JohnHwangDD wrote: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.

 ansacs wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote: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.

I am actually a SoB player. The sister loose a lot in stats but gain 2 special weapons per unit of 5 and a vastly superior transport. That is a massive gain. I regularly field immolators + 5 sisters w/ 2 meltaguns as the core of my force. I am entirely fine playing this against most of the top lists in the game. Most of my opponents consider this list much nastier than most of my SM and IG lists or even my CSM lists.

For CSM to get that 1 missile launcher/lascannon/autocannon they have to take a unit of 10...that are all equiped with 24" weapons at best? CSM don't get combat squad or morale control. Sisters also get cheap priests to help with morale and give lots of nice bonuses. Honestly this entire discussion is just another case of comparing a model 1v1 without any context and coming up with goofy conclusions.

BTW according to the CSM codex a 6++ invulnerable save is worth 2 pts per CSM.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
I agree, which is why you shouldn't be able to look at those Sisters with their Transport or synergy effects, because that's not apples to apples. Just the same 150-odd points of the two units in a straight-up fight, where they magically happen to be exactly in each other's optimal firing range...

 ansacs wrote:
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.

lessthanjeff wrote:If you have other units in mind you think are easier to compare with and are more valid then I'd be glad to hear them. I've proposed a fair number of pairings that I think fill similar roles, but I'm open to other options. I feel like there can almost always be an argument made that "such and such comparison is invalid" because no two units have the EXACT same rules and options available to them and it's quite difficult to get agreement on things like "how much is ATSKNF worth?" so do share if you have suggestions.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Exactly! Which is why I really hate these kinds of arguments, because they really don't "prove" anything.

lessthanjeff wrote:To points 1 and 2, I don't think of CSM as worse than the standard troop choices in other armies either though. I just chose CSM because they're 13 points each. I personally like to field a unit or two of them in rhinos when I play chaos, but I'd take DA in a wave serpent any day that I had the choice. I've definitely never used mine as wounds for an HQ because I've found Chaos HQ's are typically riding on juggernauts/bikes or are daemon princes.

lessthanjeff wrote:To point 4, maybe you're expecting a different sort of list from the Eldar than I am. I'm expecting lists built like the following:
CAD
Autarch/Farseer on jetbike
Couple windrider jetbike squads with scatter lasers
Squadron of 3 grav tanks
Wraithknight
Maybe a squadron of wraithguard

Supported by some combination of the following formations
Aspect Host formation (3x fire dragons) mounted in the 3 grav tanks for precision deepstrikes
Crimson Death formation for air dominance and more anti-armor
Dire Avenger Shrine in wave serpents for shredding anything with toughness values
More Aspect Hosts with some mix of Warp Spiders and Dark Reapers

It seems it would be pretty easy to adjust the formations according to local playstyles and I don't rate the objective secured that highly for the infantry because I think in general the windriders will do it far better.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
The DA Shrine is indeed how people should be taking DA, if they were taking them in any quantity. The thing is, it's a rather inflexible blob, with exactly 1 Exarch for exactly 3 squads.
It also flips the DAMU / DAVU concept, because the DA become competitive in their own right, rather than as a minimum tax to get a "good" Transport on the board.

 Goldphish wrote:
I just don't see a reason to take a Dire Avengers formation though. You're not getting Obj. secured. You're not as good as the other ranged aspects. The only real benefit is the once per game Assault 3 which can either be worthless or amazing, but not nearly as competitive as spiders, hawks, reapers, or dragons. You're paying 13 points for glorified defenders without a weapons platform. T3 with a 4+ isn't going to stand up to much pressure, and a 24" range isn't that great. I feel like if you're taking this formation it's a preference for casual play.

notredameguy10 wrote:


um, and the bs5 on a basic troop, and the rerolling essentially all leadership based tests, and the auto run 6" even if firing, can damage any unit in the game with bladestorm, overwatch at bs2, extra shot for 1 turn for all units in formation, all for a 13 point troop

Okapi wrote:
What do you think of the missile launcher in the new codex? Sure, it's the most expensive choice, and it's less effective anti-tank than the bright lance and worse anti-infantry than the scatter laser, but it outranges them, and has skyfire as well. With the loss of laser lock I'm considering them on pretty much everything, especially since I don't have any aircraft of my own. Even Vypers might be decent if the can stay 48" away and snipe at things.

