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.

 Khaine wrote:
Its an error, no doubt about it. The power level comparison with other Eldar units makes absolutely no sense - Banshees cost more power, but are somehow cheaper in points...

Maybe it is intentional so people buy other units for their pre existing Eldar armies?

If a barebones TAC is 13 I think that 15 ppm for Dire Avengeres (Weapon included) is fair.

But at the same time, a Sister of Silence with Bolter costs 12 ppm... but to be honest against non psyker they are literally overpriced Sisters of Battle.

I don't really see how they're overpriced. They can run and shoot at basically full effectiveness, have a near equivalent of rending on their guns, and Overwatch hitting on a 5+ is good when we have tons of melee coming up this edition.

Just to put out a quick comparison. T'au gun drones, have 2 range 18, strength 5, assault 2 guns (assault 4 in total). They have toughness 4, and a 4+ save, 8 inch flight movement (can disengage from combat and still shoot), supporting fire (overwatching for T'au units within 6" that get assaulted), and saviour protocols (can be assigned wounds from T'au empire infantry or battlesuits within 3")... All for 8 points.

They're 17ppm (that's s-e-v-e-n-t-e-e-n).

I realise that we're in a different paradigm now that ASM are back and the to-wound chart has been widened. But to justify 17ppm on a T3 4+ save model it needs to be dishing out some pretty impressive shooting damage. The bladestorm 'rending' is now far less effective than it was.

If the Avenger Catapult was assault 3 (like the old old Bladestorm) or it had -2AP as standard then we might be in the right ballpark at 17ppm.

I should reiterate that I think this is a pointless discussion as I'm almost certain it's a typo.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I don't really see how they're overpriced. They can run and shoot at basically full effectiveness, have a near equivalent of rending on their guns, and Overwatch hitting on a 5+ is good when we have tons of melee coming up this edition.

Theyre overpriced because an 18" Assault 2 gun such as the catapult isn't worth 7 points.

As a point of comparison, flamers cost 9 ppm in the SM index.

To be perfectly honest I will take them anyway because the fluff is good and I like the models but yeah the first thing that comes out at me as well was why do they cost so much when they have basically zero flexibility. I think it is a downside of the must pay for all weapons granularity of matched play and nothing more but I don't think it's necessarily an error just a little too high but I really don't think they will change it

Dire Avenger point cost (or the Avenger shuriken catapult) is most certainly a mistake.
Unless the play testers hate craftworld eldar as much as some people on this forum so we got such garbage rules. Battle focus is almost useless.

Also, why did they do this to fire prism, the prism cannon is so weak it is almost funny...

Dire Avengers should cost 10 points maximum. There are many other typos and price inconsistences within the craftworld elder index. (ref:target_1 is a guardian, target_2 is a tactical marine)

compared to a tactical marine: a DA has -1T, -1S, -1Sv, +1" & -1 bolt pistol, -1 grenade type and NO ACCESS to special or heavy weapons AND 1 expensive choice of transport.

The weapons are comparable, basic 24" range rapid fire weapons have a edge when it comes to range and shuriken catapults have an edge within close range. I believe this is balanced enough for the sake of flavor. Unless you're necron, they you can have it ALL! lol stupid necrons.

( in reality, a tactical marine should be closer to 15 points, and a grey hunter should be closer to 17 )

Edited: linked wrong chart and spelling.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galas wrote:
If a barebones TAC is 13 I think that 15 ppm for Dire Avengeres (Weapon included) is fair.

Hey Galas,

Would you mind reinforcing or demostrating that belief? A tactical marine is superior to a Dire Avenger in nearly every circumstance. A Necron Warrior is 12 points, a Fire Warrior is 8 points, an intercessor primaris is 20 for reference.

I play SM, Eldar & Nids, and I know which army will not be seeing the light of day until a codex comes out.

EDITED: CHART REMOVED SLIGHT ERROR

pointless818: In fairness you should really also compare against armored T5-7 and T8 targets. That's where the shuriken catapult really shines. Their rend rule biases their damage towards wound rolls of 6 and so they get hurt a lot less by losing the lower rolls.

That said the whole idea of comparing Dire Avengers to naked tactical marines seems really weird to me. You're arguing that marines should be closer to 15 points. I've seen other people saying that Dire Avengers are arguably more useful than naked marines so they should actually be more expensive.

But... nobody's using naked tactical marines. If Dire Avengers are merely competitive with naked tactical marines as a unit choice then nobody's going to use them either, unless the argument is that naked marines are balanced while marines with wargear options are just plain overpowered.

