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.
2017/12/02 23:20:48
Subject: Hysterial rant of a Space Marine player who just bought the Eldar Codex
HuskyWarhammer wrote: I love how the OP, when confronted with data that disproves his point, just changes the topic. He/she also just ignores context that takes away from his point (e.g., that CTM only works against the closest target - a huge drawback).
Or complains that he can't customize vehicles as much as he wants, yet has access to the most customization options for infantry by far - and then says Eldar have no trade-offs. Eldar. Whose infantry are among the *least* customizable in the game and are T3.
I stopped bringing ctm on my tanks because any opponent that isn't a complete potato will simply make sure a less valuable unit is closer. That machine spirit stuff works all the time, and is on expensive vehicles with tons of guns (i.e. worth more).
This thread is hilarious, I'm still facepalming over the "bright lances are meltas" bit xD
** @op: not trying to be mean here, but come on. If the brightlance is the eldar multimelta then what is their lascannon? The multimelta (and regular meltas for that matter, not sure why you're focusing on multimeltas) has the same damage profile as the bright lance when out of half range. The lance has a longer range and does not offer an incentive for getting closer. This means it's a gun you want to use from as far away as possible without moving and hopefully in cover. Just like you would use a lascannon. The bright Lance is as close to a lascannon as eldar weapons get (also regarding ease of access/number of platforms).
What then is our multimelta you ask? Well we don't have one. We don't have grav guns either for that matter, and there are plenty more examples (in both directions). I consider this a good thing. They are supposed to be a separate army/race; not just space marines with different hats.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/12/02 23:45:19
2017/12/03 00:17:15
Subject: Hysterial rant of a Space Marine player who just bought the Eldar Codex
But I've been reading the boards about Eldar and I just couldn't see how they can field so many awesome units, so today I bought the codex and I am shocked at all the built in advantages. To name a few:
I do a ton of number crunching every time a new Aeldari (heh, that name change...) gets released, so I can give you a few insights into how their units work. Feel free to pick my brain about the specifics if something I say comes off as ludicrous. Also, I apologize in advance for spelling errors; I'm typing on my phone. XD
1) Eldar Fusion Gun is the same stats as the Marine Melta Gun, and they cost the same. That is balance. However, the Bright Lance which is basically the same as the Multi Melta, is 7 pts cheaper and has 50% more range. That is not balanced. For the record, the Marines need to spend 13pts for the Tac Marine or 16pts for the Sternguard to gear a melta, while the Fire Dragon costs 5pts, and also doesn't eat the -1 penalty to hit for firing assault after advancing, so this seeming parity in cost/ability is actually quite heavily skewed towards Eldar, resulting in it not being balanced.
The first thing you can do to make your life easier is to completely ignore the points costs of the equipment and unequipped models, because the only things that matter are how much damage a unit can dish out or withstand compared to its total cost. Movement helps it deliver or escape damage, but it all comes down to the total cost paid compared to performance.
Regarding the Fire Dragon and Tac/Sternguard meltas, there are tradeoffs. Fortunately, in 8th edition everything can split fire, so you no longer waste Boltgun shots at the hard target you're trying to meltas, so sprinkling a few of them into your force adds some flexibility, and at least everything can now damage everything else. Aeldari cannot do that; if they want meltaguns, they have to buy a minimum of 5, and each loss hurts. I don't count Storm Guardians for that purpose because they're worse than Guardian Defenders against pretty much everything except IG infantry, and even then you need a unit of 8 with 2 Flamers to achieve that kind of efficiency. I refuse to pay the same price (7+17 for both, not 5+17 ike you said, by the way) for a Storm Guardian over a Fire Dragon.
Let's take a look at the relative resilience of a Fire Dragon (24pts) and a Tactical Marine w/Meltaguns (30pts). It's a convenient comparison because they have (almost) the same damage output, and the only difference in their defensive profile is their toughness, so we can see just if the difference in points seems to match the amount of additional firepower the Marine can withstand. Here's how many BS3+ Boltgun or Plasmagun (uncharged) shots it takes to kill, on average, one Fire Dragon or one Tactical Marine. Seems reasonable, since one of those guns is common, and the other is usually pointed as infantry with good armour saves. Note that I'm saying shots, not models equipped with one weapon or the other, and that confine the number of shots you need to multiply the reciprocals of the chances to hit, wound, and fail a save. In some cases, you'd also end up dividing by wounds inflicted, but these are W1 models, and I'm not giving them any fancy saves from other sources.
Those numbers tell us that, on average, the Marine can withstand 33% more firepower from Boltguns, and 25% more firepower from Plasmaguns compared to the Dragon. A Tactic Marine with a Meltagun costs 25% more than a Fire Dragon, so these numbers actually favour the Marine. Sure, the Fire Dragon gets a small re-roll against monsters and vehicles, is a little faster, and is more accurate when Advancing, but the Marine gets a some more strength, a pistol, and ATSKNF. Overall, I'd say they're pretty well balanced against one another in 8th edition.
2) Space Marine Chapter Tactics apply to only infantry, bikers, Dreadnoughts, while Eldar Craftworld traits apply to their entire Detachment. That is not balanced. Honestly, of all the "balance" issues, you'd think this one would be a no brainer, but still they tilt it heavily towards Eldar. I'd like my speeders, tanks, transports, fliers to get to get that bonus too, but apparently the folks at GW think just Eldar should have that.
I agree with you that the Alaitoc attribute is too powerful, and that the Craftworld attributes should favour specific units and strategies, rather than being army-wide bonuses. Having said that, I wouldn rather see Craftworld attibutes, Chapter Tactics, etc. calibrated to roughly the power level of the Ulthwe attribute (+20% resilience). Alaitoc increases in power the lower the opposing BS, making it disproportionately powerful against entire Codices, which shouldn't happen. Writing an email to GW's rules team about the Craftworld attributes is on my to-do list, including changing the Ulthwe attribute to provide more incentive for psykers and Guardians. A work in progress.
3) Eldar Wraithlords have higher T, more wounds, more speed, and a free but functional CCW with strong AP and wound values, while the Marine Dreadnought is slower, softer, and has to buy a very expensive CCW or simply go without and hope they don't get tied up for the remainder of the fight with any 5 man squad with a 4+ or better save.
The easiest way to look at the problem is to compare similar configurations. Let's start with mixed loadouts leaning toward melee.
These two models have the same cost, the same purpose (rush into combat, guns blazing) and similar damage output against medium infantry, with a slight edge to the Wraithlord within 12". (Incidentally, that's how I recommend equipping most Wraithlords). As you said, the Wraithlord has higher toughness, wounds, and movement, which are valid concerns (leadership, too, but who cares?). Now, we could probably argue all day about whether the Wraithlord's degrading profile is enough of a penalty for having the extra stats, but I'm content to say "sometimes, but not quite". It does change how you treat them, though; you should commit to killing a Deadnought in one turn if possible, but you can afford to whittle down a Wraithlord slowly to mess with its damage output.
Regarding the Ghostglaive and DCCW, they're roughly equivalent, but they have different preferred targets. The DCCW does slightly less damage per attack, but it wounds easier against super tough targets (a corner case, I know), and the reliable damage makes it better suited to go after models with a modest number of wounds. Amusingly, Wraithguard are its favourite victims! The Ghostglaive has higher variance, and so it's better for attacking bigger targets, since rolling a 1 or 2 for damage against a W3 model is a huge drop in efficiency. Of course, the Wraithlord can call back on its fists for reliability, but I'd always recommend the having a Ghostglaive as an option for threatening T7+ or Sv2+ models, since that's what you'll usually try to chase down with the Wraithlord.
