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.

When comparing DAs to CSMs, being able to not take DAs isn't helpful..

The point I'm trying to make is that taking DAs in a CAD will happen, for a variety of reasons. Probably not in a tournament, but when comparing DAs to CSMs, comparing them as members of a CAD (or Unbound) isn't inherently invalid. Its the 'stock' way to take them.

(I actually don't own any Jetbikes aside from Shining Spears, and don't have 30 Guardian Defenders).

(Also, I don't need -or want - to min/max my lists. Many players don't. The "best" way isn't the only way.)

DarthDiggler wrote:

PanzerLeader wrote:

 Homeskillet wrote:
Sorry Panzer, you're on an island here. The elves are broke as all hell.

I don't mind being on an island. I respect the new elves but I don't fear them in the way that rest of the community seems too.

I'm with you on that island.

I am also with you guys on that island...and I'm an Iyanden Eldar player...and have been since the dawn of time. LOL.

DCannon4Life wrote:
@Skinnereal: Your explanation of the availability of Eldar formations outside of taking a Craftworld Warhost is incorrect. Any formation that has its own Codex Entry can be taken by any army at any time.

Seems so. Ta for the update.
So, the Guardian thing is to get the 6" run.
I now see where the calls of 'broken' are coming from...

 Skinnereal wrote:

DCannon4Life wrote:
@Skinnereal: Your explanation of the availability of Eldar formations outside of taking a Craftworld Warhost is incorrect. Any formation that has its own Codex Entry can be taken by any army at any time.

Seems so. Ta for the update.
So, the Guardian thing is to get the 6" run.

so the main benefit of the warhost is, IMO, 6" battle-focus str D weapons. I dub it:

Guaranteed 6" D

PanzerLeader wrote:


Your math is disingenuous though. You've been effectively comparing 195 points of Dire Avengers (the minimum points cost for the "Avenger Shrine" formation to receive those benefits) to 140 points of CSM. Those extra 55 points are missing and represent at least 2 CSMs and a heavy bolter which greatly changes the math involved. You are making a faulty assumption that any unit of Dire Avengers can receive those bonuses and than comparing equal size units while ignoring the actual points cost of the Avenger Shrine.

I'm not comparing the 195 points of DA because I'm not crunching the numbers from all 15 in the formation. I'm taking a lesser cost of DA and comparing them to a greater cost of CSM where the points cost is what the game is balanced on. Otherwise, you could say it's not fair to compare to a single unit of CSM because you need another troop choice and an HQ to make a CAD out of them. Since the other units are not being fielded or contributing to the computations, they're irrelevant to the situation.

 lessthanjeff wrote:

PanzerLeader wrote:


Your math is disingenuous though. You've been effectively comparing 195 points of Dire Avengers (the minimum points cost for the "Avenger Shrine" formation to receive those benefits) to 140 points of CSM. Those extra 55 points are missing and represent at least 2 CSMs and a heavy bolter which greatly changes the math involved. You are making a faulty assumption that any unit of Dire Avengers can receive those bonuses and than comparing equal size units while ignoring the actual points cost of the Avenger Shrine.

I'm not comparing the 195 points of DA because I'm not crunching the numbers from all 15 in the formation. I'm taking a lesser cost of DA and comparing them to a greater cost of CSM where the points cost is what the game is balanced on. Otherwise, you could say it's not fair to compare to a single unit of CSM because you need another troop choice and an HQ to make a CAD out of them. Since the other units are not being fielded or contributing to the computations, they're irrelevant to the situation.

Except its very relevant that you are taking a unit of Avengers that costs 130 points and treating them with the rules that have a minimum cost of 195 points. If you want to do a roughly equal comparison, you can't assume in 55 points of extra rules. You'd have to run the math at the closest possible match up (15 Avengers vs ~13 Chaos Marines) to truly illustrate the difference between the two. The way you've presented your math is very disingenuous without explicitly listing your assumptions that give the 10 Avengers an extra 55 points of buff.

PanzerLeader wrote:

 lessthanjeff wrote:

PanzerLeader wrote:


Your math is disingenuous though. You've been effectively comparing 195 points of Dire Avengers (the minimum points cost for the "Avenger Shrine" formation to receive those benefits) to 140 points of CSM. Those extra 55 points are missing and represent at least 2 CSMs and a heavy bolter which greatly changes the math involved. You are making a faulty assumption that any unit of Dire Avengers can receive those bonuses and than comparing equal size units while ignoring the actual points cost of the Avenger Shrine.

I'm not comparing the 195 points of DA because I'm not crunching the numbers from all 15 in the formation. I'm taking a lesser cost of DA and comparing them to a greater cost of CSM where the points cost is what the game is balanced on. Otherwise, you could say it's not fair to compare to a single unit of CSM because you need another troop choice and an HQ to make a CAD out of them. Since the other units are not being fielded or contributing to the computations, they're irrelevant to the situation.

Except its very relevant that you are taking a unit of Avengers that costs 130 points and treating them with the rules that have a minimum cost of 195 points. If you want to do a roughly equal comparison, you can't assume in 55 points of extra rules. You'd have to run the math at the closest possible match up (15 Avengers vs ~13 Chaos Marines) to truly illustrate the difference between the two. The way you've presented your math is very disingenuous without explicitly listing your assumptions that give the 10 Avengers an extra 55 points of buff.

