PDA

View Full Version : Whatīs the policy in the Eldar wpn costs?



Lexmechanic
21-12-2006, 15:54
By looking through the Eldar codex you canīt be noticing the point costs of their heavy weapons. Each weapon costs the same; no matter is it in a guardian squad or in a falcon.
And the point costs. Do they make any sense?
Eldar missile launcher costs twice the amount of a missile launcher in a tactical squad but instead of marines they are crewed by crappy guardians. What?
Brightlance is totally overcosted. Expecially in falcons as they are counted as main weapons making the pulse laser useless.
Even the shuriken cannon is overcosted if you look into marines with heavy bolters.
Why are they so costly? Is anyone using guardians? Or brightlances mounted on falcons?

Nehcrum
21-12-2006, 16:14
Noone uses brightlances on Falcons...due to the pulse-laser thing.

You have to keep in mind, that marine tactical squads gets a discount on heavy weapons, compare them to devastator squads instead.

The standardized cost for heavy weapons is actually a neat idea IMO, altho it creates some balance issues, in some cases the weapon gets more bang for the buck depending on who is using it, and how much you pay for everything around the gun.

And yes, brightlances is scarily overcosted. Part of the eldar heavy weapon nerf. The old staples of the eldar heavy weapon was the bright lance and the starcannon, and the nerf bat hit both of these hard. Increasing cost on the bright lance and increasing cost and decreasing rate of fire on the starcannon.

They compensated this somewhat by making the EML cheaper (from being the most expensive to being cheaper than both the bright lance and the starcannon.
Overall, making the eldar more dangerous against 4+ armor and less lethal against MEQs (marines really hated and feared the starcannon).

leonmallett
21-12-2006, 16:54
Don't forget an Eldar missile launcher is not exactly the same as an Imperial one Lexmechanic.

Lexmechanic
21-12-2006, 17:38
Don't forget an Eldar missile launcher is not exactly the same as an Imperial one Lexmechanic.

Yes i know, it has better AP in plasma shells. Still double price compared to a unit which has a lot more potential of surviving and better chance of hitting, it still sounds overcosted to me.

Helicon_One
21-12-2006, 17:49
Eldar weapons on grav-platforms can also move-and-fire, though (as well as Fleet with the squad now), which is a big improvement on a Tac Squad.

Tim

CrimsonTider
21-12-2006, 17:56
Exactly, Helicon-One. They cost more because they can move and shoot, and they no longer slow down the unit for fleet of foot. The ability to move and fire a "heavy" weapon is something that only Terminators and Dreads can do. But every man-jack in an eldar army list can move and shoot, no matter how heavy the weapon. Thus, the increased cost. The starcannon got nerfed (no reason to lower it shots in my opinion) but overall, the Eldar 'dex is pretty even handed.

Mojaco
21-12-2006, 19:25
Additionally, they're harder to avoid. Someone who placed his two crewmembers on either side of his squad can draw LOS from either one. That means quite a lot , especially since it's not widely known. "Yea, the weapon model is here, but it doesn't mean anything. The crewmember, that's the one to look out for."
'What?' expression garanteed.:)

dragonlady
21-12-2006, 19:56
Additionally, they're harder to avoid. Someone who placed his two crewmembers on either side of his squad can draw LOS from either one. That means quite a lot , especially since it's not widely known. "Yea, the weapon model is here, but it doesn't mean anything. The crewmember, that's the one to look out for."
'What?' expression garanteed.:)

So you are saying the gun crew only has to maintain unit integrity with their parent squad, but not each other???

Example: x = guardian G=Gun Crew

GxxxxxxxxxxG with 2" between each member and this is legal?

:cool:

Kyrolon
21-12-2006, 20:04
I think we have two issues here. First is the fact that Eldar Heavy weapons are priced at Devastator prices in their tactical formations. Second is the Fact that Marine heavy bolters have been and always will be under priced.

On topic 1, as mentioned the Guardian squad can move and fire and can now use Fleet. On the other hand the HWP is the only thing the Guardians can shoot with most of the time as the 12" range of the basic Eldar weapon makes it hard to use. At the same time a stationary Marine squad can be firing their bolters out to 24". This gives them at least one and (depending on the Fleet roll) potentially 2 extra rounds of fire (which ignores the guardians armor). This is why some Eldar players may be rankled over the changes. My second point adds to this.