Things change once you start putting anti-vehicle guns on both models.
The Dreadnought now inflicts an average of 3.92 damage (2.94 moving) to a T7 3+ target, and the Wraithlord inflicts an average of 3.11 damage (2.33 moving) outside 12" against a T7 3+ target. The catch is that the Wraithlord should be moving because a substantial chunk of its total damage output (not included above) is from its melee attacks, whereas the Dreadnought benefits more from sitting still in the backfield due to its long range. As such, the Wraithlord is now more likely to get tied up by chaff units, removing its ranged output. In this case, the Dreadnought doesn't care much about its lower movement.
Overall, I think Wraithlords still are better than Dreadnoughts as in-your-face bullies, but they don't do the fire support role as well as the Dreadnought can. Mainly due tongue lower toughness, the rnnged Dreadnought should probably be about 10% cheaper than it is now, and 15% cheaper for the melee build.
4) Eldar squad leaders have +1A like most squad leaders, but also +1W, along a random additional useful ability based on what type of Exarch it is, which others don't get. Not balanced.
I think everything should cost points according to its capabilities, so you won't get any argument about this one from me. Nobody's squad leaders should be free, and I'd like to see a cool ability on all of them. That's another reason why extra care has to be taken with balancing Chapter Tactics and Craftworld attributes, since they cost nothing.
5) Space Marine scouts have to pay thru the nose to include "scout" gear. Putting them at 50% more expense than Eldar Rangers who get their sniper rifles for free and their cloaks included, who's cloaks not only add to cover save but come with an awesome -1 to Hit as well. Lovely. Also, not balanced.
You're right about the Sniper Rifles and Camo Cloaks costing too much on the Scouts, but oddly enough it doesn't matter. Let's load up some Scouts with Sniper Rifles and Camo Cloaks, then compare them to Rangers. Since you're concerned with their resilience, we'll start shooting them with Boltguns and Plasmaguns again. They'll both be in cover to get the most out of their gear.
The Ranger costs 12pts and the Scout costs 19pts, so the Scout costs 58% more. However, the Scout is 100% more resistant to Boltgun fire than the Ranger, although it is only 17% more resistant to Plasmaguns. In all fairness, the Scouts also have only 63% of the damage output of the Rangers per point spent on them.
However, if we're actually being smart about this, we won't bother putting Sniper Rifles and Camo Cloaks on the Scouts. Why? Because those "upgrades" aren't needed for the Scouts to do their job. Without the Camo Cloak, the numbers look like this:
I bet this is how GW dropped the cost of Rangers. Since we're now talking about 11pts Scouts, they're actually more resilient than Rangers per point spent to both Boltguns and Plasmaguns. This is why Camo Cloaks don't matter, but what about Sniper Rifles? Well, it's because pretty much every Sniper Rifle in 40k is much less efficient for killing characters compared to the other weapons, even if it means having to blast a path to anparticular character. Mobility will serve you lot better than a Sniper Rifle, so use deep striking, bikes, and landspeeders to swoop in an pick off a character after killing the other nearby models. I think the only character I'd really want Sniper Rifles for is The Changeling because it's both highly valuable AND super squishy.
All this talk of Sniper Rifles and Camo Cloaks is tangential to the real value of Scouts, though, which you ignored completely: Scouts are far better at their job than Rangers are because they are set up in the deployment phase. That makes them superior to other infiltrating units for their primary purpose, which is blocking reinforcements and claiming objectives. I would trade away my Rangers for Scouts if I could.
6) For 2 more points than a Marine pays for a just a Missile Launcher, Dark Reapers get a better weapon AND the awesome unit that fires it, hitting on 3+ no matter what, with a solid 3+ armor save to boot. And all the units in the squad can take it. Want that 10 man squad to get the most from whatever guarantee-to-hit/wound buff your dirt cheap psykers are going to slap on it? No wasted space there.
Missile Launchers are terrible guns, even the Aeldari Missile Launchers, so it's not hard to outclass them. Regarding the Dark Reapers, I'll first direct your attention back to the first section, where I explained why T3 vs. T4 is a big deal. Using exactly the same reasoning, if you wanted to make Dark Reapers T4, you'd have to make them roughly 25% more expensive, which pushes them up to 34pts each. Compare that to a Lascannon Devastator at 38pts, and you'll see that the current cost of the Reapers is not so unreasonable after all. I get why you're frustrated about the flat 3+ to hit, especially when moving, but how often to they (or Devastators) have to move? Reapers also can never get +1 to hit. Sure, the Exarch re-rolls 1s, but that effect is not as strong as the Signum, and remember that there is no option for ablative models in Aspect Warrior squads. Plus, the Marines get slightly better melee ability to fend of deep strikers, and have ATSKNF. Honestly, Dark Reapers and Devastators are comparable value.
Regarding the buffs, you know that you can just stick a cheap Captain near a few Devastator squads and get a benefit that's equivalent to what a Farseer can provide, right? No need for psychic tests, either. Autarchs do something similar for the Aeldari, and whether you choose them or a Farseer to buff your units depends on your army composition.
Regarding "dirt cheap psykers", they're as cheap as they are because they can barely do anything except use their psychic powers. Even so, their contribution is roughly on par with that of the other units if you figure out their effects on a per-point basis. Often times it would be preferable to just take more of the other units instead, but you have to take HQs, and the flexibility of the psychic powers is handy. Large, expensive units benefit more from per-unit re-rolls, and since Reapers are expensive with proportional firelower, they're then unit that benefits the most from, say, Guide. Wraithguard w/Wraithcannons are another example.
7) Prism Tank have 3 useful firing profiles and shoot twice while still moving half their 16" speed? Gimme a break.
I have a few surprises for you. The Fire Prism only has two useful firing modes: Lance is only good against T6 3+ multiwound models, barely better than Focused for that task, and only when you're not using the Linked Fire strategem. Allowing the Fire Prism to shoot twice while moving at half speed brings its firepower up to a level that isn't embarassing. Compare 4 Lascannon shots from a 190pts Predator to 2 Focused Prism Cannon salvos from a 160pts Fire Prism moving half speed against a T7 3+ target (e.g., each other). The Predator costs 19% more, but it inflicts 46% more damage on average. Linked Fire is the only reason Fire Prisms are good, but it costs a steady drip of CP and requires at least two Fire Prisms.
Some of this stuff is pretty subjective, and I get that they need to differentiate the races, but some of it isn't. When you give one group like the Eldar the clear superiority in both numbers AND quality on gear and units that have direct analogues in other armies, you've messed something up. I really don't know why Eldar don't run the tables at tournaments. I can think of 3 or 4 combinations of Eldar units, fluffy ones even, that would be all but unstoppable by anything other than a purpose built army. I can think of several more that are just absurd yet legal(1500pts, 50x Dark Reapers + Eldrad) that I honestly don't even know what anyone would bring up to stop.
Crybaby rant over, GO MARINES!
Subjectivity isn't the problem; you simply haven't done the calculations that would have shown most of your claims to be unjustified. That's good news, though, because now you have fewer things to complain about! Regarding those 50 Dark Reapers, they're surprisingly lacklustre against W1 infantry (even Marines!), so mixing in some Guardians/Dire Avengers and Swooping Hawks would be much better than Dark Reapers alone.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/12/03 01:30:38
2017/12/03 00:24:15
Subject: Hysterial rant of a Space Marine player who just bought the Eldar Codex
I'm sorry but ATSKNF has only ever been used by me once, to save the last guy in the squad. But in the whopping 5 games I've played I rerolled my morale check once.