You are wrong. again. If anyone is going to use dire avengers, they will ALWAYS take them in a formation (or almost always). Therefore, on the battlefield, they will be 130 points with all those bonuses.

PanzerLeader wrote:


Except its very relevant that you are taking a unit of Avengers that costs 130 points and treating them with the rules that have a minimum cost of 195 points. If you want to do a roughly equal comparison, you can't assume in 55 points of extra rules. You'd have to run the math at the closest possible match up (15 Avengers vs ~13 Chaos Marines) to truly illustrate the difference between the two. The way you've presented your math is very disingenuous without explicitly listing your assumptions that give the 10 Avengers an extra 55 points of buff.

I'm guessing you and math don't get along too well. We can run the numbers at 15 dire avengers vs 15 CSM just as easily and the CSM still cost more. It actually goes more in favor of the Dire Avengers if you take them both to the 15 squad cost. You're saying that it was somehow dishonest to take 130 points out of a formation for comparison against 140 points out of a CAD, but like I said, the same argument would apply to not being able to take a single unit of CSM too.

Since you're interested though, here's the math for you. The 15 Dire Avengers (195 points) kills 10.5 of the CSM in the first round of shooting. The 15 CSM (205 points) kill 3.3 Dire Avengers in their first round of shooting. I ran both numbers as if they were at full strength firing into the enemy, not by picking one arbitrarily to get to shoot first and then reducing the opponents' shots. So do go on about how I was somehow dishonest and fudging numbers in my favor or leaving out important information. What you requested for the comparison goes far far worse in the Eldar's favor with them still costing less. Anything else you'd like me to run?

 Goldphish wrote:
The warlock council isn't rated highly because it's actually been nerfed quite a bit. The price is the same, the melee power is the same, but the amount of powers is drastically lower. Another problem is the loss of Baron. Bararroth can make due as a replacement if expensive for an already expensive unit.

More on the powers though. Before you could effectively guarantee that you would get all 6 warlock powers producing a 2+ 4++ re-rollable unit that was mobile and dangerous against everything. Now with only 3 powers your chances of getting the powers that you need are pretty low. Spending 400+ points without any real guarantee it will be effective is pretty bad.

Now you can of course take advantage of the council formation for 3+ casting which I agree can be powerful, but their inability to cast the same power multiple times does reduce their effectiveness. A farseer with stones and re-roll can effectively cast the new eldritch storm, but it still requires quite a few dice, an opponent that doesn't have enough dice to stop you, and well lets face it forgetting that you have enough guns to do this easier. I would stick with the blessings and maledictions with my council.

Warlock unit got a buff in combat with the change to singing spears being a 1 handed weapon now.

The baron was only ever a crutch for bad generaling, i never once even contemplated watering down my eldar with dark eldar scum. Having the ability to throw 4 dice at what was a 4 cost spell and likely be able to cast it is quite efficient. And it was rare that you ever got to cast the same spell more than once anyway. How often do you take both farseers as the same discipline? (the answer is "never", unless you are bad)

Same points cost as before:

Pros:

They are buffed in that you can now lose some warlocks and not lose spells.
They are buffed in combat when holding spears they are now 1 handed and get +1 attack from their previous codex.
The unit can cast on 3+'s instead of 4+'s and retains the same number of warp charges
Each farseer can reroll any dice once per turn basically guaranteeing the necessary spell to go off.

Cons:
Number of spells reduced on warlocks - this reduces utility as well as reducing the reliability of getting a specific spell (protect)
...

notredameguy10 wrote:

PanzerLeader wrote:

 lessthanjeff wrote:

PanzerLeader wrote:


Your math is disingenuous though. You've been effectively comparing 195 points of Dire Avengers (the minimum points cost for the "Avenger Shrine" formation to receive those benefits) to 140 points of CSM. Those extra 55 points are missing and represent at least 2 CSMs and a heavy bolter which greatly changes the math involved. You are making a faulty assumption that any unit of Dire Avengers can receive those bonuses and than comparing equal size units while ignoring the actual points cost of the Avenger Shrine.

I'm not comparing the 195 points of DA because I'm not crunching the numbers from all 15 in the formation. I'm taking a lesser cost of DA and comparing them to a greater cost of CSM where the points cost is what the game is balanced on. Otherwise, you could say it's not fair to compare to a single unit of CSM because you need another troop choice and an HQ to make a CAD out of them. Since the other units are not being fielded or contributing to the computations, they're irrelevant to the situation.

Except its very relevant that you are taking a unit of Avengers that costs 130 points and treating them with the rules that have a minimum cost of 195 points. If you want to do a roughly equal comparison, you can't assume in 55 points of extra rules. You'd have to run the math at the closest possible match up (15 Avengers vs ~13 Chaos Marines) to truly illustrate the difference between the two. The way you've presented your math is very disingenuous without explicitly listing your assumptions that give the 10 Avengers an extra 55 points of buff.

You are wrong. again. If anyone is going to use dire avengers, they will ALWAYS take them in a formation (or almost always). Therefore, on the battlefield, they will be 130 points with all those bonuses.