Heavy bolters have a strange phenomenon. As the effectiveness of the troops carrying them goes UP the cost of the Heavy bolter goes DOWN. Look at the following stats. I'll avoid quoting them per forum rules, but I think they are pretty common knowledge.

Marine: We'll use him as the base.

Guard: Compared to marine
-1 BS -1T -2 Armor save Hvy Bolter cost: double marine

Conscript guard: Compared to marine
-2 BS -1T -2 Armor save Hvy Bolter cost: triple marine

It seems there is an inverse correlation between effectiveness and points cost of Marine Weapons. This is one of the reasons many Xenos players resent them. Less cost more effective. For similar comparisons look at the Marine Land Speeder and the Eldar Vyper or even the Tau Pirhana.

I'll stop now lest the thread on Eldar weapons cost be turned into Marine hate. That's another (very long) thread. :)

Just for the record, I do like the new Eldar codex. It isn't everything I hoped for, but it isn't as bad as some would have us believe. I will say that in typical GW fashion the most useful things from the last version (star cannon, bright lance, vyper) are among the least useful now, and the least useful (jetbikes, warwalkers) are much improved. It has been that way as long as I have been playing (1989). I don't expect it to change, and as long as you never sell off your old models you can make use of them when they are good again in about 5-7 years. :)

Midknightwraith
21-12-2006, 20:15
So you are saying the gun crew only has to maintain unit integrity with their parent squad, but not each other???

Example: x = guardian G=Gun Crew

GxxxxxxxxxxG with 2" between each member and this is legal?

:cool:

oh yeah babby, that is exactly how it works? :D

Midknightwraith
21-12-2006, 20:51
I will *never* understand the "discount" for marine heavy weapons in tactical squads. It just doesn't make sense, and no other race has such an advantage.

As for price. I've done the math on all the units that carry the standard heavy weapons. Compared to last edition, the price has not gone up, but gone down or at least stayed the same on almost every weapon, on almost every platform. The exception is the BrightLance which went down on the Falcon and WarWalker by 10 points. On everything else it went up by 10 points. Whine about the Vyper if you want to, but for the weapons it should be carrying it got cheaper.

Midknightwraith
21-12-2006, 20:58
At the same time all these weapons got "nerfed" we got a Fire Prism that is a real beast. BS4, longer range than the other Anti-Tank weapons, and a mode for taking out larger squads. So our more common anti-tank weapon went up a little bit, the Prism Cannon power jump more than makes up for this.

Kriegsherr
21-12-2006, 21:17
on the EML topic:

Also, the pinning rules of the plasma missiles shouldn't be forgotten. Quite nice against IG or Tau armies.

|twynsic|e
21-12-2006, 21:18
ok so SM tactical squads get cheaper heavy weapons, but does anyone even take that option? i play chaos and i prefer two special weapons so i can keep my squad moving (and according to firebase 2, that ability is one of the more popular SM doctrine things)

MrLiy
21-12-2006, 22:13
Yeah heavy weapons are actually a liability for marines. No matter how good they may be at shooting them, marines are better moving forward and assaulting into CC.

Where as Devastators stand still most of the game shooting massed fire. Makes sense to me that they would cost more for a squad designed to stand still and shoot them, rather than for the squad that will constantly move and not get to fire them.

Eldar Guardians on the other hand can move and shoot every turn. My guardians move forward shooting their heavy, until they can find good cover. Once the enemy gets too close for comfort we start moving back still shooting. Makes sense to me.

Just for the record I stopped playing Marines about 5 years ago, and play Eldar and Tau and guard.

MarksmanCypher
21-12-2006, 22:23
Lets see.

1. Eldar Missile Launchers have a better blast shot than Marines, and can move and shoot with it. In addition, they have TWO crew members - if a tactical squad suffers Torrent of Fire and loses the model carrying the missile launcher, the missile launcher is gone. If a Guardian squad suffers Torrent of Fire and loses one of its Crew members, there's still another one.

2. I don't think Eldar are in any place to be complaining about vehicles. Sure, Marines get good things, but look at the basic transport of the Eldar - 12 models, fast, skimmer. On top of it all, Lascannons and Railguns are only strength 8 against it's front and sides, and melta weapons only roll 1D6 at half range. And then you look at the Falcon and what it can do, and let's not forget the fire prism... And then you whinge that you can't take a Bright lance on your falcon? Please. Two shuriken cannons or a shuriken cannon and scatter laser will do more damage than a single Bright Lance. If you want a BL that much, take it on a guided platform.

