a rapid-fire (and therefore penalty-less when moving) weapon.
We actually disagree on extremely subtle points. Not things like the dumpster fire multi-melta. Everything I post is admittedly skewed by playing against a player pool, half of which has been killing marines since 2nd ed.
When you compare space marine codex to eldar codex you notice some things right off the bat.
#1 - Eldar stratagems are good and affect most of the craft-worlds equally. Space marine strategems are much worse than Eldar and ALSO the best ones are chapter specific.
#2 - Eldar army traits affect all unit types and space marine only affects infantry/biker and dreadnoughts.
#3 - Eldar have 2 good psychic trees. Space marines have 1 crappy one.
fraser1191 wrote: I think I'd take the multi melta if it were assault 2 at 27 pts
Possibly I guess.
The problem is that I'd still just take a plasma gun for half that, and lose 1 shot at 24" while keeping 2 at 12".
Let me rephrase.
I'd take it into consideration over the lascannon. But that's a losing battle seeing as how lnvuln saves were thrown around this edition like the boltgun lol
Bharring wrote: So to sum up this thread:
Surprisingly, 'Dark Reapers are OP' isn't unanimous. It's widely agreed (and I agree), but not everyone thinks so.
Versatile units are tricky to balance, and in most cases a unit's secondary function should not be worth nearly as much consideration as its primary one when it comes to determining it's cost because there will be other units that perform that function better. I think GW is struggling with the Dark Reapers because their primary function changed; they were Marine killers for most of the game's history, but now they're actually specialized toward killing multiwound models, especially vehicles.
I mentioned above that Reapers pay 46.56 PPW vs. W1 Marines, but they pay 30.38 PPW vs. Terminators (no Storm Shields), Space Marine Bikers, T6 3+ and T7 3+ vehicles. Let's compare a few Marine and Craftworlds units vs. a typical T7 3+ vehicle to see if the Dark Reapers' performance is an anomaly.
Dark Reapers don't stand out as overpowered in this list; their accuracy never suffers, but they're by far the squishiest of these units. If I had to pick one unit to complain about on this list, it would be the Crimson Hunter (+/- Exarch) because it has both good firepower and good resilience. People like to complain about Hemlocks, but the Hemlock isn't as nasty as the CH/CHE because 1) its firepower is less efficient, and 2) it has to put tself in range of many more enemy guns to apply its damage.
wuestenfux wrote: Eldar are upper mid tier in this edition.
Looking at individual stats, strategems, and rules dont give the whole picture.
True. Overall, the Craftworlds Codex has pretty solid internal balance, with most of the units being roughly on par with the good options from other factions, but I'd be hard-pressed to find something overpowered in it other than the Alaitoc Attribute. (I did eventually send a massive email to GW outlining an overhaul of the Attributes.). Most of the parts function well together, though, unlike other Codices that have internal balance issues that limit true choice. Unfortunately, Space Marines is one of those haphazard Codices.
Bharring wrote: So to sum up this thread:
Surprisingly, 'Dark Reapers are OP' isn't unanimous. It's widely agreed (and I agree), but not everyone thinks so.
Versatile units are tricky to balance, and in most cases a unit's secondary function should not be worth nearly as much consideration as its primary one when it comes to determining it's cost because there will be other units that perform that function better. I think GW is struggling with the Dark Reapers because their primary function changed; they were Marine killers for most of the game's history, but now they're actually specialized toward killing multiwound models, especially vehicles.
I mentioned above that Reapers pay 46.56 PPW vs. W1 Marines, but they pay 30.38 PPW vs. Terminators (no Storm Shields), Space Marine Bikers, T6 3+ and T7 3+ vehicles. Let's compare a few Marine and Craftworlds units vs. a typical T7 3+ vehicle to see if the Dark Reapers' performance is an anomaly.
Dark Reapers don't stand out as overpowered in this list; their accuracy never suffers, but they're by far the squishiest of these units. If I had to pick one unit to complain about on this list, it would be the Crimson Hunter (+/- Exarch) because it has both good firepower and good resilience. People like to complain about Hemlocks, but the Hemlock isn't as nasty as the CH/CHE because 1) its firepower is less efficient, and 2) it has to put tself in range of many more enemy guns to apply its damage.
wuestenfux wrote: Eldar are upper mid tier in this edition.
Looking at individual stats, strategems, and rules dont give the whole picture.
True. Overall, the Craftworlds Codex has pretty solid internal balance, with most of the units being roughly on par with the good options from other factions, but I'd be hard-pressed to find something overpowered in it other than the Alaitoc Attribute. (I did eventually send a massive email to GW outlining an overhaul of the Attributes.). Most of the parts function well together, though, unlike other Codices that have internal balance issues that limit true choice. Unfortunately, Space Marines is one of those haphazard Codices.
The 3+ never change aspect of the dark reapers is what makes them so incredibly OP as your numbers show when you look at the ability to hit a target after they have moved.
You can't just say that's okay because they are squishy because that ability to move pretty much guarantees they are going to hit you first where the under costed ubiquitous offense is going to get a chance to shine. They are literally 30% better than anything in the marine list hitting after moving, factor in hitting after moving units with a native -1 and they get even better. I sure could use 6-900 more points of shooting in my list @ 2k points...
The ability to web-way portal in any faction is crazy good. I'd love to be able to SFtS my black templars (again ignoring alpha threats). The shoot the deepstrikers strat is also game altering good, especially when compared to the dumpster fire that is the marine auspect scan (if you are landing within 12" of something that has a chance to deal significant damage with a -1 to hit I'm in a really bad situation.)
Now throw in the fact that you get an exarch tempest launcher to do a crazy 17.63 ppw to marines and your Reapers can also shine at anti-infantry as well (the only one up there for marines that holds a candle is the storm raven but I'm not sure after the price increases how effective that is going to be, and besides you will kill it before it kills enough of your units to count unless I run 4 of them...)
vs t3 4+ (moved or vs -1 to hit units)
Dread TL las + TL cannons = 70.56 (84.56)
4x las pred = 95.38 (114)
las dev = 76.3 (91.56)
Dark reaper = 37.18 (37.18)
vs t4 3+
dread = 96 (114)
4x las pred = 104.9 (138.6)
las dev = 84.4 (110.4)
dark reaper = 46.56 (46.56)
exarch = 17.63 (17.63)
The added flexability to be TAC on those reapers is another reason they are so OP because you can just throw 27 of them in a list and deal with infantry and armor but if I throw 50% of my list as anti-armor my infantry shooting is going to be really bad (really really bad if I have to move so boards with LOS blocking terrain are a problem)
So reapers are 30% better than my best anti-armor units while being 100%+ better shooting at infantry but they are not OP...
They can begin the game out of LOS so are mostly immune or highly resistant to first turn alpha, get chapter traits, can deepstrike, small footprint so easy to bubble wrap and have air support options which are just down right broken.
Yep, well balanced. I have no idea why anyone is complaining...
shortymcnostrill wrote: If reapers can start a game out of line of sight then why can't you?
2 pretty obvious reasons.
#1 - they can webwayportal in (in any craftworld)
#2 - they can start out of LOS or in a vehicle without suffering the penalty for moving.
I generally agree that Reapers are better than Mattler thinks, but by margins. Overall, he's shown a lot of great, well thought out, analysis of many units. Even shifted my opinion on Wraithlords vs Dreadnaughts by a degree or two.
Reapers are really good. Mattler is underselling them, but Banana is overselling them. I still think they're worth maybe a point or two less than a MLDev.
In cover, Reapers have the same 2+ as Marines. But regardless of situation, they're still T3. There are only some corner cases where Marines aren't notably more survivable. But Marines aren't massively more survivable.
Banana is right in that offense is more important in this matchup than defense. But he oversells it. On some specific points:
-Reapers who hide out of LOS so they can move into position can't be used to Intercept (unless the player chose to drop in LOS of them, despite the nearby LOS-blocker that is clearly blocking so much). So sure, they can't be shot at top of 1, then can move into position and shoot, but they also don't get to pull the "DS Overwatch" many people are scared of. And it's because of that and the much-weaker Soulburst that you'd take squads over 5.
-LC options are terrible comparisions for those targets. I'd hope missile launchers would outperform them vs those profiles. The IoM Missile Launcher should outperform the Reaper launcher vs vehicles, but underperform vs non-vehicles (D:d6 being better overall than D:3, but Reapers having the better anti-infantry option).
Instead of running LC options, have you tried MLdevs (considered terrible weapon, yes, but more similar to Reaper Launcher) or the Plasma Cannon devs?
Also, LasCannon Devs - considered terrible as-is - have Signums, Cherubims, and better survivability. While having about the same AT firepower (marginably better unmoving, slightly worse if they've moved). If they had about the same anti-infantry power as Reapers, they too would be OP.
Nobody is saying Reapers are perfectly balanced. But you have to consider the pros of their competitors as well as the cons.
First let me say thank you to a lot of people in this thread for their well though out, informative and productive posts. The tone has been great and I feel like this is actually a discussion instead of a shouting match.
I agree that I am probably overselling reapers (don't even get me started on shining spears...) and I think I am not just jealous of CWEs mechanical strength but their general coolness.
Marines are bland, CWE has cool rules. They have swooping hawks dropping bombs, shields that reduce damage, a huge variety of weapon profiles, cool psychic powers and all kinds of maneuverability tricks. Their specialists actually seem like specialists where the best space marines have is...nothing. Maybe being able to shoot twice if your aggressors did not move the turn before but outside of that I can't think of any cool rules that space marine armies have. Even our stratagem are boring or ineffective.
I guess I'm just jealous that starting with IG, then CWE and now Nid's the codexes seem like they added a lot of depth and cool rules to armies while SM just seems really bland. Hell even Ad Mech gets canticles and cool looking units.
Hell even the other chapters have cooler toys than vanilla marines (BA, DA, wolf boys).
There are threads all the time about Guilliman being OP and taken in a vacuum I see their point. Imagine him in any other army and it gets ridiculous. But buffing lowly space marines he's the only competitive crutch we have and the tournament data is saying he is just not enough (hell even my personal albeit strong local meta he's not enough).
