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.
But they use a lot of aspects, at least the ones that play here, There are those flyer exarchs, the psyker flyer exarchs, and the dark reaper looking flyer dudes. And they also use rangers a lot.
Not sure if farseers are exarchs too though. But if they are that would be another one they use. In fact they probably use the least of the non exarch or aspect warrior units like guardians for example.
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain.
Karol wrote: But they use a lot of aspects, at least the ones that play here, There are those flyer exarchs, the psyker flyer exarchs, and the dark reaper looking flyer dudes. And they also use rangers a lot.
Not sure if farseers are exarchs too though. But if they are that would be another one they use. In fact they probably use the least of the non exarch or aspect warrior units like guardians for example.
Farseers are like Exarchs in that they are locked in the path of the seer (as opposed to the path of the warrior for exarchs) and unable to change to a different path.
My bad then. I don't know much about eldar lore. I do know the flyers are aspects though.
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain.
...do you even know what Dire Avengers are?
Who says point costs really need to be reworked in the AA system?
An Eldar melee unit armed with power swords and helmets that let then fight first. The thing is that GW charges too much for melee ability, and hasn't done a good job of rebalancing melee with how the rest of the game works. Wounds went up on a bunch of things, but melee didn't improve meaning most things feel like they're little better than tissue paper in a fight.
And yes, if GW is putting forth an honest effort to fix the game then points costs should be balanced around the way mechanics favor them. In our current system shooting should cost more than melee, but depending on how that's changed aomething else, like movement would need to be costed higher.
No, that's not what Avengers are. So clearly you're more out of the loop than I possibly thought.
And not really, things don't need to be recosted as much in an AA system compared to IGOUGO, as you have more a chance to use a unit's abilities in AA compared to a unit standing around doing nothing for 30 minutes just to be blown up before it moves.
But then, doesn't that mean that units that typically got blown away before they got to act are worth more in AA than IGOUGO?
Not really. If you've seen Kill Team at all, models aren't much different in terms of pricing.
CWE infantry, which were fine in IGOUGO, certainly *did* get points drops going to KT. And were trash in KT. It's a great example of how the value of a unit certainly changes between rulessets.
It's odd you'd call out KT, since not only *did* it have a recosting pass, it's also even less balanced than 40k. It's an example that shows just badly even a halfassed recosting pass was.
Eldar Infantry? Fine?
How out of touch with reality with unit viability are you at this point?
Not nearly as much as you think. But sure, let's frame shift to avoid another of your strawmen.
The pivitol claim: CWE infantry, at the time 40k Kill Team was released, were more competitive in 40k at higher points costs than in KillTeam with their lower points costs. That is the specific, relevant claim.
CWE was doing quite well in 40k at the time - including things like Ranger bubblewrap and Guardian bombs. In Kill Team, CWE was DOA.
(It's amazing how "well" the "We move real fast so we can hit all at once before they can retaliate" strategy translated into a rulesset that says "Anyone who didn't move gets to shoot first"...)
So, given that CWE infantry were doing well in 40k at one price point, and doing terribly in KT at a lower price point, I think it's quite fair to say that using the same price points for the same units in both systems wouldn't have been fair.
I love the insane mental gymnastics.
Rangers and Guardians are only "fine" in super specific instances that you provided, and honestly that "fine" can be debated. If you really thought they were "fine", you're wrong. End of story.
It only looks like "Gymnastics" because my words have to do all sorts of contortions to fit your strawman army.
Just how "fine" they were could certainly be debated. But being much more "fine" than in KT - even with the pricing changes - certainly couldn't be.
Shadenuat wrote: Eldar win yes, but not through combined arms forces of rainbow colored Aspect Warriors doing cool synergistic things.
Synergy if for the weak. SPAM is where it's at.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/09/23 13:11:43
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
Karol wrote: But they use a lot of aspects, at least the ones that play here, There are those flyer exarchs, the psyker flyer exarchs, and the dark reaper looking flyer dudes. And they also use rangers a lot.
