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.

Don't necrons have something similar with their snipers as well?

How did the Phoenix Lords fare this time around?

Especially Karandras?

 daedalus wrote:

 Crimson Devil wrote:
Space Marine Codex page 198

The Stratagem "Auspex Scan" allows you to shoot deep strikers as well.

I had missed that one, so I guess that out of turn reactions aren't completely unheard of.

Wow though. The difference between those powers is staggering. I don't know if I've seen a situation where I could have used that and would actually want to.

I feel like your game had nothing to do with Eldar being OP (they are far from it) and more to do with not having enough familiarity with what other armies can do. Imperial armies actually have just as many "trick", if not more, than Eldar do. And Marine particularly have some of the most cost effective options.

This was why I was excited about the Indexes, but am becoming disappointed by the Codices. While the Indexes are clearly limited, they give newer players the ability to get "up to speed" with every enemy faction and can thus play to the fullest ability of their faction (i.e. adapt)
I like what the Codices are doing overall, but I am sad that they are just pilling on all this extra "stuff". It is already starting to feel as convoluted as 7th.

-

 Alpharius wrote:
How did the Phoenix Lords fare this time around?

Especially Karandras?

Karandras did not fare to well - but asureman and maugan ra are pretty good for what you pay for.

 Galef wrote:

I feel like your game had nothing to do with Eldar being OP and more to do with you guys not having enough familiarity with what other armies can do.

I definitely think that's at least partially the matter. I mean, I'll totally own that on the fact that we got caught off-guard by the deep strike sucker punch. I'm also going to keep pointing out the massive difference in what the 2CP stratagem gets you from SM from what it does in Eldar, as a component of said shock. I don't think the implications of that have been thought all the way through. Like, that's better than Coteaz was back in the day when he was "gamebreakingly OP" (not my words). It's huge.

The other component was just this sudden sinking feeling about literally seeing better than invisibility come back into the game. I felt like that was specifically one of the things with 2++ that were called out as the reason why 8th happened in the first place. Like, I thought that was officially said once on the warhammer-community site. I'm trying to find it now.

 daedalus wrote:

 Crimson Devil wrote:
Space Marine Codex page 198

The Stratagem "Auspex Scan" allows you to shoot deep strikers as well.

I had missed that one, so I guess that out of turn reactions aren't completely unheard of.

Wow though. The difference between those powers is staggering. I don't know if I've seen a situation where I could have used that and would actually want to.

That's because it's a worthless limited range stratagem that also give's you -1 to hit.

The Guillistar doesn't care about -1 to hit.

Of course, if you're not running Guilliman... well, that depends on how much you need to put down that deepstriking unit.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Alpharius wrote:
How did the Phoenix Lords fare this time around?

Especially Karandras?

Karandras did not fare to well - but asureman and maugan ra are pretty good for what you pay for.

Ah, that's too bad!

Karandras is my favorite, and I've love to start something up using him and some Scorpions as a base.

I've got this sweet Stiking Scorpion Wraithlord conversion I'd love to use too...

Any more details on my Karandras is bad and Asurmen and Maugan are good?

 Alpharius wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Alpharius wrote:
How did the Phoenix Lords fare this time around?

Especially Karandras?

Karandras did not fare to well - but asureman and maugan ra are pretty good for what you pay for.

Ah, that's too bad!

Karandras is my favorite, and I've love to start something up using him and some Scorpions as a base.

I've got this sweet Stiking Scorpion Wraithlord conversion I'd love to use too...

Any more details on my Karandras is bad and Asurmen and Maugan are good?

If you are into striking scoripons I think you'd be pleased to play with them - they are probably the best melle unit in the codex and they have some neat rules. Karandas is just basically a big striking scorpion - he doesn't have any really cool buff effect.

Asurman gives all aspects 5++ saves within 6 " and a 4++ to dire avengers. That is quite a good buff. Maugan lets all reapers around him reroll 1's and he himself can shoot his super shuriken cannon with 2 fire modes twice (dark reapers are basically the best unit in the codex too so that helps him).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Fafnir wrote:
The Guillistar doesn't care about -1 to hit.