I'm not sure I can offer a solution without getting crushed as a SM fanboy by people who get crushed in their local metas by guilliman parking lots even though that is a mid-tier army at best. I'd love to see more internal variate and cool rules outside of just "re-roll more dice" but it's too late for that.
I'm not going to sell/burn/sacrifice my space marine boys I started collecting in the 90s (damn I'm old) but maybe it's time for me to stop hoping GW will turn them into something interesting and pick-up something that ends up with a cool codex...
I don't understand how Marines can be considered bland.
Lots of special characters, a fething Primarch, the largest model range of any faction, chapter rules, a brand new 'subfaction' with the Primaris, and the brightest spotlight in the background.
Yes, other factions have cool toys too. This doesn't make Marines bland in any way shape or form.
I'm not quite sure I agree that the CWE codex gave us *cool* or interesting options, and the SM codex did not.
The CWE dex dropped the points on most of our stuff, gave us copypasta (mostly) traits from other factions, uninspired relics/WL traits, fleshed out our psychic powers, and gave us some cool stratagems.
The points levels aren't cool or interesting. They just directly impact the competitiveness/power of the units. A brainless change. Nothing cool or interesting.
For faction traits, they didn't put much thought into it. Biel-Tan's feels more like a Black Guardian Warhost trait. Uthwe's feels distinctly non-Eldary. Iyanden's pushes us to play Guard-style tactics, sacrificing Eldar lives for the objective, because we're totally not a dying race and apparantly they have extra guys. Half of Saim-Hann is basically a Thousand Swords rule. The other half is just for Scatter Bikes and Vypers. The only one that really fit is Alaitoc. But even that was poorly thought out: it was considered a strong trait for SM and CSM, but limited in what it affected. So hitting everything with that power was a terrible idea. Further, CWE had one of the best range of -1-to-hit options in the game, and had a clear example where stacking -2-to-hit on a Hemlock was stupid. So the CTs weren't well thought out. They weren't original. Clearly OP, but not interesting.
Relics and Warlord Traits are serviceable, but nothing jumps out as awesome. It bothers me that Shard of Annaris cannot be stronger or weaker than the Firesaber, because of how you get them. So you have uninspired rules with no flavor for a bunch of meh options. They're mostly things we had in previous editions, but without the character they had in previous editions.
The Psyker powers were basically what we've always had. Mind War works differently but is the same concept. Executioner is "I don't have any idea. Lets just do another smite and monkey with the rules". No more Eldrich Storm (I'd rather a weak, inviable Storm than none). No more Renewer/Destructor, now that Smite takes Destructor's place. No more Telepathy. Basically, the same it's always been. Only less cool and interesting.
Stratagems, though, are one bright spot in the codex. Fire and Fade is awesome, fluffy, and with appropriate cost. Linked Fire gives us a way to take down the big stuff, in a very cinematic way! A stratagem to help us with Deep Strikes is a great idea, because CWE don't have chaff like most (although the Marine one is weak, giving chaffless armies some DS counterplay is smart). And limiting our Infiltrate-replacement the way they did was a very good idea. Many of the others, though, are meh, 'why bother?' or copypasta. Stuff like the same anti-air ML the IOM is a good idea, but not compelling.
There are some other actual changes, too.
Fire Prisms got a weaker Grinding Advance. Turned out rather nicely, in that the Prism can use one of two profiles to perform a role not as well as units dedicated to that role. But without that rule, the Prism is less than half as good as other options at the same tasks. I'm glad it got it. But the Night Spinner and Falcon were in similar places, but got nothing. And the rule is even named like the Falcon's primary weapon! ('Pulsed Laser Discharge' is not available for the 'Pulse Laser'...).
Autarchs got a CP-recharge buff in addition to the standard Commander buff bubble most armies get. That's cool, because fluffwise, the Autarch is on the Path of Strategy. They are not a beatstick (and should never get Exarch weapons). They aren't the super inspiring figure Marines have in their Captains. A cool and fluffy rule. But not too powerful.
I see why people are jealous of CWE for their power. Reapers and stacked hit penalties and ... well, those are the only two major offenders.
I don't see why people think the CWE book was really cool though. Two moderately interesting rules on two units is ok. Some cool strats. The rest was brainless. Just shifting the Index rules to a Codex, plus a bunch of copypasta, drivel, and too much cost reduction. And painfully obviously brainleses.
Reapers are really good. Mattler is underselling them, but Banana is overselling them. I still think they're worth maybe a point or two less than a MLDev.
I admit, the approach I took undersold the Reapers; I was trying to demonstrate that Space Marines have comparable options in terms of raw power, but I didn't properly account for the ways that the rest of the Craftworld Codex augmented the Reapers. Having said that, I also didn't fully explore how the Space Marine Codex could boost some of their unit's beyond their profiles. It was less about me trying to say "Reapers are balanced" and more about saying "hey, it's not as dire as you think". Before I get bogged down in another example, I just want to say that I agree that the Dark Reapers should cost a couple points less than a Devastator a/Missile Launcher, on the condition that the MLDev's cost also be reduced by 4-5 pts to make the Missile Launcher a competitive option.
Back to Space Marine Codex synergies, the Killshot Strategem on Predators puts Linked Fire on Fire Prisms completely to shame. Let's look at the two units against vs. T7 3+, this time with both of them using/not using their Strategem. Both the Lascannon and Prism Cannon are S9, so the tank numbers will be the same for T8 3+ as well. Let's also put the Dark Reapers back in to continue that comparison, and I'll separate the T7 3+ and T8 3+ in their case.
As you can see, Killshot crazy stong, at it's superior to Linked Fire in almost every respect, except that the Predators have to clump together more than the Fire Prisms (which can be anywhere, but just have to have LOS to each other). Perhaps the best advantage of Killshot over Linked Fire is that Killshot allows you to split fire as much as you want. Just as I would recommend fielding 3 Fire Prisms to ensure Linked Fire, I would recommend fielding at least 4 Predators to ensure Killshot. Don't forget those Hunter Killers and Stormbolters! I did, so here's what happens if you have those upgrades and manage to get closer to a monster or vehicle with Killshot Predators. We'll use T7 3+ for this one.
Again, excellent performance from Killshot. With these kinds of numbers (or even the previous set), I think it's safe to say that the damage output of Lascannon Predators with Killshot justifies fielding 4 or 5 of them without worrying about overspecializing your damage; the speed with which you'll kill the enemy vehicles and monsters makes up for the subsequent drop in efficiency against the remaining targets. The reason I wanted to show the 12" damage is because someone mentioned their worries about dakka flyrants earlier in this thread, so here's how the numbers look when you account for the flyrant's 4++.
Killshot remains stronger than the Reapers, even maintaining better performance while moving, although this gap is smaller than the last one. Conclusion? Use Killshot Lascannon Predators whenever possible; they're the best weapon Space Marines have against vehicles and monsters, and possibly the best overall long-range firepower for that task in the whole game. It remains compatible with Captain/Chapter Master re-rolls and the Salamander CT, unlike the Fire Prism's Linked Fire, which doesn't benefit at all from Runes of Fate or the Autarch.
bananathug wrote: First let me say thank you to a lot of people in this thread for their well though out, informative and productive posts. The tone has been great and I feel like this is actually a discussion instead of a shouting match.
If I ever come across as being a jerk, call me on it. Meanwhile, thanks for your own contributions to the discussion too!
I agree that I am probably overselling reapers (don't even get me started on shining spears...) and I think I am not just jealous of CWEs mechanical strength but their general coolness.
Marines are bland, CWE has cool rules.
The Shining Spears had slipped my mind when I said that the Craftworld Codex didn't have any truly overpowered units. You'll get no argument from me that the Spears are far too powerful. Too bad the GW sculpts still look terrible, but there's at least one good alternative.
Regarding the blandness of the Marines, they're currently about as interesting as they've ever been. It's still a pile of power armour for the most part, but at least now they have diversity in their unit's comparable to the Aeldari. Unfortunately, their internal balance isn't where it needs to be, so real choices are limited.
There are threads all the time about Guilliman being OP and taken in a vacuum I see their point. Imagine him in any other army and it gets ridiculous. But buffing lowly space marines he's the only competitive crutch we have and the tournament data is saying he is just not enough (hell even my personal albeit strong local meta he's not enough).
I'm not sure I can offer a solution without getting crushed as a SM fanboy by people who get crushed in their local metas by guilliman parking lots even though that is a mid-tier army at best. I'd love to see more internal variate and cool rules outside of just "re-roll more dice" but it's too late for that.
I've said before that I would take Guilliman as a 400pts M8" token with just the XIII Primarch rule, and I stand by that statement. Your point is well taken, though, because his poor design highlights the size of the gap between where Marines are and where they need to be. Frankly, I don't think they need to have the raw power that Guilliman gives them, because adding firepower without resilience makes them more like glass cannons, and the games become high variance (paradoxically, since the re-rolls reduce variance) due to dependence on alpha striking. If the rest of the army reclaimed more of its former "tough as nails" reputation, it wouldn't need such huge boosts to its firepower because it would be able to maintain the firepower it had through slow attrition.
For faction traits, they didn't put much thought into it. Biel-Tan's feels more like a Black Guardian Warhost trait. Uthwe's feels distinctly non-Eldary. Iyanden's pushes us to play Guard-style tactics, sacrificing Eldar lives for the objective, because we're totally not a dying race and apparantly they have extra guys. Half of Saim-Hann is basically a Thousand Swords rule. The other half is just for Scatter Bikes and Vypers. The only one that really fit is Alaitoc. But even that was poorly thought out: it was considered a strong trait for SM and CSM, but limited in what it affected. So hitting everything with that power was a terrible idea. Further, CWE had one of the best range of -1-to-hit options in the game, and had a clear example where stacking -2-to-hit on a Hemlock was stupid. So the CTs weren't well thought out. They weren't original. Clearly OP, but not interesting.
Yeah, the Attributes were all over the place, and I think only Saim-hann came close to fitting the character of its Craftworld. My biggest beef is that the Attributes almost never provide incentive to play particular units or strategies; you just slap them on whatever army you want, and so the most generally useful "choice" (Alaitoc) dominates. I keep mentioning an email I wrote to GW about fixing the Attributes, so here's a quick summary of what I suggested. It could probably us a little work, but it's better than the current state of affairs for sure. They're all meant to be calibrated roughly around the power level of the global 6+ FNP traits, meaning roughly a 20% buff across the army, although a certain subset of units spike higher.