And you missed the point. Again. Be honest about your assumptions. You're advertising 130 points worth of Avengers with 195 points (minimum) of associated rules. It is not something that DAs get stock and plenty of people have pointed out why you might not end up with DAs in the Avenger Shrinw formation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 lessthanjeff wrote:

PanzerLeader wrote:


Except its very relevant that you are taking a unit of Avengers that costs 130 points and treating them with the rules that have a minimum cost of 195 points. If you want to do a roughly equal comparison, you can't assume in 55 points of extra rules. You'd have to run the math at the closest possible match up (15 Avengers vs ~13 Chaos Marines) to truly illustrate the difference between the two. The way you've presented your math is very disingenuous without explicitly listing your assumptions that give the 10 Avengers an extra 55 points of buff.

I'm guessing you and math don't get along too well. We can run the numbers at 15 dire avengers vs 15 CSM just as easily and the CSM still cost more. It actually goes more in favor of the Dire Avengers if you take them both to the 15 squad cost. You're saying that it was somehow dishonest to take 130 points out of a formation for comparison against 140 points out of a CAD, but like I said, the same argument would apply to not being able to take a single unit of CSM too.

Since you're interested though, here's the math for you. The 15 Dire Avengers (195 points) kills 10.5 of the CSM in the first round of shooting. The 15 CSM (205 points) kill 3.3 Dire Avengers in their first round of shooting. I ran both numbers as if they were at full strength firing into the enemy, not by picking one arbitrarily to get to shoot first and then reducing the opponents' shots. So do go on about how I was somehow dishonest and fudging numbers in my favor or leaving out important information. What you requested for the comparison goes far far worse in the Eldar's favor with them still costing less. Anything else you'd like me to run?

Math and I get along fine. I agree that DAs in the Shrine formation are amazing. My point was that you hid those assumptions earlier while trying to disparage others who framed their variables differently from your own. Obviously the extra 15 shots at a higher BS make a huge difference. But people will still field stock DAs outside of the formation for a variety of reasons. It is not intellectually dishonest to evaluate both possibilities since the key variables (BS and rate of fire) change dramatically between the two. It is deceitful to hide your own assumptions while criticizing others.

PanzerLeader wrote:


Math and I get along fine. I agree that DAs in the Shrine formation are amazing. My point was that you hid those assumptions earlier while trying to disparage others who framed their variables differently from your own. Obviously the extra 15 shots at a higher BS make a huge difference. But people will still field stock DAs outside of the formation for a variety of reasons. It is not intellectually dishonest to evaluate both possibilities since the key variables (BS and rate of fire) change dramatically between the two. It is deceitful to hide your own assumptions while criticizing others.

I hid nothing in any of my calculations. I clearly showed how many I counted, what point cost I counted them at, and what rules I was counting them with. Your claim is predicated on me manipulating data to my advantage, but I was forthcoming with my calculations and showed exactly what I was doing along the way. You may disagree with how I partitioned out the units to pick a fairly standard unit size of 10 Dire Avengers against 10 CSM (giving a generous point advantage to the CSM), but your argument is illogical when you say "you can't just consider one part of the formation" even though you're saying it's fine to consider just one part of the CAD for chaos. Why aren't you insisting we buy an HQ and another troop choice to finish the detachment? What exactly is the difference between those two cases in your mind? I question your math and logic because you also wanted to balance out 130 points of Eldar models with 176 points of Chaos models, so tell me again about dishonesty and fudging numbers.

What is dishonest is saying "I ran the numbers, the Dire Avengers come out equivalent to the CSM" without saying he wasn't using all those rules to counter my argument even though I clearly cited them in my comparison that he was responding to. This wasn't a case of saying "let's compare other settings", this was him saying "your claim is inaccurate and here's the data that disproves it".

Umm, you asked me to run numbers then accused me of being dishonest when I provided my results. With no mention of using Formation bonuses. Heck, if you look at the original writeup, I even comment on the DAs having ObSec.

You have a very... peculiar... view of how events happened.

chadbrochill17 wrote:
Warlock unit got a buff in combat with the change to singing spears being a 1 handed weapon now.

They were 1 handed in the last codex, but it was expensive to run the entire unit with them.

The baron was only ever a crutch for bad generaling, i never once even contemplated watering down my eldar with dark eldar scum.

Baron wasn't there as a crutch for bads. The 2++ was nice, but his sold purpose in the unit was Hit and Run. There was no other way of getting Hit and Run cheaply and the unit desperately needs it.

Having the ability to throw 4 dice at what was a 4 cost spell and likely be able to cast it is quite efficient. And it was rare that you ever got to cast the same spell more than once anyway. How often do you take both farseers as the same discipline? (the answer is "never", unless you are bad)

Both farseers would go until they got fortune so if you were unlucky I guess that means you were bad?

Same points cost as before:

Pros:

They are buffed in that you can now lose some warlocks and not lose spells.
They are buffed in combat when holding spears they are now 1 handed and get +1 attack from their previous codex.
The unit can cast on 3+'s instead of 4+'s and retains the same number of warp charges
Each farseer can reroll any dice once per turn basically guaranteeing the necessary spell to go off.

Cons:
Number of spells reduced on warlocks - this reduces utility as well as reducing the reliability of getting a specific spell (protect)...

You cannot lose warlocks because you need them for their attacks in combat. Every warlock you drop is 3 lost attacks, and with no power weapons you will need every attack you can get.

As previously said they already had 1h spears, but they were expensive.

Harnessing on a 3+ is very good. No doubt, but you wont keep the same number of charges if you're dropping locks.

