Have you actually run the numbers on this? They really aren’t that scary. Notice how the don’t show average damage in the article, only the theoretical max
C4790M wrote: Have you actually run the numbers on this? They really aren’t that scary. Notice how the don’t show average damage in the article, only the theoretical max
Probably about the same level as IH and IF eliminators. RG are better at killing characters turn 2+ but the others are a bit more versatile.
IH stay in Devastator so have better AP and they can move for better positioning and have rerolls to hit. Probably better allround.
IF gets exploding 6s and ignores cover and will also stay in devastator doctrine and have more ap. Also better against vehicles than RG. IF eliminators arent bad point for point against vehicles if there are no characters to be sniped.
Successors/Salamanderw with MA also works well with the eliminators.
Its just that some options like RG with eliminators look more obviously good even though there are many other good options but you have to think an extra step or 2 why they are good.
Probably only WS that dont have any bonus for eliminators worth mentioning. All the others have some nice buffs. Feels like RG have a lot of that. Some really good combos and they will win games turn 1 in certain matchups but they arent as reliable as the other chapters with their buffs. RG going first or second has a larger impact than any of the other chapters and probably why we wont see it dominating. You cant always get that nasty first turn with all your infiltrators charging t1
C4790M wrote: Have you actually run the numbers on this? They really aren’t that scary. Notice how the don’t show average damage in the article, only the theoretical max
Classic spikey bits lol
DAE think quadlas preds OP can do 24 damage to an IK!!!!
RG Eliminators are good for sure it I agree they aren't necessarily better than IF or IH versions though, plenty of scenarios where they are actually worse. Still very good at picking of lieutenants, farseers, librarians and what have you though.
From my (admittedly limited) experience the main strength of the Raven guard doesn't come from the super doctrine, or their chapter tactics, or their relics... it comes from the sheer number of shenanigans they can pull:
Master of Ambush means assault centurions with chaplain support in your face turn 1 for example.
Or strike from the shadows allowing infantry to appear when and where needed ( been on the receiving end of 10 auto bolt intercessors appearing in your back line, that'll mess up your plans let me tell you... Kiss goodbye to your objective holders).
Raven guard seem a lot less straight forward to use than IH or IF forces but on the upside in the hands of an experienced player you get a mobile, hard hitting force that can apply pressure where it needs to be and who can make themselves almost impossible to predict...
C4790M wrote: Have you actually run the numbers on this? They really aren’t that scary. Notice how the don’t show average damage in the article, only the theoretical max
I feel like the community has been chasing paper tigers recently. Only looking at the most theoretically broken something can be but not at what is a more realistic output of damage that could be expected for given units, while ignoring tactics, terrain and generally any of the real world stuff that can get in the way (except when they're trying to show off why something is basically unkillable, then all that stuff suddenly matters again).
It's been pretty draining and I feel like the community is reenacting Chicken Little too much because it gets clicks on sites like Spikey Bits, rather than actually playing the game and seeing what does and doesn't actually work.
C4790M wrote: Have you actually run the numbers on this? They really aren’t that scary. Notice how the don’t show average damage in the article, only the theoretical max
Classic spikey bits lol
DAE think quadlas preds OP can do 24 damage to an IK!!!!
Preds are OP and need to be nerfed! A 175 point model can take down my 400+point model?! This game is so unbalanced!
I still refuse to use Eliminators simply because of the unit size being locked to the box itself. None of the other Primaris units have to deal with that.
That article hurt my brain, and I'm running Raven Guard Eliminators.
I agree that Raven Guard's strength is their deployment and movement options. Many of these don't kick in until after the seize roll is made, so you can be 100% certain that you're going first or choose to go second and fade back out of LOS.
A lot of their strategims favor jump pack infantry, so Vanguard Veterans are my favorite unit for RG. They seem to be better than Assault Marines in just about every respect.
One of the things that I think will be strongest against Raven Guard are forward-deployed units that push the RG player back further from your deployment zone. I suspect with the popularity of marine armies, scouts will be fighting for places in the middle of the board.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: I still refuse to use Eliminators simply because of the unit size being locked to the box itself. None of the other Primaris units have to deal with that.
Or having a fixed unit size stops scaling issues with the Sergeant's 'Guided Aim' ability?
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: I still refuse to use Eliminators simply because of the unit size being locked to the box itself. None of the other Primaris units have to deal with that.
Suppressors do.
Also worth noting that the Incursors have the weirdness of no scaling on the Haywire Mines. It's one of the reasons I'm running MSUs instead of Combat Squadding like I do with Infiltrators and Reivers.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: I still refuse to use Eliminators simply because of the unit size being locked to the box itself. None of the other Primaris units have to deal with that.
Or having a fixed unit size stops scaling issues with the Sergeant's 'Guided Aim' ability?
I agree, could you imagine a 10 man squad with guided aim?
Raven Guard have some pretty neat stuff, but it's a thinking man's force, not a one-click easy-button win force like Iron Hands. Instead of getting a bunch of rules for free, you need to use your army appropriately, or else it'll die just like space marines died before they got these supplements.
Use your deployment shenanigans and character targetting skills wisely and you'll do great
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: I still refuse to use Eliminators simply because of the unit size being locked to the box itself. None of the other Primaris units have to deal with that.
Or having a fixed unit size stops scaling issues with the Sergeant's 'Guided Aim' ability?
OR perhaps since there's really other ways to get more wounds on a target and they're already 30 points a wound it isn't an issue, or maybe they shouldn't HAVE that ability in the first place?
C4790M wrote: Have you actually run the numbers on this? They really aren’t that scary. Notice how the don’t show average damage in the article, only the theoretical max
I feel like the community has been chasing paper tigers recently. Only looking at the most theoretically broken something can be but not at what is a more realistic output of damage that could be expected for given units, while ignoring tactics, terrain and generally any of the real world stuff that can get in the way (except when they're trying to show off why something is basically unkillable, then all that stuff suddenly matters again).
It's been pretty draining and I feel like the community is reenacting Chicken Little too much because it gets clicks on sites like Spikey Bits, rather than actually playing the game and seeing what does and doesn't actually work.
Nbolo wrote: RG Eliminators are good for sure it I agree they aren't necessarily better than IF or IH versions though, plenty of scenarios where they are actually worse. Still very good at picking of lieutenants, farseers, librarians and what have you though.
From my (admittedly limited) experience the main strength of the Raven guard doesn't come from the super doctrine, or their chapter tactics, or their relics... it comes from the sheer number of shenanigans they can pull:
Master of Ambush means assault centurions with chaplain support in your face turn 1 for example.
Or strike from the shadows allowing infantry to appear when and where needed ( been on the receiving end of 10 auto bolt intercessors appearing in your back line, that'll mess up your plans let me tell you... Kiss goodbye to your objective holders).
Raven guard seem a lot less straight forward to use than IH or IF forces but on the upside in the hands of an experienced player you get a mobile, hard hitting force that can apply pressure where it needs to be and who can make themselves almost impossible to predict...
Master of Ambush and Strike from the Shadow is a way to bring units forward.
Coupled with say three Warsuits this can be quite deadly.
What units would you prefer here?
Are people seriously saying that Raven Guard are too strong? Apparently being able to hurt a Knight CHARACTER by hitting it on 2+ and wounding it on 5+ with bolters is too much.
Raven Guard have a 57% win-rate, definitely on the high end of acceptable there and a tonne of factions have tanked in win-rate because of the improved rules for Space Marines. Ultramarines technically have a 49% win-rate so if you nerfed all Marines you might have to buff Ultras in some way or just nerf the best sub-factions even more, I doubt UM have a worse than 50% win-rate against non-SM. Ideally GW would fix all the balance issues in one fell swoop with a perfect CA19, but it'll probably take a couple more years of Errata and CA before things are ironed out.
Lists that don't have a focus on characters or that can put them in DS or into Transports should do well against RG. I don't think RG will have enough of a meta presence that it's something you'll have the luxury of worrying about, up your chances against IF and IH as much as you can at the cost of everything else if you want to do well in competitive environments. RG, IH and IF combined I might start looking for units other than Tank Commanders if I played AM or at least run them as Tallarn to avoid some of the shooting from IF.
Don't take Relics or WL traits for your Knights against RG if you have other things to spend CP on in your list or at least don't spread around the love to give all your Knight the ability to heroically intervene, the improvement you get is probably washed out by the +1 to hit/wound and you'll have less CP.
Nbolo wrote: RG Eliminators are good for sure it I agree they aren't necessarily better than IF or IH versions though, plenty of scenarios where they are actually worse. Still very good at picking of lieutenants, farseers, librarians and what have you though.
From my (admittedly limited) experience the main strength of the Raven guard doesn't come from the super doctrine, or their chapter tactics, or their relics... it comes from the sheer number of shenanigans they can pull:
Master of Ambush means assault centurions with chaplain support in your face turn 1 for example.
Or strike from the shadows allowing infantry to appear when and where needed ( been on the receiving end of 10 auto bolt intercessors appearing in your back line, that'll mess up your plans let me tell you... Kiss goodbye to your objective holders).
Raven guard seem a lot less straight forward to use than IH or IF forces but on the upside in the hands of an experienced player you get a mobile, hard hitting force that can apply pressure where it needs to be and who can make themselves almost impossible to predict...
Master of Ambush and Strike from the Shadow is a way to bring units forward.
Coupled with say three Warsuits this can be quite deadly.
What units would you prefer here?
Totally agree, my current plan involves a chaplain, a squad of assault centurions using master of ambush and 2 - 3 warsuits set up in as threatening a way as possible, likely backed up on the second turn by a smash captain, inceptors and a strike from the shadows intercessor squad arriving from deep strike. Back this up with Intercessors, eliminators and some dreadnoughts for fire support. If there's room i'd like to add some jump infantry to (maybe a vanguard squad to take advantage of the infiltrators start).
It's a bit all in and maybe a bit risky, but honestly it's a lot of threats that need to be dealt with and fast.
Not sure it's competitive but personally i'm an aggressive player that likes to be proactive rather than reactive and always be on the offensive so it suits my play style...
vict0988 wrote: Raven Guard have a 57% win-rate, definitely on the high end of acceptable there and a tonne of factions have tanked in win-rate because of the improved rules for Space Marines. Ultramarines technically have a 49% win-rate so if you nerfed all Marines you might have to buff Ultras in some way or just nerf the best sub-factions even more, I doubt UM have a worse than 50% win-rate against non-SM. Ideally GW would fix all the balance issues in one fell swoop with a perfect CA19, but it'll probably take a couple more years of Errata and CA before things are ironed out.
Lists that don't have a focus on characters or that can put them in DS or into Transports should do well against RG. I don't think RG will have enough of a meta presence that it's something you'll have the luxury of worrying about, up your chances against IF and IH as much as you can at the cost of everything else if you want to do well in competitive environments. RG, IH and IF combined I might start looking for units other than Tank Commanders if I played AM or at least run them as Tallarn to avoid some of the shooting from IF.
Don't take Relics or WL traits for your Knights against RG if you have other things to spend CP on in your list or at least don't spread around the love to give all your Knight the ability to heroically intervene, the improvement you get is probably washed out by the +1 to hit/wound and you'll have less CP.
before the raven guard supplement came out a lot of army lists tended to be very character reliant, using captains for re-roll auras etc. Raven Guard counter this pretty hard. I expect we'll see lists adapting though.
I've played against RG once so my experience is limited, but their +1 to wound against characters doctrine and not needing LOS to snipe characters is a hard counter to my Craftworlds, where I need LOS to cast my psychic powers and even if I hide them, the high AP and damage from their weapons is enough to kill a Warlock a turn.
It's a very cool board control mechanic but it feels a little much when you take ignoring LOS into account.
Tyranid Horde wrote: I've played against RG once so my experience is limited, but their +1 to wound against characters doctrine and not needing LOS to snipe characters is a hard counter to my Craftworlds, where I need LOS to cast my psychic powers and even if I hide them, the high AP and damage from their weapons is enough to kill a Warlock a turn.
It's a very cool board control mechanic but it feels a little much when you take ignoring LOS into account.
Warlocks, IG commanders and other T3, <5 wound characters will be demolished by Eliminators - the fact Raven Guard do it well is a bonus. These characters are the preferred target unfortunately. S5 shots means that the target has to be T7 before the eliminators lose effect, which is only for big characters anyway.
Also, on a side note, Chaplains can give an additional +1 to wound rolls from a litany, so not only will the eliminator RG squad hit on 2+, but wound T8/9 on 3+ causing mortal wounds on 4+ with the mortis round to characters.
But isn't that a problem only for non marine players? non marine players already had their time this edition, when they armies were good. Maybe GW decided that it is time for marines to be good, and other armies to be bad. Maybe next edition the eldar and IG are going to be good again.
Tyranid Horde wrote: I've played against RG once so my experience is limited, but their +1 to wound against characters doctrine and not needing LOS to snipe characters is a hard counter to my Craftworlds, where I need LOS to cast my psychic powers and even if I hide them, the high AP and damage from their weapons is enough to kill a Warlock a turn.
It's a very cool board control mechanic but it feels a little much when you take ignoring LOS into account.
Warlocks, IG commanders and other T3, <5 wound characters will be demolished by Eliminators - the fact Raven Guard do it well is a bonus. These characters are the preferred target unfortunately. S5 shots means that the target has to be T7 before the eliminators lose effect, which is only for big characters anyway.
Also, on a side note, Chaplains can give an additional +1 to wound rolls from a litany, so not only will the eliminator RG squad hit on 2+, but wound T8/9 on 3+ causing mortal wounds on 4+ with the mortis round to characters.
Then why not just drop a bit unit of centurions turn 2, alongside a chaplain, get them buffed by bolter drill, buffed by the chaplain, buffed from the RG trait and the doctrine, and then just unload 15 hits on avarge in to any character 12" away from the centurions?
Karol wrote: Then why not just drop a bit unit of centurions turn 2, alongside a chaplain, get them buffed by bolter drill, buffed by the chaplain, buffed from the RG trait and the doctrine, and then just unload 15 hits on avarge in to any character 12" away from the centurions?
because that set up is ILLEGAL? Bolter Drill is an Imperial fists strat. it won't work with raven guard
Certain armies hate snipers. A typical Chaos Soup where you are fluffing your invuls for example. Ahriman dead first turn? kind of hurts. Daemon princes dropping by the end of turn 2? Ditto.
Others, I'm not all that convinced. Warlocks, IG commanders, Tau Fireblades? Okay, yeah they die - but its 100 points killing something costing 30-40.
Its the same old problem as all snipers - sure, you get these cheap characters, but its not much more efficient in terms of points returned than just shooting regular stuff with regular stuff. With the added negative that its a bit fiddly (LOS blocking buff bots is easier than whole units) and certain armies don't care *that* much if their HQ options die.
Certain armies hate snipers. A typical Chaos Soup where you are fluffing your invuls for example. Ahriman dead first turn? kind of hurts. Daemon princes dropping by the end of turn 2? Ditto.
Others, I'm not all that convinced. Warlocks, IG commanders, Tau Fireblades? Okay, yeah they die - but its 100 points killing something costing 30-40.
Its the same old problem as all snipers - sure, you get these cheap characters, but its not much more efficient in terms of points returned than just shooting regular stuff with regular stuff. With the added negative that its a bit fiddly (LOS blocking buff bots is easier than whole units) and certain armies don't care *that* much if their HQ options die.
Also Eliminators fill the heavy support slot, so if I load up on eliminators I'm in a bit of trouble if my opponent takes a list that depends on something else.
Sure Eliminators are going to be nasty agaisnt a Hero hammer list, but someone who decides to run an armor list whose HQs are little more then a tax they'll struggle.
You leave the Chaplain on the table and deep-strike the Centurions next to them. Jump Chaplains can cover a lot of ground, and can advance and still provide the buff.
Karol wrote: Then why not just drop a bit unit of centurions turn 2, alongside a chaplain, get them buffed by bolter drill, buffed by the chaplain, buffed from the RG trait and the doctrine, and then just unload 15 hits on avarge in to any character 12" away from the centurions?
because that set up is ILLEGAL? Bolter Drill is an Imperial fists strat. it won't work with raven guard
I was talking about the bolter rule all marines have with their bolters, save for DW if they use their special ammo.
Certain armies hate snipers. A typical Chaos Soup where you are fluffing your invuls for example. Ahriman dead first turn? kind of hurts. Daemon princes dropping by the end of turn 2? Ditto.
Others, I'm not all that convinced. Warlocks, IG commanders, Tau Fireblades? Okay, yeah they die - but its 100 points killing something costing 30-40.
Its the same old problem as all snipers - sure, you get these cheap characters, but its not much more efficient in terms of points returned than just shooting regular stuff with regular stuff. With the added negative that its a bit fiddly (LOS blocking buff bots is easier than whole units) and certain armies don't care *that* much if their HQ options die.
Ok but in an already overpriced codex that 55 pt model has a clutch power to cast on your 200-300 blob of wraiths/guardians... or jinx/doom that key alpha target or whatever.