Okapi wrote:
What do you think of the missile launcher in the new codex? Sure, it's the most expensive choice, and it's less effective anti-tank than the bright lance and worse anti-infantry than the scatter laser, but it outranges them, and has skyfire as well. With the loss of laser lock I'm considering them on pretty much everything, especially since I don't have any aircraft of my own. Even Vypers might be decent if the can stay 48" away and snipe at things.

 Acidian wrote:
Posting the math here so you can look it over and see if I am wrong.
Chance to score a hit with TL scatter laser on flyer: 4*(1/6) + ((4-4*(1/6)) *1/6)= 0,667 + 0,555 = 1,222
Chance to score a hit with TL EML: 1*(4/6) + ((1-1*(4/6))*4/6) = 0,667 + 0,222 = 0,889

So you actually have a higher chance to hit with SL than EML against a flyer.

Then against Flyrant or AV10
SL: 1,222*(3/6)= 0,611
EML: 0,889*(4/6)= 0,593

So the SL then does more damage against AV10 and Flyrant on average. Too bad the missiles aren't AP3 so you could ignore the armor on the flyrant and/or give it a reason to Jink.

Against AV11:
SL: 1,222*(2/6)= 0,407
EML: 0,889*(3/6)= 0444

Against AV12:
SL: 1,222*(1/6)= 0,204
EML: 0,889*(2/6)= 0,296

At this point the difference in chance of scoring a wound is so small that you might as well ignore it. 9% better chance of wounding an av12 for 10 points extra and 2% worse chance of wounding a flyrant.

The EML blast will seldom hit more than 4 models anyway (assuming you play with people who spread their models as much as they can). If it was AP3 or large blast it would have been a more interesting choice.

The starshot would only be better if you are fighting AV13 models.

So you are spending 10 points extra on each Wave Serpent on a gun that is usually worse but which in certain situations is incrimentally better, and only better if you don't have any other S8+ weapons in your list (which you can also guide/priescence with farseer).

 FlingitNow wrote:
As the maths tells you the EML is useless and should never be taken. I never understand why they cost AA weapons at a point where you're usually just better off taking a non-skyfiring volume fire unit. Like in the last dex you got more S7 hits on a flyer from Warp Spiders than EML war walkers point for point.

Bharring wrote:


Let's assume you let Guardians waltz up to Chaos Marines, while they twiddle their thumbs:
13 Guardians vs 9 CSM (same points)
Guardians (13)(2)(5/27) CSM (counting rends). 4.8 CSM die. 62.4 points worth, or a little better than half their cost.
If CSM instead shot first?
CSM kill (9)(2)(2/3)(2/3)(1) Guardians. 8 Guardians die. 76pts. Substantially better.

So, in the only scenario Guardians can do damage, assuming they are left alone to cross half the field, they do less to CSM than CSM would do to them.

Even with Battle Focus, there is no excuse for a 12" gun to get first salvo

Okapi wrote:
What do you think of the missile launcher in the new codex? Sure, it's the most expensive choice, and it's less effective anti-tank than the bright lance and worse anti-infantry than the scatter laser, but it outranges them, and has skyfire as well. With the loss of laser lock I'm considering them on pretty much everything, especially since I don't have any aircraft of my own. Even Vypers might be decent if the can stay 48" away and snipe at things.

DanielBeaver wrote: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.

