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.

So I've been conterplating getting a classic Avatar/Eldard lead footdar list, and I was thinking of adding a unit of pathfinders for capturing objectives.

However, I suspect that their damage output is simply to abysmal to be of use, unless you are shooting at normal Termies or Broadsides. I can get 10 Dire Avengers for 5 pathfinders...

What's your expirience?

I don't personally use them, they are too many points for the amount of damage they do. That said they're good against MCs, though if your running footdar you should have a squad of 10 wraithguard which wound them on 2+, making pathfinders a point sink once more. Try them out and see how they go, but there are better choices IMO

Well, Pathfinders are good vs. tougher enemies and they have a decent cover save making them viable in objective based games. Downsides are damage output and cover-save ignoring weapons. You cannot go wrong with a squad of 5.

For objective camping they are great if you upgrade them to pathfinders. Dire avengers are amaizing at killing every thing w doom or guide & blade storm I can easily wipe out a squad of marines in one turn!

I prefer rangers for camping duty. 25 less points, slightly less killing potential (everything except MC's is in cover anyway), and the same cover save if you go to ground.

5 Rangers or pathfinders just don't do enough damage to warrant not going to ground when getting shot at.

I run at least one group of rangers, mainly for the look and feel of them. But they objective camping always helps, and 2+ saves in cover make them able to everything except dedicated aggression.

Well, Pathfinders are great against MCs or Termies walking in front of their shooting angle. Two such squads can do a lot of damage to them.

I usually run one or two for objective camping. Not sure why but as soon as people here the words "2+ cover save" every shot in the army goes at them. Its like they are offended by durable elves or something.

I've also used them as a place to stick eldrard in cover, which two groups of scatter laser war walkers behind him. Guide, guide, fortune, lol.

Pathfinders are hard to annihilate unless the enemy targets them with cover-save ignoring weapons. Every shot against the Pathfinders is one shot less against more precious targets.

I tend to find that a lot of people seem to target pathfinders over more, high-priority targest due to the fear of them rending or AP1'ing their troops. Also, a 2+ cover save is a nasty nasty annoying thing for an opponent.

Iranna.

Avengers and pathfinders are different tools that fill different roles.

As the game is shifting more to a FNP world, the pathfinders are becoming a bit more effective vs many armies due to their effect compared to a avengers effect. Let me explain.
Pathfinders are AP1 1/3 of the time. When rolling to wound, 1/3 of the time they are rending, meaning that ~40% of the shots will ignore armor.
Avengers get twice as many shots, and against MEQ they have a 1/9 chance of killing. You can field 4 avenger shots for every 1 sniper shot given the costs of the models.

In the case of a MEQ standing in the middle of the open, then both the pathfinders and avengers have close to the same chance to kill the marine. (within ~5%)
If the MEQ is in cover, then the advantage greatly falls into the avenger, as the cover means half the AP1 wounds will be saved, while none of the avenger shots will.
If the MEQ has FNP, then the advantage falls greatly to the pathfinder, as the AP1 and AP2 shots will ignore FNP.
If the model is far away, then the advantage falls greatly to the pathfinder who has a long range.
If the model is on a bike, T-Wolf, or in terminator armor, then the advantage falls greatly to the pathfinder.
As the game is shifting to more models with FNP, more terminator armies, and more models with a 2+ save, the pathfinders are edging out IMHO.
Pathfinders also cause pinning tests.

However, there is more to a tool than just its shooting ability. Avengers can take a transport. Avengers can get a 5+ invuln save in assault, and subtract 1 attack per model attacking the unit. They can bladestorm. Avengers can move and fire.
There are a lot of options that the avengers have which the pathfinders just can't match. Given that, I would not field more than 1 unit of pathfinders. I would make sure to use them on the right targets (termies, FNP units, etc) I would only use them in a footdar army, where the enemy cannot use them to pin the rest of my highly mobile force.

Labmouse is right with the comparison. However, a foot slogging Eldar army that should be competitive must be specifically configured. Such an army needs shooty elements like DA, GD, Pathfinders, Dark Reapers, Warwalkers (and probably Wraithguard when fielding an Iyanden army) and also counterstrike units like Avatar (with DA, GD walking in its fearlessness bubble), Harlies, and Wraithlords (which also provide shooty support). Pathfinders have a specific role in such an army as they can take on tougher units like Termies or MCs.