Of course, if you're not running Guilliman... well, that depends on how much you need to put down that deepstriking unit.

A single razorback with -1 to hit is not a threat to any unit you'd willingly drop into 12" range to active the strategem. A unit of hellblasters isn't even scary - with -1 to hit overcharging is suicide. About the only unit that is scary in that situation would be aggressors because they can have 24 shots each if they havn't moved. Still - just go after another target out of 12" and you don't have to worry.

 Alpharius wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Alpharius wrote:
How did the Phoenix Lords fare this time around?

Especially Karandras?

Karandras did not fare to well - but asureman and maugan ra are pretty good for what you pay for.

Ah, that's too bad!

Karandras is my favorite, and I've love to start something up using him and some Scorpions as a base.

I've got this sweet Stiking Scorpion Wraithlord conversion I'd love to use too...

Any more details on my Karandras is bad and Asurmen and Maugan are good?

He gets four attacks at S8/AP-3/Dd3, in addition to an extra attack on hit rolls of 6, and does 1.3 mortal wounds at the beginning of every fight phase, which is pretty nice. He can even come from reserves, which is a nice touch.

His problem is that he has no shooting presence, he buffs a unit that honestly is just not good, and he's 150 points for the privilege of all that. He also doesn't get an invulnerable save, which is a dangerous situation to be in when you're dropping right into the thick of it.

He's not garbage, because I'm sure we've all had situations where a deepstriking powerfist would be useful. But he's also not particularly good either, because he's a 150 point deepstriking powerfist, and that's still a lot to pay.


Asurmen has a 4++ (3++ in CC), dishes out some pretty good damage in CC (with some solid mortal wound output to boot!), and gives a solid invulnerable save bubble to Aspect Warriors within 6". He also doubles Dire Avenger overwatch capabilities.

Maugan Ra just has a solid toolkit that works well at any range. He's a bit expensive, but he'll put in work no matter where you put him.

Yes the Necrons sniper units have that same function and no cost in CP.

The Mordians also have the Strategem to auto target deep strike units within 12"...so Eldar don't deep strike guardians or cc units near a Mordian unit.

 admironheart wrote:
Yes the Necrons sniper units have that same function and no cost in CP.

The Mordians also have the Strategem to auto target deep strike units within 12"...so Eldar don't deep strike guardians or cc units near a Mordian unit.

There's a substantial difference between "I have to deep strike 12.01 inches away if I don't want to get shot" and "I literally cannot deep strike this unit without immediately removing it from the table."

Unless you plan on using your striking scorpions to charge that unit.

Just keep it out of LOS and you will be fine

 admironheart wrote:
Unless you plan on using your striking scorpions to charge that unit.

Just keep it out of LOS and you will be fine

It's not exactly trivial matter to just deep strike a Dreadknight out of line of sight.

What Mordian stratagem do you keep referring to?

oops I meant Militarum Tempestus units 1CP stratagem with -1

You could also just wait a turn, kill or heavily injure the Reapers before deep striking the following turn. They are not that hard to kill. That way there is little if anything of the Reapers to shoot your deep striking unit.

Going back to the previous page, I really don't think Warlocks are too expensive.

First off I think the comparison to Malific lords and other cheap psykers is not very useful. Aside from the fact those are generally considered to be too cheap, they are not options in the Eldar codex and they don't cast Runes of Battle.

35pts to have access to one of the best tables of psychic powers is a price worth paying. Index dire avengers were too expensive- they just didn't do anything that was worth paying for- not so for warlocks. If guardians didn't exist you still wouldn't have wanted to pay for Dire Avengers- if Spirtseers didn't exist you would absolutely want to take Warlocks.

Now, there is definitely an argument for saying that the Spiritseer is a better buy for the points, so maybe the difference in price should be bigger, but paying 5pts more for the Sseer would make as much sense as paying 5 less for the Warlock. It's also worth remembering that in the majority of games there will be no practical difference between what these two options do.

