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.

Northern85Star wrote:
Scrap ‘em. There should only be CWE and DE. Merge the other subfactions into these. Fewer factions = better balance. And quicker finished editions (“finished edition” = release of all codices).

Lots of other factions ought to be merged. Custodes + grey knights, inquisition + sisters, tyranid + genestealer cult, drukhari + harlequins. Rewrite lore as needed.

Only problem is people actually want more variety with their armies. Hence the different codexes.

Some units play completely different to others, grey knights do not play like custodians and vice versa, so making a codex that blends both will just make less sense. Inquisition and sisters had been in imperial agents and that didn't see much play because it was late in the edition (7th) and people dont really collect sisters armies because of the fact their 90% metal cast, which if you have ever played with metal models, is a PAIN to maintain.

Genestealer cults and tyranids play completely different, hence the different rules. One is massive swarm while the other is a uprising by the local population that is generations in the making.

Harlequins have always been their own thing, they are a faction that doesn't hold itself to any of the aeldari factions except to their god Cegorach. They do the work of their god, irrespective of what other aeldari do.

Variety made 40k get a new lease of life, taking that away for simplicity's sake will be stupid at this point. More so because those new factions that had/have a codex that actually sold very well (I can attest to custodians as i am making an army of the golden legion)

Besides, Aeldari have always had harlequins as a side faction. Been there since as long as i can remember (5th ed)

mchammadad wrote:

Besides, Aeldari have always had harlequins as a side faction. Been there since as long as i can remember (5th ed)

Depends on what you mean by "side faction." In 3rd(?) through 6th, they were just unit entries that appeared in the craftworld (and sometimes dark eldar) books. Which, I believe, is what he's suggesting. Keep the unit entries, but get rid of faction-specific rules. Not that I care for this idea.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Northern85Star wrote:
Scrap ‘em. There should only be CWE and DE. Merge the other subfactions into these. Fewer factions = better balance. And quicker finished editions (“finished edition” = release of all codices).

Lots of other factions ought to be merged. Custodes + grey knights, inquisition + sisters, tyranid + genestealer cult, drukhari + harlequins. Rewrite lore as needed.

I see where you're coming from, but I hate this idea. Variety of play styles, models, and fluff keeps things fresh in my eyes. But I'm one of those weirdos that was using homebrewed harlequin codex rules back before they had a 'dex, so... Also, why give harlies to the drukhari instead of the craftworlders? If anything, we could put them in both books again like in previous editions. Not that anyone really loved that situation, but it seems weird to arbitrarily restrict options for one faction.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I pitched a (probably overly complicated) alternative to Strength From Death a while back. No one seemed interested in commenting on it at the time:

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/746368.page

If I were to update the concept, I'd probably pitch it as something like:

*Ditch the current soul burst rules.

* When an aeldari unit dies anywhere on the table, or when an enemy unit dies within 7" of a Ynnari unit, give the nearest ynnari unit what basically amounts to an act of faith token.

* Units carrying tokens pass all of their tokens (plus one more for dying) to the closest ynnari unit when they die. So your scorpions kill a thing and get a token. Then they get killed and pass two tokens onto their closest buddies.

* You can spend tokens in the relevant phase of your own turn to do a thing. More potent actions cost more tokens to pull off. So you might spend 1 token in the movement phase to move a second time. Shooting or fighting a second time might cost 2 or even 3 tokens. Casting an extra psychic power (including one you've already cast) would probably be a 2 token thing.

* Word of the Phoenix changes to give a token to a targeted ynnari unit.

* Have the Ynnari keyword replace the Craftworld, Kabal, Cult, and Masque keywords. (And Coterie for corsairs). So everyone is still an "asuryani" or a "drukhari", but you'll miss out on certain stratagems and on your chapter tactic equivalents.