Alaitoc RANGERS and WAR WALKERS with this attribute are -1 to-hit outside 12" and do not suffer penalties to fire moving heavy weapons. No enemy reinforcements can be set up within 12" of any unit with this attribute.
Biel-Tan ASPECT WARRIORS with this attribute get +1 Leadership and re-roll 1s to wound.
Iyanden WRAITH CONSTRUCTS with this attribute reduce damage received by 1, to a minimum of 2, or to a minimum of 1 within 6" of a Spiritseer with this attribute. [Ideally, that would be for Bonesingers instead...]
Saim-Hann May re-roll charge rolls for units with this attribute. BIKERS with this attribute re-roll 1s to wound with shuriken weaponry, and do not suffer penalties to fire moving heavy weapons.
Ulthwe GUARDIANS with this attribute may re-roll the D6 when Advancing, and do not suffer penalties to fire moving heavy weapons. PSYKERS with this attribute receive +1 to manifest psychic powers and to Deny the Witch, and grant any units with this attribute within 6" a 6+ FNP.
I'm kind of annoyed that I used the "no penalties to moving heavy weapons" thing three times, but at least it's on completely different units despite having access to the same weapon selection. It was less about preserving firepower than it was about encouraging mobility. I chose re-rolls to wound to avoid redundancy with all the HQ buffs. Thoughts?
Relics and Warlord Traits are serviceable, but nothing jumps out as awesome. It bothers me that Shard of Annaris cannot be stronger or weaker than the Firesaber, because of how you get them. So you have uninspired rules with no flavor for a bunch of meh options. They're mostly things we had in previous editions, but without the character they had in previous editions.
The Novalance of Saim-Hann jumps out as awesome; it's the kind of weapon that should have been a named character (e.g., Nuadhu Fireheart). The funny thing about the Shard of Anaris is that it's the best sword by a decent margin, but I'd still rather take a regular Laser Lance (and the Novalance is a no-brainer). Most of the relics are pretty dull, and I'm annoyed that GW couldn't balance a bunch of (basically) free stuff, despite the fact that in previous editions the relics were mostly terrible for their extortionate point costs.
Um i have to laugh at the op complaining eldar are better than marines.
First of all Bright Lances are their las cannons not multi melt as
2 I'll admit as a csm player im also jealous of the fact my trait doesn't apply to my vehicles but thems the breaks
3) a dreadnought and wraith lord are two completely different units in completely different factions of course their points costs will be different.
4) oh no Eldar Exarchs do something different compared to what ever will you do i mean its not like they arent easy to kill.
Overall your complaining that the marine codex is bad boo fricking boo feel sorry for my poor Tzeench daemons who have been nerfed to the high heavens or any of the other index armies. Oh and before you reply with at least you have a chance of things getting better they need to rework horrors and provide Tzeench daemons with 2 psychic disciplines to choose from because with that smite nerf coming my poor Tzeench daemons will get hit even harder with the nerf bat.
Well, as a long-term Eldar player I dont field Dark Reapers.
The reason is that its a static unit and so disrupts the continuous flow of an Eldar battle.
To be more specific,
(1) if you field a static unit in an otherwise mobile army, then experience tells me that the enemy will move towards it no matter what. This is what you dont want. You want the enemy to move on your terms.
(2) They are a big target even if they cannot be targeted in first turn by keeping them out of sight, letting them teleport or mounted in a tank.
wuestenfux wrote: Well, as a long-term Eldar player I dont field Dark Reapers.
The reason is that its a static unit and so disrupts the continuous flow of an Eldar battle.
To be more specific,
(1) if you field a static unit in an otherwise mobile army, then experience tells me that the enemy will move towards it no matter what. This is what you dont want. You want the enemy to move on your terms.
(2) They are a big target even if they cannot be targeted in first turn by keeping them out of sight, letting them teleport or mounted in a tank.
Errrrrr, well, I don't mean offense, but if Dark Reaper, the unit that can move and shoot without any penalty is considered static and should not be put in Eldar list due to mobility problem, then almost all choices for Space Marine long range fire supoort unit like Devastator, Predators, should not be taken by the same reason. And the Space Marine only viable long range support unit would be Godhammer Land Raider which had been long time agreed as a piece of overcosted trash. Or Lascannon Missile laucher Stormraven, which Eldar has much better ones for that role in Crimson Hunter Exarch or Helmlock.
So conclusion? Eldar have much more superior choices to build a game winning list compare to Marines, right?
Errrrrr, well, I don't mean offense, but if Dark Reaper, the unit that can move and shoot without any penalty is considered static and should not be put in Eldar list due to mobility problem, then almost all choices for Space Marine long range fire supoort unit like Devastator, Predators, should not be taken by the same reason.
SM are currently played only as a gunline so static units are perfect for them.
Errrrrr, well, I don't mean offense, but if Dark Reaper, the unit that can move and shoot without any penalty is considered static and should not be put in Eldar list due to mobility problem, then almost all choices for Space Marine long range fire supoort unit like Devastator, Predators, should not be taken by the same reason.
SM are currently played only as a gunline so static units are perfect for them.
.....Sigh......
The game is more about taking objectives, which require mobility for all factions. Also, unless the battle field terrain is very flat and have very few LoS blocking terrain, manuvering into good firing position is as important as the raw firepower output for the army in terms of killing enemy. So, unless it is really awesome firepower requiring no LoS to fire (such as IG Artilery spam), a static.gunline is never a decent choice.
Also, Marine gunline is a gunline which has to bring THAT BIG GUY to be truelly effective, so be prepared to be screamed "that is too OP!" by others.
More importantly, Those guns are also most likely to have relative short range. Which means IG Tanks / Artilery, Eldar Dark Reapers / Fire Prism / Crimson Hunters / Wave Serpents / Warwalkers, Nidz Biovores / Tyranofexes / Exocrines / Hive Guards, can all quickly bust those gun platform vehicles from 36" or more without worrying to be fired back.
Furthermore, assault out of DS is common, and the power allowing a unit to move twice is not unheard, fast moving units like Kraken fleet Genestealers and Flyrants could easily have an assault threat range of 20+", leaving those assault cannon at most one round of shooting. This misery is further compounded by the rule that marine CT not applying on vehicles other than Dreads, so once they are touched by assault units, that Razorback is as good as dead. Moreover, that aura effect is 6" only so those razorbacks would need to be parked closely together, so hordes like Genestealers and Homagants can charge one of them, then pile in to the other two vehicles (or may consolidate into the 2nd one after destroyed the 1st one) so as to silence them ALL!
So, in my view, Marine gunlines might be able to bully some even weaker army at the moment, like those who still have not been buffed by arriving codexes, e.g. Orks, and maybe DE and Necrons, but it stands very little chance facing an top build TAC list from IG, Eldar, or Tyranids.
wuestenfux wrote: Well, as a long-term Eldar player I dont field Dark Reapers.
The reason is that its a static unit and so disrupts the continuous flow of an Eldar battle.
To be more specific,
(1) if you field a static unit in an otherwise mobile army, then experience tells me that the enemy will move towards it no matter what. This is what you dont want. You want the enemy to move on your terms.
(2) They are a big target even if they cannot be targeted in first turn by keeping them out of sight, letting them teleport or mounted in a tank.
How are they a static unit? They can move and shoot without penalty?
They're no more static than any other infantry unit - in fact, RANGERS are more static than Reapers.
wuestenfux wrote: Well, as a long-term Eldar player I dont field Dark Reapers.
The reason is that its a static unit and so disrupts the continuous flow of an Eldar battle.
To be more specific,
(1) if you field a static unit in an otherwise mobile army, then experience tells me that the enemy will move towards it no matter what. This is what you dont want. You want the enemy to move on your terms.
(2) They are a big target even if they cannot be targeted in first turn by keeping them out of sight, letting them teleport or mounted in a tank.
How are they a static unit? They can move and shoot without penalty?
They're no more static than any other infantry unit - in fact, RANGERS are more static than Reapers.
Right. My experience concerns the previous incarnations of the game.
Now they can move and shoot without penalty. But still, footslogging a slow way to die. They are a big target and may not last long.
Mattler/Bananna,
I'd love to hear more of your thoughts on Spears - I had created a thread specifically about them, as they were getting mentioned as increadibly OP in a couple different threads I didn't want to derail.
WRT short range on IOM gunlines: The WarWalker and WaveSerpent only outrange the Assault Cannon with weapons that are analgous to weapons the IOM can take. The Brightlance is outclassed by the LasCannon, in part because of the shorter range. Eldar ML is slightly better than IoMML when shooting Frag but identical when shooting Krak, but same range either way. The Star Cannon has some plusses and minuses, but is similar to the Plasma Cannon, with the same range. And the Shuriken Cannon has 24" range, and is basically half an Assault Cannon.
The Wave Serpent is the better platform, but standard CWE heavy weapons aren't outranging their IoM counterparts.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The Fire Prism does outrange both the Lascannon and the Plasma Cannon by a wide range, but even firing twice, does much less damage than either per point (comparing the AT mode to the LC and the anti-heavy-infantry mode to the PC). That it can perform either role is useful, it has range, and has a decent platform. But it's a massive tradeoff in firepower.
.....Sigh......
The game is more about taking objectives, which require mobility for all factions. Also, unless the battle field terrain is very flat and have very few LoS blocking terrain, manuvering into good firing position is as important as the raw firepower output for the army in terms of killing enemy. So, unless it is really awesome firepower requiring no LoS to fire (such as IG Artilery spam), a static.gunline is never a decent choice.
Also, Marine gunline is a gunline which has to bring THAT BIG GUY to be truelly effective, so be prepared to be screamed "that is too OP!" by others.
More importantly, Those guns are also most likely to have relative short range. Which means IG Tanks / Artilery, Eldar Dark Reapers / Fire Prism / Crimson Hunters / Wave Serpents / Warwalkers, Nidz Biovores / Tyranofexes / Exocrines / Hive Guards, can all quickly bust those gun platform vehicles from 36" or more without worrying to be fired back.
