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.

 Elbows wrote:
You act as if Primaris have good rules at the moment though...

They aren't exactly top tier but they're not too far off. The only unit I can think of that's really out of line is the Repulsor. The rest are missing support elements to make them shine and are probably 10% overcosted but they're not really bad.

novembermike wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
You act as if Primaris have good rules at the moment though...

They aren't exactly top tier but they're not too far off. The only unit I can think of that's really out of line is the Repulsor. The rest are missing support elements to make them shine and are probably 10% overcosted but they're not really bad.

With the abundance of high AP D2 weapons in the game, Primaris are no where near top tier.

Yeah 10 marines are harder to shift than 5 primaris.

Terminators have 2 sounds each you'll notice how badly they pay behind.

hobojebus wrote:
Yeah 10 marines are harder to shift than 5 primaris.

Terminators have 2 sounds each you'll notice how badly they pay behind.

10 marines are also more expensive than 5 intercessors.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Smirrors wrote:
Personally I think they should make the old marines have the same stats as primaris and then make the new primaris pay small amount of points for weapon upgrades over basic bolter. That way the units arent competing against each other and people can mix old and new models.

And what do you propose for Aspect Warriors in that scenario?

I support this idea, but what do Aspect Warriors have to do with this situation? If they get new models, they get new models, just like Jetbikes did. Use the old or the new.

The problem with Primaris is they made new models to replace a line, not update it.

 Perth wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Smirrors wrote:
Personally I think they should make the old marines have the same stats as primaris and then make the new primaris pay small amount of points for weapon upgrades over basic bolter. That way the units arent competing against each other and people can mix old and new models.

And what do you propose for Aspect Warriors in that scenario?

I support this idea, but what do Aspect Warriors have to do with this situation? If they get new models, they get new models, just like Jetbikes did. Use the old or the new.

The problem with Primaris is they made new models to replace a line, not update it.

My issue is with marines suddenly getting boosted stats and has nothing to do with models. Why would space Marines get a free upgrade to 2A 2W, while other elite units stay at 1W 1A? I don't like the "basic Space Marine supremacy" of it.

 Insectum7 wrote:


My issue is with marines suddenly getting boosted stats and has nothing to do with models. Why would space Marines get a free upgrade to 2A 2W, while other elite units stay at 1W 1A? I don't like the "basic Space Marine supremacy" of it.

Well its not free, they will pay a fair/competitive price for it. Is there a need for multiple troop types? I feel like 2 is sufficient. Tactical and Primaris should be lumped into one. Fluff wise I think it makes sense too.

^If Space Marines get upgraded to 2w 2A, I want Eldar Aspect Warriors to be 2w 2A, Necron Immortals to be 2w T5, and Genestealers to be 2w 5A.

Sure, if you want to be paying 20 points per genestealer or 40 points for an aspect warrior. Those units tend to have a focused purpose and delivery mechanism so if you make the models better you'd have to raise the price more. It also doesn't really fit the fantasy of the units.

 Insectum7 wrote:
^If Space Marines get upgraded to 2w 2A, I want Eldar Aspect Warriors to be 2w 2A, Necron Immortals to be 2w T5, and Genestealers to be 2w 5A.

2W 2A aspects and 2W necrons (including warriors) would be fine by me since it meshes with the fluff (as well as 2W sisters and 2W orks, I think that's it though). I mean, if Stealthsuits are 2W... it'd only be logical for those to get 2W too.
But what's up with those genestealers? They've never really been described as tough, have they? Besides, they're not elite infantry, that's what warriors are and they have 3W already so I think that's good.

Genestealers are 12 currently. Marines are 13. Dire Avengers are what, 8-10? Genestealers are priced like elite infantry. Compare them to a Striking Scorpion or Banshee and they're not that far off. Genestealers are fast, lightly armored elite CC infantry.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

novembermike wrote:
Sure, if you want to be paying 20 points per genestealer or 40 points for an aspect warrior. Those units tend to have a focused purpose and delivery mechanism so if you make the models better you'd have to raise the price more. It also doesn't really fit the fantasy of the units.

What delivery system do Aspect Warriors have that Marines don't? Both have transports. As for focused purpose, that's usually an excuse, imo. Tactical Marines engage in short range firefights with some assault duty, just like Dire Avengers. Assault marines engage in CC,(don't they have a delivery system?), Devastators are fire support. It's pretty straight forward.

When you say were gonna charge 40 points for an Aspect Warrior, which Aspect are you talking about. Striking Scorpions? Avengers? If so, are you going to pump the price point of marines up to 35? I assume that's not what you're proposing so let's see what you mean by that.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Genestealers are 12 currently. Marines are 13. Dire Avengers are what, 8-10? Genestealers are priced like elite infantry. Compare them to a Striking Scorpion or Banshee and they're not that far off. Genestealers are fast, lightly armored elite CC infantry.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

novembermike wrote:
Sure, if you want to be paying 20 points per genestealer or 40 points for an aspect warrior. Those units tend to have a focused purpose and delivery mechanism so if you make the models better you'd have to raise the price more. It also doesn't really fit the fantasy of the units.