Unlike some factions eldar pay a premium for all units..(bar alitoic CHE) This is apparently due to the psychic (which is never guaranteed mind you) and historical Ynnari BS. Take that ability away T1/T2? The units are simply not efficient enough on their own.
Well then maybe GW wants everyone to play alaitoc in normal games, and the rest is for people that run narrative or open games??
A lot of factions that have copies of their units or gear in other factions, can say the same. Why does a SW repulsor cost the same as a IH one, for example?
Why is a space marine hammer on on hero 45pts, and for GK it is not? etc
Karol wrote: Well then maybe GW wants everyone to play alaitoc in normal games, and the rest is for people that run narrative or open games??
A lot of factions that have copies of their units or gear in other factions, can say the same. Why does a SW repulsor cost the same as a IH one, for example?
Why is a space marine hammer on on hero 45pts, and for GK it is not? etc
for a start a space marine captain can use a jump pack to get a lot out of a thunderhammer, grey knights don't have that option. There's a reason you never hear about GK "smash captains"
Certain armies hate snipers. A typical Chaos Soup where you are fluffing your invuls for example. Ahriman dead first turn? kind of hurts. Daemon princes dropping by the end of turn 2? Ditto.
Others, I'm not all that convinced. Warlocks, IG commanders, Tau Fireblades? Okay, yeah they die - but its 100 points killing something costing 30-40.
Its the same old problem as all snipers - sure, you get these cheap characters, but its not much more efficient in terms of points returned than just shooting regular stuff with regular stuff. With the added negative that its a bit fiddly (LOS blocking buff bots is easier than whole units) and certain armies don't care *that* much if their HQ options die.
Warlock is 55 pts, Spiritseer is 65 pts, Warlock on bike is 67 pts, farseer is 110 pts. Everyone outside of transport is easy to kill for 1 max 2 squds of eliminators. CWE army cant work without the support, its not cheap or durable or killi enough.
Bulgrins are also not scary when they don`t have +1 save, orders are what make guard army so good.
You are not killing single model for 1-2 squads, you are literally crippling opponent army capabilities.
Eliminators should just go min 45 pts per model, so atleast the marine player to be forced to spend points for doing so much.
And if none take them good radiance, the game don`t need first turn deepstriking snipers that hit targets without LOS.
Karol wrote: But isn't that a problem only for non marine players? non marine players already had their time this edition, when they armies were good. Maybe GW decided that it is time for marines to be good, and other armies to be bad. Maybe next edition the eldar and IG are going to be good again.
I hope that's a joke...
I think Marin sums up my thoughts on the matter. I also think that if you're eliminating a phase of the game that an opposing army excels at so quickly, you ruin the game and in turn the "fun" of a game. It's like bringing an almost all flyer army against a close combat army with no fly units to attack them. You get rid of the combat phase and in turn completely shut down someone's army.
I think Eliminators are the problem unit and RG enhances that.
Karol wrote: But isn't that a problem only for non marine players? non marine players already had their time this edition, when they armies were good. Maybe GW decided that it is time for marines to be good, and other armies to be bad. Maybe next edition the eldar and IG are going to be good again.
I hope that's a joke...
I think Marin sums up my thoughts on the matter. I also think that if you're eliminating a phase of the game that an opposing army excels at so quickly, you ruin the game and in turn the "fun" of a game. It's like bringing an almost all flyer army against a close combat army with no fly units to attack them. You get rid of the combat phase and in turn completely shut down someone's army.
I think Eliminators are the problem unit and RG enhances that.
Certain armies hate snipers. A typical Chaos Soup where you are fluffing your invuls for example. Ahriman dead first turn? kind of hurts. Daemon princes dropping by the end of turn 2? Ditto.
Others, I'm not all that convinced. Warlocks, IG commanders, Tau Fireblades? Okay, yeah they die - but its 100 points killing something costing 30-40.
Its the same old problem as all snipers - sure, you get these cheap characters, but its not much more efficient in terms of points returned than just shooting regular stuff with regular stuff. With the added negative that its a bit fiddly (LOS blocking buff bots is easier than whole units) and certain armies don't care *that* much if their HQ options die.
Warlock is 55 pts, Spiritseer is 65 pts, Warlock on bike is 67 pts, farseer is 110 pts. Everyone outside of transport is easy to kill for 1 max 2 squds of eliminators. CWE army cant work without the support, its not cheap or durable or killi enough.
Bulgrins are also not scary when they don`t have +1 save, orders are what make guard army so good.
You are not killing single model for 1-2 squads, you are literally crippling opponent army capabilities.
Eliminators should just go min 45 pts per model, so atleast the marine player to be forced to spend points for doing so much.
And if none take them good radiance, the game don`t need first turn deepstriking snipers that hit targets without LOS.
you could just put your commanders in a transport for the first round, and kill the eliminators. it's a 3 guy squad. a unit like dark reapers should be able to kill/neutralize it reasonably easy
Karol wrote: But isn't that a problem only for non marine players? non marine players already had their time this edition, when they armies were good. Maybe GW decided that it is time for marines to be good, and other armies to be bad. Maybe next edition the eldar and IG are going to be good again.
I hope that's a joke...
I think Marin sums up my thoughts on the matter. I also think that if you're eliminating a phase of the game that an opposing army excels at so quickly, you ruin the game and in turn the "fun" of a game. It's like bringing an almost all flyer army against a close combat army with no fly units to attack them. You get rid of the combat phase and in turn completely shut down someone's army.
I think Eliminators are the problem unit and RG enhances that.
I actually did face a similar problem as in the post you linked although not to the same degree as it was a fluffy game. Is something like that worth reporting to GW?
Karol wrote: But isn't that a problem only for non marine players? non marine players already had their time this edition, when they armies were good. Maybe GW decided that it is time for marines to be good, and other armies to be bad. Maybe next edition the eldar and IG are going to be good again.
I hope that's a joke...
I think Marin sums up my thoughts on the matter. I also think that if you're eliminating a phase of the game that an opposing army excels at so quickly, you ruin the game and in turn the "fun" of a game. It's like bringing an almost all flyer army against a close combat army with no fly units to attack them. You get rid of the combat phase and in turn completely shut down someone's army.
I think Eliminators are the problem unit and RG enhances that.
I actually did face a similar problem as in the post you linked although not to the same degree as it was a fluffy game. Is something like that worth reporting to GW?
considering not even GSC the Ambush faction can do something similar, and the rest of the fellow ambushers (e.g. AL and consorts) got nerfed (why don't you see any zerkers no more ?) because it was deemed unfun?
No, it's working as intended. It's the sales hook for RG.
Certain armies hate snipers. A typical Chaos Soup where you are fluffing your invuls for example. Ahriman dead first turn? kind of hurts. Daemon princes dropping by the end of turn 2? Ditto.
Others, I'm not all that convinced. Warlocks, IG commanders, Tau Fireblades? Okay, yeah they die - but its 100 points killing something costing 30-40.
Its the same old problem as all snipers - sure, you get these cheap characters, but its not much more efficient in terms of points returned than just shooting regular stuff with regular stuff. With the added negative that its a bit fiddly (LOS blocking buff bots is easier than whole units) and certain armies don't care *that* much if their HQ options die.
Warlock is 55 pts, Spiritseer is 65 pts, Warlock on bike is 67 pts, farseer is 110 pts. Everyone outside of transport is easy to kill for 1 max 2 squds of eliminators. CWE army cant work without the support, its not cheap or durable or killi enough.
Bulgrins are also not scary when they don`t have +1 save, orders are what make guard army so good.
You are not killing single model for 1-2 squads, you are literally crippling opponent army capabilities.
Eliminators should just go min 45 pts per model, so atleast the marine player to be forced to spend points for doing so much.
And if none take them good radiance, the game don`t need first turn deepstriking snipers that hit targets without LOS.
you could just put your commanders in a transport for the first round, and kill the eliminators. it's a 3 guy squad. a unit like dark reapers should be able to kill/neutralize it reasonably easy
There are factions out there, that CAN'T allow to not buff for one turn.
It's bad design period, to be even able to use out of LOS sniping.
Certain armies hate snipers. A typical Chaos Soup where you are fluffing your invuls for example. Ahriman dead first turn? kind of hurts. Daemon princes dropping by the end of turn 2? Ditto.
Others, I'm not all that convinced. Warlocks, IG commanders, Tau Fireblades? Okay, yeah they die - but its 100 points killing something costing 30-40.
Its the same old problem as all snipers - sure, you get these cheap characters, but its not much more efficient in terms of points returned than just shooting regular stuff with regular stuff. With the added negative that its a bit fiddly (LOS blocking buff bots is easier than whole units) and certain armies don't care *that* much if their HQ options die.
Warlock is 55 pts, Spiritseer is 65 pts, Warlock on bike is 67 pts, farseer is 110 pts. Everyone outside of transport is easy to kill for 1 max 2 squds of eliminators. CWE army cant work without the support, its not cheap or durable or killi enough. Bulgrins are also not scary when they don`t have +1 save, orders are what make guard army so good. You are not killing single model for 1-2 squads, you are literally crippling opponent army capabilities. Eliminators should just go min 45 pts per model, so atleast the marine player to be forced to spend points for doing so much. And if none take them good radiance, the game don`t need first turn deepstriking snipers that hit targets without LOS.
you could just put your commanders in a transport for the first round, and kill the eliminators. it's a 3 guy squad. a unit like dark reapers should be able to kill/neutralize it reasonably easy
Do you know how Eldar play? Sure you can hide them turn one but psykers can't spend time in transports not buffing and most Eldar players (myself included) take skyrunners so transports are a moot point.
Dark Reapers don't ignore LOS, only the Exarch with a Tempest Launcher does which gets 6-7 shots from 2D6. You can't kill them easily.
OP said his opponent moved into his DZ before T1 which is impossible. It's also important to notice the difference between Infiltrators and Khorne Berzerkers, a single blob of 20 Berzerkers can put out 80 chain axe attacks and 40 chainsword attacks before you get to strike and another 40 chainaxe attacks and 40 chainsword attacks after everyone has fought, all three rounds of fighting done with +1 to wound for 1 CP with the VotLW Stratagem. You can still Warptime AL or Red Corsairs Zerkers for a 19+2d6 or 10+4d6 charge turn 1 respectively.
Grammarly thinks I'm being negative, Raven Guard are amazing and I love unicorns.
Karol wrote: But isn't that a problem only for non marine players? non marine players already had their time this edition, when they armies were good. Maybe GW decided that it is time for marines to be good, and other armies to be bad. Maybe next edition the eldar and IG are going to be good again.
I hope that's a joke...
I think Marin sums up my thoughts on the matter. I also think that if you're eliminating a phase of the game that an opposing army excels at so quickly, you ruin the game and in turn the "fun" of a game. It's like bringing an almost all flyer army against a close combat army with no fly units to attack them. You get rid of the combat phase and in turn completely shut down someone's army.
I think Eliminators are the problem unit and RG enhances that.
No, I don't do jokes. When marines were bad, eldar players told everyone that their armies aren't that good, that stuff is balanced, that they aren't winning 100% events, and outside of tournaments no one is going to face the top eldar stuff, as all eldar players focus on swooping hawk use outside of events. There was also a lot of learn to play stuff, play the scenario not the opposing army being thrown around.
Now I understand that maybe eldar players aren't used to being bad or having it tough to win. I had this problem too when after being in the youngling bracket I had to move to the under 16 years old one, and suddenly got manhandled every match. But maybe GW decided that it is marine time to be good, just like before they decided that castellans should be awesome, and before that Inari etc
Also fun seems to be either a subjective or very own point of view thing. I haven't seen all players worry about the fact, how unfun it is for other players to play against their armies. In fact most seemed to have been very happy that their armies work very nice, and that they can play more then a single build most of 8th ed.
Maybe eldar players just have to wait. in a few months or next edition, eldar could be good too. And if not I doubt w40k is going to stop at 9th ed.
I alrgely disagree with Karol, and think the idea that "ohh eldar had a period of being strong, so if they suck now, good!" that kinda dditude is complete poison no matter who does it. that said if eldar are so dependant on their characters the army just doesn't work without them, that's the element of bad design, not marines having snipers.
that said I dooo kinda wonder if Karol has a point, did some players get so used to Marines being easy targets that they got complacent?
I don't think an army should be bad, because it was good. I just feel suprised that people think that some armies should never be bad or always be good. I mean from what I understand about people telling me of w40k history, there was a time, when necrons were good, when tau were extremly bad etc.
I can't get my head around the fact, that somehow eldar players are suprised that GW may have made choices, which end with their army being bad this time.
I don't know how long they will be bad, if they are really bad. I mean for all we know after SoB the next codex could be eldar or dark eldar, and put everything marine to shame.
When 8th started people thought that marines with gulliman are the most broken thing ever. And then Inari happened.
Karol wrote: I don't think an army should be bad, because it was good. I just feel suprised that people think that some armies should never be bad or always be good. I mean from what I understand about people telling me of w40k history, there was a time, when necrons were good, when tau were extremly bad etc.
I can't get my head around the fact, that somehow eldar players are suprised that GW may have made choices, which end with their army being bad this time.
I don't know how long they will be bad, if they are really bad. I mean for all we know after SoB the next codex could be eldar or dark eldar, and put everything marine to shame.
When 8th started people thought that marines with gulliman are the most broken thing ever. And then Inari happened.
Part of your problem seems to be that you're treating all Eldar players or all SM players (or any group of players) as one unified group. They're not. What you're actually seeing with the behaviour you describe is people wanting to protect their own army or downplay the power of it (possibly because they don't want to admit their success in the game isn't entirely down to their amazing tactical skills). Plenty of Eldar players would freely admit they were broken at different times in 40k's life, just like many SM players admit the current Codex is/was broken in some ways.
Good game design would see all armies roughly equal with no clear best and worst armies. Wanting some armies to be bad because they used to be good 5+ years ago, and vice versa, is a terrible attitude to have towards the game.
BrianDavion wrote: I alrgely disagree with Karol, and think the idea that "ohh eldar had a period of being strong, so if they suck now, good!" that kinda dditude is complete poison no matter who does it. that said if eldar are so dependant on their characters the army just doesn't work without them, that's the element of bad design, not marines having snipers.
that said I dooo kinda wonder if Karol has a point, did some players get so used to Marines being easy targets that they got complacent?
It's not just that Marines have snipers though, it's the fact they can bend bullets and hit things out of LOS, which doesn't just affect Eldar, it affects any army that have auras, orders or psychic powers, the latter of those is determined by RnG in the first place and now that you can't hide them adds an extra degree of difficulty which many armies don't experience due to not having/caring about psychic powers. Psychic focused armies have always relied on their characters to support their army, that isn't bad design.
BrianDavion wrote: I alrgely disagree with Karol, and think the idea that "ohh eldar had a period of being strong, so if they suck now, good!" that kinda dditude is complete poison no matter who does it. that said if eldar are so dependant on their characters the army just doesn't work without them, that's the element of bad design, not marines having snipers.
that said I dooo kinda wonder if Karol has a point, did some players get so used to Marines being easy targets that they got complacent?
It's not just that Marines have snipers though, it's the fact they can bend bullets and hit things out of LOS, which doesn't just affect Eldar, it affects any army that have auras, orders or psychic powers, the latter of those is determined by RnG in the first place and now that you can't hide them adds an extra degree of difficulty which many armies don't experience due to not having/caring about psychic powers. Psychic focused armies have always relied on their characters to support their army, that isn't bad design.
yeah, the second GW came up with snipers that ignore line of sight i had a feeling we were going in deep gak. Its just poor game design, it removes any counter play and completely neuters some strategies.
Certain armies hate snipers. A typical Chaos Soup where you are fluffing your invuls for example. Ahriman dead first turn? kind of hurts. Daemon princes dropping by the end of turn 2? Ditto.
First turn kill of Ahriman?
I guess not. The devastor doctrine will be on and then in round two the tactical doctrine,
which you need for the special rule (surgical strike) of RG.
OP said his opponent moved into his DZ before T1 which is impossible. It's also important to notice the difference between Infiltrators and Khorne Berzerkers, a single blob of 20 Berzerkers can put out 80 chain axe attacks and 40 chainsword attacks before you get to strike and another 40 chainaxe attacks and 40 chainsword attacks after everyone has fought, all three rounds of fighting done with +1 to wound for 1 CP with the VotLW Stratagem. You can still Warptime AL or Red Corsairs Zerkers for a 19+2d6 or 10+4d6 charge turn 1 respectively.
Grammarly thinks I'm being negative, Raven Guard are amazing and I love unicorns.
Two points though, that is one squad, Not an army and secondly, requires more ressources points wise.
Additionally, the main issue is not that it isn't any more possible for AL but the fact that the reason for the removal a 50% chance of going off, was due to beeing deemed unfun to play against.
Playing both Ravenguard and Eldar I can look at this from both sides. Turn 1, you are unlikely to kill a character if you don't have LOS to it. The round is only 1 damage and does not get through invulns. Focus down a warlock? Sure, with 2 wounds, that will work but it's not guaranteed for others. Let's look at the math of 3 eliminator sqds shooting at a farseer.
