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.

Guardians are militia while Dire Avengers are elite aspect warriors so why are they identical apart from weapons and leadership?

Shouldn't Guardians be weaker than Dire Avengers, maybe WS3 BS3, the same as Space Marine Scouts?

They were until the last Codex. It was a dumb change.

If I recall, Guardians are, at least in part, Eldar who have already completed a Path, be that a Warrior path like being a Scorpion/Avenger or something non-military like a Poet. But enough of them have been warriors in the past that they at least retain some of that skill, they are not milita in the sense of 'untrained guys given guns and 5 minutes to practice'.

That, and the fact that even an untrained, inexperienced Eldar is superior to a trained human or Tau, and with only really 3-6 as WS/BS options that are reguarly used, there's not that much scope.

No one took Guardians because they were pants so GW buffed them.

No one still takes Guardians because of all the other options that are frankly more useful.

Honestly I'd prefer going the DE/WHFB route; leave Guardians WS/BS4, and pump one of either WS or BS to 5 on Aspect Warriors depending on their specialization. They're supposed to be older and better-trained than humans; when you have centuries taking ten years aside to get really, really good at shooting people isn't as much of a serious investment as it is for a human.

(WS4/BS4 on Guardians, WS5/BS4 on Striking Scorpions, Howling Banshees, and Shining Spears, WS4/BS5 on Swooping Hawks, Warp Spiders, Dire Avengers, Fire Dragons, and Dark Reapers)

Or if you think that's silly back off to 3e Black Guardian status on Guardians (WS4/BS3 Storm Guardians, BS4 vehicles, and WS3/BS4 Guardian Defenders/artillery platforms/jetbikes) instead of going all the way to WS/BS3 across the board.

Guardians are militia. That does not remove their natural skills and training. When not needed they return to their private lives. Dire avengers are guardians who just dont go back to their private lives but prefer to stay in the military without specializing in any of the other roles. Having the same statline makes sense.

Guardians were terrible in the old codex. Really really terrible! The +1 ws, +1 bs, Bladestorm and Battle Focus made them good value.
They really needed it.

In the context of the game wouldn't a guardian be about the equivalent in combat skill to a space marine Scout while a Dire Avenger would be about equal to a full Space Marine?

I don't know what the points difference is between them but surely there's a place for a dirt cheap squad with a weapons platform and a more expensive squad which is elite and with better kit?

The dire avenger is the "generic" aspect warrior. Equaling just a guardian who doesnt want to take off the suit but doesnt want to specialize in anything that would make them stand out or undergo any special training.

Aspect warriors of any style are still more skilled than Guardians. That's their entire point- they are trapped in a mental loop where they cannot give up warfare to return to civilian life when they are not needed to be at war. Dire Avengers and Dark Reapers are the elite shooters where Banshees and Scorpions are the elite hand to hand fighters. Warp Spiders and Hawks are the swift movement specialists. They are all supposed to be better at some aspect of war than a guardian, because guardians can give it up when they want to.

The problem is that you could hear lots of people complain about how weak the old style Guardians were and how they needed this buff or that buff or this point reduction, as if 40K was supposed to be nothing but elite troops fighting elite troops.

They're not totally the same. Keep in mind the armor save and range of their weapons are different.

Guardians also get a heavy weapon they can shoot while on the move, this is constantly over looked.

Power gamers will still never use guardians anyway but they certainly have a place on the table top.

Doesn't a Dire Avenger specialise in being awesome with his shurikan catapult?

It sounds like people think Dire Avengers and Guardians are equal in all but equipment

Taffy17 wrote:
Doesn't a Dire Avenger specialise in being awesome with his shurikan catapult?

It sounds like people think Dire Avengers and Guardians are equal in all but equipment

Hell, in the ancient days of 2nd edition, when all the stations of Eldar culture were really cemented into a codex for the first time (rather than a collection of White Dwarf articles adding to Rogue Trader), Guardians actually had to pay points to even be equipped with Shuriken Catapults in the first place, before the differences in armor even came into play. So not only did they have less armor than Dire Avengers, they had lasguns.

The dire avenger training focuses on them being on the defensive, and holding forward positions. They therefore have better armor, and counter attack to show their specialized training. All eldar are supernaturally accurate and agile due to rediculous mental capabilities and reflexes. That doesn't only affect initiative. It used to Bother me that vat grown kabalite warriors were better at everything than guardians who may have completed several warrior paths during their lifetime.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
The dire avenger training focuses on them being on the defensive, and holding forward positions. They therefore have better armor, and counter attack to show their specialized training. All eldar are supernaturally accurate and agile due to rediculous mental capabilities and reflexes. That doesn't only affect initiative. It used to Bother me that vat grown kabalite warriors were better at everything than guardians who may have completed several warrior paths during their lifetime.

To be fair, the Kabalite Warriors spend their time being Warriors, that Guardian may have spent the last eight hundred years being a gardener, a geologist, a poet since the last time they were a Warrior, and that might have been as something like a Crimson Hunter that may have had zero bearing on the battlefield function of a Guardian.

If IG Veterans can be BS4, Guardians being BS4 is fluffy.

Eldar change their paths several times in their lives, they are encouraged to take at least one warrior path because the craftworld requires skilled Guardians.

Guardians do train frequently, remember that guardians man most warmachines and most of those dont have an aspect that we know of.

Another way to look at it, Aspects Warriors, while well trained are mostly focused on the religious side of warfare. Its more to do with being a vessel for Khaine's wrath than the ultimate warrior. Each aspect provides specific training, but it appears to be on top of generalist training Guardians get. It would be fair to say the average Eldar appearing at an aspect shrine already knows how to shoot straight.

On the same topic, why are CSM Chosen the same WS/BS as normal CSM? Is the only reason they are "Chosen" is because Abby gave em a CC weapon and a spiky hat?

 dragoonmaster101 wrote:
On the same topic, why are CSM Chosen the same WS/BS as normal CSM? Is the only reason they are "Chosen" is because Abby gave em a CC weapon and a spiky hat?

Why are SM Veterans WS/BS 4? Are they only special because they raided the armoury?

GW's system isn't granular enough to represent the fine divisions in fluff, no matter how much you argue lore evidence.

I think pretty much everything I wanted to say has been said, but I'll throw my two cents in anyway.

*The reason guardians have equal BS/WS to avengers is that they were really underwhelming in the last book. You were basically paying ~100 points for the heavy weapons platform which would then miss half the time thanks to BS 3. They also had fewer possible weapon platforms per squad and lacked battle focus and bladestorm back then. Personally, I'd kind of like to see them go back to BS/WS 3, but give them more options for wargear that would boost it back up, give them access to an energy shield etc. Let them be the all-rounder guys that use their advanced tech to offset their lack of specialized training. But that's a rant for another day.

*Avengers are not, as some have said, a non-specialized aspect warrior. They specialize in ripping things up with shuriken weapons (and thus shoot farther than guardians with similar tech) and at holding the line. In the last book, they had access to powers that let them fire more shots and weaken enemy assault units to reflect this. Now, you can still see a shadow of it in the exarch's power choices and the shimmershield. The reason they're more common (and thus a troop choice) than other aspects is that Asuryan is one of the phoenix lords who does the best job of promoting shrines of his style. They're not troops because they're all-comers (like tac marines); they're troops because they're common and just happen to focus on a form of combat that deals well with both shooting and melee.

*Someone mentioned that we don't know of any aspects associated with vehicle piloting (aside from shining spears and crimson hunters of course). Weren't there "eagle warriors" or something back in the day that upped the BS of your vehicles if you took them as an upgrade?