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

the_scotsman wrote:

If you want 250 point farseers, then I suppose we can have 250 point farseers, because you might take it in a 4000 point game and doom your opponent's warlord titan. To me, it seems to make much more sense to holistically base the point costs of a faction around the buffs they have access to, and trim the edge case interactions with other books by removing them.

So you think it is a better idea to ruin several units if the player doesn't take buffing unit rather than just giving the appropriate point cost for these units as they are? You might as well have many faction lock in certain HQ choices then. Your playing CWE? Farseer. Your playing Black Legion? Abbadon. Space Marines (especially Ultramarines)? Guilliman. And on and and on...

I think it is far better to point these buffs/debuff units to fairly common point range band. It isn't like 40k doesn't already have fairly standardized point band of 1500-2000. Sure, those units might be more powerful in smaller point games and weaker in larger point games. You can't control every aspect/condition via points. It is the same thing Close Combat units. They are better on tables with dense, LoS blocking tables and worst of open ones. You can't really point for one and keep them good for the other.

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:

So you think it is a better idea to ruin several units if the player doesn't take buffing unit rather than just giving the appropriate point cost for these units as they are? You might as well have many faction lock in certain HQ choices then. Your playing CWE? Farseer. Your playing Black Legion? Abbadon. Space Marines (especially Ultramarines)? Guilliman. And on and and on...

I think it is far better to point these buffs/debuff units to fairly common point range band. It isn't like 40k doesn't already have fairly standardized point band of 1500-2000. Sure, those units might be more powerful in smaller point games and weaker in larger point games. You can't control every aspect/condition via points. It is the same thing Close Combat units. They are better on tables with dense, LoS blocking tables and worst of open ones. You can't really point for one and keep them good for the other.

Yep, exactly!

Farseers at 250pts? What?

Farseers at most should be 150 - 180pts. Anymore and thats just destroying the eldar entirely.

If anything Farseers need a combat buff.

And for psychic powers in general to have the nerf hammer.

 Asherian Command wrote:

If anything Farseers need a combat buff.

Hell yeah! I don't know how useful it actually would be, but I am still bitter how in the third edition they nerfed the Farseers and Warlocks from the ungodly warrior mystics that were an utter terror in the close combat to these timid wizards who hide behind their pointy-hatted troops casting buffs.

the_scotsman wrote:


A T5 4+ 5++ platform makes strength over 6 inefficient, and AP over -1 inefficient, leading to a situation where you want autocannons or equivalent rather than lascannons or equivalent to hurt them.

Ravager: 125 pts
8.46 autocannons to kill
12.88 lascannons to kill

Rough imperial equivalent Razorback with twin assault cannon: 114 points
15 autocannons to kill
7.73 lascannons to kill

Definitely not a glass cannon, but it is also OK to have different classes of vehicles existing in the game that different weapons are more effective against.

It's exactly this. Drukhari aren't particularly resilient but they're very anti meta. Since knights bully the tables people spam S8+ weapon which aren't that effective gainst T5-6. Spam S5-7 weapons and drukhari can be dealt with quite efficiently.

If I bring lootas, Smasha gunz and traktor cannons I can melt lots of drukhari units with no particular effort. SM players should do the same switching some of their plasmas and lascannons with autocannons, heavy bolters and assault cannons.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:
If you have a several weapon to choose from, but one is almost always chosen over others, that is a balancing fail completely irrespective of this Doom issue.

It's very true, that's why several drukhari weapons should be toned up, at the moment they're terrible.