9 shots hitting basically on 2s, wounding on 3s, and a 4+ invuln is 2.5 wounds. That kills a Warlock but not a farseer or spiritseer, and does not kill a warlock on a bike. That's the max number of Eliminators btw. Granted, as a ravenguard player I may also be taking a Phobos Captain with Korvidari bolts and +1 damage warlord trait. Yes, if you fail that save...you are dead.
Obviously Turn 2 it gets worse for the Ravenguard opponent when he goes into tactical and starts getting bonuses to wound (and hunting characters actively with blackout and ex tenebris).
So, Eldar response? Right off the back, 3 Night Spinners in a Spearhead with custom trait that ignores cover and probably the Salmander trait. Those eliminators will melt in one turn. Keep your characters in trasnports until Turn 2 if there is enough of a threat to eliminate them, at least until you can even the playing field. Tempest launcher will also d some nasty work for you.
There are solutions, and the solutions are extremely useful vs other opponents too.
Part of your problem seems to be that you're treating all Eldar players or all SM players (or any group of players) as one unified group. They're not. What you're actually seeing with the behaviour you describe is people wanting to protect their own army or downplay the power of it (possibly because they don't want to admit their success in the game isn't entirely down to their amazing tactical skills). Plenty of Eldar players would freely admit they were broken at different times in 40k's life, just like many SM players admit the current Codex is/was broken in some ways.
Good game design would see all armies roughly equal with no clear best and worst armies. Wanting some armies to be bad because they used to be good 5+ years ago, and vice versa, is a terrible attitude to have towards the game.
Why should I or anyone else care about protecting other people army? I don't see people dieing or writing letters to GW about armies they don't play being bad. Also there is something like probability. If one army was good for a few months or a year, over 30+ years of w40k. the chance of it being good again is much lower, then an army being good every edition. Why should a marine player, remember I don't play marines, care that right now eldar feel bad for eldar players. And this is true for both people that played only this edition, and those that played over multiple ones. It sounds kind of a disingenuous, when eldar players, start to claim that balanced should be a thing and armies should be on equal footing, the very moment their army starts to bottom out to the majority of armies being played. I haven't seen any huge eldar player movments to make marines great, when Inari or flyer lists were rolling over them. Why should eldar players expect that suddenly everyone is going to go, yes let us defend the fun of eldar players, they are so unused to having a weaker or even bad army.
Certain armies hate snipers. A typical Chaos Soup where you are fluffing your invuls for example. Ahriman dead first turn? kind of hurts. Daemon princes dropping by the end of turn 2? Ditto.
Others, I'm not all that convinced. Warlocks, IG commanders, Tau Fireblades? Okay, yeah they die - but its 100 points killing something costing 30-40.
Its the same old problem as all snipers - sure, you get these cheap characters, but its not much more efficient in terms of points returned than just shooting regular stuff with regular stuff. With the added negative that its a bit fiddly (LOS blocking buff bots is easier than whole units) and certain armies don't care *that* much if their HQ options die.
Warlock is 55 pts, Spiritseer is 65 pts, Warlock on bike is 67 pts, farseer is 110 pts. Everyone outside of transport is easy to kill for 1 max 2 squds of eliminators. CWE army cant work without the support, its not cheap or durable or killi enough.
Bulgrins are also not scary when they don`t have +1 save, orders are what make guard army so good.
You are not killing single model for 1-2 squads, you are literally crippling opponent army capabilities.
Eliminators should just go min 45 pts per model, so atleast the marine player to be forced to spend points for doing so much.
And if none take them good radiance, the game don`t need first turn deepstriking snipers that hit targets without LOS.
you could just put your commanders in a transport for the first round, and kill the eliminators. it's a 3 guy squad. a unit like dark reapers should be able to kill/neutralize it reasonably easy
You can`t hide bikers in transports and still having 1-2 turns to win the game is to limiting and to punishing for every army.
This ability is no way worth 24 pts per model. People will adjust what they can to play against it, but currently SM players are not investing anything for that unit.
If CA adjust other armies unit prices maybe it will not be such problem, but currently it`s a problem.
No, I don't do jokes. When marines were bad, eldar players told everyone that their armies aren't that good, that stuff is balanced, that they aren't winning 100% events, and outside of tournaments no one is going to face the top eldar stuff, as all eldar players focus on swooping hawk use outside of events. There was also a lot of learn to play stuff, play the scenario not the opposing army being thrown around.
Now I understand that maybe eldar players aren't used to being bad or having it tough to win. I had this problem too when after being in the youngling bracket I had to move to the under 16 years old one, and suddenly got manhandled every match. But maybe GW decided that it is marine time to be good, just like before they decided that castellans should be awesome, and before that Inari etc
Also fun seems to be either a subjective or very own point of view thing. I haven't seen all players worry about the fact, how unfun it is for other players to play against their armies. In fact most seemed to have been very happy that their armies work very nice, and that they can play more then a single build most of 8th ed.
Maybe eldar players just have to wait. in a few months or next edition, eldar could be good too. And if not I doubt w40k is going to stop at 9th ed.
New SMWR is higher than Castellan and Ynnari. Ynnari even in their peak were never more than 5% of the super big tournaments like LVO.
I know players who complain about aeldar with 0 games played vs that faction, so i believe in the numbers and numbers shows that CWE is pretty balanced top army.
For instance in the last 6 mounts:
TS vs CWE 61.63 WR Tyranid vs CWE 56.03 WR Space Wolves vs CWE 44% WR
And that is including the OP fly spam list, so strong but hardly dominating with total of 52.13% WR.
CWE codex was released October 2017 in April FAQ 2018 dark reapers, spiritseer, warlock and warlock conclave received point increases.
That is before half of the codexes to be released, so i expect the some treatment for the SM.
Even GW are starting to treat SM releases as mistake, the nerfs are coming and you can be sure of that.
Do you know how Eldar play? Sure you can hide them turn one but psykers can't spend time in transports not buffing and most Eldar players (myself included) take skyrunners so transports are a moot point.
Dark Reapers don't ignore LOS, only the Exarch with a Tempest Launcher does which gets 6-7 shots from 2D6. You can't kill them easily.
How is this a new problem for you guys? The Vindicare has been on lists for quite some time now as well as KM and Sanctus.
CSM have practically zero means to counter-battery or do character protection. Either we take tougher characters or get into transports. If you get first turn then hop out and cast. If you're not in position to make the casts effective then you stay in.
Part of your problem seems to be that you're treating all Eldar players or all SM players (or any group of players) as one unified group. They're not. What you're actually seeing with the behaviour you describe is people wanting to protect their own army or downplay the power of it (possibly because they don't want to admit their success in the game isn't entirely down to their amazing tactical skills). Plenty of Eldar players would freely admit they were broken at different times in 40k's life, just like many SM players admit the current Codex is/was broken in some ways.
Good game design would see all armies roughly equal with no clear best and worst armies. Wanting some armies to be bad because they used to be good 5+ years ago, and vice versa, is a terrible attitude to have towards the game.
Why should I or anyone else care about protecting other people army? I don't see people dieing or writing letters to GW about armies they don't play being bad. Also there is something like probability. If one army was good for a few months or a year, over 30+ years of w40k. the chance of it being good again is much lower, then an army being good every edition. Why should a marine player, remember I don't play marines, care that right now eldar feel bad for eldar players. And this is true for both people that played only this edition, and those that played over multiple ones. It sounds kind of a disingenuous, when eldar players, start to claim that balanced should be a thing and armies should be on equal footing, the very moment their army starts to bottom out to the majority of armies being played. I haven't seen any huge eldar player movments to make marines great, when Inari or flyer lists were rolling over them. Why should eldar players expect that suddenly everyone is going to go, yes let us defend the fun of eldar players, they are so unused to having a weaker or even bad army.
You're still treating all Eldar players as one unified group. They're not, nor are all Necron players, or all GSC players. It's not about caring about someone else's army, it's about caring about the health of the game overall. Read my last paragraph in the post above again - the point still stands. Your approach is just needlessly vindictive and doesn't help the game improve at all. A healthy balance between armies is a good state for the game to be in.
Do you know how Eldar play? Sure you can hide them turn one but psykers can't spend time in transports not buffing and most Eldar players (myself included) take skyrunners so transports are a moot point.
Dark Reapers don't ignore LOS, only the Exarch with a Tempest Launcher does which gets 6-7 shots from 2D6. You can't kill them easily.
How is this a new problem for you guys? The Vindicare has been on lists for quite some time now as well as KM and Sanctus.
CSM have practically zero means to counter-battery or do character protection. Either we take tougher characters or get into transports. If you get first turn then hop out and cast. If you're not in position to make the casts effective then you stay in.
I did the math for you guys. 9 eliminators does not kill a warlock on jetbike Turn 1. Therfore you have 1 turn to utilize Reapers and Nightspinners to take out the snipers. The sky is not falling.
bullyboy wrote: I did the math for you guys. 9 eliminators does not kill a warlock on jetbike Turn 1. Therfore you have 1 turn to utilize Reapers and Nightspinners to take out the snipers. The sky is not falling.
I think people may not be realizing that eliminators have 3 differant types of rounds they can fire, thus they get hit by the 1d3 damage round and panic that that round can hit them out of LOS. when the ignors LOS round simply deals 1 damage.
that andf people simply assume their army has to have access to it's tricks all the time. As I said earlier, if your army literally cannot go a single round without your HQ's casting psyki shinnagens etc, it's not space marines whom are poorly designed, Space Marines are simply allowing a serious flaw in another army to come to light.
that andf people simply assume their army has to have access to it's tricks all the time.
This applies to the list building stage, too. People want all the super killy toys and sacrificing units to have a more TAC list pains them, but honestly its good for the game even if marines wind up being too strong for the moment.
that andf people simply assume their army has to have access to it's tricks all the time.
This applies to the list building stage, too. People want all the super killy toys and sacrificing units to have a more TAC list pains them, but honestly its good for the game even if marines wind up being too strong for the moment.
as I've been saying, eliminators occupy the heavy support slots. this is a pretty "in demand" slot for Marines, it's where Repulsors Elimnators Devestator and devestator centurions, Land Raiders of all types, hellblasters and thunderfire canons are. So if the marine player is taking a lot of eliminators chances are he's sacrificing other equally useful heavy support.
You're still treating all Eldar players as one unified group. They're not, nor are all Necron players, or all GSC players. It's not about caring about someone else's army, it's about caring about the health of the game overall. Read my last paragraph in the post above again - the point still stands. Your approach is just needlessly vindictive and doesn't help the game improve at all. A healthy balance between armies is a good state for the game to be in.
And I say that to me, the sudden call for balance from eldar players when their army gets bad or worse is funny to me. Has nothing to with being vindicative.
as deadlus said. character killing existed already. armies like chaos already had problems with it. I haven't seen chaos players, write petitions to GW to save chaos from evil snipers, when the eldar were doing good or great. now that both flyer get traunced, by IH and characters get hunted by RG, sudden love of balance from eldar community is an awesome thing to see.
as I've been saying, eliminators occupy the heavy support slots. this is a pretty "in demand" slot for Marines, it's where Repulsors Elimnators Devestator and devestator centurions, Land Raiders of all types, hellblasters and thunderfire canons are. So if the marine player is taking a lot of eliminators chances are he's sacrificing other equally useful heavy support.
Well, either they sacrifice slots or CP. They can have all the toys, but no CP to run them. Lots of people need to adjust to marines - part of their early success might be people were running lists that were too skew and marines are REALLY good at TAC now.
You're still treating all Eldar players as one unified group. They're not, nor are all Necron players, or all GSC players. It's not about caring about someone else's army, it's about caring about the health of the game overall. Read my last paragraph in the post above again - the point still stands. Your approach is just needlessly vindictive and doesn't help the game improve at all. A healthy balance between armies is a good state for the game to be in.
And I say that to me, the sudden call for balance from eldar players when their army gets bad or worse is funny to me. Has nothing to with being vindicative.
as deadlus said. character killing existed already. armies like chaos already had problems with it. I haven't seen chaos players, write petitions to GW to save chaos from evil snipers, when the eldar were doing good or great. now that both flyer get traunced, by IH and characters get hunted by RG, sudden love of balance from eldar community is an awesome thing to see.
You're cherry picking comments from this thread to suit your argument. I was using Eldar as an example, I could have used IG for orders or 1k Sons for the same issue Eldar has.
Snipers of course exist but you've missed the point that snipers that don't need LOS is bad game design. You can play around snipers using terrain but something that entirely removes it and targets key characters can't be played around when the RG player can infiltrate snipers so close to an opposing army AND be hidden. It's not hard to grasp.
If the Vindicare rifle didn't need LOS it would be horrific, really. Same with the Sanctus. To be a downgrade in damage and other abilities, but get to shoot out of LOS is a reasonably fair trade -- and factor in that they won't have additional AP when RG get their bonus. Eliminators are perhaps a bit cheap, but they're not murdering multiple characters per turn.
Either you counter-battery, protect (transport/bodyguard), or build in redundancy.
Eldar have options to counter battery - the CHE included. They have transports. And warlocks are cheap if you need redundancy.
I agree that it's hard to run softer characters. I can't even think about running a shaman these days. Going back to the old 'Look out sir' mechanic could smother sniping for most occasions (i.e. shield drones). Softer characters could be made cheaper, but we'll have to play things out a bit longer and get reliable data for feedback.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Could also be saying maybe you need to invest in bodyguard units. Just saying
A: Not all armies have them.
B: those that have them maybee saddled with terribad versions of it.
C: due to not beeing an option for all faction E.g. Situation Implementation flyers and aa and or lack thereoff differing by faction that is a bad argument.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Could also be saying maybe you need to invest in bodyguard units. Just saying
A: Not all armies have them.
B: those that have them maybee saddled with terribad versions of it.
C: due to not beeing an option for all faction E.g. Situation Implementation flyers and aa and or lack thereoff differing by faction that is a bad argument.
Well let's start with which armies are lacking them.
bullyboy wrote: I did the math for you guys. 9 eliminators does not kill a warlock on jetbike Turn 1. Therfore you have 1 turn to utilize Reapers and Nightspinners to take out the snipers. The sky is not falling.
Except when it doesn't ? Except when it kills a farseer T1.. or A spirit seer...Averages are nice and that's all they are. Its annoying because it forces you to play a certain way especially if soup in some assassins it gets worse.. The killiness is there even on averages, and even if it wiffs the threat of those means you have to play a certain way...
Its easy I now need to take 3 spinners on top of 3 alitoic fliers to have a crack at winning you say?
Don't get me wrong, I really rate the spinners. Been saying they rock for ages. But the minute my list building choices are made for me.. I'm playing an NPC. Not for me.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Could also be saying maybe you need to invest in bodyguard units. Just saying
A: Not all armies have them.
B: those that have them maybee saddled with terribad versions of it.
C: due to not beeing an option for all faction E.g. Situation Implementation flyers and aa and or lack thereoff differing by faction that is a bad argument.
Well let's start with which armies are lacking them.
Csm, orks, atleast.
So what do you do there? Both armies require massive imput from their hq buffs aswell.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Could also be saying maybe you need to invest in bodyguard units. Just saying
A: Not all armies have them.
B: those that have them maybee saddled with terribad versions of it.
C: due to not beeing an option for all faction E.g. Situation Implementation flyers and aa and or lack thereoff differing by faction that is a bad argument.
Well let's start with which armies are lacking them.
Csm, orks, atleast.
So what do you do there? Both armies require massive imput from their hq buffs aswell.
Orks have one with the Grot Strat, so while it isn't a consistent one it does exist.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Could also be saying maybe you need to invest in bodyguard units. Just saying
A: Not all armies have them.
B: those that have them maybee saddled with terribad versions of it.
C: due to not beeing an option for all faction E.g. Situation Implementation flyers and aa and or lack thereoff differing by faction that is a bad argument.
Well let's start with which armies are lacking them.
Csm, orks, atleast.
So what do you do there? Both armies require massive imput from their hq buffs aswell.
Orks have one with the Grot Strat, so while it isn't a consistent one it does exist.
Since when is a single stratagem,which will be used otherwise else you allready mostlikely lost as orkz, a bodyguard?
Ask yourself that.
So no, my point remains, not all have one, and not all of them are good enough.
as I've been saying, eliminators occupy the heavy support slots. this is a pretty "in demand" slot for Marines, it's where Repulsors Elimnators Devestator and devestator centurions, Land Raiders of all types, hellblasters and thunderfire canons are. So if the marine player is taking a lot of eliminators chances are he's sacrificing other equally useful heavy support.
Well, either they sacrifice slots or CP. They can have all the toys, but no CP to run them. Lots of people need to adjust to marines - part of their early success might be people were running lists that were too skew and marines are REALLY good at TAC now.
I tend to agree a big part of it is people are having trouble adjusting to Marines. everytime a new codex comes out there IS an adjustment period.
I'm pretty sure that the eldar psykers on bikes essentially outrange the eliminators 14" move + 6" flat advance and most offensive powers are 18-24". giving a range of 38-44" to 36-42".