Essentially what I'm saying is, regardless of the stat line, a Runes of Battle power is easily worth 35pts.

Moosatronic Warrior wrote:
Going back to the previous page, I really don't think Warlocks are too expensive.

First off I think the comparison to Malific lords and other cheap psykers is not very useful. Aside from the fact those are generally considered to be too cheap, they are not options in the Eldar codex and they don't cast Runes of Battle.

35pts to have access to one of the best tables of psychic powers is a price worth paying. Index dire avengers were too expensive- they just didn't do anything that was worth paying for- not so for warlocks. If guardians didn't exist you still wouldn't have wanted to pay for Dire Avengers- if Spirtseers didn't exist you would absolutely want to take Warlocks.

Now, there is definitely an argument for saying that the Spiritseer is a better buy for the points, so maybe the difference in price should be bigger, but paying 5pts more for the Sseer would make as much sense as paying 5 less for the Warlock. It's also worth remembering that in the majority of games there will be no practical difference between what these two options do.

Essentially what I'm saying is, regardless of the stat line, a Runes of Battle power is easily worth 35pts.

I don't think this is a great way to look at it. Like, yes, for many lists a particular psychic power on turn 1 is going to be worth at least 35 points, and actually the stuff you're combining it with makes the cost of the power pretty insignificant. Say you're using Quicken on a big unit of Wraithguard or Wraithblades. If Wraithblades are anywhere near worth their price as a standalone unit, obviously it's worth paying 35 points and a CP to deep strike them and get them into CC turn 1. But the same could be said for a ton of psykers -- Runes of Battle don't jump out to me as being head and shoulders above all other disciplines. What it comes down to is that psykers are typically not costed as upgrades to units. Perhaps because of the matched play restriction, they're often fairly pushed, where they're cheap enough that of course you're going to take some and then the interesting decisions you make are about what powers to take and what to use them on. And so the cross-faction comparisons are very relevant. Several factions get psykers that aren't just not-overpriced but are clearly far too cheap for what they do in terms of their buffing/debuffing impact relative to other choices. The question is how Warlocks look compared to comparable psykers in other factions and how they look compared to other choices in the same codex.

The easiest thing to compare a Warlock to is an Astropath. The Warlock has 1 fewer wound but a better save, which makes him less durable overall probably, and is slightly better in CC but really you don't want either one anywhere near CC. Both have a bad version of Smite although the Astropath's is a lot better. Many of the Astropath's powers look a lot like Runes of Battle powers, and in some ways are actually better. Psychic Barrier is WC6 instead of 7 and improves any Guard unit's saves by 1. Likewise Nightshroud is a WC6 Conceal that targets any Guard unit. These can even be used on flyers and superheavies -- obviously it's worth paying 15 points to buff a Shadowsword like this. They even have a better version of Horrify (but both are bad and you shouldn't use them) and a pseudo-Smite that you could use instead of their inherent nerfed one. Astropaths also have an ability that functions a lot like a free, guaranteed cast of Reveal every turn (granted it only benefits nearby units). The only compensating advantage Warlocks get is that their powers have two modes, but in practice, if you're bringing a Warlock, he's probably casting just one mode for the first several turns of the game in 99% of games. The point is: there's a huge mismatch here. It seems basically impossible to justify the cost difference between Warlocks and Astropaths.

Some interesting comparisons.

I think the Warlock should cost more than the Astropath for a few reasons (though arguable by how much)

1. There are a lot more better targets for the buffs than in an Imperial Guard army (Wraithguard, Shining Spears, Shadow Spectres etc)
2. Runes of Battle are more flexible having both buff and rebuff applications
3. Warlocks benefit from army wide craftworld traits which are better than the AM ones (eg Alaitoc to help against enemy snipers)
4. Warlock has a 4++ save. Much better than Astropath save.
5. Warlock has access to Seer Council Stratagem, increasing likelihood of casting a power.
6. Warlocks Smite is actually better than Astropaths. Astropath will average cast Smite 1/3 of the time for average 2 Mortal wounds. Warlock will average cast Destructor 3/4 of the time averaging 3 wounds. Astropath does more damage when it goes off but Warlock is much more likely to go off in the first place.
7. Warlock is quicker on foot and can take a jet bike, either way making them more mobile on battlefield than Astropath (though this is marginal benefit considering it is extra points for the bike)

There may be more but those are the main strengths of Warlock compared to Astropath that come to mind straight away.