Furthermore, assault out of DS is common, and the power allowing a unit to move twice is not unheard, fast moving units like Kraken fleet Genestealers and Flyrants could easily have an assault threat range of 20+", leaving those assault cannon at most one round of shooting. This misery is further compounded by the rule that marine CT not applying on vehicles other than Dreads, so once they are touched by assault units, that Razorback is as good as dead. Moreover, that aura effect is 6" only so those razorbacks would need to be parked closely together, so hordes like Genestealers and Homagants can charge one of them, then pile in to the other two vehicles (or may consolidate into the 2nd one after destroyed the 1st one) so as to silence them ALL!
So, in my view, Marine gunlines might be able to bully some even weaker army at the moment, like those who still have not been buffed by arriving codexes, e.g. Orks, and maybe DE and Necrons, but it stands very little chance facing an top build TAC list from IG, Eldar, or Tyranids.
I think this is the place where Martel and I are talking past each other. I think the ability to move and shoot should be something that units have to pay a premium for. Especially with the abundance of -1 to hits out there -2 skews the points per wound calculation so much that you're better off just not including any heavy weapons that have to move and shoot because they perform so much worse than any other weapon available to you. I'm not sure I could put a number on how valuable that is and it would have different values for different units (value on a unit with no-los shooting probably nothing, short range weapons more valuable, 48" weapons not sure)
A blob of 4 predators will have the ability to hit about 20% of the board. Then will get assaulted (da jump, warp time, alpha legioned) or out of LOS'd or fire and faded or attacked form beyond 48" or crimson huntered or deep struck or one of the other baziillion ways to neutralize 2 t7 12w 3+ models in one turn of shooting/assault and 800 points of models because affording 4 predators and chaff and anti-infantry just isn't in the cards. Much harder for enemies to neutralize 750 points of reapers (3x9) when they can be spread out so one assaulting unit can't consolidate into all of them at once.
So movement is not only valuable for combating the IG out of LOS weapons, keeping your units safe v. turn 1 alpha and executing proper target selection, but most tournaments are adopting ITC rules which place a premium on objective control and board control so being to move to quarters control and objective control is vital to scoring enough points to compete in these events.
I admit that analyzing GW points/opness with an eye for ITC events which have extra rules not required for basic 40k and which a lot of players don't deal with is probably a personal crusade and outside of the generalized nature of this discussion so take it with a grain of salt (no a lot of salt because it makes me quite salty).
I've said before that I would take Guilliman as a 400pts M8" token with just the XIII Primarch rule, and I stand by that statement. Your point is well taken, though, because his poor design highlights the size of the gap between where Marines are and where they need to be. Frankly, I don't think they need to have the raw power that Guilliman gives them, because adding firepower without resilience makes them more like glass cannons, and the games become high variance (paradoxically, since the re-rolls reduce variance) due to dependence on alpha striking. If the rest of the army reclaimed more of its former "tough as nails" reputation, it wouldn't need such huge boosts to its firepower because it would be able to maintain the firepower it had through slow attrition.
I couldn't agree more. I feel like it is a fundamental design problem with marines. They die too easy for their points and increasing their offense doesn't help this. I think Azazel and his 4++ bubble is a better design for marines (re-rolling misses is fine but misses and ALL wounds is just too much additional fire-power)
traits...
I'm not familiar with the fluff of eldar but from a mechanical slant I really like most of what you have except for the ubiquitous no -1 to hit for moving. I think that is a super valuable ability which helps add tactics to a game which is lacking them. The decision to move and be less efficient v. not move and perhaps shoot a less valuable target is one of the few areas where movement/target selection/presentation make this into an actual tactical game.
I'm not sure your wraithguard/blades need any more buffs and are dead 'ard enough as is. Combined with wave serpent/webway delivery making them harder to kill once you can see them would do terrible things to most armies (needing triple the amount of over-charged plasma to kill them is game breaking) @ toughness 6 the best weapons against them are mult-damage and with 3 wounds needing to roll a 5 for damage on a d6 weapon would mean they are only likely to die 12% of the time to a lascannon shot (or needing 2 full predator shots to kill one model or 380 points to kill 40 points of model or 1900 points of predators to kill a 200 point squad which turns around and kills a predator and a half a turn)
But compare your suggestions to what SM get and I think you will see that your skew towards OP v. all but the ravenguard -1 to hit @ over 12" which we both agree is problematic. Not that underpowered abilities should be used as a benchmark but if you get what you want then SM will really need a re-work.
bananathug wrote: First let me say thank you to a lot of people in this thread for their well though out, informative and productive posts. The tone has been great and I feel like this is actually a discussion instead of a shouting match.
I agree that I am probably overselling reapers (don't even get me started on shining spears...) and I think I am not just jealous of CWEs mechanical strength but their general coolness.
Marines are bland, CWE has cool rules. They have swooping hawks dropping bombs, shields that reduce damage, a huge variety of weapon profiles, cool psychic powers and all kinds of maneuverability tricks. Their specialists actually seem like specialists where the best space marines have is...nothing. Maybe being able to shoot twice if your aggressors did not move the turn before but outside of that I can't think of any cool rules that space marine armies have. Even our stratagem are boring or ineffective.
I guess I'm just jealous that starting with IG, then CWE and now Nid's the codexes seem like they added a lot of depth and cool rules to armies while SM just seems really bland. Hell even Ad Mech gets canticles and cool looking units.
Hell even the other chapters have cooler toys than vanilla marines (BA, DA, wolf boys).
There are threads all the time about Guilliman being OP and taken in a vacuum I see their point. Imagine him in any other army and it gets ridiculous. But buffing lowly space marines he's the only competitive crutch we have and the tournament data is saying he is just not enough (hell even my personal albeit strong local meta he's not enough).
I'm not sure I can offer a solution without getting crushed as a SM fanboy by people who get crushed in their local metas by guilliman parking lots even though that is a mid-tier army at best. I'd love to see more internal variate and cool rules outside of just "re-roll more dice" but it's too late for that.
I'm not going to sell/burn/sacrifice my space marine boys I started collecting in the 90s (damn I'm old) but maybe it's time for me to stop hoping GW will turn them into something interesting and pick-up something that ends up with a cool codex...
GW has always kept Space Marines simple, and is simplifying them even more with the Primaris marines. Theyre meant to be the starter-box army. Dumb, blunt generalists that get basic rules because you don't want to confuse little timmy, and there are times in 40ks meta where that has been very strong. But if you want marines to have hyper-specialized units and weird, wild model options...you're going to be waiting a long time, right there along the dude who's mad GW has never supported his melee Tau army or the guy who wishes his Khorne gunline had more rules support.
That doesn't mean they're not due for a power bump, and I think they probably will be ala Stormcast Eternals in AOS. But if you're hoping for an army of specialized, unique rules, I hope you have a comfy chair, because the latest marine releases reveal that GW is at this point even uncomfortable with giving marines units that only do anti infantry or anti tank and would rather they just all have a bit of both so there's no way to make an army that's lack in one or another.
I think that the OP is correct in their frustration, whether or not each point made is 100% accurate. He has the right idea, in that if you take an average game between two average players, Eldar will most likely beat Space Marines every time. I have seen these games and have witnessed the frustration on the Space Marine players face as the Eldar player smuggly suggests how to fix their 'tactical' mistakes or suggests to go out and buy Gulliman.
Eldar have generally had better rules with better point efficiency per unit. Their drawbacks/weaknesses are almost never as relevant as, let's say, the ones of the Space Marines. For a pure Space Marine army to beat Eldar, in this meta, you have be be considerably outplayed.
Alright I'm sick and didn't get much sleep last night so I'm sorry if I'm way off on any of this but...
I applied the exarch re-roll wounds to the whole squad and was off on my numbers by like a lot...
Bharring wrote: Mattler/Bananna,
I'd love to hear more of your thoughts on Spears - I had created a thread specifically about them, as they were getting mentioned as increadibly OP in a couple different threads I didn't want to derail.
WRT short range on IOM gunlines: The WarWalker and WaveSerpent only outrange the Assault Cannon with weapons that are analgous to weapons the IOM can take. The Brightlance is outclassed by the LasCannon, in part because of the shorter range. Eldar ML is slightly better than IoMML when shooting Frag but identical when shooting Krak, but same range either way. The Star Cannon has some plusses and minuses, but is similar to the Plasma Cannon, with the same range. And the Shuriken Cannon has 24" range, and is basically half an Assault Cannon.
The Wave Serpent is the better platform, but standard CWE heavy weapons aren't outranging their IoM counterparts.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The Fire Prism does outrange both the Lascannon and the Plasma Cannon by a wide range, but even firing twice, does much less damage than either per point (comparing the AT mode to the LC and the anti-heavy-infantry mode to the PC). That it can perform either role is useful, it has range, and has a decent platform. But it's a massive tradeoff in firepower.
I'm not sure about your point about the fire-prism being that much less effective than the predator. 2d3 d3 v. 4 d6 is significant but having the ability to switch to 2d6 plasma shots, fly out of assault, an extra 6" of movement or close to = 8 v. 10 and still fire twice, a 6+ fnp, craftworld traits (-1 to hit) and a strat than means only one of your prisims has to be in LOS (conceal to pretty much make it invincible w/ a -2 to hit and 6+fnp) 20-30% less fire-power for at minimum 33% more survivability, doesn't get tied up by assault and ability to effectively engage a wider array of targets seems like the better deal to me.
That 4 las cannon pred is a one trick pony and is terrible against anything that isn't one model while those 2d6 plasma shots @ 60" is a lot of dead infantry meaning you can include 2-3 fire-prisms in your army and not get rock-paper-scissored w/ a weapon that can deal adequately although not ideally with a variety of targets.
as for the spears I pretty much agree with this post:
Spears are pretty much always useful. With great movement, a high S weapon, and a low S high RoF one, they'll always have a good target to engage. So they're reliable, and can deal a great deal of damage if they can use all their assets in the same turn. It's also a by-product of 8th ed. rules, since you can shoot 2 different units and charge a 3rd one now, so mixing weapon types is actually decent now.