Right? In real life nobody's paying 13 points because they just really want a marine with a bolter. I just browsed through a bunch of people's 8th edition army lists over on the other subforum and I literally did not see a single naked tactical unit. It's just not even a slightly appealing choice. You pay for naked marines not because you think they're actually worth it in themselves but as a tax to get access to special and heavy weapons and maybe also in part to fill out Troops slots. I'll say it: marines are underpowered. Actual marines should probably be thought of as being 11 or 12 points while all of their weapon options are 5 or 10 points more expensive.

But of course Dire Avengers, as well as other Aspect Warriors, don't have this dynamic. In general their squad upgrades aren't why you're taking the squad. You're taking Dire Avengers primarily because you want what the basic Dire Avenger models can do. That's why I said earlier that, unless the Exarch is still going to basically be as good as 2 DAs for the price of 1, I'd be somewhat surprised if they were a competitive choice even at 12 ppm. It's just not enough to look at a naked marine squad and think to yourself that maybe the Dire Avenger squad at 12 ppm is a little more appealing. Of course it's more appealing! It's got to be more appealing than a unit literally nobody uses if you want anyone to use it.

pingu wrote:
Dire Avenger point cost (or the Avenger shuriken catapult) is most certainly a mistake.
Unless the play testers hate craftworld eldar as much as some people on this forum so we got such garbage rules. Battle focus is almost useless.

Also, why did they do this to fire prism, the prism cannon is so weak it is almost funny...

what makes you think the Prism is so bad? The dispersed version is excellent for killing MEQs, the focused beam is great vs T7/8 vehicles/monsters, and th Lance may seem a little weak at one shot, but even Land Raiders will get no save. Damage output is very random, but it's not a bad weapon at all. Definitely needs to get the CTM though.

As for Avengers, a little overpriced, sure, but I'll still take a unit of them. GW may drop the price of the catapult when they review the game after the first year (or if we get a Codex). I actually don't mind if Eldar are a little weaker as it will make the victories so much more satisfying. No more point and click.

 bullyboy wrote:

pingu wrote:
Dire Avenger point cost (or the Avenger shuriken catapult) is most certainly a mistake.
Unless the play testers hate craftworld eldar as much as some people on this forum so we got such garbage rules. Battle focus is almost useless.

Also, why did they do this to fire prism, the prism cannon is so weak it is almost funny...

what makes you think the Prism is so bad? The dispersed version is excellent for killing MEQs, the focused beam is great vs T7/8 vehicles/monsters, and th Lance may seem a little weak at one shot, but even Land Raiders will get no save. Damage output is very random, but it's not a bad weapon at all. Definitely needs to get the CTM though.

As for Avengers, a little overpriced, sure, but I'll still take a unit of them. GW may drop the price of the catapult when they review the game after the first year (or if we get a Codex). I actually don't mind if Eldar are a little weaker as it will make the victories so much more satisfying. No more point and click.

A lot of people aren't like you. They've gotten used to curbstomping and see it as how the game should be. Their opponents nothing more than NPCs to beat one after another. When you suddenly might lose half your battles, that can be jarring for some.
The Shuriken might me slightly overcosted, and it may even be a mistake, but the Prism looks like it's just been put in a healthy place, and if the shuriken is borked it's one unit. Not really a big deal.

Dionysodorus wrote:
pointless818: In fairness you should really also compare against armored T5-7 and T8 targets. That's where the shuriken catapult really shines. Their rend rule biases their damage towards wound rolls of 6 and so they get hurt a lot less by losing the lower rolls.

That said the whole idea of comparing Dire Avengers to naked tactical marines seems really weird to me. You're arguing that marines should be closer to 15 points. I've seen other people saying that Dire Avengers are arguably more useful than naked marines so they should actually be more expensive.

But... nobody's using naked tactical marines. If Dire Avengers are merely competitive with naked tactical marines as a unit choice then nobody's going to use them either, unless the argument is that naked marines are balanced while marines with wargear options are just plain overpowered.

I hate to be 'that guy', but "REALLY SHINES" is internet hyperbole. They are crap, just like other basic weapons. Players will need high STR and high AP to deal with mid level armored targets. Eldar players, Necrons, and Primaris marines are NOT going to be removing rhinos in bolter fire.