What delivery system do Aspect Warriors have that Marines don't? Both have transports. As for focused purpose, that's usually an excuse, imo. Tactical Marines engage in short range firefights with some assault duty, just like Dire Avengers. Assault marines engage in CC,(don't they have a delivery system?), Devastators are fire support. It's pretty straight forward.

When you say were gonna charge 40 points for an Aspect Warrior, which Aspect are you talking about. Striking Scorpions? Avengers? If so, are you going to pump the price point of marines up to 35? I assume that's not what you're proposing so let's see what you mean by that.

Your compairing poor choice to core troop with aspect warriors vrs marines.
Fundamentally why would any eldar player want to spend the points on banshees or scorpions and a waveserpent to jet them about in to maybe pull of a turn 2 charge with their wave serpent needibg to survive a round of shooting, when ynnari spears and reapers are easily accessible to their codex?

Fundamentally Aeldari internal balance is terrible.
Craftworld units pay a premium for native access to doom, guide etc.
Yannari Free double activations was always going to scale horribly.
Drukari and Harlequins can benifit from doom and a number of other buffs equally effectively as Craftworld units without paying a premium for native access.

Well there is also that thing that eldar can shot the opposing army to hell an back, so their wave serpents can actualy deploy their melee units to do something. Marines have to go all out tournament list to get even close, but then we are talking about a casual eldar list going toe to toe with a marine list. And if an eldar players takes a tournament list, he just rolls over a mono marine player.

I think instead of having an entire new primaris line, with primaris tanks where ONLY primaris can go in, and primaris bikes and primaris this and primaris that......they should have introduced the primaris as a new unit, but more of an add on than a new way to play marines entirely.

Ice_can wrote:

Your compairing poor choice to core troop with aspect warriors vrs marines.
Fundamentally why would any eldar player want to spend the points on banshees or scorpions and a waveserpent to jet them about in to maybe pull of a turn 2 charge with their wave serpent needibg to survive a round of shooting, when ynnari spears and reapers are easily accessible to their codex?

If another army can just use Elite, Fast Attack and Heavy Support slots, why all the fuss about Tac Marines? Marines can just use Elite, Fast Attack and Heavy Support slots too. I think your post highlights a fairly common double-standard of expectations. It seems a lot of people want to use Tacticals, but don't really care about the state of other races troops. There might be a bunch of Eldar players who want to run Avengers for similar reasons.

Dire Avengers are a core troop choice for Eldar. If we buff Marines do we buff Dire Avengers?

We fix all units where we can. The idea that we fix one unit in a vacuum without looking at other units is just silly, that's not how balance works.

Karol wrote:
Well there is also that thing that eldar can shot the opposing army to hell an back, so their wave serpents can actualy deploy their melee units to do something. Marines have to go all out tournament list to get even close, but then we are talking about a casual eldar list going toe to toe with a marine list. And if an eldar players takes a tournament list, he just rolls over a mono marine player.

Mono Eldar, no Ynnari, is not what shows up in tournaments. An Eldar Tournament list is typically Ynnari soup. In which case you're drawing an equivalency between mono-marine and soup Eldar.

If you're saying a good mono Craftworld list auto-stomps a good mono marine list, I doubt that assertion.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Your compairing poor choice to core troop with aspect warriors vrs marines.
Fundamentally why would any eldar player want to spend the points on banshees or scorpions and a waveserpent to jet them about in to maybe pull of a turn 2 charge with their wave serpent needibg to survive a round of shooting, when ynnari spears and reapers are easily accessible to their codex?

If another army can just use Elite, Fast Attack and Heavy Support slots, why all the fuss about Tac Marines? Marines can just use Elite, Fast Attack and Heavy Support slots too. I think your post highlights a fairly common double-standard of expectations. It seems a lot of people want to use Tacticals, but don't really care about the state of other races troops. There might be a bunch of Eldar players who want to run Avengers for similar reasons.

Dire Avengers are a core troop choice for Eldar. If we buff Marines do we buff Dire Avengers?

No your taking what I'm saying and adjusting it to suit your own narative.

How good/ what point would a unit of banshees need to be to justify taking them and a waveserpent over just using shining spears? How few points do striking scorpions nned to be to compete for points in a list against dark reapers?

Both codex's have fundamentally different issues.
Eldar codex has some realy good for their points unit that can have special rules stacked on them. Other units gain way less from having those rules stacked on, them so players don't stack those rules on them and those units look even worse for the points in comparison.