So the intended result is that ynnari aren't throwing around offensive bonus actions at the same rate, BUT you'll be able to spread the love of Ynnead around more easily. So Yvraine won't be able to give reapers an extra round of shooting every turn unless they happen to have units dying nearby, but you will be consistently giving bonus actions to at least a few units spread across your army as the battle goes on and whittles you down.

Instead of getting craftworld traits that make you kill faster or die slower, you end up with a mechanic that allows you to maintain a certain amount of effectiveness even as your forces are whittled down. So if your opponent alpha strikes you really hard on turn 1, it just means they've given you some tokens to spend on your next turn and even the playing field.

That's not a bad suggestion for a mechanic, didn't Khorne demons have something similar in 7th? Like a blood tithe or something like that.

Blood for the blood god. And it was glorious

If the trait gained (shooting twice) is better than the trait lost (-1 to hit) then ynarii will be unbalanced, all other things being equal.

So either you need a point premium on ynarri units and go with your idea (I still feel the acting twice in a phase idea is broken) or else how do you stop it from just being better eldar?

Soulburst needs to be ynnari specific. Adding craftworlds or Kabals to the mix just makes an already great mechanic even more powerful.

To that point, i would say replace the CRAFTWORLD or KABAL keywords in the units with YNNARI. That way you cant use those traits with soulburst. It isn't perfect, but nothing ever is

bananathug wrote:
If the trait gained (shooting twice) is better than the trait lost (-1 to hit) then ynarii will be unbalanced, all other things being equal.

So either you need a point premium on ynarri units and go with your idea (I still feel the acting twice in a phase idea is broken) or else how do you stop it from just being better eldar?

So the thing about balance is that we aren't (or at least shouldn't be) looking for 100% perfect 1 to 1 effectiveness between various options. In a game like 40k with all of its varied options, such balance isn't really realistic. Instead, what we should be striving for is to have all options fall within an acceptable range of effectiveness so that all options are viable in their own right. The goal here is to present interesting choices. Overpowered things are problematic not only because they break down the meaningful interactions between units in game play but also because their over effectiveness removes interesting options from the game.

So it actually isn't a problem if a trait (shooting twice) is better than a trait lost (-1 to hit) so long as the level of effectiveness of both traits falls within the intended range and so long as one trait doesn't invalidate another. For instance, I will never take the warlord trait from the main rulebook that just gives my warlord a 6+ FNP if I have access to the eldar warlord trait that gives 6+ FNP and another wound.

Alaitoc's Fieldcraft (-1 to hit) is designed to keep units alive while getting bonus actions is generally used to increase your offensive power (moving units into position, casting psychic powers to kill stuff or make other things kill stuff, shooting, charging in to kill stuff, or stabbing.) Because one is defensive and the other is basically offensive, both are hypothetically valid choices that reward different units and play styles.

Even between two offensive rules (Biel-Tan's rerolls for shuriken weapons and Strength From Death), we're still fine provided one choice doesn't remove all interesting decisions for the other. If I'm running tons of shuriken weapons or like a Biel-Tan relic or warlord trait, then the Biel-Tan rules might prove more valuable to me than Strength From Death. If I'm not running units that particularly take advantage of the benefits of being Biel-Tan, then I might prefer the accumulating extra actions as things die via the ynnari rules.

TLDR; You strive to make it different eldar rather than better eldar. Salamanders are better at doing raw damage than Raven Guard thanks to their rerolls, but that doesn't stop people from taking Raven Guard when they want to sit back and shoot and/or infiltrate forward. The idea is to make multiple valid playstyles with their own sets of strengths, weaknesses, and interesting choices. Same as pretty much any choice made in list creation. Do you give your storm guardians a flamer or a fusion gun? It depends on how you want your army to work.

Again just agree with this. I often find running my spears as biel tan is just more affective turn in and turn out, than strength from death. They pump out a lot of shuriken shots, re rolling all those 1's gives you a ton of mileage.

