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.
2018/12/04 21:33:33
Subject: Nu-marines, old-marines minatures, I don't understand the hate or why people are upset.
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.
Well, like I said, some units have been pretty stable for a loooong time, and some factions are more stable than others. Aspect Warriors and Space Marines have had their respective relationship for 20+ years, and imo that relationship is an important one.
Weapons dealing multiple damage, just so you know, isn't new. It's a return to ancient days.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/12/04 21:38:34
Wat? Do you 40K? What do you think Aspect Warriors are/supposed to be?
Pretty damn numerous compared to Custodes and Space Marines, being more comparable to Scions or Sisters. Eldar primarily focus on mobility over durability, and Aspect Warriors are a small slice of an Eldar army that should be mostly fielding Guardians.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/12/04 21:43:37
“There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance.”
2018/12/04 21:42:41
Subject: Nu-marines, old-marines minatures, I don't understand the hate or why people are upset.
Bharring wrote: "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.
the inevitable warlork court thats casting +1 Save -1 to hit an any other buff though those tend to be the go too ones or sometimes jinx because just a bonus -1AP against a unit of your choice is just useless Oh strategums have another -1 to hit have a shoot then run away strategum, it a well designed codex but jesus did the costing of it all go terribly wrong.
Casters are too cheap units pay a premium for buffs that can't be spread army wide and to add insult to the fire eat free double activations with Ynnari.
2018/12/04 22:09:52
Subject: Nu-marines, old-marines minatures, I don't understand the hate or why people are upset.
Wat? Do you 40K? What do you think Aspect Warriors are/supposed to be?
Pretty damn numerous compared to Custodes and Space Marines, being more comparable to Scions or Sisters. Eldar primarily focus on mobility over durability, and Aspect Warriors are a small slice of an Eldar army that should be mostly fielding Guardians.
The numbers of them in the universe matter little to their individual worth on the tabletop. If that were the case Tyranid Warriors should have crappy stats because there's billions of them.
Wat? Do you 40K? What do you think Aspect Warriors are/supposed to be?
Pretty damn numerous compared to Custodes and Space Marines, being more comparable to Scions or Sisters. Eldar primarily focus on mobility over durability, and Aspect Warriors are a small slice of an Eldar army that should be mostly fielding Guardians.
The numbers of them in the universe matter little to their individual worth on the tabletop. If that were the case Tyranid Warriors should have crappy stats because there's billions of them.
And Aspect Warriors aren't an elite army. They are elites within a horde army, and they are not even supposed to be durable elites. Aspect Warriors have no posthuman physiology and are no different from normal Eldar or little more tough than humans. Making them 2 wounds is ridiculous and missing the point of game design itself, if you bump up everything in wounds all you've done is replicated the meta and kicked it up in scale with no change. With everything still playing similarly. Eldar aren't scant-strong tanky units of special forces, but a fast moving and highly skilled force. If they need a buff then they ought to be slapped with increased movement or weapon skill long before anybody thinks of a durability increase for what's supposed to be fast moving glass cannons. Tyranid Warriors have their stats because they're spines of the Tyranid army - synaptic cores supporting tendrils of gaunt blobs which nexus out from the Hive Tyrant at the center.
“There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance.”
2018/12/04 22:35:51
Subject: Nu-marines, old-marines minatures, I don't understand the hate or why people are upset.
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.
The comment is about the Monkey's Paw nature of asking for equal boosts. So far Primaris haven't gotten units that effectively use the wound and attack boost. If you start boosting these stats for units that actually use them then you pay more. Look at terminators if you want an example. This usually isn't correct, but it's how GW has done things.
As for delivery systems, Aspect Warriors tend to have higher movement, special rules for advance + shoot or advance + assault and their transports are better. That makes it easier to deliver them to use their attacks.
2018/12/04 22:50:23
Subject: Nu-marines, old-marines minatures, I don't understand the hate or why people are upset.
Wat? Do you 40K? What do you think Aspect Warriors are/supposed to be?
Pretty damn numerous compared to Custodes and Space Marines, being more comparable to Scions or Sisters. Eldar primarily focus on mobility over durability, and Aspect Warriors are a small slice of an Eldar army that should be mostly fielding Guardians.
The numbers of them in the universe matter little to their individual worth on the tabletop. If that were the case Tyranid Warriors should have crappy stats because there's billions of them.