I don't see it. Overpriced means not worth taking because of the price. Warlocks are worth taking, people just want them to be cheaper.

Cross codex comparisons are at there most pointless when considering buff characters, because their usefulness is entirely dependent on the rest of the codex they find them self in. Protect would be more powerful in a marine army than it is for Eldar for example- 2+ invul terminators or thunderwolf cavalry?

Ultimately the stats of an astropath have absolutely no bearing on whether or not you decide to take a Warlock. "I was going to use Quicken and Protect to make a unit of Shining spears a really tough turn 1 assault unit, but then I saw the cost of an Astropath so I didn't" - What?!

If you have Spiritseers in your list and find that you don't quite have enough points to put Vectored engines on your wave serpents, you should drop them down to warlocks to free up points. A 1 in 27 chance that your psyker blows up when casting a power is a chance worth taking to get -1 to hit on a serpent with important cargo. - That is the kind of decision making that is realistically going to happen when list building, not cross codex comparisons.

They are overpriced if you get a much better unit for roughly 25% more points in the Spirit Seer. That, by default makes a Warlock overpriced (just as many units throughout 40K completely negate other units due to cost/pricing).

Moosatronic Warrior wrote:
I don't see it. Overpriced means not worth taking because of the price. Warlocks are worth taking, people just want them to be cheaper.

Cross codex comparisons are at there most pointless when considering buff characters, because their usefulness is entirely dependent on the rest of the codex they find them self in. Protect would be more powerful in a marine army than it is for Eldar for example- 2+ invul terminators or thunderwolf cavalry?

Ultimately the stats of an astropath have absolutely no bearing on whether or not you decide to take a Warlock. "I was going to use Quicken and Protect to make a unit of Shining spears a really tough turn 1 assault unit, but then I saw the cost of an Astropath so I didn't" - What?!

If you have Spiritseers in your list and find that you don't quite have enough points to put Vectored engines on your wave serpents, you should drop them down to warlocks to free up points. A 1 in 27 chance that your psyker blows up when casting a power is a chance worth taking to get -1 to hit on a serpent with important cargo. - That is the kind of decision making that is realistically going to happen when list building, not cross codex comparisons.

This doesn't really engage with what I said. Like I said, there are lots of scenarios where you'd take an Astropath for 30 points. If the cheapest RoB caster cost 60 points there would still be a strong case for taking at least 1 in lots of lists. These psykers are simply not costed as upgrades to units. Their pricing is supposed to strongly encourage you to take some, and your list-building decision is more about how many you're going to take, which means we're talking about the usefulness of their marginal powers rather than their best powers. And so ultimately you're not actually making a case that Warlocks ought to cost 35 just by arguing that sometimes you're willing to take one at 35. Or else we ought to apply the same kind of reasoning to other psykers and conclude that Astropaths should cost about twice as much as they do now. I was pointing out that the very different pricing of the two psykers doesn't make a whole lot of sense. It's also telling that your case for Warlocks over Spiritseers is "well if you just can't scrounge up the 10 points without massively impacting the usefulness of one of your other units..." Like, yeah, I can come up with a list where you don't take a Star Lance on your Shining Spear Exarch because you have nothing else to cut, but the Star Lance is still clearly under-priced relative to the Laser Lance and you're going to take it almost every time (this is not necessarily a bad thing since GW might want to set Exarchs apart by pushing special weapons for them). Likewise Spiritseers and Warlocks; there's maybe a case for 1 Warlock because of stratagems, but otherwise you're really going to be looking to take the Spiritseers instead, even if you have absolutely no use for the Wraith buff which is the main thing that's supposed to set them apart as Spiritseers. They are bizarrely close in price for how much better Spiritseers are.