To your main point though, absolutely, people reflexively seeking balance as pure equality is both impossible and undesirable. Any fun and interesting game will provide you with fun and interesting choices. That means things need to be different so that a choice needs to be made. Should I take unit A or unit B, they're both distinct and do different things. And yes, in this environment people will judge certain units better than others, hopefully based on context and scenario, and not on universality. When you get universality the you approach the need to look at something for a possible nerf or adjustment. The spears as biel tan over ynnari are a good example, but I even think reapers aren't such a no brainer as some people like to think. For example if I'm going against a tau gunline I'm going to strongly consider taking my reapers as alaitoc and pairing them up with a warlock for conceal. Strategically, against an opponent that hits on 4's a decent amount of the time, forcing them to hit on 6's could vey well give me more mileage than a double shoot. Context and scenario.

Just make soulburst a stratagem 1 CP when a unit is completely destroyed within 7" except the morale phase pick one of the following....

Now it is limited to once per phase, but also total uses in game and competes with other stratagems for CP.

I think with that you could even lift the restriction of only having it happen during your turn

Then their psychic power could just allow for using this stratagem without destroying a unit.

This still leaves the issue of a "chapter tactic" if you will. All factions have the equivalent of one, what would it be in your scenario? Do they just get to keep their craftworld attribute plus battle focus?

Maybe the fact that they get to pull from 3 different factions with no real downside?

 fraser1191 wrote:
Maybe the fact that they get to pull from 3 different factions with no real downside?

How is this any different from space marines being able to pull from guard/sisters/inquisiton/mechanicus/skiitari/knights, or chaos being able to mix and match between thousand sons, nurgle, or just demons in general?

 peteralmo wrote:

 fraser1191 wrote:
Maybe the fact that they get to pull from 3 different factions with no real downside?

How is this any different from space marines being able to pull from guard/sisters/inquisiton/mechanicus/skiitari/knights, or chaos being able to mix and match between thousand sons, nurgle, or just demons in general?

Because the actual space marines themselves suck.

I think a lot of people have either not played vs ynnari recently, or don't understand their rules.

1) Making a unit ynnari loses it some good rules (craftworld trait, power from pain, rising crescendo) in order to use soulburst.

2) Soulburst (after chapter tactics) is used exactly like a stratagem, except that it can only be used during the ynnari turn.

3) One of the big three MUST be your warlord. Until they get a codex that means only the BRB warlord traits and stratagems, also no relics.

4) Having a complete other faction as a seperate detachment is the only way to access ANY stratagems or relics. The only strat people really hate on is the Saim Hain one. But without another faction, you can't even deep strike ynnari units (who don't inherently have it). To take even a single relic you pay CP.

All that aside, dark reapers certainly need some changes. A slight points increase and some kind of rule (call it "massive heat generation") that says the launchers can only be shot once per turn (so no soulburst or forewarned stratagem). Shining spears (and reapers) should both be more limited in squad size. A group of 3 or 5 ynnari spears still hits hard, but it doesn't wipe out everything and is much more manageable (for the opponent).

I'd much rather see the total number of models be limited rather than the squad sizes. So you can have 9 reapers max, either one squad of nine or three squads of three etc, same for spears. But I don't like the ability of punishing and stifling strategy, give people the opportunity to decide between a large squad or an msu approach, while still preventing spam overall.

The problem starts when you stack psyker support and soulburst though. Since you can only soulburst a unit once, and one action type per turn (and only cast a psyker power once), you want to have a single big unit. Big units with big one off buffs get huge results. By artificially limiting the squad size you have to decide either to spread buffs out, take other options to replicate effects (autarch for rerolls, etc), or use several not as powerful units.

I understand your point, it's explained correctly, I'm simply arguing that getting to buff one large unit, or getting to have a stratagem affect one large unit, isn't overpowered or problematic. I don't think the LVO list is overpowered because of one large reaper unit with yvraine. I think it's everything combined together: the hard to hit alaitoc squads, the msu reaper squads that get to spam tempest launchers, the turn one charging spears, etc. I think big squad of reapers with yvraine, by itself, is just one powerful combo in a game with a number of really powerful combos, and doesn't necessarily have to be completely killed off.