They're also prime candidates for Ynnari detachments.
You use soulburst shooting on dark reapers, and movement/charge/fight on spears.
Spears w/ SfD are crazy scary/mobile (kill a unit charge one behind it or zoom off back out of LOS) Flying + that much movement means you better properly bubble wrap or they will land behind your screens and easily earn their points back + some
t7-11 monster/vehicle 3+ no invlun = 12 PPW w/ lancesthis is wrong, applying exarch re-roll wounds to regular spears, right number should be 23.8 and a shocking 6 PPW w/ star lance for exarch which is crazy good leaving catapults to shoot at whatever they want for free)
4++ pushes those to good but not OMG nerf them to the ground levels of good (24ish PPW and still a crazy 12 PPW for a star lance wielder)
A unit of 3 with an exarch kills a SM tank in one turn of shooting/charging (11.9 wounds if they shoot their catapults)wrong, 1.96 wounds per spear and 4.2 from the exarch so half a tank
Okay, looking at the numbers more they seem crazy OP if you can find the right targets for them and given their high mobility you should be able to find the right targets.
Their 2 wound weapons, re-rolling wounds against vehicles/monsters is crazy against said vehicles/monsters. Against infantry...
t4 3+ 1 wound (exarchs are crazy)
15 ppw (.77 x .66 per lance x3 + .77 x .5 x .33 per shrunken x4) = 2.02 wounds per spear?
87% return on naked marines, 150% on 2 las-cannon dev squads, 112% v. primaris 200% v. hellblasters
Please tell me my math is off
edit I was applying the exarch re-roll wounds to all of the shining spears not just the exarch. That does reduce their PPW significantly against those T7 3+s to 23.8
Interestingly, Imperial Guard Leman Russes get Objective Secured in Spearhead detachments but other people do not. Is there a worry that Predators don't have that?
Unit1126PLL wrote: Interestingly, Imperial Guard Leman Russes get Objective Secured in Spearhead detachments but other people do not. Is there a worry that Predators don't have that?
Objective Secured is mostly a non-rule. There's a few situations where I'm glad the unit has it and it works out (Infantry and Conscripts, Dire Avengers, Intercessors, etc) but for the most part it's easy to ignore. If you want a unit dead, you'll get rid of it.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Interestingly, Imperial Guard Leman Russes get Objective Secured in Spearhead detachments but other people do not. Is there a worry that Predators don't have that?
not really as space marines running armored detachments are pretty rare. but it is a good example of how GW seems to be rewarding flexability for everyone else and essentially forcing marine players to use infantry and dreads as the core of their force.
I think this is the place where Martel and I are talking past each other. I think the ability to move and shoot should be something that units have to pay a premium for. Especially with the abundance of -1 to hits out there -2 skews the points per wound calculation so much that you're better off just not including any heavy weapons that have to move and shoot because they perform so much worse than any other weapon available to you. I'm not sure I could put a number on how valuable that is and it would have different values for different units (value on a unit with no-los shooting probably nothing, short range weapons more valuable, 48" weapons not sure)
Up until 8th edition, it used to be the case that virtually all Aeldari units could move a fire heavy weapons without penalty, in a time when moving heavy weapons either hit 6s (6th & 7th) or could not fire at all (5th and earlier). Now we're in a time when "can't shoot heavy weapons" is now "shoot heavy weapons at -1", every Aeldari unit except Dark Reapers and the Wraithknight suffers that penalty. In that respect, the line between the factions with predominantly mobile or static firepower has never been more blurry than it is now. Shuriken Cannons, Lasblasters, and Avenger Shuriken Catapults are the only relevant Craftworlds assault weapons with a range greater than 12". (Incidentally, there are no Aeldari Rapid Fire weapons because they are supposed to move constantly.) I say "relevant" because the Fikepike is pointless and then Heavy Wraithcannons on are on a 500+ pts Wraithknight that's currently on the struggle bus. The aircraft weapons are such they hit on 3+ before modifiers while moving, but they must move, and it's typical for gunships of all factions to hit using the same BS while moving as their ground units do while stationary.
What Aeldari get in return for having relatively little long range firepower and squishy infantry/bikes is +1"/+2" movement (yay?), firing assault weapons on full BS when Advancing with most non-vehicles units (yay), and Webway Strike (yay!). Just so we're clear, I understand that "squishy" is not as strong a word as it used to be, since the differences between T3/T4 and 4+/3+ under 8th edition are not as large as they used to be (although still substantial).
The more I think about it, the more I think Dark Reapers don't need a points increase. A better fix is to just cap their max unit size at 5 models (like they used to be!), which would remove their disproportionate benefit from Guide, Forewarned, Soulburst, and Webway Strike. You could still load up a Wave Serpents with multiple squads of Reapers to protect them turn one, but as has already been mentioned, that prevents first turn Forewarned, and in any case Forewarned would only involve a maximum of 5 Dark Reapers firing at a deep striking squad. I mean, people were using them specifically for Guide and (especially) Soulburst before the points reduction, and it was that synergy that made Dark Reapers abusive, not then realised themselves. The Soulburst nerf was a step in the right direction, but the Reapers need a lower model cap to complete the solution. I just said as much to GW in an email, along with a recommendation to increase the cost of the Tempest Launcher by 15pts and reduce the cost of the Aeldari Missile Launcher by 5pts. I also recommended reducing the cost of the Imperium Missile Launchers by 7pts because Frag is worse than Starburst.
Before I continue, I want you to take a look at two pictures showing different tables at the 2015 Nova Open, both of which fit the terrain guidelines in the current tournament document.
This is a nice set of images because 1) it shows examples of terrain that fit the definitions in the Nova tournament document, and 2) it shows that plateau hills that block vehicle LOS get used with L-shaped central LOS blockers, while ramped hills that might block only infantry LOS get used with square central LOS blockers.
A blob of 4 predators will have the ability to hit about 20% of the board.
I don't know where you're getting the 20% estimate. If you were to place a Predator almost anywhere on any of the tables I linked, it would be able to shoot targets on roughly 40% the table. If you were to place 4 Predators up to 6" apart, you could cover 70% of each of those tables. By turn 2, you can have one Predator's nose past the far edge of the central terrain pieces, while still being within 6" of a Predator with its rear hull still one the near side of the central terrain pieces, allowing you to cover 90% of the board. Again, these 2015 tables matches the criteria of the current Nova document, so two years hasn't made much difference.
Then will get assaulted (da jump, warp time, alpha legioned) or out of LOS'd or fire and faded or attacked form beyond 48" or crimson huntered or deep struck or one of the other baziillion ways to neutralize 2 t7 12w 3+ models in one turn of shooting/assault and 800 points of models because affording 4 predators and chaff and anti-infantry just isn't in the cards. Much harder for enemies to neutralize 750 points of reapers (3x9) when they can be spread out so one assaulting unit can't consolidate into all of them at once.
I'll try to address each of the specific concerns you just mentioned. Honestly, though, the first half of that paragraph comes across as you not wanting your opponents to be able to do anything ever, as if playing the game is only for you. I also don't understand why you think that 1200pts is insufficient to provide decent protection for 800pts of tanks or contain sufficient anti-infantry firepower. However, your point about the need to kill/neutralize only two predators is valid, and part of the solution might be to add more Predators (probably not Lascannons, though)!
Assault (and reinforcement deployment in general) Forgive me for being an ignorant Aeldari player, but...DOES NOBODY USE SCOUTS???. Scouts completely counter Da Jump, Alpha Legion Forward Operatives, Webway Strike, and pretty much any other deep strike/infiltration shenanigans because they set up during deployment. Sure, your opponent will probably shoot them, but so what? They've already saved you a turn of getting jumped on. Scouts are cheap, too, if you take the advice In gave earlier in this thread and just run them either Boltguns (or maybe Astartes Shotguns). If I had any Space Marines, each of my lists would have 2-4 little Scout Squads. Also, note that the 3rd place list I linked above has 3 units of Scouts to provide a buffer zone for other units. Another huge benefit to having a bunch of Scouts is that you can counter deploy your opponent by placing at least some of the Scouts first, then deploy your firepower units to maximize their safety and/or giving them decent firing lanes.
However, Scouts don't stop Warp Time, Quick Time, etc., so you may want to bubble wrap. You're right, Marines don't really have "chaff" as such, but the good news is that any bubble wrap units you take will actually make meaningful contributions on their own. Tactical Squads are fine for that purpose, especially if they're Ultramarines. If you were really paranoid about swarms of Gaunts or something, you could load up on flamers too, but the usual plasma is probably fine.
An adjunct/alternative to bubble wrap are counter-assault units. They don't necessarily have to be the most powerful assault units, they just need to be able to step in and hold down an enemy squad while the tank escapes. Earlier in this thread I was comparing a Dreadnought w/DCCW, Stormbolter, and Assault Cannon to a Wraithlord w/Ghostglaive, 2 Shuriken Catapults, 2 Shuriken Cannons as a fairly cheap and flexible distraction unit.
My main issue with your claim, though, is you're insisting that it's easy to charge multiple tanks in assault when those tanks are 5-6" apart. It's not.
"out of LOS'd or fire and faded" Fire and Fade works on one squad, and if you use Scouts the only Aeldari infantry that can do decent damage at long range are Dark Reapers. It takes just over a dozen Dark Reapers, on average, to kill a Predator in one turn, but 14 Reapers is a more reasonable number to make it somewhat reliable. Now we're talking about 2 squads, though, and Fire and Fade won't work on both. "But...Lightning Reflexes!" Look, if you're forcing them burn 3 CP per turn to protect a couple of glass cannons squads, those tricks dry up in a hurry.
Let's talk about weapons that don't need LOS, specifically in the context of shooting Predators. Mortars are alright at 56.57 PPW because they're still roughly 2pts too cheap, but they have a HUGE footprint, so they no longer qualify as "out of LOS" and they die to harsh language in the open. Assuming no Heavy Bolters because it's hiding, a Manticore pays 45.96 PPW vs. T7 3+, which is good. Basilisks are slightly more efficient, paying 43.20 PPW, and not counting doctrines; their lower cost also makes them tougher per point than than the Manticore, and their weapon wounds more targets more easily. D-Cannons pay 42.19 PPW, but they're only 24" range. Hive Guard w/Impaler Cannons are also good, paying 40.50 PPW with 36" range, and you can spend 2CP for annextra volley.