And Aspect Warriors aren't an elite army. They are elites within a horde army, and they are not even supposed to be durable elites. Aspect Warriors have no posthuman physiology and are no different from normal Eldar or little more tough than humans. Making them 2 wounds is ridiculous and missing the point of game design itself, if you bump up everything in wounds all you've done is replicated the meta and kicked it up in scale with no change. With everything still playing similarly. Eldar aren't scant-strong tanky units of special forces, but a fast moving and highly skilled force. If they need a buff then they ought to be slapped with increased movement or weapon skill long before anybody thinks of a durability increase for what's supposed to be fast moving glass cannons. Tyranid Warriors have their stats because they're spines of the Tyranid army - synaptic cores supporting tendrils of gaunt blobs which nexus out from the Hive Tyrant at the center.
Why do you think Eldar are a horde army?
Why would Beil-Tan with a heavy focus on Aspect Warriors not be an elite army?
". . .and they are not even supposed to be durable elites." Based on what? I'm basing my interpretation on the fact that many Aspects have had the same number of wounds as a Space Marine, and the same armor as a Space Marine, for over 20 years.
Imo a Craftworld army is basically the combined Guard and Space Marine army. Guardians are guardsmen (except better), and Aspect Warriors are their Space Marine equivalent of Eldar flavor.
novembermike wrote: The comment is about the Monkey's Paw nature of asking for equal boosts. So far Primaris haven't gotten units that effectively use the wound and attack boost. If you start boosting these stats for units that actually use them then you pay more. Look at terminators if you want an example. This usually isn't correct, but it's how GW has done things.
Sure, units tend to pay for the overall combination of stats+equipment.
novembermike wrote: As for delivery systems, Aspect Warriors tend to have higher movement, special rules for advance + shoot or advance + assault and their transports are better. That makes it easier to deliver them to use their attacks.
Assault Marines/Vanguard Vets have a higher movement rate than most Aspects. Eldar Transports may be better, but they're more expensive, meaning you can take fewer.
[Aspect Warriors] "Pretty damn numerous compared to Custodes and Space Marines, being more comparable to Scions or Sisters."
At the same points, a stererotypical SM list has as many or more bodies than a stereotypical Aspect Host list. Not more.
"And Aspect Warriors aren't an elite army."
Dire Avengers are Troops. An army of nothing but Aspect Warriors is certainly elite.
"They are elites within a horde army,"
CWE have never been a horde army. Guardians get kinda-close, but they cost twice the PPM of Guardsman. They're GEQ-survivable, but not GEQ-priced (as it should be).
Fluffwise, there aren't supposed to be a lot of Guardians on the table. Their gun is basically a sidearm.
" and they are not even supposed to be durable elites."
True. They're Space Elves.
"Aspect Warriors have no posthuman physiology"
Being evolved far beyond human, that gets fairly posthuman.
Besides, Exarchs are postEldar, possibly moreso than Marines are postHuman.
"and are no different from normal Eldar or little more tough than humans. Making them 2 wounds is ridiculous and missing the point of game design itself, if you bump up everything in wounds all you've done is replicated the meta and kicked it up in scale with no change. With everything still playing similarly. Eldar aren't scant-strong tanky units of special forces, but a fast moving and highly skilled force. If they need a buff then they ought to be slapped with increased movement or weapon skill long before anybody thinks of a durability increase for what's supposed to be fast moving glass cannons."
Agreed that I don't see 2W basic Aspect Warriors as ideal. But not because they're not Elite. They're Elite in a different way.
2018/12/04 23:24:05
Subject: Nu-marines, old-marines minatures, I don't understand the hate or why people are upset.
Wat? Do you 40K? What do you think Aspect Warriors are/supposed to be?
Pretty damn numerous compared to Custodes and Space Marines, being more comparable to Scions or Sisters. Eldar primarily focus on mobility over durability, and Aspect Warriors are a small slice of an Eldar army that should be mostly fielding Guardians.
That is the exact opposite of how Eldar work.
tremere47-fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate, leads to triple riptide spam
2018/12/04 23:38:09
Subject: Nu-marines, old-marines minatures, I don't understand the hate or why people are upset.
Bharring wrote: [Aspect Warriors] "Pretty damn numerous compared to Custodes and Space Marines, being more comparable to Scions or Sisters."
At the same points, a stererotypical SM list has as many or more bodies than a stereotypical Aspect Host list. Not more.
"And Aspect Warriors aren't an elite army."
Dire Avengers are Troops. An army of nothing but Aspect Warriors is certainly elite.