Unless they give me a reason to take a 10 man squad then yes I'll be praising it, but I can't see that happening so in my eyes it's pretty useless
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/12/03 01:37:48
2017/12/03 01:42:36
Subject: Hysterial rant of a Space Marine player who just bought the Eldar Codex
But I've been reading the boards about Eldar and I just couldn't see how they can field so many awesome units, so today I bought the codex and I am shocked at all the built in advantages. To name a few:
I do a ton of number crunching every time a new Aeldari (heh, that name change...) gets released, so I can give you a few insights into how their units work. Feel free to pick my brain about the specifics if something I say comes off as ludicrous. Also, I apologize in advance for spelling errors; I'm typing on my phone. XD
1) Eldar Fusion Gun is the same stats as the Marine Melta Gun, and they cost the same. That is balance. However, the Bright Lance which is basically the same as the Multi Melta, is 7 pts cheaper and has 50% more range. That is not balanced. For the record, the Marines need to spend 13pts for the Tac Marine or 16pts for the Sternguard to gear a melta, while the Fire Dragon costs 5pts, and also doesn't eat the -1 penalty to hit for firing assault after advancing, so this seeming parity in cost/ability is actually quite heavily skewed towards Eldar, resulting in it not being balanced.
The first thing you can do to make your life easier is to completely ignore the points costs of the equipment and unequipped models, because the only things that matter are how much damage a unit can dish out or withstand compared to its total cost. Movement helps it deliver or escape damage, but it all comes down to the total cost paid compared to performance.
Regarding the Fire Dragon and Tac/Sternguard meltas, there are tradeoffs. Fortunately, in 8th edition everything can split fire, so you no longer waste Boltgun shots at the hard target you're trying to meltas, so sprinkling a few of them into your force adds some flexibility, and at least everything can now damage everything else. Aeldari cannot do that; if they want meltaguns, they have to buy a minimum of 5, and each loss hurts. I don't count Storm Guardians for that purpose because they're worse than Guardian Defenders against pretty much everything except IG infantry, and even then you need a unit of 8 with 2 Flamers to achieve that kind of efficiency. I refuse to pay the same price (7+17 for both, not 5+17 ike you said, by the way) for a Storm Guardian over a Fire Dragon.
Let's take a look at the relative resilience of a Fire Dragon (24pts) and a Tactical Marine w/Meltaguns (30pts). It's a convenient comparison because they have (almost) the same damage output, and the only difference in their defensive profile is their toughness, so we can see just if the difference in points seems to match the amount of additional firepower the Marine can withstand. Here's how many BS3+ Boltgun or Plasmagun (uncharged) shots it takes to kill, on average, one Fire Dragon or one Tactical Marine. Seems reasonable, since one of those guns is common, and the other is usually pointed as infantry with good armour saves. Note that I'm saying shots, not models equipped with one weapon or the other, and that confine the number of shots you need to multiply the reciprocals of the chances to hit, wound, and fail a save. In some cases, you'd also end up dividing by wounds inflicted, but these are W1 models, and I'm not giving them any fancy saves from other sources.
Those numbers tell us that, on average, the Marine can withstand 33% more firepower from Boltguns, and 25% more firepower from Plasmaguns compared to the Dragon. A Tactic Marine with a Meltagun costs 25% more than a Fire Dragon, so these numbers actually favour the Marine. Sure, the Fire Dragon gets a small re-roll against monsters and vehicles, is a little faster, and is more accurate when Advancing, but the Marine gets a some more strength, a pistol, and ATSKNF. Overall, I'd say they're pretty well balanced against one another in 8th edition.
2) Space Marine Chapter Tactics apply to only infantry, bikers, Dreadnoughts, while Eldar Craftworld traits apply to their entire Detachment. That is not balanced. Honestly, of all the "balance" issues, you'd think this one would be a no brainer, but still they tilt it heavily towards Eldar. I'd like my speeders, tanks, transports, fliers to get to get that bonus too, but apparently the folks at GW think just Eldar should have that.
I agree with you that the Alaitoc attribute is too powerful, and that the Craftworld attributes should favour specific units and strategies, rather than being army-wide bonuses. Having said that, I wouldn rather see Craftworld attibutes, Chapter Tactics, etc. calibrated to roughly the power level of the Ulthwe attribute (+20% resilience). Alaitoc increases in power the lower the opposing BS, making it disproportionately powerful against entire Codices, which shouldn't happen. Writing an email to GW's rules team about the Craftworld attributes is on my to-do list, including changing the Ulthwe attribute to provide more incentive for psykers and Guardians. A work in progress.
3) Eldar Wraithlords have higher T, more wounds, more speed, and a free but functional CCW with strong AP and wound values, while the Marine Dreadnought is slower, softer, and has to buy a very expensive CCW or simply go without and hope they don't get tied up for the remainder of the fight with any 5 man squad with a 4+ or better save.
The easiest way to look at the problem is to compare similar configurations. Let's start with mixed loadouts leaning toward melee.
These two models have the same cost, the same purpose (rush into combat, guns blazing) and similar damage output against medium infantry, with a slight edge to the Wraithlord within 12". (Incidentally, that's how I recommend equipping most Wraithlords). As you said, the Wraithlord has higher toughness, wounds, and movement, which are valid concerns (leadership, too, but who cares?). Now, we could probably argue all day about whether the Wraithlord's degrading profile is enough of a penalty for having the extra stats, but I'm content to say "sometimes, but not quite". It does change how you treat them, though; you should commit to killing a Deadnought in one turn if possible, but you can afford to whittle down a Wraithlord slowly to mess with its damage output.
Regarding the Ghostglaive and DCCW, they're roughly equivalent, but they have different preferred targets. The DCCW does slightly less damage per attack, but it wounds easier against super tough targets (a corner case, I know), and the reliable damage makes it better suited to go after models with a modest number of wounds. Amusingly, Wraithguard are its favourite victims! The Ghostglaive has higher variance, and so it's better for attacking bigger targets, since rolling a 1 or 2 for damage against a W3 model is a huge drop in efficiency. Of course, the Wraithlord can call back on its fists for reliability, but I'd always recommend the having a Ghostglaive as an option for threatening T7+ or Sv2+ models, since that's what you'll usually try to chase down with the Wraithlord.
Things change once you start putting anti-vehicle guns on both models.
The Dreadnought now inflicts an average of 3.92 damage (2.94 moving) to a T7 3+ target, and the Wraithlord inflicts an average of 3.11 damage (2.33 moving) outside 12" against a T7 3+ target. The catch is that the Wraithlord should be moving because a substantial chunk of its total damage output (not included above) is from its melee attacks, whereas the Dreadnought benefits more from sitting still in the backfield due to its long range. As such, the Wraithlord is now more likely to get tied up by chaff units, removing its ranged output. In this case, the Dreadnought doesn't care much about its lower movement.
Overall, I think Wraithlords still are better than Dreadnoughts as in-your-face bullies, but they don't do the fire support role as well as the Dreadnought can. Mainly due tongue lower toughness, the rnnged Dreadnought should probably be about 10% cheaper than it is now, and 15% cheaper for the melee build.