There might be another good non-LOS option somewhere, but we're really down to Basilisks and Hive Guard being the most effective and annoying. Neither of them beats the direct fire potential of Linked Fire Prisms, Crimson Hunters, and Killshot Predators, all of which are mobile (more on that later).
"or attacked from beyond 48" or crimson huntered" Since you mentioned range separately, I'm going to assume that you mean direct fire weapons here, but the Basilisk is probably the best tank buster outside 48" other than Linked Fire Prisms in the 48-60" bracket. It's difficult to take this complaint seriously because 1) the table is 72" x 48", and 2) you grossly overestimated the effect that the Nova LOS blocking terrain. If anything, you're complaining about alpha strike (no argument from me), but you're conveniently omitting then fact that the Killshot Predators are fantastic at alpha strike.
Similarly, the Crimson Hunter is, indeed, an efficient vehicle killer; I certainly hope so, since that's it's primary function! It's also nearly impossible to hide, so we're back to an alpha strike complaint based on the double standard that it's not OK only if it happens to you. Alpha strikes are 40k's biggest problem, and always have been, but while they're here we should be planning around them. The trick to dealing with, for example, an Alaitoc Crimson Hunter Air Wing is begin by splitting fire to draw out the Lightning Reflexes, then focus on the other targets. If your opponent doesn't play Lightning Reflexes, keep splitting fire and enjoy hitting on -2 instead of -3. Of course, that's assuming that you don't have more effective use of your firepower; always choose your targets such that you are improving your efficiency vs. your opponent over subsequent turns as much as possible. If you are under threat from two targets that do comparable damage per point (e.g. Crimson Hunters and Fire Prisms) but one is easier per point to kill (Fire Prisms), that's the one you target first.
So movement is not only valuable for combating the IG out of LOS weapons, keeping your units safe v. turn 1 alpha and executing proper target selection, but most tournaments are adopting ITC rules which place a premium on objective control and board control so being to move to quarters control and objective control is vital to scoring enough points to compete in these events.
I admit that analyzing GW points/opness with an eye for ITC events which have extra rules not required for basic 40k and which a lot of players don't deal with is probably a personal crusade and outside of the generalized nature of this discussion so take it with a grain of salt (no a lot of salt because it makes me quite salty).
It's OK to be salty, but keep the salt out of your eyes; it hampers objective scrutiny.
I haven't addressed your concerns about movement yet, and now is probably the best time to do so. First, remember these numbers:
Now consider what "mobile" actually means in this context. Dark Reapers move 6", the slowest unit in this list (and the slowest Aeldari unit other than 5" Wraithguard/Wraithblades). If the Linked Fire Prisms move over 8", their firepower gets cut in half. Killshot Predators moving 12", on the other hand, are still more efficient than Fire Prisms moving 8". Killshot Predators are also the more efficient of the two tanks when both are stationary, and they're much more efficient when stationary compared to Dark Reapers. Dark Reapers are also squishy compared to either tank, even with the Alaitoc attribute, and Lightnings Reflexes can be played around. If you're still sour about Inescapable Accuracy, remember that the Predator numbers above don't reflect free buffs from, say, the Salamanders CT; it won't make up the difference completely, but all things considered the Predators are probably still a better unit overall than Dark Reapers.
Speaking of Salamanders, I wanted to post a list showing how you might be able to use bring everything I've been talking about to the tabletop. It's just a pair of identical 1000pts Battalions, and hopefully Battlescribe didn't betray me on the points costs.
The Tactical Squads probably get split in most games, with one plasma weapon in each to take advantage of the Salamanders CT . The list is deliberately trying to finish deploying last, dropping 12 units before the first Predator hits the table. Scouts ward off deep strike and infiltration, grab an early objective of two, and take pot shots with their Boltguns. I've written a lot about the Lascannon Predators with Killshot, so I won't say more here, but the addition of the two Autocannon Predators makes the list much more resilient to losing Killshot threshold, while also contributing mobility and shot volume. Meanwhile, the Captains and Lieutenants buff everything while enjoying the Salamanders CT with their Combi-plasma. I find it amusing that this Salamander list has neither meltas not flamers.
Thoughts?
@Bananathug, I'm going to address your feedback about my proposed changes to the Craftworld attributes, as well as Shining Spears, in another post.
That Predator list has a terrifying lack of hoard firepower for 2,000 points.
Particularly once the other guy has gone first and tidied up the scouts and maybe some of the tacticals.
Sure I wouldn't want to run a Baneblade or a Knight into it, but...
AdmiralHalsey wrote: That Predator list has a terrifying lack of hoard firepower for 2,000 points.
Particularly once the other guy has gone first and tidied up the scouts and maybe some of the tacticals.
Sure I wouldn't want to run a Baneblade or a Knight into it, but...
I have no idea where you got that impression. Other than 16 Lascannons and 6 Hunter-killer Missiles, the entire list has effective rate of fire, and almost all other non-Scout units will be re-rolling some combination of 1s to hit and wound (not to mention the Salamanders CT stacking to help with 2s, etc). In the games when you're not as worried about enemy reinforcements, at least some of the Scouts are likely to hang back to get buffed too.
Also, what's with the constant "what if your opponent gets first turn?" complaining around here, anyway? It happens roughly half the time, so you might as well get used to it. Granted, it happens slightly more often with this list, but I have already explained some ways to mitigate that.
AdmiralHalsey wrote: That Predator list has a terrifying lack of hoard firepower for 2,000 points.
Particularly once the other guy has gone first and tidied up the scouts and maybe some of the tacticals.
Sure I wouldn't want to run a Baneblade or a Knight into it, but...
I have no idea where you got that impression. Other than 16 Lascannons and 6 Hunter-killer Missiles, the entire list has effective rate of fire, and almost all other non-Scout units will be re-rolling some combination of 1s to hit and wound (not to mention the Salamanders CT stacking to help with 2s, etc). In the games when you're not as worried about enemy reinforcements, at least some of the Scouts are likely to hang back to get buffed too.
Also, what's with the constant "what if your opponent gets first turn?" complaining around here, anyway? It happens roughly half the time, so you might as well get used to it. Granted, it happens slightly more often with this list, but I have already explained some ways to mitigate that.
SALAMANDER BATTALION
89pts Captain w/Combi-plasma, Chainsword (Teeth of Terra) (1-2 Plasma, 0-2 Boltgun) no impact
79pts Lieutenant w/Combi-plasma, Power Sword (1-2 Plasma, 0-2 Boltgun) no impact
55pts 5 Scouts w/Boltguns (5-10 Boltgun) bad ppw
55pts 5 Scouts w/Boltguns (5-10 Boltgun) bad ppw
168pts Tactical Squad w/Heavy Bolter, Plasmagun, Combi-plasma (2-4 Plasma, 7-16 Boltgun, 3 Heavy Bolter) not moving ppw v. t4 3+ @ 24 inches (.653 + .365 + .365 + .762 = 78 ppw, bad or let's shoot at some reapers for .653 + .33 + .33 + 1.155= 68 ppw = bad even worse against rangers or anything else you would bring shining spears: .495 + .165 + .165 + .5775 = 119.8 )
198pts Predator w/Twin Lascannon, 2 Lascannons, Hunter-killer Missile, Stormbolter (2-4 Boltgun) (4x las pred = reavers 138.6, spears 143.9 or 88 ppw v. the flyers)
198pts Predator w/Twin Lascannon, 2 Lascannons, Hunter-killer Missile, Stormbolter (2-4 Boltgun) (4x las pred = 138.6, spears 143.9 or 88 ppw v. the flyers)
158pts Predator w/Predator Autocannon, 2 Heavy Bolters, Hunter-killer Missile, Stormbolter (2d3 Autocannon, 2-4 Boltgun, 6 Heavy Bolter) (1.25 + .653 + .653 = 61.96 v reapers, spears .5 x .84 x .5 x 2 x 3.5 = 1.47+ .5 x .66 x .5 x 6= .99 + 1.47 = 2.46 or 60.97 ppw or flyers at 1.23 + .27 or 105.05 ppw)
46-104 Boltgun
18 Heavy Bolter
8-16 Plasma
4d3 Autocannon
6 Hunter-killer Missile
16 Lascannon
So I'm shooting at you with units getting from between 60.97 ppw at best to 138.6 ppw at worst ( didn't account for storm bolters or HKM so call it 58 and 130)
Something like a batallion of aldari
exarch
farseer
dire avengers x1
rangers x3
dark reapers + exarch x3 (2 units of 6, 2 go in the waveserpant)
shining spears 5+ exarch
crimson hunter exarch
wave serpant
Ynarri patrol
Yvraine
kabalites or more avengers
shining spears 5 + exarch
Reapers 10 + exarch
Math-hammer is not a game and cute terrain or terrible rolling or really smart deployment can mitigate these numbers but:
You are using shining spears, crimson hunter and reapers with ppw against my troops of reapers at 37/46, Crimson Hunter Exarch w/2 Bright Lances - 25.96 PPW or shining spears @ 20-23.8
Your 24 reapers + word of pheonix for effectively 33 reapers deals 27 wounds to my preds or kills 2 and degrades the other (no guide, no doom, no re-rolls) The exarchs shoot 4 times at my chaff for .715 x .5 = 10 or two units of scouts or one unit of sm in cover (good bye 165 point tac marine squad)
Crimson hunter comes along, pulse laser + 2x bright lances (.77 x .66 x 3.5 x 2 = 3.56 + .77 x .66 x .84 x 3 x 2 = 2.56 or 6 more wounds or good bye predator #3)
Hmm, now what's left for your two units of shining spears oh 3 preds and one unit of tacs and a couple scouts. Ignore those scouts as I can fly, shruken cannon the tac squad, lance the pred (one pred down to lances w/ exarch) charge out of phase with the ynarri spears after they kill chaff with shrukens or pred with lances, 2x charge attacks vs pred with this unit and hell the other unit didn't make it's charge so 2 preds down and luck would have it you can't consolidate into my LAST predator.