"They are elites within a horde army,"
CWE have never been a horde army. Guardians get kinda-close, but they cost twice the PPM of Guardsman. They're GEQ-survivable, but not GEQ-priced (as it should be).
Fluffwise, there aren't supposed to be a lot of Guardians on the table. Their gun is basically a sidearm.
Fluffwise, Guardians comprise the majority of a major Eldar offensive as the Aspects, while respectably numerous, are still smaller than the entire Craftworld militia which is fielded. Unless it's a really small scale game based on a small scale scenario, you're going to see a lot of Guardians deployed. Especially post Indomitus Crusade where the deployment of Guardians has ramped up.
" and they are not even supposed to be durable elites."
True. They're Space Elves.
"Aspect Warriors have no posthuman physiology"
Being evolved far beyond human, that gets fairly posthuman.
Besides, Exarchs are postEldar, possibly moreso than Marines are postHuman.
The only way to display Eldar durability is on a d20 or d100 system. Otherwise the difference is negligible between them and only Exarchs and Phoenix Lords are super-eldar. Aspect Warriors are just Eldar who have trained for a couple years to get really proficient at killing the enemy in a specific way. Warlocks and such also are no more durable than their fellows, and only have extra wounds due to the gameplay abstraction of being characters like Captains or Commissars.
"and are no different from normal Eldar or little more tough than humans. Making them 2 wounds is ridiculous and missing the point of game design itself, if you bump up everything in wounds all you've done is replicated the meta and kicked it up in scale with no change. With everything still playing similarly. Eldar aren't scant-strong tanky units of special forces, but a fast moving and highly skilled force. If they need a buff then they ought to be slapped with increased movement or weapon skill long before anybody thinks of a durability increase for what's supposed to be fast moving glass cannons."
Agreed that I don't see 2W basic Aspect Warriors as ideal. But not because they're not Elite. They're Elite in a different way.
I wouldn't call a glass cannon elite so much as it is a heavy hitting skirmisher force. In my mind an elite army is a scant numbered and incredibly beefy army comprised of incredibly expensive and durable models. Of which the only real example in modern 40k is Custodes, and previously was Grey Knights. For several editions now the game's been sitting in a bit of a pit where Eldar, Guard, Space Marines, etc all play pretty damn similar. Get a blob of some gakky infantry, rush them at an objective while sinking the meat of your points into a death star. Or just building a castle of dakka.
“There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance.”
2018/12/04 23:43:50
Subject: Nu-marines, old-marines minatures, I don't understand the hate or why people are upset.
Well, like I said, some units have been pretty stable for a loooong time, and some factions are more stable than others. Aspect Warriors and Space Marines have had their respective relationship for 20+ years, and imo that relationship is an important one.
Weapons dealing multiple damage, just so you know, isn't new. It's a return to ancient days.
tbh I just don't see why that particular relation is so important. Termies are now 2W, and that didn't upset anyone. Stealthsuits are at 2W despite 15 years of not being that. Scouts had their BS buffed, despite being intentionally worse. The whole aspect=marines relationship you're talking about really only seems to matter to you. (granted someone else probably does but I haven't met that person yet). But, it's not a big deal. I just know that 2W marines plays more elite-like than 1W marines when compared to Guard or Tau. And I think that's what most people really want, and they're just not thinking about eldar.
Quite frankly though, and regardless of marines, Aspects need 2A to get that elite feeling from them. then give Striking Scorpion/Banshees 3A and so on. 1A is fine for cheap infantry but not elites.
2018/12/04 23:54:21
Subject: Nu-marines, old-marines minatures, I don't understand the hate or why people are upset.
tbh I just don't see why that particular relation is so important. Termies are now 2W, and that didn't upset anyone. Stealthsuits are at 2W despite 15 years of not being that. Scouts had their BS buffed, despite being intentionally worse. The whole aspect=marines relationship you're talking about really only seems to matter to you. (granted someone else probably does but I haven't met that person yet). But, it's not a big deal. I just know that 2W marines plays more elite-like than 1W marines when compared to Guard or Tau. And I think that's what most people really want, and they're just not thinking about eldar.
Quite frankly though, and regardless of marines, Aspects need 2A to get that elite feeling from them. then give Striking Scorpion/Banshees 3A and so on. 1A is fine for cheap infantry but not elites.
Yeah, I'm in the same boat. Aspects should get stats that make sense for them. Fire Dragons should be 1A, Dire Avengers 2A and Striking Scorpions/Banshees 3A. The number of wounds is fine, wounds either represent physical toughness or "character" toughness. Eldar Aspect Warriors aren't physically tougher and only exarchs get character toughness.