Making a banshee cheap enough to compete for points with Yannari spear or other stuff leads to the issue of just going all in on them suddenly becomes a problem.
Spears need to be more points and banshees etc possibly need to be cheaper how much I'm not sure but you dont just make tgem straight up as efficent as yannari spears. Thats just asking for another drukari codex level of busted stuff.
If anything it's probably more an issue of the extreme level of buffing and debuff stacking that needs towned down.

Every marine is a tac + some change if you over pay for the fundamental statline everything in your army pays that cost plus a mark up. Totally different issue, it's more a fundamental miss calculating of value.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Genestealers are 12 currently. Marines are 13. Dire Avengers are what, 8-10? Genestealers are priced like elite infantry. Compare them to a Striking Scorpion or Banshee and they're not that far off. Genestealers are fast, lightly armored elite CC infantry.

DAs are 12 pt I believe. Guardians are 8 pts. In any case, the whole point of 2W is to give "heavy" infantry more staying power. Genestealers may be elite, but they are intended to be fragile and so are not heavy infantry. Unless you're proposing that 2W marines would necessitate 2W scions because they're "elite"? Which doesn't make sense tbh. Scions are elite light to medium infantry and cost 10 pts. Marines on the other hand are definitely heavy infantry, which is where the 2W idea comes from.

Ice_can wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Your compairing poor choice to core troop with aspect warriors vrs marines.
Fundamentally why would any eldar player want to spend the points on banshees or scorpions and a waveserpent to jet them about in to maybe pull of a turn 2 charge with their wave serpent needibg to survive a round of shooting, when ynnari spears and reapers are easily accessible to their codex?

If another army can just use Elite, Fast Attack and Heavy Support slots, why all the fuss about Tac Marines? Marines can just use Elite, Fast Attack and Heavy Support slots too. I think your post highlights a fairly common double-standard of expectations. It seems a lot of people want to use Tacticals, but don't really care about the state of other races troops. There might be a bunch of Eldar players who want to run Avengers for similar reasons.

Dire Avengers are a core troop choice for Eldar. If we buff Marines do we buff Dire Avengers?

No your taking what I'm saying and adjusting it to suit your own narative.

Well, do you acknowledge that there might be an issue with just pumping the core units of one codex, but ignoring them in another codex, despite the idea that both units should have some sort of parity?

Ice_can wrote:

How good/ what point would a unit of banshees need to be to justify taking them and a waveserpent over just using shining spears? How few points do striking scorpions nned to be to compete for points in a list against dark reapers?

Both codex's have fundamentally different issues.
Eldar codex has some realy good for their points unit that can have special rules stacked on them. Other units gain way less from having those rules stacked on, them so players don't stack those rules on them and those units look even worse for the points in comparison.

Making a banshee cheap enough to compete for points with Yannari spear or other stuff leads to the issue of just going all in on them suddenly becomes a problem.
Spears need to be more points and banshees etc possibly need to be cheaper how much I'm not sure but you dont just make tgem straight up as efficent as yannari spears. Thats just asking for another drukari codex level of busted stuff.
If anything it's probably more an issue of the extreme level of buffing and debuff stacking that needs towned down.

Every marine is a tac + some change if you over pay for the fundamental statline everything in your army pays that cost plus a mark up. Totally different issue, it's more a fundamental miss calculating of value.

Ok, this seems to me what you're saying, correct me if I'm wrong:
Eldar have a diverse array of units, some of which work well in the meta and some of which don't. The ones that work well do so because of special abilities, and the ability to further multiply those abilities via spells, Ynnari, etc. Ok

"Making a banshee cheap enough . . ." (hard to figure out this section actually, maybe re-iterate that for me) ???

Then you seem to be saying something like: All Space Marine units are based off of Tac Marines, and if the evaluation of that stat-line is wrong, the whole army is off. a reasonable assertion.



Since I don't really know how to respond to the middle section, my initial response is something like. . .
A: I think people underestimate the value of a Tac Marine, in general, for a number of reasons. But rather than argue for it's current value of 13, I'd say that your post acknowledges that there's room for re-valuing the stat-line with points, rather than changing the stat-line itself.

B: All Eldar Aspect Warriors are similarly based off the same "Aspect Warrior stat-line", internally, so in that regard the units we're talking about here are in the same situation as Marines.

C: The issue you seem to be pointing too, in terms of balance, is just that some Eldar units benefit A LOT from certain synergies. This seems more likely to happen in a codex where the units themselves are more extreme, depending on the synergy opportunities offered. If you asked me if I thought that was inherently a problem, I'd say no, not really. The resulting balance between the Marine and Eldar codex can still be adjusted by modifying the potential buffs, special rules and points, and doesn't have to be modifying the statlines away from where they've been roughly for decades.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dandelion wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Genestealers are 12 currently. Marines are 13. Dire Avengers are what, 8-10? Genestealers are priced like elite infantry. Compare them to a Striking Scorpion or Banshee and they're not that far off. Genestealers are fast, lightly armored elite CC infantry.

