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.

 Xenomancers wrote:
How can anyone say the catellan is not undercosted. Compare it to a crusader.

Plasma is flat out better than gatling gun - volcano lance is about twice as good as a titan melta - 2 siege breaker cannons are about twice as good as storm spear rocket - then the castellan has 4 melta guns and 2 invo denying missles and +4 wounds all for about 100 more points? Are you joking?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
How are we ever going to have a balanced game - if you people can't even agree that the most obviously OP things... Like guardsmen, Castellans, and shinning spears are OP?

I think they are undercosted, but certain buffs they have access to are also too powerful. I'd rather see the 3++ and CP regen go away from knights first, and then see if Castellans are overpowered at 600ish points. They very well may be, but going from a 3++ to 4++ is a 50% increase in damage taken from any weapons that matter, so it's not a small change. It would be sad if they changed too much and made the unit unusable, rather than leave it good but not as unkillable, or unenjoyable to play against.

Id probably go as far as to say the rotate ion shields should only go to a 4++, and the warlord trait should not be available to the dominus class knights before I changed their points too much.

jcd386 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
How can anyone say the catellan is not undercosted. Compare it to a crusader.

Plasma is flat out better than gatling gun - volcano lance is about twice as good as a titan melta - 2 siege breaker cannons are about twice as good as storm spear rocket - then the castellan has 4 melta guns and 2 invo denying missles and +4 wounds all for about 100 more points? Are you joking?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
How are we ever going to have a balanced game - if you people can't even agree that the most obviously OP things... Like guardsmen, Castellans, and shinning spears are OP?

I think they are undercosted, but certain buffs they have access to are also too powerful. I'd rather see the 3++ and CP regen go away from knights first, and then see if Castellans are overpowered at 600ish points. They very well may be, but going from a 3++ to 4++ is a 50% increase in damage taken from any weapons that matter, so it's not a small change. It would be sad if they changed too much and made the unit unusable, rather than leave it good but not as unkillable, or unenjoyable to play against.

Id probably go as far as to say the rotate ion shields should only go to a 4++, and the warlord trait should not be available to the dominus class knights before I changed their points too much.

That is a good change I think 4++ max helps a lot.

 Xenomancers wrote:

jcd386 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
How can anyone say the catellan is not undercosted. Compare it to a crusader.

Plasma is flat out better than gatling gun - volcano lance is about twice as good as a titan melta - 2 siege breaker cannons are about twice as good as storm spear rocket - then the castellan has 4 melta guns and 2 invo denying missles and +4 wounds all for about 100 more points? Are you joking?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
How are we ever going to have a balanced game - if you people can't even agree that the most obviously OP things... Like guardsmen, Castellans, and shinning spears are OP?

I think they are undercosted, but certain buffs they have access to are also too powerful. I'd rather see the 3++ and CP regen go away from knights first, and then see if Castellans are overpowered at 600ish points. They very well may be, but going from a 3++ to 4++ is a 50% increase in damage taken from any weapons that matter, so it's not a small change. It would be sad if they changed too much and made the unit unusable, rather than leave it good but not as unkillable, or unenjoyable to play against.

Id probably go as far as to say the rotate ion shields should only go to a 4++, and the warlord trait should not be available to the dominus class knights before I changed their points too much.

That is a good change I think 4++ max helps a lot.

I think so too. I also don't think it's too much to demand they spend CP to get to a 4++. If anything, having a 4++warlord trait was probably a mistake, so just removing it might be the simplest fix.

It's funny how much harder things are to balance with warlord traits, chapter tactics, and stratagems around.

"you are likely giving up a buff life guide for it (causes you are probably taking yvraine instead of a second farseer or eldrad)"
That is *not* why high-placing Tourny lists feature Yvraine instead of a second Ynnari Farseer or Eldrad. It's because they don't want to get DQed for not following the rules. This isn't some minor corner rule. It's a cornerstone of the Ynnari rules.

"An and you are shooting at bs4+ instead of 3+ or you are out of range because you didn't advance." Advancing on Spears is nice, but 6" means a lot less with their base movement, and the possibility of Quicken. More importantly, if they advanced to shoot, they're now within 12" of the enemy and can't charge. I'm not sure if you know this, but being within 12" of the enemy means no Alaitoc bonus. Also, Spears are less durable per point to shooting than Tac Marines within 12". And then there's the possibility of charging - Spears do worse than Marines in CC vs many things - including Guardsmen - if they don't charge. Even before considering that they will then strike last. Ending within 12" of an enemy and not charging is a *BAD* idea with Spears.

Further, anything big enough to warrent sending a 9-man Spears unit after it is very unlikely to be killed with just one round of Spear shooting. Half their damage is their CC, and they need to leverage both.

The Advance and Charge from Saim-Hann is nice. But I'd rather Alaitoc or Uthwe or Biel Tan (look at their stratagem). Shining Spears aren't Ork Boyz or Gaunts or Genestealers. You don't just try a bunch of long-range charges and get what you get. If you fail the charge, you're toast. And you only get one (possibly 3, if you're foolish enough) unit, so only one attempt to charge. Thus, the reroll from the trait isn't all that useful - a fraction of the time, spending 1 CP to reroll 1 of the charge dice is going to give you all the upsides at relatively minor CP cost (you *really* don't want to be risking those 50/50 charges, even with rerolls). The Advance and Charge is nice, but compared to a psykic power that lets you shoot twice, fight twice, or move twice, no contest.