2018/12/04 23:55:39
Subject: Nu-marines, old-marines minatures, I don't understand the hate or why people are upset.
Dandelion wrote: I just know that 2W marines plays more elite-like than 1W marines when compared to Guard or Tau. And I think that's what most people really want, and they're just not thinking about eldar.
Right. They're not thinking about it. They just want their Space Marines to be head and shoulders above everyone else. Exactly.
tbh I just don't see why that particular relation is so important. Termies are now 2W, and that didn't upset anyone. Stealthsuits are at 2W despite 15 years of not being that. Scouts had their BS buffed, despite being intentionally worse. The whole aspect=marines relationship you're talking about really only seems to matter to you. (granted someone else probably does but I haven't met that person yet). But, it's not a big deal. I just know that 2W marines plays more elite-like than 1W marines when compared to Guard or Tau. And I think that's what most people really want, and they're just not thinking about eldar.
Quite frankly though, and regardless of marines, Aspects need 2A to get that elite feeling from them. then give Striking Scorpion/Banshees 3A and so on. 1A is fine for cheap infantry but not elites.
Yeah, I'm in the same boat. Aspects should get stats that make sense for them. Fire Dragons should be 1A, Dire Avengers 2A and Striking Scorpions/Banshees 3A. The number of wounds is fine, wounds either represent physical toughness or "character" toughness. Eldar Aspect Warriors aren't physically tougher and only exarchs get character toughness.
Maybe give Shuriken Catapults 2 D?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/12/04 23:56:43
Well, like I said, some units have been pretty stable for a loooong time, and some factions are more stable than others. Aspect Warriors and Space Marines have had their respective relationship for 20+ years, and imo that relationship is an important one.
Weapons dealing multiple damage, just so you know, isn't new. It's a return to ancient days.
tbh I just don't see why that particular relation is so important. Termies are now 2W, and that didn't upset anyone. Stealthsuits are at 2W despite 15 years of not being that. Scouts had their BS buffed, despite being intentionally worse. The whole aspect=marines relationship you're talking about really only seems to matter to you. (granted someone else probably does but I haven't met that person yet). But, it's not a big deal. I just know that 2W marines plays more elite-like than 1W marines when compared to Guard or Tau. And I think that's what most people really want, and they're just not thinking about eldar.
Quite frankly though, and regardless of marines, Aspects need 2A to get that elite feeling from them. then give Striking Scorpion/Banshees 3A and so on. 1A is fine for cheap infantry but not elites.
The other thing with Terminators too is that the 2 wounds does squat to improve their usefulness. I mean ffs, a 10 man squad of terminators costs an obscene amount of points and just gives you something that will have a 3+ save at best when any amount of AP is directed at it now, only 2 wounds, and toughness 4. Storm bolters are a lot better now in shots, but 3+ BS results in most of those shots pinging off even 5+ saves. And to top it off you've got a melee weapon by default that makes you hit at 4+ WS.
“There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance.”
2018/12/05 01:01:01
Subject: Nu-marines, old-marines minatures, I don't understand the hate or why people are upset.
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?
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.
Spoiler:
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.
I'm suprised no one has pointed this out but the reason Marines are flat miscounted is exactly the same as the thing you point to as what is wrong with CWE: they're being pointed according to the buffs they might have. I don't even necessarily mean Guilliman.
If a basic marine with no support got to reroll 1s to hit, reroll 1s to wound, and on a 4+ got to fight/shoot one more time when it died, then I don't think anyone would complain about 13 ppm for them. They'd have to have non-buffing (and vastly cheaper) HQs for that to work though.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/12/05 01:10:45
This game would be so much better if all the buffs got nerfed hard.
Auras push most armies - SM even more than most - into a deathstar playstyle. Only, instead of the one-unit deathstars in 7th GW killed off, we get 6-unit deathstars in one large blob on the table.
2018/12/05 17:07:44
Subject: Nu-marines, old-marines minatures, I don't understand the hate or why people are upset.
Bharring wrote: This game would be so much better if all the buffs got nerfed hard.
Auras push most armies - SM even more than most - into a deathstar playstyle. Only, instead of the one-unit deathstars in 7th GW killed off, we get 6-unit deathstars in one large blob on the table.
I generally agree. Spells have been in the game since forever, so I'm fine with that in principle. I'm not fond of the aura buff mechanic in particular. It makes armies act weird.