If your opponent is putting eliminators so far forward that your back is against the wall, then they are going to be super vulnerable to any counter attack, even just tying them down would work.
I don't remember how exactly rangers work either, but if they can infiltrate they'd also be a useful infiltrate-screen.
It seems that the eliminators are just adding a character buffer zone. Which is kind of what your paying for.
Orks do have semi-bodyguards in the form of grotshields. They can only block for one character but that may be what is needed. Again if those eliminators are hitting back field characters, they are probably somewhat exposed to counterplay.
Got nothing for CSM beyond the deathshroud terminators, which are DG only I think
Ravenguard make up a small portion of marines and even smaller portion of overall armies. In a five round tournie you are just as likely to never come across RG.
People are over reacting on theory hammer.
That RG army will just as likely come across armies were their trait is effectively useless, or go second there by negating all their advantages.
This game is now a game of scissors paper rock.
It takes a good player to overcome these challenges and win.
Not Online!!! wrote: Again a stratagem, which will be used on other units, ISN'T A BODYGUARD.
And yes deathshroud only work for DG.
The strategem being used on other units is up to the player, forcing them to decide on how to expend a resource is actually a good thing. Otherwise you might just have to rely on kff for character protection or a Dok for wound mitigation. Honestly at that point your getting better mitigation then marine players are T1. T4 5+ save with no FNP (unless your IH) and 4-6 wounds.
also we've had eliminators around for awhile now, the issues people are expressing concern with are nothing new, why are people suddenly panicing like it's the end of the world?
bullyboy wrote: I did the math for you guys. 9 eliminators does not kill a warlock on jetbike Turn 1. Therfore you have 1 turn to utilize Reapers and Nightspinners to take out the snipers. The sky is not falling.
I think you have to do the math again. With Sergent they kill warlock on bike without any problems.
3x Spinners kills max 3 eliminators per turn(because -1 to hit cover) and that is with the most anti marine combo expert crafters+ masterful shoots.
Masterful shoots remove bonus to save and not the -1 to hit. Without this it`s even worst 1-2 models, with autarch you can get a 1 extra model.
I watched games where for 1 turn 9 eliminators killed Shadowseer, for 2 turn 2 units killed Calgar.
I lost Farseer from 1 unit for 1 turn, because i failed 2 saves and with the rerolls and mortal wounds its almost impossible for this guys to miss something.
This damage should never coast 72 pts.
Because dice can always happen, and its much harder to get average 4++ than to hit on 2 and reroll 1.
If you start putting more LOS shooting or other treats, now they have Impulsion who can safely hide SMBS units.
bullyboy wrote: I did the math for you guys. 9 eliminators does not kill a warlock on jetbike Turn 1. Therfore you have 1 turn to utilize Reapers and Nightspinners to take out the snipers. The sky is not falling.
I think you have to do the math again. With Sergent they kill warlock on bike without any problems.
3x Spinners kills max 3 eliminators per turn(because -1 to hit cover) and that is with the most anti marine combo expert crafters+ masterful shoots.
Masterful shoots remove bonus to save and not the -1 to hit. Without this it`s even worst 1-2 models, with autarch you can get a 1 extra model.
I watched games where for 1 turn 9 eliminators killed Shadowseer, for 2 turn 2 units killed Calgar.
I lost Farseer from 1 unit for 1 turn, because i failed 2 saves and with the rerolls and mortal wounds its almost impossible for this guys to miss something.
This damage should never coast 72 pts.
Because dice can always happen, and its much harder to get average 4++ than to hit on 2 and reroll 1.
If you start putting more LOS shooting or other treats, now they have Impulsion who can safely hide SMBS units.
A) 9 Eliminators aren't 72 points. Have you seen what three Vindicare do to a single HQ?
B) if he was generating mortal wounds the HQs being shot were in LoS. Any sniper would have been able to kill that guy, a single vindicare would've done it.
bullyboy wrote: I did the math for you guys. 9 eliminators does not kill a warlock on jetbike Turn 1. Therfore you have 1 turn to utilize Reapers and Nightspinners to take out the snipers. The sky is not falling.
I think you have to do the math again. With Sergent they kill warlock on bike without any problems.
3x Spinners kills max 3 eliminators per turn(because -1 to hit cover) and that is with the most anti marine combo expert crafters+ masterful shoots.
Masterful shoots remove bonus to save and not the -1 to hit. Without this it`s even worst 1-2 models, with autarch you can get a 1 extra model.
I watched games where for 1 turn 9 eliminators killed Shadowseer, for 2 turn 2 units killed Calgar.
I lost Farseer from 1 unit for 1 turn, because i failed 2 saves and with the rerolls and mortal wounds its almost impossible for this guys to miss something.
This damage should never coast 72 pts.
Because dice can always happen, and its much harder to get average 4++ than to hit on 2 and reroll 1.
If you start putting more LOS shooting or other treats, now they have Impulsion who can safely hide SMBS units.
A) 9 Eliminators aren't 72 points. Have you seen what three Vindicare do to a single HQ?
B) if he was generating mortal wounds the HQs being shot were in LoS. Any sniper would have been able to kill that guy, a single vindicare would've done it.
Yeah Marin is over reacting. she's heard that eliminators can do X or Y,and is thinking "ELIMINATORS CAN DO X+Y!"
the fact is Eliminators have been around for nearly a year now, if they where that abd we'd have already seen the meta rocked by them.
bullyboy wrote: I did the math for you guys. 9 eliminators does not kill a warlock on jetbike Turn 1. Therfore you have 1 turn to utilize Reapers and Nightspinners to take out the snipers. The sky is not falling.
I think you have to do the math again. With Sergent they kill warlock on bike without any problems.
3x Spinners kills max 3 eliminators per turn(because -1 to hit cover) and that is with the most anti marine combo expert crafters+ masterful shoots.
Masterful shoots remove bonus to save and not the -1 to hit. Without this it`s even worst 1-2 models, with autarch you can get a 1 extra model.
I watched games where for 1 turn 9 eliminators killed Shadowseer, for 2 turn 2 units killed Calgar.
I lost Farseer from 1 unit for 1 turn, because i failed 2 saves and with the rerolls and mortal wounds its almost impossible for this guys to miss something.
This damage should never coast 72 pts.
Because dice can always happen, and its much harder to get average 4++ than to hit on 2 and reroll 1.
If you start putting more LOS shooting or other treats, now they have Impulsion who can safely hide SMBS units.
A) 9 Eliminators aren't 72 points. Have you seen what three Vindicare do to a single HQ?
B) if he was generating mortal wounds the HQs being shot were in LoS. Any sniper would have been able to kill that guy, a single vindicare would've done it.
A) i have seen what three Vindicare can do, but they can`t kill my LOS warlocks and spiritseers and are not rapidly deploying in most of the map. Also you pay more points for that and you spend detachment, so it`s more balanced.
B) Vindicare is also BS unit, but atleast he don`t easy access to rerolls and +1 or +2 to wound. 1 Vindicare have 1 shoot, have to chances to fail and he can`t be make more reliable vs bikers or monsters. Vindicare also have to roll 6 on the wound of his only shoot to kill my farseer and after that roll high damage. There are more places to fail and not many people are bringing 3 Vindicares.
bullyboy wrote: I did the math for you guys. 9 eliminators does not kill a warlock on jetbike Turn 1. Therfore you have 1 turn to utilize Reapers and Nightspinners to take out the snipers. The sky is not falling.
I think you have to do the math again. With Sergent they kill warlock on bike without any problems.
3x Spinners kills max 3 eliminators per turn(because -1 to hit cover) and that is with the most anti marine combo expert crafters+ masterful shoots.
Masterful shoots remove bonus to save and not the -1 to hit. Without this it`s even worst 1-2 models, with autarch you can get a 1 extra model.
I watched games where for 1 turn 9 eliminators killed Shadowseer, for 2 turn 2 units killed Calgar.
I lost Farseer from 1 unit for 1 turn, because i failed 2 saves and with the rerolls and mortal wounds its almost impossible for this guys to miss something.
This damage should never coast 72 pts.
Because dice can always happen, and its much harder to get average 4++ than to hit on 2 and reroll 1.
If you start putting more LOS shooting or other treats, now they have Impulsion who can safely hide SMBS units.
A) 9 Eliminators aren't 72 points. Have you seen what three Vindicare do to a single HQ?
B) if he was generating mortal wounds the HQs being shot were in LoS. Any sniper would have been able to kill that guy, a single vindicare would've done it.
Yeah Marin is over reacting. she's heard that eliminators can do X or Y,and is thinking "ELIMINATORS CAN DO X+Y!"
the fact is Eliminators have been around for nearly a year now, if they where that abd we'd have already seen the meta rocked by them.
You are joking right ?
They were S4 and did not had option to get +1 to hit and wound. We are talking about totally different datasheet and you can`t compare it with pre new codex marines.
One guy won tournament in Hawaii spamming 3 of them even pre buff SM.
BrianDavion wrote: I'm sorry space Marines have units that can kill your units.
clearly it is not okey for a unit that bullies eldar to exist. I expect an army to be good against all eldar builds falls in to the cathegory of destroys the game and has to be FAQed as soon as possible.
BrianDavion wrote: I'm sorry space Marines have units that can kill your units.
clearly it is not okey for a unit that bullies eldar to exist. I expect an army to be good against all eldar builds falls in to the cathegory of destroys the game and has to be FAQed as soon as possible.
You are right, no army that bullies 80% of other armies should exist. So yes i`m expecting to be FAQed as soon as possible.
New SMWR is higher than Castellan and Ynnari. Ynnari even in their peak were never more than 5% of the super big tournaments like LVO.
I know players who complain about aeldar with 0 games played vs that faction, so i believe in the numbers and numbers shows that CWE is pretty balanced top army.
For instance in the last 6 mounts:
TS vs CWE 61.63 WR Tyranid vs CWE 56.03 WR Space Wolves vs CWE 44% WR
And that is including the OP fly spam list, so strong but hardly dominating with total of 52.13% WR.
CWE codex was released October 2017 in April FAQ 2018 dark reapers, spiritseer, warlock and warlock conclave received point increases.
That is before half of the codexes to be released, so i expect the some treatment for the SM.
Even GW are starting to treat SM releases as mistake, the nerfs are coming and you can be sure of that.
And? is it impossible for armies to be even better then eldar were. Is it somehow bad for eldar to be a worse or even bad army? Where is the rules that says that eldar players are always suppose to have a good army with good rules, and that somehow eldar not being at the bottom, if they really are at the bottom right now, or hard countered by popular armies, is equal to balance in the game. Because the claims confuse me.
When I say that may army is bad, the response I get is learn to play, get another army or some armies are suppose to be bad.
BrianDavion wrote: I'm sorry space Marines have units that can kill your units.
clearly it is not okey for a unit that bullies eldar to exist. I expect an army to be good against all eldar builds falls in to the cathegory of destroys the game and has to be FAQed as soon as possible.
You are right, no army that bullies 80% of other armies should exist. So yes i`m expecting to be FAQed as soon as possible.
If it makes up for more then 50% of all armies played, then what is the problem? my army gets bullied by 99% of the field, it only doesn't get bullied in mono on mono GK mirror matchs? if we went by that logic, then GW should be killing itself to fix my stuff as clearly being bullied by everything is more then under 50% of the field being bullied 80% of time.
New SMWR is higher than Castellan and Ynnari. Ynnari even in their peak were never more than 5% of the super big tournaments like LVO.
I know players who complain about aeldar with 0 games played vs that faction, so i believe in the numbers and numbers shows that CWE is pretty balanced top army.
For instance in the last 6 mounts:
TS vs CWE 61.63 WR Tyranid vs CWE 56.03 WR Space Wolves vs CWE 44% WR
And that is including the OP fly spam list, so strong but hardly dominating with total of 52.13% WR.
CWE codex was released October 2017 in April FAQ 2018 dark reapers, spiritseer, warlock and warlock conclave received point increases.
That is before half of the codexes to be released, so i expect the some treatment for the SM.
Even GW are starting to treat SM releases as mistake, the nerfs are coming and you can be sure of that.
And? is it impossible for armies to be even better then eldar were. Is it somehow bad for eldar to be a worse or even bad army? Where is the rules that says that eldar players are always suppose to have a good army with good rules, and that somehow eldar not being at the bottom, if they really are at the bottom right now, or hard countered by popular armies, is equal to balance in the game. Because the claims confuse me.
When I say that may army is bad, the response I get is learn to play, get another army or some armies are suppose to be bad.
Hmmm, were`t eldar nerfed every FAQ in CA because they were performing better than they should ?
Is it wrong for me to expect the some treatment to the new OP broken stuff ?
Is it wrong to expect buffs to nonperforming stuff ?
I`m always happy if under-performing faction get buffs, Tao and AdMech buffs in CA was good for the game.
New SMWR is higher than Castellan and Ynnari. Ynnari even in their peak were never more than 5% of the super big tournaments like LVO.
I know players who complain about aeldar with 0 games played vs that faction, so i believe in the numbers and numbers shows that CWE is pretty balanced top army.
For instance in the last 6 mounts:
TS vs CWE 61.63 WR Tyranid vs CWE 56.03 WR Space Wolves vs CWE 44% WR
And that is including the OP fly spam list, so strong but hardly dominating with total of 52.13% WR.
CWE codex was released October 2017 in April FAQ 2018 dark reapers, spiritseer, warlock and warlock conclave received point increases.
That is before half of the codexes to be released, so i expect the some treatment for the SM.
Even GW are starting to treat SM releases as mistake, the nerfs are coming and you can be sure of that.
And? is it impossible for armies to be even better then eldar were. Is it somehow bad for eldar to be a worse or even bad army? Where is the rules that says that eldar players are always suppose to have a good army with good rules, and that somehow eldar not being at the bottom, if they really are at the bottom right now, or hard countered by popular armies, is equal to balance in the game. Because the claims confuse me.
When I say that may army is bad, the response I get is learn to play, get another army or some armies are suppose to be bad.
Hmmm, were`t eldar nerfed every FAQ in CA because they were performing better than they should ?
Is it wrong for me to expect the some treatment to the new OP broken stuff ?
Is it wrong to expect buffs to nonperforming stuff ?
I`m always happy if under-performing faction get buffs, Tao and AdMech buffs in CA was good for the game.
and maybe space marines will suffer some nerfs too, however expecting GW to massivly nerf the codex with 3 weeks worth of data is just stupidity.
furthermore if they do nerf it don't expect the kind of catastrophic nerfs you seem to be propsing, 43 PPM for a eliminator is a joke.
New SMWR is higher than Castellan and Ynnari. Ynnari even in their peak were never more than 5% of the super big tournaments like LVO. I know players who complain about aeldar with 0 games played vs that faction, so i believe in the numbers and numbers shows that CWE is pretty balanced top army. For instance in the last 6 mounts: TS vs CWE 61.63 WR Tyranid vs CWE 56.03 WR Space Wolves vs CWE 44% WR
And that is including the OP fly spam list, so strong but hardly dominating with total of 52.13% WR.
CWE codex was released October 2017 in April FAQ 2018 dark reapers, spiritseer, warlock and warlock conclave received point increases. That is before half of the codexes to be released, so i expect the some treatment for the SM. Even GW are starting to treat SM releases as mistake, the nerfs are coming and you can be sure of that.
And? is it impossible for armies to be even better then eldar were. Is it somehow bad for eldar to be a worse or even bad army? Where is the rules that says that eldar players are always suppose to have a good army with good rules, and that somehow eldar not being at the bottom, if they really are at the bottom right now, or hard countered by popular armies, is equal to balance in the game. Because the claims confuse me.
When I say that may army is bad, the response I get is learn to play, get another army or some armies are suppose to be bad.
Hmmm, were`t eldar nerfed every FAQ in CA because they were performing better than they should ? Is it wrong for me to expect the some treatment to the new OP broken stuff ? Is it wrong to expect buffs to nonperforming stuff ? I`m always happy if under-performing faction get buffs, Tao and AdMech buffs in CA was good for the game.
and maybe space marines will suffer some nerfs too, however expecting GW to massivly nerf the codex with 3 weeks worth of data is just stupidity.
furthermore if they do nerf it don't expect the kind of catastrophic nerfs you seem to be propsing, 43 PPM for a eliminator is a joke.
Iron Hands say hi.
Generally, a meta balances out pretty quickly for this game and in card games, however the high win rates have continued which highlights a problem with the faction in question. The fact that they have a huge representation in the game is something that makes the game unfun too. Take a look at Hearthstone for instance, the Shaman class had and is currently the highest represented class in the game and it's because the cards in those decks are very powerful, something which can be seen in marines with this game.
I currently don't run Elims with my RG Army, partly due to finances, but don't seem to miss them either. I win about half my games with what I do run.... without having the current 'Dex for them.
For less than the cost of 3 Eliminators squads, I can drop 2 TFCs that also can shoot at non-LOS targets (Arty rules).