JohnHwangDD wrote:The DA Shrine is indeed how people should be taking DA, if they were taking them in any quantity. The thing is, it's a rather inflexible blob, with exactly 1 Exarch for exactly 3 squads.

 ansacs wrote:

I think comparison units should have a similar purpose in the list and probably be measured against this purpose rather than each other (ie a rapier battery vs a lascannon blobb squad is a ridiculous example of this). The closest equivolent I can think of from IoM armies would be storm bolter inquisitorial acolytes (6 ppm) which are semi mobile anti infantry firepower, perhaps DE scourges who in their army can be good mobile anti infantry, or Sslyth. Ironically there are not really that many close range anti infantry options that are not taken for the ObjSec status or special weapons (both of which are almost impossible to compare to the dire avengers). In reality dire avengers in formation's real competitors are things like; DE - empty venom (65 pts), IG - 20 conscripts w/ priest + wyvern (150 pts), or Imperial Fists - Centurion Devs w/ HB and Hurricane Bolters (190 pts). Most of these occupy relatively free slots in their army and have similar focuses.

 lessthanjeff wrote:
If you want AA, I think the crimson hunter formation is fantastic for what it does and its cost. The preferred enemy, rerolls for armor pens, and 4+ save without having to jink are excellent and will solve any flyer problems as well as providing very solid anti armor options afterwards thanks to vector dancer.

 lessthanjeff wrote:

 ansacs wrote:
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.

If you have other units in mind you think are easier to compare with and are more valid then I'd be glad to hear them. I've proposed a fair number of pairings that I think fill similar roles, but I'm open to other options. I feel like there can almost always be an argument made that "such and such comparison is invalid" because no two units have the EXACT same rules and options available to them and it's quite difficult to get agreement on things like "how much is ATSKNF worth?" so do share if you have suggestions.

To points 1 and 2, I don't think of CSM as worse than the standard troop choices in other armies either though. I just chose CSM because they're 13 points each. I personally like to field a unit or two of them in rhinos when I play chaos, but I'd take DA in a wave serpent any day that I had the choice. I've definitely never used mine as wounds for an HQ because I've found Chaos HQ's are typically riding on juggernauts/bikes or are daemon princes.

To point 4, maybe you're expecting a different sort of list from the Eldar than I am. I'm expecting lists built like the following:
CAD
Autarch/Farseer on jetbike
Couple windrider jetbike squads with scatter lasers
Squadron of 3 grav tanks
Wraithknight
Maybe a squadron of wraithguard

Supported by some combination of the following formations
Aspect Host formation (3x fire dragons) mounted in the 3 grav tanks for precision deepstrikes
Crimson Death formation for air dominance and more anti-armor
Dire Avenger Shrine in wave serpents for shredding anything with toughness values
More Aspect Hosts with some mix of Warp Spiders and Dark Reapers

It seems it would be pretty easy to adjust the formations according to local playstyles and I don't rate the objective secured that highly for the infantry because I think in general the windriders will do it far better.

 The Shadow wrote:
Yeah, 3 Hunters is overkill. Sure, you'll dominate the air but half the time the opponent won't be taking many (or any) flyers, and so most of those points would have been better spent elsewhere. There's still plenty of units that work well against anti-air as well as ground units in the new book, so, whilst one Hunter may be fine (if you're using a CAD), you're probably better off spending the other points on something more versatile.

 lessthanjeff wrote:

 The Shadow wrote:
Yeah, 3 Hunters is overkill. Sure, you'll dominate the air but half the time the opponent won't be taking many (or any) flyers, and so most of those points would have been better spent elsewhere. There's still plenty of units that work well against anti-air as well as ground units in the new book, so, whilst one Hunter may be fine (if you're using a CAD), you're probably better off spending the other points on something more versatile.

It's overkill for air dominance, but don't underestimate their impact against ground targets too. MEQ armies pay that 140 points per tri-las predator tanks (with one being twin linked). You're paying the same for 4 str 8 ap 2 shots (2 with lance), much better mobility, and arguably better toughness since they snapshoot at you and you can control positions well with vector dancer as well as hit rear and side arcs. Even if the opponent brings no flyers at all, I'd be pretty happy with that option for cracking hulls.