I agree that its the combination of parts that make it strong.

I just think that watering down the overall effect without axeing any one part of the pieces would be preferable.

 novaspike wrote:
Shining spears (and reapers) should both be more limited in squad size. A group of 3 or 5 ynnari spears still hits hard, but it doesn't wipe out everything and is much more manageable (for the opponent).

Can we raise that to 6 models per squad for the spears? I'd hate to buy two boxes of three bikes and have the sixth bike go to waste. ^_^;


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Breng77 wrote:
Just make soulburst a stratagem 1 CP when a unit is completely destroyed within 7" except the morale phase pick one of the following....

Now it is limited to once per phase, but also total uses in game and competes with other stratagems for CP.

I think with that you could even lift the restriction of only having it happen during your turn

Then their psychic power could just allow for using this stratagem without destroying a unit.

I'm not sure I'm reading you correctly. Soul bursting only lets you do a given type of soul burst action (such as shooting) once per turn. Do we really need to stop people from, for instance, getting an extra round of shooting with one unit and getting a free charge with another unit if they manage to kill off two enemy squads in the shooting phase? I'm not especially opposed to tying the more powerful forms of soul bursting to stratagems though.

Wyldhunt wrote:

 novaspike wrote:
Shining spears (and reapers) should both be more limited in squad size. A group of 3 or 5 ynnari spears still hits hard, but it doesn't wipe out everything and is much more manageable (for the opponent).

Can we raise that to 6 models per squad for the spears? I'd hate to buy two boxes of three bikes and have the sixth bike go to waste. ^_^;


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Breng77 wrote:
Just make soulburst a stratagem 1 CP when a unit is completely destroyed within 7" except the morale phase pick one of the following....

Now it is limited to once per phase, but also total uses in game and competes with other stratagems for CP.

I think with that you could even lift the restriction of only having it happen during your turn

Then their psychic power could just allow for using this stratagem without destroying a unit.

I'm not sure I'm reading you correctly. Soul bursting only lets you do a given type of soul burst action (such as shooting) once per turn. Do we really need to stop people from, for instance, getting an extra round of shooting with one unit and getting a free charge with another unit if they manage to kill off two enemy squads in the shooting phase? I'm not especially opposed to tying the more powerful forms of soul bursting to stratagems though.

Yes we do. An extra round of shooting costs every other army 2+ CP and is usually restricted in some way. So getting it for free with a psychic power (the most common way to see the shooting done) Or fighting twice typically costs 3 CP, so getting to do so for killing a unit is extremely powerful especially because most fight twice strats are end of the phase not immediate. Making it a 1 CP stratagem with the kill restriction (or psychic power use) would still be more powerful than any other army has and would limit the use of other stratagems if you want to use it. Right now shining spears can use a stratagem to advance and charge, use quicken to move twice, and can fight twice all for what 1 CP. So chances are they can do this every turn. IF you needed to spend CP on it now you are spending 2 CP to do that, and another to double shoot your reapers. If you spent CP to webway some units, now you are probably halfway through your CP in a single turn. It is still powerful, but you will get to do it maybe twice, not every turn. As I said you could also lift the "your turn only" restriction.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 peteralmo wrote:
This still leaves the issue of a "chapter tactic" if you will. All factions have the equivalent of one, what would it be in your scenario? Do they just get to keep their craftworld attribute plus battle focus?

Not sure, but you could easily do something that would work for them, they don't have a codex yet so they have not need of a "chapter tactic" at present as all other index books lack capter tactics.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 peteralmo wrote:

 fraser1191 wrote:
Maybe the fact that they get to pull from 3 different factions with no real downside?

How is this any different from space marines being able to pull from guard/sisters/inquisiton/mechanicus/skiitari/knights, or chaos being able to mix and match between thousand sons, nurgle, or just demons in general?