Game is over, that was fun setting up models and removing them for an hour...
I go first.
Preds move to get in range/LOS of wave serpant, and one unit of spears (have to stay w/in 6" of each other). Rest of army can get into range/view of the other spears. CH is out of range because super move + 36" range why not be at the furthest corner.
Las preds @ wave serpant. I use kill shot you use lightning fast reactions making it -2 to hit...
4 las preds (moved -2 to hit so hitting on 6s...(.167 x .84 .84 = we'll ignore the +1 damage w/ your serpent shield so 1.64 wounds per tank or 6.5 which your spirit stones ignore so 5.5 wounds....)
2 las preds are shooting at the spears (4d3 ACs moved so hitting on 5s (.33 x .84 x .5 = .1386 wounding shots per AC or a 83% chance to kill one) (bolters hitting o 5s (.33 x .84 x .5 = 3.3 wounds or combined 3 spears die)
2 tac squads shooting at same spears now down 3 (plas @-1 .5 x .66 x .5 = .0825 lets use the salamander re-rolls on this to get it up to .125 per shot or a 50% chance to deal one wound, 2x heavy bolters moved so -2 (.33 x .66 x .5 x 6 = .653) 14x bolters @ 24 inches (.5 x .5 x .33 = 1.155 wounds so all together we take of 2.5 wounds or one more dead spear so we're up to 4 dead spears and 90% of my army has shot
So at the end of my turn one I've not degraded one transport and killed 4 spears or dealt 124 points worth of damage maybe round that up to 6 spears with all the hunter killer missiles at them vs.
the 5 preds, tac squad and scout squad you've killed. The 18 rangers you have will kill a LT or captain per turn if they can get LOS w/o moving.
You can still hit back after taking that alpha and get rid of 4 preds + so instead of picking my models up at the start of my turn 1 I get to pick them up at the end of your turn 2.
So your efficiencies are somewhere between 75% to 200% better than what you are suggesting if fight this list with (not counting re-rolls, strats or buffs because psionics vs re-roll buffs come out in the wash. IMO these factors favor your army but you obviously don't need any more help so I'll take that in my column)
I think there is a huge problem with first turn alpha but the reason I keep mentioning it in CW favor is you have units that can deploy out of sight/range and then move into range without completely gimping their firepower. Shining spears and all reapers start outside of LOS and can still put damage on intended targets on their first turn whenever that is.
Move and then shooting at units with a native -1 reduce my ability to hit from hitting on 3's to hitting on 5's of 100% reduction in shooting power while the units I'm complaining about the most (hemlocks and reapers) don't.
Also, a major point your missing here, SM VEHICLES DO NOT GET CHAPTER TACTICS. So no Salamander CT, no -1 to hit for ravens, no fall back and shoot, no 6+ FnP which doesn't seem priced into what SM pay for their vehicles vs. what aldari pay.
The afor mentioned list get rolf-stomped by any sort of competitive list. The winning list you mentioned works only because of the storm ravens and that list went up in points by 150ish points due to the new CA
With that list its more of a first turn gets huge advantage because of the storm ravens vs your reapers but hidden in a transport/webway should only lose a unit or two, they survive much better against the spears but die faster to the crimson hunter so reapers kill one raven and damage one, hunter kills the other, spears take out 2-3 razor backs and you are again fighting with many more points than your opponent at the start of turn 2 even though you go second. Going first you kill all the razors and a couple dev squads and injure a raven, ravens kill a unit of reapers then die at bottom of turn 2 with the last of the dev squads.
Again math-hammer isn't warhammer but it appears that spamming the best units in the eldar codex >>>>>>>>SM lists
Something like a batallion of aldari
exarch
farseer
dire avengers x1
rangers x3
dark reapers + exarch x3 (2 units of 6, 2 go in the waveserpant)
shining spears 5+ exarch
crimson hunter exarch
wave serpant
Ynarri patrol
Yvraine
kabalites or more avengers
shining spears 5 + exarch
Reapers 10 + exarch
It will probably take a while for me to respond because I have two exams coming up this week, but I'll see what I can do. Before I respond, I want to make sure I'm not misrepresenting what you're saying, and so the first task is to clarify exactly what's in the Aeldari list. Let me know if the following is correct:
YNNARI (ALAITOC) PATROL (624pts)
132pts Yvraine (POWERS?, Warlord: TRAIT?)
60pts 5 Dire Avengers w/Exarch
157pts 5 Shining Spears w/Exarch, Star Lance
275pts 10 Dark Reapers w/Exarch, Tempest Launcher
2000pts
7CP
That's what I came up with based on your description. I assumed the you meant "Webway" instead of "Wave Serpent" for the 2x6 Reapers.
Could you elaborate a little on the Aeldari deployment strategy? Am I correct in assuming the following?
2x6 Reapers in the Webway
Yvraine + Farseer + 10 Dark Reapers in Wave Serpent
Everything else on the table somewhere. I count 12 unit setups, assuming the Webway pair counts as one (sort of like a transport?).
Would you deploy the Rangers as infiltrators or not? Also, which units are you likely to deploy near one another for support?
I also have a few other questions:
1) Which warlord trait will Yvraine have (from the main rulebook)?
2) What will Yvraine's non-Word psychic power be (probably Ancestor's Grace)?
3) What will the Farseer's psychic powers be, and how will you use them?
4) How do you plan to spend the last 2CP, after paying for Webway Strike and Lightning-Fast Reactions? Turn 1 Fire and Fade or Runes of Witnessing? Turn 2 Lightning-Fast Reactons? I highly recommend Phantasm if going second.
Oddly enough, the 6 Predator list was the second one I wrote, as a thought experiment to try to preserve Killshot. The first incarnation was the following Brigade:
A more responsive list, but also more vulnerable to losing Killshot and its auras. However, Dreadnoughts can spend CP for an aura, and at least the disposable Veterans might take a couple of shots meant for the Captain or Lieutenant.
Blackie wrote: Marines without Guilliman are inferior only to Eldar, AM and Tyranids. Against index armies they'll always have balanced matches, and in many cases they will be superior.
Against semi-competitive (if we cut Guilliman why should other factions bring their best combos?) tyranids and eldar lists they have concrete possibilities of winning the game, even if those xenos have the edge. AM is the most effective army in the game, everyone will struggle against guardsmen.
Eldar are very strong, but not even remotely as OP as they were in 7th edition.
I've yet to lose a game against SM with DE and won many games against IG too. Having 5++ on everything with a -1 to hit on all your key units, on top of spamming dark light weapons, is extremely good, especially against IG as, from my experience, they render almost all artillery useless. Due to the sheer size of IG, you are also (or at least you were, before chapter approved) guaranteed an alpha strike with your dark light spammy Air Wing detachment, which you could easily either destroy or severely cripple their basilisks/manticores/mortars. The only struggle was the bodies of conscripts that held objectives (but they were rendered almost entirely harmless with -1 to hit and normal saves), which was still heavily mitigated with Maelstrom missions.
I like that the consensus is slowly growing towards people understanding how inferior codex space marine is to other codex armies. Now people are even coming to the realization that marines are even inferior to some index armies.
At least I can take some solace in knowing I was spot-on when I argued way back in 5th that folding Black Templars into the Vanilla Codex would be a disaster. Raven Guard is the only decent-ish Chapter Tactic and Guilliman is the only Character keeping the army's head above the water. Playing anything that isn't Guilliman with AssCanBacks is an exercise in frustration, and that's coming on the heels of two editions where this has already been the case from a BT perspective. Y'all will have to excuse me if your platitudes of "diversity" and "options" and "customization" fall a bit flat when all those vaunted options are rubbish.
All I want to be able to do is play my Black Templars without being a worse version of some other army and have a decent chance of success against someone else who's trying to win. That hasn't been the case for a very long time. I suspect I'm similar in that regard to Martel and his Blood Angels, with the exception that I didn't even get to be top-tier during 5th edition.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: At least I can take some solace in knowing I was spot-on when I argued way back in 5th that folding Black Templars into the Vanilla Codex would be a disaster. Raven Guard is the only decent-ish Chapter Tactic and Guilliman is the only Character keeping the army's head above the water. Playing anything that isn't Guilliman with AssCanBacks is an exercise in frustration, and that's coming on the heels of two editions where this has already been the case from a BT perspective. Y'all will have to excuse me if your platitudes of "diversity" and "options" and "customization" fall a bit flat when all those vaunted options are rubbish.
All I want to be able to do is play my Black Templars without being a worse version of some other army and have a decent chance of success against someone else who's trying to win. That hasn't been the case for a very long time. I suspect I'm similar in that regard to Martel and his Blood Angels, with the exception that I didn't even get to be top-tier during 5th edition.
Ever since we got rolled into the main Codex, Black Templars played as Black Templars have been the weakest Loyalist Marines. Sure, we could play Grav-Centurion Spam or whatever but then you’re not really playing Black Templars, you’re playing Black Ultramarines. And yet it’s always Blood Angels players martyrising themselves about having ‘the worst Loyalist Marines’ and oh how much stronger they would be if they were allowed the toys the ‘favoured’ Marine Chapters got. Never mind that Templars players would have committed bloody murder to have the Blood Angels’ close combat rules (seriously, did you read Angel’s Blade? Jealous!)
I dunno, maybe it’s just that people play the armies that reflect their own personality. The Sons of Dorn rage against injustice, accept their situation is terrible and knuckle down to get work done. Meanwhile the melodramatic pretty boys just cry. Maybe it has something to do with their Chaos-tainted daddy getting rekt by Horus...
blood angels might actually be top teir. They have the ability to hit you with Deathcompany plus SG and a libby dread in the first turn and it's nearly automatic.
Caution, lots of salt ahead. Played another reaper+ss spear last night and 80% of my army was gone by the bottom of turn 2
[rant]
Yeah, now with the new BA codex out and DA on the way I keep looking at my space marines like do I just shelve these models again which I've played with for 2 months or do I finally hit ebay and call it a day?
I'll probably keep a couple pieces but every time I creating a list I see other things that do what I'm trying to do better.