Marines @ 13 are OP, the problem is the rest of the dex is just as undercosted. I don't think players realize just yet that they will need more of the basic weapons to deal with the increased number of bodies that nids & orks can field. We don't have templates to deal with them any longer, and a double tapping bolter is looking pretty useful.

 bullyboy wrote:

pingu wrote:Also, why did they do this to fire prism, the prism cannon is so weak it is almost funny...

what makes you think the Prism is so bad? The dispersed version is excellent for killing MEQs, the focused beam is great vs T7/8 vehicles/monsters, and th Lance may seem a little weak at one shot, but even Land Raiders will get no save. Damage output is very random, but it's not a bad weapon at all. Definitely needs to get the CTM though.

Hmm, the Fire Prism is looking OK. Remember the grumbling when people worked out the effectiveness of the Leman Russ and Battlecannon? The Fire Prism looks similar and has a similar cost. The downside is it can only mount 1 secondary weapon while the Russ can take 3. I think with the extra bodies likely to be seen in 8th, those secondary weapons will be important.

I am think the Wave Serpent will be getting used as a gunboat again in this edition as its firepower has almost doubled and its shield is pretty good against multi-wound weapons. I have run Serpent based armies in several editions and I think they will remain strong in 8th. The question just becomes what to load them up with? Quite possibly the humble guardian once again but we shall see.

pointless818 wrote:

I hate to be 'that guy', but "REALLY SHINES" is internet hyperbole. They are crap, just like other basic weapons. Players will need high STR and high AP to deal with mid level armored targets. Eldar players, Necrons, and Primaris marines are NOT going to be removing rhinos in bolter fire.

Marines @ 13 are OP, the problem is the rest of the dex is just as undercosted. I don't think players realize just yet that they will need more of the basic weapons to deal with the increased number of bodies that nids & orks can field. We don't have templates to deal with them any longer, and a double tapping bolter is looking pretty useful.

I mean, of course one shuriken catapult is not as good as one lascannon. But you can get 10 shuriken catapults for 80 points. Also, your math is wrong. You appear to be calculating damage for the catapult assuming that 1/6 of all wounds it causes will be at AP -3. But actually it's that when you roll a 6 for your wound roll, the wound your opponent then has to allocate is resolved at AP -3. The catapult does more damage in all cases then you think it does, even against Guardsmen. Against Land Raiders you're off by a factor of 2.67. Guardians are actually very cost-effective against practically any target, though of course they have very short range so the trick is getting them there. They don't take that many points' worth of wounds off of a Rhino, but then nothing does -- Rhinos pay 7 points per T7 3+ wound. You still only need 5 shuriken catapults to match the expected effect of a BS 3+ Lascannon (though I note that in your chart you seem to have used BS 4+ for this entry).

Like I said, if you just think that everything Marines have is generally overpowered, that's fine -- maybe it's the marines that are costed appropriately and just all of their weapons that are too cheap. I haven't played too much with the new rules and I'm not in a great position to say. But I stand by the argument that there's something weird about trying to figure out an appropriate cost for a unit by comparing it to a unit that nobody uses. We can revisit this if people start taking tons of naked tactical marines to deal with hordes.

Dionysodorus wrote:

Also, your math is wrong. You appear to be calculating damage for the catapult assuming that 1/6 of all wounds it causes will be at AP -3. But actually it's that when you roll a 6 for your wound roll, the wound your opponent then has to allocate is resolved at AP -3.

You still only need 5 shuriken catapults to match the expected effect of a BS 3+ Lascannon (though I note that in your chart you seem to have used BS 4+ for this entry).

Can you show me the error in regards to the rending calculations? How would you do it in a formula? I used 1/6th of rolls to wound will be a 6. which would be accurate, afaik. If there is an error, please explain, I don't want the rest of the analysis to be off.

If a space marine BS3+, moves with a lascannon that would reduce his BS to 4+, the column you are looking at is (chance of success of 6) a BS4+ has a 3/6 chance of success.

Thanks, Dionysodorus!

pointless818 wrote:

Dionysodorus wrote:

Also, your math is wrong. You appear to be calculating damage for the catapult assuming that 1/6 of all wounds it causes will be at AP -3. But actually it's that when you roll a 6 for your wound roll, the wound your opponent then has to allocate is resolved at AP -3.

You still only need 5 shuriken catapults to match the expected effect of a BS 3+ Lascannon (though I note that in your chart you seem to have used BS 4+ for this entry).

Can you show me the error in regards to the rending calculations? How would you do it in a formula? I used 1/6th of wounding rolls will be a 6. which would be accurate, afaik. If there is an error, please explain, I don't want the rest of the analysis to be off.