They cannot do so in a single detachment without penalty.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 novaspike wrote:
I think a lot of people have either not played vs ynnari recently, or don't understand their rules.

1) Making a unit ynnari loses it some good rules (craftworld trait, power from pain, rising crescendo) in order to use soulburst.

2) Soulburst (after chapter tactics) is used exactly like a stratagem, except that it can only be used during the ynnari turn.

3) One of the big three MUST be your warlord. Until they get a codex that means only the BRB warlord traits and stratagems, also no relics.

4) Having a complete other faction as a seperate detachment is the only way to access ANY stratagems or relics. The only strat people really hate on is the Saim Hain one. But without another faction, you can't even deep strike ynnari units (who don't inherently have it). To take even a single relic you pay CP.

All that aside, dark reapers certainly need some changes. A slight points increase and some kind of rule (call it "massive heat generation") that says the launchers can only be shot once per turn (so no soulburst or forewarned stratagem). Shining spears (and reapers) should both be more limited in squad size. A group of 3 or 5 ynnari spears still hits hard, but it doesn't wipe out everything and is much more manageable (for the opponent).

Tell all those downsides to the top players in the ITC and on the american ETC team who auto-take a ynnari detachment because of how strong soulburst is. Sure it works like a stratagem. But those stratagems (of the commonly used soul burst powers) are 2-3 CP stratagems and considered extremely powerful at that, that ynnari get for free. So essentially you are getting something like 10-12 extra CP per game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
figured out what I might do for their tactic actually.

Make strength from death when a unit with this trait kills an enemy unit gain a CP on the roll of a 4+ (maybe 3+).

Then make soul burst a stratagem.

I understand what you're saying, but essentially the differing opinions represented on the thread constitute a fundamental difference in what the problem actually is. Namely it appears one group of people feel the strength from death "chapter tactic" isn't problematic on a baseline level, but does need to be closely monitored and controlled, because it's ceiling is so high. Where others feel it is fundamentally and inextricably overpowered and should be "nixed" essentially, transforming it into something wholly different from what it is now. We'll have to see where GW goes with it. They invented the ynnari, the lore, and the rule itself as it relates to gameplay, will they admit wholesale mistake and re-invent the subfaction, or continue to tweak and adjust? We will see...

I feel though that the lore and the extra action mechanics are not required to be linked. The lore revolves around them gaining benefit from death, that could easily be written into them getting extra CP from units dying nearby (maybe instead of kill a unit is still unit dies within 7" they gain a CP on a 4+). Then just build the different soulburst abilities into stratagems, similar to the ones that exist now for other factions to shoot twice, fight twice etc. I feel like that motif in general would largely solve their issues. You could then build into their relics, warlord traits, special characters bonuses to this ability/more CP generation revolving around deaths. It would still be fluffy, strong, and flexible I just feel that extra actions are just super strong and because the ynnari models are cross faction models you cannot build the ability into their cost. Doing it this way also makes it a mechanic that scales better vs the way it currently works.

Breng77 wrote:
I feel though that the lore and the extra action mechanics are not required to be linked. The lore revolves around them gaining benefit from death, that could easily be written into them getting extra CP from units dying nearby (maybe instead of kill a unit is still unit dies within 7" they gain a CP on a 4+). Then just build the different soulburst abilities into stratagems, similar to the ones that exist now for other factions to shoot twice, fight twice etc. I feel like that motif in general would largely solve their issues. You could then build into their relics, warlord traits, special characters bonuses to this ability/more CP generation revolving around deaths. It would still be fluffy, strong, and flexible I just feel that extra actions are just super strong and because the ynnari models are cross faction models you cannot build the ability into their cost. Doing it this way also makes it a mechanic that scales better vs the way it currently works.

That all sounds reasonable.

That does sound pretty cool.