They would have a minimum of 8 hits (4d3 each), an average of 14 between them (Max of 24, 12 each), and can hit anywhere on the table (R=60") doing the same damage per hit. And that is only 4 models that can be dropped in cover and don't have to move from my deployment zone.
Can they target characters? Technically, no. But that doesn't stop them from removing such models in the right situation.
I guess they are OP as well?
I have them because Horde armies are a thing I run into a lot.
New SMWR is higher than Castellan and Ynnari. Ynnari even in their peak were never more than 5% of the super big tournaments like LVO.
I know players who complain about aeldar with 0 games played vs that faction, so i believe in the numbers and numbers shows that CWE is pretty balanced top army.
For instance in the last 6 mounts:
TS vs CWE 61.63 WR Tyranid vs CWE 56.03 WR Space Wolves vs CWE 44% WR
And that is including the OP fly spam list, so strong but hardly dominating with total of 52.13% WR.
CWE codex was released October 2017 in April FAQ 2018 dark reapers, spiritseer, warlock and warlock conclave received point increases.
That is before half of the codexes to be released, so i expect the some treatment for the SM.
Even GW are starting to treat SM releases as mistake, the nerfs are coming and you can be sure of that.
And? is it impossible for armies to be even better then eldar were. Is it somehow bad for eldar to be a worse or even bad army? Where is the rules that says that eldar players are always suppose to have a good army with good rules, and that somehow eldar not being at the bottom, if they really are at the bottom right now, or hard countered by popular armies, is equal to balance in the game. Because the claims confuse me.
When I say that may army is bad, the response I get is learn to play, get another army or some armies are suppose to be bad.
Hmmm, were`t eldar nerfed every FAQ in CA because they were performing better than they should ?
Is it wrong for me to expect the some treatment to the new OP broken stuff ?
Is it wrong to expect buffs to nonperforming stuff ?
I`m always happy if under-performing faction get buffs, Tao and AdMech buffs in CA was good for the game.
and maybe space marines will suffer some nerfs too, however expecting GW to massivly nerf the codex with 3 weeks worth of data is just stupidity.
furthermore if they do nerf it don't expect the kind of catastrophic nerfs you seem to be propsing, 43 PPM for a eliminator is a joke.
Iron Hands say hi.
Generally, a meta balances out pretty quickly for this game and in card games, however the high win rates have continued which highlights a problem with the faction in question. The fact that they have a huge representation in the game is something that makes the game unfun too. Take a look at Hearthstone for instance, the Shaman class had and is currently the highest represented class in the game and it's because the cards in those decks are very powerful, something which can be seen in marines with this game.
except that Marines have always been one of the most popular armies in the game, even when they've been weak.
I currently don't run Elims with my RG Army, partly due to finances, but don't seem to miss them either. I win about half my games with what I do run.... without having the current 'Dex for them.
For less than the cost of 3 Eliminators squads, I can drop 2 TFCs that also can shoot at non-LOS targets (Arty rules). They would have a minimum of 8 hits (4d3 each), an average of 14 between them (Max of 24, 12 each), and can hit anywhere on the table (R=60") doing the same damage per hit. And that is only 4 models that can be dropped in cover and don't have to move from my deployment zone. Can they target characters? Technically, no. But that doesn't stop them from removing such models in the right situation. I guess they are OP as well? I have them because Horde armies are a thing I run into a lot.
No they aren't OP, they're just good. If they could target characters then that's when they wouldn't be balanced. Not really an analogous statement for this discussion.
No they aren't OP, they're just good. If they could target characters then that's when they wouldn't be balanced. Not really an analogous statement for this discussion.
TFCs are also massively boosted by stratagem use, especially in their primary role of horde suppression. Terrible analogy.
bullyboy wrote: I did the math for you guys. 9 eliminators does not kill a warlock on jetbike Turn 1. Therfore you have 1 turn to utilize Reapers and Nightspinners to take out the snipers. The sky is not falling.
I think you have to do the math again. With Sergent they kill warlock on bike without any problems.
3x Spinners kills max 3 eliminators per turn(because -1 to hit cover) and that is with the most anti marine combo expert crafters+ masterful shoots.
Masterful shoots remove bonus to save and not the -1 to hit. Without this it`s even worst 1-2 models, with autarch you can get a 1 extra model.
I watched games where for 1 turn 9 eliminators killed Shadowseer, for 2 turn 2 units killed Calgar.
I lost Farseer from 1 unit for 1 turn, because i failed 2 saves and with the rerolls and mortal wounds its almost impossible for this guys to miss something.
This damage should never coast 72 pts.
Because dice can always happen, and its much harder to get average 4++ than to hit on 2 and reroll 1.
If you start putting more LOS shooting or other treats, now they have Impulsion who can safely hide SMBS units.
OK, 3 units of Eliminators (216pts) shooting at a warlock jetseer guided by their sgt. Only 6 shots (sgt can't shoot), hit on 2's, wound on 2s, save on 4+ is still only 2.08 wounds on average. A warlock jetseer has 3 wounds. so again, my maths is fine, you are over reacting.
Also worth mentioning that the -1 to hit on Raven Guard is not for being in Cover(meaning it doesn't trigger off the Chapter trait itself).
It's for being on or within terrain.
Additionally, since I've had a few instances of Aeldari players thinking this is the case, Camo Cloaks for Marines are a modifier to the cover save not a modifier to being hit.
bullyboy wrote: I did the math for you guys. 9 eliminators does not kill a warlock on jetbike Turn 1. Therfore you have 1 turn to utilize Reapers and Nightspinners to take out the snipers. The sky is not falling.
I think you have to do the math again. With Sergent they kill warlock on bike without any problems.
3x Spinners kills max 3 eliminators per turn(because -1 to hit cover) and that is with the most anti marine combo expert crafters+ masterful shoots.
Masterful shoots remove bonus to save and not the -1 to hit. Without this it`s even worst 1-2 models, with autarch you can get a 1 extra model.
I watched games where for 1 turn 9 eliminators killed Shadowseer, for 2 turn 2 units killed Calgar.
I lost Farseer from 1 unit for 1 turn, because i failed 2 saves and with the rerolls and mortal wounds its almost impossible for this guys to miss something.
This damage should never coast 72 pts.
Because dice can always happen, and its much harder to get average 4++ than to hit on 2 and reroll 1.
If you start putting more LOS shooting or other treats, now they have Impulsion who can safely hide SMBS units.
OK, 3 units of Eliminators (216pts) shooting at a warlock jetseer guided by their sgt. Only 6 shots (sgt can't shoot), hit on 2's, wound on 2s, save on 4+ is still only 2.08 wounds on average. A warlock jetseer has 3 wounds. so again, my maths is fine, you are over reacting.
I told you your math is wrong.
9 shoots(using the sergeant to shoot) 7.5 hits with BS2, wound on 3 reroll 1 to wound, 5.833 wounds, damage 2.917 and that is without someone giving them reroll on hit or just having salamander successor trait.
bullyboy wrote: I did the math for you guys. 9 eliminators does not kill a warlock on jetbike Turn 1. Therfore you have 1 turn to utilize Reapers and Nightspinners to take out the snipers. The sky is not falling.
I think you have to do the math again. With Sergent they kill warlock on bike without any problems.
3x Spinners kills max 3 eliminators per turn(because -1 to hit cover) and that is with the most anti marine combo expert crafters+ masterful shoots.
Masterful shoots remove bonus to save and not the -1 to hit. Without this it`s even worst 1-2 models, with autarch you can get a 1 extra model.
I watched games where for 1 turn 9 eliminators killed Shadowseer, for 2 turn 2 units killed Calgar.
I lost Farseer from 1 unit for 1 turn, because i failed 2 saves and with the rerolls and mortal wounds its almost impossible for this guys to miss something.
This damage should never coast 72 pts.
Because dice can always happen, and its much harder to get average 4++ than to hit on 2 and reroll 1.
If you start putting more LOS shooting or other treats, now they have Impulsion who can safely hide SMBS units.
A) 9 Eliminators aren't 72 points. Have you seen what three Vindicare do to a single HQ?
B) if he was generating mortal wounds the HQs being shot were in LoS. Any sniper would have been able to kill that guy, a single vindicare would've done it.
A) i have seen what three Vindicare can do, but they can`t kill my LOS warlocks and spiritseers and are not rapidly deploying in most of the map. Also you pay more points for that and you spend detachment, so it`s more balanced.
B) Vindicare is also BS unit, but atleast he don`t easy access to rerolls and +1 or +2 to wound. 1 Vindicare have 1 shoot, have to chances to fail and he can`t be make more reliable vs bikers or monsters. Vindicare also have to roll 6 on the wound of his only shoot to kill my farseer and after that roll high damage. There are more places to fail and not many people are bringing 3 Vindicares.
You were clearly talking about the Eliminators using ammo other than the Los-ignoring one.
Vindicare hit AND wound your HQs on 2s and deal more damage and more mortal wounds than Eliminators. They ignore any invuln saves, they have higher Ap, they do additional mortal wounds almost automatically. 6+ wounds, that do one MW for Eliminators, increase the damage dice for Vindicare, which is 1.5 additional damage on average. The mortal wounds are on top of that, all the time.
Not many people bring 3 vindicare because that's just complete and utter overkill. All I need is one vindicare to pretty reliably kill your HQ,and If I do I get to shoot at another of your HQs for free.
Before you cry OP, please read the actual rules and compare them to other snipers by also reading their rules.
Kanluwen wrote: Also worth mentioning that the -1 to hit on Raven Guard is not for being in Cover(meaning it doesn't trigger off the Chapter trait itself).
It's for being on or within terrain.
Additionally, since I've had a few instances of Aeldari players thinking this is the case, Camo Cloaks for Marines are a modifier to the cover save not a modifier to being hit.
That is exactly what i said, i even did not add the +2 save, because aledar now have trait that ignore cove.
Dev doctrine needs to be changed to not give you -1 AP on heavies (this is actually where most of the new space marine power comes from) it should be changed to make you ignore the -1 for moving and shooting heavies.
For the strong super doctrines on armies with strong chapter tactics like...RG/IH/IF - they need their super doctrine flat out removed or cut in half.
IH honestly don't need anything else - they get 3 traits for their tactic. With a change to dev doctrine being half of what all SM armies get at the expense of -1 AP on heavies - ironhands can keep their reroll 1's if they stay in dev doctrine.
IF don't need anything else. They get a 2 CP stratagem for free on ever GD unit in their army AND they ignore cover. They don't also need to do double damage to vehicles LOL. Let them reroll 1's if they are in cover or something.
RG have a great tactic but I would be okay with them getting +1 to hit with sniper weapons as a special rule as part of their chapter tactic.
Ultras tactic is very conditional and -1 LD is probably the least desirable effect you could ask for out of a whole list of undesirables. Ultras should just retain their super doctrine as part of their tactic in an effort to bump their trash chapter tactic.
Whitscars tactic is good for assaulting but also not doing much turn 1 or 2. Their super doctrine is great but turn 3 makes it useless. Because it is useless and they are a late game tactic - they should also have their super doctrine just folded into their chapter tactic.
Salamanders - same - fold into chapter tactic.
Successors? Custom chapter do not get the special bonus. First founding successors do.
Chapters not released yet? Attempt to make internally balanced rules.
2 most obvious things about these supplemenets and new dex.
SUPER DOCTRINES WERE A REALLY BAD IDEA.
CHAPTER TACTICS ARE LAUGHABLY UNBALANCED.
bullyboy wrote: I did the math for you guys. 9 eliminators does not kill a warlock on jetbike Turn 1. Therfore you have 1 turn to utilize Reapers and Nightspinners to take out the snipers. The sky is not falling.
I think you have to do the math again. With Sergent they kill warlock on bike without any problems.
3x Spinners kills max 3 eliminators per turn(because -1 to hit cover) and that is with the most anti marine combo expert crafters+ masterful shoots.
Masterful shoots remove bonus to save and not the -1 to hit. Without this it`s even worst 1-2 models, with autarch you can get a 1 extra model.
I watched games where for 1 turn 9 eliminators killed Shadowseer, for 2 turn 2 units killed Calgar.
I lost Farseer from 1 unit for 1 turn, because i failed 2 saves and with the rerolls and mortal wounds its almost impossible for this guys to miss something.
This damage should never coast 72 pts.
Because dice can always happen, and its much harder to get average 4++ than to hit on 2 and reroll 1.
If you start putting more LOS shooting or other treats, now they have Impulsion who can safely hide SMBS units.
A) 9 Eliminators aren't 72 points. Have you seen what three Vindicare do to a single HQ?
B) if he was generating mortal wounds the HQs being shot were in LoS. Any sniper would have been able to kill that guy, a single vindicare would've done it.
A) i have seen what three Vindicare can do, but they can`t kill my LOS warlocks and spiritseers and are not rapidly deploying in most of the map. Also you pay more points for that and you spend detachment, so it`s more balanced.
B) Vindicare is also BS unit, but atleast he don`t easy access to rerolls and +1 or +2 to wound. 1 Vindicare have 1 shoot, have to chances to fail and he can`t be make more reliable vs bikers or monsters. Vindicare also have to roll 6 on the wound of his only shoot to kill my farseer and after that roll high damage. There are more places to fail and not many people are bringing 3 Vindicares.
You were clearly talking about the Eliminators using ammo other than the Los-ignoring one.
Vindicare hit AND wound your HQs on 2s and deal more damage and more mortal wounds than Eliminators. They ignore any invuln saves, they have higher Ap, they do additional mortal wounds almost automatically. 6+ wounds, that do one MW for Eliminators, increase the damage dice for Vindicare, which is 1.5 additional damage on average. The mortal wounds are on top of that, all the time.
Not many people bring 3 vindicare because that's just complete and utter overkill. All I need is one vindicare to pretty reliably kill your HQ,and If I do I get to shoot at another of your HQs for free.
Before you cry OP, please read the actual rules and compare them to other snipers by also reading their rules.
Lol with line of sight the numbers are even better. I just calculated to you that LOS don`t save squashy characters, something that can work vs Vindicare.
Also single Vindicare can fail quite easily on character with more wounds, that he wounds on 3+. Vindicare is hardly effective vs T5 or higher characters, Eliminators can get extra pluses to wound, can get rerolls to hit and wound, so they don`t suffer from such issues.
Eliminators are just more effective than Vindicare for less points, more reliable, easier to use. They are just too good.
Dev doctrine needs to be changed to not give you -1 AP on heavies (this is actually where most of the new space marine power comes from) it should be changed to make you ignore the -1 for moving and shooting heavies.
For the strong super doctrines on armies with strong chapter tactics like...RG/IH/IF - they need their super doctrine flat out removed or cut in half.
IH honestly don't need anything else - they get 3 traits for their tactic. With a change to dev doctrine being half of what all SM armies get at the expense of -1 AP on heavies - ironhands can keep their reroll 1's if they stay in dev doctrine.
IF don't need anything else. They get a 2 CP stratagem for free on ever GD unit in their army AND they ignore cover. They don't also need to do double damage to vehicles LOL. Let them reroll 1's if they are in cover or something.
RG have a great tactic but I would be okay with them getting +1 to hit with sniper weapons as a special rule as part of their chapter tactic.
Ultras tactic is very conditional and -1 LD is probably the least desirable effect you could ask for out of a whole list of undesirables. Ultras should just retain their super doctrine as part of their tactic in an effort to bump their trash chapter tactic.
Whitscars tactic is good for assaulting but also not doing much turn 1 or 2. Their super doctrine is great but turn 3 makes it useless. Because it is useless and they are a late game tactic - they should also have their super doctrine just folded into their chapter tactic.
Salamanders - same - fold into chapter tactic.
Successors? Custom chapter do not get the special bonus. First founding successors do.
Chapters not released yet? Attempt to make internally balanced rules.
2 most obvious things about these supplemenets and new dex.
SUPER DOCTRINES WERE A REALLY BAD IDEA.
CHAPTER TACTICS ARE LAUGHABLY UNBALANCED.
Naa they wont change the doctrines, i don`t believe it. We can expect mostly point increases.
bullyboy wrote: I did the math for you guys. 9 eliminators does not kill a warlock on jetbike Turn 1. Therfore you have 1 turn to utilize Reapers and Nightspinners to take out the snipers. The sky is not falling.
I think you have to do the math again. With Sergent they kill warlock on bike without any problems.
3x Spinners kills max 3 eliminators per turn(because -1 to hit cover) and that is with the most anti marine combo expert crafters+ masterful shoots.
Masterful shoots remove bonus to save and not the -1 to hit. Without this it`s even worst 1-2 models, with autarch you can get a 1 extra model.
I watched games where for 1 turn 9 eliminators killed Shadowseer, for 2 turn 2 units killed Calgar.
I lost Farseer from 1 unit for 1 turn, because i failed 2 saves and with the rerolls and mortal wounds its almost impossible for this guys to miss something.
This damage should never coast 72 pts.
Because dice can always happen, and its much harder to get average 4++ than to hit on 2 and reroll 1.
If you start putting more LOS shooting or other treats, now they have Impulsion who can safely hide SMBS units.