Nova Lance is really good on the Autarch. He goes from lesser-Captain to lesser-SmashCaptain.

Go ahead and try putting 2 or 3 SHining Spears on the front line turn 1 as Alaitoc. One can get -2 to hit with the stratagem, but the other just has -1 from Alaitoc. You're still worse-than-RG-Tac durability to almost everything. What you're talking about is a bad idea.

The unit is a little undercosted. But you clearly don't understand how or why.

One unit of spears is good because of the various buff leveraging. Two can be okay for the redundancy. 3+ is obviously worse.

There are similarities to Smash captains. One is exceptional. Two is almost as good and the redundancy probably makes it optimal. Five BA captains is crap because you cant boost them all. (Also rule of three but meh).

This is different to say the pre-nerf flying tyrants who were good on their own and didn't need boosting.

Spears or Harlie bikes are good - but point some shooting at them and they start falling over. Plenty of d2 weapons out there.

I laughed at people saying Wracks are OP.

DE are okay. They're the perfect example of a faction that is held up by soup.

Bharring wrote:
"you are likely giving up a buff life guide for it (causes you are probably taking yvraine instead of a second farseer or eldrad)"
That is *not* why high-placing Tourny lists feature Yvraine instead of a second Ynnari Farseer or Eldrad. It's because they don't want to get DQed for not following the rules. This isn't some minor corner rule. It's a cornerstone of the Ynnari rules.

"An and you are shooting at bs4+ instead of 3+ or you are out of range because you didn't advance." Advancing on Spears is nice, but 6" means a lot less with their base movement, and the possibility of Quicken. More importantly, if they advanced to shoot, they're now within 12" of the enemy and can't charge. I'm not sure if you know this, but being within 12" of the enemy means no Alaitoc bonus. Also, Spears are less durable per point to shooting than Tac Marines within 12". And then there's the possibility of charging - Spears do worse than Marines in CC vs many things - including Guardsmen - if they don't charge. Even before considering that they will then strike last. Ending within 12" of an enemy and not charging is a *BAD* idea with Spears.

Further, anything big enough to warrent sending a 9-man Spears unit after it is very unlikely to be killed with just one round of Spear shooting. Half their damage is their CC, and they need to leverage both.

The Advance and Charge from Saim-Hann is nice. But I'd rather Alaitoc or Uthwe or Biel Tan (look at their stratagem). Shining Spears aren't Ork Boyz or Gaunts or Genestealers. You don't just try a bunch of long-range charges and get what you get. If you fail the charge, you're toast. And you only get one (possibly 3, if you're foolish enough) unit, so only one attempt to charge. Thus, the reroll from the trait isn't all that useful - a fraction of the time, spending 1 CP to reroll 1 of the charge dice is going to give you all the upsides at relatively minor CP cost (you *really* don't want to be risking those 50/50 charges, even with rerolls). The Advance and Charge is nice, but compared to a psykic power that lets you shoot twice, fight twice, or move twice, no contest.

Nova Lance is really good on the Autarch. He goes from lesser-Captain to lesser-SmashCaptain.

Go ahead and try putting 2 or 3 SHining Spears on the front line turn 1 as Alaitoc. One can get -2 to hit with the stratagem, but the other just has -1 from Alaitoc. You're still worse-than-RG-Tac durability to almost everything. What you're talking about is a bad idea.

The unit is a little undercosted. But you clearly don't understand how or why.

LOL at comparing space marines to -1 to hit spears for durability. Even if their durability was similar (it's not vs anything but trash weapons) Spears only do about 5-6 x more damage per point and with -2 they are practically invulnerable.

Why are we even talking about a RG tactical marine? I have never seen one. It's like you don't even play the game making statements like this.

Not to mention - with their insane mobility + quicken - they don't even need to start in LOS (which is typically how I see them played).

The point I am trying to make about CWE vs Ynnari is bs3+ guided spears do similar damage to a ynnari spears unit that advanced and isn't guided but fights twice. I've seen many Ynnari lists that don't include a farseer. Stop going off about ynnari armies needing to take yvraine or ynncarne - I havn't played ynnari in like over a year and I even mentioned a variation in the post that had yvraine in it...

Breng77 wrote:
again neither seems to be spammed to win games but rather taken because CP are good, and they are the best way in their respective books to unlock said CP. Let me put it this way, do you think if people could get 5 CP (or even say 3-4 CP) taking a supreme command of smash captains you would be seeing tons of scouts? Personally I don't think you would, you would see 3 Smash Captains. People want the OP units in a book, but they also want CP, so troops get taken.


Infantry might be slightly undercosted, but they are in a tough place due to how low end points work (raising them to 5 points is a 25% increase in cost).