-IG infantry + artillery >> any of our tanks/screens
-BA characters/Celestine >> any DSCC options we have
-BA deepstrikers/jumppacks >> VVs w/ JP -DA plamsa >> SM plasma
The only thing I find myself debating using is raven-guard because of their infiltration strat and -1 to hit.
New ITC champion's missions make guilliman + razorbacks give up way too many points and armies nowa days just pop razorbacks way too easy (3-4 turn 1) and storm ravens aren't much more surviviable in my local meta (reaper spam FTW).
Anyone talk me off this ledge before I dump 20 years worth of models and walk away until next years CA settles the meta?
I don't have fun going to my local and getting bad games vs. everyone else's armies (CSM, IG, Eldar, Nids dominate. Hell the sisters guy and assassins dude are too much) Asking them to "tone it down" just isn't my style (I'd rather whine on the internet than in person).
Maybe this isn't the game for me. My friends all play D&D and other RPGs and aren't really wargaming fans so maybe my lack of intimate group to play with is what's "wrong" with my experience and playing pick-up games just isn't in the cards for this edition with my army.
I don't want the best army, just one that isn't an exercise in picking up my models by turn 3. Able to go to the monthly tourney and not feeling like I'm the points pinata for the IG and Eldar armies (giving up 32-36 points skews results really far in their favor). I did well against Cawl Bots and knights, even the chaos monster mash list was manageable but the eldar armies I fight are just too efficient.
I've run everything from guilliman + 5 razorbacks, guilliman + 2 storm ravens (I "only" have 2), raven guard inceptors + hellblasters (shining spears love these guys), black templar black tide (lrc's don't last long enough then footslogging marines up the board, lol and neophites at the same cost as scouts is terribad oh and grimaldus is like 40 points over-costed...), guilliman + dreads, Ironhand dreads + rg hellblaster/aggressor bomb + celestine (probably the best list thus far)
If 80% of your army was gone - how much of theirs was gone?
I only ask because even the casual way my buddies and I play, this game never gets past Turn 3 now unless you have a table built with terrain to make it take longer (which is always fun). It's just a crazy killy game...and we're not even taking crazy units.
I do think Space Marines suck pretty bad right now...I just don't see much good in them (I play CSM minus the Chaos for the most part and suffer similar difficulties).
Are you playing with like-minded people or bashing your head against a meta/tournament style group? If you're not having fun - no shame in moving onto other things. 40K simply isn't a very balanced game and the more serious people take it the more crappy the games can get.
Xenomancers wrote: blood angels might actually be top teir. They have the ability to hit you with Deathcompany plus SG and a libby dread in the first turn and it's nearly automatic.
People at top tables are handling a ton of AL Khorne berserkers showing up on their doorstep in effectively no-fail charge range just fine. What makes you think they can't handle 10 SG 15 DC and a Libby dread?
The fact that anyone tries to represent the killshot stratagem as a viable option is laughable. It's good at hunting super heavies, but it sucks in TAC.
Yeah, it's having to chose between those Khorne berserkers and the deep striking oblits that (IMHO) makes for a fun game where having to force your opponent to make tactical choices is fun.
Also the libby dread throws in a interesting wrinkle as it is significantly more durable than the typical deepstriking charger.
BA + IG artillery seem like they could be a really good combo (if I do sell most of my marines it's something that I think would be fun to model/paint and play)
Xenomancers wrote: I like that the consensus is slowly growing towards people understanding how inferior codex space marine is to other codex armies. Now people are even coming to the realization that marines are even inferior to some index armies.
I honestly think that the marine codex was kind of a rush job to be honest. Not as bad as some of the codexes (looking at you Grey Knights) and not the worst in terms of design (Ad Mech), but it is certainly quite low down. The codex was designed so poorly.
Xenomancers wrote: blood angels might actually be top teir. They have the ability to hit you with Deathcompany plus SG and a libby dread in the first turn and it's nearly automatic.
People at top tables are handling a ton of AL Khorne berserkers showing up on their doorstep in effectively no-fail charge range just fine. What makes you think they can't handle 10 SG 15 DC and a Libby dread?
Probably just wishful thinking but I think that DC and SG might be a little bit better due to their weapons choices.
Elbows wrote: If 80% of your army was gone - how much of theirs was gone?
I only ask because even the casual way my buddies and I play, this game never gets past Turn 3 now unless you have a table built with terrain to make it take longer (which is always fun). It's just a crazy killy game...and we're not even taking crazy units.
I do think Space Marines suck pretty bad right now...I just don't see much good in them (I play CSM minus the Chaos for the most part and suffer similar difficulties).
Are you playing with like-minded people or bashing your head against a meta/tournament style group? If you're not having fun - no shame in moving onto other things. 40K simply isn't a very balanced game and the more serious people take it the more crappy the games can get.
He had one unit of spears left, 15 reapers, all of his rangers, his hemlock (not sure why he doesn't use a crimson hunter) and all of his characters and his chaff left at the start of his turn 3 (he had 4 units of them, one 10 man and 3 6 man. I got rid of 2 6 man and RG smashed his non ynarri spears who didn't fire and flee)
He went first and I only had I had a unit of scouts, RG (3 wounds left) and Tigurius at the start of my turn 2. (started with 5 razorbacks + stormraven + 3 scouts + intercessors + 2 dev squads w/ grav cannon + tigurius and Telion)
-Raven (2 webway reapers), 2 backs (sfd reapers + reapers and really bad rolling + hemlock), 2 scouts (exarchs), telion (rangers) die on turn 1 His spears didn't webway (because the reapers did), were too far away for quicken and were positioned badly or I could have been mostly tabled BEFORE I even got a turn.
-12 reapers, 3 spears die on my turn 1
-3 backs (Reapers), scouts (rangers), dev squads (exarchs + spears shrukens), intercessors (spears charge/lances) hemlock goes after RG and almost kills him (3 wounds left)
-rest of the non ynarri spears died on my turn 2
Full on tourney style group. Someone started an arms race and it's just gotten bad since then. It's not crazy for someone to go out and buy the newest OP gak (morty and magnus turned up as soon as they came out) or just have it (one of the guys has over 15k points of tau just sitting around) people own titans, one guy bought a 30 assassin list because of that netlist. Most of these guys have been playing for a couple editions so have enough models to capitalize on whatever is OP now and I'm really just coming back since 6th dropped dusting off my old marines from 5th edition. Hell the shop owner will run his 8 dakka flyrant list just to mess with us from time to time.
I was hoping I could carve out a niche with marines and I may do that once DA and BA settle down a bit but I've had marines since '96 and find it disheartening that they will just end up on my shelf. We all play WYSIWYG and with at least 80% painted armies. The game is just not balanced for people with different levels of collections and I need to make a decision if I'm going to dump a $1k into models and hundreds of hours of painting/assembly into what can turn into office decorations like my Black Templars...
I honestly think the main problem with Marines is their naff Stratagems. Let's take a look at them in some detail...
Ignoring the universal strat of taking extra relics, and ignoring chapter-specific strats, we're left with a base line of 18 Space Marine Strategems. How do they break down?
Chapter Master, Orbitale Bombardment and Honour the Chapter all clock in at 3CPs - very expensive, hard to justify. Chapter Master in particular is a bit crazy, as it's basically a tax for not playing a big chapter.
Next we have two 2CP stratagems, and they're two of the better ones: Auspex Scan, a strictly inferior version of Forewarned it's true, and can't be combo'd into broken Reaper territory, but none the less it's a great strat. Only in Death is also great, allowing you to squeeze the last bit of value out of your beatsticks.
This is where things get very problematic: 1CP strats. Cluster Mines, Killshot, Linebreaker Bombardment, Masterful Marksmanship, Empyric Channeling, Datalink Telemetry, Hellfire Shells, Tremor Shells & Flak Missile all trigger only in respect to certain units. Most of those units are gack, or else the strat requires you to field a whole bunch of okay-good units daisy chained together. So for example, Killshot is great if you can trigger it, but it requires 3 healthy predators in formation to do so; extremely conservative design that demands a marine player field four predators (760pts!) to be in with a chance of actually using (but of course, even taking four, your opponent can probably wipe two preds off the board in one turn)! I'm not saying that they're bad strats - Hellfire Shells and Masterful Marksmanship are both good, if you make sure you can trigger them. ... Primaris Armies, for example, can use precisely zero of these strats.
That leaves us with the few strats that are a) cheap enough b) universal enough c) effective enough to actually use...
- Armour of Contempt is pretty handy against smitespam, giving a 1/3 chance to resist on a dread. Situational but has its uses.
- Wisdom of the Ancient is a legitimaley good strat, turning a dread into a captain for a turn. Give you flexibility on the field, helps negate movement penalties, handy stuff. Only lasts for a phase, but hey, it's decent.
- Tactical Flexibility is so niche as to be a bit pointless.
- Death to the Traitors is pretty damn niche too, granting you the ability CSMs get baked in to their units for one turn.
Okay, looking over those, what do we see?
1) Strats that are too pricey to build around, unless you go guard brigade with a core of your fave marine units.
2) Strats that are niche, ineffective, headscratchers: nothing unusual there I suppose, most codexes have a few. But Marines get a lot.
3) Strats tied to specific units, a few of which are good (Kill Shot & Marksmanship), some which are kind of useful (hellfire) and lots that are tied to units that just don't cut it. Even those strats that are okay (empyric channeling, killshot) are tied to a punitive army list and board setup.
4) Genuinely good strats that are well costed and effective. That would be Auspex Scan & Wisdom of the Ancients.
Now this wasn't really a problem until the new codexes started landing. Guard, Eldar & Nids all have outstanding strats which augment their already very good units. Admech codex is a mess, but it has decent strats too, certainly stronger than marine. Blood Angel strats are through the roof, and Dark Angel strats look like they might follow suit.
That leaves our good old buddies, Grey Knights, who also are a bit short on strats.
So there you have it, my take on one of the weakest parts of the Marine Codex. It's a real problem imo, and won't likely be fixed anytime soon.
Nobody's squad leaders should be free, and I'd like to see a cool ability on all of them. That's another reason why extra care has to be taken with balancing Chapter Tactics and Craftworld attributes, since they cost nothing.