OK, 3 units of Eliminators (216pts) shooting at a warlock jetseer guided by their sgt. Only 6 shots (sgt can't shoot), hit on 2's, wound on 2s, save on 4+ is still only 2.08 wounds on average. A warlock jetseer has 3 wounds. so again, my maths is fine, you are over reacting.
I told you your math is wrong.
9 shoots(using the sergeant to shoot) 7.5 hits with BS2, wound on 3 reroll 1 to wound, 5.833 wounds, damage 2.917 and that is without someone giving them reroll on hit or just having salamander successor trait.
So you're conveniently putting a Lt close by all 3 units for reroll wounds of 1? So 300pts barely killed (still less than 3 wounds) a 67pt warlock....good job!!! Lol.
bullyboy wrote: I did the math for you guys. 9 eliminators does not kill a warlock on jetbike Turn 1. Therfore you have 1 turn to utilize Reapers and Nightspinners to take out the snipers. The sky is not falling.
I think you have to do the math again. With Sergent they kill warlock on bike without any problems.
3x Spinners kills max 3 eliminators per turn(because -1 to hit cover) and that is with the most anti marine combo expert crafters+ masterful shoots.
Masterful shoots remove bonus to save and not the -1 to hit. Without this it`s even worst 1-2 models, with autarch you can get a 1 extra model.
I watched games where for 1 turn 9 eliminators killed Shadowseer, for 2 turn 2 units killed Calgar.
I lost Farseer from 1 unit for 1 turn, because i failed 2 saves and with the rerolls and mortal wounds its almost impossible for this guys to miss something.
This damage should never coast 72 pts.
Because dice can always happen, and its much harder to get average 4++ than to hit on 2 and reroll 1.
If you start putting more LOS shooting or other treats, now they have Impulsion who can safely hide SMBS units.
OK, 3 units of Eliminators (216pts) shooting at a warlock jetseer guided by their sgt. Only 6 shots (sgt can't shoot), hit on 2's, wound on 2s, save on 4+ is still only 2.08 wounds on average. A warlock jetseer has 3 wounds. so again, my maths is fine, you are over reacting.
I told you your math is wrong.
9 shoots(using the sergeant to shoot) 7.5 hits with BS2, wound on 3 reroll 1 to wound, 5.833 wounds, damage 2.917 and that is without someone giving them reroll on hit or just having salamander successor trait.
So you're conveniently putting a Lt close by all 3 units for reroll wounds of 1? So 300pts barely killed (still less than 3 wounds) a 67pt warlock....good job!!! Lol.
You can kill single unit for 1-2 turns and get alot of value. If i can remove the captain for 1-2 turns, do you think i`ll not be happy to spend 300 pts doing that ?
Units that are not suicide to do that and have to be removed or do even more damage ?
Lol with line of sight the numbers are even better. I just calculated to you that LOS don`t save squashy characters, something that can work vs Vindicare.
Also single Vindicare can fail quite easily on character with more wounds, that he wounds on 3+. Vindicare is hardly effective vs T5 or higher characters, Eliminators can get extra pluses to wound, can get rerolls to hit and wound, so they don`t suffer from such issues.
Eliminators are just more effective than Vindicare for less points, more reliable, easier to use. They are just too good.
Vindicare wound any infantry on 2+, and Eldar bikes on 3+. Sure, they're less effective against bikes, I'll give you that. But most HQ are Infantry.
Just do the math for a vindicare. Is it really less than 1damage on average? Because that's what's needed here to support your argument, isn't it?
Don't forget to factor in headshot and D6 damage on wounds of 6+, and let's assume there's no negative tohit modifier (which he'd ignore) and no cover (which he'd ignore, too) or how much harder it is to get rid of him, compared to Eliminators.
bullyboy wrote: I did the math for you guys. 9 eliminators does not kill a warlock on jetbike Turn 1. Therfore you have 1 turn to utilize Reapers and Nightspinners to take out the snipers. The sky is not falling.
I think you have to do the math again. With Sergent they kill warlock on bike without any problems.
3x Spinners kills max 3 eliminators per turn(because -1 to hit cover) and that is with the most anti marine combo expert crafters+ masterful shoots.
Masterful shoots remove bonus to save and not the -1 to hit. Without this it`s even worst 1-2 models, with autarch you can get a 1 extra model.
I watched games where for 1 turn 9 eliminators killed Shadowseer, for 2 turn 2 units killed Calgar.
I lost Farseer from 1 unit for 1 turn, because i failed 2 saves and with the rerolls and mortal wounds its almost impossible for this guys to miss something.
This damage should never coast 72 pts.
Because dice can always happen, and its much harder to get average 4++ than to hit on 2 and reroll 1.
If you start putting more LOS shooting or other treats, now they have Impulsion who can safely hide SMBS units.
OK, 3 units of Eliminators (216pts) shooting at a warlock jetseer guided by their sgt. Only 6 shots (sgt can't shoot), hit on 2's, wound on 2s, save on 4+ is still only 2.08 wounds on average. A warlock jetseer has 3 wounds. so again, my maths is fine, you are over reacting.
I told you your math is wrong.
9 shoots(using the sergeant to shoot) 7.5 hits with BS2, wound on 3 reroll 1 to wound, 5.833 wounds, damage 2.917 and that is without someone giving them reroll on hit or just having salamander successor trait.
So you're conveniently putting a Lt close by all 3 units for reroll wounds of 1? So 300pts barely killed (still less than 3 wounds) a 67pt warlock....good job!!! Lol.
You can kill single unit for 1-2 turns and get alot of value. If i can remove the captain for 1-2 turns, do you think i`ll not be happy to spend 300 pts doing that ?
Units that are not suicide to do that and have to be removed or do even more damage ?
You are so over reacting, it's not even funny. If you need to protect your characters, invest in weapons to kill Eliminators. It's kinda how this game works, you know?
Marin wrote: You can kill single unit for 1-2 turns and get alot of value. If i can remove the captain for 1-2 turns, do you think i`ll not be happy to spend 300 pts doing that ?
Units that are not suicide to do that and have to be removed or do even more damage ?
You are so over reacting, it's not even funny. If you need to protect your characters, invest in weapons to kill Eliminators. It's kinda how this game works, you know?
But it's totally unreasonable for a marine player that invested 300 points in snipers and an Lt to almost reliably kill one of the weakest characters in the game, resilience wise. Just like 2 quadlas predators shouldn't be able to reliably kill one trukk. /s
Is there anything keeping you from taking more than one Warlock so that you don't autolose as soon as one dies other than not wanting to sacrifice points on redundancy in other matchups?
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Is there anything keeping you from taking more than one Warlock so that you don't autolose as soon as one dies other than not wanting to sacrifice points on redundancy in other matchups?
You could take another warlock with the same power as redundancy but then if one doesn't die you have wasted 55-67 points on a model that has a 9" mini-smite.
For those saying "300pts to kill a 67pt character wah", the army functions on psychic buffs to help the overall army. If that is removed in a turn of shooting in the early game it's a massive swing on top of the RnG of the Psychic phase anyway. Mathhammer is great but when something is able to cripple an army so easily that's poor game design.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Is there anything keeping you from taking more than one Warlock so that you don't autolose as soon as one dies other than not wanting to sacrifice points on redundancy in other matchups?
You could take another warlock with the same power as redundancy but then if one doesn't die you have wasted 55-67 points on a model that has a 9" mini-smite.
For those saying "300pts to kill a 67pt character wah", the army functions on psychic buffs to help the overall army. If that is removed in a turn of shooting in the early game it's a massive swing on top of the RnG of the Psychic phase anyway. Mathhammer is great but when something is able to cripple an army so easily that's poor game design.
Noone is arguing that it isn't, but the issue isnt Eliminators. It's the Eldar design. Because Vindicare will feth them up even more,so do other snipers. Snipers feth up characters, that's their role. If they're not allowed to kill something THAT weak in one turn, they won't be able to do anything worthwhile. If you invest that many points in a role, it has to be able to fulfill that role.
To be fair in the end. Casting protect and quicken on a unit 10 inches from my psyker and I can't deny cause your warlock is 25"s from ym psyker it is broken too. So I really don't mind it having a counter of some kind.
You guys aren't even mentioning the most busted combo of putting an ancient banner with your eliminators and sniping characters in your opponents turn . I did this once in a friendly game a dude almost rage quit...Decided to sit them down for a bit. The last thing I expected was for eliminators was to get buffed...twice!
Also no one is mentioning the most obvious thing...Put your psyker in a serpent - jump out - kill all eliminators. It is true that the RG super doctrine makes them pretty unfair.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Is there anything keeping you from taking more than one Warlock so that you don't autolose as soon as one dies other than not wanting to sacrifice points on redundancy in other matchups?
You could take another warlock with the same power as redundancy but then if one doesn't die you have wasted 55-67 points on a model that has a 9" mini-smite.
For those saying "300pts to kill a 67pt character wah", the army functions on psychic buffs to help the overall army. If that is removed in a turn of shooting in the early game it's a massive swing on top of the RnG of the Psychic phase anyway. Mathhammer is great but when something is able to cripple an army so easily that's poor game design.
Noone is arguing that it isn't, but the issue isnt Eliminators. It's the Eldar design. Because Vindicare will feth them up even more,so do other snipers. Snipers feth up characters, that's their role. If they're not allowed to kill something THAT weak in one turn, they won't be able to do anything worthwhile. If you invest that many points in a role, it has to be able to fulfill that role.
No it's still Eliminators, snipers should never be able to target things out of LOS. You can play around a vindicare should anyone actually run them.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Is there anything keeping you from taking more than one Warlock so that you don't autolose as soon as one dies other than not wanting to sacrifice points on redundancy in other matchups?
You could take another warlock with the same power as redundancy but then if one doesn't die you have wasted 55-67 points on a model that has a 9" mini-smite.
For those saying "300pts to kill a 67pt character wah", the army functions on psychic buffs to help the overall army. If that is removed in a turn of shooting in the early game it's a massive swing on top of the RnG of the Psychic phase anyway. Mathhammer is great but when something is able to cripple an army so easily that's poor game design.
Noone is arguing that it isn't, but the issue isnt Eliminators. It's the Eldar design. Because Vindicare will feth them up even more,so do other snipers. Snipers feth up characters, that's their role. If they're not allowed to kill something THAT weak in one turn, they won't be able to do anything worthwhile. If you invest that many points in a role, it has to be able to fulfill that role.
No it's still Eliminators, snipers should never be able to target things out of LOS. You can play around a vindicare should anyone actually run them.
You can - bring more than one.
9 Eliminators with a Lt are barely able to kill one. So you bring two. That's still HALF of what the marine paid.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Is there anything keeping you from taking more than one Warlock so that you don't autolose as soon as one dies other than not wanting to sacrifice points on redundancy in other matchups?
You could take another warlock with the same power as redundancy but then if one doesn't die you have wasted 55-67 points on a model that has a 9" mini-smite.
For those saying "300pts to kill a 67pt character wah", the army functions on psychic buffs to help the overall army. If that is removed in a turn of shooting in the early game it's a massive swing on top of the RnG of the Psychic phase anyway. Mathhammer is great but when something is able to cripple an army so easily that's poor game design.
Noone is arguing that it isn't, but the issue isnt Eliminators. It's the Eldar design. Because Vindicare will feth them up even more,so do other snipers. Snipers feth up characters, that's their role. If they're not allowed to kill something THAT weak in one turn, they won't be able to do anything worthwhile. If you invest that many points in a role, it has to be able to fulfill that role.
No it's still Eliminators, snipers should never be able to target things out of LOS. You can play around a vindicare should anyone actually run them.
To be fair - you will have trouble hiding from eliminators anyways because they infiltrate.
Eliminators really just need to lose the bonus to hit and wound so we can take them as larger groups. Them and Suppressors are opening a door to max unit size in a box for three models and we should be fighting that.
Xenomancers wrote: To be fair in the end. Casting protect and quicken on a unit 10 inches from my psyker and I can't deny cause your warlock is 25"s from ym psyker it is broken too. So I really don't mind it having a counter of some kind.
You guys aren't even mentioning the most busted combo of putting an ancient banner with your eliminators and sniping characters in your opponents turn . I did this once in a friendly game a dude almost rage quit...Decided to sit them down for a bit. The last thing I expected was for eliminators was to get buffed...twice!
Also no one is mentioning the most obvious thing...Put your psyker in a serpent - jump out - kill all eliminators. It is true that the RG super doctrine makes them pretty unfair.
Didn't you know that there's only a handful of transports worth taking?
"I don't want a solution I want to be mad" - Dakkdakka
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Eliminators really just need to lose the bonus to hit and wound so we can take them as larger groups. Them and Suppressors are opening a door to max unit size in a box for three models and we should be fighting that.
I'm not so certain. Some specialized units really deserve to be limited since force multipliers only get better when you open it up.
Xenomancers wrote: To be fair in the end. Casting protect and quicken on a unit 10 inches from my psyker and I can't deny cause your warlock is 25"s from ym psyker it is broken too. So I really don't mind it having a counter of some kind.
You guys aren't even mentioning the most busted combo of putting an ancient banner with your eliminators and sniping characters in your opponents turn . I did this once in a friendly game a dude almost rage quit...Decided to sit them down for a bit. The last thing I expected was for eliminators was to get buffed...twice!
Also no one is mentioning the most obvious thing...Put your psyker in a serpent - jump out - kill all eliminators. It is true that the RG super doctrine makes them pretty unfair.
Didn't you know that there's only a handful of transports worth taking?
"I don't want a solution I want to be mad" - Dakkdakka
I think hes got a real grievance - losing your characters can lose you the game easily and not all armies have good snipers. So that is not super fair. Each army needs to have strength and weakness though. It's shocking to see marines have any kind of strength and all the sudden they are the best at everything. (My intercessors are out assaulting harlequins for crying out loud). It really is simple though. Just include a transport in your list and bring the right tools for killing snipers. It's not like a wave serpent is easy to kill ether.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Eliminators really just need to lose the bonus to hit and wound so we can take them as larger groups. Them and Suppressors are opening a door to max unit size in a box for three models and we should be fighting that.
I'm not so certain. Some specialized units really deserve to be limited since force multipliers only get better when you open it up.
The squad size limitation is unreasonable for eliminators though being phobos...they have spells in phobos tree that would be good if you could use them on anything but 3 man squads.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Is there anything keeping you from taking more than one Warlock so that you don't autolose as soon as one dies other than not wanting to sacrifice points on redundancy in other matchups?
Yea, it`s called points, since you need something to actually use that buff and aeldar units are not cheap or good without the support.
And since Eliminators are things i`ll probably not run any warlocks since they are death in the moment they show on the map.
Can`t over invest in things just to get rid of 72 pts unit, there alot of hard hitting SM units that will just rip you apart.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Is there anything keeping you from taking more than one Warlock so that you don't autolose as soon as one dies other than not wanting to sacrifice points on redundancy in other matchups?
You could take another warlock with the same power as redundancy but then if one doesn't die you have wasted 55-67 points on a model that has a 9" mini-smite.
For those saying "300pts to kill a 67pt character wah", the army functions on psychic buffs to help the overall army. If that is removed in a turn of shooting in the early game it's a massive swing on top of the RnG of the Psychic phase anyway. Mathhammer is great but when something is able to cripple an army so easily that's poor game design.
Noone is arguing that it isn't, but the issue isnt Eliminators. It's the Eldar design. Because Vindicare will feth them up even more,so do other snipers. Snipers feth up characters, that's their role. If they're not allowed to kill something THAT weak in one turn, they won't be able to do anything worthwhile. If you invest that many points in a role, it has to be able to fulfill that role.
No it's still Eliminators, snipers should never be able to target things out of LOS. You can play around a vindicare should anyone actually run them.
You can - bring more than one.
9 Eliminators with a Lt are barely able to kill one. So you bring two. That's still HALF of what the marine paid.
I`ll gladly pay 3x points to remove that captain with the rerolls, doing it from save distance without counter play. Since that units will continio to shoot, do damage, take points they are not becoming useless when you kill 2-3 characters.
You ask for me to play premium to probably cast, 1-2 spells that are require just to play the game.
Xenomancers wrote: To be fair in the end. Casting protect and quicken on a unit 10 inches from my psyker and I can't deny cause your warlock is 25"s from ym psyker it is broken too. So I really don't mind it having a counter of some kind.
You guys aren't even mentioning the most busted combo of putting an ancient banner with your eliminators and sniping characters in your opponents turn . I did this once in a friendly game a dude almost rage quit...Decided to sit them down for a bit. The last thing I expected was for eliminators was to get buffed...twice!
Also no one is mentioning the most obvious thing...Put your psyker in a serpent - jump out - kill all eliminators. It is true that the RG super doctrine makes them pretty unfair.
Didn't you know that there's only a handful of transports worth taking?
"I don't want a solution I want to be mad" - Dakkdakka
I think hes got a real grievance - losing your characters can lose you the game easily and not all armies have good snipers. So that is not super fair. Each army needs to have strength and weakness though. It's shocking to see marines have any kind of strength and all the sudden they are the best at everything. (My intercessors are out assaulting harlequins for crying out loud). It really is simple though. Just include a transport in your list and bring the right tools for killing snipers. It's not like a wave serpent is easy to kill ether.