 Red Corsair wrote:
Best two units to compare currently are Scourge and Swooping Hawks. Both cost 16 points, both are FA yet look at the differences between them even when you disregard an aspect shrine.
Scourge movement: 12" with fleet
Hawk movement: 18" fleet, battle focus,
Scourge gun: assault 3 18" poison
Hawk gun: assault 3 24" s3
additional gear Scourge: Plasma grenades
Additional gear hawks: Plasma grenades, HAYWIRE grenades, Grenade pack
Additional rules Scourge: 6++ power from pain
Additional rules Hawks: Skyleap, Herald of Victory (exarch), intercept fliers

Yea that's incredibly even....

Taken in a shrine those hawks can be BS5 or if facing Imperial knights why not go for WS5 for lol's so you can hit with haywire grenades on 3's after you engage one from 27" out on average (18" move plus 9" assault with fleet, turn 1 any one?). Not bad for a 170 point unit against a 375.

Scourge were ever so slightly worse before and now that margin is blown so wide it's idiotic because that 18" move is insane, now I'd take hawks over any other aspect since they do it all. They kill armor, they sweep objectives, they last turn contest.... it's incredible.

notredameguy10 wrote:

 Goldphish wrote:
I just don't see a reason to take a Dire Avengers formation though. You're not getting Obj. secured. You're not as good as the other ranged aspects. The only real benefit is the once per game Assault 3 which can either be worthless or amazing, but not nearly as competitive as spiders, hawks, reapers, or dragons. You're paying 13 points for glorified defenders without a weapons platform. T3 with a 4+ isn't going to stand up to much pressure, and a 24" range isn't that great. I feel like if you're taking this formation it's a preference for casual play.

um, and the bs5 on a basic troop, and the rerolling essentially all leadership based tests, and the auto run 6" even if firing, can damage any unit in the game with bladestorm, overwatch at bs2, extra shot for 1 turn for all units in formation, all for a 13 point troop

 The Shadow wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:
Best two units to compare currently are Scourge and Swooping Hawks. Both cost 16 points, both are FA yet look at the differences between them even when you disregard an aspect shrine.
Scourge movement: 12" with fleet
Hawk movement: 18" fleet, battle focus,
Scourge gun: assault 3 18" poison
Hawk gun: assault 3 24" s3
additional gear Scourge: Plasma grenades
Additional gear hawks: Plasma grenades, HAYWIRE grenades, Grenade pack
Additional rules Scourge: 6++ power from pain
Additional rules Hawks: Skyleap, Herald of Victory (exarch), intercept fliers

Yea that's incredibly even....

Taken in a shrine those hawks can be BS5 or if facing Imperial knights why not go for WS5 for lol's so you can hit with haywire grenades on 3's after you engage one from 27" out on average (18" move plus 9" assault with fleet, turn 1 any one?). Not bad for a 170 point unit against a 375.

Scourge were ever so slightly worse before and now that margin is blown so wide it's idiotic because that 18" move is insane, now I'd take hawks over any other aspect since they do it all. They kill armor, they sweep objectives, they last turn contest.... it's incredible.

Yeah, Hawks are ridiculously good now, but don't forget the weapons that Scourges can take, which makes them put out a lot of firepower that can be effective against a large variety of targets. Yes, it's more points, but still useful and a different role to Hawks. They're similar, and Hawks probably are better overall, but Scourges still have a place!

ConanMan wrote:

I used defender guardians all through the last dex. They are basically unchanged, so this still stands. You don't use them like this: you take 3 squads in 3 wave serpents and you "pump n dump" you drop 60 str 4 rending shots at BS4 into any infantry you like, usually they are in cover so their cover becomes yours, you utterly anhilate the target so there is no return fire. The wave serpents block the LOS and always absorb any return fire because they engage (the all but inevitable) secondary threats, those secondary threats are fairly mauled too and then they universally shoot back. Then you saddle up and go elsewhere.