As to tac marines, sure it is a mess, but that is because they suck, not because scouts are OMG amazing OP units. So again unless by OP you mean "better than a tactical marine" then no scouts are not OP. No list is spamming scouts to win games, they are taking them because they must take troops, and scouts are better than tacticals. Being the best choice in a slot in a particular codex does not make a unit OP, it just speaks to poor internal balance. Maybe all the other choices are just bad.

You argument is akin to say if sisters became a top book because Seraphim and Celestine were OP, but people took battle sisters to fill out battalions, and you saying See Battle Sisters are OP...

Infantry are 5 pt models, no question. 25% is the right increase for them to start.

Tac marines are a mess and no scouts aren't OP but they are internally which is stupid. Tac marines need a buff and scouts probably need a small nerf.

Both units win games. Make no mistake. They are the cornerstone of the lists and they win games by taking and holding objectives. Scouts aren't incredible for their points but they are great at holding objectives. Infantry are the best objective holders in the game for reasons previously stated.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
again neither seems to be spammed to win games but rather taken because CP are good, and they are the best way in their respective books to unlock said CP. Let me put it this way, do you think if people could get 5 CP (or even say 3-4 CP) taking a supreme command of smash captains you would be seeing tons of scouts? Personally I don't think you would, you would see 3 Smash Captains. People want the OP units in a book, but they also want CP, so troops get taken.


Infantry might be slightly undercosted, but they are in a tough place due to how low end points work (raising them to 5 points is a 25% increase in cost).

As to tac marines, sure it is a mess, but that is because they suck, not because scouts are OMG amazing OP units. So again unless by OP you mean "better than a tactical marine" then no scouts are not OP. No list is spamming scouts to win games, they are taking them because they must take troops, and scouts are better than tacticals. Being the best choice in a slot in a particular codex does not make a unit OP, it just speaks to poor internal balance. Maybe all the other choices are just bad.

You argument is akin to say if sisters became a top book because Seraphim and Celestine were OP, but people took battle sisters to fill out battalions, and you saying See Battle Sisters are OP...

Infantry are 5 pt models, no question. 25% is the right increase for them to start.

Tac marines are a mess and no scouts aren't OP but they are internally which is stupid. Tac marines need a buff and scouts probably need a small nerf.

Both units win games. Make no mistake. They are the cornerstone of the lists and they win games by taking and holding objectives. Scouts aren't incredible for their points but they are great at holding objectives. Infantry are the best objective holders in the game for reasons previously stated.

Scouts are terrible at holding objectives. They aren't fast - they have poor durability per point and they can't repel anything. They are more useless chaff that costs more than other useless chaff. They have a good deployment option that would be great on another unit but is really bad for them. Fact of the mater is - putting bad units anywhere you want on the table sucks. Literally the only reason they are taken is because smash captain is OP as a mofo and 3 smash captains isn't much better than 2 so 4 more starting CP is preferable to a captain smash lite.

Yeah - I've seen some other lists that include scouts too - those lists are garbage.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
again neither seems to be spammed to win games but rather taken because CP are good, and they are the best way in their respective books to unlock said CP. Let me put it this way, do you think if people could get 5 CP (or even say 3-4 CP) taking a supreme command of smash captains you would be seeing tons of scouts? Personally I don't think you would, you would see 3 Smash Captains. People want the OP units in a book, but they also want CP, so troops get taken.


Infantry might be slightly undercosted, but they are in a tough place due to how low end points work (raising them to 5 points is a 25% increase in cost).

As to tac marines, sure it is a mess, but that is because they suck, not because scouts are OMG amazing OP units. So again unless by OP you mean "better than a tactical marine" then no scouts are not OP. No list is spamming scouts to win games, they are taking them because they must take troops, and scouts are better than tacticals. Being the best choice in a slot in a particular codex does not make a unit OP, it just speaks to poor internal balance. Maybe all the other choices are just bad.

You argument is akin to say if sisters became a top book because Seraphim and Celestine were OP, but people took battle sisters to fill out battalions, and you saying See Battle Sisters are OP...

Infantry are 5 pt models, no question. 25% is the right increase for them to start.

Tac marines are a mess and no scouts aren't OP but they are internally which is stupid. Tac marines need a buff and scouts probably need a small nerf.

Both units win games. Make no mistake. They are the cornerstone of the lists and they win games by taking and holding objectives. Scouts aren't incredible for their points but they are great at holding objectives. Infantry are the best objective holders in the game for reasons previously stated.

Scouts are terrible at holding objectives. They aren't fast - they have poor durability per point and they can't repel anything. They are more useless chaff that costs more than other useless chaff. They have a good deployment option that would be great on another unit but is really bad for them. Fact of the mater is - putting bad units anywhere you want on the table sucks. Literally the only reason they are taken is because smash captain is OP as a mofo and 3 smash captains isn't much better than 2 so 4 more starting CP is preferable to a captain smash lite.

Yeah - I've seen some other lists that include scouts too - those lists are garbage.

I would suggest that a unit that can be placed anywhere on the board has excellent mobility.

Per point they aren't too durable but they're always in cover and can become a pain to shift. Their damage output is meagre.