Yeah it's true it is an actual grievance about Eldar needing plenty of support but the ways to keep them alive exist. To top it off I'd call this a local meta problem as opposed to a global meta problem. Like people have said eliminators have been in the game for a bit and going to S5 didn't matter against T3 targets
Yeah intercessors are really good. It feels like they can generally commit to to most of the fight. Melee is huge now (thank god), the +1A on the charge is something I believe everyone should have though. Let marines keep their +1A on heroic intervention and when charged. But give everyone +1A on the charge again like before
Xenomancers wrote: To be fair in the end. Casting protect and quicken on a unit 10 inches from my psyker and I can't deny cause your warlock is 25"s from ym psyker it is broken too. So I really don't mind it having a counter of some kind.
You guys aren't even mentioning the most busted combo of putting an ancient banner with your eliminators and sniping characters in your opponents turn . I did this once in a friendly game a dude almost rage quit...Decided to sit them down for a bit. The last thing I expected was for eliminators was to get buffed...twice!
Also no one is mentioning the most obvious thing...Put your psyker in a serpent - jump out - kill all eliminators. It is true that the RG super doctrine makes them pretty unfair.
Didn't you know that there's only a handful of transports worth taking?
"I don't want a solution I want to be mad" - Dakkdakka
I think hes got a real grievance - losing your characters can lose you the game easily and not all armies have good snipers. So that is not super fair. Each army needs to have strength and weakness though. It's shocking to see marines have any kind of strength and all the sudden they are the best at everything. (My intercessors are out assaulting harlequins for crying out loud). It really is simple though. Just include a transport in your list and bring the right tools for killing snipers. It's not like a wave serpent is easy to kill ether.
Yeah it's true it is an actual grievance about Eldar needing plenty of support but the ways to keep them alive exist. To top it off I'd call this a local meta problem as opposed to a global meta problem. Like people have said eliminators have been in the game for a bit and going to S5 didn't matter against T3 targets
Yeah intercessors are really good. It feels like they can generally commit to to most of the fight. Melee is huge now (thank god), the +1A on the charge is something I believe everyone should have though. Let marines keep their +1A on heroic intervention and when charged. But give everyone +1A on the charge again like before
Yes, +1 Attack on the charge should be an universal rule to incentivate taking risks for taking charges
Xenomancers wrote: To be fair in the end. Casting protect and quicken on a unit 10 inches from my psyker and I can't deny cause your warlock is 25"s from ym psyker it is broken too. So I really don't mind it having a counter of some kind.
You guys aren't even mentioning the most busted combo of putting an ancient banner with your eliminators and sniping characters in your opponents turn . I did this once in a friendly game a dude almost rage quit...Decided to sit them down for a bit. The last thing I expected was for eliminators was to get buffed...twice!
Also no one is mentioning the most obvious thing...Put your psyker in a serpent - jump out - kill all eliminators. It is true that the RG super doctrine makes them pretty unfair.
Didn't you know that there's only a handful of transports worth taking?
"I don't want a solution I want to be mad" - Dakkdakka
I think hes got a real grievance - losing your characters can lose you the game easily and not all armies have good snipers. So that is not super fair. Each army needs to have strength and weakness though. It's shocking to see marines have any kind of strength and all the sudden they are the best at everything. (My intercessors are out assaulting harlequins for crying out loud). It really is simple though. Just include a transport in your list and bring the right tools for killing snipers. It's not like a wave serpent is easy to kill ether.
Yeah it's true it is an actual grievance about Eldar needing plenty of support but the ways to keep them alive exist. To top it off I'd call this a local meta problem as opposed to a global meta problem. Like people have said eliminators have been in the game for a bit and going to S5 didn't matter against T3 targets
Yeah intercessors are really good. It feels like they can generally commit to to most of the fight. Melee is huge now (thank god), the +1A on the charge is something I believe everyone should have though. Let marines keep their +1A on heroic intervention and when charged. But give everyone +1A on the charge again like before
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Is there anything keeping you from taking more than one Warlock so that you don't autolose as soon as one dies other than not wanting to sacrifice points on redundancy in other matchups?
You could take another warlock with the same power as redundancy but then if one doesn't die you have wasted 55-67 points on a model that has a 9" mini-smite.
For those saying "300pts to kill a 67pt character wah", the army functions on psychic buffs to help the overall army. If that is removed in a turn of shooting in the early game it's a massive swing on top of the RnG of the Psychic phase anyway. Mathhammer is great but when something is able to cripple an army so easily that's poor game design.
Noone is arguing that it isn't, but the issue isnt Eliminators. It's the Eldar design. Because Vindicare will feth them up even more,so do other snipers. Snipers feth up characters, that's their role. If they're not allowed to kill something THAT weak in one turn, they won't be able to do anything worthwhile. If you invest that many points in a role, it has to be able to fulfill that role.
No it's still Eliminators, snipers should never be able to target things out of LOS. You can play around a vindicare should anyone actually run them.
You can - bring more than one.
9 Eliminators with a Lt are barely able to kill one. So you bring two. That's still HALF of what the marine paid.
I`ll gladly pay 3x points to remove that captain with the rerolls, doing it from save distance without counter play. Since that units will continio to shoot, do damage, take points they are not becoming useless when you kill 2-3 characters.
You ask for me to play premium to probably cast, 1-2 spells that are require just to play the game.
I'm sorry but if your army needs 1-2 spells cast each turn to not suck, then the problem is not "OMG! OP Space Marines" your problem is YOUR ARMY IS POORLY DESIGNED.
BrianDavion wrote: I'm sorry but if your army needs 1-2 spells cast each turn to not suck, then the problem is not "OMG! OP Space Marines" your problem is YOUR ARMY IS POORLY DESIGNED.
Just in case you play Daemons, CSM, TS, DG, Asuryani, Ynnari, Harlequin, Orks, GSC, Tyranids, or GK, you should all know, your armies are horribly designed and you should feel bad for making such a poor choice.
BD has a solution though, git gud, stop playing bad armies nubs.
Thanks BD, that's some insightful commentary there.
Xenomancers wrote: To be fair in the end. Casting protect and quicken on a unit 10 inches from my psyker and I can't deny cause your warlock is 25"s from ym psyker it is broken too. So I really don't mind it having a counter of some kind.
You guys aren't even mentioning the most busted combo of putting an ancient banner with your eliminators and sniping characters in your opponents turn . I did this once in a friendly game a dude almost rage quit...Decided to sit them down for a bit. The last thing I expected was for eliminators was to get buffed...twice!
Also no one is mentioning the most obvious thing...Put your psyker in a serpent - jump out - kill all eliminators. It is true that the RG super doctrine makes them pretty unfair.
Didn't you know that there's only a handful of transports worth taking?
"I don't want a solution I want to be mad" - Dakkdakka
I think hes got a real grievance - losing your characters can lose you the game easily and not all armies have good snipers. So that is not super fair. Each army needs to have strength and weakness though. It's shocking to see marines have any kind of strength and all the sudden they are the best at everything. (My intercessors are out assaulting harlequins for crying out loud). It really is simple though. Just include a transport in your list and bring the right tools for killing snipers. It's not like a wave serpent is easy to kill ether.
Yeah it's true it is an actual grievance about Eldar needing plenty of support but the ways to keep them alive exist. To top it off I'd call this a local meta problem as opposed to a global meta problem. Like people have said eliminators have been in the game for a bit and going to S5 didn't matter against T3 targets
Yeah intercessors are really good. It feels like they can generally commit to to most of the fight. Melee is huge now (thank god), the +1A on the charge is something I believe everyone should have though. Let marines keep their +1A on heroic intervention and when charged. But give everyone +1A on the charge again like before
T5 matters vs characters on bike.
Alright sure. Have you considered foot slogging to save points and get in transports, and maybe crimson hunters or other fast units to get to these guys? If it's a local meta that's your problem then adapt. If you know people are 100% going to take eliminators, plan for them.
I'm sure that the folks in the eldar tactics thread would be more helpful than myself.
BrianDavion wrote: I'm sorry but if your army needs 1-2 spells cast each turn to not suck, then the problem is not "OMG! OP Space Marines" your problem is YOUR ARMY IS POORLY DESIGNED.
Just in case you play Daemons, CSM, TS, DG, Asuryani, Ynnari, Harlequin, Orks, GSC, Tyranids, or GK, you should all know, your armies are horribly designed and you should feel bad for making such a poor choice.
BD has a solution though, git gud, stop playing bad armies nubs.
Thanks BD, that's some insightful commentary there.
Cults, Orks, Harlequins, and Death Guard are not that reliant on their psyker powers. Neither is GK, which is terrible to begin with.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Cults, Orks, Harlequins, and Death Guard are not that reliant on their psyker powers. Neither is GK, which is terrible to begin with.
Yes, and what would a Dakka board be without a little pedantry, thank you sir.
Also, I'm being mildly hypocritical since I don't think TS was well designed either, however, even with a good design, TS is going to be reliant on psychic powers.
Optimally, so would GK. Tyranids have always relied on psychic powers for certain aspects of their army, as have Chaos, Daemons, and Asuryani.
I think it's more an issue with squishy hq's being more vulnerable to snipers. Most armies are reliant on hq's as force multipliers so if they are more easily sniped it's hard to maintain your efficiency.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Cults, Orks, Harlequins, and Death Guard are not that reliant on their psyker powers. Neither is GK, which is terrible to begin with.
Yes, and what would a Dakka board be without a little pedantry, thank you sir.
Also, I'm being mildly hypocritical since I don't think TS was well designed either, however, even with a good design, TS is going to be reliant on psychic powers.
Optimally, so would GK. Tyranids have always relied on psychic powers for certain aspects of their army, as have Chaos, Daemons, and Asuryani.
This is why GK should have had Bespoke Powers (kinda like how they used to work) and then completely rework the Sanctic power table. Rubric Marines should focus on Aspiring Sorcerers buffing their squad in one of three ways (which I came up with rules for) instead of just being boring Smite batteries.
BrianDavion wrote: I'm sorry but if your army needs 1-2 spells cast each turn to not suck, then the problem is not "OMG! OP Space Marines" your problem is YOUR ARMY IS POORLY DESIGNED.
Just in case you play Daemons, CSM, TS, DG, Asuryani, Ynnari, Harlequin, Orks, GSC, Tyranids, or GK, you should all know, your armies are horribly designed and you should feel bad for making such a poor choice.
BD has a solution though, git gud, stop playing bad armies nubs.
Thanks BD, that's some insightful commentary there.
I'm not saying "git good" I'm saying "if an army is so utterly dependant on psykic characters casting 1 or two spells each turn, then the army is proably poorly designed. (or specificly intended to have the weakness)
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Cults, Orks, Harlequins, and Death Guard are not that reliant on their psyker powers. Neither is GK, which is terrible to begin with.
Yes, and what would a Dakka board be without a little pedantry, thank you sir.
Also, I'm being mildly hypocritical since I don't think TS was well designed either, however, even with a good design, TS is going to be reliant on psychic powers.
Optimally, so would GK. Tyranids have always relied on psychic powers for certain aspects of their army, as have Chaos, Daemons, and Asuryani.
in fairness I was responding to someone who was refering to eldar psyker characters. GK and TS have "psyker squads"
and I stand by my stance, if your entire army is incapable of functioning without a specific HQ or character present, then your army is poorly designed. losing effectiveness? sure an army should lsoe effectiveness if you lose a HQ but if your army is dependant on your taking a 2-3 wound character... the proablem isn't with another codex.
9 shoots(using the sergeant to shoot) 7.5 hits with BS2, wound on 3 reroll 1 to wound, 5.833 wounds, damage 2.917 and that is without someone giving them reroll on hit or just having salamander successor trait.
Are you telling me that 216 points worth of units have an on average chance of killing a 67 point unit?
Are you telling me that you dont want to build redundancy into your list like the marine player bringing 3 units of eliminators?
Remember that Marine Vs Marine is also a common match up these days so its not like the Marine player gets off scott free. He also has to worry about his supporting characters.
To be fair - you will have trouble hiding from eliminators anyways because they infiltrate.
And if they infiltrate forward you should have an easier time getting to them, to kill them or wrap them. They die in close combat like most other marines, unless they have the overwatch move sergeant but that cuts down shots to 2.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Xenomancers wrote: The squad size limitation is unreasonable for eliminators though being phobos...they have spells in phobos tree that would be good if you could use them on anything but 3 man squads.
We have people crying about Eliminators being broken and you want them to be made even stronger? Have some sensitivity man.
Eliminators are good but they are far from broken, squad size sees to that.
I have zero sympathy for Eldar players in this area (and this is coming from someone building Ravenguard and who plays Eldar regularly). You are not completely dependent upon warlock buffs, and for the most part, many people don't take them because they're overcosted. (at least the bike version is more reasonable). You get the same psychic powers with Hemlocks and Spiritseers. You have excellent counter battery options in Tempest Launchers, hemlocks, Night Spinners, etc. It really isn't an issue...literally at all. A Ravenguard sniper unit gets deadlier in Turn 2, certainly not in Turn 1. This gives you a chance to do something first.
bullyboy wrote: Eliminators are good but they are far from broken, squad size sees to that.
I have zero sympathy for Eldar players in this area (and this is coming from someone building Ravenguard and who plays Eldar regularly). You are not completely dependent upon warlock buffs, and for the most part, many people don't take them because they're overcosted. (at least the bike version is more reasonable). You get the same psychic powers with Hemlocks and Spiritseers. You have excellent counter battery options in Tempest Launchers, hemlocks, Night Spinners, etc. It really isn't an issue...literally at all. A Ravenguard sniper unit gets deadlier in Turn 2, certainly not in Turn 1. This gives you a chance to do something first.
honestly the complaints about this I swear boil down to "how dare marines have counters for my tricks! they're supposed to sit there and take it!"
honestly the complaints about this I swear boil down to "how dare marines have counters for my tricks! they're supposed to sit there and take it!"
Ultimately this is the forum screaming into the void. People playing with adjust and learn. GW will make the requisite tweaks.
The more armies that have various tools the more variety we'll see in lists. I started opposing nerfs to IS back when the Assassins Index / GSC popped up, because it would force IG to get bodyguards or the IS would suffer from lack of command. When's the last time we've seen someone complain about IS -- even before marines popped out?
honestly the complaints about this I swear boil down to "how dare marines have counters for my tricks! they're supposed to sit there and take it!"
Ultimately this is the forum screaming into the void. People playing with adjust and learn. GW will make the requisite tweaks.
The more armies that have various tools the more variety we'll see in lists. I started opposing nerfs to IS back when the Assassins Index / GSC popped up, because it would force IG to get bodyguards or the IS would suffer from lack of command. When's the last time we've seen someone complain about IS -- even before marines popped out?
sorry IS?
and yeah I agree, folks tend to scream "NERF IT" too fast, sometimes something really is OP sure, but just as often there is counters aplenty for what they're complaining about and they just don't want to have to adjust/adapt their list/tactics.
and yeah I agree, folks tend to scream "NERF IT" too fast, sometimes something really is OP sure, but just as often there is counters aplenty for what they're complaining about and they just don't want to have to adjust/adapt their list/tactics.
The new marines are throwing a massive wrench in the meta works currently, so I understand some initial responses. But it's still not as bad as some are crying, especially issues such as this. I played a 2 vs 1 game last weekend (Allies of Convenience) where I had 1000pts of wraithguard (3xWG, 2 WL, SS, BS) in the open while my drukhari partner hid. The UM player seized and basically unloaded his entire force at me at close range. I survived (I lost 2 units of WG and a few wounds on a WL), and my remaining units, in conjunction with the Drukhari put the hurt on the UM player. We ended up losing, but it was close. I was impressed how resilient my unbuffed (no psychic phase) wraith constructs were in the face of this enormous firepower.
I love the new marines.....they truly feel dangerous, as they should. They've been the laughing stock of 8th for the most part (with a few exceptions), but not anymore. There are some current armies that don't have much of answer at the moment (hey, I also play Dark Angels) and I feel for those players. Eldar don't sit in that camp. With the new Phoenix Rising, while not overly powerful by itself, it has opened up the toolbox to some units to be very effective. People are going to have to plan for marines right now, no doubt...but I think it will balance out a little more in a month or two.
and yeah I agree, folks tend to scream "NERF IT" too fast, sometimes something really is OP sure, but just as often there is counters aplenty for what they're complaining about and they just don't want to have to adjust/adapt their list/tactics.
Infantry Squads - the previous big bad.
ahh.
but yeah I think the reason people are panicing about eliminators is that so many people design their armies around overlapping buffs/strats etc and eliminators can really put a screw onto that, but once people adapt to the idea that the unit exists it'll be a non issue. especially as it's not like eliminators can't be dealt with, in the end it's a 3 mode 2 wound 3+ armor save unit
but yeah I think the reason people are panicing about eliminators is that so many people design their armies around overlapping buffs/strats etc and eliminators can really put a screw onto that, but once people adapt to the idea that the unit exists it'll be a non issue. especially as it's not like eliminators can't be dealt with, in the end it's a 3 mode 2 wound 3+ armor save unit
There's some valid gripe to them since RG ones will be +2 to saves and -1 to be hit. Some armies lack tools to take them on, but I'm ok hoping into rhinos for the moment.