4) Eldar squad leaders have +1A like most squad leaders, but also +1W, along a random additional useful ability based on what type of Exarch it is, which others don't get. Not balanced.
I think everything should cost points according to its capabilities, so you won't get any argument about this one from me. Nobody's squad leaders should be free, and I'd like to see a cool ability on all of them. That's another reason why extra care has to be taken with balancing Chapter Tactics and Craftworld attributes, since they cost nothing.
5) Space Marine scouts have to pay thru the nose to include "scout" gear. Putting them at 50% more expense than Eldar Rangers who get their sniper rifles for free and their cloaks included, who's cloaks not only add to cover save but come with an awesome -1 to Hit as well. Lovely. Also, not balanced.
You're right about the Sniper Rifles and Camo Cloaks costing too much on the Scouts, but oddly enough it doesn't matter. Let's load up some Scouts with Sniper Rifles and Camo Cloaks, then compare them to Rangers. Since you're concerned with their resilience, we'll start shooting them with Boltguns and Plasmaguns again. They'll both be in cover to get the most out of their gear.
The Ranger costs 12pts and the Scout costs 19pts, so the Scout costs 58% more. However, the Scout is 100% more resistant to Boltgun fire than the Ranger, although it is only 17% more resistant to Plasmaguns. In all fairness, the Scouts also have only 63% of the damage output of the Rangers per point spent on them.
However, if we're actually being smart about this, we won't bother putting Sniper Rifles and Camo Cloaks on the Scouts. Why? Because those "upgrades" aren't needed for the Scouts to do their job. Without the Camo Cloak, the numbers look like this:
I bet this is how GW dropped the cost of Rangers. Since we're now talking about 11pts Scouts, they're actually more resilient than Rangers per point spent to both Boltguns and Plasmaguns. This is why Camo Cloaks don't matter, but what about Sniper Rifles? Well, it's because pretty much every Sniper Rifle in 40k is much less efficient for killing characters compared to the other weapons, even if it means having to blast a path to anparticular character. Mobility will serve you lot better than a Sniper Rifle, so use deep striking, bikes, and landspeeders to swoop in an pick off a character after killing the other nearby models. I think the only character I'd really want Sniper Rifles for is The Changeling because it's both highly valuable AND super squishy.
All this talk of Sniper Rifles and Camo Cloaks is tangential to the real value of Scouts, though, which you ignored completely: Scouts are far better at their job than Rangers are because they are set up in the deployment phase. That makes them superior to other infiltrating units for their primary purpose, which is blocking reinforcements and claiming objectives. I would trade away my Rangers for Scouts if I could.
6) For 2 more points than a Marine pays for a just a Missile Launcher, Dark Reapers get a better weapon AND the awesome unit that fires it, hitting on 3+ no matter what, with a solid 3+ armor save to boot. And all the units in the squad can take it. Want that 10 man squad to get the most from whatever guarantee-to-hit/wound buff your dirt cheap psykers are going to slap on it? No wasted space there.
Missile Launchers are terrible guns, even the Aeldari Missile Launchers, so it's not hard to outclass them. Regarding the Dark Reapers, I'll first direct your attention back to the first section, where I explained why T3 vs. T4 is a big deal. Using exactly the same reasoning, if you wanted to make Dark Reapers T4, you'd have to make them roughly 25% more expensive, which pushes them up to 34pts each. Compare that to a Lascannon Devastator at 38pts, and you'll see that the current cost of the Reapers is not so unreasonable after all. I get why you're frustrated about the flat 3+ to hit, especially when moving, but how often to they (or Devastators) have to move? Reapers also can never get +1 to hit. Sure, the Exarch re-rolls 1s, but that effect is not as strong as the Signum, and remember that there is no option for ablative models in Aspect Warrior squads. Plus, the Marines get slightly better melee ability to fend of deep strikers, and have ATSKNF. Honestly, Dark Reapers and Devastators are comparable value.
Regarding the buffs, you know that you can just stick a cheap Captain near a few Devastator squads and get a benefit that's equivalent to what a Farseer can provide, right? No need for psychic tests, either. Autarchs do something similar for the Aeldari, and whether you choose them or a Farseer to buff your units depends on your army composition.
Regarding "dirt cheap psykers", they're as cheap as they are because they can barely do anything except use their psychic powers. Even so, their contribution is roughly on par with that of the other units if you figure out their effects on a per-point basis. Often times it would be preferable to just take more of the other units instead, but you have to take HQs, and the flexibility of the psychic powers is handy. Large, expensive units benefit more from per-unit re-rolls, and since Reapers are expensive with proportional firelower, they're then unit that benefits the most from, say, Guide. Wraithguard w/Wraithcannons are another example.
7) Prism Tank have 3 useful firing profiles and shoot twice while still moving half their 16" speed? Gimme a break.
I have a few surprises for you. The Fire Prism only has two useful firing modes: Lance is only good against T6 3+ multiwound models, barely better than Focused for that task, and only when you're not using the Linked Fire strategem. Allowing the Fire Prism to shoot twice while moving at half speed brings its firepower up to a level that isn't embarassing. Compare 4 Lascannon shots from a 190pts Predator to 2 Focused Prism Cannon salvos from a 160pts Fire Prism moving half speed against a T7 3+ target (e.g., each other). The Predator costs 19% more, but it inflicts 46% more damage on average. Linked Fire is the only reason Fire Prisms are good, but it costs a steady drip of CP and requires at least two Fire Prisms.
Some of this stuff is pretty subjective, and I get that they need to differentiate the races, but some of it isn't. When you give one group like the Eldar the clear superiority in both numbers AND quality on gear and units that have direct analogues in other armies, you've messed something up. I really don't know why Eldar don't run the tables at tournaments. I can think of 3 or 4 combinations of Eldar units, fluffy ones even, that would be all but unstoppable by anything other than a purpose built army. I can think of several more that are just absurd yet legal(1500pts, 50x Dark Reapers + Eldrad) that I honestly don't even know what anyone would bring up to stop.
Crybaby rant over, GO MARINES!
Subjectivity isn't the problem; you simply haven't done the calculations that would have shown most of your claims to be unjustified. That's good news, though, because now you have fewer things to complain about! Regarding those 50 Dark Reapers, they're surprisingly lacklustre against W1 infantry (even Marines!), so mixing in some Guardians/Dire Avengers and Swooping Hawks would be much better than Dark Reapers alone.
I thought this was a pretty good read. Personally I have more gripe with eldar stratagems than than their actual units.
2017/12/03 01:51:43
Subject: Hysterial rant of a Space Marine player who just bought the Eldar Codex
fraser1191 wrote: I'm sorry but ATSKNF has only ever been used by me once, to save the last guy in the squad. But in the whopping 5 games I've played I rerolled my morale check once.
Unless they give me a reason to take a 10 man squad then yes I'll be praising it, but I can't see that happening so in my eyes it's pretty useless
Fair enough, ATSKNF is no longer the beast it used to be, but it still comes up once in a while. You're right about how there's little incentive to run large squads, a problem which most of my Aeldari lists have as well. Frankly, it's safe to ignore almost every Morale mechanic in 8th edition. The biggest exceptions I can think of right now are blobs of 20 Iyanden Guardian Defenders and stacking leadership modifiers to boost Mind War. Even then, then former is best when spewing 40 Guardians out of the Webway, and the latter has too many moving parts to be a consistent plan.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Did you REALLY list the pistol as a benefit for anything for the Sternguard vs Fire Dragon argument?