If a space marine BS3+, moves with a lascannon that would reduce his BS to 4+, the column you are looking at is (chance of success of 6) a BS4+ has a 3/6 chance of success.

Thanks, Dionysodorus!

To be clear, I think what you're doing is this for a Guardian shooting at a Rhino:
2 * 2/3 * 1/3 * (5/6 * 1/3 + 1/6 * 5/6)
where this is:
shots * BS3+ * 5+ to wound * (5/6 of wounds get a 3+ save and 1/6 of wounds get a 6+ save)

when what should actually be happening is this:
2 * 2/3 * (1/6 * 1/3 + 1/6 * 5/6)
where this is:
shots * BS3+ * (on a 5 to wound there's a 3+ save, and on a 6 to wound there's a 6+ save)

It's actually half of wounds that are resolved at AP -3. "6"s will be a much greater proportion of your total wounds when you only wound on a 5 or a 6.

For a spreadsheet set up as (regular wound chance * regular save + rending chance * rending save), the rending chance is always 1/6 while the regular wound chance is the total wound chance minus 1/6. And then the two different saves you've probably already worked out.

Re: the Lascannon - There are two Lascannon entries right at the bottom of your chart. One appears to be for a BS3+ standing still and the other for BS3+ moving. But they have identical damage results against every target. It looks to me like you used BS4+ for the BS3+ (still) values.

Dionysodorus wrote:

Re: the Lascannon - There are two Lascannon entries right at the bottom of your chart. One appears to be for a BS3+ standing still and the other for BS3+ moving. But they have identical damage results against every target. It looks to me like you used BS4+ for the BS3+ (still) values.

One is for Imperial guard (still) BS4+ and one is for Space Marine (moved) BS 4+, I do believe I have the faction labeled. I will double check.

pointless818 wrote:

Dionysodorus wrote:

Re: the Lascannon - There are two Lascannon entries right at the bottom of your chart. One appears to be for a BS3+ standing still and the other for BS3+ moving. But they have identical damage results against every target. It looks to me like you used BS4+ for the BS3+ (still) values.

One is for Imperial guard (still) BS4+ and one is for Space Marine (moved) BS 4+, I do believe I have the faction labeled. I will double check.

Oh, I see. "skill success of 6" is 3/6 for both after modifiers. I was reading it like you needed a 3+ to hit normally and were modifying it with moving or standing still.

Dionysodorus wrote:

It's actually half of wounds that are resolved at AP -3. "6"s will be a much greater proportion of your total wounds when you only wound on a 5 or a 6.

Thank you, I am writing a new formula for shuriken weapons, I tried to force in a calculation specific to them but it's easier to make them their own group.

updates to follow. Thanks again.

EDITED: Correct chart posted above!!

 bullyboy wrote:

what makes you think the Prism is so bad? The dispersed version is excellent for killing MEQs, the focused beam is great vs T7/8 vehicles/monsters, and th Lance may seem a little weak at one shot, but even Land Raiders will get no save. Damage output is very random, but it's not a bad weapon at all. Definitely needs to get the CTM though.

As for Avengers, a little overpriced, sure, but I'll still take a unit of them. GW may drop the price of the catapult when they review the game after the first year (or if we get a Codex). I actually don't mind if Eldar are a little weaker as it will make the victories so much more satisfying. No more point and click.

It is bad because you need to use command points on it most of the times if you want any kind of result.
Imagine rolling 1 first turn, 3 second turn and 2 third turn of the game for shots.
This will MAYBE kill 4 basic marines over 3 turns !!! Best case scenario you will roll only 6's for shots so that will amount to around 6 - 7 dead marines over 3 turns of the game.

That damage output seems low to me. I mean it is not completely unplayable, but it isn't really good either.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Purifier wrote:

A lot of people aren't like you. They've gotten used to curbstomping and see it as how the game should be. Their opponents nothing more than NPCs to beat one after another. When you suddenly might lose half your battles, that can be jarring for some.
The Shuriken might me slightly overcosted, and it may even be a mistake, but the Prism looks like it's just been put in a healthy place, and if the shuriken is borked it's one unit. Not really a big deal.

This is exactly what I meant by "hate" in one of my previous posts. I haven't played a single game of 7th edition, all i have are older models from the eldar range.
It seems that eldar payers don't deserve to have valid criticisms and concerns for their army in this edition because they were OP in the previous.