BrianDavion wrote: I'm sorry but if your army needs 1-2 spells cast each turn to not suck, then the problem is not "OMG! OP Space Marines" your problem is YOUR ARMY IS POORLY DESIGNED.
Just in case you play Daemons, CSM, TS, DG, Asuryani, Ynnari, Harlequin, Orks, GSC, Tyranids, or GK, you should all know, your armies are horribly designed and you should feel bad for making such a poor choice.
BD has a solution though, git gud, stop playing bad armies nubs.
Thanks BD, that's some insightful commentary there.
Wow, that's a strawman if I've ever seen one, and an angry one at that.
Army design isn't the responsibility of the players. What's the thought process that goes from reading "gw botched the army design of eg Eldar, so that is what needs to be fixed" to this angry rant? Its not any players fault, and BD didn't claim otherwise. All he (and others) are saying is that if an army is so very dependant on a single weak character, that is the issue - not that there is one (among many others) unit that, if taken three times, can kill that unit somewhat reliably.
Most of these arguments were made when the new assassin rules came out. Every time a good sniper unit enters the meta people are made painfully aware just how awful the alternatives for keeping characters safe are. Transports are usually overcosted, break/disable abilities like litanies, and are usually light vehicles in a meta where people spam light ap/high ROF weapons. Some characters flat out can't take transports for a variety of reasons. Bodyguards are either too well equipped to be used as ablative wounds or stripped down so they are dead weight if you don't need the wounds. That's also assuming the army even has access to bodyguards. Hiding out of LOS can work if the terrain permits, but that's another issue altogether. Snipers are working as intended, their answers are not.
All of this is just a reversal of the "smash captains" bs we saw a year or so ago.
It's all whining about how "my army is now crap because of a rule change", and "My army NEEDS this specific unit to function." It's all BS.
Adapt and conquer. I'm not saying "Git Gud". I'm saying take a hard look at how you have been playing and make the changes you need to. Just like the "smash captain" armies had to.
but yeah I think the reason people are panicing about eliminators is that so many people design their armies around overlapping buffs/strats etc and eliminators can really put a screw onto that, but once people adapt to the idea that the unit exists it'll be a non issue. especially as it's not like eliminators can't be dealt with, in the end it's a 3 mode 2 wound 3+ armor save unit
There's some valid gripe to them since RG ones will be +2 to saves and -1 to be hit. Some armies lack tools to take them on, but I'm ok hoping into rhinos for the moment.
I am not sure its a real gripe though. You do not deal efficiently with Eliminators by shooting them period. Even standard Eliminators are tough to remove and they usually will be deployed in cover. Certainly some armies will struggle more than others. Good luck to guard players trying to remove them!
but yeah I think the reason people are panicing about eliminators is that so many people design their armies around overlapping buffs/strats etc and eliminators can really put a screw onto that, but once people adapt to the idea that the unit exists it'll be a non issue. especially as it's not like eliminators can't be dealt with, in the end it's a 3 mode 2 wound 3+ armor save unit
There's some valid gripe to them since RG ones will be +2 to saves and -1 to be hit. Some armies lack tools to take them on, but I'm ok hoping into rhinos for the moment.
I am not sure its a real gripe though. You do not deal efficiently with Eliminators by shooting them period. Even standard Eliminators are tough to remove and they usually will be deployed in cover. Certainly some armies will struggle more than others. Good luck to guard players trying to remove them!
A basalisk isn't many more points but would proably be a pretty effective way to taking out eliminators.
Yup guard players need to take basilisks over wyverns due to the marine match up. But a basilisk would likely be aiming at higher priority targets than eliminators. The fact that guard has to use their prized artillery to remove infantry snipers is a real dilemma
Smirrors wrote: Yup guard players need to take basilisks over wyverns due to the marine match up. But a basilisk would likely be aiming at higher priority targets than eliminators. The fact that guard has to use their prized artillery to remove infantry snipers is a real dilemma
I feel it makes sense that you would use artillery to clear out entrenched infantry you cant easily reach any other way.
Most eliminators will not have - 1 to hit since RG succesor is stronger than RG. And the marine player is using his expensive(compared to target) snipers for killing 30-50 wounds characters. And if the eliminators can get to fire their good ammunition they are easy targets for any plasma tank commander.
At least guard characters dont give out that amazing or important buffs most of the time and are very cheap and replacable. So losing one or two is annoying but not game deciding since doubling the effectivess of a 40pt unit isnt that powerful compared to casting da jump on 30 boys or buffing 30 plaguebearers. Or removing the FNP/++ save bubble some characters bring.
Smirrors wrote: Yup guard players need to take basilisks over wyverns due to the marine match up. But a basilisk would likely be aiming at higher priority targets than eliminators. The fact that guard has to use their prized artillery to remove infantry snipers is a real dilemma
I feel it makes sense that you would use artillery to clear out entrenched infantry you cant easily reach any other way.
Most eliminators will not have - 1 to hit since RG succesor is stronger than RG. And the marine player is using his expensive(compared to target) snipers for killing 30-50 wounds characters. And if the eliminators can get to fire their good ammunition they are easy targets for any plasma tank commander.
At least guard characters dont give out that amazing or important buffs most of the time and are very cheap and replacable. So losing one or two is annoying but not game deciding since doubling the effectivess of a 40pt unit isnt that powerful compared to casting da jump on 30 boys or buffing 30 plaguebearers. Or removing the FNP/++ save bubble some characters bring.
right, the only chaeracters who are going to be one shotted by eliminators are going to be 40 point characters, and if a character is 40 points you can proably take spares.
Smirrors wrote: Yup guard players need to take basilisks over wyverns due to the marine match up. But a basilisk would likely be aiming at higher priority targets than eliminators. The fact that guard has to use their prized artillery to remove infantry snipers is a real dilemma
I feel it makes sense that you would use artillery to clear out entrenched infantry you cant easily reach any other way.
Most eliminators will not have - 1 to hit since RG succesor is stronger than RG. And the marine player is using his expensive(compared to target) snipers for killing 30-50 wounds characters. And if the eliminators can get to fire their good ammunition they are easy targets for any plasma tank commander.
At least guard characters dont give out that amazing or important buffs most of the time and are very cheap and replacable. So losing one or two is annoying but not game deciding since doubling the effectivess of a 40pt unit isnt that powerful compared to casting da jump on 30 boys or buffing 30 plaguebearers. Or removing the FNP/++ save bubble some characters bring.
right, the only chaeracters who are going to be one shotted by eliminators are going to be 40 point characters, and if a character is 40 points you can proably take spares.
You can't bring spare CCs as guard since you're bringing 3,the maximum for regular game sizes, anyway - which isnt enough for all the things you want to order around. But that's an issue with the guard, not with snipers, as well.
You can always bring the elite commanders if you really need more orders or straken/kreed or use some warlord traits or relics as well. Not like you really need to give an order every turn. You improve 33-40pts units mostly while paying 30pts for a character. Snipers could kill the unit you are buffing instead of the supporting characters for almost the same effect, especially eliminators. For each CC they snipe out of los they could have killed an infantry squad in sight. For vindicares with only 1 shot you really need to focus on the commanders or it is a wasted model but not for sniper squads.
Karol wrote: Then why not just drop a bit unit of centurions turn 2, alongside a chaplain, get them buffed by bolter drill, buffed by the chaplain, buffed from the RG trait and the doctrine, and then just unload 15 hits on avarge in to any character 12" away from the centurions?
Chaplains can't buff when they arrive from reserves. They're actually kinda tricky to line up right.
Smirrors wrote: Yup guard players need to take basilisks over wyverns due to the marine match up. But a basilisk would likely be aiming at higher priority targets than eliminators. The fact that guard has to use their prized artillery to remove infantry snipers is a real dilemma
Most eliminators will not have - 1 to hit since RG succesor is stronger than RG. And the marine player is using his expensive(compared to target) snipers for killing 30-50 wounds characters. And if the eliminators can get to fire their good ammunition they are easy targets for any plasma tank commander.
.
Just out of curiosity, what RG successor traits do you think are better than the original?
Smirrors wrote: Yup guard players need to take basilisks over wyverns due to the marine match up. But a basilisk would likely be aiming at higher priority targets than eliminators. The fact that guard has to use their prized artillery to remove infantry snipers is a real dilemma
Most eliminators will not have - 1 to hit since RG succesor is stronger than RG. And the marine player is using his expensive(compared to target) snipers for killing 30-50 wounds characters. And if the eliminators can get to fire their good ammunition they are easy targets for any plasma tank commander.
.
Just out of curiosity, what RG successor traits do you think are better than the original?
Almost all of them? If you take stealthy you still get the cover bonus and can take extra charge or rerolls or whatever suits you better. Tactics that work in all matchups. The - to hit doesnt work on vehicles or against melee armies. Also not that useful for your close combat units that due to RG stratagems, traits and powers will be too close to benefit from the - to hit or cover bonus. And you also lose the best part of stealthy that is not being reliable on the table terrain to get cover save but if you want the other part(-to hit) you lose the first(cover everywhere).
The RGCT isnt weak but its only 1 CT when most get 2. If you dont want the cheap CM in Shrike and 2 relics there isnt a good reason to stay pure RG. Which you can see in a lot of lists. They go RG successor and take Stealthy + something else that will always be good in all matchups.
You kinda need to play a infantry gunline to really benefit from RG chapter tactic. But half your stuff is about getting close without enemy being able to shoot you first. If it worked on vehicles and RG was about slowly walking up the board and had a few more abilities to buff infantry then it would be nice. But if you have scouts, invictors, assault centurions, vanguard veterans and a few characters ready to charge turn 1 your CT doesnt do much at all.
Not worth losing Master Artisan for making your eliminators and intercessors in the back harder to hit. The opponent wont even have time to think about those units when half your army is already in his face
Smirrors wrote: Yup guard players need to take basilisks over wyverns due to the marine match up. But a basilisk would likely be aiming at higher priority targets than eliminators. The fact that guard has to use their prized artillery to remove infantry snipers is a real dilemma
Most eliminators will not have - 1 to hit since RG succesor is stronger than RG. And the marine player is using his expensive(compared to target) snipers for killing 30-50 wounds characters. And if the eliminators can get to fire their good ammunition they are easy targets for any plasma tank commander.
.
Just out of curiosity, what RG successor traits do you think are better than the original?
Almost all of them? If you take stealthy you still get the cover bonus and can take extra charge or rerolls or whatever suits you better. Tactics that work in all matchups. The - to hit doesnt work on vehicles or against melee armies. Also not that useful for your close combat units that due to RG stratagems, traits and powers will be too close to benefit from the - to hit or cover bonus. And you also lose the best part of stealthy that is not being reliable on the table terrain to get cover save but if you want the other part(-to hit) you lose the first(cover everywhere).
The RGCT isnt weak but its only 1 CT when most get 2. If you dont want the cheap CM in Shrike and 2 relics there isnt a good reason to stay pure RG. Which you can see in a lot of lists. They go RG successor and take Stealthy + something else that will always be good in all matchups.
You kinda need to play a infantry gunline to really benefit from RG chapter tactic. But half your stuff is about getting close without enemy being able to shoot you first. If it worked on vehicles and RG was about slowly walking up the board and had a few more abilities to buff infantry then it would be nice. But if you have scouts, invictors, assault centurions, vanguard veterans and a few characters ready to charge turn 1 your CT doesnt do much at all.
Not worth losing Master Artisan for making your eliminators and intercessors in the back harder to hit. The opponent wont even have time to think about those units when half your army is already in his face
That's the thing though, if I wanted vehicles, there are so many better options than successor Ravenguard. I'm using the minus to hit in my plans for board control, in conjunction with smoke grenades etc.
Smirrors wrote: Yup guard players need to take basilisks over wyverns due to the marine match up. But a basilisk would likely be aiming at higher priority targets than eliminators. The fact that guard has to use their prized artillery to remove infantry snipers is a real dilemma
Most eliminators will not have - 1 to hit since RG succesor is stronger than RG. And the marine player is using his expensive(compared to target) snipers for killing 30-50 wounds characters. And if the eliminators can get to fire their good ammunition they are easy targets for any plasma tank commander.
.
Just out of curiosity, what RG successor traits do you think are better than the original?
I'm actually 6-0 as of right now using Stealthy + Long Range Marksmen.
Smirrors wrote: Yup guard players need to take basilisks over wyverns due to the marine match up. But a basilisk would likely be aiming at higher priority targets than eliminators. The fact that guard has to use their prized artillery to remove infantry snipers is a real dilemma
Most eliminators will not have - 1 to hit since RG succesor is stronger than RG. And the marine player is using his expensive(compared to target) snipers for killing 30-50 wounds characters. And if the eliminators can get to fire their good ammunition they are easy targets for any plasma tank commander.
.
Just out of curiosity, what RG successor traits do you think are better than the original?
Almost all of them? If you take stealthy you still get the cover bonus and can take extra charge or rerolls or whatever suits you better. Tactics that work in all matchups. The - to hit doesnt work on vehicles or against melee armies. Also not that useful for your close combat units that due to RG stratagems, traits and powers will be too close to benefit from the - to hit or cover bonus. And you also lose the best part of stealthy that is not being reliable on the table terrain to get cover save but if you want the other part(-to hit) you lose the first(cover everywhere).
The RGCT isnt weak but its only 1 CT when most get 2. If you dont want the cheap CM in Shrike and 2 relics there isnt a good reason to stay pure RG. Which you can see in a lot of lists. They go RG successor and take Stealthy + something else that will always be good in all matchups.
You kinda need to play a infantry gunline to really benefit from RG chapter tactic. But half your stuff is about getting close without enemy being able to shoot you first. If it worked on vehicles and RG was about slowly walking up the board and had a few more abilities to buff infantry then it would be nice. But if you have scouts, invictors, assault centurions, vanguard veterans and a few characters ready to charge turn 1 your CT doesnt do much at all.
Not worth losing Master Artisan for making your eliminators and intercessors in the back harder to hit. The opponent wont even have time to think about those units when half your army is already in his face
That's the thing though, if I wanted vehicles, there are so many better options than successor Ravenguard. I'm using the minus to hit in my plans for board control, in conjunction with smoke grenades etc.
Invictors and TFC are vehicles that are good in all lists and benefit from Master Artisan quite well and work in RG. A pure gunline with mostly vehicles shouldnt go for RG that I agree on but there are still vehicles to be seen and used with RG and they benefit way more as successor than as RG.
Smirrors wrote: Yup guard players need to take basilisks over wyverns due to the marine match up. But a basilisk would likely be aiming at higher priority targets than eliminators. The fact that guard has to use their prized artillery to remove infantry snipers is a real dilemma
Most eliminators will not have - 1 to hit since RG succesor is stronger than RG. And the marine player is using his expensive(compared to target) snipers for killing 30-50 wounds characters. And if the eliminators can get to fire their good ammunition they are easy targets for any plasma tank commander.
.
Just out of curiosity, what RG successor traits do you think are better than the original?
Almost all of them? If you take stealthy you still get the cover bonus and can take extra charge or rerolls or whatever suits you better. Tactics that work in all matchups. The - to hit doesnt work on vehicles or against melee armies. Also not that useful for your close combat units that due to RG stratagems, traits and powers will be too close to benefit from the - to hit or cover bonus. And you also lose the best part of stealthy that is not being reliable on the table terrain to get cover save but if you want the other part(-to hit) you lose the first(cover everywhere).
The RGCT isnt weak but its only 1 CT when most get 2. If you dont want the cheap CM in Shrike and 2 relics there isnt a good reason to stay pure RG. Which you can see in a lot of lists. They go RG successor and take Stealthy + something else that will always be good in all matchups.
You kinda need to play a infantry gunline to really benefit from RG chapter tactic. But half your stuff is about getting close without enemy being able to shoot you first. If it worked on vehicles and RG was about slowly walking up the board and had a few more abilities to buff infantry then it would be nice. But if you have scouts, invictors, assault centurions, vanguard veterans and a few characters ready to charge turn 1 your CT doesnt do much at all.
Not worth losing Master Artisan for making your eliminators and intercessors in the back harder to hit. The opponent wont even have time to think about those units when half your army is already in his face
That's the thing though, if I wanted vehicles, there are so many better options than successor Ravenguard. I'm using the minus to hit in my plans for board control, in conjunction with smoke grenades etc.
Successor Raven Guard vehicles getting the bonus to kill characters is actually super solid. Imagine moving then hitting regularly and wounding a Knight character on a 4+ with your Asscan Razorback. It isn't terribly efficient but it does help put those last few wounds to knock it down.
. I did this once in a friendly game a dude almost rage quit...Decided to sit them down for a bit. The last thing I expected was for eliminators was to get buffed...twice!