First of all, I was comparing Fire Dragons to Tactical Marines w/meltas, not Sternguard; if I had compared the Sternguard, I would have spent time on their increased damage output.
You laugh, but depending on how easily your other units can respond to your meltas getting tied up in combat, a pistol can be a significant benefit. There are times when it's better to stay in combat, fire your pistols, and get the first round of attacks than it is to fall back and lose all of your damage for that turn from your melta unit. That pair of events is equivalent to rapid firing your bolters at close range, except that your melee opponent (now more depleted) gets to swing back. Meanwhile, the rest of your firepower that would have otherwise tried to wipe out the unit tying up your meltas can fire at something else.
Fire Dragons are terrible at the above option, and their best way to preserve their firepower in that situation cost 2 CP. Marines, however, are pretty good at staying stuck in for a turn.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/12/03 02:02:20
2017/12/03 02:58:45
Subject: Hysterial rant of a Space Marine player who just bought the Eldar Codex
The problem I have with this analysis is you are assuming point cost based on resilience to small arms fire. I'm never getting shot at by small arms fire.
I get shot by 8 dakka flyrants (192 s6 shots) guard mortars (10d6 s4 shots) and other guns that don't care if it takes 9 or 6 shots to kill my unit because they are going to kill whatever they shoot at.
You fail to take into account the -2 to hit rangers which increases the number of bolter shots to kill them to 10 which equals the scouts with camo cloaks on. And I would argue that deepstrike > infiltrate because if I infiltrate on an objective you just deepstrike in and you are guaranteed alpha strike. Cheaper troops + better guns + alpha strike = your objective.
Also you are underestimating the value of sniper riffles in ITC missions. Primaris psychers are one of the more powerful imperial units and ranger snipers destroy them.
Reapers = las cannon devastators?? That's why you see so many devastator squads at top tables in tournaments...The 3+ always hit is huge, it removes the benefit of entire armies (-1 to hit) makes flyers a joke to hit and allows moving + shooting which is huge. Being able to hide them out of LOS on turn 1 and then move into firing position against the hordes of -1 to hit armies out there significantly increases their survival and ability to hit vs las cannon devs which would take a -2 to do that same thing (reducing their effectiveness by 100% .33 to .66)
Fire dragons, could be a good point. I've yet to see them in a competitive list though so they probably do suck.
I agree with the other posters that say point cost/weapon effectiveness in a vacuum is not a good way to determine what should cost what. It is a great starting point but abilities like always hitting on a 3+ (crulexes are very popular, supersonic, tigerius...) shooting twice due to a psychic power, move shoot move all taken together with a unit that pays less for it's offensive output make a pure "if these two models were sitting in a open field shooting bolters at each other" a pretty basic analysis which would form a great starting point for creating balance cannot seriously be the final arbitrator or balance in a game that has as many factors as 40k.
Units need to be looked at in relation to the current meta. T4 3+ is about as survivable as T3 4+ vs the type/amount of fire-power armies are facing today. It is even worse for small model count armies because there is so much more firepower coming towards your units. Without some tricks 1 even 2 w models are scooped up off the table.
Being able to survive turn 1 alpha strike is probably the most important defensive trait a unit can have. That's why no LOS weapons are so valuable, deepstrike and inversely deepstrike prevention (screens, chaff, auspex scan, eldar kill your deepstrikers dead strat...) There is too much shooting in this game to be worried about 14% difference in survivablility to small arms fire when there are armies out there putting out 192 s6 shots and 9 smites or hell even the standard 5x assault cannon razorbacks w/ guilliman re-rolls and a storm raven. If that can reach you and shoot you how many reapers/marines does it kill
- no mods 72 s6 -1 shots re-rolling all misses (.88 x .88 x .5 x 72 = 28 or all of your reapers in the 3 squads of 9)
But that will never happen because the razors will need to move, your reapers will be out of los and range, the stormraven can't be within gman's bubble and still in range of the reapers, your reapers will have a -1 to hit or a -2 with strat or conceal, you would have gone first and destroyed 3 of the razorbacks or 2 of the razor backs and the stormraven, your reapers will be in some insanely durable wave serpents...
2017/12/03 03:02:16
Subject: Hysterial rant of a Space Marine player who just bought the Eldar Codex
Arachnofiend wrote: Argument: Space Marines are the worst codex army in the game with the exception of Grey Knights who are discounted as a non-army. They are a mono-build faction that relies on a singular, super-powerful character choice that has been slipping out of winning tables in recent months as new codexes have been released.
Rebuttal: Adeptus Mechanicus is worse; they are similarly mono-build and reliant on their super-powerful character choice, except they have never appeared at top tables and didn't even get the chance to slip out.
Counter-argument: Yeah but Cawl's canticles gimmick is cool.
I don't understand how you don't see how your argument doesn't hold up.
You realize there was a like 20+ page thread where he whined the entire time about how marines suck, never mind all the winning they're doing, they suck anyway?
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
2017/12/03 03:45:14
Subject: Hysterial rant of a Space Marine player who just bought the Eldar Codex
Arachnofiend wrote: Argument: Space Marines are the worst codex army in the game with the exception of Grey Knights who are discounted as a non-army. They are a mono-build faction that relies on a singular, super-powerful character choice that has been slipping out of winning tables in recent months as new codexes have been released.
Rebuttal: Adeptus Mechanicus is worse; they are similarly mono-build and reliant on their super-powerful character choice, except they have never appeared at top tables and didn't even get the chance to slip out.
Counter-argument: Yeah but Cawl's canticles gimmick is cool.
I don't understand how you don't see how your argument doesn't hold up.
You realize there was a like 20+ page thread where he whined the entire time about how marines suck, never mind all the winning they're doing, they suck anyway?
Tyranids did a lot of winning with the 6th edition codex too.
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
2017/12/03 03:52:30
Subject: Hysterial rant of a Space Marine player who just bought the Eldar Codex
I am primarily a space marine player (variant, but irrelevant). I respect my spiritual liege (bobby g) who makes marines competitive (plus asscan razors and storm ravens). I firmly believe a faction should be judged by it's outliers, not it's core. All marines aspire to be ultramarines, and now we know why.
2017/12/03 06:42:58
Subject: Hysterial rant of a Space Marine player who just bought the Eldar Codex
Op is just a troll, in fact about 10 years ago there was another troll on these forums named Gwar that would also argue the most simpleminded of points to the point that it would turn into flame wars.
That being said the units might be alitlle of when you compare them in a vacuum, as an eldar player I could easily whine about how broken space marines are as we don't have any 2+ armor vehicles, or the ability to wound landraiders on a 3+ from more than 12 inches away, or t5 2w jumptroops, or transports that fly, or centurians......ectect
7000+ Aliatoc Eldar
3000+ DeamonHunters
2017/12/03 07:05:21
Subject: Hysterial rant of a Space Marine player who just bought the Eldar Codex
bananathug wrote: The problem I have with this analysis is you are assuming point cost based on resilience to small arms fire. I'm never getting shot at by small arms fire.
I get shot by 8 dakka flyrants (192 s6 shots) guard mortars (10d6 s4 shots) and other guns that don't care if it takes 9 or 6 shots to kill my unit because they are going to kill whatever they shoot at.