4. I think that the Eldar weapons are just fine how they're costed. Why? Because I only ever use one squad - the rest of my anti-tank and anti-infantry come from the intended squads - Aspect Warriors. Fire Dragons for tanks, and Swooping Hawks for infantry.

They're not "ridiculously overpriced". They're juuuuust right :)

Sergeant Tanthius
22-12-2006, 05:41
Cypher can count :p

Like everyone said, the EML is not a hindering factor for the squad than it is on the SM TS. The squad does nothing normally anyways, plus the EML has brilliant stats.

BL and StC is because they were abused to the max last edition.

The HB price argument is because the Heavy Bolter takes away the disadvantage of the bad BS. A marine with a HB hinders his squad and wastes the Space Marine's accuracy, while a Conscript/Platoon just sits there and shoot. BS 2/3 is not so evident with multi-shot weapons.

Prince Facestab
22-12-2006, 06:36
Cypher can count :p

Like everyone said, the EML is not a hindering factor for the squad than it is on the SM TS. The squad does nothing normally anyways, plus the EML has brilliant stats.

BL and StC is because they were abused to the max last edition.

The HB price argument is because the Heavy Bolter takes away the disadvantage of the bad BS. A marine with a HB hinders his squad and wastes the Space Marine's accuracy, while a Conscript/Platoon just sits there and shoot. BS 2/3 is not so evident with multi-shot weapons.

I don't know what you mean when you say that a heavy bolter wastes the marine's accuracy. A marine with a heavy bolter will cause much more damage than a conscript with a heavy bolter.

Besides, the high cost of the heavy bolter clearly inhibits the conscript's ability to die messily and amusingly for low cost!

Zzarchov
22-12-2006, 06:38
I'd say it is...

BS2 means you get on average 1 S5 AP4 shots
BS4 means you get on average 2 S5 AP4 shots

Multishot weapons if anything make it MORE apparent.

Eulenspiegel
22-12-2006, 07:34
1. You CANīT compare points values between codices. Points are (supposed to be) calculated to balance an army.
A Wraithlord would cost at least 50 points more for Marines, a Monolith likewise.

2. Tactical squads donīt get "discounts" on heavy weapons. Itīs Devastators who pay more.

3. Yes, you really have to sit and think which goodies you buy for your Eldar army. If you try to include every toy and shiny stuff, you end up with a much too small army to be competitive.

Lexmechanic
22-12-2006, 08:22
Iīm not using brightlances in falcons. The reason why i took the topic up is that it is quite stupid to give falcons such options, if no-one even takes them because of the high cost. if it is an option, why not to make it a serious one? if brightlance costed the same as scatter laser in falcons, it would be seen more often without unbalancing the game. Then people could even take them. Now it is just an option which is hardly never seen. IMO all units and options should be made useful/desirable.

But I have to agree; new eldar codex is indeed overally very good.

Tulun
22-12-2006, 08:34
Yet, people use devastators by the pair, because they are so good, despite having 'expensive' heavy weapons.

On Eldar heavy weapons: Yeah, we definately pay a premium for the ability to move and shoot. It's nice, but how effective it is, in my opinion, depends on the objective. If it's just 'kill your opponent', the move and shoot is far less relevant... as most eldar heavy weapons are a cap of 3 feet (cap of nasty things like heavy bolters, which can rip apart most Eldar Aspects without trying...). If there are objectives to capture? Move and shoot suddenly becomes a bit more important.

gitburna
22-12-2006, 10:17
Heavy bolters are only 5 points cos really, they dont add a great deal to a marine squads ability :- A missile launcher or lascannon [or multimelta or plasmacannon] on the other hand add a good deal of versatility, while forcing the majority of the squad to act just as interference for the gunner.

How many times do you see a 5 man squad with a heavybolter? Its a poor use of a squad, wether its 5 points for the upgrade or not

Marine units are generally better off moving forward and using their bolters to full effect

The Song of Spears
22-12-2006, 15:21
oh yeah babby, that is exactly how it works? :D

No it's not :P BOTH gunners have to keep in base to base with the gun platform...

Helicon_One
22-12-2006, 15:27
Marine: We'll use him as the base.
Well that's you first mistake. Unless somebody can point me to a direct quote from the studio saying "When working out points we use Space Marines as our basic starting point and cost everything relative to them", then its silly for us to work in the same way when judging effectiveness as seems to be so fashionable in threads like this.