It's not clear to me if you disagree with the appropriateness of the actual cross-codex comparison I drew. You set up a Marine strawman, but that's not the comparison that was made. I pointed out that Astropaths can (more easily) cast Conceal and Protect, and they get this on even flyers and superheavies while at the same time denying cover saves almost as if casting Reveal. This isn't hypothetical -- they actually do this. It doesn't seem to me that Conceal on a Vendetta is notably more or less powerful than Conceal on Shadow Spectres, and Protect on a Baneblade or on 3++ Crusaders or 4++ Bullgryn is a big deal.

The marine "strawman" was to demonstrate my point that the usefulness of a buff character is entirely dependent on the units they are buffing. it was not intended to be equivalent to any comparison you were making.

If the difference in price between a Warlock and Spiritseer is too small that does not necessarily mean a Warlock is too expensive.

If you never include one in your lists then they are too expensive. So far I have been putting them in my lists so I can't say they are too expensive for me.


EDIT to be clear: I disagree with the appropriateness of your cross codex comparison.

EDIT 2: the poster below makes a good point. The cheapest HQ choice in a codex always gets added value by virtue of being the easiest way to unlock detatchments.

With regard to Warlocks, I think we may be seeing a "spam tax" added onto the base cost of the unit. They're a cheap HQ in a Codex that can (relatively) easily unlock Brigades to provide enough CP to fuel their (very) powerful stratagems.

Character Warlocks are probably fine at 35ppm, but a Spiritseer is a way better choice at 45ppm. That's the issue.
In an ideal situation, single Warlocks should be 30ppm and Spiritseers should be 50ppm.

Another issue for me personally (because I detest Infantry characters in general) is that the Skyrunner Warlocks are way too expensive. They should be no more that 60ppm with singing spear.
The 75ppm they are at right now is just ludicrous. I'll pick a single Farseer over 2 Warlocks every time.
Conclave Warlocks (Infantry and Bikes) are also way too expensive since they lose the protection of being Characters.

-

Yeah, I think Warlocks aren't bad, SpiritSeers are too cheap.

Spirit Seers weren't an option building my last list (didn't really fit 'Aspect Host', so didn't want to bring him). Warlock looked easily worth the points without that comparison.

I may have to eat a little humble pie. Last night the dice gods saw fit to punish me for my arrogance.

I took Eldrad, two Spiritseers and three warlocks with the intention of moving them around as a "council" and stacking an insane amount of buffs on a unit each turn.

I got turn 1 and dropped in 20 Guardian Defenders from the Webway. My first Warlock rolled double 6. I used a CP reroll to save him. My third warlock then got double 1, exploded, killed the other two Warlocks, and wounded the Sprirtseers and Eldrad. One of the Spiritseers then also got a Perils! As he was already wounded from the Warlock exploding, it killed him, finished off the other Spiritseer and left Eldrad on one wound.

So after my first Psychic phase 5 out of 6 psykers are dead, Eldrad is on one wound and I'd given up first blood and warlord.

Now, the odds of getting three perils is very rare and anecdotal evidence like this doesn't change the maths. However I won't be standing Warlocks next to other characters in future. Previously I had them moving around in units where losing a couple of guys won't be game changing.

The Guardian bomb was great though, despite being thrown out in front of a horde of Tyranids without any support. After collectively face palming at the psychic stupidity going on behind them, they proceeded to blow away 20+ Hormagants and 10 Genestealers before being dragged down.

What god (Tzeentch obviously) did you offend to get a 1 in 46656 chance? (The chance is probably greater since you cast more than 3 spells but still).

It was 3 perils in 7 tests I think which lessens the odds, but then always rolling at least a 3+ for how many mortal wounds I suffered increases them again. Also I failed all my 6+++ Ulthwe saves.

The odds of 3 or more perils out of 7 attempts is approx 1/200 (0.5%).

If anyone's wondering, this is the distribution for number of perils out of 7 attempts
0 67%
1 28%
2 5%
3 0.5%
4+ so tiny no one cares