I'm surprised that you consider plasma to be "smalls arms fire", then go on to talk about the dangers of S4 and S6, both at AP0. I get that you're talking about volume of fire, but I was comparing the models' resilience vs. two completely different shot qualities. Both considerations matter, but I focused on quality because that's how to determine which weapons are best used against which targets; you can split fire, but you can't split strength, AP, and damage.
Just for fun, I ran the numbers on the dakka flyrants and mortars vs. Marines; the flyrant pays a minimum of 55.69 pts per wound (PPW, 37.91 with Smite) and the mortars pay 30.86 PPW vs. Marines. Meanwhile, here's what some Aeldari units can do:
I chose the above units because they can usually apply their damage on turn 1; the Guardians are in there because they are good candidates for Webway Strike. As you can see, the mortars compare favourably to most of these units, and then flyrant is average among that list (much worse when Smite is denied). Reaper Exarchs are terrifying and are phenomenal for shredding mortar teams. Swooping Hawks are great too, as are Guardian Defenders, but the Defenders are much less likely to get into range even with Webway Strike. Keep in mind that all of these models are quite fragile except for the Fire Prism, lest we resume the "OMG Aeldari are OP" theme of this thread. I'm most familiar with Aeldari, so those are the examples I'm using.
You fail to take into account the -2 to hit rangers which increases the number of bolter shots to kill them to 10 which equals the scouts with camo cloaks on. And I would argue that deepstrike > infiltrate because if I infiltrate on an objective you just deepstrike in and you are guaranteed alpha strike. Cheaper troops + better guns + alpha strike = your objective.
Paradoxically, Rangers are among the units least likely to benefit from the Alaitoc attribute because they often get placed outside of their deployment zone, or at least on the fringes of the army. Only deep strikers are less likely to be protected. Speaking of deep strike and infiltration, the Scouts/Rangers are supposed to be 55pts/60pts speed bumps for deep strikers to protect the rest of the army. If the opponent doesn't kill them, great, but they're worth fielding even if they get shot or chopped to bits immediately.
Also you are underestimating the value of sniper riffles in ITC missions. Primaris psychers are one of the more powerful imperial units and ranger snipers destroy them.
Even as I type this post, Chapter Approved has raised the cost of Primaris Psykers to 46pts (including force staff), but I still wasn't particularly concerned about them before. Now they're roughly equivalent to Spiritseers, but with a worse save and crappier non-Smite powers (I expect a cost increase for Spiritseers later.) They're still dangerous, but not so bad if you have a few decent psykers of your own, and their limited range gives you time shoot them with whichever weapons you want if you absolutely must have them dead.
Reapers = las cannon devastators?? That's why you see so many devastator squads at top tables in tournaments...The 3+ always hit is huge, it removes the benefit of entire armies (-1 to hit) makes flyers a joke to hit and allows moving + shooting which is huge. Being able to hide them out of LOS on turn 1 and then move into firing position against the hordes of -1 to hit armies out there significantly increases their survival and ability to hit vs las cannon devs which would take a -2 to do that same thing (reducing their effectiveness by 100% .33 to .66)
Alright, fair enough; it's true that Reapers excel against the popular to-hit penalties. Otherwise, the comparison to the Lascannon Devastator still holds, assuming that we're shooting at vehicles. In that role, the two units are priced pretty well against each other, but I admit that the context is narrower than I originally claimed. My bad. You probably don't see them at the top tables because Guilliman likes to charge forward. It would be funny to see a bunch of Devastator Squads clustered around Guilliman as they all trudge up the field, though, but each squad should probably have a lot of regular Marines for some anti-infantry firepower and ablative wounds. The Devastators would still be hitting 56% - 75% of then time depending on whether they were suffering -1 or -2.
Fire dragons, could be a good point. I've yet to see them in a competitive list though so they probably do suck.
My main issue with Fire Dragons is this: why would I drop 10 Fire Dragons when I can drop 10 Wraithguard? Fire Dragons might be alright in a transport, though, where their squishiness isn't as much of a liability, and losing a Dragon to the wreck wouldn't be as painful as losing a Wraithguard.
I agree with the other posters that say point cost/weapon effectiveness in a vacuum is not a good way to determine what should cost what. It is a great starting point but abilities like always hitting on a 3+ (crulexes are very popular, supersonic, tigerius...) shooting twice due to a psychic power, move shoot move all taken together with a unit that pays less for it's offensive output make a pure "if these two models were sitting in a open field shooting bolters at each other" a pretty basic analysis which would form a great starting point for creating balance cannot seriously be the final arbitrator or balance in a game that has as many factors as 40k.
40k is a simple game that pretends to be complex, and it has only two factors: 1) probability and 2) position; every other consideration can be reduced to one of those two. Probability is what a model can do, and position is the circumstances in which that probability is applied. Having said that, I agree with you that the context in which a unit is likely to excel depends heavily on how well the opposing models leverage probability and position. Everything you described above has an opportunity cost in points or time, and it all goes into the same evaluation.
Units need to be looked at in relation to the current meta. T4 3+ is about as survivable as T3 4+ vs the type/amount of fire-power armies are facing today. It is even worse for small model count armies because there is so much more firepower coming towards your units. Without some tricks 1 even 2 w models are scooped up off the table.
I agree with everything except the second sentence; T4 3+ is nothing like T3 4+ unless you're talking about a S5 AP-4 weapon, and I can't think of such a weapon right now. There are 3 broad target categories in 40k: 1) W1 infantry (GEQ, MEQ), 2) mutliwound medium/heavy infantry/bikes (includes Terminators, and light vehicles too), and 3) vehicles with T6-T8 3+ and 6-26 (or more) wounds. If you look at the weapons, each one tends to be specialized against at one of these broad target types. Weapons that are good against the vehicles tend to be decent against multi-wound infantry and bikes, though, so it's no surprise that "elite" armies suffer splash damage from players loading up on anti-vehicle weapons. Interestingly, shuriken weapon scales up pretty well against tough targets, so Aeldari can always improvise a workable (if not ideal) solution to any target priority problem.
Being able to survive turn 1 alpha strike is probably the most important defensive trait a unit can have. That's why no LOS weapons are so valuable, deepstrike and inversely deepstrike prevention (screens, chaff, auspex scan, eldar kill your deepstrikers dead strat...)
Alpha strike is, indeed, the most important part of 40k, and it's the first thing I complained about on GW's recent survey. Going second is often like starting the game with 15%-20% fewer points, and the disparity snowballs from there. Also, the more LOS blocking terrain you add to reduce alpha strike, the more powerful mobile armies with good guns and melee will become there's a happy medium in there somewhere, which we seem to squabble about endlessly.
There is too much shooting in this game to be worried about 14% difference in survivablility to small arms fire when there are armies out there putting out 192 s6 shots and 9 smites or hell even the standard 5x assault cannon razorbacks w/ guilliman re-rolls and a storm raven. If that can reach you and shoot you how many reapers/marines does it kill
- no mods 72 s6 -1 shots re-rolling all misses (.88 x .88 x .5 x 72 = 28 or all of your reapers in the 3 squads of 9)
You're really going all-in on this "small arms fire" straw man. Normally, when I work out a unit's resilience, I compare Boltguns, Heavy Bolters, Assault Cannons, Plasma, Krak Missiles, and Lascannons, which gives me a variety of strength and AP. The only reason I stuck to Boltguns and Plasma (still "small arms", really?) in this thread is because I wanted to compare two weapons that inflicted only 1 wound per attack (because the targets were W1), but had radically different strength and AP.