Not sure if farseers are exarchs too though. But if they are that would be another one they use. In fact they probably use the least of the non exarch or aspect warrior units like guardians for example.
Farseers are like Exarchs in that they are locked in the path of the seer (as opposed to the path of the warrior for exarchs) and unable to change to a different path.
But unlike Exarchs in that:
-It is not a Path of War
-Path of the Farseer is terminal - it will eventually kill them
-Exarchs are amalgums of every Eldar who became lost on that Path and donned the armor. Where Farseers can communciate with Soulstones (containing the spirits of the fallen), they don't merge with any.
There are no "psyker" Apsects. The closest is a Warlock, who is someone walking the Path of the Seer (but not lost on it like a Farseer), and has previously walked a path of Khaine (been an Aspect Warrior, but not Exarch). If they get lost on the Path, they become a Farseer, not an Exarch.
...do you even know what Dire Avengers are?
Who says point costs really need to be reworked in the AA system?
An Eldar melee unit armed with power swords and helmets that let then fight first. The thing is that GW charges too much for melee ability, and hasn't done a good job of rebalancing melee with how the rest of the game works. Wounds went up on a bunch of things, but melee didn't improve meaning most things feel like they're little better than tissue paper in a fight.
And yes, if GW is putting forth an honest effort to fix the game then points costs should be balanced around the way mechanics favor them. In our current system shooting should cost more than melee, but depending on how that's changed aomething else, like movement would need to be costed higher.
No, that's not what Avengers are. So clearly you're more out of the loop than I possibly thought.
And not really, things don't need to be recosted as much in an AA system compared to IGOUGO, as you have more a chance to use a unit's abilities in AA compared to a unit standing around doing nothing for 30 minutes just to be blown up before it moves.
But then, doesn't that mean that units that typically got blown away before they got to act are worth more in AA than IGOUGO?
Not really. If you've seen Kill Team at all, models aren't much different in terms of pricing.
CWE infantry, which were fine in IGOUGO, certainly *did* get points drops going to KT. And were trash in KT. It's a great example of how the value of a unit certainly changes between rulessets.
It's odd you'd call out KT, since not only *did* it have a recosting pass, it's also even less balanced than 40k. It's an example that shows just badly even a halfassed recosting pass was.
Eldar Infantry? Fine?
How out of touch with reality with unit viability are you at this point?
Not nearly as much as you think. But sure, let's frame shift to avoid another of your strawmen.
The pivitol claim: CWE infantry, at the time 40k Kill Team was released, were more competitive in 40k at higher points costs than in KillTeam with their lower points costs. That is the specific, relevant claim.
CWE was doing quite well in 40k at the time - including things like Ranger bubblewrap and Guardian bombs. In Kill Team, CWE was DOA.
(It's amazing how "well" the "We move real fast so we can hit all at once before they can retaliate" strategy translated into a rulesset that says "Anyone who didn't move gets to shoot first"...)
So, given that CWE infantry were doing well in 40k at one price point, and doing terribly in KT at a lower price point, I think it's quite fair to say that using the same price points for the same units in both systems wouldn't have been fair.
I love the insane mental gymnastics.
Rangers and Guardians are only "fine" in super specific instances that you provided, and honestly that "fine" can be debated. If you really thought they were "fine", you're wrong. End of story.
It only looks like "Gymnastics" because my words have to do all sorts of contortions to fit your strawman army.
Just how "fine" they were could certainly be debated. But being much more "fine" than in KT - even with the pricing changes - certainly couldn't be.
Seeing as an Eldar unit would get more usage in the AA system, it isn't as debatable.
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.
...do you even know what Dire Avengers are?
Who says point costs really need to be reworked in the AA system?
An Eldar melee unit armed with power swords and helmets that let then fight first. The thing is that GW charges too much for melee ability, and hasn't done a good job of rebalancing melee with how the rest of the game works. Wounds went up on a bunch of things, but melee didn't improve meaning most things feel like they're little better than tissue paper in a fight.