DAs are 12 pt I believe. Guardians are 8 pts. In any case, the whole point of 2W is to give "heavy" infantry more staying power. Genestealers may be elite, but they are intended to be fragile and so are not heavy infantry. Unless you're proposing that 2W marines would necessitate 2W scions because they're "elite"? Which doesn't make sense tbh. Scions are elite light to medium infantry and cost 10 pts. Marines on the other hand are definitely heavy infantry, which is where the 2W idea comes from.

I think the term "heavy infantry" is ill-defined. How "heavy" is "heavy infantry"? See, since the mid 90's Striking Scorpions and Space Marines have had the same number of wounds, and the same armor. Are Necron Immortals "heavy infantry?" I'd argue that Necron Warriors are "heavy Infantry", too. Warp Spiders and Dark Reapers would seem to be "heavy Infantry".

As for "elite", I just mean units that are intended to be on a rough parity with Space Marines, which Scions are not, afaik. Genestealers are just the Tyranid version, trading armor (but not toughness) for speed. You can give them a 4+ save though, which isn't exactly fragile. A T4 4+ is nearly a Space Marine. A T4 4+ is a Necron Warrior, actually.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Spoiler:

Ice_can wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Your compairing poor choice to core troop with aspect warriors vrs marines.
Fundamentally why would any eldar player want to spend the points on banshees or scorpions and a waveserpent to jet them about in to maybe pull of a turn 2 charge with their wave serpent needibg to survive a round of shooting, when ynnari spears and reapers are easily accessible to their codex?

If another army can just use Elite, Fast Attack and Heavy Support slots, why all the fuss about Tac Marines? Marines can just use Elite, Fast Attack and Heavy Support slots too. I think your post highlights a fairly common double-standard of expectations. It seems a lot of people want to use Tacticals, but don't really care about the state of other races troops. There might be a bunch of Eldar players who want to run Avengers for similar reasons.

Dire Avengers are a core troop choice for Eldar. If we buff Marines do we buff Dire Avengers?

No your taking what I'm saying and adjusting it to suit your own narative.

Well, do you acknowledge that there might be an issue with just pumping the core units of one codex, but ignoring them in another codex, despite the idea that both units should have some sort of parity?

Ice_can wrote:

How good/ what point would a unit of banshees need to be to justify taking them and a waveserpent over just using shining spears? How few points do striking scorpions nned to be to compete for points in a list against dark reapers?

Both codex's have fundamentally different issues.
Eldar codex has some realy good for their points unit that can have special rules stacked on them. Other units gain way less from having those rules stacked on, them so players don't stack those rules on them and those units look even worse for the points in comparison.

Making a banshee cheap enough to compete for points with Yannari spear or other stuff leads to the issue of just going all in on them suddenly becomes a problem.
Spears need to be more points and banshees etc possibly need to be cheaper how much I'm not sure but you dont just make tgem straight up as efficent as yannari spears. Thats just asking for another drukari codex level of busted stuff.
If anything it's probably more an issue of the extreme level of buffing and debuff stacking that needs towned down.

Every marine is a tac + some change if you over pay for the fundamental statline everything in your army pays that cost plus a mark up. Totally different issue, it's more a fundamental miss calculating of value.

Ok, this seems to me what you're saying, correct me if I'm wrong:
Eldar have a diverse array of units, some of which work well in the meta and some of which don't. The ones that work well do so because of special abilities, and the ability to further multiply those abilities via spells, Ynnari, etc. Ok

"Making a banshee cheap enough . . ." (hard to figure out this section actually, maybe re-iterate that for me) ???

Then you seem to be saying something like: All Space Marine units are based off of Tac Marines, and if the evaluation of that stat-line is wrong, the whole army is off. a reasonable assertion.



Since I don't really know how to respond to the middle section, my initial response is something like. . .
A: I think people underestimate the value of a Tac Marine, in general, for a number of reasons. But rather than argue for it's current value of 13, I'd say that your post acknowledges that there's room for re-valuing the stat-line with points, rather than changing the stat-line itself.

B: All Eldar Aspect Warriors are similarly based off the same "Aspect Warrior stat-line", internally, so in that regard the units we're talking about here are in the same situation as Marines.

C: The issue you seem to be pointing too, in terms of balance, is just that some Eldar units benefit A LOT from certain synergies. This seems more likely to happen in a codex where the units themselves are more extreme, depending on the synergy opportunities offered. If you asked me if I thought that was inherently a problem, I'd say no, not really. The resulting balance between the Marine and Eldar codex can still be adjusted by modifying the potential buffs, special rules and points, and doesn't have to be modifying the statlines away from where they've been roughly for decades.

A Yes it doesn't need changed it just needs to be worth it's point's.

B I think the fundamental reason aspect worries are bad and marines are bad is different.
I believe Marines are flat miscosted.
Craftworld eldar have the cost of buffs being spreed across the codex inatead of being concentrated on the units providing the buffs.