You get one re-roll on your key spell; Fortune, and that's if you're lucky enough to get it in 6 tries, successfully cast it with a re-roll, and your opponent doesn't stop it. It's exactly like invisibility in a draigostar using Tigurius.

Lastly your con is super important. Not getting Protect hurts the unit; 3+ 4++ isn't super reliable against most things, and if you don't get Fortune you will have a 500 point deathstar dying in the first couple turns. Santic or Runes of Battle work, Protect or Sanctuary are both viable. I think I am leaning towards Santic honestly. The powers there are more important against other deathstars and with the mobility of the bikes all the powers can be worth while.

Adding on that point you can easily take more than 2 farseers now so getting fortune should be more consistent.

To the two that arguing which is better out of Dire Avengers or CSM, why bother? Neither unit will get used in a competitive environment. CSM are not taken now in any form and I don't think that will change till they get a new book. Dire Avengers were only ever taken to unlock serpents cheaply. Why would I bother with dire avengers when I can get guardians cheaper with heavy weapons or just go with the better option in the aspect host. Warp spiders are seriously like the best unit in the book. They are above and beyond more mobile that just about any unit out there, deal tremendous damage to just about everything, can re-actively avoid return fire out side of your turn, and have a 3+ save when they can't. I get all that for an extra 6 points on top of a dire avenger. I really think any list I write at this point will start with a full warp spider aspect host.

Bharring wrote:
Because many people - myself included - will never use the Warhost. Its broken as gak.

The numbers for CSM vs DA were run in another thread.

Assuming no other models, objectives, board edges, or anything else, on a wide-open board, assuming a 5+ cover save for CSM (something is likely to go their way, and they really control the engagement, as DAs can't battle focus out of full range), it takes 10 rounds for 10 DAs to kill 10 CSM, and they have 1.4 DAs left.

That means equal numbers of DAs cannot push equal numbers of CSM within the span of the game, even if everything except the 5+ cover goes their way. This is with CSM never double tapping.

If the DAs ever need to close in, CSM win easily. If CSM get within 12", they destroy DAs. If they get to charge DAs, they destroy them harder. If DAs ever either don't move into 18", or don't BF back out, CSM win.

So the CSM decide where they stand. They can move almost anywhere that still gives them a 5+. If they can get within 12", or force the DAs to BF for them, CSM win.

So if there is an objective at all, CSM win. If not, its a draw.

And this is naked CSM. 10v10. 130pts to 130pts.

Right after I said the Dire Avengers in the formation easily out damage the CSM, this was your response. No mention of Objective Secured. You just conclude that CSM either win or draw and make claims that "DAs cannot push equal numbers of CSM within the span of the game" even though you're going to see the aspect warriors from the formations far more than you'll see them from without.

 Goldphish wrote:


To the two that arguing which is better out of Dire Avengers or CSM, why bother? Neither unit will get used in a competitive environment. CSM are not taken now in any form and I don't think that will change till they get a new book. Dire Avengers were only ever taken to unlock serpents cheaply. Why would I bother with dire avengers when I can get guardians cheaper with heavy weapons or just go with the better option in the aspect host. Warp spiders are seriously like the best unit in the book. They are above and beyond more mobile that just about any unit out there, deal tremendous damage to just about everything, can re-actively avoid return fire out side of your turn, and have a 3+ save when they can't. I get all that for an extra 6 points on top of a dire avenger. I really think any list I write at this point will start with a full warp spider aspect host.

We've been talking about dire avengers and csm because when I mentioned the vast differences between a 22 point fire dragon and a 26 point blaster trueborn (oh wait, Panzer wants me to balance the 22 point fire dragon against 330 points of dark eldar, because that makes sense...) they said the troops were a more relevant comparison between armies. I also mentioned how Eldar get +1 BS, WS, W, I, A and an amazing rule added to the unit (like precision deepstrike or fearless) for a mere 10 points when other armies pay 10 points for just +1 A on the captain and sometimes also +1 LD. I'd be happy to crunch numbers for more comparisons between units like Warp Spiders and Wraith Guard. It's hard to find other units to compare them to directly though. My argument is just that the Eldar are in general paying less for more than their peers. They asked why people are considering them OP and I've provided data for several direct comparisons with many more available to choose from.

notredameguy10 wrote:

You are incorrect. You are able to take ANY of the formations as part of a battle forged list without having to take the 1-3 guardian war hosts (you just won't get the craft world war host benefits.

From the codex:
"Note that you can also include any of the formations presented in this section as part of a Battle-forged army."

aka wraith host can be taken WITHOUT a guardian war host, would still get the wraith host formation bonuses, but would not get the craft world war host benefits.

If the wraith host is taken with the guardian war host, would it then have both bonuses/benefits?

 lessthanjeff wrote:

PanzerLeader wrote:


Math and I get along fine. I agree that DAs in the Shrine formation are amazing. My point was that you hid those assumptions earlier while trying to disparage others who framed their variables differently from your own. Obviously the extra 15 shots at a higher BS make a huge difference. But people will still field stock DAs outside of the formation for a variety of reasons. It is not intellectually dishonest to evaluate both possibilities since the key variables (BS and rate of fire) change dramatically between the two. It is deceitful to hide your own assumptions while criticizing others.