And yes, if GW is putting forth an honest effort to fix the game then points costs should be balanced around the way mechanics favor them. In our current system shooting should cost more than melee, but depending on how that's changed aomething else, like movement would need to be costed higher.
No, that's not what Avengers are. So clearly you're more out of the loop than I possibly thought.
And not really, things don't need to be recosted as much in an AA system compared to IGOUGO, as you have more a chance to use a unit's abilities in AA compared to a unit standing around doing nothing for 30 minutes just to be blown up before it moves.
But then, doesn't that mean that units that typically got blown away before they got to act are worth more in AA than IGOUGO?
Not really. If you've seen Kill Team at all, models aren't much different in terms of pricing.
CWE infantry, which were fine in IGOUGO, certainly *did* get points drops going to KT. And were trash in KT. It's a great example of how the value of a unit certainly changes between rulessets.
It's odd you'd call out KT, since not only *did* it have a recosting pass, it's also even less balanced than 40k. It's an example that shows just badly even a halfassed recosting pass was.
Eldar Infantry? Fine?
How out of touch with reality with unit viability are you at this point?
Not nearly as much as you think. But sure, let's frame shift to avoid another of your strawmen.
The pivitol claim: CWE infantry, at the time 40k Kill Team was released, were more competitive in 40k at higher points costs than in KillTeam with their lower points costs. That is the specific, relevant claim.
CWE was doing quite well in 40k at the time - including things like Ranger bubblewrap and Guardian bombs. In Kill Team, CWE was DOA.
(It's amazing how "well" the "We move real fast so we can hit all at once before they can retaliate" strategy translated into a rulesset that says "Anyone who didn't move gets to shoot first"...)
So, given that CWE infantry were doing well in 40k at one price point, and doing terribly in KT at a lower price point, I think it's quite fair to say that using the same price points for the same units in both systems wouldn't have been fair.
I love the insane mental gymnastics.
Rangers and Guardians are only "fine" in super specific instances that you provided, and honestly that "fine" can be debated. If you really thought they were "fine", you're wrong. End of story.
It only looks like "Gymnastics" because my words have to do all sorts of contortions to fit your strawman army.
Just how "fine" they were could certainly be debated. But being much more "fine" than in KT - even with the pricing changes - certainly couldn't be.
Seeing as an Eldar unit would get more usage in the AA system, it isn't as debatable.
I'm not sure I follow. You're arguing that Eldar units, as an example, wouldn't need a points change for AA or any other massive structural change, because they'd be *better*?
Does whether they're worth a lot more or a lot less in AA vs IGOUGO really change anything? In either case, they're not worth the same.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/09/23 15:44:02
Karol wrote: But they use a lot of aspects, at least the ones that play here, There are those flyer exarchs, the psyker flyer exarchs, and the dark reaper looking flyer dudes. And they also use rangers a lot.
Not sure if farseers are exarchs too though. But if they are that would be another one they use. In fact they probably use the least of the non exarch or aspect warrior units like guardians for example.
Farseers are like Exarchs in that they are locked in the path of the seer (as opposed to the path of the warrior for exarchs) and unable to change to a different path.
But unlike Exarchs in that:
-It is not a Path of War
-Path of the Farseer is terminal - it will eventually kill them
-Exarchs are amalgums of every Eldar who became lost on that Path and donned the armor. Where Farseers can communciate with Soulstones (containing the spirits of the fallen), they don't merge with any.
There are no "psyker" Apsects. The closest is a Warlock, who is someone walking the Path of the Seer (but not lost on it like a Farseer), and has previously walked a path of Khaine (been an Aspect Warrior, but not Exarch). If they get lost on the Path, they become a Farseer, not an Exarch.
I Think warlocks are already lost with no real way to go back, Effectively just a sorta rank on the path if taken that way. Since they need to start all the training to become a Farseer to be a warlock, and once started you cannot go back.