C The issue I'm trying to point to is that I don't think that the eldar base unit is actually bad, it that it appears to be a victim of GW "fluffy" logic at it's best. They haven't made the psychers expensive enough to justify their buff powers so to even it out they have added a premium to all of the craftworld codex.
However that was inherently flawed logic as it makes everything more expensive when not everything can benifit. It also means those casters are inherently undercosted hence why they keep showing up in Harlequins and Drukari lists.
Aspect warriors can probably loose a point or two but a farseer with doom is a 200 point buff machine that currently costs less than half that.

Balance the unit for what they can do not the things that might effect them.

Ice_can wrote:

Spoiler:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Your compairing poor choice to core troop with aspect warriors vrs marines.
Fundamentally why would any eldar player want to spend the points on banshees or scorpions and a waveserpent to jet them about in to maybe pull of a turn 2 charge with their wave serpent needibg to survive a round of shooting, when ynnari spears and reapers are easily accessible to their codex?

If another army can just use Elite, Fast Attack and Heavy Support slots, why all the fuss about Tac Marines? Marines can just use Elite, Fast Attack and Heavy Support slots too. I think your post highlights a fairly common double-standard of expectations. It seems a lot of people want to use Tacticals, but don't really care about the state of other races troops. There might be a bunch of Eldar players who want to run Avengers for similar reasons.

Dire Avengers are a core troop choice for Eldar. If we buff Marines do we buff Dire Avengers?

No your taking what I'm saying and adjusting it to suit your own narative.

Well, do you acknowledge that there might be an issue with just pumping the core units of one codex, but ignoring them in another codex, despite the idea that both units should have some sort of parity?

Ice_can wrote:

How good/ what point would a unit of banshees need to be to justify taking them and a waveserpent over just using shining spears? How few points do striking scorpions nned to be to compete for points in a list against dark reapers?

Both codex's have fundamentally different issues.
Eldar codex has some realy good for their points unit that can have special rules stacked on them. Other units gain way less from having those rules stacked on, them so players don't stack those rules on them and those units look even worse for the points in comparison.

Making a banshee cheap enough to compete for points with Yannari spear or other stuff leads to the issue of just going all in on them suddenly becomes a problem.
Spears need to be more points and banshees etc possibly need to be cheaper how much I'm not sure but you dont just make tgem straight up as efficent as yannari spears. Thats just asking for another drukari codex level of busted stuff.
If anything it's probably more an issue of the extreme level of buffing and debuff stacking that needs towned down.

Every marine is a tac + some change if you over pay for the fundamental statline everything in your army pays that cost plus a mark up. Totally different issue, it's more a fundamental miss calculating of value.

Ok, this seems to me what you're saying, correct me if I'm wrong:
Eldar have a diverse array of units, some of which work well in the meta and some of which don't. The ones that work well do so because of special abilities, and the ability to further multiply those abilities via spells, Ynnari, etc. Ok

"Making a banshee cheap enough . . ." (hard to figure out this section actually, maybe re-iterate that for me) ???

Then you seem to be saying something like: All Space Marine units are based off of Tac Marines, and if the evaluation of that stat-line is wrong, the whole army is off. a reasonable assertion.



Since I don't really know how to respond to the middle section, my initial response is something like. . .
A: I think people underestimate the value of a Tac Marine, in general, for a number of reasons. But rather than argue for it's current value of 13, I'd say that your post acknowledges that there's room for re-valuing the stat-line with points, rather than changing the stat-line itself.

B: All Eldar Aspect Warriors are similarly based off the same "Aspect Warrior stat-line", internally, so in that regard the units we're talking about here are in the same situation as Marines.

C: The issue you seem to be pointing too, in terms of balance, is just that some Eldar units benefit A LOT from certain synergies. This seems more likely to happen in a codex where the units themselves are more extreme, depending on the synergy opportunities offered. If you asked me if I thought that was inherently a problem, I'd say no, not really. The resulting balance between the Marine and Eldar codex can still be adjusted by modifying the potential buffs, special rules and points, and doesn't have to be modifying the statlines away from where they've been roughly for decades.

A Yes it doesn't need changed it just needs to be worth it's point's.

B I think the fundamental reason aspect worries are bad and marines are bad is different.
I believe Marines are flat miscosted.
Craftworld eldar have the cost of buffs being spreed across the codex inatead of being concentrated on the units providing the buffs.

C The issue I'm trying to point to is that I don't think that the eldar base unit is actually bad, it that it appears to be a victim of GW "fluffy" logic at it's best. They haven't made the psychers expensive enough to justify their buff powers so to even it out they have added a premium to all of the craftworld codex.
However that was inherently flawed logic as it makes everything more expensive when not everything can benifit. It also means those casters are inherently undercosted hence why they keep showing up in Harlequins and Drukari lists.
Aspect warriors can probably loose a point or two but a farseer with doom is a 200 point buff machine that currently costs less than half that.