Regarding Guilliman, if I could pay 400pts for a M8" token (let alone a model) with only his XIII Primarch ability affecting a faction keyword of my choice, it would be in every 2000pts list I ever wrote. He literally doubles the damage output of his assault cannon army if you consider both the anti-infantry and anti-vehicle numbers.
But that will never happen because the razors will need to move, your reapers will be out of los and range, the stormraven can't be within gman's bubble and still in range of the reapers, your reapers will have a -1 to hit or a -2 with strat or conceal, you would have gone first and destroyed 3 of the razorbacks or 2 of the razor backs and the stormraven, your reapers will be in some insanely durable wave serpents...
Wait, what? You just spent a bunch of time telling me about how overwhelming shooting renders comparing unit statlines obsolete (which is flat-out wrong), and now you're saying that your assertion has been undone by the core shooting rules, a few CP, a couple of transports, and terrain. None of those things are unique to Aeldari, either. Even those "insanely durable" Wave Serpents can't use their shields defensively against the Guilliman assault cannons or the flyrants, so why make a big deal of them?
That being said the units might be alitlle of when you compare them in a vacuum, as an eldar player I could easily whine about how broken space marines are as we don't have any 2+ armor vehicles, or the ability to wound landraiders on a 3+ from more than 12 inches away, or t5 2w jumptroops, or transports that fly, or centurians......ectect
You're right about the Aeldari lack of 2+ vehicles and Centurions, but they don't need either of those things. Frankly, their model line is beyond saturation as it is. Regarding the Land Raiders, the Focused shots from Fire Prisms can wound on 3+ from 60", and a trio of Linked Prisms can easily kill a Land Raider in one turn. Aeldari might not have T5 W2 jump troops, but they can drop 20 T6 W3 3+ Wraithguard with Wraithcannons outside 9" on turn 1. Regarding flying transports, technically all the Aeldari transports have the Fly keyword; they aren't as fast as aircraft, but they can still "tank shock" to mess up enemy shooting and keep firing after wandering out of combat in subsequent turns.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/12/03 07:12:37
2017/12/03 07:29:46
Subject: Hysterial rant of a Space Marine player who just bought the Eldar Codex
DJ Illuminati wrote: Op is just a troll, in fact about 10 years ago there was another troll on these forums named Gwar that would also argue the most simpleminded of points to the point that it would turn into flame wars.
That being said the units might be alitlle of when you compare them in a vacuum, as an eldar player I could easily whine about how broken space marines are as we don't have...transports that fly...
>>Checks the Eldar codex.
>>All Eldar transports have the Fly keyword.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
2017/12/03 16:47:42
Subject: Hysterial rant of a Space Marine player who just bought the Eldar Codex
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
ERJAK wrote: Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.
2017/12/04 01:51:00
Subject: Hysterial rant of a Space Marine player who just bought the Eldar Codex
DJ Illuminati wrote: Op is just a troll, in fact about 10 years ago there was another troll on these forums named Gwar that would also argue the most simpleminded of points to the point that it would turn into flame wars.
That being said the units might be alitlle of when you compare them in a vacuum, as an eldar player I could easily whine about how broken space marines are as we don't have...transports that fly...
>>Checks the Eldar codex.
>>All Eldar transports have the Fly keyword.
Oh excuse me, I need to point out the forest hidden behind all those trees.............what I was referring to was stormravens, however 20 years of skimmers and flyers has caused me to forget that keywords for skimmers is now the same as the flyers that cannot be assaulted by normal units and move great differences.......
Way to focus on the hyperspecific and miss the point......
That being said the units might be alitlle of when you compare them in a vacuum, as an eldar player I could easily whine about how broken space marines are as we don't have any 2+ armor vehicles, or the ability to wound landraiders on a 3+ from more than 12 inches away, or t5 2w jumptroops, or transports that fly, or centurians......ectect
You're right about the Aeldari lack of 2+ vehicles and Centurions, but they don't need either of those things. Frankly, their model line is beyond saturation as it is. Regarding the Land Raiders, the Focused shots from Fire Prisms can wound on 3+ from 60", and a trio of Linked Prisms can easily kill a Land Raider in one turn. Aeldari might not have T5 W2 jump troops, but they can drop 20 T6 W3 3+ Wraithguard with Wraithcannons outside 9" on turn 1. Regarding flying transports, technically all the Aeldari transports have the Fly keyword; they aren't as fast as aircraft, but they can still "tank shock" to mess up enemy shooting and keep firing after wandering out of combat in subsequent turns.
You and I are kinda making the same point, there are toys that eldar don't get such as primaris marines, landraiders, or stormravens, because we have our own toys that other armies don't, and while we can drop two units in deepstrike for 3cp, space marines can deepstrike much more of their army with droppods for a few points per squad. Just like how our psychic powers at different and our troop are very different.
It's like two roads from point a to point b, one road is short but has a low speed limit while the other road is longer and you can drive much faster...........yet both roads take the same amount of time to get to the destination. Looking at individual units in a vacuum is pointless when the entire codex is made up of variables and modifiers the completely change the way you field a unit on the actual table.......
Also, the cost of 3 fireprisms naked is much higher than a single landraiders, and they are not transports, it is closer to 2 prisms to 1 lr for points cost.....
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/12/04 02:26:04
7000+ Aliatoc Eldar
3000+ DeamonHunters
2017/12/04 14:01:20
Subject: Hysterial rant of a Space Marine player who just bought the Eldar Codex
-CWE is OP.
-Many of the places where CWE look OP are not actually OP upon closer examination.
-Alaitoc should not be what it is
-Exarchs should cost more points, if they get the +1W
-Brightlance is a weaker Lascannon, not a stronger MM - and is OK, relative to that.
-Wraithlord is marginally better than a Dread at the same points - but not substantially so,
-Fire Prism isn't OP. Marines can do anything it can do better for cheaper, but the Fire Prism has more versatility. A tradeoff.
-Sniper Scouts w/Cloaks cost a little too much. But Scouts perform the non-Sniper role that both typically fill much better for 1 ppm less. However, that's because Alpha-denial is much more impactful than Snipers. Overall, non-Sniper scouts and Rangers are a tradeoff.
-Inability to arm everyone in a squad with a special/heavy is also the ability to take ablaitive wounds. Another tradeoff.
-Centurians are bad in this edition.
-T4, is frequently undervalued. Not the end-all-be-all, but an important consideration.
Surprisingly, 'Dark Reapers are OP' isn't unanimous. It's widely agreed (and I agree), but not everyone thinks so.
Automatically Appended Next Post: One addtional point:
Autarchs: customization limited to what exists in the Clampacks
Captains: They moved from the wonderful FC kit to some decent-looking Clampacks. But still have *all* the options you'd expect!
Clearly, SMOP (kidding). Seriously, though, I'm glad SM retained that customization, even as other factions are losing theirs.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/12/04 14:32:47
2017/12/04 15:27:16
Subject: Hysterial rant of a Space Marine player who just bought the Eldar Codex
DJ Illuminati wrote: Op is just a troll, in fact about 10 years ago there was another troll on these forums named Gwar that would also argue the most simpleminded of points to the point that it would turn into flame wars.
That being said the units might be alitlle of when you compare them in a vacuum, as an eldar player I could easily whine about how broken space marines are as we don't have...transports that fly...
>>Checks the Eldar codex.
>>All Eldar transports have the Fly keyword.
