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.

Stelek wrote:The reason you don't see pathfinders is alot of people don't want to play against them. Gee, a unit that shoots all game and kills me and I can't get rid of it even if you aren't being uber and giving them fortune? Oh I'm doomed instead?

DA are crap. They just don't bring enough to the table to be viable.

My Dire Avengers have out preformed my Rangers in every games I've played so far. Love em, and plan to get more, and wish I could drop the Rangers.

I read remarks like Stelek's and it makes me think the problem might not be with the unit.

I am now seeing that 40K forums are pretty much like fantasy forums I guess it proves I am very optimistic that I thought it would be otherwise.

Aduro, I keep thinking about MORE Dire Avengers myself - but where to find the points. Pathfinders do a good job and keep people with the big scary monsters monsters and are cheaper than a unit of 10 DA with all the trimmings. I guess one needs to keep them perhaps since they do a job DA might have trouble doing - shooting change bringers and what not.

I don't think that Pathfinders aren't seen around because people don't like playing against them (if that were the case people would REALLY need to grow up.) I don't refuse to play nidzilla, or the Space Marine who crams as many assault cannons into 1000pts as possible, so why should they bitch about us using snipers?

I personally think that the extra five points for Rangers to Pathinders is a little steep. Rangers do their job well, and while Pathfinders do the same thing better, I don't see it as being all that important to be getting AP1 on 5s rather than 6s.

Pathfinders are pricey, Aspect Warriors will always be more efficient IMO.

I have said it before and I will say it again guys like T-C and stelek give us the tough love treatment. Sometimes yeah their advice may come off sounding kind of harsh but I have not found it to steer me wrong either. Doesn't mean I do everything they say and expect it to yield me an unbeatable army, but their advice often leads me to think back over things I post to look for the flaws they have pointed out that I have not seen. In the end that is the point of a forum such as this, not to make you do what everyone else says but to take armies from every angle and look for ideas you may have missed. Remember when you ask for input on a forum you are asking for their OPINION, if you dont like the opinion given then disregard it, dont get mad.... cause you asked for it. As to the original topic, the need of more troops in 5th. To that I say its gonna all depend on style. A mechanized army needing scoring units will most likely go with DA in a serpent and or jetbikes. Slogging lists will prolly see more DA and guardians advancing with an avatar then ever before. The real key isnt going to be deciding what troops to take alot of, as much as its going to be what troops do i wanna take that i can support properly with the less elite/fast/heavy slots that I will be filling to allow for more scoring troops.

Running to work, so just a quick comment-

Pheonix is right on that your anti-tank choice will depend upon the rest of your army choices. in fact, anti-vehicle fire in 4th has often been an afterthought. I like to take units to kill tanks that can also perform something else well when the vehicles are dead. Mostly, those units are anti-troop that can be retasked when vehicles prove hard to kill- like Guardian jetbikes including a Warlock with spear.

This does involve some expenditure that is not dual-purpose: The Warlock in the jetbike unit above isn't always that handy when shooting basic infantry.

However, one unit provides great anti-tank fire, AND the enhancements that allow them to do so also enhance their basic purpose: Farseers. A Farseer on a jetbike witha spear has superior mobility to use his powers (6" range fortune/guide, sniping JSJ Mind War, or corner-reaching Doom). The bike also makes him easier to hide from/evade enemy units when things get hot in one area. And the bike plus spear gives him an effective range of 24" with a BS5 S9 weapon. You're highly likely to get side-armor shots with that setup, even if you were Fortuning a gunline unit at the beginning of your turn. Mostl importantly, or just 38 points (IIRC, running to and fro right now), you make one of your mandatory HQ choices more flexible in every way. Well, except that it's harder to hide them inside foot units. but that's aminor drawback when you've got JSJ movement.

That said, they can be a real pain to convert. GS cloaks can hide poor modelling if you need to. It's very much worth it to build one to try, IMO.

Aztralwolf wrote:I have said it before and I will say it again guys like T-C and stelek give us the tough love treatment. Sometimes yeah their advice may come off sounding kind of harsh

Saying things in an internet forum that if said face to face would get you punched in the nose or at best cost you opponents isn't "tough love". It is immaturity.

but I have not found it to steer me wrong either.

If someone writes "Dire Avengers are crap" and you say their advice doesn't steer you wrong then...well goddess help you.

What have I said to you that would get me punched in the nose? At no point did I insult you personally. I said "unit X is crap" and "unit Y with Z config? The world has gone mad!" This is stuff I would say to acquaintances without hesitation.

On another note, isn't it funny that "you're saying stuff which ought to get you punched in the nose" is probably itself a statement that would get you punched in the nose IRL?

Savnock wrote:
Oh, and single-shot Guardian weapons are a waste. Use something else to shoot the big stuff, and head those Guardians for the infantry that they might actually get a shot at.

One benefit that I've found in my 4ed mixed list (that contains avatar, 2 falcons, as well as 2 guardian squads with BL), is that opponents tend to have an unreasonable fear of BLs. This means that they avoid its firing lanes and will as well often throw out relatively fruitless fire at its squad in the first 2 turns. That same guardian squad with scatter lasers or star cannons is almost always ignored, which means that the opponent's long-range fire is redirected at things I don't want him to shoot at and as well I can no longer count on him avoiding certain approaches to my deployment zone. The point differential between the BL and the SL is worth it to me for these reasons.

Of course, I'm using guardians in a static way; my feelings towards this may very well change once they have to start moving with the scoring system in 5th ed.

What I like most is that no one, and I may have missed this, until it's on paper and bound in a book with a price tag on it, I would say all this is still speculation.

I think that that is sufficiently obvious that no one else has felt the need to say it. "This speculative thread about 5th ed rumours is full of speculation! And rumours!" You don't say.

tegeus-Cromis wrote:I think that that is sufficiently obvious that no one else has felt the need to say it. "This speculative thread about 5th ed rumours is full of speculation! And rumours!" You don't say.

Indeed, but everyone is getting heated over speculation. That kinda just seems like a waste of time to me. Like Eldar Pathfinders fighting Tau Pathfinders in close-combat. Sure, its funny to watch, but why?

Because they find it useful/fun to speculate?

Why do you post on this forum?

Such speculation and heated overanalysis allows us to find and either avoid or exploit sources of brokenness, with the goal of becoming the best man-doll-players around. Or at least the most vocal ones.

randyc9999 wrote:

One benefit that I've found in my 4ed mixed list (that contains avatar, 2 falcons, as well as 2 guardian squads with BL), is that opponents tend to have an unreasonable fear of BLs. This means that they avoid its firing lanes and will as well often throw out relatively fruitless fire at its squad in the first 2 turns. That same guardian squad with scatter lasers or star cannons is almost always ignored,

Interestingly enough, I found this to be true - I played 3 games using Guardians with Bright lances and 2 with guardians with shurikens against a Marine opponent. On a side note, the most tank heavy lists he used were the two games I didn't have Bright Lances We played Take and Hold both of the non-Bright lance games - he ignored the Guardians until too late. I had to move in the open and had terrain that gave only 5+ cover near the objective...but I moved late in the game and had the most scoring units - using either 4th or rumored 5th troops only rules.

So - perhaps against some opponents having cheap troops choices that are ignored is a plus - and are only one kill point and 80-90 actual "victory points" so they are truly expendable.