Balance the unit for what they can do not the things that might effect them.

A: Cool. I'm mainly on here to combat the push for 2W marines. Marines dropping to 12 seems within reason.

B: Interesting. Fair enough.

C: The "premium" you talk of for Eldar is a new one for me. I'm not sure of that, but it's food for thought. As for a Farseer being a 200 point buff machine, do you mean a Farseer with Doom should be 200 points? I can't agree with that, not when Marine Lt's are 60 points for a passive buff. But sure, Farseers are a great HQ, no doubt about that.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Spoiler:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Your compairing poor choice to core troop with aspect warriors vrs marines.
Fundamentally why would any eldar player want to spend the points on banshees or scorpions and a waveserpent to jet them about in to maybe pull of a turn 2 charge with their wave serpent needibg to survive a round of shooting, when ynnari spears and reapers are easily accessible to their codex?

If another army can just use Elite, Fast Attack and Heavy Support slots, why all the fuss about Tac Marines? Marines can just use Elite, Fast Attack and Heavy Support slots too. I think your post highlights a fairly common double-standard of expectations. It seems a lot of people want to use Tacticals, but don't really care about the state of other races troops. There might be a bunch of Eldar players who want to run Avengers for similar reasons.

Dire Avengers are a core troop choice for Eldar. If we buff Marines do we buff Dire Avengers?

No your taking what I'm saying and adjusting it to suit your own narative.

Well, do you acknowledge that there might be an issue with just pumping the core units of one codex, but ignoring them in another codex, despite the idea that both units should have some sort of parity?

Ice_can wrote:

How good/ what point would a unit of banshees need to be to justify taking them and a waveserpent over just using shining spears? How few points do striking scorpions nned to be to compete for points in a list against dark reapers?

Both codex's have fundamentally different issues.
Eldar codex has some realy good for their points unit that can have special rules stacked on them. Other units gain way less from having those rules stacked on, them so players don't stack those rules on them and those units look even worse for the points in comparison.

Making a banshee cheap enough to compete for points with Yannari spear or other stuff leads to the issue of just going all in on them suddenly becomes a problem.
Spears need to be more points and banshees etc possibly need to be cheaper how much I'm not sure but you dont just make tgem straight up as efficent as yannari spears. Thats just asking for another drukari codex level of busted stuff.
If anything it's probably more an issue of the extreme level of buffing and debuff stacking that needs towned down.

Every marine is a tac + some change if you over pay for the fundamental statline everything in your army pays that cost plus a mark up. Totally different issue, it's more a fundamental miss calculating of value.

Ok, this seems to me what you're saying, correct me if I'm wrong:
Eldar have a diverse array of units, some of which work well in the meta and some of which don't. The ones that work well do so because of special abilities, and the ability to further multiply those abilities via spells, Ynnari, etc. Ok

"Making a banshee cheap enough . . ." (hard to figure out this section actually, maybe re-iterate that for me) ???

Then you seem to be saying something like: All Space Marine units are based off of Tac Marines, and if the evaluation of that stat-line is wrong, the whole army is off. a reasonable assertion.



Since I don't really know how to respond to the middle section, my initial response is something like. . .
A: I think people underestimate the value of a Tac Marine, in general, for a number of reasons. But rather than argue for it's current value of 13, I'd say that your post acknowledges that there's room for re-valuing the stat-line with points, rather than changing the stat-line itself.

B: All Eldar Aspect Warriors are similarly based off the same "Aspect Warrior stat-line", internally, so in that regard the units we're talking about here are in the same situation as Marines.

C: The issue you seem to be pointing too, in terms of balance, is just that some Eldar units benefit A LOT from certain synergies. This seems more likely to happen in a codex where the units themselves are more extreme, depending on the synergy opportunities offered. If you asked me if I thought that was inherently a problem, I'd say no, not really. The resulting balance between the Marine and Eldar codex can still be adjusted by modifying the potential buffs, special rules and points, and doesn't have to be modifying the statlines away from where they've been roughly for decades.

A Yes it doesn't need changed it just needs to be worth it's point's.

B I think the fundamental reason aspect worries are bad and marines are bad is different.
I believe Marines are flat miscosted.
Craftworld eldar have the cost of buffs being spreed across the codex inatead of being concentrated on the units providing the buffs.

C The issue I'm trying to point to is that I don't think that the eldar base unit is actually bad, it that it appears to be a victim of GW "fluffy" logic at it's best. They haven't made the psychers expensive enough to justify their buff powers so to even it out they have added a premium to all of the craftworld codex.
However that was inherently flawed logic as it makes everything more expensive when not everything can benifit. It also means those casters are inherently undercosted hence why they keep showing up in Harlequins and Drukari lists.
Aspect warriors can probably loose a point or two but a farseer with doom is a 200 point buff machine that currently costs less than half that.

Balance the unit for what they can do not the things that might effect them.