But then you'd have to specify enemy deaths or someone will take a bunch of cheap single beasts or archon court models to self kill and pad out CP.

Martel732 wrote:
Oh, the pearl clutching! Only mid-tier! Scandalous!

They weren't actually mid tier in 5th - I destroyed people with fortuned foot warlock units. Fire prisms and wraith lords and warwalkers were also amazing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
This issue with elder is currently their underpriced units. Shinning spears and dark reapers and even wave serpents (is it really reasonable that a 130 point transport is has the effective wounds of a land raider vs anti tank weapons?). Compared to similar units they perform about 30-40% too well for their points.

Also their rules are just better...amazing stratagems and army traits that affect their entire army.

 novaspike wrote:
That does sound pretty cool.

But then you'd have to specify enemy deaths or someone will take a bunch of cheap single beasts or archon court models to self kill and pad out CP.

That is why it is a roll to get them. You could specify enemy models but then I think the generation roll would either need to be automatic or like a 2+ as against some lists it would do almost nothing otherwise. Sure you could pad out a bunch of Msu squads but then your stratagems do less or your opponent focuses down your important stuff and ignores your small squads. But you are talking about an investment of foc slots, points, and running them into combat hoping they die within 7" of another ynnari model and rolling a 4+. So 10 such models average 4-5 extra CP plus any detachment they fill out. If attack twice is 3 cp, sure it helps but it is still more restrictive than things currently are.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Oh, the pearl clutching! Only mid-tier! Scandalous!

They weren't actually mid tier in 5th - I destroyed people with fortuned foot warlock units. Fire prisms and wraith lords and warwalkers were also amazing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
This issue with elder is currently their underpriced units. Shinning spears and dark reapers and even wave serpents (is it really reasonable that a 130 point transport is has the effective wounds of a land raider vs anti tank weapons?). Compared to similar units they perform about 30-40% too well for their points.

Also their rules are just better...amazing stratagems and army traits that affect their entire army.

At some point the community has to accept that the fluff has to inform the tone of certain races at a baseline level. Eldar are light years ahead of humanity in regard to technology, their weapons and tanks should do as much, or more, for less. Where the balance comes in is predominantly with other metrics, marines have a universal 4+ toughness, pretty much 3+ armor or better, and never break ranks. Eldar are basically 3+ toughness across the board, 4+/5+ armor, can easily run away, etc. Orks, by the basic strictures of the lore, are super tough, but also extremely crude technologically, and their BS is also not great, etc. I never understood why people complained that a reaper launcher is better than a missile launcher, or that a wave serpent is better than a rhino, they have to be, the entire foundation of the lore of the game would crumble away if they weren't demonstrably better. If your natural reaction would then be to say, well then they should cost twice as much, you have just asked for the same end to be accomplished through different means; if you're not going to make them equal via the lore, then make them equal via points. And that just isn't what 40k is, it's not checkers, or chess for that matter. Some things are just better than other things in 40k, full stop, the game designers want it that way, everything isn't supposed to be equal. You're meant to pick an army, play to it's strengths, become strategic with what they can do well, what they can't do well, and master your choice. Not cry foul because the reaper launcher isn't directly equatable to the missile launcher, which isn't directly equatable to the big rokit (or whatever the Ork version is called).

The issue with that stance is it allows for min max units. Something like dark reapers get way more out of their weapons and rules than they lose to being T3/ S3. By your argument individual eldar models should be costly because there are fewer eldar as they are a dying race. From a balance standpoint a model with better rules and weapons needs to cost more than a similar model that performs worse. Your argument seems to be eldar are super advanced so they should be OP. Marines don't fit their fluff as far as effectiveness. Put simply I'm ok with eldar having better weapons and rules so long as they pay for it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
You would have a point if list building were more restricted, but as it is not it doesn't work if points don't balance units. Do devestators have to be reapers no, but they should not cost more and do less. You say it is about synergy, but some units are outliers to synergy and are too powerful because they also benefit from synergy.