Oh excuse me, I need to point out the forest hidden behind all those trees.............what I was referring to was stormravens, however 20 years of skimmers and flyers has caused me to forget that keywords for skimmers is now the same as the flyers that cannot be assaulted by normal units and move great differences.......
Way to focus on the hyperspecific and miss the point......
I was being cheeky about the keywords, nothing more
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
2017/12/04 16:00:28
Subject: Hysterial rant of a Space Marine player who just bought the Eldar Codex
the_scotsman wrote: ....I'm sure I should take unsupported claims of what is and isn't balance from a dude whose main premise for the imbalance is that Eldar and marines were imbalanced 9 years ago and who hasn't seemed to play a single actual game against them in 8th. that's probably a good indicator that he is infallible and knows exactly what he's talking about.
This 100%. Why dont you play a few games then get back to us with actual in-game evidence. As it stands I'm an Eldar player and my buddies BA give me a run for my money pretty regularly.
Necrons - 6000+
Eldar/DE/Harlequins- 6000+
Genestealer Cult - 2000
Currently enthralled by Blanchitsu and INQ28.
2017/12/04 16:01:08
Subject: Hysterial rant of a Space Marine player who just bought the Eldar Codex
the_scotsman wrote: No way the Eldar missile launcher is the same as the imperial missile launcher, it's the equivalent of a multi melta EXCEPT MORE BETTER. If I told you you could have a multi melta, except double the range, less AP, but with an optional anti infantry attack youd be like, "bro" and I'd be like "bro" and then you'd take it on completely different platforms from multi meltas and you'd use it as a backfield gunline weapon and not a close range anti tank weapon like a multi melta because it would have a totally different role, not at all related to other weapons that I don't want to compare to because I'm engaged in willful ignorance of data that backs up my presupposed conclusion.
Well I'm generally on the same page with you, but assuming you are referring to the Reaper Launcher when you say Eldar Missle Launcher, it really is much closer to the Marine ML It's anti tank profile isn't just similar, it's identical for starters, so that alone should clue you in. Also, it has a secondary anti infantry profile, like the Marine ML, and which the MM doesn't. And personally I'd prefer the Reaper anti infantry to the Marine one anyday. Of course the real piece of BS is that the unit the Reaper Launcher goes on is really good and only 5 freakin points, whereas the cheapest possible unit that the Marines can slap one on is 11, a scout, and only one per squad, and it takes a hit penalty when it moves, sigh. Oh well.
"The Ultramarines are here to save us!"
"Those are the Sons of Orar."
"O R they!"
2017/12/04 16:36:30
Subject: Hysterial rant of a Space Marine player who just bought the Eldar Codex
He was being sarcastic - he's not usually bitter and prone to hyperbole. I think he's just fed up with a lot of these claims.
The Reaper Launcher is closest to the IoMML. But the Eldar Missile Launcher is another weapon. It's identical to the IoM missile launcher, except it's Frag missile is AP-1.
The point of his post is that it's clear that the CWEML is similar to the IoMML, not the MM, much like how the Brightlance is similar to the LC not the MM. It's been pointed out quite a bit.
The Reaper Launcher doesn't always hit on 3's, the Reaper does. So an Index Autarch with one still suffers penalties. Not much disagreement, though, on Reapers being OP (some say not much, but the majority of people say clearly OP).
Also, note that the Reaper ML's Krak is 3 damage, not d6 damage. There are times (3W no-FnP) where that's better, but it's usually quite a bit worse than D6 damage.
2017/12/04 17:19:27
Subject: Hysterial rant of a Space Marine player who just bought the Eldar Codex
I'm still confused as to why people keep comparing the BL to the LC. A standard heavy weapon has a profile that includes range, times it can fire, S, AP, Damage value. The CL has 3 of these in common with the Melta, and only one with the LC. Maybe Eldar don't see this because they don't have a MM equivalent and so naturally compare it to the LC. And I can see that. So I guess my argument isn't so much that the BL is underpriced, I'd pay a bit more for 1S even with lower AP, but that the MM is way overpriced for it's range. Which is why you don't hardly ever see a MM being equipped on Marine units.
But trust me, if MM cost 20 pts and had a 36", and ditch the reroll damage at half range because really, how often does that ever get used, like once per game per gun at most and never that really, you'd see Marine units equipping them all the time. Dev Squads would be replete with them.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/12/04 17:20:41
"The Ultramarines are here to save us!"
"Those are the Sons of Orar."
"O R they!"
2017/12/04 17:35:42
Subject: Hysterial rant of a Space Marine player who just bought the Eldar Codex
If you were to frame the argument "The MM is crap compared to the LC", you'd have a very different sort of discussion. It's easier to have reasonable discussions about internal codex balance than external.
I think you have a good point. If you overtuned the MM, you'd see drop-MMdev squads do some real damage - but that'd take quite a bit, because Pods suck so much right now.
I really think the inside-12"-range is a very nice rule, but not nice enough for the price that MM pays.
As is, you do see the BL-equivelent - the LC - on Tacs/Devs much more than MM. It's a really, really nice weapon.
Automatically Appended Next Post: But because of the price of the platforms we can take it on, I'd definitely take the +12" range +1S 1-worse AP for 5pts that the LC has over the BL. Devs might find value in getting the BL over the LC, but Guardians, Serpents, Falcons, WarWalkers, and just about everything else would rather have the LC over the BL.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/12/04 17:37:40
2017/12/04 17:46:12
Subject: Hysterial rant of a Space Marine player who just bought the Eldar Codex
Multi-melta sucks without comparing it to anything, really. It's too expensive for a single S8 shot that gets a so-so bonus inside 12". If it's Str also, say doubled to S16 inside melta range, then I could see the cost. But for a 50/50 to wound? Nope.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/12/04 18:02:58
2017/12/04 18:03:16
Subject: Hysterial rant of a Space Marine player who just bought the Eldar Codex
The Multi Melta is a mediocre weapon at best, outclassed at Long Range by the lascannon and at Short Range by the melta gun itself, and assault.
At mid-range, Plasma does perfectly adequately and more cheaply than a multi-melta while remaining a rapid-fire (and therefore penalty-less when moving) weapon.
2017/12/04 18:06:11
Subject: Hysterial rant of a Space Marine player who just bought the Eldar Codex
We actually disagree on extremely subtle points. Not things like the dumpster fire multi-melta. Everything I post is admittedly skewed by playing against a player pool, half of which has been killing marines since 2nd ed.
2017/12/04 18:21:03
Subject: Hysterial rant of a Space Marine player who just bought the Eldar Codex
When you compare space marine codex to eldar codex you notice some things right off the bat.
#1 - Eldar stratagems are good and affect most of the craft-worlds equally. Space marine strategems are much worse than Eldar and ALSO the best ones are chapter specific.
#2 - Eldar army traits affect all unit types and space marine only affects infantry/biker and dreadnoughts.
#3 - Eldar have 2 good psychic trees. Space marines have 1 crappy one.
#4 - Eldar have options rather than just choices.
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
2017/12/04 18:32:09
Subject: Hysterial rant of a Space Marine player who just bought the Eldar Codex
Nobody's squad leaders should be free, and I'd like to see a cool ability on all of them. That's another reason why extra care has to be taken with balancing Chapter Tactics and Craftworld attributes, since they cost nothing.
7000+ Aliatoc Eldar
3000+ DeamonHunters
Necrons - 6000+
Eldar/DE/Harlequins- 6000+
Genestealer Cult - 2000
Currently enthralled by Blanchitsu and INQ28.