I hid nothing in any of my calculations. I clearly showed how many I counted, what point cost I counted them at, and what rules I was counting them with. Your claim is predicated on me manipulating data to my advantage, but I was forthcoming with my calculations and showed exactly what I was doing along the way. You may disagree with how I partitioned out the units to pick a fairly standard unit size of 10 Dire Avengers against 10 CSM (giving a generous point advantage to the CSM), but your argument is illogical when you say "you can't just consider one part of the formation" even though you're saying it's fine to consider just one part of the CAD for chaos. Why aren't you insisting we buy an HQ and another troop choice to finish the detachment? What exactly is the difference between those two cases in your mind? I question your math and logic because you also wanted to balance out 130 points of Eldar models with 176 points of Chaos models, so tell me again about dishonesty and fudging numbers.

What is dishonest is saying "I ran the numbers, the Dire Avengers come out equivalent to the CSM" without saying he wasn't using all those rules to counter my argument even though I clearly cited them in my comparison that he was responding to. This wasn't a case of saying "let's compare other settings", this was him saying "your claim is inaccurate and here's the data that disproves it".

I never asked you to balance disproportionate numbers. I said you should run the comparison at equal points of 195 of DA and 195 of CSM. I don't even know where you came up with 176.

The detachment the CSM are in is irrelevant. They are not gaining any special rules from it. In a CAD, allied detachment, Demonkin detachment or Unbound, the damage output is the same.

The detachment is relevant for the DA. Put them in the context of the Avenger Shrine, they gain +1 BS and an extra shot for one turn of the game. The damage spikes upwards significantly compared to the same unit in any other detachment. The minimum point cost of an Avenger Shrine is 195. That is the baseline for comparison because at 195 points, your CSM opponent can make use of all his squads options-including the ability to buy a heavy weapon. By artificially lowering the points but still assuming the same formation benefits, you end up overestimating the DA's power. Dire Avengers in the Avenger Shrine formation are exceptionally good. The couple of extra bodies and the heavy bolter won't significantly help the CSM in a straight up math comparison. But it certainly helps once you put it in the context of a game where the additional range of the heavy bolter and the exposed nature of 3 small DA squads makes it a much more even match up.

I still contend your entire premise of "you must assume every DA unit is from an avenger shrine" is faulty. The formation itself is actually fairly limiting to army construction. You make a significant points investment in the Avengers themselves (just over 10% of a standard 1850 points value) before you add any additional squad members or transports. Even if you just invest in 15 DAs and 3 serpents, you've spent ~35% to 40% of your points on 18 models, 15 of which are not resilient.

 CoteazRox wrote:

If the wraith host is taken with the guardian war host, would it then have both bonuses/benefits?

Yes. In the description of the Craftworld Warhost it states that the units benefit from both. So...guaranteed 6" Battle Focus for ALL of your Wraith, as well as everyone else!

Leaasthan,
I had been very clear in this thread that the numbers I was working with were without the Formations. You made your always-formations claim, and I disagreed with it. I then referenced the math for the matchup you asked for having been done in another thread.

So I'm not getting where it was dishonest for me to not use bonuses I said I wouldn't use. I just don't get that.

 Goldphish wrote:

To the two that arguing which is better out of Dire Avengers or CSM, why bother? Neither unit will get used in a competitive environment. CSM are not taken now in any form and I don't think that will change till they get a new book. Dire Avengers were only ever taken to unlock serpents cheaply. Why would I bother with dire avengers when I can get guardians cheaper with heavy weapons or just go with the better option in the aspect host. Warp spiders are seriously like the best unit in the book. They are above and beyond more mobile that just about any unit out there, deal tremendous damage to just about everything, can re-actively avoid return fire out side of your turn, and have a 3+ save when they can't. I get all that for an extra 6 points on top of a dire avenger. I really think any list I write at this point will start with a full warp spider aspect host.

Two points.
If you want a jet council death star, add an autarch with a banshee mask to your opponent cannot overwatch. Combine invisibility with banshee mask and wall of death issues go away.

2nd, Dive Avengers do has a useful role. The 3 shots per models once a game puts them ahead of warp spiders against T6 2+ opponents and T8 3+ opponents.
If you're playing other eldar, you can use dire avengers to alpha strike wraith knights.

Warp Spiders flickering away is awesome, but does cost them their mobility next turn, and they won't always be able to get out of range. You can go for out of sight, but at some point you'll hit critical mass where their isn't enough space/terrain for everything to hide.
I would take both warp spiders in an aspect host, and also take a DA shrine.

Don't guardian jetbikes pretty much play out like warpspiders though?
Jet bikes pay 13.5 points per S6 blade storm shot, warp spiders pay 11.4 points.
Both move about the same, both have 3+ armor.
Jetbikes get T4, and take the free move in the assault phase, spiders are T3 and take the free move when shot at, and lose their next turn jumping.
The only downside I see to spiders is then when firing on high init opponents, such as eldar, you only wound on a 3+, instead of 2+. That, and when firing on 5+ save or worse opponents, the AP5 of the shuriken cannon matters.

In competitive lists, seems to me Windriders, and with a 6" run automatically, Guardians, will handle what you'd want to take Dire Avengers for. Sure, with the Shrine, DAs can really dish out the hate. Undercosted at 13ppm. But most of the time, won't Guardians and Wind riders do more, for less? And you'll probably want to be taking them anyways?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Goldphish,
My point wasn't that DAs are worse than CSM. My point was that, in a "reasonable" (formationless, for starters) list, DAs compared reasonably to CSMs.