They feature in each and every top list that has space marines in it. The ability to scout deploy is really, really strong and makes them a great screen (though admittedly this is less useful in the current meta where turn 1 DS isn't a thing anymore). Of course tacs sucking is part of that equation too.

This is so far removed from everyone's local meta anyway. Talking about these lists is kind of pointless anyway. We all know Knights are good, we all know Guard is good, nothing to see here, move along.

"Stop going off about ynnari armies needing to take yvraine or ynncarne"
Then stop suggesting it. It's not a valid tactic any more than bringing loaded dice. Sure, an honest mistake. So please stop making it and/or (preferably and) stop pretending you're some expert on Eldar.

"Even if their durability was similar (it's not vs anything but trash weapons)"
Trash weapons like:
-Plasma
-Lasguns
-Bolt (yeah, trash)
-Smashfether
-Knights
-Mortal Wounds
-Splinter
-Dissies
... What else was in the top 10 again?

Yes, they are glass cannon. So they shouldn't be more durable than Tacs. Still means your suggestion of putting them on the front lines in the open doesn't mean they'll survive automagically just because they're Alaitoc.

Spears are actually *insanely* similar to Marines in durability/pt. T4 2W for more than 2x the cost, with a 3+/4++. So it's the same for anything with D1 or AP-1 or less, worse for anything D-morethanone, and better for anything AP-2 or better but D1. I know you claim that only the AP-tons D1 weapons are what matter when talking about Spears, but funny that it's always all those AP0/-1 or D2 weapons everywhere when talking Primaris or Termies.

I only compared Alaitoc spears to RG spears. I compared Spears in general to Marines in general - some have -1-to-hit, some have 6++, some have neither. I get that Spears are too cheap for their durability, but they aren't what you think they are.

You keep seeing any disagreement with your specific claims as full-throated support of the status quo. Pointing out Spears are about as durable as Marines in no way forwards the position that Spears aren't OP or that Marines are weak. Stop reading it that way.

Please try to understand the point being made when reading a post. Please stop seeing strawmen shouting what you want to hear where you should be seeing letters and words that say things.

Re: Space Marine Scouts

When did they go from BS/WS4 to BS/WS3? Was that the launch of 8th? Or was it the final 7th Ed Codex?

I feel like that change has sold a lot of those crappy old models but did not have a great benefit to the game.

Maybe they should be BS4 but with +1 to hit if they didn't move that turn or something. Or if they have no other friendly units within 6" to show how they are forward operators.

7E codex.

They moved away from many of the split BS within armies. While there are still some, Guardians had the same change (Guardian squads and vehicles went from WS/BS3 to WS/BS4).

But you really don't take scouts for their dakka - at least not their boltguns. You take Scouts for board presence. Same concept of Rangers - "chaff" in an elite army with placement shenanigans but no real firepower. Rangers (Alaitoc at least) are harder to shoot but easier to chop than Scouts, worse deployment options, and cost +1ppm - but they both function largely the same.

Bharring wrote:
"Stop going off about ynnari armies needing to take yvraine or ynncarne"
Then stop suggesting it. It's not a valid tactic any more than bringing loaded dice. Sure, an honest mistake. So please stop making it and/or (preferably and) stop pretending you're some expert on Eldar.

"Even if their durability was similar (it's not vs anything but trash weapons)"
Trash weapons like:
-Plasma
-Lasguns
-Bolt (yeah, trash)
-Smashfether
-Knights
-Mortal Wounds
-Splinter
-Dissies
... What else was in the top 10 again?

Yes, they are glass cannon. So they shouldn't be more durable than Tacs. Still means your suggestion of putting them on the front lines in the open doesn't mean they'll survive automagically just because they're Alaitoc.

Spears are actually *insanely* similar to Marines in durability/pt. T4 2W for more than 2x the cost, with a 3+/4++. So it's the same for anything with D1 or AP-1 or less, worse for anything D-morethanone, and better for anything AP-2 or better but D1. I know you claim that only the AP-tons D1 weapons are what matter when talking about Spears, but funny that it's always all those AP0/-1 or D2 weapons everywhere when talking Primaris or Termies.

I only compared Alaitoc spears to RG spears. I compared Spears in general to Marines in general - some have -1-to-hit, some have 6++, some have neither. I get that Spears are too cheap for their durability, but they aren't what you think they are.

You keep seeing any disagreement with your specific claims as full-throated support of the status quo. Pointing out Spears are about as durable as Marines in no way forwards the position that Spears aren't OP or that Marines are weak. Stop reading it that way.

Please try to understand the point being made when reading a post. Please stop seeing strawmen shouting what you want to hear where you should be seeing letters and words that say things.

Okay - now you are just being dumb.

We are talking about turn 1. Half those things wont even be able to touch you because they have no rapid fire and if you are alitotoc you have -1 to hit. So no plasma overcharge or you are doing more damage to yourself than the spears. Smite? Okay - Your average eldar army has like 5+ denies so good luck getting more than 2 off. Plus it's not like you aren't bringing chaff to block. My list suggested had 30 khabs or 15 rangers. Smite isn't touching you basically turn 1 - nor is captain smash. Dessie is about the only legit threat that you can't just laugh off - you win the reward for the day here - I think you figured out dessie cannons are the best weapon in the game.