Breng77 wrote:
The issue with that stance is it allows for min max units. Something like dark reapers get way more out of their weapons and rules than they lose to being T3/ S3. By your argument individual eldar models should be costly because there are fewer eldar as they are a dying race. From a balance standpoint a model with better rules and weapons needs to cost more than a similar model that performs worse. Your argument seems to be eldar are super advanced so they should be OP. Marines don't fit their fluff as far as effectiveness. Put simply I'm ok with eldar having better weapons and rules so long as they pay for it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
You would have a point if list building were more restricted, but as it is not it doesn't work if points don't balance units. Do devestators have to be reapers no, but they should not cost more and do less. You say it is about synergy, but some units are outliers to synergy and are too powerful because they also benefit from synergy.

To your first point, yes, I think the game designers intend, or are ok with, the ability for savvy players to min/max. I don't think they're interested in re-designing the game away from this possibility, nor do I believe competitive warhammer players want the game to evolve into chess essentially. If you don't care for competitive 40k, simply play friendly games.

I stand by my opinion about where eldar are in 8th edition in regards to point costs, but I am more in agreement with you in regard to the state of marines. They do do less for more, and as such, I think they need point reductions, rather seeing eldar points increase. You may find that some people feel the imperium keyword alone opens up list building in a way to easily circumvent the point cost shortcomings of pure marines, but again, I think they really need point decreases.

 peteralmo wrote:

Spoiler:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Oh, the pearl clutching! Only mid-tier! Scandalous!

They weren't actually mid tier in 5th - I destroyed people with fortuned foot warlock units. Fire prisms and wraith lords and warwalkers were also amazing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
This issue with elder is currently their underpriced units. Shinning spears and dark reapers and even wave serpents (is it really reasonable that a 130 point transport is has the effective wounds of a land raider vs anti tank weapons?). Compared to similar units they perform about 30-40% too well for their points.

Also their rules are just better...amazing stratagems and army traits that affect their entire army.

At some point the community has to accept that the fluff has to inform the tone of certain races at a baseline level. Eldar are light years ahead of humanity in regard to technology, their weapons and tanks should do as much, or more, for less. Where the balance comes in is predominantly with other metrics, marines have a universal 4+ toughness, pretty much 3+ armor or better, and never break ranks. Eldar are basically 3+ toughness across the board, 4+/5+ armor, can easily run away, etc. Orks, by the basic strictures of the lore, are super tough, but also extremely crude technologically, and their BS is also not great, etc. I never understood why people complained that a reaper launcher is better than a missile launcher, or that a wave serpent is better than a rhino, they have to be, the entire foundation of the lore of the game would crumble away if they weren't demonstrably better. If your natural reaction would then be to say, well then they should cost twice as much, you have just asked for the same end to be accomplished through different means; if you're not going to make them equal via the lore, then make them equal via points. And that just isn't what 40k is, it's not checkers, or chess for that matter. Some things are just better than other things in 40k, full stop, the game designers want it that way, everything isn't supposed to be equal. You're meant to pick an army, play to it's strengths, become strategic with what they can do well, what they can't do well, and master your choice. Not cry foul because the reaper launcher isn't directly equatable to the missile launcher, which isn't directly equatable to the big rokit (or whatever the Ork version is called).

Totally agree with the points about the differences in races and that not everything is supposed to be equal. The imbalances introduce strategy, tactics, and outright luck in ways that make the game compelling.

But Strength from Death is a little too unequal, to the point where it changes the probable outcomes of each match. As you described, the other races have benefits and drawbacks that offset each other in meaningful ways. SfD doesn't, it just needs to be applied to your biggest / toughest unit. It invalidates the imbalances themselves, making the game a little less exciting.

From this perspective, one way to adjust SfD would be to make it a Stratagem. Players would need to make decisions about when and where to apply it, and there would be downsides for making a suboptimal decision with your CPs. It brings it line with many other aspects of the game.