I have no desire to play on "easy mode", (hell, I play infinity, all of 40k seems like easy mode after that ) I am just stating my dissatisfaction with what is advertised as thoroughly playtested rules.
It was claimed in GW articles that this game was playtested by outside players and tournament organizers. Because of this, I am expecting a product that reflects that.
People already think that some point costs are a mistake, or that entire subfaction is strictly better than other. For example, ynnari versus craftworld, this was stated by Frontline Gaming people.
They also stated that they believe that eldar are in bottom tier, but that is probably way too early to tell.
They shouldn't make this kind of mistakes within a ruleset this barebones and simple

It's not really barebones and simple. We have an insane amount of different units, and this is version 1.0 of the rules. The indexes aren't even a final product, they're the stop gap to let us all play the new version before codexes come about.

And it's not hate. Do you really think that when a top tier army drops to average that there won't be anyone that gets really salty about every little thing, trying to cling to their powerful units? This isn't a thing that's exclusive to eldar. It has happened every time an army bas fallen from grace.

 Purifier wrote:
Do you really think that when a top tier army drops to average that there won't be anyone that gets really salty about every little thing, trying to cling to their powerful units?

Please enlighten the rest of us how Craftworld Eldar are as good as average.

The famed playtesters and article writers have declared them not only bad, but bad on purpose.

 Purifier wrote:
It's not really barebones and simple. We have an insane amount of different units, and this is version 1.0 of the rules. The indexes aren't even a final product, they're the stop gap to let us all play the new version before codexes come about.

And it's not hate. Do you really think that when a top tier army drops to average that there won't be anyone that gets really salty about every little thing, trying to cling to their powerful units? This isn't a thing that's exclusive to eldar. It has happened every time an army bas fallen from grace.

I am not saying that people won't get too salty, of course they will, this is the internet
Your post was a reply to a comment made to my post so I assumed that you are referring to myself when you talk about "those" kind of people.
I apologize if I misunderstood you.

As for barebones and simple, to me it really seems it is. There is very little positioning that matters, only some buffs with AoE type of rules and objectives
Yes, 40k has many, many different units. They have many differently named special rules but they all amount to same. Some rerolls, added range, movement, etc.
But under such simple core rules balancing those units should be mostly matter of statistics because most of the game boils down to target priority.
I could write more about this, but this is getting off topic (apologies to the mods)
I do not want to argue with you, maybe you are right and this game is not simple, I am just not seeing it.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 Purifier wrote:
Do you really think that when a top tier army drops to average that there won't be anyone that gets really salty about every little thing, trying to cling to their powerful units?

Please enlighten the rest of us how Craftworld Eldar are as good as average.

The famed playtesters and article writers have declared them not only bad, but bad on purpose.

Really? where did you read that ?
Making something bad on purpose seems illogical and unnecessary.
Only thing I can think of that makes this plausible is that GW will only expand ynnari faction in the future.
They would have to make craftworld eldar comparatively bad so that most eldar players will buy the upcoming ynnari codex and miniatures.
Something similar happened in Age of Sigmar so this is not impossible.

pingu wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 Purifier wrote:
Do you really think that when a top tier army drops to average that there won't be anyone that gets really salty about every little thing, trying to cling to their powerful units?

Please enlighten the rest of us how Craftworld Eldar are as good as average.

The famed playtesters and article writers have declared them not only bad, but bad on purpose.

Really? where did you read that ?

You too can read that in the main 8th news thread in the News and Rumor forum in the playtesters summaries on factions.

 DarknessEternal wrote:

pingu wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 Purifier wrote:
Do you really think that when a top tier army drops to average that there won't be anyone that gets really salty about every little thing, trying to cling to their powerful units?

Please enlighten the rest of us how Craftworld Eldar are as good as average.

The famed playtesters and article writers have declared them not only bad, but bad on purpose.

Really? where did you read that ?

You too can read that in the main 8th news thread in the News and Rumor forum in the playtesters summaries on factions.

Where does it say it was intentional?

All I can find are their personal opinion on which are the best and worst factions

Dire avengers are not bad, or overcosted.

The basic model is 3 ppm more than a guardian. It has a better save (4+ vs 5+), a better ld (8 vs 7), can overwatch on a 5+.

The other big differences are: you can take dire avengers in units of 5, guardian min size is 10. Avengers get a squad leader upgrade who comes with a 4++, guardians have no squad leader upgrades. Guardians can get a heavy weapon platform.