A whole batallion of gaurdsmen using FRFSRF kills a whole 1 shinning spear (without even factoring a reroll for the spears) turn 1. And this is with eldar failing the roll to go first which they have about a 60% chance to go first against an batallion of gaurd.

Really dude - it's got to get old being wrong all the time. Try not just arguing for arguments sake. SS have a proven track record of tournament dominance. The "best player" in the game decided to bring a unit. The are also demonstrably under costed by comparing them to similar units.

 Silentz wrote:
Re: Space Marine Scouts

When did they go from BS/WS4 to BS/WS3? Was that the launch of 8th? Or was it the final 7th Ed Codex?

I feel like that change has sold a lot of those crappy old models but did not have a great benefit to the game.

Maybe they should be BS4 but with +1 to hit if they didn't move that turn or something. Or if they have no other friendly units within 6" to show how they are forward operators.

They always had the equivalent of BS3+ outside two codices. So them having it continued as such.

Guardians were always BS4+ until the last two codices because Phil Kelly decided that his precious Eldar needed to be even better.

"Okay - now you are just being dumb."
Not at all. Please reread the conversation a couple more times. I'll try to clear it up.

"We are talking about turn 1"
Where, in a list of weapons brought up to refute a direct quote from you about Spear durability not being similar to Marines vs any non-trash weapon, are you reading "talking about turn 1"? The part where it said "turn 1"? Because I don't see that part.

"Half those things wont even be able to touch you because they have no rapid fire and if you are alitotoc you have -1 to hit."
Funny, things like Lasguns and Boltguns do more damage/pt to Spears than Marines even outside Rapidfire, but you're always so bullish about how they just wipe Marines out in a single round (they don't). So they're good enough to wipe out Marines quickly, and wipe out Spears faster per point, but Marines are less durable per point to them? What gives?

"So no plasma overcharge or you are doing more damage to yourself than the spears."
I, too, would suggest only overcharging Plas if you can gimmick the Gets Hot when shooting at RG/AL/Alaitoc. That said, you typically want to get Plas within Rapidfire. And Alaitoc has no bonus within Rapidfire. This weapon is a little more points efficient vs Marines assuming RG/Alaitoc, outside 12", and not rapidfiring. Any of those change, and it's much more efficient vs Spears.

"Smite? Okay - Your average eldar army has like 5+ denies so good luck getting more than 2 off." Fair enough. Smite is *slightly* more deadly to Marines than Shining Spears sitting in the CWE's deployment zone vs Smite. Of all the things listed, yes, this one I was mistaken.

"My list suggested had 30 khabs or 15 rangers."
Your suggested list as last posted was illegal. I get the general gist of what you're trying to do there, but have no reason to think even a corrected version would be on the same level as the top-tier players' lists.

"Smite isn't touching you basically turn 1 - nor is captain smash." Neither are they touching Marines turn 1. So even if we were talking only about turn 1, still seems reasonably equivelant?

"A whole batallion of gaurdsmen using FRFSRF kills a whole 1 shinning spear (without even factoring a reroll for the spears) turn 1"
Fair enough. You wind up with 30/9 wounds, or 3+1/3 wounds, or the better part of 2 spears. However, that's more points than the 3+1/3 Marines they kill instead. Yes, it's not a lot. But again, Spears and Marines are similar here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
"Really dude - it's got to get old being wrong all the time."
I'm wrong often enough. But not nearly as often as you seem to believe.

"Try not just arguing for arguments sake."
Try actually understanding the words others' use instead of substituting your own meaning.

"SS have a proven track record of tournament dominance. The "best player" in the game decided to bring a unit."
Certainly. They are OP. But they are almost always brought as *one* unit, and almost always as Ynnari, and almost always not used as frontline troops. Which is very much in line with my understanding of them.

"The are also demonstrably under costed by comparing them to similar units."
And who, in this thread, has been refuting that? Only the strawmen you've been inventing.

Perhaps the reason you think I'm wrong every post is because you don't even read what I write?

Ugh Bharring you don't need to constantly defend all things Eldar.

Ynarri have been top tier for a while now. Even post Soul burst nerf.

CWE and DE have some of the most powerful units in the game that contribute towards this, both armies are more than able to win as a primary army rather than going Ynarri too.

Shining Spears are one of the strongest units CWE can field. They probably need a nerf when compared to *any other biker unit in the game* (maybe excluding Praetoris or whatever the Custard JBs are).

However the CWE codex in particular has some of the worst internal balance I have ever seen and certain units are trash tier. The trash tier units need a significant buff.

I'd agree with everything you said except the last line. And maybe the first, based on some of the other posts I see.

I really need to set up a sig that says "CWE are OP, Tac Marines need help." Because I feel like that's in an absurdly large number of my posts, and people still think I'm claiming the opposite.

Bharring wrote:
7E codex.