The underlying point is that I think reasoalnable Eldar lists can still be made.

With the last Dex I had to stop using 2 Serpents to transport my 10man DAs, because it broke the game when facing a local 'reasonable' list. I basically converted to a Swordwind CAD (fun fact - I'm Uthwe...), to make games more reasonable. But even that did quite well for me.

So I'm hoping Swordwind isn't broken. It may be. That's why I'm so curious about CAD-based DAs being brutal - I want to ensure I'm not just bashing my opponents' faces in.

To OP: Exalted.

I had a similar thread going earlier before the codex dropped about how to play Eldar within a friendly/casual context. I still don't have the codex in hand (issues with shipping) but it's good to see that my initial impression of the book was correct. It also helps to know that I'm not the only Eldar player who feels torn over the new book.

On the one hand, the Aspect Warriors got some excellent, and in my opinion needed, buffs. The Warhost gives great detachment benefits and is also very lore-friendly in terms of building an Eldar army. Virtually every unit in the book is now viable. Some units are still more optimal picks, but every unit can find its own place in an Eldar army.

On the other hand, we now have some absurdly broken units (jetbikes, Wraithknights, Wraithguard with D-weapons) that everyone focuses on because nothing else can stand up to them. It doesn't help that players now associate Eldar with these units because they're the units that are very viable at a competitive level and will win tournaments.

In the end, it's all about the group dynamics each player utilizes. If you don't use the broken units, Eldar can still be viable at every level and make for some interesting and fun games, both for you and for your opponent.

 Goldphish wrote:
To the two that arguing which is better out of Dire Avengers or CSM, why bother? Neither unit will get used in a competitive environment.

CSM are not taken now in any form and I don't think that will change till they get a new book.

Dire Avengers were only ever taken to unlock serpents cheaply. Why would I bother with dire avengers when I can get guardians cheaper with heavy weapons or just go with the better option in the aspect host.

Warp spiders are seriously like the best unit in the book. They are above and beyond more mobile that just about any unit out there, deal tremendous damage to just about everything, can re-actively avoid return fire out side of your turn, and have a 3+ save when they can't. I get all that for an extra 6 points on top of a dire avenger. I really think any list I write at this point will start with a full warp spider aspect host.

CSM are OK as cheap T4 Sv3+ army filler.

Those Guardian Defender and Jetbike Hosts are pretty attractive.

Warp Spiders are good, but so are BS5 Reapers.

Goldphish wrote:Allies

Dark Eldar - The two codices are just to similar. Besides deep striking shenanigans the over lap on unit abilities is awful. Any specific task you can think of can be done by an eldar unit just as well or better. Assault transports seem to be the only thing eldar will value in this partnership.

Harlequins - These formations require less baggage than dark eldar, and you get very dangerous bikes/characters. The troops are not bad either when properly kitted. As good as the harlequins are though, I don't see a great need for this partnership either since eldar now have good to great melee threats. Harlequin's can keep up with the faster units in the eldar codex better though.

Ally question here - I'd disagree with this assessment. Eldar benefit a lot more from the real space raider formation from the DE book than they do from the harlequin dex. All those scythe-guard need something to fire out of, and raiders are much cheaper than wave serpents. You're losing out on durability, sure, but if it's a question between Dark Eldar allies and Harlequins, I'd have to go with Dark Eldar. Remember - rending reavers on the charge are still a very viable counter to invisible deathstar units.

That said - I'd like nothing more than to be able to sprinkle a few shadow seers into some key eldar footslogging units, but it's just impossible. The restrictions on the Harli formations mean you basically have to buy two of every harli unit before they let you start getting extra shadow seers to share. I'd love to add some harli's to my eldar, but I just can't figure out how to do it without going unbound.

Thoughts?

Yeah, there are certainly some good Eldar/Dark Eldar combos out there, though perhaps more with Dark Eldar being the primary detachment. I've not had chance to look at the two codices together in depth yet though.

What leaps out at me immediately though is the combat potential you can get by combining the two codices, if that's what you want. Sure, Howling Banshees are much better and much faster, but that doesn't stop them being shot to pieces when they get close - something with an open-topped transport could fix. Similarly, any Dark Eldar combat unit would hugely benefit from having a Banshee Mask wearing Autarch in the unit, while the Autarch's +1/-1 to reserve rolls will make it much easier for any DE units held in reserve to come on at the right time - i.e. when they're needed or when they've got enough buffs from Power from Pain.

PanzerLeader wrote:


I never asked you to balance disproportionate numbers. I said you should run the comparison at equal points of 195 of DA and 195 of CSM. I don't even know where you came up with 176.

The detachment the CSM are in is irrelevant. They are not gaining any special rules from it. In a CAD, allied detachment, Demonkin detachment or Unbound, the damage output is the same.

The detachment is relevant for the DA. Put them in the context of the Avenger Shrine, they gain +1 BS and an extra shot for one turn of the game. The damage spikes upwards significantly compared to the same unit in any other detachment. The minimum point cost of an Avenger Shrine is 195. That is the baseline for comparison because at 195 points, your CSM opponent can make use of all his squads options-including the ability to buy a heavy weapon. By artificially lowering the points but still assuming the same formation benefits, you end up overestimating the DA's power. Dire Avengers in the Avenger Shrine formation are exceptionally good. The couple of extra bodies and the heavy bolter won't significantly help the CSM in a straight up math comparison. But it certainly helps once you put it in the context of a game where the additional range of the heavy bolter and the exposed nature of 3 small DA squads makes it a much more even match up.