Guard: Compared to marine
-1 BS -1T -2 Armor save Hvy Bolter cost: double marine

Conscript guard: Compared to marine
-2 BS -1T -2 Armor save Hvy Bolter cost: triple marine
No, because Heavy Bolters don't just float in the air on their own and fire by themselves, so you have to account for the squad they appear in:

Space Marine Combat Squad with Heavy Bolter: 80pts, with BS4 and 4 bullet catchers.

IG Infantry Squad with Heavy Bolter: 70pts, with BS3 and 9 bullet catchers.

(Minimal) IG Conscript Platoon with Heavy Bolter: 95pts, with BS2 and 19 bullet catchers.

Note that the minimal conscript squad is skewed because realisticly for 15pts you're going to put a second HB team in there and double their firepower.

I've dismissively referred to the squadmates as bullet catchers because in a static squad using its heavy weapon, that's more or less what they become. And when you're using elite power armoured soldiers with a statline of 4s across the board, having most of the squad reduced to bullet catching is a bigger penalty than having some grunts with flakjackets and popguns do the same job.


Heavy bolters are only 5 points cos really, they dont add a great deal to a marine squads ability :- A missile launcher or lascannon [or multimelta or plasmacannon] on the other hand add a good deal of versatility, while forcing the majority of the squad to act just as interference for the gunner.

This.

Tim

Midknightwraith
22-12-2006, 15:46
No it's not :P BOTH gunners have to keep in base to base with the gun platform...

What exactly do you base this assertion on? It is not in the rulebook anywhere, it certainly isn't in the new codex. In fact, though I do not like it, Range and LOS are now strictly from the gunners perspective, and the platform model is "just a marker", according to the codex.

I would have preffered Range and LOS from the gun, plus LOS from at least one gunner. Better than the non-sensical Range and LOS from gunner only that we currently have. Though I understand the reasoning. The gun might be in range to hit a squad with a 36" range weapon (like the Heavy Bolter) while the Guardians remained outside that range, but in LOS, forcing the other unit to move up before being able to fire back. The problem being that the Guardian squad can move back as well, and fire (which the aforementioned Heavy Bolter can not to). This could be solved by giving the platform A10 and treating it similar to Support Batteries, but allow the owning player to assign hits/wounds. That way the above scenario while it does not risk the gunners it does risk the platform being shot to pieces. However, we are somewhat off topic here.

Lexmechanic
22-12-2006, 18:23
What exactly do you base this assertion on? It is not in the rulebook anywhere, it certainly isn't in the new codex.
Check eldar codex page 39.

"It has two guardians as crew, and must stay in coherency with at least one of the crew."

So no base2base with both of the crew, but coherency with at least one.

Gensuke626
22-12-2006, 18:35
Check eldar codex page 39.

"It has two guardians as crew, and must stay in coherency with at least one of the crew."

So no base2base with both of the crew, but coherency with at least one.

so, If midknightwraith is right...will we be seeing crew split into opposite ends of the squad? It's not keeping with the spirit of the gun in my oppinion, but it sure does add alot to the tactical versatility of the Guardian's heavy weapon.

Bitey
22-12-2006, 19:01
Iīm not using brightlances in falcons. The reason why i took the topic up is that it is quite stupid to give falcons such options, if no-one even takes them because of the high cost. if it is an option, why not to make it a serious one? if brightlance costed the same as scatter laser in falcons, it would be seen more often without unbalancing the game. Then people could even take them. Now it is just an option which is hardly never seen. IMO all units and options should be made useful/desirable.

But I have to agree; new eldar codex is indeed overally very good.

I think that is th key point, well put across here- its not so much a question of throwing toys out of the pram because now eldar have to pay more for their shiny stuff; its the fact that there are options which simply are senseless to take- why pay the same cost for a bright lance on a falcon that you can only move and shoot at the expense of firing the pulse laser when you could put that same bright lance on a vyper or war walker which can move and shoot it without any loss of secondary (or rather 'main' in GW terminology as we're talking about firing 2 strength 7+ weapons here, but you get what i mean) firepower.

With the codex points costs as they are, there is no reason to ever take a bright lance on a falcon, but if it were made cheaper ( on the falcon platform only) then that would give players a chance to take an option they might want to because it looks cool or fits a theme or whatever without being penalised for doing so.

thems my thoughts!