A: Cool. I'm mainly on here to combat the push for 2W marines. Marines dropping to 12 seems within reason.

B: Interesting. Fair enough.

C: The "premium" you talk of for Eldar is a new one for me. I'm not sure of that, but it's food for thought. As for a Farseer being a 200 point buff machine, do you mean a Farseer with Doom should be 200 points? I can't agree with that, not when Marine Lt's are 60 points for a passive buff. But sure, Farseers are a great HQ, no doubt about that.

Doom and Guide is basically Guilliman level buffs on rerollable psychic test with a stack load of bonuses.
It's why craftworld as a codex is on the good not totally broken level of power but Yannari and Aeldari soup is downright broken.
Imagine being able to gice reroll wounds against any enemy unit in 24" for your entire army plus a chapter master buff to a unit of your choice for 110 points its mental.

Ice_can wrote:

Doom and Guide is basically Guilliman level buffs on rerollable psychic test with a stack load of bonuses.
It's why craftworld as a codex is on the good not totally broken level of power but Yannari and Aeldari soup is downright broken.
Imagine being able to gice reroll wounds against any enemy unit in 24" for your entire army plus a chapter master buff to a unit of your choice for 110 points its mental.

Sorta. I pay about 150 points (and 3CP) so that everyone rerolls all to-hits and re-rolls 1s to wound, and I don't have to cast psychic powers to do it. They seem roughly balanced to me.

 Insectum7 wrote:

I think the term "heavy infantry" is ill-defined. How "heavy" is "heavy infantry"? See, since the mid 90's Striking Scorpions and Space Marines have had the same number of wounds, and the same armor. Are Necron Immortals "heavy infantry?" I'd argue that Necron Warriors are "heavy Infantry", too. Warp Spiders and Dark Reapers would seem to be "heavy Infantry".

As for "elite", I just mean units that are intended to be on a rough parity with Space Marines, which Scions are not, afaik. Genestealers are just the Tyranid version, trading armor (but not toughness) for speed. You can give them a 4+ save though, which isn't exactly fragile. A T4 4+ is nearly a Space Marine. A T4 4+ is a Necron Warrior, actually.

The appeal to legacy doesn't really work. Guardsmen have the same number of wounds as marines and always have, but that doesn't mean we should keep them the same just because it's always been that way.
Secondly, I do feel that most heavy/elite infantry could do well to get 2W: Marines, Necrons, Orks, Sisters and also Aspects. I just don't really see Genestealers as part of that group. Tyranid Warriors have always been the elite nid troops. Genestealers are more of a specialist imo and they wouldn't need 2W to compete with marines anyway since they hit really hard (or at least should). Basically while marines are super durable, stealers are super killy which balances them out against each other. So they don't need to mirror their stats.

Though, while I'm at it, I'm not sure I know what your referencing when saying certain things should be on par with marines. Is it the fluff or just prior/current rules? Cuz if it's rules-wise then Scions easily have parity with aspect warriors (similar durability and lethality). Which would make them en par with marines, and therefore deserving of 2W, or whatever marines are (by what I understand of your logic).

Dandelion wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

I think the term "heavy infantry" is ill-defined. How "heavy" is "heavy infantry"? See, since the mid 90's Striking Scorpions and Space Marines have had the same number of wounds, and the same armor. Are Necron Immortals "heavy infantry?" I'd argue that Necron Warriors are "heavy Infantry", too. Warp Spiders and Dark Reapers would seem to be "heavy Infantry".

As for "elite", I just mean units that are intended to be on a rough parity with Space Marines, which Scions are not, afaik. Genestealers are just the Tyranid version, trading armor (but not toughness) for speed. You can give them a 4+ save though, which isn't exactly fragile. A T4 4+ is nearly a Space Marine. A T4 4+ is a Necron Warrior, actually.

The appeal to legacy doesn't really work. Guardsmen have the same number of wounds as marines and always have, but that doesn't mean we should keep them the same just because it's always been that way.

Legacy remains important. It tells us how the designers have felt about the balance between units over time, which for some of the core units, has remained pretty consistent. It doesn't mean trends can't be broken, but it certainly can't be ignored either. It shows us the intent behind the balance.

Dandelion wrote:

Secondly, I do feel that most heavy/elite infantry could do well to get 2W: Marines, Necrons, Orks, Sisters and also Aspects. I just don't really see Genestealers as part of that group. Tyranid Warriors have always been the elite nid troops. Genestealers are more of a specialist imo and they wouldn't need 2W to compete with marines anyway since they hit really hard (or at least should). Basically while marines are super durable, stealers are super killy which balances them out against each other. So they don't need to mirror their stats.

Ok, if you feel like a bunch of those units should be looked at and considered for an upgrade, then I'm on board to explore that possibility. About Tyranids though, they've always occupied a slightly different space. Gaunts are clearly horde, Genestealers have been similar to Banshees for most of the time, Tyranid Warriors are The Big Standard Nid, and have occupied the Elites slot for much of their time. Imo Genestealers could go either way, depending on what other strengths and weaknesses they have.