They moved away from many of the split BS within armies. While there are still some, Guardians had the same change (Guardian squads and vehicles went from WS/BS3 to WS/BS4).

But you really don't take scouts for their dakka - at least not their boltguns. You take Scouts for board presence. Same concept of Rangers - "chaff" in an elite army with placement shenanigans but no real firepower. Rangers (Alaitoc at least) are harder to shoot but easier to chop than Scouts, worse deployment options, and cost +1ppm - but they both function largely the same.

Yeah I know why they are taken. With BS4+ you at least had a payoff [of cheaper and with a scout move] but statistically worse

Now they are so close to tac marines they have eliminated the need for tactical marines completely.

You pay 2ppm for +1sv and some weapon options vs some of the best deployment options in the game.

I'm not sure there should be a ppm difference, even.

Bharring wrote:
I'd agree with everything you said except the last line. And maybe the first, based on some of the other posts I see.

I really need to set up a sig that says "CWE are OP, Tac Marines need help." Because I feel like that's in an absurdly large number of my posts, and people still think I'm claiming the opposite.

Well to be fair to those people, you have spent a lot of time in this thread math-hammering a defence of a unit that is widely considered awesome. Don't waste your time and energy on campaigning for the units GW is no doubt going to "fix".

Banshees (and to a lesser extent all Aspect Warriors excluding Dark Reapers and Dire Avengers), Warlocks, Jetbikes, Wraith Knight are all units that deserve love. Yet I see no threads from Eldar players about them?

Then I haven't been clear. I've been claiming things like:

-Vs most weapons, Spears and Marines are equally durable. Not that they should be - and even claimed that Spears should be less durable per point than Marines quite directly. I thought that would make it clear that I thought Spears were OP.

-That 3x9man Spear lists aren't inherently better than 1x9man Spear lists, for a variety of reasons. Not that lists with Spears were bad.

-That you can't take two Farseers in a Ynnari detatchment.

And other such claims I saw clear flaws on.

Things like there being no non-trash weapons in the game that aren't better at killing Marines than Spears. That being untrue does not mean Spears aren't OP.

jcd386 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

jcd386 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
How can anyone say the catellan is not undercosted. Compare it to a crusader.

Plasma is flat out better than gatling gun - volcano lance is about twice as good as a titan melta - 2 siege breaker cannons are about twice as good as storm spear rocket - then the castellan has 4 melta guns and 2 invo denying missles and +4 wounds all for about 100 more points? Are you joking?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
How are we ever going to have a balanced game - if you people can't even agree that the most obviously OP things... Like guardsmen, Castellans, and shinning spears are OP?

I think they are undercosted, but certain buffs they have access to are also too powerful. I'd rather see the 3++ and CP regen go away from knights first, and then see if Castellans are overpowered at 600ish points. They very well may be, but going from a 3++ to 4++ is a 50% increase in damage taken from any weapons that matter, so it's not a small change. It would be sad if they changed too much and made the unit unusable, rather than leave it good but not as unkillable, or unenjoyable to play against.

Id probably go as far as to say the rotate ion shields should only go to a 4++, and the warlord trait should not be available to the dominus class knights before I changed their points too much.

That is a good change I think 4++ max helps a lot.

I think so too. I also don't think it's too much to demand they spend CP to get to a 4++. If anything, having a 4++warlord trait was probably a mistake, so just removing it might be the simplest fix.

It's funny how much harder things are to balance with warlord traits, chapter tactics, and stratagems around.

The 4++ warlord trait isn't a mistake, because pure knights can NOT afford the CP to keep a dominus class knight under rotate ion shields.
Unlimited CP from Guard shenanigans being pumped inti 1 knight is an problem.
Castellans are undercosted thats fair.
Knights don't have any in codex CP regenerate options, how can something they don't have be removed?

Ice_can wrote:

jcd386 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

jcd386 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
How can anyone say the catellan is not undercosted. Compare it to a crusader.

Plasma is flat out better than gatling gun - volcano lance is about twice as good as a titan melta - 2 siege breaker cannons are about twice as good as storm spear rocket - then the castellan has 4 melta guns and 2 invo denying missles and +4 wounds all for about 100 more points? Are you joking?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
How are we ever going to have a balanced game - if you people can't even agree that the most obviously OP things... Like guardsmen, Castellans, and shinning spears are OP?

I think they are undercosted, but certain buffs they have access to are also too powerful. I'd rather see the 3++ and CP regen go away from knights first, and then see if Castellans are overpowered at 600ish points. They very well may be, but going from a 3++ to 4++ is a 50% increase in damage taken from any weapons that matter, so it's not a small change. It would be sad if they changed too much and made the unit unusable, rather than leave it good but not as unkillable, or unenjoyable to play against.

Id probably go as far as to say the rotate ion shields should only go to a 4++, and the warlord trait should not be available to the dominus class knights before I changed their points too much.

That is a good change I think 4++ max helps a lot.

I think so too. I also don't think it's too much to demand they spend CP to get to a 4++. If anything, having a 4++warlord trait was probably a mistake, so just removing it might be the simplest fix.

It's funny how much harder things are to balance with warlord traits, chapter tactics, and stratagems around.