I still contend your entire premise of "you must assume every DA unit is from an avenger shrine" is faulty. The formation itself is actually fairly limiting to army construction. You make a significant points investment in the Avengers themselves (just over 10% of a standard 1850 points value) before you add any additional squad members or transports. Even if you just invest in 15 DAs and 3 serpents, you've spent ~35% to 40% of your points on 18 models, 15 of which are not resilient.

You said the point cost difference justified the CSM having two more marines and a heavy bolter (140 for the base unit, and then 36 for the extra options you requested to balance which is where 176 came from) without showing how the Dire Avengers get more models if you want to make that comparison. I'm running these comparisons using ratios so it doesn't matter if it's a 15 v 15 matchup since it shows the same proportional damage outputs as a 10 v 10 or a 1 v 1. There's no advantage gained by running the numbers one way over another. For game purposes, I ran my computations to show that within a larger game you should send your squad of 10 dire avengers up one flank to engage the near-equivalent cost of 10 csm because you have an overwhelming advantage in efficiency.

Regarding whether you should compare the entire formation or just a part of the whole, when I want to run numbers against how many necron I can kill in a shooting phase or assault I run them against Decurion bonuses because that's what will actually matter in the game. The fight will take place as one piece of a greater whole, but what matters to me is what can I expect to happen if I shoot one of my squads at the necron warriors or the lychguard or whatever I choose. In-game you want to make informed decisions and that's how the math has to be done, otherwise I would end up with a bunch of pointless data combing too many separate units when I try to see whether my Wave Serpent can knock out the last few warriors from a squad to clear an objective. Your rationale requires I run 4 wave serpents or something against an entire, varied decurion detachment to somehow balance against the entire formation cost when what I'm trying to figure out is how much damage would my one wave serpent deal against the one necron warrior squad so I can make an educated decision about where I move it and what target priorities it should have. The other reason to run comparisons this way is because it dictates the value of a unit so you can decide if you want to include it in your list or not. My comparison shows you should be much happier to include that less expensive force of Dire Avengers than the Chaos player is to include that squad of marines.

You're right that we can't assume EVERY Dire Avenger unit is coming from that same formation, but I believe the majority of the aspect warriors you see are going to come from some combination of those formations. I saw you guys question what would happen if you planned on taking 4 dire avenger squads, but if you're planning on also bringing a unit or two of fire dragons or warp spiders, that just means you take one dire avenger shrine and one aspect host. If you just want the 4 dire avenger squads and no other aspect warriors at all (which seems crazy given how famazing the aspect warriors are), then take a single dire avenger shrine and 1 from some other detachment and you still have 75% of your avengers getting the bonuses so you should probably run the numbers against that majority imo.

I'll reiterate that I think the Eldar codex is awesome and a lot of fun and that I wish every codex was designed the same way where you look at stuff and say "wow, that's so powerful" or "wow, that looks fun". I even have a decent Eldar force myself. The question though is what are they getting compared to other armies, and the answer to that is far more for their points. This codex is overly strong when compared to other armies, fun and interesting though it may be. Other armies are at a significant disadvantage in the game against Eldar because when you're sitting across the table from them you find yourself realizing that every engagement/matchup you try to line up has the numbers in their favor.

Bharring wrote:
Leaasthan,
I had been very clear in this thread that the numbers I was working with were without the Formations. You made your always-formations claim, and I disagreed with it. I then referenced the math for the matchup you asked for having been done in another thread.

So I'm not getting where it was dishonest for me to not use bonuses I said I wouldn't use. I just don't get that.

You may think it was very clear to you that the numbers were run without formation bonuses, but I thought it was very clear you were disproving my claim by using data for a separate situation. I never asked you to run numbers without formation bonuses. I specifically said the Dire Avengers in the formation drastically outperform their competition and you replied that it wasn't true and stated your results. From what you're saying, I think you should have replied "Yes, the dire avengers are significantly stronger than their opponents when part of the formations, but lets look at this other, different data for when they don't have those bonuses". I'll take your word for it if it was just a misunderstanding then or unintentional and I apologize then if your intent was not to misrepresent the matchup I was describing. I'd gladly continue to run unit comparisons if you'd like or further discuss whether it is or is not fair to consider the Eldar formations when determining Eldar power levels.

Okay guys the CSM vs Dire Avengers arguement started as somewhat pointless and has escalated downwards.
1) CSM are an awful unit. They are overcosted in every comparison so measuring any unit against them gives the same thing. You could compare them to Imperial Guardsmen and IG would come way out on top.
2) CSM's best ability is being able to purchase upgrades and various transports. Ironically their most prevalent and by far and away best use is as spare wounds for a HQ...so you are comparing apples and oranges when you compare CSM to Dire Avengers. In the original comparison it was somewhat strange but when comparing the formation (who loose ObjSec) to the CAD CSM (whose only role in life is ablative wounds and ObjSec) it becomes ludicrous. BTW the loss of ObjSec by one of these formations just lost Reece 250 usd...so I guess ObjSec is worth something.
3) If you are going to try comparing the two units then it should be in configurations that have meaning. Comparing any number of CSM without upgrades to Dire Avengers is like comparing IG vets without upgrades to Necron warriors. The vets are a very good troop unit but they will be laughably bad in this comparison.
4) Ironically in the formation you have veered sharply away from a troops choice and are now talking about damage dealing unit. They are not required to unlock anything and they also lack ObjSec. Thus by all rights they have more in common with a thunderfire cannon or purifiers than CSM.