10 guardians costs more than 5 avengers, once given wargear this changes. Let's be honest though, if you are giving the dire avengers wargear let's say 5 avengers catapults and exarch has pistol and diresword. Total cost is 89 pts. 10 guardians with starcannon platform, total cost is 94 pts.

Dire avengers and guardians fill different roles. If they didn't there would be no real choice between the two.

If you can't see the different uses, you haven't played 8th. Guardian defenders are denial units. They guard a weapon platform that does some damage and are a threat if anything comes within 18"- but only a shooting threat. They have almost no value in assault- and assault is very common in 8th.

Dire avengers are a smaller unit, but carry an exarch which can give the unit an ++ save and do some assault damage. Your not wiping out an 30 man unit of Ork boyz, but you could put some wounds reliably on something with them in assault unlike guardians. Charging and striking first with the exarch against an ongoing melee could change the outcome with dire avengers, guardians are not doing that.

Being a smaller unit you can do interesting things with them in transports which guardians cannot do. For example a wave serpent with 5 banshees and 5 dire avengers in it.

LD 8 is no joke. You need to lose 3 dire avengers in a turn before morale has a chance to affect you, guardians need to lose 2. Models slain+d6 lower than ld to pass for morale. Looking back at saves of models you are much more likely to lose 2 guardians Than 3 dire avengers.

And finally the aspect warrior keyword gives them access to synergy buffs that guardians don't have. Having asurmen near some squads of avengers gives the avengers a 4++ save, which is nothing to sneeze at. Guardians cannot get that.

So while the catapult being 7 seems high, it's because the base cost of 10 per model is probably undercosted.

blaktoof wrote:
Dire avengers are not bad, or overcosted.

The basic model is 3 ppm more than a guardian. It has a better save (4+ vs 5+), a better ld (8 vs 7), can overwatch on a 5+.

The other big differences are: you can take dire avengers in units of 5, guardian min size is 10. Avengers get a squad leader upgrade who comes with a 4++, guardians have no squad leader upgrades. Guardians can get a heavy weapon platform.

10 guardians costs more than 5 avengers, once given wargear this changes. Let's be honest though, if you are giving the dire avengers wargear let's say 5 avengers catapults and exarch has pistol and diresword. Total cost is 89 pts. 10 guardians with starcannon platform, total cost is 94 pts.

Dire avengers and guardians fill different roles. If they didn't there would be no real choice between the two.

If you can't see the different uses, you haven't played 8th. Guardian defenders are denial units. They guard a weapon platform that does some damage and are a threat if anything comes within 18"- but only a shooting threat. They have almost no value in assault- and assault is very common in 8th.

Dire avengers are a smaller unit, but carry an exarch which can give the unit an ++ save and do some assault damage. Your not wiping out an 30 man unit of Ork boyz, but you could put some wounds reliably on something with them in assault unlike guardians. Charging and striking first with the exarch against an ongoing melee could change the outcome with dire avengers, guardians are not doing that.

Being a smaller unit you can do interesting things with them in transports which guardians cannot do. For example a wave serpent with 5 banshees and 5 dire avengers in it.

LD 8 is no joke. You need to lose 3 dire avengers in a turn before morale has a chance to affect you, guardians need to lose 2. Models slain+d6 lower than ld to pass for morale. Looking back at saves of models you are much more likely to lose 2 guardians Than 3 dire avengers.

And finally the aspect warrior keyword gives them access to synergy buffs that guardians don't have. Having asurmen near some squads of avengers gives the avengers a 4++ save, which is nothing to sneeze at. Guardians cannot get that.

So while the catapult being 7 seems high, it's because the base cost of 10 per model is probably undercosted.

The problem is you can't not take an avenger shuriken catapult it's mandatory wargear so you are always 17 points a model. Also guardians don't even have to be point denial walking with a shuriken cannon is no negative modifier also your points example is wrong you pay 105 for those 5 Avengers and shield to those 94 guardians 5 Avengers costs more has half the wounds and not even half the fire power. They are far shittier than equivalent point guardians.

If gw wants the catapult to be 7 for autarchs Avengers should cost 6-7 points. Only problem is a non shooty Exarch would be a tad underocsted in a 10 man unit so just bump the point cost of the invulnerable save and it would be fixed.

These guys are 3 ppm less than a primaris marine math that out and tell me how in the he'll what a primaris marine gets over an avenger is 3points worth.

 DarknessEternal wrote:

The famed playtesters and article writers have declared them not only bad, but bad on purpose.

Did they actually say bad on purpose? Who are these folks, btw? (I genuinely don't know)