The 4++ warlord trait isn't a mistake, because pure knights can NOT afford the CP to keep a dominus class knight under rotate ion shields.
Unlimited CP from Guard shenanigans being pumped inti 1 knight is an problem.
Castellans are undercosted thats fair.
Knights don't have any in codex CP regenerate options, how can something they don't have be removed?

Sorry I meant the IG and IG and BA CP regen. There are no incentives to run pure knights so they aren't really a thing right now. I see your point about the 4++ in a pure knight army though. Requiring a full Lance to unlock strategems then is probably a good idea.

I honestly thought that you needed a full superheavy detachement, not an auxiliary to unlock knight stratagems.
It really should as several have mentioned.
1. In a lance you can only rotate one knight, so the enemy can still concentrate fire on another and blow one knight a turn easy.
2. With rotate you can at least pick which knight gets blown up (can either have 1 at 3++, or 2 at 4++, leaving 2 or 3 at 5++ to get blown up)
3. With only 5++ and 4-5 models, the knight you need on a given turn is the one that get blown up if you can't obtain 1or 2 4++
Ps cawls wrath is auto include and need a slight nerf, without it Castilian aren't that great ( well Castilian that do not have infinite cp, to reroll 1s and have a 3++ ... Which you cannot do if you take a full lance).

Bharring wrote:
Then I haven't been clear. I've been claiming things like:

-Vs most weapons, Spears and Marines are equally durable. Not that they should be - and even claimed that Spears should be less durable per point than Marines quite directly. I thought that would make it clear that I thought Spears were OP.

I think you tried to make the accurate point that Spears are quite soft, can't take a punch and die under fire.
This is why you don't see 27 on competitive tables, not because people can't find the models.

The odds of going first with the +1 are only 56%. In a 5 game tournament you are probably going second twice. Good luck against the Imperial list in those circumstances.

Tyel wrote:

Bharring wrote:
Then I haven't been clear. I've been claiming things like:

-Vs most weapons, Spears and Marines are equally durable. Not that they should be - and even claimed that Spears should be less durable per point than Marines quite directly. I thought that would make it clear that I thought Spears were OP.

I think you tried to make the accurate point that Spears are quite soft, can't take a punch and die under fire.
This is why you don't see 27 on competitive tables, not because people can't find the models.

The odds of going first with the +1 are only 56%. In a 5 game tournament you are probably going second twice. Good luck against the Imperial list in those circumstances.

Also b.c they are not very good without 300pts of powers backing them up, otherwise they are just tougher Windriders with a 2D power sword.

A.T. wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
Maybe just take something that wasn't an S4 AP5 template in 7th?
Heavy flamers of all variants kill guardsmen just fine. As do hurricane bolters, assault cannons, heavy bolters, heavy stubbers, avenger gatling cannons... and pretty much everything else that's has a decent amount of shots and at least AP-1.

S4 AP5 was the standard light infantry killing line in 7th, wounding on 3 and ignoring armour - it makes sense to be the starting point of the comparison between editions.

Most of your suggestions were heavier AP4 weapons used against medium infantry in 7th, and even light anti-tank weapons in the case of the S6 stuff.
And they aren't even all that good at killing guard in 8th - a heavy flamer kills a whole extra half guy in the same scenario and costs twice as much while the heavy bolter fired at BS3+ doesn't even do as much damage as the flamer.

What, whatever. So because flamers suck, guardsmen are overpowered? Awesome reasoning.

Also note that "light anti-tank" was not design, but a major flaw of the game since at least 5th edition. None of those weapons were ever meant to blow up tanks. 8th finally cleared up that flaw and forces people to take actual anti-tank to kill tanks once more.

Those guns are heavy anti-infantry weapons. If you want to kill a bunch of infantry in cover, use those.

I also love how you claim that a 36" range heavy bolter kills less than a 8" flamer. No need to bludgeon those guardsman with that heavy bolter.

Ok, Shining Spears.

In January I ran Craftworld Eldar at a 6 game Major in the UK. I didn’t include Dark Reapers because I hated the spam, and I didn’t run Ynnari because I wanted to prove a point at the time.

My list included 1 unit of 9 Spears, and 1 unit of 3 spears acting as a bodyguard for my Autarch Warlord. I ran them as Saim-Hann.

The Spears were good, in most games, but certainly not game breaking at the time (this was when you could deep strike turn 1 and then Quicken for 22” move and then charge). The times the Spears were excellent were the times that I got +1 to hit in combat, +1 to wound in combat, -1 to hit, +1 saves power cast on unit and then Doom cast on the target. Which, by the way…. Requires 1 Farseer Jetbike, 2 Warlock Jetbikes AND 2 Spiritseers. I also had a couple of Hemlocks for Jinx if needed. That, I’m sure you’ll appreciate, is a lot of point, power and CP investment to ensure everything lines up correctly. (686 points, 896 if you include 1 hemlock – then 1 CP for farseer/warlock stratagem. 1 CP for advance and charge and re-roll 1’s to hit in combat stratagem. Then, 2 cp for -1 to hit, maybe 1 CP for deepstriking)

Throughout the event, I discovered that deepstriking 20 Guardians and a Farseer was more optimal than deepstriking the Spears, so that led me to just deploying the Spears. However, in 1 game vs Chaos, my 9-man Spear unit was reduced to 4 models on turn 1, after a unit of 40 Alpha Legion cultists came in and shot them twice. (which, by the way, costs 160 points). After that they were severely neutered and got nowhere close to making back their points investment.