Dandelion wrote:

Though, while I'm at it, I'm not sure I know what your referencing when saying certain things should be on par with marines. Is it the fluff or just prior/current rules? Cuz if it's rules-wise then Scions easily have parity with aspect warriors (similar durability and lethality). Which would make them en par with marines, and therefore deserving of 2W, or whatever marines are (by what I understand of your logic).

Some combination of fluff and design trends. Scions are still fundamentaly a human profile. So are Sisters, for that matter. Things get tricky. Should an Aspect Warrior be twice as durable as a sister to small arms? I don't really think so. Should an Ork have 2 wounds? If Eldar did, then I'd say yes. How tough is a Space Marine, really? Right now they are as tough as an Ork, have armor comparable to the best Aspect Armor, and are stronger than both.

It doesn't sound like much in the context of the large battles with a bunch of tanks and airplanes that a current 40K game is, but I think it's proper for the relationships between basic core troops of 40K to not shift around too much.

"Doom and Guide is basically Guilliman level buffs on rerollable psychic test with a stack load of bonuses. "
What are these 'load of bonuses' you're speaking of? There are a couple I can think of that you *can* get, but we're talking about WC7/8 powers here.

"Imagine being able to gice reroll wounds against any enemy unit in 24" for your entire army"
That would be awesome. Gman nearly does that if you castle. But the Farseer has to be within 24", not the army.

"plus a chapter master buff to a unit of your choice"
To one unit vs a 6" aura. And shooting-only vs any. Plus, the CM is *much* better himself on the table.

For 115 points, a Farseer gets:
~75% chance to cause reroll-shooting-misses on one friendly
~75% chance to cause reroll-wounding-failures on one enemy
(~50% to get them both off)
-A character with the dakka of a Storm Guardian, and the durabilty of a little better than an IG Commander

That doesn't seem that much better than Marine options.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Legacy remains important. It tells us how the designers have felt about the balance between units over time, which for some of the core units, has remained pretty consistent. It doesn't mean trends can't be broken, but it certainly can't be ignored either. It shows us the intent behind the balance.

Eh, I wouldn't put that much weight on tradition or previous design decisions. Take Stealthsuits for example. They used to be 1W, T3 models, and now they're 2W, T4 models and it made them FAR better and more fun to use. Even their burst cannon got an extra shot in the process. In this case, ditching the old design improved their playability and "feel". Obviously you shouldn't change things willy nilly, but taking a step back and at least reconsidering some of these relationships would be a good thing.

The biggest thing for me, though, is the fundamental changes made to the game. A 2W model now isn't worth as much as a 2W model in the past due to the damage system. So while 2W marines/necrons might have been a bad idea before, the current rules seem to support having a larger proportion of 2W models without it being obnoxious. So I say we go for it.

 Galas wrote:
Space Marines never have been the pinnacle of what the imperium as to offer. They became that by circumstance after the Horus Heresy. They where the line troops of the Great Crusade, a feasible weapon that the Emperor could mass produce with his current technology and resources.


Thunder Warriors thought they where the pinnacle too.

Except the line troops of the Great Crusade was the Imperial Army, not the Legions. The Legions were only around 2 million strong total.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Your compairing poor choice to core troop with aspect warriors vrs marines.
Fundamentally why would any eldar player want to spend the points on banshees or scorpions and a waveserpent to jet them about in to maybe pull of a turn 2 charge with their wave serpent needibg to survive a round of shooting, when ynnari spears and reapers are easily accessible to their codex?

If another army can just use Elite, Fast Attack and Heavy Support slots, why all the fuss about Tac Marines? Marines can just use Elite, Fast Attack and Heavy Support slots too. I think your post highlights a fairly common double-standard of expectations. It seems a lot of people want to use Tacticals, but don't really care about the state of other races troops. There might be a bunch of Eldar players who want to run Avengers for similar reasons.

Dire Avengers are a core troop choice for Eldar. If we buff Marines do we buff Dire Avengers?

Eldar aren't an elite army. I have no idea why you think everything else needs to be increased with 2 wounds to tactical marine level when all the other factions besides Custodes and Tyranid Warriors aren't as durable as space marines. Space Marines should be universal two wound and high-cost because they are an elite army, not a horde. Eldar Aspects don't need any buffs besides maybe an increase to armor saves or weapon skill, otherwise they aren't supposed to be a tiny force in the first place. Giving everybody elites with the same stats is also terrible game design and defeats the purpose of having differentiated factions.

That and of course Eldar don't need anything because they're a good army.

I don't dislike the idea of the new marines, i mean after 10,.000 years it was time for an upgrade!

Also there are "Menaces" to the imperium that did not exist at the time of the original marine's creation, like tau, necorns and tyranids.