One the topic of allies. IMO the webway portal and armour of misery alone make DE a premier if not the premier allies choice for CWE. Even if you don't use the WWP for scythe guard it is still devastation just to get fire dragons or a foot seer council in place. In fact you could make an alternative freak show list out of foot seer council formations. What it lacks in Ld modifiers it makes up for in getting 2-3 times the number of powers off.


I am actually very happy to see the buffs to aspect warriors. They were mostly not functional before as they either did to little damage for their price (dark reapers), had been neutered by the AP1 nerf (fire dragons), had no durable assault transport and lacked damage output and even grenades (Banshees and Scorpions), etc. They fixed almost all the problems with aspect warriors that kept them from being meaningful. The warp spiders actually got a sideways movement on their gun profile (better against many MCs and worse against vehicles and many infantry) but they got a pretty huge durability buff in their new blink away ability. I like the rule however as it makes playing with and against them a much more tactical experience, which is cool. Hopefully they FAQ it to only work once per turn.

 ansacs wrote:

One the topic of allies. IMO the webway portal and armour of misery alone make DE a premier if not the premier allies choice for CWE. Even if you don't use the WWP for scythe guard it is still devastation just to get fire dragons or a foot seer council in place. In fact you could make an alternative freak show list out of foot seer council formations. What it lacks in Ld modifiers it makes up for in getting 2-3 times the number of powers off.

A DE court of the Archon, with a handful of Medusae + a falcon squadron is awesome. It's like wraith scythes, only less over-kill.
Wraith scythes + transport + webway lands you around 400 points, and you hit 1 unit really hard, while taking a few pot shots at another unit.
2x Count + falcons +fire dragons for the 3rd transport gives you a godly beta strike.
6 S8 AP2 shots, 3 S8 AP2 lances, 6 super melta guns, 10 S4 AP3 templates, is 772 points. It's just under twice the cost, but in hitting power, it's hitting 3 times as hard.
With 1 perfect deep strike, and 2 more placements within 4", the size of a falcon lets you cover a ton of the table.

Best of all, terribly effective in an environment that limits or bans D shooting.

 HawaiiMatt wrote:
A DE court of the Archon, with a handful of Medusae + a falcon squadron is awesome. It's like wraith scythes, only less over-kill.
Wraith scythes + transport + webway lands you around 400 points, and you hit 1 unit really hard, while taking a few pot shots at another unit.
2x Count + falcons +fire dragons for the 3rd transport gives you a godly beta strike.
6 S8 AP2 shots, 3 S8 AP2 lances, 6 super melta guns, 10 S4 AP3 templates, is 772 points. It's just under twice the cost, but in hitting power, it's hitting 3 times as hard.
With 1 perfect deep strike, and 2 more placements within 4", the size of a falcon lets you cover a ton of the table.

Best of all, terribly effective in an environment that limits or bans D shooting.

I agree to some degree. I am not as sold on DS units of falcons as a lot of people are as I play Elysians and so have lots of experience with DSing bulky models even with no scatter. It can be very difficult to fit 3 models the size of falcons where you want them. Still though in combination with the rest of the CWE codex it could work nicely to contain the opponent to their deployment zone or risk getting a very nasty beta strike where they do not want it.

IMO the wraithscythes w/ WWP is not as good as most people are raving on about. It is a 400 pts unit that will tend to be a 1 hit wonder in most games. When considered together with interceptor Tau, Coteaz + grav centurions, and bubble wrap units this unit is not as scary as the on paper stats make it appear. I do however like them in the context of a Wraith Host formation taken in a Craftworld Warhost. This removes the need of the transport to allow the unit to use all it's templates (thanks to a 6" battle focus) and also makes the unit quite fast without depending on a fragile AV11 transport.

This is a great thread.

The only thing I take issue with in the OP is the Ranger's red rating - I would bump that up to orange. You're right that their shooting potential is basically nil, but they gained Shrouded in this edition (over the previous edition's Stealth), which allows them to get 2+ cover saves in almost any terrain by going to ground. That makes them a very cheap way to camp an objective, with the only reliable way to dislodge them being to shooting them with Ignores Cover, or assault them. They're still a fairly bad unit, but they're quite a bit more durable than they were in the 6th ed codex.

 ansacs wrote:
1) CSM are an awful unit. They are overcosted in every comparison so measuring any unit against them gives the same thing.

Every comparison? Every one?

If we look at Sisters of Battle, the basic Sister is a single point cheaper. For that single point saved, a Battle Sister loses -1 WS -1S -1T off her statline; loses access to the "real" Heavy Weapons like Autocannon, Missile Launcher, and Lascannon; loses access to Marks and Standards; loses various Character upgrades. But she does gain a 6++ Invulerable save.

Point for point, I think Chaos Space Marines outclass Sisters of Battle every single time.