In other games, where I only got 1 or 2 powers off on them, they were ok. For anything with T7+, they needed Doom to be cast on the target, otherwise they really struggled to put out effective damage.

However, in the one game vs 13 Guard Tanks with infantry screening, they got the full buffs, and his entire shooting phase only killed 3 Spears.
But, that was 1 game out of 6.
The moment they don’t kill their target in combat, or if they can get counter charged, then, they suck. And they die quickly. Doesn’t matter if the weapon is -4AP and 2 damage a time if they are hitting on 3’s and only str 3 and they will only have a 2+ save with protect or a 3+ save without it.

When we look at things now, they have to start on the table due to the deepstrike nerf, preferably out of LoS. They can’t advance and charge unless you run them as Saim-Hann. They still die to weight of dice unless you pump in hundreds of points worth of protection and CP. They still die in combat. And, when all that is done and considered, they still only have a 6” and a 12” range on their weapons. Sure, it gives their Shuriken Catapults a 28”-34” threat range, but we all know how good 36 bolter shots are (even if 4 of them wound with -3ap).

Spears are good when you pile points into them, which gets amplified by the ability to get a bonus fight or shooting phase via Ynnari. But, when they don’t have their support in place, or get charged themselves, they really struggle.

If Ynnari didn’t exist, Spears would still be taken because they are a good unit out of a selection of many bad ones. But, taking more than 1 big squad of them is, imo, just a waste of points. 1 unit will get buffed and be pretty resilient and killy, the other 2 units will just be waiting for unit 1 to die, so they can get the buffs to start making their points back.

If you are taking Shining Spears for anti-infantry alone, I’d say stop and just swap the 281 points for 2 triple cannon Wave Serpents. Sure, it’s half the shots, but, the Serpent is going to benefit more from Alaitocs trait, has higher str shots, double the range AND is more resilient/effective after losing some wounds. Also, it then allows you to drop a lot of the supporting powers, which will likely free up space for a 3rd Wave Serpent.

As for counters, pick any common 2 damage weapons. A 3 dissie cannon Ravager (125 points) can reasonably expect to kill 2 Spears a turn, when they aren’t -2 to hit and have a 3++. 3 Ravagers therefore ruin a squad. (Ravagers also have the advantage of always making the first move vs Spears). At -2 to hit and a 3++, sure they will struggle to kill 1 each, but that is to be expected.

2 Guard squads using FRFSRF will kill 3 Spears. 40 points, or 50 points, it doesn’t matter.
2 AssCan Razorbacks will kill 3.5 Spears when re-rolling 1’s to hit and wound.
A turn 1 charging Daemon Prince with Warptime will kill 3 Spears then easily survive them falling back and shooting him.
8 Dark Reapers (cheaper than 9 Spears) will shoot 4 Spears off the table a turn.

I’m not saying Spears are bad. Not by a long long stretch, but spamming them won’t win you tournaments – especially against the current soup lists.

Spears require a lot of moving parts to be fully effective. The moment you miss 1 or 2 of those parts, then they really start to struggle.

If you want to balance Spears, then you HAVE to do it from a Craftworlds ONLY point of view. You CANNOT balance a Craftworlds unit around an ability from a different codex. If that ability is what is causing the imbalance, then you target the ability first. Nerfing 1 unit, because of an ability in a different codex just unnecessarily nerfs the unit when used for its original purpose. At that point you are hurting Craftworlds to spite Ynnari, rather than just hurt Ynnari.

I’d wager that the 14 Grotesques, 20 Guardians and the Yncarne in Nick Nanavati’s list had more impact on the games than 9 Spears using 4CP a turn to re-roll hits of 1 in combat and potentially fighting twice vs a Doomed target.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Silentz wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
How is a GL worse than a LR? A GL is d6 shots of the 3 strength, 24" distance, and 1 damage, with the potential to upgrade to anti-tankish role, and it's assault.
A LR is 24 inches of rf1, with the potential to be rapid fire two, so at max it's 2-4 shots of 4 str, 24" 1 dmg. That 1 strength is REALLY the kickass boost to get over the added benefits of the GL?

This is why people dismiss your arguments, because you make thoughtless statements like this. You parrot whiney crap and you have no real experience in the game. My GL's earn their points back and then some, every game.

I'm glad you could be bothered to type this out. I wanted to but it's so exhausting.

The worst thing is that tournament-winning people like KDash write intelligent and well-reasoned arguments which people completely ignore just to continue wittering on about how Infantry Squads are mathematically OP and breaking the whole game.

Haha, thanks. I try. If it changes the opinion of 1 person or helps them think a bit more, then I’m happy.

Either that or I’m becoming masochistic lol!